Talk:Getica

Untitled

This seems semi-redundant with Getica, dunno which should be the main and which the redir though. Stan 04:48, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

clarify!

The ancient history of the Goths Jordanes describe in this book is actually of the Dacians, the confusion was due to the similarity of the names of Getae and Goths. However, his account is interesting from the point of view of the history of the Dacians, because he uses data from works which were later lost during the Middle Ages. This passage isn't entirely clear. According to my course in the language of the Goths, Jordanes did write about the Goths. The author of this article however, seems to imply that Jordanes said he wrote about the Goths, but accidentally wrote about the Dacians.

The key phrase is "ancient history", which is relative to the "contemporary history" of the Goths of Jordanes' own time. "Early history" or "history from long before his time" would be less ambiguous. Stan 21:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So only a short passage in his work is about a different people? Did he also base this part on Cassiodorus' work about the Goths? bluppfisk 03:31, 03 February 2006 (CET)

Needs a total rewrite

Hi everybody. I've been working on Jordanes. This is next. I'm a classicist. Sorry, but as it stands, this article is totally off the wall. I think it is really splendid that someone takes such an interest in the work of Jordanes. Congratulations. Keep working, however.

For example, we read that Jordanes copied lots of text from Cassiodorus. How would the writer or any of his sources know that? Cassiodorus' work on the Goths has been absent from the roster since ancient times.

Sorry, I don`t understand what you mean... Are you implying that Jordanes did not based his work on Cassiodorus?

Similarly, we read that in the initial books Jordanes was really writing about Dacians. I have these before me now and it pretty much talks about Scandinavia!

Read it again... Really, do it! If you did it and still are not able to tell the difference, than you lack basic knowledge... greier 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, it does so in a coherent way relatable to later history. Do you mean, Jordanes was so dumb he didn't even know the difference between a Get and a Goth? I think that is carrying the theory of Jordanes the rustic dummy who couldn't read or write a bit too far, don't you? I think we can safely assume that Jordanes knew who the Goths were.

Yes, I was right... You do lack basic knowledge... If you want to, you can consider him "dumb". As far as I`m concerned, it was just a case of mistaken identity... Others have done it too (the goth-getae thing)... greier 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And what's this about the not very prestigious Scandinavians? Come now, boys, you can do better than this. I hope you didn't get an A in that paper. L'audace, toujours l'audace. You have to attack your subject like a bulldog and not let it go until you've shaken loose some truth from it. There is no substitute for dogged research.

The thing about the not very prestigious Scandinavia (and indeed, it wasn`t prestigious at that time, as they didn`t have Hollywood) was given as a probable reason for the confusion. I really don`t see what`s the problem... greier 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And, I think you should definitely take a look at a map, maybe even with a scale and compass so you can lay off some distances. Find out where the Ostrogths and the Visigoths were and how they got there, and where Dacia is, etc. There are some good maps on the Internet.

Yes, and think you should not consider (yourself so smart, and) others so dumb... Since you started it, I`m going to ask: what was I suppose to see in the map so shocking? greier 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What's this about the records of the original Indo-europeans? Great idea! I think you need to follow through to see if that is realistic or is supported by other evidence. Education takes a lot of work. It also takes the desire to do it, which you seem to have. Best of luck to you. Maybe someday the world of interest will be reading your books! Meanwhile, I am not going to put any of those awful templates in here, even though most of them should go in. I will, however, start replacing the article from the top with the sort of thing Mierow is saying. By all means, take a hand if you can. Let's do it together. Best wishes. I presume you wanted some feedback or you would not be using Wikipedia.Dave 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm only an undergraduate but I've read enough to know that the 'Jordanes himself' section is quite misleading. Mainly with the suggestion that he was his own source of Gothic knowledge.

