Talk:Lombards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JHK It seem that someone got mixed up here with the names. Langobard =German =(Langbaerte: modern German) or English: Long Beards.

Lombards is the later Italian or Latin name for the Langobarden , after their land was taken and given to the pope (for Vatican city?)

HJ -- no one got mixed up. Lombards is what we call them in English. Any English-speaking Medievalist can tell you that the name comes from long beards -- it's fairly common knowledge. However, we say Lombards, which is the correct English translation for Langobardi. English and German developed very differently, remember...sometimes we take words from places one doesn't expect. Sorry we don't use the more Germanic derivitive, but there you go. JHK

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "By the title of this work [Paul the Deacon's Historia Langobardorum] the name of Longobards was commonly turned into Langobards" - is it referred to English or Latin names? In any case, I believe "langobardi" was used before Paul. Also, I thought the ethimology from "long halberds" was dubious at best (and spurious at worst). Lastly, the article seems to imply that Charlemagne created the Papal States.

Contents 1 Longbeards and Long Halberds 2 Italianisation 3 Ancestry 4 Literature Inspired by Longobards 5 Theodelinda 6 Recent cleanup 7 "Two-dimensional images":Copyright 8 Original research 9 An issue? 10 Quotes 11 Revert

[edit] Longbeards and Long Halberds

The original words used in primary source texts that refer to the Lombardic gens are not considered by serious scholars to translate into either 'long-beards' or 'long halberds'. Ref: J.S. Martin's "An examination of two Langobardic mythological texts" in 'Proceedings of the 11th International Saga Conference' for a summary of currently accepted opinion regarding those two alleged translations that scholars like W.D. Foulke and others thought might be plausible a century ago or even farther back in time.

If either of you have further questions about this matter, please feel free to send them to info@northvegr.org. ***Pádraic

I wish to know if anyone has explored the pretty straightforward possibility that "Langbaerte" or "Langobarden" is merely the corruption of "Långt Borta," which is swedish for "far away." I may be making an assumption, being less familiar with Old Norse than with Swedish, but the article does state that the lombards were scandinavian, and a scandinavian might reply to a questioning inhabitant of the region, on being asked where he came from, "I come from far away," or "Jag kommer ifrån Långt Borta." Pronounced in english this would sound like "Longgt bortá," wiht emphasis on the letter a. Joe

Naturally "Langobards" can't translate into "long halberds" (the halberd being a high medieval weapon). I have, however, read that it might translate into "long axes" (the -bard bit being from the same root as "halberd"). However, I doubt both the "axe" and the "beard" interpretation on the grounds that they wouldn't fit ancient Germanic society. Axes weren't used as actual military weapons before the 3rd/4th century AD (though they were used as ceremonial weapons). First-century Germani (about whom Tacitus was writing) fought essentially using a short spear (used in melee or as a javelin) or swords for rich people. Secondly, I doubt the "beard" interpretation (etymological arguments aside) because apparently shaving was all the rage in first-century Germania. I don't know what scholarly consensus is on the issue. Does anyone have a weblink? --Helmold 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another (amateur) idea of mine, probably far from the truth. In Old Norse "bord" or "bardi" means "shield" (from the same root as English "board", since Germanic shields were made from planks?). Thus the name Langobardi (or Langbardoz, or whatever the Germanic name might have been) might mean "long shields". In this case it would be a name given them by their neighbours, since apparently Germanic shields were usually round. Just speculation, though, I don't know the subject matter well enough. Can anyone point me to a good history of the Lombards? --Helmold 18:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italianisation

Please excuse me, gentlemen, but when the appproximate time that the Lombards became Italianate in culture(e.g. Italian-sounding names)?--Anglius 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert but as late as the 1070s the last lombard ruler Gisulf II of Salerno was still clinging on to power (though the rest of southern Italy was already ruled by Robert Guiscard and his relatives. He still has a very un-'Italian' name (it should be noted that Tuscan/Italian didn't yet exist in any recognisable form). Seek100 04:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestry

"They left their mark also through such great figures as Hildeprand (Pope Gregory VII) and Napoleon Bonaparte[1], who have Lombard names, being descendants of those cultured Mediterraneans who ruled the Mezzogiorno for three centuries^{[citation needed]}"

The link provided is not solid enough for establishing that Napoleon is a Lombard name, nor is it proof enough that he is a descendant of the Lombards (it is only his first name, not his surname), especially considering that it mentions no specific Germanic tribe when, as we know, several of them invaded Italy well before his conception. Hildeprand's case is more compelling and I do not personally dispute that. However, I expect some more solid citations be provided or the wording changed to acknowledge the unsurity, and, such as is the case with Dante, I expect that these citations be lifted from somewhere other than white supremacist sites.

