Talk:History of Moldavia

who was the last moldavian ruler of the Musatin dinasy? i doubt it was a 19th century one. Anonimu 13:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to correct errors. In fact, I was going to ask you to create new maps of Moldavia; first, when Petru conquered Pokutia in 14th century and Moldavia stretched, I believe, in its maximum range; then under Alexandru cel Bun, who denounced his claims to Pokutia, etc. Let me know if you're willing to do the maps. I'm still waiting for a reply from bogdan regarding the coat-of-arm. --Anittas 14:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

it's pretty hard to draw a map of moldavia during Petru I, because there is no data about the southern boundary, probably this being somewhere along a bacau-vaslui-chisinau line. and pokutia wasn't conquered, was given temporarily to moldavia until the polish king would pay back the money to Petru, thing that he never did of course. and Alexandru didn't denounce the claims, but a previous ruler, Stefan I. Anonimu 20:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, he was given Pokutia, but I read that Alexandru renounced the claims on Pocutia:

Alexandru a depus juramânt de credinta regelui Poloniei si lui Witold, la 25 martie 1400, la Brest în Polonia. Acesta a renuntat la Tara Sepenitului si la suma împrumutata de Vladislav Iagello de la Petru Musat.

http://www.e-referate.ro/referate/Domnia_lui_alexandru_cel_bun2005-03-18.html

Do you know how Moldavia gained Basarabia from Wallachia? And I see you removed the info about the first minted coins. Weren't there Moldavian coins under Bogdan I? --Anittas 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tara sipenitului is aprox the region between nistru and prut in northern bukovina, not pocutia. about bessarabia, it's supposed mircea ceded it to Alexandru. but there are no exact data about this. i didn't find any reference. and a history of romanian coins mentioned Petru I Musta as the first ruler to mint its own coins. (there are some tatar coins from orheiu vechi minted during Bogdan I, but the territory wasn't between the moldavian borders in those times ) Anonimu 09:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, you should mention that then; that Petru minted the first coins; or if it's not significant enough, remove it. Bogdan II was pretty late in history. I don't understand why Mircea would do that, since Alexandru needed his help in getting on the throne and Mircea was more powerful. See if you can find any info about this. Ask your professor and people you know. I don't have anyone to ask. --Anittas 13:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

i think is too early for mentioning that. and about bassarabia, maybe it was a kind of fief. Would be very hard to find my history teacher and i really don't think he would know this. i found no sure mention whatsoever, and i searched that severals years ago too. Anonimu 17:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldova river

The river is in Suceava, not in Transylvania.--MarioF 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that it's in Suc. county when reading about Battle of Baia, but I thought it started somewhere in Transylvania and ended in Suceava. That's on the list of correction - for the next update. --Anittas 17:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The river Moldova has its source in Bukovina. Alas, before the war, my family used to own the Rasca portion of this river.. I have a couple more observations: first, is there any special reason for using the exonim "Vlach" in this form instead of "Walachian" which is equally acceptable in English but closer to the Romanian spelling? Moreover, since the kingdom of Hungary was more or less involved in the creation of both Romanian voivodates, I think that the use of the form "Walachian" would be slightly more proper since the Romanian word "valah" is most likely borrowed from Hungarian (based the first interconsonant "a"). Second, can you document the name "Hungarian Empire" at the time of the Romanian "descalecat" in Moldova? I guess you meant "kingdom of Hungary"...--MarioF 02:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good observations. I didn't use the word Wallachian because that word is often associated with Wallachians from Muntenia, but you can make the changes, if you would like. --Anittas 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Romanian "Valah" could be borrowed from Hungarian "Oláh". I'd say it's directly from German "Walachei". bogdan 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not my argument and I don't care much about it. But anyway, here it is: it seems that Hungarian language evades consonant clusters at the beginning of words such that the vowel "a" would be intercalated between “v” and “l” (with the subsequent drop of the first consonant) if the word were borrowed from some Slavic population. The Hungarians had early contacts with both Slavic (source of the “vlah” form) and Germanic (source of the “walah” form) populations. On the other hand, it is hard to prove linguistically that Romanians had any early contact with German populations, while they experienced a significant linguistic interference with Hungarians and Slavs. Ergo, since the Slavs offered the form “vlah” and the Romanian form was “valah”, the most probable source were the Hungarians. One way to attack the argument is based on the a/o change which is both a Slavic and Hungarian phenomenon but didn’t occur in Romanian…--MarioF 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Valah" is a term that entered late the Romanian language, most likely once with the term "Valahia", which most likely came from German or the medieval Latin used by German geographers. Earlier, the Romanians used only the term "Vlah" (which is indeed of Slavic origin), but even this, was almost always in Slavonic texts, in Romanian being used Român/Rumân instead.

