Talk:Knez (Vlach leader)

Merger proposal
@Super Dromaeosaurus, @Borsoka

I propose merging this stub with Knyaz. Below I explain my reasons for merger.

This article contains only a short description and a terminology explanation, the latter would be very useful for the more extensive one. As these terms are practically the same (the Romanian mirroring of the Slavic power structure), the content of Knyaz would be needed to fully understand knez, kenez. In the bigger article, the two terms are used synonymously, and chapters are made about different territories that have greater or lesser differences in use. A chapter about Vlachs would perfectly fit there, as Knez (Vlach leader) is of the same size as those. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The common Slavic root of the terms knez and knyaz do not warrant a merger. The Vlach leaders are not mentioned as knyazes in the relevant literature and they have nothing common with the monarchs of Kievan Rus' or the Lithuanian aristocrats bearing the title knyaz (the Lithuanian aristocrats adopted the title because their ancestors had ruled one-time Rus' principalities). The article is a stub and it could easily be expanded based on available literature (e.g., ). Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That the versions knez and kenez are characteristic for the Vlachs (as they borrowed the Slavic title as cnez) doesn't mean that Vlach knezes having nothing in common with the Slavic ones. This is obviously false. The Romanians adopted the power structure of the Slavs.
 * Voivoda is the Romanian version of voivode.
 * Boier is the Romanian version of boyar. See the chapters of this article.
 * ...etc., etc. You see none of these have their independent articles. Gyalu22 (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not edit WP based on the structure of WP articles. Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That the versions knez and kenez are characteristic for the Vlachs (as they borrowed the Slavic title as cnez) doesn't mean that Vlach knezes having nothing in common with the Slavic ones. This is obviously false. The Romanians adopted the power structure of the Slavs. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka, please keep this discussion running. You said knyaz and knez have nothing to do with each other, I answered they do. The papers I cited on your talk page back my counterargument. What is your response?
 * (I noticed you because I assume from your previous fast response that you haven't replied yet because you don't intend to do so by tomorrow morning. If you do I apologize for pressing you.) Gyalu22 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We discussed this issue on my Talk page. We should let other editors comment. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you haven't really commented on what I tried to prove with sources, just ignored them and repeated your claim of no reliable sources connecting the two. Do you think all sources I brought up are unreliable? Gyalu22 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not remember that you referred to reliable sources presenting the Vlach leaders together with the princes of Kievan Rus' principalities or Lithuanian aristocrats of Rurikid or Gediminid stock bearing the title knyaz. Borsoka (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I referred to reliable sources presenting the knez title as a close relative of its Slavic equivalents.
 * So Xs are said to be very close Ys, but aren't because they aren't mentioned with a specific Y, only Ys in general?
 * I don't see how your requests are going to make any difference. South Slavic knezes are also not mentioned with Lithuanian, or Eastern Slavic ones. We should indeed wait for @Super Dromaeosaurus, or ask for a third opinion. Gyalu22 (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH Borsoka (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not my conclusion, it is explicitly stated that the Romanian knez title is the mirroring of the Slavic knyaz. WP:OVERLAP. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While knyaz and knez are etymologically related, the latter is related to knyaz only in the sense that it was borrowed from Slavic by the Romance-speaking population of the Balkans in the Middle Ages, i.e. the Vlachs. This does not mean that the two words have the same meaning and, in fact, knez has diverged from its original meaning in such a way that it has become unrelated to any notion of nobility, unlike knyaz. Instead, knez was the title given to the leader of a Vlach katun, which was a transhumant pastoral community. Now, merging the two articles would also require a major overhaul of the knyaz page, e.g., from the introduction: “It is usually translated into English as prince or duke, depending on specific historical context and the potentially known Latin equivalents of the title for each bearer of the name.” However, translating knez as duke or prince would make absolutely no sense for the leader of a katun. Finally, my last argument: the spelling knyaz (or cniaz, or whatever) is quite unexpected when we are dealing with the Balkans, and especially with Vlachs.
