Talk:Romania in the Early Middle Ages/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Excellent extension of this section !

Excellent work, Greier !! --Vintila Barbu 15:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mersi! Nu e mare lucru ce am facut, dar oricum mersi... :D Greier 15:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the mark: not any references and sources.

Why "This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2007)"? There are references and sources at the and. So there are some. I think the work of the contributors can be improved, but I think also the mark "This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2007)" it´s not correct. --Intelitem (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


I am wondering whether it has any merit to consider renaming this article? There are two issues that I see with the current title.

First, the term Romania was not used in the modern sense or in reference to more or less the current territory at least until 1700. In fact, the term Romania in middle ages referred to Rumelia. This area, however inexact in modern political terms, was then known either as Dacia, or as the name of the particular migratory tribe for the particular period. From 11th century, part of it is also known as (historic) Hungary. One can, of course, debate that we can name it Romanians in the Early Middle Ages, but there is a different article dealing with that, namely Origin of Romanians.

The second issue is that we should encompass not only Early Middle Ages but also High Middle Ages. Except for Transylvania, the two make a common period for what was Dacia. This article does not talk about Cumans, nor about the Tatar invasion, but it should. The end years for this article, IMHO, should be 1000 for Tranylvania, 1270 for Wallachia, 1300 for Moldavia. And the continuation should be in articles about T, W, M respectively. I can understand the merits of an overview article Romania in the Middle Ages (although with a slightly different title, imho), but not as a main article. Rather, Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia should have specific articles.

So, I can suggest something like Dacia in the Early and High Middle Ages with the observation that High Middle Ages for Trasylvania would actually be covered elsewhere. This article must be written so that it can be smoothly continues with Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, Foundation of Wallachia, and Foundation of Moldavia, while itself smoothly continuing Roman Dacia and Free Dacians.

If some do not like "Dacia", we can have "Tisza-Dniester-Danube area" instead. But "Romania" simply does not make sense. It sounds like "USA in the Early Middle Ages". Now, "Northern America ..." is a different story, and that is what I am suggesting. Another alternative could be "Northern Balkans", but then we should expand it to include modern Hungary and Slovakia, and at least partially Croatia. Dc76\talk 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a tradition that the history of modern countries is narrated following the chronology. For example, when we speak of the history of France, we speak of the history of the t e r r i t o r y of the country and thus an article on the history of France should cover the pre-historic period, the Galls, Gaul, the Franks, ... etc. Therefore, we should not rename the article.
For the time being, the medieval history of the territory is Romania is described in (at least) two articles: Romania in the Early Middle Ages and Romania in the Middle Ages. I think that there is no point in merging the two articles. However, it is an interesting question when did the Early Middle Ages end in Romania.
The previous structure of the article followed the chronological order of the events. The logic behind the current structure can easily be debated: "migrating peoples" and "sedentary peoples". Why are the Slavs differentiated from the Goths, the Gepids? The Goths and the Gepids lived in villages and they were primarily agriculturists (similarly to the early Slavs), and the early Slavs often invaded the territories of the Byzantine Empire and devastated it (similarly to the Goths, Gepids, Huns and Avars).

Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As to Dacia, I think that it would be a misleading name for an article describing the medieval history of the territory of Romania. In the Middle Ages, Denmark was often referred to as Dacia (e.g., in the Synod of Lyon).
"Tisza-Dniester-Danube area" What is that? Is there any reliable source using this name for any geographical region in the world? It would be really unusual given that the Eastern Carpathian Mountains cut the proposed geographical area into two.
"Northern Balkans": I think the Balkans had a well-established meaning: the Balkan Peninsula. As far as I can remember, I have never heard that Hungary or Slovakia (being Central European countries) were referred to as Balkan countries.
I think demerging the article into smaller parts (History of Moldavia, History of Wallachia, History of Transylvania) would contradict to the practise followed by Romanian scholars. I agree that the histories of the historical regions of Romania should also be described in more details, but if we demerge the article, Romania would be the only modern country whose history is not described in a separate article.

Borsoka (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. It is very detailed, and I need to think more about different aspects you mention. Unformtulately, I want to go offline now, so I will have to postpone a more full answer. For now I would like to mention two things: 1) that most of your arguments make sense to me and I simply need more time to think about the issues, 2) that there is no contradiction in having articles in History of M/W/T and in parallel articles in H of Romania/Hungary, etc. Look, for example how it is done here: This is more or less what I have in mind. And I think you misunderstood something: I do not mean to merge R on Early Middle Ages with R in Middle Ages. I only wondered whether the term Romania is appropriate for that time period. Dc76\talk 07:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick suggestion: how about Northern Balkans in the Early Middle Ages ? And I take your view as to not include Hungary and Slovakia at all, you are right. Dc76\talk 07:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
What does it cover? Great Romania? Or Great Romania and the parts of Bulgaria north of the Balkan Mountains? Or Old Romania and parts of Bulgaria? Or? Borsoka (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just one more remark. Actually, when I refer to the Balkan countries I do not talk about Romania. Maybe it is only a personal "feeling", but I think Balkan Peninsula is bordered by the Lower Danube. I may be wrong.Borsoka (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
What is being conveyed to the reader in this article is the territory of ancient Dacia in the Early Middle Ages. That's too long a title, but at least it is faithful of the content. It does not cover Panonian plain, neither northern Bulgaria. For precise boundaries it would be unwise to say b/c ancient Dacia did not have precise boundaries. Boundaries in our sense exist only since the Peace of Wesphalia in 1648. Don't get me wrong, I do not consider the title such a big problem. We definitevely can talk it later. And I will not do any moves without discussion.
As for the Balkans, your feeling is correct - sometimes it only means up to Danube, sometimes it also includes ancient Dacia. Usually one simply determines it based on the context. Dc76\talk 06:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct, a separate article for the history of "Dacia Trajana" and "Dacia Aureliana" in the Middle Ages is proposed above. I really do not understand the reasons. Why should we unify the history of two different territories that have never formed a geographical or political unity? If the purpose is to describe the history of the Romanian people, it is another case and another title. Borsoka (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I am refraining from asking to rename the article. I only asked hypothetically, b/c I do not know a good title. All the alternative titles I just mentioned, you brought them with problems, which are at least as big as those of the present title. So, for that reason alone, present title is to stay. I do not want to go into Dacia Trajana vs Dacia Aureliana here, it's a totally different issue, unrelated top the title. And no, it's about territory, not people. I think we understood each other well on that. Dc76\talk 07:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How many waves of migrating peoples?

