Talk:Wallachia

2002 talk

Please help me with this page if you can, I'm not a very organised mind. Perhaps it should be arranged according to a more general pattern. I don't think I'll handle it on my own. -- Daniel 03:36, 28 Mar 2002 (UTC)

Wallachia is bordered in the south by... Wallachia? jheijmans 05:26, 28 Mar 2002 (UTC)

Please explain yourself, I think I mentioned the Ottoman Empire there. -- Daniel 09:18, 21 May 2002 (UTC)

You say that Wallachia is not a Romanian name, Romanians do not use 'Valachia' - at least when I was in school years there heard it only in the history class .... I do not really understand then the emphasis. 'Muntenia' is absolutely 'normal' for Romanians themselves. Wallachia is used as an insult not only in Germany, 'in die Walachei schicken' 'Ich schicke Dich in die Walachei' - say mothers to noughty children, meaning 'unde si-a intarcat dracul copiii'. And in Transylvania, 'vlah' was used until after the WWII as derogative term against Romanians (pui de vlah nu suna nici astazi bine - ok, I left Romania some 12 years ago) Maybe you had difficulties because focused on the name given to the region in the West, instead of going simply with the 'local' name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.122.57 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Valahia and Vlahia

Valahia and Vlahia are NOT early names in Romanian of Wallachia. Even in the first ever document in Romanian language (Neacşu, 1521) the name of "Tseara Rumaneasca" is used. See: [1] Bogdan | Talk 19:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i was thinking of Mircea cel Batran title "Ungro-Vlahia Samodarjet" but it was obviously written in slavonic, while Caloian Asen's title "Imperator Blachorum et Bulgarorum" was obviously written in latin Criztu 22:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mircea cel Bătrân called his country "Ungrovlahia". However there is no mention in the article about this. I suggest to include in the article this form of the name.

I quote:"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."

Just to be inline with the historical truth.Zmiklos 11:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Indo-European Homeland

According to this Dutch Psychologist, (and according to other sources as well) Wallachia/Romania is most likely the homeland of the ancient Indo-European race: [2] Decius 02:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, a psychologist would be no expert in anthropology/ancient history ... anyway, from my reading, the majority (well over 60%) of historians look at Asia Minor-Caucausus as the 'root territory' from which the Indo-European speakers began to radiate outwards to Europe and the Iranian plateau. 98.67.176.128 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Old Bulgarian vs. Old Slavonic

The language used for the official documents of both Wallachia and Moldova until the end of the 17th century was Bulgarian.

i understand Michael the Brave had documents written in romanian ? In 1600 - Criztu 20:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand it was more like using Bulgarian until the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you understand incorrectly, since the language was never Bulgarian at all. He wrote in old Slavonic.

Well there was no such thing as 'Old Slavonic' language, but the language was called 'Bulgarian' and the slavic-speaking population of eastern Balkans was called Bulgars in _all_ documents until 19th century. Please point me to an original document of this period where an 'Old Slavonic' language is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.92 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Valachia (Czech Republic)

There is another Valachia in the Czech Republic. This Valachia - Valašsko in Czech - lies in the easternmost part of Moravia, on the border with Slovakia. Now it is mostly the ethno-cultural region with its own dialect of Czech language, folkways and quite strong local feelings.

The name comes from migrants walking along the Carpathian range about 400 or 500 years ago. On their way they gradualy lost their original language with exception of some words, but preserving more of their culture and economical customs, namely sheep breeding.

Some links (in Czech): http://www.valassko.cz/, http://valasske-kralovstvi.cz/.

I don't know if it would be better to merge this note into the main article or to start another one about the MoravianValachia (we prefer the simple 'V'). Hm? -- Bob 15:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well... It would be better to title it Moravian Wallachia and link it from this article. In Romanian, we spell it with "V", too, but in English the more common form is with "W", mainly because the word was borrowed from German. :-)

BTW, There is another Wallachia, in Greece: Great Wallachia. bogdan | ^Talk 16:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Mircea cel Bătrân called his country Ungrovlahia. So it would be factual to name the country as it was named before. The "Ungro" word has been deleted to beautify the history.Zmiklos, 11:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and also "Transalpina", at least that's what he wrote on the coins. A new "Name" section should be added. bogdan 11:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, is true that Wallachia usually not used by Romanians themselves in middle ages? How then this name survived? And how appeared Valassko in Czechia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.98.250 (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How the name survived? Well, almost everybody says "Hungarian", but Hungarians call themselves "Magyar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calusarul (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wallachia and the Bulgarian Empires

This is the first time I read on a Romanian page about Wallachia being part of the Bulgarian Empire and I congratulate the author. However, there was no mention of the Second Bulgarian Empire, where Wallachian inclusion and participation was paramount. I have also read that the provinces across the Danube were given authonomy by the Bulgarian King Constantine Tih. Can anyone confirm that?

Also the following statement: "The continuing weakening of the Hungarian state by further Mongol invasions (1285) and internal disputes opened the way for the process of unification of the Romanian political formations independent of the Hungarian kings." is a little too romantic for my taste. Romania was not a word in use before after the Napoleonic Wars. Wallachia, just as Besarabia and Transylvania were either provinces under certain rule or at times semi-autonomous territories because of the lack of such rule. There was no drive, need or idea for a "romanian" unificatinon until someone came up with it in the abovementioned period.
(Kaloyan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.231.165 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's indeed hazardous to claim a drive in 13th century, but in that sentence it clearly refers to Wallachia and Moldavia as Romanian (I understand this word as an ethnic label here) formations. An awareness of a common identity however existed (though I can't suggest right now a date for its birth). We have Ungrovlachia and Moldovlachia ("et utraque Valachiae") and a significant number of other testimonies for it.

Related to the above, as early as during 16th century, we find attempts of unification of these Romanian political formations. Sigismund Zápolya, through an Italian messenger, claims that he would abandon his rights over Hungary if he could rule over Transylvania and if the Austrian Emperor could help him conquering Dacia by taking Wallachia from Pătraşcu and Moldavia from Alexandru (1566). Gh. Pungă (1999) suggests a political convergence of the three Romanian states after the battle of Mohacs (1526), as an initiative of the protestant Hungarians opposing a Catholic alternative under the suzeranity of Austria. This Hungarian political project has an amazing similarity with the unification from 1600 and the emphasis on the common origin of these people shows that the unification on ethnic criteria was certainly an idea much older than one born in the period you suggested. Daizus 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

See, you're unabke to take the "Romanian" label out of your narrative. What "Romanian" political formations? The discussion starts with that. Ungrovlachia tells me about two things - Hungarians and Vallachians or a Vallachia ruled and settled (to an extent) by Hungarians. Moldovlachia indicates something similar. The "Romanian" lable does simply not fit in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.220.97 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, you must try to make a difference between a unification on the basis of a common ethnic ground and the extension of someone's rule. Royal/noble marriages were often the cause of a political union with no other objective than increased power and wealth. The truth is that most states at that time were multi-ethnic.

You're missing the point. The truth is that most states are multi-ethnic. ;) Then and now. Daizus 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as what you call "an awareness of a common identity" is concerned, you may also want to consider the Vlach element within the First and Second Bulgarian Empires. For it was an inseparable part of both.

I am afraid I don't follow you. What can you tell about the "awareness" of the Vlach element during the Bulgarian empires? What can you tell about the political continuity between your examples and the Wallachia which is subject in this page. ? Daizus 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the Vlachs, however, they might have thought of themselves, were happy to support the revival of the Bulgarian state. What is more, they didn't opt for a Wallachian or some other trans-Danubian state formation.

I don't know of such a thing. However, considering Balkanic Vlachs and north-Danubian Romanians as being a single population can be misleading in many contexts. Daizus 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, on what grounds do you call Wallachia and Moldova Romanian? As far as I am concerned both provinces kept on using Bulgarian as their official language until sometime the 18th century. What about the titles of their nobles (bolyar, voevoda, etc) and their names (Tihomir, Mircha, Vlad, Stanislav)? What about the Hungarian period or the Cuman rule over Bessarabia? (Kaloyan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.59.150 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The majoritarian ethnicity was and is Romanian. Is this a good enough reason? ;)

Is Hungarian a Roman kingdom because the official language was Latin?

The letter of Neacşu is 16th century. Linguistics, toponymy point out that Romanian language existed in the first millenium AD. 18th century is an unrealistic milestone.

