Talk:Atuatuci

[Untitled]
Overall an excellent article - I understand that it can be difficult to find information on some of the tribes from Gaul - you've done a great job. You have a very good summary of Aduatuci history here. A couple suggestions - first, just double check grammar, there were a couple spots I wasn't sure about, a minor detail. Second - fighting style vs the Romans. Do Aduatuci fight in a certain way? How powerful was their army? Any more detail on that is excellent. Otherwise, great job! - Eugenia Gabrielov 129.105.4.184 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few grammatical (mainly punctuation) changes myself because it's silly to list those on a talk page.

Overall, this seems good. I like the coverage of the Audatuci's background and their assistance of the Nervians. However, the section on their defeat seems a little week. From reading that paragraph, it seems like the Aduatuci surrended, opened their gates, and forfeited their weapons. Still, they managed to attack the Romans that night? although to no avail. How are they attacking without weapons? Did they plan to steal their weapons back? If more information is available, I'd like to see more detail regarding the defeat.

DavidBild 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is good. I also find the Aduatuci's aid to the Nervians to be an interesting story. If the information is available, I suggest providing just a few more background details about this event. For example, a general map of Gaul would provide the reader a better context in which the battle was fought (the map you have already uploaded is a nice touch). Also, if there is any information as to why the Aduatuci provided military support, if the Nervians were known for anything (e.g. natural resource deposits), etc. you might want to include such details. Finally, you might want to mention how, considering Caesar is the primary source, the information may be somewhat biased. -Jonathan Simrin, 5/14/2007

I found the article very clear and informative. I especially liked the first paragraph as it was both concise and comprehensive. Like the other reviewers have already said, more information about the battle would have been interesting. Where there any notable leaders who were in charge during this time? Were there any other conflicts with the Romans? It would have also been helpful if there was information about the location of the battle. Where exactly was the fortified city? Overall, I found it to be an interesting article.

Stephanie Sutter, May 15, 2007

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aduatuci. 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/20070518053027/http://www.livius.org:80/a/battlefields/huy/huy.html to http://www.livius.org/a/battlefields/huy/huy.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

various new edits
some specific concerns with new sentences etc:
 * In the first century BC, the Atuatuci dwelled on the plain of Hesbaye, on both banks of the Meuse river, between the modern cities of Liège in the north, Namur in the south, and Limbourg in the east.[1][7] I see this has sources, but obviously all sources contain mistakes, and we do not have to include everything in sources. In this case, this sentence disagrees with the rest of the article, more recent and specialized sources, and the definition of the Hesbaye is not even correct. So this should be removed.
 * Their main town was Aduatuca (modern Tongeren), also named Tungrorum in Roman records.[1] This is an old misunderstanding based on the similar names, that I have seen occasionally, but also not correct. The Aduatuca of the Eburones (which may or may not be the same as the Aduatuca of the Tungri) was clearly distinguished from the fortress of the Aduatuci. So this should also be removed. It also means that the change of the section title from Settlement to Settlements is not really appropriate. One of the only clear reports we have about the Aduatuci is that they had one fortress.
 * Your edit adding to cn tags with edsum "not in source". Appears unjustified:
 * To source: The tribe might have merged into other chieftaindoms or confederations of the area, including more recent immigrants from Germany. From source: "Changes which took place after Caesar, involving new folk from across the Rhine and reorganization of existing peoples, make localization difficult."
 * To source: The place name "Atuatuca" does continue in the region, because the capital of the Tungri's region, the "Civitas Tungrorum" was known as "Atuatuca Tungrorum" (modern Tongeren). From source: "...Atuatuca, the later chef-lieu of the Tungri at Tongeren...".--Andrew Lancaster