Sorry, I really do not understand what is the purpose when we are counting the waves. Is there any reliable source using this distinction? (I mean 1. Goths, Huns, Gepids, Slavs, Magyars 2. Pechenegs, Cumans, Tatars) Why not 1. Goths 2. Huns 3. Gepids 4. Slavs 5. Magyars 6. Pechenegs 7. Cumans 8. Tatars? Borsoka (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Goths, Huns, Gepids, Avars did not settle, and they simply replaced each other. There is a clear continuity between them, and then a break when Charlemegne defeated the Avars. Slavs and Hungarians, as well as to smaller extent Bulgars are a different story: the settles, they formed smaller or larger states, they did not move away from the region. Pechenegs, Cumans and Tatars again have a consecutivity between them. But, please, do not take my word for this. Just open any book that deals with Romania in the Dark Ages and you see this split into three. We can not bring our own chronological division, we simply have to follow what is in the books. Dc76\talk 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Goths and Gepids settled on certain territories of present-day Romania. They lived in villages and formed states (Gothia and Gepidia) and they were agriculturists. The masses of the Goths left the territory only when the Hun invasion commenced, but the masses of the Gepids stayed on their land even after the Avars occupied it and they became assimilated by other peoples. Although the Avars were originaly nomads, but later they became sedentary (similarly to the later Magyars). Is there any reliable source counting the waves of the peoples? Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You certainly have read what is the difference between a medieval economy based of growing cattle and an economy based on agriculture and growing sheeps. Given the amount of information that you are able to bring here, it is obvious that you red a lot of books, so you mucst know veyr well how important was that distinction for the Early Medieval Eastern Europe (I mean not just Romania, but from Kazakhstan to Austria and Germany). Dc76\talk 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the distinction do exist. I guess the question who were the sedentary peoples (I think Goths, Gepids, Slavs, and from the 7th-8th centuries the Avars, from the 8th-9th centuries the Bulgars, from the 11th century the Hungarians), while the Huns, Cumans and Pechenegs were pastoralists, and similarly to them the Avars, the Bulgars, and the Magyars until they were obliged to settle. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages

I really do not know when the Early Middle Ages in Romania ended. Is there any consensual date? I am not convinced that the 13th-14th centuries are included. Borsoka (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Early Middle Ages ended differently in the 3 regions: in Transylvania they ended with the Hungarian conquest in 1003. So there should be a separate article dealing with Transylvania in 1003-1526, which has to reflective, but only more specific territorially of Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages. In Wallachia, the key year is 1272, when the first half-independent entity appeared, which in a few decaded became independent. In Moldavia, it is 1346 for just a similar reason. Romania had a longer Early Middle Ages than the rest of Europe, because it was actually a Dark Ages (b/c of the absense of any state) - from 271 till 1003/1272/1346. Transylvania got into High and Later Middle Ages more or less in parallel with the western Europe. Wallachia and Moldavia started them later, and then had to "catch". For Wallachia, the next "braking" points are 1386 (Mircea cel Batrin) and 1512 (end of Basarab dinasty). For Moldavia it is even moresquized: 1457 and 1504 (the start and the end of the reign of Stephen the Great, that much he changed that principality). Even early modern cronicles brake at 1504 and 1512. For example Grigore Ureche, just to mention the first that comes to mind, writes till 1504, then gives a long description of all the countries around in that year, then continues from 1504 on. Again, I am not presenting here my point of view, i simply tell you what I understand to be the reason behind these divisions in books. Dc76\talk 06:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information above. I have been thinking of the fact that there is an article whose title is Romania in the Early Middle Ages and therefore, we should find a date (based on either reliable source or consensus) which closes this period. I suggest that we should avoid determinig three (or four) different dates for different parts of the country which is one political unit now. Based partly on the books I have used and partly on your remarks above, I have concluded that there are four possible dates:
  • c. 895 when the first Romanian-Slav-Chazar polities (which I think existed only in Anonymous' mind) were overrun by the Magyars (because thenceforward the formation of new states commenced on the territory of modern Romania);
  • 1003 when Transylvania was occupied by King Stephen I (because the Kingdom of Hungary was the first state that survived the Middle Ages);
  • 1330 when Wallachia became independent (because it is the first Romanian state that survived the Middle Ages);
  • 1359 when Moldavia became independent (because by that time the major part of the territory of Romania had been integrated into states that survived until Modern Times).
Personally, for me the second date seems reasonable (however, I do not know why, maybe the only reason that I am Hungarian). And, of course, I may be wrong, and we should insist on cutting the history of Romania into pieces based on its historical regions. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick answer: I never saw History of Romania divided around the year 1000. It would not follow any sourse. It would make, of course, sense, if all it is to Romania was Transylvania. But that's not all territory. I personally like ca. 1300, since that is a prefered cutting point for all Histories of Romania I have seen, and since it coincides with the western transition from High to Later Middle Ages. It should not however go into much detail about Transylvania for c.1000-c.1300. We can make a subsection about Transylvania for that period, as a condensed overview, but there should be a separate article dealing with that, and we would simply list it as "main" at the begining of that subsection, and everything would be clear. Roughly if we just mention in the last sentenses Charles Robert and his ideas to consolidate the kingdom (which were later continued by Louis of Anjou), that would be a perfectly logical point to stop, imho.
Ok. Let's accept c. 1300 as a consensual date (maybe a better date, based on a reliable source, will be found later). As to Transylvania (and Crisana, Maramures), they are integral parts of Romania, therefore I do not understand why should we forget them.Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We'll have to add also a small subsection about the Second Bulgarian Empire, since they did control parts of south Romania... stuff to do, stuff to do, ...
How are the middle ages normally devided in Hungary? I mean Early/High/Later.
Actually, the Middle Ages in Hungary are divided based on major historical events and we do not call the parts "Early", "High" or "Late". The crucial dates are 1301 (the end of the Árpád dynasty), 1526/1541 (the Battle of Mohács/the occupation of Buda), 1711 (the Peace of Szatmár, or, OK, the Peace of Satu Mare), 1848 (the April Laws).
OK, so I see the way the History of Transylvania is presented in Romania is practically identical! :) Not so different after all. St. Stephen, Árpád/Anjou change, Battle of Mohács, Battle of Vienna, 1848 - that is how it is presented in Romania. So, there is only one small difference 1683 (when Austrians starting to take controll of Transylvania) vs 1711 (when all opposition was ended). I have expected much more difference. Early/High/Later Middle Ages, is basically a western, mostly English and French division, but you see it corresponds perfectly in Hungary to the same years, c. 1000 and c. 1300.Dc76\talk 04:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As for polities of 10th-11th centiries, I would be happy if we could attack that problem among the last. By then we can build the necessary trust and a feeling of getting the thing done. I would approach it in stages: 1) would describe what they were, and what are the primary sourses for them, 2) would describe doubts expressed by some historians about their existence, 3) would describe even higher doubts about the "ethnicity", a thing that did not even exist in the middle ages.
In general, we should treat these articles as us describing what secondary sourses write. We should not think about them in personal terms and take anything personally. As people who make constatations about what is written in a sourse, it is much easier to come to common ground. WP expects no more and no less from us. Also, I must confess I still did not red the entire article in detail... :) Dc76\talk 12:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent approach. Believe me I try to be really neutral when collecting books, and (because my English is really poor) I prefer copying the sentences I found in the academic books. Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Despite the dispute unfortunately apparently escalating, I am very glad that escalation is purely technical and nothing personal. As for your English, it is excellent! Believe me, there is nothing to critisize about it. I think I make more mistakes than you. Dc76\talk 04:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we merge these sentences?

