Talk:Vandals/Archive 1

Miscellaneous

Their name became a byword for meaningless destruction. This propaganda came up many centuries later. Does anyone know, who it was that came up with this and why? I read,that this was started by a 17st or 18st century Frenchmen.

Hmmm. It was generally known that the Vandals had, like the Visigoths, sacked Rome (410, Visigoths; 455, Vandals). In the 16th and 17th century English sources they are usually part of a list (Huns, Goths and Vandals), like Dryden's

Till Goths, and Vandals, a rude Northern race, 
Did all the matchless Monuments deface

I don't know how early it turns into *just* Vandals. It might be earlier in French. I'd hesitate to call it propaganda - just exagerration. --MichaelTinkler

ps: all your base are belong to us

---

"In some parts of the West Coast of America, the term Vandal is used as a derogatory epithet for Blacks because of their alleged destructiveness in the inner city Ghettoes of America."

Which parts? According to whom? This sounds shady - I'd like to remove it, is there any justification for this? Mark Richards 21:42, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mark Richards, could you please provide an academic reference for this statement. Stephen MacCaul

---

"Their presence was recorded between the Oder and Vistula rivers in Germania in AD 98 by Tacitus and by later historians." Under what name? Not as "Vandals". Someone is jumping to hopeful but unwarranted conclusions I think. Which "later historians?" --Wetman 07:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

for future reference

the Vandals in the chronicon of Hermannus Contractus.

• 406 Wandali, Suevi et Alani trajecto Rheno III Kal. Januarii Gallias hostiliter ingressi.
• 409 Wandali, Alani et Suevi in die Oct. Hispanias occupant.
• 418 Pugna inter Gundericum Wandalorum regem et Ermenricum [al., Hermericum] Suevorum regem facta.
• 421 Constantius imperator Ravennae moritur. Bellum inter Wandalos et Gothos oritur.
• 427 Bonifacius in Africa pollens duces quosdam contra se dimicantes occidit; contra quem evocatis barbaris mare ad id tempus ignotum pervium efficitur. Unde gens effera Wandalorum, de Hispaniis exclusa a Gothis, freto trajecto Africam invadens, gladio, praeda et igne miserabiliter debacchatur, interfecto prius Ermengario [al. Hermigarius] rege Suevorum, postquam in Hispania XIX annis debacchati sunt. (al. a. 429.) (prototypical "vandalism"!)
• 434 Wandali jam nono anno Africam infestantes, pactum a Romanis postulant.
• 435 Pax cum Wandalis facta, data eis ad habitandum Africae portione Aetius Gundicharium regem Burgundionum bello obtinuit, supplicantique pacem concessit, qua tamen non diu potitus ab Hunnis cum gente sua peremptus est.
• 442 Hunnis Thracias et Illyricum saeva populatione vastantibus, exercitus contra Wandalos missus, ad tuitionem Orientalium revocatur. Valentinianus imperator cum Geiserico rege Wandalorum pacem firmat, Africa inter utrumque certis spatiis divisa.
• 454 Ipso anno, Geisericus rex Wandalorum, de Africa trajiciens, Romam quia sine imperatore erat, invasit, eamque opibus cunctis exspoliavit. Hucusque Prosper chronica sua perduxit.
• 465 Wandali per Marcellinum in Sicilia victi, caesique sunt et fugati.
• 477 Geisericus rex Wandalorum, post XXXVII et paulo plus invasae Carthaginis annos, tandem moriens tyrannidi suae finem fecit. Post quem non melior filius Hunnericus regnavit annis fere VIII.
• 484 Hunnericus, rex Wandalorum, divinitus percussus, scatens vermibus exspiravit. Post quem fratris ejus filius Gundamundus regnavit annis fere XII, qui non multo post Eugenium episcopum revocavit.
• 490 Ipso anno Gundamundus rex Wandalorum pacem cum Romanis fecit.
• 494 Gundamundus rex Wandalorum, persuadente Eugenio archiepiscopo, tandem post X annos omnes catholicos episcopos de exsilio revocavit et diu clausas ecclesias pace reddita aperuit.
• 496 Gundamundo rege Wandalorum defuncto, Trasamundus XXVI paulo plus annis pro eo regnavit.
• 522 In Africa mortuo tandem Trasamundo rege Wandalorum Ariano, Heldericus pro eo regnavit annis VIII; qui statim in principio regni ecclesias diu clausas aperuit, et omnes catholicos de exsiliis revocare studuit, et optatam Ecclesiae pacem restituit.
• 530 In Africa occiso male Helderico rege Wandalorum catholico, Geilamer regnum invadens tanta feritate in catholicos et in omnes debacchatur, ut nec parentibus suis parceret.
• 534 Belisarius patricius a Justiniano imperatore missus Wandalorum gentem in Africa bello victam delevit, Geilamerum regem eorum captum Constantinopolim abduxit, et Carthaginem reipublicae restituit post annos XCIV ex quo a Geiserico capta est. Geilamer quoque post aliquot annos a Justiniano Augusto comes effectus, et in terminos Parthorum ad eos arcendos constitutus est.

the Vandals in the chronicon of IDATII.

"[]Gallaeciam Wandali occupant et Suevi, sitam in extremitate Oceani maris occidua. Alani Lusitaniam et Carthaginiensem provincias, et Wandali cognomine Silingi Baeticam sortiuntur.[]

"Cui succedens Wallia in regno, cum patricio Constantio pace mox facta, Alanis et Wandalis Silingis, in Lusitania et Baetica sedentibus adversatur.[]

(Fredibalum, regem gentis Wandalorum, sine ullo certamine ingeniose captum ad imperatorem  
 Honorium destinat.) 

Wandali Silingi in Baetica per Walliam regem omnes exstincti.[]

Alani qui Wandalis et Suevis potentabantur, adeo caesi sunt a Gothis, ut exstincto Atace [Addace] rege ipsorum, pauci qui superfuerant, abolito regni nomine, Gunderici, regis Wandalorum, qui in Gallaecia resederat, se patrocinio subjugarent.[]

Inter Gundericum Vandalorum, et Hermericum Suevorum reges certamine orto, Suevi in Nervasi [Ms., Nerbasis] montibus obsidentur a Wandalis.[]

 Wandali Suevorum obsidione dimissa, instante Asterio Hispaniarum comite, sub vicario      
 Maurocello, aliquantis Bracarae in exitu suo occisis, relicta Gallaecia ad Baeticam
 transierunt.[]

Castinus magister militum cum magna manu et auxiliis Gothorum, bellum in Baetica Wandalis infert: quos cum ad inopiam vi obsidionis arctaret, adeo ut se tradere jam pararent, inconsulte publico certamine confligens, auxiliorum fraude deceptus ad Tarraconam [Ms., Terraconam] victus effugit.[]

Wandali Balearicas insulas depraedantur: deinde Carthagine Spartaria, et Hispali eversa et Hispaniis depraedatis, Mauritaniam invadunt.[]

(Olymp. CCCII.) Gundericus, rex Wandalorum, capta Hispali, cum impie elatus manus in ecclesiam civitatis ipsius extendisset, mox Dei judicio daemone correptus interiit. Cui Gaisericus frater succedit in regno. Qui ut aliquorum relatio habet, effectus apostata de fide catholica in Arianam dictus est transisse perfidiam[]

