Talk:Rugii

Untitled

Rug - Rus (another Germanic tribe, which founded Novgorod and Kievan Rus states)

are they related ?

Yes, they were both Scandinavian tribes, but they are not related not by name :).--Wiglaf 2 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

Also connected to the Rugians (Rygi) are the Ulm(e)rugi, Holmrugi (Ulmgeri, Holmgeri), some lived in Kulmigeria. Labbas 5 October 2006

This is rather all occult nonsense... Rujani were Slavic tribes, Pomorjani ("by the Sea/Ocean"); "Pomerians" who lived around the city called Mikulinbor (later Meckleburg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.111.196 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Doubts: Rugians from Rogaland

Those references to old Swedish encyclopedias aren't as reliable as commonly believed. They tend to refer to old nationalist theories drawing too speculative conclusions from very weak connections. Such as: rug may actually have had some meaning that was shared in the words that later become Rugians and Rogaland. But that doesn't mean that Rugians came from Rogaland, like the theory that Goths came from Götaland is disputed in Sweden. Rursus 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it is infected in Sweden. Insecure matters such as these are safe targets for anti-nationalistic scholars who want to score points against nationalistic ones. Dick Harrison is a good example.--Berig 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be very wise to add citations from known good work on this one. ;) 87.248.4.221 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw in a modern book on archaeology (2008) that scholars "still" place the Rugians in Rogaland. Could Rursus please provide any references against this connection?--Berig (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Because both the Germanic Rugi and the Slavic Rani have both been known as "Rugians", the article about the Germanic tribe should be moved to Rugi and Rugians should become a disambiguation page. Olessi 21:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

remove the were

Please remove the words that make it sound past tense, I mean a entire ethnic group can't die can it?--User:Xgmx (SpEaK 2 mE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.36.142 (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It can disappear by blending. —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian cossacks - Rugii

B. Khmel'nitskiy:

(ukr. text:) {{"Навіть Стародавній Рим (що може називатися матір’ю всіх європейських міст), який володів багатьма державами й монархіями і пишався колись своїми шістьмастами сорока п’ятьма тисячами війська, в давні віки взяла й чотирнадцять літ тримала далеко менша проти згаданої збірна бойова сила русів із Ругії від Балтицького, або Німецького помор’я, на чолі яких стояв тоді князь Одонацер,— сталося це в році 470 після Різдва господнього. Отож ми йдемо за прикладом наших давніх предків, отих старобутніх русів, і хто може заборонити нам бути воїнами і зменшити нашу лицарську відвагу!" }}

Б. Хмельницький Білоцерковний универсал Б. Хмельницького —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vognejar (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

References

why Lithuania?

The tribal name "Rugii" or "Rygir" is a derivate of the Old Norse term for rye, rugr ....

In modern Lithuanian, the word "rugys" (singular) and "rugiai" (plural), is a term for rye.

What makes the Lithuan cognate more relevant or interesting than, say, English rye or Bulgarian rŭž or Welsh rhyg or Estonian rukis? —Tamfang (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Should this article really be called Rugi?

Question in the title. Rugi seems to be the more common spelling in English sources. I think it mostly comes up when the Latin of Tacitus is being quoted, but he is not the main source for this topic. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec: you often have opinions on such matters. Am I making sense here, or missing something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Rugi is definitely more common, but they are first mentioned in Tacitus as Rugii and Ptolemy's Rougion may imply Rougioi (=Rugii). So I think the current title is justifiable. And so long as the title remains, Rugii needs to be in the first sentence. That said, this article was moved unilaterally from Rugians in 2009 and that might be a better title still. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec: OK, that leaves it open. I don't really think Ptolemy be taken as a key source, given that he does not mention them. What would the argument be for using "Rugians"? FWIW here is a link to Schönfeld https://archive.org/details/wrterbuchderaltg00schn/page/194/mode/2up Otherwise I was seeing it as being a choice between Rugii and Rugi, and effectively a question of whether Tacitus has special precedence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The argument would be that Rugians, as an English word, never misrepresents what the sources say in the way that consistently using Rugi or Rugii might. Tacitus has literal precedence, as the first to mention them. Srnec (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec: OK, and I suppose you can also see the argument for Rugi, which seems to be the most common term in both secondary and primary sources. So we are stuck. If we would say that "most common name" is the important argument for WP though... ?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to move it to Rugi, I'm not opposed. But you'll need an RM, since Rugi is a dab page. I have added a note on the variation to the article. Srnec (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec: It is not a high priority but might propose it eventually. Thanks for adding the bit about the a/ja stems, but I am thinking that is not the best opening sentence for that bit. Might move it eventually if you don't mind. Also I think there are better sources for the Widsith references and more to say. This topic has a lot of speculative side references, many of which are currently just bullets. (To me the main topic of this article seems to be the main historical Rugi are the ones who lived in Austria and Italy. Tacitus and Widsith and Jordanes are side issues involving almost no concrete information.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec: 2 additional notes, as an update: 1. Another set of article name possibilities matching other cases on WP would involve using "tribe". 2. Andersson, the philologist whose RGA Rugier article is already being cited, notes the proposal of Malone, whose 1960s article you cited, noting that Malone proposed an emendation of the text. (Malone also published an edition of Widsith.) The manuscript actually clearly says "holm rycum" which Andersson calls a dative plural, and rugum in the second place. The spelling rucgas which you cited from Malone is not only a spelling emendation, but a reconstruction of the implied nominative, rather than what appears in the manuscript which is what the word "attested" implies. See https://theexeterbook.exeter.ac.uk/viewer.html?imageset=single&image=83v and the following page as well. A third complication of Malone's description is that he simply equates Holmryci = Rugi and drops the holm when explaining the first form, which is what our tests is also currently doing. As an unquestioned assumption, this is also not followed by most sources, even though consistently note the possible connection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)