Goths and Getae

Dave, I will no longer try to put that part about the mixing of goths with the dacians, because there`s no point if users like Aldux will continue reverting my edits, like he has done on this article, but also on Goths article, where he continues to put that remark about how "Their kings and priests came from a separate aristocracy and their mythic kings of ancient times were honored as gods. Their mythic lawgiver, named Deceneus, traditionally dated about the 1st century BC, ordered their laws, which they possessed by the 6th century in written form and called belagines" despite the fact that it is clearly a confusion. Deceneus was a dacian priest, as literally hundreds of ancient sources say so. The dacians were divided into two classes: the common people "comati", from latin coma (cf. Romanian coama) meaning "hair mane" of something like this, as they wore long hair. The aristocracy wore the phrygian cap, hence latin authors called them "pileati", from latin pileus meaning "felt" or something like this. Leaving that aside, I think you should add at least a remark on this article, so this confusion would stop. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? This confussion, goths-getae, dacians-danes is centuries old...

What if, just how Aldux uses Jordanes, I would use the following and write in Wikipedia articles based on these sources:

Dudo of Saint-Quentin - Dacia

Isaac Newton - Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John; CHAP. 5. Of the Kingdoms represented by the feet of the Image composed of iron and clay: " Dacia was a large country bounded on the south by the Danube, on the east by the Euxine sea, on the north by the river Neister and the mountain Crapac, and the west by the river Tibesis, or Teys, which runs southward into the Danube a little above Belgrade. It comprehended the countries now called Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia, and the eastern part of the upper Hungary. Its antient inhabitants were called Getae by the Greeks, Daci by the Latins, and Goths by themselves. Alexander the great attacked them, and Trajan conquered them, and reduced their country into a Province of the Roman Empire; and thereby the propagation of the Gospel among them was much promoted"

André Thévet, Cosmographie Universelle, cap. De la Valachie, Transylvanie, Bulgarie et Servie/About Wallachia, Transylvania, Bulgaria and Serbia: "the origin of these people come entirely, as most people say, come from the getae, called this way by the romans, and wich since then have called goths"

greier 13:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think is it very important to add a section clarifying this mix to the reader. Plus, the early part of the book has some very useful information regarding the history of Geto-Dacians.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Where's a summary of what this work says? I assume that should be part of any Wikipedia article on a book or record Jztinfinity 21:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the original of "Gethica"

I wonder why nobody asks this question before. It so obvious? If so please write about the original manuscript.

This sentence asserts that the original is somewhere.

Because Cassiodorus' original version has not survived, Jordanes' work is one of the most important sources for the period of the migration of the European tribes, and the Ostrogoths and Visigoths in particular, from the 3rd century CE.

• Is it true ?
• Why we don’t have here the high resolution scan or pictures of the pages?

Nasz 05:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

how

In Article is Misleading sentence:

Cassiodorus' work claims to have the Gothic "Folk songs" -- the Carmina Prisca (Latin) -- as a prime source. Recent scholarship regards this as highly questionable. The main purpose of the original work (Cassiodorus's) was to give the Gothic ruling class a glorious past - to match the past of the senatorial families of Roman Italy.

1 not Casidorius work. Is not survived 2 Not even Jordanes work. Where it is?

This is example of adding false contest in delicate way. I marking this as {fact}. Nasz 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

chain of missing manuscripts

who know if jordanes is not a work of Theodore Mommsen. Look nobody quted it before! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.255.98.125 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Can't you read? Editio Princeps 1515, and I added the reference. The rest of the text is almost all from Britannica. So please stop vandalizing the article. As for "nobody quted (sic) it before", you only have to use Google books.--Aldux 11:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Britanica is edited in 1911. Not before 1800. Konrad Peutinger listed as editor has a circular references. If he printed out getica. Why Mommsen Edited Getica. If Konrad Peutinger edited Getica where is one of the printed out book from his times ? This is just a question, if you know the answers plese inform me. Nasz 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: The wikilinks added by N: in text of Aldux

