Talk:Dobruja

Merge History of Dobruja into the history section of Dobruja

• First, there are much more information on this article (Dobruja) than on the History of Dobruja one.
• Of course some would say why don't we move all history to history of dobruja. But this would leave this article very short, almost a stub.
• And the third argument is that no historical regions of Bulgaria or Romania have separate articles for the history section. See Eastern Rumelia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Oltenia, Budjak, Moesia, Thrace, Rumelia, Macedonia (region), Bukovina, Banat, Bessarabia, Maramures region (the last 8 are divided between two or more countries, like Dobruja, some of them have longer articles han this one). Even Moldavia (historical region) doesn't have a link to its own history, but to the history of the Republic of Moldova.

BTW, we should also add some other sections: geography, economy and etymology maybe Anonimu 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

how could bulgaria retain control of dobrudja until 1411, when the tzarate of turnovo, the only bulgarian state who could control the region, disappeared in 1393?

The Dobrudja Despotate was one of the three major Bulgarian states of the separated Bulgarian Tsardom, ruled by Balik, his brother Dobrotitsa (whose Slavic name the region actually bears, only turkified and meaning "Dobrotitsa's land") and then Ivanko, Dobrotitsa's son. As the names states, the despotate had its territory in Dobrudja (Kravuna (now Kavarna) was its capital). As for the date - I doubt it was 1411, my History of Bulgaria source says either 1388-1389 or 1399, but certainly nothing about it being in Bulgarian control as late as 1411. You might consider changing it worthwhile. --Martyr 16:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Minorities

Yes, VMRO, there were many Bulgarians that were assimilated in Northern Dobruja and elsewhere in Romania. :-) But let me remind you that Bulgaria once had a signifiant minority of Romanians, too:

In 1926 the number of "Romanians" living in Bulgaria was 69 080, while the total number of individuals whose mother tongue was Romanian ran up to 83 746. The Aroumanins belonging to this group were divided, according to their self-descriptions, into three subgroups: 5000 Aroumanians, 4000 Kutzovlachs and 1500 Tsintsars. from http://www.omda.bg/engl/narod/vlasi_arumani_engl.html

bogdan | ^Talk 21:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Bogdan, I admit what you say - but the majority of the Vlachs in Bulgaria were concentrated in the district of Vidin and not in Southern Dobruja. And no, you are not right about northern Dobrudja - practically no Bulgarians ever got assimilated there, they all resettled to Sourthern Dobruja although the vast majority of them had attended only Romanian schools and could not even write in Bulgarian. There were, however, some 120,000 Bulgarians in Wallachia (as of the beginning of the 20th century), the vast majority of which WERE assimilated. They were, however, not indigenous population but emigrants (refugees) who came to Wallachia in the 18th and 19th century. The same regards the Vlachs in Bulgaria - most of them came as refugees from Wallachia in the 18th cenrtury. VMORO 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Bulgarians refugees came in Wallachia because of the Turkish rule in Bulgaria. But why did Vlachs move south of the Danube?

Actually, it was more complex than just refugees. Initially, Romanians also lived in the mountains of Western Bulgaria, while Bulgarians also lived in the plains of south-eastern Romania. This was due to their origins: Bulgarians, as Slavs were used with agriculture in the lowlands, while the Romanians survived the dark ages in the mountains. It was in western Bulgaria and Southern Romania where Romanians and Bulgarians had contacts which had some important cultural exchanges, including linguistic exchanges. Romanian and Bulgarian share a great deal of vocabulary, some of which is 'original', i.e. cannot be found in other Romance or Slavic languages, some of which are simply borrowings краставица->castraveţi (cucumber) from Bulgarian into Romanian or masa->маса (table) from Romanian into Bulgarian. However, it seems Romanian has much more Slavic/Bulgarian words, because of the Church.

But getting back to the story... eventually, the Bulgarians assimilated the Romanians of the heights in Bulgaria and the Romanians assimilated the Bulgarians of the lowlands of Romania.

