Talk:Germania (book)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence:

He is also to blame for the misnaming of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, which did not quite take place in the saltus Teutoburgiensis, as he claimed in the Germania.

This is misleading insofar as is is not known where the forest Tacitus called saltus Teutoburgiensis was located; the forest that is called Teutoburg Forest today was given that name in the 19th century when it was believed by some historians to be where the battle took place. -- Ferkelparade π 15:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Map

The map lists the Venedes as a Germanic tribe, while they were actually proto-Slavs. The trained eye will recognise here the thin edge of an ethnic game that has been going for a long time, both in "scholarly" debates and on the battlefield. Moreover, there is hardly any ground to regard the source of the image, lacking any academic credential, as reliable. L'omo del batocio 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but what are you talking about. The map lists the Venedes because Tacitus lists the Venedes. If you think this is an "ethnic game", please complain to the author. I don't know if hte Venedes were "proto-Slavs" (and neither do you, or anybody), but we know for a fact that Tacitus did not list them as "proto-Slavs". --dab (𒁳) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Change

'those people have to be considered Germans because they have homes, wear shields and like to travel' Makes more sense if you change it to: 'those people have to be considered Germans because they have homes, wear shields and like to travel by foot' as he's showing the difference between the sarmatians (steppe nomads), who fight and travel almost always on horseback. The same about houses and about wearing shield. Not sure what the fact that it contributes little to ethnicographics studies really belongs here. He's definately saying that they are similar to germans ans sarmatians. But that he classifies them as germans because of their culture. Change hasn't been committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.149 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Germania (Tacitus)

The usual Wikipedia title to this would be Germania (Tacitus)--Wetman (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind a move, if it's in line with the treatment of Tacitus's other work. — LlywelynII 08:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Superb!

This is really something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.74.24.183 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible bias/Non-NPOV issue

I don't get why there's only two quotes harshly criticizing (and politicizing) this work with their biased vibe. Why are there no favourable receptions included as well in this article? There should be enough available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.32.85 (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Could this book be entirely fabricated?

Could this book have been entirely fabricated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.226.93 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of such - from a reliable source? BMK (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Germania (book)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article fulfills the demands for C-class of the AGS project, save inline citations and more proper references. The article has been put up for collaboration in the wikiproject. –Holt T•C 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 16:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles in "see also"

Why in "see also" there are links to "literary forgery", "false document" and similar articles? Is it suggestion that Germania is a fake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:119F:401F:9D00:F09B:CB32:471B:1FBA (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Another missed drive-by. I've removed it. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Germania book is considered to be fabricated by some historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.200.5 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit the article with reliable sources then, don't make innuendos with "see also" links. Reverted again. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As the IP above refuses to provide reliable sources but keeps putting the links back in, I have requested semi-protection for the page. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Does the original book exist?

Does the original book that was written with tacitus's own hand still exist?