Talk:Barbarian kingdoms

Requested move 12 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. However, it would be reasonable to try again with Post-Roman kingdoms instead as there seems to be initial support for it. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarian kingdoms → Early-medieval states – I believe that the correct and most historically accurate option is Early-medieval states or States of the Early Middle Ages, and it is for a very simple reason, not all the emerged states had a Germanic origin, like the Alans, who were Iranians, or they did not have a barbarian origin (in the sense of 'foreigner') at all, like Sabaria, Orospeda or Corduba (in the case of Hispania, and these states were neither kingdoms, but oligarchic republics), the Domain of Soissons (wrongly called kingdom; in Gaul), etc. 83.49.201.214 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. If this article is about the kingdoms founded on Roman territory after the fall of Rome, I would support post-Roman kingdoms. As it stands, however, I can't really tell what it's supposed to be about. I see no point in an article on early medieval states as such. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose English, French and other language sources all point to "Barbarian kingdoms" being the WP:COMMONNAME. Looking at academic journals "barbarian kingdoms site:jstor.org" brings a lot of content which is about this topic. "Early medieval state" or variants thereof ("early AND medieval AND state site:jstor.org" does bring more results, but they seem to be about entirely different topics. It's also the title used by authoritative sources, such as Britannica or The Cambridge History of Medieval Political. The proposed title would therefore fail multiple of the WP:CRITERIA, including precision, recognisability and naturalness. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other option, if there is problem with the proposal title, then I support the post-Roman kingdoms one, another I read about is the Rome's Successors Kingdoms. 83.49.201.214 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.Early-medieval states is a very broad name: it would mean states in Europe, Middle East, China, Africa, etc in the early Middle Ages(c.400-800 AD). Barbarian kingdoms is a descriptive name from the "Roman" point of view(Eastern and Western Rome) and is very common in the academic and in popular history. Post-Roman kingdoms OR Post-Roman states would be a better option to name the entities. Also: The topic of the article should be the states founded in the territory (or part of the territory) of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire in the V and VI century(Migration Period/"Barbarian" Invasions). Things like the "Danish kingdom" or the "Rus Khaganate" should be out. The "Welsh kingdoms","the Arab Tanukhids" or the "Pannonian Avars" should be in.The Roman Empire was a "Mediterranean" State, not a "European-only" one. If an article IS necessary for only the germanic kingdoms, it should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanSelimGrim (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. This appears to be an attempt by nom to correct common usage. Wikipedia is not the place for that however well argued. (Not even saying whether this is even well argued.) Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requested move 25 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to the proposed title. No such user (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Barbarian kingdoms → Post-Roman kingdoms – Posting this to RM for SultanSelimGrim. See that user's rationale below. Srnec (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking in consideration the last discussion that ended in consensus (oppose Early-medieval states), is that I propose to change the name and scope of the article to Post-Roman kingdoms (Yes there existed "republics", but they were few, and the academic name for the period is "Post-Roman Kingdoms").

Arguments in favor:

1.- The "barbarism" is subjective: to an ancient greek, all no greek was barbarian, including the romans. To the late romans of V century, all peoples outside the roman empire were barbarians,... including the Sassanid Empire¡ To the chinese of these times, the fall of western Rome would be a "hu"(barbarian) fighting other "hu". The term is very subjective.(What is a barbarian and when the barbarian stop being a barbarian? Charlemagne? Rennasainse? Industrial Revolution? Hehe) The germanic/iranic/hunnic/etc. peoples of the time didn't considerate themselves "barbarians" destroying "civilizations", but people in movement conquering new territories for themselves.

2.- The term "Barbarian kingdoms" exclude the latin and later greek states like Soissons, Dalmatia and the Eastern Rome Empire, entities that are necessary to understand the post-roman world(400-600 AD).

3.- The term "Barbarian kingdoms" let the introduction of entities divorced from the Roman world like the "Danish Kingdom" ,"Geatish Kingdom", "Rus Khaganate" and others.They are important for the later European Middle Ages, but no for the Post-Roman immediate period : The romans never adventured into Scandinavia or Russia. In the most extreme or ridiculous end of this approach (chasing "barbarians"), we will end including the Hephthalites, the Five barbarians of China : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Barbarians, or the Mongols. We need to stop somewhere.

