Talk:Gothic War (376–382)

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

A fact from Gothic War (376–382) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 March 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during the Gothic War in the 4th century, the Goths killed a Roman Emperor, destroyed a Roman army and laid waste large tracts of the Roman Balkans?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/March.

Wikipedia

Link?

Could/Should there be a link to the term foederati? <K F> 17:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter "the tard" Heather estimates that the Thervings may have had only 10 warriors and 50 people in total 2A00:4802:3024:5700:523:FB78:8214:70C2 (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visigoth/Ostrogoth split

This article claims that the Goths split into Visi- and Ostro- Goths in 380, after first claiming that it was Visigoths that moved into the Empire in 376. Both surely can't be true. Note that the latter version is supported by our other articles about Goths. Zocky | picture popups 18:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Wikipedia (and most history books) are fairly confused on this issue. It's complex, there were dozens of tribes involved, Goths all over the place, it's not the simple split this article (currently) makes it out to be. --Stbalbach 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Both the start date and the end date are disputed. The events began with the Danube crossing in 376, whether the fighting started in fall 376 (Heather 1998, p. 133) or spring 377 (Wolfram, IIRC) but not fall 377. Dating from the Danube crossing would avoid this problem. Jacob Haller 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true - it gets confusing renaming the article to Gothic War (376/377-382) - maybe your right just use the Danube crossing 376. -- Stbalbach 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will soon move article to Gothic War (376-382) unless other editors object. Using the ordinary dash (on the keyboard) unless other editors object. Jacob Haller 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary dash is better, I don't know why someone moved it to the special dash. Maybe it's a rule or something but it adds a lot of confusion. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Adrianople

I've been revising the Battle of Adrianople article, and thought the more-or-less revised background section was more appropriate in this article than the other article. Any thoughts on copying parts of the Adrianople article to this article?

I'm not the only one working on this either. Srry if that came out wrong. Jacob Haller 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob, there is overlap, but there is some material here not there and vice versa. -- Stbalbach 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Searchable/Linkable

For some reason, searching for/linking to Gothic War (377-382) doesn't work. What's with that? Jacob Haller 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the type of dash used. I just made it a re-direct so it will work either way. -- Stbalbach 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tervingi, Greuthungi, Visigoths and Ostrogoths

Referring to the Tervingi as Visigoths and the Greuthungi as Ostrogoths in this context was confusing. The Visigoths effectively originated as the Goths (and others) who made peace with the Romans in 382 - they were probably predominantly Terving, but some were probably Greuthung and others neither - see, for instance, the Peter Heather reference. The Ostrogoths came together several decades later, from Goths (possibly but not certainly mainly Greuthungi) who been subjected by the Huns. PWilkinson 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claims in the lede

At present, it states that the war was the first barbarian invasion in a series of events over the next century that would see the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

But this was by no means the first "barbarian invasion," and it was primarily a revolt of refugees, not an "invasion" at all. Also, it was in the east, and it's controversial how much effect it had on the collapse of the western Roman Empire. 64.118.110.171 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede image

The best lede image for this article that I've found is the Ludovisi Battle sarcophagus, which very nicely depicts a battle between Romans and Goths. The problem is that it was sculpted around 260--one hundred years before the Gothic War of 376. As such, I'm not sure if it's the most appropriate image to have representing the war. I've added it for now, but I'm open to a discussion about it and, if necessary, its removal. Running From Zombies (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this image is appropriate, I think priority should be paid to period accuracy, given that there is potential confusion between the different Gothic conflicts, and given that the date of the sarcophagus (unlike many other ancient works) is fairly specifically established. Unfortunately the image is quite lovely, but 116 years is quite a leap. I don't know much about Wiki image policies and licensing, and the Battle of Adrianople article offers paltry options. I suggest, for now, an image from the Goths article — GothicSoldiersMissoriumOfTheodosius.jpg (right time period, carved shortly after the war). A map would be okay, too — generic but at least something — though the only period one I can find is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png#file — a bit broad for this. — Henry chianski (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 116 years is a large gap. But then the identification of the particular soldiers on the Missorium as Goths is inevitably speculative, the figures are accoutred as Romans - it's only the hairstyles, rather casually rendered, that identify them as barbarian. And the Ludovisi sarcophagus really is lovely, with far more and better detail. I'll go with consensus, but personally I'd keep the sarcophagus image. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for replacement images, and I've found what I consider two good candidates: the west side of the Obelisk of Theodosius and the Column of Theodosius. Both are time appropriate, both have some connection to the Gothic War of 376, but both have some issues.

The Obelisk (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CONST_Theodosius_obelisk_base_SW.jpg) dates to around 389-390 (Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire and Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius). It depicts the imperial family, Theodosius, Valentinian II, Arcadius, and Honorius (Mitchell), and below them supplicating Persians on the left and "northern barbarians" on the right (Lee, From Rome to Byzantium AD 363 to 565). The northern barbarians are identified as Goths by Prusac, From Face to Face: Recarving of Roman Portraits, Graindor, Byzantion: Revue Internationale Des Études Byzantines Volume 68, Issue 1, and Burns, Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome.

