From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Removed the following:

The Alamannic and Swabian dialects are now spoken in German-speaking Switzerland, the southern parts of Baden and Alsace, Württemberg and a small portion of Bavaria.

because I really don't think it's true -- yes, there is a dialect called Schwäbisch, but since German itself has gone through many changes in the last 1500 or so years, I think the dialect gets it's name from the region -- not that it's the dialect spoken by the actual Suebi -- would a linguist correct me if I'm wrong? JHK, Friday, May 31, 2002

Inverse copyright violation[edit]

Inverse copyrigth violation! This article is integraly copied to [1]. -- Looxix 23:02, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have listed it at Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content/temp. Angela
Thanks, I didn't know about this page (I don't really frequent en: anymore/for the moment). -- Looxix
The text in question was directly from a 1911 Encyclopedia. Not really eligible for follow up. Bastiqueparler voir 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Who is quoting a lost work by Asinius Quadratus for this fanciful etymology? Why is it in the opening?
  • On January 2, 366 the Alamanni crossed the frozen Rhine... Is this an error for the famous crossing of 406?
There also has been a Rhine crossing in 378 by the Lentienses an Alamannic tribe - are this crossings related to the 278? Bullenwächter 14:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to [2], Lactantius is.

He also reports on a book called "Germany" written by Asinius Quadratus which Ortelius deplores not to possess (Ort199,200).

dab () 16:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Alamanni" simply an exonym of Suevi warbands[edit]

Notes assembled from the papers of Nicolas Fréret by an anonymous contributor were published in Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, avec les Mémoires de Littérature tirés des Registres de cette Académie, depuis l'année MDCCXLIV jusques et compris l'année MDCCXLVI, vol. XVIII, À Paris, de l'Imprimérie Royale, 1753, pp.49-71. I found excerpts at Among Fréret's observations on the difficulties that face the historian of the Germanic tribes (still highly a propos) is the following, concerning Alamanni:

"Ce nom qui signifioit, selon Asinius Quadratus, cité par Agathias, un mélange d'hommes rassemblés de divers pays, n'a jamais été employé que par les étrangers, c'est-à-dire, par les écrivains Latins & par ceux de la Gaule & de l'Espagne, qui l'ont même étendu à tous les peuples de la Germanie. Valafrid Strabon, moine de saint Gal, qui écrivoit sous Louis le Débonnaire dans le neuvième siècle, observe, en parlant des habitans de la Suisse & de ceux des pays voisins, que les étrangers seuls les nomment Alamanni, mais qu'eux mêmes se donnoient le nom de Suevi." Quite a different spin! --Wetman 17:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
by all means include! dab () 18:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes and no. The statement applies more to the later Alemanni when the term expanded and was used of all the Suebi rather than to the initial Alamanni. Initially the only etrangers to use the name were the Romans and why should they select a Germanic name?Dave 11:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Our personal doubts might not be strong enough to preclude mentioning Nicolas Fréret's conclusions and the historic usages on which he based them, even if they don't suit us. Walafrid Strabo might not ordinarily count as a "Roman". I've added the report, without commentary. --Wetman 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Distracting blank spaces[edit]

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


The formulation "From the 4th century onwards we hear also of the Suevi, Suebi, or Suabi" is misleading, as the Suevi were already mentioned by Caesar - see Suebi Albrecht Conz 23:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Good call. Is is better now? --Wetman 23:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"similar to the Huns"[edit]

I wonder whether the social ordering into war-bands is sufficient to warrant this "similarity", when our general struggle is to distinguish one group from another. A little further explanation of the similarity might forestall rash conclusions by readers. Just a thought. --Wetman 02:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, sorry, never mind. I was gesturing at the misconception that the Huns and/or the Alamanni were a "race", but that would need more elaboration. dab () 07:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC) not all warbands are comparable, from Tacitus to Mogadishu... ;) --Wetman 07:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

hey, it was the 5th century. everybody thought it was cool to team up in bands and travel across Europe, pillaging and plundering. The Huns and the Alamanni were just two different teams in the same game :) dab () 07:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


