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

No Basis for Pagan Section[edit]

The section of this article upon the Lombards currently puts forward that they were a pagan people, but no citation is given in support of this. Two paragraphs go into length about the paganism of the Lombards, yet not a single source to back up the claim. Thusly I am removing the section on paganism until such a time as sources may be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean theoretically they had to be something other than Christian at SOME point in time, definitely before the year 0 but probably going a several centuries after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcibiades979 (talkcontribs) 21:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually though if you refer to Paul the Deacon I.VIII he discusses paganism among the Lombards. I realize this is in the more mythical history section, but I still think the section is important, and what it discusses in so far as their worshipping typically germanic gods makes sense as they spent a long time in... Germany. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
I read that they were Christianized by a monk sent out from Byzantium to Pannonia (or wherever it was) before the Nicene Council and that the gospels were translated into their language, hence they were for centuries very resistant to Nicene Catholicism. However, I can't remember where I read this. I also read that the Lombards were invited as allies in during one of the wars in Italy against the Goths. Of course, the Roman Catholics considered them to be Pagans. Mballen (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible mix up[edit]

JHK It seem that someone got mixed up here with the names. Langobard =German =(Langbaerte: modern German) or English: Long Beards.

Lombards is the later Italian or Latin name for the Langobarden , after their land was taken and given to the pope (for Vatican city?)

HJ -- no one got mixed up. Lombards is what we call them in English. Any English-speaking Medievalist can tell you that the name comes from long beards -- it's fairly common knowledge. However, we say Lombards, which is the correct English translation for Langobardi. English and German developed very differently, remember...sometimes we take words from places one doesn't expect. Sorry we don't use the more Germanic derivitive, but there you go. JHK

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "By the title of this work [Paul the Deacon's Historia Langobardorum] the name of Longobards was commonly turned into Langobards" - is it referred to English or Latin names? In any case, I believe "langobardi" was used before Paul. Also, I thought the ethimology from "long halberds" was dubious at best (and spurious at worst). Lastly, the article seems to imply that Charlemagne created the Papal States.

Longbeards and Long Halberds[edit]

The original words used in primary source texts that refer to the Lombardic gens are not considered by serious scholars to translate into either 'long-beards' or 'long halberds'. Ref: J.S. Martin's "An examination of two Langobardic mythological texts" in 'Proceedings of the 11th International Saga Conference' for a summary of currently accepted opinion regarding those two alleged translations that scholars like W.D. Foulke and others thought might be plausible a century ago or even farther back in time.

If either of you have further questions about this matter, please feel free to send them to ***Pádraic

I wish to know if anyone has explored the pretty straightforward possibility that "Langbaerte" or "Langobarden" is merely the corruption of "Långt Borta," which is swedish for "far away." I may be making an assumption, being less familiar with Old Norse than with Swedish, but the article does state that the lombards were scandinavian, and a scandinavian might reply to a questioning inhabitant of the region, on being asked where he came from, "I come from far away," or "Jag kommer ifrån Långt Borta." Pronounced in english this would sound like "Longgt bortá," wiht emphasis on the letter a. Joe

Naturally "Langobards" can't translate into "long halberds" (the halberd being a high medieval weapon). I have, however, read that it might translate into "long axes" (the -bard bit being from the same root as "halberd"). However, I doubt both the "axe" and the "beard" interpretation on the grounds that they wouldn't fit ancient Germanic society. Axes weren't used as actual military weapons before the 3rd/4th century AD (though they were used as ceremonial weapons). First-century Germani (about whom Tacitus was writing) fought essentially using a short spear (used in melee or as a javelin) or swords for rich people. Secondly, I doubt the "beard" interpretation (etymological arguments aside) because apparently shaving was all the rage in first-century Germania. I don't know what scholarly consensus is on the issue. Does anyone have a weblink? --Helmold 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another (amateur) idea of mine, probably far from the truth. In Old Norse "bord" or "bardi" means "shield" (from the same root as English "board", since Germanic shields were made from planks?). Thus the name Langobardi (or Langbardoz, or whatever the Germanic name might have been) might mean "long shields". In this case it would be a name given them by their neighbours, since apparently Germanic shields were usually round. Just speculation, though, I don't know the subject matter well enough. Can anyone point me to a good history of the Lombards? --Helmold 18:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Please excuse me, gentlemen, but when the appproximate time that the Lombards became Italianate in culture(e.g. Italian-sounding names)?--Anglius 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert but as late as the 1070s the last lombard ruler Gisulf II of Salerno was still clinging on to power (though the rest of southern Italy was already ruled by Robert Guiscard and his relatives. He still has a very un-'Italian' name (it should be noted that Tuscan/Italian didn't yet exist in any recognisable form). Seek100 04:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Only towards the end of their kingdom they started to use latin sounding names. Their last king, Desiderius, had a latin name, and we know that in 751 AD the king Aistulf removed Lupo (a latin name) as duke of Spoleto. However the use of the names was traditional, at that time the Lombard language was already lost. As for other aspect of the culture, for the entire duration of their kingdom there was a struggle between the need to integrate Roman elements and the desire to remain the separate rulers of a subjected population, their kings being alternatively the product of one or the other current. For many aspects the Frenks were more latin than the Lombards (see for example the conception that the Franks had of the king as a sacred and inviolable entity, the title of which was transmitted by heredity, whereas, for the Lombards, the king remained a mere military leader whose title was not hereditary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