The Mezzogiorno is reffered to Southern Italy (does not include the island sicily, just the boot) and Napoleon was a Ligurian. So he came from a terretory of the Lombard Kingdom, not the Duchy of Benevento. The same goes for Gregory VII, who was from Tuscany (also Lombard kingdom)

The above assertions that Napoleon was a descendant of the Lombards has nothing to do with the geographic proximities of a kingdom that dissolved more than 500 years before his birth. Many people of various racial types were present there before, during, and after the Lombard rule. Until anyone can provide genetic proof or a genealogical breakdown of his family history to conclude that Napoleon was a descendant of the Lombards or any other people, Napoleon's ancestry remains unknown and should be presented as such. Sicilianmandolin 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literature Inspired by Longobards

Maybe it would be relevant to add a link to Adelchi, the second tragedy by Alessandro Manzoni (a very relevant Italian author)

[edit] Theodelinda

I think the 651 date is a typo: possibly 615? Agilulf shows up as King of the Lombards from 590 to 616, while Theodelinda's page says she died in 628.165.127.8.254 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent cleanup

Wetman 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) : most of my tweaks are obvious: for emphasis, clarity, eliminating repetitive links, unnecessary words, ADs, parentheses. I've commented out some questions most readers will ask and requested some citations. There are no References: I've made a References section.

The usage "Longobards" must have some personal magic. It seems obtrusively quaint.

• "... eventually absorbed by the Holy Roman Empire" corrected to Carolingian Empire, not the same thing.
• ..."as stated in the works of Dr. Eckart Frey" No work by Frey is yet listed in the References.
• "Cleph was acclaimed the new king..." Changed to acclaimed. Anointing has a specific meaning that doesn't apply.
• "..."murdered many unpleasant Nobleman and ruled the Kingdom with Iron Discipline". Here it seemed too much like an uphill struggle. Has much sensible former content from July 2006 been lost? --Wetman 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I fear that a lot of information from before that date may be lost. The article was completely rewritten and at least one section was entirely lost. I am adding some links that should be there and some references. Srnec 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Two-dimensional images":Copyright

The three-dimensional objects in museum cases are either personal photos or else from official museum sources, in which latter case they are not covered by this and would be copyrighted. --Wetman 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

The article introduces the Lombards by telling their own origin story. Then it passes to a section where an Elbe origin is flaunted with colourful maps and without attributing this information to any reliable source.--Langobard 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

@Langobard, All the texts i posted are cited with the sources, where they are from. As for the maps, i only posted the 2 maps that were made by historians. The other 2 already existed on wikipedia. "Lombards by telling their own origin story" This story is the OGL (Origum Gentis Langobardorum), which is a mythical story about their mythical origins to their first historic King. Paul the Deacon is very valid and important for the History of the Lombards during their migration period, at the Danube and in Italy. But not for their origins. Paul made a big mistake when he based the Origins of the Lombards only and soly on the OGL. He never reffers to the Roman historians and their accounts, he took the OGL and nothing else. I should have posted (and after this confusion will post) the quotes of Mommsen about this mistake. The OGL cant be historic, because it states that Agilmund was the son of Agio (son of Gambara), but Agilmund was a king of the mid 4th Cen. AD. He is considered the first king because he led the migration and with that the independence. From the Romans we know that the Lombards were (till than) subject to the Kings of the Marcomanni and a small tribe. So if Agilmund is the son of Agio, than Agio and Ybor must have migrated around 300 AD from a mythical island that doesn't exist, and that Pliny the Elder upon who Paul accounts, describes as Thule. I think you know about Thule. But the Lombards are already recorded in the Lower Elbe lands in 5AD! So Agilmund cant be the son of Agio. And if you calculate the Kings down from Gudeoc (who entered noricum), than also you will pin point the mid 4th Cen. AD. (Lethu ruled 40 years according to paul). So everything makes sense, and is historically recorded when you consider the origins in the OGL as a myth and just a story. 2 Austrian archaeoligist and historians Peter Erhard and Walter Pohl wrote a good book about the lombard migration period and their archaeological traces.Lllo3

