Talk:Vasile Lupu

Untitled
He was not Bulgarian, but he had Albanian ancestry, as it was written by Polish chronicles. So says:
 * Britannica: "Albanian in origin"
 * US Departament of State: Country Studies: "a man of Albanian descent"

Bogdan | Talk 14:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Bogdan. Also, to those who understand Belarussian: could you please review and translate the content of the Belarussian page into English? It is filled with specific info and gives references (presumably, relevant ones). Dahn 11:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To the unknown user (whom I assume is Bulgarian)
Mentions of ethnicity in the Middle Ages are irrelevant, unless they correspond to the perception people had at the same time. In all likelyhood, Lupu was an Ottoman subject who probably spoke Albanian at home. Not Bulgarian, and not Aromanian. Stop adding modern cliches. Dahn 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He was Bulgarian
He was born in Bulgaria. There are two locations that are given as his potential birth place, both in Bulgaria.

He gave large portions of land to the Bulgarian Monastery of Zorgaphu. He also took the remains of Saint Petka of Turnovo to Moldova. She is a Bulgarian Saint. Her remains were kept in Constantinople and he had to fight with the Patriarch of Constantinople to take them. Saint Petka represents the Second Bulgarian Monarchy (1185-1396). Saint Petka is buried in the same Church as Vasile Lupu and his family. The name of his father is Bulgarian. In Moldovan Monastery there is a golden cup written with Bulgarian. It gives the name of Vasile Lupu's father. The cup was also a gift to the Bulgarian Monastery of Zograohu. I am sorry, but there is nothing Albanian about all that.

Something interesting. His last name in Latin means "Wolf". The medieval name of Razgrad is Dausdava which means "Town of Wolfs".
 * 1, He was probably born in today's Bulgaria (which would still not prevent him from not being Bulgarian, unless you follow the philosophy of one Todor Zhivkov).
 * 2.I do not know of many princes who did not give large grants to Balkan monasteries. BTW: they were all administrated by the Patriarchy (i.e.: the thing we Orthodox -Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek, and those Albanians that are- have in Istanbul). How is being a good Orthodox by his times' standards (and doing favors to a Church which was given all its scope from a Greek-speaking quarter of the Ottoman capital) the same as "being Bulgarian"? You must think I'm stupid, and am not aware that identities other than "Orthodox" existed as such in the 1600-1700s.
 * 3. The name of his father is not "Bulgarian" (which did not exist as such back then). It is Slavonic, which could be the language of the text rather than that of his father.
 * 4. Sources in his time, including those of the people he ruled, agree that he was Albanian (which, although a shaky identity as any other, is still easier to pinpoint at the time than Bulgarian is in a mass of Slavic identities all ruled by the Ottomans. Why? Well, it's because the Albanian language is a little distinct from all others...).
 * 5. The same revisionism is attempted by some Romanian nationalists, who introduce notions that he was "Aromanian". I revert those "contributions" as well.
 * Actually, his last name means "wolf" in Romanian, and I fail to see what relevance this has (unless you asume that people back then would have names on the same pattern as characters in the Lord of the Rings. Dahn 21:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1.In the town of Iaşi is the "Trei Ierarhi Church" build by Vasile Lupu. There you can find the cup with his father's name. Nikola Kocho is a Bulgarian name. It is clear that this is not Albanian name. You have to make the difference beteen Bulgarian and Albanian names. Aspecially when you try to prove historic facts. And Bulgarian names existed ever since the creation of Bulgaria in 681. There were definatly Bulgarian names at the time, not just Slavianic.
 * Oh, yes, if you repeat the words, they become more convincing (note: this is sarcasm). How could you possibly see the supposed "difference" between Slavonic and "Bulgarian" in a person's name, and part of a text that was written in Church Slavonic, which was the official and Church language of Moldavia?! Dahn 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2.In this Church there is a sign in which Vasile Lupu calls Saint Petka "our mother" who protects him. Look up Saint Petka of Turnovo and you can see how segnificant she was for Bulgaria.
 * Look, leave the interpretations aside, concentrate on other such "messages" from Orthodox rulers who want to show how Orthodox they are (not "how Bulgarian" or "how Russian" etc), and if you still cannot see why this text is meant to take precaution, then at least keep supporting these ideas without pushing the POV in here. Ok? Dahn 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3.I do not know why you do not even consider the fact that he might be from a Bulgarian origin?