"They left their mark also through such great figures as Hildeprand (Pope Gregory VII) and Napoleon Bonaparte[1], who have Lombard names, being descendants of those cultured Mediterraneans who ruled the Mezzogiorno for three centuries[citation needed]"

The link provided is not solid enough for establishing that Napoleon is a Lombard name, nor is it proof enough that he is a descendant of the Lombards (it is only his first name, not his surname), especially considering that it mentions no specific Germanic tribe when, as we know, several of them invaded Italy well before his conception. Hildeprand's case is more compelling and I do not personally dispute that. However, I expect some more solid citations be provided or the wording changed to acknowledge the unsurity, and, such as is the case with Dante, I expect that these citations be lifted from somewhere other than white supremacist sites.

The Mezzogiorno is reffered to Southern Italy (does not include the island sicily, just the boot) and Napoleon was a Ligurian. So he came from a terretory of the Lombard Kingdom, not the Duchy of Benevento. The same goes for Gregory VII, who was from Tuscany (also Lombard kingdom)

The above assertions that Napoleon was a descendant of the Lombards has nothing to do with the geographic proximities of a kingdom that dissolved more than 500 years before his birth. Many people of various racial types were present there before, during, and after the Lombard rule. Until anyone can provide genetic proof or a genealogical breakdown of his family history to conclude that Napoleon was a descendant of the Lombards or any other people, Napoleon's ancestry remains unknown and should be presented as such. Sicilianmandolin 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon's Y-Dna is believed to be E1b (see Eupedia site Genetics section)which is North African or Balkan rather than anything Scandinavian or North German brought in by Langobards. Certain branches of R1a or I or R1b-U106 are much more typical of ancient Germanic peoples.

Literature Inspired by Longobards[edit]

Maybe it would be relevant to add a link to Adelchi, the second tragedy by Alessandro Manzoni (a very relevant Italian author)


I think the 651 date is a typo: possibly 615? Agilulf shows up as King of the Lombards from 590 to 616, while Theodelinda's page says she died in 628. 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent cleanup[edit]

Wetman 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) : most of my tweaks are obvious: for emphasis, clarity, eliminating repetitive links, unnecessary words, ADs, parentheses. I've commented out some questions most readers will ask and requested some citations. There are no References: I've made a References section.

The usage "Longobards" must have some personal magic. It seems obtrusively quaint.

  • "... eventually absorbed by the Holy Roman Empire" corrected to Carolingian Empire, not the same thing.
  • ..."as stated in the works of Dr. Eckart Frey" No work by Frey is yet listed in the References.
  • "Cleph was acclaimed the new king..." Changed to acclaimed. Anointing has a specific meaning that doesn't apply.
  • "..."murdered many unpleasant Nobleman and ruled the Kingdom with Iron Discipline". Here it seemed too much like an uphill struggle. Has much sensible former content from July 2006 been lost? --Wetman 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I fear that a lot of information from before that date may be lost. The article was completely rewritten and at least one section was entirely lost. I am adding some links that should be there and some references. Srnec 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Two-dimensional images":Copyright[edit]

The three-dimensional objects in museum cases are either personal photos or else from official museum sources, in which latter case they are not covered by this and would be copyrighted. --Wetman 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

The article introduces the Lombards by telling their own origin story. Then it passes to a section where an Elbe origin is flaunted with colourful maps and without attributing this information to any reliable source.--Langobard 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