I must say that your clearly no great expert of how these things works, to use an euphemism. What Mommsen made was a critical edition, and if you don't even know what a critical edition know is, then don't pretend to discuss of these things, because then you would know that all ancient works are subjected to a critical edition that becomes the standard reference book among scholars. The British scholar William Smith, that wrote before Mommsen made his edition of the Getica, writes: "Editio princeps, with Paulus Diaconus, by C. Peutinger, Augsburg, 1515, fol.; with Procopius, by Beatus Rhenanus, Basel, 1531, fol.; with Cassiodorus, by G. Fourier, Paris, 1579, fol., 1583, and often, by B. Vulcanius, with Procopius and some minor writers, Leyden, 1597, 8vo." ecc. ecc. Actually, the number of pre-19th century editions of the Getica is quite impressive, there's even a French translation and a Swedish one. And to put the last nail on the fable that nobody quotes Jordanes before the 19th century, I actually have a pre-19th century book on my bookshelf that does exactly this, that is Gibbon's Decline and fall of the Roman Empire. As for the question "If Konrad Peutinger edited Getica where is one of the printed out book from his times ?", I'll give you the exact awnser: a copy can be found for sale in Zurich, at the Schumann Antiquariat, that also has for sale a 1588 edition by Fourrier, a reprint of the 1579 Fourrier edition. As for the question "If he printed out getica. Why Mommsen Edited Getica." Simple: Peutinger made the editio princeps, i.e., the first printed edition, but for critical editions you have to wait for philology to have reached scientific standards, a thing that happened only with the 19th century.--Aldux 13:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m afraid some facts are linked improperly. E.g. what have Procopius of Cesarea to do with printing in renaissance of Getica? I will discurs your answer after some sourced research. Nasz 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a list of editions: the 1531 edition contained both Procopius and Jordanes jointly in the same book. I don't see why you find this strange, if you've ever saw the text you'll know that Getica is pretty slim, as it's just an abridgement of a longer work.--Aldux 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• A:"...British scholar William Smith, that wrote before Mommsen made his edition of the Getica, writes: "Editio princeps, with Paulus Diaconus, by C. Peutinger, Augsburg, 1515, fol. ..."
• N:Wiliam Smidh was born in 1813 He live in Mommsen times. How he can wrote in 1515? Did I fond 'This' William Smith (lexicographer)? Or you referencing other Smidth? I changed/dedismbing your text above if incorectly let me know/and corect. Also i will be very thankful if you provide the references to Getica printed out before Momsen in 16 c. If this book was printed certainly did not disapered form the shelfs or bib. records. Peutinger did not print Getica as you states before. The entry is not referenced by any 16 or 17 c references. Now in addition to chain of missing manuscripts we have chain of missssing/lost printed editions! ;) Nasz 03:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're losing my time. I've given you all the awnsers, including the quote with the list of all 16th century editions, and if you're English is so bad to be unable to understand it, this is your problem. I will revert any attempt you make to restore this OR and unsourced crap. Also remember you have already been blocked before for your utter disruptivness; proceeding in this behaviour will only obtain new blocks. For all else, for those who may be really interested in Getica, I invite to read Arne Søby Christensen's monography Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the history of the Goths.--Aldux 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Aldux

Could you be so kind and put the refernces to the getica. It looks rather unreferenced when we do not have references to the book in question . Nasz 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The references are all at the end of the articles: as for the rest, I will only restore what I've already up, with all the list of 16th century editions: The British scholar William Smith, that wrote before Mommsen made his edition of the Getica, writes: Editio princeps, with Paulus Diaconus, by C. Peutinger, Augsburg, 1515, fol.; with Procopius, by Beatus Rhenanus, Basel, 1531, fol.; with Cassiodorus, by G. Fourier, Paris, 1579, fol., 1583, and often, by B. Vulcanius, with Procopius and some minor writers, Leyden, 1597, 8vo. ecc. ecc. And keep in mind, the first edition of Smith's DGRBM originates in 1844, well before Mommsen edition in the MGH (1882, I believe).--Aldux 12:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

1 Aldux you invoking this n times. Look again on my question. Show a reference to the particular book where the pre Mommsen "Getica" is contained. Show for example bibliographical record, or respectable online scan of a page. The refernces you give do not point to any particular book. Its end nowhere. (I found Peutinger did Longobardian not a "Getica" in 1515 in Augsburg do you think it is the same?) Also do not over-use the full authority of W Smith, The dictionary was work of multiple persons some from Mommsen area)

For example what is the book you refere after W.Smith as 'Editio princeps, with Paulus Diaconus, by C. Peutinger ? How to find this book ? What is a title? Where the book is now? Your refernces just bounce to nowhere .

