Talk:Michael the Brave/Archive 1

Archive 1

More text removed from article

This summary contains some clear inaccuracies and is, on the whole, very biased. It is ridiculous to suggest that a centralised state could be created within a year. The phrase "Romanian space" is crude propaganda, as these lands were also inhabited by other ethnic groups. The later voivodes of Transylvania certainly did not try to recreate Dacia. Scott Moore 09:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Some Transylvanian princes (of Hugarian birth of course) did actually plan to rule over a unified state of Dacia (yes the term was used, literaly). Ironically the ideea of a united Dacia had crossed the mind of several XVIth century rulers (neither of which was Romanian, or at least not Romanian born). Plinul cel tanar 12:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The prince of Wallachia, Mihai Viteazul (1593-1601) regained the country's independence and unified all the Romanians in the first centralized Romanian state, including Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia (1600-1601). The short-lived was undone by the intervention of the Ottoman Empire, the kingdom of Poland, and the Habsburg Empire, worried to have a powerful Romanian state. The accomplishment of Mihai Viteazul was made possible by the unity of kin and language of all the Romanians, by awakening national consciousness and its assertion throughout the entire Romanian space. His deed served as an example. The voivodes of the three Romanian Lands, ruling after Mihai Viteazul, tried to follow suit, and recreate the ancient kingdom of Dacia.

I agree that the propaganda should be less toned down, yet one thing has to remain clear: even if he was concsious of it or not he did unite most romanians inside the romanian space.

another thing: maybe to the hungarians he was not so nice but the fact remains that it is impossible that he did not realize that people from all three principalities spoke the same language.

an unbiased romanian

That is just a very stupid statement what do you mean he didn't realize all three principalities spoke the same launguage. He was trying to unite the three Romanian states as said in many history books. It was a known fact that they were all Romanian principalities thus speaking the same language. How could he not known of this. That is why the statements above are just crazy

Well it really depends on what you call a history book. Among Romanian historians Balcescu was the first to see a national act in Mihai's actions, an achievement of a patriotic ideal. A.D. Xenopol explicitely presented the Union as a succession of strategic choices (and that is in fact what Mihai himself says in his letters), he lounched an invasion of Transylvania in order to avoid "being crushed" in Wallachia and subsequently annexed Moldavia in order to remove his enemy Movila from his eastern flanc. Nicolae Iorga in his 1935 study atributes some ethnical awareness to Mihai but certainly without claiming that Mihai had sought to forge a United Romanian Nation State. P.P. Panaitescu in his own study published one year after Iorga's presents the facts pretty much in the same lines as Xenopol: Mihai acted under military constraints, he chose his battle ground and ended up rulling the three principalities. As Xenopol before him he insisted on the ruthless treatement of peasentry, the land-binding of serfs in Wallachia in order to please the Oltenian boyar elite and the bloody response to a late 1599 Transilvanian peasent uprising. All this as well as the claim that Michael was not the true son of Prince Patrascu the good valued Panaitescu a negative review from Iorga which he answered in 1938. Between 1945 and 1989 Romanian historiography was pretty bias but no so much as we may think. Historians such as Giurascu or Pascu presented Mihai more in Iorga's terms than in Balcescu's. Post 1989 history books co-signed by Romanian and wetern historians tend to stick to Panaitescu's version. Constantin Razachevici's recent study describing Michael's reign states from the second paragaph that the interests of foreign powers forced Michael to adapt his initiatives and strategies and march on Alba Iulia, Suceava and Iasi. However Rezachevici insists on Michael's symbolic importance for Romanians (as do all historians). He is also the first to interprete the political relationship between Michael and his son Nicolae Patrascu neither as vassalage nor as the traditional byzantine inspired sharing of the crown, but rather as a first step towards a purely hereditary monarchy. Plinul cel tanar 15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that Transylvania was always a Romanian principality or state is simply stupid. How many Romanian rulers did Transylvania have between the 10th and 20th century? Also ethnically it was a diverse region with mostly Romanians, Hungarians and German ethnics living there. You can't just say that "people from the principality spoke Romanian". Some did, some didn't. Btw the Romanians were not always dominant in numbers. And they clearly weren't politically. For most of its history the important internal groups who formed Translyvania's politics up till the 19th century were the (Hungarian) nobles (meaning more the nobles of Hungary - not all of them was of Hungarian origin ethnically), the Saxon citizens and the Székelys. Btw it's funny how corrupted Wikipedia is from nationalistic propaganda. From all sides. It clearly isn't a reliable source sadly.:(

