Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Olessi (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 8 February 2007 (Two comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

One of my main areas of interest is the history of the "dark millenium" in Romanian history, the time period between 271 and the beggining of 14th century.

For the moment I will use this space for comments, briefs and reviews.

Lower Danube as a border

This is a brief based of Stelian Brezeanu's study The frontier of Lower Danube between 4th and 7th century. A notion's ambiguity.

The importance of this frontier in early Romania's history is emphasized by the power of Balkanic romanity. Beween Maximin the Thracian and Phocas most emperors had Balkanic origin (Aurelian, Diocletian, Galerius, Constantine the Great, Marcian and Justinian). And not only emperors, also generals (Aetius and Belisarius). Constantine the Great even said "my Rome is Serdica".

(to be continued)

Evidences, circumstances, and arguments for continuity

Meanwhile I decided to work on such a list independent from the official article and to elaborate it

1. Procopius of Caesarea in Wars, Book VII, 14, 36 presents the case of the false Kilbudios, a Roman general, of slavic origin, under Justinian's service and deployed on Danube to stop the barbarian attacks. After some initial success he disappears in a campaign on the left bank of the river. An Ant slave which looked very much alike Kilbudios, listening to the advice from a Roman prisoner, went to the Roman authorities and presented himself as being the true Kilbudios while imitating his behaviour and learning Latin. (after St. Brezeanu, anyone can help with the original text?)

2. From the Strategikon of Maurikios, XI, 4, 31:

Tous de legoménous rephougoús epistelloménous kai strátas deiknúein kai menúein tina deî asphalôs phyláttein; kan gar Romaîoí eisi tô chrono poiothéntes kai tôn idíon epilathómenoi ten pros tous echthrous eúnoian en protimései poiountai; oús eugnomonountas men euergeteîn, kakourgountas de timoreîsthai prosékei

We must strictly survey the so-called refugees who are sent to us with the mission of indicating the roads and of discovering ; although they are Romans, they acquired this status, they forget their habits (they aquired other habits and they forget their relatives) and they have much more attraction for the enemy; we should gratify the benevolent ones and to punish the bad ones

It's interesting also the informations from IX, 3, 6-8 and also that it seems the byzantine strategy manuals indicated to do not use spies from the same ethnicity as the enemy.

3. Examples of romanization in Scythia Minor.

During an invasion of the Costoboci Daizus Comozoi (that means his father's name is Comozous) is killed. His funeral inscription found at Tropaeum Traiani is signed by his children: Justus and Valens. (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum III, nr. 14214, 12)

Another inscription from Tropaeum Traiani mentions this family: the grandfather's name is Mucaporus, father's name is Scoris and he married Aurelia, while their children's names are: Aurelius, Sabina, Valens and Sabinianus.

Non-linguistic arguments that Getae/Dacians and Romans had significantly different languages

1. An inscription from the sarcophagus on Marcus Ulpius Celerinus, officer in the Roman legion I Adiutrix, presents him as "interpretes dacorum". The inscription was found at Brigetio (northern Hungary) and dates since the times of Caracalla (211-217). Brigetio was the base of Legio I Adiutrix since Hadrian relocated this legion in Pannonia.

2. Publius Ovidius Naso, a Roman poet, is exiled in Tomis (in Scythia Minor) between 8 and 17 AD when he died. His poetic lamentations written in this period reveal his solitude. In Tristia, book V, section 10 he says:

"Barbarus hic ego sum, qui non intellegor ulli,

et rident stolidi uerba Latina Getae;"

Iancu

First of all, it wasn't "my criteria", it was the Britannica's (a tone which I kept as reasonable as I could). Secondly, we could do without it altogether, but I was solely trying to make sentences less abrupt. Do not assume. Dahn 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If I'd have to write an article on physics, I wouldn't refer to Britannica. I'd like if we could treat history like a science and not just a collection of opinions. Britannica is not an authority in history (and that's a dangerous remark, we could open an endless debate about what such an authority may mean). A potential controversial claim can be preceded by "in the opinion of historian x". Especially in Hungaro-Romanian history which is full of bias on both sides.

In Britannica's article we find Szörény (with no alternate denomination) but Belgrade (and not Nándorfehérvár). Somewhere at the core there are some frustrated opinions, I haven't found any other way to say it but bluntly. As we have our "dacists", others have the "apostolicists" dreaming of a great but long ago faded Hungarian medieval kingdom. Daizus 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hungary:Historical demographics

Salut, Daizus. Am vazut ca ai dat niste surse interesante in Talk:Hungary#Historical demographics. Ai putea sa imi dai si mie referintele exacte? Multumesc, Dpotop 12:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cele mai multe informaţii de-acolo le vei gasi in Şt. Pascu - Voievodatul Transilvaniei, vol II. Referinţele lui Pascu sunt variate, dacă te interesează ceva anume fii mai explicit. Daizus 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion ?

