Talk:Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pope Leo and Charlemagne

In late 476 C.E, Pope Leo crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans, and the slow crawl to an organized civilization began again.

That is impossible - Pope Leo died in 461 AD, how could he crown an emperor when he was dead for years??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.202.138 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On Barbarian

The term barbarian is not a "slur" in the context of historical research. Indeed calling them "germanic peoples" is, according to the most recent research, a continuation of nationalistic and racist 19th German historiography. The term "barbarian" is a neutral and accurate term used widely by modern historians, there is really no other term that is appropriate in this context. -- Stbalbach 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy would dictate that you go back and change what you disagree with and not wholesale revert the entire edit. Nationalistic and racist? ..er, what? Please do tell. Please see Germanic peoples and Germania. While you're at it, you may want to look at Barbarian. Also, please cite this supposed "recent research" as I would love to see it. :bloodofox: 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that you are one revert away from violating the Three-Revert Rule. :bloodofox: 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning (I do keep track of these things), I'm actually 2 reverts away, it's on the 4th revert that you can call it in, not the third, you get up to 3 reverts in 24hrs. -- Stbalbach 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Austrian historian Walter Pohl is probably the leader in the field when it comes to ethnic research on barbarians, and I can point to countless top-tier recent works that call them barbarians (such as Pohls own Kingdoms of the Empire: The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity (1997)). The "Germanic tribes" thing is endemic in Wikipedia and "popular history" I can't fix every article, a testament to the continued success of 19th C German romantic nationalistic scholarship. I recommend reading the articles on Historiography and nationalism as well as ethnogensis for some more modern views on ethnicity and ancient peoples. -- Stbalbach 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite your personal opinion regarding the racial classifications of these ancient peoples, they are undeniably linguistically Germanic.. Not to mention the mountains of evidence - archaeological, etymological and literary - that display a direct cultural relation between the tribes. These tribes were defined as "Germanic" long before the 19th century.. Please see Tacticus' - Germania for a common example. These tribes were recognized as Germanic by the Romans themselves - this is no mystery. :bloodofox: 17:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

These are not my personal opinions, bloodofox, I just gave you Walter Pohl and a number of links and works, and can provide more if you want (Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age And the Later Roman Empire is a good recent work) - might I suggest you are not familiar with the scholarship on the ethnicity of barbarians in late antiquity? The term barbarian is commonly used and accepted and has been for a long time. Sure, some of the Barbarian tribes were Germanic (although what this means is debated and slippery, see the talk page for Goths for example), and one can interchangeably use Barbarian and German, just as the Romans did, but not all of the groups who invaded the Roman Empire were Germanic. Also much of the traditional archaeological, etymological and literary evidence suggesting a single Germanic people is ambiguous and rife with romantic nationalism and certainly not a determined fact. These are not just my opinions or even fringe. -- Stbalbach 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, I usually respect your edits, but "German barbarians" is a term that is extremely questionable, on the verge of distateful. In modern usage "German" refers to ethnic Germans, an ethnos that did not exist at the time. Moreover, it appears obvious to me that the expression "German barbarians" may offend modern Germans. Are you trolling?--Berig 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is "Germanic tribe" versus "Barbarian", not "German barbarian". -- Stbalbach 15:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

barbarian Look up barbarian at Dictionary.com

The term "barbarian" was Imperial Roman POV and is inappropriate in a neutral encyclopaedic context. I contest the usage of this terminology.

Barbarian: 1338, from M.L. barbarinus, from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Barbaric is first recorded 1490, from O.Fr. barbarique, from L. barbaricus "foreign, strange, outlandish." Barbarous is first attested 1526.[1]

- WeniWidiWiki 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The term barbarian is neutral terminology used by just about every professional historian writing about this period. Sample evidence:

• Dictionary of the Middle Ages, edited by Joseph Strayer, article entitled "Barbarians, Invasions of". volume 2, pp88-97. This is the largest encyclopedia of the Middle Ages in the English language.
• Malcom Todd, Everyday Life of the Barbarians, 1972.
• Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age And the Later Roman Empire (2006) by Walter Goffart
• Kingdoms of the Empire: The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity (1997), by Walter Pohl.

This is a small sample, I picked these authors as they are considered leaders in the field (click on the authors articles to read more about them). In fact I would be hard pressed to find a serious history book on this topic that didn't use the term barbarian. I'm really amazed at how many people on this talk page are un-exposed to the standard scholarship on this topic. Wikipedia is not the place to change how you think the world should be based on Dictionary.com -- Stbalbach 17:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't presume to think that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and unread. The books you cited prove my point: they are biased toward classical studies, and all it entails including a bias toward Latin and Imperial Rome (and the resultant later Western Christianity) as the "bringer of civilization to the unwashed masses and barbarians". I stand by my contention. I am not objecting to the mere usage of the term "barbarians" when writing from the Roman's POV - but it is not a neutral descriptor, and this entry is not written from the Imperial Roman's attitudes, biases and POV. - WeniWidiWiki 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand where your coming from, that had some truth a while back before professional medieval historians came about in the early 20th C. If professional medieval historians today have any bias at all (which they generally don't), it would be pro-Barbarian since they study the Middle Ages, which is the history of the barbarian kingdoms. The term barbarian is appropriate when discussing this period because that is what they were called historically. In addition calling them all Germans is, in the past 20 years or so, become a matter of debate on the origins of the Goths (and others), and what their ethnicity really was or was not. Ethnicity questions are very controversial and are a big problem not only here, but in origins of the Huns, Egyptians and just about every ancient people. Medieval historians have stuck with Barbarian - 1) because that is what they were historically called and 2) it is a more neutral descriptor than "German" which implies an ethnic component which is controversial. This business about biases towards Rome is really not a factor with professional medieval historians. -- Stbalbach 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias is inherent in research. The problem here is that Bloodofox and WeniWidiWiki oppose the term "barbarian" because it has negative connotations. There is nothing controversial in using the names "steppe nomads" and "Germanic tribes" instead. "Germanic tribes" has little to do with German national romanticism, but is the name commonly given to the tribes that spoke Germanic languages during this time. The only other term I know of is "Teutonic" but it is obsolete AFAIK.--Berig 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Even calling them "tribes", as in blood tie, is controversial today. After WWII scholars distanced themselves from this pre-war nationalistic tradition and looked at it from an "imagined communities" perspective, where there were no "tribes" or blood lines, but rather an ethnogenesis approach (see Ethnogenesis#Barbarian_ethnogenesis). The "negative connotations" of the word barbarian is a non-issue among professional medieval historians. -- Stbalbach 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, "Barbarian" within quotation marks could make everyone happy. The way I understand the contemporary ethnogesis approach "tribes" were constructed centered around powerful clans and dynasties, who had followers of sundry origins, and who in time identified with the origins of their rulers. Still, there is no need to consider "Germanic tribes" as obsolete because of this, as only our way of understanding the nature of the ancient Germanic peoples have been changed.--Berig 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I've never read a history book that calls them "outside forces" or uses quotes around barbarian throughout. This whole thing is very strange. We had barbarian in the article for years and had had plenty of editors look at it and also use the term, and suddenly one person has a problem with it based on a notion of bias towards classicism -- which is entirely unsupportable because that is not why medieval historians use the term barbarian. We are talking about people like Walter Pohl, probably the worlds leading expert on ethnicity of barbarians in late antiquity, her serves on pan-European councils and is part of the EU governmental body. The term barbarian is widely accepted and used and I have posted plenty of top-tier verifiable sources to back it up, I see no reason not to use it where appropriate. -- Stbalbach 15:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbarian was a slur in ancient usage, and it is a grotesque characterization in modern usage as well. Its only value is to distinguish the (supposedly superior) Greco-Roman civilization from everyone else. For instance, the author Richard Fletcher, in his The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity, when he describes barbarian Europe, puts the term "barbarian" is quotes, to show that it was a Roman description and that the other Europeans were simply so-called. This is why serious modern authors use the term -- they are relating the story from a Roman perspective, so use Roman terminology, even if it is demeaning. Once the wounds of racism heal, I would not be surprised to see a historian in, say, the 24th century write that "a Southern plantation-owner would not allow his niggers to go into town alone" -- because that is the term that the plantation owner would use, not because it is at all a correct or useful descriptive term.