Now returning to the question, yes, it appears there were some Wallachians that moved south of Danube that settled in the lowlands southeast of Vidin. (the Romanians that lived in the mountains came much earlier) But I have no idea why, I would guess taxation and stuff like that. bogdan | ^Talk 22:47, 19

October 2005 (UTC)

I have added more detailed information about the area around Mangalia and the Romanian-Bulgarian crissis of 1879, with ref of course.Constantzeanu 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Byzantine/Bulgarian

With the exception of periods of Byzantine and Tatar domination, parts of the territory of what is now known as Dobruja remained under Bulgarian rule until 14th century.

Actually, it stayed more under Byzantine rule than under Bulgarian rule, so this should be rephrased some way.bogdan 23:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I changed the wording in order to reflect that. What do you think now.Constantzeanu 03:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the Byzantine/ Bulgarian rule should be split in Bulgarian rule and Byzantine Rule, the miz is very confusing, or maybe should be rewritten as Dark age period in order to reflect cronological events and not to be biased political history. CristianChirita 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by Bogdan and Constantzeanu

Bulgar necropoles have been discovered on the following sites: Topola, Durankulak (Dobrich region) and Istria, Obarshia Noua, Izvorul, Sultana in present-day Romania. And this is according to a source from the 1960s, perhaps many more have been found after that date. Should I also remind you that the first Bulgarian capital (Pliska) lies around 50 km from the boundary of Southern Dobruja.

As for the "Romanian majority" in northern Dobruja, we have talked at length with you about this, Bogdan, and such a thing did not exist AT ALL until the beginning of the 20th century and even then the Romanians had ONLY a relative majority.

Third of all, I want to ask: what the hell does "Cadrilater" do in the category "Historical Romanian Regions"? The fact that it was ruled for 22 years by Romania and subjected to intensive colonisation does not make it a "historical Romanian region", the category falls, sorry. VMORO 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the text about D. in 1911 Encyclopedia:

• DOBRUDJA (Bulgarian Dobritch, Rumanian Dobrogea), also written DOBRUDSCHA, and DOBRUJA, a region of south-eastern Europe, bounded on the north and west by the Danube, on the east by the Black Sea, and on the south by Bulgaria. Pop. (1900) 267,808; area, 6ooo sq. m. The strategic importance of this territory was recognized by the Romans, who defended it on the south by Trajans Wall, a double rampart, drawn from Constantza, on the Black Sea, to the Danube. In later times, it was utilized by Russians and Turks, as in the wars of 1828, 1854 and 1878, when it was finally wrested from Turkey. By the treaty of Berlin, in 1878, the Russians rewarded their Rumanian allies with this land of mountains, fens and barren steppes, peopled by Turks, Bulgarians, Tatars, Jews and other aliens; while, to add to the indignation of Rumania, they annexed instead the fertile country of Bessarabia, largely inhabited by Rumans. After 1880, however, the steady decrease of aliens, and,the development of the Black Sea ports, rendered the Dobrudja a source of prosperity to Rumania.

Vmoro, I think you are a little biased and if I may say so a little fueled by Bulgarian irredentism. I never said that Romanians were the majority in Dobrogea but Bulgarians weren't the majority either. Dobrogea was a territory containing a number of nationalities, Turks, Tatars, Romanians and Bulgarians being the largest ones. Constantzeanu 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Encylopedia of Islam, in 1850, the population of the Kazas of Tulcea, Isaccea, Macin, Harsova, Babadag, Constanta, Mangalia, Pazargic, Balcik and Silistra (that's dobrudja) was: 4800 Turkish, 3656 Romanian, 2225 Tatar, 2214 Bulgarian, 1092 Cossack, 747 Lipovani, 300 Greek, 212 Gypsy, 145 Arab, 126 Armenian, 119 Jewish and 59 German families. So, in term of families, in the 1850s dobruja was about 30% turk, 23% romanian, 14% Tatar, 14% bulgarian; 42% percent of non-muslims were romanian, while only 25% bulgarians. the real population breakdown wasn't far from these numbers. Between 1854 an 1866 a large number of tatar came, but during the war of 1877-1878, about 90,000 turks and tatars emigrated to Turkey and Bulgaria, most of them never returned. Thus in 1878 we probably hade a relative majority at least in Northern dobrudja Anonimu 00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kipchaks

