Talk:Burebista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

How do we know that Burebista/"Bu-ere-bu-ist-as" really means "the one that is not" ? Bogdan | Talk 10:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we get some better sourcing here? Chapter and verse from Strabo/Ammianus/whoever would be nice, but a reference to a (preferably English-language) secondary source would be okay too. This sounds like a really fascinating chapter in ancient history, and I'd like to find out more. Bacchiad 20:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the name Burebista just indicates the place of birth Buridava or a local name of the thracians . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burs_%28Dacia%29 Mitridatu (talk)

Getica[edit]

  • His advisor was the Great Priest Deceneus, who instructed the Thracians to live according to the Belagines Laws [...] . He went to Egypt, where he taught the Egyptian priests the sacerdotal mysteries of the Pelasgians, then returned to Dacia where, together with Burebista he unified both the Thracians both spiritually and politically.

this is what Jordanes claims about Deceneus and Burebista, in his Getica, but Jordanes also claims that the Getae were the Goths, so perhaps an advertisment/caution should be provided, that this is what Jordanes wrote -- Criztu 17:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jordanes used as source of his writings some works that are now lost. He mistaken the Goths with the Getae, so the first part of his works is actually about the Getae (Burebista, Decebal, etc), and only the latter part is about the Goths. Bogdan | Talk 18:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Burebista: attestation & etymology[edit]

We need to find as many of the attested forms of his name as possible: Burebista, Boerebostes (?), etc. etc.. Compare to Tarabostes and Rubobostes (though I've seen an internet site claim that Rubobostes is a misrendering of Burobostes). See also Albanian karabishte (stag beetle). Alex 06:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"Bure" could have a connection with the PIE word for "man" to relate to strength and virtue. See Viriathus as an example. Also, "burrë" means man in Albanian. "Bista" sounds like "bishtë" in Albanian meaning tail, but I'm not sure if that would be used in a name. --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burs_%28Dacia%29 Mitridatu (talk)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I´ve added all three attested forms of his name in literary sources (in Strabo and Jordanes, that is) and corrected the Greek letters in headlines. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.31.40.100 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Could be as/from albanian burre-bishta "tail-man"..."by tail,short man"? "man with (hair) tail"?, or as basque buru-bista :"wiew/sighting-head".."well-known" eugenrau (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Could be as/from albanian burre-bishta "tail-man"..."by tail,short man"? "man with (hair) tail"?, or as basque buru-bista :"wiew/sighting-head".."well-known head=ruller" eugenrau (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Could be as/from albanian burre-bishta "tail-man"..."by tail,short man"? "man with (hair) tail"?, or as basque buru-bista :"wiew/sighting-head".."well-known head=ruller" eugenrau (talk)18:53, 03 September 2013 (UTC)

added a line[edit]

I just added a line stating that the causes of Burebista's death are uncertain, there being no clear evidence of a plot, especially if we consider that he was followed to power by his High Priest and side-arm Deceneus. (Leo, 2008-07-21)

The Map[edit]

From what I have read, the kingdom of Burebista was larger than suggested than the current map Hxseek (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Burebista[edit]

  • Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society by Robin Osborne,2004,page 128: "... of its citizens, named Akornion, went on an embassy to Burebista, the first and greatest of the kings in Thrace'"
  • Rome, the Greek World, and the East: Volume 3: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East by Fergus Millar, Hannah M. Cotton, and Guy M. Rogers , 2006,page 109: "... B.C.) of C. Antonius, had been on an embassy to Burebista, "first and greatest of the kings in Thrace, ..."
  • Rome the Greek World, and the East: Volume 1: The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution by Fergus Millar, Hannah M. Cotton, and Guy M. Rogers, 2002page 225: "... of its citizens, named Akornion, went on an embassy to Burebista, "the first and greatest of the kings in Thrace"Megistias (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe by Ion Grumeza,2009,page 54,"The Greeks were so impressed with his achievements that they named him 'the first and greatest king of the kings of Thracia'"
  • Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe by Ion Grumeza,2009,page 43,"The main sources of information are Strabo and Dio Chrysostomos (taken up by Cassiodorus and Jordanes) backed up by the inscription containing the decree in honour of Akornion of Dionysopolis.These along with other indirect mentions in Caesar,Pompeius Trogus,Appian,Cassius Dio and various inscriptions from the Greek cities of the Black sea, show that Burebista was perceived as a powerful dynast at the borders of the empire, important enough to play a role not just within the boundaries of his kingdom but also in the political games of Rome"~~

Recent changes[edit]

The recent article changes that you made; Pwn111 had multiple problems though also some constructive additions. I've removed material that I do not think complies with Wiki policy.