8/16/05 edits

With this version I added in a link to Romanian language and added diacretics for Mirăslău. I added in "principalities inhabited by Romanians" to the introduction because Transylvania was not a "Romanian principality" at the time. Rather, it would be better described as a multi-ethnic medieval principality. I also tried to make the concluding paragraph more NPOV.

"Rather, it would be better described as a multi-ethnic medieval principality." Bingo. That's what it was. Thanks for the editing.

The picture captions said Mihai Viteazul while the article uses the English Michael, so I replaced the captions' Romanian name with the English name. Because the actual article is named "Mihai Viteazul", Wiki policy indicates that the Romanian name should be used throughout the article. However, he is almost invariably referred to in English texts as "Michael the Brave", so I believe the article should be titled as such instead. What does everyone think? Olessi 05:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Early life and descent

Let's try to get this article in better shape.

Concerning Michael's descent - most historians consider him a true son of Patrascu, Alexandru aparently feared him because of his hereditary right as he had him swear before 12 boyars that he was not of voievode bone. Still Panaitescu differs (unfortunately I don't have his book in order to provide a precise refference).

Concerning his rise to the throne of Wallachia it is important to mention the aid provided in Constantinople by Andronic Cantacuzino, his cousin, and Patriarch Jeremiah the 2nd . Among wallachian boyars he was supported by most of the great boyars of Oltenia (the Buzescus need to be mentioned) plus the Cantacuzines: Andronic, Tudor and Dumitrache. He was opposed by Mitrea great vornic of Hotărani, Dumitru logofăt of Dădeşti, Chisar logofăt of Leoteşti, Dan Danilovici the treasurer, Radul postelnic Calomfirescu, Miroslav great treasurer of Râfov, Ivan aga, Vintilă Bengescu and others. See http://www.mnir.ro/ro/publicatii/teze-doctorat/cristina-anton-manea/3-3.pdf for further detailes. Plinul cel tanar 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm too am willing to contribute to improving the article, but I'm caught up in other stuff at the moment. For the moment, I'll just copyedit in case it is needed. Thank you for taking an interst - this article can only benefit from your interventions. Dahn 16:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you're planning large edits, you may consider using this - it can help prevent edit conflicts. Happy editing. Dahn 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The treaty of Alba Iulia is a significant event and should be detailed. It set the basis of a boyar regime in Wallachia, with an assembly of 12 boyars actually rulling alongside the voievode. Furthermore it should be noted that the subsequent short leash vassalage of both Wallachia and Moldavia made Sigismund Bâthori ruller of all the three principalities. Plinul cel tanar 16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael in Transylvania

This paragraph sound as if it were taken from XIXth century historiography. Because Michael claimed the Partium region and refused to recognize Rudolf's rights over Transylvania, the Emperor ceased subsidizing Michael's army. In order to acquire vital funds, he began a military campaign against Moldavia, defeating the combined Polish and Moldavian army of Ieremia Movilă at Bacău, a victory which led to the first rule over the three neighboring principalities (although Wallachia was officially ruled by Nicolae Pătraşcu).

1. Michael never refused to recognize Rudolf as his sovereign. However, he wanted to be recongnized as Prince and not as governor. He used the style, acted as Prince and was recognized as such, as Rezachevici record it, first by the Transylvanian nobles, then by the Diet, than by the Ottomans and very late by the Hapsburgs who also recognized his son's right to succede to the Transylvanian throne and thus establis a dinasty (Michael's greatest ambition).

