Talk:Bogdan the Founder

untitled

Moldavia's capital were at Baia, Siret, Suceava and Iaşi. No other capitals. Please do not put wrong informations!--Dacodava

Calm down. I was the one to write Radauti. If you want to correct it, just do it. --Anittas 15:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan I

Ar fi bine ca sa nu mai confundati biografia lui Dragos cu a lui Bogdan I si sa-i atribuiti lui Bogdan din faptele lui Dragos. Bogdan era in relatii rele cu regele Ungariei cand a ocupat Moldova si nu a fost trimis ca Dragos sa apere trecatorile de tatari. A se vedea si Bogdan I al Moldovei !

Bogdan I as a Macedonian?

Some historians claim he came from Macedonia. But it's no more than a hypothesis, and quite a controversial one. There's no evidence Bogdan from Cuhea is Bogdan son of Mikula, nor that Bogdan son of Mikula came from Macedonia. Of the latter Bogdan we only know he came from his own lands in Hungary, and that probably he entered the Hungarian realm coming from the south.

For example the editors of Documenta historiam Valachorum in Hungaria illustrantia usque ad annum 1400 p. Christum add (p. 75, footnote): "Le voïvode Bogdan, fils de Mykula, était probablement un des chefs des Roumains. Il n'est pas exclu qu'il eût émigré de la Valachie par suite de la politique unificatrice de Basaraba pour gagner la Hongrie où les nouveaux colons étaient toujours bien reçus." Daizus (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the above note. (1) As far as I can remember the article never claimed that Bogdan I was a Macedonian. (2) There is, however, a theory that Bogdan I is the same person as Bogdan son of Mikula who migrated to the Kingdom of Hungary. This idea does not contradict to the Romanian tradition first recorded around 1500 (that is only some 150 years following the foundation of Moldavia), that the Romanians who initiated the establishment of Moldavia migrated from somewhere the Byzantine Empire to Hungary. (3) Bogdan son of Mikula (who may be equal to Bogdan I) visited twice the bishop of Vranje in Macedonia which suggests that he had arrived in Hungary from that part of the Byzantine Empire. (4) The identificacion of Bogdan son of Mikula with Bogdan I of Moldavia is not unanimously accepted. For example, the above cited book from 1941 does not accept this theory. But neither does the article state that the two persons were the one and the same. Borsoka (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Under Macedonians you can find a link to Macedo-Romanians, the Vlachs from Republic of Macedonia, northern Greece, Albania.

• Thank you for the above clarification. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

2 and 4. Who are the proponents of this theory? I see in this article György Györffy and István Vásáry. If it's only held by some Hungarian historians, I believe due weight should apply. Also if Györffy was the main proponent, I think the text should say "Györffy suggested" in the same way it says "according to Victor Spinei". Now it looks like their identity is unproblematic and Spinei is the only skeptic, which doesn't seem to be the case.

• I agree that the reference to the fact that the theory is proposed by specifically Spinei could be deleted (although his argumentation based on the "social conditions" is rather obscure taking into account that the sources prove that Bogdan I was in permanent conflicts not with the king but with other local Romanian voivodes - maybe his permanent conflicts with other Romanian voivodes proves that he did not migrate to Maramures but he had been living there???). Otherwise, I do not fully understand the above remark: should we mention that "according to a theory elaborated by György Györffy and adopted by other historians, among them by István Vásáry"? Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am saying the views should be presented with due weight, in that if this is a theory held only by some Hungarian scholars, so it should look, not like it's a mainstream view opposed by Spinei only. Daizus (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Here's the text of the document (there's a white strip on the right side of the page, you can use Google Books to fill in the gaps). I don't see here anything about settlement in Maramureş, nor about Vranje, so I assume these are conjectures based on other documents and mentions. This document is only about this Bogdan woyvode filii Mykula, coming de terra sua to Banat (Jam et Borzascenthgyurgy).

• I agree that in this specific primary source there is no mention either of Maramures or of Vranje. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

5. I added back the undue tag in the "Origin of Romanians" article. a) I don't believe it should link to this article if their identity is spurious (why suggesting the readers this connection?) and b) "he brought along so many people that the migration stretched over nine months" seems another over-interpretation. Daizus (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Is there any other article that makes mention of "Bogdan son of Mikula"? I think that because this is the specific article which refers to him, the linking does not suggest anything. (Otherwise, as far as I can remember, the linking specifically refers to the relevant part of this article and not to the whole article.) (2) The primary source specifically does not mention "nine months", but it refers to specific dates (for example All Saints' Day, Epiphany). Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not every view needs to be presented: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give 'undue weight' to the Flat Earth belief."

Since the link between the two Bogdans is spurious and held by a minority (maybe a tiny one, I haven't checked ALL the opinions on this topic), I don't see how the link between the two articles can be maintained and justified (the link focuses on the "Voivode in Maramureş" section). Such a link suggests the readers that identification has some currency.

