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

Ermanaric death year?[edit]

This article puts Ermanaric's death in 378, while article on Ermanaric itself puts it between 370 and 376...

Wolfram's History of the Goths says after 375. His suicide after being defeated by the Huns most likely had a ritualistic character. The death of the king seen as an ultimate sacrifice. Nitpyck (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Did some of the Goths (specifically the Ostrogoths, of course) come from Norway too?

Who can tell? Rursus 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)It, definitely, then comes from Lithuanian language where greut means to make to lie 'on the ground' (in Lithuanian will be 'ant grindu') or to destroy/flatten and from the same root comes another Lithuanian word 'griovys' meaning a groove/ditch.

But the real meaning of Goths comes from another Lithuanian name for one Baltic tribe 'Gud-ai/Gaut-ai/Gaudyto-jai' and originates from the name for herd hunters/catchers. And Ostro in Lithuanian language simply means 'Ausros' (an aurora/dawn). By the way, from that word originates and the word 'astral', because the rising star (Venus, this name simply means that she is the only in the sky such, because in Lithuanian language 'vienas' means one, and the god of the hell is named 'Velnius') in Lithuania is called Ausrine/Austrine (like Prometey in Lithuanian language means 'pramatejes' the man who started to see the truth or light, it is almost identical to another Lithuanian word 'Budha' which means mentaly elucidated).

Zeus Bottiaeus in Lithuanian language 'Dzevs Botiaus' means God of our ancestors (Aleksandre dedicated altar to Zeus Bottiaeus)...Aleksandras in Lithuanian language 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras' means born second and Macedon 'Manke Duona' means knead bread and Philyp 'Pilypas=Paliepias' means the man giving orders...Hun in Lith. 'Gunas/ganytojas' means pastor/shep-herd and Atila 'Eitila' means going/runing the office...Ainiai is the name of ancient Greece tribe and in Lithuanian language that means posterity/antecedents...The name Darius is of Lithuanian origin and still is very popular name in Lithuania. It originates from the verb 'daryti'=to make/to act/to be doing smth and consequently Darius means both and being making/being acting/being doing and the man who is doing/acting/making

Like Palace comes from Lithuanian 'pilis' meaning the castle on the artificial hill ('pilta' means poured by human hands and is the base word for the word spilt which in Lith. will be 'is-pilti'). And the Castle comes from the Lith. word kasti meaning 'to dig' a groove around your defensive palace.

Enjoy Lithuanian real Aryan (means 'arejai'=ploughmen and plough means 'plugas' and comes from 'plaukti' meaning to swim through the 'arid' land) language. (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Bravo, your facts from Lithuanian confirms exactly the information what is available from Bulgarian "Djagfar tarikhy" describing the early history of Bulgar and Khazar history. It is in many sources said that the Goths were actually two old Lithuanian tribes by their names, not Germanic at all. Only common was the Indo-European language, and it is well known that ancient Lithuanian language with Latvian are the oldest Indo-European languages which came to Europe with Old Prussian. Peharps with Dareios I on his War against the Scythians in 512 BC or some tribes from loose Scythic confederation. They had in their neigbourghod older Finno Ugrians. The Bulgars under leadership of Alyp-bi were defeated by the Sadumeans somewhere between Dinjeper and Dinjester, before the battle of Kan-Dare (Adrianople) in 378.
  • Galindians are also mentioned in a separate battle with Huns (Bulgars).
  • Please do not forget Latvian -pils meaning exactly the same than Litti -pilis. Mäkilinna in Finnish and Mägilinn in Estonian, See Odenpeah (Otsonpää) in Southern Estonia, the main hillfort of Ugandi south of Tarbatu (Tartu), but east of Pihkova / Pihkva / Pleskavas / Pleskau / Pskov / Lith?
  • Ermanarik died in 375. This year is confirmed in several sources. Not a single seriously taken scholar take the list of Peoples ruled by Ermanarik seriously. This is a list of all known people in the area, just placed to be sure, under Ostrogoth Kingdom. How could one quite small tribe even beat the much stronger Mordvin army, the Army of Mordskerler as they were described by Old Prussians, the western neighbours of Sadumians. Peharps Ostrogothos ruled the area south of line Tanais at the heigth of south of confluence of Tanais (Don)/ Pitjug - Kursk - Dinjeper at the conlfuence of Pripijet - to the upper sources of Dinjester, but not more north of this line. There might have been somekind of military alliance but nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

