Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages/Archive 1

On Daco-Romanian continuity
I do not like the anachronistic use of the term "Romanian" to refer to people prior to the 10th century; as with the Dacia article, this seems to me to be very biased toward the (controversial or worse) theory of Daco-Romanian continuity. Also, I am surprised by the total failure to use the term "Vlachs" (etymological origin of "Wallachia"), which is a Germanic word analogous to "Welsh" and referred to people who are unquestionably among the ancestors of the present-day Romanians. I'm not expert enough on this period to venture to do the appropriate editing, but someone should. - Jmabel 02:59, 15 November 2003 (UTC)


 * Bogdan's recently added cross-reference to Origin of Romanians certainly begins to address this. At least the controversy is now acknowledged in the article. That lets any interested reader start to sort this out for him/herself. - Jmabel 16:42, 15 November 2003 (UTC)

On maps
The map is pretty, but it shows the historical romanian provinces as they are usually known. In 1600 neither Moldova or Wallachia control any coastline. Turks took Dobrogea in 1418 and Moldova's coastline in 1484.

A correct map is at : http://www.ici.ro/romania/history/hi33.html

I don't know how to put it in the article. MihaiC 10:21, 13 January 2004 (UTC)


 * Basically, two possibilities: get appropriate copyright permissions from them, or start with the non-copyrighed map of the region that is currently on the site and fix it with a graphics tool to show the right mapping for the period. --Jmabel 19:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll try to fix it since I have the vectorial source and it's much easier to do.Bogdan | Talk 20:28, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dubious recent edit: POV agenda?
As I remarked at Talk:History of Romania, User:Criztu seems to be editing with an agenda (and making no comments, neither on his changes nor in the talk pages). For example (and this is not the only edit he made here) he made the following change:

Before: In 896 the Magyars, the last of the migrating tribes to establish a state in Europe, settled in the Carpathian Basin. A century later their king, Stephen I, integrated Transylvania into his Hungarian kingdom. The Hungarians constructed fortresses, founded a Roman Catholic bishopric, and began proselytizing Transylvania's indigenous people. There is little doubt that these included some Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church after the East-West Schism. Stephen and his successors recruited foreigners to join the Magyars in settling the region.

After: In 896 the Magyars, who were fleeing from the Pechenegs settled in the Pannonian Plain. Following their defeat in the wars against the Saxons in the west, they turned east and faught the local rulers like Gelu, Glad and Menumorut - (see Gesta Hungarorum) in Transylvania. By 1000 CE Transylvania became part of the Hungarian kingdom.

I am not expert on Romanian history, but I'm clueful enough to see this as an agenda (see Talk:History of Romania), and I'd appreciate if someone with more knowledge would step in. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:42, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, the information about the Magyars fleeing from Pechenegs and Bulgars, their defeat by the Saxons and the conversion of Vajk (Stephen) to catholicism and his consequent extermination of pagan magyar chieftains is available here http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/index.htm

that the Hungarian Rulers and Teutonic Knights constructed fortresses in Transylvania in 1200 CE exceeds the period known as Magyar Arrival (900 CE). Detailed history of Transylvania belongs to Transylvania article. criztu 20:58, 23 October 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing with that, I'm arguing with your removal of any mention of Romanians and the Eastern Orthodox Church. And, as I said, I'm not sure you are wrong, but I am sure that such a deletion deserved comment so that someone who disagrees can engage it. I am simply flagging this issue for the attention of those who know medieval Romanian history. My knowledge of Romania is mostly from about 1850 forward, but I'm certainly aware enough of controversies about that history to see that you are systematically removing references in many articles that suggest any kind of continuous presence of Vlachs in the region. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:27, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * i deletet the text concerning the Great Schism and the little doubts that romanians remained faithful to their Orthodox Slavonic Church only in the paragraph about the Arrival of Magyars. about the Orthodoxy of the Vlachs or Romanians the next paragraph contains the same info and additional edits from me criztu 11:03, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Vlach comes either from Pelago/Palaio or Walh/Voloh
the word "Wallachia" is derived from the Slavic word Vlach, derived from the Germanic Walh, that originally meant "foreigner", later used to designate the Romans.

any refference to where is this german orgin demonstrated ?

i intend on giving a second explanation of the word Blachoi/Blaxi/Blachi of Byzantinian sources, but I have reserves on the formulation, I ain't sure what was the word for "old/ancient" in Byzantinian Times. here the propose addition:
 * the name Blachoi/Blaxi/Blachii as the Vlachs appear in Byzantinian sources might also come from the greek word Pelago (Pelasgians), designating the previous inhabitants of Classical Greece, later 'palios/paleo' becoming sinonym to "old/antique"