The reality might be not as Slavic as you like it to be. Boier (boljári, bolyades) is usually regarded as Turkic, but there are also hypotheses (S. Paliga) that it has an autochtonous origin (boi -> boier as in oi -> oier, also see the Latin evolution pecus - pecunia, herds - wealth / social status). There's no Tihomir in the documents, but a Thocomerius which seems to be a Turkic name (N. Djuvara says it's Cuman, S. Brezeanu says it's Pecheneg). Moreover, Sorin Paliga suggests that there were some borrowings from East Romance languages to neighbouring Early South-Slavic languages (during V-VII centuries).

I agree that there is a significant Slavic cultural influence over north-Danubian Romanic popultions, though. However this doesn't change an ethnicity. Daizus 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Romanian" was NEVER an ethnicity before the creation of the modern Romanian nation-state. You point at occasional written documents or toponyms, which by and in themselves mean nothing. You could find letters in Greek, Bulgarian, German and so on. They could have been left by a merchant or a traveller or simply be written by a person skilled in that particular language for various reasons.Since the Romans ruled over some of these lands it is only logical that some places will retain the nmames the Romans once gave them. The toponyms, however, are predominantly non-Latin. Looking at some map a few months ago, I was surprised to see the amount of Slavic toponyms on the other side of the Danube.

Boyars has nothing to do with an "authotctonous origin" as it is well known that it was a title for Bulgar nobles. Unless of course you consider BUlgar nobility to eventually have evolved into authoctonous :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, you will find information on this idea of common identity and continuity in Lucian Boia's "History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness". http://www1.minn.net/~graczar/FTR-208/boia.htm (Kaloyan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.59.150 (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You terribly misunderstood Boia. He does not argue against common identity and continuity in themselves, but against certain historiographical mistakes who were built around these ideas taken as axioms. I issued a 16th century argument considering the common ethnicity of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania recognized and valued as a political pretext for conquest/union. You avoided it and embraced an "anti-Romanian" axiom (your contribution reminds me of those pan-Slavic theories). You're commiting the fallacies Boia identified and warned of. Daizus 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the Pan-Slavic theories :) , as I am the last person to embrace them.

It's about what you've said and the way you said it. You cannot annul an ethnicity through a chancelary official language or some excerpts of antroponymy or toponymy. This line of argumentation is to be found among those theorists I mentioned. Daizus 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as Boia is concerned, one of the main points he makes in regards to our discussion is that "Some of these are the myth of the Romanian people's eternal will for national unity, the myth of the glorious Middle Ages, the myth of Romanians as defenders of Christianity, the myth of the "Romanian continuity" (the uninterrupted habitation of Transylvania by Romanians since Roman times)... " - this is a indirect quote from the book review, just to be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaloyan* (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read Boia's book (the one reviewed in your link). Unfortunately I don't know if it is translated in English to make a recommendation. If you want to talk about Boia the only way we can do it is on his book, not on the reviews. You have yet to show where and how Boia argues that various hypotheses are false. He does not discuss history but historiographies. If you can't make the difference, there's no point in debating this. Daizus 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And Daizus, btw, your use of "Romanian" in this discussion is as uncritical as it can get.

How? And relatively to what? Romanian means a Romanic language speaker from a certain space where we know of certain cultural traits and a certain language evolving through centuries. We know from late Middle Ages accounts testimonies that the inhabitants of these territories (for instance, a diploma given to Nicolae Olahus mentions in 1541 that they come from Rome and inhabited Dacia; above you can see that in the same period the letter of Neacşu mentions Ţeara Rumâneasca) call themselves (after) Romans. Sigismund Zápolya does not aim for Transylvania, Banate and Oltenia (the historical Dacia, after a mainstream opinion anyway), but Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia. If there is no common ethnicity, on what other grounds these three provinces are taken together as an entity? I must say again that does not happen in 18-19th centuries, but in 16th century and that the authors are Hungarians not Romanians! Daizus 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On the multi-ethnic point (I was obviously referring to the past ONLY) let me add that the notion of Wallachia becomes even more elusive if you:
1.Accept that it was a multi-ethnic entity with a constantly changing content and no unified and overarching state frame to serve as mechnism to mix, assimilate and produce the idea of the "common". The Hungarians, Cumans, Slavs, Uzes, Pechenegs and Tatars had little in common with the "Latin speaking" population. They also invaded and ruled various territories separately.

Ad nauseam. I already issued the criterion of majority and never denied the ethnic diversity. There's no pure ethnic state neither in past nor in present. Daizus 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The so-called criterion of majority is fictional. There was not one major ethinc group. The only thing that placed a variety of peoples within a group was a regional (and often changing) name and whom they were subjects to. (Let us exclude religion on this occasion.) Kaloyan* 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

2.Add the existing incongruence between various medieval writers on what territory the term Wallachia exactly delineates.

Since 14th century Wallachia means approximatively the same space. You're the one bringing Bulgarian Empires into equation failing to justify a political continuity. Daizus 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The 14th century is the beginning of the end of the Second Bulgarian empire, which vanishes in the 15th century. There is plenty of confusion surrounding the crusader's chronicles on say the House of Asen and Wallachia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, can someone try to explain why if the Latinised Dacians were direct descendants of the Romans, why didn't they use the readily available Latin alphabet for most of their history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaloyan* (talk • contribs) 08:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Who talks about (direct! :o) descendency here? I talk about language, culture and civilization. What alphabet? Do you have any evidence for a Latin education system? And do you have any alternate theory for the origin of Romanian dialects, other than being East Romance languages (i.e. coming out of Latin)? Daizus 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do have a rough theory. Latin language remained one of the many spoken languages in some of these regions. At some point, a Latin speaking elite decides to create a common Latin/Roman myth and hence, an identity for these provinces, under which they can be united. Whenever the modern Romanian state emerges, the official language becomes Latin and the state apparatus uses its many mechanism in order to latinise the rest of the population. In other words, nothing very different to the history of other nation-states.

Also, I suspect, there might have been a later migration of Latin speaking Vlachs from Greece that made the percentage of Latin speakers greater at som point. The Hungarian take on Romanian origins is based on a similar argument. I still wonder, however, if there has been a possible second large migration ... What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert in this field but I read quite a bit. I am interested in the Bulgarian connection across the Danube. It is neglected by Bulgarian historians and purposefully ignored by their Romanian colleagues for it doesn't fit in the Romanian nationalist myth. I know that eventually Bulgarian rulers lost interest (and control) in the northern territories and concentrated most of their efforts down south.

I am not sure what you mean. If there's no such a "Bulgaro-Romanian" history ignored by both Bulgarian and Romanian historians maybe it doesn't exist? Talking about lost interest is somehow weird. You claim the Bulgarian kings prefered some rocky heights in Balkans over some fertile fields north of Danube? These are the myths, if anything! :D

I also find funny the way you talk about Romanian historiography. One one hand, you're exagerating the Bulgarian political and cultural influences (as the same time minimalizing the incovenient evidences - the Latin character of the language, for instance) promoting a version of Bulgarian nationalism. On the other, from your first intervention in this page I've noticed you are not even acquainted with A. D. Xenopol or Ioan Bogdan, well-known Romanian historians whose works were published about a century ago. What can you possibly tell about Romanian historians or nationalism in Romanian historiography then? Daizus 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a theory stating that the Latin speaking Vlachs actually moved from the Southern Balkans into the present day Wallachian territory. I find the official Romanian version highly improbable.

Arguments are always heavier than opinions. You can check your probabilities even here on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians Daizus 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I cannot see what can possibly be the common Latin linguistic glue, when as I mentioned there were so many other cultures, ethinc groups and languages. If anything, a Latin speaking group would have been a minority.

That you cannot see a possiblity is not really of my concern, I am not trying to persuade you of anything. Repeating also doesn't do any good, through repetition a claim does not become true. You're welcome to explain the Romanian language and dialects spoken today by about 30 million people. You're welcome to offer new interpretations of the medieval ethnonyms and make estimations to prove whatever ethnicity in minority/majority in whatever cultural and political entities they were part of. If you cannot then your contribution here is basically a troll. Daizus 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Repeating also doesn't do any good, through repetition a claim does not become true."