Also, AFAIK, early Hungarian lacked the phoneme /v/, which was aquired as an influence of Slavic and/or Germanic. For example Város (/varosh/, city) used to be pronounced /warosh/, hence the Romanian "oraş" /orash/. bogdan 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Page as of June 15 added here provisionally while merger is taking place

The Principality of Moldavia (Moldova in Romanian) was a Romanian (Vlach) state founded in the 14th century by two noble Vlachs from Maramureş: Dragoş and Bogdan. Moldavia stretched its realm from north of the Transylvanian Carpathian Mountains, over the Prut river to the Dniester, reaching the most abuttal south to the Black Sea. The realm was squeezed between powerful neighbors: the Hungarian Empire to the west, the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania to the north-east, and Wallachia and the Ottoman Empire to the south. Tatars inhabited Crimea to the further east. Moldavia had to struggle for her survival as the local princes had to seek alliances with their more powerful neighbors. In the 15th century, Stephen the Great managed to defeat the Ottomans on several occasions, as well as repel Hungarian, Polish, and Tatar attacks. In the 16th century, the Ottomans annexed southern Bessarabia and in the 18th century, Russia annexed the eastern side of Moldavia. In 1859, the remaining Moldavia, under Alexandru Ioan Cuza, united with Wallachia and formed the United Principalaties of Moldavia and Wallachia. In 1862, the new state was recognized under the name of Romania.

Prior to its foundation

The Stone Age saw the culture of Cucuteni rule over what would become, Southern Moldavia and what is now, Western Ukraine. In antiquity, the land was a part of the Dacian kingdom. The region was later invaded by several migratory people, such as Huns, Visigoths, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars under the Golden Horde. The Brodnici, a possible Slavo-Romanian vassal state of Galicia, ruled over much of the territory in the early 13th century. On the border between Galicia and Brodnici, in the 11th century, a Viking by the name Rodfos, was killed by Vlachs, who supposedly betrayed him. In 1164, Andronicus I Comnenus, was taken prisoner by Vlach sheperds around the same border between Galicia and Brodnici. In 1247, a Franciscan monk, Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, met a Vlach voivode, Olaha, who is thought to have ruled the lands of future Moldavia. In 1324, after the fall of the Cuman rule, Hungarian King Charles Robert of Anjou, sent Phynta de Mende on a military campaign, which was successful. In 1342 and 1345, the Hungarians were again victorious in a battle against Tatars. The Polish chronicler, Jan Długosz, mentioned Moldavians (as Wallachians) to have joined a military expedition in 1342, under King Władysław against Margraviate of Brandenburg.

Etymology

Moldova derives its name from a river near Suceava holding the same name. There are several theories regarding the etymology of the name:

• According to a legend, the hound of Dragoş was named Molda, and he named the river in her honour after she drowned in it, after hunting aurochs.

• Another theory claims that the name was taken from Mulde, a river in Saxony.

• A third theory argues that the name could derive from an ancient Dacian root, with the suffix -da being the Dacian "dava", which meant town.

See also Etymology of Moldova

The foundation

The first foundation of Moldavia is attributed to Dragoş of Cuhea, a nobleman from Maramureş who was sent east to the Carpathian Mountains to build a defense line against the Tatars of the Golden Horde. He ruled for three years, between 1351 and 1353, and was succeeded by his sons: Sas (ruled 1354-1358) and Bâlc who ruled in 1359. That same year, another Vlach nobleman from Maramureş, Bogdan, invaded the land after having a querrel with the Hungarian King, and dispossed Bâlc from the throne. A decade later, he proclaimed Moldavian independence and with him started the Muşat dynasty that would last until 17th century. The Ottoman chronicles started to refer to Moldavia as Bogdan or Bogdania, in reference to the polity.

