Talk:Osci

[Untitled]

The details about the other names of Osci are great. It might be nice to have a map of Italy to see where they Osci were settled, like between Latium and Campania. Also, in the 3rd to last sentence, you need to put it in past tense, changing "attack" and "defeat" to "attacked" and "defeated". Also, once you figure out how to work the links, make sure you make the links for terms like locations, Romans, and Thucydides. Romanciv14 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Hannah

This looks good, and I can see that you've already made all of the changes she suggested, so I have less to say - the links and the map are definitely very helpful. My main suggestion (other than adding the bibliography and references, obviously) would be to clarify the last paragraph. You first explain the history of the 1st Samnite War, but then casually add at the end that it is probably fiction. Maybe just reorganize this paragraph, and state the doubts about the story at the beginning, or make a clearer distinction of what you mean by "fiction of the annalistic tradition" (I think this was the phrase). But overall, good job. -Samantha

This article looks very good from what I can tell. I like the changes you have made in response to the above comments and believe this makes the article stronger. The only thing really left to suggest would be possibly quoting a small portion of Livy's thoughts on the 1st Samnite war instead of just summarizing them. This is very minor and would not add to or take away from the sufficiency of the article; however, it may be a neat little bonus to it. Very well written and good luck with the bibliography portion of the article. ~James

Peer Review

Hey, you're not in my group but you're sitting right next to me in the library and I thought I'd proof it for you! I enjoyed the article.

Antichus, who was generally regarded as Thucydides source for western history -- This is unclear, is it "Thucydide's" perhaps?

The Oscan name survived through this because -- I'd be more specific about what "this" is.

Being that the Osci were farmers and the Ager Pomptinus contained very fertile land, this area would have been very valuable to them -- I'd take out "being that" and state more that the Osci were farmers, HENCE this area would be valuable to them.

Nice bullet point!

Awesome reference section!

Hope this helps. - Aaron Lee - Differentialpi 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wekesh

Here is a reference you might like to read that was used in the Sea Peoples article. Go to that article and click the link; the PDF is free. p. 115 is the good part. Woudhuizen, Frederik Christiaan. April 2006. The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples. Doctoral dissertation; Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte. 4.249.63.248 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's get to work

I'm glad you have such a pleasant comradeship in the library. If you are good at that (to quote a certain film character), maybe you should stick to that. Whatever you are doing in the library, it can't be looking for information on this article, as the article is nearly totally wrong from top to bottom. For example, how can Oscans be Latin-Faliscans and still be the original Indo-Europeans? Campania? But the map shows Oscans over most of southern Italy! I think on this you need to follow WP procedures and policies. That absurd note under "References" is NOT a reference. There are none. All this is, is student opinions given off the top of the head. That is not the purpose of WP although you might be excited by the prospect. I don't think really you have time for this. You can't be doing well in any course work on the topic. Maybe the problem is your comradeship in the library. If you do one thing, you can't do another. Pity it is tis true and true it is tis pity. I am sorry to sound like a teacher but someone has to do the job. It should be you. Teach yourself. Meanwhile I am not going to lard this "article" (I use the term loosely) with all the templates it deserves. I save that for argumentative editors. I am going to put it on my list for attention from time to time (when I get time). Feel free meanwhile to study ancient history with a view to improving yourself and article.Dave (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Botteville

Botteville's revision is wrong the latin-faliscan origin of the Opici and the super-imposition of an Oscan strata has been ascertained by the studies of Giacomo Devoto, Gli antichi Italici, 2a ed. Firenze, Vallecchi, 1951. (see page 112)

http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL42442A/Giacomo_Devoto

the rest of the article about the oscan langiage is vague and off topic as Oscan was a major language group who enclosed many different groups

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscan_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_peoples_of_italy#Indo-European_Italics

and the samnites though famous were simply one of them no more then a 4 tribes federation, and a different branch from the Osci of the same family too

the Samnites were a sabellina group of the Oscans, the Osci were of the old core group and more related to the Sabines forex

then the classical reference as most of them is debatable as beeing legendary and frequently wrong, as the case of the traditional trojan or greek of every people of antiquity so common amongst the ancient authors, they always need of a modern confirmation

some truth in the Ausones reference can be in the fact that the ausones too were a latin-faliscan group as the Opici, the ausones were also part of the italic peoples who settled in Sicily

Ancient peoples of Central Italy in the 5th century BC.

