Talk:History of Transnistria

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William Mauco (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 28 October 2006 (→Reputable sources "point/counter-point" # 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:58, 28 October 2006 by William Mauco (talk | contribs) (→Reputable sources "point/counter-point" # 1)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Date of Romanian control

the image caption here says the date that transnistria was annexed by romania was August 19, 1941, but this article says that it was October 8, 1941 --Astrokey44 04:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria was never formally annexed by Romania (in the sense that there was never a formal act of annexation or attempt to incorporate it into a Greater Romania.) The word "annexation" and its derivatives should be changed as it has a legal connoctation which doesn't fit in this case. For the Romanians during World War II, Transnistria served the double purpose of killing fields, primarily for Jews, and also a buffer against the Soviets.
As regards the actual date, since there was never a formal annexation, it is hard to speak of a precise date. The taking of Transnistria was a gradual affair in late summer of 1941; starting with Tiraspol. Most of the advances took place during August. The correct quote would be: "At the end of summer 1941 Transnistria came under Romanian control".
Source: Alexander Dallin, Odessa, 1941-1944: "A Case Study of Soviet Territory under Foreign Rule", rev. ed. (published Iasi: Center for Romanian Studies, 1998), page 59. - Mauco 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the "biased info"

The source was written by a Norwegian guy, how does that make it biased? If it was written by some Ukranian, then I would understand. But please, don't delete sourced material. —Khoikhoi 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It`s written in 1992, in full war of Transnistria, by a Norwegian, and a Russian dude, who`se basically an anonymous historian wannabe. The work doesn`t provide any sources for the claims (read the content, it so biased that they even say that Bessarabia, not Transnistria, was inhabited by Slavs too) and it`s causing contradiction with the rest of what`s sayd in the article. It`s bassicaly an amatorial subjective view. When tens of sources (even the Russian censuses) say that as early as the 16th century, the land between the Dniester and Southern Bug (not only Trasndiester) were inhabited primarily by Romanians and Tatars, and also by Turks, Armenians, Greeks, and other (and not mention of any Russia or Ukrainian), how can you totally dismiss that? When on the walls of citadels of cities like Otchkov, Cetatea Alba and others trones the coat of arms of Moldavia from as early as the 14th century, when Italian travelers Niccolo Barsi da Luca and Niccolo Barsi say in the 16th century that the land is inhabited mainly by Moldavians, when Gianni Lorenzo D’Anania and Giovani Botero in their cartographic works (Relazzioni universali” (1596 Venetia) describes most of the cities (Ochackov for example) as being Moldavian, when in 1709 Daniel Krmannhow, a member of kings Charles XII of Sweden retinue, when retreated with the swedish king and his army, aslo says that the land is inhabited by Romanians, how can this dude nobody has ever heard of, before and after his masterpiece, say such things, based on nothing greier 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Kolstoe is one of the most frequently cited scholars on Moldova-Transnistrian issues, and his research is generally considered unbiased (by both sides). This is rare in debates over contemporary Transnistria where one paper from one side is generally not accepted by the other side. Kolstoe's research has been published by official mediators like OSCE. It is the first time that I have seen anyone contest his findings...
Charles King, author of "The Moldovans" (currently the most authorative review of Moldavian history in English) backs up what Kolstoe says. He adds that the region was a traditional borderland, with not just Moldavians and Ukrainians but an influx of many other nationalities as well. In fact, before the Romanian invasion in World War II, it was heavily Jewish. For instance, more than 1/4th of Tiraspol's population was Jewish. This percentage only changed with the systematic extermination of Jews by Romania in collaboration with its wartime ally; Nazi Germany.
