Talk:Founding of Wallachia

Comment

No link to Vlachs? --Wetman (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article is not yet finished and it's not yet in a very good shape. But I just got the latest book by Neagu Djuvara on this topic. :-) bogdan (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Few suggestions

Cool article. I have done few minor edits, and I suggest couple of them:

• Foundation of Wallachia links to 2 different disambiguation pages - Cârţa and Vicina - this should be fixed.

It has been done. Thank for your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image captions shoul be expanded a bit. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cumans

Dear Aleksandr Grigoryev, you mention that it is not certain whether the Cumans were really of Turkic origin. Would you please refer to any reliable source which contains a similar statement. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foundation of Wallachia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is reasonably well written and complies sufficiently with the manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference #66[1] appears to be an unreliable source.

 Done (the unreliable source is deleted) Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I assume good faith for all off-line sources.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It appears both broad and focussed.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Terratransalpina.png has no description or author information.

 Done (the map is deleted; otherwise, it is an excellent map which does not contradict to the sources referred to in the article, but I am not in the position to fix it) Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few points to be addressed. On Hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for fixing those point. as you say, it is a pity about the map, but images do need sourcing information. I am haoppy to pass this as a Good Article.

Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Vlachs, Petrov

Petar Petrov in Restoration of the Bulgarian State (1185-1197) (Sofia 1985, p. 324-325), analyzing the use of the terms "Wallachia" and "Bulgaria" and "Vlachs" and "Bulgarians" by Geoffrey of Villehardouin, concludes that for Villehardouin "Bulgaria" is the land south of the Balkan Mountains and "Wallachia" is mainly north of the Balkan Mountains. The same applies to a large extent and about the terms "Vlachs" and "Bulgarians". An example is, stating Petrov, that when Geoffrey of Villehardouin talking about the murder of Marquis Boniface of Montferrat, south of Rhodopes (further south of Balkan Mountains) Villehardouin speak only about Bulgarians. Actually, Petrov assumes that for Villehardouin Bulgarian state consists of two provinces - Wallachia and Bulgaria and therefore the author of "Chronicle of The Fourth Crusade..." 15 times called Tsar Kaloyan "King of Wallachia and Bulgaria", but also the Bulgarian state and marked only as "Wallachia".--JSimin (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This analysis does not contradict to the article. The northern part of modern Bulgaria was called "Wallachia" in contemporary Western sources between c. 1185 and the 1250s. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that there is no dispute, but I still erased a dubious phrase. I thought it not worth arguing about it.--JSimin (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian presence

Concerning this edit and the words "there is no reference to Bulgarian rule north of the Danube" I would like to start with an example - Anonymi Descriprio Europea Orientalis. Imperium Constantonopolitanum, Albania, Serbia. Bulgaria, Rutenia, Ungaria, Polonia, Bochemia. Anno MCCCVIII exarata, editit. Praefatio et adnotationibus instuxit Dr. Olgierd Gorca. Craciviae, 1916. That description, made by an anonymous Dominican monk, said that Bulgaria is empire in the middle of which flows the Danube. (Коледаров, Петър. Политическа география на средновековната българска държава, Втора част (1186-1396), София 1989 (Koledarov. Petar. Political Geography of the Medieval Bulgarian State, part II. From 1186 to 1396, Sofia 1989). p. 86, 89.)--JSimin (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not found the sentence "there is no reference to Bulgarian rule north of the Danube" in the article, although I remember it. It is cited from Victor Spinei's work, and his work describes the history of the region to the north of the Danube until the middle of the 13th century, a primary source written around 1300 cannot contradict to his statement. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they were your words in the mnetioned edit; with them you grounded the tag "Dubious". I understood them as a denying in principle some Bulgarian political influence north of the Danube in the time of the Second Bulgarian Empire and therefore I gave this source.

However, I could be wrong, but I think you are too free of using the tag "Dubious". With it you are trying to challenge any historiographical information dubious for you regardless of whether it is served correctly or not, regardless of whether there are reliable historiographical source or not, regardless of the possibility to verifying. I am trying to find reasons for this here, but so far unsuccessfully. Üdvözlet, --JSimin (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not understand how a source from around 1300 could prove Bulgarian rule north of the Danube in 1247. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tags

Two citation needed tags and a dubious source one. Can some one fix these so tha the article can remain Good. AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was done. Borsoka (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work. AIRcorn (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Saxon influence in the foundation

IMO, the article doesn't really talk enough about the Saxon colonization. Most early Wallachian urban centers (Câmpulung, Curtea de Argeş, Târgoviște, etc) developed after Saxon merchants settled in them around 1300. According to the archeologists, the settlements existed before that (presumably inhabited by Romanians), but the wealth needed for urbanization and hence the creation of a state was made by them through the north-south trade routes. bogdan (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Founding vs Foundation

A better title for this article would be "Founding of Wallachia." "Foundation" is a word that denotes enduring qualities that provide the basis for something. "Founding" denotes an event or series of events that lead eventually to the establishment of something. If others agree, an administrator can handle the maneuver in a manner that assures none of the discussion is lost in the article with the original title.User:HopsonRoad 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Founding of Wallachia?

This is more than doubtful. This territory from Roman times, i.e. since the Romans withdrew from Dacia - no status, i.e. not part of the Roman world. This status of the land designated as Wallachia was preserved by Byzantium, even after the conquest of the First Bulgarian State. Although, after the founding of Danubian Bulgaria in 681, this land was certainly under Bulgarian rule. And after the end of the Avar Khaganate - and Transylvania was under Bulgarian rule until the beginning of the 11th century.

Let's talk about Wallachia, but under this concept hides not an ethnicity, but a pastoral way of life of its population. Moreover, until the 18th century, the two parts of Wallachia - Oltenia and Muntenia were radically different. For one, Bulgarians and Hungarians have been in armed dispute for the Banate of Severin since 1230. And behind the river Olt - the Vlach forest and the next steppe to the east next to the river Volga is a long and desolate steppe, used for the passage of horse peoples.

In this sense, Wallachia is an area that, after Bulgaria fell under Ottoman rule, continued to enjoy some local autonomy of the boyars. And this status was respected by the High Gate until the time of the Great Turkish War. From the Congress in Karlowitz with the treaty of 1699, things radically changed along the entire military frontier. Transylvania is already a different beer and not Ottoman, and in Wallachia power remains a trademark of the Phanariots. Even at that time, the district did not have any independence, just its traditional status and nothing more. The High Gate simply did not take it under its direct authority for various reasons. Only since the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca can one speak of something like an international status with recognition, i.e. de jure for legal personality.

So, the article de jure hangs and is a fiction.151.251.249.42 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)