User talk:Daizus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of my main areas of interest is the history of the "dark millenium" in Romanian history, the time period between 271 and the beggining of 14th century.

For the moment I will use this space for comments, briefs and reviews.

Contents 1 Lower Danube as a border 2 Evidences, circumstances, and arguments for continuity 3 Non-linguistic arguments that Getae/Dacians and Romans had significantly different languages 4 Iancu 5 Hungary:Historical demographics 6 Your opinion ? 7 Restoring common sense in the “Romanian vs. Danubian principalities” issue 8 Getae 9 Two comments 10 Albert Wass 11 I had to restore 12 Culianu conference 1986 13 Revisiting modern Romanian history 14 To put or not to put the tag 15 MedCab case 16 Romanian Principalities 17 Macrohistorical Battles involving invasions of Europe 18 on medieval battles 19 Mediation! 20 Email 21 ArbCom/Soviet occupation of Romania [1] 22 Request for Mediation 23 Roman Dacia 24 Dacian script 25 do you really believe the Dacia-Romanian theory?

[edit] Lower Danube as a border

This is a brief based of Stelian Brezeanu's study The frontier of Lower Danube between 4th and 7th century. A notion's ambiguity.

The importance of this frontier in early Romania's history is emphasized by the power of Balkanic romanity. Beween Maximin the Thracian and Phocas most emperors had Balkanic origin (Aurelian, Diocletian, Galerius, Constantine the Great, Marcian and Justinian). And not only emperors, also generals (Aetius and Belisarius). Constantine the Great even said "my Rome is Serdica".

(to be continued)

[edit] Evidences, circumstances, and arguments for continuity

Meanwhile I decided to work on such a list independent from the official article and to elaborate it

1. Procopius of Caesarea in Wars, Book VII, 14, 36 presents the case of the false Kilbudios, a Roman general, of slavic origin, under Justinian's service and deployed on Danube to stop the barbarian attacks. After some initial success he disappears in a campaign on the left bank of the river. An Ant slave which looked very much alike Kilbudios, listening to the advice from a Roman prisoner, went to the Roman authorities and presented himself as being the true Kilbudios while imitating his behaviour and learning Latin. (after St. Brezeanu, anyone can help with the original text?)

2. From the Strategikon of Maurikios, XI, 4, 31:

Tous de legoménous rephougoús epistelloménous kai strátas deiknúein kai menúein tina deî asphalôs phyláttein; kan gar Romaîoí eisi tô chrono poiothéntes kai tôn idíon epilathómenoi ten pros tous echthrous eúnoian en protimései poiountai; oús eugnomonountas men euergeteîn, kakourgountas de timoreîsthai prosékei

We must strictly survey the so-called refugees who are sent to us with the mission of indicating the roads and of discovering [the enemies]; although they are Romans, they acquired this status, they forget their habits (they aquired other habits and they forget their relatives) and they have much more attraction for the enemy; we should gratify the benevolent ones and to punish the bad ones

It's interesting also the informations from IX, 3, 6-8 and also that it seems the byzantine strategy manuals indicated to do not use spies from the same ethnicity as the enemy.

3. Examples of romanization in Scythia Minor.

During an invasion of the Costoboci Daizus Comozoi (that means his father's name is Comozous) is killed. His funeral inscription found at Tropaeum Traiani is signed by his children: Justus and Valens. (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum III, nr. 14214, 12)

Another inscription from Tropaeum Traiani mentions this family: the grandfather's name is Mucaporus, father's name is Scoris and he married Aurelia, while their children's names are: Aurelius, Sabina, Valens and Sabinianus.

[edit] Non-linguistic arguments that Getae/Dacians and Romans had significantly different languages

1. An inscription from the sarcophagus on Marcus Ulpius Celerinus, officer in the Roman legion I Adiutrix, presents him as "interpretes dacorum". The inscription was found at Brigetio (northern Hungary) and dates since the times of Caracalla (211-217). Brigetio was the base of Legio I Adiutrix since Hadrian relocated this legion in Pannonia.