2. Michael planned the campaign in Moldavia even before he conquered Transylvania. Before the Battle of Selimbar the Apostolic Nuncios had a conversation with Michael and the latter confessed that he wanted to remove Ieremia Movila from the throne in Suceava. Michael cosidered Movila to be his greatest living enemy and he could not afford having a weak eastern flank. He knew that if wanted to have the slightest chance to withstand a Polish attack hid forces had to be inside Moldavian castles.

3. Ever since the XIXth century (see Hasdeu for instance) historians have clearly shown that Michael and Nicolae Patrascu were not distinct rulers, not even "officialy". Michael's letters, his style and actions prove that. Some historians labeled the relationship as feudal vassalage, lord - overlord. Others argue that Nicolae was Michael's "associate" in a well documented Romanian tradition of Byzantine inspiration. Rezachevici rejects both points of view arguing that Michael who had explictley confessed his intentions to establish a dinasty was in fact taking steps in that direction. Plinul cel tanar 10:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Upsetting the balance of power

Neighboring states were alarmed by this upsetting of the balance of power, especially the Hungarian nobility in Transylvania, which rose against Michael in rebellion. With the help of Basta, they defeated Michael at the Battle of Mirăslău, forcing the prince to leave Transylvania. A Polish army led by Jan Zamoyski drove the Wallachians from Moldavia and defeated Michael at Năieni, Ceptura, and Bucov (Battle of the Teleajăn River). The Polish army also entered eastern Wallachia and established Simion Movilă as ruler. Forces loyal to Michael remained only in Oltenia.

This paragraph is quite funny, we are talking about the Long War, upsetting the balance of power in one's favor is the main objective in any military (or political) confrontation. Michael took too many gambles and lost, while one may argue that under the circumstances he didn't handle the situation that badly. Plinul cel tanar 15:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he should have left Moldavia untouched and first try to stabilize his presence in Transylvania. If you have Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman opposition, you don't seek a third enemy, before neutralizing the others. And he should have tried to create a country not based on his personal ambitions. However, if we consider that he was Oltenian, then yes, he did a good job. Too bad he messed up. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While this is clear speculation, I don't agree. As I said before, he had no means of resisting a Polish attack. Eastern Transilvanian castles (Cetatea de Balta and Ciceu) had been dismantled in 1544 and while negotians were possible with Ottomans, Hapsburgs and even Poles they were not possible with Movila. He could not afford a weak eastern flank. His best strategic choice was to rush over Movila take hold of the Moldavian citadels and repell the Poles in Moldavia should they invade. What he did not expect was the insurrection of Transilvanian nobles and Basta acting on his own. There was no imediate Ottoman danger, the Sultan was the first to recognize him as Prince of Trnasylvania.Plinul cel tanar 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

Issues preventing promotion

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

• Can you explain why the article really begins when Michael is 30 years old? Is there really nothing to say about him before this time?
  • Because very little informations is available about his youth. Everything currently known is mentioned in the Early life section.
    • You should then mention that very little is known about his youth in the section. If you don't it looks like an omission.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have added to the Early Life section that little is known about Michael The Great's early life. Jhfireboy Talk 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• The final legacy section is really just a list of three seperate facts about him. The lead says he is very important in Romanian historiography, so can there be some discussion of this in the Legacy section?
  • Michael is so important for the Romanian historiography because he managed to unite for the first time all the three Romanian principalities into a single state.(this is already mentioned in the Legacy section) --Eurocopter (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand this, I just think it could be covered in greater depth. My issue here actually is with the two short paragraphs which follow the initial paragraph in legacy section. They just seem tacked on. Perhaps they could be combined with a section on his image in popular conciousness i.e. has he been represented in film? Are any towns or streets named after him? Are there any statues? That sort of thing into which the last two paragaphs could be merged.

