Talk:Odoacer

WP:MilHist Assessment

Though not nearly as long as some other "B-class" articles, this is more than just a good start. You've got pictures and a succession box, and as far as I know you've said more or less all that can be said about this figure. LordAmeth 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to remove the inadequate word "Barbarian" from the succession box but the entire box disappeared. :( Can someone place the usefull succession box back but without the word "Barbarian"! Please. Thank You!

In the 'Death' section, should you not replace 'Sparkle' with 'Ravenna'? Pietro

A rescinded promise?

I see this:

Orestes promised them a third of the Italic peninsula if they led the revolt against Emperor Nepos.

I've never read anything to suggest the demand for one-third of Italy stemmed from a broken promise made by Orestes. It's plausible, of course, but Gibbon (never one to overlook broken promises and betrayals) doesn't mention it in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Do we have a source?--Idols of Mud 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Map "showing Odoacer's kingdom and its neighbors"

The map shows the entire Eastern Hemisphere. If I zoom in really hard, I can see Odoacer's Kingdom and its neighbors, but I have to look for it, as it's not highlighted in any way. Is it possible to find a more focused and less colorful map? I don't think this one is very helpful. It's the equivalent of adding a complex map of the United States with the caption "Map showing Delaware and its neighbors" to the article on Delaware. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the map now. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Map

I'm restoring the map that shows the Eastern Hemisphere in 476 AD, which shows Odoacer's Kingdom. When you look at the actual map, you don't have to "zoom in really hard" to see Odoacer's Kingdom. Besides, the map is part of a series, and I will provide a more focused map when it's ready. Until then, why remove the only map that shows the actual Kingdom? Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to click on the map twice, the hardest zoom possible on my computer, in order to see it, and if I don't know where to look for it, finding it isn't obvious (as explained above). I won't remove it again myself, however. The more focused map will be an improvement and very welcome! ---Sluzzelin talk 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin. I'm actually working on some corrections for some other maps in the series right now, and I'm waiting for some more feedback regarding the 476 map. Take a look at the current map when you get a chance and let me know if you see any errors. If you do, let me know by leaving a message on my talk page, including any source info and how I can fix the map. It might be a few more weeks before I can upload the a more focused map of 476 AD, but I'll definitely do it. Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Son

Is it true Odoacer wanted to make his son Roman emperor?Greutungen (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)greutungen

Fate of Moorish and Gaulish parts of the Western Empire

The Western and the Eastern Roman Empire by 476

According to the map on the left, at the time Odoacer became ruler of Roman Italy, the Western Empire also had Moorish and Gaulish regions. How did rule transition from the Empire to the new rulers? 118.208.238.98 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with describing Romulus Augustus as "the last Roman Emperor," or even as emperor at all. By this time in Roman history, it was no longer enough to be proclaimed by troops. You had to be recognized by the OTHER co-emperor. Romulus wasn't in his brief usurpation. His father and he also never managed to gain allegiance from any part of the empire outside of the Italian Peninsular that was its cultural and economic heart - another indicator of legitimacy. Instead Julius Nepos, the man they rebelled against, re-established himself in Dalmatia and continued to rule that rich province and receive recognition from the autonomous regions in Gaul and North Africa until his death four years later - recognized as the legitimate emperor not only by Constantinople, but also by Odoacer (even if it was mostly a matter of formal lip service.) Emperor Zeno did not accept the request of the Roman Senate (most but not all historians assume that Odoacer was the mover of behind the action) that the western subdivision of the empire be abolished and Zeno rule as sole emperor (from safely distant Constantinople) until after Nepo's death (at which time, Odoacer made a show of demonstrating that he had been Nepos' vassal.) The notion that Romulus' tentative possession of Italy made him "last emperor" was promoted by outmoded 18th century scholarship (like Gibbons) who looked at history with racial and ethnic lens and wanted to draw sharp (and false) lines between the "noble Romans" and the "savage barbarians" and between "our noble Roman ancestors" and "the decadent Eastern Empire."

By the way, the region in Gaul is referred to by historians as "The Domain of Soissons" and there is a wiki article on it. It was cut off and essentially autonomous from sometime earlier, but continued to view itself as a province. The leadership (Dux) there declined to pay homage to Romulus Augustus and refused to accept Odoacer's legitimization. They cut relations with Zeno, but continued to claim allegiance to Nepos until his death. In Morocco, the area was still Roman EMpire because it was excluded from the treaty granting the Vandals most of North Africa, but effective control ad ended in the 3rd Century anyway and the area was ruled by Berber kings who paid formal deference to Rome (including Nepos) now and again, but mostly regarded themselves as independent. That neither remnant recognized Romulus Augustus during the brief usruption and that they paid lip service (as Odoacer did) to Nepo thereafter iwas a legal boon to Nepos, but without functional effect. His direct rule of Dalamatia, a province that was only a bit less prosperous than Italy in this period (and closer to the real power in the East) was really the basis for his ability to maintain his title in more than pretense for another few years. TheCormac (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a King of Italy

Odoacer was not a king of Italy. Italy didn't exist. He was merely a "rex", notably this is the first occasion in the west where the title was not tied to a nationality and he did it, we suppose, because he was not king merely of the Goths, but of all people in the area he controlled. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

German or Hun?

Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez argue in their article Odoacer: German or Hun? in The American Historical Review Vol. 52, No. 1, Oct., 1946 that Odoacer could have been a Hun or most likely was a Hun. They say that the Germanic background was forced upon him by German philologists etc. Now I know that the article was written way back in 1946, but nowadays there are still many, many uncertainties regarding the peoples in the Late Antiquity. I was wondering how the article of Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez is seen by historians these days. The concincing part in their article in my opinion is that they manage to at least fill a gap left by the German philologists. Whether what they put in that gap is crap or not, I'm not sure. Some initial searching on Turkish etymologies seems to jibe with their claims. How do historians these days look at their article? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

5th-century Italian people

This category should be removed for the fact that he was not an Italian. I mean first of all, Italy as a whole country did not exist until 1861 and most importantly, he was either a Hun or one of the Germanic people, therefore not an Italian and can't be placed in the Italian people category. Norum 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

