|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The south-west region of Zamora, Sayago, was populated by lusitans. Even the the later roman province of Lusitania included that region. Keep informed.
I'm sorry, in the article there is that he lived in Zamora? that area wasnt an area of Lusitania (in fact, it was quit faar away). I'll delete it from the text without credible sources/theories. -Pedro 14:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well Iberian in the sence of Iberian peninsula. There's no proof they were really Celts, but there's proof they had Celtic culture. -Pedro 00:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- The answer to your questions and doubts may be found in this Detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC). The Ogre 13:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I dont know why you are putting that map on every article about pre-Roman Portugal furthermore I've books about this issue, and the link doesnt answer the question that noone knows for sure. it wasnt really a question, but an answer... --Pedro 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don´t agree that Viriathus was a inspiration for the portuguese and spanish people due of the simple fact that there were no such people in the iberian peninsula until the fundation of such countries. To use concepts like "portuguese" and "spanish" in describing the iberian - celtic tribes of 200 BC who lived in the iberian peninsula is a common but serious mistake. It is also made in relation of Boudica and the english people. She was the queen of a tribe, the Iceni, in the area of present england who fought against the romans. She is regarded as "english" hero despite the fact that the kingdom of england was not formed in the next 700 years! Also Arminius who was a leader of the Cherusci, a tribe who fought the romans in the area of present Germany is wrongly regarded as a "german" hero. Other examples of the above are: Alexander the Great who was a macedonian and not a greek; Charlemagne who was a Frank and as such is not a "french" or "german" hero but rather the leader of a tribe and kingdom who much latter became the basis of both countries. All these persons were heavily romanticized (no pun intended) by giving them great moral attributes and exagerating many of their deeds and vilainizing their adversary. At the same time many of their flaws like cruelty or others and their ruthless deeds were "sweept under the rug". Lateron they where used as a symbol of "national" virtues and as "national heros" by countries and peoples who in many cases had at best a distant relation to such people. [anonymous]
- Surely the Portuguese dont descent exclusively from the Lusitanians, but some claims (often in English) that have been made: "the Portuguese not being descendants of the Lusitanians" are obviously false that are contradicted by genetics and history. But yes, the culture, the language, almost everything even the ethnicity is different mostly due to Roman influence. And, yes, nationalists use these heroes... so what? Villainizing the Romans is surely not intentional, because Romans are also part of these countries history and the last thing they want to make and it is clear in the article, is that no one wanted to villainize the Romans, people who had an extreme importance in the formation of these countries (in everything really, everything is Roman-based: ethnicity, culture, laws, language, architecture, etc). So no the Romans arent seen as villains, in fact it is the opposite! The villains of this story are the companions, and their names are mythology and some claim it was just one traitor. If you see the Romans said "Rome doesnt pay traitors"... this all things are to make clear that the Romans werent the real villains: almost no one knew the Lusitanians were deported to Gaul as slaves, or other things, for instance - we know this today because of research. -Pedro 18:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Check Portuguese people. The Ogre 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- a surprise, but it doesnt answer this issue. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dgarvey/DNA/markers.htm It is something useful for that article though. And surelly is a stone to some biased opinions in relation to Mediterranean peoples. that should be worked in the proper article.-Pedro 13:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Viriathus' statue picture
I don't know how to load a picture into this, so would any of you do it for me? Probably, the best picture to load is the one of the statue in Viseu, next to the "Cava de Viriato", a Roman or Lusitanian fortification. Thanks!--Ciga 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I thought in that, did you take the picture yourself, upload using upload file. Thanks. It is the best image you can have of him. -Pedro 12:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The claim that he was born in Loriga should be treated as mere fantasy, there's obviously no mention of the city where he had born, the place of birth varies largely. Although as it is in the text, the stronghold of Lusitania were the mountains of Hermes and the Douro Valley. People relate Viseu to Viriathus because of the statue. --Pedro 12:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The text makes no mention to the Roman Sertório, who lead the Lusitanians after viriathus's death. M.F.