Gaisericus, rex de Baeticae provinciae littore, cum Wandalis omnibus, eorumque familiis, mense Maio ad Mauritaniam, et Africam relictis transit Hispaniis. Qui prius quam pertransiret, admonitus Hermigarium Suevum vicinas in transitu suo provincias depraedari, recursu cum aliquantis suis facto, praedantem in Lusitania consequitur.[]"

Vandals vs Finns

Interestingly enough both Vandal and Finn may mean originally the same thing: wanderer or to wander. See for example this entry from the German Wikipedia: [1]. Although I'm not saying that the Vandals would be in any modern sense Finns, it's interesting that in southern Finland there is a place and a river called Vantaa. The river leads up to the lake Vanaja which is in the heartlands of ancient Häme. It's also possible - to make the matter even more confusing - that the "Vends", a tribe in what nowadays is Latvia, were Finnic. Even Russia is called Venäjä in Finnish and "Veneland" (Venemaa) in Estoninan ... Vanaland/Vanaheim in Ynglinga saga. My non-expert hypothesis is that those Germanic peoples who had settled down called "wandering peoples" in general, perhaps slash-and-burn agriculturalists or hunter-gatherers (as the "Sami Finns" up north), Finns/Vandals/Vends/Wends. That could explain the wide spreading of the name all the way from Norway to Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.148.198.61 (talk • contribs)

Maybe, but this is original research and has no place in an article of an encyclopedia. The Ogre 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

modern vandal versus ancient vandal

Did the more common meaning of the word "vandal" come about because of the destruction the Vandals caused? Or was it the other way round or a complete coincidence? -- Natalinasmpf 03:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See my note to the year 427 above:

Unde gens effera Wandalorum, de Hispaniis exclusa a Gothis, freto trajecto, Africam invadens, gladio, praeda et igne miserabiliter debacchatur

"whence the brutalized tribe of the Vandals, pushed from Spain by the Goths, tore straight into Africa, devastating it pitifully by the sword, by plundering and torching"

I do think the connection is obvious... dab (ᛏ) 08:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Most tribal names are given in the plural in the article title. Furthermore, already most of the links link to Vandals, which then redirects to Vandal. I have tried to do this myself, but I don't seem to ba able to do it from the entry on the WP:RM page.

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. Common term for the people. – AxSkov (☏) 09:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. "Vandal" suggests a language article. --Wetman 20:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support —Michael Z. 2005-09-15 19:14 Z

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 00:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• We take it for granted that fixing double redirects is being considered an inherent part of the move. --Wetman 20:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Catholics??

In the subsection "Africa" there is a reference of prosecution of "catholics". This is not accurate. During the 5th century there existed no "catholics": the great schism took place in the circa 1050. The point the author of the text is trying to make is the distinction between "canonical" christians and the "heretic" Donatists. I don't know how to name "canonical" christians (Catholics is just plain innaccurate) so I didnt edit it. If anyone knows the proper name to refer to "canonical" 5th century christians, please edit. Michalis Famelis 22:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The term Catholic(katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) is first recorded in the 2nd century AD(in refernce to Christianity and the church that is). And later in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD becomes a word of distinction for "canonical" churchs. Noteably among the greeks.

In the "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): "And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is--for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord--nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.

St Augustine even defined the Catholic Church in 397:

n the Catholic Church ... there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

So a refernce to the persicution of 'Catholics' in the 6th century isn't wholly apocraphal. Though if the average church goer called themselves as such is questionable. The term Catholic was't some magic invention bred from the Greet East-West Schism of 1054. Conversly neither was "Orthodox." Orthodox meaning 'right beliver.' Both existed long before the schisms of the 9th and 11th centuries. -Than

The phrasing of "sought internal peace with the Catholics" sounds like biased hogwash. No doubt there were accurate historical conditions for their actions and not some mystical 'get right with me' mythology.

Andalusian dialect

“Some traces may remain in Andalusian dialect, the southernmost group of Spanish dialects,”

Can someone say what traces are these? Could you give some examples?

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 09:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Failure of African kingdom because of "lack of religion and racial unity"

Article notes: "the African kingdom of the Vandals soon began to decay from the lack of religion and racial unity between the two populations". Can we have a reference for this? Supporting evidence? Sounds like this text has been dredged up from some nineteenth century text book! feels like unsubstantiated rubbish. If the kingdom fell apart because the people didn't believe in God, then give me evidence. If the kingdom fell apart because of racist factionalist fighting, give me proof. Otherwise delete this section. It sounds very shakey and unproven to me --mgaved 09:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. There's very little internal information on the vandal kingdom in North Africa.--Wetman 10:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I understood the line as "lack of religious (unity) and racial unity." Still needs source, though.

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the Vandals article: B-Class, with the following comments (see link to ratings summary page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):

• Good coverage of topic.
• Needs infobox.
• Needs inline citations.

You can give this article (and any other article within the WikiProject) a rating, as described below.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
-- --Ling.Nut 13:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Roland Steinacher ?

Roland Steinacher in his (2002) 200+ pages paper not even tray to sugest that names Vandalia and Vandals are not similar. As suggested by editor

Welshes names Hallingdal or Vandalia are more similar to name Vandals?

a) Similarities of names have suggested homelands for the Vandals in Vandalia, ...
b) Similarities of names have suggested homelands for the Vandals in Norway (Hallingdal), ...

Another obvious false statement by Friendly_Neighbour Who wrote No, the name "Vandals" for Wenden is a late medieval misconception.

 796 - 476 = 320 , 1453 - 796 = 657 , 657>>320.

Friendly_Neighbour cannot see that number 600 is slightly bigger than 300. Nasz 09:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you say what are you trying to prove here? Especially with the numerology? I gave a link to a whole PhD thesis about the perceptions (and mis-perceptions) of Vandals from Middle Ages to 18th century (the same author later made a journal paper from the thesis but it's not available on-line). Already in the preface he writes Mittelalterliche Autoren verwendeten auch die Form Wandali für die Slawen/Wenden. Dieser Namensgebrauch konnte in der Forschung bisher nicht zureichend erklärt werden. Ziel des zweiten Kapitels dieser Arbeit war es, eine Erklärung für dieses Phänomen zu entwickeln which means "Medieval authors used also the form Wandali for the Slawen/Wenden. This name use has not be explained in the research so far. The goal of the second chapter of this work was it to develop an explanation for this phenomenon". What else do you need? If you do not know German you may help yourself with Bablelfish copying and pasting fragments from Chapter Two from the file to an on-line translator. Friendly Neighbour 11:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you will use Babelfish be careful about the word "turns" which is a mis-translation of "Wenden". But the end result is not bad. I'll give here a fragment of page 113 translated with Babelfish with only minimal stylistic corrections by me: "The equation Wenden = Vandalen comes from the difficulties to classify the ethnic landscape of Eastern Europe in the early Middle Ages. It was formed before the time, when the ethnogenese of the Slavs in the East had reached a stage, which showed her as groups with a specific identity". Which probably closes the Wendan = Vandals idea. The only mistake I made was writing that the mis-conception comes from late Middle Ages. I should have written early. Sorry for that. BTW, did the numerology part of your edit have something to do with this? Friendly Neighbour 11:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

F: Can you say what are you trying to prove here? Especially with the numerology?

N: I just showing you, that you are misleading. You wrote, your quote: 'No, the name "Vandals" for Wenden is a late medieval misconception.

this is not late medival. Do you see it now ?

Do you want to now say?: Ok is not late medieval. YES/NO ?

If not could you more elaborate on Why so many medival kings and historian were wrong << according to 2002 Phd thesis , thesis even published in a journal.