2. Publius Ovidius Naso, a Roman poet, is exiled in Tomis (in Scythia Minor) between 8 and 17 AD when he died. His poetic lamentations written in this period reveal his solitude. In Tristia, book V, section 10 he says:

"Barbarus hic ego sum, qui non intellegor ulli,

et rident stolidi uerba Latina Getae;"

[edit] Iancu

First of all, it wasn't "my criteria", it was the Britannica's (a tone which I kept as reasonable as I could). Secondly, we could do without it altogether, but I was solely trying to make sentences less abrupt. Do not assume. Dahn 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If I'd have to write an article on physics, I wouldn't refer to Britannica. I'd like if we could treat history like a science and not just a collection of opinions. Britannica is not an authority in history (and that's a dangerous remark, we could open an endless debate about what such an authority may mean). A potential controversial claim can be preceded by "in the opinion of historian x". Especially in Hungaro-Romanian history which is full of bias on both sides.

In Britannica's article we find Szörény (with no alternate denomination) but Belgrade (and not Nándorfehérvár). Somewhere at the core there are some frustrated opinions, I haven't found any other way to say it but bluntly. As we have our "dacists", others have the "apostolicists" dreaming of a great but long ago faded Hungarian medieval kingdom. Daizus 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary:Historical demographics

Salut, Daizus. Am vazut ca ai dat niste surse interesante in Talk:Hungary#Historical demographics. Ai putea sa imi dai si mie referintele exacte? Multumesc, Dpotop 12:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cele mai multe informaţii de-acolo le vei gasi in Şt. Pascu - Voievodatul Transilvaniei, vol II. Referinţele lui Pascu sunt variate, dacă te interesează ceva anume fii mai explicit. Daizus 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion ?

