Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Germanic peoples. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Feedback requested on 8 (hopefully) minor points

Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments4 people in discussion

Thank you to Obenritter for tagging etc within the articles. Between the two of us, several small improvements have been done, however concerning some of the tags I have my doubts and it might be easier if other editors looked instead of me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

TLDR

Footnote formats. I have to say I find these particular changes are small steps backwards, because the article has long suffered from thickets of small footnotes, and I prefer bundles where possible. But is that just my "taste"?

1. <ref>{{harvtxt|Pohl|2006|p=11}}; {{harvtxt|Kaul|Martens|1995}}; {{harvtxt|Goffart|2006|p=282}}</ref>

-> {{sfn|Pohl|2006|p=11}}{{sfn|Kaul|Martens|1995}}{{sfn|Goffart|2006|p=282}}

2. <ref>{{Harvtxt|Wolfram|1997|p=6}}; Caesar, ''Gallic Wars'', [http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0448.phi001.perseus-eng1:1.47 1.47], [http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0448.phi001.perseus-eng1:6.21 6.21].</ref>

-> {{sfn|Wolfram|1997|p=6}}{{efn|Caesar, ''Gallic Wars'', [http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0448.phi001.perseus-eng1:1.47 1.47], [http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0448.phi001.perseus-eng1:6.21 6.21]}}

"Mixed (new) peoples". I am responsible for using this term several times, and all of those have been tagged as being unclear. Is this word really unclear in this context? Perhaps other editors can also find simpler ways around the problem.

3. (LEAD) the first long texts which have survived are written in languages of new mixed peoples[clarification needed] outside Germania: the Gothic languages from the region that is today Ukraine, and Old English in England

Clarify reason: What exactly constitutes "mixed peoples"?

4. (LEAD) traditions, survived after Roman times, when new mixed peoples[clarification needed] formed new political entities in many strongly Roman-influenced parts of Europe.[clarification needed] Some of these new entities are seen as precursors of modern European nation states, such as the English and French

Clarify reason: What exactly constitutes "mixed peoples" especially since the cited Goffart text claims no Germanic peoples even existed. Who was mixing with whom? NOTE: the citation given is to Heather, not Goffart, FWIW, perhaps indicating this mis-reading is one based on editor debates, not a reading which normal readers would make.

5. Ariovistus, who had been a Roman ally, and who led mixed forces

Clarify reason: Mixed forces of what other groups (Romans?), Suebians and who else? NOTE: Have added information but it already appeared below in the relevant history section.

Information that I think is already there, generally tags on sentences which introduce the detailed discussions which are (I think) the ones being demanded:

6. strongly Roman-influenced parts of Europe.{{clarify|date=March 2020|reason=Where in Europe?}} Some of these new entities are seen as precursors of modern European nation states, such as the English and French

Adding more detail would not really seem relevant to this particular discussion in the lead?

7. Several Roman writers{{clarify|date=March 2020|reason=Which ones, there's been a large number across the ages; are we speaking of contemporaries or different authors through the ages as such accounts would influence credibility?}} followed Caesar's tradition

Discussion ensues about all those authors; and a list of influenced authors had been mentioned immediately above as well in a section intro. NOTE: Have added demanded information but was that right?

8. (Modern scholars also see the central part of this area, between Elbe and Oder, as the area from which Germanic languages dispersed.){{clarify|date=March 2020|reason=Exactly which scholars are we referencing here?}}

NOTE. NOTE: Have added an internal link, but was that right? There is a whole section about it below. Helping readers see links between parts of articles without getting tags like this during editor debates can be difficult for all of us. I could just add a "See below", but this is probably not best practice due to the way section names change etc. We could delete the whole sentence if it causes real consternation, but that would seem an over-reaction?

If I or Obenritter find a good solution for any of these of course we should also go ahead, but I hope these types of questions are easy cases to bring in more opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Obenritter: please keep in mind I was hoping for "third person" opinions, for obvious reasons. For that reason and all the normal reasons that such edits are not normally recommended, I think it was not a good idea to write your responses into my post. I hope you don't mind, but I really insist on keeping my post together. Hopefully this format works for you. By the same token, as you in contrast signed each point, I will answer them individually, but if you don't like that, please change accordingly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Footnote formats. Yep -- it's your taste and the citations are not consistent across the article any longer when they once were.--Obenritter (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We disagree and need some tie breakers then. I also see no problem using both "ref" and "sfn" footnotes? You are not addressing what you have against bundle footnotes. I personally do not like sentences with 10 footnotes, including 5 in the middle, or paragraphs with the same footnote 20 times. Those were typical things in old versions of this article. It is a slippery slope.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Mixed (new) peoples". Yes it is unclear and you, as the author, obviously lack the objectivity to see it. What makes up mixed peoples? This needs to be stated so that the reader understands. --Obenritter (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Mixed" and "new" are just normal English words with obvious meanings? Also, this is in the lead, and clearly explaining the details of the mixture is something for the body? The key point for the lead is that they are not pure and continuous unities.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

4. Roman influence and dominance across mainland Europe waxed and waned over the centuries, and some regions were under more firm control than others. There were varying degrees of domination, accommodation, and assimilation with Rome. "New mixed people" does not address which peoples are being referenced specifically and in a rewrite that has essentially rendered the Germans as questionably even existing as a group and stressing that so many different groups were interacting, this is profoundly vague.--Obenritter (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Again this is the lead, but England and France are specifically mentioned here already in the lead. We can not move all of the body into the lead. That was also a problem with past editing on this article and I think we need to learn from that. (It is also a typical problem on long articles in WP, especially when the structure is unclear. It is another slippery slope.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No misreading. The citation in the preceding sentence elucidates that >>> "Goffart (2006, Preface) NOT Heather: "Strange as it may seem to hear it said, there were no Germanic peoples in late antiquity. The illusion that there were can be outgrown." So if the Germanic peoples did not exist, who are these mixed peoples? Claiming this to be a misreading demonstrates a lack of objectivity and the failure to fully investigate the textual criticism. Pretty darn clear what that source says, but you spend more time trying to justify any and all content regardless of the counter-arguments and make the other editors here seem as though they "don't understand" something. Then you complain of ad hominem attacks when other editors evaluate content. In this case, your rebuttal (which is overtly incorrect) demonstrates your arrogance even when constructive criticism was offered. This approach and such examples illustrate how difficult collaboratively editing Wikipedia (this page in particular) is; certainly more than it should be, as any change is met by disputatious behavior. --Obenritter (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Clearly it is a misreading. You are using the source from the previous bullet (not "sentence") and no normal normal reader would do that. Honestly, your long angry posts show this is not coming from reading what is actually in the article. I do also know what the writer intended BTW.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

6. Again, you have failed to understand that Roman influence was not entirely uniform...and in an article that seeks to differentiate so many disparate people from across the periphery of wider Europe (Germani from one another, Scythians, etc.) using the term "mixed peoples"—no matter what is stated about later nation statehood and geography—is especially amateur and lacks clarifying depth. --Obenritter (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. You are asking for a whole new discussion in the lead. See 4. (They are connected.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

7. Of course it is necessary. Nobody expects to read an exhaustive list of these authors but mentioning two or three of the most prominent ones is in order there.--Obenritter (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

But the reality is that an full and exhaustive list did already appear above and below and that was still not good enough for you. I have now added another full list here where you tagged. Seems extreme to me!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

8. No need to delete this entire sentence, but at least mention two or three of the most prominent scholars. Modern scholars like XXX, XXX, and XXX see the central part of this area...--Obenritter (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a full section with lots of sources. Archaeology does not tend to have star papers like history, so just naming one would be purely a fudge to get around this tag. Instead I have posted an internal link to the more detailed section. I hope that is good enough. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The ridiculous level of commentary about any and every proposed change or request for clarification is exhausting. Collaborating with you is too arduous and unproductive for me. If you cannot see the problems with the original text even when it has been pointed out and how confusing terms like "mixed peoples" is in this context (even after it's been explained to you), there's no way anyone can hammer it into your skull. My recommendation is for you to step away from the article for a while, as your involvement with it and attempts to lord-over the content—evidenced by the painstakingly lengthy and comprehensive comments and arguments on the Talk Page with other editors—is certainly approaching a clear violation of WP:OWN.--Obenritter (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And that post is another good demonstration of why I would like (if possible) more neutral input from others about the remaining tags, and footnote format changes. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Obenritter that this article has serious issues. There are multiple violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V here. The edit warring and endless discussions make it impossible for editors to do anything about it. Sooner or later, something will have be done about this. Krakkos (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos it is very possible for editors to work with me in a normal good faith way. But in constrast, your aim here is to disrupt and distract. Do you have any constructive edit proposal concerning any of the above 8 tags and changes by Obenritter? Concerning "violations", or whatever, I just note you've had some months to think of something worth putting in public, but not come up with anything. I think your editing and talk page record speaks for itself though. Try a new approach?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly not a Wikipedia controversy. What we’re witnessing here is only a continuation of a scholar controversy. Some contributors are more influenced by Heather (which I admit for myself), others by Goffart (which is probably the case for Andrew). If we work together in an intelligent way, we’ll be able to propose a balanced article to the general readership, by presenting both arguments rather than trying to silence opposing arguments in the article. Azerty82 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't feed the disruptions. They are the real problem, artificially created - not the debates between the scholars. Do you have any edit proposal? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