@Langobard, All the texts i posted are cited with the sources, where they are from. As for the maps, i only posted the 2 maps that were made by historians. The other 2 already existed on wikipedia. "Lombards by telling their own origin story" This story is the OGL (Origum Gentis Langobardorum), which is a mythical story about their mythical origins to their first historic King. Paul the Deacon is very valid and important for the History of the Lombards during their migration period, at the Danube and in Italy. But not for their origins. Paul made a big mistake when he based the Origins of the Lombards only and soly on the OGL. He never reffers to the Roman historians and their accounts, he took the OGL and nothing else. I should have posted (and after this confusion will post) the quotes of Mommsen about this mistake. The OGL cant be historic, because it states that Agilmund was the son of Agio (son of Gambara), but Agilmund was a king of the mid 4th Cen. AD. He is considered the first king because he led the migration and with that the independence. From the Romans we know that the Lombards were (till than) subject to the Kings of the Marcomanni and a small tribe. So if Agilmund is the son of Agio, than Agio and Ybor must have migrated around 300 AD from a mythical island that doesn't exist, and that Pliny the Elder upon who Paul accounts, describes as Thule. I think you know about Thule. But the Lombards are already recorded in the Lower Elbe lands in 5AD! So Agilmund cant be the son of Agio. And if you calculate the Kings down from Gudeoc (who entered noricum), than also you will pin point the mid 4th Cen. AD. (Lethu ruled 40 years according to paul). So everything makes sense, and is historically recorded when you consider the origins in the OGL as a myth and just a story. 2 Austrian archaeoligist and historians Peter Erhard and Walter Pohl wrote a good book about the lombard migration period and their archaeological traces.Lllo3

You are making several assumptions here:
  1. 4th century Agilmund is the same person as the son of Agio.
  2. If one piece of information in the emigration legend is wrong, then all is wrong.
  3. The emgration legend is a myth.
Note that these three assumptions are *your* POV, and (like mine) they are not relevant to Wikipedia. What is relevant on the other hand is information from primary and secondary sources.--Langobard 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i agree, and that is why i did not post these things in the main article but instead posted them personally to you in the discussion section. As for your 3 points of criticism. 1. Well, if you would have read the Historia G. Langobardorum, you would have come to the passage where Agilmund is killed in a raid by Bulgars and his adoptive son Lamisso succeeded him and defeated the bulgars. After Lamisso, came Lethu who ruled for nearly 40 years and after that Hildeoc and Gudeoc. Than came Claffo and Tato the conquerer of the Heruli (Eruli). Now, i seriously doubt that such a scenario happened twice within the Lombard history. Also the episode of Agilmund being killed by Bulgars (maybe Huns) shows that the Lombards were already in a different area. The migration story goes that the Lombards crossed into Mauringa, Mauringa is mentioned by the Cosmographer of Ravenna as the land east of the Elbe. And Huns or Bulgars did not appear earlier than 340 AD. Again, Agilmund as the first king is due to the migration away from the other suevi tribes and their king. 2. No, the OGL cant be wrong, because its a legend. And therefor only ones interpretation of it, can be wrong. The origin in the OGL is a myth. Mommsen: "It may be that these Langobard and Gothic traditions are both fragments of a great legend of the origin of the whole German people..." (Thule). You obvisouly dont understand the essence of the Germanic tribes of the Great migration period. They were practically Nomadic. The Franks, Vandals, Goths, Langobards, Saxons etc. other german tribes migrated and lumped together and formed the Bavari or Alamanni. They all left their homes and created a Legend a myth about their former home, their mythical place of origin. Lllo3

An issue?[edit]

We have an editor, User:Eochaid Airem, who takes issue with the following statement and has reverted it — as "POV" (sic):

"The Lombards were a Germanic people of the Jastorf culture during the Pre-Roman Germanic Iron Age."

The statement appears to be a neutral description merely setting early Lombards in a broad cultural context that is defined in archaeological terms. I can understand that Jastorff culture might be a misidentification that could be corrected, but I am at a loss as to what violates a neutral point-of-view. Perhaps this is just a weekend joker. --Wetman 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


This article has far too much unecassarily long quotes, I am sure they could be reviewd an irrelevant material removed while still retaining the pertinent information? Could someone more knowledgable in the area please have a look? Ciriii 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