Since I noticed your qualified interest in (Romanian) history, I’d like to bring to your attention a phenomenon I observed. Various entries related to Romania like Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, John Hunyadi, Judeţ, Romanian Old Kingdom, Islam in Romania ( the list is larger) contain linked mentions to the entry Danubian Principalities. This intrigued me, since the term “Danubian Principalities” is a sort of historical and geo-political moniker of a very specific and limited use, which is by no means suited to the content of the articles it was referred to. Going to the entry Danubian Principalities I realized that the article actually substituted an entry which should be called “Romanian Principalities”. Than, I clearly indicated in the lead section of that entry the temporal, spatial and semantic limits of this term: it was an Austrian word construction of the late 18th – early 19th century, it circulated outside the Romanian space as late as the Union of the Principalities and it was a term of exclusively informal use. I think that raising this term to the status of an historical term is utterly misleading. I ignore the reasons of this. It could be accident, ignorance, semi-educated guess, it could be nevertheless intention. The fact that entries like United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, Romanian principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia are redirected to Danubian Principalities make me to rather think of the last. Whatever the reasons may be, usurping legitimate and recognized historical concepts by a geo-political moniker is unacceptable. Moreover, the term Danubian Principalities has been further promoted, being systematically wikified in many Romania-related articles, usurping established scientific concepts like Romanian principalities. Things have gone even farther, “Danubian” being autonomously used instead of “Romanian” in some articles. I think that the situation deserves careful consideration and adequate measures. If you consider this issue worth of interest, please check the facts and let me know your conclusions.--Vintila Barbu 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are seem to be right. But unfortunately we don't have a page on 'Romanian principalities' so we have to fight to make the meaningful content (extending that page or creating another and wait for users to note and acknowledge the two concepts or eventually propose a merge). I've browsed those pages and I think the first step is to struggle a bit to legitimate the expression 'Romanian principalities' (I've seen some opposition to it) as a noteworthy historiographical concept and eventual show the 'Danubian principalities' is rather the exception, the remnant of some historical context of the past. Daizus 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you that the usage in English is not determined by what some Romanians like, but about tradition. Both Britannica and Columbia refer to the "Danubian principalities", and the latter term was consistently used at the time when Anglo-Saxons were referring to two separate countries (this also makes the notion that "it became outdated" utterly irrelevant - since people were using it in that form and no longer use it to refer to something in existence). Dahn 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Materials from MSN Encarta refer to them as Romanian principalities (e.g. http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761575697__1/Austria.html ). Many other encyclopedias possibly (I don't have them in original, must be checked) use the same name. But this is not the real argument. The real argument is in scholarship (in English language, of course). It is tradionally 'Romanian principalities'. According to Wiki's criterions on sources, the scholarly material is a secondary source while the encyclopedias are a tertiary source. Wikipedia's policy states articles should rely mostly on secondary sources. So bring me scholars, not encyclopedias. Because I'll bring scholars. Daizus 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"In English scholarship"? "Traditionally"? Prove it. Dahn 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can read beacause I've said "English language" not "scholarship". Anyway, I've proved it already here (and you have even English scholarship - Adam Neale's testimony was reprinted in 1970 in New York!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Danubian_Principalities Daizus 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As for my end... google book hits: James Henry Skene, The Danubian Principalities, the Frontier Lands of the Christian and the Turk; Thad Weed Riker, The Making of Roumania: A Study of an International Problem, 1856-1866; Edward Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty: showing the various political and territorial changes; Barbara Jelavich, Russia's Balkan Entanglements, 1806-1914 and History of the Balkans; Čedomilj Mijatović, James David Bourchier, Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, A Short History of Russia and the Balkan States; Charles Alan Fyffe, A History of Modern Europe, 1792-1878; Robina Napier, Gerard W. Smith, Alphons von Klinkowström, Memoirs of Prince Metternich: 1773[-1835]; R. G. (Robert Gordon) Latham, The Nationalities of Europe; Emil Lengyel, The Danube; Frederick Kellogg, The Road to Romanian Independence; Piotr Wandycz, Donald Warren, Treadgold, Peter F. Sugar, The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918; D, Tziovas, Greece and the Balkans: identities, perceptions and cultural encounters since the Enlightenment; Sorana Corneanu, Sorin Mitu, National Identity of Romanians in Transylvania. I'm not saying that your variant is not used, but you will note that this is the traditional Anglo-Saxon term (at best, the other one is used *as much*, but not *for as long a time*). Dahn 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are mine: Adam Neale, The Romanian Principalities, 1818; Radu Florescu, The Struggle Against Russia in the Romanian Principalities: A Problem in Anglo-Turkish Diplomacy, 1821-1854 ; Vlad Georgescu, Political Ideas and the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities (1750-1831); Nicolae Roddy, Sociocultural Appropriation of the Testament of Abraham in Eighteenth-Century Romanian Lands; Radu Carp, Governmental responsability and Parliamentary irresponsability in the Romanian Constitutional tradition; Angela Jianu, Women, Family and Society in the Romanian Principalities, c. 1750-1850; Michaela Mudure, Sexual Inter-courses: Romanian Master - Gypsy Slave; Norbert Blistyar - Use of the "Porto" Markings by Austrian Posts in the Romanian Principalities; John R. Lampe, Marvin R. Jackson - Balkan Economic History, 1550-1950: From Imperial Borderlands to Developing Nations; Viorel Achim - The Roma in Romanian history; Al. Gh. Savu - The army and the Romanian society; Valeriu Stan, Nicolae Balcescu, 1819-1852; Pompiliu Teodor - Enlightenment and Romanian Society; Tahsin Gemil, The Romanian principalities in the international political context (1621-1672); Kemal Karpat, Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays; Daniel Chirot - The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe: Economics and Politics from the Middle Ages Until Early Twentith Century; Horia C. Matei - National Report. Romania; Zoltan Barany - The East European Gypsies in the imperial age; G. A. Niculescu - Disciplinary identity and autonomy at the beginnings of archaeology in Romania; Manuela Boatca - Peripheral Solutions to Peripheral Development: The Case of Early 20th Century Romania; Istvan Vasary - Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365; Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans (where she uses also Danubian principalities); Jean W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500; Marija N. Todorova - Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory; Keith Hitchins, The Romanians, 1774-1866'; Bela Kalman Kiraly, Gunther Erich Rothenberg, War and Society in East Central Europe

Also from the books you mentioned, the book edited by Dimitris Tziovas mentions 'Romanian principalities' (e.g. at page 180, in Chapter 12: Music Encounters at the Greek courts of Jassy and Bucharest in 18th century by John G. Plemmenos.

As you can see your "more traditional" qualifier doesn't seem to be supported. Daizus 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I cannot see that at all. For one, those were not by any means the only sources out there. Secondly, many of the ones I cited at the top of my list are from the period in question, and, if we are to limit ourselves at it in order to uncover the traditional use, you'll find that it is likely that "Danubian" outnumbers "Romanian" by very, very much. As for "using several", the opposite is just as present, which leads us back to the original point. Dahn 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see maybe you should get professional treatment and stop spamming my talk page (I don't recall to have invited you here and the topic of this discussion I already started in talk page of Danubian principalities, as I already have told you).

