Talk:Tolistobogii

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gaul Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gaul, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gaul on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GaulWikipedia:WikiProject GaulTemplate:WikiProject GaulGaul articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:SYN[edit]

Dear Dave, just to put my finger on the issues in question, I'll give you a list of why I advise more than caution (i.e. silence) on the following issues:

Boii god "Vindos": is there any epigraphy linking that deity to the Boii (or Italy, Slovakia or France)? It is a Celtic deity, but not a specifically Boian one, for all I know. We have not the slightest idea of any Boian "chief god" at all.
Bavaria connection: the name Baiovarii (etc.) is derived from the Boii, no doubt. Any mentioning of it however is medieval, and problems of transcription of those later forms are of no consequence at all to an etymology of the original Celtic word. We're speaking of a time cleft of between eight centuries and a millennium. This is a non sequitur and a typical instance of WP:SYN.
The Vindelici are not the Boii, nor is Vindobonum an attested Boian settlement.

The rest of the article looks fine, although I wouldn't go all the way up to the Seljuks. Trigaranus (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Annihilation of Brennos II's men[edit]

"Brennus and all the remainder of his men never made it home from Greece but were massacred individually and in small units in a running battle with the Greeks the whole time they were in Greece."

The wording is over played, most of his men "escaped" one of which was his co commander "Bathanatos" Who is known predominantly for leading the force out of Greece (Way of Bathanatos) to later become the king of the Scordisci. Incidentally Brennos committed suicide to expedite the Celtic "retreat", having been injured significantly during the plundering of Delphi, he certainly wasn't "massacred" by greek commando units.

Also lets not forget that the Celts killed in Greece where killed before they even entered and plundered Delphi, by earthquakes and lightning bolts reducing their soldiers to ash. This can be referenced by another historian who was born centuries after the fact. Its rather peculiar actually, it seems the note worthy historians born closest to or during the period of Celtic invasions record resounding successes for the marauders, but as the years go on the invasions are revealed by later historians to have been complete flops, always defeated by some Deus Ex like occurance. Whatever the case, at least we have the luxury of picking and choosing which historian was right, based on our personal respect and feelings about the cultures at point. So were free to assume complete celtic annihilation and ignore the stolen loot from Delphi appearing in shrines across a 1000 mile stretch of celtic territory.

Incidentally what business does the fate of Brennos and his men have to do with the Galatians/Tolistobogii who where lead into Galatia by Leotarios and Leonnorios, they split from Brennos coalition years earlier. At best Brennos belongs in a prequel paragraph explaining the general context by which Celts where able to plunder the Balkan states, allowing Leotarios and Lennorios to settle in Anatolia. Brennos and his vaguely sourced failures certainly don't belong in the closing paragraph of Tolistobogii history. Bloody Sacha (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has provided any evidence of the aforementioned claim and the proposed existence of Hoplite Commandos is unverified by all but the most irrelevant of sources. Combined with the dubious relevance of the claim to the rest of the article, I've removed it and replaced it with material more relevant to Tolistobogii history.

"Pausanias - (the source most commonly used in reference to Celtic "destruction" in Greece, fun fact, he was born 400 years later!)

[2] The thunder both terrified the Gauls and prevented them hearing their orders, while the bolts from heaven set on fire not only those whom they struck but also their neighbors, themselves and their armour alike. Then there were seen by them ghosts of the heroes Hyperochus, Laodocus and Pyrrhus; according to some a fourth appeared, Phylacus, a local hero of Delphi.

[4] All the day the barbarians were beset by calamities and terrors of this kind. But the night was to bring upon them experiences far more painful. For there came on a severe frost, and snow with it; and great rocks slipping from Parnassus, and crags breaking away, made the barbarians their target, the crash of which brought destruction, not on one or two at a time, but on thirty or even more, as they chanced to be gathered in groups, keeping guard or taking rest."

Even the propaganda-history doesn't mention anything to the affect of "Brennus and all the remainder of his men never made it home from Greece but were massacred individually and in small units in a running battle with the Greeks the whole time they were in Greece." The article should either reflect the writing "After having swept aside the Greek army Brennus and his men where massacred outside Delphi by ghosts, lightning and falling rocks" or the archeology "The Celts looted Delphi and its desperced treasures have been found in celtic shrines all across the continent"

Make sure all the tags are discussed[edit]

I was hoping time would bring out all the objections to this. Eventually I'll be back then I will address them properly. Meanwhile, I appreciate your inputs. I would ask that if you put a tag on, state in this discussion why you put it on. I cannot fix an unknown problem unless I happen to see it. As the tag says, this article is in development, so question everything that seems questionable. If I see a tag and there is no discussion and I can't figure out why you tagged it I will have no choice but to delete the tag. So, if you say "questionable" and "dubious" make sure you tell us exactly what is questionable or dubious in specific terms. The next step for the editor attending (probably me) is to find the reference and clarify. If it cannot be clarified and supported with a reference, then it has to go out. No big deal. Just a matter of protocol. If you can't tell the mechanic what's wrong with the car and he can't find anything then he has to tell you, there's nothing wrong with it. I'm sure you can connect to THAT circumstance. So, until I get back, then, or until someone else does the work. Don't be afraid of me; I'm no one to fear. It is not as though you had to accept whatever baloney I care to dish out because I'm in charge of your income or your reputation (a typical academic scenario), or anything like that. Don't laugh at MY jokes or simper sickeningly over every stupidity and injustice I may blunder into. I'm probably not very funny anyway. There is absolutely no penalty for failing to bow down before me. Just be fair. When I do get back I will take it issue by issue, line by line. No rush. The Ottoman Empire was not built in a day.Dave (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]