TLDR
@Azerty82: the way you describe this is heavily influenced by Wikipedia and similar online discussions, not the sources. I see no reason to divide the world between Heather and Goffart partisans. The real scholars do have many debates, but the ones they feel most strongly about are NOT the ones here on WP. Here on WP it is late 19th/early 20th century versus late 20th/early 21st century. People who try to report what recent sources say are called fans of Goffart. It is one big smokescreen, and THAT is the REAL problem. This field should be nowhere near as difficult to summarize as a lot of academic fields, because they are people who write a lot. Concerning Heather, have you wondered why his supposed partisans only cite his tiny dictionary articles (contrary to WP RS policy)? Have your wondered why they go around inserting cartoonish caricatures into the articles about authorities like Walter Pohl? Please let's try ONLY writing about what sources really say, not what we guess others are thinking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC) I didn't read all arguments to be honest. People are dropping insanely long paragraphs in the discussion page, while they should rather focus their efforts on in-article contributions. I was only hoping that the academical opposition could be used in a dialectical way in order to improve the article. I maintain that it is a continuation of the same academical debate though. Critics of Heather are welcome, but Similar criticism has been leveled by Andrew Gillett, another associate of the Toronto School, who laments Heather's "biological" approach and lists Heather's research as an obstacle to the advance of multicultural values. is not a scholarly criticism for instance. The role of a historian is not to support any kind of political theory but to reach the truth. Azerty82 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Those are fair points @Azerty82: and I have thoroughly appreciated your expertise in the field of linguistics/cultural studies to this and other articles. Andrew and I used to be on the same page about this article, but unfortunately, his approach has become generally belligerent (perhaps caused by lengthy fighting with Krakkos--not sure) to the degree that even when I found places where clarification was needed, he took offense and rejected the feedback. Imagine if I actually proceeded to edit to the article? He came to my talk page to basically inform me (a PhD historian) that I don't understand the authors, despite having been a student of Herwig Wolfram and being well-read on this subject since it tied into my dissertation subject (While I think he might know this, I am betting that he also thinks that fact makes me incapable of being entirely objective here). Things have become unnecessarily contentious and need to be returned to the actual content. He has done some admirable work here with the article, but he has deleted and replaced most of the original content in its entirety. Here at this stage, he is also ignoring actual constructive edits because he disagrees or doesn't like what was discovered. Iron sharpens iron and real scholars all know this. Nonetheless, this is causing some consternation for myself and other editors because he has taken the generic subject into an arena that deals less with the general idea of Germanic peoples and endeavored to bring it into its most controversial arena with enough granularity that it might actually be better suited to its own Wikipedia page. Some of this stems from the fact that drive-by editors were trying to insert content into the Germanic peoples page (if you'll recall) about the continuity of modern Germanic peoples, which accorded the 19th and early 20th century problematic areas that contributed to racialism. No matter the final outcome, the page needs to be much less hyperbolic in disposition. Nope. The real article as it stands is very far from handling that kind of debate, and it probably never can or should. It has struggled to handle much simpler and more essential and older developments. (See above controversy about "mixed people" citing Heather.) Of course you are correct that some opposing points are absolutely necessary to represent any field like this, but at the moment even mentioning ANY is a struggle. So we need this talk page focused on real editing proposals, based on the real article, and the real sources, not the dramatized reports of those. Please if you have some time, look through the real article. I certainly prefer editing than the talk page, but it is not always so easy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2020 Here's where you go awry again, nobody asked you to delete the content, but to clarify who those "mixed people" were. This article talks about far too many different groups to leave that subject vague. You create more drama by your intransigence than anything else. My edits were an objective attempt to start dealing with areas where I see weaknesses in the content, but you really just want somebody to simply "agree" with you. Clarify who mixed peoples were--period. We can start dealing with (when we [editors] all have the time) recasting—with less inflammatory language—the general arguments in a collective sense. Stop being so quick to dig your heels in on the small stuff first, and then we can move forward.--Obenritter (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC) (UTC) @Obenritter: I have honestly been trying to address your tags, but your unconstructive responses would have to make anyone wonder whether all your tagging and footnote reformatting was really just directed at me personally and not making the article better. I think you overlook your recent obsession with me rather generously. Let's not forget your "Agenda anyone" post and your "your parents failed" remark.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE. @Obenritter: I wish I could have created a better talk page discussion (blame me if you want) but in any case I have now made an effort to address every tag in that large round. (Obviously there were many more than the 8 topics, which I did not bring to talk because it was clear what was needed.)

Please do keep in mind that I feel strongly, for logical reasons, that we should not overload the lead, and this influences my editing judgement as well. We don't want to evolve back to a situation where everyone pushes things into the lead, and the lead has more than the body on many topics.
For now I left the footnotes more-or-less as you changed them except for converting the new efn for practical reasons which seem uncontroversial (see edsum).
I have begun to work on improving the sources in the medieval section, prioritized based on what I guess might be most controversial or non-obvious, but if there is anything specific it might eventually become useful to switch from a section tag to more detailed tags or even, dare I suggest it, the talk page! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Every one of the 8 items now addressed, I will collapse the above detailed listing of them, taking note of concerns raised about long posts on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Andrew Lancaster:...while there are places where I wish the original parts of the text were left alone, most of what you're attempting to do here is making more and more sense to me. You're right about tagging too, but I was concerned about coming to the Talk page to discuss as opposed to just tagging it for fear of a drawn-out argument. You do have great debate skills BTW. I hope you understand why I did that now. Anyway--since the COVID-19 thing has us all in lockdown, I should be able to start making tweaks here and there and I will try and be less vitriolic in my approach. Let's agree that when and if we disagree going forward, we'll take a step back and more carefully respond to the content, realizing we're trying to build an Encyclopedia to help people in the future.--Obenritter (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great. I will do my best also. On your side, as a silly thing, please consider footnote formats? I think efn should be used rarely, but bundling can really help avoid some problems this article has had.

I want to repeat that I feel/hope I did a source-based restructuring update for future editors, but I do not at all argue that I have written anything like a "finished" version of any single part of this article. I did however put most effort into the lead and definition sections because these are parts of the article which can not defer to other "main" articles, and they cover the issues which were never clear in older versions, and this created long term problems. I think they are a real step forward with no equivalent in past versions, and based on a lot of investigation. So I have been trying to "focus" the article, based on my imperfect experience as a Wikipedian, and my true interest in this topic concerning which you surely know more than me. Something we surely will discuss more is that I shortened the history section, but I see this as a structuring step also. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages

Latest comment: 4 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

Given that much of the 6th through the 11th centuries is marginally covered by this rewrite of the Early Middle Ages section and it is not especially well-sourced, I would like to return to the original text from that section. Why that was not retained is unclear, but let's discuss what was once present. Here it is for comparison against the current version:

proposed version (end 2019?)	current version (29 March 2020)
///Early Middle Ages/// Main article: Early Middle Ages Frankish expansion from the early kingdom of Clovis I (481) to the divisions of Charlemagne's Empire (843/870). The transition of the Migration period to the Middle Ages proper took place over the course of the second half of the 1st millennium. It was marked by the Christianization of the Germanic peoples and the formation of stable kingdoms replacing the mostly tribal structures of the Migration period. Some of this stability is discernible in the fact that the Pope recognized Theodoric's reign when the Germanic conqueror entered Rome in AD 500, despite that Theodoric was a known practitioner of Arianism, a faith which the Council of Nicaea condemned in AD 325.^[1] Theodoric's Germanic subjects and administrators from the Roman Catholic Church cooperated in serving him, helping establish a codified system of laws and ordinances which facilitated the integration of the Gothic peoples into a burgeoning empire, solidifying their place as they appropriated a Roman identity of sorts.^[2] The foundations laid by the Empire enabled the successor Germanic kingdoms to maintain a familiar structure and their success can be seen as part of the lasting triumph of Rome.^[3] Anglo-Saxon and British kingdoms c. 800 In continental Europe, this Germanic evolution saw the rise of Francia in the Merovingian period under the rule of Clovis I who had deposed the last emperor of Gaul, eclipsing lesser kingdoms such as Alemannia.^[4] The Merovingians controlled most of Gaul under Clovis, who, through conversion to Christianity, allied himself with the Gallo-Romans. While the Merovingians were checked by the armies of the Ostrogoth Theodoric, they remained the most powerful kingdom in Western Europe and the intermixing of their people with the Romans through marriage rendered the Frankish people less a Germanic tribe and more a "European people" in a manner of speaking.^[5] Most of Gaul was under Merovingian control as was part of Italy and their overlordship extended into Germany where they reigned over the Thuringians, Alamans, and Bavarians.^[6] Evidence also exists that they may have even had suzerainty over south-east England.^[7] Frankish historian Gregory of Tours relates that Clovis converted to Christianity partly as a result of his wife's urging and even more so - due to having won a desperate battle after calling out to Christ. According to Gregory, this conversion was sincere but it also proved politically expedient as Clovis used his new faith as a means to consolidate his political power by Christianizing his army.^[8]^[a] Against Germanic tradition, each of the four sons of Clovis attempted to secure power in different cities but their inability to prove themselves on the battlefield and intrigue against one another led the Visigoths back to electing their leadership.^[9] When Merovingian rule eventually weakened, they were supplanted by another powerful Frankish family, the Carolingians, a dynastic order which produced Charles Martel, and Charlemagne.^[10] The coronation of Charlemagne as emperor by Pope Leo III in Rome on Christmas Day, AD 800 represented a shift in the power structure from the south to the north. Frankish power ultimately laid the foundations for the modern nations of Germany and France.^[11] For historians, Charlemagne's appearance in the historical chronicle of Europe also marks a transition where the voice of the north appears in its own vernacular thanks to the spread of Christianity, after which the northerners began writing in Latin, Germanic, and Celtic; whereas before, the Germanic people were only known through Roman or Greek sources.^[12] In England, the Germanic Anglo-Saxon tribes reigned over the south of Great Britain from approximately 519 to the tenth century until the Wessex hegemony became the nucleus for the unification of England.^[13]^[14] Scandinavia was in the Vendel period and eventually entered the Viking Age, with expansion to Britain, Ireland and Iceland in the west and as far as Russia and Greece in the east.^[15] By AD 900 the Vikings secured for themselves a foothold on Frankish soil along the Lower Seine River valley in what is now France that became known as Normandy. Hence they became the Normans. They established the Duchy of Normandy, a territorial acquisition which provided them the opportunity to expand beyond Normandy into Anglo-Saxon England.^[16] The subsequent Norman Conquest which followed in AD 1066 wrought immense changes to life in England as their new Scandinavian masters altered their government, lordship, public holdings, culture and DNA pool permanently.^[17] The various Germanic tribal cultures began their transformation into the larger nations of later history, English, Norse and German, and in the case of Burgundy, Lombardy and Normandy blending into a Romano-Germanic culture. Many of these later nation states started originally as "client buffer states" for the Roman Empire so as to protect it from its enemies further away.^[18] Eventually they carved out their own unique historical paths.	///Early Middle Ages/// Main article: Early Middle Ages Frankish expansion from the early kingdom of Clovis I (481) to the divisions of Charlemagne's Empire (843/870) Map showing area of Norse settlements during the Viking Age, including Norman conquests In the early Middle Ages, much of continental catholic Europe became part of a greater Francia under the Merovingian and then the Carolingian dynasty. The coronation of Charlemagne as emperor by Pope Leo III in Rome on Christmas Day, 800 CE consolidated a shift in the power structure from the south to the north, and was also a strong symbolic link to Rome and the Roman Christianity. The core of the new empire included what is now France, Germany and the Benelux countries. The empire laid the foundations for the medieval and early modern ancien regime, finally destroyed only by the French Revolution. The Frankish-Catholic way of doing politics and war and religion also had a strong effect upon all neighbouring regions, including what became England, Spain, Italy, Austria, and Bohemia. The effect of old Germanic culture on this new Latin-using empire is a topic of dispute, because there was much continuity with the old Roman legal systems, and the increasingly important Christian religion. An example which is argued to show an influence of earlier Germanic culture is law. The new kingdoms created new law codes in Latin, with occasional Germanic words.^[19] These were Roman-influenced, and under strong church influence all law was increasingly standardized to accord with Christian philosophy, and old Roman law.^[20] Germanic languages in western Europe also faded out of use in most areas apart from the West Germanic group of related languages including England, the "Austrasian" Frankish homelands near the Lower Rhine, Maas and Scheldt rivers, and the large area between the Rhine and Elbe. With the splitting off of this latter area within the Frankish empire, the first ever political entity corresponding loosely to modern "Germany" came into existence. In Eastern Europe the once relatively developed periphery of the Roman world collapsed culturally and economically, and this can be seen in the Germanic-associated archaeological evidence: in the area of today's southern Poland and Ukraine the collapse was not long after 400, and by 700 Germanic material culture was entirely west of the Elbe in the area where the Romans had been active since Caesar's time, and the Franks were now active. East of the Elbe was to become mainly Slavic speaking.^[21] Outside of the Roman-influenced zone, Germanic-speaking Scandinavia was in the Vendel period and eventually entered the Viking Age, with expansion to Britain, Ireland and Iceland in the west and as far as Russia and Greece in the east.^[22] Swedish Vikings, known locally as the Rus', ventured deep into Russia, where they founded the political entities of Kievan Rus'. They defeated the Khazar Khaganate and became the dominant power in Eastern Europe. The dominant language of these communities came to be East Slavic.^[23] By 900 CE the Vikings also secured a foothold on Frankish soil along the Lower Seine River valley in what became known as Normandy. On the other hand, the Scandinavian countries were, starting with Denmark, under the influence of Germany to their south, and also the lands where they had colonies. Bit by bit they became Christian, and organized themselves into Frankish- and Catholic-influenced kingdoms. Kingdom of Germany (Regnum Teutonicum) within the Holy Roman Empire, circa 1000 AD
References ^ Heather 2014, pp. 58–59. ^ Heather 2014, pp. 61–68. ^ Pohl 1997, p. 33. ^ Kitchen 1996, pp. 19–20. ^ Kitchen 1996, p. 20. ^ Bauer 2010, p. 172. ^ James 1995, pp. 66–67. ^ Bauer 2010, p. 173. ^ Bauer 2010, pp. 178–179. ^ Kitchen 1996, pp. 24–28. ^ Bury 2000, p. 239. ^ James 1995, p. 60. ^ Morgan 2001, pp. 61–65. ^ Roberts 1996, pp. 121–123. ^ Derry 2012, pp. 16–35. ^ Waldman & Mason 2006, pp. 310–311. ^ Sykes 2006, pp. 227–228, 264–266. ^ Geary 1999, p. 110. ^ Liebeschuetz 2015, p. 97. ^ Geary 2002, pp. 123–128, 137–138. ^ Heather 2009, pp. 371–372. ^ Derry (2012, pp. 16–35); Clements (2005, pp. 214–229); Waldman & Mason (2006, p. 310) ^ Vasiliev 1936, pp. 117–135.

Obviously there will be citation errors in this version, which we can correct once we move back to the original in the actual article. Nonetheless, the current version glosses over several centuries a little too much for my taste. Other editors, please provide some input after you've compared it to the new text. --Obenritter (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, but the main concern is pretty simple and that is length. This is of course much longer. We have another article which you and I could also go and work on, and the Germanic aspect of this period is peripheral to Germanic peoples in their "core" sense? Which bits are most critical for "the Germanic"?

BTW feel free to uncollapse. I am feeling paranoid about people blaming me for the talk page being too full. Apologies in advance if required.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Good move to hide it that way Andrew. Actually, I wanted to also consider removing the sections "Roman descriptions of early Germanic people and culture" and the "Genetics" sections altogether. It seems that Roman descriptions are more than sufficiently covered throughout the rest of the article and the Genetics issue has only caused controversy. If we forego keeping those sections, the older version of the early Middle Ages doesn't burden the article as much and stops it where this should probably end, that is, if you concur. --Obenritter (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have adapted that collapsed section to show your proposal compared to the current version. I would say that "methodologically" we should consider the merits of each section independently:

Yes, Genetics in general is difficult on Wikipedia, because the field is so new and fast moving, and our editors are mainly citing individual research papers where the only historical remarks are being made by non-historians. However, I've worked a lot on such problems, and these section keep coming back (and if we are lucky, one day someone will actually publish something relevant). The the least worst option is probably to have a place for it. The section as it stands is now just a short place-holder, and stripped down to a pretty simple few remarks.
The classical descriptions could perhaps be removed. However perhaps a short "placeholder" version of this section should remain because this is now our main "cultural" section (unless we count the . And it helps readers get to our still nascent "Early Germanic culture" article. (Also keep in mind that Azerty82 is working on something which may replace this? Or maybe Azerty has another approach. Perhaps Azerty can comment.)
Early Middle Ages. Looking now in the above comparison table I am not sure a simple replacement back to an old version is the best approach. The old version mixed in events from pre-medieval history. (e.g. Theoderic and Clovis, kingdoms, conversions, clients are for previous sections.) 2ndly the new version (which you can see is based quite a lot on the old version) was not just trying to focus more on the article topic, but also involved an effort to add missing topics which we would now simply delete. The old one also did need tweaking. (I do hope we can keep being more careful about things like "The Vikings became Normans". Was 1066 really anything to do with "Germanic peoples" and "DNA"? I am cautious of terms like "tribes" and "nation states". Was there a "large" "Norse" "nation" formed in this period? Was the inheritance of Clovis definitely a "Germanic" thing?) So I am thinking normal bit-by-bit editing would be better than a simple massive revert?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Theodoric and Clovis are not considered "pre-medieval" by most historians, as the typical cut-off line for late antiquity/early medieval is normally 400 AD (some start as early as 300). Both lived after that date. These "Germanic" kings were very important for Europe's general political development. Theodoric for his integration of Roman-style administration into the developing polities that he controlled; Clovis for moving the Franks away from Arianism and to Catholicism. These are especially important in my opinion. Moving so quickly all the way to the 9th century arrival of Charlemagne onto the scene is otherwise jarring and omits significant historical events. You're right, we can dispense with the "Hence they became the Normans" sentence, which only muddies things, but otherwise, most of what was originally there provides a clearer framework regarding the continuity of Europe's emerging formation.--Obenritter (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Concerning Clovis, Theoderic and the Lombard invasion, for example, no one is arguing against including them. They are in another section. I think the breakpoint currently used between the sections (about 500-568) is the most common one in our sources. Old versions of the article provide no alternative structure, and they had extensive duplication. Creating a stricter chronological structure for the first time seems to have resulted in the biggest difference in this section we are looking at. ...So in practice, a major part of your revert proposal would be a proposal to start duplicating material or destructuring the article without even first looking at whether the the current structure is reasonable. Do you understand my concern?