Diffusione dell'osco

P.S. most of the anglo-saxon scholarship about the ancient italic peoples is outdated of a couple of centuries, essentially it is all from old classical sources but nothing of modern, for more updated informations one must rely essentially on italian or french authors

on th english wiki two good voices are

Prehistoric Italy Ancient peoples of Italy

Cunibertus (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, buddy. It isn't my article and I didn't say most of that stuff but that does not really matter, does it? On behalf of the editors of this article I accept all these suggestions for consideration. Thank you also for the maps. I will not be able to tell you, I agree, disagree, until I look at everything detail. If you have included it above and I find it is valid then be assured it will get in. By validity I mean backed up by references. I am a "reference man." True I slip up from time to time but the bottom line is going to be whether there is an authoritative reference for it. Just at first glance I see you have WP refs. Unless those locations contain referenced statements as to what you want to say, they are no good. WP is not a usable reference. Sorry, that is policy. If it were not, there could be no foundation in authoritative scholarship for WP. I am sure you must see that. I say something on WP, you quote me elsewhere, neither of us give a reference - this is unreferenced material. I don't know if that is the case until I check it. You don't get to jump into the ring with me and have it all out, whatever that may be. I work slowly, carefully and piecemeal and without malice aforethought. This article is due for another Dave session but when I do I will only be considering some aspects of it so I wil not be fixing everything. Then I will be moving on to the next in the list, but cheer up, I will be back next round. So when I'm done this time you will not see everything addressed. That does NOT mean I rejected it. One more thing. I never revert except in cases of blatant vandalism so I will just look at and fix if necessary what is currently there. So, there is no need for an "edit war." Ordinarily I do not explain myself so much but for some reason this article is more of interest to people. Fine. I am sure some or all of your suggestions will work out just fine, provided they conform to WP policy. I am sure we will work together just fine. Until that day,Dave (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Osci and Opici

botteville, do you know that those were two different peoples (who lived in the same territory) and that they were simply confused because of ancient authors' habit of using archaic ethica (forex every nomadic people was a hunnic and the medieval frenchmen were also called gauls by the bzantines) ? sorry but you did a wrong edit, of course the whole voice needs to be rewritten but that would be demanding and I have different priorities at present Cunibertus (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The references will tell, Cunibert, not you or I.Dave (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

a link mentioning en passant a difference between Opici and Osci

"Antiochus,298 it is true, says that the Opici once lived in this country and that "they are also called Ausones," but Polybius clearly believes that they are two different tribes, for he says "the Opici and the Ausones live in this country round about the Crater." Again, others say that, although at first it was inhabited by the Opici, and also by the Ausones,299 later on it was taken by the Sidicini, an Oscan tribe,300 but the Sidicini were ejected by the Cumaei, and in turn the Cumaei by the Tyrrheni." [3] [4] Cunibertus (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What, who, when?

"Antichus, who was generally regarded as Thucydides' source for western history, later identified this tribe"

Who's he? When is later? What is "this tribe"? You got to be clear about these things if the sentence is to have any meaning anyone but you can understand.Dave (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. So we can work together. You didn't address the "later" however (yet). What is the point of this paragraph, do you know? We can't just leave it to the reader to guess.Dave (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we are not working together. I will give you until the end of this session to clarify this paragraph, then it is coming out, out, out. I'm not at all impressed by your trying slip my reference to Buck onto your paragraph. I took you for a serious editor. While we are at it, you like to write discussion but not to present your hypotheses with references in the article. I will discuss this no further. Come up with the references or get off the case. As far as your comments about the English being years behind the great Italians are concerned, sorry, unacceptable. And, for references, come up with Englich ones, please, unless it is totally unavoidable, which I do not believe. This is English WP. So far I've had a lot of words from you and a few unacceptable changes but no solid work of any kind. I'm trying hard not to conclude you are an angry young man trying to get even for something I removed. Well, I removed it because it was unreferenced. Come up with your references and make sure they are valid or quit wasting everyone's time.Dave (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Botteville, but I do not think it is necessary to add external links when internal ones yet exist e.g. there are yet voices on wikipedia about the Oscan language and Antiochus of Syracuse, etc. . why add further notes and external links ?