Dobruja was dominated by the Kipchak Turks from 1064 until the advent of the Ottoman Empire

That's wrong. The Kipchak Turks held it for some time but between 1064 and 1393, but also many others did: the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, Dobrotich's Kingdom, Wallachia, the Byzantine Empire, with some cities even being held by the Genoese. bogdan 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

the kipchaks, in fact their western part, the cumans had an important role in dobrudja in that period and other occupation we're not signifiant. the 1064 is wrong, being the date of the coming of the uzes. the cumans came in 1091. dobruja was a kind of no mans land in those times. the second bulgarian held the territory only for short periods during Ivan Asen II (some say he is of cuman origin) and Theodore Svetoslav. Byzantine empire was not a force anymore. And when Michael VIII Palaeologus succeded in conquering this land, he gave it to turk settlers. Dobrotich had probably cuman origins also. the previous ruler of the state, Balika (Dobrotich brother/ father?), had a cuman name acording to Rasonyi. And Dobrotich was most likely under ottoman suzerainty since the 1370s. Mircea the Elder (probably of distant cuman origin also) mentioned turkish towns among his possesions. probably after 1405 , Mircea had only nominal rule over dobrudja, de facto it being controlled by the akindji who were against Mehmed I and preffered to remain Mircea's allies. Anyway, somme well referenced info is needed. Anonimu 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Despot Dobro...

What name should we use for the de-jure autonomous ruler of Dobrudja in the 14th century? Now we have Dobrotich in the etymology section, and Dobrotici / Dobrotitsa in the history section, while some time ago an user put also Dobrotiţă.Then we have Dobrich that was named in honour of this mediaevial ruler and Neshri who indirectly calls him Dobrudj(a) (he calls his son Dobrudja-oğlu, however some of the vowels may be wrong, since Neshri wrote in arabic abjad, so the transliterator may have guessed them. In abjad it's دوبرجه) Anonimu 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The name used in contemporaneous sources: in byzantine ones (John Cantacuzenus' History i think) Τομπροτιτζας (yes, with a T... also some coins attributed to him bear a "T", supposed to be his initial. However, a hundred years latter Chalcocondilas calls Dobruja Δοβροτίκεω τοῦ Μυσοῦ χώρα), in genoese and venetian ones Dobroticie, Dobrodisse or Dobrodize. In savoyard documents he appears as Desbrodicze, and in hungarian ones (written in latin) as Dobratich. Probably we should stick to Dobrotici/Dobrotitsa (even if i think that all variants are attempts to render "Dobrotitsə" ) Anonimu 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Was Dobrotitsa a noble of Bulgarian descent? At least in relation to his name and the time he ruled. Kaloyan* 13:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dobrogea historical region of Romania

I understand this article deals with whole Dobrogea, including teritory of Bulgaria. I see also that Dobrogea is listed as historical region of Romania. Dobrrogea is not an administrative region of Romania, yet it is an informal, and historical region. I want to specify that Dobrogea is a history thing, I need to know if there is a Bulgarian Historical Region named Dobruja Criztu 06:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, this article deals with (I quote) "a territory". Further specifications are made at Northern Dobruja, ie: NOT HERE. As I see, already fizzing out your "relevant contribution" on that page. Dahn 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

look Dahn, you are flaming me already, please follow the Netiquette Criztu 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a Bulgarian Historical Region named Dobroudja. In modern Bulgarian history the part belonging to Romania is Northern Dobroudja and the the one in Bulgaria is Southern Dobroudja. The former was lost to Romania during one of the Balkan wars, when Romania entered the war on the side of the Greko-Serbian alliance and threatened to invade Bulgaria form the North, while all Bulgarian army was situated down the South. Later military events and especially good diplomacy (something extremely rare in modern Bulgarian history) helped obtain Southern Dobroudja back. As far as the early medieval Balkans are concerned, Asparoukh firstly settled in Dobroudja before starting to raid the land below the Danube and establish the First Bulgarian Empire. Kaloyan* 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent chnages

I have some problems:

1. The fact that the name "Principality of Karvuna" was ever used before modern times, and that Balik and/or Dobrdč were called in a contemporany source (14th-15th centuries) princes of Karvuna.
2. The fact that the capital was moved to Kalliakra in the 1370's. Iorga (not the best source available) says that it was at Kalliakra by 1366 (Dobrotisch, in Ac. Roum. Bull. de la Sec. His. ii-iv, 1914, 295).
3. The fact that Mircea occupied Dobrudja-eli after he fought the Grand vizier in 1388. (Actually, the Grand vizier never entered Dobrudja-eli, he sent Yakhshim, son of Timurtash, and this had some interesting negotiations with important people from Varna, by then capital of the state.)
4. I want a source that Mircea regained Dobrudjan territories between 1393 and 1404.
5. I don't understand the use of non standard forms of the names of turkish sultans (beyazid and mehmet). Anonimu 20:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Answers

For the first 2 issues, I do not have yet answers, but it is obvious that Karvuna was the main centre of that mediaeval state, its Capital, and after Karvuna was also named the hole country. It is also well known that Dobrotici/Dobrotitsa moved the capital to Kaliakra.Madalinfocsa 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

obvious for who? well know to whom? Anonimu 09:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the grand vizier did not enter in Dobrudja, Mircea won a battle against him. Source: M. Stoian, Nici cuceritori nici cuceriţi, Bucureşti 1982.Madalinfocsa 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So what has this to do with Dobruja's history?Anonimu 09:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mircea regained Dobrudja in 1395, after his victory at Rovine, and lost it for the second time in 1396/1397, after the Crussaders' defeat at Nicopole (it is mentioned for those years a third Ottoman conquest of Kaliakra) - the same source, and also G. Djingov, Kaliakra.Fortification, vol.1, Sofia, 1990. So Mircea did not regain Dobruja between 1393 and 1404, I never said this. So the last - and also longest - mediaeval Romanian rule on this territory lasted between 1402 (or 1404 after other sources) and 1420, when Mircea's son, Mihail I, was defeated and even killed in battle by the Turks under Mehmet I.

Therefore, if nobody will make the according changes, I will do it myself later. Madalinfocsa 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern Dobruja before 1880

Please, explain me are there any reliable sources for 43 671 Romanians or 31% of the population of Northern Dobrudja before 1880? Censuses, researches, etc.? - Jackanapes 15:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's Grégoire Danesco (Grigore Dănescu), Dobrogea (La Dobroudja). Étude de Géographie physique et ethnographique, Imprimerie de l'Indépendance Roumaine, Bucarest, 1903. except the data already present in the article he also mentions 508 Armenians, 1,762 Jews and 730 others. If i remember well (i don't have the book anymore), it is made from data given to the government by the villages and towns of Dobruja. Considering the data for 1850 i mentioned somewhere on this page :30% turks, 23% romanians, 14% tatars, 14% bulgarians (which most probably come from Ion Ionescu de la Brad, Excursion agricole dans la plaine de la Dobroudja, Constantinople, 1850; the author was a romanian from Transylvania, expert in agriculture, hired by the ottoman government to explore the agricultural possibilities in Dobruja; i have the data from Encycopledia of Islam, so i'm not sure Ion Ionescu is the source; but if he is, the data was endorsed by the ottoman government) as well as:

1. the fact this data refers not only to Northern Dobrudja but also to the kazas of Balchik, Pazardjik and Silistra (which had only a small romanian population around silistra and tutrakan)
2. the migrations to Northern Dobrudja in the 1850-1880 period (tatars, ruthene and germans, as well as Bulgarians if we consider vice-consul Perrod's report of 1864 that stated that in eastern Bulgaria bulgarians started to settle only in the previous 40 years)
3. the migration from Dobrudja of 1877-1878 of a large number of turks and tatars, caused by the Russo-Turkish war.(90,000 according to some sources)