So if we are talking chronology and the importance of the these figures, how is it that you've essentially skipped all the way to Charlemagne from the 6th century? The mentions of both Clovis and Theodoric are cursory at best in the article and such minimal treatment given to two of the most important Germanic chieftains in the history of Europe is a tad dismissive. The rewrite is decidedly inferior on this point.--Obenritter (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the examples of smaller problems, there are many more details we could discuss which explain small differences and re-arrangements. However, to be practical, I think the first question is why you can't just make step-by-step edits of the existing version, rather than making a massive revert. To say the least, I honestly do not think the old version is "self-evidently" better. I think the various small changes, and of course the large change caused by the new chronological sectioning, deserve to be considered carefully. There was some thought put into this.

There was lots of thought put into the original text on the transition out of the Migration period into the Early Middle Ages, most of which was magically deleted or turned into executive summary via omission, so I'd like to know how you've come to the conclusion that the previous content was to be somehow superseded via synopsis. What exact line of reasoning was used? In some places, sourced content was retained but the source was deleted altogether and added to a list of "unused sources" in the talk page. What was especially constructive and thoughtful about those changes? Important things are missing that better explain the evolution of Europe and are not found elsewhere in this article, so returning that content is not unreasonable.--Obenritter (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I think this is also the normal WP way of working and quite a reasonable proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the massive deletion/rewrite of this article, let this be viewed as retroactive content negotiations that did not occur earlier as many of us have busy lives outside of WP. In other words, this current engagement represents the collaboration that did not happen when this section was originally rewritten.--Obenritter (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

ADDED, I guess the TLDR is that I suggest "not rushing" on this particular point, because I know it would involve more concerns than is immediately obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right, there's no need to rush this.

Well then, I believe the normal practice would be to now start a discussion naming one of the specific things which is now worse or missing, rather than just saying it used to be better as a general remark. (I think we should both accept that both versions had their own rationales, but in practice the current one is the one which has been fitted to the current structure. I am obviously concerned about keeping a chronological structure in order to avoid the slippery slope of duplications. Otherwise this section is not shockingly different to the old version.)

As an example, of trying to understand you on a concrete detail: I couldn't really understand your point about the section break being "jarring" in this case, because (1) In context it sounds like you are saying we need to duplicate material in every section again in order to avoid being jarring? Or maybe we should have less section breaks? And (2) why would separating events 300 years apart be controversial, and why would separating Theoderic's time from Odoacer's time be uncontroversial? But obviously I must just be misunderstanding you...

...That is why it might be better to look at details, bit by bit. Where to put the sections breaks is obviously one possible thing that we can change too. But then we should look at the preceding section too. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW I do not know which version of this article you are treating as the good one, but if I look for example at 23 December [1] then discussion of Theoderic is split (jarringly?) between several sections. The most relevant for this discussion are Early Middle Ages and Fall of the Western Roman Empire.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A few missing things for consideration:

Skipping 300 years is pretty important since during those years, two of the most important Germanic chieftains lived (who are barely mentioned elsewhere in the text). One of whom (Theodoric) did more to help usher in Roman style administration over the Germanic peoples through a subsequent codification of laws, changing many of their tribal customs and practices into those closer resembling Roman ones, more so than perhaps all of his predecessors.
Meanwhile, (Clovis), influenced history by advocating (if not forcing) Christian conversion from Arianism to Catholicism for his subjects. This development helped facilitate more contact and mixing with other Catholic peoples and more of European identity. Since the Franks controlled most of Gaul, parts of Italy, some of what would become Germany, even part of England, and some of France, this is significant.
Frankish suzerainty was maintained for for several generations from Merovingian through Carolingian, passing through Charles Martel and later to Charlemagne; a continuity that afforded the Germanic Franks a central place in Europe's historical development. The current text glosses over all of that and leaps straight to Charlemagne, as if the average reader would understand that continuity. I think not, hence the previous explanatory text.

--Obenritter (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I see the relevance of the Romanitas of Theoderic's administration, and the religious conversions. They were not totally removed, but maybe they should go a bit further. OTOH, I really think we can say the important things in fewer words. I will have a first try to work on it. (I am awake now, and I guess you aren't.)
Apart from wordiness and structure, there was a repeating issue on old versions of this article with how we need to deal with consensus versus non-consensus on WP. Often the discussion was, quite wrongly, about which scholar's side to pick. (I am not blaming you personally. We all probably played a role.) Actually, if we know one scholar's position is contested, then we need to avoid implying that it is the only position, unless we are prepared to present a bigger comparison of several positions. So for example for the conversion of Clovis we should mention its importance, but I think it is not worth going into debates about the exact course of events in this article. Hope that makes sense. I am going to try to follow that principle more strictly.
There was no removal of material about the 300 years between Clovis and Charlemagne. We just have a more clear section break. You mention Charles Martel but he is just listed as a member of the Carolingian dynasty. I will try to match that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW the section and a half which covered the period roughly 400-700 was more than 2000 words on 23 Dec 2019, and it covered far fewer big topics than the new version, which is about 1000 words (half). Missing, for example: the Lombard kingdom, the Burgundians, the Vandals, etc. Topics from other periods ARE included, like the Bastarnae. The style of the older version was a narrative or story-telling style which uses a lot of space, but does not explain to readers which things are a consensus and which not. It also was not systematic, which is why some subjects become big digressions, but very many are left out. Here is a comparison, which can hopefully help guide discussion and further editing. To me this comparison shows strikingly why we need to work bit by bit, always working from the latest version that many editors have helped copy-edit over the last months:

Version 23 Dec 2019	Version 30 Mar 2020
///Fall of the Western Roman Empire/// Further information: Decline of the Western Roman Empire and Barbarian kingdoms Germanic kingdoms and tribes after the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE Some of the Germanic tribes are frequently credited in popular depictions of the decline of the Roman Empire in the 5th century. Many historians and archaeologists have since the 1950s shifted their interpretations in such a way that the Germanic peoples are no longer seen as invading a decaying empire but as being co-opted into helping defend territory the central government could no longer adequately administer.^[b] When the Roman Empire refused to allow the Visigoths to settle in Noricum for instance, they responded by sacking Rome in CE 410 under the leadership of Alaric I.^[2] Oddly enough, Alaric I did not see his imposition in Rome as an attack against the Roman Empire per se but as an attempt to gain a favorable position within its borders, particularly since the Visigoths held the Empire in high regard.^[3] Alaric certainly had no intentions to destroy the great city which was symbolic of Roman power, but he needed to pay his army and the spoils of the city not only afforded the ability to do that, its wealth made him "the richest general in the empire."^[4] For the next year, Alaric extracted vast sums from the city; this included 5,000 pounds of gold, 30,000 pounds of silver, 5,000 pounds of oriental pepper, gilded statues from the Forum, and even the one-ton solid silver dome which Constantine once placed over the baptismal basin next to the Lateran basilica.^[5] Not only was Alaric able to bleed Rome, he also established a Gothic confederation consisting of Theruingian and Greuthungic peoples, and he played the eastern and western Roman Empires off against one another for his benefit.^[6] While Germanic tribes overran the once western Roman provinces, they also continued to strive for regional ascendancy closer to Rome's center; meanwhile the threat along the periphery from the Huns created additional difficulties for the Empire.^[7] Sometime during the 4th or 5th century CE, the Bastarnae were defeated by the Huns, ending their regional domination.^[8]^[9] Coin of Odoacer, Ravenna, 477, with Odoacer in profile, depicted with a "barbarian" moustache. Individuals and small groups from Germanic tribes had long been recruited from the territories beyond the limes (i.e., the regions just outside the Roman Empire), and some of them had risen high in the command structure of the army.^{[citation needed]} The Rhine and Danube provided the bulk of geographic separation for the Roman limes. On one side of the limes stood 'Latin' Europe, law, Roman order, prosperous trading markets, towns and everything that constituted modern civilization for that era; while on the other side stood barbarism, technical backwardness, illiteracy and a tribal society of fierce warriors.^[10] Then the Empire recruited entire tribal groups under their native leaders as military officers. Historian Evangelos Chrysos argues the implications concerning the recruitment of the barbarians into the Roman army during the migration period were enormous and relates that: it offered them experience of how the imperial army was organized, how the government arranged the military and functional logistics of their involvement as soldiers or officers and how it administered their practical life, how the professional expertise and the social values of the individual soldier were cultivated in the camp and on the battlefield, how the ideas about the state and its objectives were to be implemented by men in uniform, how the Empire was composed and how it functioned at an administrative level. This knowledge of and experience with the Romans opened to individual members of the gentes a path which, once taken, would lead them to more or less substantial affiliation or even solidarity with the Roman world. To take an example from the economic sphere: The service in the Roman army introduced the individual or corporate members into the monetary system of the Empire since quite a substantial part of their salary was paid to them in cash. With money in their hands the "guests" were by necessity exposed to the possibility of taking part in the economic system, of becoming accustomed to the rules of the wide market, of absorbing the messages of or reacting to the imperial propaganda passed to the citizens through the legends on the coins. In addition the goods offered in the markets influenced and transformed the newcomers' food and aesthetic tastes and their cultural horizon. Furthermore Roman civilitas was an attractive goal for every individual wishing to succeed in his social advancement.^[11] Assisting with defense eventually shifted into administration and then outright rule, as Roman government passed into the hands of Germanic leaders. Odoacer (who commanded the German mercenaries in Italy)^[12] deposed Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor of the West in CE 476.^[13] Odoacer ruled from Rome and Ravenna, restored the Colosseum and assigned seats to senatorial dignitaries as part of the process of consolidating his rule.^[14] The presence of successor states controlled by a nobility from one of the Germanic tribes is evident in the 6th century – even in Italy, the former heart of the Empire, where Odoacer was followed by Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths, who was regarded by Roman citizens and Gothic settlers alike as legitimate successor to the rule of Rome and Italy.^[15] Theodoric ruled from CE 493–526, twice as long as his predecessor, and his rule is evidenced by an abundance of documents.^[16] Under the Ostrogoths a considerable degree of Roman and Germanic cultural and political fusion was achieved.^[17] Germanic kings worked in-tandem with Roman administrators to the extent possible to help ensure a smooth transition and to facilitate the profitable administration of once Roman lands.^[18] Slowly but surely, the distinction between Germanic rulers and Roman subjects faded, followed by varying degrees of "cultural assimilation" which included the adoption of the Gothic language by some of the indigenous people of the former Roman Empire but this was certainly not ubiquitous as Gothic identity still remained distinctive.^[19] Theodoric may have tried too hard to accommodate the various people under his dominion; indulging "Romans and Goths, Catholics and Arians, Latin and barbarian culture" resulted in the eventual failure of the Ostrogothic reign and the subsequent "end of Italy as the heartland of late antiquity."^[20] Germanic kingdoms in 526 CE According to noted historian Herwig Wolfram, the Germanic peoples did not and could not "conquer the more advanced Roman world" nor were they able to "restore it as a political and economic entity"; instead, he asserts that the empire's "universalism" was replaced by "tribal particularism" which gave way to "regional patriotism".^[21] The Germanic peoples who overran the Western Roman Empire probably numbered less than 100,000 people per tribe, including approximately 15,000-20,000 warriors. They constituted a tiny minority of the population in the lands over which they seized control.^[c]^[d]^[e] Among these tribes, the Ostrogoths in Italy and the Visigoths in Spain are recorded to have enacted laws against intermarriage in order to preserve their identity.^[f]^[g] The entry of the Germanic tribes deep into the heart of Europe and the subsequent collapse of the western Roman Empire resulted in a "massive disruption" to long established communication networks, a system that had in many ways "bound much of the continent together for centuries."^[26] Trade networks and routes shifted accordingly, Germanic kingdoms and peoples established boundaries and it was not until the appearance of the Arabs in Iberia and into Anatolia that Europeans began reestablishing their networks to deal with a new threat.^[27] ///Early Middle Ages/// Main article: Early Middle Ages Frankish expansion from the early kingdom of Clovis I (481) to the divisions of Charlemagne's Empire (843/870) The transition of the Migration period to the Middle Ages proper took place over the course of the second half of the 1st millennium. It was marked by the Christianization of the Germanic peoples and the formation of stable kingdoms replacing the mostly tribal structures of the Migration period. Some of this stability is discernible in the fact that the Pope recognized Theodoric's reign when the Germanic conqueror entered Rome in CE 500, despite that Theodoric was a known practitioner of Arianism, a faith which the First Council of Nicaea condemned in CE 325.^[28] Theodoric's Germanic subjects and administrators from the Roman Catholic Church cooperated in serving him, helping establish a codified system of laws and ordinances which facilitated the integration of the Gothic peoples into a burgeoning empire, solidifying their place as they appropriated a Roman identity of sorts.^[29] The foundations laid by the Empire enabled the successor Germanic kingdoms to maintain a familiar structure and their success can be seen as part of the lasting triumph of Rome.^[30] Anglo-Saxon and British kingdoms c. 800 In continental Europe, this Germanic evolution saw the rise of Francia in the Merovingian period under the rule of Clovis I who had deposed the last emperor of Gaul, eclipsing lesser kingdoms such as Alemannia.^[31] The Merovingians controlled most of Gaul under Clovis, who, through conversion to Christianity, allied himself with the Gallo-Romans. While the Merovingians were checked by the armies of the Ostrogoth Theodoric, they remained the most powerful kingdom in Western Europe and the intermixing of their people with the Romans through marriage rendered the Frankish people less a Germanic tribe and more a "European people" in a manner of speaking.^[32] Most of Gaul was under Merovingian control as was part of Italy and their overlordship extended into Germany where they reigned over the Thuringians, Alamans, and Bavarians.^[33] Evidence also exists that they may have even had suzerainty over south-east England.^[34] Frankish historian Gregory of Tours relates that Clovis converted to Christianity partly as a result of his wife's urging and even more so due to having won a desperate battle after calling out to Christ. According to Gregory, this conversion was sincere but it also proved politically expedient as Clovis used his new faith as a means to consolidate his political power by Christianizing his army.^[35]^[h] Against Germanic tradition, each of the four sons of Clovis attempted to secure power in different cities but their inability to prove themselves on the battlefield and intrigue against one another led the Visigoths back to electing their leadership.^[36]	///5th century. The western empire divided into kingdoms/// Further information: Decline of the Western Roman Empire and Barbarian kingdoms Germanic kingdoms and tribes after the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE Coin of Odoacer, Ravenna, 477, with Odoacer in profile, depicted with a "barbarian" moustache. Germanic kingdoms in 526 CE 2nd century to 6th century simplified migrations In the 420s, Flavius Aëtius was a general who successfully used Hunnish forces on several occasions, fighting Roman factions, and various barbarians including Goths and Franks. In 429 he was elevated to the rank of magister militum in the western empire, putting him in control of much of its policy. One of his first conflicts was with Boniface, a rebellious governor of the province of Africa in modern Tunisia and Libya. Both sides sought an alliance with the Vandals based in southern Spain who had acquired a fleet there. In this context, the Vandal and Alan kingdom of North Africa and the western Mediterranean would come into being.^[37] In 433 Aëtius was in exile and spent time in the Hunnish domain. In 434, the Vandals were granted the control of some parts of northwest Africa, but Aëtius defeated Boniface using Hunnish forces. In 436 Aëtius defeated the Burgundians on the Rhine with the help of Hunnish forces.^[38] In 439 the Vandals and their allies captured Carthage. The Romans made a new agreement recognizing the Visigothic kingdom. In 440, the Hunnish "empire" as it can now be called, under Attila and his brother Bleda began a series of attacks over the Danube into the eastern empire, and Danubian part of the western empire. They received enormous payments from the eastern empire and then focused their attentions to the west, where they were already familiar with the situation, and in friendly contact with the African Vandals. In 442 Aëtius seems to have granted the Alans who had remained in Gaul a kingdom, apparently including Orléans, possibly to counter local independent Roman groups (so called Bagaudae, who also competed for power in Iberia). In 443 Aëtius settled the Burgundians from the Rhine deeper in the empire, in Savoy in Gaul. In 451, the large mixed force of Attila crossed the Rhine but was defeated by Aetius with forces from the settled barbarians in Gaul - Visigoths, Franks, Burgundians and Alans. In 452 Attila attacked Italy, but had to retreat to the Middle Danube because of disease. In 453, Aëtius and Attila both died. In 454, the Hunnish alliance divided and fought the Battle of Nedao. The original names of the peoples in the alliance appear again. Several of them were allowed to become federates of the eastern empire in the Balkans, and others created kingdoms in the Middle Danube. In the subsequent decades, the Franks and Alamanni tended to remain in small kingdoms but these began to extend deeper into the empire. In northern Gaul, a Roman military "King of Franks" also seems to have existed, Childeric I, whose successor Clovis I established dominance of the smaller kingdoms of the Franks and Alamanni, who they defeated at the Battle of Zülpich in 496. According to Guy Halsall, a similar process to this may have occurred in Southern Britain, which was similarly isolated, though Romanized, and left to defend look after itself. The lowland fertile areas which would become England were also inhabited by a mixture of Romanized people and military forces, including many from northern Germany, who retained an ethnic distinctiveness typical within late Roman units. Unlike Northern Gaul it is often assumed that many small English kingdoms subsequently formed, and only gradually merged into larger units. However, as pointed out by Halsall, this "FA Cup Model", is only an hypothesis, and not evidence-based.^[39] In 476 Odoacer, a Roman soldier who came from the tribes of the Middle Danube in the aftermath of Nedao, became King of Italy, removing the last western emperors from power. He was replaced in 493 by Theoderic the Great, described as King of the Ostrogoths, one of the most powerful Middle Danube people of the old Hun alliance, and raised up and supported by the eastern emperors. His large Ostrogothic kingdom was ended only in 542 when the eastern emperor Justinian made a last great effort to reconquer the western mediterranean. The empire was unable to hold Italy for long, and in 568 the Lombard king Alboin, a Suebian people who had entered the Middle Danubian region from the north, entered Italy and created the Italian Kingdom of the Lombards there. These Lombards now included Suevi, Heruli, Gepids, Bavarians, Bulgars, Avars, Saxons, Goths, and Thuringians. As Peter Heather has written these "peoples" were no longer peoples in any traditional sense.^[40] Older accounts which describe a long period of massive movements of peoples and military invasions are over-simplified, and only describe specific incidents. According to Herwig Wolfram, the Germanic peoples did not and could not "conquer the more advanced Roman world" nor were they able to "restore it as a political and economic entity"; instead, he asserts that the empire's "universalism" was replaced by "tribal particularism" which gave way to "regional patriotism".^[21] The Germanic peoples who overran the Western Roman Empire probably numbered less than 100,000 people per tribe, including approximately 15,000-20,000 warriors. They constituted a tiny minority of the population in the lands over which they seized control.^[i] Apart from the common history many of them had in the Roman military, and on Roman frontiers, a new and longer-term unifying factor for the new kingdoms was that by 500, the start of the Middle Ages, most of the old Western empire had converted to the same Rome-based Catholic form of Christianity.
References ^ Ward-Perkins 2005, p. 134. ^ Davies 1998, p. 229. ^ Bury 2000, pp. 65–66. ^ Brown 2012, p. 294. ^ Brown 2012, pp. 294–295. ^ Collins 1999, pp. 53–54. ^ Davies 1998, p. 232. ^ Heather 2005, p. 154. ^ Waldman & Mason 2006, p. 61. ^ Roberts 1997, pp. 146–147. ^ Chrysos 2003, pp. 13–14. ^ Waldman & Mason 2006, p. 307. ^ Ward-Perkins 2005, p. 64. ^ O'Donnell 2008, p. 105. ^ Santosuo 2004, pp. 13–15. ^ O'Donnell 2008, pp. 105–107. ^ Waldman & Mason 2006, p. 308. ^ Ward-Perkins 2005, pp. 69–70. ^ Ward-Perkins 2005, p. 72. ^ Wolfram 1988, p. 332. ^ ^a ^b Wolfram 1997, p. 308. ^ Wolfram 1997, p. 7. ^ Ancient Rome: The Barbarian Invasions, Encyclopædia Britannica Online. ^ ^a ^b Spain: Visigothic Spain to c. 500, Encyclopædia Britannica Online. ^ Theodoric, Encyclopædia Britannica Online. ^ Cunliffe 2011, p. 442. ^ Cunliffe 2011, pp. 442–444. ^ Heather 2014, pp. 58–59. ^ Heather 2014, pp. 61–68. ^ Pohl 1997, p. 33. ^ Kitchen 1996, pp. 19–20. ^ Kitchen 1996, p. 20. ^ Bauer 2010, p. 172. ^ James 1995, pp. 66–67. ^ Bauer 2010, p. 173. ^ Bauer 2010, pp. 178–179. ^ Halsall 2007, p. 240. ^ Halsall 2007, p. 244. ^ Halsall 2013. ^ Heather (2009, p. 240), citing Paul the Deacon.

