Talk:Vandals

About Portugal and Al Andalus
The sentence "The Arabic term for Muslim Spain Al Andalus [...]" shold be changed to "The Arabic term for Muslim IBERIA Al Andalus [...]". Portugal was also part of Al Andalus.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018
In the opening paragraph substitute "Spain" for "the Iberian Peninsula". Spain didn't exist at the time, the vandals also settled in land now under Portuguese administration and since it is followed by North Africa, it would be more consistent to use a geographical area for the European territories too. 5.225.212.61 (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalic Emblem
Salutations to you. I'm new on Wikipedia and a History student focused on the Vandals. I uploaded the "'" to WikiCommons and I suggest it to be used for the Vandals' article's page. The cross clearly appears on many of their sculptures, mosaics and coins. I will later share a source I'm working on, as a History student. And if not to use it, better use the Vandalic Knight of Carthage, it's more emblematic than those jewels. Thanks.

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

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

verification problem: Jordanes and Gutasaga
We currently have:
 * Both Jordanes in his Getica and the Gotlandic Gutasaga tell that the Goths and Vandals migrated from southern Scandinavia[2][3][4]

Two concerns:
 * 2. "Germanic peoples". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved 8 March 2014.[permanent dead link]
 * 3. "History of Europe: Barbarian migrations and invasions: The Germans and Huns". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Archived from the original on 2014-07-14. Retrieved 8 March 2014.
 * 4. Waldman & Mason 2006, pp. 821–825
 * None of these three sources seems to mention the Getica or Gutasaga. As far I can see, this is not correct, and is original to WP.
 * These are old tertiary sources giving general notes, so not strong sources for anything controversial. However, I can not find any OTHER sources which confirm this sentence we have. (Adding together lots and lots of similar tertiary sources does not improve things in such a case.)
 * We do know from good sources that there was a tradition in older history writing of accepting the general remark of Jordanes that Scandinavia was a "womb of nations" but we also know that this position, even concerning peoples he specifically named, is no longer taken seriously in any simple way any more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also there is a related sentence in the lead with the same 3 sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not think the Vandals are mentioned at all in the Gutasaga. In Jordanes and Paul the Deacon they seem to be first encountered on the mainland. (Meaning Paul the Deacon's Lombard story parallels the older story of Jordanes, as scholars often note.) Again, I post here, hoping that if anyone sees something I am missing, they will mention it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of Jordanes, in chapter 4 he gives Skadza/ scandinavia as the place of origin for the Goth, who then encountered the Vandals AFTER sailing to the mainland. I believe the issue here might be a mix-up based on similar names: the area the Vandals occupied when first encountering the Goth is given by Jordanes as Gothiscandza, which sounds similar to 'Gothland'/ 'Gothenland' in southern Sweden, but is an entirely different area around the river Vistula. Trekki 200 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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


 * A much more recent scholarly work is this one by Berndt: https://books.google.be/books?redir_esc=y&id=8RsGDAAAQBAJ . It indicates that the Vandals adopted Arianism in Spain in the 420s under Visigothic influence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Castritius: https://books.google.be/books?id=a7lDJrsozUkC&pg=PA72 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So it seems like the above-mentioned paragraph of ours should probably just be deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Verification problem: Scoringa, Orosius
We have this: I find that Scoringa in this old 18th century edition of Orosius is mentioned in an 18th century endnote p.255, which is citing Paul the Deacon, who is the real source of Scoringa. But Scoringa in Paul the Deacon is on the mainland, being the place where the Lombards arrived after coming from Scandinavia, and fought the Vandals. From what I can see, we have this quite wrong, but if anyone sees an error in my reading please say so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Paulus Orosius, the Vandals, who lived originally in Scoringa, near Stockholm, Sweden, were of the same stock as the Suiones ("Swedes") and the Goths.[16]
 * Citation is to Orosius (1773). The Anglo-Saxon Version, from the Historian Orosius (Alfred the Great ed.). London: Printed by W. Bowyer and J. Nichols and sold by S. Baker. https://archive.org/details/anglosaxonversi00barrgoog

2nd century Scandinavia: deleted paragraph
I have for now deleted this paragraph:
 * Around the mid 2nd century AD, there was a significant migration by Germanic tribes of Scandinavian origin (Rugii, Goths, Gepidae, Vandals, Burgundians, and others)[29] towards the south-east, creating turmoil along the entire Roman frontier.[29][30][31][32] The 6th century Byzantine historian Procopius noted that the Goths, Gepidae and Vandals were physically and culturally identical, suggesting a common origin.[33]

Problems: Thus it is possible we will replace the paragraph with another, if we find better sources, but I think it should not look like this paragraph.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted above, Guido M. Berndt writes that The idea of a Vandal urheimat in Scandinavia has long been exposed as little more than late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century wishful thinking. [ALSO Castritius: https://books.google.be/books?id=3Ip4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA167]
 * I have not yet found any similarly recent work which still defends this Scandinavian theory.
 * None of these old theories claimed that the migration happened in the second century, which is what our paragraph implies in context.
 * The sourcing we have been using is clearly worrying, with 1 old tertiary source (Encyclopedia Brittanica) being made to look like 4 sources.
 * The second sentence, which superficially is irrelevant, is apparently put there as WP:SYNTH by cherry-picking from an ancient primary source. (Gothic migration from Scandinavia does still have some adherents, and this sentence semi-equates Goths and Vandals. Never mind that Procopius thought the Goths and Vandals came from the east.)