Wales in Britain might had a significant thracian, sarmatian and dacian element brought by the Roman Empire that could be at the origin of the word Welsh. Valonia in Belgica might also go down to Pelagica/Pelasgia, while the Volcae/Volsci tribes from N. Italy in Roman Times also go down to the Pelasgians. while the Russian Chronicle of Nestor gives the word Voloh for the Vlachs -- criztu 11:35, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Romania in the Middle Ages is infested with POVs
Major Edits will occur consisting in reformulations like "Transylvanian Prince Sigismund Holly Roman Emperor" instead of "the King of Hungary Sigismund" -- criztu 19:32, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Slavic invasion
Multiple waves of invasion followed, such as the Slavs in the 7th century, most of whom were settlers who colonized the lowlands of Romania. They came into contact with, and were assimilated by, the Romanian population living mostly in highlands. You removed the part about the Slavic invasion. The consensus among historians is that in many parts of the lowlands of Romania, Slavs settled and assimilated the local population (whatever that was). That's why you can find Slavic toponyms as "Snagov", "Glina", "Dambovita" around Bucharest.


 * the slavs that invaded Romania were the Serbs, Croats and Bulgars, considered as the southern slavs. "Dambovita" - i don't know if Triaditsa - the name of Dacia Aureliana Capital given by Justinian (after he rebuilt it) was due to slavic presence following it's destruction by the huns and slavs or not. Apparently, the Slavs later called Triaditsa (Serdica in Aurelian's time) as Sredec (read Sredets) -- criztu 22:31, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

That paragraph is signifiant because Slavs, unlike the other migrating people actually they colonized, not only conquered and pillaged. That's why there's no Avar or Alan influence over Romanian, but there's a consistent Slavic one. Bogdan | Talk 20:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * yes, I specified : Serbs, Croats and Bulgars controled parts of the teritory of today Romania. Romanian language has features belonging to southern Slavic group -- criztu 22:31, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Dacians south of Danube
Some hungarian authors claim that the Romanians were not the descendants of the Romanized Dacians and that they came from South of Danube and settled in current territory of Romania. There were Dacians south of Danube. Romanians could have been formed as a nation from the Dacians South of Danube in Western Moesia. Bogdan | Talk 20:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * yes, until a reference to wich Hungarian Historians claimed what in what Historical Works would be provided, there are only "Hungarian authors" - like Roesler, Du Nay and Henry Bogdan, obvious aliases . I too disagree to the presence of this paragraph about the dispute in the Migrations section -- criztu 23:22, 24 October 2004 (UTC)


 * (small states) not following a Dynasty pattern.
 * There's a difference between states that "do not follow a dinasty pattern" and states that "are disbanded after their leaders' deaths". That's why I'll keep the latter.


 * some hungarian authors
 * Not only Hungarian. In fact, the originator of the theory was Austrian. Bogdan | Talk 16:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Small states
(small states) not following a Dynasty pattern.

There's a difference between states that "do not follow a dinasty pattern" and states that "are disbanded after their leaders' deaths". That's why I'll keep the latter. Bogdan | Talk 16:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * daughter of Menumorut(Man Maroth) Duke of Biharia married Zoltan, and their son Taksony became Ruler of magyars. So the rulers of those small local states were in fact ascending to the throne of Hungary. sons of Taksony baptised at Constantinople as Mihaly(read 'Mee-high') and Gejza. son of Gejza was Voicu(Vajk) who exterminated the pagan shamans and clan chieftains of the magyars and adopted Christianity and crowned him self King Stephen I of Ungaria(not "magyarorszag"). Before he swore allegiance to Rome, Constantinople "Theofylaktos ordained bishop of Turkia (Hungary)" http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/kos/kos03.htm -- Criztu 17:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

some hungarian authors

Not only Hungarian. In fact, the originator of the theory was Austrian. Bogdan | Talk 16:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * we can say some authors, but let's have at least an example of a historian claiming that romanians came from south of Danube, before stating so. Scott Moore quoted Gyorgy Gyorfy who was contesting the objectivity of Gesta Hungarorum, not the authenticity of Gelu Glad and Menumorut, nor claimed that romanians came from S of Danube. was Roesler, the "austrian" that i think you refer to, an historian, or an author ? -- Criztu 17:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the 1784 revolt
The Country Studies: Romania of the Library of Congress, from where much of the material was taken, wrote that the revolt was lead by someone called "Ion Ursu". Actually, it was "Vasile Ursu", but is generally known by his nom-de-guerre, Horea. I replaced that with the name which is more common in Romanian history: Revolt of Horea, Clo&#351;ca and Cri&#351;an (these were the three leaders of the revolt). Bogdan | Talk 19:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vlach/Bulgarian kingdom
VMORO, all the contemporany sources (including Western such as the corespondence of the Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa with the Pope and Byzantine sources such as Nicetas Choniates) say the Asen were Vlachs. On what do you base your assumptions that they were Bulgarians ? Bogdan | Talk 18:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The origin of the Assen dynasty has scarcely been cleared - and the hypothesis that they were Vlachs scarcely explains the Turkic etymology of their names.