Really? What does the Nazi past tell us about repeating a lie and blow it out of proportions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.76.4 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also know that Romanian language has plenty of Bulgarian words, even after its careful latinisation. I would be very interested to see what language (apart rom the alphabet) older Wallachian texts were written in.

But you don't seem to know that Romanian language has even more Latin words. You don't seem to know that Romanian grammar is so not Bulgarian. You don't seem to know that Bulgarian/Slavic words cover certain semantic areas (e.g. ecclestiastic) unlike Latin ones (e.g. agrarian) which are evidences for language's origin and later influences, you don't seem to know that the Latin character of Romanian language is not conditioned by French or Italian loans. Daizus

Btw, what did you mean by "political continuity"? Where did I fail to justify what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaloyan* (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You were arguing about Wallachia as a state. You were trying to relate it to Bulgarian Empires, you were trying to minimize the role of an own ethnicity. These are just claims, not arguments. Daizus 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

For there was no such thing as an "own ethnicity" back then. There were especially no Romanians.

Talking about lost interest is somehow weird. You claim the Bulgarian kings prefered some rocky heights in Balkans over some fertile fields north of Danube?
Yes I do. Notice how I placed "lost interest" and "control" next to each other as this is not a discussion I want to get into right now. There were constant invasions and migrations from the North - the Rus, Magyars, Tatars, etc. Then having access on the Mediterranean (where the climate is milder and there is plenty of fertile ground, i.e. Southern Thrace f.ex.) and the fixation with conquering Constantinople has always driven the efforts of the Bulgarian state south. The Byzantine military threat has also been the biggest one, which also explains why the attention of the kings has been directed towards the south.

One one hand, you're exagerating the Bulgarian political and cultural influences (as the same time minimalizing the incovenient evidences - the Latin character of the language, for instance)...

I wouldn't say exagerating. I am re-introducing it right where it belongs. The "Latin character" of what language? The modern creation of a language for the newly created state of Romania? With this I agree. The inconvenient evidence is the common usage of Bulgarian in liturgy and as official written language until this modern creation. Why not Latin or Greek? I would like to hear a proper explanation for that. The Cyrillic alphabet was created in 864. Whatever the exact math may be, these are maaany centuries mon ami.

As for the Bulgarian lingo in Romanian, I know what you've mentioned and I'd have to add nobility titles, which means a lot, should we abandon the discussion of an established ethnicity in the Middle Ages. There are plenty of other words (and I hate repeating myself) that even the careful latinisation of the language, conducted in order to get rid of the inconvenient Bulgarian factor, hasn't been able to erase. What do you make out of "ulitsa", "zakuska", "palinka" and most importantly "DA" instead of a Latin "SI"? (Btw I am terribly sorry the list I had of latinised Bulgarian toponyms in Romania disappeared when my old pc died. If I find it again, I'll make sure I'll make it public.)

But you don't seem to know that Romanian language has even more Latin words. You don't seem to know that Romanian grammar is so not Bulgarian.
You're assuming too much. I never claimed what you are alluding to - that Romanian equals Bulgarian + some random dash of Latin words. Romanian is a distinct languague, yet, a modern construct, produced to partly justify and consolidate the emergence of a new nation-state. Who would use a Bulgarian grammar for such a pooject? You could get away with claiming that Latin and Bulgarian existed simultaneously in some of the lands that contemporary Romania comprises. Then we could have an intersting discussion. Partly, it is what you're saying by stating that the elite used Bulgarian for some purposes. Perhaps we could discuss the intricacies of upper and lower influences and their confluence in a contextual dynamic.

You're welcome to explain the Romanian language and dialects spoken today by about 30 million people.
Easy. Ever read anything on the construction of the modern nation-state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaloyan* (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have anything to discuss. You lack basic knowledge. Daizus 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dazius, I'm not sure what you believe the objective of a discussion is. If you find yourself to exceed the knowledge of others, perhaps you should try and find ways to explain complex matters in a clear and simplified way, so we could all learn something. If you, however, think that you level is way higher, then maybe you should join a scholar discussion where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(p.s. As for Tihomir, check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihomir_of_Wallachia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wallachian_rulers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

MAPS OF WALLACHIA UNDER THE BULGARIAIN EMPIRES

http://bartelby.net/67/byzant01.html

http://www.bgns.net/Bg/otech/history/sredna/maps/2-8.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_I_of_Bulgaria

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Bulgarian_empire_map_LOC.jpg

The information on this topic is scarce. Please add any other materials that you may find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The notion that the Romanian language was invented out of thin air by some aristocracy in the 18th century is pretty laughable. If that were the case, why did the Slavs and Magyars feel the need to confound us with Italians? Romanians and Italians share the names Olah/Olasz (before the 18th century, it was only "Olah") and Slavs refer both to Italians and Romanians as Vlachs/Volochs.

According to the Hungarian mainstream: The Olah~Olasz came from the Celtic Tribe Blachus. In Hungarian Blak, in Slavic language vlach - > olah/olasz. In the early 13th century denoted the new "(new)latin" population in the Carpathian Basin ... The Wallon settlers and also the Romanians were reffered as olah, valach (valasi). The term Olasz was used for the Walloons and not for Italians (Olaszi near Oradea was inhabited by Walloons and not Italians ...) (italioano->taliano->taljan was the name of the Italians in the middle age). --fz22 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Mind explaining why Hungarians then call Italy now "Wallonia" apperantly. What you're writing is pure nationalistic trash. They gave them name "Olah" to the Northern Italians when they raided the region. Not only that, but then the gave the same name to the Romanians, implying that both populations were met at roughly the same time, and were thought to be the same continuous people. In fact, even the Byzantine writer Kinnamos writes of the Vlachs North of the Danube in 1167, saying “They arrived long ago as colonists from Italy.” If the Byzantines could confound the populations, I think it's quite fair to say that the Magyar did not stand a chance at differentiating them, especially as they did not know the history of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.81.189 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously both these people were Latinized people at the time of the Slavic migrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.82.184 (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the question is WHERE? --fz22 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

: Obviously in Albania, as Roesler, the omnipotent god, told you. Or perhaps Hunflavy, the other god on your pantheon of politically-motivated historians? It's pretty easy to say that nobody ever thought Romanians originated South of the Danube before the 19th century. Even Magyar historians like Benko Jozsef, Andras Huszti, Szilagyi Sandor, and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.81.189 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Albania... Hmmmm... So 20 or so common roots of Romanian and Albanian is all that's left of the common tradition of before Romanians went to current Romania? Dpotop (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dpotop, I was being sarcastic. I don't believe that "Vlacho-Albanian" crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.76.231 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern region

Why is there no mention being made of the fact that Wallachia is an informal region of Romania (lest for the one I have just added)? There should be some info accentuating modern situations, or at least the modern counties and cities in the region.

Also, why do you feel like linking the very same word ad nauseam? What is the purpose of that, and why does it seem that many Romanian contributors have never seen Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context? When you make links like Austria or Russia, why do you not check where they lead? Is Republik Österreich really what you mean? (Clue: Habsburg Monarchy or Austrian Empire, in accordance with date). Dahn 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  I agree.  Several of the links seem to have little relevance. 144.89.182.195 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dobruja

I am wondering why the map of 14th century Wallachia includes also Dobrudja together with the south (the so-called Cadrilater annexed by Romania as late as 1913. The map is clearly misleading. Are there any medieval sources which indicate that 1. the Dobrotichi despotate was considered part of Wallachia; 2. that the southern border of the despotate was identical with the border between Bulgaria and Romania in the interwar period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.233.47 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

1. We know that Mircea had among others, the title Terrarum Dobrodicii Despotus, "despot of the land of Dobrotich".

2. Well, the map is similar with the 1913 map, it's because that's what the region of "Dobruja" is. bogdan 12:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This source does not suggest that the lands of Dobrotich was part and parcel of historical Wallachia, on the contrary - it makes a clear distinction. In addition, the lands of Dobrotich were not necessarily identical with the Dobrudja of late 19th century which was defined on the basis of Ottoman administrative units (sandjaks). Nor did Mircea's short-lived possessions south of the Danube coincide with Romania's borders of the interwar years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.232.88 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They were not part of Wallachia, the region. They was part of Wallachia, the principality (voievodat). I think the description of the map should write this. bogdan 17:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Homeland of the Vlachs