i'd say the number and proportion are pretty accurate. Anonimu 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anonimu, you offer me hazy memories from a romanian book, printed in 1903 - is this really "reliable source" for the period before 1880? I'm afraid it could not be. I expect reliable data from the period before 1880. Later romanian and bulgarian texts most probably are influenced by the situation, created from the Treaty of Berlin and the consequential (nationalist) interests. Besides this the quoted arguments from this book aren't independent or ottoman official, undisputable, compendious and neutral. This is just a romanian POV. If you want to affirm that this proportion is "pretty accurate", you should prove this information with relevant sources. Best wishes! - Jackanapes 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P. s. I can offer here citations from several speeches, delivered in Romanian parlament in 1878, in which romanian MPs declared that they don't want to allow acquisition of a non-romanian land like northern Dobruja. But I still want reliable information from the period before 1880. - Jackanapes 20:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is reliable for the year 1880. Before 1880, the only source we have is the data from 1850. and that data should be regarded as ottoman official (the one who published the data was member of the ottoman Agricultural Council and the director of the San Stefano Agricultural School, and was in an official ottoman mission), and since nationalism wasn't still a problem in the ottoman empire, they could be regarded as neutral or at best ottoman POV. And romanian m.p.'s were right about Dobruja. It wasn't a romanian land, but a muslim one (turks and tatars formed the majority), with only about 35-40,000 romanians in a population of about 170,000 (liwas of Tulcea and Varna in 1864) (compare with the number of romanians in other regions not controlled by romania then: transylvania ~2 mils, bessarabia ~1 mil, banat and timok ~800,000, bucovina ~ 250,00, all regions were romanians were at least the relative majority ) Anonimu 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, dear Anonimu, your information is simply a romanian POV, nothing more. Romanian MPs in 1878 stated clearly that there weren't romanian population in Dobruja and obviously you're speculating (see "Monitorul oficial al Romaniei", 1878, p. 317 and 447). Romanian newspaper "Steaua Romaniei" from 23. VI. 1878 published article with asseveration that in nortehrn Dobruja there are Turks, Tatars, Cherkeses and Bulgarians but not Romanians. According to the newspaper "Pressa" from 27. VII. 1878 46 romanian MPs made tender to the Parlament in which they stated the same disposition. I can proceed with other similar quotations from romanian sources. I could cite bulgarian information as well. The fact is that there aren't reliable information for existance of large romanian population in Northern Dobruja before 1880 and the existence of 43 671 in 1880 could not be proven with relevant independent and neutral information. It is most probably that these 43 671 Romanians from northern Dobruja were "made" from romanian state... - Jackanapes 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you can't bring any reference that say it's false, this "romanian POV" will stay. Obviosuly you're using some second or third hand sources from a nationalistic book/site. I could also bring similar sources of bulgarians saying there was no bulgarian in dobruja before the 1820s or westerners saying that there were no bulgarians in all eastern bulgaria before the XIX century. Judging by your logic, no national census isn't reliable because it's results can't be proven with neutral and independent information. Anonimu 15:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem still remains the same. There aren't relevant, independent and relatively objective sources about the statement that in Dobruja before 1878 Romanians were the majority of the population. Notes from one ethnic Romanian from Transylvania in the service of the lower Ottoman administration could not be considered as "official Ottoman statistics" and still more, they could not be accepted as independent, reliable and objective. On the other hand the romanian newspapers from the period of the Russo-Turkish war 1877-1878 and the Berlin Congress could not be treated as "bulgarian nationalistic POV". Obviously the article needs editing in more neutral and non-nationalistic way. Best regards, Jackanapes 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is not that much about the truth but about sourced material. If you don't agree, go ahead and find sources that support your POV. And those weren't just some notes. It was a book ordered by the Ottoman gvt. BTW, nowhere in the article is stated that romanians were the majority before 1878. 1850 stats from ionescu's book are only on the talk page. and even those show that romanians were the most numerous christian population, turks being the plurality.. so i don't see any reason for a disputed tagAnonimu 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vlachs in Bulgarian Dobruja

According to the last Bulgarian census from 2001 thousands of Vlachs declared themselves as something different from ethnic Romanians. They traditionally condider themselves as separate ethnic group and most of them, especially these who came from the lands to the south of Danube, didn't participate in the modern Romanian nation-building in reality. They could not be treated as ethnic Romanians, this will be nothing more than romanian nationalistic claim and the violation of the self-determination of the Vlachs. The demographic data according to this census:

Oblast (Region) Varna: 3 620 Vlachs, 440 Romanians;

Oblast Dobrich: 77 Vlachs, 38 Romanians;

Oblast Silistra: 457 Vlachs, 19 Romanians.

