Talk:History of Transnistria/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

History

Current state and my comments:

In the early Middle Ages, Transnistria was populated by Slavic tribes of Ulichs and Tivertsy, Actually, it wasn`t populated. This claim is based on a mention is the Primary Chronicle by Nestor where he enumerates tribes (plus that other sources, when speaking about Ulichs and Tivertsi, give them the epithet of talmac, that is "translator", or something like that (hence this has lead scholars to belive that the tribes were not purely slavonic). But let`s asume all is correct. How come it doesn`t specify that the Ulichs lived on the Dnieper (see map), not on the Dniester, and how come doesn`t it mention that these population had fleed to the north during the centuries of eurasian nomad invasions?

The Ulichs did NOT live on the Dnieper. Actually, the Polianians (west of) and Severians (east of) lived along the Dnieper. The Ulichians straddled the Southern Bug and down to the Dniester. The Tivertsians inhabited between the Dneister and the Prut. These are not exact boundaries, so there are overlaps regarding the Dniester. The quote about "Transnistria was populated by Slavic tribes of Ulichs and Tivertsy" is completely correct. Let's not use Wiki as an "authoritative" source. There's something terribly mentally incestuous about doing so. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

as well as by Turkic nomads such as Pechenegs and the Cumans. True, and this is of importance, as you shall see.

From the 10th century, Vlachs (Bolohoveni) are mentioned in the area. True.

It was part of Kievan Rus' at times Speculations. The millitary power was held either by Petchenegs (8-10th century), Cumans (10-12th century), and...

and a formal part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th century. partially true. The duchy of Lithuania never had reached so far south. At that time, as it was earlier (13-15th century), the land was under Tatar control (Nogai Horde, Khanat of the Golden Horde)

Incorrect, the Lithuanians took over Kievan Rus territory, drove out the Golden Horde, and took all the territory to the Black Sea. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Transnistria was part of the historical region of Podolia This is like saying that it was part of Europe, or part of Terra. Podolia is just a name, but more importantly: Podolia was way, waaaay to the norht.

while the southern area, which came under the control of the Ottoman Empire in 1504, was part of what came to be known as Yedisan. True.

The Ottoman portion was eventually ceded to the Russian Empire in 1792. True. That is when the Russians ever set foot here (at that time there were no "ukranians", just Russians. and don`t confuse cossak with ukrainian: the cossaks were a multiethnic mix of poles, muscovites, romanians, tatars, and other people who fleed prosecution in their native lands. and anyway, cossaks lived to the north, not here. here lived Moldavians, as I shown you how dozens of sources say so). The Russian Empire reached the Bug in 1772, and Dniester in 1792.

At that time, the population was sparse and mostly Romanian/Moldavian and Ukrainian, but also included a nomadic Nogai Tatar population. True (this is the contradiction I was talking about).

The end of the 18th century marked the Russian Empire's colonization of the region, as a result of which large migrations were encouraged into the region, including people of Ukrainian, Russian, and German ethnicity. True.

At that time, the population was sparse and mostly Romanian/Moldavian and Ukrainian, but also included a nomadic Nogai Tatar population. Not necessarily a contradiction although it would be good to have 1750 "census" figures, even if they are only approximate. For instance: Kolstoe's statement would fit with the above if at the time the population was 55% Ukrainian peasants, 40% Romanian/Moldavian and 5% Nogai Tatar; thus no contradiction. - Mauco 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Fuck Kolstoe, he`s an idiot! i`m sick of discussing this. In 1782, 40% Moldavians, 2006 (after years of colonisation and russification) still 40%... What an idiot... greier 15:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The dork colaborated with two russians, freshly avortated from the SSSR, and want`s to be taken seriously... greier 15:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Seeing the significance of Russian history in the region (which in the 10th century belonged to Kievan Rus, the precursor to the modern Russian state) it is not a disqualification for someone to collaborate with Russian historians. But if you want a strictly Romanian/Moldovan account of the regions history, free from any Russian "contamination", please see Nicolas Dima's Moldovan history here http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm (which was originally published by Columbia University Press, New York). It confirms everything that Kolstoe is saying. - Mauco 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Maucov, I saw the page. It doesn`t approve Kolstoe. On the contrary, it proves the colonisation. So sorry mister Maucov. greier 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not. Read it, please, instead of giving POV blanket statements which are not supported by the best known scholars in this field. - Mauco 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Mauco, your estimation "55% Ukrainian peasants, 40% Romanian/Moldavian and 5% Nogai Tatar" can be true for the entire Dniester-Bug teritorry, but Romanian population was more concentrated near Dniester. Near Dniester, where is actual Transnistria, could have been 90% Romanians (as 1989 census for rural part of Dubbosarry rayon), while near Bug could have been 90% Ukrainians.--MariusM 22:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
No, my estimate was of current-day Transnistria (not extending to the Bug). Of course, it is easy in any multi-ethnic area, like Transnistria, to find individual town- or village level results which fit the data which someone is trying to produce. Just like there is a rural community near Dubossary which had 90% Romanians in 1989, there was also an urban area (Tiraspol) which had only 14%. The interesting part is to look at results for the whole of Transnistria. Not individual parts, as that will skew the data. And also not a larger area (such as Dniester to Dnieper) as that will equally skew the data. Just Transnistria, but all of Transnsnistria, and over time: 1750, 1900, 1924, 1940, 1989, etc. - Mauco 07:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Correction to myself: Tiraspol actually only had an ethnic Moldovan population of just 13% in 1989; not 14%. I just checked the data. (This figure is taken from a report which was written by a former presidential advisor in Moldova and published by the United Nations.) - Mauco 08:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Tiraspol had >17% Moldovans, per 1989 census. As long as we have official data, we don't need misterious reports. Tiraspol was founded after Russian conquest of 1792, we were talking about historical population before Russian conquest. As any urban area, it atracted population from other parts. Your estimation is not relevant, relevant can be Kolstoe's estimation. And is obviously he was reffering at entire area between Dniester and Bug, not at present day Transnistria.--MariusM 10:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Please provide the official source stating that more than 17% of Tiraspol were ethnic Moldovan in 1989. I have Oazu Nantoi saying 13%, in a report written for the United Nations (UNHCR, no less). Hardly a "misterious report" so stop with the negative comments and let us all just try to do good work here, please. - Mauco 17:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
With pleasure. V. Nedelciuc - "Republica Moldova", Universitas, Chişinău, 1992, page 21 is quoting data from 1989 census. For Tiraspol, data are: Total population (thousands) 199,6. Moldovans 35,4; Ukrainians 64,2; Russians 82,4; Gagauzs 2,1; Bulgarians 2,5; Others 13,0. In percentages: Moldovans 17,7%, Ukrainians 32,2%, Russians 41,3%; Gagauzs 1,1%; Bulgarians 1,2%; Others 6,5%.--MariusM 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So on one hand, we have a MOLDOVAN text, published in Chisinau in 1992 at the time of the War of Transnistria where both sides fight at dying over linguistic issues closely related to ethnicity. Overstating the true number of Moldovans would be easy, as in the time of war, the truth is always the first victim. Then, on the other hand, we have a text published by the UNITED NATIONS in 1999, seven years removed from the heat of war. Which one should we rather trust as an official or authorative source? - Mauco 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The source I gave quote from the official data of 1989 census (you didn't give any source; you just pretended that you have a source, but no link). In 1989 it was still peace and nobody (not even Transnistrian authorities) raised doubts about the results of 1989 census. I saw those results, same as in Nedelciuc book (but without details such as data only for Tiraspol) at pridnestrovie.net.--MariusM 23:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Nantoi, too, refers to the same 1989 census. He gives 13% for Tiraspol. This is in a report published by the UNHCR of the United Nations. I am no fan of Nantoi, but even so, I much prefer his work and the UN report over a partisan Chisinau publication from the same year when it was at war with Transnistria. At any rate, this discussion should be moved to Talk:1989 Census in Transnistria as it doesn't have too much to do with the history and much more to do with that year's census. - Mauco 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see Nantoi data (is it online? - you didn't provide links), it may be a typing error.--MariusM 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is online at the United Nations[1]. It was commissioned by UNHCR to survey internally displaced persons. The problem was that most of the refugees had fled to Russia, not to Moldova (and in fact, there weren't that many to begin with. Most people had voluntarily decided just to stay in Transnistria). So: Nantoi was left with not too much of a case, but he made the best of it and used the occasion to get a few digs in against his sworn arch-enemies, the leadership of Transnistria. This old report is flawed, biased, outdated, extremely unsourced, not professional and not useful at all, but at least Nantoi's stats on Tiraspol match what I have found elsewhere, too. It is 13%, not 17%. - Mauco 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you so kind to tell the page and chapter of the report where is the data? You have the habit of giving me long texts, which is consuming my time. Anyhow, why you believe is a forgery in Nedelciuc book? Moldova's right to own Tiraspol is not proved because Moldovans are 17% instead of 13% in this city.--MariusM 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Come now, surely I can't be expected to do all of your work for you... The United Nations report is there, and the full source has been provided by me. If the task of reference running and fact checking the research consumes too much of your time, then maybe you are in the wrong profession. I support all the statements which get included in mainspace with full citations, and in this case (where we have a mere Talk-page argument), I have already exceeded this duty by far. - Mauco 17:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Mauco, I made searches in the document you gave with the words "census", "Tiraspol" and "13%" and I didn't find the information you claim. In other situations you gave me long documents to read, claiming that there are the proofs for your statements, and I founded after I lose long time that documents didn't support your statements. I suspect in this case is the same situation.--MariusM 22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly as I expected, you just confirmed my expectations. I fear that you do not possess professional research skills. In my entry of 01:35, 31 October 2006, I gave you all the hints which you needed: Including the link of where to start, the info on Nantoi and so on. If you had searched on that, you would have found (in the report) a URL in blue. Click on it. That would have taken you to the UNHCR page of the United Nations, with Nantoi's name on it and an extract of his work. From that page, you could have downloaded the files named 'IdpReport' and 'IdpAnnex' and what you are looking for would then have been uncovered in the first of these two. It is on the page 10, under the heading "Migration Processes" and the keywords are "1989, only 13% of the population of Tiraspol were Moldovans". I am now truly appalled at your lack of research ability, and I am thus forced to ask with which authority you repeatedly question the contributions of experts to this project. You may want to also read this. [2] - Mauco 05:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wiki "co-founder" op-eds--once again you take great efforts to chastize MariusM. Your references are not always as obvious/easy to confirm as you make them out to be. For example, elsewhere, your "here it is, in Russian" and an entire paragraph of text. Your deprecating comments directed at MariusM are getting quite old. As for "expert" credentials, frankly, I do not see any NPOV academic contributors, although I do see some POV people positioning themselves as "experts" using personal experiences to dispute what is reported in citeable sources.
If you do have credentials, I'd be interested in knowing what they are.
Unfortunately, it might be a couple more weeks before I have a chance to write up a chronology of inhabitants along the Dniester (i.e., suitable for article, not "talk"). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Your feelings are not relevant here. Don't pretend you are an expert. Your style, instead of giving exact link to the source that support your affirmations to give an other link from where people have to dig to find the source, is not abiding Wikipedia standards. You did this before in conversations with me, is one of your patterns.--MariusM 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean: "Not abiding Wikipedia standard". Please show me the link to the policy that says this. I continue to fear that you do not possess professional research skills, even when given all the right information to help you find the source. If I am in breach of Wikipedia policy, show me the link that says so. Otherwise, don't claim that this is the case when it isn't. - Mauco 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Historically: Mostly Polish / Other Slav, with Moldovans a minority

Any comments on this? http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol45-10-06.htm I specifically found this part to be of interest:

В 60-е годы XIV в. северная часть левобережья Днестра было включено в состав Великого княжества Литовского, оно было частью исторического региона Подолия, а в 1569 году, после объединения Польши и Литвы — вошло в состав объединенного польско-литовского государства Речь Посполи́та (официальное название Респу́блика Обо́их Наро́дов — польск. Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów, лит. Abiejų Tautų Respublika). Территорию в основном населяли поляки, украинцы и другие славянские группы и в меньшем количестве — евреи, армяне, молдавские и немецкие иммигранты. Днестр служил границей с Молдавией, то есть с Османской Империей.

Please don't say "it is not valid, because it is from Olvia." This is not the case. It is part of their "Along the Channels" series (which means it comes from somewhere else, and is not Olvia's work.) In this case, they provide the author, Abraham Shmulevich, and the original source: Источник «АПН». Any criticism should be based on the historical accuracy of the statements put forth and not on who wrote it. - Mauco 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't studied the history of the region during that time period, nevertheless, there are some aspects of the passage that I am not fully comfortable with. Were Poles really one of the main ethnic groups in the region? And if so, are the data for Podolia as a whole, or just the part that's now in Transnistria? Also, I find it odd that Moldavians are called immigrants, alongside the Germans, as there is no reason why the settlement of the Moldavians should not have naturally extended into the eastern region contiguous to Moldavia for centuries. It's odd how the author puts the Moldavians deep in the list, although they probably formed a large segment of the population and labels them as foreigners, as though the other groups such as the Ruthenians had not also slowly entered the region due to a natural expansion. I cannot help but feel that the author was trying to make a political statement through his presentation of the data (e.g. Moldovans were immigrants in the region, just like the Jews and Armenians, unlike the Slavs who were always there). In any case, some of the distinctions made here are anachronistic to a great extent, as notions of ethnicity in the modern sense did not even exist yet, and labeling part of the population as Ukrainian only makes (some) sense from a modern perspective. TSO1D 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I put Moldovans first actually. Who is this Abraham Shmulevich and how does he compare with other researchers (like Kolstoe) who are respected, and who reach the same general conclusion? The implication of the sentence is for Northern Transnistria (the Podolia part), with "Tartar hordes" in South ("hordes" not used disparingly, but as an implication that they were not stationary.) I will begin some more research of this and see what I can find. If you wish to keep my edit off until then, that is OK, too. - Mauco
But http://pridnestrovie.net/node/415/ claims the Moldavians were present in Transnistria in the 14th century. :-) bogdan 16:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
TSO1D, yes and no to your statement that notions of ethnicity weren't at the forefront. True, but: Languages were. This was how Imperial Russia often did their census work. They would typically classify someone as Romanian if that was the first language he spoke, Ukrainian if that was his lingua, and so on. - Mauco 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but not during the XVI century, especially since the area was not yet under Russian control. The linguistic identity of the people of the region was still developing during this period, and the concept of true language and dialect was virtually non-existent, thus the differentiation of the subjects of the PLC into the four or so Slavic disticntions we would use today in the region (such as the Poles, Russians, White Russians, Ukrainians), especially in regions such as Podolia or Galicia did not exist during that period. TSO1D 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is something which you know more about than I do, so I will cede to your judgment. Meanwhile, your comments made me revisit the article and look for signs of the author trying to make a political statement. And, looking at it that way, I found something which is fairly obviously a political statement in a parenthesis: "(Тут возникает интересная путаница названий — в зависимости от того, с какого берега Днестра смотрят на эти земли: румыны и молдаване именовали их “Заднестровье”, русские и украинцы “Приднестровье”, “Заднестровьем” именуя как раз территории румын и молдаван)." Not a disqualifier in itself, but enough to get me started my research started on the need for better sources, especially on the Polish data. - Mauco
It is not valid, because it is from Olvia. :-)
The claim is based on a misunderstanding: just because part of Transnistria was in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, doesn't mean that it was inhabitants were Polish.
If there were so many Poles, how come there are no Polish placenames? From what I've seen, they are around 10-20% Turkic (Tatar), 40% Ukrainian , 40% Romanian. bogdan 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering, does he bring any source or at least of justification of why he believes there were Poles in there? It appears that politics of this area are not his speciality, so, I think we should take any claim of his cum grano salis. bogdan 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, yes. I started working on this today, and am becoming less convinced of this Abraham Shmulevich, too. Looking for Polish influences from other sources turn up a blank or almost a blank. This even goes for Râşcov (home to Polish administration in the area at the time) where the name itself shows that the town predates Polish rule. - Mauco 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Shmulevich's quote is along the lines of (to save others the work of machine or other translations):
  • "In the 14th century the northern part of the left bank of Dniester incorporated into the territory of the great principality of Lithuanian. This was part of the historical region Podolia, while in 1569 it became Polish after the union of Poland and Lithuania. . . . In essence Poles populated territory, Ukrainians and other Slav groups and in a smaller quantity - Jews, Armenians, Moldavian and German immigrants. Dniester served as boundary with Moldavia, i.e., with the Ottoman Empire."
Abraham (Avrom) Shmulevich is an Israeli rabbi, historian, Jewish mystic, supporter of Russia, and sometimes pundit offering his advice and commentary to the Russians, and head of the self-described "International Hyper-Zionist Movement "BEAD ARTSEYNU" ("FOR THE NATIVE LAND!") movement. Saying that since the territory came under Poland/Lithuania it was therefore predominantly then inhabited by Poles is a bit silly. In any event, Podolia was within the boundaries of the old Galicia, that is, somewhere else. But this error of geography is no surprise because Shmulevich is pro-PMR. From his own organization's website (www.zarodinu.org)...
  • the book (novel) "Gospel from the Extremist" ships from the publishing house "Politica" because of the "personal assistance and with the financial support of the friend of the Transniestrian republic, Judaic rabbi and leader of the Hyper-Zionist movement "Bead Artseynu" (For the Native Land!) Abraham Shmulevich, and also the group of Pridnestrovie owners." The page goes on to say that though a novel, it documents anti-PMR Moldovan "provocations": the formation of ultra-Fascist Moldovan youth groups, etc. — with the book's launching happening in Tiraspol.
Once again, let's not perpetuate the hope-springs-eternal notion that Olvia ever cites "objective sources." Shmulevich is a self-described friend of the PMR from his own website. And the Pridnestrovie reference is right on his home page. Might I request more due diligence before we post for comments? Better yet, let's just eliminate Olvia from the list of sources except when quoting it as the position of the PMR authorities. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
And, P.S., it was not the Poles but the Lithuanians who appropriated the Kievan Rus territories and drove out the Golden Horde (which, incidentally, was collecting tributes from Kievan Rus). Reference is Magocsi. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ages population

From the article:

"This region was mostly populated by Ukrainians and other Slavs"

Who were these other Slavs?

AFAIK, there were no Russians until it was included in the Russian Empire in late 18th century. Note that the contemporary Romanian documents used "Russians" for "Ukrainians", the real Russians being named "Muscali", from Muscovy.

The Bulgarians came also later, in the early 1800s, due to the Ottoman-Russian wars. bogdan 07:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could the "other Slavs", in the meaning of the above sentence, have been Poles? - Mauco 07:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanians in the text

I changed the word Moldavians to Romanians in the text, because Romanian is an ethnic term, whereas the term Moldavian would have refered to a subject of Moldavia which would not have made sense since the population discussed did not live in Moldavia. One alternative would be Moldovan, but using that term to describe something during the Middle Ages is extreme POV. TSO1D 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A belated thanks. Just for the record, there is no such thing as an ethnic Moldavian. It's all Romanians. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kievan Rus

In reference to the fact that Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus, top Moldova historian Charles King confirms it. Transnistria (but not Moldova) was part of Kievan Rus. The border was the River Dniester for most of that time. There is a section called Territory and History on page 179 of his book "The Moldovans" where he writes the following: "Unlike the rest of the Republic of Moldova, Transnistria was never considered part of the traditional lands of Romanian settlement. The territory east of the Dnestr River belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries." Published by Hoover Press, Studies of Nationalities series (Stanford University, the year 2000).

Another reference which also states that Transnistria belonged to Kievan Rus at the time is Andrew Wilson, "The Ukrainians: Engaging the Eastern Diaspora", published in Nations Abroad: Diaspora Politics and International Relations in the Former Soviet Union. (Boulder, Colorada: Westview Press, 1998), page 116. - Mauco 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Transnistria, PMR territory belonging to Kievan Rus disproven. References cited above have been misinterpreted. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the discussion in Talk:Transnistria, and in fact, being one of the major participants there. However, I would not say that "disproven" is the right word. The source provided says that a sliver of Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus. While I highly respect the source provided, some other also-highly-respected sources say otherwise (including the ones listed above). The best thing to do is to look for more sources. Later, if no definitive conclusion can be reached, we can clarify that in the text. There are several ways to do that. We can present both views, or we can mention that there are indications or claims that it belonged to Kievan Rus. - Mauco 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sliver was the wrong word, the correct term should have been a single point, which I will go back and further research to clarify, as every large scale map conclusively shows that Kievan Rus never extended downriver past Moldova (that is, stopped at that little "crick" in the Dniester at the upriver boundary of present-day Moldova). Unfortunately, your interpretation of, for example, the Hoover Press reference is not based on a knowledge of Balkan geopolitical and ethnic boundaries. "The administrative border of Moldavia never crossed the Dniester, ergo it was Kievan Rus on the opposite bank. Q.E.D." is completely wrong. Please feel free to present each reference and I will validate against Magocsi. As I exhaustively indicated in Talk:Transnistria, your last reference there (numbered points) which you cited in "support of" the Kievan Rus position actually supports the absence of Kievan Rus along the Trans-Dniester and supports Romanian ethnic inhabitation/dominance back to at least 1,400 A.D. Let me be clear: I am not disputing your source; my source agrees with your source. The issue is that your interpretation is completely incorrect. So let's not propagate the fiction that sources which we would otherwise consider reputable are in disagrement and that we may just have to "note both viewpoints."—Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate this discussion. By the way, THIS is the right place to do it, rather than in Talk:Transnistria. The way we handle the subarticles (like "History of Transnistria") is that we do all the major work here, and then - when completed - bring a summary of the key points into the main Transnistria article. That way, we avoid content forking. - Mauco 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources "point/counter-point" # 1

No one is disputing that Transnistria had Romanian settlements at various times throughout history. This is an inevitable feature of being a borderland. Who was there first? Does it even matter? Well, it matters to some Romanians (like perma-banned Bonaparte and often-banned User:Greier) who want to make Romania appear larger than it ever was, and want to show that half of the world was Dacia. But to put some balance into the overall interpretation of history, I would - once again - like to call attention to the following historic notes, written from a Romanian point of view and generally accepted by all mainstream Romanian historians:

1. "The eastern boundary of Moldavia as well as the extent of the Romanian mass settlements remained, however, along the Dnestr river."

2. "During the fourteenth century, Prince Bogdan and his successors established their sovereignty over most of the land between the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river already populated by Romanians."

3. "Then, Prince Alexandre the Good (1400- 1432) drove the Tatars (remnants of the last great Asian invasion into Europe) beyond the Dnestr and established his boundary along the river. At the beginning, however, in the course of repopulating the new lands and extending state authority, the region between the Prut and Dnestr rivers adjacent to the Danube and the Black Sea, belonged to the Wallachian dynasty Basarab, after whom the entire province was later named."

4. "As a matter of fact, the northern and eastern boundaries of the Principality were fixed by the Prince of Moldavia and the King of Poland as early as 1433. The boundary followed the Ceremus river in the north and the Dnestr in the east, unquestionably including within Moldavia what later came to be known as Bukovina and Bessarabia. Soon after, the Moldavian princes began to fortify the Dnestr against the Tatars and built several fortresses which stand to this day. No fortress was ever built along the Prut River which flowed through the middle of the country."

5. "advancing from the west beyond Dnestr, the Romanian natural expansion encountered the Slavic colonization and the two cultures collided."

6. "1792: For the first time in history, Russia established its boundary along the Dnestr in the immediate vicinity of Moldavia. At that time, Moldavia had been in existence for almost five hundred years and her eastern boundary had been the Dnestr for all this time."

All quotes are from NICHOLAS DIMA 1991: East European Monographs, Boulder, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, and can be seen online at http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm This is a Romanian source. Other historians and sources (which I can also quote) are even more clear on the matter, and emphasize that the role of the Romanians in Transnistria has always been relatively limited and always as a minority compared to other groups. - Mauco 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above by Mauco: I have scrupulously re-read Magocsi's maps and all pertinent text. The Kievan Rus province of Galicia extended west to Hungary but did not extend any further downriver, speaking of the Dniester, than the furthest upriver border of present-day Moldova. With respect to your quotes:

1. "The eastern boundary of Moldavia as well as the extent of the Romanian mass settlements remained, however, along the Dnestr river."

This only indicates Moldavia did not cross the Dniester and does not imply Kievan Rus east of the Dniester opposite, facing, Moldavia. Sources not in conflict.

2. "During the fourteenth century, Prince Bogdan and his successors established their sovereignty over most of the land between the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river already populated by Romanians."

In the 14th-15th centuries, Moldavia occupied the entire west/right bank of the Dniester all the way to the Black Sea and was not under Kievan Rus, it was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. The Carpathian mountains were already the western border of Kievan Rus, in central east central Europe. Your reference speaks of the Dniester upriver beyond Moldavia's border. Sources not in conflict.
The fact that the territory between the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river was already populated by Romanians does not mean that East of Dniester river were not Romanians also.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

3. "Then, Prince Alexandre the Good (1400- 1432) drove the Tatars (remnants of the last great Asian invasion into Europe) beyond the Dnestr and established his boundary along the river. At the beginning, however, in the course of repopulating the new lands and extending state authority, the region between the Prut and Dnestr rivers adjacent to the Danube and the Black Sea, belonged to the Wallachian dynasty Basarab, after whom the entire province was later named."

Moldavia remained in control of its territory through to the Dniester as part of the Ottoman Empire through to the end of the 18th century (1792), after which Bessarabia was split off from Moldavia in the Napoleonic era (by 1795). Bessarabia, the territory between the Prut and the Dniester is not the same territory as Walachia (Basaraba being the oligarch circa 1308). Walachia lay along the western border of Moldavia, as part of Hungary, and did not reach to the Black Sea (that territory being controlled by Bulgaria. I repeat: Walachia/Besaraba and Bessarabia are two completely different territories. Subsequently, Walachia became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire (as did Moldavia). Prince Alexandru I (the Good) was a prince of Walachia (not Bessarabia); during his reign Moldova, nevertheless, had its own ruler, and, most importantly, Alexandru had absolutely nothing to do with Kievan Rus, as he was a Romanian coming from the opposite direction!! A total, and grossly inaccurate, misinterpretation.
South of actual Basarabia was at the begining ruled by Walachian king Basarab (source is Mihail Eminescu, who is a Romanian poet and journalist from 19th century). Moldova took this land from Walachia. In 1812 Russians extended the name Basarabia to the entire region between Prut and Dniester, when they convinced Turkey to cede this region (calling it "Basarabia" gave the impression it is a smaller region than it really was). No Kievan Rus around. Romanian historical tradition talk about Polish neighbours at North and Tatar neighbours at East.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

4. "As a matter of fact, the northern and eastern boundaries of the Principality were fixed by the Prince of Moldavia and the King of Poland as early as 1433. The boundary followed the Ceremus river in the north and the Dnestr in the east, unquestionably including within Moldavia what later came to be known as Bukovina and Bessarabia. Soon after, the Moldavian princes began to fortify the Dnestr against the Tatars and built several fortresses which stand to this day. No fortress was ever built along the Prut River which flowed through the middle of the country."

I am unclear as to if the source stated "unquestionably" or it's your interpretation. Your geography is still wrong, thinking that Basaraba/Walachia is Bessarabia. Of course it would be silly to build a fortress along a river flowing right through the middle of a country and for no reason! Yes, the Dniester was the border between Poland/Lithuania and Moldavia, as I've already stated.

5. "advancing from the west beyond Dnestr, the Romanian natural expansion encountered the Slavic colonization and the two cultures collided."

That is, after the Romanians crossed the Dniester, inhabited the left bank, and moved further east then, and only then, did they encounter the Slavs. My earlier point on ethnic settlement of the left bank (and beyond) by Romanians, exactly. And no change in the border of Moldavia, which remained along the Dniester while the left bank administratively now belonged to Poland/Lithuania. My earlier point about "if anyone has historical claim, it's Poland/Lithuania." Kievan Rus was never in the territory of the current PMR.
I would add that some Romanian scattered villages are founded even East of Bug. During centuries, is probable that many Romanians were slavicized, as Church Slavonic was a prestige language used by all Romanians (who shared Orthodox faith with Slavs) in curch and administration until 16th century and at a certain degree even after it (some books in Church Slavonic were still printed in Walachia and Moldova as late as 18th century). Source: Petre Panaitescu - "Începuturile şi biruinţa scrierii în limba română" (The begining and the victory of writing in Romanian language), Romanian Academy Publishing House 1965.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

6. "1792: For the first time in history, Russia established its boundary along the Dnestr in the immediate vicinity of Moldavia. At that time, Moldavia had been in existence for almost five hundred years and her eastern boundary had been the Dnestr for all this time."

Actually, Russia established that boundary along the left bank of the Dniester for the very first time in 1793 as part of the partitions of Poland (the first of which was in 1772). This only represented the carving up of Poland (Austria trying to insure its own safety by "giving" Poland to Russia), so a change in political administration, nothing more—and this is the first Russian presence. Again, proving my point exactly, since Romanians remained on the left bank and eastward of the Dniester.

There's nothing worse than making a case by spewing a mountain of seemingly incontrovertible facts driving them home with bolded sledgehammers and having it all totally wrong. I suppose that now you realize what you're quoting not only totally invalidates your position but proves that of the "opposition," you'll dismiss Romanian historians as "biased." You have just proven that Kievan Rus never controlled Transnistria/PMR; that Romanians have been the primary inhabitants of left bank of the Dniester and eastward, i.e., the territory of the current PMR and beyond, since at least the 1400's; and that Russian influence only arrived with the partition of Poland and did not affect the ethnic demographics of the Romanian population on the Dniester's left bank and beyond. So-called "historical Russian claims to the territory of the PMR" completely (and thank you for your emphasis) disproven.

Oops! Feeling the need to quote some other sources? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I responded in Talk:History of Transnistria, the issue at hand is not the sources, they agree. It is your interpretation which is wrong, and it is wrong based an incomplete understanding of Balkan geopolitics and then jumping to conclusions which the sources plainly do not state. There's no "disagreement among reputable sources" that would require "both viewpoints to be noted." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Illythr for moving over! —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pēters, I'd like to point out (from a logical point of view, as I'm no historian (but I did read the ivantoc.org source)), that the last six the points presented by Mauco do not appear to be an attempt to confirm any Russian historical claims (except, perhaps, point 5, although he probably should state his intent more clearly). The citations limit the Romanian presence to the Dnestr, and no mention of Kievan Rus is made at all. In fact, the original dispute about Kievan Rus dealt with the time period of the X-XI centuries, not the XIII-XVIII centuries mentioned in 2. - 6. Here are my comments for your comments, as to avoid cluttering the text above:

1. Yes, that is the idea. It comes into conflict with Moldavia's borders extending beyond Dnestr, though.

3. I think you missed the ...was later named. part. Also, what's the matter with Alexandru cel Bun? Did anyone assume that he's Russian or something? Of course he came from the west, pushing the Tatars to the east! The stress of the point was again, the Moldavian border.

4. Again, you missed the ...what later came to be known as... part that came with Bessarabia. After all, the whole source text mostly focuses on this land.

5. Well, that part is open to interpretation, due to its poor syntactic structure. It could be (origin: advancing from the west) (dest: beyond Dnestr) or (origin: advancing from the west beyond Dnestr) (dest: further east is implied).

I also think that the last part (before "Oops!") was rather offensive and not really necessary for a civil discussion. Besides, that text is indeed biased, but using it to point out the Dnestr as an eastern border for the proto-Romanian states is a good idea, IMHO.

PS: As for my personal "two bani", I believe that any kind of "historical claims" for any expanse of land are pointless from a legal point of view, and all they do is provoking someone to forcefully attempt to "revert the edits" made during the last several wars by starting a new one. All that matters to me here is that Transnistria was the part of the Soviet Union that was used to "magnet" Bessarabia into the USSR. After the fall of the SU, the place is torn between its current (de jure) and former owners. --Illythr 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Which parts in particular are you saying are torn which way and who are you saying are the current "de jure" owners of which parts (versus former "de jure" owners)? Just trying to clarify your position. (On the other, unless I misread earlier, Walachia was interchanged with Bessarabia. And I thought the point was we were discussing Kievan Rus claims--which have nothing to do with Moldavia not extending beyond the Dniester because--my point--Kievan Rus never controlled the territory opposite Moldavia so being emphatic about the Moldavian border is a total red herring.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your two cents. This was (and is) a historic borderland so it is normal to expect a mix of cultures and races and a mixed history, too, with a rich tapestry of participants. You suggested that I explain the intent behind 5. Well, I didn't really have an intent but merely quoted directly from a Romanian view of the history of the region (without deleting anything, nor adding anything). As for 5, I took it as an example of a Romanian version of lebensraum (the "natural expansion" wording - why "natural"?) but that was my own interpretation. And yes, hopefully the future of the area will be decided on what the people really want, and not on someone believing that they have an old (or even recent) title to the land. - Mauco 03:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder: we are not here to establish the future of Transnistria, but to write an encyclopedia. And we should focus on writing factually correct things, not propaganda.--MariusM 14:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Thanks. - Mauco 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think that you ought to either address Pēters' arguments directly, or at least agree with my assesment of the situation - that you did not make any "So-called "historical Russian claims to the territory of the PMR"" with those refs - so that he can reply to something "from you". ;-) --Illythr 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I already wrote to him directly that I am a bit busy these next couple of days but that I will certainly get back to him in some more detail when I can sit down and get the proper research done. - Mauco 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