I quote somebody below: "There is a theory stating that the Latin speaking Vlachs actually moved from the Southern Balkans into the present day Wallachian territory.
I find the official Romanian version highly improbable". Further to this statement, I want to point out the obvious Vlach/Romanian, or Balkan Latin, placenames in today's Western Bulgaria, like the town of Vakarel ('vacă' is the Romanian for 'cow', Bulgarian and South Slavic 'krava'), the village of Pasarel 'pasăre' - bird, Bulgarian 'ptica'), the town of Gorna Malina (Upper Malina), misleading is the etymology from the Bulgarian 'malina' - raspberry, the true origin of the name is in the Daco-Moesian word 'mal' meaning 'bank' in Romanian and 'mountain' in Albanian [the same relativity of the words denominating 'bank' and 'hill, mountin' can be seen between Bulgarian 'brjag' (bank) and Serbian 'breg' ('hill')]. There are also phonetic traces of the Balkan Latin, such as the name of the river Džerman lying south of Sofia (the stem 'german' is quite spread and has a Thraco-Daco-Moesian, whatever, Paleobalkan, origin meaning 'hot', e.g. the Roman town of Germanea, today's Ihtiman east of Sofia (by the way, next to Vakarel), also the Albanian word 'zjarr': 'hot'. This river name renders the Romanian (Balkan Latin) palatalization of G into DŽ in front of E and I, in Bulgarian there is no such phonetic change (rather it is very old, dating back to proto-Slavic times and today is simplified into Ž, Romanian sound J). Even the sound DŽ in Bulgarian is new and exclusively found in foreign words. Among Romanian placenames in ex-Yugoslavia I will mention the 'Durmitor' mountain (Dormitorium, a place were sheep rested/slept). My point is that the region starting from Thessaly in Greece, through Epirus, Macedonia, Eastern Serbia, Western Bulgaria and further to the West shows an obvious presence of Romanian or Aromanian language. This is the homeland of the Romanians or Vlachs which is consistent with its natural conditions which are the same as those of the Carpathian mountains and Transilvania. It was not a particular problem for a semi-nomadic people if we refer to the centuries from 3rd to 13th, to cover all these distances with their livestock. I dont think however, that the Vlachs lived exclusively south of the Danube, rather, that the river was not an obstacle and was regularly crossed. It is especially narrow in the region above the Djerdap/Gerdap cascade today. Only after the year 1000 in my opinion did the 'Transdanubian' Vlachs move East and South, probably together around the time of the Cuman invasion and established themselves as an ethnic factor in Eastern Wallachia and Moldova, slowly assimilating the existing (Slavo)Bulgarians, Russians/Ukrainians, Gagauz, Cumans etc, etc, etc.

Regarding the name: Vlach is not a Romanian word, it is not and never was used by the Romanians themselves, it is a Slavic term denomiating any Romance/Latin people or language, let us not forget that by it the Serbs and Bulgarians, and later the Greeks and Russians (*the original Russian form is Voloch), called the Balkan Latin people, today's Romanians, while the Poles use Włochy to refer to Italy, the same with Hungarian Olasz(ország), which is a distorted form coming from the Slavic plural form of Vlach (Proto-Slavic sing. Volchъ, plur. Volsi). 85.11.148.31 14:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Not registered, for now

1390 map

why the estates of the Prince of Wallachia are represented as Wallachian lands? They were under Hungarian suzeranity even they were awarded to the Wallachian Prince. these lands were not in pawn like the ones (eg Podolin 1412-1720) in northern-Hungary.--fz22 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Dahn 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

perhaps still correct :) read this: http://www.cosys.ro/acta/cikkek/ro/binder.htm --fz22 11:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to what you noticed in the text? I did not see any reference to Wallachian administration in Transylvania. Dahn 12:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure: "După 1291, până în anii 1360, Ţara Oltului nu este prezentă în documentele maghiare, după 1360 constituie feudă a voievozilor munteni, dar fără să se fi păstrat acte de donaţie. (maybe were lost) Începând cu sec. XV. Ţara Oltului face parte din nou din voievodatul Transilvaniei, dar donaţiile făcute voievozilor munteni au rămas în vigoare." --fz22 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but does that mean that they were part of Wallachia? Dahn 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what does Wallachia mean? If it's the fief of the ruler of Wallachia, then yes, it seems. Dpotop 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, not really. If the prince indeed had claim to domenium eminens, this was within a pre-defined territory which was his land as opposed to lands where he ruled (and, also, largely fictional). Think about Mircea's title: it clearly sets a number of regions as distinct from Wallachia, and it gives different titles for each of them (most of which are titles of minor vassals of the Hungarian King). No, that doesn't sound like Wallachia. Dahn 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean, different from Wallachia in the same way that Transylvania was different from Hungary? Dpotop 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Or rather like the English Kings as Dukes of Guyenne. Dahn 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And a second point: wasn't anyway the Wallachian ruler a de jure vassal of the king of Hungary? In this case, we can only talk about "de facto" fronteers, and there's place for a nice edit war. :) Dpotop 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, vassalage is by no means territorial inclusion (be it nominal or real). It is a relation between rulers of different territories for the respective territories (that is why the person occupying the throne of England was vassal to the king of France as the duke of Guyenne, and then, if you asked him, became his own vassal - not after including Guyenne in England, but after claiming the crown of France). In the case of Wallachia, I guess the Hungarian claim became void after Wallachian Princes stopped paying allegiance - which is not to say that they necessarily became sovereign (although, if you asked some of them, they thought they were), but rather that they began placing themselves under Polish rule and whatnot, and finally enetering the protection racket with the Sultans. For Amlas etc., the situation is completely different in theory, since they likely had to go on paying allegiance; an object of investigation should be whether they became vassals of the Princes of Transylvania for those lands. As you may see, nowhere does the Wallachian domain come into question in this matter. Dahn 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And anyway, true feudalism is not about states, but about feudal relationships (the problem being that our feudalism is not exactly western-like). Dpotop 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, it was close enough, at least for what concerned the relation of a Prince with the outside, and it certain that no exception was made inside the Kingdom of Hungary and sovereign Transylvania. Dahn 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems interesting but what seems to be the major conclusion? That Wallachian rulers were not independent and therefore had various titles of vassals such as 'prince' amd so on? Does that also mean that Wallachia was usually part of another empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wallachia before 1330 was composed of: Terra Zeurino (Szorenyi bansag/present day Oltenia) + Cumania (between the Olt river and Ialomita) and Terra Prodnicorum (Prahova -> Danube+Siret). these parts were integrant members of the Hungarian Kingdom until 1330. Cumania was a romanian-hungarian condominium. Only voivod Basarab was able to took Wallachia out of the Kingdom but only for a few year. These years were represented a turning point in the formation of an independent Wallachian nobility (and the decline of the Universitas Olcahorum from Hungary). His predeccessors and successors were de-facto and the latters (after 1390) de-jure vassals of the Hungarian Kingdom.

So the map is still not accurate --fz22 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Vassalage is not "territorial inclusion". (In fact, the existence of vassal territory should vouch for a map.) Note that I am not denying vassalage, at least not nominal one, but that says nothing about the map (nor would a map of France during the period when it was more or less ruled by English kings, or one of the Low Countries under Habsburg rule). Dahn 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Terra Seurini was located elsewhere (right bank of Olt river). The region was anexed to the KoH around 1227, when it was detached from Cumania. It was donated to the teutonic order in 1420.

The appartenence of Fogaras land is undecided.

The Utas Land (Teleajen->Buzau,Siret) was integrant part of Szekleyland until the end of the 14th century.

Omlas was also under Hungarian suzeranity --80.99.81.135 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What seems to be the main conclusion here? What could Wallachia be called except for a region, and in what periods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.67.56 (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A principality. I do not see how that can even be debated. Also, nobody questions the fact that she was an autonomous polity for virtually its entire history. (Let's also note that the Hungarian claim to sovereignty, which would not in itself warrant anything in map-making, was purely symbolic for long before the Ottoman conquest). All of this is in the text, and I do not see it disputed.

What I believe is indeed grounds for debate is the exact consequences of fluctuating relations between Wallachian princes and Hungarian kings, in regard to the status of lands owned by the former in Transylvania (which, IMO, were not proven to have been politically part of Wallachia, and should at least be ranked as "possessions" - not as integral territory). Please also note that the map in question is linked to a certain moment in time, which is specifically indicated in the caption, and there is no implication of earlier or later periods.

