Talk:Filimer

Origin of the Huns

If Filimer chased the witches that became the mothers of the Huns, how can he fit in in the late 2nd century AD? Jordanes places this guy in the very distant past, way before Pythagoras. /Pieter Kuiper 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of map

I wonder why Pieter Kuiper removed the interesting diachronic map on this page. His argument that it is "anachronistic" does not sound very convincing since it is diachronic.--Berig 18:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Filimer is 1000 BC according to Jordanes, give or take a few centuries. The map does not have anything to do with that period. /Pieter Kuiper 18:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are just POV-pushing your view that is completely fictive.--Berig 06:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Find a different illustration (or make a romantic painting of the valiant Filimer or something), but the map is misleading. I deleted it again. /Pieter Kuiper 06:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you find it misleading, why don't you add a comment in the caption?--Berig 06:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with reference

On August 8, 2007, User:Pieter Kuiper wrote the following version:

He was the son of Gadareiks and the fifth generation since Berig's mythical emigration from Scandza to Gothiscandza, 2030 years before Jordanes wrote his "Origin of the Goths".[1]

I am afraid that I can find no support in the reference for any of this information.--Berig (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Easily solved

Was Berig struck with blindness? Or is this nitpicking about a few years between the defeat of Witiges and Jordanes writing the Getica? The reference to the phrase that Berig removed should be clear enough: And thus a famous kingdom and most valiant race, which had long held sway, was at last overcome in almost its two thousand and thirtieth year by that conquerer of many nations, the Emperor Justinian, through his most faithful consul Belisarius. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but why did you simply revert instead of just fixing the problem? Moreover, your reference only supported the date, not anything else.--Berig (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology - what language?

The article asserts that 'Filimer' means "very famous" with a reference to a website by some "Þeedrich Yeat". Immediate question: what language might that be? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Berig, I noticed the tag. But when you place a POV tag you should also give an explanation on the talk page giving a definition of the problem. You mention cherry-picked quotes, but it is not immediately obvious who you would be referring to. The Christensen source is one of the main Jordanes commentaries of our time, and widely cited, and the other two are very well-known historians for this period. Possibly, you feel the short style does not do justice to the topic. But if expansion is what's needed, then you've used the wrong tag? Biggest problem I see does not seem to be based on any source, which is the mention of archaeological cultures. Fillimer would have been centuries before those if Jordanes was correct, so I can now see how we can connect him to such a culture, and I don't know of any source which does that. In any case, can you please define the POV problem a bit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You are right. In this short article a lot more could be given to explain why Filimer is connected to this culture and how. I think those parts and explanations are sorely missing. Don't you?--Berig (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, I may expand it later instead of being dissatisfied with what I feel is a scholarly imbalance. It is actually not that horrible when I re-read it.--Berig (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about this yesterday while reading Heather's work, Goths and Romans, and noted a couple of mentions there. I noted already on Goths today that he mentioned the name of Filimer as someone who might really have existed. I think Heather's position is that the second migration might be a real folk memory. (Not a "trustworthy" memory and he is more doubtful about the first migration being a Gothic tradition at all. To remind you, one big reason the experts have more doubts about this is that the sources seem to be old biblical commentaries, and reflecting themes found in other works by Roman authors.) More generally I recommend you try to find a copy, because it is one of the real key argumentations in the history of these ideas. I have no full pdf, so if you have a good library... I also suppose Christensen's book (big chunks online at google eg) will contain a lot more than what we have here. It is a pretty exhaustive book concerning details in Jordanes.

FWIW, concerning the second migration, although Heather felt Jordanes looked like he was reciting a tradition, and also felt that it aligned with the archaeology (in the 1990s), others disagree on that. On the second migration Heather is about as "pro Jordanes" as you'll find among the historian/philologists. Among archaeologists Florin Curta and Guy Halsall, who both probably also qualify as big name historians, or at least Halsall does, have argued that the evidence for the Wielbark culture simply moving and becoming the Chernyakov culture is also not as simple as people used to think. Furthermore there is also a version of the charismatic clan idea for the second migration, as with the first, which gives a popular (but vague) "migration light" narrative. In other words, maybe it was just a few key people, who carried some traditions with them, including a tribal name. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)