Since I noticed your qualified interest in (Romanian) history, I’d like to bring to your attention a phenomenon I observed. Various entries related to Romania like Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, John Hunyadi, Judeţ, Romanian Old Kingdom, Islam in Romania ( the list is larger) contain linked mentions to the entry Danubian Principalities. This intrigued me, since the term “Danubian Principalities” is a sort of historical and geo-political moniker of a very specific and limited use, which is by no means suited to the content of the articles it was referred to. Going to the entry Danubian Principalities I realized that the article actually substituted an entry which should be called “Romanian Principalities”. Than, I clearly indicated in the lead section of that entry the temporal, spatial and semantic limits of this term: it was an Austrian word construction of the late 18th – early 19th century, it circulated outside the Romanian space as late as the Union of the Principalities and it was a term of exclusively informal use. I think that raising this term to the status of an historical term is utterly misleading. I ignore the reasons of this. It could be accident, ignorance, semi-educated guess, it could be nevertheless intention. The fact that entries like United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, Romanian principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia are redirected to Danubian Principalities make me to rather think of the last. Whatever the reasons may be, usurping legitimate and recognized historical concepts by a geo-political moniker is unacceptable. Moreover, the term Danubian Principalities has been further promoted, being systematically wikified in many Romania-related articles, usurping established scientific concepts like Romanian principalities. Things have gone even farther, “Danubian” being autonomously used instead of “Romanian” in some articles. I think that the situation deserves careful consideration and adequate measures. If you consider this issue worth of interest, please check the facts and let me know your conclusions.--Vintila Barbu 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are seem to be right. But unfortunately we don't have a page on 'Romanian principalities' so we have to fight to make the meaningful content (extending that page or creating another and wait for users to note and acknowledge the two concepts or eventually propose a merge). I've browsed those pages and I think the first step is to struggle a bit to legitimate the expression 'Romanian principalities' (I've seen some opposition to it) as a noteworthy historiographical concept and eventual show the 'Danubian principalities' is rather the exception, the remnant of some historical context of the past. Daizus 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you that the usage in English is not determined by what some Romanians like, but about tradition. Both Britannica and Columbia refer to the "Danubian principalities", and the latter term was consistently used at the time when Anglo-Saxons were referring to two separate countries (this also makes the notion that "it became outdated" utterly irrelevant - since people were using it in that form and no longer use it to refer to something in existence). Dahn 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Materials from MSN Encarta refer to them as Romanian principalities (e.g. http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761575697__1/Austria.html ). Many other encyclopedias possibly (I don't have them in original, must be checked) use the same name. But this is not the real argument. The real argument is in scholarship (in English language, of course). It is tradionally 'Romanian principalities'. According to Wiki's criterions on sources, the scholarly material is a secondary source while the encyclopedias are a tertiary source. Misplaced Pages's policy states articles should rely mostly on secondary sources. So bring me scholars, not encyclopedias. Because I'll bring scholars. Daizus 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"In English scholarship"? "Traditionally"? Prove it. Dahn 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can read beacause I've said "English language" not "scholarship". Anyway, I've proved it already here (and you have even English scholarship - Adam Neale's testimony was reprinted in 1970 in New York!): http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Danubian_Principalities Daizus 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As for my end... google book hits: James Henry Skene, The Danubian Principalities, the Frontier Lands of the Christian and the Turk; Thad Weed Riker, The Making of Roumania: A Study of an International Problem, 1856-1866; Edward Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty: showing the various political and territorial changes; Barbara Jelavich, Russia's Balkan Entanglements, 1806-1914 and History of the Balkans; Čedomilj Mijatović, James David Bourchier, Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, A Short History of Russia and the Balkan States; Charles Alan Fyffe, A History of Modern Europe, 1792-1878; Robina Napier, Gerard W. Smith, Alphons von Klinkowström, Memoirs of Prince Metternich: 1773; R. G. (Robert Gordon) Latham, The Nationalities of Europe; Emil Lengyel, The Danube; Frederick Kellogg, The Road to Romanian Independence; Piotr Wandycz, Donald Warren, Treadgold, Peter F. Sugar, The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918; D, Tziovas, Greece and the Balkans: identities, perceptions and cultural encounters since the Enlightenment; Sorana Corneanu, Sorin Mitu, National Identity of Romanians in Transylvania. I'm not saying that your variant is not used, but you will note that this is the traditional Anglo-Saxon term (at best, the other one is used *as much*, but not *for as long a time*). Dahn 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are mine: Adam Neale, The Romanian Principalities, 1818; Radu Florescu, The Struggle Against Russia in the Romanian Principalities: A Problem in Anglo-Turkish Diplomacy, 1821-1854 ; Vlad Georgescu, Political Ideas and the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities (1750-1831); Nicolae Roddy, Sociocultural Appropriation of the Testament of Abraham in Eighteenth-Century Romanian Lands; Radu Carp, Governmental responsability and Parliamentary irresponsability in the Romanian Constitutional tradition; Angela Jianu, Women, Family and Society in the Romanian Principalities, c. 1750-1850; Michaela Mudure, Sexual Inter-courses: Romanian Master - Gypsy Slave; Norbert Blistyar - Use of the "Porto" Markings by Austrian Posts in the Romanian Principalities; John R. Lampe, Marvin R. Jackson - Balkan Economic History, 1550-1950: From Imperial Borderlands to Developing Nations; Viorel Achim - The Roma in Romanian history; Al. Gh. Savu - The army and the Romanian society; Valeriu Stan, Nicolae Balcescu, 1819-1852; Pompiliu Teodor - Enlightenment and Romanian Society; Tahsin Gemil, The Romanian principalities in the international political context (1621-1672); Kemal Karpat, Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays; Daniel Chirot - The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe: Economics and Politics from the Middle Ages Until Early Twentith Century; Horia C. Matei - National Report. Romania; Zoltan Barany - The East European Gypsies in the imperial age; G. A. Niculescu - Disciplinary identity and autonomy at the beginnings of archaeology in Romania; Manuela Boatca - Peripheral Solutions to Peripheral Development: The Case of Early 20th Century Romania; Istvan Vasary - Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365; Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans (where she uses also Danubian principalities); Jean W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500; Marija N. Todorova - Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory; Keith Hitchins, The Romanians, 1774-1866'; Bela Kalman Kiraly, Gunther Erich Rothenberg, War and Society in East Central Europe