Ok, I'll do this in the next few days and announce when is done. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes/additions in the legacy section and think it'd be ok now. Are there any GA criteria not met by this article? --Eurocopter (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy this week. You still haven't discussed the lack of infomation on the first 30 years of his life and please source the last paragraph. Then I will be happy to pass this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The above have been done, although a more reliable source would be preferable for the new reference. Its OK to pass, but it possible that someone with more knowledge on this topic than I possess might object and remove it if they feel (as is the case below) that the article is based too heavily on possibly unreliable sources. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion! Anyway, Giurescu is a reliable source and was not published during Ceausescu's regime - the book i'm citing was first published in 1935. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dinu Giurescu was born in 1927, he most certainly did not co-author the book at the age of 8. The book's original edition dates back to 1974, as indicated in the article's Bibliography. Had it been edited in 1935, the article would still need aditional, more recent references (like the Rezachevici ones you removed). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but here we are talking about Constantin C. Giurescu (as mentioned in the ref) who was born in 1901. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please pay more attention before commenting. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The book given as a reference is co-authored by the two Giurescus, father and son. Dinu was 8 in 1935. It was first published in 1974 (as indicated in the article). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, you just modified the article, please pay more attention to the references you add before commenting. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I still find it strange that the OCLC you provide leads to the book edited in 1974 by Constantin and Dinu Giurescu. Which book do you really have Constantin's original History, published between 1935 and 1946 (in which case please provide a correct refference indicating the exact volume) or the 1974 book re-edited in 2007 by the All Printing House? Don't get me wrong, I am not questioning the factual accuracy of the article (it would be quite stupid, I put most of the facts in there) but given the long controversy between Romanian and Hungarian historiography I believe we should provide solid and recent references while keeping a NPOV. I never suggested removal of the Giurescus (I greatly respect the father and the son) but I insist on having more recent, post 1989 history sources, particularly on the legacy paragraph and on the paragraph concerning Transylvania. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you should know that i'm not the one who posted Dinu Giurescu as a reference. Secondly, the book i'm talking about is Istoria Romanilor, by Constantin C. Giurescu, first published in 1935 (vol. II). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Please provide a correct reference, consistent with the page numbers you inserted, the Bibliography entry is still wrong thus leaving 80% of the artivle un-referenced. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• I have given the article a brief copyedit to deal with some of the more difficult parts of the prose.
• Look to dealing with the many redlinks. An article is always easier to understand if a reader can flick to the people and places mentioned for context.

As an important editor of the article I must say that, IMHO, it does not yet meet goog article standards. Here are my major objections:

• There are a lot of Giurescu references; at least some of them need to be doubled by alternative references in order to reinforce credibility. While a prolific, encyclopdedic historian Giurescu is not a medieval and early modern age specialist and further more the book was originally published under the Ceausescu nationalist regime which may lead some of the readers to question fact acuracy or NPOV. This should be easily fixed by re-adding the Rezachevici references.
• The paragraph describing the two front conflict leading to Michael's deposetion is far too brief and still contains the rediculous phrase about "upsetting the balance of power" (see my edit above).
• The article fails to provide the reader with important details about the international context particularly on the "eastern front" - the conflict between the Tartar Khan Gazi Ghirai and the Otoman Empire which the Poles used to justify there expansion and interventions is no longer mentioned in the current version.
• Above all else: the legacy. The section in question does not adress the problem of Michael as a historical figure as opposed to Michael as a propaganda figure which is extremely well referenced and must be discussed. There is enough material on this particular topic to write a whole independent article. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oh yes, I almost forgot, the reliability of the reference provided for the seal section is more than questionable. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that with a few tweaks this article might make GA, given the criteria for reaching GA, but I am interested in your comments as they certainly should be implemented before any attempt is made at A-Class or FAC. Will you be able to do these things to the article in the near future? If so, I can hold off the final GA assessment until you are ready.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty busy right now. I may however take some time to fill in the major gaps this week-end. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)