Talk:Luca Arbore

Lineage
Added some stuff and tried to organize the second part of the article in a lineage chapter. See if it fits. More could be added, but I don't find it noteworthy, unless we find a context to place it in. For example, if one of the recent family members reached international acclaim in some field or discipline, then it's noteworthy. In any other case, we're just covering the family tree, which is not what we're supposed to do. This Zamfir fellow seems to have left a legacy, but it's still regional at best and it involves petty politics. My 2c. --Cei Trei (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim that he was descended from Luca Arbore is covered in reliable sources. Don't imagine you can taunt me by pointing out that Zamfir Arbore was not a very importnat figure (as opposed to Luca, I presume); I have absolutely no theory on that, just because I wrote most of the article on him, nor do I think he is less obscure for that. And no, there absolutely nothing resembling coverage "of his family tree" here, we're mentioning those people that sources mention in connection to Luca. Posterity and succession are routinely covered in the final sections of wikipedia bios. Dahn (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Made some minor mistakes in my edit. This is because I stayed up late and I was tired, after watching the games; also, when I clicked on Save Changes, you had already made some prior edits and I had to recover my edits. Lastly, I'm a little rusty, if you know what I mean. wink, wink! ;)
 * Page 9 from that book:
 * <<In secolul trecut traia in satul Arbore, urmasul acestei vechi familii: LUCA ARBORE. Fiul acestuia: DUMITRU ARBORE a fost vel Paharnic si a avut doua fete: una s-a casatorit cu C. Kogalniceanu; iar cealalta SMARANDA, cu boierul Zamfirache RALLI, din Basarabia. Boierul Ralli a dat spre infiriere lui Dumitru Arbore, pe fiul sau mic CONSTANTIN; iar pe fata sa ELENA, batranul boier Ilski din Bucovina (Crasna).
 * CONSTANTIN ARBORE (nascut Ralli) a avut doi fii si doua fete:
 * 1. Elena, maritata in Rusia cu generalul Mihail Makceff, actual comandat al fortaretei Brest-Litovsk; 2. Maria casatorita in Caucaz; 3. Vladimir a murit fara copii; iar cel de pe urma urmas este [Page 10] 4. ZAMFIR C: ARBORE[...]>>--Cei Trei (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. I thing we can leave out the detail about the whole Russian relations, which, if anything, belong in the ZA article rather than here. I should explain that I put Lecca as a "see also" for that footnote, because Felea, though he takes ZA's genealogical claims at face value, gives a rather detailed account of his being an Arbore by indirect adoption, which Lecca doesn't mention at all (does not exclude it, just doesn't mention it). Dahn (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Only mentioned it for you since you asked for more info; don't think it's that significant that it needs to be covered in detail. One thing that needs to be covered in more detail, however, is the surrounding of his death. " Grigore Ureche hinted that the prince had been flattered and misled by Arbore's personal enemies" => should be elaborated. "[...]although, according to Dragnev, that claim itself is not necessarily backed." => should be clarified. Are you saying that he doesn't mention anything about it? In my book, MIron Costin is mentioned calling Stephen IV bloodthirsty in relation to the killing of Arbore, but this isn't enough to build on anything. It should also be noted that Stephen IV was poisoned by his wife four years after Arbore's death, with the support of the boyars. My source is concise and not always very reliable. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dragnev basically says the common sense fact that Ureche is both biased and writes many years after the facts, which he cannot possibly know in detail. This would apply to Costin, which sources generally don't even bother with, because he uses and enhances the same narrative. I mean, we could mention them, but we already have tens of historians picking at the facts from various sources. I don't know what Stephen's poisoning would add here -- I don't dispute the fact, which is casually mentioned in some sources I used, but it occurs after Arbore had died. We currently mention that Petru Rareș took the throne and half-rehabilitated the surviving Arbores, which keeps focus on them rather than on various events they could not have participated in. I mean, do consider you're writing a text on the Russian nationalist opposition: "The Russian opposition was empowered by the failure of a hardliners' coup in 1991, allowing Yeltsin to etc.", versus "The Russian opposition was empowered by the failure of a hardliners' coup, during which Gorbachev was held for hours on end at Yalta, and could not watch TV, and etc., allowing Yeltsin to etc." So I would dispute the needs to part of the message. After all, we mention Stephen the Great dying, but not the circumstances, which belong in other articles; we only mention Bogdan's illness because it allowed Arbote to control the country. Dahn (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dragnev apparently gives