I am including this in the discussion to make the point that 1) Transnistria has always been heterogeneous, 2) that the relative proportions of the various ethnic groups have always been fluid, and 3) that the no single ethnic group has ever had a monopoly claim on the territory. Moldavians have certainly always played a role in Transnistria's history, alongside other ethnic groups, but not to the point of excluding them or somehow validating the argument put forward by radicals that the land is part of Moldavia and was somehow taken from Moldavia from "invading foreigners". That would be a revisionism which does not match the historical facts. - Mauco 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely off the point! greier 10:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... and no. I made the point, knowing that the last half was unrelated. But I also explained why, and the reason why is absolutely related to where you are coming from, Greir. Reading your edit history, I can see that you are pushing a NPOV fork of the typical advocate of Greater Romania. There is nothing wrong with that, and you are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, but just not on Misplaced Pages. You have had troubles for that reason on other edits, and it is sad that you are now taking this POV to the History of Misplaced Pages. I made my point on the Jews above to give you the hint, in a subtle way, that since no single ethnic group has ever had a monopoly claim on the territory, that includes Romanians too. Romania was involved in some of the worst ethnic cleansing precisely in Transnistria, but they never accomplished making the region majority-Romanian (or majority Moldavian, if you prefer that term). Please do rewrite history to make the facts fit your point of view, and please do not cast doubt on the impartiality of Pal Kolstoe from Oslo University in Norway and Charles King from the Hoover Institute in the United States. If they are good enough for OSCE then they are certainly good enough for us. - Mauco 13:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal of that part has nothing to do with any jews, Greater Romania, or ethnic cleaning. The fact is that today, only in Transnistria (I don`t want to speak now about Ukranie) there is a population of 40% Moldavians, native to the area, and all sources say that in the past the population, indeed mixed, had as natives Moldavians, Tatars, and others. Never, until the Soviet Union, had the Russians and Ukrainians been the majoritary there. It`s gettig ridiculous: has it now turned into a battle between slavs and nonslavs? Pal Kolstoe should add references to his claims if he wants to be taken serious. Most scholary works have at the bottom a list of references, linked to every paragraph from the article... greier 13:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a slav, so this is not "a battle between slavs and nonslavs". Nor shall I defend Kolstoe, other than what I have stated above: He is one of the most cited sources, his information is backed up by other Western historians also (among others Charles King). If you read their books, you will see that they are certainly not biased in favor of Transnistria. I would like the info on Ukrainian peasants to remain, please, until Western historians agree otherwise (in published materials). We should try not to rely solely on the writings of Romanian historians or purveyors of a Greater Romania POV. - Mauco 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you keep mentioning Greater Romania. Honestly, I don`t see the point for relating it to the paragraph we`re disputing, nor (as I presume you want/assume) has anything to do with me and my edits. greier 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And honestly, the part about the history of the region is sooooo amatorial, so full of errors, that it looks like it`s made by a highschool kid. Want to continue to discuss about the history of the area? greier 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was created by simply moving the history subsection from the main Transnistria article where it was created with the collaboration of roughly a dozen active editors over a period of two years. Contrary to other parts of that article, it was never a major source of edit wars. - Mauco 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the history part from Kolstoes article. Man, if Kolstoe is an expert in Transnistria, than I am a genius!!!! The dude is tataly wasted!!! How could he put that shit (the history part) in his article??? God, looks like it`s made by a kid... greier 15:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you consider that a scholary work, than you too are wasted. It`s so shitty... Paragraph by paragraph... is pure shit, unworthy of such waste of time... greier 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kolstoe from Oslo is not the only source on how Ukrainians outnumbered Moldovans in the 18th century, and in fact even more recently too. Another quote from http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm which refers to the 1920's: "only some 30 percent of them were Romanians." - Mauco 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