a bit weaselly

"He is considered the first non-Roman to ever have ruled all of Italy": well, was he, or was he not? We wouldn't say "George Washington is considered the first President of the United States." Now, if the claim is debatable, it's a different matter. If there are other figures who might be considered the first non-Roman to rule all Italy, there needs to be a little paragraph at the appropriate point in the article discussing that, and why it can't be stated as simple fact. If this is not a contested point, then it should be stated: "He was the first non-Roman to rule over all Italy." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Some kind of qualification is needed here. One could argue that the first "non-Roman" was one of the Roman Emperors, Maximinus Thrax, who is portrayed in the contemporary sources as a barbarian. Another possible candidate was the Patricius Ricimer, who was the actual power in Rome during the third quarter of the 5th century, & prior to Odoacer. (Then there is the claim that the Popes of the 7th century & later were the first Roman powers to rule over much of Italy -- see Caesaropapism.) Probably the wording in this article should be something along the lines of "first ruler of all of Italy following the extinction of the Roman Empire" -- although the fact he was considered a barbarian needs to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, despite the slurs of his enemies, Maximinus was certainly a Roman citizen; but if you look at de facto power, even before Ricimer there was Stilicho. But Odoacer was the first barbarian ruler without hiding behind a puppet and who assumed as ground of legitimacy a new title, rex. Regarding the proposed wording it just can't stand, I'm afraid, as the notion of extinction of the empire is at the very least problematic, and there isn't a modern historian who would agree I believe. Regarding the "barbarian" in the lead, I agree, but I'm afraid it might meet opposition due to political correctness (never mind modern historians don't seem to have any problems with the term in this context).Aldux (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that language regarding "extinction" would be even more problematic and misleading. Describing him as "King" or "Rex" is also not so simple and requires a lot of exposition (as he was not consistent in this.) The question of "non-Roman," is also slippery. What makes a Roman? Foederati were not citizens, but were sometimes (especially by the fifth century) more culturally Roman than some who were citizens. By all accounts, Odoacer was very Romanized. The idea of "blood" in the medieval/early modern sense is not much help. For one thing, it is anachronistic. (For the Roman's it was culture, not ethnicity that defined barbarians.) Many emperors were not of Latini descent (of even descended from other tribal grouping of the Italian Peninsula.) The best you could say is that he was "the first non-Roman citizen," which is pretty weak. I suggest removing the phrase completely in favor of a more nuanced narrative that focuses on the political rather than the ethnic. The notion that this aspect of Odoacer was of millennial importance seems to me a legacy of outmoded racialist thinking of the 18th-20th century best left behind.TheCormac (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right there, Cormac; I was a bit sloppy in writing "'first ruler of all of Italy following the extinction of the Roman Empire'". And it is also true that most of the peoples who lived inside the pre-410 borders of the Western Roman Empire did somehow think of themselves as Roman citizens at the time; for example, the Emperors in Constantinople did use this to their advantage in diplomatic overtures to the Franks & Burgunds in the early 6th century. What had happened with the deposition of Romulus Augustus was that Odoacer attempted to simplify a very confused political situation. Assuming power in Italy, he was faced with one Emperor no one outside Italy recognized (Romulus), another who was recognized in Constantinople but possibly no where else (Julius Nepos) & would at best be a nuisance to him, & a third in power at Constantinople (Zeno). So Odoacer by returning the imperial insignia to Zeno, he made the offer of ruling Italy directly as a king, much as Alaric ruled Hispania & part of Gaul as king of the Visigoths, & Gundobad another part of Gaul as king of the Burgunds. This official recognition would have helped legitimize Odoacer's rule in Rome: he had to deal with not only the remnants of the Imperial bureaucracy in his domain, but also the Roman Senate which was still a powerful corporate force. Zeno craftily responded his offer by saying, in effect, "What do you mean, you need no Emperor? There's Julius Nepos in Dalmatia. If you reject Julius, then you must not be a legitimate ruler of Italy." A.H.M. Jones discusses Odoacer's -- as well as Theodoric's after him -- constitutional position in a 1960 Journal of Roman Studies article, which defines the precarious position as ruler of Italy both rulers had. Odoacer played nice with the Roman Senate & the Roman church because either could decisively aid a rebellion against him; this obviously lay behind Theodoric's execution of Boethius in the following century. When Theodoric the Great invaded Italy, it is worth noting that Odoacer received almost no support from his kingdom beyond his armed followers & his Roman favorites. If I could interject my opinion into this article, it would be that Odoacer was tolerated, perhaps feared, but definitely not loved.

As for Odoacer's non-Roman/barbarian identity, it was significant for his contemporaries; he was an outsider, born & raised outside the Roman world. Consider Theodoric the Great, who was born & raised in the Roman world -- he spent part of his youth at the Imperial court as a hostage -- yet he was considered by the Romans as a barbarian. If Theodoric couldn't be accepted as a Roman, then Odoacer had no hope of gaining such recognition. The Romans of the Late Empire were very conscious of whether someone was a Roman or not. Eugippius practically describes Odoacer as a "skin-clad barbarian" in his hagiography of St. Severinus; one can't be any more of an outsider in Roman eyes than to be garbed in hides. Further, every inscription mentioning Odoacer describes him as king of an alien ethnic group, sometimes adding "of Italy" to that. Odoacer's reign is an important step in the disappearance of the Roman Empire in the west, which came to a definite end no later than Justinian's wars of conquest in the mid fifth-century. Exactly what effect his rule had in the process, this I agree needs to be further defined; but I'm hoping that the Wiki process of discussion & review will get us the explanation this article needs. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A final note

Today I found a photocopy I had made of the article on Odoacer from the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, & after carefully reviewing its contents as well as my poor German allowed me I was pleasantly surprised to discover that as of my latest contribution this article covers practically as much about this man as that authoritative reference does, with the addition of some of the scholarship since that article was published in the 1930s. I write this not to boast -- okay, I am a little -- but to state I don't know what more of importance could be added to this article. I am done with it; now it's time for the rest of you to continue to improve on it. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his name?

Could someone tell us how to pronounce his name? I don't mean how he or his nearest and dearest pronounced it, but how do literate historians pronounce it when they get together and chew these things over? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.212.164 (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Activities in 463 in Gallia? - hard to believe that Odoaker and Odovacrius were the same person

The article states that ... a number of battles fought by King Childeric I of the Franks, Aegidius, Count Paul, and one "Adovacrius" or "Odovacrius". If this is an account of Aegidius' victory over the Visigoths, otherwise known from the Chronicle of Hydatius, then this occurred in 463. Reynolds and Lopez in their article mentioned above, suggested that this "Adovacrius" or "Odovacrius" may be the same person as the future king of Italy... This seems very hard to believe. Main reason: Odoaker was a son of Edeko, a member of the inner circle of Attila and maybe himself (partly) Hunnic, and a Skirian princess. He grew up in Pannonia. Only twelve years before in 451 there was a massive battle, the battle of Chalons, where he and his clanmembers fought among others the Romans, the Visigoths and the Salian Franks. It seems highly unlikely that the Visigoths would have chosen a close Hunnic ally and former enemy to lead them in battle in 463, especially noting that the Visigoths were normally led in battle by members of their own nobility. Secondly this "Odovacrius" as a leader of several Saxon warbands is also highly unlikely. He was non-Saxon and probably knew nothing of naval warfare. That's enough to rule this possibility out. That leaves only one possibility. Odovacrius (Odoaker) as a leader of an invasion army (comprised of elements of several tribes) around 463 that in the aftermath of the collapse of the Hunnic empire choose to, or were forced to invade Gallia, were they were defeated. In theory possible but I have never read about such an invasion. More likely scenario is that "Odovacrius" was a Saxon leader of a few warbands and that he was a different person then Odoaker. JRB-Europe (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

While you make a good point there, the simple truth is that we don't know. All this article does is raise the possibility that two experts on the period have suggested, in the spirit of NPOV. If you look at Edeko, you will see that the article has been re-written to reflect the opinion of one expert, who believes there were three contemporary men of the same name. (Ockham's Razor, on the other hand, would lead to another conclusion.) If there were three men of the same name, then there would be no animus between the Visigoths & the future king in Italy, & he might indeed be the same person mentioned in Gregory of Tour's history. On the other hand, even if there was one Edeko, politics were very confused during the 5th century: one who was considered an enemy at one time might be accepted as an ally 10 years later. The fact we are left with arguments based on "common sense" merely emphasizes our ignorance of the period -- as I stated above, which in itself is a point worth making. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Did Odoacer actually exist?