Hello Friends! Does anybody have any informations about the Armalausi mentioned in the main article? Is there any reference or source available for this name? I wasn't able to find this Armalausi in My German literature. --Bullenwächter 20:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

good question. I don't think anybody knows more than just ubi nunc Palatinatus superior. Ibi antea Narisci erant, Brietiô teste. [3]; here is a (sadly unsourced) claim that they belong with the Hermunduri. dab () 20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer to cancle the Armalausi in the article as there are no secure references and sources available. Or we may mark the Armalausi accordingly. --Bullenwächter 16:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears the source is the Tabula Peutingeriana; let me verify that and I'll write a quick stub. dab () 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

found them! look in the top right corner here: [4] -- there must be some other source, but that's one at least, so I'll begin the stub. dab () 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[5]: It's not quite legible, but I think they maybe in the upper right corner of Raetia here (this may be the "teste Brietio" reference) dab () 17:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm! The Tabula Peutingeriana doesn't appear as a reliable source for these matters, due to the fact that it is a 12th cent. copy of an intermediate carolingian copy (and probably a few others). 1° It contains a lot of misreadings -- such as 'RERVIGES' for 'Remiges'; 2° It contains a lot of misplacings -- such as the PARISII lying next to 'Atuaca' = Tongeren, Belgium; 3° It contains a lot of anachronisms, due to medieval interpolations -- such as 'MUSULAMIORUM' (the Muslims) in Numidia. If these 'Armalausi' do not appear elsewhere, better forget them, or try to find what they may stand for. Henskridonier

Formation of Alamanni[edit]

This part of the article is pretty confused, but it isn't just this article. All the several "encyclopedias" on the Internet that have copied from it at various stages are in a similar condition. In a way this process duplicates scribal copying except that scribal copyists were more careful than Internet scribalists.

For example, the "tribes" listed were Celtic cantons of Alsace taken over by the already existing Alamanni. But this is only one of many hasty misconceptions. I reorganized it a little and rewrote the language section. Now I'm going to rewrite some of the other sections (unless someone does it first) but this will have to be a gradual process. Most of the sources can be read on the Internet. It might be a good idea to put links to them, but the research has to be done, Internet or elsewhere. The sources need to be cited.

The history as I see can can roughly be divided into first appearance as being pacified by Caracalla, overrunning Germania Superior to form the initial Alsace and parts of Bavaria, moving into Switzerland, duking it out with the last of the western emperors, coming under the Franks, being Alemannia under the Holy Roman Empire and more. The last thing in the world anyone should think of is copying from the Internet. Someone has to do some research here. Everyone can't just be copying.Dave 11:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bachman comments[edit]

Oh, hello, Bachman. I thought I might attract your attention. You've been my Vergil right from the start and you're strong in Germany and linguistics. That's fine. I don't mind your Baching. If you don't mind I'd rather keep it public than on the personal pages where things get personal.

Bottom line. I think your overlook is good. Your retort about the confusion is fair. The article is still confused however but less so. The region is historically important is it not? The Germanics in that region are not negligible at any period (Let's not call them Huns, or the other Germans either).

Picture of Main Valley. My intent was to show the region from which the Alemanni came. What's wrong with that? I'm flexible though. Don't you think we need a top picture? Have you (or anyone) got a picture for us there? I looked for one pretty hard. You with more experience can do better I am sure.

Language. Grimm's Law. Well, I like what you have. The problem was, it wasn't there before. I'm not going to argue the 2nd Grimm shift with you. It seemed to me that the language of the Alemanni should be covered. It looks as though you covered it. If you can think of anything else pertinent please do add some more. There is still plenty of space.

Etymology under formation? OK. I can see it.

Mannus. Well, why did the Alemanni choose Manni? Why not alleleute or alledeutsch or allefolk or some such thing? Mannus is their own personal word. They are the men. So are we for that matter. That was how I thought. But, it isn't essential to the article. Leave it out if you want.

