Talk:Rulers of Moldavia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I allowed myself to make three changes: - I removed "the Horseshoe" from Ioan Potcoavă - it is a name, not a nickname (ie: you would not translate "Lapusneanu" as "from/of Lapusna"; these are given names).

- I translated Iancu Sasul as "John the Saxon", on the basis of Iancu being a local variant of "Ioan".

- Most importantly - Ioan Voda is first and foremost "the Terrible" ("cel Cumplit"). That was the monicker given to him by his contemporaries. Ok, by his boyar contemporaries, but there was no contemporary version of "the Brave" - that only surfaced with Ceausescu, who wanted to present his actions as legitimate and healthy violence against a decadent nobility etc., with Ioan as an "ally of the people" (a definately ideologically-induced judgment). You might meet it in other sources, but they are no different and all are written no less than four centuries after he died. I left viteaz as an alternative, but not for the main link. Be reasonable and don't switch it back.Dahn 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC) edit: Ion Vodă Armeanul is also contemporary.Dahn 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scars et al

Please, Greier. You are introducing a criterion which you favour, but one not attested by sources except for Ortelius' unbalanced account. Dahn 21:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But this paragraph "however, such accounts are challenged by the fact that persons born with noted physical disabilities, or even those with acquired scars, were attested to have been prevented from occupying the throne" contradicts the actuall facts: a person with an aquired scar did took the throne (e.g.). How can that be when they were attested to have been prevented?

Again, Bogdan was blinded after occupying the throne (the exception that is indicated in the very next sentence). Dahn 09:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And again, we don`t know what Ortelius meant!!!! Maybe by "mark" it meant a tatoo, or maybe a skin incision, or maybe something else, or maybe he was just fantasizing... But as the law (aparantely) prevented people with congenital disorders, I fail to see how that mark could be considered that it "challenged" the right to rule greier 09:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He presumably is talking about burning with a rod, "as the Thracians did blahblah". My instincts tell me to remove it altogether, since it is pure dementia: if it was visible enough to mention, why don't others mention it...

We don`t know why, but if there`s one source, we must put it. Probably "others" didn`t mentioned it because they thought it wasn`t worht mentioning... Just look at the Moldavian hrisovs of that time... It`s all something like:

În anul 6969 [1461], iulie 5, a lovit cu război Ştefan voievod Ţara  Secuiască. 
În anul 6970 [1462], iunie 22, au lovit cu tunul pe Ştefan voievod la cetatea Chiliei. 
În anul 6971 [1463], iulie 5, şi-a luat Ştefan voievod doamnă pe cneghina Evdochia de la Kiev, sora lui Semen ţarul.
........
.....
..
etc..

So it`s clear that (at least) in Moldavian chronicles, you won`t find much about this... greier 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

...(and, instead, they indicate that anyone who had been scarred in any way before getting on the throne was not eligible)?...

False. greier 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And, if it wasn't visible enough, how come Ortelius knew about it (if a tree falls into a forest... it's like saying they were all freemasons or warewolves)? Dahn 09:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ortelius wrote about it because he probably had a "seed of thruth". Yes, I admit he may had been fantasising for "commercial" purposes, or he mught simply missundertood a real custom, or he might of had just trusted to much some rumours... But I don`t think you`re right in completely removing that paragraph only because you think it`s "pure dementia"... greier 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, Greier. I base myself on attested fact and majority consensus, not on an Ortelius fantasy which is only commented and interpreted by you. Dahn 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Look Dan, this has nothing with Ortelius. My edit is about that comment, which is false: someone with a scar aquired in battle was not prevented from ocupying the throne. I`ve forgot the name, but there was a voivode who was allowed to rule, as the boyars decided that the diformity was aquired in battle greier 15:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Under any circumstance, your addition to the text makes no sense. Come up with the name of that ruler, if he did in fact exist, and we'll work it out into a logically-constructed sentence. Dahn 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the List of the rulers of Moldavia was already seriously revised and ammended. See C. Rezachevici "Encyclopaedia of the Wallachia and Moldova rulers" - the best source in this moment. Please note that you use some translation and comments actually non-accurate and even false. As an example Bogdan cel Orb (son of Stephen the Great) was not blind or blinded, he had also both eyes. The word "chior" is a turkish one and not used in that time. Bogdan simply had an illness of his eye(s) - glaucom. Also Ioan Potcoava - Potcoava (Horseshoe) was his nickname indeed. Also Iancu Sasu(l) (not Ioan Sasul) - was not saxon but his mother was. Actually in that time the meaning of the word Sasul is not Saxon but Protestant. Not Catholic not Orthodox but Protestant by his mother. Please see also the name of Sas, the 2nd voievod - known only by his nickname. By the way, Balc (not Bâlc) didn't rule. And many others. No mention about many rulers not included in the list and many rulers that were not existed. No mention about the periods. First of all I think is better to understand what means Voivod (correct: Voievod). The word Hospodar is a word used only for its exotic sound and the meaning is merely non-appreciative. See also Hospodar/Gospodar. (March 14th, 2007) Dan Loghin dan_loghin@yahoo.com