 * Indeed, the name is Cuman. And they're not the only Vlach-Cuman dinasty. Basarab (Basarab I, Neagoe Basarab, etc) was also an important early Romanian dinasty that had a Cuman name. Also, the name of "Odobescu" of the boyar family has its origin in Cuman language. After the Cumans were defeated, they were assimilated by the neighbouring Romanian population. Bogdan | Talk 15:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So how do you ever bring up the claim that they were Vlachs when you yourself admit that they were Cumans?:-))) And I'll remind you that there were Cumans not only in Wallachia but also in northern Bulgaria. Settlements of Cumans and Pechenegs are well-recorded by Byzantine historians; these eventually got assimilated by the remaining Bulgarian population VMORO 20:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there is no question that they were assimilated Cumans. Bogdan | Talk 21:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As for Nicetas Choniates - he uses the name Vlach in a pejorative sense, meaning that the Assens were uneducated mountain shepherds.


 * You won't find such a usage before the 17th century. Until then, it was used only to mean "Latin people". Bogdan | Talk 15:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not true as the occupation of Vlachs as herds has been known since teh Middle Ages VMORO 20:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * But anyway, that's scarcely the point - Wikipedia has an NPOV policy which means that if there are more than one theory/explanation about something, they should be both included.


 * "Romanians claim that Nicetas said "Vlach" and meant "Vlach", while Bulgarians claim that he said "Vlach" but he meant "Bulgarian". Is this OK ? :-) Bogdan | Talk 15:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the etymology of their name and of the nickname of Ivan Asen I (Belgun) are the evidence of their Cuman origin. Nikita Honiates confirms that by calling them several times barbarians, a name which wouldn't be used if they were the Latin people you are talking about


 * That's not a proof they were Bulgarians! Of course he named them barbarians. They were just some rebel shepherds living in the mountains away from Constantinople, the center of the civilization. Bogdan | Talk 21:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (let me remind you that the Byzantine Empire's name was the ROMAN Empire) but used about the barbarian tribes which settled in Moesia in the 11th cent. it certainly makes sense. VMORO 20:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * And as you can well see, I have left the explanation about their Vlach origin whereas you hadn't said a word about their possible barbarian origin. And Cuman doesn't really mean Bulgarian either. And the next question is why you create a para-history on the side of the official pages about Bulgarian history??? If you want to defend a position, go to the page History of Bulgaria and try to defend it with arguments, to create surreptitiously a parahystorical article about some Romanian-Bulgarian kingdoms is scarcely the way to do it. Not to mention that in medieval historícal sources the name of the state is Bulgaria, not the "RomanianBulgarian" kingdom. And if we look closer at the titles of the earlier rulers of teh Assen dynasty, they styled themselves Kings of Bulgarians, Vlachs and Greeks.


 * IIRC, the early sources mention a "Kingdom of Bulgarians and Vlachs". The "Greeks" part was added after it extended to include Macedonia and Northern Greece. Bogdan | Talk 15:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And so the kingdom of Bulgarians and Vlachs became the Kingdom of Bulgarians, Vlachs, and Greeks?:-))) Why don't you write another article about it, ha, Bogdan?:-)) VMORO 20:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Does that mean that their state was a Bulgarian-Vlach-Greek one? And was Serbia in the middle of the 14th century a Serbian-Bulgarian-Greek-Albanian Kingdom as Stefan Dushan titled himself. No, they were both certainly not such. And may be I should in this case dig closer into the Bulgarian-Vlach nature of the early states of Wallachia and Moldova? Both of them used Bulgarian as the official language of the state until the end of the 17th century but I see that nowhere in the articles about them.


 * This is silly. Old Church Slavonic was only used for official documents, just like in Catholic countries, like Hungary and Poland it was used Latin instead. Bogdan | Talk 15:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not silly and it wasn't Old Church Slavonic, it was Middle Bulgarian. And as far as I can remember at least some of the medieval Wallachian rulers called himself Ruler of Vlachs and Bulgarians. With the use of the Bulgarian language for state and church purposes, we can conclude that it was a Bulgarian-Vlach state in which the Vlach peasantry was ruled by Bulgarian aristocracy.VMORO 20:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not true. Give a reference if you are so sure. I looked at the titles of Radu Negru, Mircea cel Batran, Matei Basarab, but they don't include any hint to Bulgaria. Bogdan | Talk 21:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * May be it is high time for it to be added... VMORO 13:32, 22 January 2005 (UTC)