 * Because it is historical revisionism, one which implies that modern-day identities existed in Vasile Lupu's time, and that neutral and almost universal identities belong to the patrimony of one modern state or another (like the Greek claim to the Byzantine Empire). They are known to me as being part of Bulgarian nationalism (going all the way to the claim that Wallachia was in fact Bulgarian, as seen on Talk:Vlad III Dracula), as well as of the Romanian one (with the claim that the First Bulgarian Empire was in fact "Romanian"). Let us stop this nonsense or argue for it on sites that have not declared their purpose is objectivity. That is why. Dahn 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1.Even if the name is simply Slavianic and not Bulgaria in particular like you says means even more that Vasile Lupu was NOT Albanian. This is because Albania is not a Slavianic nation. Albanian names do not have Slavianic roots. So even if you are right and this is Slavianic name means that Vasile Lupu is NOT Albanian.
 * You are discarding the obvious fact that Slavonic was the language of circulation with all Orthodox (replacing and then partly replaced by Greek). It was so in Wallachia and Moldavia, it was so in what is now Northern Albania. It was the second, first, or third language for most educated Orthodox, wherever they might have been from. Of course, to answer you using the same annoying perspective enforced by modernity, Albanians and Romanians are no longer connected to the language today (neither is Orthodoxy itself); but placing clear-cut borders in the period is an absurd, ubuesque task. Dahn 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However, Vasile Lupu was not from Northern Albania. He was from one of the most significant places for Bulgaria. The first two capitals of Bulgaria were located there. Open a map and see the distance between Northern Bulgaria and Northern Albania. They are far from eachother.
 * Again: I had used Northern Albania to point out that even a territory which was arguably largely inhabited by Albanian-speakers had Slavonic and/or Greek as the language of preference. Yes, he was born someplace else, and I am not to judge what he was: but contemporary sources indicate that he was considered Albanian. I had asked you if you follow Zhivkov's philosophy, thus meaning to state my amaizement that you do not seem able to conceive that not all persons in what is now Bulgaria are "Bulgarian" or "Bulgarian-speakers". Newsflash: people travel, and they do not even count as "diaspora" if they move INSIDE the same state (i.e. and ahem: THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE). Dahn 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 2.I wonder why he chose this Saint and not another one. Vasile Lupu had a lot of difficulties taking the remains from Constantinople. The Patriarch really wanted Saint Petka to saty there. At the end Vasile Lupu prevailed. There are so many other Romanian, Greek, Serbian and Russian Saint. Why this Bulgarian Saint? Another Saint would have been more easily negotiated to be taken to Moldova or no negotiation needed at all.
 * First of all: and what if you wonder? Secondly: saints were Orthodox saints back then (not Bulgarian Orthodox etc); "trafficking" in holy relics was a European-wide enterprise (with strict confessional divides, of course), and it was a good means to reflect wealth and prestige. Otherwise, why would the Patriarchy engage in such a skirmish with Lupu? Do you also conclude that all the Orthodox Church was Bulgarian because its Patriarchy liked the same saint? (If you do, please don't answer.)


 * Believe me she was known all around the Balkan Peninsola as a Bulgarian Saint. She was kept in the Bulgarian capital of Turnovo between 1185 and 1396. This was the wish of the Bulgarian Tsar's. After Bulgaria fell under the Ottoman Empire Saint Petka was taken to Belgrad in odred to preserve her. Everyone there know who she was and about her Bulgarian roots. The Patriarch of Constantinople wanted her in Constantinople. She has never been simply an Orthodox Saint. In Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece she was known and is still known as a Bulgarian Saint.
 * What you mean to say is that she is known as a "Bulgarian saint" today. Contribution for such separations? Well, let us see: the emergence of distinct nations, the Balkan Wars and WWI. as well the creation of self-administrating Churches in front of a single Patriarchy. You yourself pointed out that the Patriarch invested in her image back then. Dahn 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 3.The fact that his Bulgarian root are not widely popular does not mean that he was not Bulgarian. John Atanasoff invented the computer. His father was Bulgarian, but no one knows about his Bulgarian roots.
 * Perhaps I am not understood when I say and repeat that it is hard to trace any sort of ethnicity back then (especially with a Byzantine universal heritage in a universal Ottoman Empire and with a prince having a claim to Orthodox splendor). In the event: contemporary sources indicate that he was perceived as Albanian. This may also be a bit too much than is needed, but I can assure you his "Bulgarian identity" is based on speculation and re-invention of the past. Dahn 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes they might be speculations. However, these speculations are done by the Romanian historians and German historian. A Bulgarian historian had NEVER claimed that Vasile Lupu was Bulgarian. The Bulgarian historians simply fallow what the Romania and German historian are stating.