Obenritter I have been working on Theodoric and Clovis, Romanitas and Arianism, etc. I also reduced discussion of England given the consensus that actually it is hard to know what happened in detail. The relevant section is now called 5th and 6th centuries. The western empire divided into kingdoms. That title maybe need to be shortened, but I leave it there for discussion. Some ideas:

"5th and 6th centuries"
"5th and 6th century kingdom formation"
"From Roman emperors to Barbarian kings (420-568)"

While that drafting is certainly not finished, I will see what feedback it gets and next I will consider that gap from 568-800. (A gap which existed in all past versions I think.) I am thinking there was not enough to deserve a full section, so will try to fit smaller references into the Early Middle ages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Latest section title attempt: From Western empire to medieval kingdoms (420-568). And Charles Martel is now added. I have not added many sources, while I wait for feedback or edits by others, so everyone please feel free to point to anything most urgently needing a source. (I don't believe in automatically adding as many sources as possible. And here we are dealing with sections that summarize matters detailed in other articles.) BTW I personally would also be quite open to the idea of discussing re-shortening these history sections also if concerns are building. Undoubtedly it is healthy to have some back and forth about exactly what events were important to understanding Germanic peoples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you have a handle on this and understand my concerns. Not sure if I am helping or hurting the developmental process, so I will step away as real life takes precedence. --Obenritter (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

That puts a weight on me! :) I will keep trying. I hope others can give input too.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Early Germanic drafting

Hi Andrew Lancaster, I'm still working on my draft on the Origin of Albanians, but I'll soon propose a new section for the Proto-Germanic period (i.e., pre-Roman). As I said in another discussion page, I'm not fond of the denomination "Early Germanic" as it unclear which period it is referring to: either we use 'proto-Germanic' as linguists do, or 'pre-historic period' like historians and archeologists. To keep this section short, I won't be using the approach I traditionally introduce in articles I've been restructuring (separating linguistic, material, genetic and historical evidence). I will rather write a synthesis of what is attested about the pre-Roman period, and of what has been securely reconstructed based on a cross-examination of those different scientific fields. Azerty82 (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree about being careful of unclear terms like "early". I have doubts about "proto-Germanic" because it is not only linguistic, but also "abstract" in a sense. (Maybe I'm wrong.) Concerning duplication, arguably the article already has a duplication problem for the earliest evidence, but maybe a new section can help us reduce some other sections. Archaeology for example is currently discussed under the definition discussions (my fault!), in the language section and in the prehistoric section which already exists. (It could potentially also be discussed in the 4th-3rd centuries BCE section.) You should look at those sections I guess.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic wouldn't be indeed fully appropriate, as it describes the state of a language before its earliest direct attestation. "Prehistoric period" is, I think, the best denomination. This is the one currently used in the article. My idea was not to create a new section, but rather to rewrite the history>prehistory section. A more global restructuration could lead to a new section called 'culture', and featuring sub-sections the likes of 'languages', 'religion', etc. Again, the difficulty is separating the different periods of history from the 'common' Germanic culture up until the final disintegration during the Migration Period. By 'common', I'm not referring to a romanticized 'Urkultur', but to a period where beliefs and dialects were still very closed to each other. Stay tuned, Azerty82 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

All sounds reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Azerty82 I just realized we kind of lost the original question which is what do you think about this section? It is being proposed that we should remove it. Given that it is currently the linking section to Early Germanic culture, your thoughts on this seem relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes you can remove it. It's almost entirely based on old scholarship (Owen, 1960) an primary sources alone (Tacitus, Caesar). I'll use more recent commentaries of Roman writers for the section. Btw, could you all use the function 'edition' in 'cite book' instead of 'year' or 'date' for ancient writers? It is quite surprising to read things like "Caesar, Julius (2019)" ;-) Azerty82 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

That is indeed a good point about those templates which I have mentioned before also! I hope you do not mind keeping links to the Perseus project texts as well though on those primary sources, because I guess I am not the only person who like to have them. Concerning the section in question, is there any other section where we can put a section link to Early Germanic culture?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Obenritter about removing the sections "Roman descriptions of early Germanic people and culture" and the "Genetics" sections altogether, and for the same reasons. Srnec (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well just to be clear, I don't feel any strong attachment to either. I've given some reasons to be cautious above, and also suggested an option of keeping a short "culture" section somehow in order to maintain a link to Early Germanic culture. But these are all just my typical cautionary style of thinking through what can go wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

archaeology section(s) and pre-Caesar (pre) history sections

Latest comment: 4 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

Eventually we need to look again at the several archaeology sections we have. Perhaps they need to merged. I hope that my recent work on the introduction to the Definition section, making it more able to stand on its own, can help us imagine more options. These are:

"Archaeological evidence" [2] in the large Definitions section [3]. I think it can be moved out of the Definitions section.
The urheimat paragraph in the language section. [4]
The final paragraph in the Prehistory section [5]

Azerty82 maybe this fits well (or not well) with your ideas?