Asen
Let's solve the diferences one by one:

Ethnicity
ALL chronicles said they were Vlachs. Give me one single reason not to believe them. Bogdan | Talk 21:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * in ALL their correspondence they said they were Bulgarians. And their names are clealry Cuman VMORO  21:48, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Pope talked in one of the letters about Ioannitsa's Roman ancestry! Bogdan | Talk 22:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And the same pope was explaining to the Hungarian King how "this Kaloyan" was an offspring of the last Bulgarian royal dynasty. VMORO 22:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * "In this letter Ioannitsa not only acquiesces in the attribution to him of Roman blood (&#8216;Deus qui reduxit nos ad memoriam sanguinis et patrie nostre a qua descendimus') but also claims lineal descent from the Emperors of the first Bulgarian Empire. His constitutional position as Emperor was defensible only if he could claim to be in the Bulgarian line of descent" Wolff That's why. 22:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The page you show is empty. But, dear, that's only the explanation you choose because it suits your purposes. If Kaloyan has claimed Roman descent (something which I sincerely doubt), he did it because he was asking not any other but the ROMAN pope for recognition of his title and the autocephalous Bulgarian church. His claim was only defensible if he claimed some connection to the Apostolic see. This is again taken from your pro-Romanian source, Bogdan:_))) VMORO VMORO 13:08, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Slanderous" ?
In the late 11th century the territory of Wallachia was incorporated into a binational empire and became semi-independent with weakening of this state. This Empire used to be named the "Kingdom of the Bulgarian and Vlachs" in its official scripts and by Romanian historians and the "Second Bulgarian Empire" by modern Bulgarian historians. Asen was the ruling dynasty and the contemporary writers asserted that they of Vlach (Romanian) origin, idea supported by Romanian historians, but disregarded by Bulgarian historians who consider it to be of mixed-barbarian (most likely Cuman-Bulgarian) stock. Why is it slanderous ? I believe this is both NPOV and factually accurate. Take the sentence you have the problem with and say what it is! You are getting nowhere by simply reverting without any explanation. Bogdan | Talk 14:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Contemporary writers call Kaloyan "King" or "Emperor" of Bulgaria and Wallachia. And all modern historians call this state the "Second Bulgarian Empire", not only the Bulgarian ones but it is only the Romanians who cáll it Vlach-Bulgarian Kingdom:-))). The online article you are using is, let me remind you, called "The Second Bulgarian Empire until 1204". So your statement is both non-NPOV and factually inaccurate.
 * And by the way, you don't seem to have explained (or even mentioned) that none of the followers of the three brother, neither Boril, nor Ivan Asen II, ever calls himself Emperor of Bulgarians and Vlachs, nor have they been called Vlachs by anyone else. Nor have you mentioned that in their domestic documents, Asen, Peter and Kaloyan refer to themselves as Bulgarians and find their lineage in the Emperors of the First Bulgarian Empire. The inscription of the only preserved seal of Kaloyan is "Kaloyan, Tsar na Balgarite", evidently he missed to mention the Vlachs, how sad. VMORO 15:02, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more POV and factually inaccurate stateménts come up - the map you have placed is incorrect, Wallachia never controlled any part of northern Dobruja until 1878 and it never had any sea outlet. Northern Dobruja was part of the Ottoman Empire. I insist that the map be removed or corrected.


 * Acctually Wallachian ruler Mircea cel Batran (Mircea the Old) had control for a short period of time over Dobruja - he lost it to the Turks in 1417/8. It is true however that by the time of Mihai Viteazul (1600) Moldova also lost its coastline to the turks (1484 IIRC). The map should be corrected.MihaiC 11:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See the third paragraph from this talk page.MihaiC 11:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work anymore. But this one does: http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/istorie/hi33.html MihaiC 11:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And that is the map by the time of Mircea cel Batran : http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/istorie/hi31.html MihaiC 11:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I have a sneaking suspicion that that Gesta Hungarum which is mentioned here is the same anonymous Hungarian chronicle that talks about several Bulgar governors of Transylvania from the 10th century and which are described as relatives of the "Great Khan". VMORO 15:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * hey, i realise there's no info on "teritory of Romania included in the Bulgar empire, and later, in the Vlach-Bulgar Empire of the Asenids" -- Criztu 15:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arrival of the Magyars
I've cleaned up this section, making it consistent with the more detailed text in the Transylvania article. I've also taken up the following sections:

"Nobility was restricted to Roman Catholics and, while some Romanian noblemen converted to the Roman rite to preserve their Nobility status, most of the Orthodox Romanians became serfs following the Great Schism which deprived the Orthodox Christians of any rights in a Catholic State."

