Talk:Vortigern

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Celts Low‑importance

	Vortigern is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

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

King Arthur Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bede's Chronica Maiora?

I came here to see if Vortigern was used before Geoffrey. It says that Bede mentioned him in his chronica maiora and his Chronica Vurtigernus. Chronica Maiora appears to have been written in the 13th century, and the latter one I cannot find a source for, but it doesn't sound like Bede. It says he paraphrases Gildas in his other works, so he probably never named Vortigern? If Geoffrey is the first source for this than the article is not clear.

Vortigern is first mentioned by Gildas, who wrote in the early 6th century. Bede's Chronica maiora was written in 725 AD. There is no such thing as the "Chronica Vurtigernus". I think the poor composition of this paragraph in the article confused you; I have tidied it up a bit. Cagwinn (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

...Weird to notice how history is intermingled with fiction, in MANY so-called "academic" English materials. As if one was trying to invent a more appealing history than what really happened. PLEASE, can someone separate both? Separate fiction from history? It is much too hard and confusing in this context for one to seriously study the history of briton/England!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.49.180 (talk • contribs)

As the article says, fact and legend are already mixed in the primary sources themselves. This article just recounts what is said there. It may be "hard and confusing" to study, but this is all we're left with, underground dragons and all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree. If you're studying medieval history, you're going to run in to this problem a lot. Wrad 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans take great pride in living in a country older than the United States. What use is it to have such a long history if nobody even knows the history? 400 AD isn't 'that' long ago, you'd think there'd be a little more fact than fiction in these stories. Is this truly all we got for the most accurate picture? 98.165.16.149 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to realise this was a time of great turmoil. The Roman legions left Britain, the Roman Empire collapsed, and Britain was invaded by Anglo-Saxon tribes who were illiterate. The Anglo-Saxons were later converted to Christianity, and with Christianity writing resumed. This period is definitely a "dark age" in terms of historical evidence. There is even less historical information about King Arthur than Vortigern.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Could you tell me how to pronouce his name correctly? I would guess vɔː(r)ti'gɜː(r)n. That's right? --Babeuf 21:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask this question at WP:Reference desk/language. --Babeuf 08:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babeuf (talk • contribs)

Vortigern in section

"Vortigern: history or apochrya" is an inappropriate title according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, headings, and sections#Section headings which states "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life when His means the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated." The name Vortigern explicitly returns to the subject of the article, therefore it is totally unnecessary. SADADS (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I must have missed that one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Whyte reference

Vortigern's presence in Jack Whyte's novel needs to be respected as a legitimate literary reference, or the section "[[Vortigern is played by Welsh actor Hefin Wyn in the 2008 Anglo-American fantasy film Merlin and the War of the Dragons, in which he is portrayed as the successor to Arthur. He also appears in the miniseries Merlin, in which he is portrayed as a tyrant played by Rutger Hauer. He appears in the film The Last Legion, in which he is portrayed as a tyrant played by Harry Van Gorkum." need be deleted for both relate to contemporary artistic work which use Vortigern as a charachter. This is common practice in articles containing Historical charachters such as King Arthur in various media. Because Vortigern is not nearly as popular of a charachter he needn't have an entire page to his own, therefore the cultural references should be included regardless how historically interesting they are such as the Vortigern and Rowina play.

SADADS (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to include every modern fantasy or historical fiction novel that has included Vortigern as a minor character, nor should we cherry-pick one or a few such references based only on our personal taste. Whyte's novel is surely only one of several that have included Vortigern in some fashion, but it is not given a source or context on what makes it important enough to be mentioned. If you find a secondary source indicating that this is a particularly notable appearance, as has been done with the other material in the section, then it could be included. Until then, I'm removing it along with the unsourced film appearances.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I agree with that decision but it is reasonable. SADADS (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't take it the wrong way. I only meant that article need to be based on reliable sources; it's hard to tell what information is important if we don't have sources to go back to. I think there are probably reliable sources out there discussing Vortigern in art and literature; with those we will be able to gauge what information we ought to include here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not offended the least bit, it just seems that most individuals on Wikipedia who are common fictional characters gain a popular culture section that is not based on secondary sources but instead relies on the stability of the main page for that book/movie/song/etc... I am not sure how I feel about it, just what we did seems kindof contrary to the main trend that I have observed SADADS (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia is (hopefully) trending away from pop culture sections. See for example Wikipedia:Trivia sections. While many decent articles still have them, as the pages are improved to featured article status whatever useful information is contained in these sections is merged into the article proper. A terrific example in this field is our article on King Arthur. That article does deal with modern versions of the legend, but it relies on secondary sources to judge which information is the most important. If the article were to collect all the pop culture mentions of Arthur it would be extraordinarily long and not at all useful to a reader wanting to gain a real understanding of the subject. I think this trend is a very good one in general, though it does sometimes make us come off as brusque, which is not a good thing. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Germanus

The disambiguation page has a number of Germani, does anyone know which one? That is the St. Germanus in the Bede section. - SADADS (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Germanus of Auxerre. I fixed it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vermaat's website Vortigern Studies

I don't consider this a reliable source. I have also found copyvio there, specifically the calculations paragraph at [1] which is from Michael Jones The End of Roman Britain p. 58. I originally thought that the IP who added this in 2005 was paraphrasing Jones, but it looks as though it came from Vermaat. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vortigern's location

Geoffrey of Monmouth locates Vortigern as the leader the Gewissei tribe of Celts, linked to Hwicce and the area linking the Welsh of Wales with those of Dumnonia. Given thatt this area was only conquered by the Saxons later, and Hwicce is linked etymologically to "frontier", and had even under Cerdic, Cynric and Ceawlin kings with Celtic and not Germanic names, it seems that the later West Saxons were not oriiginally Germanic but were in fact Celtiic. John D. Croft (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey of Monmouth is not reliable for 5th century history.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incest Slur

This is not referenced at all and reads like a series of unqualified opinions and musings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.39.161 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, certainly appears that way, a previous anonymous user re-added it after a removal. If something similar needs to be added back, it certainly needs to be referenced, Sadads (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur

Arthur is mentioned several times in the article, but there is no indication of the role Vortigern played in Arthurian legend.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brythonic

I've altered "Brythonic" to "Goidelic" in relation to the "Guorthigern" version of the name. I assume it was a simple slip (no authority is quoted): the clearest difference between the Brythonic and Goidelic language groups is that the former has p/b/v where the latter has c/g/gh so Vortigern is pretty clearly already Brythonic (and why should it be otherwise)? What a Goidelic version of the name is doing one doesn't know, but there was Irish settlement on the Welsh coasts. Diomedea Exulans (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would do that, as you are completely wrong. The spelling of the name of the pillar inscription is 9th century Old Welsh (and I have fixed the article to reflect this - don't know why the anachronistic term "Brythonic" was added here). If you don't have any specialist knowledge on a subject, you should really resist the urge to edit articles here. You are only misleading others and making more work for those of us who know better. Cagwinn (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete section

Whoever edited the section on William of Malmesbury evidently forgot to add the second quotation they meant to supply (from "De Gestis Regum Anglorum book I, chapter 23" according to the entry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.250.109 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks the Rober de Boron tradition

Especially the manner of his death - being burned to death in his tower by Uther and Pendragon (https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/conlee-prose-merlin-vortigers-demise-the-battle-of-salisbury-and-the-death-of-pendragon). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons image caption

Pictured above Vortigern sits at the edge of a pool -- isn't he standing?--2.202.3.216 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]