Idea=> One approach might be to start by splitting out an archaeology section from the language section, and merging the other two into that?
Idea=> These considerations also focus attention on the rest of the prehistory section which is arguably not prehistory at all. The rest is a quote from Caesar, but it needs to be explained together with modern archaeological evidence. So I would propose moving it all into a merged archaeology section. I would say that linguistics and archaeology are the real prehistory discussion, and our history section needs no separate prehistory section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Azerty, now I tried such a re-structuring. I think it helps address points raised by both you and Calthinus, and hopefully gives a better base for various possible ways of working further. There is now a prehistory section which can now be worked on more directly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is a welcomed improvement, thank you. I'm working on my draft for now; you can follow the progress here. Azerty82 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear. BTW thinking about the difference now between the Definitions and Debates sections now, I do not claim to have perfectly followed the ideas of either you or Calthinus, but done something I think is simpler. I will start watching your draft. I had checked in before and noticed that until now it is mainly just some short notes from an Indo-European handbook. The language of the Cimbri and Teutones is not a simple consensus anymore though and I think we are already mention it. The idea of including discussion about runic evidence is interesting, but a lot of it is also not necessarily as straightforward as a handbook might report? Another type of evidence we are not mentioning is river names and the like. There will be a question how much detail to give here of course, in contrast to other articles like Proto-Germanic, Germanic parent language and Negau helmet. (We currently have no urheimat article for Germanic I think.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my draft is only based upon one source for the moment. I try to use the dialectical method in my contributions, as I'm doing on my draft on the Origin of Albanians: I first redact a general introduction based upon handbooks (they're built to give general statements beyond scholarly debates), then I "adjust" every statement with the help of contradicting/nuancing sources in order to reach a "balanced" presentation at the end of my work. Azerty82 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, so apart from my remarks here so far (also in the section above) I don't see any point making details comments on that draft yet, but I look forward to seeing it evolve. If we have detailed remarks that are specifically about the draft, not bigger editorial decisions, then I suppose we can use the draft talk-page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that my draft, from now limited to the /languages/ section, consequently uses the term Germanic speakers. I am very careful with words, as linguistic evidence gives us information about a language and its speakers, not necessarily about a people. Azerty82 (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That does not seem to make any difference concerning anything in the draft yet? Again being devil's advocate, you have added a second Indo-European textbook source, but of course these sources will not create any dialectical dynamic, because they are apparently just deferring to older research from non-linguists. They do not seem to be reflecting any of the newer scientific skepticism which is now more than 40 years old, and not exactly cutting edge. The languages of the four named tribes has been seriously questioned for a very long time, for the simple reason that there is no significant linguistic evidence. (The Cimbri and Teutones, can be linguistically described as having names which CAN NOT BE Germanic though, but also this is an old conclusion.) First sound shift before 500 BCE is not a simple consensus as far as I know. Concerning personal names: Attila and his family, for example, had Gothic names, and Gothic clearly became a sort of standard language in that empire and in the Roman military. There is therefore long-standing skepticism about whether signs of Gothic culture such as Gothic personal names prove anything about what languages peoples spoke before Attila's empire. I also understand there is insufficient linguistic evidence to help us debate something as refined as whether there was a dialect continuum as early as 200 AD, etc. To have a proper discussion about the points raised in the draft so far might require a long technical article? I also suppose that linguistic speculations which have created no consensus due to lack of evidence are things we should be cautious about spending too much text on in this specific article. The real-world problem is still that linguistic textbooks are mainly deferring to other fields, because they have to. It is probably too early for me to be making too many comments, but at least these remarks help define the challenge. Of course we should search for any extra contribution linguistics can make. However, linguistic textbook repetitions of things not based on linguistic evidence, only based on what people from other disciplines said a long time ago, won't normally have much value for this article? Sorry for raising challenges like this, but I hope you will take it the right way!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere it is written in my draft that the Cimbri and Teutones spoke a Germanic language. They have a Germanic tribal name. The linguistic continuum until 200 AD is evidenced by runic inscriptions (I don't understand why you're dismissing that as "mere speculations"): e.g. Primitive Norse raunijaz (pronounced rauniiaz; Øvre Stabu spearhead; 2nd c. AD), Gothic ranja (pronounced raniia; Spearhead of Dahmsdorf-Müncheberg; 3rd c. AD); Primitive Norse harja (prunounced haria Vimose inscriptions; 2nc c. AD), Gothic harjis (hariis; Codex Argenteus); etc. My sources are recent and reliable anyway. If there is a consensus within a scientific field, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Azerty82 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a dialect continuum does not imply that Gothic speakers and Primitive Norse speakers were fully able to understand each others. A dialect continuum is... a dialect continuum. Azerty82 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

My final word: sorry Andrew Lancaster, but I will not go into endless discussions again: (1) based on your previous comments on the “Second Consonant Shift” and the “lack of evidence for a dialect continuum”, it is clear that your knowledge of historical linguistics is limited; (2) if I want to introduce recent and reliable sources in the article, especially consensual statements within a scientific field, there is nothing you can do against it as per Wikipedia rules. Azerty82 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@C: Your recommended draft and changes make perfect sense to me and has my support as a fellow Wikipedia editor, speaker of Germanic languages, and historian. Each and every change does not require this level of disputation. Collaboration is not about one person being the sole arbiter of content and I am glad you bring these points to the fore. Your expertise in this domain (linguistics, archaeology, and history) is recognized based on the contributions you've made over many years, and the professional-level translations you've provided; if there are any places where there is substantiated academic contestation to any of the points you make, I am sure you'd welcome their inclusion. Do not however, refrain from making them.--Obenritter (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite evidently, the idea of dismissing an entire scientific field of research by saying that "linguistic textbooks [repeat] things not based on linguistic evidence", as above written, never came to my mind. Prof.Dr. Goffart, like any other reliable source, will be included in my draft. I have no agenda. My only aim is, modestly, to reach the historical truth, not to confirm my preconceived ideas. Azerty82 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I second Obenritter. I read Azerty82's draft and I think it's excellent work and well-constructed. The suggestions made by both these editors here are sensible. Carlstak (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Misunderstandings. I appreciate all the concerns etc, but please note everyone that I was commenting on a drafting process, and so my comments have to be seen in the light of a specific version of a draft. I see my edits as supportive of both the drafting, and, obviously, the idea of trying to see what can be added to this article from linguistics. Clearly feedback on drafts is often wordy. Sorry. Perhaps I should have posted on the draft talk. I presented my remarks as being admittedly too early, but defining some challenges to keep in mind. It is simply a fact that linguistic evidence from the early period is fragmentary. But that challenge is not a simplistic questioning of linguistics, but also related to questions about this article: e.g. of avoiding duplications, and of what can fit in this article. I will just respond on two points as examples:

No one is arguing against the relevance of Runic evidence. But much of it has multiple possible interpretations, and might require long discussion. For example the draft emphasizes (or emphasized) an early dating of the Negau helmet.
The Cimbri and Teutones had non-Germanic recorded names. The names given in the draft are modern reconstructions based upon the assumption that the names which were recorded were wrong, because "everyone knows" they were Germanic. In other words these reconstructions are based on non linguistic evidence. Also, by the way, this is already discussed in the article (and added by me, so it is strange to see it being implied that I am somehow arguing against inclusion of such information).

I think as a bit of general advice it is worth looking more at what is already in the article. I know I keep harping on about duplication and structure, but I think we have to keep those things in mind on an article like this, during a period of heavy work like this. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Azerty82 I might as well address the remarks about 2 points were I apparently gave an impression of excessive ignorance. Surely I am ignorant, but also there might be misunderstandings about these points:

I think that evidence of a dialect continuum is a much more specific thing than just evidence of a language having developed marked dialects. From what I am reading, perhaps you mean only the latter when you refer to the implications of runic evidence. There would need a lot of runic evidence to be that specific? From what I have seen runic evidence is used for example to discuss early distinctions between North, East and West Germanic. I am guessing you did not understand I was focusing on the word "continuum", not dialects as such.
You recently reworked the Languages sections, and you apparently found no problem with the way Maurer's Istvaeonic (/Rhine Weser) is discussed there. I wrote that, and there is a source given. (It is surely not the only source which questions the evidence for this particular substrate.) In our previous discussion, we both saw it as a side issue (after all, this is not a specialist linguistics article) and so I think I mentioned at the time that I would not bother looking up sources etc.

If I am making mistakes above then please let me know more, on my talk page if necessary, not only for my interest, but also so that I can avoid making Wikipedia worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, my previous remark was a direct reply to the argument that modern linguists don't know what they're talking about. I'm happy to see that you didn't take it as a personal attack, but rather as a surprise to read such a statement as "linguistic textbooks [repeat] things not based on linguistic evidence".

As you noted here, the draft is still a work in progress and, as you saw it on the dedicated talk page, most of the remarks come from misunderstandings rather than concrete oppositions. I'm consequently adjusting the draft to make it clearer for the readers who don't have direct access to the sources I'm using.

You can also notice that most modern linguists are indeed as prudent and sceptical as modern historians: they are not taking contemporary testimonies as the "holy scriptures" on Germanic peoples and languages (cf: the subsection /Classification/).

Concerning your specific remarks, I prefer addressing them directly in the draft rather than making this talk page longer and more difficult to follow than it is already. Just notice that "Elbe Germanic" has always been written with quotation marks in the draft; I will again make the wording clearer to avoid such misunderstandings in the future. Azerty82 (talk)

Ah, that was a misunderstanding. My comment about linguists using results from other disciplines is specific to certain types of conclusions. See the example I noted of whether the names of the Cimbri and Teutones must have been mistaken. It is also a point about avoiding duplication or similar strangeness. I have absolutely no stronger/warmer feelings about historians versus linguists but I do notice that in many such "human sciences" in recent decades, there is a general increase in methodological scepticism, i.e. being more "scientific". This means narratives which were traditionally presented as if absolutely certain, let's say that the Scirii spoke a Germanic language, are now at least a bit doubted, and so we have to be careful about when we use "Wikipedia voice" or otherwise imply a field consensus.

I am now genuinely interested to know whether my two "ignorances" were misunderstandings or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Concerning your two points, I'm now thinking that you're probably not the only reader to raise doubts or questions. So I'm going to provide justifications directly in the draft. I just have to reopen my copies of the books involved, as it is not explained in details in handbooks. It will be done by this evening (European time) if I have enough time today. Stay tuned, Azerty82 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: If you don't want to wait until this evening:

1. For the dialect continuum: Elmar Seebold (1998). "Sprache und Schrift" In: Germanen, Germania, Germanische Altertumskunde. (p. 95f in my edition)

2. On the Elbe Germanic debate:

To be clear, because of the remote contacts induced by migrations, the generally accepted Germanic linguistic groupings are, chronologically: 1. East Germanic vs. Northwest Germanic 2. East Germ. vs. Anglo-Frisian vs. residual Northwest Ger. 3. East Germ. vs. Anglo-Frisian vs. North Germ. vs. Continental Germ. Internal divisions within the latter group are debated among linguists. Azerty82 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Volker Harm is cited in the article already on this point, and I am familiar with that article. Insgesamt ist das Fazit zu ziehen, dass die Untergliederung des Voralthochdeutschen in Elbgermanisch und Weser-Rhein-Germanisch wenig plausibel ist. That was more-or-less the same as what I said?
Thanks for the Seebold reference. I have looked at it passingly before. I see that he uses the term "Kontinuum" to refer to the "natural" condition which all the prehistoric languages he discusses always had, though the exact nature of the continuum was changing over time. So if you are following this author, basically your use of the word only means to imply that Germanic was a normal language? (And not anything based on specific linguistic evidence, saying something specific about that specific continuum?) I'd avoiding the word if that is all you mean, because readers (like me) might believe it is saying implying more? You could just say "dialects" to give the same understanding to readers that languages don't need to (and probably normally) stem from one single small homogeneous language. Do I understand correctly? BTW, concerning several key details, Seebold is basing some of his geographical proposals on archaeology, by equating material cultures to languages, rather than linguistic evidence as such.
This discussion reminds me of a work I have not been able to track down. I wonder if anyone else has access to Hermann Ament's, Der Rhein und die Ethnogenese der Germanen.
The Aesti, also mentioned in that part of the draft, are also discussed in the current article. My understanding is that Tacitus did not insist they were Suebian, just that they had similar customs and attire.

