Talk:Daniel of Galicia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article should be merged with Daniel of Kiev. Andres 11:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm finally merging in the dates of rule from that article. This one has more of an edit history, so better to rename this than move material from here to there.
- This one stated "from 1253 King of Rus", the other: "King of Galicia (1255-1264)". I don't know off-hand which is more correct.
- —Michael Z. 02:59, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
[edit] succession box
Is it correctly to write that Svarn succeeded both principalities?
After Danylo's death:
- Volhynia was under Vasilko Romanovich and (1269-1288) under his son Volodymir-Ivan, and (1288-1293) under Mstislav Danilovich.
- Lev had Lviv and Peremysl
- Shvarn had Halych(?), Chelm and Dorogochyn.
So if we talk about Prince of (both) Galicia and Volhynia - it could be only Lev Danilovich, first after Danylo united these lands together (in 1293).
[edit] Proposal to move the article to Danylo of Halych
I am not sure why the article was created as Daniel of Halych, but perhaps it would be more accurate to move this under Danylo of Halych rather than Daniel as it currently stands. The ever fallible google search yields over 1000 hits for Danylo [1] and just over 200 hits for Daniel [2]. A more reliable google books search yielded 5 hits for Danylo [3] and 0 for Daniel [4].--Riurik (discuss) 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It was apparently moved as per naming conventions but Daniel of Halych is not a correct name nor is it as common as Danylo of Halych. —dima/s-ko/ 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just in front of me, he's called Daniil Romanovich by Janet Martin, Daniel Romanovich by Meyendorff; elsewhere he's "Daniel of Galicia-Volhynia". Danylo is weird. Presumably this is the modern Ukrainian version of the name ... well, that's not how English-speaking historians refer to medieval Rus' rulers. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. This name is ridiculous. This is not how historians writing in English refer to him: this will give a better idea:
- "Daniel of Galicia" 94 hits
- "Daniil Romanovich" 57 hits
- "Daniel Romanovich" 39 hits
- "Daniil of Galicia" 22 hits
- "Daniel of Galich" 16 hits
- "Daniil of Galich" 12 hits
- "Danylo of Halych" 10 hits (mostly Ukrainian works with only tertiary coverage)
Halych is not called such generally in historical works in English, and as with so many Ukrainian placenames, Ukrainianization should be avoided with medieval subjects. Honestly, this article has to move. It makes a very famous European ruler unrecognizable even to English-speaking audiences very familiar with the the details of Rus' history. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fully agree, this article should be moved to Daniel of Galicia. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Ukrainisation is indeed unacceptable, but I'm not sure this is the right path to take. Since there's no other broadly applicable means of naming Rus princes that I'm aware of, we could do worse than call him "Daniil Romanovich" as Fennell, Martin and Meyendorff do. Still, I can see that there is a case for an exception here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree with you Angus, patronymic is the clear consensus way of disambiguating these names in English secondary sources. I didn't wanna confused the issue just now though. My preference for this article title would be Daniil Romanovich, the name all the paper sources I have with me use (add to your list Rowell and Dimnick). Many of the remaining problems with this couple of principalities can be found at Category:Halych-Volhynia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-