I am a bit concerned that on the drive to add lots of very short sections is creating duplications and even sections which disagree with each other directly. (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They lived among the Germani Cisrhenani, without being part of them, as their territory was located between that of the Nervii and the Eburones, in the province of Gallia Belgica.[1] This sentence disagrees with itself because the Nervii were not Germani. The word "among" is wrong, so it can be removed. This then means the sentence can be simplified.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Also, that province did not exist in the time we know the Atuatuci existed (pre Rome).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Further complicating this, we can not write "in what would become" either, because the Tungri and Nervii eventually lived in different Roman provinces (with the Tungri in Germania Inferior).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that you have removed sourced content without providing a contradictory source. I don't see those "more recent and specialized sources" in the article. The only references used were Wightman and primary sources. You have even removed content from Wightman (about the later occupation of the area by the Tungri, or about the Cimbri and Teutons who allegedly "had stayed behind in the north to occupy the middle Meuse valley"), who was already used as a reference.
 * The second issue is that you provide a summary of the source with a wording that is loosely based on what the source wrote. For instance, where do you see that "the tribe might have merged into other chieftaindoms or confederations of the area, including more recent immigrants from Germany" in the sentence Changes which took place after Caesar, involving new folk from across the Rhine and reorganization of existing peoples, make localization difficult.? Where do you see that the settlement was called "Atuatuca Tungrorum" and "Civitas Tungrorum" in Atuatuca, the later chef-lieu of the Tungri at Tongeren... and more generally on page 30 of Wightman (1985)? I know the second sentence is true, but still unreferenced, so the tag is needed. The first is clearly a deformation of what Wightman really wrote.
 * This is a work in progress, I was about to add, this morning, a reference about the non-existence of Atuatuaca in the pre-Roman period.
 * What you have done in this edit is (1) removing sourced content without providing an alternative secondary reference (the first paragraph is now unsourced) (2) keeping paragraphs providing a wording that is the view of the contributor, and not of the (loosely used) source. Alcaios (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another example of "source hijacking" is the change from "The area was later settled by the Tungri, mentioned by the 1st century AD (Pliny)." to "The area where the Eburones had lived was later settled by the Tungri, mentioned by the 1st century AD (Pliny)." whereas the source wrote Eburones and Atuatuci disappeared from the written record; 'their replacement, the Tungri, are first mentioned by Pliny.
 * Who should be concerned? Alcaios (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made some edits in line with my reply, with references and quotes from secondary sources. Regarding the geography section, you're disagreeing with Karlheinz Dietz (2006) and the Brill's New Pauly encyclopedia: Descending from the Cimbri and Teutoni (Caes. B Gall. 2,29,4 f.), the A. lived among the Germani Cisrhenani, without being part of them, between the Nervii and the Eburones in Gallia Belgica on both banks of the Maas river between Liège/Namur and Limbourg. The main town was Aduatuca (Tungrorum), modern Tongeren, with an early Roman garrison.. Alcaios (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I certainly can't say these articles were finished work. However, on other articles you have worked on recently, you made it easier to track what had been removed etc, whereas on this one, major changes were made before I was given a chance to double check for better sources or wordings etc. Responses to your responses:
 * To be clear about your first: are you asking me for a source for the location of the well-known modern Hesbaye region (which is not on both sides of the Meuse), or that they did not necessarily settle on the banks of the Meuse? (Or both?) The Wightman quotes, for one thing, make it clear she does not believe that it was necessarily on the banks of the Meuse?
 * I had noticed that it would be possible to dispute whether the wording is close enough to Wightman concerning "Changes which took place after Caesar" but if that is the case then a cn tag was not the correct approach in this particular case. We could make a simple wording tweak?
 * "I know the second sentence is true, but still unreferenced". Well, honestly, we do not need to reference every sentence. To be clear, are you demanding an extra source for the equivalence between Tongeren's longer and shorter Roman names? Of course that is easy to source, but honestly it is possible to demand sources ad infinitum, so please keep the demands within reason.
 * "the first paragraph is now unsourced". It seems to have a source? But actually first paragraphs and leads generally normally should not have footnotes. They should reflect what is sourced in the body. Anyway, I don't follow you on this.
 * "keeping paragraphs providing a wording that is the view of the contributor". Please tell me which paragraph you are referring to. I do not consider this to be a fair accusation at all, and I've done my best to explain the reasons for every part of my edit, using normal WP rationales, and I welcome your feedback and corrections. If I make mistakes then let's find them, but then they are only mistakes.
 * Concerning the "source hijacking" example(!), I also think it is a similar debatable point. You are using one sentence from Wightman but Wightman also tells us we are not really sure where they lived. Page 36 mentions that they might have lived in areas in/near the Nervian region, and indeed today I think the lead contender is that they lived west of Namur. (Also in "conflict" with that one sentence, on page 53 Wightman says the Tungri might be an new Roman creation, rather than immigrants.) Individual sentences from books often give quite a different message in their original context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * all sources, even the New Pauly, can contain errors. I am happy to find more sources if necessary but just define the mission. What sourcing do we need?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the first paragraph of the /Geography/ section, which is now unsourced. A word was missing in the original sentence: the Atuatuci dwelled on the plain of Hesbaye, or on both banks of the Meuse river,... (cf: Thompson, 2002, p8 for Hendaye)
 * I have changed the wording to make it closer to what Wightman wrote.
 * You have to give references for the part because the capital of the Tungri's region, the "Civitas Tungrorum" was known as "Atuatuca Tungrorum" as per WP:Verifiability. If it's not in the page you used as a reference, or already quoted in the article, then don't write it. It is now supported by a secondary source.
 * I'm referring to the sentence "The tribe might have merged into other chieftaindoms or confederations of the area, including more recent immigrants from Germany (sic; Germany didn't exist)", which is loosely inspired by Changes which took place after Caesar, involving new folk from across the Rhine and reorganization of existing peoples, make localization difficult.
 * Again, if it is mentioned in the page, write it; if it is not, don't write it. If it is contradicted in another page, then use the other page as a reference. Alcaios (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, the missing word helps explain the Hesbaye mistake, as did your Pauly quote above. So it seems Dietz seriously thinks they were in the Hesbaye even though it has no major river? It is honestly a proposal I never heard before. Does he cite any longer works? Anyway, for that paragraph the first part of your Dietz quote is enough to source what is still there. Concerning the Hesbaye proposal, we could potentially add it to the list if it is a serious proposal that appears in more sources, but we can't treat it as a field consensus. I suppose that makes sense to you also? Are there any other items still open?
 * Wouldn't the words we have be more connected (as proposed above) to "Changes which took place after Caesar, involving new folk from across the Rhine and reorganization of existing peoples, make localization difficult." ? In general I am thinking the sentence itself is not a good one though. Perhaps better would be Like the Eburones, the Atuatuci disappear from records during the Roman era.
 * Concerning your final remark, there is always an option not to use a specific source, or sourced word. In the case of one Wightman quote she clearly says "the north" but mentions the Meuse in a deliberately skeptical tone. As we have a separate paragraph for discussion of the details, there is no need to mention the Meuse, and also no need to add more footnotes just to justify not using that word, when the context was already clear enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