2 Why do you want to use only selected Quotes from W. Smith dictionary, but you delete the other you dont like? Dont you think that this is POV ?

3

• A: And keep in mind, the first edition of Smith's DGRBM originates in 1844, well before Mommsen edition in the MGH (1882, I believe
• N: This argument is easy to dismiss. It not before Mommsen. It is parallel to Mommsen: Mommsen was at full work in 1844. He was also coresponding with W Smidth. :)

Nasz 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding, "Show a reference to the particular book where the pre Mommsen "Getica" is contained", that's easy; I already told you, in Gibbon, and as for other authors, make a search with Google Books, and you'll discover lots of them. And again, I've told you to read Christensen's monography, where you will find all the awnsers. As for 1844 being the same thing as 1882... I give up, you clearly don't want to get it.--Aldux 12:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Gibbon AND Jordanes =660 entries < is it what did you found ?
• A:in Gibbon, ... make a search with Google Books
• N:Gibon books have long expired copyright and are available from project Gootenberg. here

I can't show Jordanes but suprasingly i found getica.

But im a litle not shure if Edward Gibbon wrote about Momsen/Jordanes Getica if hi didn't wrote about Jurdanes perhaps not about Getica too!. Give me Aldux the quote!!. I smell you make a mistake.;)

Nasz 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're really incredible. Ever thought that you shoud have searched under Jornandes, the name used by Smith, as you had previously seen? And have you forgotten that the title Getica was given to the work by Mommsen in 1882? Anways, here are the Gibbon quotes:

• "Jornandes, c. xxviii, p. 650" (footnote at chapter 26; extensive quote)
• "Jornandes supposes, without much probability, that Adolphus visited and plundered Rome a second time (more locustarum erasit) ... Jornandes, de Reb. Geticis, c. 31, p. 654, 655" (footnote at chapter 31)
• "see the pictures of Adolphus and Placidia, and the account of their marriage, in Jornandes, de Reb. Geticis, c. 31, p. 654, 655" (footnote at chapter 31)
• "See Jornandes, de Reb. Get. c. 30, p. 653" (footnote at chapter 31)

And many others. I've just quoted very few of them.--Aldux 15:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your mixing of original Edward Gibbon words with later added footnotes is a good example of skewed (mis)understanding of historical sources. Don't you see that the footnotes are added years after Gibbon wrote his 6 volumes? Your quotes are not a Gibbon words. These quotes are dismissible. You should research who made this footnotes.

  A:And have you forgotten that the title Getica was given to the work by Mommsen in 1882? Anways, here are the Gibbon quotes...

  N: Not Gibbon of 1776! Not true!

• 1 Anyway what was the 'title of the publication' was given to the work by Mommsen in 1882?
• 2 Why did you deleted the sourced 'Getica dismbing' page ?
• 3 What year of edition of Edward Gibbon did you used for above quotes?

Nasz 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ps: Did Gibbon comment themsevles in footnotes using his name ?(as in this Footnote: ...Gibbon, in his severer spirit of criticism, may have questioned the authority of Jerome and Eusebius... :)))))) )

It's really a pity that the book from which I quote clearly distinguishes with square brackets Gibbon's notes and that of the editor.... Or are you going to tell me know that Gibbon's book was originally written without footnotes? Now this would be a great discovery!;p And as for the 1882 title given to the work it's Getica; as I've desperately tried to explain you, Romana is the title given by Mommsen to Jordanes second work. Also, I haven't deleted Getica; I redirected, as is done in these circumstances, because the most common association of Getica is with the work of Jordanes.--Aldux 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Aldux i made it easy for you. I numered the questions. Do you avoid straight answers?

Please look up and if you know write the answers down.

• 1
• 3

• +4: Also since you qoute some source i have only scatered references/abstracts: what was the title of the book found by the pope The book was rediscovered in Vienna in 1442 by the Italian humanist Enea Silvio Piccolomini? (was it about a Tacitus Germania ?)