Link.

Jackanapes 09:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Byzantines and Bulgarians

How can one divide the "Byzantine and Bulgarian rule" section when the territory of Dobruja was most of the time divided between the Bulgarians and the Byzantines?

For example, the Genoese town of Vicina (built around 1200 near Isaccea, in northernmost Dobruja), which was a Byzantine vassal, was held by the Second Bulgarian Empire for only a few years during the rule of Theodore Svetoslav (not before his rule and not after his rule). And this rule was known to generate some disputes: the Genoese refused to continue trading with the town under Bulgarian rule. If it had been before under Bulgarian rule, it wouldn't had been such a big deal, right? bogdan 10:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This territory wasn't divided between Bulgaria and Byzantium during the First Bulgarian Empire for over three centuries (681-1018) except for several years between 968 and 1018. At that time it was controlled totally by Bulgarian state. The period of the Second Bulgarian Empire looks different from other scholarly points of view as well. I'm sorry, but I can't accept the neglecting of the bulgarian past in this manner. Meanwhile there is obvious proromanian overemphasization upon ancient and modern history! Best regards, Jackanapes 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Still more, Dobruja was the main territory of Protobulgarian settlement after 681 and therefore it was part of the core of the First Bulgarian Empire. Dear romanian friends, it is time for you to accept these facts. - Jackanapes 12:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to have a section with just one sentence because you think it's fair this way. It's simply that we know very little about that time. What happened in Dobruja during the First Bulgarian Empire? There are few records, so we simply can't possibly tell. Should we not give a detailed history of the other more documented periods (the Greek/Roman era and the modern era) just because the First Bulgarian Empire failed to keep some good records of their rule? bogdan 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of cource. I will develop the newly created sections as I already said. They will stay. By the way, there are other types of historical sources like paleography and archaeology, there is many information about these lands during the First Bulgarian Empire. - Jackanapes 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"proromania" pov would mean making separate heading for Dacian and Wallachian rule (the latter would be much longer that your "Second Bulgarian") and maybe even for Ancient Macedonian, Tatar and Russian Anonimu 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, according to me even the present structure of the article is POV. All information about Bulgaria and the Bulgarians in this region is sensibly shorter than that about antiquity, Rome and modern Romania. The reason is not the lack of relevant historical information as Bogdan supposed, but in Romanian deletions of all data, connected with Bulgaria. Therefore this structure must be changed. For example over three centuries of the First Bulgarian Empire, when the first capital of the state Pliska was in Dobruja (on its south border) are significant and distinct period, which is obviously separate and different from Byzantine times. There wasn't any Byzantine presence in Dobruja in this era so its unification with previous and subsequent periods is non-justified. Best gerards, Jackanapes 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think that the article is balanced against the Bulgarian rule, the solution would be to add more information on what happened in Dobruja during that era (681-968). I was not able to find much on this subject, but maybe you have some good sources.