You are making several assumptions here:

1. 4th century Agilmund is the same person as the son of Agio.
2. If one piece of information in the emigration legend is wrong, then all is wrong.
3. The emgration legend is a myth.

Note that these three assumptions are *your* POV, and (like mine) they are not relevant to Wikipedia. What is relevant on the other hand is information from primary and secondary sources.--Langobard 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i agree, and that is why i did not post these things in the main article but instead posted them personally to you in the discussion section. As for your 3 points of criticism. 1. Well, if you would have read the Historia G. Langobardorum, you would have come to the passage where Agilmund is killed in a raid by Bulgars and his adoptive son Lamisso succeeded him and defeated the bulgars. After Lamisso, came Lethu who ruled for nearly 40 years and after that Hildeoc and Gudeoc. Than came Claffo and Tato the conquerer of the Heruli (Eruli). Now, i seriously doubt that such a scenario happened twice within the Lombard history. Also the episode of Agilmund being killed by Bulgars (maybe Huns) shows that the Lombards were already in a different area. The migration story goes that the Lombards crossed into Mauringa, Mauringa is mentioned by the Cosmographer of Ravenna as the land east of the Elbe. And Huns or Bulgars did not appear earlier than 340 AD. Again, Agilmund as the first king is due to the migration away from the other suevi tribes and their king. 2. No, the OGL cant be wrong, because its a legend. And therefor only ones interpretation of it, can be wrong. The origin in the OGL is a myth. Mommsen: "It may be that these Langobard and Gothic traditions are both fragments of a great legend of the origin of the whole German people..." (Thule). You obvisouly dont understand the essence of the Germanic tribes of the Great migration period. They were practically Nomadic. The Franks, Vandals, Goths, Langobards, Saxons etc. other german tribes migrated and lumped together and formed the Bavari or Alamanni. They all left their homes and created a Legend a myth about their former home, their mythical place of origin. Lllo3

[edit] An issue?

We have an editor, User:Eochaid Airem, who takes issue with the following statement and has reverted it — as "POV" (sic):

"The Lombards were a Germanic people of the Jastorf culture during the Pre-Roman Germanic Iron Age."

The statement appears to be a neutral description merely setting early Lombards in a broad cultural context that is defined in archaeological terms. I can understand that Jastorff culture might be a misidentification that could be corrected, but I am at a loss as to what violates a neutral point-of-view. Perhaps this is just a weekend joker. --Wetman 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

This article has far too much unecassarily long quotes, I am sure they could be reviewd an irrelevant material removed while still retaining the pertinent information? Could someone more knowledgable in the area please have a look? Ciriii 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I very boldly reverted back several months to bypass some bad editing decisions and probably lost good information in the process. I added back some of it (like images, Jastorf culture, and sources), but there is more that needs to be done. However, I think this version is easier to fix than the previous one. Srnec 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

@Srnec:

Do you seriously think that you have improved the article with your change?

Just take a look at all the incorrect and slobby explained terms and sections. So if you are responsible, than put some effort into it and correct it, to a more correct and informative article. This current one is a disgrace. Lllo3

I think you mean "to", not "@", which means "at".

