Talk:Turcilingi

"Based on his Turkic name, Aspar may have been Turcilingian"?

Aspar is described in contemporary sources as an Alan (or sometimes a Goth), and his name is a straightforward derivation from the Alan/Iranian word for “horse”. What’s the proposed Turkic etymology for the name? —benadhem (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As I provided no citation and I cannot answer you're question, I'll just remove the claim. The best I can do is cite Robert Gordon Latham's notes on Tacitus' Germania, which I found GoogleBooks just now: here. Perhaps you can make better sense of the claim. Srnec (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Turcilingi were not a Turkish tribe. Turkish tribes began moving west from the Eurasian steppes in the sixth century. The Turcilingi were probably a small Germanic (Gothic ?) tribe like the Scirii, Rugii, Heruli and Gepidae, or a confederation of Germanic tribes, like the Alamanni.

Thorkiling = Thorkil (or Thor [Thorismund, Thorisind, Thormod...] + Kil [Thorkil]) + -ing ("sons", "descendants"). --Sirius2044 (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Türks existed before 6th C. They were among the Huns even as Elite. You can prove the names of Attila's family and see the most of them are Türkish. To propose that the Türks exist in Europe only since 6th C. is only a fatal error. ~Uzunbacak Adem UzunbacakAdem 2003:F6:9740:72E7:BD3C:62C9:F176:EE7B (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

=== Note also the work by Prof. Wolfram Brandes "Thüringer/ Thüringerinnnen in byzantinischen Quellen" in "Die Frühzeit der Thüringer. Brandes discusses the byzantine Suda Lexicon which provides the information that Odaker´s brother Onoulf was a Scirian on his mother side and a Thuringian on his father´s side. The information in the Suda goes back to a fragment of Malchos who wrote in the late 5th century, and Brandes, argues that this source is particularly reliable. He also explains how the name Thuringi was probably contaminated with the name Turci, that emerged in the 6th century in Constantinopel to produce the form Turcilingi. In short, it is practically certain that the Turcilingi are identical with the Turingi, i.e. the Thuringians.

How many independent sources

My understanding based on recent reading is that there is only one independent source mentioning the Turcilingi. Our own text seems to disagree with itself. We mention three medieval sources and say two are independent. In chronological order:

• the Getica of Jordanes
• the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon in a passage that is a derivative of Jordanes.
• the Historia Miscella of Landulf Sagax, which is, I understand, a continuation of Paul the Deacon.

But the last one is also based on the pre-existing ones. The information it gives is hardly novel compared to the other two, because lists of the peoples at Chalon were lists of the peoples thought to be in Attila's armies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The reference in Paul the Deacon is derived from Jordanes. The reference in Landulf, whatever it is based on, is not found in either Jordanes or Paul. From Reynolds and Lopez: "The statement [in Landulf] is unconfirmed by other sources. While the Historia is itself a late and unreliable chronicle, it includes some materials from earlier and better sources which have not come down to us." Srnec (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion or clear proposal, but I am thinking some of wording is pushing the idea that Landulf is an independent source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

He is. He is independent of Jordanes and Paul. His statement about the Heruli is not dependent on any other surviving source, although it is certainly dependent on something written and not eyewitnesses or gossip! Srnec (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether you see those various "lists of barbarians at Chalons" as independent facts, or just things that were made by looking up any historic peoples with the approximately right associations. Anyway for us, it depends on what secondary sources say and I thought I read something but haven't relocated it. Will mention it if I do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Reynolds and Lopez made a mistake and that Landulf is dependent on Paul the Deacon. But I am still slightly confused: is the information about the Turcilingi at the Catalaunian Fields found in Jordanes or not? If not, then we have an "independent" second source somewhere (presumably Paul). I will look into this and correct the article tomorrow. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

German WP and RGA

The German version was not linked yet to other languages, so I fixed that. It contains references to the RGA entry by Castritius.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC) The primary source for the new Thuringian theory seems to be an entry in the Suda.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC) The Brandes article cited in de.wp is in a book edited by Castritius https://books.google.be/books?id=hrjcrRSrSnMC&lpg=PA321 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Right: Kim argues that they were "a Turkic-speaking tribe under Hunnic rule ... probably of mixed origin ... with possibly a Germanic and Turkic (Hunnic) mixture."[6] Cahen, too, argued they were Turkic-speaking Huns.[9]

While many, like Pritsak, Odoacer, and Edeko, can be explained with Turkish, one can also quite simply see a Turk as the head of the (Turkish) Turkilingi. It's not just the similarity of the clan name; the rulers' names could also be Turkish. I don't know why Western scholars take such a rigid view of this. The steppe warriors/confederations have always been multilingual and multinational, so the rulers could also have been multilingual or multinational. Mr. Otto-Maenchen has taken a somewhat narrow view, and his theses and suggestions could be refuted or at least discussed. There is no shame in the Western world accepting that a Turk could lead the Germans. ~Uzunbacak Adem UzunbacakAdem 2003:F6:9740:72E7:BD3C:62C9:F176:EE7B (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Pritsak is a modern scholar. We are already citing scholars other than Otto-Maenchen, and I don't think WP (or modern scholars) are saying that there is no debate possible. But our mission on WP is only to summarize scholarly positions on topics like this, so our own opinions are not so important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Should the title of this article be "Torcilingi"?