"Many scholars, especially Hungarians, argue that Romanization in Dacia was, in fact, modest and that the later Romanian population living north of the Carpathians was not native to the region but migrated there from south of the Danube."

  • I understand that the expression "especially Hungarians" is important for some editors. Otherwise, the sentence does not summarize the opinion of mainstream historians who oppose the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. I suggest that (provided that the expression is based on reliable source) this "important" expression should be added to the part of the article which summarizes the arguments of the followers of the migrating continuity. (Just for clarification, the theory does not suggest that the Romanized Dacians migrated from Dacia to the Balkan Peninsula and later they migrated back to Dacia. It suggests that the Romanized population of the B a l k a n p r o v i n c e s were migrating in the Balkan Peninsula for centuries, and finally their majority settled in present-day Romania.)

"Other scholars, including the majority of Romanians, insist that a substantial Romanized population maintained itself continuously in old Dacia and that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurred precisely there. Mainstream sources, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica follow the latter interpretation."

  • I understand that the expression "Encyclopaedia Britannica follow the latter interpretation" is important for some editors, therefore it should be add to the relevant part of the text. Otherwise, the first sentence is a duplication of the part of the article which summarizes the arguments of the continuity theory. Reference to mainstream historians is misleading: where can we find them?
    • In Hungary, mainstream historians reject the continuity theory.
    • John V. A. Fine ("Any further advances in scholarship on the late medieval Balkans will have to begin with this book" - George Majeska, University of Maryland) expresses that all the continuity theories are ridiculous.
    • P. M. Barford (who I think otherwise does not reject the continuity theory) always emphasize that "local" (i.e., Romanian) archaeologists identified an object as "Daco-Romanian" or "Romanized". He also writes that in the 1970s-1980s cemeteries with pottery of clear Slav affinities have been claimed to be of the native "Dacian" origin in order to stress the autochthonous origin of the Romanian people.
    • etc, etc

Borsoka (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two differnt problems that you bring up. One is about continuity theory and migration theory. The second problem is with some archeology in Communist Romania. You should be aware that in Ceausescu's Romania there were a number of idiots that wanted to become historians, but they were nothing but party members. So they did as the party told them: they "found" traces of Dacian fortresses where there were none, they had absolutley no tools to do research to the standard and just a desire to write articles and books that pleased the "great leader". Some of them went as idiotic as to reject the Out of Africa theory and "prove" that Dacians were in Dacia as far back as 600,000 BC. One phrase with which these idiots were ridiculized was "monkeys that jump from tree to tree in 600,000 BC and recite Miorita". You should be aware that nobody takes them seriously nowadays. So, when you see criticism of Romanian archeologists in 1970-80 from westerners, those westerners are very civil and delicate and do not call things as they were: crocks.

I am not a historian, so I don't know inside info, and I also am not qualified to have a discussion on the level of a historian (although I like to claim I read something non-negligible about history, I always call myself 100% amateur).

But back to problem number one. It is a different story. You see the problem is this: mainstream historians outside Hungary, Romania (and outside some German ones from 19th century, who actually founded the migration theory) do not present the things as you did: here are 2 theories, here is what they say. That can definitevely be done, but not here, rather in a separate article "Theories about the origin of the Romanians". What meanstream sourses do is describe what is known (facts), not what is theorised (mainstream interpretation and alternatives). I think that is how the article should be structured. Interpretation aparts, there are a lot of facts that can be presented. And it is not so difficult to chose the words sensibly. The second thing I would respectfully ask you to notice is that mainsteam western historians mention the 2 theories but "tell" only one of them. It is absolutely all right to add info about theories that bring doubts and to present those theories thoroughly. But to simply cut each topic into two alternatives and only have a presentation of two alternatives about each topic with pros and cons is no way to go, and mainstream historians do not do that.

  • Sorry, I do not understand your remarks above. The books written by neutral scholars (I mean by others than those who are involved in the continuity v. migration debate) do not even touch the question directly. For example, neutral authors who describe the history of the Goths, the Huns, the Gepids and the early Slavs neither refer to "Daco-Romans" nor deny their existence, although the territory of modern Romania was crucial for all the mentioned peoples. Interestingly, when the sedentary population under Hun rule is described the author refers to "Goths and other peoples", when by chance a reference is made to Romanized population there is always a remark that "local" archaeologists, historians think that.... Therefore, I doubt that we can speak a mainstream approach on this subject.
  • "What mainstream history describe what is known (fact), not what is theorised (mainstream interpretation and alternatives)." Sorry, I really do not understand this sentence. In case of the history of Romania there are facts: it was occupied by the Goths, the Huns, the Gepids ... etc. Are you suggesting that we should avoid mentioning Romanians before the 12th century? Or are you claiming that the continous presence of the ancestors of the Romanians on the territories north of the Danube is a fact?
To the lest question: No-no. It is the point of view that western historians take as basis. But it's not a fact. It can not possibly be a fact without a polity and documented records of it.
Western historians? All of them or some of them? I have not found any yet. They are silent on the subject, and I mentioned above (or below?) some "western" historians who deny the continuity theory; therefore, we all should forget that there is a starting point followed by neutral historians. Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
A fact is something historians directly infer from X mentioning Y in a letter or book. For example Attila is a fact and the approximate years he ruled are fact. What exactly he ruled is a supposition, which can be generally accepted, but not infailible. A fact is also a carbon dated archeological finding, and things historians (not us) directly infer from that (not what they theorize from that, but only what they directly infer). For example if they find some specific tool together with some human remains dated to xth century, it is a fact that people in xth century used that kind of tool. But it's not a fact that those people were of some ethnicity. Dc76\talk 12:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In history, I think, facts are less concrete you desribed above. For example, Anonymous refers to polities existing in the 9th century, but he wrote his work after 1196 - is it a fact?. Romanian and Russian chronicles written in the 16th century relate the northward migrations of the Romanians to the territory of present-day Romania - are those migrations fact? I think history is the study where "facts" can easily be challenged. Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that you will not agree with the comparison, but please don't take it as a comparison, rather simply as a modus operandi in presentation. Theory of evolution and Theory of creation. Scientific books do not go around presenting each topic from 2 points of view with pros and cons. That's not science, that's amateurism. They present what the scientific community believes, and at the end they present the existence of alternatives. Believe me, I heard of very educated and reputable scientists who believe in the theory of creation. That does not hinder them from sequensing DNA and do everything all the others do. They simply retain a different view on an isolated area. And for all it's worth nobody can say with 100% certainty they are wrong. Only that scnietific community at large believes a different story. Now back to WP, it would be very tempting for someone to present a number of articles in a double way: take section by section and present one theory, then the other. Very tempting, Yet that's not done. Because that is an amateurish way vs a scientific way. (I suppose you are also not historian, like me.) But we can do better that the first way: we can retell the story the scientific way, simply by reading and summarazing mainstream books, which, if it is a good book, will definitevely mention also the alternative theory/ies, and would not present them as ridicule (as red comissars doing atheist propaganda), but very tactfully and respectfully, knowing that for what it's worth, all mainkind can be wrong. Scientific discoveries are only done by those that doubt. Politicians can ridicule. For scientists, it is too low to ridicule, anybody. Dc76\talk 07:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your point. If my understanding is correct, you suggest that describing more than one theories in an article is an amateurish approach, therefore, for example, if we want to write the article God in a scientific way, we should chose one of the theories (e.g., the Catholic theory) and describe it exclusively. I am pretty sure that I misunderstand your above remark, so would you explain it again? Thanks! Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
No-no, I only meant that if there is somthing that the scientific community at large takes as a basis (like theory of evolution), and a theory that is capable of shading reasonable doubt on many points of the basic one (like theory of creation), that does not mean that WP articles about evolution of species should be a list of pro/con arguments. And as I said, the comparison to our case fails, b/c biology is a science, no matter if experimental, while history is only a discipline. (I see the historians erry and angre at me :-) ) Nothing about teology. Sorry, i really must go now, so i owe you more explanations. Feel free to edit the article. I think in the end we will work things out nicely. i only hope we can do it before the angre croud starts piling in. Dc76\talk 12:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but as I mentioned above and below, there is no starting point in this case. There is no international consensus on the origin of the Romanians, there is no international mainstream view. Scholars are divided, and not based on nationality. Not only Hungarian and German scholars deny the theory of the Daco-Romanian continuity, but English and American experts of the history of the Balkans deny it. So I suggest again that we should forget that a starting point exist. Borsoka (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