I mean this sort of things: Antiochus as a source for Thucydides<This opinion, first stated by Niebuhr, has been argued out fully by Wolfflin, and accepted with some reluctance by Holm, Classen and Buslot. (J. P. Mahaffy,Problems in Greek History, Macmillan & Co. Crown 8vo. pp. xxiv. 240. 7s. 6d.) [5]>

it is seriously exaggerated IMO, we are not writting for an academic review or edition Cunibertus (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrative vandalism

There are changes to some material I know I put in here but those changes do not appear in the history. For example, when I did the ref for Buck, I had the address for Internet Archive, and it says Internet Archive. But, the address was now that of a book-selling site. Only administrators have that power. It was probably done by bot. Well, Mr. phony administrator, I demand you resign from WP immediately. This is a serious effort here and you are supposed to be an officer. Resign, and right now!Dave (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

References not opinions

I don't think I am getting across here. When I question whether something is an allowable fact, I mean, and so does WP mean, we need a reference there, a book or article citation, or a location in an ancient author. You opinion is not a reference. Moreover, as opinions go, it does not clarify the paragraph in the slightest degree. We don't know what you are trying to say or why you are trying to say it. I'm considering that you probably are young and inexperienced with WP. This is why I am now suggesting you leave the article, read some WP policy, work on a few safer topics and come back when you are ready. I think that is a reasonable request. Right at this moment I cannot really grasp what your point about the Osci and Opici is, actually. Why don't you take a breather, write something coherent and when you are totally ready we can take a look at it. All I can really understand from you at the moment is, you don't like my removal of your unreferenced statement asserting the Osci and Opici were not the same people. Is that correct, do I have that right? Are you able to summarize the argument for us? Whose argument is it?Dave (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

err ... really at present I have other priorities then the Opici and Opsci (later known as Osci) - and I have other main interests in the period then this - so I wasn't interested in pursuing this controversy with you. But the distinction dates from the works of one of the italian leading scholars Giacomo Devoto who worked in the period 1930-70, so for the italian scholars this distinction is an old granted fact and I believed it was well known outside Italy due it is not exactly a recent development in the study of ancient peoples of Italy. Cunibertus (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're doing as bit better - I see some refs here, improperly formatted. That's all right, I will do some formatting. But, I have to understand your arguments. English vs Italian is going nowhere, so let's drop it. As for the time element - well, I got the same constraints. Whatever you DO do should be done right. If you spend 10 minutes, make it the very best 10 minutes you can muster. I don't see any value to putting in things that are wrong or incomrehensible, do you? We can go to Britannica for that. All right, let me look at it.Dave (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More explication, Cunibert

I'm only just now beginning to get a vague idea of what you might be trying to say. That is because you never actually say it! The article is about the Osci. However, some of the sources connect the name Osci with Opici. You want to say, no, the Opici were not the Osci, but were someone else. Where the Osci spoke Oscan the Opici spoke a different language related to Latin-Faliscan? Moreover this language of the Opici was also spoken in Sicily? Is that what you are trying to say? Why don't you just say it? Latin-Faliscan in all the sources I know was spoken in Latium and Etruria. Now you want to say, it was also spoken in Sicily? You Italians, far ahead of the backward English, have discovered stuff we never dreamed of and have written it in the great Italian language, which we English-speakers now have to learn to understand it? Now I think you are a crank. But, let me give a helping hand. The only sincere reason I can possibly imagine for your lack of clarity is that English still gives you trouble, presuming that Italian is your first language. Why don't you write a few trial paragraphs practicing saying what you are trying to say. English is straight-forward. We don't speak in implications or suggestions, we come right out and say a thing. The one exception is when a general is giving orders to his subordinates. Then he is as unclear as possible so that if the result is bad ithe defeat can't be pinned on him. The rest of us are fairly direct, which makes it easy for us to lie. But, on WP we want to be clear. Beyond what I already said I cannot for the life of me understand exactly what you are trying to say. I will go as far as I can with you and then I will have to move the unclear material over here until you figure out how to say what you want to say, whatever that is.Dave (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I looked at it. You know what, Cunibert, I apologize but I do not think your English is up to doing this article. I'm going to be very candid with you. You are quoting without attribution. That is frowned upon by WP. I presume that is so because your own English needs work yet. Moreover, I did the most elementary Internet work, which this ridiculous "discussion" with you has delayed my doing. What do you know, I found your entire arguments in William Smith dated 1873. How are you to know, however, when you are reading only Italian sources (I presume). I'm going to take you at your word that you are in fact Italian and not some English teen-ager having himself some fun with old Dave. Here is what I am going to do. I'm going to switch your argument and your sources over to Smith. By the way Thucydides being influenced by Antiochus has nothing at all to do with the argument. Furthermore, you quote the passage without attribution out of context. You can't just grab sentences from every which way and throw them together as though someone had written them as a coherent paragraph. I think this will satisfy my obligation to you as a WP editor. Please take my advice, stick to the Italian WP or find some other place to try out your English. Get some English friends, hang around with native English speakers for a while. Italians are always welcome over here; I don't know about elsewhere. If you got more to add, try writing a few paragraphs in your spare time. Keep going over them. That is about the best I can say for now. Thanks. Ciao.Dave (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Antiochus of Syracuse, who was generally regarded as Thucydides' source for western history, later identified the Osci with the Ausones (Aurunci) who had been conquered and scattered into Campania and elsewhere by the Sabelli. Other authors, as Polybius whose source was very probably Ephorus, have spoken of Ausones and Osci as distinct tribes.