Is Odoacer a fabrication? What are the primary sources that prove Odoacer's existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.200.5 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Odoacer and the Byzantines

It seems to me that the presence of the Huns, especially in the Macedonia-Hungarian Plain area, posed a huge threat to the Byzantines, and the Lombards and Ostrogoths (aka Kievan Rus?) were invited in by the Byzantines to counter this threat.

Elements of both these groups seemed to have moved into the area about the same time, not a wise thing to do, unless you are positioning your tribe to fight the Huns, whose tactics are adapted to the open, steppe-like terrain found there.

The Byzantines used German soldiers, to the tune of nearly fifty percent of their army, at this time, and inviting the combative and notoriously militant Lombards into the area would have been an extension of this policy of using Germans for military ends. The same invitation, extended to the Ostrogoths would have brought in not only fighters but administrators; the Ostrogoths by their own historiography were said to have been invited into the region of the Pripyat area of the Dniepper River by the Slavs who sought their services in bringing about an end to Slavic tribal warfare.

Okay, none of this is in writing, but Nordic, or Germanic peoples didn't write as much as the Latins and Greeks, by any stretch of the imagination. What I'm getting at is that Odoacer may have been a Germanic, but particularly a Lombardic figure, and the Italy he ruled was actually secret, surreptitiously or covertly given to the Lombards by the Byzantines as payment in land for their efforts in weakening the Huns to the point where the lands of the Eastern Empire were spared Hunnic attacks, just as the Goths were paid in gold for the same services, and then later when troubles broke out in Italy between the Lombards and the Romans on a land-use and ownership level, the Goths were sent into Italy to settle that matter.

Now, this interpretation makes sense, I think you'll agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Statue?

Does anyone know where this statue is located and whether it is a statue of Odoacer?

http://www.euratlas.net/photos/time/5th_century/odoacre.html

Kortoso (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Fall of Roman Empire

The section dealing with Odoacer's takeover of Italy has the following.

"Bury, however, disagrees that Odoacer's assumption of power marked the fall of the Roman Empire:

   It stands out prominently as an important stage in the process of the dismemberment of the Empire. It belongs to the same catalogue of chronological dates which includes A.D. 418, when Honorius settled the Goths in Aquitaine, and A.D. 435, when Valentinian ceded African lands to the Vandals. In A.D. 476 the same principle of disintegration was first applied to Italy. The settlement of Odovacar's East Germans, with Zeno's acquiescence, began the process by which Italian soil was to pass into the hands of Ostrogoths and Lombards, Franks and Normans. And Odovacar's title of king emphasised the significance of the change.[26] "

This does not sound like disagreement. Quite the contrary Bury is stating that it stands out as an important stage in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:D944:B4C3:782F:727 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Characterization

The phrase "a barbarian statesman" in the lead strikes me as decidedly odd if not oxymoronic. Perhaps something like "a putative Germanic leader" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Only we don't know for certain Odoacer's ethnic background. -- llywrch (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

What Llywrch said. And Barbarian is the standard way that scholarship refers to the various non-Roman groups from Europe now, since the other ways carry some serious historical baggage.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've made an edit which keeps the word but applies it to his "background". Hopefully that helps a bit. I think this is more accurate and understandable for modern readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

OHG attestation of Odoacer's name

In the Old High German Hildebrandslied (9th c.) the name is attested as Otachre (dative singular) and Otachres (genitive singular), presumably belonging to a nominative singular *Otacher or *Otachar. Possibly relevant for the onomastics section, don't really have time to edit it in rn tho. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Minor point

Hi Obenritter. Concerning this edit: [1]. I was making a distinction in my mind between "the multi-ethnic empire of Attila" and the Huns simply. In other words, within his empire there were Gepids, Goths, Scirii, Heruli, Rugians, lots of Alans, etc etc. So I was trying to say that it seems uncontroversial that his background was somewhere in that complex mass of peoples, which is an interesting fact. In fact three of the groups he is most associated with all ended-up living near each other in the Middle Danube area, when the dust settled.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

While I understand that, when looked at very carefully, the edit made it read almost categorically like he was a Hun. It's why the wording worked better in the original.--Obenritter (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, maybe someone will find a better wording. As mentioned, it is a minor point. I also understand your concern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Loving boys?

He spared the life of Romulus Augustulus due to his "youth and beauty". A 10 year old child hasn't grown to have beauty yet, so this seems odd. Was this part of the ancient view of love between men and boys? Are there other examples of his interest in young boys or is this an isolated occurrence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.187.161 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content

Obenritter, first, I am not sure if you are referring to me but I am not an IP user (2), and in any case, keep good faith and don't call anybody "untrustworthy" (1).

You have removed legit content I added without providing a valid reason for your actions. You could've at least checked what I added before removing it: Magill is not the author of Odoacer's entry in the dictionary of world biography, that is Glenn L. Swygart! () as specified in the article: Professor Glenn L. Swygart, in his entry for Odoacer in the Dictionary of World Biography, accepted the suggestion that Odoacer's father was the Hun ambassador, who married into the Germanic tribe of the Sciri., yet you apparently thought that the author was Magill since, citing a reason for the removal, you stated: Magill characterized Odoacer's identity as "Danubian-Hunnic-German" / Remove other content added by untrustworthy IP edits (3). By the way, what the Dictionary of World Biography states is: [Odoacer's] father was Edeco (sometimes spelled Edica or Edecon), a Hun who served under the infamous Attila.

You removed Amory claiming that he said something entirely different, not with unequivocal editorialized comment added here (4). Yet the articles states:

Historian Patrick Amory notes that Odocer's father was called a Hun, and his mother a Scirian, and that his father was firstly associated with the Huns and then with the Scirians

while Amory said, and I am quoting him:

Odoacer is called a Scirian, a Rugian, a Goth, or a Thuringian in sources; his father is called a Hun, his mother a Scirian. Odoacer's father Edeco was associated first with the Huns under Attila, and then with a group called Sciri, an ethnographic name that appears intermittently in the fifth-century sources.

So how did Amory said something "entirely different" from what I wrote in the article?

Then, yes, the editor's comment (Krautschick [...] argues that his father was a Hun and his mother a Scirian, and therefore would omit Rugian, Goth and Thuringian as "assertions influenced by other factors") is used to back Krautschick. But not Amory. In other words, Amory's pov comes from the main text of the book.

This is a Cambridge University Press publishing, and it is perfectly fine to use its commentary as a secondary source to summarise and back Krautschick's pov.

You accused me of adding fictitious page numbers (5) which indicates that either you haven't checked the sources at all or you are making things up.

I added the content again, with quotes for the Dictionary of World Biography and Amory. If you have any other doubt about the sources, we can talk about it here. Giray Altay (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Giray Altay--You clearly used wrong page numbers for Heather, as page 559 is the index. since I own this work and use it regularly, I cross-referenced your "Google Books" citation. You've also cited works without attributing page numbers and you ignored the citation formatting used throughout the page. Regarding the quotes by Amory (1997), my version properly attributes the page. Both Amory and Heather's works are already cited on this page but you outright ignored this and re-added them as Google Books citations. This is poor form. Also, If you're here to constructively edit, then please use the formatting that dominates the page and page numbers that are accurate. Also, why aren't you editing as an actual user vice a random IP with a user ID? Furthermore, the comments about Odoacer's possible father is a contested subject and belongs in an informational note, which is what my correction was more about. BTW, Hussey was cited in the version I edited, in the proper format for the page. --Obenritter (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You moved the argument to my talk page (1) though discussion had been started here, and kept on removing content from this page, though discussion was going on here (2), to which I replied on your talk page (3), and which is why I gave you a no edit warring warning (4).