Also from the books you mentioned, the book edited by Dimitris Tziovas mentions 'Romanian principalities' (e.g. at page 180, in Chapter 12: Music Encounters at the Greek courts of Jassy and Bucharest in 18th century by John G. Plemmenos.

As you can see your "more traditional" qualifier doesn't seem to be supported. Daizus 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I cannot see that at all. For one, those were not by any means the only sources out there. Secondly, many of the ones I cited at the top of my list are from the period in question, and, if we are to limit ourselves at it in order to uncover the traditional use, you'll find that it is likely that "Danubian" outnumbers "Romanian" by very, very much. As for "using several", the opposite is just as present, which leads us back to the original point. Dahn 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see maybe you should get professional treatment and stop spamming my talk page (I don't recall to have invited you here and the topic of this discussion I already started in talk page of Danubian principalities, as I already have told you).

I proved I can create meaningful lists, larger than the one you provided to argue an "Anglo-Saxon" tradition. The period covered by 'Danubian principalities' Wiki article starts in 14th century, not in 18th and the term is in use even now, in 21th century (to denominate a historical reality of those times). I fail to find the "likely outnumbering" you're advocating. While I realize I'll have a hard time create much larger lists than you if you'll stubbornly persist to prove the opposite (as my resources are limited), with no doubt I can create lists large enough to prove some improper claims as false "'Romanian principalities' is not a traditional term in English scholarship", "'Romanian principalities' was invented by Communist historiography" etc., therefore I have reasons to label as POV the current usage of these two terms here on Wiki. Daizus 09:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring common sense in the “Romanian vs. Danubian principalities” issue

