Talk:Despotate of Dobruja

[Untitled]

Todor, what are you trying to demonstrate by changing some words here (for example "liberating" changed with "conquered")??? This could easily be seen by anybody as vandalism. Let me explain you some simple facts: It is obvious that the anexation of this mediaeval principality in 1388-89 by Wallachia was than seen rather as a liberation. If you don't like it because you are a nationalist, that doesn't mean it's not true. In 1388 the Ottomans conquered that land - that we both agree, ok ? So it could be said, no doubt about it, that the Christians (being either Romanians or Bulgarians, it doesn't matter) liberated it. Back in those times NOBODY maked the difference between my people and yours, Mircea the Elder was seen as a liberator (there are contemporary descriptions that mention this fact), and modern-day nationalistic propaganda has no place in here ! Madalinfocsa 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)~Exactly Madalinfocsa! The inhabitants considered the annexation of the territory by Mircea as liberation of Muslim Rule by a fellow ORTHODOX Christian ruler. 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"So it could be said, no doubt about it, that the Christians (being either Romanians or Bulgarians, it doesn't matter) liberated it. Back in those times NOBODY maked the difference between my people and yours.." What ..??? Are you kidding?

Why don’t you mention the Bulgarian nationality of Dobrotitsa and Ivanko, why you pass over in silence that they ware previously separated Bulgarian Boyars??? They ware actually separatists and tsar Ivan Shishman atac was an attempt to reunite Bulgaria.

The Principality emerged due to the weaking central power during the reign of emperor Ivan Alexander in the mid 14th century from the Bulgarian Empire, its territory have always been in the Empire up to this moment so it has nothing to do with Vlachia which is independent only from the 14th century. The population, though undoubtedly mixed consisted mainly of Bulgarians because these lands were never lost to any enemy.

To crate an impression that this principality was vlach or romanian is an insult to the history and dignity of Bulgaria. Part of these lands may now be in Romania but this does not n=mean that they have always been there. --Gligan 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spare me with insult and dignity, this is not an encyclopedia for pleasing the Bulgarian people. This is an encyclopedia which presents documented facts! Your communist-nationalist-chauvinist methods of labeling Dobrogea, Dobrotitsa, Kaloyan etc. as Bulgarian and only Bulgarian are unscientific and pitiful, no place for them here. --Alex:Dan 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most first hand neutral sources from the Dobrudja article say that the Principality was Bulgarian? Yes, Kaloyan was a Bulgarian king - should we put French names for some British kings as well? And what does that communist-nationalist-chauvinist mean? You are using only modern Romanian sources and call us such things? (what does communist have to do with this anyway?) --Laveol ^T 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using sources from respected historians such Iorga, Gh. Bratianu, Dinu and C-tin Giurescu. Only a blind man couldn't see the vlach roots of Kaloyan, so much present in documents from his time. I didn't say anything about the Principality, but Dobrogea. And communism is often associated with exagerated nationalism (see the "link" between Thracians and modern day Bulgarians emphasised by Bulgarian Communist authorities). Also, communism is asociated with separatist movements in Dobrogea during 1919 - 1920s. There are some people that doesn't accept another theories and would do anything to prove their idea (Vlach = Bulgarian and such); moreover names such as Romanian, Vlach etc. stand like sand in their eyes and they feel like wood eaten by grubworms. Otherwise I can't explain some absurd explenations and obvious missings which I've found here by chance. Why do we have to come here from Romanian wp, where all posibilities and afiliations are mentioned in completely neutral articles (Dobrotitsa = Vlach?, Bulgarian?, Turkish?, Pecheneg? all with sources), to face with such lame extreme-nationalist ideas? --Alex:Dan 19:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, respected historians who all happen to be Romanian! What a surprise. Don't get me misunderstood 1. The link between Thracians and Bulgarians seems as absurd to me as the one between Romans and Romanians. "separatist movements" - do you mean the attempts of Southern Dobrudja Bulgarians to rejoin Bulgaria? And ones again - why don't you read the Dobrudja article first --Laveol ^T 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

These Romanian historians reached no consensus: Dobrotitsa is Vlach (Iorga, Panaitescu), Pecheneg, Turk (Panaitescu, Bratianu, Giurescu) so it's not like they are not impartial. Kaloyan is mostly viewed as Vlach and it's not like there are no documents to proove that. Also, they are not categorical in their suppositions. And about the separatist movement in Dobrogea: they wanted to separate all Dobrogea, not only the southern one. In my oppinion the 1913 event was pretty questionable and the fact that in 1940 things ended peacefully and civilised (unlike in Basarabia, N Bucovine and Transilvania), with a treaty and an exchange of population leaves no room for teritorial revisionism, aims or such. --Alex:Dan 19:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)