I very boldly reverted back several months to bypass some bad editing decisions and probably lost good information in the process. I added back some of it (like images, Jastorf culture, and sources), but there is more that needs to be done. However, I think this version is easier to fix than the previous one. Srnec 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that you have improved the article with your change?
Just take a look at all the incorrect and slobby explained terms and sections. So if you are responsible, than put some effort into it and correct it, to a more correct and informative article. This current one is a disgrace. Lllo3
I think you mean "to", not "@", which means "at".
I seriously think that I improved it over the previous version, which was a disgrace, full of POV-pushing and lengthy, unencylcopaedic quotations. It is not my responsibility to make every improvement possible, only those I see fit. Other editors can make their own improvements. However, the article had been destroyed by bad English, bad quotations, bad POV, and simple unencyclopaedic content over time. I may make some improvements in the future, as it sure does need them, but the previous article was a joke. Srnec 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As a somewhat uninvolved user who make no changes except to add notices to the captions of unsourced images for deletion, I support Srnec's revert. When I first happened upon this article to add notices, I was shocked at how much of a quote farm the article was and how little I could learn about the Lombards by reading through it. I like it better now, though I certainly agree it requires more work. --Iamunknown 22:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

@Iamunknown I agreed with your point, about it being a quote farm, and wanted to change it. As for your point, that you couldnt get informed about the Longobards, well all you had to do was read. Because as you said, it was practically only quotes. So if you claim that the quotes of Paul the Deacon, Tacitus, Procobius, Paterculus and the various others couldnt inform you and were not informative (compared to that slobby article), than you obviously didnt read it. As for the images i only uplaoded 2. The roman campaign map and the Alboin image. And for all i care, they can stay deleted.

@Srnec (that means directed at) You are making points that arent valid, because they miss their targets by lenghts. 1. Be more precise, i really dont know about what POV you are talking about. 2. Bad quotations? Those were all quotations from historic sources, as they were all sourced. 3. Bad English? those sources, all came from an english source that translated the historic texts from Latin! You wont find a single mistake in those texts. You are a joke.

The current article is utter crap. It doesnt mention half of the Longobard history and what it does mention is partially false and slobby. (Origins and Conquest of ITALY) Inform yourself when ITALY was created! You call that article the quality of wikipedia? Ridiculous. Lllo3

Lllo3, please consider reading Wikipedia:Attribution, particularly the statement that "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" and the statement that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." --Iamunknown 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
To Lllo3:
  1. I will retract my comment about the POV, as that had been cleaned up by the time I reverted, though it was prevalent a month ago.
  2. Bad quotations as in unnecessary and excessive.
  3. Bad English refers not too the quotations but to the text.
If the current article is "utter crap", clean it up! If it needs expanding, be my guest! But learn how to write an encyclopaedia entry first. The article was unreadable, as a disinterested user has affirmed.
Italy is a legitimate and well-used English term for Italia, which is an ancient term for a certain European peninsula conquered by the Lombards in the sixth century. It is not only the name of a kingdom created in 1861...
The word is "sloppy", not "slobby". And please don't call me a "joke", it's not very nice and it says little flattering about your character. Srnec 05:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

@Iamunknown I have now read the Wikipedia:Attribution, maybe you should now read the edits i have made, because all of those mention their sources (Author, Title, Chapter, Page number) and all are valid and legitamate Primary and Secondary sources from propper published books. So, really read the edits I made.

@ Srnec "though it was prevalent a month ago." Those were not my edits. 1. So you think its unnecessary to mention all the quotes and historic refferences to and about the Longobards from 5AD onwards. The current article starts with the quotes of Tacitus in the Germania of 98 AD. So i think it is necessary to mention the early role and presence of the Longobards in a Longobard article. 2. My texts ended with the Murder of Alboin, everything beyond was not from me. I am very sure that there are no mistakes in the bits of texts i posted.

As for ITALY being a legitamate term, its not. Even the Romans termed it Peninsulae Italicae or just Italicae. The constant claim that the Roman province was called Italia, is simply wrong and is not mentioned as such in any historic source. It was called Italicae. But there are far more wrong infos in this article. I dont know if you understand, but several infos are simply wrong. "If the current article is "utter crap", clean it up" No, you are responsible for it so you should clean it up. You obviosly know alot about the Longobards (otherwise you wouldnt devote so much effort for the new article) so you can surly create a great or at least better article. Because the current article is a disgrace, because of the lack of information and that infos that are given are partially WRONG. You came up with false allegations about my edits (POV etc), and that to me was a joke. Lllo3