Future. I am going to be working this article over. I don't need to invite you to join me. I know you will. I'm sure it will be better for it. If anyone else cares to join in you can give us some competition here. See you next round (soon}.Dave 22:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

how now Dave, I don't know if I am parsing this right, but you seem to be a man of succinctness and sarcasm. Mannus doesn't enter into it, Alamanni just prosaically means "all men". To connect this with mythical Mannus would be like saying the term "Scotsman" implies Mannus as mythical ancestor of the Scots. Regarding images, I am fond of maps, and drawing them, and the article will certainly also bear an image or two of the landscape (I didn't remove the Bodensee image you'll note), but they should preferably be historical maps, showing the Roman limes, settlements, and ideally arrows and things to document the progress of the Alamanni. And what we really need here are snapshots of Alamannic artefacts from museums (weaponry, maybe a snapshot of the Pforzen buckle, fibulae etc.), I am sure we can find some such images. dab () 15:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

image suggestions[edit]

[6] a solidus of Constantinus I celebrating the victory over the Alamanni, reading Alemannia, gaudia Romanorum.

[7] archaeological finds. No references on the page, and there will be copyright issues, but some photographs seem quite old and possibly fair use.

[8] stamps are fair use. here is a 1974 Swiss postage stamp featuring an Alemannic brooch.

[9] here are a few maps, to be redrawn.

[10] very nice image, low resolution, possibly fair use?

other suggestions? dab () 15:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Alemanni expansion.png

I'm working on a map now; this is it so far. I plan to add the limes, various locations and battles. Maybe the area shown should be larger to allow marking of the invasions to Italy? dab () 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The names[edit]

Thanks brothers. What a response! The Internet had been fairly inaccurate, you know. They've got the hordes of barbarian Alamanni like those of the Huns sweeping across the limes from southern Germany to overwhelm the brave and civilized Roman defenders of virtue and plunder the dickens out of Europe in the year 210 BC. All we needed were the hammers and the horns of the helmet. Not very useful to researchers of any level from grade school to college.

One of my main concerns was to get the timing and the names right, as that is the start of any historicity. You can paint any picture but if the names and dates are wrong it can't be relied on as veritude even if verisimilar. Names you know change a great deal and so do populations. What I wanted to do and still want to do is connect the names to the eras to which they belong. One can still state that a name probably descends from earlier if that is warranted. The Alamanni were on the move a lot though so I doubt if names from Ammianus Marcellinus can be applied much earlier than then.

The sarcasm? Sorry, men. I probably use the device too much. It is a form of reductio ad absurdum but oftentimes the discussion on Wikipedia descends to "yes it is", "no it ain't", "it are too", "the heck it is", "I'll do it", "your daren't", "I quit you jerk", "you can't quit I'm suspending you", and so on, which isn't really any better. I'll try to do better by you. A little humor once in a while is good. If you can turn someone's intense and deprecating verbal attack into a laugh you defuse the situation.

All this fresh material means we can go further with this article but it will take more time. I'm starting to get concerned for space because I know there is more to be said even in summary so I will try to condense some of the material I've worked on.Dave 12:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles[edit]


WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

--Ling.Nut 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Passage apparently duplicating information in the text[edit]

"The Alamanni also were regarded as the Suebi. That name, however, never applied only to one tribe, as the sources tell us. It eventually became a general ethnic designation of all the Germanics in central Germany. Losing their tribal ethnicity, the Alamanni defaulted to just being Suebi, but they do not appear under that name in Ptolemy. Ptolemy's Suebi is a somewhat amorphous mass in central germany. They include the Suevi Angili, and the Suevi Semnones, an indefinite population southeast of the Saxons, south of the Teutons and on the upper Elbe south to the Danube."

If any phrase above is not now in the text, please do re-edit it in. --Wetman 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Map shows Alsace?[edit]

The second map (and I think the first, if the last river on the left is the Rhein...) show the Alamanni as being partially located in present-day France. If I remember correctly, the local patois around Colmar is called Allemanisch, which also makes me think they were in the area. Am I seeing it correctly? If so, we should change the opening paragraph...