A:Or are you going to tell me know that Gibbon's book was originally written without footnotes? Now this would be a great discovery!;

N: I do not have a fotnotes writen by Gibbon, i remember scaned pages on Saganet... text similar to a Gibbon. No footnotes, but now I do not have a hard link(java). The boks in 17ooths usualy are writen whithouth footnotes, but do you have the original source ? It wil save me a lot of time to dig the scan up.

Nasz 06:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've got serious difficulties taking you seriously, you see. Differently from you, I've got a long experience in dealing with ancient history, and it's hard for me to believe you don't know of Gibbon's footnotes; there universally famous: see The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire#Gibbon.27s_use_of_citations. As for Piccolomini, sorry: it's one of the Getica manuscripts, as clearly stated by the author of the referenced work. If you feel this isn't enough, Endre Bojtar in Foreward to the Past writes: "it is well known that Piccolomini found Jordanes' Getica and published excerpts from it". And now really, I've lost enough time. I'm fully respectiong every comma of wikipedia policy: so if you're unhappy with the sources, your problem. And sorry, nowhere's written in wikipedia (and I have a good knowledge of the rules) that to reference you have to use the first edition.--Aldux 17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On Gutenberg are only 2 editions of E. Gibbon. You may see easily that the footnotes differ betwen editions, but are from 19 c. The chapter, you invoke, is referenced by only one 20 c (1994) paper. It is for you all clear...Ok, but I do not foolow to the simplistic view of last edition. Just do not delete the refernced words from earlier writers. Nasz 03:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• But look what the footnotes refer to [Footnote 1: Gatterer, Versuch einer all-gemeinen Welt-Geschichte," p. 424,

edit. de 1792 How The Edward Gibbon can qoute work of 1792??? Theoreticaly he can. Hi passed in January 16, 1794, but he published his work in 1776!

Also all the references match the chapters division of Moomsen edition even the pages numbers match! Did the older wersion of Jordanes or Jornandes (is the same name?) was writen on the same format of paper ? Did the manuscript match the leter spaces of printed edition? How is posible... the match? It was other printed edition? Where is the book? Can you provide a scan of single page ? Of all pages ?

<! -- I. The Slaves, or Sclavonians, or Wendish tribes, according to Schlozer, were originally settled in parts of Germany unknown to the Romans, Mecklenburgh, Pomerania, Brandenburgh, Upper Saxony; and Lusatia. According to Gatterer, they remained to the east of the Theiss, the Niemen, and the Vistula, till the third century. The Slaves, according to Procopius and Jornandes, formed three great divisions.-- >

What is quotation index?

Aldux: rv it has utterly no sense adding a list of those whohave or haven't quoted Jordanes, and it is not done in any similar ancient history article.

N:Could you provide a full list of pre Mommsen citation index of Jordanes? It will save me a lot of time! These references may be important to show who quoted Jordanes before T Momsen. Answer me Aldux honestly just one question: Do you have any question regarding Getica ?

Nasz 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre Mommsen prints

Aldux inserted that Konrad Peutinger printed manuscripts of Jordanes. But he rather did print in 1515 another manuscript. Aldux do not provide any reference to the Printed book, not even the Title. Even i just in Wikipedia there is a text "In some respects he suggests a comparison with Jordanes" look in itro of Historia gentis Langobardorum but is not a work of Joradnes or any of his 4 names.

Aldux reverted it:

The book was rediscovered in Vienna in 1442 by the Italian humanist Enea Silvio Piccolomini. Its editio princeps was issued in 1515 by Konrad Peutinger (this mean that Peutinger printed book)<!-can somebody provide references to the Peutinger book, is the book exist somewhre or no one survived fires. What is the number of copies printed by him? What was the title? -->, followed by many other editions.< ref >Smith, William (editor); Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, "Jornandes"</ref><! -- should be very easy to point to subsequent editions, plese contribute to find biblographical records and earlier online versions-->

General question: Where is the printed edition of Peutinger? The 1927 (stiked by Aldux) reference is a secondary reference(i alredy ordered the book) but i suspect there is no evidence. 03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You obviously don't know Latin, or you would have noted that in a Latin excerpt you've read it is written that Diaconus, Getica and Romana were published in the same volume.--Aldux 09:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Shortening Cassiodorus section