An encyclopaedia is not just a collection of quotations from primary sources. It is based on the research found in secondary sources. I think this article can be expanded and I think it ought to have some quotations, but not too many. The article was previously nothing but a collection of quotations with a smattering of commentary. I never alleged that your edits were in error on matters of fact
Can you please explain Italia (Roman province)? See here, a modern English translation of Strabo which employs "Italy" for "Italia." More here in original Latin from Pliny the Elder.
You do not understand Wikipedia. I have no responsibility for cleaning up a mess, even my own. However, I do not consider it a mess. It was a mess before I reverted.
I never alleged anything specific about your edits, only edits made in general. I certainly never accused you in particular of POV. I would love to improve this article and I may, if I have the time. In the meanwhile, you can try to improve it yourself if you will only follow Wikipedia guidelines. (I'd be happy to tweak any English for clarity or anything else I can do.) But you have to understand that the use of quotations was excessive in the highest degree before. Srnec 19:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

@Srnec The Latin source doesnt term the peninsula ITALIA but ITALIAE. Italicae (Peninsulae Italicae) is however the more common version (for examples) Its actually very simple, Italia is Italian and the Romans didnt speak that tuscan dialect, they spoke Latin, so they surly never used the word ITALIA. Italy is the english translation of the (tuscan) Italia. Also the term Lombards, its actually Longobards. In Italian: Longobardi, in Latin: Langobardorum and in German(incl. Old English): Langobarden. Lombards are the present day inhabitants of Lombardy and the descendents of the Longobards. The term Longobards is still very in use in the English language, many books on them refer to them as Longobards,in the english translation of the HGL, they are always referred to as Longobards and several other sources: Besides that, many pages on wikipedia link to this article with the term Longobards. But those are just minor issues. The Article doesnt mention the whole 1st. Cen. AD and the role of the Longobards, the important fact that they were under the control of the Marcomannic Kings, crossing the danube 166 AD to raid pannonia, their migration, their first own kings, their various locations (all in the HGL), their move to Noricum and their feud with the Heruli, their conquest of the Herulic kingdom. Those are just a few points that need to be mentioned. I can just repeat myself, this article doesnt give alot of info, and the given info needs to be checked.Lllo3

You display a remarkable ignorance of Latin. Peninsula Italiae means "Italian Peninsula." Italiae stands to Italia as "Italian" stands to "Italy." It is a Latin word. It's actually very simple, the Italian language (all its dialects) descended from Latin and the word for the peninsula (and country) is the same in both languages: Italia.
It is an ignorance of English to call "Lombards" wrong. Both "Lombards" and "Longobards" are acceptable English translations of Langobardorum. Both are used, but Lombards still predominates.
Expand it! Please! Srnec 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. Also note common names. --Iamunknown 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed ignorance of Latin, and based on his authoritative tenor, rather remarkable at that. Srnec 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

@ Srnec First of all, stop asserting things about me. You obviously got lost in the dialogue. I was the one, that said that the term italian peninsula is more appropriate and correct than Italy. You, on the other hand claimed that italy is a legitamate term. It is not, and here is why. 1. Italy describes the modern day political state of italy. 2. By that you imply that the Lombards/Longobards conquered todays modern state in the 6th. Cen. AD. We can continue to discuss how the Romans called it and what the english translation is, and how close Italian is to Latin etc. etc. The point is, Italy cant be applied to that period, the correct term is Italian Peninsula. Furthermore, the Lombards/Longobards never conquered the Italian Peninsula they invaded it and conquered lands of it, which resulted in the 2 Duchies and the 1 Kingdom which were on the Italian Peninsula. But not all of the Peninsula was conquered by the Lombards/Longobards. So not only is the term Italy wrong, it is also very missleading. As for the terms Lombards/Longobards, in case you havent noticed, i am not making a big deal out of it. And you are once again lying when you claim that i posted, that the English Term Lombard is incorrect. I just wanted to point it out, for the sake of clarity, and you admitted yourself, that both terms are valid. I will repeat agian, those are just minor issues. Maybe you should start paying attention to the more important issues and start creating the article.Lllo3

You said "Also the term Lombards, its actually Longobards." That clearly implies that "Lombards" is incorrect, because actually it's Longobards.
You denied that "Italia" was the correct term when I asserted that "Italy" was a common translation of that term. Italy describes more than just the modern political entity. I have already shown that. You say "Italy cant be applied to that period," but the scholars do not agree with you.
I will reiterate: it is not my job to improve this article anymore than it is yours. Srnec 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Language question[edit]

The Lombards were a cultural group with cohesive linguistic and cultural allegiances...