 * No. Drawing such conclusions is, for the fifth time, against historiography and neutrality. Any respectable historian, from Nicolae Iorga to Maria Todorova, have shown that identity back then was fluid, and that Orthodoxy encouraged a claim to Byzantine universality (as in "universal Empire"). This is why I do not accept the modern perspective which aims to say "this guy is mine, that guy is yours", when both "me" and "you" were not even viable options back then. Dahn 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1.Do not tell me what I ment. Saint Petka of Turnovo is known as a Bulgarian Saint ever since before 1185. Everyone in the Balkan Peninsola knew that she was Bulgarian. Her remains were been in Turnovo, Belgrad and Constantinople. She was known as the Saint of the Bulgarian Tsar's. She was of a big importance for the Bulgarian Church. The Bulgarian Church was established in 865. The Bulgarian Church was not established sfter World War II. It has centuries of traditions. It is safe to say that Vasile Lupu also knew that.
 * The sole reason why there was a semblance of a "Bulgarian Church" instead of the one-Orthodox Church was that the hierarchy in the Bulgarian Empire fell under the spell of the Bulgarian rulers rather than the usual subservience to the ruler in Constantinople. This was not only long over by then, it was also a mere facet of the will of early Bulgarians to become the new Empire (hence the title tsar, hence etc). Now, they had almost got their way after 1214, but that is besides the point. Again: you are contradicting yourself by calling for localism and then pointing out that the Patriarch treasured the supposed "Bulgarian" saint, as well as (I am led to believe) the town of Belgrade. Dahn 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You do not have any idea about the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. You think you know but you have no idea. Chech List of Patriarchs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to find the leaders of the Bulgarian Church. There were not always Petriarchs. The Bulgarian Church is old with many traditions. The Bulgarian Monarech is called Tsar because of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Simeon I was crowned Tsar by the Patriarch of Constantinople outside of Constantinople. Simeon I and his army were at the gates of Constantinople and in order to make them leave he was created Tsar. Here is a lesson in Bulgarian history for you. You show that your knowledge in Bulgarian history is limited.
 * How do you believe this to be proof, and what sort of proof? Lookey, friend: 700 years of an Ohrid Archbishopric (i.e.: not a Patriarchy, but a sudivision of Constantinople), which were coincident with his life (amongst numerous lives). The point about the title "tsar" was that it reflected the Bulgarian ambition to replace the original Empire (why were they at the gates of Constantinople to begin with?). How does this deny anything of what I have said? Dahn 10:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2.There are a lot of different people living in Bulgaria. Currently 3 of the Ministers in the Bulgarian Government are Musliams with Turkish roots. There are a lot of Musliams in the region of Razgrad. I would not be surprized if he was Albanian. However, if he was Albanian from this region then he was Muslianm. And there is no evidence of Vasile Lupu being Musiam.
 * And, of course, it is mandatory that this was also the case 400 years ago... If this is an exact science, how come Lupu ended up as ruler of Moldavia, which was ZERO Albanian/Muslim/Bulgarian population? Could it be, Lord help me, because people would use their legs and drive vehicles to places of opportunity? Oh, forgive me, I'm wrong: the Balkans are anything but a place of eternal migrations, be they large-scale or small-scale (note: this was sarcasm). Dahn 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just thought of an anology: Albania itself was in revolt against the Porte in the 1500s, led by a guy who became a Chrisitian hero or thereabouts. At the moment I am writing this, the country is 70% Muslim. Does this, in your opinion, signify a consistency in demographics that would allow you to indicate that articles may be changed according to "what surprises/does not surprise you"? Dahn 00:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You do not know anything about Bulgaria and its people. You are just speculating and you are beliving yourself. There have never been Albanians in Bulgaria - NEVER. If Vasile Lupu was Albanian then he and his family were the only once. There were never Albanian minority in this or any part of Bulgaria. I am Bulgarian I know. There are Turkish, Armenian and other minoritis in Bulgaria but no Albanians. Vasile Lupu was the only one. Check the historical sources.