For more on how the term was meant by the Romans, see Gary Byron's Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature in which he writes (on page 2):

Ethnic-othering was a common literary tool used to stereotype and slander those perceived as threats (eg, religious, military, economic, etc.) within the ancient world. It was a prevalent and persuasive discursive practice within Greco-Roman writings because of the existance of so-called barbarians. The Greek term barbaros was used by the Greeks to designate one who speaks a strange language. The apostle Paul uses barbaros in this way: "if then I do not know the meaning of a sound, I will be a foreigner (Barbaros) and the speaker a foreigner (Barbaros) to me" (1 Cor 14:11). The term later developed into a geographical and ethnographical reference for a foreign or strange race (ie, anyone who was not Greek). After the rule of Augustus, Romans assigned the name barbarus to all tribes that had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. Most of the studies about barbarians emphasize a traditional view of antiquity, which assumes the dominance of Greeks and Romans within the empire. This in turn leads to constructing within Greco-Roman literature other peoples and cultures as "barbarians" when they present any type of threat to the empire. Greek and Roman authors used so-called barbarians as ethnographic tropes, which led to stereotypical depictions of many different ethnic groups throughout various strands of Greco-Roman literature.

I have a lot of respect for your many contributions to Medieval topics on Wikipedia, but on this one, it's probably best to part with the term barbarian, even if it was on the wiki page for years before. That's why we are all here -- to make wikipedia a more useful and descriptive tool. Larry Dunn 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks Larry. I don't mean to be disagreeable for no reason, in my experience, just about every serious scholarly source written today uses Barbarian (not exclusively within a work). We report on what scholars do. I happen to think there are sound and good reasons why historians use Barbarian that have nothing to do with its pejorative origins. The alternative "Germanic" is also problematic since the end of WWII for some complex reasons mentioned above, and in addition, "Germanic" is not entirely encompassing of all the peoples the Romans themselves referred to as Barbarian. So both terms have POV problems - but that is not really our place here at Wikipedia, we simply report on what scholars do and say. -- Stbalbach 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Larry I thought you might be interested in this [2]. Not sure what it means in terms of the current conversation, but seems interesting on the origins of the term German and its usage then and now. -- Stbalbach 05:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That book is not fit as a basis for terminology as the authors intention is to "reform" and change people's notions. It is a highly ideological book, or in WP terms: POV.--Berig 09:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a corollary: in the United states, up until fairly recent times, it was quite normal - even in academia and science - to refer to non-anglo cultures and racial groups as simply "non-white" rather than whatever their respective self-identifier was. Arguments were made based on ad antiquitatem, ad populum, argumentum ad verecundiam, etc. I can cite dozens of books on the shelf which affirm this practice. The validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility (and biases) of a source. Referring to any outside group based on the blanket biases and opinions of another group which is perceived as morally and culturally superior is inherently POV. This archaic usage can be seen in instances in referring to all non-jews (or non-christians) as gentiles, or more relevant in this instance, the archaic practice of referring to native-americans simply with the historical usage of savages. Referring to all non-Romans as barbarians is inherently POV. This is not original research. [3]- WeniWidiWiki 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear WeniWidiWiki. Are you sure that "Barbarian" is so offensive in the popular mind? Last time a French friend of mine called me "Barbarian" because of my ethnic origins, I felt flattered. This is more what "Barbarian" brings to my mind ;-).--Berig 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel the term is offensive in the popular mind - I feel that the term is not neutral and is unencyclopaedic. Your image just reiterates the enlightenment era Graeco-Roman stereotype of barbaroi as violent but Noble savages who are intrinsically crude and barbaric without the divine hand of Imperial Rome (and later Western Christianity) to dictate their behaviour. (Except it looks like they already got to that one because he's apparently been castrated judging by the lack of a beard and hair on his body :D ) I think the usage of Germanic tribes, Goths, Huns, Gauls, Celts, etc. without referring to them with the lazy & POV lowest common denominator term is technically more accurate. The other question is which barbarians? Any usage of the term barbarian which is not a direct Roman quote begs this question because it is inherently lacking in detail and NPOV. - WeniWidiWiki 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the term is not neutral and is unencyclopaedic

Those are interesting feelings that make for great conversation over a beer, but they are not supportable. The Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the largest and most respected encyclopedia of the Middle Ages in the English language, uses Barbarian throughout (not exclusively, also "German tribes", depends on the context). In fact I am unaware of any scholarly work about this period that doesn't use the term Barbarian. We are supposed to report on what scholars do, not what we think it should be.

The other question is "which barbarians"?

See Barbarian Tides (2006), by Walter Goffart, Page 3 for a sample list.