Social divisions within the Kingdom of Hungary were far more complex than is suggested here. In any case, at the time of the Great Schism there were no serfs in the Western European sense of this word. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence concerning the status of Romanians in 11th century Transylvania.

"Under increasing economic pressure from unrestrained feudal lords and religious pressure from zealous Catholics, many Old Bulgarian Orthodox Romanians emigrated from Transylvania eastward and southward over the Carpathians."

I'm not sure what time period the above refers to, but it doesn't belong in this section. There is extensive documentary evidence from the 13th and 14th centuries that many Romanians were settled on the estates of Transylvanian nobles.Scott Moore 13:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The three nations
I haven't been following this closely, but I feel like there have been recent edits with a political agenda. In particular, we seem to have lost mention of the privileged status of Magyars, Germans, and Szeklers over ethnic Romanians during this period. Am I missing something? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:33, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Scott Moore believes that because there were only part of the Hungarians had a privileged status, it was only a social issue. However, it was obviously a political/ethnical too, because no Romanians had a privileged status. Being a Romanian in Transylvania equaled being a serf. It's interesting that an old meaning of the word "rumân" was actually "serf". There were also other things the Romanians couldn't do, for example they were not allowed to stay within the city walls at night, living in a city was left exclusively to the three favoured nations. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 07:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe that the Union of Three Nations was primarily a political alliance, and only secondarily related to social issues. My objection is to any potrayal of the Union (and its idea of excluding large sections of the population from any privileges) on purely ethnic lines (which is indeed a historiography suffering from political bias - both Hungarian and Romanian historians were guilty of this in the recent past). I do certainly recognise that the Romanians were oppressed - however, serfs (regardless of ethnicity) were oppressed throughout the Kingdom of Hungary during the period in question. What the article needs, is a more analytical description of how Romanians were differentiated from other serfs (more facts about this should be included in the article e.g Romanians not being allowed to stay within city walls at night is an interesting example). However, it is clear that the status of the Romanians changed over time (for the worse). Initially, the Romanians (being Orthodox) were excluded from payment of the tithe. At some point this status changed. When and what effect this had, I don't know. But this is the sort of information which the article would benefit from. Scott Moore 10:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * To be more specific on why I removed some of the text:
 * "Afterwards, the nobles formed the Union of Three Nations, jointly pledging to defend their privileges against any power except that of Hungary's king." This is inaccurate. The German burghers were not nobles in any sense of the word.


 * "The document declared the Magyars, Germans, and Szeklers the only recognized nationalities in Transylvania." I haven't read the document to which this refers, but this statement conflicts with what I've read on the subject (principally in: "The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary"). The three "nations" who formed the Union were the nobles, the (Saxon) burghers and the Szeklers. The Magyar serfs were not part of the same "nation" as the Magyar nobles. In other words, "nation" (natio) in the medieval sense of the word is not the same as ethnicity. Scott Moore 10:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Large removal
Bogdan, I know you usually know what you are doing so I'm not reverting, but you removed an entire section (entitled "Migration Age", probably should have been "Age of Migration") that's been here a long time, without even an edit summary. Is it moved somewhere else, or what? -- Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 01:09 (UTC)


 * I moved it to Romania in the Dark Ages. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 29 June 2005 05:30 (UTC)

choped paragraph

 * Wallachia and Moldavia remained isolated and primitive for many years after their founding. Education, for example, was nonexistent, and religion was poorly organized. Except for a rare market center, there were no significant towns and little circulation of money. In time, however, commerce developed between the lands of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea region. Merchants from Genoa and Venice founded trading centers along the coast of the Black Sea where Tatars, Germans, Greeks, Jews, Poles, Ragusans, and Armenians exchanged goods. Wallachians and Moldavians, however, remained mainly agricultural people.

-What does it mean "Wallahia and Moldavia remained isolated and primitive" ?

-What does it mean "Education, for example, was nonexistent, and religion was poorly organized" ?

-What was the frequency of Market centers in Moldavia and Wallachia compared to other countries, to state they were "rare" ?

-I read Giurgiu was a genoan fortress on Danube, gift to Mircea the Elder. what trading centers were founded in Moldavia and Wallachia ? -- Criztu 15:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The Dark Ages?
''The Dark Ages in Romania ended around the 11th century, following the period in wich the Romanian lands had been part of the First Bulgarian Empire (802-1018) and the settling of the Magyar tribes into Europe (896) who led by Arpad, settled in Pannonia. Stopped in their progress towards the west by emperor Otto I (995), the Magyars settled down and turned to the south-east and east.''