the full quote from Ureche, about those enemies of Arbore, and what we have is basically a paraphrase: that quote doesn't mention names, just creates a context in which Stephen was to blame but not really. I don't think we could pick more from that if we tried. (What's more, the core of Dragnev's thesis is that people before Ureche were not ready to believe that story. The paintings in Suceava, if he's right, suggest that Stephen was seen as fully responsible for the killing, immediately after the killing. He's Ahab, not King Lear.) Dahn (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought you had more info that you may have omitted from the article. The reason I mentioned Stephen's poisoning is to have you look for two possible outcomes: 1. that his assassination was somehow related to the boyars displeasure of Stephen's execution of Arbore, and, 2. that this might have been a plot that Arbore was originally involved in, or suspected of being involved in, and was executed for. The second outcome feels far-fetched, but the first one doesn't. Of course we shouldn't mention Stephen's death in this article, unless there's a connection to Arbore. What displeases me about this whole ordeal is that we don't have a given cause for the execution other than Arbore being accused of treachery. Compare this incident with the incident when Stephen III had some boyars executed before his own death for wanting to select the next leader instead of accepting Stephen's nomination of his son, Bogdan. That incident didn't cause a havoc, as Arbore's execution did, perhaps because the accusation that Stephen III had against the boyars was accurate. And since we can't do original research, I figured you might find a credible source that tried to place the puzzles together in order to solve the mystery. The closest you got is the painting commissioned by Rares, so that will have to do, I guess. --Cei Trei (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well in one source I reviewed (Stoicescu, I think), there was mention of a chronicle (Macarie, I believe) vaguely saying that Arbore had intended to kill the prince, or had killed the prince (the "lifted his hand" kind of ambiguous phrasing). It's no more than that, and no other source mentions this, nor do I know what to make of it -- but ORing here, it could mean that Stephen thought/made the accusation serious by either implying that Arbore wanted him dead, or that he had actually killed his dad Bogdan. But that aside, the text does currently quote historians who argue that the reason was a serious divergence in foreign policy; one alos suggests that Stephen was enraged by Poland because Sigismund maintained a pen of pretenders to the Moldavian throne. He killed Arbore to send a message, or simply because he could not physically do anything more than that to annoy Sigismund. (Whatever the theory you favor, the whole story is quite interesting.) Dahn (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my speculation wasn't in vain. I searched on Dexonline and found this: "ARBORE (ARBURE), familie de boieri din Moldova. Mai important: Luca A. (?-1523), portar de Suceava (1486, 1498-1523). Tutore politic al lui Ștefan cel Tînăr (Ștefăniță), care la majorat, l-a învinuit de trădare decapitîndu-l, fapt care a constituit începutul unei puternice mișcări boierești împotriva domnitorului." Would be nice if we could find a source that would elaborate on Stephen IV's assassination, a source that explains that the assassination is due to Stephen's execution of Arbore. I also mentioned that the church is one of eight listed on the UNESCO World Heritage, but the source could be more user-friendly. --Cei Trei (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you will perhaps note that there's nothing in that Dex fragment that is not in the article, though now we say much more, from many more sources which add detail and hypotheses. Dahn (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the UNESCO tidbit. I reshuffled text and moved the citation to a more MOS-ey place. Dahn (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your best article yet, if we consider the weight of the subject. Perhaps you should nominate it for something. --Cei Trei (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but my actual reward is us being able to talk normally to one another. Dahn (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I added new info and a new source to the article, and there's more to add, but I'm not sure I have the energy to do so. The article has become more complex now and I tried to reorganize it a bit. It's not perfect and we should decide if we want to cover his career chronologically or if we want to separate his diplomatic missions from his military missions, or maybe both. The more complex info remains in the subject of, what is argued in my source, Poland's attempt to sow discontent in the Moldavian political circles by insisting on mentioning Arbore as a contender. I could ask someone to email you the document, which is hosted by a site, if you promise not to ask that person the name of the sender (lolz). Also, this is probably what this article needs: Alexandru V.  