All... I have never said Moldova's administrative borders went past the Dniester. I have said the Romanians did. (But, let's debate that point elsewhere!) For now let's stick to Kievan Rus. I have gone through ALL the centuries, from the inception of Keivan Rus to its demise and there is no historical basis for any claim of ancient Rusisa in Transnistria (with, as I noted, an 80-year exception of control when Galicia-Volhynia was at the peak of its powers), and that was basically cutting through Moldavia and west of it. My hope is that from an "encyclopedic" standpoint, we can come to an agreement that the Russian presence in the territory east of the Dniester, to the Black Sea shore, only came into being with the 1793 partition of Poland, and that there is no support of the "ancient Russian claim" that has been suggested (in particular, Wiki map showing Kievan Rus controlling the entire Black Sea coast down to the Dniester. Never happened.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.--MariusM 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Not so fast. This use of "Never happened" is way too categorical and won't settle the argument. It all depends on how we define Russians. If we use the narrow definition of Imperial Russia, then they 1783 is the first year where we see Russia in Transnistria. This was with the annexation of the Crimean Khanate, transferring Yedisan (which then ruled the southern part of Transnistria, up to the Polish border) to Russia. It was formalized in the 1792 Treaty of Jassy although it happened nine years prior.
However, Imperial Russia only existed from 1721 onwards. So to look at an 'ancient' claim, it is necessary to evaluate to which extent any of its forerunners had a presence in Transnistria. And here we discover that several of them did, in fact dating all the way back to the Early East Slavs. Historically speaking, this is a classic borderland and lots of sides have a "claim" to past influence in the area. Going back in time and looking at who ruled what, and when, Poland, Ukraine and Russia are 3 examples of countries which have a much stronger historical claim than Romania or Moldova. This is history we are talking about. Don't be glib. - Mauco 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't troll, Mauco. We are talking here about Kievan Rus. It was very clear from the begining that this is the subject of the paragraph.--MariusM 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a troll is a bit, shall we say, rude. I doubt that you read my comment in the context of an answer to the previous statement. But since you insist on getting back to the strict and narrow of Kievan, here is what I have to say on the matter:
Kievan Rus' did include Transnistria (and all of it, too - not just a sliver). For sources, see the Cassell Atlas of World History by John Haywood and the Penguin Atlas of Russian History (Puffin, 1995). Transnistria was apparently not formally included in the Kievan Rus' when Sviatoslav I of Kiev got coronated, but fell under his conquests 962-972. The area of conquest is described in detail in David Christian's A History of Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, Vol. 1, Blackwell, 1999. I am familiar with Magocsi, and respect this work, but in this case it does not invalidate the work of the other historians. The historical surveys of Charles King and of Andrew Wilson confirm the following statement, too: That Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus'. - Mauco 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Pēters, please comment on this article. "Never happened"? --Illythr
Gladly. But first, once again Mauco quotes Charles King as stating that Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus. King does not state that, this is Mauco's (flawed) interpretation of King (which is how this section all started).
But on to Illythr's excellent question:
  • Magocsi notes that during the reign of Prince Oleg (880-912), limited control of territory along the Dnieper was expanded, joining Kiev with Novogrod via Smolensk. Next reference is that by the onset of the 11th century, Kievan Rus had extended its control to Poland's eastern border (central/northern central east-central Europe), as I've also already indicated. As the Pereyaslavets stub indicates, Kievan Rus had an interest in the Byzantine and Bulgarian lands farther south (lucrative trade). Magocsi notes specifically that "it was Kievan Rus's raids on Bulgaria in the 960's and 970's that contributed to the weakening of that empire and its eventual decline in the face of subsequent Byzantine attacks."
  • So raids on Bulgaria over two decades, but not historical Kievan Rus rule of vast territories which included Transnistria.
Mauco states Magocsi is not "invalidating other historians." Let me be clear once again: it's not Magocsi "versus" Mauco's historians, it's Magocsi "versus" Mauco's interpretations of historians and specifically his interpretations which indicate a tradition of Kievan Rus rule over the Transnistrian territory. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The interpretation is easy, not just for me but for anyone who bothers to take a look at these sources: Just see the maps and notice to where they extend, at different times in history. You can leave out historian Charles King, if you prefer, but that still does not invalidate anything. There are several other sources that are clear on the same (and it should be noted that King, obviously, trusted the Wilson source more than Magocsi on this matter). Additional sources even include John Haywood: Cassell Atlas of World History, the Penguin Atlas of Russian History, and David Christian's highly regarded "A History of Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, Vol. 1." These sources, individually and jointly, all support the simple eight-word statement that "...It was part of Kievan Rus at times". - Mauco 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess you'll need to provide citations, I don't think Peters will buy this just like that. --Illythr 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean online citations (hyperlinks)? There aren't any. These are all paper-based sources, just like Magocsi. However, Pēters J. Vecrumba has shown himself to be a good researcher and he has access to a large public library. With the exception of possibly Wilson, these are not obscure sources and they are fairly easy to locate. Less easy will be to get agreement on the interpretation of them, of course. - Mauco 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As for raids - from what I was able to gather from Wikipedia pages on the various participants, the chain of events was as follows: The Byzantine Empire bid Svyatoslav to raid the Bulgarian Empire. He did, and was quite successful at that. However, after the Balkan campaign was over, he proclaimed himself the ruler of the captured lands, instead of relinquishing control to the Byzantuim as was agreed. He moved the capital of Rus' to Pereyaslavets and called it "the center of his lands". This led to a fallout with his Byzantian allies, to the loss of the territories and eventually to his death. I'd say this qualifies as "rule", albeit a brief one. This does not invalidate the Magocsi quotes above, as Svyatoslav conquered only a part of the Bulgarian Empire in his raids. See also (here. --Illythr 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I read it more as the Danube was the most lucrative place to be (that is, after Constantinople), and who wouldn't want their capital there? Kiev was already in its descendency as the center of power--for the next century or so Galicia/Volhynia was the principality calling the shots. (Wasn't just after another another generation of Kievan Rus rulers that it fell apart and the principalities essentially went their own way?)
And, of course, the problem is that the mouth of the Danube is nowhere near Transnistria, so there is still no qualification as "rule" with regard to the article. Every time Slav presence or some dig is mentioned, there's the immediate jump to Kievan Rus ruling the entire territory along the Black Sea. One does not follow from the other. Pereyaslavets, which lasted (by Wiki accounts) all of two years as the capital, does not confer rule of the surrounding territories nor of Transnistria.
Obviously, I'm happy to respond regardless, but because of the controversial aspects of this topic, we have tried to source away from Wikipedia. And we'll continue to plough through the paper sources, obviously, to (eventually) arrive at some common interpretation. (And to Mauco once again, I am not saying to leave King out; I just don't believe your reading of King is accurate. I suppose I'll have to see if King's book is available to borrow at the library--not easy when commuting 4-5 hours a day, unfortunately!) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I'll add Svyatoslav's campaign to my list of items to research (outside of Wikipedia). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know just how, precisely, anyone can say that "my reading of King is accurate." The sentence is short and to the point, and I quote from Charles King: " The territory east of the Dnestr River belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries. " What, exactly, is there to misunderstand? You can argue that King is wrong (if you have the sources to prove that), but you can not say that Mauco's reading of King is wrong. It is a very clear, direct and unambigious sentence. - Mauco 06:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources point/counter-point #2

Let's make sure that the interpretations of words match the realities of maps. Confusing the territory of the ruler Besaraba with the later territory of Bessarabia is quite understandable if you don't have a map showing Besaraba ruled Walachia (some place completely different) in 1308. I sectioned this off so it can be edited/commented without needing to sift through endless screens of text. I invite Mauco (or anyone else, obviously!) to post another source for discussion. (One source at a time, please!) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I already gave an explanation above based on my knowledge of history (I don't have Magocsi book, but this is common knowledge in Romania for people interested in history): Basarab, king of Walachia, ruled South of actual Basarabia (and also other teritories - Muntenia, Oltenia and Dobrodja). Afterwards, Moldova, the second Romanian state, took this land from Walachia. In 1812, Russia extended the name "Basarabia" to the entire teritorry between Prut and Dniester. Russia sought a quick peace with Turkey as it was atacked by Napoleon (Turkey didn't knew what Napoleon had in mind). Russia bribe a Turkish diplomat to achieve peace, and, in order to create the impression that its territorial claims are smaller than in the reality, deliberately misused the word "Basarabia" giving it a broader interpretation.--MariusM 01:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to disagree but just to clarify: Was 'Basarabia' (or Bessarabia in English) not named after Basarabi, a village in Dolj County, south-western Romania? (Which is nowadays an administrative component of the Calafat municipality). - Mauco 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I can probably correct myself: Basarabia comes from House of Basarab and it seems that the Basarabi village got its name from Basarab I, the first ruler. - Mauco 06:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware that in Dolj county exist a village name Basarabi.--MariusM 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)