Talk:Vitiges

Wieland?

Is this not the son of Wieland?210.185.169.42 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

CE

The usual cheeky drive by CE, auto edded, dupe wl scan, tidied the odd typo. All suggestive, regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Thank you for your contributions.A.Cython(talk) 00:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vitiges/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 20:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 21:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Good to get this started. BarntToust 21:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I am impressed so for with the presentation and scope, so I can check off criteria 1 and 3. BarntToust 14:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Let me know, if I can assist with the verification process. A.Cython(talk) 21:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: Courtesy ping. You can ask for me to provide quotes to verify specific citations, e.g., Talk:Siege_of_Urbinus#Sources. Alternatively, you can find Bury's book here. A.Cython(talk) 19:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I will absolutely be right on this. Fixing to finish the review now. Thanks for the book link. BarntToust 19:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Not seeing any OR here.
• Copyvio, Earwig pulls up max of 7.4% similarity on one source, so nothing there.
• Ref section seems properly formatted as one that is buit mainly around literature sources.
• For the spot-check, Ref 1 verifies info about vague early life; ref 7 talks about the speech of his marriage, just as is claimed along with ref 8; ref 14 talks numbers regarding his northern march amidst the siege of Rome, the numbers check out.

  the big ref is reference 11. Half of the historians cited for the size of the army believe the bodycount was ranging somewhere in the low tens of thousands, while the other half agree with the contemporary, one-number testimony of Procopius who says 150k (very big difference), where in the references there is logic given as to the conscription and historical circumstances that would make such a number feasible. I am inclined to lean towards agreeing with the historian who was of the time given the logic provided in the sources supporting 150k, but am curious as to how the historians saying low tens of thousands got to their conclusions. If you could give a few quotes (or paraphrases of arguments/rationale), if able, in the sources for Hughes, Petersen and Dupuy discussing how they came to their numbers, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. BarntToust 20:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @BarntToust: Happy to supply the quotes, see below. Note that Procopius is the sole and main primary source about the events of the Gothic War so deviations from what Procopius said are based on speculation of modern historians since there are limited hard evidence to challenge Procopius's numbers. As you can see below, modern historians widely disagree with each other for different reasons even among those supporting lower numbers, but they all agree the Byzantines were outnumbered... not clear by how much.

  Bury 1958 p. 181 The king all his strength into the recovery of Rome, and he marched southward at the head of an which is some army, thought by to have numbered 150,000 warriors, most of them heavily armed, with horses protected by mail. The figure must be far in excess of the truth,[see note] but there can be no doubt that the Gothic host was large compared with the army of 5000 against which it was advancing. Bury also notes in a footnote The figure, nevertheless, was given by Belisarius in his letter to Justinian. 150,000 Gothic warriors would mean a Gothic population approaching 700,000. When they entered Italy the number of the Ostrogoths perhaps hardly reached 100,000, and they cannot have multiplied seven times in forty-five years. Moreover, if they had been so strong, it would have been out of the question to attempt to conquer them with the small forces of Belisarius. The is also figure disproved by the circumstances of the siege (see below, pp. 183 sq.). I am inclined to believe that the number mentioned by Belisarius represents an estimate of the total Gothic population of Italy.

  Hughes (2009) p. 126 This is an extremely large number of men for the Goths in Italy to have available. The suspicion that it is an exaggeration is inadvertently supported by Procopius himself when he states that even with 150,000 men the Goths did not have enough troops to completely besiege the city; out of fourteen large gates, they only had enough troops to put pressure on five gates (Proc, Wars, V.xix.2-3). With 150,000 men, they should have been able to enclose the whole city wall, which is less than 15 miles long, with an average of 10,000 men per mile.