The Oscan name survived through this scattering because the language that they spoke was called Oscan as well and it was also the language of many other Italic peoples settled in most of Southern Italy."

Replacing this.Dave (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Suggestions

as your english is indoubtably better them mine I'll pass you some suggestion about the matter in an eventuality of an insertion by you in the voice 1. Strabo-Sicily-Ausones Strabo was wrong, the Ausones had a minor importance in the History of Sicily as they colonized the Aeolian islands and then later settled on some areas of the northern coast of Sicily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_Islands#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipari#Ancient_history 2. Ausones/Aurunci were part of a first wave (presumebly related to the Latins themselves according G. Devoto - as essentially historiography knows of only two italic waves the latin-faliscan first and the osco-umbrian then) of indo-european peoples who settled in Campania around 17-11th century BC. Around 9th century Oscan speaking populations (amongst them the later Osci) arrived and substantially oscanized the Ausones/Aurunci that still maintained a partially distinct identity. Cunibertus (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cunibert. I'm having trouble understanding the point even of what you got here. What was Strabo wrong about? What are we trying to do? It seems to me ideally we ought to be covering the origin and provenience of the populus called Osci, which was obviously long gone by the late republic. You are like a drop of quicksilver, every time I try to put my finger on you, you slip out into droplets every which way. Besides that, the things about your technique that I know are wrong and must be wrong on the Italian WP also are, you quote without quotation marks, without attribution, and without listing the source from which you quote. And then, you try to use other sources that don't fit to cover the gap. To add to the problem, you think your own opinion is a source; that is, you don't understand what we are doing with the sources. This encyclopdia is NOT an opportunity to give your own unsourced opinions. And finally, when you do try to use sources you never get the formats right. Even though I keep saying these things I do not see any improvement. No, I stick by my suggestions to you given above. I'm almost done here for the moment. I notice the entire "conflict and subjugation" section has no sources at all. I would expect to find mention of some big war with a people called Osci or Opici but I'm not finding it. I'm going to keep looking in the hope that it is not imaginary. By the way, when you make such statements as "Strabo was wrong" or someone else was wrong, you have to have some justification for that other than your own opinion. How is he wrong? What evidence is there? Who says so? We can't take YOUR word for it. Ciao. Try not to mess up what we have so far.Dave (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the phrase in the present article about the Osci: "Strabo ... that the "high sea" near Sicily was still named Ausonian even though the Ausonians never lived near it.[5]." and I meant that despite Strabo's words the relation between the Ausonians and the Ausonian sea had effectively bases in a specific historical period (the end of the II millennium BC), nothing else Cunibertus (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure Bert, sure. Until such time as you learn how to play the WP game, try not to get in the way, will you? Are you responsible for that disaster called Italic peoples? That's on my list. I fear you and I will be constant companions from now on, at least on the Italic people articles. Ciao.Dave (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced "history"

"In the beginning of the 5th Century BC, the Osci fought Rome for the Ager Pomptinus, the region in Latium between Mons Albanus and the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea. Being that the Osci were farmers and the Ager Pomptinus contained very fertile land, this area would have been very valuable to them. However, the Osci suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the Romans.

Later in the 5th century, the Samnites, a warlike people who also spoke Oscan, took over the Oscan region and subjugated them."

These paragraphs have no references. The ancient sources have no such battles under the name of the Osci. The Osci do appear later in the Samnite Wars under different names. I'm going to rewrite that a little. To bring the battles back to the 5th century goes all the way back to the start of republican Rome. These general paragraphs have to be presuming that the Volsci and Aequi were Opici. In one sense of course the Opici are all the Italics in southern Italy even the Latins. However, this article is following the sense of speakers of the Oscan language except for the Samnites. The Oscans and the Samnites spoke the same language, Oscan, except the Samnites were not called Oscans. Although the ancient historians speculate that the Opici were the aboriginal population of Italic Italy, they only identified as Oscan those that spoke Oscan. Aequian and Volscian are now known not to have been speakers of Oscan; the current classification makes their dialects independent Italic languages. Thus we cannot include the operations against them by Rome in the early republic as the subjugation of the Oscans. By the time of the Samnite Wars the Oscans of Campania were better defined culturally and politically. They were actually called "Oscan" in addition to their tribal names. Now, the two removed paragraphs allow us to draw no conclusions at all about anything. Who were these people with whom Rome supposedly fought for control of the malaria-infested marshes that killed everyone in the vicinity and produced a high death rate in ancient Rome? First of all, you would have to say, and to give sources for the battles they supposedly fought. I cannot see how you would avoid bringing in the Volsci and Aequi. Now, we have the problem of defining exactly what we are going to mean by Opici. And, you would have to state the various meanings more precisely. I'm not saying, that shouldn't be done. And, you would have to state which meaning you were using in the article when you spoke of these events. We certainly are not doing that currently. So, I'm going to start the history with the known speakers of Oscan. This knowledge comes from coin legends and other inscriptions. That would be expanded under Oscan language.Dave (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Botteville, but I didn't write those two paragraphs myself, someone else did it - I only corrected the references to Mons Albanus who was written incorrectly (check the edit history if you don't believe me as you apparently do)