Boldur,  Privire  generală  asupra  lui  Ştefăniţă,  fiul  lui  Bogdan. Anyway, not sure if you want to invest more in this article, but my feeling is that you're preparing for the article of Stephen III. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like tackling Stephen III, certainly not this close after Arbore. I actually enjoy writing about secondary people, because history to me is not necessarily a succession of rulers. That we have developed articles on boyars is actually a goal in itself. Thanks for the info you added, I integrated it with the format used. I removed notes from the lead (they are redundant), I again stripped designations of what Arbore was to the core attributes rather than the various overlapping functions, I removed redundant notes from the lead, and I have kept the designation of his father's title to what most sources use based on his designation of the time (which is in any case a quasi-synonym). If you have more from Pilat please add it, but do try to be mindful of what is already in the text: additions don't supersede other sourced text, they complement it. Dahn (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * His military functions are not mentioned in the lead. "Gatekeeper"/military commander is in the military category and neither the diplomat or the statesman attributes overlap with his military attributes. Also, Romanian "portar" translates, in this context, as castellan--gatekeeper is more broad, it doesn't designate the title of the captain of the castle. The word originates from the 16th century, long after the word castellan and burgrave, (that you linked to) were adopted to be used as a title. Burgrave was adopted from German in the 1540s and from my understanding, it is linked to German history; it is used to designate the governor of the German towns or fortresses. In Romania, it perhaps could be used when referring to the Saxon cities in Transylvania when they were governed by the Transylvanian Saxons, as they are linked to German culture. Consider, for instance, the word chatelain, a synonym to castellan, but designated more to fit a French setting. You (or someone else) even added "Category:Castellans" to the article, so I believe it would be more consistent to use that word instead, and that includes the title of parcalab/Burgrave for his father, since we're talking about more or less about the same title, even though the prestige and the responsibilities differed. What do you think? --Cei Trei (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I consulted Britannica and in this article where Flanders is being mentioned, castellan and burgrave is used like this: "The counts of Flanders built up a strong administrative apparatus—the curia comitis, based on central officials and on local rulers called burgraves, or castellans (castellani), who were in charge of districts known as castellanies," Also here. --Cei Trei (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pârcălab is the literal calque of burgrave into Romanian. Surely you knew this. Dahn (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have added the castellan category, because that is what he practically was -- hopefully, when we have more of these articles, we can subcategorize to the relevant local function as one variant of the "castellans". Romanian also has castelan, but none of the sources I have seen use it to render portar (neither does Dex...). I'm not disputing that his function is the equivalent of a castellan, just that the titles he used were these, and we can simply be precise rather than vague. Morover, sources consistently distinguish between portar, for Luca, and pârcălab, for his father. Why would we dumb this down? And yes, Anittas: Eșanu says plainly that the function of gatekeeper had by definition diplomatic and statesman attributes. Dahn (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I could be convinced for instance that we use "castellan" as a parenthetical for the first occurrence of "gatekeeper" in the text, but to simply replace the latter everywhere in the text seems excessive and misleading, not to mention OR-ey. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote a reply, but you kept replying and eventually, because of some issues at home, I copied your reply instead of mine. This isn't a chat room, so it would be nice if you could make your replies more consistent. Could you explain to me why we're using the word "gatekeeper" for castellan? Gatekeeper is not used as a term to describe the official role for the governor of a castle. Further more, the issue was not about the "gatekeeper" not having diplomatic attributes (although I wouldn't think this applies universally, so even that would had to be clarified), but rather that we should define in the lead that he had military attributes. That was the issue. Not that the diplomatic attributes were missing (they are listed), but that the military attributes are missing. And yes, one can look to the right and make a connection between "gatekeeper" and holding off the foe from entering the castle, but he also commanded armies, which is why the term military commander was used. Have a look at Julius Caesar and how his attributes are being listed. Now look to the right: it says Dictator and prior to that it says Consul...even though those things involve diplomacy and, in most cases, a military career, they are listed separately. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We should use the title sources use. They all use gatekeeper (well, portar), and nonse translate it as castel(l)an. Can we please move on, or did you find another soapbox to exhaust me with? Dahn (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On that "military leader" thing: read the whole section. We currently mention it at length, and when we do, we already mention what military he led (and when), which is much less vague. He also led the troops by virtue of his administrative office and his boyar rank (they all overlap!), at least until after 1504. Why must we be so redundant, and list just anything we can associate with the man, in the first sentence? Dahn (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "was a Moldavian boyar, castellan[4] and military commander,[5] diplomat, and statesman" -- this was your version. Forget that the citations are redundant and flashy, and lead to the same source (but just that one source, as if the others don't also say this), using them as flags planted here and there, and in a section that should not actually have citations (also forget that you cited them by title, when all other citations were by author). Forget that it reads like "oh and he was this and he was also this oh and this". But if you actually read the sentence and others after it, you get about five mentions of military and synonyms in a row, like we're obsessed or something. There has been some progress in writing style for Romanian articles, Anittas, since you were exiled (don't get riled up here: "since" doesn't mean because); this, I have to say, is not progress -- I'm sure you could adapt if you wanted to. Dahn (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to tell me with the Julius Caesar comparison, tho? The two functions are separate because they were separate functions. Arbore had one function (or at least the only one we can pinpoint with dates) with several attributes. The infobox is in this respect identical for both entries. What you are proposing would be to list every single thing we can associate with Caesar in the very first sentence of that article, when in fact it says: "Roman politician, general, and notable author of Latin prose." Compare that with "boyar, castellan[4] and military commander,[5] diplomat, and statesman", surely you'll note a difference. So even by your own comparison... Dahn (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Arbore led troops not as part as his administrative office and my source on page 47 makes it clear. Here it is in writing: " În toamna anului 1502, Luca Arbore participase la ocuparea Pocuţiei, din calitatea de comandant militar discutând cu castelanul de Halici şi nu din cea de sol." I find it very clear that his attribute was purely a military one and it wasn't something produced from his office as a diplomat, nothing that overlapped ("...si nu din cea de sol"). It was a category that was exclusively a military one and I don't find it redundant at all to mention this in the lead. --Cei Trei (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We do mention it in the lead, Anittas. It really emerges as a pattern with you that you rarely actually read the text you're enhancing. Also: your quote says that he wasn't in Halych as a diplomat, but as a commander, which in any case he was by virtue of his being portar ("castellan", which I now added as a parenthetical, is even more clear about his military function). I'm done discussing this, you're no longer being constructive, and again giving in to your tiresome passion for empty chatter. Dahn (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant that first sentence that says, "was a Moldavian boyar, diplomat, and statesman". He held an interdisciplinary office that involved military and diplomacy, but you omitted his military quality. Also, I'm not sure he could've executed his role as a castellan while in Pocutia because he was detached from the Suceava castle and was probably leading other men than those at Suceava, which is why my source differentiates between calling him gatekeeper (yes, the author uses the term gatekeeper instead of castellan, so I emailed him to ask for clarification because I really want to understand) and a military commander. All I was asking was that we add his military quality to that sentence; and yeah, you were right about the footnotes in the lead, but that's a non-issue, a simple mistake on my part. The important thing is to give a full description of Arbore's qualities and what defined his career right from the start. If we're lucky, L. Pilat will give us his input. --Cei Trei (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with your latest addition, I find it fair, I'll let it go now.--Cei Trei (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

clarification
A few days ago, I received the following from author L. Pilat regarding the issue of Luca's title. I will post it here as it is in the interest of the article.