  • this edit to include the ethnicity of the historian was not appropriate. Being "(a Hungarian)" is neither a qualification nor a disqualification. The point of including it was to suggest that his being Hungarian makes him an inherently unreliable source.
  • [1]; Whereas foreign historians may see in Burebista a dominant king and a conquering warrior, Burebista did not extend the boundaries of his kingdom to other cultural and linguistic areas, as to conquer and rule over foreign tribes or nations. Burebista united and ruled over the Daco-Getae alone, and his kingdom only extended over the teritories of the Daco-Getae, and not over his other (foreign) neighbors. [citation needed] - Claims must be accompanied by sources. Also this is patently incorrect.
  • [2]; Trajan conquered only about a third of Dacia. I think I've read this somewhere, but, again citation needed. If you have a source to back up your claim then feel free to re-instate it with the source. I'll check my sources (which is every source currently cited in the article).
  • [3] There's a couple points with this edit.
  • One) discover or create -> resurrect. The sources explicitly state that Dacians and Romanians are probably not the same peoples. The idea that Romania started with the Dacians was made extremely popular during Nicolae Ceaușescu's presidency. The lines between fact and fiction are very blurred. I have amended it to "ressurect or reinvent". Statements need to be NPOV. Statements of fact cannot be made where the evidence to support those statements does not exist.
  • Two) The change from "On the one hand the Dacians play a significant role in creating a history of an ethnically pure origin for Romanian people" to Dacians play a significant role in describing the history of ethnical origin for Romanian people goes against the cited source.
  • Three) the Dacians have a role in describing Romania's ancestors as a civilized and cosmopolitan nation. - Umm... not what the original statement meant. Dacian cultural influences in modern Romanian society are quite small. There are archaeological sites and the such, but, not the traditions. Hence "only a small role".
  • [4] - multiple issues with these changes;
  • The break-up of Dacia after Burebista was assasinated does not exclude the ethnic, cultural, and linguistic unity of the people of Dacia. As we all know very well, one of the most famous Roman motto was DIVIDE ET IMPERA - divide and conquer. - Problem a) do not use "we, I, us" in an encyclopaedia. Problem b) no demonstrable relevance and problem c) no source.
  • The whole region of Dacia had solid continuity of ethnic, linguistic, and cultural features in common <- Umm, not sure that this is necessary. The state of Dacia didn't disappear after Burebista's death. It just became particularly weak for a short while. It was only finally dismantled after Trajan's Dacian Wars.
  • Dacian unity was the main source of Dacia's power, and was also the reason why the Romans feared the Dacians. <- Citation needed. Every statement needs to have a source attached to it. That said, the statement is most likely an accurate reflection of the relations between Rome and Dacia, but, unity itself has nothing to do with it. The Romans were not afraid of Dacia because it was unified, but, because it had a strong military presence under a competent commander.
  • One) Trajan completed the conquest of Dacia -> Trajan conquered a part of Dacia. Eh, this one is difficult to really address. If you can provide a source for "two" then you'd be correct. As it stands, Dacia ceased to exist after Trajan's conquest. I'll take a look for a source to support the statement since I think you are correct.
  • Two) Trajan conquered about a third of Dacia's surface which Decebalus ruled over. Dacia was much, much larger than the small piece of land Trajan (the invader) conquered from the Daco-Getae, and named Roman Dacia. In fact, some large part of Dacia was never conquered by the Romans at any point. After plundering the conquered area, the Romans fully withdrew from it. [citation needed]
  • [6]; Unity is the source of their power, expressed linguistically and culturally <- Unsourced and not really important.
  • One) warred with invaders. <- Not accurate. They warred with the Getae specifically who were not invaders.
  • Two) Their function was to establish and secure the Dacian kingdom internally. <- source? it sounds reasonable, but, still needs a source. I've left it in for the time being. No source required, this was just a rewording of the original.
  • Three) The war powers of the tribes of <- not a neutral description. We don't say "the mighty and glorious Roman empire collapsed", we just say "the Roman empire collapsed".
  • Four) ... the Greek cities on the coast <- good catch :) same with ... in a plot by the Dacian aristocracy.
  • Five) This sparked a second invasion of Dacia in 106 AD which ended the independence of the Dacian kingdom, and brought about its break-up. Trajan conquered only about a third of Dacia. <- mostly a good rewrite, just need the citation for "a third of Dacia".
  • Six) you removed varied. I have reinstated it. There were many tribes in the region before the Dacian kingdom, not just the Getae and Dacians. The La Tene Celts are another example and are completely unrelated to the Dacians or Getae.
  • Seven) You changed The Getae and Dacians are related, but, distinct peoples that are sometimes treated as a single group under the name of Geto-Dacians to The Getae and Dacians were related people forming an ethnic group sometimes named Geto-Dacians. Hitchins states that they were related but different groups. Sort of like the Sioux, Lakota and Dakota tribes of the US.
  • Eight) You changed often with the Getae to even with the Getae. It's not a major point, but, the Dacians and Getae had more than one near catastrophic engagement. They had many. I also changed "geography" to "geographic isolation". I also removed the pointlessly added "still". Don't make a value judgement as to how difficult it was. They did it and that is what we're supposed to state.
  • Nine) The Dacians were located on the high plains inside of the Carpathian curveture and in the Carpatho-Danubian region of the southern Carpathian mountains <- Carphathian curveture is not correct. Do you mean The Sub Carpathians otherwise known as the Curvature Carpathians. If so, can you provide me a source saying that's where they were located. I'll double check Hitchins but as I recall he only specificied on the southern Carpathian mountains.
  • Ten) thus ending the influence of the Celtic culture - Nope. If that were true there wouldn't be Celtic pottery influences in Dacian sites.
  • Eleven) accension <- this is not a word; you mean "ascenscion". Accession is the more correct term for "coming to the throne."
  • Twelve) You changed including in Gomolava, Yugoslavia and Budapest, Hungary to former Yugoslavia and the Pannonian Basin. Please don't remove cited material. Koch explicitly states that Dacian pottery was found in Gomolava and Budapest. Yugoslavia and Pannonia are much larger geographic regions than these two specific sites. If there were ten different sites in Yugoslavia then it'd be fine to just say in Yugoslavia. As it is, one doesn't suggest broad sweeping regions. On a second point, I haven't been able to work out whether pointing out that Yugoslavia broke up in 1991/2 and that it no longer exists goes for or against policy. For some reason Yugoslavia is still commonly used in sources and I don't think it valuable enough to dig up sources just to change "Yugoslavia" into "Former Yugoslavia".
  • Thirteen) The historian John Koch states that Burebista founded a kingdom sometime during the 1st century BC and that around 61 BC he expelled the Celts and ruled the middle Danube (also). <- No, he doesn't. If he did, then that is what would have been written. I know that it's called the Dacian Kingdom, but, some historians use "empire" to mean that it incorporated multiple countries into a single entity. In the case of Dacia this includes Romania and parts of Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Ukraine. Hence why Koch says empire. That said, I've left all the other empire -> kingdom changes because they are fine on their own and don't go against the source.
  • Fourteen) The job of a king is to unite and secure his kingdom, and Burebista did so. <- this is another value judgement that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. The reader themselves is supposed to decide whether Burebista achieved his goals or not.
  • Fifteen) The political breakdown does not mean related cultural or linguistic similarities disolved <- unnecessary since no claim to suggest that the political breakdown also led to a cultural breakdown exists. At least not until after Decebalus. There isn't a history of Dacian culture after 106 A.D. There is a group called "Free Dacians" but that only extends to at most 381 A.D. This is long before modern Romania. If you like though, the state of the article on this topic is extremely poor. You might be able to significantly improve it if that's in your topic area of interest.
  • Nth-teen) There are multiple other little things which you've changed the meaning of that aren't exactly correct or go against the sources. Most of this is one or two words. My biggest problem is your insistence on removing "conquest/conquered" from a number of passages in the article. Burebista didn't defeat the tribes and leave them in peace, he conquered them.
  • Sorry, I had to go through multiple edits to clean it up. I appreciate that you are entirely new to the encyclopaedia and I can see that you're trying to contribute constructively. I don't usually like to throw thousands of links at people but I've left you a "welcome to Wikipedia" template on your page which should give you guidance on how to approach editing the encyclopaedia including core policies and guidelines. I'll link you to one thing directly; WP:BRD. If you have any issue with my reverting your bold edits to this article. Please discuss them with me on this talk page. Don't Editwar on the article. We can reach an amicable solution on this page and then make relevant changes to the article itself. This is, after all, a collaborative project with no deadline. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ion Grumeza[edit]

