Talk:Turcilingi

"Based on his Turkic name, Aspar may have been Turcilingian"?

Aspar is described in contemporary sources as an Alan (or sometimes a Goth), and his name is a straightforward derivation from the Alan/Iranian word for “horse”. What’s the proposed Turkic etymology for the name? —benadhem (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As I provided no citation and I cannot answer you're question, I'll just remove the claim. The best I can do is cite Robert Gordon Latham's notes on Tacitus' Germania, which I found GoogleBooks just now: here. Perhaps you can make better sense of the claim. Srnec (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Turcilingi were not a Turkish tribe. Turkish tribes began moving west from the Eurasian steppes in the sixth century. The Turcilingi were probably a small Germanic (Gothic ?) tribe like the Scirii, Rugii, Heruli and Gepidae, or a confederation of Germanic tribes, like the Alamanni.

Thorkiling = Thorkil (or Thor [Thorismund, Thorisind, Thormod...] + Kil [Thorkil]) + -ing ("sons", "descendants"). --Sirius2044 (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Note also the work by Prof. Wolfram Brandes "Thüringer/ Thüringerinnnen in byzantinischen Quellen" in "Die Frühzeit der Thüringer. Brandes discusses the byzantine Suda Lexicon which provides the information that Odaker´s brother Onoulf was a Scirian on his mother side and a Thuringian on his father´s side. The information in the Suda goes back to a fragment of Malchos who wrote in the late 5th century, and Brandes, argues that this source is particularly reliable. He also explains how the name Thuringi was probably contaminated with the name Turci, that emerged in the 6th century in Constantinopel to produce the form Turcilingi. In short, it is practically certain that the Turcilingi are identical with the Turingi, i.e. the Thuringians.

How many independent sources

My understanding based on recent reading is that there is only one independent source mentioning the Turcilingi. Our own text seems to disagree with itself. We mention three medieval sources and say two are independent. In chronological order:

• the Getica of Jordanes
• the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon in a passage that is a derivative of Jordanes.
• the Historia Miscella of Landulf Sagax, which is, I understand, a continuation of Paul the Deacon.

But the last one is also based on the pre-existing ones. The information it gives is hardly novel compared to the other two, because lists of the peoples at Chalon were lists of the peoples thought to be in Attila's armies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The reference in Paul the Deacon is derived from Jordanes. The reference in Landulf, whatever it is based on, is not found in either Jordanes or Paul. From Reynolds and Lopez: "The statement [in Landulf] is unconfirmed by other sources. While the Historia is itself a late and unreliable chronicle, it includes some materials from earlier and better sources which have not come down to us." Srnec (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion or clear proposal, but I am thinking some of wording is pushing the idea that Landulf is an independent source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

He is. He is independent of Jordanes and Paul. His statement about the Heruli is not dependent on any other surviving source, although it is certainly dependent on something written and not eyewitnesses or gossip! Srnec (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether you see those various "lists of barbarians at Chalons" as independent facts, or just things that were made by looking up any historic peoples with the approximately right associations. Anyway for us, it depends on what secondary sources say and I thought I read something but haven't relocated it. Will mention it if I do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Reynolds and Lopez made a mistake and that Landulf is dependent on Paul the Deacon. But I am still slightly confused: is the information about the Turcilingi at the Catalaunian Fields found in Jordanes or not? If not, then we have an "independent" second source somewhere (presumably Paul). I will look into this and correct the article tomorrow. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

German WP and RGA

The German version was not linked yet to other languages, so I fixed that. It contains references to the RGA entry by Castritius.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC) The primary source for the new Thuringian theory seems to be an entry in the Suda.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC) The Brandes article cited in de.wp is in a book edited by Castritius https://books.google.be/books?id=hrjcrRSrSnMC&lpg=PA321 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)