I think it will be also productive if you redefine concept of HISTORICAL SOURCE.

Nasz 10:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

December 12, 2006 edits by Nasz

I reverted the edits. The reasons are multiple:

• The style of In 2002 Phd student wrote that medieval authors are wrong is clearly unencyclopedic (bad grammar of the sentence is easy to correct but it still would not be a encyclopedia compatible text).
• The whole PhD thesis referred is about the ideas about Vandals published between the Middle Ages and 18th century. Saying it is about "medieval authors" that "were wrong" is a inexcusable oversimplification.
• the reason for adding the wiki-ling aiming at Polabians (which is a which is a disambiguation page!) and showing Lusitians who are only one of the three Polabian sub-groups is very hard to fathom.

Nasz, I asked you on your Talk page to do your own research before editing. Your answer was to blank twice my edits. I also asked you twice not to reply on my Talk page. You ignored my request. In fact you followed it but only by chance: you've put your answer on the Talk page of a dead account ;-) I found it only by checking your contribution list. Friendly Neighbour 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence in Origins section

"Some believe the Vandals were first identified with Przeworsk culture in the 19th century"

This makes no sense. I suspect whoever wrote it was translating to english and the translation did not go over well. I would modify this but I have no idea what the true meaning of this sentence is. If anyone knows, please clean it up. Cshay 01:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted reference

The following reference has been commented out by User:Nasz: Roland Steinacher under Reiner Protsch"Studien zur vandalischen Geschichte. Die Gleichsetzung der Ethnonyme Wenden, Slawen und Vandalen vom Mittelalter bis ins 18. Jahrhundert", 2002. Noted by Wetman 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

False reference

do i have to explain what it mean ? Nasz 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

I do not like the joke added to the citation of my PhD thesis! The thesis was not supervised by Reiner Protsch, but by Herwig Wolfram and Walter Pohl at the University of Vienna. This can also be seen in the online version. Protsch was accused of manipulating his data. I published the main ideas as: Wenden, Slawen, Vandalen. Eine frühmittelalterliche pseudologische Gleichsetzung und ihre Nachwirkungen, in: ed. Walter Pohl, Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen. Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 8, Wien 2004) 329-353. An english version is being prepared. Greetings from Austria Roland Steinacher

I also found the english abstract of my PhD thesis, maybe this can be used : )

"Studien zur vandalischen Geschichte. Die Gleichsetzung der Ethnonyme Wenden, Slawen und Vandalen vom Mittelalter bis ins 18. Jahrhundert"

ABSTRACT The german Wenden is known as a synonym for Slavs since the 6th century A.D. Medieval authors also used Wandali instead of Wenden/Slavs. There was no explanation for this identification in historical research yet. The first sources containing the equation are the glossary of Wessobrunn (9th cent.) and the so called glossary of Salomon. Several other sources up to the 15th century also were analyzed. The so called "Frankish Table of nations", a brief genealogy of peoples that, in essentials, proceeds from Tacitus threefold division of the Germans, was identified as the main source for the identification of Slavs/Wenden with the Vandals. Traces of this text could be isolated in sources dealing with the identification discussed; especially in the Chronicon Vedastinum and the 13th century Polish chronicle of Mierszwa. The first aim of the identification was the integration of the Slavs, the "newcomers and nomads" (Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought. Fourth Series, Cambridge 2001) 23) of early medieval Europe, in a western and frankish conception of history. Danzig, Lübeck, Wismar, Rostock, Stralsund, Königsberg, Riga and other cities of the Hanse were called wendische Städte/vandalicae urbes since the 14th century. The Swedish kings used the title Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque rex since the 16th century. These terms are survivals of the early medieval identification Wenden=Vandals. So it is possible to explain the Swedish title. Several humanist scholars tried to justify the equation with specific perversions of history using the so called Pseudo-Berossos and Tacitus. The 16th century texts of Krantz, Cromer, Dubravius, Schurtzfleisch, Marschalk, Latomus, Simonius, Chytraeus and Leuthinger are analysed and explained in this historical context. The dissertation also contains a discussion of the mainly german 18th century research concerning the equation. The dissapearance of the identification could be shown to be a result of its 18th century classification as an error of medieval authors. --Rolandsteinacher 03:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ANDALUSIA < VANDALUSIA: It is very probable that the name Andalusia is absolutely not connencted to our Vandals. Andalusia could have been derived from a gothic term for a tax paying district (landlos-gothica sors). This was suggested by: Heinz Halm, Al-Andalus und Gothica Sors, in: Der Islam 66 (1989) 252-263. --Rolandsteinacher 04:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no historical evidence whatsoever of the name Andalus ever having been used before the Islamic conquest and it is most likely of Arabic origin. Germanic etymologies are pure (and in my opinion far fetched)speculation.--Burgas00 00:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What i find funny is the use of the word Vandalusía which seems to have been conjured out of no where by one Dutch academic. --Burgas00 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalusia

The claim that only one Dutch have connected Vandalusia to Andalusia is not correct. Several Finnish researcher have also noted this connection, one few of them (as early than in 1910s) connected the Vandal language with some tribes of Eastern Voketia and Voketians with Galidjiani. And please note the typical Finno Ugrian -ng- in the middle of tribe names, not common at all in Indo-European spoked languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.194.227 (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup section: Origins

The section in question contains lots of fringe theories, and therefore should be reformulated to signal the speculativeness of the section, and be carefully provided by citations that enables us to determine the degree of "fringeness" of each statement. On the other hand, I'm against removing any information, unless proven to be outright hoax. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline

The Decline section is pathetic. I know people out there will respond and say "edit it yourself" but this soooo not a good article cos of the decline. There are more references to catholic persecution inthe few lines there then there are to reasons as to why Vandal power decreased. So what if they persecuted Catholics, did it lead to the Romans and other Christianized Germans attacking the Vandals? Why and how did they decline? None of these two key questions have been answered. I would be Bold and edit it but I have no verified history in this matter, my guesstimate is that the persecution of Catholics led to other Christians destroying them.Tourskin 01:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick version: the Byzantines invaded, defeated the Vandal armies, and proceded to persecute non-Catholic Christians. Jacob Haller 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so my guesstimate was right on. Tourskin 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sense of "East Germanic"

I have most often encountered references to the Vandals as East Germanic as a shorthand for "speaking an East Germanic language" if any definition is applied, not in the sense of "according to Tacitus' definition of Germanic" (and Tacitus doesn't define Germanic anyway, he uses geography). Jacob Haller 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it strikes me as not very encyclopedic. I just checked that this was added on April 16 by an anonymous user (with no edit explanation). Judging by his edit history, it was almost certainly the freshly banned Nasz while not logged. I will delete the words. -Friendly Neighbour 18:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was right about the edit being made by Nasz. The IP number has been blocked last night with the following coment: "the static IP used by indef. blocked user:Nasz". -Friendly Neighbour 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Succession

This makes no sense: "According to the law of succession which he had promulgated, his successor was not the eldest son but the oldest male member of the royal house (law of seniority). Thus he was succeeded by his son Huneric (Hunerich, 477–484), who at first protected the Catholics, owing to his fear of Constantinople." It says not his son, but then his son. Was his son also the oldest male member of the royal house? -Reagle 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

From where the Vandals came and to where they dissapeared? All participating to create good article of Valdals have omitted one possible link to so called Butonis (Budin Votjakis) and two other Finno Ugrian tribes which entered from Valgia Kama c. 50 BC to 100 AD to Bohemia and Vistula areas. Butonis belonged to Markomanni Reich in Bohemia and Silesia together with Zumis. There was also Uitonis (Jotunis) around Elbing River.This according to Strabo. Tacitus puts even better by adding Finnois and Ptolemaios describes Phennois. All took part to Markomanni war trek against the Romans in Pannonia.The Roman sources mentions also Limigantes who built wooden heated houses along the Theiss River in Pannonia. Their war cry was Marha,marha when they were attacking against Roman Legions. Limigantes were allied to Sarmanthians and most probably also Ud-murt tribe. Why all this is missing from the text? The Germanized names for Vandal "kuninkaat" (Kings) is nothing new. As long as someone can prove which language the Vandals used, their origin remains unknown. Limigantes seems to have returned back to Oka upper source to form origins to Vjatitsis as recorded by P.J. Jakobi in his research in 1904 - 1906 and recorded in Venäjän Maantieteellisen Seuran Julkaisuja (Russian Geographical Societys Publications) XXXII 1907 St. Petersburg.