IMO, given the recorded presence of Wallachian rulers for the entire period you seem to debate indicates to me and most mainstream historians that Hungarian territorial claims were either not enforced, or had been agreed and shared with Wallachian rulers (who, at the time, also had claim to eminent domain, and repeatedly indicated that the lands they ruled over overlapped with Hungarian claims). I am not saying that this should take precedent, but I can assure you that, leaving the question of lands in Transylvania aside, Wallachia's borders during Mircea the Old are generally thought to have been those indicated in the map. Dahn 20:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, nobody questions the fact that she was an autonomous polity for virtually its entire history.

This is a bold statement! Plenty of people do question its status. Continuous Wallachian autonomy is a myth, an imaginary narrative constructed to later support the larger Romanian national myth. Wallachian shaky autonomy emerges sometime around the 15th century and does not become a reality until some centuries later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.29 (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be trusting historians to tell me that, not random rants, thank you very much. Dahn 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems some people confuse autonomy and independence. Can anyone provide an shred of evidence for Wallachian lack of autonomy in late 14th century (the timespan in question)? Daizus 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

'Trust' is a complex matter. You only trust when you cannot know. You place your trust wherever it suits you or worse, when devoid of choice - wherever you must. Reading historians, also, includes reading between the lines, reading a variety of sources, especially the ones offering opposing arguments and then producing your own judgements. In short, take a look at the beginning of this article and then tell me again that Wallalchia was an 'autonomous polity'. I didn't write that article but feel free to edit it, so it suits you already pre-made views. Good night and good luck! :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.29 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this man needs to read up about about the difference between "province" and "tributary state." Wallachia was never an Ottoman province, which is more than you can say for the majority of its neighbors. Ottoman troops in the region were prohibited. The construction of mosques was not allowed. Wallachia also never had to pay Janissary slaves. Wallachia was, for almost the entirety of its existence, an autonomous state, and not an Eyalet/Pashalic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.82.184 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevancy

The relevancy of having my source is to inform the readers of the Wallachians and how they were perceived by other people. I think the source is very valuable and still accurate to this day.

Wallachia was mentioned in the English gazette, Saturday Magazine, where it said: - -

“ The vegetables are said to be of inferior flavour; the flowers deficient in perfume; the domestic animals remarklable for mildness; the bears, wolves, foxes, and other wild animals, much more timid than in other countries; and lastly, man himself, dull and heavy, with weak passions, no strength of mind, and an utter aversion to a life of industry. ”

--Thus Spake Anittas 17:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, there are millions of such sources, each giving conflicting, subjective, and ultimately irrelevant accounts. Furthermore, such blanket theories relate to the logic of 19th century people, who also considered phrenology to be a "science". Given that such elementary aspects are supposed to be familiar to an old editor, I think you are in clear breach of WP:POINT with such nonsensical, disruptive and agenda-fueled edits. Dahn 17:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that such a source can be stopped. I think that few sources can be stopped, and only if it can be shown that they have no credibility. That gazette has a good credibility. Their reports are known to have been balanced. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, I believe it was a Moldavian institution that tried to teach us how to distinguish between what is factual and what is opinion. And my reference to "millions of such sources" was in reference to credibility - not that it would matter what credibility a source has when expressing a subjective opinion (Appeal to authority). An article on Wallachia is not one on "Historiography about Wallachia", not one on "travelers' notes", not one on "popular psychology", but one on relevant facts. Dahn 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, tho one can always ask why such opinions should not be included in articles. Well, if one would create an article on the Historiography of Wallachia, then perhaps the source would be tolerated. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, that would be a pointless and endless article, in breach of several norms regarding content. It will also be an invitation to original research. Just like any other such article (just so you know this is not about me being Wallachian). Dahn 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

It's Wikipedia policy to use the most common term for something, regardless of whether it's "correct" or not. This is applied throughout our encyclopedia for establishing the titles of the articles.

Google Books:

• Books 1 - 10 with 2000 on "Wallachia"
• Books 1 - 9 with 737 on "Walachia".

Google Scholar:

• Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260 for "Wallachia"
• Results 1 - 10 of about 203 for "Walachia".

Khoikhoi 21:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

File:TRMircea.png

1390

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... --Alex:Dan 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

»»» This discussion is continued on Mircea I of Wallachia's talk page

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• The lead doesn't adequately summarise the article.
• Every paragraph in the history section needs at least one inline citation.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 06:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

After expanding the lead myself, I have now passed the article. I don't feel the citing issues are enough to warrant delisting. Epbr123 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The people

I could be wrong, but does the article make it clear what group of people built the core of the population? I see an explanation on its etymology, but that doesn't explain who inhabited the land. I see that Mongols are being mentioned for ruling the land. It must mean that Wallachia was a Mongolian state. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it already mentioned in several sections? Dahn 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The closest the article comes in mentioning the core population, is in this paragraph:

Beginning with the 10th century, Byzantine, Bulgarian, Hungarian, and later Western sources mention the existence of small polities, possibly peopled by, among others, Vlachs/Romanians led by knyazes and voivodes - at first in Transylvania, then in the 12th-13th centuries in the territories east and south of the Carpathians.

The text, which needs to be digged out, doesn't make it clear what group of people founded the state. It doesn't even make it clear if they formed a majority or even if they were present in the country, at the time being. In my opinion, not only does this need to be made clear, but their origin should also be included; and it should be briefly mentioned in the lead section of the article. If we look at Normandy and use that as an example of standard, we see that the article is poorly sourced, yet clearer in its formulation and structure. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find me a 12th century census accounting for the majority of its inhabitants, I'll add it. Dahn 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about the 12th century? The paragraph, which I included, mentioned the 12th century, but the question is not about the 12th century, but about Wallachia--which did not exist as a state in the 12th century. I merely included the paragraph to show that that is the closest one for explaining whom the people that inhabited Wallachia were. And of course, the explanation is insufficient--which was also my point to make. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The demographics of Wallachia were not accounted for in any such way until the 19th century, though, at some point, it is possible that the region's inhabitants might not have objected to calling themselves Romanians in the modern sense (it remains to be proven that the sense in question meant anything to them). With a mention of who its core inhabitants were/are made in the "Name" section, with the paragraph you mention, and with several links (including Origin of the Romanians as a main article), I really cannot see what your concern is in this case. Dahn 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Every article on any historical region in the world should explain the core population of the state, of the relevant time; and adding their religion, culture, and origins. If any of those subjects are obscure, then sourced speculations could be included, on the condition of the uncertainty of the material is made clear. If any of the subjects are completely oblivious, then that, too, should be mentioned with the back-up of sources. To give link to such arguments as a way to complement the argument, is insufficient and unprofessional. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. Dahn 23:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We can do that, on a personal level, but that wouldn't solve the disagreement on the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should be delisted as GA-article

I believe that this article should be delisted as a GA-article based on the following points:

1. The article doesn't make it clear what group of people constituted the bulk of the population (for more info, see this discussion);

2. It doesn't cover the religion and culture of the region;

3. It has grave factual errors, such as:

a) saying that in "1415, Wallachia accepted the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire; this lasted until the 19th century, albeit with brief periods of Russian occupation between 1768 and 1854." This is incorrect, since Wallachia enjoyed several periods of independence during the 15th and 16th century.

b) saying that the name of "Wallachia, generally not used by Romanians themselves (but present in some contexts as Valahia or Vlahia), is derived from the Valachs - a word of German origin also present as the Slavic Vlachs" Actually, the name of Wallachia is derived from the Slavic name, and the Slavic name, in turn, borrowed it from the Germanic word.

c) when it says that "until defeated around 1091, when the Cumans of southern Russia took control of the lands of Moldavia and Wallachia" but none of the states mentioned, existed at the time.

d) when it says that "Wallachia became engaged in frequent confrontations and, in the final years of Mircea the Elder's reign, became an Ottoman subject." This is false. Mircea agreed to pay 3,000 ducats in tribute, but the treaty of 1391 didn't make Wallachia an Ottoman vassal. The first ruler to accept vassalage was Mihail I, in 1419--one year after Mircea's death--but even that treaty is unclear on what the status of the country was. This same error is repeated again when it says that Mircea "accepted Ottoman suzerainty in 1415, after Mehmed I took control of Turnu and Giurgiu." The first statement is incorrect, but the latter is accurate; and to add to that, Mircea also lost Dobruja to the Ottomans--something the article forgets to mention.