"Referitor la aspectul care va preocupa, trebuie sa aveti in vedere ca traducerea unor denumiri de dregatorii intr-o limba straina nu este atat de simpla si, de cele mai multe ori, termenii oferiti de dictionare trimit la aspecte politico-sociale diferite, asa cum se intampla si in acest caz. Termenul de castellan il folosim pentru traducerea dregatoriei de parcalab. In Moldova existau mai multi parcalabi (de Neamt, Roman, Hotin etc.), insa doar un singur portar, cel al Sucevei si aceasta pentru ca Suceava era cetatea de scaun a voievodului. Dregatoriile medievale definesc sarcini domestice (comisul la grajduri, paharnicul la beciuri, samd), deoarece se considera ca dregatorii sunt slujitorii cei mai credinciosi ai domnului. In aceste conditii, portarul Sucevei este cel insarcinat cu paza cetatii in care locuieste domnul si familia lui, avand un rol important in organizarea militara a Moldovei, fiind un fel de sef de Stat Major, dupa terminologia actuala. De aceea, mai tarziu, cand domnii se muta de la Suceava la Iasi, portarul Sucevei devine hatman. Prin urmare, chiar daca nu se regaseste in dictionare, termenul de gatekeeper exprima cel mai bine continutul semantic al termenului portar, evidentiind faptul ca dregatorul in cauza nu este un simplu castellan. Sper ca explicatia mea sa va fie de folos."

For this reason, I intend to revert the changes that I asked to be made, i.e. adding the title of castellan. I was also pleased to receive a clarification over the title of hetman, which at that point didn't exist, but which was equivalent to the title of Portar (gatekeeper). If I understand this correctly, gatekeepers seems to be a transliteration that only Romanian historians use, so in a way, we might benefit if this was somehow clarified--but it's not really a priority. It was also nice to receive a confirmation that parcalab is the equivalent of English castellan and that Luca had a very important military role to play. Either way, I intend to add more info to the article tomorrow. --Cei Trei (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as whatever you add is from published sources. Dahn (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What's that supposed to mean? Have I ever (in my short time on Wikipedia) added something that wasn't from published sources? As I wrote on August 4, there's more to add from the same source, but I waited with the second part which covers other subjects. Or do you specifically refer to my correspondence with Prof. Pilat, alluding that I can't use it as a source? The reason I posted his words here is to clarify the few things that weren't cleared to us, for example, when it comes to the titles used. I also thought that you might want to know why Arbore is being counted as a hetman, even though he didn't held the title (posthumously, as you wrote it). This info could help us form a better understanding of the issue and simplify the process in seeking this information in published sources, if we ever needed it. In short, I just wanted to share. --Cei Trei (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And this category feels a bit odd (People executed for treason against Moldavia), since he wasn't formally charged with treason--and if he had, it wouldn't be against Moldavia--but against the prince. For example, Sulla betrayed the Roman Senate (not Rome), Brutus betrayed Caesar (not Rome), whereas Arminius betrayed both Rome and the Emperor. There's a separation between betraying the head of state, the government, and the nation. Arbore would've betrayed Moldavia if he had invited the Turks to take over the land. Theoretically, betraying the prince can benefit the country. Just saying...I know you don't like debates over semantics. I have to say, you would've been great as a bureaucrat or an accountant. --Cei Trei (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It need not be clear to me why later sources call him a hetman: they just do, and the two historians we already quote clearly point that this is an anachronism. I'm sure that if there was much more to say on this, as related to Arbore, the two would have added it themselves.