The primary source holds nothing about "the migration stretching over nine months" but about the activity of the archbishop. Why he spent so much time, we simply don't know, saying he did so because of floods of Vlachs migrating from Balkans to Banat for nine months is an over-interpretation promoted by the Hungarian scholars (is any other scholar supporting this?) Daizus (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not understand the above remark. As far as I know there is no many historians specialized in the early history of Moldavia. At least two of them, actually more than two, suggests that Bogdan I can be identified with Bogdan son of Mikula. The article does not represent this view as a fact, but as a possibility. Taking into account that the opposite view (Bogdan I is a native in Maramures) is based on similarly weak or even weaker basis, I think the former view should also be mentioned. As to the wikilink, I think if "Bogdan son of Mikula" is mentioned in an article, this article, moreover the specific part of the article not only can but should be linked. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The opposite view is not "Bogdan I is a native" but "Bogdan I is not Bogdan son of Mikula". Maybe he came from Poland, or from Bohemia, or from Crimea or from Greece, I don't know and don't care as long as there's no evidence or literature on it.

Arguably there are hundreds of historians (Romanians, Hungarians, but not only) with a good understanding of the history of medieval Moldavia. I also questioned if there are any non-Hungarian scholars endorsing this line of argumentation and this identification. One, two, five, ten Hungarian scholars can't make for more than a minority.

You can maintain the link, but I also argued why the undue tag is justified and should accompany the link. The evidence and the proper scholarly support for "voivode Bogdan son of Micola" being Bogdan I, "voivode in Maramureş" (as the section says) is simply not there. Daizus (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I still do not understand your concern. I must be wrong but the above remark seems to suggest that Hungarian historians can only form minority because they are Hungarians. I neither do understand why the shadowy argument that Bogdan I's socio-political situation in Maramures excludes his immigration from other territories nullifies the argument that the two Bogdans are identical. Actually, the two persons identification is based on the following points (1) there is no mention of Romanians in Maramures before the first half of the 14th century (2) the earliest Romanian chronicles clearly refer to the immigration of Romanians, among them the immigration of Dragos, the founder of Moldavia, somewhere from the Balkans to Maramures (3) many Romanian voivodes seems to have arrived in Maramures before the arrival of Bogdan I (even if Bogdan I is not identical with Bogdan son of Mikula), because Bogdan I had in permanent conflicts with them and frequently invaded their estates (4) the Catholic church in Cuhea may suggest that the "ancient property of Bogdan I in Maramures" had been owned by Catholic landowners. Borsoka (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's about a scholarly position held only by few Hungarian scholars how is it, but not a minority?

(1)-(4) -> it does not follow that Bogdan's father's name is Mikula, or that he came from Banat. Moreover (3) one can invade someone else's estate regardless and (4) there's no evidence the only owner in Cuhea was the Catholic church. Daizus (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note we have not discussed the undue weight from this article. It's about that over-sized footnote presenting the POVs of Györffy and Vásáry. Almost every argument presented by these scholars is contested by others, e.g. see above about a possible origin of this Bogdan son of Mikula in Walachia, not in Macedonia, an origin suggested by the Hungarian editors of Documenta historiam Valachorum in Hungaria. Daizus (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I can understand your concerns less and less. If my understanding is correct, your view is that (1) because the Hungarian editors of a book issued in 1887 suggest that Bogdan son of Mikula migrated from Wallachia and not from Macedonia, the modern Hungarian historians's view can only be qualified as a minority view (2) the information on Bogdan son of Mikula, who is identified with Bogdan I, cannot be described even in a footnote, because modern Hungarian historians' view can only be qualified as a minority standpoint. Sorry, but I can hardly accept this approach. The argumentation of the two personalities' identification is not weaker than the argumantation against this identification. Moreover, the former view was published more than once in reliable sources (one of them issued by the Hungarian Academy of Science, the other by the Cambridge University Press.) I think we should respect these publishers at least to the extent that the view they represent is described in a footnote of the article. Borsoka (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, your understanding is not correct and you only raise straw men.

1a. That volume is not edited in 1887. That view is not held only by those editors. Get the facts straight or if you can't, then go edit some other article on a topic you know something about. It would be better, IMO.

1b. "The modern Hungarian historian's view" is a minority view, because of simple maths. Just browse all the books in the Origin of Romanians article mentioning Bogdan I. Then count how many assert he's the son of Mikula. Simple enough?

2. It can be qualified in a footnote only if due weight applies. I explained why it doesn't.

In the end I don't care about what you understand, what you accept, and your WP:OR. You promote a view supported by two (2) scholars as mainstream (albeit controversial) view. Daizus (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just one remark. The view is not described as a mainstream theory - it is only mentioned as one of the views, and it cannot be disregarded because it is mentioned in books issued by respected academic institutions. Have a good night! :) Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is an oversized note with Györffy's rants. It is presented as a mainstream view ("may be identical" even if "the identification [...] is sharply debated"). Daizus (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

compromise ?

Since you refuse to acknowledge the problem (and as I imagine if I remove that note you'll just put it back), I'll add other POVs in that, balancing the migrationist POV. I don't think due weight it will be fixed in this way (this article will have a huge footnote on a spurious identification), but it seems more neutral in that way and in the end it will move to an acceptable solution. Daizus (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)