I think that this part of article is intended to cover the Christian objects found in Transylvania, the mission of Saint Saba the Goth and Saint Nicetas, the martirs of Dubrodja, and reference to the reasons why the Romanians adopted Old Church Slavonic although contemporary sources suggest that the territory of present-day Romanian was proselyzed in Gothic, Latin and Greek. If this is the case, I suggest that the arguments should be described in the article of Origin of the Romanians, otherwise this article will be too long. Similarly, I suggest that copper coins, wheel-turned pottery, vatra, and other pro-continuity arguments should be described in the "Origin of the Romanians". I hope that there are editors who could summarize these arguments, because the referred article is a nightmare now. Borsoka (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you misread in the sense of this article. This article is not about thoeries of the Origin of the Romanians. The Origins of the Romanians does not include where, but also what. Even that article should focuss more on Thraco-Roman, and Christianity, and Slav influence, and so on. The theories do NOT disagree on whan happened and who Romanians are. They simply place the center of gravity in two different point: Carpathians and Transylvania, respectively Northern Serbia. So, I suggest to start by finding points of agreement between editors, rather than points of disagrement. We can devote one of 3 or 4 sections of Origin of the Romanians to the two theories. The discussion about theories is blown out of proportion, and it can only lead to piling on of more Romanian and Hungarian editors in bad mood and faith. Is that what we want? I hope not. Ditto, for this article. This article does not even deal with Romanians, it deals with a territory. So, we should not structure the article with the two theories in the intro and every section presenting the theories. Such an approach is bound to led to nightmares. Please, understand, it is not just me and you who edit. If we can not find a way to colaborate productively, imagine others. I am actually very surprised of all these news. I had an absolutly wonderful interaction with Hungarians on WP until now. At least the people I met were educated, well outspoken, civilized, pleasant to talk with, knowleadgible. I hope it is just a bad start and we can call it a misunderstanding. Dc76\talk 06:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks and I tend to agree with you. The different approaches should be demonstrated in the article Origin of the Romanians and this article should be intended to desribe the history of the territory of present-day Romania. And present-day Romania's history is not exclusively the history of the Romanians, because for thousand years it was inhabited by other peoples (and Romanians possibly had not appeared on the territory before the 11th-12th centuries); some of them were nomads while others lived in villages until they were invaded by new migrating populations. I think the history of the territory when it was inhabited by "other" peoples (Goths, Gepids, Slavs, Bulgarians) should be described based on academic works written by authors who are not involved in the debate over continuity; and for the time being, I think, that is the case. I think we should also remember that the two (or three or four) theories of the origin of the Romanians do exist. Therefore, if a reference is made to the incipient states of the (proto-)Romanians, we have to mention that those states may have never existed. Otherwise, Wikipedia will not provide a full picture of the subject. Therefore, I suggest that only general references to the arguments of the theories should be made ("Based on archaeological and linguistic researches or place-names or early written sources..), and a more complex picture should be provided in the article Origin of the Romanians.Borsoka (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you have not mentioned which of the last edits seem to contradict to the above approach or I missed the point? Borsoka (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not even checked your edits during the last two days yet. First, b/c I am aslo editting other WP topics, and this is only a secondary, or even tertiary area for me (for my curiosity, that is, it leads me to the choice of topics). Second, I think we can better work on having a good civilized dialogue untented by edits, which is happening here in the talk page. If we first read the edits, chances are we are in bad mood to convey in a good dialogue. Edits tend to be bold, and boldness can occasionally lead to mistakes and also can be misunderstood. Because of that, I believe in first trying to find some sort of bridge with the other editors, so that boldness for both sides can not pass as rudeness or primitive stubborness.
I have experience with one other eidtor (on totally unrelated areas), very nice experience: for example I edit someting, quite bold, then he comes and undos 1/3 of mine, then I come second time and unto 1/3 of his 1/3, then he undos 1/3 of my 1/3, etc. Until it is narrowed to the choice of 1-2 words. Doesn't matter who started, sometimes it is even an outsider, a third person. To a stranger it my even look like an edit war. But what is important for us, however, is that each time each one silently agrees on roughly 2/3. And I know that he silently agree, and he knows that I do. Of course, this is all ciseled over time, and it wasn't exactly the same numbers from the begining. Sometimes we come back to some older issue. But it is so fruitful, because we have to bring more sources, develop more articles, etc. It is like a dance. But what is more, it is a very pleasant experience when you know that you can relate with somebody with whom, if we were primitive monkeys, we'd just throw stones at each other.
And present-day Romania's history is not exclusively the history of the Romanians, because for thousand years it was inhabited by other peoples - correct, not exclusively about Romanians, it waws inhabtted also by other peoples. I would be the last to say otherwise. (and Romanians possibly had not appeared on the territory before the 11th-12th centuries); But quite possibly they were also here all along. You see there is a difference between the two parts of your sentense: one is fact, the other is hypothetics. a reference is made to the incipient states of the (proto-)Romanians, we have to mention that those states may have never existed. - As you might have noticed, and will notice even more, I would avoid as much the topics of the early "states" of Romanians. Just notice what the mainstream sources say: here is how knezi appeared, here is how knezi became voevods, etc, here is Christianity and rural priests, here is their agricultural husbandry, here are the names of their villages and rivers. But they do NOT mention a precise year and place for any! Because something precise is known only about things that were big enough to be important to write about. And b/c of Tatar invasion that wiped out over 1/4 of the population, we have very little info. So, that is what we can tell in the article about these states: here is how they formed and developed. But specific examples can be only of 2 sorts: 1) post-1242 ones, which led to the foundation of Wallachia and Transylvania, and 2) Gelu, Glad, etc, which are not proven with certainty to be Romanian. Conclusion: what voevodates ("state" is too big a word to use) existed before 1242 can only be talked how, but not when - it could be 8th-9th centuries (definitevely not earlier than 750), or 11th-12th centuries (definitvely no later that 1200).
Sorry, but my understanding is that you would like to describe the debate on the theory of the Romanians in this article instead of the article which is intended for this specific purpose (Origin of the Romanians). I think it is a dangerous approach, because it would lead to an extremly long article. Wheel-turned pottery: Daco-Roman or not; the name of Mures - was it inherited by the Romanians or borrowed; Christian objects - Daco-Roman or not; cnezeate - is it an ancient Romanian institution or not. I think we should avoid this, and we can describe these arguments in the Origin of the Romanians. And sorry, but I still do not understand your remark on fact and theory: is it a proven fact that the ancestors of the Romanians lived north of the Danube before the 11th century? Who proved it and when? I think history is not an academic study where anything can be proved, there are theories and that is why historians enjoy their subject. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
So, in this particular subsection, the migration theory must be presented in more detail. (For what it is worth, Romanians might have been continuously here and not have a voedodate till after 1100. Quite possible, I wouldn't be surprised knowing the conservatism of Romanians.) But it makes no sense to me to present migration theory of the origin of romanians in a subsection about goths or avars. why doubletalk there? Dc76\talk 08:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Borsoka, Thank you very much for being a good discussion partner. I have to excuse myself now, but I simply can not allot as much time to WP from real life. I have a tone of other things to do, I hope you understand. I promiss to read more into this article and the talk page, but I do not wish to make any specific promisses about timing. From my experience, I think you have worked at least for several days before you editted this article. Some aspects and formulations can be disputed and even strongly disagreed, but anyone would agree you did a thorough work. Hence, it would be unrealistic to expect others to come immediately with good arguments, solutions, alternatives, more sourses, etc. It needs time. It is beyond any doubt that in the end this article would come out greatly improved. And that is because you took the time an patience to edit it so thoroughly. Second, please do remember that same things often can be said in several different ways, and that by of looking for these alternative ways to express we reach to compromises. If we have this continuously on our minds, 90% of potential problems should simply dissapear. Just imagine if we can reduce everything to a list of 7-8 small issues. Even in a subject as controvertial as this, I believe it is possible. People have pooled out things much more difficult than what we face here. Dc76\talk 08:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
1) How did you manage to come so auickly with a section about Cumans? Awesome, excellent work to come with so much new info so quickly!
2) about the "first wave", "second wave", I would definitevelt agree to use other title if you want. For example Earlier migrations, resp Later migrations. Perhaps you can think of something even better. And I suggest to move Slavs to the next section, and have it "Slavs, Hungarians and Romanian" (doesn't matter to me in which order).
3) of course, 376, not 368, I was so wrong, must have been thinking of something else Dc76\talk 09:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC) sorry
Thank you for the information above. I also hope that the article would be improved based on reliable sources.
Taking into account our common goal, could you explain (based on reliable source) what are the reasons of grouping the peoples. Your first suggestion was 1. Romanians and Slavs and 2. other peoples. Your second suggestion was: 1. Romanians and Hungarians and 2. other peoples. Your present suggestion: 1. Romanians, Slavs, and Hungarians and 2. other peoples. Actually, I tend to be convinced that the first approach (different peoples without grouping them) was the best.
"I must have thinking of something else." Why?

