From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
WikiProject Dacia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a WikiProject aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to ancient Dacia and primarily to the history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi. If you would like to participate, please improve this article and/or join the project and help with our open tasks. If you have questions regarding the goals of the project, as well as the time span, space, people and culture in the project scope, please review them here. Your input is welcomed!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Athanaric:
No to-do list assigned.


This page is idential to: . I don't know which came first. - IstvanWolf 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Athanaric was not king/judge of the Visigoths, but of the Terwingi. After the demise of the Terwingi at the end of the 4th century the Visi or Vesi emerged. Much later ancient scholars created the term Visigoths analogue to the name Ostrogoths. Again, Athanaric would not have known anything about Visigoths of whom this article claims he was king.

Unless someone responds to user's concerns above I will replace all references to the [[Visigoth|Visigoths}} with references to the Thervingi and port the Fritigern vs. Athanaric? section from the Fritigern article. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Fritigern was a king, so there is no reason to include him in the preceded by section. Jacob Haller 03:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"His Gothic name, Athanareiks, means "king and athans "edel" s. *athal;athal "edel" s. *othal; s. germ."EDEL-KING" ". I'm not sure. "At(t)(h)a" = "father". The Gothic name "Athalaric" means "Edel-King", not "Athanaric". -- G. Calabria (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright so.. I think Athanaric deserves to be fixed up a bit. Athanaric was not a king at all. He was a judge. When the Emperor Valens mistakingly called him a King he corrected him and said he was a Judge, "for a judge reminds people of wisdom, where as a King reminds people only of power". Tervengi Judges were elected positions (not hereditary kingship ones). King/Judge are not synonymous. At least no more synonymous than Prime Minister and King are..

Also the person far above me is correct, the term Visigoth didn't exist yet. However that doesn't mean he wasn't a Visigoth. Just because we invented a new term to describe an old thing, doesn't mean the new term is incorrect. That's like saying Aztec weren't Native Americans because the term 'Native Americans' wouldn't be created for centuries after their demise. What I am getting at is maybe we just make a note that he was a Tervingi Judge and that the Tervingi are more popularly known as Visigoth and then go from there.. or something like that.. --ShieldDane (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Well, folks, I could not endure the nonsense supplied by Jordanes and retold here; so I mended the part about the final days of Athanaric and the supposed treaty. I trust no one is hurt or willing to revert this, is there?Romanus451 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

-- nonsense supplied by Jordanes Could you please elaborate? Where are other sources to compare?

accidental deletion[edit]

the page was accidentially deleted because it had been edited by a banned user. We do not habitually delete any article that happens to be touched by a banned editor. The article as it stood before the incident is here: [1]. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, many apologies, not sure how that happened. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)