Talk:Romanian Principalities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Romanian Principalities:
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

[edit] 15th century

Digging in my small collection of Dosarele Istoriei I've found a 2004 issue dedicated to Stephen the Great. One of the articles points out the Romanianess of Wallachia and Moldavia. Though it's a secondary source (reliable IMO), we can doublecheck the primary sources and add them as factoids.

• in a document (unspecified) of Stephen the Great, Wallachia is "l'altra Valahia". The author concludes it is related to the Moldavian POV, hence there were 2 "Wallachias".
• a map written by Cusanus, printed in 1491 at Eichstät, show the two principalities as "Magna Valachia" (Wallachia) and "Valachia Minor" (Moldavia)

Haven't found it yet, but found this map, made in 1493 after it, which shows a single Wallachia and the name is placed north of Danube delta, showing at least the perception of the mapmaker (considering the map has many inaccuracies, like most maps in that period). Daizus 10:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• the Moldo-Russian chronicle which it seems it was written in this period gives the myth of Roman and Vlahata, two eponymous ancestors of Romanians from the two states (I remember I also read a book on this myth, I think I still have it but I have to search for it)

Found it. It seems here is an overstatement. a) It seems the chronicle is dated in 16th century (in best case, it would have been written little before the death of Stephen the Great) b) The assessment of this myth (and the book it even provides excerpts) does not suggest anything about two countries or a common consciousness. It's rather a primordial myth like the Trojan origin of the Franks or the Hunnic origin of the Hungarians. I.e. it doesn't prove anything about a common identity, and also doesn't say prove the Romanians have a Latin origin (this should and is inferred from other type of evidences). So I guess it should be not treated as evidence. Daizus 08:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• also in a document (unspecified) of Stephen the Great, the word "rumân" designated for the first time an ethnicity (besides the primary source, I believe it's a matter of interpretation here so we probably need more scholarship on that). Daizus 07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Found a confirmation here. See the first paragraph from page 66 and note 28. This material also contains more insight on several of the points I summarized from that DI article. Daizus 10:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)