What happened after 534 when King and 2.000 best warriors were taken to Constantinople to the remaining Vandals in North Africa? According to one Arab historian they started a new trek by packing their belongings to camels, donkeys and horses and started wandering toward south along "The Great Caravane Route" across Sahara to Niger River. From old German map dating by 1914 and published in Leipzig, the names presented sounds familiar to Finno Ugrians. One tribe settled around Tsade (Sade = Rain) Lake to Kanuri district (Kuka, Marte). Some settled to Keppi and Rima Rivers (Ilo, Raha, Tilli, Konni, Sirmi). But the main stream settled to River Niger bend area. (Karinaama, Kompa, Kupela, Ponsa, Terä, Kurki, Jatakala, Karu, Sallakoira, Sumpi, Pore, Kiri, Luta, Jako, Kutiala, Kuoro). Over the years they seems to have been assimilated with local inhabitants, both Arabs and Negros. If I now remember correctly one tribe even about 50 years ago told that their ancestors were white men and woman of Asian origin. (Sarmathians or Alains?).

JN

Ingenious ideas. But personally I think that Vandals were more related to Eskimos and Bushmen. 82.100.61.114 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Silingi/Hasdingi/Lacringi

There was a speculation - I don't know where I read it - that the ending -fal (-val) was a sign of Vandalic (sub)tribes or clans, respectively. As you know, a group called NAHANARVALI is listed among old Lugians by Tacitus. Then we know Victufali, who curiously lived in the same area like Vandals-Hasdingi. And we also know the Lacringi, who were close allies of the Hasdingi and later disappear from historical sources in Dacia. Curiously, they disappear in the same area, where shortly after a tribe called the Taifali gets into historical sources. Currently I don't have enough time to deal with it, but if you had any info concerning this, it would be very useful. 82.100.61.114 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

History section enhancements?

In the Decline section, can we add that Sicily was lost to Odoacer's Kingdom in 477 AD? That's mentioned in the article about Odoacer. If true, then it would help spruce it up a little bit.

Also, the Euratlas map of Europe in 500 AD shows a "Roman-Moor Kingdom", which I haven't seen anywhere else, but also in Bruce Gordon's Regnal Chronologies entry for the City of Constantine, he mentions that the city never fell to the Vandals, but instead remained in Roman hands throughout the Vandal period. If correct, it might help improve the article to show that the Vandals didn't conquer ALL of Roman North Africa. Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be protected?

I've noticed that this page is a frequent target of vandalism. Would it be reasonable to protect it in order to stop the edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.207.60 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be protected.

What do you expect? the page is called Vandals! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.180.219 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Vandals took the handles. Couldn't we add a Dylan note to the end of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.237.114 (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

How is vandalism in this article to be dealt with?68.4.59.33 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)John D.

Do you mean the article is presently vandalized? Or do you want us to cover the subject of vandalism in the article? --Friendly Neighbour 18:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Or is any change in this article vandalism by definition? :) 170.170.59.139 (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandal physical characteristics

I wonder what the ancient Vandal civilization would look like. Would they look Asian, like Mongols or Huns? or Germanic? Norse? North African? or some mix? does anyone have any information that we could add to the article? unsigned edit by User:NickDupree 13:42, 30 November 2005

They would look like Germans that is where they were from until the Huns pushed them accross the frozen Rhine in 406 AD. unsigned edit by User:209.206.165.48 05:05, 6 March 2007

The Vandals are well described as a "Germanic" people and the common ethnological description of what a Vandal looked like may be the proto-typical North German or West Slavic person. The Vandals' namesake is similar to the "Finns", "Fenians", "Veneti", "Vends" and "Wends", other ethnic and tribal groups' namesakes are very identical. But, the Finns spoke a Finno-Ugric (not Indo-European language) throughout Eastern and Central Europe at the 1st millennia BC. It's unclear whether or not the Veneti were close relatives of the Vandals in their original homeland of present-day Poland, Slovakia and Hungary were a Germanic or Slavic (Indo-European) or a Finnic or Hungarian (Uralic-Altaic) speaking people. +71.102.2.206 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Procopius;

“ There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at pressent, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths and Gepaedes . . . All these, while they are distinguished from one another by their names, as has been said, do not differ in anything else at all. For they all have white bodies and fair hair, and are tall and handsome to look upon, and they use the same laws and practise a common religion. For they are all of the Arian faith, and have one language called Gothic; . . . ”

Procopius, The History of the Wars Book III: The Vandalic War (part 1), chap 2 v 1, c.545

SpinningSpark 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

I see comments on here from over five years ago. Doesn't this ever get archived? 98.82.21.78 (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Most talk pages on Wikipedia only get archived when someone thinks they are getting too long to use. In the vast majority of cases that means they never get archived because the page rarely gets visited. Some of the most popular articles get archived automatically, but that is very much the minority. SpinningSpark 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. 98.82.21.78 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem's Treasures - source

Procopius (545 CE), History of the Wars, [Bk. IV. Chap. IX.]

 . . . Belisarius, upon reaching Byzantium with Gelimer and the Vandals, was counted worthy to receive such honours, as in former times were assigned to those generals of the Romans who had won the greatest and most noteworthy victories. And a period of about six hundred years had now passed since anyone had attained these honours, except, indeed, Titus and Trajan, and such other emperors as had led armies against some barbarian nation and had been victorious. For he displayed the spoils and slaves from the war in the midst of the city and led a procession which the Romans call a "triumph," not, however, in the ancient manner, but going on foot from his own house to the hippodrome and then again from the barriers until he reached the place where the imperial throne is. And there was booty,—first of all, whatever articles are wont to be set apart for the royal service,—thrones of gold and carriages in which it is customary for a king's consort to ride, and much jewelry made of precious stones, and golden drinking cups, and all the other things which are useful for the royal table. And there was also silver weighing many thousands of talents and all the royal treasure amounting to an exceedingly great sum (for Gizeric had despoiled the Palatium in Rome, as has been said in the preceding narrative), and among these were the treasures of the Jews, which Titus, the son of Vespasian, together with certain others, had brought to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem. And one of the Jews, seeing these things, approached one of those known to the emperor and said: "These treasures I think it inexpedient to carry into the palace in Byzantium. Indeed, it is not possible for them to be elsewhere than in the place where Solomon, the king of the Jews, formerly placed them. For it is because of these that Gizeric captured the palace of the Romans, and that now the Roman army has captured that the Vandals." When this had been brought to the ears of the Emperor, he became afraid and quickly sent everything to the sanctuaries of the Christians in Jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.13.0 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Title change