  Petersen (2013) pp. 155–156 How large the total Gothic military establishment was is difficult to say. Procopius claims that 150,000 Goths besieged Rome, which is clearly far too large for a single force. Heather follows Hannestad in estimating 25-30,000 men for the whole Gothic army during the 530s and 540s.18 While this fits well with Heather’s estimate of Theoderic’s followers in 493 (thus excluding any substantial non-Gothic additions), it is on the small side considering the very extensive operations documented during the war. To begin with the siege of *Rome (537f), it is possible to provide a reasonable estimate of the Gothic force based on numbers given at various points during and after the siege. Altogether, the Goths marched away with at least 20,000 men after they gave up the siege.19 Heavy losses and disease over a year of fighting may bring the number to an original high of 25,000. Furthermore, Gothic garrisons had been captured at *Palermo, *Syracuse and presumably *Lilybaeum during the occupation of Sicily in 535; 2,000 men for the whole island when war was looming seems to be a reasonable minimum. The Gothic garrison at *Naples, along with those who surrendered in Samnium during the first year would make at least 3,000. Thus, we have at least 30,000 available for fighting in central and southern Italy in 537-8 alone. There were still substantial garrisons in the Alps, and large forces, including both Goths and Sueve clients, were sent into Dalmatia against *Salona in 536 and 537. Most of the Dalmatian Goths surrendered to the Romans, so the Gothic reserves fighting in the Po valley must have come from elsewhere.20 These forces are difficult to estimate, but from Procopius’ description of the extensive fighting in Dalmatia, several thousand must have been engaged there; similar numbers are likely for the garrisons and reserve forces. Thus we are speaking of an army approaching 50,000 soldiers (or well in excess of that when client troops are included). A fairly regular influx of Roman deserters and prisoners could help keep up numbers during the 540s, when Romans and even Moorish federates are reported in Gothic service.21
  A complicating factor is the Ostrogothic fleet, established under Theod- eric the Great. Cassiodorus preserved among his letters instructions for the construction of a fleet of 1,000 warships, a huge number by any standards, requiring at least 50,000 rowers.22 This brings the total of the Ostrogothic armed forces to well over 100,000 men. If the garrisons sent (presumably permanently) to Spain in 508-11, various classes of arms producers, those in the military administration, and servants to fighting men are included, Procopius’ figure of 150,000 might actually be a reasonable East Roman estimate of all who were theoretically associated with the Ostrogothic military establishment, including soldiers, clients, naval personnel, arms makers and other support functions.

  Syvänne (2021) p. 131 According to Procopius, the Gothic host consisted of cavalry and infantry and numbered not less than 150,000 men, and most of these consisted of cataphracts (men and horses clad in armour). The figure of 150,000 men is often doubted, but there is no reason to. The Gothic army was a national army in which all men were required to perform military service, and the siege of a city the size of Rome required a massive army. As we shall see even this number of men was not enough to cover the entire length of the wall.

  Jacobsen 2009 p. 103 In February 537, Vittigis moved with the entire Gothic army (except the expeditionary forces sent to Dalmatia)–one hundred and fifty thousand warriors–south of the Via Flaminia. This number might seem exaggerated, but it must be remembered that this was the entire host of the strongest barbarian nation on Roman soil. Peace and prosperity for more than a generation had helped to increase its numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Cython (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Imagery, four of them as they are, are equal parts public domain and CC licensed. The licenses check out to me. Captions are clear. Criteria 6 in the bag. Article not really subject to weird activity except an editor two years almost ago adding iffy content, but that's been so long ago and a comprehensive re-write by nominator had been intitialised on the 23rd of last month, so no concerns there. No edit warring either, for that matter. Criteria 5 down. BarntToust 14:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I have seen no undue influence from partisan positions on the article for this king, (the article has not been compromised by the MOKGA movement nor the Build Byzantine Back Better initiative). Criteria 4 down. BarntToust 14:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Ostrogothic King Vitiges

• ... that Vitiges (pictured) divorced his wife to marry by force the granddaughter of Theodoric the Great to strengthen his legitimacy as the king of Ostrogoths?