4.- There is growing consensus in the academic that see the post roman world (after the fall of Western Rome) as a continuation of the late roman empire, not as a break. Trade continued, ideas was interchanged and is generally assumed that the "Mediterranean cultural sphere" was splintered only by the Arab conquests in the VII century.The timeline of the article would end with this event.

5.- A separate article "Germanic kingdoms" or "Post-Roman Germanic kingdoms" would dealt exclusively with the description of the Germanic kingdoms as Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals and others.(Here would be mentioned the "Danish Kingdom","Geatish Kingdom" or other entities in the north) (Rus' Khaganate remain a hypothesis).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanSelimGrim (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: As you mention a move similar to what you are proposing was opposed through consensus less than two weeks before you raised the point again. None of your arguments are wrong per se but the term Barbarian kingdom vastly supersedes "Germanic kingdom" or "Post-Roman Germanic kingdom", or even "Post-Roman state" etc. in terms of how often it's used. Your proposed move conflicts with wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME. I agree with all the arguments forwarded by those who opposed the move two weeks ago, and these points still apply here. I also think it is fairly obvious that the term "Post-Roman kingdom" applies equally poorly to the Eastern Roman Empire, the realm of Syagrius, and the area under control by Julius Nepos, as the term "Barbarian kingdom": neither of these polities were Post-Roman (they were Roman) and none of them were ruled by kings (point 2 above).Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this and demonstrate that a move, however more accurate the new title would be, would be in violation of WP:COMMONNAME: a Google search for me yields 54,000 hits for "Barbarian kingdoms" and 57,000 for "Barbarian kingdom", but only 13,000 for "post-Roman kingdoms" and 10,600 for "post-Roman kingdom". If we look in academia, "Barbarian kingdoms" on Google Scholar yields 2,290 hits, "Barbarian kingdom" 441 hits, "post-Roman kingdoms" 281 hits and "post-Roman kingdom" 105 hits. This holds even if we limit the search on Scholar to material published after 2010: "Barbarian kingdoms" gets 1,410 hits, "Barbarian kingdom" gets 228 hits, "post-Roman kingdoms" gets 225 hits and "post-Roman kingdom" gets 48 hits. If I check with Google Ngrams I can't even get "post-Roman kingdom" to show up in the graph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: What do you think is the proper scope of this article, i.e., what should it be about? Srnec (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: To be clear about my position, I believe "post-Roman kingdoms" to be the better and more accurate term, I'm just arguing that it is not as widely used as the current title is. In my mind the scope should be what it is right now (which is for instance how Britannica uses the term) - the post-Roman Germanic-governed states set up in former Western Roman imperial territory. Time-wise it should probably cover the 4th century (establishment of the first kingdoms) to the 8th century (fall of the Visigoths, Frankish kingdom becoming the Carolingian Empire). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: I agree that the term "post-Roman kingdoms" is better and that the scope is Post Western Rome IV(370?, gothic war)-beginning of VIII century(Charlomagne, muslim conquests, destruction of Avars,end of byzantine dark ages) .Thanks for providing data about academic use of the terms in discussion. I also think The scope should be useful for the Balkan and Pannonian entities in the East (Huns, Avars, Gepids, Bolghars and early slavs).Even the Arab foederati in the Levant (Tanukhids, Ghassanids).