Don't really agree with the change of title. It does not need disambiguating from any other article, "Vandals" is the natural search term for this article, the subject is perfectly clear from the first sentence, and the hatnote clears up any remaining difficulty. Vandals continues to redirect here so it makes sense to return to the original title and cut out the redirection. SpinningSpark 19:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Either "Vandals" or "Vandal tribe" would be a good title. I moved it to the latter so as not to simply revert the move to "Vandals (tribe)". In general, "vandal" is much more commonly used to mean s.o. who commits vandalism, but within WP I imagine most uses refer to the tribe, though I'm not sure about that. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

From the log I don't think it's entirely clear why the article was moved. I would be interested in hearing Hmains' more detailed explanation. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably because this is not what one normally means when one says "vandal". That's a legitimate point. On the other hand, when we link the word "vandal" in an article, this probably is what we usually mean. I have no idea how often our readers would want one or the other when they type "vandal" in the search window. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear. Since the common use of vandal is to someone who destroys something and to match the category name Category:Vandals (tribe), which it now again does not match. Hmains (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Matching the article name exactly to the category name is not very important. The category name requires a disambiguation in it to ensure that incorrect articles are not put in the category. The same argument does not apply to the main article name. SpinningSpark 01:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I think people should stop moving the article around while this is discussed, that is not helpful. I do not see the advantage of making the title more complex in this way. To the person searching for this article vandal tribe or vandals (tribe) is an unlikely thing to go in the search box so will not help them. For those searching for vandalism they are still redirected here from vandals so it has not helped them either. I am not advocating this, but vandals would have to become a disambiguation page for this to be of any use. Currently, users arriving at this page who do not want to be here are guided to the dab page with a hatnote rather than going straight to the dab page. Which is the right way of doing it? The traffic to vandals is substantially higher than the traffic to vandalism implying that it is reasonable to make this article the first port of call. Are substantial numbers arriving at the wrong article? Well if they were, presumably they would follow the hatnote to the dab page, but traffic to the dab page is very low implying that this done not happen often. The statistics are showing that a non-problem is being addressed and I advocate returning to the original title. SpinningSpark 01:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Hmains for explaining the move; I thought the reasoning might be something a long those lines. I understand the issue, but given the traffic statistics presented by Spinningspark I think the previous arrangement (with this article at "Vandals") worked. Actually, I find the low traffic to the hatnote surprising. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are no more comments I will move it back to Vandals at the weekend. SpinningSpark 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, just so it is not left as 'vandal tribe' which is very bad Hmains (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Map

What's a map like this based on? Why do these Wikipedia-generated maps not face the same scrutiny as text, which is peppered with at the least opportunity?--Wetman (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it actually exists on Commons who do not have (or want) a verifiability policy. SpinningSpark 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hands of God symbol

Re the {{cn}} template on the Hands of God symbol, there is some information on this site. Although it doesn't say so in the article, the photograph of the symbol is from a sword pommel. SpinningSpark 10:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What we mean by "Catholic church"

I checked months ago that using "Catholic" for the early church which divided later into the modern Catholic and Orthodox churches is correct (in the meaning of "universal"). However, I believe it is strongly misleading. Byzantium in this meaning was "Catholic" while it already had many traits of the later Orthodox church (for example Greek as the liturgy language). Therefore using "mainstream Christian" is much better in a popular encyclopedia as it does not create the misleading notion that by "Catholic" we mean the modern Roman Catholic church. -Friendly Neighbour 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Which implies that Arians and Donatists were not mainstream (there were probably more Donatists than Catholics in the area). Which is biased. The current text states that:

Differences between the Arian faith adhered to by the Vandals and Christian Church or Donatists was a constant source of tension in their African state. Most Vandal kings, except Hilderic, persecuted Catholics to a greater or lesser extent. Members of the clergy were exiled, monasteries were dissolved, and general pressure was used on non-conforming Christians. Although mainstream Christianity was rarely officially forbidden (the last months of Huneric's reign being an exception), they were forbidden from making converts among the Vandals, and life was generally difficult for the Christian clergy, who were denied bishoprics.

This text confuses the Catholics and Donatists and implies that the Arians were not Christian. Therefore it is both misleading and biased. The text describes Catholicism as "mainstream Christianity" which is also biased. It states that "the Christian clergy" "were denied bishoprics" which is true of the Catholic Clergy and may be true of the Donatist clergy, but wasn't true of the Arian clergy. Jacob Haller 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we should find a phrasing which avoids the question whether Arians were Christian or not. This is a loaded question as many modern Christian churches define Christianity in a way which excludes the Arians (historically I believe it was done on purpose). This is an article on Vandals, not on the Christianity so we should avoid a war on the definition of the latter term. Therefore let's propose a name for non-Arian Christianity other than "Catholic" which (as I write above) is massively misleading in the context. -Friendly Neighbour 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If we want to discuss both the Donatists and the X in one statement, but not the Arians, we can say Trinitarian Christians, in contrast with Arian Christians (recognizing that describing these as Arian is also problematic). I'm not sure how to describe the X but not the Donatists except by calling the X Catholics (recognizing that these could be considered part of the Eastern ones as well). Jacob Haller 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good name as long as we define it - we cannot expect a non-expert reader to understand it. When we mention Roman Empire or later Byzantium, we can add that we mean the official denomination of both. -Friendly Neighbour 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, I hope that the version we have now, after your correction of my version, is the consensus one which can survive for some time. It is slightly on the side of counting Arians as Christians (other Christians of then era would probably not agree) but that is probably the right thing to do looking at the conflict in hindsight. In fact I believe this is the question of Christianity definition and definitions are not something worth arguing. -Friendly Neighbour 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am "non-expert" and on reading this entry I cannot tell that the Vandals were Christian. Yes, if I link thru Arian I find that they were Christian kingdoms warring with Christians kingdoms. So, as History is told by the victors, this omission perpetuates the demonization of the Other (or is that Victory Over the Heretics?). In my high school World History, we were taught, or were lead to believe, that the Vandals and Visigoths were pagan. So imagine my surprise to enter a Visigoth "cathedral" in Toledo, Spain. Why perpetuate the misconception? Gnach (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a point: most academics use the term "Nicene Christians" for the persecuted Christians, since the follow the Council of Nicea (cf. Arian controversy)(cf. Courtois, Merills, Shanzer, Schwarz, etc.). Also, the Nicene Christians referred to themselves as "Catholic", as in their opening statement on the Counsil of Carthage (Victor Vitensis III.1). I would prefer the term Nicene Christians (or Nicenes), for Trinetarians can also cause confussion in regards to several Eastern Churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.8.70 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The tree tribes of Mannus, the germanic history is true

The genetic of East Germany and Poland is close to baltic incl. west finns and swede. They all was East Germans. The polish sprite of SNP by R1a-Y-DNA is the story of the Mannus-Legend, of suebe, goths and vandale folk. The most polan tribe was not slavic or Scythic tribe, they was East Germans and member of vandales (or rugii). The german, baltic and nordish mythology is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.65.41 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Crappily unclear sentence

Read:

Some archaeologists and historians identify the Vandals with the Przeworsk culture, and controversy surrounds potential connections between the Vandals and another, possibly a mixture of Slavic and Germanic tribes, the Lugii (Lygier, Lugier or Lygians), which is referred to as inhabiting the area by Roman writers.