But currently, the article is well-structured considering the content it has. bogdan 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bogdan, in fact there are many missing points in thе present version of the article, connected with bulgariannes in Dobruja. Example - there isn't any informaion about the processes in South Dobrija in its modern Bulgarian periods 1878-1918 and after World War II. The lack of information about Bulgarians concernes also the Romanian period 1918-1940, when there were several Bulgarian revolutionary organizations, which fought against Romanian rule. Do you think that this fact is still unappropriate part of the history for contemporary Romanians? I'm afraid that without inclusion of all sides of the history (with adequate size and sources) this article will remain biased... Best regards, Jackanapes 13:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article is lacking in some respects, especially when it comes to cultural aspects. For one, I could not find any mention of Ovid, arguably the most famous person to have lived in the area at some point! For another, I could not find any mention of Ovidius University [1], which I think is the most important institution of higher learning in the area, though please correct me if I am wrong. At any rate, what I'm getting at is, sometimes one can get mesmerized by tiny details and lose sight of the bigger picture: a visitor to this page may well be more interested in finding out about the best writers or scientists to come out of this land, than minutiae about some arcane historical detail. Just a thought.... Turgidson 15:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up: I did a quick check, and Ovidius University is the most highly ranked University in Dobruja; overall, it's ranked 15th among all Romanian Universities [2]. The data comes from Ad Astra, an excellent site when it comes to Romanian academic subjects, in my opinion. Turgidson 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We should add a section named "Culture" in the article. :-) bogdan 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! Likely this is not the best place to discuss the topic (under the heading Byzantines and Bulgarians!), but I think the whole treatment of Romanian Academia is lacking in breadth and depth (e.g., most Universities in Romania don't even rate an article, whereas rather obscure topics get tons of ink, figuratively speaking.) I've made some haphazard attempts at addings info here and there since joining in, but the task is really daunting, and there are other things to do, too. Any idea on what's a good forum to discuss this matter, and whether anybody else would be interested in developing the topic? Turgidson 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about all Dobruja (RO+BG). Culture and Economy sections should be added, but they should present the situation in both Northern and Southern Dobruja. Ovidius university is very young.. it was founded in the 90s. I think that the Naval Academy is more important. And probably in Southern Dobruja they are also some important universities. Ovid is not the most important one. We have Hagi, Basescu and... Costi Ionita... seriously, there are not very much Dobrujan scientists and artists... probably because dobruja had a quite small romanian population when it joined Romania, and the new immigrants were mostly peasants and workers. I know only a few well-known Dobrujan personalities: Ion Jalea (sculpture), Grigore Moisil (mathematics), Ioan N. Roman, Constantin Bratescu and the Armenians Zambaccian and Harry Tavitian (jazz). And let's not forget politicians like Puiu Hasotti(PNL) and Sebastian Bodu(PD) and sportsman like Simona Amanar, Catalina Ponor(gymnastics) and Andrei Pavel(tennis) Anonimu 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian influence North of the Danube was immense. As far as I know, Wallachia and Dobroudja were never regarded as separate from the First (and to a large extent Second Bulgarian) Empires. I believe, most of these facts do not fit the Romanian national myth and are carefully erased or omitted wherever possible. Bulgarian domination starts with Asparoukh settling in Dobroudja and launching his attack on the Byzantines from his stronghold there. What few people mention is that the lands across the Danube received the Orthodoxy and the ... Bulgarian alphabet and written language during the First Bulgarian Empire. In fact, BUlgarian was used as an official language until the 19th century. Hence, the nobility across the Danube remained essentially Bulgarian in its roots and tradition. Think about the names employed: voevodes, bolyars, etc. Also, keep in mind the names of the Wallachian Dobroudjan nobles. Most of them are clearly of Slavic origin. Mircha, Vlad, Tihomir, Stanislav, Rado, the list goes on.

The article mentions that dobruja became part of Bulgarian Empire in 681 (i.e. during khan Asparuch). Dobruja had a christian (no catholic/orthodox in those times) bisophric at Tomis (present day Constanta) until the 7th century (when the Bulgarian invaded). Some byzantine bishops are also mentioned on artefacts from the 10th and 11th century. No it wasn't the official language... dobrujan documents and coins show different languages: greek in th 11-14th centuries, tatar in the 13th-19th centuries, italian in the 14th century, turkish 14-19th centuries etc. During most of the 2nd milennium, the "official" language was turkish. Those titles can also be found in northern slavic languages. Those aren't dobrudjan nobles. Those (except Stanislav) are names of Wallachian rulers (Tihomir is a name of turkic origin, while the others are slavic, but they are commonly used in romania even today). Some names of Dobrujan rulers: Tatou, Satza, Sesthlav (turkic) in the 11th century, a lot of Greek ones during the 11-12th greek ones, Nogay, Tukal Bogha, Keykaus (turkic) in the 13the century, Balik, Jolpan(turkic), Dobrotitsa/Dobrotici (slavic), Methodius, Theodore, Ioankos (greek), Baldovin (germanic) in the 14th century.. So, very few slavic names. 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even in Bulgaria, the use of Greek and biblical (Christian) names was a commonplace, so the fact that it is happening in Dobroudja and Wallachia is nothing unusual. It was the norm. I am pointing at the names I mentioned "Mircha, Vlad, Tihomir, Stanislav, Rado" as they are clearly Slavic. This is but one of the many accounts of cultural influence. By the way, Tihomir can easily be made sense of in Bulgarian. 'Tiho' = calm, peaceful, noiseless and 'Mir' = peace. I know that many of the names that end on 'Mir' are said to be of Turkic origin. True as it may be, it doesn't explain names such as Branimir, Lubomir, Stanimir, Vladimir and so on that are all essentially Slavic and have a corresponding meaning in Bulgarian and other Slavic languages.