I seriously think that I improved it over the previous version, which was a disgrace, full of POV-pushing and lengthy, unencylcopaedic quotations. It is not my responsibility to make every improvement possible, only those I see fit. Other editors can make their own improvements. However, the article had been destroyed by bad English, bad quotations, bad POV, and simple unencyclopaedic content over time. I may make some improvements in the future, as it sure does need them, but the previous article was a joke. Srnec 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As a somewhat uninvolved user who make no changes except to add notices to the captions of unsourced images for deletion, I support Srnec's revert. When I first happened upon this article to add notices, I was shocked at how much of a quote farm the article was and how little I could learn about the Lombards by reading through it. I like it better now, though I certainly agree it requires more work. --Iamunknown 22:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

@Iamunknown I agreed with your point, about it being a quote farm, and wanted to change it. As for your point, that you couldnt get informed about the Longobards, well all you had to do was read. Because as you said, it was practically only quotes. So if you claim that the quotes of Paul the Deacon, Tacitus, Procobius, Paterculus and the various others couldnt inform you and were not informative (compared to that slobby article), than you obviously didnt read it. As for the images i only uplaoded 2. The roman campaign map and the Alboin image. And for all i care, they can stay deleted.

@Srnec (that means directed at) You are making points that arent valid, because they miss their targets by lenghts. 1. Be more precise, i really dont know about what POV you are talking about. 2. Bad quotations? Those were all quotations from historic sources, as they were all sourced. 3. Bad English? those sources, all came from an english source that translated the historic texts from Latin! You wont find a single mistake in those texts. You are a joke.

The current article is utter crap. It doesnt mention half of the Longobard history and what it does mention is partially false and slobby. (Origins and Conquest of ITALY) Inform yourself when ITALY was created! You call that article the quality of wikipedia? Ridiculous. Lllo3

Lllo3, please consider reading Wikipedia:Attribution, particularly the statement that "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" and the statement that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." --Iamunknown 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

To Lllo3:

1. I will retract my comment about the POV, as that had been cleaned up by the time I reverted, though it was prevalent a month ago.
2. Bad quotations as in unnecessary and excessive.
3. Bad English refers not too the quotations but to the text.

If the current article is "utter crap", clean it up! If it needs expanding, be my guest! But learn how to write an encyclopaedia entry first. The article was unreadable, as a disinterested user has affirmed.

Italy is a legitimate and well-used English term for Italia, which is an ancient term for a certain European peninsula conquered by the Lombards in the sixth century. It is not only the name of a kingdom created in 1861...

The word is "sloppy", not "slobby". And please don't call me a "joke", it's not very nice and it says little flattering about your character. Srnec 05:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

@Iamunknown I have now read the Wikipedia:Attribution, maybe you should now read the edits i have made, because all of those mention their sources (Author, Title, Chapter, Page number) and all are valid and legitamate Primary and Secondary sources from propper published books. So, really read the edits I made.

@ Srnec "though it was prevalent a month ago." Those were not my edits. 1. So you think its unnecessary to mention all the quotes and historic refferences to and about the Longobards from 5AD onwards. The current article starts with the quotes of Tacitus in the Germania of 98 AD. So i think it is necessary to mention the early role and presence of the Longobards in a Longobard article. 2. My texts ended with the Murder of Alboin, everything beyond was not from me. I am very sure that there are no mistakes in the bits of texts i posted.

As for ITALY being a legitamate term, its not. Even the Romans termed it Peninsulae Italicae or just Italicae. The constant claim that the Roman province was called Italia, is simply wrong and is not mentioned as such in any historic source. It was called Italicae. But there are far more wrong infos in this article. I dont know if you understand, but several infos are simply wrong. "If the current article is "utter crap", clean it up" No, you are responsible for it so you should clean it up. You obviosly know alot about the Longobards (otherwise you wouldnt devote so much effort for the new article) so you can surly create a great or at least better article. Because the current article is a disgrace, because of the lack of information and that infos that are given are partially WRONG. You came up with false allegations about my edits (POV etc), and that to me was a joke. Lllo3

An encyclopaedia is not just a collection of quotations from primary sources. It is based on the research found in secondary sources. I think this article can be expanded and I think it ought to have some quotations, but not too many. The article was previously nothing but a collection of quotations with a smattering of commentary. I never alleged that your edits were in error on matters of fact

Can you please explain Italia (Roman province)? See here, a modern English translation of Strabo which employs "Italy" for "Italia." More here in original Latin from Pliny the Elder.

You do not understand Wikipedia. I have no responsibility for cleaning up a mess, even my own. However, I do not consider it a mess. It was a mess before I reverted.