Does anyone know what language(s) the Lombards spoke? fleela 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lombard, an extinct Germanic language which can be partially reconstructed from words which appear in Latin sourcs. The English word skiff comes from the Italian word schifo, which is one of the few Italian words of Lombard origin. It is cognitive with "ship," a Germanic English word. Srnec 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--fleela | ± 02:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I should have given you a link to the Wikipedia article, but I didn't know it existed: Lombardic language. "Lombard language" usually refers to certain historical dialects of Italian. Srnec 03:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but Lombard, the Lombard I speak, is not a dialect of Italian!!! --Aldedogn (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Lmo administrator.

Italian schifo, is actually a parallel derivation from OHG scif, and— OED to the contrary notwithstanding— it's not often necessary to reach to Lombardic through Italian and French when looking for a nautical term in English. When one hears "sk" in English, it's often useful to look to Nordic origins, a source like Frisian for many sea-going terms: for "skiff" one need look no farther than Old Norse skiff, which my Shorter OED missed. The sh of ship/schiff shifts to sk under Nordic influence. shirt/skirt, ship/skipper, etc. The Lombardic connection is tenuous and distant. Doesn't that make sense? --Wetman 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that that is a possible derivation, that's why I pointed out the cognitive connection with "ship." However, both the Wiki article skiff and a book on the history of the Italian language that I don't have on hand right now gave the Lombardic etymology. The word "skiff" entered from French, which borrowed it from Italian, which had conserved it from Lombard, I believe. The same word did indeed enter English from another Germanic language and became "ship." Srnec 03:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
English ship is simply inherited from Old English scip. The attested Lombard language is virtually identical to the oldest attested Bavarian, and thus linguistically an Old High German dialect. In fact, skiff demonstrates this; it faithfully preserves Old High German scif (pronounced skif), while Old Norse had skip (English skipper, however, is actually a borrowing from Middle Dutch schipper, which was pronounced with [sχ] as in Modern Dutch). Wetman misses completely that skiff cannot be possibly Norse because of the uniquely High German shift of p > f, and the sk has nothing to do with Norse influence. (Skirt is simply borrowed from Old Norse skyrta; his idea that shirt was somehow altered to skirt under Norse influence is wrong.) It was simply preserved by Italian (schifo is pronounced skifo – apparently it was the spelling that has misled Wetman) when it borrowed the word from Lombard, which still had sk. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Italian Schifo was borrowed by French as esquif "little, fragile boat", first mentioned in the 15th century, then from French to English. If the word had entered French before, [s] would have disapeared, so *équif. French borrowed a related Germanic word earlier in the Middle Ages : OF eschiper "to land with a ship" "to fit out a ship" (in 1120), esquiper "to start sailing" (in 1160) and eschiper again "to fit out a ship" (Wace, in 1155). First found in Norman documents. sch is an OF spelling for [sk]. Probably borrowed from Old Norse *skipa > Icelandic, Norn, Norwegian skipa. Continued by F équiper "to equip", équipe "team", équipement "equipment", English equip is borrowed from French.Nortmannus (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


I have removed the current top image twice in favour of another image for the following reasons:

  1. The image was unclear. It is not obvious exactly what is being depicted. It is not a high-quality image. The new image is clear and it is easy to see what it is (a crown, it even has its own article).
  2. The image does not tell us anything about the Lombards that I can see. The iron crown, however, does tell us something (about their royalty, their aesthetics, their religion) and such information is referenced by a at the Iron Crown article.
  3. The old image also has an annoying titleblock at the bottom telling us where it came from. The current image is simple and its own article even provides a link to a colour photo.

In short, I cannot see that the old image has any real value. Srnec 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your points and think that they are not any valid reasons for adding a nondescript crown instead of the image of people (who are the matter of this article). I have no problem seeing clearly what the image depicts, and I do not really understand why you are having such problems with it. Unless a third person steps in and supports your change of picture, I will soon revert your change.--Berig 19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I find your response severely lacking. Enlighten me: what does the old image represent? And what makes the Iron Crown nondescript? It has a whole article describing it! And who says the picture is in anywise an accurate portrayal of the Lombards? At least the Crown is indisputable a Lombard artefact telling us real information about the Lombards. Don't just respond, argue. Srnec 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand from your answer that the true reason for removing the picture is that you don't find it to be "an accurate portrayal of the Lombards". However, I don't find the crown to be a better picture at all, and I wonder why you among all the possible pictures chose that one.--Berig 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My original reason was lack of clarity. I was willing to accept its accuracy, but when pushed I realise that its lack of clarity is only compounded by its lack of a solid source foundation. It is unclear in two senses. The crown is not the best picture, only the best available at Wikipeda that I could find. I would like to hear exactly what's wrong with it. I think it's a pretty good option, especially because it is a Lombard thing itself' and not just a representation of them (I guess the drawing is a representation of the crown, but the article provides a link to the photo to prove its accuracy). Srnec 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Image has to be Removed: It doesn't show the Lombards/Langobards. It shows the Cisalpine Gauls during the sack of Rome 387 BC, in the famouse episode where a Gaul warrior touches the beard of an old Roman. The Old Roman hits him with a stick and is thus executed by the Gaul. @Srnec, the reasons you gave are idiotic. I accused you 2 months ago that you dont know anything about the Lomabrds/Langobards, and this again proves my point. Nonetheless you felt obliged to take responsibility for this article. I will take care of this article now, i have done alot of work, image wise, and will create an article on this topic. I hope that this time you will help with corrections and not with deletions. Lllo3