  • Support a move to post-Roman kingdoms as it offers a much clearer scope. The article as it stands is virtually useless. Srnec (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to post-Roman kingdoms, I explained why in the original requested, but I forgot to write that also part of the "germanic kingdoms" became "latin kingdoms" (I know that the expression is not academic) but I am based on the fact that the denomination of the kingdoms based in the linguistic group that they belonged, Germanic, taking this into account, although the Franks and Goths began their history as Germanic-speaking peoples (Germanic peoples), they ended it as Latin-speaking peoples and identifying themselves as successors to imperial power. 83.49.201.214 (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per my comment at the previous RM regarding WP:COMMONNAME. Issues about scope (which I fail to see - both terms are unambiguous) are not valid reasons to ignore what the common name for this period is (in addition to my previous comments, the ngrams provided by Ichtyovenator seem to justify this even more). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree with @Andrewa: in the previous RM regarding "this is an attempt by nom to correct common usage" and how that is not going to fly (I see no reason to invoke IAR here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an attempt to chose a descriptive title with an unambiguous scope. This is not a problem that RS necessarily have. If I'm writing a book on late antiquity, I decide my chapter headings and their scopes. I have just removed off-topic material from the article, but see the footer template: do the Geats, the Ghassanids and the Avars really belong here? What exactly are the 'barbarian kingdoms'? I am willing to change my vote, but I question whether the title makes sense in a general encyclopaedia. Srnec (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the RS I give in the last RM. "Barbarian kingdoms" is a term of art, so open to some interpretation, but it usually refers to the Germanic kingdoms (in Western Europe) that arose in late antiquity/early middle ages, more or less at the same time as the Western Roman Empire was reaching its twilight: i.e., the Franks, the Goths, Lombards, Burgundians, ... Issues of scope and historiographical controversy can be covered in the article (with sources), but that does not justify "correcting common usage". More examples of "barbarian kingdoms": Cambridge; Yale. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is problem in the scope: For example Geats, suones and denmark had their own "barbarian kingdoms" in the V-VI century. But they are too away from Western Rome successor states. But they were germanic kingdoms like their cousins of the south. And What about our nomadic friends in Pannonia: Huns and Avars? Too eastern? And the Bulgarian khanate and slavic kingdoms founded in the Balkans in the VII century in former latin speaking land? It was the same thing like the goths/franks in Western Europe.Where is the split?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanSelimGrim (talk • contribs)
    That is again an issue of scope, not one of article title, and both of them should be based on what reliable sources say, not WP:OR. The sources I find and for which I provided links usually focus this to the western portion of Europe, and they use the term "Barbarian kingdoms". In addition to the above I'm looking in sources in other languages, and the distinction seems to be rather the same, too: Balard, Michel; Genet, Jean-Philippe; Rouche, Michel (2017). Le Moyen âge en Occident (in French) (6th ed.). Vanves: Hachette supérieur. ISBN 978-2-01-700969-6. has a whole chapter about the first "barbarian kingdoms" (chap. 1) and yet another chapter about to their downfall (chap. 3). Maps (p. 338-339) provide an overview, and I've looked at the relevant chapters just to make sure, and again "Barbarian kingdoms" includes most of the Iberic peninsula (Suebi, Wisigoths), as well as France and the western bit of modern Germany (Burgundians, Alemanni, and of course the Franks); as well as others (Vandals, Lombards, ...). But to reiterate, that is not an issue of article title, and not one which would justify us coming up with a WP:OR title for it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much agree with RandomCanadian. The term "Barbarian kingdoms" prevails both in popular and academic use for these states and the scope in this context is pretty clear in reliable sources. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose, post-Roman kingdoms makes more sense, but the common name is still "barbarian kingdoms". The change cannot come from Wikipedia. T8612 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Germanic Vandalism