-- Stbalbach 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That book is not fit as a basis for terminology as the author's intention is to "reform" and change people's notions. It is a highly ideological book, or in WP terms: POV. You can even see on the title page that the author intends to stir emotions and make himself talked of, when he depicts the barbarians as nude and skin clad who attack a classic statue - the symbol of classic culture.--Berig 09:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's simply a recent example. I have a library shelf full more. Would you like me to list them? Show me any serious work of scholarship about the migration period that doesn't use the term Barbarian. I've asked this before and no one has responded. Also if this debate actually exists in the real world, you should be able to provide a source which discusses it. I have never seen this debate anywhere except on this talk page. -- Stbalbach 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to come in for a moment. "POVassertion" tags have been placed on the sections on Vegetius, Gibbon and Richta. These sections are about theories of individual historians. If they used the word "Barbarian" in their works, that word should be left in quotation marks, and then disambiguated to a specific tribe if necessary. If they did not use this, it should be replaced with the term they did use. I do agree, however, that for Richta, "barbarian horsemen" far too generic; they weren't all horsemen, so we should be clearer on that point. --Grimhelm 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be POV if there was an opposing POV (ie. that barbarian should not be used). This opposing POV does not exist. If it did, you should have no trouble providing a source discussing that barbarian should not be used by historians. I have also updated the barbarian article, I suggest we move the discussion there, as that is what this is about. Based on the current barbarian article, the term is not POV, but the neutral historical descriptor used by historians. -- Stbalbach 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is where we produce neutral articles, not continue the work of others or perpetuate stereotypes. This includes terminology. Slurs can exist for quite a long time before people take issue with them - this is an example.

The origins of the term are pretty blatant, a simple slur. The Roman POV stands despite how much neutrality is intended in the usage of the term. Modern Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionist groups, for example, shun the word as it is anciently slanted towards Roman POV. Pull references all day from various works using the term - the history of the term exists despite this usage and it is not appropriate unless directly quoted with source supplied per Wikipedia policy.

With this in mind, an article entirely composed of quotes here would be more than a little ridiculous. The fact that this ancient, blatant bias survived into words like "Barbaric" should be far more than enough to keep it out of this article and, under these conditions, anywhere else on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionist groups, for example, shun the word as it is anciently slanted towards Roman POV.

I hope your kidding. Modern Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionist groups? Is that what is going on here? According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

• The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
• Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.

All of the sources I have, and can, provide fit this criteria. No one here has provided a single source to support the idea that barbarian, as used by modern medieval scholars and in this article, is POV. If this is the case then there must peer reviewed scholarly sources that discuss this. -- Stbalbach 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbarian as defined by Oxford English Dictionary (2006, online):

Noun

• 1. etymologically, A foreigner, one whose language and customs differ from the speaker's.
• 2. Hist. a. One not a Greek. b. One living outside the pale of the Roman empire and its civilization, applied especially to the northern nations that overthrew them. c. One outside the pale of Christian civilization. d. With the Italians of the Renascence: One of a nation outside of Italy.
• 3. A rude, wild, uncivilized person.
  • b. Sometimes distinguished from savage (perh. with a glance at 2).
  • c. Applied by the Chinese contemptuously to foreigners.
• 4. An uncultured person, or one who has no sympathy with literary culture.
• 5. A native of Barbary.
  • b. A Barbary horse.

Adjective

• 1. Applied by nations, generally depreciatively, to foreigners; thus at various times and with various speakers or writers: non-Hellenic, non-Roman (most usual), non-Christian.
• 2. Uncivilized, rude, savage, barbarous.
• 3. Of or belonging to Barbary

Historians use the term in its historical sense, #2. Just as historians use many terms from history that were considered pejorative then, but neutral now. Other examples include Renaissance and Middle Ages and Dark Ages. Dark Ages is an example where the term has fallen out of favor among most historians. I challenge anyone to show me evidence that barbarian has fallen out of favor with historians. If anyone here is serious about stamping out POV terms from the past, then you better start working on Renaissance and Middle Ages as well. -- Stbalbach 13:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As you illustrate here, every single one of those applicable definitions are inappropriate and blatantly violate WP:NPOV. Even if we did live in Imperial Rome it would still violate WP:NPOV. Keep it out of the articles unless it's a quote please. :bloodofox: 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm definition #2 seems pretty neutral. But it is irrelevant - Verifiability, not truth. We report on what scholars do, and medieval scholars use "Barbarian" (in proper context) without exception. The contention that scholars are biased is interesting, but unsupportable, and frankly irrelevant. You are not going to change the way the world uses "barbarian" via Wikipedia. The reliable and verifiable sources all show that scholars use barbarian. The mistake yourself and others are making is confusing the popular usage of the term with the scholarly usage. Also just because the term has pejorative use in Rome (actually its of Greek origin and not pejorative) has nothing to do with modern scholars usage of it. This is a scholarly article based on Verifiable scholarly sources. -- Stbalbach 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There is no reason to nag tag POV the entire article based on 3 words. The words are flagged, we are discussing it, that is enough. The article has no substantial bias requiring the entire article to be POV nag tagged. This article conforms with the definition given at barbarian, so if you flag this article POV, you will need to flag every Wikipedia article that uses barbarian as well - might I suggest a more mature and responsible approach is work out the differences at barbarian instead of turning this into an all out POV-fest across 100s of articles? Clearly, someone(s) have an agenda to remove "barbarian" from Wikipedia, this article was just one stop on the crusade. -- Stbalbach 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice strawman. I feel you have ownership issues with this article and cannot separate yourself from the usage of the term and the relevance in this instance. We are discussing the semantic usage of barbarian in this article in these specific instances, not all across wikipedia. Several arguments have been made on why this is inappropriate and improper, and you refuse to acknowledge any of them, instead falling back on the fallacious Appeal to tradition rather than discussing the issue at hand here in this article. Semantic, because there are NPOV terms which are available for usage, but you refuse to *let* other editors use them. I have no problem with the usage of the term barbarian when quoting Roman writers. However, the term is inadequate, inherently vague and outright POV otherwise. - WeniWidiWiki 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How about lets drop personal attacks and provide some reliable scholarly sources to support the position. I've asked 4 times for reliable scholarly sources. Every single peer reviewed scholarly source that discusses this topic uses the term barbarian. I've posted numerous examples from top-tier scholars. We report on what scholars do and say. These are not isolated cases, it is the vast majority and standard practice. It is called using WP:Verifiable sources. If there really is a debate about this issue you should be able to provide a source that discusses this debate. -- Stbalbach 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Barbarian" works in specific contexts to describe how Romans or Chinese experienced and considered their northern neighbours. If you feel that the term "Barbarian" is so extremely important for verifiability you can add "Barbarians" in parentheses, or qualify why you use it in the particular context. This article is not a page from the "scholarly works" you refer to but a Wikipedia article which needs to take in consideration other things but the terminological preferences of some authors in particular works. In my experience "academic authorities" are quite sloppy and inconsistent when they use terminology since they have their dissertations far back behind them and do not need to worry anymore about what their supervisors thought of consistent terminology.--Berig 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I still ask - what are your sources? If this is true that Medieval scholars are "sloppy", then it should be no problem to find a scholar who is "not sloppy" because such a scholar would certainly be a shining beacon. Is Walter Pohl "sloppy"? Is Joseph R. Strayer "sloppy"? They might very well disagree with your assessment, considering they are professors at leading universities and do in fact have a professional reputations and publish in peer reviewed journals. These are not isolated cases, in the world of medieval scholarship everyone uses the term barbarian, within proper context, including in peer reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with sloppiness and everything to do with the standards and norms of the profession. This article in particular is a reflection of medieval scholarship, its practices, conventions and terminology per the Wikipedia rules on Reliable Sources: "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community". This article should not use a "popular culture" definition of barbarian, nor any original theories about Roman Bias (which frankly is nothing but political correctness by certain groups concerned about German heritage who are not connected with the scholarly community). The definition of barbarian that this article uses is described in the barbarian article under the "Modern academia" section - the term has multiple meanings and uses and within the context of this article is is clear what is meant. -- Stbalbach 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with the term "Barbarian", although everyone else here disagrees with you. I only said that in my experience university professors are sloppy with their terminology. I did not target your favourite ones in particular. Stbalbach, words and expressions are and should be generably interchangeable with their synonyms if a particular word does not fit in a given situation. If several editors oppose a given term and give reasons for it, it should be respected. The point of the prose in this article is not to sound like Pohl and Strayer, but to convey information to the general reader.--Berig 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "obsessed" with anything, just passionate and knowledgeable about medieval history and the many popular mis-conceptions about it (I wrote most of Dark Ages, Middle Ages in history and Children's Crusade for example). This is how Wikipedia works and operates. We use reliable sources from scholarly sources on the subject matter at hand - sometimes debunking cherished beliefs. It does not surprise me that many people are not familiar with the scholarship on this topic, but that doesn't mean the article should compromise and not use the standard correct terminology just because of misplaced political correctness concerns or "popular culture" meanings. -- Stbalbach 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on a subject which I'm not much a party to, but I see certain policies bandied about here without cerain knowledge of their meanings. The word NPOV comes up. Now, according to the first paragraph of that policy page, NPOV means "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." Stbalbach seems to be on the side of NPOV when he uses the term barbarian, which seems to be used in all reliable sources discussing the topic. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present all reliable opinions on a topic, not the opinions of "several editors" who "oppose a given term". The term "Germanic tribes" is undoubtedly far more risky, in POV terms, than the term barbarian, given that the broad brush that all barbarian tribes were tarred in under its name has been used frequently in the 19th and 20th centuries to support German expansion across all territory contained within the Jastorf culture. Barbarian, on the other hand, whatever pejorative meanings it might have in the hands of Herodotus or later Roman historians, has not been used in any like racist expansionistic fervour. More precise terms, whether Ostrogoth or Suebii or Aedui or Frank or whatever, should certainly be used whenever possible, but the incorrect, scholastically unsourceable, POV term "Germanic tribes" should be avoided. To quote again,