I proved I can create meaningful lists, larger than the one you provided to argue an "Anglo-Saxon" tradition. The period covered by 'Danubian principalities' Wiki article starts in 14th century, not in 18th and the term is in use even now, in 21th century (to denominate a historical reality of those times). I fail to find the "likely outnumbering" you're advocating. While I realize I'll have a hard time create much larger lists than you if you'll stubbornly persist to prove the opposite (as my resources are limited), with no doubt I can create lists large enough to prove some improper claims as false "'Romanian principalities' is not a traditional term in English scholarship", "'Romanian principalities' was invented by Communist historiography" etc., therefore I have reasons to label as POV the current usage of these two terms here on Wiki. Daizus 09:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring common sense in the “Romanian vs. Danubian principalities” issue

It really appears that the systematical substitution of “Romanian principalities” by “Danubian Principalities” is not accidental but rather a campaign aimed at avoiding the designation “Romanian” in the history as long as it goes, namely up to…1864 (!). This absurd and ridiculous undertaking is that what I call an ideological motivated semi-educated original research . This seems to be the work of a semi-educated spinner who appears to be driven by what s/he thinks to be post-modern anti-nationalism (!) In his uneducated imagination, calling the Romanian feudal states “Romanian” is a proof of “nationalism”. Hence, s/he fights his own war on the Wikipedia, cleansing the using of the name “Romanian” in historical contexts, wherever s/he can. To this purpose s/he abusively promotes that informal geopolitical moniker (Danubian) to the rank of an historical concept in order to substitute “Romanian”. (This behaviour strangely resembles with that of the “România Mare”’s contributors: same fanaticism arisen from semi-educated ignorance, same weird agenda, this time however, with an inversed algebraic sign. I cannot stop noting the immanent irony of this circumstance: among the monsters borne by the communism here we have now this pair of twins: national-communists and over-acculturated anti-nationalists.) This can really happen only in Wikipedia, the only place where everybody can write anything. I wonder why and how long should we put up with this crap. I take the liberty to be a guest on your talk page out of two reasons: 1. in the hope that this Rică Venturiano will have the minimal decency not to interfere again after being explicitly invited out; 2. to try clarifying with you some principles. You say that “the first step is to struggle a bit to legitimate the expression 'Romanian principalities' (I've seen some opposition to it) as a noteworthy historiographical concept”. I think that you’re a little too pessimistic: the expression 'Romanian principalities' is already legitimate by 150 years historiography: from the romantic precursor Bălcescu over Kogălniceanu, the “founding fathers” Xenopol and Pârvan up to the “classics” like Iorga and Brătianu, there are no other designation for the two Romanian states in the historical research than “Principatele române” or “Ţările române”. (The form “principate dunărene” is occasionally employed in very specific contexts and nobody would come to the weird idea to consider it as a permanent substitute for “principate române”). As to the usual form in English, you already made the demonstration, better than I could do: “Romanian Principalities” is the one and only designation used in the modern scientific community. Of course, nobody denies the existence of the term “Danubian Principalities” as a term of limited use for specific historical contexts. A good example of dealing with historical terminology offers the entry Habsburg Monarchy, where alternative names of the Austrian Empire are briefly mentioned in a special section (there you find the term “Danubian Monarchy” as well). Nobody would however open a special entry for “Danubian Monarchy”, not to mention substituting established names like, say, “Habsburg” or “Austrian” with “Danubian” (!) I don’t think therefore that we have to struggle to legitimate what is self-evident. The only fight will be to face the incredible energy which bad-faith and frustrations seem to generate. I know that Wikipedia attracts weird personalities and semi-educated wannabes to an even greater measure than other forms of anonymous activities on the web. I hope however that they will not eventually succeed imposing their distorted views. --Vintila Barbu 09:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My demonstration had a limited purpose. Yes, it is a traditional form in English, but I cannot say is usual. For instance, it's hard for me to prove (and maybe it's not even factually correct) that let's say for the history of Romanian principalities between 1774-1848/59/61 "Romanian principalities" was more used than "Danubian principalities" (with irony I noticed the reference to justify the term is not even an English one, but a German one - Donaufürstentümer; basically the article falls under OR, the editor(s) invoking a common usage in English from its usage in German language!). I believe on the contrary. Yet, for most of their existence (if you look at Dahn's books, they mostly cover 18-19th centuries) I think the right term is "Romanian principalities" and not otherwise. I suggested in the talk page of the article a split (both in article, both in references in other Wiki articles) of the two terms. I don't want necessarily to minimize "Danubian principalities" (which had a historical usage and is in use today in a number of works) just to restore "Romanian principalities" to its real value. Daizus 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getae