The Barbarian Kingdoms specifically refers to the barbarians who invaded and destroyed the Western Roman Empire and then settled in its territory and stole its identity. This does not refer to all the barbarians who ever went to war with the Romans, that' s why we don't mention the Celts for example. These Brbarian Kingdoms were: Goths, Franks, Anglos, Lombards, Vandals. Literally all of them were Germanic. The Alans/Iranians and Huns were nomadic and never established kingdoms within Roman territory(the Mediterranean). Can you understand this Mr. Anonymous who is constantly vandalizing this article? Stop being ashamed of your true ancestors.

Also, "Northern Europe" is a totally vague term since "Europe" is a fake continent invented to cause this kind of misunderstanding of history. JebelAqra (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Someone needs to calm down and read the talk page. I, SultanSelimGrim, don't think that "germanic", "Iranian", "celtic" or "hunnish" were "barbarian". But the definition is Useful and the result of a consensus. So NO-Roman political entity in Late Antiquity = Barbarian. Celts/Germanic/Berbers/Huns/Avars = Barbarian. If you disagree with the common definition, come on, begin a new discussion on the topic requesting a move. Thank you.SultanSelimGrim (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat it for the thousandth time: This article is not about all the barbarians in the world, nor all the peoples that the Romans went to war against, this article is about the barbarians of the post-Barbarian Invasions who settled in the territory of the Western Roman Empire and founded their own kingdoms. Example: Franks, Goths, Lombards, Vandals (no refere), etc. If you know of any people other than Germanic people who settled in western Roman territory after the Barbarian Invasions, feel free to name them and receive an award for rediscovering history. ps: The anonymous troll is so ashamed of his true ancestors that he doesn't even want to write their name, how pathetic. JebelAqra (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please. Someone doesnt know that "Romano Berbers" or Celts were called also barbarians.

Ejm:https://web.archive.org/web/20110707233019/http://www.biblioteca-tercer-milenio.com/sala-de-lectura/HistoriaUniversal/ImperioRomano/AfricaBizantina-conquistayocaso.pdf

It refers to the romano Berbers of Altava as " “bárbaros del sur” (beréberes)"-Barbarian. Berber =/=Germanic.

-reference :" Modern culture generally associates the Huns with extreme cruelty and barbarism" Sinor, Denis (1990). "The Hun Period". In Sinor, Denis (ed.). The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia (1. publ. ed.) Yep and the Huns formed a kingdom in Roman Panonia, and not were "germanic"

Mauritania →passed into "barbarian domain": The Mauro roman kingdom →Next East Rome/Altava → Umayyad Caliphate

Pannonia → passed into Hunnic Empire's control→Gepid Kingdom→Avar Khaganate→ Frankish Empire +Bulgarian Khanate→Hungarian principality

Britania → passed into Sub Roman Britan → Celtic kingdoms as Rheged /Powys/Gwynedd → Anglosaxon Heptarchy

So, Mauritania, Britania and Pannonia aren't "Western Rome" eh?

What about the alanic kingdom of Orleans and Valence? And the Vandal-Alan kingdom in Africa? Secundary Source, that described the alans (iranian nomads that invaded Gaul, Hispani and Africa) as Barbarian:https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianAlans.htm

Or the vascones and astures in North Spain. Do you knew about the visigoth constant war against them?

All are "germanic" barbarians that people are "ashamed of". Yeah. Of course.


SultanSelimGrim (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ridiculous formulations in the above discussion aside ("the anonymous troll is so ashamed of his true ancestors that he doesn't even want to write their name, how pathetic"??), in my experience "Barbarian kingdoms" is generally used for the Germanic states in the post-WRE; the Ostrogothic Kingdom, Visigothic Kingdom, Frankish Kingdom, Suebian Kingdom, Burgundian Kingdom and Vandal Kingdom. Other peoples were called barbarians by the Romans of course, but unless the kingdoms they founded are actually referred to as "Barbarian kingdoms", like the Germanic ones are, in a reliable source, they are out of the scope of this article. Otherwise we would be engaging in original research. I'm not completely familiar with current academic consensus here, so perhaps SultanSelimGrim can produce a reliable source that refer to these kingdoms as "Barbarian kingdoms", and not just to the peoples who founded them as "barbarians". At the very least, the term is not exclusive to the western European kingdoms given that the Vandal kingdom in Africa is unquestionably one of the "Barbarian kingdoms". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

1.- I already put a link on a spanish article about the historiography of the romano-berbers(Altava, Garmul, Kusaila, Dihya, etc): It calls them "barbaros"/barbarians. From: Francisco Aguado Blázquez in 2005 .(He is a military doctor with interest in the time period. I can get quotes from historians dedicated to the matter, but it will take time)

2.-Now taking quotes from Chris Wickham in his excellent book F"raming the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400-800", Oxford from (2005), we have that the author doesn't like to use the term "barbarian"( he uses it with quotation marks)

In page 530, we have a discussion about the bagaudian rebels and ( in passing)about the Alans in Gaul: "They [Bagaudae]are universally seen as in some way external to the social order, both in Salvian and in other texts, and as rebellious—armies are routinely sent against them, both Roman and barbarian (the Alan Goar in Armorica, roughly north-western Gaul, in the 440s, on Aetius’ instructions; the Visigoth Frederic in Spain in 454, acting ex auctoritate romana)."