I think if this is read carefully, it will be seen to be unclear. "another what"? You think you know, but if you read it carefully, you don't. 98.82.23.7 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Prekmurje Slovenians

What is going on with this?;

Still, many believe that the Prekmurje Slovenians, a distinct group, trace their origins to the Vandal peoples. This is recorded in the 1771 translation of the new testament into the Prekmurje dialect of Slovenian.

Which has now been edit warred into the article. Is there any kind of scholarly source for this? If not, it needs to be removed. SpinningSpark 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, enough is enough, I have semi-protected the article to stop the edit warring. Although I did one of the reverts myself, I do not consider myself involved. I have no POV on whether this material should be in the article, my actions were merely to enforce WP:V. I am quite prepared to go to blocks on this if necessary. Perhaps those trying to edit war the material in can now come here and explain why the Prekmurje Slovenians need a mention in particular and why "It was once thought that the Slovenes were the descendants of the Vandals, but this is not the view of modern scholars" is not sufficient. SpinningSpark 21:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source from Wiki detailing the 1771 reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prekmurje_dialect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.32 (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for other articles. Also of relevance, WP:PRIMARY. SpinningSpark 00:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine but that wiki link cites to primary sources. The prekmurje language was long said to be the language of the Vandals. I think it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.32 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? Once again please read WP:PRIMARY. SpinningSpark 01:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, read the notes from the wiki article on the prekmurje language -- these include primary and secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.32 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2012

Section Language Change The Goths have left behind the only text corpus of the East Germanic language type: a 4th-century translation of the Gospels. to The Goths have left behind the only text corpus of the East Germanic language type: a 4th-century translation of the Gospels.

217.135.36.56 (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

confusing or incorrect map caption

This map is captioned "Mediterranean in 475 AD, showing the Vandal Kingdom at its maximal extension". This claim of "maximal extension" is contradicted by the other two maps (this one and this one) which both show a larger Vandal Kingdom.

Unless the caption in question actually means it was the maximum that the kingdom reached in the year 475, but this seems unlikely because it's so unusually specific. M-1 (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Maps

I removed two maps for two reasons:

1. They were scrunching the text with the image of the necklace, and there were two other maps I left that seem more useful (although neither is English!). Those maps were of the Vandals in northern Europe and of the Vandal kingdom in Africa. That makes a lot of sense.
2. The maps are no help. They are not about the Vandals and it is difficult to pick out what information about the Vandals they give you. They belong on different pages than this one. I could let the invasions one stay, although I'd only highlight the Vandals in the caption.

—Srnec (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Text being scrunched is a ridiculous reason, by itself, for removing an image. The solution to that problem is to adjust the layout. It is true that the maps show a more general situation than just the vandal incursions, but they still paint a useful picture for the reader and are certainly more relevant to the section (Introduction into the Roman Empire) than an image of a necklace, so if anything has to be removed it should be that one. SpinningSpark 11:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image queuing and WP:IMAGELOCATION, also WP:IDD. Sandwiching text and overloading on images is something we don't do. As to the relevance of a necklace which was actually made by a Vandal, as opposed to a map made by a Wikipedia editor 1500 years later. . . And what the hell is "some pro-Vandal agenda"? Is your de-capitalising Vandal in your comment above indicative of an anti-Vandal agenda, an attempt to link an entire people group to delinquents and rioters? I see what's going on here. I bet you just love maps portraying these "vandals" as wreaking havoc all over Europe. Srnec (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2013

The insertion of the following little paragraph is useless and arbitrary. I sense arrangance and the need of political correctness - "let's mention islam and they will be happy" - Who is "they"? - Islam, Arabic and all that needs to go away here, as the history in question took place before. For example you refer to Berber languages, as if the term "berber" is defined, but it is not yet. You finish with a remark about the ethymology of "Andalusia" - is that the subject here? Please stick to the subject, the facts and stay away from politix... I fail to see how you can justify the arabix term with the Amazigh one, because until Berber is defined and established, it's nothing but guesswork... And there is no belief whatsoever - Starting in the 70s, the arabo-islamist regimes of north africa began a compaign of CRIMINAL integration of African culture and history into the "Arab-Moslim World" - a big piece of crap from western intelligentia.... all to justify stealing natural resources... a bigger crime to justify a smaller one. What makes the term Arabic? borrowed by Arabs, sure... does that make it Arabic? Please refrain from stupid concepts such as "Muslim Iberia" - Land does not possess a conscious - the same would apply to States... You end up justifying acts and concepts totally against nature.

It is generally believed that the Arabic term for Muslim Iberia Al Andalus, and its derivative Andalusia, may be derived from the Berber pronunciation of Vandal: "Wandal". However, the theory has been disputed, and alternative etymologies for Andalusia have been proposed.

Opine (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Not done: The paragraph that's there has multiple sources, and this same topic is discussed (and sourced) in Wikipedia's article on Al-Andalus. I see no clear reason to remove the paragraph. If there's a specific edit you think should be made to the paragraph, or if you still feel that the paragraph should be removed entirely, please seek consensus for the changes before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thank you. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. The edit proposal is unclear and seems to be assuming an amazing amount of things "between the lines" which are not relevant to this article. I think it is uncontroversial to say that Andalucia and Al-Andalus are words with an Arabic heritage, and concerning whether Berber had a role in that word history I have no opinion. It sounds a bit speculative to me, and I would have though Wandal was also the original Germanic pronunciation, but then again we are saying that such a theory exists but is controversial. Question. Is there anything wrong with the sources cited or the way we are using them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problems with the OPs post are much more basic than you are suggestion. He is completely ignorant of history and seems not to realise that there was indeed a Muslim conquest of Iberia. He certainly has not read Procopius and his description of the 6th century Berbers (Moors) who certainly did exist at that time. You would be wasting your time looking in to the quality of the sources on the basis of that rant. SpinningSpark 17:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Origin theory

The origin theory that links the East Germanic Vandals with Jutland has long been discarded in serious scholarly research. It was based entirely on a name similarity (Vendsyssal -> Vandal). It is still resurrected in (poorly researched) popular history books, but it is not longer accepted by the experts (See for example H. Castritiuts' book on "Die Wandalen".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

origins

they are just slavs. the meaning wanderer is the same as schytians, to "skita", to wander. it can also have traces in vindhya, the vedic aryan india.79.126.211.107 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Come back, anon ip, when you have RS's to cite. Otherwise please go away. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no way that the Vandals were Slavs. There names are all Germanic and the few fragments of Vandalic that survive confirm that they spoke an East Germanic ideom. However, their name does not mean "wanderer", instead it may be related to modern German "Wandel" meaning "change". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

Hi, My new book on the Vandals has just come out. I suggest it is added to the Further Reading section, as it is currently the only work that covers the entire history of the Vandal tribes: Cumberland Jacobsen, Torsten: A History of the Vandals. Westholme 2012. Kind regards, Torsten