you might not have seen this? https://www.academia.edu/33460316/Toorians-Aduatuca.pdf Perhaps your area of interest. A few articles have come out, or come online, since these WP articles came into existence. (In some cases we might need to be careful about whether to use "Wikipedia voice" or attribution. But as these articles are mostly short, that does not seem too burdensome.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so we're reaching some kind of consensus. Hendaye is proposed by Thompson (2002, p8) inter alia, although he doesn't clarify his justification for that proposition. I'm not insisting to reintroduce it.
 * I have tweaked the sentence you're referring to, and I'm going to read the source you provided. Alcaios (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this was a welcomed source, which gives a nice overview of the literature since those references are not easily accessible, except for Delamarre which I have the chance to possess. Alcaios (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Did the survivors become Tungri?
Noting the cn tag I went searching and find for example: https://www.academia.edu/16083751/ The author is at ULB (Bruxelles) https://ulb.academia.edu/GeorgesRaepsaet. pp.135-136: ...Atuatuca Tungrorum, dont le nom même évoque les Atuatuci; ceux-ci semblent disparaître mais survivent peut-être dans la population de la cité, à l’instar des Éburons dont le nom est officiellement rayé.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's not impossible indeed that small survivor groups were eventually absorbed by the Tungri. Added in the article. Alcaios (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Not saying we need to insert it, or that this is the only source, but it also seemed relevant to a few of the articles you are working on. Concerning the Atuatuci, it strikes me that neither of us have re-checked the Nico Roymans article so now we just have one sentence. Actually this should probably be given a bit more discussion. (Roymans is a quite notable source for this region and period, and his evidence is new and quite solid.) I also noticed a newer but perhaps more popular-style article, which has some notable one-liners: https://www.academia.edu/12866878/Fire_and_Sword._The_archaeology_of_Caesar_s_Gallic_War --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the part from Roymans should be extended. The original bullet points were based on a press article, so I have replaced this reference with the book, although I didn't find the time to read more of it to expand the sentence. This can be done now. Alcaios (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want to try first, or shall I this time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can do it. Consider also the remark about the map/picture of the Citadel of Namur. Alcaios (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. I won't rush on that until I first see what else I can find. I suppose there might be a possibility of showing several possible places in a "gallery". OTOH, Thuin seems to be by far the front runner now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems to be the leading theory. Alcaios (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: This short RTBF article from last year: "On a des armes. On a des balles de fronde qui montrent effectivement qu’il y a eu une bataille ici. Mais, nous n’avons pas suffisamment d’indices pour prouver que ce soit effectivement des épisodes de la guerre des Gaules." [We've got weapons. We have slingshots that actually show there was a battle here. But, we don't have enough evidence to prove that this was indeed a Gallic Wars episode]. Alcaios (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Roymans uses more evidence, especially what he considers to be dateable coins, but for sure not everyone agrees yet. I just get the impression it is the leading proposal once Roymans backed it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant: it is the leading theory, although it should not be regarded as the definitive theory. Alcaios (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For recent decades, I found one self-published article so far but not much else in opposition to the new proposal. I will look at the rtbf.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)