If you have doubts about Heather or any other source I added you can ask me here, I already told you this (5).

The page of Heather is correct. It is and entry in the index, where he inserted (and I quote) Edeco, ambassador of Attila, king of the Sciri. Such an index entry would not be enough on its own, but that is just a supportive source (the line and sources are: An Edica, possibly the same person as the Hun ambassador, is mentioned by Jordanes and identified as a leader of the Sciri, along with Hunuulf (perhaps his son)).

You said: Both Amory and Heather's works are already cited on this page but you outright ignored this and re-added them as Google Books citations., so what does this mean, just because they are in google books they are not valid? Or maybe you want to put in the article only the parts of their work(s) that fit your own views? What I added is legit, and the text of the article reflects exactly what the authors say. Please, stop removing legit content.

Notice also that a doubt with a source or two does not give you the right to remove all the others [I added]. Which you repeatedly did.

Regarding the pages: some google books do not have page numbers. Normally an editor would assume good faith and ask the op for a quote before deleting. But you just deleted everything for the second time. What's important is that the source is reliable, not self-published material. In this case, the publisher is Pen and Sword Books. I am now going to restore the content you deleted and add more quotes.

Regarding this: Also, why aren't you editing as an actual user vice a random IP with a user ID? I don't even understand what you are talking about but I can tell it's about me, not the article. Please, focus on the article.

As the article was (and you restored it too), that is

Bruce Macbain, noting that the "ancient sources exhibit considerable confusion over Odovacer's tribal affiliation, identifying him variously as a Skirian, a Rogian and/or Torcilingian, a Herul, and even a Goth", subsequently concludes that "not a single source calls him [Odoacer] a Hun". Historian Penny MacGeorge points out that the confusion about Odoacer's ethnicity is exaggerated. Believing that the Torcilingi were simply a mistake for Thuringii, she argues that the claims he was a Hun "can almost certainly be dismissed". She asserts instead that Odoacer was "surely Germanic, probably half-Scirian, half-Thuringian, and he may have had connections with other tribes through intermarriage".

an overdue emphasis is put on historians who consider him Germanic. In reality, historians are divided on this, with the slight majority believing him to have been at least part Hunnish.

You claimed Furthermore, the comments about Odoacer's possible father is a contested subject and belongs in an informational note, which is what my correction was more about. you did leave the emphasis on the Germanic origin (above) in the article, while removing the historians supporting Hunnish origin, even though I backed my addition with reliable sources.

I think I can now start to see what the problem might be here. You are entitled to have your views, but stop removing content supported by reliable sources. Giray Altay (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop reinserting your preferred version without having first obtained consensus for it. It's clear that no one else has jumped in to support your changes and I believe that Obenritter is generally correct in his criticism of them.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich No one else has jumped in at all, pro or against me. The only one who's jumped in is you, who have been already reported at the administrator noticeboard for suspected WP:BULLY and WP:STALKING after you stalked me and attempted to make some kind of argument against me at another user's talk page, deliberately not pinging me (1). We had an argument at that user's talk page, and you jumped in against me on two other occasions. Curiously enough, you are the only editor in Wikipedia, the only page watcher out of 223 (supposing you were watching this page at all) who's jumped in to argue against me. Even more curiously, you jumped in just before @Obenritter made their fourth revert in a suspected edit war.

Please, promptly read again WP:Stalking, Wikipedia:Tag team and WP:Harassment.

The purpose here is to improve Wikipedia. Looks to me your purpose is finding something wrong with me (1) and some support. I don't know what's your problem, but not liking my edits or topics or username or whatever it is does not give you the right to stalk me and argue against me a priori.

Now let's listen, on what do you exactly agree with Obenritter? What is wrong with my contribution? Please, be specific. Giray Altay (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that you're edits were not improvements as they are overemphasizing the very disputed idea that Odoacer was a Hun. That's all I have to say. I've been watching this page for years, so the idea that my posting here qualifies as stalking is laughable. And if anyone "reported me to the administrator's board" they didn't leave a notice as they are required to do. I suggest you stop this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and stop posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT that no one is going to read.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hundreds of users have been watching this page for years, with hundreds of thousands viewing it. Yet you are the only one who entered the present conversation, doing it against me, so the idea that this is harassing is plausible, whereas your post on my talk page (1) makes the idea of WP:STALKING not laughable at all.

Thanks for reminding me of WP:BATTLEGROUND, I couldn't find a word to describe your actions; ever since you started making arguments against me in private (2), jumping in against me at every chance and even self-proclaiming yourself (and your friends) my watcher(s) (3), or should I say stalker(s)? I don't know, that will be for others to decide if this continues.

Neither, like I tried to explain here (4), it is fair to tell one user involved in an edit war to stop, even posting on their talk page, while not doing the same with the other user involved, though they made as many reverts as me and even started it. It is sad that, though you take the liberty to start battles on other user's talk pages (5) you are reluctant to explain your own actions when asked to (6).

Your justification for the removal on this page was:

I agree that you're edits were not improvements as they are overemphasizing the very disputed idea that Odoacer was a Hun.

This is not going to be enough. First, the edits don't overemphasize that Odoacer was a Hun. Maybe his father. But I don't see the overemphasis, since counter arguments were also included in the article. At any rate, that his father was Edeco, the Hun ambassador, is accepted by the slight majority of scholars.

On the other hand, as it is now, the article overemphasizes his "sure" Germanic roots, with a cherry-picked statement like Odoacer was surely Germanic, probably half-Scirian, half-Thuringian, and he may have had connections with other tribes through intermarriage (with which the discussion about his origins ends).

This does not reflect the view of scholars at all!

Likewise, the note in which you pushed the rest of my contribution ends with:

Historian Peter Heather points out that although Edeco's name is surely Germanic, this does not mean he (Edeco) was necessarily Germanic; Heather nonetheless adds, "though he may have been"

Who cares what Heather thinks about his name: the slight majority of scholars consider Odoacer's father to be Edeco the ambassador, who was described as a Hun by contemporaries.

The way it is written, the article seems to push that his father was Germanic. Giray Altay (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial being "pushed"? There seems to be nothing wrong with these well sourced positions, and they are not even very different? OTOH I see absolutely no reason to push Heather as "the" expert about Edeka/Edeco? That would be undue. Please let's be careful about over-reacting if it can reduce our coverage of respectable sources (which does indeed seem to be a constant with everything "Germanic").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

My proposal is to remove:

Bruce Macbain, noting that the "ancient sources exhibit considerable confusion over Odovacer's tribal affiliation, identifying him variously as a Skirian, a Rogian and/or Torcilingian, a Herul, and even a Goth", subsequently concludes that "not a single source calls him [Odoacer] a Hun".[18] Historian Penny MacGeorge points out that the confusion about Odoacer's ethnicity is exaggerated. Believing that the Torcilingi were simply a mistake for Thuringii, she argues that the claims he was a Hun "can almost certainly be dismissed". She asserts instead that Odoacer was "surely Germanic, probably half-Scirian, half-Thuringian, and he may have had connections with other tribes through intermarriage".

or leave it but add counter arguments from a few other scholars, something like what I had already proposed (1). As it is , the article pushes that his father was Germanic.

