Talk:Early Modern Romania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Older stuff
Greier, such info belongs to the realm of jingo-Marxism. When you cite Marx, do you also refer to his praise for Kossuth against Iancu, and his belief that the Croatians were naturally inferior? That stuff about Vasile Lupu being Aromanian is bullshit. Really, stop reading Ilie Ceauşescu (especially the claim that the revolt of Horea was inspired by the Enlightenment). Dahn 12:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- And, by God, if you have to write such stuff down, at least use DIACRITICS. Dahn 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The part about Horea & Co. is the result of the same thing. If you want more info about that, you could ask Jmabel, which I think is the one who copied that part from Country Studies.
-
- Karl Marx personall opinions about Iancu or Croatians are not my concerns, as it doesn`t relate to the subject. The New York Daily Tribune corespondance is a fact, and I presented it a contemporany proof for those happenings. Greier 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The Capitulations WERE NOT REAL. They are an invention of 18th century boyars to use against princes. Dahn 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Same as the the Lupu and Horea parts. Greier 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Woodrow Wilson a historian to mention when dealing with the 18th century? Do you happen to get newspapers 150 years later where you live at? Dahn 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree for deletion of this part. Greier 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Partea cu "factual accuracy" e inca o dovada de cat de josnic esti. Greier 13:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, regardless of who wrote them, and regardless of your insults (why they still don't delete your contributions on sight, I don't know), the labe will stay until somebody can actually contribute something that isn't pure nationalist rhetoric mixed with high sentiment and disregard for facts. A good measure of the article's tone is its shitty commentary on the Phanariotes. As for you, Greier: one more adjective out of your keyboard, and you'll be going down Bonaparte's road. Dahn 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- please stop insulting my contributions with words like "shitty" and "nationalistic", and next time when you talk to me on talk pages, don`t expect further answers, since I won`t do it anymore, seeing how you replied to these ones...it`s clear that you didn`t want answers, you just wanted to pick on me. Greier 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I hope both of you will speak nice one to another, why should it be this way? Is it because you can't better communicate? Greier you should listen what Dahn said and Dahn you should give him credit for his edits. Let's hope you'll find a way. Communicate first. --Moldo 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
To state further criticism (don't worry, Greier, you may ignore it altogether; this is for the readers and future helpers in getting some quality on this page).
- it is disputed whether Phanariote rule has had a clearly marked chronological beginning (as stated in the article on them). The notion of "domni pamanteni" and Cantemir/Brancoveanu being "the last of them" are 19th century propaganda.
- when they talk about events in Russian-occupied Bessarabia, both Zamfir Arbore and Ioan Nistor - both are Romanian nationalists, by the way - fail to mention "the large-scale destruction" Marx does. In fact, both recognize many merits to the Russian administration, but their main criticism is that Russians were holding the region's economy back (and they contradict themselves when they note that the post-1860s regime of peasants was exceptional, while before that the peasants had not been serfs - note that the article as is leaves the question begging for an answer). Russians had not "robbed the region", as there was very little to rob (which should be drawn as a conclusion by even a Romanian nationalist, when he is to consider his own point about the Russians "only wanting Romania because it was standing in their way to the Straits"). Besides the fact that Marx presents no proof, he is biased: he held the Russian Empire as a predilect example of despotism (which is probably was), applauded all its opponents (from Kossuth to the British), and fitted this "testimony" in a larger theory on things that people (surprise, surprise) do not agree on. The citation of the source itself tells you something: the text is only available because it was used after 1953 by Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej to annoy the Soviets and win credits with the Romanian people. Its relevance is zero (especially since Marx was born six years after the occupation of the region).
- Matei Basarab was not a Basarab. He was not in any way related to them (just pretended to be). He was a Craiovesti, and had been called on by other boyars to take the throne.
- a campaign of "Magyarization" in the 1780s would be indeed unparalleled throughout the world - I mean, Herder was just about writing his first essays. Consider that the article itself mentions that "making Magyar an official language was a concern raised in 1834". Damn right: it had not been an official language in Hungary itself until that moment! So, let me see: people were Magyarizing when there was no clear "Magyarism"?
- the very last paragraph is historically inaccurate (Austria-Hungary in the 17th century?!) and vague.
- the language of the article is lyrical, gullible, and single-sided. Dahn 16:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger with Byzantium after Byzantium
My first note in this discussion is that this article starts with a nonsensical statement:
-
- the early modern period, roughly from the end of the 15th century to the end of the 18th century (or from the union of Mihai Viteazul of 1600-1601, to the revolution of Tudor Vladimirescu in 1821.)
The end of the 15th century is 1500, and the end of the 18th is 1800, which does not match with Mihai and Tudor Vladimirescu. The choice of the dates is essential is deciding whether the merger is OK.Dpotop 13:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