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.

If we could provide some nicely sourced commentary in a footnote discussing the term "barbarian" the first time the term crops up, a brief introductory weightier than a wikilink and less disruptive than an out-and-out purging of all use of "barbarian" from the article, I think it would be best for everyone.

Cheers, good work, and good luck. Geuiwogbil 15:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Geuiwogbil, in order for your post to make sense to me, you will have to explain how Germans and Wielbark culture relate to each other. The Wielbark culture is associated with the Goths who were *not* Germans. They were an East Germanic tribe.--Berig 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant Jastorf culture. (I corrected that in my post, so as to make it sensible.)Geuiwogbil 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: to support German expansion across all territory contained within the Jastorf culture. I have to say that if the Germans had been satisfied with the small area covered by the Jastorf culture Germany would have been a very very small country today (covering basically what is today Northern Germany and the Benelux). Since both my first and second languages are Germanic languages, I am a bit uneasy and curious about your claim that things Germanic are so "tainted" that "Barbarian" is a more neutral term than "Germanic tribes".--Berig 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears I am confused twice over! Many apologies for wasting your time again Berig. What I, in the end, meant is a great confusion all by itself, as archaeological remains from a great variety of locales were subsumed into the great Germania.

"Such was the quasi-religious fervour surrounding the concept of the nation that politicians were ready to use identifications of the ancient spread of 'peoples' as evidence for claims about the present. At Versailles in 1919, Kossina and one of his Polish disciples, Vladimir Kostrewszki, made rival cases for the positioning of the new German-Polish border on the basis of different identifications of the same set of ancient remains. Things got nastier still in the Nazi period, when high-flown claims about ancient Germania became a basis-cum-justification for terretorial demands in Poland and the Ukraine, and an associated sense of Germanic racial superiority led directly to the atrocious treatment of Slavic prisoners-of-war."

— Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire pp. 52-53

But let's then forget I said anything about such things, as they seem counterproductive, and I'll probably trip into another academic minefield all over again by making that quote, since you seem to be far better informed in these affairs then I. I will wear a little cap of shame if it would make you happier, and if it would earn me back some points. But, this is not the place to showcase such things, so I shall return now to my original intention, improving the atrticle. As such, I think it would be best to turn to specific instances in the text proper. The second instance of the term should probably be thrown out, in addition to its complementary two paragraphs. This criticism of Richta is OR if uncited. If cited, it could be kept, with the offending terminology kept in quotes from the speaker. As is, it should go.

This theory however ignores one of the Romans' great strengths — adapting to their enemies' technology and tactics. (For instance, Rome had no navy when Carthage arose as a rival power based on its superb navy; in a few generations the Romans went from no navy, to a poor navy, to a navy sufficient to defeat the Carthaginians.) It also ignores the tactics the Romans adapted to cope with superior weaponry, as when Hannibal's elephants were negated by shifting the infantry formations to avoid their charge. Finally, the theory also ignores the fact that barbarian horsemen(Neutrality disputed — See talk page) served in enormous numbers as foederati in the Roman military as well as the fact that the majority of peoples that the Romans fought in the 3rd through 6th centuries fought as infantrymen.

The first use of the term, under Gibbon, should probably be put into a direct quotation, if such a thing is possible. If not, we could use the term foederati, since it seems to be a more apt term. Bury's use of the term is nicely quarantined within a quotation, so nothing further might need be said about that. (As an aside, Bury's quotation seems overlarge and could be appropriately rendered into new prose interspersed with smaller quotations.) The last use of the term is already in quotation marks, which would seem to indicate that everyone's already happy with it. As an aside, you've mentioned quite explicitly, Goths are *not* Germans, and yet they did form an important part of the foederati. Many instances in the article, however, make that direct equation. How might this be corrected, in your opinion. If possible, we might use the term "foreign", which would seem to avoid most issues. In closing, I'm sorry to have made you curious and ill-at-ease, Berig, or anyone else who might have taken away from what I typed something false or angering. It's my first intention to make things best for the article, and most compliant with Wikipedia policy. If my misreading of certain policies, lapses in memory, and poverty in character may have prevented me from doing such as much as clearly as I'd have liked, I apologize.