See also Dragoş and Bogdan I of Moldavia

The Army

In the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the Moldavians would use light cavalry (Calaraşi) which used similar hit-and-run tactics as the Tatars. This gave them great mobility and also flexibility, in case they found it more suitable to dismount their horses and fight in hand-to-hand combat, as it happened in 1422, when 400 horsearchers were sent to aid Poland against the Teutonic Knights. The horseachers, when making eye-contact with the enemy, chose to withdraw to a nearby wood and camouflage themselves with leaves and branches; and when the enemy entered the wood, they were "showered with arrows" and defeated. The heavy cavalry consisted of the nobility, namely, the boyars and their guards, the Viteji and the Curteni — the Court Cavalry. In times of war, the boyars (boier in Romanian) were obliged to supply the prince with troops accordingly to their possessions. Under the reign of Stephen the Great, all farmers and villagers had to bear arms. Stephen justified this by saying that "everyone has a duty to defend his fatherland". If someone was found without carrying a weapon, he was condemned to death. Other troops consisted of professional foot soldiers (Lefegii), and the Plaiesi, who guarded the passes and were ready to ambush the enemy. Stephen reformed the army by promoting men from the free peasantry to infantry (Rāzeşti) — to make himself less dependent on the boyars — and introduced his army to fire-guns. In times of crises, The Small Host (Oastea Mică) — which consisted of around 10,000 men — stood ready to engage the enemy, while the Large Host (Oastea Mare) — which could reached up to 40,000 — had all the free peasantry older than 14, and strong enough to carry a sword or use the bow, recruited. This happened very rarely, as it was devastating for both economy and population growth. At the Battle of Vaslui, Stephen had to summon the Large Host and also recruit mercenary troops.

Early Middle-Ages

Fill in

Stephen the Great

Fill in

The Renaissance

Fill in

References

• The Annals of Jan Długosz ISBN 1901019004

Merge

We currently have:

• Moldavia (which is, for most of it, History of Moldavia)
• Etymology of Moldova
• History of Moldova
• Romania in the Early Middle Ages
• Romania in the Middle Ages
• Early Modern Romania
• National awakening of Romania

This article is a content fork (and POV fork?) of not one, but 6 different articles! Furthermore, this article was recreated from a redirect, and serves absolutely no purpose on its own. Dahn 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This article was first created as an article of its own, and then redirected to the other article. I could not oppose the move because at the time, I was banned. Here are the reasons why I oppose the merging:

1. Moldavia should cover the region of Moldavia, while the History of Moldavia should specifically cover its history; just like Romania is about the country as a whole, while the History of Romania is about its history, in a more detailed fashion.
2. Much of the content in this article was included in the other article, but only one source was included—the other three were left out. I find this both direspectful and foolish.
3. This article is far from being completed, but at least it is better organised, whereas the other one is very chaotic and has almost no sources to back it up with. It has also shown to be erroneous in many of its section. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the merger, this article is just duplicating the content, as Moldavia is 90% about its history. If the Moldavia article gets too long, one could create subarticles, such as Foundation of Moldavia.

BTW, the Dacian root is silly, it's not even phonetically possible to be inherited as such. bogdan 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not duplicate the content. Dahn took parts of the content from here and placed it over there. Even if the Dacian root is silly—and of course it is, because only the Muntenians are true Dacians—I believe that all theories should be mentioned. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What I did, per understanding with other users, was to create something logical out of a mess - I feel that details, in case they are needed, could be added in the "Romanian during..." articles (otherwise of no purpose) and topical articles such as the one on the Muşatini and the Moldavian military forces. Moldavia and Wallachia themselves are mostly history (no fault of mine), and I simply merged chaotic and utterly incoherent content forks into one article, where all users can get the basic information they need in a readable and properly-edited form. Dahn 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you please. As always, the Muntenian gets the last word. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in 1859 we voted against, and you in favor. Who's laughing now, huh? :) Dahn 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All theories? Cool. You should add my theory that the word Moldavia is derived from a Sanskrit word meaning "cheese pie"! Can you find who proposed this theory? If not, it should be removed. bogdan 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)