Talk:Danubian Principalities

message: Dan, you provide a quite stunning information in the footnote: you say that the term Romanian Principalities „featured...particularly during Communist Romania.” Could you please elaborate on this ?--Vintila Barbu 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not wrong even historians like Iorga used the term, so that is simply a weasel word to discredit the term as a Communist-enforced one and as such to minimize it. Daizus 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  an intriguing information in the footnote 

message: In order to provide further information about the use of the names “Danubian Principalities" and “Romanian Principalities” in the scientific community, I worked out two lists of works mentioning respectively one or the other term
===Chronological list of works mentioning “Danubian Principalities”===
*Memoirs of Prince Metternich: 1773-1835
*Thomas Gordon, History of the Greek revolution, 1832
*Thomas Curson Hansard, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates Great Britain Parliament, 1851
*Laurence Oliphant, The Russian Shores of the Black Sea, 1852 
*James Henry Skene, The Danubian Principalities, the Frontier Lands of the Christian and the Turk, 1853
*The Gentleman's Magazine, 1856
*Thomas Forester, The Danube and the Black Sea: memoir on their junction a railway between Tchernavoda and a free port at Kustendjie, 1857
*Robert Gordon Latham, The Nationalities of Europe, 1863
*Henry Montague Hozier, The Russo Turkish war: including an account of the rise and decline of the Ottoman power, 1877
*Henry de Worms Pirbright, The Austro Hungarian Empire: A political sketch of men & events since 1866, 1877
*Moses Montefiore, Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore, Louis Loewe, Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore, 1890
*Augustus Loftus, The Diplomatic Reminiscences of Lord Augustus Loftus ... 1862-1879, 1894
*Elizabeth Stone, Turkey Old and New: historical, geographical and statistical, 1880 
*Wilhelm Müller, Political History of Recent Times, 1816-1875: With Special Reference to Germany, 1882
*Henry Reeve, St. Petersburg and London in the Years 1852-1864: Reminiscences of Count Charles Frederick, 1887
*Nugent Robinson, A History of the World with All Its Great Sensations, 1887 
*Henry Neville Hutchinson, Marriage Customs in Many Lands, 1897 
*Charles Alan Fyffe, A History of Modern Europe, 1792-1878, 1896
*Henry Morse Stephens, Syllabus of a Course of Eighty seven Lectures on Modern European History, 1899 
*Adolphus William Ward, George Walter Prothero, Stanley Mordaunt Leathes, Ernest Alfred Benians, The Cambridge Modern History, 1902
*Cedomilj Mijatovic, James David Bourchier, Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, A Short History of Russia and the Balkan States, 1914 
*Ernest Mason Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 1917
*Thad Weed Riker, The Making of Roumania: A Study of an International Problem, 1856-1866, 1931 
*Vernon John Puryear, International Economics and Diplomacy in the Near East: A Study of British Commercial Policy in the Years 1834-1853, 1935
*Emil Lengyel, The Danube, 1939
*Alyce Edythe Mange, The Near Eastern Policy of the Emperor Napoleon III, 1940
*Andrei A. Lobanov Rostovsky, Russia & Europe, 1825-1878, 1954
*A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1954
*Edward S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, 1961 
*Stephen A. Fischer Galati, Man, State, and Society in East European History, 1970
*Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans, 1983
*Alan Palmer, Twilight of the Habsburgs: The Life and Times of  Emperor Francis Joseph, 1994
*Paul W. Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848, 1994
*Irina Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: regionalism, nation building and ethnic struggle, 1918-1930, 1995
*Winfried Baumgart, The Crimean War 1853-1856,  1999
I have added some works that I happen to have at hand to this list - mostly  from the 1990s.  In  terms of 19th century diplomatic history,  at  least, "Danubian Principalities" seems to be the preferred term. I am not familiar with Romanian historiography,  so I can't really comment  on that. john k 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoubtedly, John: “In  terms of 19th century diplomatic history,  at  least, "Danubian Principalities" seems to be the preferred term.” Now, please take this example: Central Powers is a geo-political surname, which, for a certain time span around the WWI, was a very preferred term. Now, please imagine that somebody would try to systematically replace every mention of “German Empire” or “Austria-Hungary” with “Central Power”. I think, it would  be fairly absurd. This was actually the story with Danubian vs. Romanian. I certainly have nothing against Danubian, as far as it is properly used.  