The sentence:

Historian Peter Heather points out that although Edeco's name is surely Germanic, this does not mean he (Edeco) was necessarily Germanic; Heather nonetheless adds, "though he may have been

Like the previous one, this statement also ends the discussion. It should also be removed, or the other points of view should be placed next to it. A positive statement including words like certainly and surely should not be placed at the end of the discussion for neither position here. That Edico is etymologically Germanic is far from accepted (Pristak, for example, considered it Turkic), and with the Huns etymology and ethnicity rarely go hand in hand (think of Attila).

That Odoacer was "surely" Germanic, that the claim he was a Hun "can almost certainly be dismissed", and that Edeco is "surely Germanic" are almost fringe theories. There isn't certainty about anything here, and those two scholars who claim so do not hold the consensus. Far from it.

Let me all know if you agree with my proposal, or what do you propose.--Giray Altay (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster, pushing that he was Germanic may not be controversial, but the same goes for the proposal that his father was a Hun.

In fact, the more or less accepted view is that he was born into his mother's Germanic tribe; the son of a Germanic woman. However, his father seems very likely to have been a Hun ambassador named Edeco (himself, no doubt, of mixed heritage). Yet the article seems to push that Odoacer was fully Germanic; i.e. that his father was not a Hun.

Before I edited, it was also implied that Jordanes' Edica and Edeco the Hun ambassador must be different persons. It hasn't to be so, and as explained in the text and sources I added, it is perfectly plausible that they were one and the same: Edeco, with the fall of the Hunnic Empire, married into the Sciri tribe and became a prince among them.

My problem is chiefly with the use of the words certainly and surely (twice) for the claims he was (fully) Germanic. These heavy statements are placed at the end of the discussion(s). Giray Altay (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The exception I take is that the new content focused more on Edeco than on Odoacer by placing undue emphasis on his possible << not confirmed Hunnic origins. The new content is different Andrew Lancaster from what I cited afterwards in proper format and with more contextualization, establishing the comments more fully from both Amory and Heather, who the editor cited half-heartedly. This cherry-picked content stressing Hunnic origins seems excessive given the article already stated Odoacer was possibly of "mixed" origin. However, the fact remains that no period source refers to Odoacer as a Hun except by inference from later scholars, who speculate that the Edeco being referenced was indeed the Hun in question and thus by deduction, Odoacer was also a Hun. However, Edeco may himself have been of Germanic and Hunnic origins, making Odoacer more Germanic in terms of biological ethnicity percentage-wise. My question for the group is why this editor's obsession with de-Germanizing the leader of a primarily Germanic confederation of peoples. His identity was more tied up in his "cultural" inheritance than anything. The indisputable fact remains that the ancient texts depict Odoacer as a barbarian Germanic chieftain. At best, the extensive discussion on Edeco's speculated ethnicity should be an informational note, since it is already mentioned in the text. However, the approach taken by Giray Altay was professor X claims Edeco was a Hun, supported by person Y, and person Z also says so. Therefore, three speculations = Hun. --Obenritter (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"the new content focused more on Edeco than on Odoacer" the content is pertinent and all the sources mention his father in the context of describing Odoacer. The quotes you left in the article (those talking about certain and sure things) also refer to his father and/or his (paternal and maternal) roots.

"cherry-picked content stressing Hunnic", whoa, you copy me? (1) I'm honored

However, the fact remains that no period source refers to Odoacer as a Hun, neither does any period source refer to him as a German. However, his father is strongly believed to have been Attila's ambassador, who married with a Scirian woman. This ambassador was a Hun. The Scirians, in turn, are believed to have been Germanic (which is not confirmed though).

Edeco may himself have been of Germanic and Hunnic origins, making Odoacer more Germanic in terms of biological ethnicity percentage-wise here I agree with you. If, as it is very likely, his father was indeed the ambassador, he, like Attila himself, had a lot, if not most, Germanic "biological" origin. But the fact remains that he (Edeco) had at least some Hunnic origin, and identified as such.

My question for the group is why this editor's obsession with de-Germanizing the leader of a primarily Germanic confederation of peoples I am not obsessed with "de-Germanization". Maybe you are the opposite of that. I love Germanic culture. Also "Hunnic" culture, Turkic culture. I love all kinds of cultures. Simply, his father seems very likely to have been a Hun and that's it. All the other rulers of Germanic tribes of that era were 100% or mostly Germanic.

I hope you understand that I edited this article in good faith. I am not trying to de-Germanize anything. But the article cannot stand the way it is, with these quotes claiming they are "certain" and "sure" that his father was (fully) Germanic and so was he, placed at the end of the discussion(s). Giray Altay (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's agree to soften that language (it was verbatim though) but not grandstand the Hunnic origins of Edeco with the use of verbiage like "Professor X" claims. Simply state their profession (historian, archaeologist, philologist, etc.) Can we also agree to employ the citation format dominating the page and use the page numbers (that I added from the actual books in my possession? It's simply messy and silly to add works from a different date/edition when the citations are already there) It makes undue work on other editors to clean up afterwards if not. --Obenritter (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Obenritter allright. Seems fair. You can edit the article that way. I will then review it. Giray Altay (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Obenritter So, I left the gist of Penny MacGeorge, removing the disputed quotes.

I also trimmed Bruce Macbain and left the gist. However, I am worried because I feel like he is missing the main point, which is that his father Edeco was supposedly a "Hun".

I left Macbain because if I had removed him we would've 2 "pro Hun" (Amory, Jansen) vs 1 "pro Germanic" (MacGeorge).

Ideally, both MacGeorge and and Macbain should be replaced with some scholar arguing he was Germanic while taking into account Edeco the ambassador (or maybe they do; I haven't read their works).

Finally, I edited the footnote about Edeco a bit. Let me know what you think. Giray Altay (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Those edits were solid. I rearranged it so the last thing people read is that Odoacer was likely at least part Hun. Hopefully that gets to your concerns even more. Thanks for your edits. --Obenritter (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Obenritter Thanks! Thank you for your help =) Giray Altay (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Name pronunciation.

The pronunication is listed as being Odoaser. However this is the (wrong) way modern English people pronounce it based on the way they pronounce 'ace' in their language.

His contemporary pronunciation would've been something like Odowaker. With the a of course being pronounced like a roman (normal) long a. As c's were pronounced as k's in this time (also Germanic never had the shift from the k to s sound that Vulgar Latin did have >later<).