 * "They just do"? You don't care to know why this is so? Oh, man, that's tragic. --Cei Trei (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As a wikipedia editor, no, because it would induce original research. As a casual Joe Everyman, it's quite clear to me that it's a thing that routinely happens with sources: later sources use later language, just like, for instance, Jesus and Caesar were assigned coats of arms by medieval heraldists; not one of the frescoes in Arbore's church shows people dressed as they would in Jesus' time, but they are all a record of how people dressed in Arbore's time; reading through the idiotic "folkloric" pieces by Ispirescu, you will see Alexander of Macedon being referred to as a voivode etc. Any more exact "why" than that is speculation, as long as we're not there next to the writers asking them "say, why did you use hetman?" -- a penchant for speculation that will not tell anyone "why", just "why X thinks that was". Dahn (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not original research because it wasn't meant to be added in the article. The usage of hetman when the capital of Moldavia moved from Suceava to Iasi is credible and I only mentioned because it might help us find a source that explains this further, so what are you talking about? If I were to be particular about it, since the article lists Arbore as having received the hetman title posthumously, then the article should attempt to give an explanation. This is why I posted this--because it might help us find a source that does this (third or fourth time I'm repeating this). --Cei Trei (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Attempt to give an explanation", "help us find a source" = WP:SYNTH. Also, who really has this existential dilemma? Dahn (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not SYNTH because the source would mention it. It wouldn't be a conclusion that we make. --Cei Trei (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Find the source that says "and this is why they called Arbore a hetman", and we'll talk. Dahn (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such separation in an autocratic medieval state, Anittas. Also, yes: he was charged with hiclenie, if that means anything in a country that had little resembling due process. And he was sentenced by the legitimate government, in fact by the very one he served -- your theories about Roman civil wars, yet again, add little here.
 * He wasn't charged, he was accused. There's a huge difference between then two. Do you have a source that says he was charged? Ureche writes that he wasn't charged and I haven't seen a source that claims the opposite. --Cei Trei (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Ureche etc. say that he wasn't tried. The difference between accusing someone and charging someone is also null in that context: what trial do you know of that respected that formal procedure in 16th-century Moldavia, that we have a benchmark? Do you imagine they had jurors and bailiffs and habeas corpus? Moreover, it's the prince who accused him, and it's also the prince who was supposed to "try" him, had the procedure, as it stood at the time, been upheld. Dahn (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My theories about Roman Civil Wars? Oh, you meant to say my analogies? It might be true as you say: they add little, so discuss the 'little'. --Cei Trei (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Dahn (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I don't like is debates for the sake of having debates. Dahn (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, don't get too hung up on the notion that there was a Moldavian rule of law and Ștefăniță broke it. We know from numerous sources that Stephen the Great routinely acted like a tyrant, but nationalist historiography has made a point of justifying this tidbit. It would do the same for Ștefăniță and Arbore, praising the killing of a traitor etc., except that Arbore is also a "good guy" by nationalist standards. Dahn (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only by nationalist standard, but also by the boyar standard, which is why they revolted. How many times has this happened in the two principalities? Once, that I can think of, in Wallachia in response to your psychopath Tepes. --Cei Trei (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely: it's the nationalist vulgata which simplifies things; Arbore, like Ureche, was a Polonophile boyar who had a debatable, but apparently coherent, vision about how Moldavia should be; the nationalists have to reconcile that vision, which they deeply resent, with the fact that Arbore was also a hero, and had been a pillar for Stephen's rule. Oh, and the boyars revolted all the time, not just against the psychopath -- they routinely revolted against Stephen (who is a saint, not a psychopath, of course: he only impaled here and there). Dahn (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Boyars revolted all the time, but I was strictly referring to the kind of revolt that is due to the execution of people, not the kind of revolt that boyars did to Stephen during the Baia campaign. And why would nationalists be bothered that Arbore was a "Polonophile"? Not sure what you even mean by that--after all, he took part in the campaign to annex Pocutia from Poland. Many Moldavians (boyars and princes alike) were friendly towards Poland, or preferred Poland in one way or another, but these Polonophiles also wanted Pocutia. It's not a contradiction. Romans were Philihellenistic, but that didn't stop them from conquering Greece and destroying Corinth. --Cei Trei (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim that it was "due to the" is not present in all the sources, and hinges on the claim that Arbore was innocent of what the prince accused him of. Which would not explain why he was killed in April, but the boyars revolted in September. For all we know, the boyars could have rebelled because he was the leader of their party, because they feared the same would happen to them, or simply because they had an opportunity.