Problems with the Obelisk: The reliefs are worn away, and the Goths especially are little more than nubs. There's also some confusion about what the Obelisk commemorated. Errington, Mitchell, and Lee say it was raised to celebrate the victory over Magnus Maximus. Burns says it marks the conclusion of the Gothic Wars of that time, including the wars of 382 and 386. Cornell, The Roman World says it commemorates the treaties with the Persians and the Goths. Kershaw, A Brief History of the Roman Empire also mentions in passing that it, in part, depicts a treaty with the Persians. It appears to me that these reasons are not mutually exclusive and that, whatever the principal reason for its creation, the Obelisk commemorates all three (the victory over Magnus and the treaties with the Goths and Persians).

More pictures of the west face of the Obelisk: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:West_face_-_Submission_of_the_barbarians_(Obelisk_of_Theodosius)

The Column (https://images.curiator.com/images/t_x/art/tgbnurslyeopjnx2kddg/unknown-column-of-theodosius-i-380.jpg), on the other hand, was begun in 386 (Croke, Count Marcellinus and His Chronicle) and is accepted as having been erected to celebrate victory over the Goths (Errington, and Gehn, Last Statues of Antiquity).

The problem with the Column is that it evidently celebrates victory in the Gothic War of 386, not or not only the Gothic War of 376-382. Burke in his Byzantine Narrative says it was raised after the 386 war against the Greuthungi (their leader is named Odotheus in Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism in the Plastic Arts and Burns). Gehn says it was to celebrate Theodosius' achievements against the Goths in the Balkans and he references the wars of 382 and 386. Errington says it was to celebrate Theodosius' victory over the Goths, and he doesn't refer to any specific war. Lee says it was for the war in 386. McGill, From the Tetrarchs to the Theodosians says it was to celebrate the victory over the Goths in 386. McCormick, Eternal Victory says the 386 war against Odotheus "seems" to have been commemorated by the Column.

The other problem is that the Column is mostly destroyed and only exists in eighteen fragments (Burke). I've founds pictures of a few of the fragments, but not eighteen. Apparently Kiilerich has depictions of all or most of them, but I don't have access. Even so, some of these fragments are in good condition and have high detail. The faces on the one I linked aways back are clearly visible, and the Chi Rho on the shield is striking.

Links to more pictures of the Column's fragments:

http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/database/discussion.php?id=2832

http://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/theodosius-column

If the sarcophagus image must be replaced, I say go with the Column of Theodosius fragment with the Chi Rho. I like the perspective and how close the camera is to the one I linked to, but it's blurry and the color is an odd green. There must be a better version somewhere. Moreover, while the portions depicting the Goths are apparently gone, it is a celebration of victory over the Goths (although, again, entirely or mostly for the war in 386), is time appropriate, and I find this particular fragment expressive and rather haunting, although there may be better pictures of different fragments that I haven't found yet. That it depicts the war against Odotheus is no large problem. It's still the same time period, with the same Roman soldiers who would have fought in both wars, the barbarians are a different branch of the same group that fought in 382 (Greuthungi), and the Roman need to triumph in this victory is undoubtedly connected to the hard war in 376-382, as Burns notes. It also appears that some of the Goths enrolled in Roman service from 382 played a part in defeating Odothesus in 386; Zosimus says that the Romans used soldiers familiar with Gothic to trap Odotheus, and Wolfram, History of the Goths believes these were Visigothic federates from 382. The Obelisk picture could go somewhere else in the article, perhaps next to Themistius' orations. It seems appropriate since he's trying to portray the Goths as in submission.

Of course that fragment of the Column of Theodosius doesn't appear in the Wikimedia database and I don't know the relevant policies. The only picture of the Column I see in the database is this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Forum_Theodosius_Istanbul_March_2008_%2818%29_detail.JPG) which is obviously too small and hard to see. The Obelisk picture has the benefit of already being in the database. Running From Zombies (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, hats off to you for the research. Thanks. I agree that both the column and the obelisk should be included in this article. I am ignorant of copyright policies. The obelisk, to me, is better than the sarcophagus for now since it is at least period appropriate... and maybe a better column image can be added to Wikimedia, at which point it could supplant the obelisk as the top image? — Henry chianski (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the presence of viable alternatives, I can no longer justify using the current image. I've gone ahead and changed it out for the west face of the Obelisk. I chose this specific version because the lighting seems best (some are too bright, washing out the faces) and cleanest (no black or green grime). It's unfortunate so much of the surrounding area can be seen around the edges of the Obelisk, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. Running From Zombies (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CE

Did a ce of the citations, no point in repeating bibliographical data in each sfn, tidied a few typos etc. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored "Pyrrhic" to "Roman Pyrrhic Victory" for two reasons. One, to call the conclusion of the Gothic War an unqualified victory for the Romans is to totally mislead the reader. The peace is reported by most reliable sources as an important step to the Roman Empire's unraveling, owing to the Romans' many devastating defeats and the critical failure to completely subjugate the Goths. This needs to be made as clear as possible in the info box. Two, your link to Template:Infobox military conflict uses the Battle of Lützen as its top example. The "Result" section in that article's infobox uses "Pyrrhic victory". It is a permitted term.

I also found 4 citations that became invisible by your edits. I think I got them all, but you or someone else may need to double check. The rest of your edits have largely improved the article. Running From Zombies (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]