Ionesco 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

well, yes, they settled the Alsace in the 5th century. What do you want to change in the intro? See Alsatian language for the modern Alemannic dialect of the Alsace. dab (𒁳) 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Caracalla did not rule over the Holy Roman Empire[edit]

He ruled over the Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire didn't come into existence until the middle ages. I'm correcting this error. Dr. Morbius 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

the first map shows moguntiacum in the wrong place(Neckar->Main) --Echosmoke 18:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


I have removed the following from the Name section:

Among the still-relevant observations of Fréret on the difficulties that the historian of the Germanic tribes faces, concerning Alamanni: "Ce nom qui signifioit, selon Asinius Quadratus, cité par Agathias, un mélange d'hommes rassemblés de divers pays, n'a jamais été employé que par les étrangers, c'est-à-dire, par les écrivains Latins & par ceux de la Gaule & de l'Espagne, qui l'ont même étendu à tous les peuples de la Germanie. Valafrid Strabon, moine de saint Gal, qui écrivoit sous Louis le Débonnaire dans le neuvième siècle, observe, en parlant des habitans de la Suisse & de ceux des pays voisins, que les étrangers seuls les nomment Alamanni, mais qu'eux mêmes se donnoient le nom de Suevi."

Because the closure of the reference had been misplaced by subsequent editing, I'm not sure whether this was intended to be part of the citation as a sort of footnote. I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy on footnotes but I don't think they're appropriate. In any case, if it's included, this needs to be translated and I'm not competent to do so. A summary of Freret's opinion, however, might be more appropriate, as he is a secondary source.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Name 2[edit]

I've also heard Alamanni described as meaning "Total Men" in line with the warlike names of the Franks and Saxons (named after weapons). The obvious problem with this is that in that period even in English "mann" meant "person". And I can't find any citation on the web. If anyone else knows of one, perhaps then we can add it to the list of suggestions...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In modern german "Alle Mann an Deck" means "all men on deck" (i.e. the captain calls them for muster) but this isn't the exact origin of Alamanni, in sueabian celtic, "al" means "large" and "ail" means strange/wild, "maon" is man/human, so "alamann" can mean "the large folk", "the many people" or "the wild men". According to Asinius Quadratus it's "the many people" as in oposition to the few who were alied with the roman empire.-- (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Political Organization[edit]

The Battle Strasbourg had a great section discussing the political organization, so I moved the source here. I am not sure how the article is organized, but I placed it after the sources because it influences the understanding of the conflict with the Romans. SADADS (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling changed to Alemanni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

AlamanniAlemanni – No source/authority is given in the article for the spelling currently used Alamanni. This word is earliest recorded in Latin text of Dio Cassius, as article states. I would guess the spelling there is Alemanni. Caracalla's surname became Alemannicus, with an "e". Cannot find the word mentioned in Gibbon, contrary to article, to check his spelling. Such is certainly the spelling (with "e") used in Encyc. Brit. 9th. ed.,(c.1880), Everyman's Encyc. 1967, Everyman's Smaller Classical Dictionary, 1910. The modern French adjective for "Germany" is Allemagne (Larousse Dict.). Thus a spelling with "e" seems to have the greatest etymological validity. For these reasons, I propose to change the article title (redirect page already exists with proposed new spelling) and spellings throughout, whilst retaining a note that other (rare) spellings exist, as conceded by Everyman's Encyc., (but not by the Classical Dict.). Those who disagree need to justify the present spelling, and if accepted by consensus, I suggest adding a brief section on the face of the article explaining the controversy, if any. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

well, this move was not a terrible decision, but still slightly ill-advised. Alamanni is used about two to three times as often in scholarly literature, both throughout the 20th century and recently, as is Alemanni. This is confirmed by searches on both google books and

I do not understand why people proposing a rename of an article which was clearly written by people who knew what they were doing are never doing the proper research. Cassius Dior and the French Allemagne aren't of the slightest relevance under WP:NAME. The only thing above which can argued to support the move is the change of spelling in Britannica. People then pretend that this is an official "request" which has been "discussed" and "approved" simply because on editor bothered to comment.

If you ask me, after I have looked into the question, is that Alamanni is the more commonly used spelling in academic literature still, and there was no reason whatsoever for the move. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)