In any case, you don't want to say it, but I am optimistically thinking based on this information, that my ignorance is only moderate, and not "red alert". :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I only noticed afterwards that Harm was already in the article. I had removed the reference as you were already familiar with the chapter.

Yes, the theoretical basis of historical linguistics is the Uniformitarian principle:

Unless we can demonstrate significant changes in the conditions of language acquisition and use between some time in the unobservable past and the present, we must assume that the same types and distributions of structures, variation, changes, etc. existed at that time in the past as in the present.

cf: Donald Ringe > https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/110/pdf/ringe/uniformitarian-principle.html. Read also https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.888/ for a global overview.

Indeed, the dialect continuum is mainly based on the state of Germanic languages as attested after the 5/6 centuries CE and the Uniformitarian principle, both reinforced by early runic evidence from the 2/3rd centuries CE. Azerty82 (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: For the Aestii, I only closely followed the wording of the source, but of course this needs to be nuanced with another secondary source (Therefore, scholars hesitate to believe that the dialect of the Aestii, who belonged to the Gmc subgroup Suebi (...)). Tacitus wrote (from the Loeb translation): Accordingly we must now turn to the right-hand shore of the Suebic Sea: here it washes the tribes of the Aestii; their customs and appearance are Suebic, but their language is nearer British (...). Azerty82 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep. The Latin and a link to the Perseus text is in a footnote in the article. "Aestiorum gentes [...], quibus ritus habitusque Sueborum", lingua Britannicae propior". FWIW Pohl, Die Germanen, translates them as having "Aussehen und religion wie die Sueben".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Actually, in "Telling the Difference" he gives English "religion and appearance" (p.121, as cited in our article). He usefully states that Tacitus "did not reach a decision".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The part about Aestii is now better referenced. I'll add translations after comparing the different interpretations given by latinists and classical scholars. The section on early Germanic inscriptions has also been nuanced, as per Prof.Dr. Ludwig Rübekeil (a prudent linguist that you'll probably like). I'm going to further work on the draft this evening. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know of Rübekeil. I can not see that specific article online unfortunately. Currently on the article I had the Aesti has probably Baltic. Does he say they might be Finnish/Finnic? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Therefore, scholars hesitate to believe that the dialect of the Aestii, who belonged to the Gmc subgroup Suebi and whose name lives on in modern Estonian, was similar to the Brythonic language (lingua Britannicae proprior), as Tacitus claims. Rather, it is considered to be a Finnish or Baltic dialect.

Go to my profile and use the option to send me an email. I will give you a pdf version of the handbook. Azerty82 (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, and Merci.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[FOOTNOTEHeather201458–59-1] Heather 2014, pp. 58–59.

[FOOTNOTEHeather201461–68-2] Heather 2014, pp. 61–68.

[FOOTNOTEPohl199733-3] Pohl 1997, p. 33.

[FOOTNOTEKitchen199619–20-4] Kitchen 1996, pp. 19–20.

[FOOTNOTEKitchen199620-5] Kitchen 1996, p. 20.

[FOOTNOTEBauer2010172-6] Bauer 2010, p. 172.

[FOOTNOTEJames199566–67-7] James 1995, pp. 66–67.

[FOOTNOTEBauer2010173-8] Bauer 2010, p. 173.

[FOOTNOTEBauer2010178–179-10] Bauer 2010, pp. 178–179.

[FOOTNOTEKitchen199624–28-11] Kitchen 1996, pp. 24–28.

[FOOTNOTEBury2000239-12] Bury 2000, p. 239.

[FOOTNOTEJames199560-13] James 1995, p. 60.

[FOOTNOTEMorgan200161–65-14] Morgan 2001, pp. 61–65.

[FOOTNOTERoberts1996121–123-15] Roberts 1996, pp. 121–123.

[FOOTNOTEDerry201216–35-16] Derry 2012, pp. 16–35.

[FOOTNOTEWaldmanMason2006310–311-17] Waldman & Mason 2006, pp. 310–311.

[FOOTNOTESykes2006227–228,_264–266-18] Sykes 2006, pp. 227–228, 264–266.

[FOOTNOTEGeary1999110-19] Geary 1999, p. 110.

[FOOTNOTELiebeschuetz201597-20] Liebeschuetz 2015, p. 97.

[FOOTNOTEGeary2002123–128,_137–138-21] Geary 2002, pp. 123–128, 137–138.

[FOOTNOTEHeather2009371–372-22] Heather 2009, pp. 371–372.

[23] Derry (2012, pp. 16–35); Clements (2005, pp. 214–229); Waldman & Mason (2006, p. 310)

[FOOTNOTEVasiliev1936117–135-24] Vasiliev 1936, pp. 117–135.

[FOOTNOTEWard-Perkins2005134-25] Ward-Perkins 2005, p. 134.

[FOOTNOTEDavies1998229-27] Davies 1998, p. 229.

[FOOTNOTEBury200065–66-28] Bury 2000, pp. 65–66.

[FOOTNOTEBrown2012294-29] Brown 2012, p. 294.

[FOOTNOTEBrown2012294–295-30] Brown 2012, pp. 294–295.

[FOOTNOTECollins199953–54-31] Collins 1999, pp. 53–54.

[FOOTNOTEDavies1998232-32] Davies 1998, p. 232.

[FOOTNOTEHeather2005154-33] Heather 2005, p. 154.

[FOOTNOTEWaldmanMason200661-34] Waldman & Mason 2006, p. 61.

[FOOTNOTERoberts1997146–147-35] Roberts 1997, pp. 146–147.

[FOOTNOTEChrysos200313–14-36] Chrysos 2003, pp. 13–14.

[FOOTNOTEWaldmanMason2006307-37] Waldman & Mason 2006, p. 307.

[FOOTNOTEWard-Perkins200564-38] Ward-Perkins 2005, p. 64.

[FOOTNOTEO'Donnell2008105-39] O'Donnell 2008, p. 105.

[FOOTNOTESantosuo200413–15-40] Santosuo 2004, pp. 13–15.

[FOOTNOTEO'Donnell2008105–107-41] O'Donnell 2008, pp. 105–107.

[FOOTNOTEWaldmanMason2006308-42] Waldman & Mason 2006, p. 308.

[FOOTNOTEWard-Perkins200569–70-43] Ward-Perkins 2005, pp. 69–70.

[FOOTNOTEWard-Perkins200572-44] Ward-Perkins 2005, p. 72.

[FOOTNOTEWolfram1988332-45] Wolfram 1988, p. 332.

[FOOTNOTEWolfram1997308-46] Wolfram 1997, p. 308.

[FOOTNOTEWolfram19977-47] Wolfram 1997, p. 7.

[FOOTNOTEAncient_Rome:_The_Barbarian_Invasions,_''Encyclopædia_Britannica_Online''-49] Ancient Rome: The Barbarian Invasions, Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[FOOTNOTESpain:_Visigothic_Spain_to_c._500,_''Encyclopædia_Britannica_Online''-51] Spain: Visigothic Spain to c. 500, Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[FOOTNOTETheodoric,_''Encyclopædia_Britannica_Online''-53] Theodoric, Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[FOOTNOTECunliffe2011442-56] Cunliffe 2011, p. 442.

[FOOTNOTECunliffe2011442–444-57] Cunliffe 2011, pp. 442–444.

[FOOTNOTEHeather201458–59-58] Heather 2014, pp. 58–59.

[FOOTNOTEHeather201461–68-59] Heather 2014, pp. 61–68.

[FOOTNOTEPohl199733-60] Pohl 1997, p. 33.

[FOOTNOTEKitchen199619–20-61] Kitchen 1996, pp. 19–20.

[FOOTNOTEKitchen199620-62] Kitchen 1996, p. 20.

[FOOTNOTEBauer2010172-63] Bauer 2010, p. 172.

[FOOTNOTEJames199566–67-64] James 1995, pp. 66–67.

[FOOTNOTEBauer2010173-65] Bauer 2010, p. 173.

[FOOTNOTEBauer2010178–179-67] Bauer 2010, pp. 178–179.

[FOOTNOTEHalsall2007240-68] Halsall 2007, p. 240.

[FOOTNOTEHalsall2007244-69] Halsall 2007, p. 244.

[FOOTNOTEHalsall2013-70] Halsall 2013.

[71] Heather (2009, p. 240), citing Paul the Deacon.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[a]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[b]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[h]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[i]