PS - What are your first and second languages, Berig? Geuiwogbil 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A North Germanic language and English.--Berig 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the Goths are not Germans. They are Germanic; specifically an Eastern Germanic tribe. There is a big difference between the two and a lot of confusion seemingly going on around here over these two terms - please take a closer look at them, they do not mean the same thing. :bloodofox: 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this discussion would be vastly improved if the terms "Germanic" and "German" are kept apart, as should. It is a shame that "Teutonic" did not catch on instead of "Germanic", because then people would probably not prefer "Barbarian" in what seems to be a crusade against German nationalism. The whole discussion appears to be about a deplorable effect of phonesthemia (two words that look a little bit like each other make people connect them semantically).--Berig 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

A summary of the position and arguments about Barbarian.

Position summary

1. According to WP:Verifiable, sources should be from academic, peer reviewed sources.
2. On this topic, that means the Medieval history profession (and perhaps archeology).
3. The medieval history profession uses the term barbarian, without quotes, in a neutral manner, almost universally. Ample evidence of this has been provided above and further evidence is available on request.
4. I am a professionally trained historian (BA History 93'), and lightly could call my interest level as a "professional amateur" medieval historian, who lives in the USA.

Argument summary

1. Barbarian is a POV term because the Romans used it in a pejorative manner.

Answer: This is true. Professional historians use historically pejorative terms all the time in a neutral manner. Other examples include Middle Ages and Feudalism. This is because historians don't like to commit anachronisms. Historians use the term in the sense "the peoples that the Romans considered Barbarian", not in the direct literal Roman sense. It is used in a neutral manner, as explained at Barbarian#Modern academia.

2. Professional historians are biased in some way (they disparage non-civilized people, don't like Germans, are pro-Classicism and against illiterate cultures, etc..).

Answer: This is simply wrong. Professional historians do not operate at the level. Historians seek to find and discover the truth. In any case if this was true, it would be no problem to provide a neutral and reliable source that says so.

3. Germans and/or "Germanic peoples" can be used instead of Barbarian

Answer: Historians use the term barbarian to refer to all the peoples the Romans called Barbarian, including Celts (Picts), Huns (Turks and others), Goths, etc.. the term barbarian is used by historians to mean "all the peoples the Romans considered barbarian". There is no other all-encompassing term.

4. Historians use the term barbarian because of tradition, or because they are "lazy".

Answer: This is not accurate. Historians use the term because it is not an anachronism. it is the most accurate term available because it refers to all the people that the Romans themselves considered barbarian. Historians use it in the titles of books - this is not laziness but a direct and conscious application. This argument also assumes there is another term that has replaced barbarian - this is not the case. This argument also assumes there is an active debate within the scholarly community about the use of the term barbarian. If this was true it should be no trouble to provide a source showing evidence of this debate. However it is not the case.

5. Barbarian is pejorative in popular culture and we should not propagate use of the term

Answer: It is true Barbarian is often used in a pejorative way in popular culture. At Wikipedia we are not limited to writing articles based on the perceptions of popular culture. Articles reflect what the scholarly sources say, per WP:V. If there is a difference in terminology it is explained at Barbarian#Modern academia. We report on what the scholarly community says, not say how it should be. Wikipedia is not the place to practice historical revisionism, but is a reflection of mainstream scholarly views - not those of popular culture, or fringe Germanic heritage groups.

6. This is a general purpose encyclopedia and we should not assume the reader understands specialist language.

Answer: Per the previous answer, the use of the term is explained in the barbarian article, and in a footnote (future). We should not be limited in using the correct scholarly terminology. Many articles on Wikipedia use terms specific to their field that mean different things outside the context of the article. Also, this argument is an implicit acknowledgment of points 1 and 2 above.

Any other arguments?

Recommend responding to any individual arguments below, referencing the number, to maintain the integrity of the section above for easy reading.

--Stbalbach 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On #3, you are again making the mistake of associating the term "German" with "Germanic." Nobody here wants the term "German" used, which would be ridiculous and incorrect. Again, there is a huge difference between Germanic and German - please recognize this. :bloodofox: 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I said "German or Germanic peoples". I didn't say they were the same thing. -- Stbalbach 19:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach makes two big mistakes here:

1. He confuses German with Germanic.
2. He is apparently on a misdirected POV crusade against German romantic nationalism.

Unless Stbalbach recognizes that he is fighting German romantic nationalism in the wrong article, were are not getting anywhere.--Berig 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your assumptions are entirely incorrect. -- Stbalbach 19:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Without getting into yet another protracted dialectic, I will point my fellow editors to the relevant policies on this matter: Wikipedia Manual of Style and Wikipedia Naming Conventions. Based on these policies:

1. Barbarian is not the term these groups self-identified as.
2. Barbarian is an outdated and imprecise term - it is vague and encourages sloppy scholarship.
3. Barbarian is not specific terminology. The most specific terminology available is the appropriate usage.
4. Barbarian cannot be assumed to be an all-inclusive and accurate term when describing all non-Romans.
5. Barbarian is inherently unneutral. It is considered pejorative and has negative associations - regardless of common usage.
6. Barbarian can be used in a direct quote, with the original text, even if the author does not adhere to these guidelines.

No one that I am aware of in this discussion has argued for removal of all instances of the term "Barbarian". This is a straw-man argument. Only in instances where it is imprecise, unsourced and promoting POV. Furthermore, the "Modern Academia" section of the Barbarian entry was hastily inserted into the article after this discussion started in an apparent attempt to justify POV usage at Wikipedia. The next step is RFC.- WeniWidiWiki 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. . This is true, but neither did the Germans call themselves German, which is a Roman word (not until the 8th C after the Migrations Period was over did they start calling themselves German), so it an irrelevant distinction. It is the term the written sources used.
2. . The term is not outdated. All the evidence shows this. All modern scholars of this period use the term barbarian. You have provided no evidence it is outdated in medieval scholarship because you can't.
3. . What specific terminology do you mean?
4. . The meaning of barbarian is clear from the context of its use.
5. . See my answer above - you are simply incorrect in the context of this article and time period - historians often use historically pejorative terms in a neutral manner. Such as Middle Ages and Feudalism for example.