I reverted because there was clearly a dispute on the talk page, and dispute tags shouldn't be removed if there is. Khoikhoi 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Daizus 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at my last proposal (check the history, I presume Dahn has already changed it). It's less weaselish in wording, because it doesn't promote Boia's deconstructionist approach. I'm a bit tired of Dahn. BTW: If he reverts your edits, then go for 3RR (he's got 3 recently). Dpotop 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Boia's deconstructionist approach is useful in his domain - historigraphy. It is a bit illintended when directed to Strabo (for instance, some thracologists and linguists consider both shores of the Danube together with a large part of our today country was part of the same dialectal space - "Daco-Moesian"; their evidence comes from toponymy and antroponymy - the main sources of Thracian language). Also to my knowledge most cases of travellers or geographers reporting linguistical affinites were actually proven true. However this issue is relatively minor to the question, I don't think Strabo's reliability is actually an issue (could be in the page on Strabo, but I guess there other editors would diqualify Boia's comment as irrelevant or unscholarly).

I'll take a little break from the edits on that page, to start compiling some worthy materials. It's a good thing sections were created, that means there's an impetus to develop that page and that's good! Daizus 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two comments

If you have not heard of it before, you may be interested in the Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Also, you might want to think about making a user page; rightly or wrongly, many editors are wary about contributors whose personal pages are red-links. Cheers, Olessi 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Wass

--InShaneee 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look more carefully, you'd see there are no 4 reverts

11 Feb, 20:48 server time - revert names

11 Feb, 21:12 server time - revert names

11 Feb, 21:19 server time - add tags

12 Feb, 16:45 server time - revert names, revert tags

Therefore I must use the unblock tag:

I haven't reverted anything in Burzenland article more than once. I can't even find a 3RR report on me. Please provide evidence for this accusation. Daizus 12:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 85.186.233.58 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Metros232 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I had to restore

Khoikhoi's version (actually Dahn's) in order to give him the opportunity of explaining his reverts. I doubt however, that he will do it. Feel free to restore the last version before the reverts of Khoikhoi. I, for one, wouldn't like to reach the 3RR threshhold.--Vintila Barbu 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culianu conference 1986

Hi, in Witch-hunt you've included a reference to this conference dating from 1986, however there is no publication information given. Are you working from your own personal notes here, or is there a published transcript available? If there is a published transcript, we need the publication details so the information can be checked. If not, then the information from this conference can't be used. Thanks for your help, Fuzzypeg☻ 04:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting modern Romanian history

I see that you are just checking the sourcing of Organic Statutes (BTW, why actually the Romanian name and not the English one - anyway, this should be the least of our concerns).

I think you are doing an excellent work, since I had my doubts and suspicions, but couldn't find the time to check the sourcing. I find Djuvara a charming and fascinating gentleman, but in the historical research he remains a dilettante, maybe good to impress the public on talk shows. Of course, compared with impostors like Cioroianu (i mean Cioroianu is no historian), Djuvara has anyway more serious credentials, but he's definitely not an authoritative source.

Your initiative will encourage me to follow you in checking the sources of that article.

I just restored some information in Islam in Romania. I wonder, what your opinion should be on this. (it is self-evident that i am by no means alluding to any "support" for my edits)

Keep on the good work--Vintila Barbu 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To put or not to put the tag

I have started Romanian principalities, however for only three paragraphs in the lead it took me more work than I thought and I cannot go on right now, just as things get really interesting, dealing with structural homologies between the two principalities. Now, if I put the stub tag, wouldn’t it be an invitation for vandalizers ? …or am I on the verge of developing a paranoia syndrome ?  :) --Vintilă Barbu 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF :P Daizus 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case

Hi all. I'm currently mediating this case.

Every editor can see how's going the mediation and voice his opinion here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments.

In order to keep mediation-related stuff all together, I prefer if we discuss on the mediation page rather than here.

I'm at your disposal for every question.

Happy editing,

--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your arguments and I agree with your position. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 13:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Mediation Case on Ionesco, they put that their goal was to "abide by wikipedia policy and give a good secondary source precedence over a primary one." I'm assuming by this they meant that Ionesco's daughter's biography is a primary source and EJ is a secondary source. This makes no sense. Ionesco's daughter's biography is secondary while EJ, as an encyclopedia, is tertiary. Maybe if you clear this up they'll drop it. This was mentioned on the talk page a while back. Usedup 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fais gaffe, Hizkiah is a certified Bonaparte clone, starting from yesterday. I have falled for him, too. :) Dpotop 13:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I'm already debating it but apparently I only persuaded the mediator, not the users opening the case. Daizus 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

More likely, you haven't persuaded the user who opened the case. How does a registered username get an anon's email address suggested by "I am in contact with the anon"? Hmm. Usedup 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be taking over your mediation case. If you have any questions, leave a message on my talk page! mcr616 _Speak! 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian Principalities

I was happy to read your message. When informing about the term “Romanian Principalities” (Romanian Lands), the purpose of the article is undoubtedly showing “why the principalities are to be taken together” and why the term is far from being “just a historiographical nationalistic mood”, to cite you. Unlike, say, “Danubian Principalities” which is a conventional name arisen from external geo-political considerations, the term “Romanian Principalities” points to a complex socio-political and historical reality. In order to explain this, I suggested the mentioning of the common religion, political, social and cultural structure of the two principalities. You’re bringing now two important examples: Mihai Viteazul and “Dacia”.

Of course was Mihai a great general (not a simple condottiere, be it a great one) and an extraordinary adventurer. Nevertheless, he was a man of vast ambitions and visions, one made out of the mould of great conquistadores and dynasty founders. Someone about whom chronicles write "Mihai vodă începu a să scrie şi a să mărturisi cum că iaste domn a trii ţări" and who explicitly notes down “Hotaru Ardealului, pohta ce-am pohtit, Moldova, Ţara Românească” and gives his envoys instructions such as “Iar voi să căutaţi pre această pohtă ce-am pohtit noi (Ardealul)...iar voi să mergeţi să grăiţi împăratului să faceţi tocmeală pre această pohtă...” and “Să-i socotească pentru această slujbă şi nevoinţă ce s-au nevoit, să-i lase Ţara Românească şi Ţara Ardealului, să-i fie de moşie lui şi cine va ţinea den feciorii lui, să le fie moşie” is certainly not a short-term venturer or a mercenary.

The arguments against the political heritage of Mihai are a sort of semi-educated straw man tactics: he was not that important for today Romania, since he couldn’t have intended a Romanian political union. Of course not. Neither could Mihai have thought at a Union in the sense of 1859 nor in the sense of 1918. As a man of his time, he planned and realised a Union in the terms of 1600, reuniting with the sword three countries under his sceptre. Not having heard of the principle of auto-determination of a certain Mr. Wilson, Mihai might have invoked as legitimacy principles for his political actions the divine grace and the benevolence of the great powers of the moment (Austrian Emperor and the Sultan).

However, a certain national aspect cannot be ruled out from his governing, as he took clear measures in favour of Transylvanian Romanians, freeing Romanian clergy from corvées , building the Metropolitan Romanian Church in Alba, allowing Romanian villages to bring their cattle to neighbouring Hungarian pastures, bringing the Romanian Transylvanians under the jurisdiction of the Walachian Metropolite, imposing Romanians in the Transylvanian Diet, allowing Romanians to exert jurisdiction in Transylvania, using Romanian as a language of official documents and preparing the recognition of Orthodoxy. Of course, he took all these measures not as a “national liberator” (since the nation in the modern sense was not yet invented) but as a reigning prince anxious to enlarge and consolidate his power basis. (Actually he enraged the Hungarians).

As you point out, Mihai’s personal union of the three countries corresponded to a clear ideological, historical and political framework of the time, namely “Dacia” as a lost but nevertheless coherent entity. Actually, Mihai’s Dacian project was more imminent as one might think, since intentions of “restoring” the (legendary) “Kingdom of Dacia” are attributed to Sigismund Báthory. It appears that Mihai was simply faster. He also seems to have been called “restitutor Daciae”. Interestingly, the term “Dacians” covered for several centuries in Middle Ages the meaning of “Romanians”, as Stelian Brezeanu shows in a study published in the early 1990s.