• Source: Wolfram, Herwig (1988). History of the Goths p.344 But his plan of clan association through personal suitability also demanded that as the new king he give up his advantageous position and move to Ravenna, seize the royal city, and marry Matasuntha, Theodoric’s granddaughter. ... But Vitigis had strengthened his army, he had prevented a war on two fronts with a timely treaty, and he had won the royal city together with the royal child Matasuntha: ... Perhaps she was also annoyed because her royal consort had repudiated his first wife.
  Kovács, Tamás (2019). "Procopius's Sibyl – The Fall of Vitigis and the Ostrogoths" pp. 121-122 Vitigis’s first action was to depart from Rome to Ravenna, where he forced Matasuntha into marriage because he believed that a tie with Theodoric’s family could make his reign more stable. Vitigis was the fifth king of the Ostrogoths, however, his legitimacy was based on Theodoric’s granddaughter, Matasuntha.

• • ALT1: ... that the king of Ostrogoths Vitiges (pictured) wrote a letter to Belisarius urging him to accept becoming the emperor of the Western Roman Empire effectively ending his own reign? Source: Bury, John Bagnell (1958). History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian. Vol. 2 p.212 The regime of Witigis had discredited Ostrogothic royalty, and they would feel no repugnance to submitting to the direct authority of a western Emperor residing at Rome or Ravenna, if that Emperor were Belisarius, whom they deeply respected both as a soldier and as a just man. They entertained no doubts that he would eagerly accept the offer of a throne. ... When these clandestine negotiations came to the of knowledge Witigis, he himself resigned to the situation and sent a secret to Belisarius message urging him to accept the offer.
  • ALT2: ... that the king of Ostrogoths Vitiges (pictured) traveled north to get married while facing a Byzantine invasion from the south? Source: Wolfram, Herwig (1988). History of the Goths p.344 But his plan of clan association through personal suitability also demanded that as the new king he give up his advantageous position and move to Ravenna, seize the royal city, and marry Matasuntha, Theodoric’s granddaughter. ... Between the end of November 536 and February 537 Vitigis led the Gothic army from Terracina to Ravenna and back again to Rome. It is true that within this short period the Eternal City was lost, contrary to the Gothic war plan; even the senatorial hostages whom the Goths had taken could not prevent this. ... But Vitigis had strengthened his army, he had prevented a war on two fronts with a timely treaty, and he had won the royal city together with the royal child Matasuntha: ... Perhaps she was also annoyed because her royal consort had repudiated his first wife.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/352 and 353 Riverside Drive
  • Comment: 2nd QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre-Amable de Soubrany

Improved to Good Article status by A.Cython (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 22 past nominations.

A.Cython(talk) 21:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC).

• New enough (Good Article within three days of DYK nomination), long enough, well sourced, no obvious copyright violations. Two other nomination reviews have been done by the nominator as a QPQ. The hooks are both cited and interested, but might be confusing.

• Consider replacing divorced his wife to marry by force the granddaughter of Theodoric the Great to strengthen his legitimacy as the king of Ostrogoths? with "divorced his wife so that he could strengthen his legitimacy as king by forcibly marrying the granddaughter of Theodoric the Great?"

• wrote a letter to Belisarius urging him to accept becoming the emperor of the Western Roman Empire effectively ending his own reign? with "effectively ended his own reign by urging Belisarius to accept becoming the Western Roman Emperor?"

• It doesn't have to be that exact wording, just something to allow the meaning to be more readily grasped by general readers. Edward056686 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • @Edward056686: Thank you for your review and suggestions. I accept both versions with minor modifications.
  • ALT0b ... that Vitiges (pictured) divorced his wife so that he could strengthen his legitimacy as king by forcibly marrying the granddaughter of Theodoric the Great?
  • ALT1b ... the king of Ostrogoths Vitiges (pictured) effectively ended his own reign by urging Byzantine general Belisarius to accept becoming the Western Roman Emperor? A.Cython(talk) 01:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Those alternate hooks look perfect. Edward056686 (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)