- You mean Quintus Sertorius. And he was not exactly leader of the Lusitanians... He was a Roman general participating in Roman political struggles, that revolted in Hispania, and had a lot of soldiers from the local populations, namely Lusitanians, who were his allies of sorts. Check the Timeline of Portuguese history - Roman Lusitania and Gallaecia (3rd Century BC to 4th Century AC). The Ogre 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
After Viriathus' death who lead the Lusitans was Tantalus.
- Sertorius began his insurrection in Hispania as general and commander-in-chief of the Lusitani. He was in no uncertain terms leader of the Lusitani. It is quite an amazing fact that a Roman would fill the shoes of Viriathus, who despised the Romans for their perfidy. However, Sertorius began his insurrection in 80 BC, so there is a significant gap between the two. I'll be back with some Mommsen comments on their relation, for both this article and Sertorius'.
- The leader on Viriathus' death was Tautamus; Tantalus is someone else. The Jackal God 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"After his death they chose a general named Tantalus and made an expedition against Saguntum,..."(Appian,THE WARS IN SPAIN,CHAPTER XII]) You have to argue with Appian on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
How did you come up with the birth date of Viriathus? No Roman or Greek author ever said when he was born.If born in 190 b.c he is 51 years old at the time of his death! A bit old for an energetic fellow that terrorised the romans and was known for his strength and agility. Correct that and leave the birth date blank, no one know his birthday day or year.
I would like to substitute "Lusitanians" for "Lusitanian guerrilla fighters" because he led both regular armies and guerrilla bands, and it trivializes what he was able to accomplish, more than once crushing Roman armies and making Maximus Aemilianus hesistant to face his armies in battle before they were trained, and other Roman commanders to finish their campaigns in the middle of the summer. Basically, my point is he was more than just a guerrilla leader; he was an able general and regular commander, a fact his first victory denotes. The Jackal God 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Check the Footnotes
I wandered into this page out of curiosity and was shocked to find that I had overlooked so much ancient Lusitanian history, or that I had overlooked such important passages in Livy, etc. Then I had a good laugh and realized this is Wikipedia. You see, I started clicking on the links in the footnotes, to find that at least some of your sources don't actually say what they the article claims them to say, especially those in Latin. I would, if I were someone who cared about Wikipedia and not just racking up edits and/or spreading my marginalist ideas, give all of those sources a good once over, but instead I'll leave it to you, the theoretical good wikipedia editor (Judging from what I read, Wikipedia is made up entirely of Tenured professors who have abandoned their careers in favour of writing good encyclopedia articles, so this should be no problem). And if you want something free, try the introduction to Herculano's history, which I'm sure is online, for a good introduction to Lusitania-Modern Portuguese issues. - [[User:Kyle543 |Kyle543]] (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you checked the sources and think they don't actually say what the article claims them to say, (especially those in Latin) can you tell which ones? Most sources in Latin have translations in other languages.
- As you mentioned Livy maybe you can say what is wrong with it ?
- Livy described him as a shepherd who became a hunter, then a soldier,...
- "Viriathus in Hispania (primum ex pastore venator, ex venatore latro, mox iusti quoque exercitus dux factus)"
- thus following the path of most young warriors, the iuventus, who devoted themselves to cattle raiding, hunting and war
- "and young men of military age, the iuventus, devoted themselves to hunting, raiding and war (Diod. 5, 34, 6)"
- Or you mean the authors I cited are wrong and you prefer Herculano's history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There is this quotation: “ For he was, as is agreed by all, valiant in dangers, prudent and careful in providing whatever was necessary, and that which was most considerable of all was, that whilst he commanded he was more beloved than ever any was before him. " It is in large font. I don't see any attribution. We can't have quotations in wik without giving a source. \If there is a source, then some-one please tell me where it is. Normally (as in a later similarly fonted quotation), the source is given right at the end (if it has not been given in the introduction to the quotation) of them cited material.Kdammers (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ”