Talk:Mircea I of Wallachia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Romanian military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Mircea 2 Move? 3 "Reigned" 4 Maps 5 Mircea's posessions 6 Original research notes 7 The Great?

[edit] Mircea

How about Mircea the Elder instead of Mircea the Ancient? Ancient would rather translate to din båtrâni... Just a suggestion...

The script on Mircea's image seems to be written in Cyrillic (probably Bulgarian). Did he have Bulgarian or Polish or Russian anscestry or something?

It's probably Romanian, just written in Cyrillic. I'm not sure when the alphabet changed to the Latin one. I can't say for sure, because I can't read Cyrillic.(the first two letters are Mi though :)

the ancient documents were writen in Cyrillic , due to the slavic influence the romanians beeing sorrounded by cyrillic writing they borrowed it into their documents, but if you know cyrillic and you read carefully , you will see that you're actually speaking romanian , the pronunciation is the same as modern day romanian , only using an older version of letters.

remarckable isn'it ?

It's strange. There is no mention in the article about Ungrovlahia. In fact he calls his country Ungrovlahia: "Eu, Io Mircea mare voievod şi domn singur stăpânitor a toată ţara Ungrovlahiei şi al părţilor de peste munţi, încă şi spre părţile tătăreşti şi herţeg al Amlaşului şi Făgăraşului şi domn al Banatului Severinului şi de amândouă părţile peste toată Podunavia , încă până la Marea cea Mare şi singur stăpânitor al cetăţii Dârstor.", we read in his command to Tismana at 23 november 1406. An other thing I quote from the article: "He maintained close relations with Sigismund of Luxembourg, the king of Hungary, relying on their common interest in the struggle against Ottoman expansion." In fact, Mircea the Elder was a vassal of Sigimund of Luxembourg, the king of Hungary. The word "Ungro" in the name of the country is a clear and undeniable evidence for that.Zmiklos 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

13:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) The word "Ungro" has nothing to do with Mircea being a vassal for Sigismund ,which he was not by the way, it is used to differentiate Wallachia from the other "Wallachies" from South-Eastern Europe like Moldova (called Bogdan Iflak in turkish which means Bogdan's Wallachia) and the former (in the 12th,13th century) autonomous principalities and Byzantine provinces of the Balkans (situated in parts of Greece, Bulgaria and Albania)>>>search "Vlachs" or "Aromanians" That being said... the UNGRO in Ungrovlahia means the Wallachia NEXT TO HUNGARY. Hungary being used as a point of refference, it being the dominant state in the region at the time. Take your propaganda elsewhere... leave wiki alone.User:Makidonu|Makidonu]] 13:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The script is definately written in Bulgarian. Think of the name too - Mircha - as Slavic as it goes (Mircha or Mircho). Same goes for Radu. Radu is a way of saying Rado, which is short for Radomir or Radoslav or Radostin or even Radoi if you prefer. There is no wonder why this all is. The trans-danubian territories were inseparable part of the First Bulgarian Empire and to a large extent the Second Bulgarian Empire where the Wlachs played a prominent role. Wallachians and maybe even Bessarabians wrote in Cyrillic until the 17/18th century. I also wonder what these territories actually spoke given that using Bulgarian nobility titles (kniaz, voevoda, boyar) was the norm, not to mention plentiful of other words such as palinka, ulitsa, zakuska ... :) (Kaloyan)

13:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) So? what is your point? That Romanians are just a bunch of Latinised Bulgarians? This theory is new to me and i would really like to read more about it since i'm in the mood for some amusement. I really don't get your point... Latin and French were spoken more frequently than English at the Enghish court in the Middle Ages; does that make Brits Latin or French? Slavic was the Orthodox "lingua franca" after Byzantine power declined. Some members of the ruling elite might have been of Slavic, Cuman, Bulgarian etc descent, but that says nothing about the ordinary people. Another English reference: A large part of the English elite was of Norman (French, Danish, Norwegian) extraction, does that make the Brits French, Danish, Norwegian? No they are plain English/Britsh etc. And how about the most common Christian names: Christian, Andrew, George, Maria...? all being Jewish or Greek. Does that make French, Spanish, Italian, Puertorican, Irish etc to be Greek or Jeiwsh?Makidonu 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Why was this moved? What other Mircea cel Batran could he be confused with? Adam Bishop 04:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about that move but it was not fully proper. Ordinal and country are elements instucted by naming convntions, and I moved this now accordingly. Marrtel 11:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Reigned"

According to WP:MOS, "reigned" should probably be changed to "fl." Thoughts? — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I can't understand why a map made in 2005 on a PC has to be added to a historical article. Under the map you can read "Wallachia (highlighted in green) towards the end of the 16th century". What are the sources for this map? Based on what has been drawn? Do you think that a fake map proves something? The map is made nowadays, but text on the map seems from the past. What is this map, a reproduction of something or just an attempt to replace the facts with fiction and imagination? Please provide an original map from the 16th century. The lack of information is better than fake information. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. Zmiklos 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try the following: click on the map, and read the legend to see what the red line stands for. Then read "highlighted in green" again. Dahn 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alos: it is general practice to create historical maps, on wikipedia and in academia alike. A 16th century map tends to be highly inaccurate from a geographical point of view, and usually does not record political hierarchies (or does so in the vaguest of terms). You will find that the map, for all things it illustrates, is in agreement with all sources, either texts or renditions - in fact, I'm puzzled as to why you would even be objecting to it (I'm not so sure about the map showing Wallachia in ca. 1390, but that's another matter). Dahn 22:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1390 one was made - I suppose - after Mircea the Elder's titles. A similar map can be found at Dinu C Giurescu, Istoria ilustrată a românilor, so it's ok. --Alex:Dan 10:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but our map (as opposed to the one you added) fails to note that many territories were Mircea's possessions in other realms, and not actually parts of Wallachia. I am also very unsure that Dobrotich's realm had clearly-drawn borders (or that they corresponded with the entire Dobruja, or that they were themselves part of Wallachia). Dahn 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Chilia was tooken from the Genovese a little bit later (there were 2 campaigns if I remember corectly), but most of Dobrudja was under Mircea's control since 1388. He got it by sword so it was part of Wallachia (as a state) then. I have to read some more to clarify that. I agree completely about Fagaras, Amlas and Severin Banat because if I remember corectly, these were taken back not conquered from Wallachian princes by Iancu de Hunedoara.--Alex:Dan 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My actual point: in his title, Mircea used separate particles to define his separate rules, all having him as sovereign, but thus not really part of Wallachia. We have him being, if I translated this correctly, "ruler of all Hungro-Wallachia and the parts over the mountains, and additionally over to the Tatar parts and of Amlaş and Făgăraş hetzeg [i.e.: duke] and ruler of the Banat of Severin, and ruler on both sides of the entire Danube over to the Great Sea and of the Dârstor citadel". Now, we can be sure he was ruler of those places, but this title, as well as Hungarian sovereignty over some of the realms mentioned, point that the realms were separated from one another. In addition, you have numerous parallels to draw: the Plantagenets were indeed kings of England, they claimed and almost had rule over France, but France (or Guyenne, etc.) were never part of England-proper (or meant to be). There was nothing preventing a ruler of a country from accumulating countless titles and domains, and, just as well, there was no necessity or requirement to tie them all to the same administration (in fact, the feudal system made tying domains especially difficult).