 * Krisitor (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: This discussion was listed at Third opinion I am commenting here due to that request and I have never edited this article nor have I interacted with the two editors commenting above before to the best of my knowledge. My understanding is that the dispute is whether this article, Knez (Vlach leader), falls under the same scope as Knyaz, of which knez is an alternate name. I don't know enough about this subject to have any solid opinion one way or the other, so I have a question that would hopefully help move the discussion along if nothing else. Is this similar to how Tsar (specifically Czar) is a similar concept to Czar (political term)? There's enough of a distinction between someone calling some a czar in a political context and a monarchial one, is this similar in that a Vlach knez is distinct from what Knyaz describes? The other article discusses the Knez in Slavic regions whereas this one is outside of regions that are typically considered Slavic but does have some Slavic influence (according to the Wikipedia articles I skimmed before commenting here). I did read the above discussion and the two articles being discussed, but if you don't mind a follow-up question from someone who knows nothing about this topic, what is the difference between this Knez and the other article's Knez? Is it the region that the terms were used in, or does it denote a different position in some way? - Aoidh (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining, @Aoidh. Here's a detail from a paper that could help you understand the status of a historic knez or kenez:
 * One can deduce this not only from the explicit evidence provided by medieval documents but also from the fact that the titles of such Vlach officials were of Slavic origin (knez, vojvoda, etc.) and they were a way of projecting medieval Slavic political and administrative ideas and concepts on Vlach societies. The Vlachs’ social structures and legal frames within which they functioned were largely shaped according to the Slavic institutional logic, as Vlachs themselves did not have large-scale political and/or social institutions they could have reproduced on their own... Marko Pijovič: Late Medieval Vlachs in the Western Balkans, p85
 * Like in every other nation, power positions were adopted slightly differently. For example, king in Polish is król, with a bit varying historic use. The Slavic knyaz was adopted to Romanian as cneaz. Now, should the Romanian form have its own article or not? That is the question. Gyalu22 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your proposal. 1. In the cited paper, Pijovič writes of Vlach knezes in the Western Balkans. So his words cannot verify this article's merger with an article with strong emphasis on the Rus' and Lithuanian knyazes. So far no reliable sources have been cited indicating that the Vlach knezes and the Rus' and Polish-Lithuanian knyazes are discussed together in reliable sources. 2. The Rus' knyazes were princes of medieval Rus' principalites, so they were heads of state. The Polish and Lithuanian knyzes were high ranking aristocrats (many of whom was descended from Rus' princes) in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Vlach knezes were heads of small local communities. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will take a look at the actual sources in a bit, but in the meantime I've added the template Merge from to the top of Knyaz so that editors watching that page can comment here as well. I've also left a message on that article's talk page. I think this discussion can benefit from additional input, especially from editors interested in the other article as well. - Aoidh (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your summary.
 * This article isn't about Eastern Balkan Vlach, but Vlach leaders in general. Everywhere Vlachs had the same kind of power structure. The other article has roughly the same amount of text at the "South Slavic" part as in the "East and West Slavic" one, so it doesn't have an imbalance towards one side. If South Slavs can be included in the same article, Vlachs, living in the same regions and even north of the Danube, can't be a problem.
 * Why wouldn't the latter be a reliable source? How is The Ruthenian and Wallachian population of Eastern Slovakia in the Middle Ages in this article more reliable?
 * Here's one more quote: "The most typical institution in Vlach rights in the territory of the Kingdom of Poland (as was the case in other territories where Vlach rights were implemented in the Central and Western Carpathian Mountains) was the institution of kniaź." Miloš Luković: Self-Government Institutions of Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Livestock Breeders in the Balkans and in the Carpathian Regions in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods; journal: Res Historica
 * Knyaz
 * Gyalu22 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose it appears that both concepts have different connotations and are not equivalents. As Borsoka has explained, a cnez was the local leader of a Romanian community (I assume "communities" means villages and similar). There must have been many cnezes at a time. Meanwhile, a kynaz was a more privileged title, only held by some high-class members of a state or even the leader of said state. So, as I've understood, even though both have the same Slavic root, a cnez would be something like a mayor while a knyaz would be more like a duke, or count, or minister, or king. So they're different.
 * Still it appears that originally, knyaz did mean something similar to the Slavs as cnez did to the Romanians. I am also unclear as to whether the article knyaz does cover a single concept or more like a series of similar concepts covered under a single title. It appears the meaning of kynaz varied among states. This would give some sense to a merge, though still cnez remained local while knyaz was largely aristocratic I think. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback!
 * What I interpret from Knyaz (#Middle Ages) is that knyazes were also local leaders -- only later, after the rise of the Slavic society, -- princes, rulers of greater formations. Thus it can't be defined that knyaz was a country's ruler, while knez was of small community's leader. Many different forms by geography, with similar structure. Your penultimate sentence nailed why I think merger would be rational. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, the main focus of that article are those posterior high-class titles. Not the local ones. In the cnezes' case, that's the only meaning of the word. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)