"O" seems to be the only attested vowel in that first position in the original documents? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Paul has the u. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, it is Paul's Historia Romana (14.2), not Langobardorum, that Maenchen-Helfen is referring to. That is what Landulf is copying. So Paul has two reference in two separate works. I am unsure whether Paul is derivative of Jordanes. It seems it cannot be. When Maenchen-Helfen writes, " The Thorcilingi appear, thus, only in Jordanes", I now think he is referring solely to that particular name, distinct from Paul's Turcilingi. But I'm not sure. Srnec (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Questions for answers. Can you fix anything that needs fixing? Why do you think Paul can't derivative of Jordanes? (Are you just referring to the spelling of that one letter?) Even if Paul and Jordanes used different spellings the original question about what the main spelling should be still seems worth asking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I found this on JSTOR: Chronopoulos, Tina (2010), "Brief Lives of Sidonius, Symmachus, and Fulgentius Written in Early Twelfth-Century England?", The Journal of Medieval Latin, 20: 232–291. It says The patronymic Thorcilingi, which occurs in the phrase Augustulum Odoacer rex Thorcilingorum deiecit at B [7], could be a further echo of Jordanes. This is a relatively rare alternative for the more common Thuringi.27 The only text in which the patronymic Thorcilingi occurs in close proximity to the names Odoacer and Augustulus is Jordanes's Romana... and in footnote 27: 7 The search on the databases ( Library of Latin Texts Series A and B, Brepols Publishers, 2009; Monumenta Germaniae Histórica, Brepols Publishers, 2009; Acta Sanctorum, ProQuest LCC 2010; Patrologia Latina, ProQuest 2010) for Thorciling* or Torciling* yields ten hits from the following authors: Jordanes, Romana and Getica (one each); Hugh of Fleury, Chronicon (one); Paulus Vinfridus, De gestis Langobardorum (one); Freculphus of Lisieux, Chronicon (two); Hermannus Contractus, Chronicon (two); Bernold of Constance, Chronicon (one); Auetor Incertus (Ekkehard of Aura?), Chronicon (one). The alternative form Turciling* is also attested and occurs three times each in Paul the Deacon's Historia Romana and the Historia Langobardorum: Historia Romana, MGH SS Rer. Germ. 49, 1 p. 11. Historia Romana, Excerpta Bamb. and Excerpta Vaticana , in Eutropi Breviarium ab urbe condita cum versionibus Graecis et Pauli Landolfi additamentis, ed. H. Droysen, MGH AA.2 (Berlin, 1879), p. 385. Historia Langobardorum , MGH SS Rer. Lang. (Hannover, 1878), 1. capit., p. 51; 1.1, p. 53; 1.19, p. 65.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the primary sources section. What I meant when I said that Paul cannot be derivative of Jordanes is that Jordanes never associates the Turcilingi with Attila. As for the spelling, I think English sources prefer the u and always have, for whatever reason, so I'd leave it.
Nice JSTOR find. It seems to me we have two primary sources—Jordanes and Paul, who may have taken the name from Jordanes—and all other sourcs are derivative. The only reason to mention poor Landulf is that Reynolds and Lopez made a mistake and did not recognize him as repeating Paul. Is that how it seems to you? Srnec (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

All sounds reasonable. We can keep a watch out on the spelling question. I see that Maenchen-Helfen claims that Jordanes switched many u-spellings to o-spellings, so maybe this is a standard correction. I can see that Paul might have had a different source for the Gaul invasion. (I wonder if the source was referring to Thuringians.) I think the Edeko and Onoulphus articles could do with some tidying up and detailing also. This could make it easier to think about this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes Reynolds and Lopez treat Torcilingi as the main spelling and Turcilingi as a variant. It looks this this is a difference important to Maenchen-Helfen.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

illustrations

I know it is nice to have some kind of illustration but the current 19th century map with a guess on it could be misleading. What might be suitable (if anything)? Odoacer comes to mind. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The words 'rex Torcilingorum' from a manuscript? It's somewhere in here if you can find it. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)