 * Again, you could actually read the article instead of asking me questions that are answered there. Regardless of what he did (how enthusiastically?) in ca. 1500, by the time of his alleged hiclenie, he was all in for Poland, and had steered Moldavia closer to Poland (this is an objective fact). At least one historian suggests that this was a main reason why he was killed, as I believe I have said once before: Stephen knew that Poland would not let go of Moldavian pretenders, and he knew that Arbore was their man; he decided to do away with their man. Why would this be problematic for nationalists? Well: because any foreign power, in the nationalist vulgata, is anathema, especially a Catholic one, regardless of how sane the reasons for the boyars' alliance with the Poles. Sure, Poland is usually less of the "bad guy" in the nationalist narrative, but that is because the details are even more embarrassing for the nationalist: consider the near-complete silence in nationalist sources about Poland being Michael the Brave's leading adversary, about how Michael was ready to make peace with everyone save Poland, and about how, after Michael's downfall, Poland effectively united Moldavia and Wallachia under the Movilăs (a personal union under a foreign suzerain, just like what Michael had done). Dahn (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He was all-in for Poland? Moldavia's policy shifted quite often, and the fact that he sometimes viewed Poland favorably and sometimes went to war against Poland doesn't attest to this Polonophilia that you speak of, although I'm sure that he, like most boyars, preferred Poland over the Ottomans and maybe even the Hungarians; but having to choose one out of three doesn't make you a fan. As for the nationalistic stuff that you mention there, that sounds more like the Wallachian (Muntenian) mindset--which is in a category of its own--and which we shouldn't discuss here. My point is that one can be patriotic (or nationalistic) and still be objective about things in general. What you mention about Michael is not as bad as when you guys write about Stephen fighting the Turks, but 'forget' to mention that it was You (Laiota) who begged the Turks to come and intervene, and that it was you who aided them. Moreover, a large part of the Moldavian upper-society, who could be seen as patriotic, was friendly towards Poland because they shared many common grounds and, often, because they had Polish roots. For example, many of our scholars from Cernauti had Polish roots and they would view Poland in a friendly light, but at the same time object to Poland in other ways. So to be a Polonophille takes a bit more than merely being in favor of Poland at one time or another. For example, Miron Costin was a Polonophile, but this is the first time I hear that Ureche was. Yes, the Muntenian narrow mindset is a problem, but it's nothing that I can fix. --Cei Trei (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We have at least one source mentioning him as the leader of the Polonophile party (let's try reading the article, shall we?). There is nothing in my message that would read as if this were a sentimental choice rather than a pragmatic choice, but even if it were: so what? why is this is an issue, and why do you feel you should share your sentiments about it? Also, there is nothing I said that would indicate I felt being for Poland was either bad or beyond explanation (quite the contrary, I hinted that it was a rational choice, especially as a boyar), so why do you feel I should be pestered with this forum-like chitchat and, again, your petty obsessions about Muntenia? Dahn (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But since you insist on opening up the topic: the very claim that people who sought outside support were necessarily suspect of being unpatriotic shows how much of your mindset is determined by the tropes of nationalism. Presumably, most of those people involved in those squabbles were patriotic in the larger sense, or none on any side were (depending on what you mean by "patriotic"); certainly none of them thought along the lines of "I feel I should destroy my country", and even less so "I feel I should purposefully downgrade my inheritance", because, contrary to the depiction in historical literature for children, they were not demented or inbred nihilists. They either felt that theirs was the better choice, or they simply