Talk:Ostrogothic Kingdom

Literature

The best-known Gothic manuscripts (including the Codex Argenteus and the Skeireins) are copies made in the Ostrogothic kingdom. The former is an earlier translation, and the latter may be one. Jacob Haller 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. What I meant was that all original literature from the period was written by Romans, which I think is true. You are welcome to correct what I've written and add more info. Cplakidas 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Regnum Ostrogothicum"

I removed this phrase from the "native name" field of the infobox. While the state under discussion here is generally called the Ostrogothic Kingdom in English-language sources (and thus I don't have any problem with the title of the article), no phrase like "Regnum Ostrogothicum" was ever used to describe the state by contemporaries. First of all, the word "Ostrogoth" or "Ostrogothic" is anachronistic -- Theoderic claimed to have a distant ancestor named "Ostrogothus," but the name was never used for the armed people he led into Italy during the period under consideration here; they were simply "Goths," and "Ostrogoths" was a term used by later writers to distinguish them from the other Gothic state in Spain, which got a similar back-label of "Visigoths." In addition, Theodric's state wasn't a regnum (or kingdom). The title of "rex", or king, used by him and his successors, indicated they were a leader of the Gothic war-band, whose members made up a fairly small portion of the population of Italy during this period; the title didn't have any geographic or even ethnic referent attached to it. Technically, Theodoric maintained the fiction that he was ruling a part of the Roman Empire on behalf of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople by virtue of the grants of Roman titles (patrician praesentalis, magister militium) that he received before he moved his warband into Italy. His realm wasn't officially a separate state, and thus didn't have a distinct official name. --Jfruh (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Name of the kingdom

Adding to the above, for whenever someone feels like rewriting this article to something more comprehensive, it should be noted (Arnold 2014:27, footnote 84) that the Romans of this time used names such Imperium Romanum, Res publica Romana, and Regnum Romanum for the kingdom. There definitely needs to be an addition to this article that takes into account Arnold's study. Might do it myself if I have the time and will someday. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References & Sources

The Reference & Sources sections are a bit of a mess.

• Some footnotes point to multiple references
• Some footnotes are unlinked shortened footnotes, hence the reason I will add them to Category:Wikipedia articles containing unlinked shortened footnotes
• The sources need to be put in alphabetic order, preferably by author last name
• Many sources are incomplete, lacking OCLC & ISBN numbers, & other basic parameters.
• Some of the sources are likely to have online sources

I hope to attend to this eventually, but it is likely that I will be busy for much of this month. Thus I would welcome any help. Peaceray (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Name of the kingdom (again)

Just because we know (or linguists can reconstruct) the Gothic words for "kingdom" and "Italy" doesn't mean that we have evidence that the Gothic language term "Kingdom of Italy" was ever used by anyone, let along in an official capacity. I realize it's frustrating! But we have to go by what the evidence says. We used "Ostrogothic Kingdom" because that is the common name in English-language scholarship. Actually coming up with an "official name" is tricky because the legal position of the Romans (including Latin-speakers in Italy who served in the Gothic administration but would have identified themselves as Romans) considered the kingdom to be a part of the Roman Empire where administration had been delegated to the Gothic kings. Most Germanic kings in general in this period would have used a royal title without a geographic referent -- Theodoric was never "King of Italy" and I'm not sure if he's ever even cited as "King of the Goths" in contemporary sources. At any rate, if there is not a cited source of contemporary use of a name for the kingdom, we should not be putting it in the article. --Jfruh (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the cited source of the Gothic translations is devoted to reviving the Gothic language, and also has translations for words like "communism" and "telephone". I don't think some glorified conlang should be admitted onto Wikipedia as if it were the real deal. Wiljahelmaz (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed. The grammar was also incorrect (Reiki Italja is literally "Kingdom Italy", with no genitive). Wiljahelmaz (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ironzombie39 please read this discussion as to why material from the Gothic resources you are citing (which are modern works of language reconstruction) are not appropriate citations for the material you keep adding and we keep deleting. Jfruh (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I just read it. I understand now Ironzombie39 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

New Map

I am planning to create a new map for the Article because the current one is, in my opinion, unsatisfactory and oversimplified. However, I have encountered an issue: Theodoric served as Regent of Spain for a period, and I am unsure whether to include this in the new map or to focus solely on the Kingdom of Italy.

I'd like to know your opinions on the matter Shuaaa2 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sole issues with the map currently on this article are that it does not state its sources, and that it should be SVG, not a raster image. In every other regard, I support a map like this one: maps for infoboxes should not be much more detailed than this. I strongly recommend against trying to engineer a map that tackles significant historical nuances like evolving vassal or dynastic relationships, as infoboxes are meant to communicate key facts at a glance: further detail should appear in the article itself. Stay as basic as possible, and limit yourself to what secondary sources specifically say was the Ostrogothic Kingdom. Remsense诉 16:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

i understand, and i dont mean a high level of detail what i meant was only the inclusion of Provincial boundaries and maybe the major cities including the capital, i have done something similar for the Kingdom of Italy under Odoacer Shuaaa2 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems alright, then! I would consider the Odoacer map to be a tad too detailed for its purpose (try to ensure that every aspect can be read and understood without zooming to expand the map. Remsense诉 17:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

very well, thank you! ill get to work on the map soon Shuaaa2 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

did it, apologies if it took a month i was quite busy Shuaaa2 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"Gothorum Romanorumque rex"

It was recently added to the article lede that Theodoric "called himself" this, but no citation was given. Is there evidence for this in some formal context (coins, inscriptions, legal codes)? I was under the impression that we only have him using "rex" without geographic or ethnic referent, but I could be wrong. --Jfruh (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)