--Vintila Barbu 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "Central Powers"  is a term that specifically refers to an alliance during a particular war.  As a general term for use before 1914, it is clearly incorrect.  "The German powers"  would be a better general term for 1871-1914. I'm not sure this is clearly the same case as "Danubian Principalities."  What exactly is the specific context in which "Danubian Principalities" is correct or incorrect?  I would say that  "Romania" ought to be used after December 1861, certainly.  Before that, I'm not sure when "Danubian Principalities" is meant to become inaccurate.  Their political status as somewhat autonomous principalities under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Sultan had lasted since the 16th century, without any clear breaks.  I would think it is appropriate to refer to them as "Romanian Principalities" in the context of internal developments (especially ones connected with the history of the Romanian peoples), and "Danubian Principalities" in terms of their role in broader European diplomacy, but I'm not really sure.  Transylvania, I'm fairly sure, was never a "Danubian Principality".  Was it a "Romanian Principality"?  If so, isn't that using the term  in a somewhat teleological way - i.e., assuming ahead of time the eventual union of Transylvania with the other parts of modern Romania, when the two have very different histories (and also ethnic make-ups, in that the large Magyar and German minorities of Transylvania have no mirror in Wallachia and Moldavia).  Anyway, I'm not opposed to use of "Romanian Principalities," I'd just like to be clear on what the context is in which "Danubian Principalities" is supposed to be wrong, as opposed to merely deprecated or old-fashioned sounding. The term is pretty clearly not obsolete as a general term, as  I  can find many examples of recent books on diplomatic history that use it. john k 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The oldest work using  "Romanian Principalities" on your list comes from  1948.  It'd be good if you could provide at least a few going back  before this, to demonstrate your point. john k 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pondering the right use of historical concepts 

message: *Memoirs of Prince Metternich: 1773-1835
*Thomas Gordon, History of the Greek revolution, 1832
*Thomas Curson Hansard, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates Great Britain Parliament, 1851
*Laurence Oliphant, The Russian Shores of the Black Sea, 1852 
*James Henry Skene, The Danubian Principalities, the Frontier Lands of the Christian and the Turk, 1853
*The Gentleman's Magazine, 1856
*Thomas Forester, The Danube and the Black Sea: memoir on their junction a railway between Tchernavoda and a free port at Kustendjie, 1857
*Robert Gordon Latham, The Nationalities of Europe, 1863
*Henry Montague Hozier, The Russo Turkish war: including an account of the rise and decline of the Ottoman power, 1877
*Henry de Worms Pirbright, The Austro Hungarian Empire: A political sketch of men & events since 1866, 1877
*Moses Montefiore, Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore, Louis Loewe, Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore, 1890
*Augustus Loftus, The Diplomatic Reminiscences of Lord Augustus Loftus ... 1862-1879, 1894
*Elizabeth Stone, Turkey Old and New: historical, geographical and statistical, 1880 
*Wilhelm Müller, Political History of Recent Times, 1816-1875: With Special Reference to Germany, 1882
*Henry Reeve, St. Petersburg and London in the Years 1852-1864: Reminiscences of Count Charles Frederick, 1887
*Nugent Robinson, A History of the World with All Its Great Sensations, 1887 
*Henry Neville Hutchinson, Marriage Customs in Many Lands, 1897 
*Charles Alan Fyffe, A History of Modern Europe, 1792-1878, 1896
*Henry Morse Stephens, Syllabus of a Course of Eighty seven Lectures on Modern European History, 1899 
*Adolphus William Ward, George Walter Prothero, Stanley Mordaunt Leathes, Ernest Alfred Benians, The Cambridge Modern History, 1902
*Cedomilj Mijatovic, James David Bourchier, Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, A Short History of Russia and the Balkan States, 1914 
*Ernest Mason Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 1917
*Thad Weed Riker, The Making of Roumania: A Study of an International Problem, 1856-1866, 1931 
*Vernon John Puryear, International Economics and Diplomacy in the Near East: A Study of British Commercial Policy in the Years 1834-1853, 1935
*Emil Lengyel, The Danube, 1939
*Alyce Edythe Mange, The Near Eastern Policy of the Emperor Napoleon III, 1940
*Andrei A. Lobanov Rostovsky, Russia & Europe, 1825-1878, 1954
*A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1954
*Edward S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, 1961 
*Stephen A. Fischer Galati, Man, State, and Society in East European History, 1970
*Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans, 1983
*Alan Palmer, Twilight of the Habsburgs: The Life and Times of  Emperor Francis Joseph, 1994
*Paul W. Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848, 1994
*Irina Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: regionalism, nation building and ethnic struggle, 1918-1930, 1995
*Winfried Baumgart, The Crimean War 1853-1856,  1999
I have added some works that I happen to have at hand to this list - mostly  from the 1990s.  In  terms of 19th century diplomatic history,  at  least, "Danubian Principalities" seems to be the preferred term. I am not familiar with Romanian historiography,  so I can't really comment  on that. john k 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoubtedly, John: “In  terms of 19th century diplomatic history,  at  least, "Danubian Principalities" seems to be the preferred term.” Now, please take this example: Central Powers is a geo-political surname, which, for a certain time span around the WWI, was a very preferred term. Now, please imagine that somebody would try to systematically replace every mention of “German Empire” or “Austria-Hungary” with “Central Power”. I think, it would  be fairly absurd. This was actually the story with Danubian vs. Romanian. I certainly have nothing against Danubian, as far as it is properly used.  
