Talk:Germanic–Roman contacts

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk:Contacts between German tribes and the Roman Empire.

Better title: Germano-roman contacts/relations..?

Note that this article is an edited part of a paper written by Norwegian Archaeologist Are Skarstein Kolberg as part of his BA in archaeology at the University of Oslo in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.66.196.102 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on the article appreciated.

Should this article really exist?

The concept of Germanic peoples is quite difficult to separate from the topic of interactions with the Roman empire. What does this article handle better than Germanic peoples or various related articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldn't exist because it is absolutely terrible, and ended by original research to add insult to injury. One of the worst articles on Wikipedia, and competition is high for that (specially in biased political topics). 191.245.68.163 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

brit wiki and its danophillia, what a joke

This is such a terrible article. Like 80 percent of it focusses on "denmark" (even tho the cultural ancestors of the danes did not live in jutland at the time) of all things. Which is strange considering most of the contact between roman people and germanic peoples happened in what is now modern day germany. In comparison there was very little contact and exchange between rome and scandinvia. There is so much exchange and conflict with actual sources happening in central europe. This article seems to leave out pretty much all of this though and reads as if it was written by some danophile fanfictionist. Pretty much everything in it is unsourced as well. Might as well stop publishing historical topics in the english wiki alltogether if something so misinforming is the outcome of it. 178.24.247.250 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree one hundred per cent. Absolute Dane propaganda, trying to appropriate a bit or correlate their history with the distant Roman Empire. Probably the worst article on the Roman Empire that i have ever seen. 191.245.68.163 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

I find it funny that this article's title contains 'contacts' and the article on contacts with the Chinese is called Sino-Roman relations. Shouldn't it be just the opposite? --TadejM ^{my talk} 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

The article as it is currently written is giving enormous (undue?) weight to one 2013 article by "archaeologist Are Kolberg". However the same structuring idea which basically defines this whole article, and which is attributed to this person, was also used when the article was started in 2008. Was Wikipedia perhaps in effect used to publish a draft version of some original ideas which were eventually published elsewhere? In any case I still wonder what reasoning can be given to justify the existence of this article in terms of our core content policies. It still seems to give undue weight to a few non-notable musings. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a blog. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]