Lllo3, you can call my reasoning idiotic, but it is better if you demonstrate it. We both agree that the image is a bad one, I expressed doubt about its accuracy, you only proved my doubts correct, so what's your beef? Also, I never took responsibility for this article, Wikipedia prohibits ownership of articles. Do whatever you can to improve this article, but remember that your edits may be edited mercilessly and tremember to use citations. Also, try to work within the framework provided so as to make it easier for other editors to assist in improving the article. Srnec 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Section headings[edit]

Does anybody have any better section headings than the nondescript "7th century" and "8th century"? Srnec 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Lombardy or Italy?[edit]

I do not deny that "Kingdom of Lombardy" is sometimes used to describe the Lombard kingdom, but it is usually avoided because it could cause confusion with the region of Lombardy (which was not coextensive with the Lombard kingdom) or the later Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia. "Kingdom of the Lombards", "Lombard kingdom", "Lombard kingdom of Italy", or just "Kingdom of Italy" are probably all better terms. The Latin would be regnum Langobardorum (Kingdom of the Lombards) or regnum Italicum (Italian kingdom). The Lombards did rule most of Italy from an early date and almost all of it from Liutprand's time. There is no confusion with the term "Kingdom of Italy". The term "Kingdom of Lombardy", furthermore, is not contemporaneous but is a rough translation of regnum Langobardorum (I think). The source provided is from 1847 and prima facie cannot be considered to pass WP:RS. I will alter the heading unless there is a good response here soon. Srnec (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly a bigger confusion by calling this the "Kingdom of Italy" even though that wasn't its actual name, when we have real kingdom's under that name such as Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic) and Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946). Kingdom of Lombardy was the name used by the Popes and its no less confusing than having articles such as Kingdom of Sicily and Sicily. But even "Kingdom of the Lombards" is fine, if you think it should be that, just not this, this "Kingdom of Italy" history revisionaism. - Gennarous (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The kingdom did not change when Charlemagne took over in 774 and it was definitely called regnum Italicum under the Carolingians. The title rex Italiae is also known among the Lombards: Agilulf was rex totius Italiae (King of all Italy). "Kingdom of Lombardy" was never used in that age, so far as I know. "Kingdom of the Lombards" was. You are wrong about revisionism: kingdom of Italy is standard fare for the Italian state from the fall of Rome until the Renaissance. The second chapter of Chris Wickham's Early Medieval Italy, an English standard, is entitled "The Kingdom of Italy, 568-875; Survival and Consolidation in the North". You can also see at Britannica Online that regnum Italiae is the name for the regnum Langobardorum from the ninth century on. To the best of my knowledge, as the Italian Wiki states, the kings of the Lombards were proclaimed rex totius Italiae upon their coronation at Pavia. What is misleading about describing a kingdom that encompassed most of Italy and was ruled by kings bearing the title "King of all Italy" a Kingdom of Italy? Srnec (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
An 1847 book you found with Google is not reliable. "Kingdom of Lombardy" was not used by popes alive at the time, since its English and the language did not yet exist. Rather, it is a 19th-century English translation of a Latin term, probably regnum Langobardorum (which should never be translated using the word "Lombardy"). As I have pointed out, though, this entity is commonly called the Kingdom of Italy without issue in academic literature. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Kingdom of Lombards = from the American Council of Learned Societies Dictionary of the Middle Ages = the Kingdom of LOMBARDS (not Italy) "usually refers to the period of the Lombard domination of northern and central Italy from 568 to 774. The Lombards (an evolved form of their own name, Langobards, "Long Beards") were a German people who were living aroudn the lower Elbe by the late 5t century BC. Whether they were ethnically East Germanic of West Germanic is a matter of debate. In the mid second centry AD, they were raiding the Roman Empire along its Danubian frontier. The next three centuries of Lombard history are poorly known, but their legends of this period include in the principal narrative source of the Lombards, the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon, himself a Lombard writer at the end of the eighth century....." So needless to say, the Kingdom was called Lombard, not Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADent42 (talkcontribs) 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