Moreover, Romanians from all three medieval countries were clearly aware of their shared identity. In 1629 Gabriel Bethlen asks advice from Patriarch Kiril Lukaris about the conversion of Transylvanian Romanians to Calvinism. The Patriarch of Constantinople answers: “The blood and feelings bond which exists secretly but so much stronger between Romanians of the Principality of Transylvania and the inhabitants of Walachia and Moldavia” will prevent such a conversion all the more the Princes of the later principalities “will undoubtedly never agree with this and will certainly hinder it, if not by arms, at least through covert support”. (my translation, sorry !) This analysis, coming not only from one of the highest spiritual and cultural instances of the time, but from an intimately expert in Romanian issues (in his youth, the Patriarch travelled and lived in the Romanian Principalities) teaches us about the existence of a “secret but so much stronger” conscience of religious, national and cultural togetherness as well as of a common political will and action to preserve it. You hardly find a more authoritative and relevant testimony about what “Romanian Principalities” really meant in late Middle Ages.

You’re perfectly right writing that “many other periods of the history are ignored and Michael the Brave is considered the one and only who attempted to unify the principalities”. This happens when history gets into pop culture. Ironically, we are here on wikipedia, that is, in the very epitome of …pop culture. Should we combat it from inside ?! OK, than, let me briefly recapitulate what we have for now.

Rom. Princ. is a historical term resting upon:

• Romanian people in the three medieval countries have always called themselves Romanian
• A sense of religious, ethno-linguistic and cultural togetherness and a political will to conserve it can be traced back to Middle Ages (see Lukaris, Romanian chroniclers)
• The Middle Ages cultivated a homogeneous perception of the three countries (Dacia) being inhabited by a homogeneous population (Dacians = Romanians) see Brezeanu
• This geo-political area (Dacia) has been object of several geo-political projects, of which Mihai’s one could be temporary accomplished
• For the two Orthodox Romanian Principalities the mixture between Byzantine heritage and Slavic influence constituted a kind of identity matrix, creating structural similarities in
  • Religious life
  • Political life, administration, military (ex: role and functions of the Domn, throne succession, aristocracy organisation, etc.)
  • Social and economical life
• Though very often adversarial, the relations and exchanges between the three medieval countries have been permanent and very intense (not more adversarial than relationships between German respectively Italian medieval states)
• Foreigners, especially the suzerain Ottoman power treated identically the two Romanian Principalities (ex: the suzerainty conditions, the Phanariote period, etc)

Now, this is a provisional list of suggestions, for the time being…. --Vintilă Barbu 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's worth, please don't hesitate naming those points of disagreement. This could be an excellent basis for making the work progress. Anyway, your allusion to lucidity tends making me think at some misunderstanding due to what you could interpret as a ...patriotic tone. It's just an assupmtion. Maybe there are really content-related differences. It cannot be that bad...As for the Rovine story, I'll try to become familiar with the topic. --Vintilă Barbu 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the wiki article about Rovine: it’s quite poor, recalling some high school presentation…As for the paper of Mureşan, this could really be a source for improving that poor Rovine thing. Of course was Rovine no military victory for Mircea: this is an established piece of historical knowledge. It’s but our dear national historiography which made a victory out of every not-so-severe defeat, see Călugăreni, see Mărăşeşti…It’s like Luxemburg celebrating being beaten by Germany with just 3 goals to 4 in the World Cup final tournament…Fully understandable…

As for my suggestions regarding Romanian Principalities, allow me firstly clearing one thing: those were some thoughts with no value other than sketching possible directions of further enquiry. That’s why I took the liberty of quite concise wording, which, I see now, involuntarily encapsulated some “broad generalizations”.