Now, the Alans were iranian nomads(not germanic), but were part of the various peoples that invaded western Rome. They founded short lived kingdoms in Orleans (leaded by Goar) and in Valence(leaded by Attaces). To speed up, I refer the wikipedia page on Alans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans

3.-I would like to use more quotes from Hyun Jin Kim's revolutionary work for the History of the Huns (2016). But one interesting thing is his position on the debate of the ethnicity of Odoacer, the first "barbarian" king of Italy:

"Edeco’s son Odoacer, whose ancestry was likewise Hunnic founded the first ‘barbarian’ kingdom in Italy and delivered the coup-de-grâce on what remained of the Western Roman Empire" (pg 114)

So, if Odoacer is "barbarian", but not "german" but hunnish (is still a raging debate), should we exclude his kingdom from the article, because he isn't "germanic"?.

4.-Personally I don't like the term "barbarian", I prefer "post-roman". But the historians are the experts here.

Next week I will have more time for working in the article. Is an interesting time period (late Antiquety), and new things are being discovered (like the terrible volcanic winters of 536 and 540). SultanSelimGrim (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the short-lived kingdoms of the Alans, which you bring up, qualify as among the 'Barbarian kingdoms', especially given that the later Vandal kingdom was formally the 'Kingdom of the Vandals and Alans'. The point I'm trying to make is that I agree that the term 'barbarian' could be applied to, for instance, the romano-berbers in Africa, and that many scholars do so, but that unless their kingdoms are called Barbarian kingdoms in scholarship, or otherwise explicitly associated with the kingdoms that undisputably qualify under that category - the Goths, Franks, Vandals etc., they are out of the scope of this article. I'm sure they're treated together in some source, so it shouldn't be that much of a problem, but hopefully it's clear what I mean.
I also prefer "post-Roman", but we have to go with what is most commonly used, so we're stuck with "barbarian" for now. Looking forward to seeing what you do with the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When this kingdoms stop being barbaric? New title idea

This kingdoms are called "barbarian kingdoms" because were founded by "barbarians", despite this barbarians were actually romanised (spoke latin, dressed like "native romans" and adopted Christianity) and many borned inside roman borders, but because they were not "proper citizens" are called "barbarians" ok, but when they stop being "barbaric"? Also this article could be renamed with the name by which these kingdoms called themselves instead using the actual outdated and contemptuous one. 88.5.110.127 (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fine and good but we operate by WP:COMMONNAME and the common name used by historians and laypeople alike for these realms is still "barbarian kingdoms". Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what about the "Roman rump states": Domain of Soissons; republics of Orospeda, Corduba, Sabaria; Vasconia; kingdoms of Britannia; Brittany; Mauro-Roman kingdoms, etc? 88.5.110.127 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than arguably the Mauro-Roman kingdom(s), none of those states are generally considered part of the "barbarian kingdoms", they should be discussed elsewhere. What the barbarian kingdoms were, and that this is the most common label for them, is now well-sourced in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I mean, the "Roman states" shouldn't have their own article? or shouldn't there be an article covering both the "barbarian" and Roman kingdoms? 88.5.110.127 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, most of the states you mention are discussed very rarely (compared to the larger barbarian kingdoms) on account of the small number of available sources from the period; this goes for the republics in Hispania (not sure if they truly were independent or were part of the Visigothic kingdom - such things can often seem quite vague), Vasconia, Brittany and the kingdoms of Sub-Roman Britain. The Mauro-Roman kingdom(s) were not really different from the Germanic kingdoms and could be discussed in this article, they just happen to not be right now. The phenomenon of post-476 western states ruled by Romans (i.e. Soissons, Nepos in Dalmatia, and possibly some of the others you mentioned) could be discussed in a new article - something like Rump states of the Western Roman Empire, as they are polities claiming to still be (part of) the empire, rather than new states. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbarian_kingdoms&oldid=1216370352"