I had shortened the Cassiodurus section, which was now reverted by User:Aldux, with the edit summary "some of these shortenings cut sourced material". Well, maybe, but this section about the life of Cassiodorus was disproportionally long in an article about the Getica, even after I had shortened it. Aldux even restored the paragraph starting with "The latter view raises as many questions as it answers," which just seem to be some editor's musings. This section needs to be cut down. /Pieter Kuiper 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jūrate Statkutė de Rosales

I cut the following text out of the article, pending a more detailed investigation. It is poorly written, I can't make out what the author intends to say, and it smells like WP:SYN. But I'd like to check it out first before pulling it completely.

According to reacently publicated notices by Jūrate Statkutė de Rosales one very important translation of Jordanes made by Theodor Mommsen was actually incorrect. This fact raised a lot of discussions between scholars that Jordanes actually wrote about peninsulas of eastern Baltic coast: Sambia, Curonian spit, Gdansk or Danzig. This region was the largest source of Amber road in ancient world. Later medieval sources, like writings of Adam of Bremen, royal chronicle of Alfonso X and others support this theory. A lot of widely accepted historical facts concerned with with history of germanic peoples, Skandinavia appeared only because of mistake or possible falsification caused by ideas of pangermanism. <ref>[[Jurate Rosales]], Los Godos. Barcelona, Ed. Ariel S.A., 2nd edition, 2004. (edition in Spanish) </ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon Arya (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis of the work

Just added a synopsis taken from the Jordanes article (section "Works"). I think it would be better to remove that stuff from the aforementioned article since it better suits here. Dipa1965 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   - jurate statkute rosales - The argument that Jordanes has been subject to a translation mistake and was referring to the Baltic origin instead of a Scandinavian origin of the goths, can be checked opening an essay in the Universidad de los Andes ULA - "Ensayo las 4 mentiras sobre los godos jurate rosales ULA".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regina29 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

theme of slavs as one of the most important in Getica

I think Jordane meant slavs by word "sclaves" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Russian (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Getarum / Gothorum

The Byzantines also used antiquated terminology, yet modern translations do not "correct" the terms according to what a modern exegete or profane considers adequate in terms of what the Byzantines must have meant really meant by that word. Instead, the term is translated as such, accompanied by due explanations regarding the semantic value. Getarum translates as "of the Getae", and this is the word an late antique writer would have used to refer to the Getae. The very confusion between the two populations supports this: take it out, and Jordanes or Cassiodorus or anybody would have solely used Gothorum. Sterp (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what your doing is just OR. The translation of the the title how I do is supported by the modern English translation, and Walter Pohl (one of the top experts on Romano-Barbaric relations in Late Antiquity) observes and longly discusses in "i Goti d'Italia e la tradizione delle steppe", pp. 227-51, 1993. I'm not interested in establishing the truth, oly that what is presented reflects modern scholarship; and since I don't no of any modern translation of Jordanes' work titled The Origin and Deeds of the Getae, I think the whole point has little chances of standing.Aldux (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What Pohl and the rest did was to give an English title to a book about the Goths. It was not a proper translation. Jordanes' opening paragraphs are correctly translated by other authors: You urge me to leave the little work I have in hand, that is, the abbreviation of the Chronicles, and to condense in my own style in this small book the twelve volumes of the Senator on the origin and deeds of the Getae from olden time... - Jordanes. When used as primary reference, other authors translate the title as ..of the Getae and add explanations[1][2][3]. Likewise, Britannica gives .. of the Getae plus the necessary explanations. I also think this discussion is pointless: Walter Pohl or whoever can never convince me that Getarum doesn't translate as "of the Getae". End of story. 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterp (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Getica. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306132839/https://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=10425 to https://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=10425

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) 09:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Getica. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405141204/https://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1715.html to https://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1715.html

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) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Some parts should probably move to Jordanes

There is a Jordanes article, and Jordanes wrote more than one work. A section which particular seems more appropriate to the Jordanes article is the section about his Latin [4].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)