Grumeza "holds a Bachelors Degree in Education and a Masters Degree in Education from the University of Bucharest, Romania", according to his own website ([8]). He has a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Sciencse from the University of Metaphysical Sciences. He also says about himself that he "immersed himself in the New York City libraries and the libraries at Yale University, absorbing knowledge in multiple fields of study." Consequently, he can hardly be described as a historian. According to a review written by Ina Merdjanova, Trinity College Dublin ([9]), the reviewer found "it pointless to flog a dead horse by listing all the distortions, factual errors, misrepresentations and dull ethnocentrisms plaguing" an other book (The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500) written by Grumeza. She also concludes that Grumeza "does not show any research on how he arrived at these conclusions—and this is the case with most of the conclusions in his book." When writing a review about an other book written by Grumeza (Admiring the Goose-steps: How Hitler Succeeded in Intimidating the World Powers), the reviewer concludes that "this is a book that is so riddled with errors, that it cannot be recommended to anyone" ([10]). Grumeza's book cited in the article (Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe) is also of dubious scholarship. For instance, he states that "The Dacian language would have been similar to today's Russian" (page 84), without referring to the source of his assumption (which can only be described as a fringe theory). I think Grumeza's book cannot be described as a reliable source. We should not refer to it when editing WP articles. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I made a note a GAN yesterday, I'll leave another one here. I am on holidays until the 12th of July (it's been extended by one week). I'll respond fully when I get back. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been removing material from the article that came from Grumeza's book. I'd had some concerns about partisanship (due to their Romanian heritage), and had been working to avoid any of the obvious exaggerations. Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what is myth, fact, or half-truth with this work. I agree it would be best to opt to remove it from the article completely. An example; Burebista's second in command was the high priest and advisor Deceneus. Grumeza suggests that Deceneus was responsible for many of the religious and social reforms brought about during Burebista's reign. He created a caste of respected priests, brought sobriety into the Dacian kingdom and united the related tribes to form a society. Turns out that this story is based on Strabo's work (or rather Jordane's reference to Strabo's lost works) and Deceneus is possibly a fictitious character.[11]
    Additional conquests were carried out in Pannonia where the fortified cities of Zemplin and Židovar were captured among others. The tribes of the Anarati, Pannoni and Eravisci were also brought under the control of the Dacians. Despite all these conquests, access to the Adriatic sea was sealed off from the Dacians by defiant Breuci and Segestani tribes. <- I might be able to restore at least part of this with some of the other sources already present in the article sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have not been able to find a separate source for the above, so it's just gonna have to stay out. Borsoka, do you have any other concerns you'd like me to address before I remove my GAN note? I believe I've removed all of the Grumeza related material from both the body and lede of the article or replaced it with an appropriate source where that has been possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The reliability of Grumeza was my principal concern. I think this problem was solved. Thank you for your work. Borsoka (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have removed the note so that a full GA review may take place. I apologize for having taken so long to deal with your concern, I was on holidays and have been semi-active on Wikipedia since due to work commitments. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 14:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