e) where it says that "Vlad, during whose rule Bucharest was first mentioned as a princely residence, exercised terror on rebellious boyars, cut off all links with the Ottomans" Actually, he kept on to diplomacy in order to give Mehmed false hope of reconciliation and win time.

f) The sentence continues by saying that Draculawas "forced to retreat to Târgovişte and accepting to pay an increased tribute" I have never heard of this before. Perhaps this was mentioned in the forged letter which Corvinus intercepted, but Dracula was heading to Transylvania to ask for support in troops. He never agreed to any kind of tribute.

g) when it says that "his parallel conflicts with the pretenders Radu cel Frumos and Laiotă Basarab brought occupations of Wallachia by the troops of Matthias Corvinus of Hungary and the Moldavian prince Stephen III" In 1473, Dracula was inprisoned, thus he was having no part in those conflicts; and in 1476, Corvinus sent him and Stephen Bathory to regain his throne in Wallachia; his cousin, Stephen, helped him by invading from the north. There was no Hungarian, nor Moldavian, occupation of Wallachia in 1476. In 1473, Stephen invaded Wallachia in order to install his own man of choice, but the invasion doesn't count as an occupation.

4. Awkward formulations, such "Wallachia, generally not used by Romanians themselves" decreases the quality of the article.

5. The article lacks enough citations that should be source the controversial statements.

My area of expertise is the 15th century, so I cannot say for the rest, but seeing how the statistics of errors look for that period, I say we should exercise caution in taking things for granted and be ready to question those things that are not properly sourced. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Personally, I don't care much if this is GA-delisted, since I played no part in proposing it, nor have I followed the process. But: a. some of the claims above are ludicrous, and based on own interpretations (for example, what "doesn't count as an occupation", what "should be said about the population", and all other parts where Anittas engages in a conflict with what the sources say or appears not to understand what the sentences say. I particularly like "Awkward formulations [...] decreases the quality", which, I presume, should be set as a standard of proper formulations?) b. Anittas, get off my case. Dahn 01:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you what doesn't count as an occupation, as in this case. When Stephen invaded in 1473, his objective was not to sustain an army there; nor was his objective to annex or colonize the country; or to demand tribute by subjugating the country. In 1476, as I have already explained, Corvinus sent Dracula with an army to regain his throne. None of these events can count as occupations, but rather an political interventions. These sort of things happened very often in Wallachia and Moldavia. However, if Dahn finds me a credible source that calls the events of 1476 for an occupation, I will not argue against it. If Dahn cannot present us the source, I will be forced to think that whoever added that content there was making a personal interpretion--and a false one, I believe. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ. If the Moldavian army entered Wallachia's territory and replaced Wallachia's leader, the term applies. I fail to see what the controversy would be, but just go ahead and replace it with "conquest" or whatever is to your liking, instead of making guesses about my supposed POV. As for what "you already explained": the parts that are not based on your reading of various details as ambiguities (when in fact they're not ambiguous), I have failed to see you explain anything against the sources cited. Dahn 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To replace it with conquest would be even more errorenous. In the treaties between Moldavia, Wallachia, and the Porte, the two principalities were never counted as conquered lands. Another question about the occupation issue: what source argues that it was his conflict with Radu and Laiota that brought occupations of Wallachia? As for 1476, the Hungarian and Moldavian troops went into Wallachia in his name; thus, the article suggests that Dracula's conflict with Radu and Laiota brought his own occupation in 1476. That wouldn't make much sense, unless it was a David Lynch movie. You can take your time in adding the source, if that is what you choose to do. The most serious issue remains the pointblank errors which I have mentioned in argument 3 and which you haven't addressed, yet. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's take your questions one by one, starting with section 3 of your original message: a. the supposed periods of "independence", all in wartime, never brought internatl peacetime recognition, and almost always implied rival factions supporting various suzerains (indicative of the fact that there was no central authority). b. not my contribution, can't tell you at the moment. c. pretentious - anybody who can follow the text can understand that Wallachia and Moldavia did not exist back then, and the terms serve to localize, not to imply political borders of the time. d. I fail to see the difference between paying tribute and suzerainty, especially since Ottoman political control over Wallachia was only obvious after the 1500s. e. as sourced. f. as sourced.

I left g. as the last, to answer all issues you raise above: 1. go ahead replace the term "occupation" with whatever spin you like - the point was that Hungarian and Moldavian armies entered the country and deposed its princes (which counts as a "conquest" and an "occupation", especially given that it is clearly indicated that the presence was brief), not about speculations as to what they imply. 2. the text says that Dracula's conflicts with x, y, z brought about the visits/occupations/whatevers, which does not necessarily mean that he saw them through (nor that the occupations were against him)- just that these were the causes; in doing that, I condensed a few years to simply list the most relevant political changes in a very complicated succession of events - since this is not the biography of Dracula, readers can find out more in other articles (that is why we have those words that turn blue...). Dahn 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A)It doesn't matter if the intervals did not bring lasting peace. What matters is whether Wallachia functioned as an independent entity. It did and as such, the periods should be included. Period. C) It doesn't matter if everyone was able to conclude what the text meant; what matters is that it is accurately described. Perhaps the article is read by a 12-year old who is not familiar with the history of Southeast Europe and who skipped through the part where the foundation of the states was explained; but as I said--that shouldn't matter. D) Allow me to explain you the difference. For one faction paying tribute to another faction, doesn't automatically make the paying faction recognize the receiving faction as their suzerain. It is the treaty between the factions which reveals whether one faction recognizes the other as their suzerain. In such case, a limited amount of its independence is submitted in favor of the other faction. There are many examples where one state agreed to pay tribute to another, without even being close to recognize them as anything. Rome in its early republic days paid tribute to Gaelic tribes to leave them alone; in its late imperial days, it paid tribute to Dacia so that they wouldn't invade Moesia and to various Germanic tribes, and later to barbarians invading from the north, to buy peace. The Byzantines would pay tribute to the Bulgarians, and other factions, for concluding peace treaties. None of these factions recognized the other one as their suzerain. It was just a trade of interests. Here is my source, which explains it clear, that Wallachia was not recognizing the Porte as its suzerain during the reign of Mircea:

• Treplow, Kurt W. Vlad III Dracula: The Life and Times of the Historical Dracula ISBN 973-98392-2-3, p. 35

"Following the great Ottoman victory over the Serbs at Kosova in 1389, Mircea agreed to pay tribute to the Ottomans, altough he did not become a vassal and maintained his country's independence."

That pertained to the treaty of 1391 between the Porte and Wallachia.

p. 35-6

"The collapse of the Ottoman Empire following the invasion by Tamarlane in 1402 and the outbreak of the Ottoman Civil War gave Mircea a respite. He tried to intervene in the civil war between the sons of Bayezid to gain advantages for Wallachia by supporting Musa. The eventual victory of Mehmed I meant a rebirth of Ottoman power. The new sultal seized several Danubian fortresses from Wallachia, and took control of Dobrogea, making it a Turkish province. In addition, Mircea had to agree to pay an annual tribute of 3,000 ducats. Nevertheless, he maintained Wallachia's independence as the agreement did not recognize the Ottoman Empire as a suzerain power and in exchange fortribute the Ottomans were obligated to defend Wallachia against unauthorized raids north of the Danube."

--Thus Spake Anittas 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

a. That statement is your personal opinion, and all assertions of "independence" were not recognized as such, are not discussed as such in most literature, and in most cases were not the basis for administration. Similarly, the period when Wallachia was conquered by the Poles is not discussed as a change in status.

c. Ridiculous.

d. Sources who discuss Mircea's payement of tribute as the start of Ottoman suzerainty: The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: in 30 volumes, 1974, p.517; Lucian Boia, Romania: Borderland of Europe, 2001, p.66; Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526, 2001, p.203; H.J. Kissling, The Last Great Muslim Empires, 1969, p.11; Margaret Mead, Rhoda Métraux, The Study of Culture at a Distance, 2000, p.452; James Samuelson, Roumania Past and Present, 1882, p.164; Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 1976, p.42; Leften Stavros Stavrianos, The Balkans Since 1453, 2000, p.64 etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, authors such as Viorel Achim (The Roma in Romanian History, 2004, p.14) discuss Mircea as a vassal of Hungary before that date (presumably, with de facto independence for the country itself). For the Treptow-type discourse, here is an interesting comment from the Romanian Review 37:7-12 (1983): discussing a book by two official authors of the communist regime, the author exults their indication that "Romanians accepted suzerainty 'not as defeated people, but as victors'" - leaving aside the nonsense in the phrase, you will note that even here the term is suzerainty. Tahsin Gemil (Românii şi otomanii în secolele XIV-XVI, 1991, p.229) discusses the same system as "protective suzerainty", and also makes the apparently minority claim that it was "as vanquishers" that the people in the region entered the racket.