History

Current state and my comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck Kolstoe, he`s an idiot! i`m sick of discussing this. In 1782, 40% Moldavians, 2006 (after years of colonisation and russification) still 40%... What an idiot... greier 15:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The dork colaborated with two russians, freshly avortated from the SSSR, and want`s to be taken seriously... greier 15:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the significance of Russian history in the region (which in the 10th century belonged to Kievan Rus, the precursor to the modern Russian state) it is not a disqualification for someone to collaborate with Russian historians. But if you want a strictly Romanian/Moldovan account of the regions history, free from any Russian "contamination", please see Nicolas Dima's Moldovan history here http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm (which was originally published by Columbia University Press, New York). It confirms everything that Kolstoe is saying. - Mauco 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Maucov, I saw the page. It doesn`t approve Kolstoe. On the contrary, it proves the colonisation. So sorry mister Maucov. greier 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. Read it, please, instead of giving POV blanket statements which are not supported by the best known scholars in this field. - Mauco 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I haven't studied the history of the region during that time period, nevertheless, there are some aspects of the passage that I am not fully comfortable with. Were Poles really one of the main ethnic groups in the region? And if so, are the data for Podolia as a whole, or just the part that's now in Transnistria? Also, I find it odd that Moldavians are called immigrants, alongside the Germans, as there is no reason why the settlement of the Moldavians should not have naturally extended into the eastern region contiguous to Moldavia for centuries. It's odd how the author puts the Moldavians deep in the list, although they probably formed a large segment of the population and labels them as foreigners, as though the other groups such as the Ruthenians had not also slowly entered the region due to a natural expansion. I cannot help but feel that the author was trying to make a political statement through his presentation of the data (e.g. Moldovans were immigrants in the region, just like the Jews and Armenians, unlike the Slavs who were always there). In any case, some of the distinctions made here are anachronistic to a great extent, as notions of ethnicity in the modern sense did not even exist yet, and labeling part of the population as Ukrainian only makes (some) sense from a modern perspective. TSO1D 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I put Moldovans first actually. Who is this Abraham Shmulevich and how does he compare with other researchers (like Kolstoe) who are respected, and who reach the same general conclusion? The implication of the sentence is for Northern Transnistria (the Podolia part), with "Tartar hordes" in South ("hordes" not used disparingly, but as an implication that they were not stationary.) I will begin some more research of this and see what I can find. If you wish to keep my edit off until then, that is OK, too. - Mauco

But http://pridnestrovie.net/node/415/ claims the Moldavians were present in Transnistria in the 14th century. :-) bogdan 16:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, yes and no to your statement that notions of ethnicity weren't at the forefront. True, but: Languages were. This was how Imperial Russia often did their census work. They would typically classify someone as Romanian if that was the first language he spoke, Ukrainian if that was his lingua, and so on. - Mauco 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not during the XVI century, especially since the area was not yet under Russian control. The linguistic identity of the people of the region was still developing during this period, and the concept of true language and dialect was virtually non-existent, thus the differentiation of the subjects of the PLC into the four or so Slavic disticntions we would use today in the region (such as the Poles, Russians, White Russians, Ukrainians), especially in regions such as Podolia or Galicia did not exist during that period. TSO1D 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is something which you know more about than I do, so I will cede to your judgment. Meanwhile, your comments made me revisit the article and look for signs of the author trying to make a political statement. And, looking at it that way, I found something which is fairly obviously a political statement in a parenthesis: "(Тут возникает интересная путаница названий — в зависимости от того, с какого берега Днестра смотрят на эти земли: румыны и молдаване именовали их “Заднестровье”, русские и украинцы “Приднестровье”, “Заднестровьем” именуя как раз территории румын и молдаван)." Not a disqualifier in itself, but enough to get me started my research started on the need for better sources, especially on the Polish data. - Mauco

It is not valid, because it is from Olvia. :-)

The claim is based on a misunderstanding: just because part of Transnistria was in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, doesn't mean that it was inhabitants were Polish.