This waited longer than I've ever seen before for a review, so I'll take it and do my best to get this resolved. Wizardman 14:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources all check out as ok, as do the images. I'll do the prose review (probably in spurts since my activity is low these days) over the next few days. Wizardman 23:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking this article for the GA review. Take your time. It has waited since November, so waiting a few more days is not an issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I found for the lead/early references:

  • Since he apparently outlived Caesar wouldn't that confirm his death as 44 BC as opposed to 45 BC? As such, the lead should end his reign as 44 BC rather than the 44-45 BC split, unless Im really misreading something with him.

Lead's otherwise fine, though imo it gets kind of tangential to the Dacian Kingdom rather than just focusing on the man. For ancient history it's kinda something that has to be fine for these kinds of articles though so I won't worry about it. Wizardman 00:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I should leave some doubt to this question within the article itself. Some of my sources say in 44 B.C. "after", some say around the same time, and one says 45 B.C. So I've rephrased the lede and the associated text under Caesar's civil war and Death. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense; here's the rest of what I found:

  • "From the 4th century BC until sometime in the 2nd century BC" rm 'until sometime in' as that's already implied.
  • "These conquered cities were; Olbia," should be colon rather than semicolon.

That's all that's left that i found. Article on hold, I'll pass when the above is fixed. Wizardman 21:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Wizardman - I've changed the semi-colon to a colon, and replaced 'until sometime in' with 'to'. Something has to connect the two parts otherwise you're left with: From the 4th century BC the 2nd century BC. I also removed a couple instances of the word would from a sentence and made appropriate replacements here. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman 13:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Thracian king of the Getae"[edit]

What does the expression "Thracian king of the Getae and Dacian tribes" mean? Does it imply that the Getae and the Dacians were ruled also by kings of non-Thracian stock? Or does it imply that he was alien to his Getic and Dacian subjects like the Norman William the Conqueror to his Anglo-Saxon subjects? I think we should describe him simply as "king of Dacia" or "the first ruler to unite the Dacian tribes". Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither. It just means that he's a Thracian of unknown branch that united the Getae and Dacians (these are distinct groups). I don't recall reading anywhere whether he was Getae or Dacian himself, so I went with the broader term Thracian (I have read both "Thracian king" and "King of Dacia" in different sources). I'm fine with the first proposal. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)