Hey guys, explain to me why the Bulgarian rule of the Romanian lands is called The Dark Ages? I mean, I actually do not mind the name (being a Bulgarian myself, I don't find it pleasant though), but what exactly is the reason that they are called Dark instead of Orange or White or just Bulgarian rule?--Komitata 20:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Dark Ages are named like this because there are very few records from that period, not because the hardships. :-) bogdan 21:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The term Dark Ages is no longer used in English. See the article - Dark Ages. I suggest changing the title to 'Romania in the Early Middle Ages' or some other more modern formulation. Scott Moore 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where exactly in Dark Ages is it stated that the term is no longer used in Englis?! Besides, even if that article stated it, it's not true, I've heard/read the term "Dark Ages". Dmaftei 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right - the term is still used in English (especially by non-historians). What I should have said is that the term is rarely used now by historians because it is problematic:


 * "However, from the mid-20th century onwards an increasing number of scholars began to critique even this non-judgmental use of the term. There are two main criticisms. Firstly, it is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "dark ages" effectively in a neutral way; scholars may intend it that way, but this does not mean that ordinary readers will understand it so. Secondly, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages which 20th-century scholarship has achieved means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". Consequently, many academic writers prefer not to use the phrase at all". Scott Moore 10:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but I think it's going to take a very long time before common folks will drop "dark ages" for "early middle ages". Besides, I don't believe there is any explosion of new knowledge for the teritory that is now Romania; as far as I know the early middle ages are still quite dark for that part of the world. Dmaftei 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The question will become more paradox when I mention that the so called Dark Ages in Romania are called in Bulgarian history "Ages of Prosperity and Strenghtening the Bulgarian State", and the end of the Romanian Dark Ages (esp. King Simeon's rule) is called "The Bulgarian Golden Age". So maybe we should avoid such "colour" references. They are just no good, except for showing the world how funny we are on the Balkans. --Komitata 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what question you are referring to... The answer to why Romanians call that period "dark ages" was offerd by bogdan, see above; it has nothing to do with the fact that for some time during that period there was a Bulgarian empire extending north of the Danube.  Anyway, I'm just saying that the term "dark ages" is not likely to go away anytime soon, that's all.  Dmaftei 17:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to rename the article "Early Middle Ages". I think calling those times "Dark", "White", "Red" or "Golden Ages" is a matter of subjectivness, because that period of history, is not only of someone (in this case of Romanians) or of another one (in this case of Bulgarians). Also, as some of you have pointed out, the term is not prefered by most modern historians. However, while it`s better not to be used to name a time period, I see no reason not to continue using this term insinde articles to characterise the same time period, from the Romanian POV, while the Bulgarian can use instead "Golden Ages" in their articles. Greier 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On change of liturgy
Komitata, it was Boris or Samuil who changed the liturgy from greek to slavonic? Greier 11:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was Boris, most certainly, who introduced christianity and changed the liturgy with the help of St Clement and St. Naum. Simeon is his son, who is considered to be the king to give Bulgaria its largest enlargement. Samuil was a governer (komita) of one of the districts - Vidin district, of the grandson of Simeon, and after the king was killed and not leaving any children, so Samuil proclaimed himself a king, thus starting a new dynasty --Komitata 14:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And I would add, it is absolutely impossible to forget it, being pumped into the head of every Bulgarian student from first to eleventh grade and afterwards. By the way, this is one of the hot points of the bulgarian macedonian argument ofer the ethnicity of the saints, who introduced slavonic liturgy in the churches - but the name of the king is not part of this argument - it is Boris the first.--Komitata 14:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so I checked it very carefully. The change happened in 893, together with three very important events - Boris came back from the monastery and overthrew his son Vladimir from the throne, blinding him afterwards. He replaced him with his other son - Simeon I. In the meantime he slaughtered 52 noblemen for taking sides with Vladimir. And all of this happened in 893. So, make a judgement. I myself think that Boris changed the liturgy - this was the final touch of his carreer, and what we learn in school makes sense in this way.--Komitata 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"These two events"