If there were so many Poles, how come there are no Polish placenames? From what I've seen, they are around 10-20% Turkic (Tatar), 40% Ukrainian , 40% Romanian. bogdan 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, does he bring any source or at least of justification of why he believes there were Poles in there? It appears that politics of this area are not his speciality, so, I think we should take any claim of his cum grano salis. bogdan 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes. I started working on this today, and am becoming less convinced of this Abraham Shmulevich, too. Looking for Polish influences from other sources turn up a blank or almost a blank. This even goes for Râşcov (home to Polish administration in the area at the time) where the name itself shows that the town predates Polish rule. - Mauco 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ages population

From the article:

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

Who were these other Slavs?

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

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

Romanians in the text

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

Kievan Rus

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

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

Please see Talk:Transnistria, PMR territory belonging to Kievan Rus disproven. References cited above have been misinterpreted. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the discussion in Talk:Transnistria, and in fact, being one of the major participants there. However, I would not say that "disproven" is the right word. The source provided says that a sliver of Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus. While I highly respect the source provided, some other also-highly-respected sources say otherwise (including the ones listed above). The best thing to do is to look for more sources. Later, if no definitive conclusion can be reached, we can clarify that in the text. There are several ways to do that. We can present both views, or we can mention that there are indications or claims that it belonged to Kievan Rus. - Mauco 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sliver was the wrong word, the correct term should have been a single point, which I will go back and further research to clarify, as every large scale map conclusively shows that Kievan Rus never extended downriver past Moldova (that is, stopped at that little "crick" in the Dniester at the upriver boundary of present-day Moldova). Unfortunately, your interpretation of, for example, the Hoover Press reference is not based on a knowledge of Balkan geopolitical and ethnic boundaries. "The administrative border of Moldavia never crossed the Dniester, ergo it was Kievan Rus on the opposite bank. Q.E.D." is completely wrong. Please feel free to present each reference and I will validate against Magocsi. As I exhaustively indicated in Talk:Transnistria, your last reference there (numbered points) which you cited in "support of" the Kievan Rus position actually supports the absence of Kievan Rus along the Trans-Dniester and supports Romanian ethnic inhabitation/dominance back to at least 1,400 A.D. Let me be clear: I am not disputing your source; my source agrees with your source. The issue is that your interpretation is completely incorrect. So let's not propagate the fiction that sources which we would otherwise consider reputable are in disagrement and that we may just have to "note both viewpoints."—Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate this discussion. By the way, THIS is the right place to do it, rather than in Talk:Transnistria. The way we handle the subarticles (like "History of Transnistria") is that we do all the major work here, and then - when completed - bring a summary of the key points into the main Transnistria article. That way, we avoid content forking. - Mauco 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources "point/counter-point" # 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the 14th-15th centuries, Moldavia occupied the entire west/right bank of the Dniester all the way to the Black Sea and was not under Kievan Rus, it was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. The Carpathian mountains were already the western border of Kievan Rus, in central east central Europe. Your reference speaks of the Dniester upriver beyond Moldavia's border. Sources not in conflict.

The fact that the territory between the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river was already populated by Romanians does not mean that East of Dniester river were not Romanians also.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Moldavia remained in control of its territory through to the Dniester as part of the Ottoman Empire through to the end of the 18th century (1792), after which Bessarabia was split off from Moldavia in the Napoleonic era (by 1795). Bessarabia, the territory between the Prut and the Dniester is not the same territory as Walachia (Basaraba being the oligarch circa 1308). Walachia lay along the western border of Moldavia, as part of Hungary, and did not reach to the Black Sea (that territory being controlled by Bulgaria. I repeat: Walachia/Besaraba and Bessarabia are two completely different territories. Subsequently, Walachia became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire (as did Moldavia). Prince Alexandru I (the Good) was a prince of Walachia (not Bessarabia); during his reign Moldova, nevertheless, had its own ruler, and, most importantly, Alexandru had absolutely nothing to do with Kievan Rus, as he was a Romanian coming from the opposite direction!! A total, and grossly inaccurate, misinterpretation.