188.180.23.144 (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your claim to have produced "the only work that covers the entire history of the Vandal tribes" is curious as Merrills & Miles wrote The Vandals, which was published in 2010 and claims to be a "complete history" of the Vandals, and "the first book available in the English Language dedicated to exploring the sudden rise and dramatic fall of this complex North African Kingdom" [2]. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: per Nev1. It is not the purpose of external links on Wikipedia to promote books (or anything else). SpinningSpark 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment for the above - I'm a well established and published Danish historian, who has worked with Late Antiquity for more than 18 years at Copenhagen University, The Royal Danish Arsenal Museum and the Danish Institute in Rome. Please grant me the respect that I know Merrills & Miles work, which is also quoted in the further reading list. They do not describe the early history of the Vandals, but focus on the African kingdom - as your quote also states. I'm alright with my book not being added, if you consider it promotion, but that could be said about all other books in the further reading, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.88.107 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept that on trust, but I have not read the book and it really should be added by an independent editor who has. SpinningSpark 06:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree - no problem:-) I expect that you get a lot of requests that are mainly for promotions. Best, Torsten (sorry for not signing correctly - I'm not so experienced with the editing part of Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.88.107 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I bought and read this book - it's very good and well worth including inn the 'Further Reading' section. --Jmullaly (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The book by Merrills and Miles is by classes better than the book by Jacobsen. To give an example, in complete ignorance of the modern research, Jacobsen starts with an assumed migration of the Vandals from Jutland to what is now Poland. He calls it "the first migration". However, such migration is not accepted in the "more serious" literature on the Vandals, which ether relegate this migration to the realm of fantasy or ignore it by starting Vandal history sometime in the 2nd century AD. Again, the relevant source for this Wikipedia article should be Merrills and Miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2014

test run: . . . "vandals established xxxAD . . . " format; change AD (year of Lord) to CE. World is not all or majority christian, pros use CE and BCE or other culturally neutral date format. 67.231.70.8 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers - Arjayay (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead image and Andulasia

The article has many problems and contains wrong and misleading information. E.g. the gold jewellery shown on the right cannot be attributed as "Vandalic". Such ethnic attributions are "unscientific". The derivation of the name Al Andalus (Andalusia) from the ethnonym Vandal is hardly plausible. The Vandals, crossed that area briefly in the early 5th century, while the Berbers arrived there only in the early 8th century. In the meantime the region was consistently called Baetica, i.e. the name Andalusia cannot have been introduced by Berbers. Instead, there are plausible explanations linking the name to an Arabic origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen this issue about Berber being the source coming up before, and I guess the accusation being made is that we are giving undue weight to a minority position? I am not an expert but that seems to make sense to me. Indeed it seems obvious that the name probably has a quite direct link to the original Germanic pronunciation. Whether it came via Arabic or Berber or Latin or nothing seems very speculative and I wonder if we have any real source consensus? What sources are available for this matter? In the meantime maybe we can weaken our claim maybe? Any proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I would drop the reference to the name Andalusia completely, because it is of no importance to Vandal history. Alternatively one could mention that some scholars have tried to link Andalusia with the Vandal name (i.e. Vandalusia), but that such a hypothesis is impossible to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The link is so commonly mentioned (I think I even heard it on a TV documnetary) that it should be discussed in the article. Readers are likely to come to this article looking for information on just that item. It is better to have it discussed in the article in its proper scholarly context than to not have it and risk it being inserted by a passing reader as an undisputed fact. SpinningSpark 09:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the link is commonly mentioned and I am quite certain I have seen this mentioned in good sources. The thing I think being unduly stressed is the influence of Berber. I have only ever seen that mentioned in Wikipedia, and I think we can remove this at least as a first step?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No opinion on that myself. You could be bold and see if it's challenged. SpinningSpark 16:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, why be bold if I have no opinion about the sources? (Consider WP:PRESERVE.) So anyway, I went looking for the two sources we cite.

• I found Burke here. (By the way it should specify Volume 1.) Although it mentions Berber people, it is specifically saying "Arabic" is the language from which the term came. Sounds much more reasonable and expected than what we have.
• I found Mokhtar here. In this case we are also missing a volume number and it should be II. It says NOTHING about the language which influenced the Arabic province name (but it does as usual suggest a link to the old Germanic tribe).

So I shall adjust on a calm and steady basis, no bold speculations required. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Kings of Sweden

The page said that the Kings of Sweden styled themselves "Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex" and claimed that it meant "King of the Swedes, Goths and Vandals". This is in fact not true, and it means "King of the Swedes, Goths and Vendes". I edited the page to reflect this, and added a note about the words being commonly confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.17.160 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is "götar" in the Danish title translated as Goths but Geats in the Swedish title? This is very confusing. Shoudln't the article use the same translation of "götar" - or at least explain why it's not?

"King of Denmark, the Goths and the Wends" [...] Starting in 1540, Swedish kings (following Denmark) were styled Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex ("King of the Swedes, Geats, and Wends").

--80.244.79.111 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandals descendants of Veneti

why opinion (which in part appears to be strongly probable and is present in the discourse), namely that the Vandals are a people of Veneti of origin (quite analogous to the opinion of their cousins Cimbri), with proviso that only through many years of being among Germanic adopted for sure their vocabulary etc (here again analogy: Romanians on 3 sides adjacent to the Slavians partly adopted their vocabulary). Why that opinion is not present in article?

• it seems that the Cimbri on the way south went through Silesia, possible to give a chance of kin volunteers to join them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.168.38 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

wandeLn vs wandeRn

Hello, In your article on the Vandals, under Section 1 ("Name"), 2nd Paragraph, 2nd Line, regarding the etymology of the name, the German word should be "wandeRn" ( = "wander" -- since the German word given, in error [wandeLn], actually means "to change"). The etymology of the name may be related to a Germanic verb *wand- "to wander" (English wend, German wandeln).

Suggested REVISED Text

The etymology of the name may be related to a Germanic verb *wand- "to wander" (English wend, German wandern).

Thanks. Derfla715 71.103.254.70 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking into your proposed change I noticed an issue. The currently linked page wikt:Appendix:Proto-Germanic/wandijaną for "*wand-" lists a somewhat different meaning than to wander: "(transitive) to turn". It does indicate that "wend" in English is a descendant word but lists "wenden" for German which means to turn something. Wandeln can mean to walk or stroll in addition to meaning change, so I'm not comfortable making any changes to the text right now. Perhaps the way it is worded it is based on the source listed. If it is unsourced it needs to be removed entirely. —DIY Editor (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Grammar commie

DIYeditor-you've been here a year-that doesn't give you the right to be snarky. You can edit without being a dick.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC) this needs fixing; empire under Hadrian (ruled 117–38) it is 117-138 ...please correct this!

Vandals - West Slavic People?

Modern history, except nationalistic bigots of any coleur (sic), acknowledge that ethnicity was a fluent concept in any semi-nomadic or migratory people. Slavic, Germanic and Celtic are terms used by Roman writers fairly indiscriminantly (in particular the later two). People in those days could and would change material culture and language within a generation, completely obscuring the "ethnicity" of a people. What we know for sure is, that the Vandals spoke a Germanic language, had Germanic names and were largely described as having Germanic customs by the Romans who encountered them. We equally know for sure that those tribes, once starting migration, were are mixed bunch picking up people(s) as they went along. It's certainly plausible that the name Vandals has a Slavic origin and had a core of Slavs joining them in, or perhaps even initiating, their migration. But this does not qualify to call the Vandals all out a West Slavic People. Whatever the percentage of Slavs was, mixed with Germans and God knows who, that made up the people migrating into Spain and Africa, by the time the got there the whole of the Vandals were thoroughly Germanized in language and culture. 91.12.173.195 (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC).