Are Leon Nikerites and Demetrios Katakalon (mentioned at the end of the 11th century) typical Bulgarian names? I already explained that none of them is mentioned in Dobrudja. And most of the others were are used by Romanians, as Greek names are used by Bulgarians. Tihomir is a supossed name of a guy mentioned only as "tochomerius".

I also notice that in your section you only mention the period of the Second Bulgarian empire.

Tell me, if at least the one map I have shown is correct and if we agree on Dobroudja being part of the First Bulgarian Empire, how is it that in the whole of Dobroudja there hasn't been found ONE document that accounts for that period?

There were found some inscriptions... one slavic of 943 and some mixed (slavic, greek, and a not identified language) from the 10th century. I don't know any other. Bulgarian historiography should know better.

According to my knowledge, Bulgarian was used as an official and written language by the church and the nobility north of the Danube. I don't know how Dobroudja could be exempt. Kaloyan* 16:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Except for a dozen years, Dobrudja wasn't part of the north-danubian principalities. So it had nothing to do with their official language. (BTw, the language used in wallachia was not bulgarian, but old church slavonic with some bulgarian influences) Anonimu 17:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all new to me. So when exactly were these "dozen years"? Coz I am talking about centuries of Bulgarian rule. When was it that Dobroudja was ever separate from the other principalities? Start from 681 onwards.

Old Church Slavonic was Bulgarian in every possible sense. It was created in Bulgaria under Boirs I in order for the church and state to acquire their own and independent from Greek

written language. At that time Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian were identicle. The former was later exported to Serbia and the Russian principalities. Church Slavonic was kept "pure" by the conservative clergy and never evolved as much as the language spoken and written in the 'lifeworld'. This is where some of the confusion with its origins begins. Kaloyan* 11:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So the break after the fall of the Fist Bulgarian Empire does not mean that anything across the Danube drsatically changed. All that was missing was a centre of power to identify with and belong to. That was easily created with the rise of the Second Bulgarian empire, though the rivalry and presence of the Hungarians was stronger than before.

The interesting bit is what Byzantine diplomacy and political might did in hte interim period. I would like to learn more about it. I have vague memories of Byzantine (Greek) clergy been sent to these lands in order to change the power structure and create a base for further Byzantine influence from within. Did they actually take control over the church? Kaloyan* 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

http://bgns.net/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132&Itemid=63

This is a map of the Second Bulgarian Empire under Ivan Asen II

I was threatened by Bogdaniusca

ater he entered in an edit war with me without clear arguments:

== 3RR ==

Be careful with reverting on Dobruja: see the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. bogdan 13:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a threat. I just told you that there is that there is a policy which does not allow you to make four reverts within a 24-hours period and to be careful that it may be blocked for 24 hours. It's a commonly done on Wikipedia. bogdan 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you revert systematically my version several times? May be you also must be blocked? It seems that because of lack of arguments you rely on pyre procedure... It is so pity that romanian patriots like you tenaciously refuse to accept over 4 centuries of medieval Bulgarian rule in Dobruja as a fact. - Jackanapes 13:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The fourth revert was not mine: look at the page history. bogdan 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Pardon me. The fourth revert was made by Anonimu, who even didn't give us a reason for that. Bogdaniusca was more polite - he was too kind to mention the talk as an excuse for his edit war. The Great Romanian War against Bulgarian past in Dobruja. :-) - Jackanapes 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dobrudja and Bessarabia

Do these territories overlap, at least in part, in some periods? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.220.97 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Not quite. Some maps show the danube delta as part of moldavia before 1484, but this is all. Anonimu 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)