even more King of LOMBARDS has been used for Bernabò Visconti and Gian Galeazzo Visconti, not because they were King of LOMBARDS, but becuase they would have been King of LOMBARDS, and Lombard/Lombardy was used until 1860 meaning north italy or Padany. Don't forget that a Giuseppe Verdi's opera is called "I Lombardi alla prima crociata" Lombards go the first Crusade, and with Lombards he told abaout all north italians or padanians and not only about who lives in the actual Lombardy region. I'm sure because at that time there is not the actual Lombardy region!!!!

--Aldedogn (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Lmo administrator


what does philo-Catholic mean? is it common knowledge? (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Philia is a Greek word for love or close friendship. Philo- as a prefix generally indicates alliance, support for, or adoration of (depending on context). It is "common" knowledge to me, but what do I know? Srnec (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lombard invasion of Italy[edit]

From the text of the article:

"In the spring of 568, Alboin led the Lombards, together with other Germanic tribes; (Bavarians, Gepidae, Saxons[50]) and Bulgars, across the Julian Alps with a population of around 400,000 to 500,000, to invade northern Italy due to their expulsion from Pannonia by Avars."

Can this figure be correct? This is a HUGE population movement. Are there any detailed descriptions of it in the historical record? (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Daniel Baedeker

Yes, this is very questionable. According to the German wikipedia article, historians place the number between 70,000 and 140,000, but I'm not sure what source those figures come from. It also mentions the 500,000 figure is from Paul the Deacon, and that it is probably unreliable. I've read other sources that said more around 80,000. I think that was Ludovico Gatto. (talk)

Rosamund and war vs Gepidi[edit]

Section "Kingdom in Italy" begins with statement: In 560 a new, energetic king emerged: Alboin, who defeated the neighbouring Gepidae, made them his subjects, and, in 566, married the daughter of their king Cunimund, Rosamund. - this is not completely true. The Gepides and Lombards were the enemies from the moment when Lombards came to Pannonia which had been already settled by the Gepides. But real conflict and war started because of Rosamund. Alboin captured Rosamund, which caused real war and 2 sides dragged the others around into conflict too (Lombards as the allies of Eastern Roman Empire). The Gepides won one of the battles and their king brought his daughter Rosamund back home, but war ended with final defeat and destruction of Gepides, their king was muredered by Alboin himself and Rosamund was captured again. However, Gepides didn't become his subjects. Both sides were weak at the end of war. Gepides never had their own king again and were broken into small groups; Lombards won the war as Eastern Roman Emperor allies, but this emperor didn't reward them, they didn't get the land of the Gepides. That was probably one of the reasons why they left to Italy. Maybe there's no need to include all story, but details should be fixed. Zenanarh (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

About the Iron Crown[edit]

The last to be crowned with the Iron Crown was Emperor Ferdinand I in his role as King of Lombardy and Venetia. This occurred in Milan on September 6, 1838. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


"The Iron Crown of Lombardy, used for the coronation of the kings of Italy until 1836."

The "kings of Italy" until 1836 ??? Which kings would those be ? When was the last "king of italy", before c. 1860 ?Eregli bob (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Italy (imperial), King of Italy, etc.--Enok (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a wording tweak would be wise, such as that it has been used by the holders of various regal titles over the centuries. The wording now implies that there has been a simple continuity and meaning to such a title.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


It's nice to have all the vowel quantities and accents marked, but that's not the way to write Latin. If you want, add in phonetic spellings in parentheses. I'm going to remove these, barring some valid objection. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Struck me as weird, too. Seeing that there's no objection, I'm going to go ahead and do it. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC))
In fact if no one cares, I just assume going ahead and translating it in to English. This isn't a Latin article. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC))
I cleaned up the Latin. I think most of it is ok, since it refers to titles of works with English translation or is used in quotations where the language matter. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Didn't see them all, there were quit a few. At first glance I thought it was some sort of Germanic or Norse, till I looked closer and noticed it was just Latin with TONS of accents, haha. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lombards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)