Some historians, especially Slavic, think that Vandals are the name of West Slavic People Veneds (Венеди, Weneds, Wanadals), forefathers of modern Chechs, Slovaks and Polaks, which was called Vandals by their Germanic neighbours and relatives and which together with Germanic Goths plundered Rome.

Presently, a large number of archaeologists and historians, except germanicist bigots, have come to think of it reasonable to identify the Vandals with the proto-West-Slavs due to the clear continuation from the Przeworsk culture to Prague-Korchak having been revealed, particularly since Poland and its neibouring states were democratised in 1989. The main article, therefore, seems largely biased in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.209.90.149 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no way the Vandals can have been Slavs. We do have a number of personal names, which are all Germanic, including Gaiseric, Hilderic, Thrasamund, Guntharmund, Gento, Gunderic, and we have some fragments of the Vandalic language (a drinking toast and a religous formular, which are clearly Germanic as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

first of all. historians don't know what germanic means. it's from latin germanos meaning brothers. the brothers were mostly slavic and caucasian (armenian, celtic. arman is another form of german. while slavs were also consisted of different tribes and cultures. for example rhiniti originate from rhine. sagudati from iran etc. german kings were giving oath to bible written in slavic. in mavro orbini book - kingdom of slavs, there is comparison between slavic and vandal, and it's almost identical. another thing. vandal-alan king's name Gniewomirek was deliberately latinized into unrecognizable Genseric, just in order to differentiate the two very similar cultures. by whom? that's a mystery to me.77.29.86.250 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BQh28tT50_gJ:www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-016.html+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph with https://web.archive.org/web/20170623155644/http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-016.html on http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-016.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227195324/http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c61705/Donecker-Steinacher.pdf to http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c61705/Donecker-Steinacher.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203100937/http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/chron/europe3.gif to http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/chron/europe3.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

In the opening paragraph substitute "Spain" for "the Iberian Peninsula". Spain didn't exist at the time, the vandals also settled in land now under Portuguese administration and since it is followed by North Africa, it would be more consistent to use a geographical area for the European territories too. 5.225.212.61 (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

remarks from an unusually comprehensive review

I added this to the bibliography, by Guido M. Berndt, currently based in Berlin and originally promoted under Eugen Ewig in Bonn (not from Vienna or Toronto, as his comments also make clear):

• Berndt, Guido M. (2010), "Hidden Tracks: On the Vandal's Paths to an African Kingdom", in Curta, Florin (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 537–569, doi:10.1484/M.SEM-EB.3.5097

Some quotes for comparison to our current article:

• p.545: Leaving aside the fact that today few would now endorse Mannert's [1785] labelling of the Vandals as a 'Germanic' people, he nevertheless...
• pp.551-552: The literary sources do not allow a continuous narrative linking the early Vandals of the second century to those who established themselves in Northern Africa. Earlier studies have often attempted to fill in the gap of knowledge through recourse to archaeological 'cultural groups' in order to create the impression of a full-fledged uniform gens moving through modern Poland, to Gaul, Spain, and finally to modern Tunisia. Walter Goffart's criticism of such an approach is of course justified, but hardly novel. The idea of a Vandal urheimat in Scandinavia has long been exposed as little more than late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century wishful thinking.
• pp.543-544: It is often forgotten that 'ethnogenesis' is a modern construct, which does not appear in any historical source. As long as it is understood as a Weberian ideal type however, the concept can be helpful in the analysis of historical sources. [.....] The concept of ethnogenesis is one of several possible ways to approach historical developments and political thought in the early Middle Ages. As such, it privileges ethnic identities, particularly that of the so-called ethnic gentes, over any other form of identity. [...] By 1960, a consensus seems to have been reached on the importance of self-definition in the emergence of ethnic groups. [...] confidence in numerous scholarly attempts to discover the Urgermanen has quickly evaporated.
• pp.548-549: A handful of historians and geographers writing in the imperial period provide a handful of fragmentary references to the early Vandals. On the basis of such accounts (and the use of a modern map of Europe), one is led to beleive that the Vandals lived somewhere between the Vistula and the Oder Rivers. But how much can one trust such accounts?
• p550: Only the Marcomannic Wars brought the Vandals into the focus of Roman writing about northern barbarians. After that, they again disappear for quite some time from the sources. [para] A few Vandals were allowed to settle as foederati in the Roman province of Dacia in 180 or 181. Around the same time, small groups of Vandals began to raid Roman territory. Cassius Dio reports that negotiations were therefore opened with the Hasding Vandals under the leadership of Raus and Raptus. Little else is known about the two men besides their names/According to Cassius Dio, the Vandals wanted money and land. The next bit of information refers to a victory Emperor Aurelian [reign 270-275] obtained against the Vandals, following which he settled the defeated barbarians on Roman territory, as foederati who were now expected to provide troops for Rome's wars, whenever needed. Dexippos knew about Emperor Aurelian's victory over a Vandal army and, through him, so did Jordanes in the sixth century. In addition, Jordanes knew of a Vandal king named Visimar from the Hasding. The Vandals also appear in the Origo gentis Langobardorum, as a Lombard victory over the Vandals seems to have been a key component of the Lombard myth of origin.

Hopefully this helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Verification problem: Scoringa, Orosius

We have this:

• According to Paulus Orosius, the Vandals, who lived originally in Scoringa, near Stockholm, Sweden, were of the same stock as the Suiones ("Swedes") and the Goths.[16]
• Citation is to Orosius (1773). The Anglo-Saxon Version, from the Historian Orosius (Alfred the Great ed.). London: Printed by W. Bowyer and J. Nichols and sold by S. Baker. https://archive.org/details/anglosaxonversi00barrgoog

I find that Scoringa in this old 18th century edition of Orosius is mentioned in an 18th century endnote p.255, which is citing Paul the Deacon, who is the real source of Scoringa. But Scoringa in Paul the Deacon is on the mainland, being the place where the Lombards arrived after coming from Scandinavia, and fought the Vandals. From what I can see, we have this quite wrong, but if anyone sees an error in my reading please say so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Arianism

In our current article we have this paragraph:

Around this time, the Hasdingi had already been Christianized. During the Emperor Valens's reign (364–78) the Vandals accepted, much like the Goths earlier, Arianism, a belief that was in opposition to that of the Nicene orthodoxy of the Roman Empire.[31] Yet there were also some scattered orthodox Vandals, among whom was the famous magister militum Stilicho, the chief minister of the Emperor Honorius, although this may be because Stilicho's mother was Roman.

The footnote in the middle is citing Schütte, which is a book that was really published in 1929. (We are using a date of 2013.) While I can not see the exact page on Google Books, p.54 looks like it is part of a compressed summary, not a detailed discussion of Vandals. I have already looked at Jordanes as the possible source but he apparently only says the Visigoths spread the word to Gepids and Ostrogoths. Anyone have a better source or should we remove (or at least tag) this paragraph?

A much more recent scholarly work is this one by Berndt: https://books.google.be/books?redir_esc=y&id=8RsGDAAAQBAJ . It indicates that the Vandals adopted Arianism in Spain in the 420s under Visigothic influence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Also Castritius: https://books.google.be/books?id=a7lDJrsozUkC&pg=PA72 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So it seems like the above-mentioned paragraph of ours should probably just be deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Physical appearance section

As on several other WP articles, this one has a "physical appearance" section which is made up of one sentence by a 6th century author (Procopius). I know on other articles there have been calls to remove this as undue etc. I suppose a reason not to remove it is if there is more that could be added in this case. Is that likely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)