 * Can I add that Walter Goffart's 2006 book Barbarian Tides is a scholarly examination of the idea of a Scandinavian origin for the Vandals, and Goffart rejects it entirely.Thomas Peardew (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Numbers are in wrong order
I‘m not sure that the line „ In 469 the Vandals gained control of Sicily but were forced by Odoacer to relinquish it in 447 except for the western port of Lilybaeum (lost in 491 after a failed attempt on their part to re-take the island).[70]“, makes sense. Probably the number 447 was just written wrong and it should mean 474- that would make sense, because 447 isn‘t possible: the Vandals cannot relinquish something which they even didn‘t hold in 447! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.208.229.243 (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Vandals and Roman Culture
The last sentence of the lead reads:

However, some modern historians regard the Vandals in the transitional period from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages as perpetuators, not destroyers, of Roman culture.

This is a pretty argumentative way to present this point of view, which is very inapropriate for the concluding sentence of lead of a wikipedia article. What about:

However, some modern historians have emphasised the role of Vandals as continuators of other aspects of Roman Culture, in the transitional period from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Nxavar (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That seems uncontroversial. I suggest go ahead with that without the word "other", because it does not have a clear referent and is not needed. I don't however see the original sentence as all that shocking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What I take issue with is that the destruction of artwork that Vandals are infamous for is pushed to insignificance. This is the importance of the word "other": it is there to acknowleadge that the seriousness of this historical fact. Nxavar (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The alternative wording was just applied to the article, without the word "other". Nxavar (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Saxo

 * Saxo wrote in Old Norse. But since he used a form Wandali instead of Old Norse Vendill, I guess that Orel concluded that it is a direct borrowing from an East Germanic language (by contrast, OE has Wendel- and OHG has Wentil-). Alcaios (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thought he wrote in Latin? I already posted on your talk page, but the simpler concern I have is with the word "attested". Clearly this implies Saxo wrote in East Germanic, because we can only see what he attested, not his sources. So clearly that seems wrong, and it should be easy to weaken the wording a bit? As to speculations about Saxo having access to an East Germanic text that would be a very remarkable claim, so indeed it would be best practice to find clear and strong sourcing for this, which should ideally show how the proposal (if there is one) has been digested by the field. Without that I would propose that we must be cautious about making this a simple statement of fact in "Wikipedia voice". (If the reason for not calling this a proposal is because the proposal is really just implied in your source, not clearly spelled out, then converting into a "fact" would not seem to be the appropriate solution?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

removed medieval section
I now removed this after noting the problems more than a year ago. There presumably are things to be said about medieval mentions (Adam of Bremen? Paul the Deacon?) but that would look quite different to this. The information we have been attributing to medieval sources Jordanes etc here does not appear to come from those sources at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Grave mistake in the introduction
The Vandals were a slavic, not germanic people; as proven by genetics and their slavic names written in their, and their neighbours' enscriptions found from that time 217.149.173.220 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If such claims have been made in reputable published sources, then please give the details. OTOH, the reality is going to be complex. The Vandals were certainly in early Roman listings of "Germanic peoples" (which does not necessarily mean that we can be sure what language they spoke). One Byzantine source (Procopius) mentioned explicitly that they spoke the same language as the Goths. You mention "that time" but the Vandals were not one generation or single group of people. It is possible that different Vandal groups in different periods or places spoke different languages. The early Roman-era Vandals were in an area which was heavily Celt-influenced for example. So please explain which time you mean, and which evidence you are talking about. Normally speaking genes can't tell us what language someone spoke though. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * it seems he is referring to various archeogenetic blogs written on the subject which have observed Y-Dna haplogroups common to central europe(ie R1A-M458(L1029) in southern europe via Spain and Sardinia i believe. We do not have any samples from actual Vandalic peoples as of yet though 2607:FB91:1E73:925B:F09A:EE17:D985:9450 (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Sicily (440-491) Lilybaeum zone
They conquered the far western part of Sicily in 440. The siege of Palermo in 440 was a failure as was the second attempt to invade Sicily near Agrigento in 442 (the Vandals initially occupied the far western part of the island; and the entire island from 468 to 476 when a large part was ceded to Odoacer, and the extreme western part remained in their possession until 491). 151.57.121.9 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)