This is also why people in English are 'awake' and not 'awase'. Yes, waking and waker are related words, which becomes only obvious when the name is pronounced CORRECTLY! Oldrik9 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The modern English versions of classical names are not necessarily "wrong". (Consider Caesar and Jesus.) In any case: (a) I am personally not certain how everyone pronounces this name today. Does everyone pronounce it the same way? He is not normally a household name, so the question is what experts say, and I can imagine that some of them prefer classical/international pronunciations. But I have no way to prove that. Can anyone find sources for that? (b) we can include classical pronunciations if we want to. The most important principle is that we should find sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

His son's name was Oklan

His son's name was Oklan - a real Turkish word Nowhere in the wiki world do we see the name Oklan as Odoacer's son. Everywhere is written only Thela. It would be so revealing if we knew that his son's name is Oklan. Oğlan/Oglan is quite a real Turkish word for "the boy" or "the son". It is definitely an indicator of Odoacer's origins. UzunbacakAdem (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) (discussion) 12:47, 12 Apr 2023 (CEST) Uzunbacak Adem

Source?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Never heard this in all my years. Like Ermenrich has inquired, please provide a legitimate academic source for this claim.--Obenritter (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I found these: Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez, Odoacer: German or Hun? p. 38: "For the purpose we find in the Western sources the names of key persons: Odoacer; his father, Edicon; his son, Thelan or Oklan; his brother, Hunoulphus." pp. 48, 49: "Odoacer's son is called by two different names in our sources: Thelan and Oklan. This would seem to hint that one or the name; neither has a satisfactory Germanic etymology. Thelan resembles the name borne by the khagan of the eastern Turks, Tulan, who reigned from 587 to 6oo A.D. Oklan resembles closely the Turkish-Tatar word oghlan, "youth," which in modern times came through into German as,uhlan, the name for lancers of "tartar" type. If this etymology be accepted, then the young man was named Thelan and he was also called familiarly or even by title, "The Youth."

Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe "Chapter 5 – The end of the Hunnic Empire in the west" p. 105: "Other interesting etymologies are Oghlan (Turkic 'youth') for Oklan, the son of Odoacer. Although further research is needed on this topic, we should not be surprised if the etymologies turn out to be correct. Names are certainly not always an indicator of ethnicity and many Germans did take up Hunnic names and probably some Huns Germanic or Iranian names. However, the heavy concentration of possible Turkic/Hunnic names in virtually every group or individual closely associated with Odoacer tells us that his identity was indeed much more deeply immersed in the former Hunnic Empire than many thought possible." Carlstak (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

My 2 cents. These are two very well-known and respectable sources for this type of question in this period and concerning this group of peoples. In terms of where they lie in the academic spectrum I would say they are both known as being open to new ideas, not conservative, but also not fringe/radical. Both of them present the possibilities, but apparently feel it would be right to take a strong position, and I think this is appropriate for our mission here at WP also. Just as a side remark the problem with many etymology based theories about anything in history is that they often involve very short names or words which can be found in many languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears we could add this as an alternative name for Thela. However, on the Turkic etymology, I would point out that Kim is not a linguist and that he is willing to accept a Turkic etymology for more or less any name, including ones with well-established Germanic etymologies. This page is not really the place to discuss the etymology of Oklan anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I couldn't follow the answers/react. I saw the name Oklan in Paulys RE. He had it from "Iorga Hist. de la Vie Byzantine I 218". His father had the name Odoacer that we explain that name very easily with "many" Turkic etymologies. UzunbacakAdem (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Uzunbacak Adem

I’m not sure I understand your point. We already have proposed Turkic etymologies for Odoacer (which are all fairly unlikely given the name is easily explained as Germanic). That does not mean we need to include the etymology of the alternative name of his son.—Ermenrich (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion but just as a comment on your logic, I suppose people find the etymology of his son's name important partly because his own name can be explained different ways. My own feeling is that the Attila conglomeration is a known explanation for both Germanic or Turkic names and therefore this whole type of highly speculative discussion less interesting. But apparently printed sources don't all see it that way. I guess the more sophisticated argument implied out there is that Odoacer might have had a particularly mixed background, coming from smaller tribes. But we are kind of covering that. Concerning Kim being a linguist I think this criticism implies that there is some kind of strong linguistic theory out there which he disagrees with. I don't think there is, and I don't there ever can be with most such short names.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

While it is certainly true that some people engage in this sort of speculation (most of them people trying to prove an ethnicity by using the rather unreliable notion that a person wouldn't use a name not originally from their ethnic group), it's unclear to me how we should include the fact that a non-linguist has noticed that the name Oklan looks vaguely similar to a word he can find in a Turkic language. Notice Kim doesn't (and probably can't) explain why Turkic "gh" would appear as "k" as opposed to ch, h, or g, nor does he provide evidence that this modern word existed c. 400 CE, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a response, but I was just wondering. Wasn't Kim citing someone else? Maybe UzunbacakAdem could try to dig up more sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Like I have written above, I have seen the name Oklan in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Link: [2]https://elexikon.ch/RE/XVII,2_2385.png . Turkic g could change to k easily. There is no problem. This is how "the others" could have heard that name. Turkish ğ was not always ğ, either. It was maybe harder at that time, like ġ or normal g. It is possible, I mean. It is more probable that the name Attila was Turkic and he himself was Turkic, too. His forefathers names Oktar, Charaton, Rua and Baybars could all Turkic be names, all of them and additionally his father Boncuk (bead) is a 100 % Turkic name. (I love Charaton, because I love the Turkic word KARA (black) and I can follow it through the history).For this name look at the works of Korean linguist Han-Woo Choi.UzunbacakAdem (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Uzunbacak Adem

No one is disputing that Oklan is in Pauly. Can you provide a citation of Han-Woo Choi's etymology of Oklan?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Choi wrote about the the word Kara and ton and about Attila's forefather Charaton and not about Oklan. UzunbacakAdem (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Uzunbacak Adem

Kim cites "Ganshof 1971, 87" for the oghlan etymology. This is "Ganshof, F. L. (1971) The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolingian History, trans. J. Sondheimer. Ithaca, NY." François Louis Ganshof was not a linguist. It's possible he got it from an actual linguist, if someone cares to check. But this sort of etymology and citation to an inadequate source is pretty much how Kim operates on these things. Whatever you think about his scholarship otherwise, he'd provide a citation that "George" is a Turkic name if a Hun were name that.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What the word predecessor means

@PhillyGamez: after your revert, WP:BRD. Please justify your bold edits where you make Romulus Augustulus a predecessor of Odoacer. Your first edsum implied Odoacer was emperor, which is not true. Your second edit implies Romulus was effective ruler of Italy, which is also not true. Aren't you comparing apples with pears here and stretching the English language too far? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

it shows Odoacer as successor in Augustulus' article, how come it can be the other way round? PhillyGamez (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Presumably the other article should be changed then. We don't use Wikipedia itself as a source for our editing decisions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edits. Taking it to talk

Taking it to talk as requested. I would like to call for feedback from other editors after being reverted for removing material in two places. I think some of the material in this article is not up to scratch. May I remove it?

• 1. The first is according to me an obvious case of an inappropriate use of "Wikipedia voice" to support an argumentative wording which is not actually needed in order to express the relevant information, and is also so forced that the sentence is not logical or clearly written. I can guess what it means, but I think our readers are not being helped here. [3]: Reynolds and Lopez's thesis was criticized by Otto J. Maenschen-Helfen, who pointed out the speciousness of their etymological analysis since names between Germans and Huns were being used reciprocally..

• In case anyone is wondering: the fact that European Huns in this period used Gothic names is already discussed elsewhere in the article. Perhaps this is what the extra words mean to say, but if so, then it is repetition. I do not know of any evidence that "Germans" used Hunnic names. Is this even verifiable?
• Note: our article has no reference for Otto J. Maenschen-Helfen. This is being cited to Macbain 1983, but I have no reason to believe our wording comes from his 1983 article, and indeed I can't imagine it did.