History Assignment 9th Grade Discussion (S.K.,D.S.,R.S.)[edit]

Ok I think that we should include something along the lines of what Cantor has to say on page 107, lines 28-39 and onwards till the end of the paragraph on the next page. In the article, currently, it mentions nothing about how Theodoric wanted "to resore the vigor of Roman governement and Roman culture and bring benefits to the Italian people". And also a crucial point to add is: "Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the developmentof early medieval Europe, and the causes of these decisive events deserve special consideration.". So if we some how put those things into our own words I think it would be a decent contribution. In my oppinion, this furthers the understanding of the article. +SPQR 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"to restore the vigor of Roman governement and Roman culture and bring benefits to the Italian people", very well. This is what I've read in other sources. "Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the development of early medieval Europe, and the causes of these decisive events deserve special consideration." That's speculation from Cantor's part, and not an encyclopedic NPOV view. Maybe a potential Frankish-failure combined with an Ostrogothic success, may have given rise to a very similar early medieval Europe, except the Franks were mentioned with nostalgy, and the Ostrogoths would have been the Italian national founders. Rursus 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should include Cantor's argument on page 109 lines 10-23. Religion was (and is) a very important part of cultures and I think this article could use some work in this particular area. Cantor makes a good point in showing that Theodoric did one thing that, until this time, (I believe) hadn't been done before. That is, he allowed "freedom of religion". He did try to appease to the pope (line 20). A very important part of this passage is when he says "he went through a ceremony that implied that he recognized the authority of the peope not only over the Catholic church but over the city of Rome". This was a bold implication and very true. If we could find a way to incorperate religion into the article a little bit more, I think that it would be helpful and a good contribution. XCluvr16 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a description of Theodoric's attempts at building up alliances and the effect it had on the Byzantine empire would be a worthwhile contribution. This would clear up some confusion about the sudden turning of the Byzantines and provide a reason for the rapid decline of the kingdom after Theodoric's death, or at least something along those lines--Gesundheit 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

Also good to include would be possible reason's for Theodoric risking that in the face of the Byzantine Emperor. For example, Cantor says on page 107 that Theodoric trusted too greatly in "the loyalty of the Italian people and at least the neutrality, perhaps even the support, of the pope and the Catholic church." This would easily tie into what has already been said in this article: "In Theodoric's theory the Goth was the armed protector of the peaceful Roman..." (see last paragraph in the "Zenith" section). ---Dewener

I think that maybe something should be included under Zenith — Theodoric the Great about theodorics relgon and relationships with other religons. On page 109 line 8 on to the top of the next page it talks about how theodoric was arian and how he did all he could to please the catholic church.In the first paragraph it talks about theodorics arian religon, and the second paragraph talks about his relationshis with the pope. This is kinda around the same part you said rachel and I thouight that the part you were talking about (his allowance of other religons) was also a very important piece. --Johnnybravo01 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you shiela and I think that I would be helpful to concider what Dewener and Gesundheit are saying. I dunno if we will/should put it in or not but I think that it would be worth considering. Shiela you and I were saying around the same thing but you added an important fact that I feel we should definately include which is the turning of the Byzantines and the decline of the kingdom after Theodoric's death. This would also include what Gesundheit was saying (I think) ok im thinking that we should all be on around 7:30 tonight or so just so that we can talk and get this that ok with everyone? XCluvr16 17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I find any material pertaining to the fall of the Ostrogothic Kingdom completely lacking. The article discusses The "Zenith" and the reign of Theodoric, but in no way even considers possible reasons to it's collapse. I suggest a small section under "Zenith" that deals breifly with some of Theodoric's policies which cause the kingdom to collapse. Either in the main Ostrogothic article or in Ostrogothic this one more specifically pertaining to the Ostrogothic Kingdom. BB 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC) ??[edit]

Regarding this line in the references section:

"This article incorporates some information taken from with permission."