If you disagree with the section I recently added to the barbarian article, then edit it. It was not a "hasty insertion", it was a correction of the article, brought up by the discussion here. This issue is central to the barbarian article and can then be applied across 100s of other Wikipedia articles, including this one. -- Stbalbach 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. After this repeated lack of assuming good faith on your part, evidenced by this libelous paranoid rant HERE I am not going to go round and round with you about this anymore. Start an RFC. - WeniWidiWiki 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki, yeah i changed my mine about posting it and deleted it right after posting. But I see you took the time to go back through the article history and find it. I guess I feel like I'm being ganged up on here so maybe got a little paranoid. As I said, I may be wrong about that. I certainly think you are operating in good faith and would provide sources so I can verify what you are saying. Would that be possible? I just want a couple sources for verification of what you are saying - all in good faith!  :) -- Stbalbach 23:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbarian, Barbarous, Barbaric

These three words introduce by their nature a non-neutral POV.

Let us remember the distinction between "barbarian", "barbarous", and "barbaric". All three suggest foreignness. Anyone foreign who imposes the ways of his culture onto another civilization while assimilating little is a barbarian, irrespective of the benign character of those changes. In that respect the American occupiers of Japan after World War II must be considered barbarians. But much as Americans might find great riches in Japanese culture and perhaps take home a war bride, so did such people as the ancient Greeks. The name Barbara arises from the foreigner saying incomprehensible "ba-ba" things. Barbarian might seem less glamorous than exotic or foreign due to words etymologically related to barbarian; it is simply older, and more appropriate to descriptions of realities of the Classical eras of history.

Uncouth behavior, at least within the context of a settled and establish community, is barbarous. Thus Europeans who eat beef in Hindu parts of India or Asians who eat dog meat in Europe or America show barbarous dietary practices in contrast to local standards. In contrast, barbaric ordinarily implies behavior so egregious in its contempt for the most basic decency that it suggests a lack of civility. The Holocaust, even if committed by people of similar and sophisticated culture in neighboring lands is barbaric; that the nazis who committed it had good table manners and had familiarity with the Western canon of literature, art, and music, did little to spare the victims.

Barbarians can be very sophisticated and refined; they are simply very different from those that they meet because of differences of culture. The Romans and the Carthaginians, arguable peers in intellectual achievements, could rightly call each other barbarians.

--Paul from Michigan 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The term is used by historians to avoid an anachronism. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica "Barbarian". Taking the term out of scholarly or historical context and complaining about POV is wrong and unprofessional at best, demagogy at worst. -- Stbalbach 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That characterization is incorrect, unnecessary, and a violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct. Larry Dunn 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you and bloodfox know each other - it's odd that everyone on this page against Barbarian knows each other and seems to be communicating back-channel. Yet no one has been able to provide a single source. Why is that? I keep asking - what is your source? Every single mainstream encyclopedia in the world uses "Barbarian". Every single mainstream scholar in the world uses "Barbarian". So tell me, what sources and scholars don't use the word Barbarian? I'm really curious. Seriously. I would really like to know. Can you help? -- Stbalbach 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are still violating Assume Good Faith and exhibiting severe ownership issues. Start an RFC on the usage of barbarian or quit whining and throwing around baseless accusations. - WeniWidiWiki 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see rather than providing sources to support your position you would prefer to engage in all these ridiculous personal attacks as a diversion from the real issue. What are your sources? How can I assume good faith if you are unable or unwilling to provide a source to support your position? It is a fundamental tenant of Wikipedia that we report on what the Reliable sources say. So, what are your sources? I'm asking in good faith, but it's been two weeks now, and still no one has provided a single source. Good faith does not mean ignoring the reliable source rule. -- Stbalbach 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and your ownership issues have nothing to do with how many lazy academics think it's alright to use lazy terminology. The problem here and the break down of the discussion is because you incessantly accuse others of having ulterior motives or sinister agendas.[4] You and your lack of discussion skills have brought this to a grinding halt, no one else. Start an RFC. - WeniWidiWiki 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - SORRY. Can you please provide a source to support your extraordinary claim that mainstream medieval scholarship is "lazy"?-- Stbalbach 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that my use of the word barbarian fits the classical sense and the attempt to apply it to meetings between different and modern societies is itself archaic. Such is necessary.

What has been missed: that even if Rome fell to the barbarians, the Roman Empire failed to assimilate them effectively. Successful societies have attractions for foreigners that might cause them to seek to join them. Those could be economic success (which late-imperial Rome didn't have), technological superiority (that was quickly disappearing), or a vibrant and appealing culture (likewise). Had the Empire been in bloom instead of decline, it is conceivable that the Germanic invaders would have assimilated themselves to Roman life. They would have learned Latin and adapted it as theirs and sought Roman citizenship, and they would have thus revitalized Rome after such demographic catastrophes as plagues. Instead they were content to take away the portable wealth of Rome -- the costly luxuries that the Roman leadership class got by bleeding the common man -- because such was all that was left. The barbarians could take those with them away from Rome.

Roman citizenship, once a cherished prize, became worthless. That itself indicated that Roman decline in an advanced stage. By AD 400 Roman culture had become fossilized except for Christianity. Roman technology had advanced little, if at all, from early Imperial times. The only imaginable Roman trait that the Barbarians could have wanted was Christianity, and the barbarians needed not abandon their non-Roman nationality or language to become Christians.

One can contrast other later societies: the Chinese, Indians, Iranians, and Turks could all assimilate the very diferent Mongols because after conquest the societies were still going concerns. The Vikings blended completely into the cultures some of the lands that they conquered or at least reshaped the world of the people among whom they settled. A rotting Roman Empire, in contrast, offered little for the Goths, Franks, or Burgundians except luxuries to plunder and abandoned lands.--Paul from Michigan 04:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fade-out, or catastrophic disappearance, of Classical civilization?

Classical civilization may not have died in the West with the fall of what had become the superficial entity that the Roman Empire had become. The decay had set in long before in culture (Toynbee) and material life (James Burke), but Roman norms of civilization persevered for some time in the West. One can expect Roman civil servants in the service of the likes of Odoacer, Theodoric, and even Clovis; what passed as the Latin Language still aped classical forms, if with less effectiveness and relevance to lingusitic realities. The time around AD 535 suggests the shattering of classical civilization in the West, and that coincides with cataclysms of plagues, famines, and climate. Could that be the time in which trade failed, when educational institutions other than those in monasteries vanished, when Latin dialects became mutually indistinguishable, and when one group of barbarians (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) supplanted the partially-Romanized Celts of Britain?

After that time, any civilization in the former western provinces of the Roman Empire would have to emerge as altogether new or be transported or adopted from elsewhere.