• 2. The second I consider to be an old fashioned racial stereotype argument from an old article, which is being given undue weight.[4]

• The removed material: Finally, a passage from Eugippius' Life of Saint Severinus indicated that Odoacer was so tall that he had to bend down to pass through the doorway, which Macbain consider another strong argument that he was unlikely to have been a Hun, since they were not known to be tall.{{sfn|Macbain|1983|p=327}} Do we want this?
• The edsum from Obenritter: the section contains the expression "other evidence" - which biological possibilities represent in much the way naming etymology is being cited here as "evidence" / please stop removing sourced content without discussion
• My argument: this is WP:UNDUE, and that is NOT the only problem. An argument that Huns were not tall is a racial/biological argument. Although such casual racial generalizations were very acceptable once upon a time, I believe we should avoid those in the 21st-century social sciences unless there is a very good reason not to.
• Answer to apparent counter-argument: It is sourced. So what? There are thousands of articles about these topics, so if we go that way then we'll end up overloading articles with garbage which has been a problem in the past for such topics on WP but which I thought we were avoiding a bit better these days. I suppose that the only question should be whether Macbain 1983 is a highly cited source that needs to be used in this article, and in that case also whether this is a core argument of that article. I don't think so. One would hope not.

Comments please. My own feeling is that this sort of material has got to go eventually. IMHO this appears to be homemade WP opinionating, which is low quality (even in terms of writing style etc), and ethically questionable. So there need to be clear reasons not to delete it. Just saying there is a source is not always enough? We cannot and should not include everything from every source that meets normal RS standards. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Biological realities are not racial denigration. The Dutch are the tallest people per capita on earth. Is that offensive or controversial, when there is data to suggest this to be true? This does not hearken back to 19th century racialist ideals as Andrew implies here. Height has no bearing whatsoever on the worth of a human-being. It has to do with statistical norms. If the skeletal remains of the average Hun are 6–10 inches shorter than an average Goth, does that not suggest that the ancient evidence would bear into the discussion in much the same way observations from ancient contemporaries would? That's like saying referencing language-borrowing is somehow ethically questionable. It's ridiculous and it's overreaching by you to try and win an argument.

You argue that we're not sure what Otto J. Maenschen-Helfen wrote since Macbain is referencing the latter. What is written was not verbatim but is a synopsis of the argument Macbain made about Otto J. Maenschen-Helfen's problem with the 1940s article of Reynold-Lopez, which in itself deserves mention. You can read it for yourself and you'll come to the same conclusion no matter how you attempt to characterize it. Also, if the original addition was in quotes, then your contention that this is not what Macbain stated would be relevant, but it is very much what he implies. If you'd like the exact wording in there, then parse it out accordingly — it still has the same meaning. We can soften it to read, "who pointed out that names between Germans and Huns were being used reciprocally" (meaning their argument about the root of the name had no bearing on ethnic heritage and that it's otherwise specious/questionable). Still, there is nothing illogical about the sentence as originally written, but I'll concede we can temper the verbiage. Also, WP voice is not being used since the participant scholar is being referenced. You're just trying to find a loophole of any sort to omit text that counters your addition by Reynolds-Lopez. Other scholars have taken exception to it and that's a fact and the contentions made immediately after their claims seems to cause you consternation, as does the statements from Eugippius. Your assertions of "opinionating" and "low writing style", let alone accusations of questionable ethics are you, once again, casting aspersions because we disagree and you want to delete this content—no matter what. I'll assent to whatever consensus gets reached on the matter, but not just because you want to find the edits objectionable. Worse, you even write hereto: I suppose that the only question should be whether Macbain 1983 is a highly cited source that needs to be used in this article, and in that case also whether this is a core argument of that article...when the article's main arguments cover the feasibility of Odoacer being a Hun or not. Seriously? The lengths you go to whenever you get challenged are sometimes hard to believe and are the sort of editing behavior that runs off credentialed people. --Obenritter (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, what are you trying to start now, Andrew Lancaster?

McBain wrote in Odovacer the Hun, p. 324: "Debate on this interesting theory sputtered briefly to life when J. O. Maenchen-Helfen, in a communication in the same journal, criticized their linguistic analysis both in method and substance, and pointed out that etymology was not in any case a sure guide to ethnicity, since personal names were freely exchanged among the Huns and their various German subjects. In a reply, however, Reynolds and Lopez declined to concede any major point in their argument."

Otto Maenchen-Helfen wrote in The World of the Huns Chapter IX "Language" 6. 'Turkish names' p. 406:

"Βέριχος

Lord of many villages, Berik, "strong." The king under whom the Goths are said to have left Scandinavia had a similar name: Berig, Berg, Berigh, Berich, Berice, Berige; see Getica 2594. Although the Goths took over Hunnic names, they certainly did not rename one of their halfmythical rulers. Berig is probably *Bairika, the hypocoristic form of a name beginning with Bere-, like Beremod." Carlstak (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I see the first two replies as defensive, but it would be good to get more opinions. Personally I think these parts of the article can and should be improved in some way. I don't think the arguments in these replies are convincing, and I also ask both editors to strike out the ad hominem parts.

• 1. Obenritter concerning the argument regarding the etymology of the name, I think the words I deleted (names between Germans and Huns were being used reciprocally) are bad English, and I think it should at least be converted into clear English. As a native speaker who is accustomed to academic writing I can personally only understand this sentence because I am aware of the original argument. The basic point is as far as I can understand really only that the language behind someone's name does not prove their ancestry? Another obvious issue is the silly use of the word "speciousness". That is clearly not our normal style! Can we at least simplify this sentence?
• 2. We have modern statistics for the average heights of Dutch people. We are normally very careful about accepting older opinions about biological races from non-experts, not only because it can sometimes be offensive, but also because racial speculation can lead to nonsensical conclusions in older historiography. For Huns we at least have a whole body of more recent secondary literature which is sceptical of classical claims about the appearance of Huns in the time of Attila, but we are not mentioning those expert opinions here. If we want to handle this claim seriously we would have to write a lot more, and I don't think that would be appropriate. Furthermore this would not necessarily be relevant in the generation of Odoacer even if we could trust such classical reports about earlier generations. WP is claiming that there is a serious and current academic position that Odoacer can't have Hunnish ancestry because he was tall, which is a very strong use of such speculation. The editors of WP get to choose whether this old claim should be emphasized. I personally say it is a ridiculous one-off claim, and not recent or widely cited. But if this is what we want to promote then should we change the Huns article? It would be good to get more opinions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Defensive? "Ad hominem"? You've got to be kidding. I asked you a question, and I didn't make any arguments. I'm not playing your games, Andrew. I don't think think you'll get far with this nonsense. Same old, same old. Carlstak (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Your question is clearly a rhetorical question, and casting aspersions about an editor, as is "Same old, same old". I am once again asking you to do the right thing, and strike the personal attacks. You've not added anything relevant to the central issue. (The source was already clear.) Your "vote" against the changes I propose is clear, but as you say you give no argumentation or new information. (Frankly, I think your personal attacks are just a reflex whenever I propose anything. You've been acting that way for some years!) Please allow discussions about possible improvements to proceed as per WP:BRD. I am asking for part of one sentence to be removed or made readable, and for a non-expert claim about genetics to be removed as undue, and obviously superseded by later and more carefully written publications, as in our article Huns. (The problems here should be obvious. Putting aside the equation of ethnicity with descent, you don't need to know much about hereditary to know that people get genes from both parents, or that averages can't be used to draw strong conclusions about individuals. The author involved was making classic folksy mistakes, clearly outside of his normal field.) I am open to different ways of solving the two issues, but I don't seen a sensible way to handle the pseudogenetics claim without creating a very awkward digression. I personally don't see any value in doing that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to your note: "our article has no reference for Otto J. Maenschen-Helfen. This is being cited to Macbain 1983, but I have no reason to believe our wording comes from his 1983 article, and indeed I can't imagine it did." I cast no aspersions and made no personal attacks, so I won't be striking anything. This is funny considering your long-time habit of appending question marks to declarative sentences, as demonstrated here. Carlstak (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's all take a step back and breathe in here - this is just a minor dispute on an online encyclopedia, after all. No reason to take anything personally.

