Talk:List of princes of Wallachia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Should the first Assenides be included in this list? If we would to judge by "ruler of Wallachia, since first mentioned", than they should be included, since from Ioanitsa`s time we have the first mention of "Wallachia" (e.g.: [1]). That is if Wallachia north of the Danube was part of what we nowadays call "the Second Bulgarian Empire". If not, than any mention of Wallachia being part of the "Second Bulgarian Empire" should be removed. Greier

No. That polity was the Second Bulgarian Empire, you troll: that fact is not denied by any Romanian historian that is not in the Iron Guard - even those that use the abusive term "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire" only do so to distinguish it from other Bulgarian polities. And all that is besides the point, since this is a list beginning with the CREATION of a Wallachian state. Dahn 08:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You`re such a snob... yeaksss! makes me sick....
youre comments were not even related to what I`ve asked...

Rulers of Wallachia[edit]

I will move this List of rulers to Rulers of Wallachia on the model of Rulers of France Criztu 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basarab the founder, Michael the Brave, Mircea the elder, Stephan the Great[edit]

obviously we dont have documents of his time calling Basarab "the Founder", i find it redundant and weird to state how "the Founder" is a modern name, as Mircea the Elder is not a modern name also (we dont see an explanation on how Mircea the elder is a modern name), but an alternative name in use today, yet it dates from hundreds years ago Criztu 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was used shortly after his death - so much so that it may be considered contemporary reference. "The Founder" is an invention comparable with "Mircea cel Mare" and "Vlad Basarab". Dahn 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it would be usefull to know when did The Founder come in use. the use of Basarab the Founder is equivalent to the use of Mircea the Elder. As Mircea the Elder was a convention used after his death (no matter sooner or later), so is Basarab the Founder a convention used after his death (no matter sooner or later). Basarab the Founder is an alternate name for Basarab I. there is no POV pushing here. Criztu 07:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an "alternate name", just as Mircea cel Mare is not an alternate name for Mircea the Elder and Ioan Voda cel Viteaz is not an alternate version for the Terrible. They all surfaced with Romantics, and were rekindled by Ceausescu after 1980 (the 1978 Ro encyclopaedia I have in front of me does not mention the "title" at all - it belongs to the era of extreme localism and the baroque late Sergiu movies). See details in Boia's "History and Myth". Come up with a credible source or leave this page be. I find it quite insulting to my and the readers' intelligence that you revert a page because you presume something and because "it would be useful to know" what you should already know when you start editing an article such as thisun. Dahn 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand if u have a diferent view on what is an alternate name. for me, Vlad Tepes is the same as Vladislav III of the Draculesti. Since there are many Vlad rulers, Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler in Britannica) is a convention used by romanian encyclopedia to help scholars and the readers to identify the guy quickly. I dont consider the name Vlad Tepes a romantic, or a nationalistic or "wrong", it is simply a convention to identify an individual. I have never considered Tepes as a name Vlad III would give to himself, likewise Mircea would not call himself the Elder, nor Basarab call himself the Founder. this is why i see it redundant to explain that these names are conventions, especially where this is already stated in the Lead Criztu 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Lord. Please, please do try to understand: the distinction is made between two sets of monikers - contemporary and relatively contemporary (Dracula, Tepes, the Elder, the Terrible etc.) and titles bestowed on the rulers by nobody but people who wrote a historiography with tendency 400-500 years later!!! This is not about my views on the subject, it is about informing the reader that CECI N'EST PAS UNE PIPE. Dahn 08:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be common sense for you to grow familiar with the fact that early references could not have referred to Basarab as such, sice their authors prefered another class of thrilling "foundation" stories, involving... if you would kindly look just above Basarab on the article page... yes, in parantheses... Dahn 08:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated in the lead section that the names like Basarab the Founder, Mircea the Elder, are either modern versions or names used in chronicles. I think note to Tihomir is also redundant, as it would be a note stating "Mircea the Elder was not a name used by Mircea during his life" Criztu 09:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point of the case-by-case description entirely (the top part is a guideline). Dahn 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well then, lets state in the lead that names like Vlad Tepes, Basarab the Founder, Stephen the Great are a naming convention used by scholars. It should make the reader aware that these are not actual names nor nationalist romantism Criztu 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose to use Vladislav III instead of Vlad III the Impaler, as i read his name was Vladislav Criztu 09:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. What else have you heard? That Ceausescu's real name was Dracula? Where is the part where you stop "hearing" stuff and speculating about what "things really were"? Because I had enough chitchats over the same willy-nilly shades and attributes of localism. Dahn 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please follow the Netiquette Dahn, this place is for discussing proposals to articles, not to flame each others Criztu 11:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't thing that Vlad Calugarul ruled in 1521... considering he died in 1495 =P Dak06 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basarab Laiota II[edit]

For three days in 1544 Paisie was taken down and Basarab Laiota II came on the throne. I would modify the list, however I am afraid to change all the numbers in front of the princes because I'll have to edit all of them afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rares2cristea (talk • contribs) 18:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_princes_of_Wallachia&oldid=1208039618"