About the borders: I would still like to see a scholar citing evidence that Mircea extended his rule over the entire area covered by the two maps, and some sort of evidence that Dobruja was ever made part of Wallachia (when the title seems to indicate that it was not). I'm not going to challenge the maps, since they clearly have more uses than flaws, but it would be nice if we would find something more detailed on this issue, and preferably something with a little more appeal and less of an agenda than the Romanian discourse. In case contrasting data will become available, I would suggest converting the Dobrujan section of the map to hachures instead of solid color. Dahn 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In original, in the title was not Danube, but Podunavia. I don't know what it means. In Romanian it was: de amândouă părţile şi peste toată Dunărea până la Marea cea Mare şi cetăţii Durustorului stăpânitor (1387). I don't want to draw a conclusion until I read more. Until now I've found this at Dinu C. Giurescu. --Alex:Dan 11:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found it: The treaty of Lublin between Wallachia and Poland (1390) Mircea is entitled despot al ţărilor lui Dobrotă şi domn al Silistrei.--Alex:Dan 11:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, while the mention of Silistra does seem to confirm Mircea's rule to the south, the notion that Dobruja was made part of Wallachia-proper still seems to be wishful thinking. I suppose "Podunavia" literary means "on the Danube". Dahn 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Who reads, learns more! The second edition of P.P. Panaitescu's study Mircea cel Bătrân (2000) has useful additional notes concerning the discoveries, studies and confirmation/infirmation of Panaitescu's conclusions which were done after the first edition (1944). In this book, I've found exactly which were the teritories under Mircea's rule. Podunavia is considered by most of the historians a teritory on both sides of the lower Danube. But Mircea is entitled in 1390 Despot of Terra Dobrotici (and domn of Silistra). I will detail these matters as soon as I'll have some spare time. And also about the Severin banat and Amlas and Fagaras. The map is wrong about the last two teritories, because precise borders could be drawn by historians acording to documents. I will also add some info about his titles (voievod, domn, herzog, despot) and years of ruling over specific teritories to clarify this matter. Should I move the discution from now on on Mircea's talk page?--Alex:Dan 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the detailed information on titles is best directed in the article on Mircea, as well as specific articles (on the Amlas, on the Banat etc.) instead of here - I am not sure if you yourself were suggesting that. I don't know where this discussion should go, but perhaps you could copy it there or link to it (instead of moving it).

In respect to Amlas, Fagaras etc.: the two maps differ in that yours shows Amlas etc. as distinct territories (note the borders between them and Wallachia). I have no idea why it does not do the same for Dobruja, especially since Mircea is making use of separate titles for that region was well, but, if I had to guess, it may be the Romanian tendency to revise history in respect to Dobruja (a historical Romanian presence in that region before 1878 is mostly untenable, and we do our best to milk the Mircea episode dry of symbolics). Dahn 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Amlas and Fagaras are separated in my map but, as I said, they are wrongly depicted. The coloured map is a little more accurate from this point of view. I think it's best to continue this discussion on Mircea's talk page. So...

[edit] Mircea's posessions

This is the situation of Mircea cel Bătrân's possesions over the years^[1]:

• Banatul de Severin (Banat of Severin):

• Amlaş and Făgăraş Duchies: Mircea was herţeg of Amlaş and Făgăraş. These feuds were donated by the Hungarian king to Wallachian voivodes in exchage of senior - vassal relations between the two countries. First time, these duchies were donated in 1366, by Louie the Great to Vladislav Vlaicu. However, in 1374 he was not ruling over them any more^[2]. Only around 1389 will Mircea regain them back.
  • Amlaş: Its borders were established in 1366, as a royal domain. In a document from 1383, Amlaş was including the following "Romanian villages": Grassdorf (Sălişte), Galusdorf (Galeş), Graplundorf (Valea), Budinbach (Sibiel), Kripzbach (Cacova) and the Amlaş Castle all over to the mountains (tendit usque ad Alpes). Moreover, in the same document, the borders of Amlaş are established once more: Berch mountain, Aplodul de Sus, Hepisch river, Amlaş river, Firtysdorf (nowadays disappeard), Wecherd river, Saporcha (Topârcea), Nykusberg mountain, Chirna voda, Feketeviz village (Săcele), Chirvod Olachorul river, Kisyrval river, "semita Olachorum", Tysgrad, Budenbach river and Varalya village (Orlat). Thus, the Amlaş Duchy is surrounded by Transylvania, with no direct link to Wallachia^[3].
  • Făgăraş: The borders of Făgăraş Duchy were established considering 12 romanian documents concerning this land, from Mircea's time. The northen border was on the Olt river (Mircea: Domn of Făgăraş Land, up to Olt river) and the southern one was the same with Wallachia's, thus Făgăraş being directly linked with the Romanian principality. The westernmost village mentioned in any of these documents is Scoreci, but Panaitescu does not exclude the posibility that Porumbacu was also part of this feud (according to the old borders of Terra Blacorum - Ţara Românească/Ţara Oltului). As for the eastern border, only three villages are mentioned: Cuciulata, Dopca and Fântâna. Panaitescu supposed that the border followed the mountains peak. Although one near another, the roads (merely some paths) between Wallachia and Făgăraş Land were suitable only for mountain horses, not carriages or comercial caravans. Panaitescu supposed that couriers, merchandisers and soldiers were allowed to pass trough Transylvania on their way to the duchy^[4].
• Bran Castle: Sigismund de Luxemburg donated the Bran Castle to Mircea in 1395 (some say 1406 or 1412-1413) and took it back on June 7, 1419, following many protests of Braşov's inhabitants against Wallachian guards of the castle^[5].
• Border with Moldavia:
• Părţile Tătărăşti:
• Terra Dobroticii:

References

1. ^ P. P. Panaitescu, Mircea cel Bătrân, IInd edition, Bucharest, 2000
2. ^ P. P. Panaitescu, p. 232
3. ^ P. P. Panaitescu, p. 242
4. ^ P. P. Panaitescu, p. 241
5. ^ P.P. Panaitescu, p. 248

So what's the problem exactly?Anonimu 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Borders from Moldova they are wrong, according to P.P. Panaitescu, Dinu C. Giurescu etc. I want to detail about the years of reign over these provences. Just give me time--Alex:Dan 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research notes

I'm the original author of the article, back in 2003. I wrote the final paragraph, which has survived and now contains two "original research" notes. What do I have to do to clarify things and remove them? --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, me again. I read the text accompanying the template, and it seems I'm "within [my] rights to remove the tag", given that there's no associated explanation in the talk page -- so I'll do just that.

However, as a gesture of good faith, I'll explain why "Keeping the country free from becoming an Ottoman province ("pashalik") also meant keeping the Ottomans away from Western Europe, a feat which retrospectively might not sound impressive, but was a very important accomplishment at the time".

I think there are two aspects to this: whether there was any actual concern regarding the Ottomans within Western Europe, and whether Wallachia's relative independence made any difference:

• Western Europe's concern with the Ottomans should be obvious for anyone with a grasp of Central/Eastern Europe's history: several alliances involving prominent figures of the time -- including the Pope as a catalyst -- were forged with the sole purpose of keeping the "heathens" at bay (religion was a huge thing back then, at least as a pretext -- remember the Crusades). Trivia: in the 1400's, Europe was still remembering the relatively recent Mongol invasion which had ended in the 1240's.
• The only part in that phrase in the article that I can conceivably find dubious for a contemporary reader is how such a small principality's resistance against being controlled by the Ottomans could have made any difference for Western Europe as a whole. The reason is related to military tactics: with Wallachia acting as a buffer, the Ottomans were unable to deploy their armies properly in order to attack the Transylvanian border effectively -- and remember that Transylvania was part of Catholic Hungary at the time. Specifically, note Mircea's alliance with Hungary's Sigismund, and the failed Crusade of 1396 which included Mircea (speaking of which, Romanian historians uniformly seem to enjoy pointing out how Sigismund was too arrogant to listen to Mircea's wise and knowledgeable advice during the Crusade, which ultimately led to said Crusade's failure -- I chose to leave that out when I wrote the article, because even if it's true, I find it's just a small, mean thing to say; I wanted to mention my choice in this regard in order to show that I'm not some nationalistic fanatic, willing to sacrifice historical truth in order to make my "forefathers" look good).

Anyway, if any aspects are still debatable, please drop me a line on my Romanian Wikipedia talk page (I check that way more often than my English talk page). --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Great?

I had trouble finding this page because I've always known him as "Mircea the Great". Isn't that a more suitable name? --Tefalstar (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to moving him to "the Great"? --Tefalstar (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)