Just some remarks

1. The article was expanded (new titles).

2. In order to avoid a too long article some sentences were deleted:

a) unsourced sentences

b) copies from Encyclopedia Britannica - there is no point in cloneing another work, I do not understand what the added value would be (otherwise some similar new sentences based on reliable, pro-continuity work were added)

c) some other sentences that seemed less important (as far as I can remember all pro-continuity sentences were reserved)

3. Counting/grouping of peoples and waves - I suggest that the text should be finalised, and afterwards the structure could easily be modified

4. "Christianity" title - I would like to avoid a clone-article of the Origin of the Romanians (because that article needs significant improvment)

5. The description of the divergent theories - there is a separate article for this purpose (Origin of the Romanians)

I hope that the above changes are acceptable (at least for the time being, until the text is finalised). Borsoka (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You surely understand that you basically reverted everything we discussed. I do not mean to critisize everything you did, because that includes a lot of information that you added, very good work you did on that. But I mean to refer particularly on what we discussed here. Therefore I placed the tags: the article as it is now presents the viewpoint of the alternative theory in its typical way of presentation: fact, mainstream view presented as hypotetical minority theory on equal footing with the alternative theories, all possible and impossible conterarguments to the mainstream theory, and very few counterarguments to the altenatives. That is what I explained that historians do not do any longer. That was 19th century politicized populatization of history. Believe me, similar things, but with opposite orientation, existed in Romania as well. But that by itself does not justify to returning to that politicized way of presenting things from the other "side". I would like very much to keep the mainstream interpretation as a basis, while distinguishing in it facts from interpretation, and regularly giving a summary of the existing alternative interpretations. Dc76\talk 04:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your remarks above, although I do not understand most of them.
Mainstream v. minority: I do not understand. As I desperately tried to describe above, there is no mainstream theory on the topic. If my understanding is correct the article is unbalanced, because there are 5-6 sentences that refer to the opposite of the theory mainly Romanian historians follow. Sorry, but I think if the article God only desribed the theory which is followed by the most numerous community of beleivers, it would be unbalanced, because there are different theories on God (including the total negation of God's existence).
You suggest that only "facts" should be described in the article. Therefore, the article should refer to the fact that earliest sources relate that the population of Dacia Traiana was withdrawn and settled south of the Danube, the next reference to the Romanians is Anonymous. And from 271-274 until around 895 there are only theories: Christian objects - Daco-Roman or not; pottery - Daco-Roman or not; etc., etc.. Or my understanding is incorrect.
I do not understand your reference to politized representation. There is (or should be) always a reference that on one hand archaeology, etc. suggest, and on the other hand, archaeology, ...etc suggest. We should avoid to copy the article Origin of the Romanians. It is the article which serves to describe the arguments. My understanding is that you suggest that the only neutral way to desribe the subject if we narrate that 1. Romanians established three dukedoms 2. There are alternate theories on this subject.
Besides the copies from Britannica and the grouping (without any explanation based on reliable source) the peoples, I exclusively reverted original research. E.g., inserting the Dacian-speaking adjective (without a separate reference) in a sentence based on a reliable source which does not contain this word is original research. I tried to find a source to be cited for the adjective but I have not found.

Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Carpi and Costoboci were Dacian tribal unions, I am surprized you questioned that. Nevertheless, is absolutely ok to ask for sourses, but please place [citation needed] tags. Reverting is just not normal, it is something that another croud of users does in such situations, and I do not want to be part of that croud. Dc76\talk 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dc76. We all are well aware the fact that when we begin to edit an article we always use a reliable source. Therefore, if an edit is made, it is always followed a proper reference. It is extremly important if a referred sentence is edited and an information is added which is not included in the cited work - if we failed to follow this policy the users of Wikipedia would be mislead. Nevertheless, I understood that you were tired, that is why I added an "auxiliary" reference to the information which was not included in the originally referred work. Unfortunately, I did not found any reference to the language of the Carpians and the Costoboci, and the reference to the language spoken by the Bastarnae seemed to contradict the previous edit. But, it is an interesting experience: even mainstream (I mean academic) historians do not agree on this specific issue.Borsoka (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Article unbalanced?

I would like to understand what is the reason which qualifies the article unbalanced.

  • 1. The basis of the argumentation of the two mainstream theories are described (and I suggest that a deeper explanation should be provided in the article Origin of the Romanians, otherwise the article will be too long);
  • 2. There are c. 19 sentences that summarize the arguments of the Daco-Romanian continuity theory - on the other hand, there are c. 14 sentences which relate the basis of the arguments of the "moving continuity" theory.

I think if the only reason of the qualification that the article refers to the fact that there are divergent approaches, the tag is not justified. If there are other reasons, I would like to understand them. Borsoka (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have explained in more detail above. Just to summarize:

  • 1. The mainstream history does not consider 2 contradicting theories as mainsteam, as you put it. Even history is not a full-fledged science, historians do their best to operate by scientific methods. And there are 3 things to it: 1) facts, 2) mainstream interpretation of those facts, 3) shortfalls of the mainstream interpretation and alternative interpretations. What you call "theories" in this article are not a scientific theories, like relativity theory or genetics, or somthing like that, they are interpretations given (somtimes by scinetists, sometimes also by outsiders) to scientific facts. Now, what you did in the article is very similar to a presentation in a fashion of a excellently written college essay emphasizing the shortfalls of the mainstream interpretation. No matter how good is such an essay (and yours is very-very good, it is beyond any doubt very informative), it still can thoroughtly present other than mainstream interpretations (for example, someone who knows well the stuff could write a similarly excellent presentation of creationism). That does not not mean that creationism should be presented in WP on the equal footing with the evolution theory.
Let me be more specific. The mainstream interpretation is that the territory of the ancient Dacia (modern Romania and Moldova) contained Thraco-Romans throughout the Early Middle Ages. It is not however the same as what some call continuation theory, because continuation theory claims that Romanized Dacians inhabitted the entire territory throught the time, which is contradicted by facts. The mainstream interpretation (followed for example by Britannica - which is a tertiary sourse, but a thorough one) is that Dacia was not depleted of its population with the arrival of Goths, but rather that the area inhabitted by the Romanized people shrank and restricted to mountainous and/or deeply forrested areas. The mainstream interpretation is that the Romanian plain and parts of the Moldavian plateau were depopulated with the arrival of Goths, their former inhabittants seeking refuge in isolated area, combined with a quite possible demographic downturn (as the commerce collapsed when the Roman administration left). Moreover, the mainstream interpretation is that rural communities had no polities of larger scale than a group of 2-3 villages until at least the defeat of Avars by Charlemgne in 797. This is not the same as the continuation theory, which claims that all areas of modern Romania had Romanized population already before the year 1000, and that there were Romanian voevodates in 8th and 9th century.
Your version of this article takes the continuation theory as a basis and presents its flows, which obviously exist. But your presentation is organized in a way that these flows are presented as flows of the mainstream interpretation. It is like somebody comes up with a theory that we originate from the Neanderthals, and then by finding flows in it, the creationism is presented on an equal footing with the mainstream evolution theory and mainstream Out of Africa interpretation.
This is why I put the tag. Please, do not read into my tag as somehow denigrating your work: it is really excellent work. But it does not sheed light on scientists' interpretation of facts. And even the facts themselves are not presented separate from continuation theory-migrationist theory dychotomy. Dc76\talk 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your remarks. I think that the main difference of our approaches that we do not agree how many mainstream theories exist (although even in physics there are divergent mainstream approaches). Another case that the theory described above and claimed to be the ONE mainstream theory is the Kerngebieten theory (there were always some parts in present-day Romania where a Romanized population lived) and it differs from the "mainstream" narration of the Daco-Romanian continuity. Namely, the latter suggests that from the 2nd century the territory inhabited by the Daco-Romans continously increased and by the 4th century it expanded to all the territories that are inhabited Romanians now (comp. Pop, Brezeanu). Therefore, following the above suggestion this theory should also be ignored and covered by one sentence (similarly to the theory of "migrating continuity"): "Other theories exist as well". Taking into account our community's policy (all significant points of views have to be represented in an article), I think that in this case reference have to be made not only to the continuity theory, but to the existing other theories as well - otherwise the article would be unbalanced. Reading the books written by "mainstream" scholars during the last 20 years makes it clear that neither the continuity theory nor the Kerngebieten theory are unanimously accepted (in this case I referred to "western", mainly English and American scholars). I would like to suggest again and again that the arguments of the different theories should be described in the article Origin of the Romanians, and thus we could follow our community's well-established policy and all the users of Wikipedia would have access to a wider slice of knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
although even in physics there are divergent mainstream approaches I strongly disagree with that. Physics is an exact science. There can be no interpretation. There are people who do not understand the complexity sometimes, but they simply keep quiet. Sometimes it takes longer time to accept someone's work, b/c it is complicated, and needs checking and putting experiments, making observations, etc. But it is either true or false. There is no maybe. Could you please, tell me more about Kerngebieten Dc76\talk 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 2. The number of scentences summarizing the continuation and migrationist theories is a proof of an excellent work you did. It does not however present the 3 necessary steps: 1) facts, 2) mainstream interpretation, 3) criticism of it and alternatives. And I repreat, what you call continuation theory is not the mainstream interpretation.
To make a stupid comparison, the continuation theory would be like claiming that Canada is in the US, migrationist theory is like claiming North America belongs to UK, and the mainstream interpretation is that USA and UK are separate countries, by USA does not contain Canada.
For example, one shortfall of your approach is that the structure of the medieval rural economy is not presented. There were 2 types of rural economies: one was based on agriculture (plants) and growing sheep, which usually goes hand in hand with river valleys within forrested areas and mountain pastures; the other was based on growing cattle, which requires large pastures, which usually goes with steppes. Goths, Huns, Gepids, Avars, and until the year 900 Hungarians had the latter type of economy. So did also the later Pechenegs, Cumans and Tatars, while the former type of economy was characteristic for Daco-Romans, Slavs, and after c. 900 Hungarians. This is basic, and must be present even in the intro, or at least somewhere at the begining of the article, when giving a summary. But in your edits, it is totally absent from the article. Forgeting 2-3 such basic facts, one can prove anything. In logic there is a statement: "false implies anything". It is similarly here: by placing the economies and societies of all these peoples in the same bracket, by a number of well designed logic steps, one can prove that almost anything was possible.
Sorry, but the "mainstream" interpretation differs from the views described above. The economy of the Goths, Gepids, and Slavs was based on agriculture (cereals, hens, pigs - animals that always sign a sedentary population), although sometimes they made some raids in order to acquire prestige goods, expand the territory or be able to escape. They lived in villages and hamlets. The economy of the Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Cumans, and Pechenegs was indeed pastoralist (cattle, horses, sheep) and they made frequent raids in order to acquire prestige goods, and they needed a sedentary population to rule (in the case of the Huns Germanic peoples, in the case of the Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, etc Slavic peoples) who produced agricultural products. And they lived in tents or jurtas. (comp. Heather, Wolfram, Thompson, Todd op. cit.). Nevertheless, I think that the above-described alternate theory can also be demonstrated in the article (based on reliable sources). Borsoka (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
What I am asking for, and this is why I placed the tag, is that we try less to bring arguments in favour of one, second, or third, or whatever interpretation, but rather tell what schientist know, and with an organization they use: 1) facts, 2) mainstream interpretation, 3) criticism and alternatives. Dc76\talk 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but what are the facts that should be demonstrated? E.g., a wheel-turned pottery (a fact) - but it may belong to Daco-Romans or Slavs (interpretation); similarities of the Romanian and the Albanian languages (a fact) - they originated from a shared substratum language or from the close relationship of the ancestors of the two peoples (interpretation), and further on, the ancestors of the two peoples lived north or south of the Danube (interpretation) (Just a remark, the claimed "mainstream" theory of the origin of the Albanians suggest the latter interpretation, while "mainstream" theory of the origin of the Romanians suggest the former). I suggest that these "facts" should be described in the article Origin of the Romanians.
Based on the above remarks, which interpretation and on what subject (e.g., origin of the Romanians, the nature of the economy of the Goths) qualifies mainstream? And what is to be done if mainstream interpretations of a specific area contradict to each other? Let's try to enjoy that our world is complex and no uniform mainstream theories of history exist any more. Borsoka (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Mainstream interpretations exist. It is also true that once in a while they are wrong. But until then, they are true. If you like examples from physics, consider Big Bang theory vs the theory that says that the universe existed forever. Big Bang is accepted as an interpretation. Continuity of Daco-Romans in its extreme form (i.e. on all the territory) is not a mainstream theory. In fact it is so wrong it is contradicted by facts. As for facts and interpretation, you just proved that you perfectly understand the meaning of these words. Dc76\talk 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There are cases when no uniform mainstream interpretation exists. For example, Big Bang is the mainstream theory and we can say that it is the uniform mainstream theory. However, the events of the 3-5 minutes following the Big Bang are not interpreted unanimously even by mainstream scholars.
I do not deny the mainstream nature of the continuity theory (becauese it is described in peer-reviewed books), but the mainstream theory of the Daco-Romanian continuity contradicts to the mainstream theory of the origin of the Albanians. Therefore, there are mainstream theories which contradict to each other. As far as I can remember, Marxism was the last theory which claimed exclusivity in human sciences. We should forget this approach.
I think the mainstream form of the continuity is the one which is taught in universities and described in books issued by the Romanian Academy of Sciences. And those books insist on the narration that the Romanized population of Dacia Traiana Romanized the Dacian tribes even after the Roman withdrawal; all Christian objects and villages and wheel-turned pottery is attributable to the Daco-Romans (because the Goths, the Gepids were nomads and they were not Christians); the Slavs translated the Daco-Roman names of the rivers and later the translated names of the rivers were borrowed (?) by the proto-Romanians; the Daco-Romans lived in the mountains and the forests isolated both from the Germanic tribes and the Slavs until the 10th century, but they had commercial relationship with the Romanized population of the East Roman Empire until the 7th century; an uniform substratum language was spoken by the ancestors of the Albanians and the Romanians on a territory which is covered by 4-5 countries now. Yes, I agree that the mainstream theory of the continuity is really interesting. But we do not need to decide whether it is logical or not, we only have to read mainstream books and copy them. Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues?