It really appears that the systematical substitution of “Romanian principalities” by “Danubian Principalities” is not accidental but rather a campaign aimed at avoiding the designation “Romanian” in the history as long as it goes, namely up to…1864 (!). This absurd and ridiculous undertaking is that what I call an ideological motivated semi-educated original research . This seems to be the work of a semi-educated spinner who appears to be driven by what s/he thinks to be post-modern anti-nationalism (!) In his uneducated imagination, calling the Romanian feudal states “Romanian” is a proof of “nationalism”. Hence, s/he fights his own war on the Misplaced Pages, cleansing the using of the name “Romanian” in historical contexts, wherever s/he can. To this purpose s/he abusively promotes that informal geopolitical moniker (Danubian) to the rank of an historical concept in order to substitute “Romanian”. (This behaviour strangely resembles with that of the “România Mare”’s contributors: same fanaticism arisen from semi-educated ignorance, same weird agenda, this time however, with an inversed algebraic sign. I cannot stop noting the immanent irony of this circumstance: among the monsters borne by the communism here we have now this pair of twins: national-communists and over-acculturated anti-nationalists.) This can really happen only in Misplaced Pages, the only place where everybody can write anything. I wonder why and how long should we put up with this crap. I take the liberty to be a guest on your talk page out of two reasons: 1. in the hope that this Rică Venturiano will have the minimal decency not to interfere again after being explicitly invited out; 2. to try clarifying with you some principles. You say that “the first step is to struggle a bit to legitimate the expression 'Romanian principalities' (I've seen some opposition to it) as a noteworthy historiographical concept”. I think that you’re a little too pessimistic: the expression 'Romanian principalities' is already legitimate by 150 years historiography: from the romantic precursor Bălcescu over Kogălniceanu, the “founding fathers” Xenopol and Pârvan up to the “classics” like Iorga and Brătianu, there are no other designation for the two Romanian states in the historical research than “Principatele române” or “Ţările române”. (The form “principate dunărene” is occasionally employed in very specific contexts and nobody would come to the weird idea to consider it as a permanent substitute for “principate române”). As to the usual form in English, you already made the demonstration, better than I could do: “Romanian Principalities” is the one and only designation used in the modern scientific community. Of course, nobody denies the existence of the term “Danubian Principalities” as a term of limited use for specific historical contexts. A good example of dealing with historical terminology offers the entry Habsburg Monarchy, where alternative names of the Austrian Empire are briefly mentioned in a special section (there you find the term “Danubian Monarchy” as well). Nobody would however open a special entry for “Danubian Monarchy”, not to mention substituting established names like, say, “Habsburg” or “Austrian” with “Danubian” (!) I don’t think therefore that we have to struggle to legitimate what is self-evident. The only fight will be to face the incredible energy which bad-faith and frustrations seem to generate. I know that Misplaced Pages attracts weird personalities and semi-educated wannabes to an even greater measure than other forms of anonymous activities on the web. I hope however that they will not eventually succeed imposing their distorted views. --Vintila Barbu 09:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My demonstration had a limited purpose. Yes, it is a traditional form in English, but I cannot say is usual. For instance, it's hard for me to prove (and maybe it's not even factually correct) that let's say for the history of Romanian principalities between 1774-1848/59/61 "Romanian principalities" was more used than "Danubian principalities" (with irony I noticed the reference to justify the term is not even an English one, but a German one - Donaufürstentümer; basically the article falls under OR, the editor(s) invoking a common usage in English from its usage in German language!). I believe on the contrary. Yet, for most of their existence (if you look at Dahn's books, they mostly cover 18-19th centuries) I think the right term is "Romanian principalities" and not otherwise. I suggested in the talk page of the article a split (both in article, both in references in other Wiki articles) of the two terms. I don't want necessarily to minimize "Danubian principalities" (which had a historical usage and is in use today in a number of works) just to restore "Romanian principalities" to its real value. Daizus 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Getae

I reverted because there was clearly a dispute on the talk page, and dispute tags shouldn't be removed if there is. Khoikhoi 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Daizus 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at my last proposal (check the history, I presume Dahn has already changed it). It's less weaselish in wording, because it doesn't promote Boia's deconstructionist approach. I'm a bit tired of Dahn. BTW: If he reverts your edits, then go for 3RR (he's got 3 recently). Dpotop 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Boia's deconstructionist approach is useful in his domain - historigraphy. It is a bit illintended when directed to Strabo (for instance, some thracologists and linguists consider both shores of the Danube together with a large part of our today country was part of the same dialectal space - "Daco-Moesian"; their evidence comes from toponymy and antroponymy - the main sources of Thracian language). Also to my knowledge most cases of travellers or geographers reporting linguistical affinites were actually proven true. However this issue is relatively minor to the question, I don't think Strabo's reliability is actually an issue (could be in the page on Strabo, but I guess there other editors would diqualify Boia's comment as irrelevant or unscholarly).

I'll take a little break from the edits on that page, to start compiling some worthy materials. It's a good thing sections were created, that means there's an impetus to develop that page and that's good! Daizus 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Two comments

If you have not heard of it before, you may be interested in the Misplaced Pages:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Also, you might want to think about making a user page; rightly or wrongly, many editors are wary about contributors whose personal pages are red-links. Cheers, Olessi 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)