 * There has not been one single Albanian-speaker in what is now Bulgaria, not ever? Because, although they were moving inside the same Empire, and although Christian Albanians hardly saw a difference other than linguistical between them and other Christians, the moment they set foot on the soil of what was no longer Bulgaria, they burst into flames or turned into salt? When you were pushing all that info about were he had come from, did you bother to check were the name of the village comes from? Arbanasi is a variant of Albanians (although I may agree that did not mean the population was necessarilly significantly Albanian, I have to point out that this indicates it was possible for an Albanian to live in another region of the Ottoman Empire). Do not use modernity to reflect ethnical realities of 400 years ago or so (I think I am repeating myself): check out the article for Greeks in Romania, and note the drop in significance without Romanian violence or self-exile. The same goes for the Albanian population everywhere: it was never important but always concentrated, largely male, since they were employed as military, and it dissapeared everewhere with the advent of national armies. If you look at the trading of officialdom population, the same reality stands out (as it did with the boyars in Moldavia during Lupu's time - read the first part of the article, as it did with the Phanariotes, as it did with the Muslim Aromani etc). All of this because contemporary sources (which have primacy) argue that he was Albanian. And, again, no matter what the Albanian population was in the Ottoman provinces that are nowadays Bulgaria (a few thousands or so Albanians, probably), the number was closer to digits than numbers in Moldavia: and yet, Vasile Lupu was a ruler in the latter country! Dahn 10:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you say to kenyan Obama ruling the USA,a very non-Kenyan country?--199.192.239.152 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just read something interesting. Apparently there have never been a minority living in this village. This village was always populated with only Bulgarians. Not Albanians or any other. Also when the mosque was build in Razgrad there was material taken from this village. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire issued a ferman declaring that no Turkish Muslim builder working on the mosque will spend the night there. So it is impossible for his to be Albanian, because there were never Albanians in this village. I found this in Wikipedia.
 * Regardless of such Bulgarian nationalist cliches whch have passed into Wikipedia (including, again, the notion that Bulgarian identity oversaw the relevant Christian one), you are making no sense. The ferman in question refers to Muslims, and many (much more than today) of Albanians were Orthodox or Catholic (those few present in today's Bulgaria would've been Orthodox, as Lupu's family was); the name of the village indicates migration; at any point, the Albanian population was more relevant in what is today Bulgaria than it ever was in Moldavia, and yet Lupu ruled the latter; it is illogical and pompous to assume that no Albanian could've been living in an Ottoman-ruled Bulgaria, especially when you are thus brushing aside contemporary references. For the love of God, this has gone far enough. Speculation belongs on sites that allow for it. Are we clear? Dahn 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are funny. You have no idea if there were Albanians living in Bulgaria. You are simply speculating that there were Albanians. This speculation you are making on the fact that they migrated. Give me a source in which it ways that there were Albanians in Bulgaria and in particular in North-Eastern Bulgaria. Give me names of sites, books or statistics. Do not give me your opinion. It is a historical fact that in this particular village there were only Bulgarians. Why are you stating your speculations as a fact. As I can see you do not know anything about the Bulgarian Church or the Bulgarian State. Then why are you trying to convince me of something that it is not true. Believe me when I say that I have spend many, many, many days, weeks, months and years studding Bulgaria. I am familiar with the facts. There were never Christian Albanians there, it is ridicules to say that and it makes you look untrustworthy. Also the Bulgarian State (founded in 681) and the Bulgarian Church (founded in 865) are one of the oldest in Europe. You are assuming that since the Romanian Church was founded after in the XIX century and until then was part of the greater Orthodox Church the Bulgarian was the same. You are wrong. You are also wrong about the Bulgarian Rulers. There are much about Bulgaria you do not know. First you need to learn and then argue. I have studied a lot about the Bulgarian history and that is why I can argue. You assume the case between Bulgaria and Romania was the same, but it is not. Bulgaria had its own Saint recognized by both Rome and Constantinople before Romania was even a country. This is the bad thing about the internet, even people who have no knowledge can argue about something they do not know. Learn about Bulgaria before you make unfounded statements.