There is some reference to the unbalanced nature of the article, but other issues are not explained. I would like to understand them. Borsoka (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First issue is poor organization: it is very difficult to follow the presentation. The dychotomy is bad. Presentation "in chronological order" where the years do not match is bad. (For example, look at Slavs which simply do not fit between Gepids and Avars, and that because things are stretched out: Slavs are in one category, Gepids and Avars in the other.) Unfortunately, it is very difficult to pinpoint smaller issues when the structure itself is bad, because a good logical structure tends to naturally remove a number of issues.
I agree that the structure needs significant improvement. E.g., a separate section for "Daco-Romanians" "proto-Romanians". For the grouping of the peoples see the remarks above (why should Gepids and Avars be in the same category - a sedentary population with a pastoralist people?). Yes it is an interesting problem that in case of Romania the years do not match, but I think in itself it is not bad, because the different territories of Romania were parts of different polities at the same time. If we followed strictly the chronology, than we should separate each period according to the territories and the polities, as well, and it would cause the same problem. Or I think it would be even more disturbing.
A second issue is that you removed a number of well referenced sentances (at least those from Brittannica, for example). You claim you have presented 19 sentences with continuation theory: but those 19 sentences were chosen by you. You chose what is easier to refute with the 14 sentences of migrationist theory. I repeat, I do not like continuation theory. I simply respectfully ask that the mainstreem interpretation be given before we ever talk about other theories.
  • As to the sentences copied from Brittanica, I think if our purpose is copying that (otherwise excellent) enncyclopedia, there is no point in our work. Instead of the deleted sentences of Brittanica, new sentences with similar (or the same) meaning were added based on reliable sources (at least this was the purpose).
  • Regarding the arguments of the continuation theory: I am sure that better arguments can be found, please do not hesitate to provide them. However I still suggest that only the basis of the argument (archeology, linguistic, written sources,... etc) should be mentioned because: 1. the Origin of the Romanians article is intended to describe the arguments in details; 2. the article cannot be too long.
  • The first reference is always made to the continuity theory because it is the mainstream theory of the scholars in Romania (that is the country involved). If there is no reference to the mainstream theory, it is my fault, and sorry for it, but as far as I can remember it was always mentioned.
A possible solution out of this situation would be to let you work on the article for a couple (2-3-4) of weeks and bring it to what form you consider best. And then let me work on it for a couple weeks. And so on. There are a number of small issues that you would address in your first go, so I would obviously need not change anything about that in my go. The article is already huge, so it is out of question for us to go in 2-3 hours shifts. I barely get to go over 2 sections in 2-3 hours, b/c I need to search sourses, etc. You know very well how difficult and time-consuming is this work. So, take your time to improve the article in the ways you think, and I will wait (anyway, I am busy in real life now). The more improvements you will make, the few things I would want to change.