Who added this line? There is no such thing as "with permission" on Wikipedia. If this was added verbatim, and is copyright, it must be removed. -- Stbalbach 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Would they require cleanup?100110100 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Prehistory speculations, not facts[edit]

I doubt the contents of Prehistory has any attested sources – it doesn't look like sourced fact, it rather looks like a qualified and plausible speculation, but then it should be presented as such. Rursus 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And sourced. Of course. Rursus 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I suggest we move this page back to Ostrogoths. Jacob Haller 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • For once Wikipedia's obsession with singular titles is wrong. Unless someone wishes to move all the East Germanic tribes articles on to singular titles, this should stay on the plural title. -- RHaworth 04:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Jacob Haller 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture section[edit]

Just signalling here that the Culture section is not about the Ostrogoths at all. Maybe somebody would be interested in fixing it. Srnec (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The highest point/zenith of the Ostrogothic Kingdom is when?[edit]

The article says in the intro, "The kingdom reached its highest point under King Ermanaric ... " Then only a few sentences later it says, "Ostrogothic power reached its zenith under the Romanised king Theodoric the Great ..." It can't reach it's highest point twice! So which one is it? This needs to be clarified. Jrdx (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Meister von San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna 003.jpg

For a long time, the image at right was the lead image in this article. It was changed today to an image of Theodoric's mausoleum. I wouldn't have a problem with that if the photograph were of high quality, which it is not. I think the image of a contemporary mosaic depicting Theodoric's palace (albeit a mosaic tweaked by the Byzantines later) is still the better image for the lead. Srnec (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Serious Historical Problems I: Greutungi as Ostrogoths[edit]

There is no scholarly consensus on the idea that the 5th/6th century Ostrogoths are a continuation of the 3rd/4th century Greutungi. Peter Heather certainly trashes the idea, and I think Michael Kulikowski might also do so. (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a well-sourced section on this. One of the sources is Heather. Srnec (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You also have a lede which pushes the older view without mentioning newer views, and an Etymology section which is heavily biased toward the older view. (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious Historical Problems II: Ermaneric's kingdom[edit]

Ammianus' histories include several sections about Roman dealings with the Goths. But they are mostly dealing with the Teruingi, not the Greutungi. One would expect to see some mention of the empire Ermaneric is supposed to have built, but it's not there. There is one mention of Ermaneric, but many scholars argue that the empire was a fabrication for Theodoric's propaganda, probably invented by Cassiodorus. (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jan Marcussen[edit]

This person is a Seventh day Adventist minister, not a historian. As such, his opinion as to the fate of the Ostrogoths can not be considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism City here[edit]

In case none of you have ever taken the time to research this, much of this article is verbatim plagiarization from the following book: De Puy, William Harrison. The World-wide Encyclopedia and Gazetteer (vol. 4). New York: The Werner Co., 1899., which is freely accessible in its entirety from Google books:

The overuse of this source was overstated by me and upon further review, is not as bad as it first appeared. I've cited a few places and will likely find a few more in the future. The page still needs quite a bit more work and yet lacks citations in many places. I'll do what I can when I have the time, but some assistance would be appreciated.--Obenritter (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles first picture needs a more clear description.[edit]

It is a mosaic with nothing on it. The byzantines removed the pictures of the Goths in the mosaic to stop them from appearing more "Roman" and moreover because they were Arianists. The current desc just says that it depicts Theoderic (which it did originally, but now it is just blank!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)