Can someone sort out what is intended by the phrase "these two events" in the third paragraph and rewrite it accordingly? The obvious antecedents are either the Great Schism (one event), or the Schism, plus the arrival of the Hungarians, plus the adoption of Church Slavonic (three events). I don't get it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Border guards"
From the article as I found it: "Székely &hellip; had established themselves in eastern Transylvania as border guards." Surely it can't mean "border guards." (I try to picture a medieval Szekler checking someone's papers and deciding he can enter the kingdom, but he'll have to pay a tariff on that mule train.) I've substituted "guardians of the frontier", which I assume is closer to what was meant. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Saxons
The so-called Transylvanian Saxons, while certainly ethnic Germans, are not really all specifically Saxons in the sense that word is used anywhere else. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they're not, but we use that term anyway. --Candide, or Optimism 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And as long as they are called "Transylvanian Saxons", that's fine. But in English, calling them just "Saxons" will be misunderstood. I should have been clearer about why I made this remark (and edited accordingly). - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Louis
I have changed "Louis I of Anjou" to "Louis I of Hungary". Judging by that date, that must be who was meant. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dragfy
"Dragfy (former Dragos)": not Dragoş? (Just checking.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dragfy is the Magyarized name of the family. --Candide, or Optimism 05:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that. My question was, was it really Dragos, not Dragoş, before being Magyarized? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, you know it's Dragoş. Don't ask things you already know the answer to. --Candide, or Optimism 05:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, actually I wasn't sure. It's amazing how people alternately accuse me of knowing "nothing" about Romania and its language, and then alternately presume I would have native-level knowledge. Obviously, I guessed it was Dragoş, but since a native speaker had written Dragos and I was not familiar with the individual, I asked.
 * By the way, this is about the fourth or fifth time you have addressed me as "dude". Are you aware that is a generally insulting way to address someone in English? If you didn't know before, consider yourself informed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Romanians were writing Cyrillic until mid-19 century... Anyway, maybe would make sense to prove this phantasy with facts and references. Drágfy sounds Hungarian to me.. Same to Transylvania voivode was independent, he was just an official of the King of Hungary like the nador, the Judge of the Cumans and the Philistei, of the Ban of Macso, the Croat Ban, the Bosnian Ban or like...--Vargatamas 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some questions about the Moldavian material
Why is the reference in the Nibelungenlied to "the existence of a Romanian state and people" specifically tied to Moldavia? Similarly, the Blakumannaland, "Olaha" in 1247, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your question. --Candide, or Optimism 10:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There was also a Romanian state and people in Wallachia, right? Nothing here makes it clear why we know these were references to Moldavia, not Wallachia. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the following unparseable, can someone who knows what it means to say please reword: "In 1164 Andronicus I Comnenus was taken prisoner by Vlachs, on his way the prince of Kiev, Yaroslav (Nicetas Choniates)." If you can say it better in Romanian, fine, I'll translate. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do we link Galicia to the town of Halych for the 1153-1187 item, but to Galicia (Central Europe) for 1231? Is this deliberate, or is it confusion? If there is a distinction to be made, we should make it more explicitly. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, this section seems to have some redundancy with other parts of the article (Cantemir, for example). I have not sorted through this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamsa Pasha
Can anyone identify this person beyond the one fact about him mentioned here? All online references seem to lead back to the same U.S. Library of Congress country study (which, by the way should be, and now is, acknowledged as a source for this article). -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned in the night attack article as Hamza Pasha. --Candide, or Optimism 17:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Death of Mihai Viteazul
I've cut "Michael was treacherously assassinated, when Michael, without his guards, greeted Basta and his Walloon mercenaries" and restored "Basta executed Michael for alleged treachery" because the latter is citable. If someone has a citation for the former version, fine, let's get both into the article with citation, but adding uncited material to citable material is not a plus. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Execution means carrying out a death sentence if I'm not mistaken, so unless (or until) somebody can document that Mihai was sentenced to death, he was assasinated, not executed. Dmaftei 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a citable (and cited) source for "executed". I'm perfectly glad to change it to the neutral "killed", but "assassinated" presumes that he was known not to have been sentenced.