Dc76\talk 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, I have finished my work. And I hope I can enjoy your edits in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid I would have to pass for a week or so, b/c the sheer amount of work necessary for this article is way beyond the time I can now afford for WP. (I would need c. 20 hours to spend of this article, if i want to look at sourses, which extremely much. Please, understand.) If you want to add more in mean time, that would be absolutely fine. From what I see, the article still has the problems I stated, although you have reduced them. Dc76\talk 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


What about changing the wording of the sentences: "Scholars, based on archaeological and linguistic and... reasearches think" "Other scholars, based on .... maintain". Although weasel words should be avoided, but a similar approach may mitigate your concerns. Borsoka (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


I would like to understand what is the relevance of the "expression" Thraco-Roman in articles describing the history of Romania. I know that the Dacians probably spoke a Thracian language (as the French, Spanish, and Romanian people speak a Romance language), but there is no trace of this expression in connection with Romania. Thraco-Roman in the international literature refers to the Romanized Thracians of Bulgaria. In connection with Romania, mainly the "Daco-Roman" or "Romanized Dacian", sometimes the "Romanized autochtonous" expressions are used. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the article Daco-Roman is a redirect to Thraco-Roman. Dc76\talk 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Therefore, the title of the article Thraco-Roman looks like an original research. Moreover, it is misleading, because the article does not refer to the fact that Thraco-Roman is used mainly when mentioning the Romanized population of present-day Bulgaria. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What about 1242 as a closing date?

Although the length of the article is still within the well-established limits, but maybe a better closing date could be found. The more I have been thinking of the present closing date (c. 1300), which is only based on consensus and not on reliable source, the more I have become convinced that it is a turning point only from Hungarian point of view (the end of the Árpád dynasty), but from Romanian point of view it has no significance. I think the Tatar invasion is a better closing date: (1) the first Romanian polities (Mishlav, Litovoi, Seneslau, etc.) documented by nearly contemporary sources were formed around or following that date - therefore it is a relevant date for the history of Wallachia and Moldavia (2) the internal policy in the Kingdom of Hungary changed radically after the Tatar invasion - therefore it is also relevant for Transylvania, and the Partium (OK, Crisana, the Banat, and Maramures). Borsoka (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Moreover, the first sentence of the article which is based on a reliable source also suggest a date closer to the 1240s. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with 1242. Excellent logic. Dc76\talk 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The text about Mongol invasion is not mine. I just selected what was worth from an article that is being considered for deletion: Romania and the Mongol Invasion of 1241 . Sentance-wize tags are ok, generally they help. I am very glad that the structure is ok with you. We can focuss now on issue by issue. (sorry, i would still be busy for 1-2 weeks with other stuff, though) cheersDc76\talk 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


"During this period, neither Vlachs (early Romanians), nor Slavs in the area developed a polity to be reckoned with" My concerns are the following:

  • early (contemporary or nearly contemporary) sources mention Slavic tribes, Slavic chieftains on the territory of present-day Romania between the 6th and 13th centuries, or even they refer to the fact that the Slavs sent embassies to neighboring countries (e.g., Jordanes, Bavarian Geographer, Anania of Shirakatzi, Annals of Fulda);
  • there are some references to individuals who spoke Latin on the territory of modern Romania in early (contemporary or nearly contemporary) sources, but no reference to any form of polity of the proto-Romanians before the 12th-13th centuries;
  • I think the above-cited sentence does not reflect the sharp contrast between the Slavs (whose incipient polities are well-sourced) and the Vlachs (who might be present as individuals, but their first incipient polities existed only in the 9th century even according to the earliest, although debated, sources).

My suggestion: "During this period, the Vlachs (early Romanians) did not develop a polity to be reckoned with; the first references to incipient states of the Romanians were recorded in sources written in the 12th-13th centuries."Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with your motivation, but agree with your proposal. Perhaps you could add:

"During this period, the Vlachs (early Romanians) did not develop a polity to be reckoned with; the first references to incipient states of the Romanians (9th-10th century) were recorded in sources written in the 12th-13th centuries." Dc76\talk 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mongol Invasion

"The Mongol invasion affected first of Moldavia and Wallachia, and then Transylvania."

  • As far as I know, Moldavia and Wallachia was not even mentioned before the end of the 14th century. Moreover, until the 1240s, Wallachia was the name of the northern parts of the Second Bulgarian Empire south of the Danube. I think it would be surprising if an article on the Iazig attacks against Pannonia province of the Roman Empire were described as an attack against Hungary.
    • Moldavia and Wallachia are meant here as current day geographic provinces. Moldavia was established as a Hungarian military mark already in 1345. Baia was called Civitas Moldaviensis already in 1300. Wallachia was established as such in 1272, it's nucleus in 1240s. So, it's not thatfar. Completely different than calling Pannonia Hungary before Magyars. Dc76\talk 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"It had a long-lasting impact on Romanian history and culture, destroying most of the cultural and economical records from the time, and killing up to 1/2 of the population."

  • As far as I know, "the Romanians did not have their own historians or chroniclers at that time" (comp. Pop, Ioan Aurel op. cit. p. 36.). No reliable source I have read until now claims that more than 1/3 of the population was killed by the Mongols (but 1/3 is really pessimistic, modern sources claim "only" 15-20%).
    • It's not me who write this, ask that editor. I just copyedited to have at least some sense. Dc76\talk 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Neither Romanians, nor the Kingdom of Hungary had any chance against the Mongol hordes."

  • It is really romantic and determinist, but I have never read such a statement.
    • ditto Dc76\talk 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"The swiftenes of the invasion took many by surprise, and forced them to retreat and hide in forests and enclosed valleys of the Carpathians."

  • Actually, after 1236 it was obvious that the Tatars decided to attack the Kingdom of Hungary, and Béla IV tried to strengthen the borders of the kingdom. Yes, the population retreated to forests, but they had to come back in 2-3 months because of starvation (Rogerius: Carmen Miserabile). Interestingly, in the 13th century, huge masses of a sedentary population could not live for several months, years, decades ... in forests and mountains.

I suggest that we should insist on following only reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    • The sourse is not worse than other sourses already in this article. But I do not know if this particular sentense is actually found in the sourse. Judging your knowledgeability, you surely must have some historical education. Hence, you perhaps understand when non-historians do not know to express themselves well. Obviously, you can leave "in the forrests and mountains" in two ways: 1) being a monk, 2) your hemlet is in a mountain valley, where only a small area is cleared for agriculture. I believe the former was quite widespread, don't you agree? Dc76\talk 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

New last section

the article needs a very brief section to link this article to Romania in the Middle Ages. Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)