Here's my two cents: I can see Andrew Lancaster's point about the "all Huns are short" bit BUT I'm not sure that overrides an article that is only from the 1980s. If we can provide further scholarship on the issue of Hun-height, then perhaps more context can be presented. At Huns at the moment we just mention that Jordanes said they were short (and I believe Priscus as preserved in Jordanes as well, but here referring to Attila). Physical remains don't help much because it's usually not clear whether those interned were really "Huns" - whatever that means. So while the assertion is problematic for all sorts of reasons, it's not clear to me that we as Wikipedians have the authority to say that it can't appear in the article.

As for the names: I agree that there is evidence for intercultural naming between the Huns and Germanic-speakers, without it always being clear which way that went. Not all names used by both Goths and Huns have clear etymologies. I think the idea of Odoacer's name really being Hunnish is kind of ridiculous (in the same vein as scholars who are furiously trying to find an "Atlaic" origin for "Atilla," even though it is literally a word in Gothic), but it is a real scholarly position. That being said, it's definitely not contested and we must present it as such.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: a couple of points about your reply:

2. (which you handle first). You seem to be implying that we can't decide to avoid an awkward out-of-date opinion ("problematic for all sorts of reasons"). Of course we can, at least if the statement is not very highly cited. We surely both know that we do not need to report every opinion that every theoretically acceptable source has given, although we are supposed to cite all the most highly cited positions. (In the past we have discussed such cases.) A few weeks ago for example I was wondering reading how Matthias Springer thinks Odoacer might be a Saxon. My reasoning for not including it so far is simply that his position is connected to an idea that Saxons and Thuringians might have been overlapping groups in this period, and we do already report the idea that he was Thuringian. I tend to think this would probably simply create confusion. I do think we can improve wording and flow, reducing repetition and odd wordings, but that raises the other problem below.

1. I think you misunderstand my concern about the etymologies sentence. I have no big concern with what you are proposing, but: (1) I object to the word "speciousness" as unencyclopedic, and deliberately non-neutral. This is all too typical of the mini hit-jobs of academics which were once highly visible in all our Germanic-related articles (and always directed at academics who dared criticize older positions, as in this case). We shouldn't report the insults which academics make unless important. Do you agree? (2) The wording I deleted about Huns and Goths swapping names is eccentric and will bn unclear to normal readers. It can perhaps best be converted into everyday English which avoids the need for debate. For example: Otto J. Maenschen-Helfen, who pointed out that the allied Gothic and Hunnic peoples apparently used personal names from outside their own groups during the period of Edeco and Attila. (I just wrote that quickly as an example.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This last proposal from Andrew is certainly more in keeping with my suggestion about tempering the wording ("speciousness" certainly can be removed, in that, it is argumentative). However, I think the point Macbain was stressing (citing Otto J. Maenschen-Helfen to buttress his contention) is that there was intercultural borrowing occurring with respect to names between Goths and Huns. The restructuring to "used personal names from outside their own groups" goes too far, since readers might infer that means their names were from all over the place (China, India, wherever). Linguists have not made those claims yet to my knowledge, at least not explicitly. Where this went awry in my view is that instead of softening the language, Andrew just simply deleted the content under the auspices that the sentence was illogical or not clearly written -- which is simply incorrect. What his point probably was [correct me if I am wrong]: it is not the best use of plain language for the lay reader. With regard to the inclusion of Eugippius...it can probably be reduced to an informational note or deleted outright, dependent on consensus.--Obenritter (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes something like that. Concerning the etymology note I think we should use plain language whenever we can, surely, but clear language always at least. Obviously I am not married to any particular wording, but this is not a case where complex English seems impossible to avoid. According to Carlstak's quote above the core of the point in the original article was something like this maybe? etymology was not in any case a sure guide to ethnicity (i.e. in this particular period and culture). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's allow Carlstak or Ermenrich to rewrite the sentence and decide whether Eugippius's observation remains or not and live with it. OK?--Obenritter (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys seem to have come to an agreement. I wasn't taking a position, hoping that the experts would sort it out. I read a fair bit of Maenschen-Helfen last night, and was impressed by the depth of his knowledge, but The World of the Huns *is* dated. He emphasized the weight of paleoanthropological evidence, mostly skulls, concerning Huns and "race", including physical appearance (such as height), but all he offered was thin gruel, which he acknowledges. I wasn't able to find much else in my cursory search of the scholarship on the subject. I appreciate Obenritter's vote of confidence, but I think Ermenrich should write it. It's in his wheelhouse, and I'm too tired to do it justice.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2024‎ (UTC)

I've had a go at altering the text - what does everyone think?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

IMHO it is clearly an improvement. You included the two weakish arguments but in itself this is not such a concern to me. More importantly the argumentation and context is clear and handled quickly. You have avoided going so far as to require any further undue digression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ermenrich for your input and helping the text retain meaning. Likewise, thanks for your insights as well, Carlstak.

Thanks, Ermenrich, nicely done, and thanks to Obenritter for all the work he's done on the article. Carlstak (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ermenrich I note your second edit and I think the academic ideas about Thuringians still need more explanation. I don't think we are telling the readers that many academics simply think Jordanes got the name Turcilingi wrong, and that they were actually Thuringians. I am thinking that to make this whole discussion flow better a few sentences need to be moved around, and the sub-sectioning might not be giving the best possible result, because it breaks up the flow. On the basis of BRD I may try making a proposal which others are welcome to modify or revert as long as we are working constructively.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to quibble about any details (and I'm sure there will be things to quibble about), but I think that this is generally on the right track. I wonder if we shouldn't split out the etymology into its own section, just offering the two etymologies. We can then reference them in the section on ethnicity. As pointed out by Maenchen-Helfen, the origin of the name is not entirely the same question as the ethnicity.

Also, the Reallexikon mentions this in the article Edika: Dieselbe Person konnte unter verschiedenen Umständen als Hunne oder als Germane gelten, gerade in den Umwälzungen nach Attilas Tod, wie auch das Beispiel des gepidischen Hunnen Mundo zeigt. Die Führungsschicht des Attilareiches bestimmte auch nach dessen Zerfall weiter die gentile Politik. (The same person could under different circumstances be counted as a 'German' or a Hun, especially in the disruptions after Attila's death, as the example of the Gepid Hun Mundo also shows. The leadership class of Attila's empire controlled the politics of the gentes even after its fall.) Sadly, no article on Odoacer himself, and the Edeco article is from 1986.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Organize it as you think best here Andrew, as this might make it present more effectively. --Obenritter (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster - The changes look marvelous and read cleanly. --Obenritter (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)