 * And on the rest of this, I see no citation at all for the claim that "Michael, without his guards, greeted Basta and his Walloon mercenaries." -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pop, Ioan Aurel: Istoria Transilvaniei medievale: de la etnogeneza românilor până la Mihai Viteazul, Cluj-Napoca, 1996 uses the word "assassinate". :-) bogdan 08:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, we can cite that. Do you have a page number? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 240. bogdan 20:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues
Several passages in this article seem to come verbatim from a much-reproduced "History of Romanians" article by by Ion Calafeteanu. It can be found, for example, here, on LostTrails.com. At the bottom, that page says "Source: Government of Romania", which I assume is accurate. As far as I know, though, Romanian government documents are not inherently public domain. Am I wrong on this (different countries have different policies)? In any case, this source is not even acknowledged, which is certainly wrong.

I've had a heck of a time sorting out where in the history of the article this happened, but it looks much too recent for it to be likely that they plagiarized us rather than vice versa. It looks like the first of this was introduced in This anonymous edit less than a month ago. (It's the sole edit from this IP address, which is not usually a good sign.) If anyone else wants to try to help sort out this mess, feel free; otherwise, I guess I'll try. - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * i`ve made those changes. It`s all my words. Not only that it`s not copied "verbatim", but that dude plagiated me!!! you knew who made the changes Greier 17:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To address the only substantive parts of the tirade:
 * This is a much-edited article. Because no relevant comment was made when the edit was done, it took me 15 minutes of searching through the history to work out when it came into the article.
 * Given that Greier's writing here and elsewhere does not suggest that he can write English prose at the level of the material added to the article, I simply do not believe his claim that Ion Calafeteanu plagiarized him, rather than vice versa. I believe the material should be removed. Given that this appears controversial, I won't delete unilaterally. I will bring the matter to the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board.
 * By the way, I have no idea why he thinks it should have been apparent that the anonymous edits were his.
 * - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my comments Jmabel... i`ve mistaken you Orioane or Dhan... I have nothing with you... again, please forgive me! About the article, do what you want.Greier 07:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I also have the urge to beat Dahn across the face, and perhaps Orioane as well. But they are OK editors at least. Alexander 007 08:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * then they should do their jobs and edit this article, since the "The Ottoman Invasions" and "Transilvania under the Habsburgs" parts are plagiarised from here. Although they are "on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998" |1, the site specifically states "Copyright © 2003 - 2005 Country Studies US". Greier 10:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the whole article is plagiarised from there. I propose to delete this whole article.  Greier 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if anyone else wants to try to help sort out this mess, feel free; otherwise, I guess I'll try. Hahaha hhahaaa Greier 10:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * U.S. government country studies are not copyrighted. We have exactly as much right to reprint (or expand upon) them as does countrystudies.us. The page http://countrystudies.us is legitimately copyrighted, but the only thing on that page subject to copyright is the paragraph at the top of their page describing what their site is. They add no original content to the country studies, and have no copyright claims on them. The article by Ion Calafeteanu is another matter. It is copyrighted material, and we should not be plagiarizing it. - Jmabel | Talk 19:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So basically you`re an american who doesn`t mind his own business (by the way, you`re a stereotype of the american who travells to an "eastern-european", or "former Iron Curtain" country as it is called in american pseudo-political parliance, or "Dracula Land" how is called in american hollywood parliance, where he lives sorounded by a group of McDonald`s eating city snobs who have nothing in common with how the country and it`s people are really like, bases his knowledge on cliches supplied by those people, and afterwards thinks he knows it all, messing where he doesn`t belong...), backed by a buch of e-snobs working in pack, who haven`t done anything so far, except for a copy-paste job from the countrystudies site, and then pick on anybody who has done more than you have, accusing him of "verbatim" copying. Those adds only partially contained some info from the romanian presidency site (third by the way: I`m a romanian citizen, UNLIKE YOU!!!!!! hahahahhahaaa, and whatever the Romanian Presidency makes, I own it too), clearly not copied mot-a-mot... but enough to tickle your sensitive wikipedian ego... Now tell me, is something wrong in what I`ve just sayd? Greier 16:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you ask, at the end of your diatribe, if there is something wrong in what you've said: are you familiar with Wikipedia's policy of "No personal attacks"? If not, I suggest you read it, since the next time you insult me I will assume that you are perfectly familiar with the policy and violating it deliberately.
 * Other than that, I think my contributions to thousands of articles, including over 100 about Romania, speak for themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Romanian History from a Romanian point of view. It's the same as reading a Romanian history book. It simply doesn't show a lot of elements in it. First of all give me one sustainable evidence that proves the existence of romanians north of the Danube after the Aurelian retreat between 271-275. Mihai Viteazul, or Mihai the Brave is always depicted as a national hero who wanted to reunite the Romanian nation. Let's not forget that the national awakening starts a couple of hundred years later. The Gesta Hungarorum is still relied on as an awsome historical source (just as Iorga's writings) but people tend to forget that it was written almost 3 centuries after the magyars settled in the Carpathian Basin. Try writing with modern resources a true story about let's say Horea's uprising. For more information on the Daco-Roman continuity you can read Alain Du Nay's book and I advice romanian historians to finally look in other historical sources and broaden their perspectives.

Rezistenta vs fz22
Dear R. I don't want to start a new edit war on the subject but the 'Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia' paragraph's leading section transmits no information to the reader. Let me emphasize only some of the things I think they are inadequate:
 * What do you mean Transylvania in the 13th century was autonomuos? which parts of T? the lands of the 17th c. Principality? beacase the Szekelyland, Saxons, free royal cities, the bisphopric lands were not under the jurisdiction of the woivode. this is why i wrote: with several self-governing autonomous regions.
 * The king of Hungary was not the prince/voivode of Transylvania and vice-versa, until Matthias Corvinus of Hungary. ?? :)) what's this?
 * Romanian people during the Middle Ages ... separation into four ...  technicaly speaking T. was not a principality in the Middle Age, + Romanians also lived outside T. eg Bihor, Maramures, Temeskoz ... what about their history ... --fz22 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)