 * I have stated my reasons to death. Let me try again, so perhaps you will notice them this time around. If contemporary sources say that he was an Albanian, I have to include reference as is. The issue is not whether a significant community of Albanians was living on the territory of the former Bulgarian state (although some communities might have been residing there - hence the name of the village - with the same possibility of no longer being present that they have had in other parts of the Balkans), but of whether this one person could've been Albanian. Not going either way, but this is what the sources indicate! As to the "independence" of Bulgaria under Ottoman rule and that of the "Bulgarian" Church under the taking over of Ohrid as a subdivision of the Patriarchy, allow me to dismiss them altogether. Your personal theories belong on other sites. Post them there. Dahn 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And as for Vasile Lupu being Albanian, well as a historian lover I found many and I meen many times when ignorant people wrote about their contemporeries. They would write wrong and as time go by other sources would appear and it would prove them wrong. For what I know there were never Albanians there. At least not recorded. You are being ignorant again. Arbanassi is a Bulgarian name not Albanian. In order to prove your point you making stuff up. There are many villages with this name all over Bulgaria. Does this meen that all these villages had Albanians in them? It would seam so according to you. No one is talking about Bulgarian independence under the Ottoman Empire. The fact that you do not want to believe it it does not make it so. You really need to learn some basic Bulgarian history in order not to look ignorate. Bulgaria was founded in 680 as an independent state and it was officially recognized as one by the Emperor of Byzantium in 681. However in 1018 Bulgaria was conquered and added to the Byzantium Empire. It was in 1185 when Peter and Asen, two brother, declared the Bulgarian independence from the Byzantium Empire with a revelation. And so from 1185 to 1396 Bulgaria was independent nation again. However, in 1396 the Ottoman Empire seized Bulgaria and added it to its territory. It was in 1878 when Bulgaria was liberated and once again independent. So as you can see Bulgaria was not independent from 1018-1185 under Byzantium and from 1396-1878 under Ottoman Empire. When Bulgaria fell under the Byzantium Empire in 1018 it was no longer an independent state and the Bulgaria Patriarchy was abolished and it was reduced to the Archbishopric of Ohrid. All this is documented and there are proves in libraries all over Europe and the world. Sorry if the facts are not in your liking. This is all documented and proven. It is hard to believe that your neighbor has all that hisytory?
 * Whatever. Really, whatever. It seems that you are not capable of seeing beyond cliches particular to certain nationalism. I would advise you to at least pretend you are reading replies (lest I be allowed to assume you have trouble understanding them). Bottom line: if sources would agree he was Bulgarian, you would have a point. They do not, and one of the reasons for that probably was that the Bulgarian ethos was largely ignored by then (people did not look into the future to see the creation or, as you would have it, recreation of a Bulgarian state; also, as you have constantly been forced to admit, a "Bulgarian ethos" was by then largely indiscernable from the Slavic one). I know your cliches only too well (about the Ohrid Archbishopric "being a Bulgarian ex-Patriarchy", about a highly symbolic Bulgarian identity inside the Ottoman Empire being somehow spared from Ottoman policies and trends, about direct continuity between the tsarates and post-1878, etc); they match lumpenproletarian cliches in my fair country, and both series should have been pushed out of rational discourse by 1890. And, of course, you would have the audacity to pretend that whomever disagrees with you does not know your history. Up until now I have more than reasonably accounted for my perspective, and you do not seem to be willing to answer to points raised. Please, don't consider the fact that I am by now too jaded to reply as an indication that you are somehow proven right. Nay: I will simply be reverting persistence on this topic in the article per Vandalism. Dahn 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know: should cry or should I laugh. The facts that I have stated above are historically proven over and over again. They have been proven with documents (one example: a document that comes from the court of Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor) and have been agreed by world renounced historians. These facts were not created by Bulgaria as you probably think. There are many Byzantium and other European historians who had documented these events. And Bulgaria is a country populated with Bulgarians. As I can see you keep sating that there are Slavs living there and somehow you are left with the impression that I agree. The Bulgarians were not indescribable by the Slavs. There were Slavs living there when the Bulgarians first move there, however they were absorbed by the Bulgarian population. There are other nationalities too, however the majority are Bulgarians. The Bulgarians did not despair with the coming of the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria was forced under Ottoman rule, however if you study history you will see that every a couple of decades there was a Bulgarian revolution - unfortunately unsuccessful. I know that I would never change your mind so I would stop. However, why don’t you look in a dictionary and see when was the first time in history “Bulgaria” was mentioned.
 * He was a Moldavian of Albanian ethnicity. Born in a ethnic Albanian village in modern Bulgaria. I added some sources to qualify that. Strangearticles (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Origin
It is now clear that "Albanian origin" is not the proper description of Lupu. His father may have had Albanian origin, sources saying that he came from Macedonia. Now that there is information on his father, I think that "Arbanasi, Bulgaria" is the first thing to be removed, until further clarification.--Z oupan 15:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added all significant views.--Z oupan 21:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Greek-Orthodox identity
It seems that Lupu did have a Greek-Orthodox identity.--Z oupan 21:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Original name
His original name was Lupu Coci, and he later adopted Basil (Vasile).--Z oupan 21:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are joking, aren't you? His original name doesn't reject his ethnic origin and identity. Asdreni's original name was Alexander Stavre Drenova, according to you Asdreni hadn't an identity?Olmcx (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I just put forward what his original name was, breathe.--Z oupan 16:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)