were pushed by circumstance into having no other choice to make. And yes, with the benefit of hindsight, we can clearly say that Poland was the better ally, not least of all because it had developed into a federation of equals (up to the point where this became a ridiculous hindrance to government). Without necessarily meaning to, the Poles protected local customs and even expressions of difference, which actually preserved the Ukrainian and Belarusian nations to this day; they also offered a(n accommodating) civilizational standard that could not be compared to Muscovy or the Ottoman Empire, and was certainly superior to Moldavia's own. But fact is that neither of the heroes Stephen and Michael thought that way: Stephen himself brought the Turks into the country to use them against the Poles, and Michael did almost the same thing (neither of which was as detrimental as what Cantemir did: but Cantemir did what he did precisely because he did not, indeed could not, imagine the Russians to be worse of an ally than the Turks or the [by then quasi-defunct] Poles). So instead of finding excuses for your heroes and various contexts in which your para-nationalist, parochial and trite, theories can save face, try and think about the facts and the actual choices people had at the time. Dahn (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What you wrote above is exactly my point. I have no idea how you could miss that. Stephen brought the Turks against the Poles as an act of revenge. Laiota, on the other hand, had no reason to bring in the Turks. And no, Cetatea Alba was not a good reason to do that. Not sure who is supposed to be a "demented or inbred nihilist", but I know for a fact that I'm not neither inbred nor a nihilist. My heroes are the likes of Cicero, Samuel Johnson, Nietzsche, and C. Brönte. Stephen is the symbol of our struggle, it's how Moldavia expressed herself in a single man. Your heroes are boring. Anyway, must be hard to be on the Asp. spectrum. I'll do us a favor and exit this discussion now. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, contrary to your mental image, that you believe Laiotă to be misguided, or indeed that he may well have been misguided, leaves me cold. But here's you: when Stephen brings in the Turk for "revenge", ah, that's a valid reason! -- "if Stephen does it, he must have had reasons" seems to be your adaptation of the Scotsman fallacy. You're a fanboy for Stephen, to levels that exceed even the casual stance of someone fixated on Moldavia's "past greatness etc." I guess you can function in society with that mindset, as long as you keep it under control. But why do you imagine everyone (or anyone) else thinks like that? Why does your mind even assume that, since I'm not a Moldavian, I would naturally identify with, or feel guilt for, or need to explain the actions of, any Wallachian, including the demented Vlad (or the demented Antonescu), let alone that utterly obscure Laiotă? It's one thing that you take an extreme, exotic, position from which you see the rest of the world, but surely at some point it must have dawned on you that not everyone else thinks in those terms? Or are you that hopelessly isolated from the normal world?
 * With the other comment: I was referring to the claim that all people who made The Wrong Choice, as defined by nationalists living centuries after the fact, were idiots or whatnot (or simply didn't exist); because the nationalist cannot possibly understand why people in the 15th century did not agree with his criteria, and probably didn't understand those criteria, or even that those people living long ago were contextually right (as in: preferring annexation by Poland, or even the Ottoman yoke, to "independence" under various bloodthirsty tyrants). This goes for your "how Moldavia expressed itself in a single man" -- a ridiculous, childish, claim, produced just as you yourself have just "explained" how the boyars (not to mention one of his own sons) rebelled against Stephen. Surely, those boyars were not also Moldavians, to be "expressed" by Stephen.
 * The rest is not something I care about, and not what this page is for; if you think I'm on "the spectrum" because I yawn at your various taunts, let's note that this constant need for sharing your intellectual biography with the world might be read as a sign of a much more severe distress. Dahn (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)