In fact, in Marcel D. Popa, Kurt W. Treptow (!), Historical Dictionary of Romania, 1996, p.135 - "After the victory of Mehmed I, Mircea was forced to recognize Ottoman suzerainty, agreeing to pay tribute to the sultan in 1415, though retaining complete [independence]" [my italics].

If one looks through the definition of suzerainty, and notice especially what the term was coined and used for, this entire section of the discussion is clarified. In its definition, it serves to indicate paying tribute + relinquishing control over representation abroad, and this is exactly what happened here (not that, following the Ottoman offensive, Wallachia had any other parties left to negotiate with successfully).

As for that bit of OR regarding Rome. Interesting to note: Anittas is mostly discussing the concept of suzerainty in the absence of suzerains (no such thing in Antiquity), and the Byzantine-Bulgarian thing is taken out of context. I'm not going to pick on him for his use of the word "Gaelic" in reference to the Italian Peninsula :). Dahn 14:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have said Gauls. I still stand by my point on Mircea not recognizing the Porte as his suzerain and that guy is not the only one to have argued that. Here's another source: Dimitrie A. sturdza and C. Colescu-Vartic, Acte si documente relative la istoria Romaniei, vol. I (1391-1841), Bucuresti 1900 doc I 1-2. Here's what the definition says: "is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy to control its foreign affairs." Well, Mircea had 100-percent control of his foreign affairs and the Ottomans had absolutely no say in them. Unless those dudes meant to say that the tribute paid by Mircea was a first step towards recognition of the Porte as its suzerain, I think they are all wrong. In such cases, Wiki encourages for all theories to be presented. About point C: it's not ridiculous at all. It is not scholarly acceptable to assume things based on their selfexplanatory. About the issue on independence: the Ottomans did not recognize the Russians occupation, either. Why not remove it, then? In fact, it doesn't change all that much what the Ottomans recognized, in the 15th century and the vast majority of books on Ro history makes it clear that those periods of resistence meant independence for the principalities. That has nothing to do with my opinion. It is you who let your opinion dictate how articles should look like: what should be covered, to what extend, and in what way. And why should your opinion stand over all others? I wonder. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: the sources to prove contradict the information about suzerainty should not be "sources that do not mention suzerainty", but sources that clearly mention that Wallachia did not come under Ottoman suzerainty (i. e.: mentioning the word "suzerainty" and contrasting it with the supposed situation). An off-wiki definition of suzerainty simply indicates that the suzerain is an overlord [3] - we both know that this was the case between the Ottomans and Wallachia. Furthermore, your claim that Mircea was allowed to hold control over his foreign affairs (and this is not a requirement!) is spurious: there is simply no evidence you can cite that the Ottomans delegated any such responsibility, and there is much evidence to the contrary. And "I think they're all wrong" doesn't count as a reliable source, whereas all those "dudes" do.

"It is not scholarly acceptable to assume things based on their selfexplanatory" - that's putting words in my mouth. Your assumption, on the other hand, relies on people reading this text but not being able to understand it.

The Ottomans very much recognized Russian occupations, through various peace treaties - this, of course, does not refer to all Russian occupations, but all is detailed further in the text. As for the rest: most people will acknowledge that Rob Roy and Jesse James were independent from all authority, but that does not make them relevant to UK or US sovereignty. Dahn 16:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The treaty of 1391, which the book cites as source, is enough evidence. My guess is that you misinterpreted the text in all of the books that you listed. I think I might order one or two of those books and verify your claims. About the assumption: yes, everything should be taken at face value and everything should be written as if the reader has zero knowledge on the subject. The sentence is plain wrong, but you're too proud to acknowledge that. It's the Oltenian in you. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean the so-called "capitulations"?! Really, Anittas, find yourself some up-to-date references: the "treaty" was written down on one knee by nationalist boyars living in the 1800s. It was a blatant forgery, and all historians have ceased referring to them - including nationalist historians who don't want to become the subject of ridicule.

Everything you cite is written "as if the reader has zero knowledge on the subject". It is not and should not be written as if the reader were incapable of understanding the subject. Dahn 16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. I said the treaty of 1391. Is that a forgery, you say? The treaty of capitulations were the acknowledgements of accepting suveranity. If the treaty of 1391 was such a thing, then I would have agreed that Mircea accepted Ottoman suveranity, but that treaty is no such thing. I'm not familiar with the forgery of such treaties, but I'm assuming that the Ottomans held copies of the treaties, which may be found in the Turkish archives. The treaty of 1391 is not a capitulation treaty! --Thus Spake Anittas 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanians tended to refer to such "documents" as capitulations (and, yes, they were wrong to use that name). Although several works have been authored around what they "must have been about", based on what happened after they were signed, no such documents were ever found. Instead, the local nationalists forged a couple of them, which circulated for a while (details in Boia, Istorie şi mit..., 1997, p.38, 121-122). As I have shown, there is agreement that suzerainty started from that point: the only sources that explicitly disagree (and, after all, do they?) rely on fake documents. QED. Dahn 17:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about some other treaty: why would you? If you set the initial date at 1415, then why would you bring up a treaty of 1391? If it's some way of claiming that Wallachia did not delegate responsibilities to the Porte (after 1415...), then Hitler surely could not have died in 1945, because he was still alive in 1937... Dahn 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have now opened another source and things become even more confusing. It covers the period to your 1415, altough that year is not specifically mentioned. The source: Panaite, Viorel. The Ottoman Law of War and Peace—The Ottoman Empire and Tribute Payers. ISBN 0-88033-461-4 , p. 156-60

...

Other late accounts allude also that Mircea the Older accepted to be a sultan's harâcgüzar before his campaign against Karînovasî in 1393, at the battle of arges in 1395. But more about this document is not known.

...

No details on peace terms can be found in fifteenth-sixteenth century Ottoman juridical texts, e.g. 'ahd üz-zimmet, cigye, than to end 14th century ones. Opposite to this late Ottoman view is eighteenth century Wallachian chroniclers' tradition. Radu Popescu only, who wrote at beginning eighteenth century, recorded th conclusion of a peace agreement after the battle of "Rovine" and noted that Mircea the Older, "realizing the Turks' arrogance, made peace with them and gave them a present for the country rest unruffledly." The Radu Popescu's formula was frequently invoked by historians for characterizing the first Ottoman-Wallachian agreement as a temporary peace and the first sum of money paid to Turks as a "gift" (plocon) only. Let us mention also the Richard Knolle's accurate opinion, who wrote that the Wallachian voivode, being defeated by Bayezid I "at last he was glad to sue for Peace, which he obtained, by submitting himself to Bajazet, and yielding to pay him a yearly Tribute"

...

In official letters of 1399 both the voivode Mircea and the king of Hungary have considered Wallachia an unsubject country to Bayezid I yet, and the Danube still a border line between Ottoman territories and Christendom.

...

...the conclusion of a peace agreement between Wallachians and Mehmed I, which implied to send tribute (harâc) and one or more sons (boyars) as hostages to the Porte. Sukrullah, a.. and Mehmed N... narration are essentially the same: "The sultan having his luck on his side, marched on passing to Rumeli. and he crossed the Danube, building Giurgiu...After that, the prince of Wallachia sent the tribute by his envoy, acknowledged his submission and dispatched his sons to serve the Porte."

...

Chalcocondil's account contains the same basic information, i.e. te campaign to Wallachia (called Dacia by this Byzantine chronicle), the peace agreement and the annual tribute established by Mehmed I. Another assumption is that the Mehmed I's gaza took place durnig the regn of Mircea the Older's son and successor, Mihail I and was caused by a supposed violation of pact by the Wallachian voivode. Indeed, a late Ottoman chronicler, Koca Hüseyin, has indicated the year 823/1420 for the above-mentioned events, and the Wallachian noble Ienache Vacarescu affirmed that Mihail I was the first Wallachian voivode who paid homage to an Ottoman sultan, i.e. Mehmed I, and became his tribute-payer, but he indicated the year is 820/1418.