South of actual Basarabia was at the begining ruled by Walachian king Basarab (source is Mihail Eminescu, who is a Romanian poet and journalist from 19th century). Moldova took this land from Walachia. In 1812 Russians extended the name Basarabia to the entire region between Prut and Dniester, when they convinced Turkey to cede this region (calling it "Basarabia" gave the impression it is a smaller region than it really was). No Kievan Rus around. Romanian historical tradition talk about Polish neighbours at North and Tatar neighbours at East.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

That is, after the Romanians crossed the Dniester, inhabited the left bank, and moved further east then, and only then, did they encounter the Slavs. My earlier point on ethnic settlement of the left bank (and beyond) by Romanians, exactly. And no change in the border of Moldavia, which remained along the Dniester while the left bank administratively now belonged to Poland/Lithuania. My earlier point about "if anyone has historical claim, it's Poland/Lithuania." Kievan Rus was never in the territory of the current PMR.

I would add that some Romanian scattered villages are founded even East of Bug. During centuries, is probable that many Romanians were slavicized, as Church Slavonic was a prestige language used by all Romanians (who shared Orthodox faith with Slavs) in curch and administration until 16th century and at a certain degree even after it (some books in Church Slavonic were still printed in Walachia and Moldova as late as 18th century). Source: Petre Panaitescu - "Începuturile şi biruinţa scrierii în limba română" (The begining and the victory of writing in Romanian language), Romanian Academy Publishing House 1965.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks to User:Illythr for moving over! —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your two cents. This was (and is) a historic borderland so it is normal to expect a mix of cultures and races and a mixed history, too, with a rich tapestry of participants. You suggested that I explain the intent behind 5. Well, I didn't really have an intent but merely quoted directly from a Romanian view of the history of the region (without deleting anything, nor adding anything). As for 5, I took it as an example of a Romanian version of lebensraum (the "natural expansion" wording - why "natural"?) but that was my own interpretation. And yes, hopefully the future of the area will be decided on what the people really want, and not on someone believing that they have an old (or even recent) title to the land. - Mauco 03:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources point/counter-point #2

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

I already gave an explanation above based on my knowledge of history (I don't have Magocsi book, but this is common knowledge in Romania for people interested in history): Basarab, king of Walachia, ruled South of actual Basarabia (and also other teritories - Muntenia, Oltenia and Dobrodja). Afterwards, Moldova, the second Romanian state, took this land from Walachia. In 1812, Russia extended the name "Basarabia" to the entire teritorry between Prut and Dniester. Russia sought a quick peace with Turkey as it was atacked by Napoleon (Turkey didn't knew what Napoleon had in mind). Russia bribe a Turkish diplomat to achieve peace, and, in order to create the impression that its territorial claims are smaller than in the reality, deliberately misused the word "Basarabia" giving it a broader interpretation.--MariusM 01:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Древнерусского государства ?!?

My Russian is too rusty to fully understand what is meant by "Древнерусского государства" in the following context: "В X – XI веках территория, ныне именуемая Приднестровьем, входила в состав Древнерусского государства" - can someone with better Russian than me please help. (By the way, it is from this page: http://www.obnovlenie.info/text.php?cat=34 ) - Mauco 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I remember my Russian lessons now. "Ancient Rus'" (the Russian term) is just another name for Kievan Rus' (the mostly Ukrainian term). - Mauco 01:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The term is somewhat broader, it also includes the Pre-Oleg period. Hmm, that page doen't cite its sources... --Illythr 02:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a scientific work, but from the largest of the opposition parties in Transnistria. I would certainly not rely on it solely, but merely as a confirmation of other, less-biased sources. With regards to the time before prince Oleg of Kiev, did you see the inclusion of "В X – XI" in the sentence above and wouldn't that limit the reference to the Kievan Rus' period (i.e., after 880)? Not a leading question. I am genuinely asking for someone to shed more light in this. - Mauco 03:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)