It has long been historical convention to assume that classical civilization died with the disappearance of the Roman Empire. That looks now like mere coincidence at best (I assume that there was no widespread slaughter of Romans!). In 476, Odoacer, who might have found Roman culture tolerable, had no use for the Empire. By 540, classical civilization was shattered in the West. Whimper or a bang? --Paul from Michigan 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I think that this article could do with some reorginization. In it's current form, it seems more like a long list of theories, and is neither comprehensive or concise. Wouldn't it be better to take the three sections, "Declining Empire," "Doomed From the Start," and "There was no Fall," and describe the common concepts of the three theories, adding a bit about unique reasons (i.e., "But Gibbon states...")? Breifly, this article would look better in a more compact format. Nicephorus 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was designed from the start to be simply a list of theories as a jump-off point to more detailed stand-alone articles for each theory. I didn't create the three sections "Declining Empire," "Doomed From the Start," and "There was no Fall," -- that is purely original research. No one in the academic community takes such a simplistic approach nor is it common knowledge -- the theories are individually complex, subtle and cross boundaries and can't be so simply pigeonholed into categories -- someone did it for the sake of organization, and in the process introduced a "system of theories" that exists no where but Wikipedia. It's fine to discuss individual theories in more detail (each should be expanded to article length), but all this meta synthesis of theories, categorizing them etc.. is original research at best and POV at worst (both policy violations). Also, the article is fairly comprehensive when it comes to the major theories. -- Stbalbach 19:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. My apologies, and thank you for explaining it! Nicephorus 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I have started an RfC on the usage of the term Barbarian at wikipedia. Please leave your opinion on this matter HERE<< link. - WeniWidiWiki 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

End of the Ancient Era of History

I added a line to this effect in the introduction.SmokeyTheCat 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC) I re-added this. Someone took it out but surely it is not a controversial statement. If anyone wants to delete it again can they please explain why. Thanks. SmokeyTheCat 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't remove it was moved, it's there, but not the same place and has been expanded on. -- Stbalbach 16:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It definitely fell!

I didn't understand the last half sentence in the introduction so I deleted it. Surely there is no debate about whether Rome fell or not? If it had never fallen it would still be here! If someone feels strongly that this bit should go back in can they please explain this? SmokeyTheCat 10:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The school of late antiquity for example says it did not "fall" but slowly changed. -- Stbalbach 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I still don't understand this theory. All the sources I know say that Rome fell. The sacking of Rome - twice! - would seem to indicate a fall rather than a gradual change. However if you feel strongly about it Stbalbach I will leave it unchanged. I'd still welcome some more argument or a link.SmokeyTheCat 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of it was based on the medieval perception that the Roman Catholic Church carried on the legacy of Imperial Rome as the torch bearer of civilization - using Latin, Roman titles, preserving writings, etc. Empirically the integral culture of Ancient Rome was long gone. - WeniWidiWiki 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See any of the references listed in Late Antiquity. Also remember "fell" is a value judgment (why not just "end"?)- it suggests things went from good to bad ie. Roman Civilization was good, and the Middle Ages were bad. This narrative is so pervasive in western historiography many people have trouble with alternate perspectives. -- Stbalbach 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've lost me Stbalbach. Tsarist Russia fell in 1917; the Soviet Union fell in 1991. Throughout history various political entities have risen and fallen. I don't see why any value judgement is implied. I am no fan of the Roman Empire and see it is as no bad thing that it fell. I can't see this 'gradual change' hypothesis at all. Imperial Rome was conclusively defeated and comprehensively destroyed. Seems to be you are just being too clever for your own good. Still I would welcome other opinions. SmokeyTheCat 11:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see this 'gradual change' hypothesis at all. Yeah I guess you would need to read some works by historians working in the school of Late Antiquity. Recommend start with Peter Brown (historian). BTW I'm not taking a personal side one way or another just saying there are other schools of thought on this that are, currently, mainstream in academia. -- Stbalbach 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Decline of Roman Empire as a synthesis of civilizations

I'm not sure if it should be put as a subsequent thesis to Pirenne's (from what I can see almost each group of historians has its own section), but there are historians arguing for a synthesis between Roman and Germanic civlizations which gives birth to a new civilization. One of them is Lucien Musset in "Les Invasions. Les vagues germaniques" (1965). Daizus 14:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight POV

Some theories (Heather's, Ward-Perkins') are emphasized that they are better supported by evidences because they are recent. But they are not the only recent historians. So a) for every historians publishing in the last 20-30 years we add this comment b) we should drop the mention for those few who have it and perhaps be more specific about the year when a theory was issued. Daizus 14:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor Formatting

I believe that the format of this article to be very poor. It shouldn't be broken down into different people's theories... Instead all the theories should be catagorized by theory with statements on who supports what theory. It is difficult to conduct easy research with the current formatting. Brian 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

categorized by theory - there is no system of categorization. In fact someone tried it before it broke down because the concepts are subtle and one persons theory can arguably be put into multiple categories. It's original research to categorize the theories. -- Stbalbach 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page has been vandalised: "or this is very gay". I'm afraid I'm new at wikipedia and don't know how to reverse new edits, but thought I'd report it. Durandir 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted some odd sentences inserted, apparently randomly, into the article. Near the end of the paragraph on Gibbons' work was, "Christians were thrown into a den with lions and either starved to death or get killed," which is gramatically improper, irrelevant, and disruptive to the flow of the article. I erased several others like it. Evecon12 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Major article changes

I've reverted the recent major changes and deletions to the article, they were not discussed beforehand. The new additions are unsourced and read like original research. It's been the structure of this article to list the names of the historians, the works they wrote, and a summary of the theories those historians put forward. This is the only way to approach it on Wikipedia without writing an original research essay. A system of "Categories" of theories is original research, the historians often present subtle, complex and multi-facted explanations, there is no way to fit them neatly into black and white categories, although it is tempting to do so, one has to examine each historians ideas on its own merit and complexities. -- Stbalbach 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The recent additions appear to be a copyright violation of this document [5], whose original author is unknown and is not an academic or reliable source. The time-line also appears to be copyvio cut and paste from somewhere. -- Stbalbach 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A little further searching turns up this "for $$ term paper" [6] which is basically the same with some minor wording changes. -- Stbalbach 02:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation Series

Should the see also list include the Foundation Series, especially since Asimov got the idea from gibbins book, which is about this subject? --Pigmandelux 5:14, 18 august 2007

Lead poisoning

I don't understand why this is not mentioned at all in the article: I was brought up my whole life being told that the Roman Empire fell because of the excess of lead in the Empire (lead pipes, lead glaze, lead etc.), especially the exposure of wealthy and powerful Romans to luxurious lead items, gradually damaging Roman rulers' brains to the extent that they made wacky decisions that caused the whole operation to crumble. I'm looking at a Chemistry book that corroborates this theory, at my hands! I don't get why this theory isn't even mentioned in the article. I don't know enough of the subject to write about it, but I was wondering if there was a specific reason it is completely absent from this page. -67.177.113.133 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion in an earlier version of the discussion page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=91324019 This included some comments on Vitruvius, as well as research in Bath, England, that implys that Mineral (Roman) Baths acted as a cure for Lead Poisoning! WonderWheeler (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused...