I never alleged anything specific about your edits, only edits made in general. I certainly never accused you in particular of POV. I would love to improve this article and I may, if I have the time. In the meanwhile, you can try to improve it yourself if you will only follow Wikipedia guidelines. (I'd be happy to tweak any English for clarity or anything else I can do.) But you have to understand that the use of quotations was excessive in the highest degree before. Srnec 19:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

@Srnec The Latin source doesnt term the peninsula ITALIA but ITALIAE. Italicae (Peninsulae Italicae) is however the more common version (for examples) http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0h655r9uhw362g1/ http://image.slub-dresden.de/de/inc_txt/stok/LingItal.html http://www.mun.ca/alciato/017.html Its actually very simple, Italia is Italian and the Romans didnt speak that tuscan dialect, they spoke Latin, so they surly never used the word ITALIA. Italy is the english translation of the (tuscan) Italia. Also the term Lombards, its actually Longobards. In Italian: Longobardi, in Latin: Langobardorum and in German(incl. Old English): Langobarden. Lombards are the present day inhabitants of Lombardy and the descendents of the Longobards. The term Longobards is still very in use in the English language, many books on them refer to them as Longobards,in the english translation of the HGL, they are always referred to as Longobards and several other sources: http://asv.vatican.va/en/visit/p_nob/p_nob_3s_03.htm Besides that, many pages on wikipedia link to this article with the term Longobards. But those are just minor issues. The Article doesnt mention the whole 1st. Cen. AD and the role of the Longobards, the important fact that they were under the control of the Marcomannic Kings, crossing the danube 166 AD to raid pannonia, their migration, their first own kings, their various locations (all in the HGL), their move to Noricum and their feud with the Heruli, their conquest of the Herulic kingdom. Those are just a few points that need to be mentioned. I can just repeat myself, this article doesnt give alot of info, and the given info needs to be checked.Lllo3

You display a remarkable ignorance of Latin. Peninsula Italiae means "Italian Peninsula." Italiae stands to Italia as "Italian" stands to "Italy." It is a Latin word. It's actually very simple, the Italian language (all its dialects) descended from Latin and the word for the peninsula (and country) is the same in both languages: Italia.

It is an ignorance of English to call "Lombards" wrong. Both "Lombards" and "Longobards" are acceptable English translations of Langobardorum. Both are used, but Lombards still predominates.

Expand it! Please! Srnec 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Also note common names. --Iamunknown 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed ignorance of Latin, and based on his authoritative tenor, rather remarkable at that. Srnec 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

@ Srnec First of all, stop asserting things about me. You obviously got lost in the dialogue. I was the one, that said that the term italian peninsula is more appropriate and correct than Italy. You, on the other hand claimed that italy is a legitamate term. It is not, and here is why. 1. Italy describes the modern day political state of italy. 2. By that you imply that the Lombards/Longobards conquered todays modern state in the 6th. Cen. AD. We can continue to discuss how the Romans called it and what the english translation is, and how close Italian is to Latin etc. etc. The point is, Italy cant be applied to that period, the correct term is Italian Peninsula. Furthermore, the Lombards/Longobards never conquered the Italian Peninsula they invaded it and conquered lands of it, which resulted in the 2 Duchies and the 1 Kingdom which were on the Italian Peninsula. But not all of the Peninsula was conquered by the Lombards/Longobards. So not only is the term Italy wrong, it is also very missleading. As for the terms Lombards/Longobards, in case you havent noticed, i am not making a big deal out of it. And you are once again lying when you claim that i posted, that the English Term Lombard is incorrect. I just wanted to point it out, for the sake of clarity, and you admitted yourself, that both terms are valid. I will repeat agian, those are just minor issues. Maybe you should start paying attention to the more important issues and start creating the article.Lllo3

You said "Also the term Lombards, its actually Longobards." That clearly implies that "Lombards" is incorrect, because actually it's Longobards.

You denied that "Italia" was the correct term when I asserted that "Italy" was a common translation of that term. Italy describes more than just the modern political entity. I have already shown that. You say "Italy cant be applied to that period," but the scholars do not agree with you.

I will reiterate: it is not my job to improve this article anymore than it is yours. Srnec 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)