• "Dacia" (the territory it represented) was not always a "geo-political" area

I meant the medieval concept of Dacia

• (perhaps you didn't insinuate it, but some people may understand that way)

it was not intended to other people

• the Ottoman treatement of the two Principalities was not identical,

course not, I exaggerated for the sake of the demonstration

• the homogenity must be confronted with the diversity

I mentioned homogeneity in a specific context of the use of the medieval term Dacia, giving an example of how the medieval perception subsumed the territory of the three principalities to a homogenising concept- “Dacia”

• for instance, Transylvania, whatever the majoritarian ethnicity/religion was, was perceived in many occasions as a Catholic (Christian) land as its rulers were as such,

never said otherwise

• while the other two principalities as Orthodox

said exactly the same

Germans use to say that meals are never being eaten as hot as they are cooked.

Beyond all this, showing why Rom Princ are called this way seems really to be a work of large synthesis. I hope it’s worth. Have an excellent evening, --Vintilă Barbu 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macrohistorical Battles involving invasions of Europe

Daizus Greetings my friend! While you and I are being attacked for being politically correct for daring to try to be historically accurate on Martel, (sigh), have you looked lately at the Macrohistorical Battles involving invasions of Europe article? In addition to some very major rewriting, I have added maps, pictures, a new intro written by one of the assistant military coordinators, Wandalstouring, and generally tried to improve it - please let me know what you think! I have also worked some this afternoon on correcting the Martel article. It will get there, I am going completely through it, and rewriting a bit at a time. old windy bear 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] on medieval battles

Just another two words…That war “is just a continuation of politics with other means” should be clear to everybody since the 18th-19th centuries, as the correlation between state policy and warfare became more and more evident. (Once the industrialisation of warfare was carried out during the WWI, war became not only continuation of politics but part of economy. Nowadays, warfare is a part of both economy and politics in such highly intricate ways that even a caricatural figure like Bush jr. could promote as a spokesperson of the system.)

However, war was always an expression of politics, even in early times as combat technology confined warfare to battle(s). Thus, it is methodological misleading to scrutinise a battle only in terms of “who won” on the battleground. Actually, traditional military theory associates defeat in battle with retreat from battlefield, taking as a criterion for “victory” the fact of standing on the battlefield, quite regardless of casualties. A certain Pyrrhus could make some interesting comments on how this really works. In assessing a battle I would rather concentrate on the political consequences of that confrontation. My methodological approach would be considering battles as political gestures, evaluating them from within the respective political system and power network.

From that perspective, the battle of Rovine, though not technically won by Mircea (neither by Baiazid, as it seems), was in the long run quite a good thing for Mircea and his heirs. I think that the political message which that battle delivered to the Turks was that the cost-benefit ratio of that campaign was greater than one, with a significant risk of recurrence. As responsible statesmen, the Ottoman leading got the message and tolerated the maintenance of a buffer state north of the Danube (which later turned into two, then three buffer states – the medieval Dacia, object of “desire we desired” of not only Mihai).

(Just en passant, I don’t think that younger generations should smile bossily about the national-heroic historiography which changed some undecided battles into victories. First, it’s quite problematical to explain to 6th grade pupils how comes that a lost battle can bring long-term political benefits…Secondly, the task of nation building requires founding myths…) It seems I simply couldn’t refrain from this quite pro domo discourse… :) --Vintilă Barbu 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation!

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Email

Hi Daizus. Would you mind providing an email on wikipedia? Perhaps just one specifically tuned to wikipedia only? Persida Popa, Moldova

[edit] ArbCom/Soviet occupation of Romania [1]

Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Roman Dacia

I have fixed up the entire article on Roman Dacia. I removed as much original research as I could find. I don't think I found all of it. Since you're pretty active in the article I was thinking you could help. I also added a Reference section and removed all information that I couldn't find in my References. Mrld 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) PS Sorry it is really Mrld!! I forgot to sign in. Ignore the IP address. Mrld 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dacian script

I have tried to edit the "Dacian script/writing" article to a somewhat more acceptable form, more close to the truth. Previously, the article had a "daco-traco-manic" look. The article still needs lot of improvements, howewer. i strongly suggest do not delete it. I study this matter for my master in archeology. I reccomand to read the books of romanian doctor in archeology Silviu Sanie, these books contain good examples of geto-dacian writings outside the famous "Decebalus perScorilo". With respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.59.81 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] do you really believe the Dacia-Romanian theory?

I am from the States, we stole land from the Indians, I accept it, it was wrong. We did not make up a crazy theory to say we were there first. Just accept you stole the land from the Hungarians, what's with the big charade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.28.2 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)