How did "loyalty to the Roman commanders" contribute to the decline of imperial Rome? Shinobu 05:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How did "the invention of the horseshoe in Germania ... alter the military equation"? Remember most readers are laymen. Shinobu 05:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The map of the Roman Empire and the german kingdoms after 476 A.D.

I'm interested very much in the period and find that some points must be cleared. First of all, 476 A.D. wasn't the end of the empire. Instead of being under the two emperors ( with one of them in Roma or Ravenna and other in Constantinople)the empire was now consolidated and ruled exclusively by the East Emperor, who became the only dominus in the state. No doubts, the people of that time ( it follows from all known sources of the epoch) didn't feel like the scholars of today. Some german kingdoms and tribes, being fully independant in their interior and foreign policies, considered itself the part of the Roman Empire, and the subjects of the Constantinople's ruler. Thus, drawing the map, one should ask what were those territories, occupied by the barbarian kingdoms and tribes.It's known that Visigoths under Eurich and Vandals under Genserich gained their complete and formal independence in 475 and 442 A.D. respectively. Ostrogoths under Teodorich the Great and his successors (till the fall of the kingdom)remained - de jure, as we would say in modern terms - in the sphere of the Roman Empire. That was the truth for other barbarians as well, such as Burgundians, whose kings Gundobad and Sigismund were granted with roman titles of patricius and magister millitum, considered themself and were in the eyes of gallo-romans and Constantinople 'the governors' of the Emperor. In one historical book I read that chronickers of the period titeled Clovis I as magister millitum. The other interesting things were the receiving by Clovis the insignias of consulship (even if he wasn't a consul in a classical roman meaning of the word, the fact itself is very significant) and the frankish currency, which in the time of Clovis and the reign of his sons was byzantinne one.

As for the first thing, some debates exist there about real meaning of that consulship. Many feel that it was merely a gesture and looked like a honorary position.This is powered by the fact that his name was absent in the consular Fasti, while, for example, Theodorich was listed here (I don't remember now) as the second(?) consul. It's supposed Clovis had a status of consulus suffectus and this was also a political trick of the emperor Anastasius to counterbalance Theodorich, with who by the time Anastasius had come in the state of confrontation. Many, who're linked to neglect significanse of this fact, say that the practice of honoring self-esteem of allied rulers was widespread among byzantian monarchs. Then question appears: who else, apart the german kings, was given any kind of consulship, patricianship, etc? Even if Clovis was only a honorary consul, then for what exact purpose was he given the title? In 476 de facto the roman authority covered Italy and the small area around the peninsula. De jure it still included some territories beyond, with those barbarian kingdoms, which by that year had agreed to recognize the western emperor as their chief. In 476 after Odovacer's revolt and displacing of Augustul the Senate formally agreed to tranfer all the power over the west to the east. Though, I have never come across the description of how the barbarian kings recognized that action, but from further events it becomes clear they believed the eastern monarch still continued to be their emperor after 476 A.D. Burgundian kings' formal obedience and the consulship of Clovis show us that they looked at their kingdoms as the parts of the Roman Empire. And the most interesting fact of byzanntian currency in the Frankish kingdom gives one more evidence of what I've said. Even with all these arguments that 'there were different time and notions than nowadays', could you imagine the coins of a state X circulating in a state Y with latter being independant? Until the reign of Theudobert (533-548)byzanntian currency was the official one among franks, but even after introducing frankish own money it was continued to place the king's portrait opposite the emperor's image in the coin. Does it bear that the franks saw themself as the subjects of Constantinople? I linked to think they did. Here I come to my main thought, which is that the map of the Roman Empire and the german kingdoms should be redrawn and brought in correspondence with events as they were seen in that period. The Franks, Ostrogoths and Burgundians should be showed as the subjects of the Roman Empire and coloured with the same colour on the map. Only Visigoths and Vandals can be leaved as the separate 'states'. However some questions appear about small and distatant regions of the former Western Empire as it had been before 395 A.D.These regions include Armorica, Suebian kingdom (which is extremely poor source base on) and the parts of the Roman Nothern Africa that went beyond vandalic control:the territories of the former provinces of Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesarea (who ruled it after 476 and further years?). The Euroatlas (look to Gepidia, the sources)provides a map of Europe in 500 A.D. and there regnum romanum et maurum in the place of Mauretania Caesarea is showed. Does smb knows smth about its existance and the surrounding tribes of the locals in the province? IML-NT 17:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) IML-NT

"The Movie"

is a broken link at the top pointing to a page "The Movie". It should be a link to The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkssc (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

horseshoes

The main page says: the invention of the horseshoe in Germania in the 200s would alter the military equation of pax romana...

The Wikipedia entry on horseshoes links to a website at the British Museum saying that the Romans were using metal horseshoes in the 1st - 2nd century AD (http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/i/iron_hipposandal.aspx) so this is confusing. Maybe it means that only Romans but not Germans had horseshoes until the 200s, and then Germans caught up? Not clear to me.

SB 264 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

fall of rome

i want to know about the actual fall of the empire.I want to know the person's name who made this great empire fall to the ground.Was it a goth,a hun or some other barbarian king???Was it Attila or Alaric or someone else???These questions are not yet answered, would you be kind enough to direct me to what is right,and what i must believe.

yours faithfully,

a history lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.92.234 (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you have not read the article carefully enough (or else there is some point to your question that you are not explaining). There is no single person that caused the fall of the Western Empire. There is no consensus even on what was the most significant cause. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Problematic material

"While its eastern half survived essentially intact for a few centuries still, the Empire had initiated major cultural and political shifts which were reshaping it dramatically, with the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, the move towards a more autocratic and ritualized form of government based mainly on military power, and a general rejection and abandonment of the traditions and values of Classical Antiquity. " Numerous false statements: The eastern half survived for a thousand years. Christianity, changed values, and more open autocracy was adopted after the second century crises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So rephrase it then, don't delete it. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The eastern half of the empire did not survive intact for a thousand years, though. It lost most of its territory in the 7th century. And the shift from the classical period to the Byzantine, Christian empire was gradual, as the article clearly states. FilipeS (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2