So as I have said, this is a disputed matter and for the sake of objectivity, should be presented as such. Those who choose to exclude the other theory, did so because they are very subjective in their opinion. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have delisted the article as a GA-article, but I have left the GA-Geography assessment. I messaged the editor who assessed the article as GA, but he has not given us his feedback. I delisted the article due to its failure to the following criterias: "It is factually accurate and verifiable"; "It is neutral"; and "It is stable". --Thus Spake Anittas 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, what you've got there is a historian's research into the matter, and his own interpretation of facts (as you will noe from the fact that even he acknowledges that others attribute the move to Mircea). One could easily include a mention of "other historians argue that...", but the burden of sources point to Mircea (and, before you speculate some more, I have cited them for what they say). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you know about WP:UNDUE, and I hope you can realize the enormity of making allegations about ediors not being informed because they have not read the text you're thinking about and believe is accurate. Furthermore, in either case, Ottoman suzerainty is what we're talking about. Dahn 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The historian presented us all of the contemporary sources that touched the subject. Those sources are controversial, because they contradict one another. Yes, most sources say that Mircea submitted to the Sultan, but a few other contemporary sources say that he did not. Not to say that Mihnea I was made associative ruler in late 1391 and de-facto ruler since 1416. What does this mean? It means that the subject is disputed, yet the article does not present the dispute. It presents only one-side of the dispute. What is that called? It is called subjectivity. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Principatul Valahiei

Where should Principatul Valahiei / pl:Hospodarstwo Wołoskie / de:Fürstentum Walachei / fr:Principauté de Valachie / la:Principatus Valachiae / tr:Eflak Prensliği (1310-1859) redirect? Or do we need such an article? Perhaps we need to create Principality of Wallachia (which currently redirects here)? Or would there be a better name - like Duchy of Wallachia? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need such an article, for several reasons (one being the issue of content forking - about 90% of the content is likely to be identical in any such two versions; another being that all articles referring to principality direct here; and still another being that, without the historical content, an article about Wallachia would be an eternal and unworkable stub; finally, it seems that most tertiary sources and reference works do not distinguish between the two). This will do finely, and topical articles such as Foundation of Wallachia can cover the remaining ground. Romanian wikipedia, which is probably where this duplication started, has a long history of absurdities, chaotic structuring and stuff done on a whim. Dahn (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

German de:Fürstentum Walachei seems to look like a start class article. There is a difference between historical regions and former states that needs to be cleared up in our articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs to? What is the measure of difference between one and the other, other than a naming practice which is virtually unused by other encyclopedias? As for the German article, let me emphasize again my original point by directing you toward de:Walachei (Region), which is a worthless duplicate. Regardless of where you cram the useful info, the other article will be redundant, confusing and going nowhere, and artificially broken apart for the sake of pedantry. Plus, I could make the same point about there being a difference between Poland and the Republic of Poland. Dahn (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Poland and Republic of Poland are nearly synonymous and refer to a state. A state that has its own history, geography, army, etc. But please note that they are both different from Second Polish Republic or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There may be little need to rename / split this article IF it is made clear in it that it discusses a former state. Is this the case? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Poland: yes, I am aware. Only "Poland", as per the article, does also cover "Second Polish Republic" etc., only not as much as it does cover the present state - consider that, had the state been frozen in its pre-1939 borders, we would not be distinguishing at all between "second Polish Republic" etc. The difference is more problematic when one considers the "People's Republic of Poland" in-between. So "Poland" is the notion that applies to several of these articles, and if we'd be nitpicking we'd distinguish between the term and the current political regime, just like we do for past regimes. That was the substance of my point, and, to the measure where it applies to this article too, we seem to agree. Concerning this article: It discusses both a historical region and a former state, and I don't see much room for confusion in the way the article presents that info. As I have said, the measure of difference between the former polity (which, btw, also went through a number of regime changes) and the region is minuscule. And if I may: the region's smaller components Oltenia and (the ambiguously defined) Muntenia are usually the primary focus in ethnographic, geographic, social studies. For example, it is common for a source to discuss the folk dress of Oltenia as something on the same level with folk dress in Moldavia, where Moldavia, like Wallachia, is the former polity/super-region, and Oltenia the sub-region on par with Bukovina. Dahn (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the consensus seem to be to leave the article as it is, I feel convinced to do so. I'd however suggest having some section/note discussing the (lack of?) the difference between Wallachia and Principality of Wallachia. Thanks for your comments, guys. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wallachia seems to me one of the few European regions that are strongly identified with one and only one polity, in this case the Wallachian voivodship. None of the other regions inside Romania have such connection with a polity. So at the moment creating another article will just duplicate the current one. Hopefully one day people will begin writing about ethnographic characteristics, folklore, region specific culture and economy, but for now I've only seen such things done for some US regions. Articles about EE regions generally try to convince the reader that the region is "rightfully owned" by X and not by Y, or that Y "occupies" an ancestral X-ian land. Anonimu (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Anonimu here. A first. Dahn (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Geographical region

How is Wallachia a geographical region ?Criztu (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Erdine

There is a spelling mistake in the name of the treaty since the city is called "Edirne". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortusxxx (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Slavonic name

Shouldn't we use the name used in their title by hospodars, that is земли ѹ(г)гровлахїискои (I'm not sure this is the nominative though). See some 15th trough the 17th century official documents at [4] Anonimu (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's apparently the dative. The nominative is probably "Землѧ Ѹгровлахїиска". I'm not 100%, I'll ask someone who knows Church Slavonic and I'll get back to this. bogdan (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. That is the nominative. Translation "land of ugro-vlachs" :) Hope I helped. Adrian (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wallachai Ethymology

That is not right, the ethymology have nothing to do with the celts, not all is celtic! It is a derived from the eastgerman word "valla" (ohg. "walla") (engl. Valley, ohg. "Vallachai", ger. "Walachei") used by Germanic peoples. The whole Valley and the Carpathes play a very old role in the old germanic mythology (Edda myths) and in the middleage germanic legends and had the german name "Siebenbürgenland". The carpathia is a traditional region for miners in all times. Lot hills have old germanic names. In germanic myths, dwarfs lived here witch horded the treasure (Leprechaun) of mountains, gold and silver.

Cinderella (in german "Schneewittchen" begins with "Behind the seven hills by the seven dwarfs". The germanic fairy story means "Siebenbürgen" include the "Walachei". http://netzspielzeug.de/images/product_images/info_images/1364_0.jpg

Here a map from the migration of "Siebenbuerger Saxons", they builded seven towns (mhg. "Burgen") in the middle of the carpathian valley and much peoples works as miners with a typical hat. http://www.siebenbuerger.de/portal/daten/grafik/karte_wanderung.png http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siebenb%C3%BCrger_Sachsen

Later came Schwabes to the northern valley of Carpathia, in here eyes, it was the "Walachei", modern called "Banat" (germ. Schwabenland). In the east valley (Szekler Land) was germanic Szekler 1147 AD from middle Rhine and Mosel Area, Flandern and Wallonie (today France). Later came germanic people from Maas-Mosel-Area, Flandern, Köln, Trier and Lüttich, they settled in East (germ. Burzenland), North (germ. Nösnerland) and South valley. Wallonie is the old region of Allemanns. Schwaben (oldgerm. "Suaben") were the children of Allemanns. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%B6snerland http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzenland http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banater_Schwaben Siebenbürgen had a great german history in many waves in the last 2000 years. The name of Skythes was switched to Romani peoples, now the Germans called the Romanian Peoples in Siebenbürgen as "Wallachen", and the germans from here with their germanic name. Later the name was used for migrated Skythes, witch settled in the southern Valley of Carpathia. They called these people now Vallani (Wallani) and means the Skythes. With the time here settled Dacia, Gots, Huns, Gepids, Awars, Magyars, Bulgars, Slaws. The modern germanic word stay for an Chaos. We say often "Here looks like the Wallachei" for a completly chaotic areal. Germans had never called Romans or Celts as "Wallachen". The latin name was "Malvensis". The Romanian (skythian) name for Wallachia is "Oltenia" and "Mutenia", that is a indoiranic term.