the first paragraph is substantially correct as I guess that the author meant the Osci aurunci and not the core Osci peoples (the problem is that the ancient authors had obviously limited understanding of their matters and terms as osci and oscans were and are still used in many very different ways with different meanings - it is my work on the wikipedia to clear it - and it is a limit in your approach to the matter IMHO, Botteville, based essentially on primary sources which is also agaist the rules of the wikipedia project, I would notice). In my humble opinion the author of the paragraph was speaking of the Roman conquest of the Latium adiectum south of the Mons Albanus

the second is not very clear or may be a bit too much simplified, but, again, I didn't write it

from the late 5th century the majority of the Oscans (the more sophisticated ones - mixed with etruscans, greeks and other italics) had been known as Campanians, only the more backwarded groups were still called Osci

the Oscan language was spoken by the Oscans/Osci, Samnites and Lucani - more different oscan dialects were also spoken by many other minor groups as Marsi, Sabelli etc. - then there is the lrger oscan-umbrian group or the true Italics one in the more strictly academical usage

P.S. from the 9th to the 5th century BC the names Osci, Opici, Ausones and Aurunci were frequently used as synonyms

P.P.S. I do not want to engage an editing war with you, Botteville, so I only corrected the reference to the Mons Albanus who was clearly wrong (a typing error may be) and it is some days I have no more edited in any significant way your article

I'm always at your service to expalin you the details of the history of my country, Sir Cunibertus (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

SOUTHERN OSCANS

Pre-Roman times. The area of what is now Salerno has been continuously settled since pre-historical times, although the first certain signs of human presence date to the period between the ninth and sixth centuries BC. We know the Oscan-Etruscans city of Irna (founded in the 6th century BC), situated across the Irno river, in today's Salernitan quarter of Fratte. This settlement represented an important base for Etruscan trade with the Greek colonies of Posidonia and Elea. It was occupied by the Samnites around the 5th century BC as consequence of the Battle of Cumae (474 BC) as part of the syracusan Sphere of influence. I just noticed we have looked to only the major oscan states (Ausones, Aurunci, Sidicini, Camapnians) on the South Latium/North Campania border but forgotten the less organized communities in Southern Campania, I've consequently upgraded the voice of Salerno with some details. Cunibertus (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

another oscan southern city was Pompeii: The town was founded around the 7th-6th century BC by the Osci or Oscans, a people of central Italy, on what was an important crossroad between Cumae, Nola and Stabiae. It had already been used as a safe port by Greek and Phoenician sailors. According to Strabo, Pompeii was also captured by the Etruscans, and in fact recent excavations have shown the presence of Etruscan inscriptions and a 6th century BC necropolis. Pompeii was captured for the first time by the Greek colony of Cumae, allied with Syracuse, between 525 and 474 BC. In the 5th century BC, the Samnites conquered it (and all the other towns of Campania); the new rulers imposed their architecture and enlarged the town. After the Samnite Wars (4th century BC), Pompeii was forced to accept the status of socium of Rome, maintaining however linguistic and administrative autonomy. In the 4th century BC it was fortified. Pompeii remained faithful to Rome during the Second Punic War.Cunibertus (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See the map: Caserta is the territory of the Oscans, Naples is greek-oscan, Benevento/Beneventum and Avellino are Samnium, Salerno etruscan-oscan from the 9th to the 6th century and from the 5th under the rule of the Samnites but in the sphere of influence of the greek siceliotes. I hope this is useful for youCunibertus (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

approximatively the Aurunces and Ausones are in the north of Caserta occupying also part of southern Latium, the Campanians in the central-southern part of Caserta, the Sedicini in the eastern part of Caserta Cunibertus (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)