--Vintila Barbu 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "Central Powers"  is a term that specifically refers to an alliance during a particular war.  As a general term for use before 1914, it is clearly incorrect.  "The German powers"  would be a better general term for 1871-1914. I'm not sure this is clearly the same case as "Danubian Principalities."  What exactly is the specific context in which "Danubian Principalities" is correct or incorrect?  I would say that  "Romania" ought to be used after December 1861, certainly.  Before that, I'm not sure when "Danubian Principalities" is meant to become inaccurate.  Their political status as somewhat autonomous principalities under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Sultan had lasted since the 16th century, without any clear breaks.  I would think it is appropriate to refer to them as "Romanian Principalities" in the context of internal developments (especially ones connected with the history of the Romanian peoples), and "Danubian Principalities" in terms of their role in broader European diplomacy, but I'm not really sure.  Transylvania, I'm fairly sure, was never a "Danubian Principality".  Was it a "Romanian Principality"?  If so, isn't that using the term  in a somewhat teleological way - i.e., assuming ahead of time the eventual union of Transylvania with the other parts of modern Romania, when the two have very different histories (and also ethnic make-ups, in that the large Magyar and German minorities of Transylvania have no mirror in Wallachia and Moldavia).  Anyway, I'm not opposed to use of "Romanian Principalities," I'd just like to be clear on what the context is in which "Danubian Principalities" is supposed to be wrong, as opposed to merely deprecated or old-fashioned sounding. The term is pretty clearly not obsolete as a general term, as  I  can find many examples of recent books on diplomatic history that use it. john k 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological list of works mentioning “Danubian Principalities”

message: *Henry Philip Bernard Baerlein, Romanian Oasis: A Further Anthology on Romania and Her People – 1948
*Dagmar Horna, Lily Feiler, Current Research on Central and Eastern Europe – 1956
*Stephen A. Fischer Galaţi, Romania – 1957
*Virgiliu Stoicoiu,  Legal Sources and Bibliography of Romania  – 1964
*Ian Murray Matley, Romania: a Profile – 1970
*Emil Condurachi, Constantin Daicoviciu, Romania – 1971
*Constantin C. Giurescu, The Making of the Romanian People and Language – 1972
*Horia C. Matei, Constantin C. Giurescu, Chronological History of Romania – 1972
*Andrei Oţetea, Eugenia Farcaş, The History of the Romanian People – 1970
*Valeriu Stan, Nicolae Bălcescu, 1819-1852 – 1977
*George F. Jewsbury, Russian Annexation of Bessarabia, 1774-1828: a study ofimperial expansion – 1976
*Francis William Carter, Historical Geography of the Balkans – 1977
*Gerald J. Bobango, The Emergence of the Romanian National State – 1979
*Béla Kálmán Király, Gunther Erich Rothenberg, War and Society in East Central Europe – 1979
*Tahsin Gemil, Ţările Române în contextul politic internaţional, 1621-1672  – 1979
*Pompiliu Teodor, Enlightenment and Romanian Society – 1980
*Al. Gh. Savu, The Army and the Romanian Society – 1980
*Deletant, DJ, Some Aspects of the Byzantine Tradition in the Romanian Principalities in The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 59, No.1, p. 1 14,  - 1981
*Stephen A. Fischer Galaţi, Constantin C. Giurescu, Radu R. N. Florescu, George R. Ursul, Romania Between East and West: Historical Essays in Memory of Constantin C. Giurescu  – 1982
*John R. Lampe, Marvin R. Jackson, Balkan Economic History, 1550-1950: From Imperial Borderlands to Developing Nations – 1982
*Ion Ardeleanu, Românii la 1859: Unirea Principatelor Române în conştiinţa europeană – 1984
*Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans – 1983
*Ştefan Pascu,  Făurirea statului naţional unitar român  – 1983
*Nicolae Gogoneaţă, A Concise History of Romanian Philosophy  – 1983
*Gheorghe T. Zaharia, Leonard Constantin, Florian Ionescu,  Iaşi, a City of Great Destinies – 1986
*John R. Lampe, Imperial Borderlands or Capitalist Periphery. Redefining Balkan Backwardness, in Daniel Chirot (ed.), The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe: Economics and Politics from the Middle Ages Until the Early Twentieth Century - 1991
*Aleksander Gella, Development of Class Structure in Eastern Europe: Poland and Her Southern Neighbors – 1989
*Jean W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 – 1994
*Irina Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: regionalism, nation building and ethnic struggle, 1918 1930 - 1995
*Scott L. Malcolmson, Empire's Edge: Travels in South Eastern Europe, Turkey and Central Asia – 1995
*Keith Hitchins, The Romanians, 1774-1866 – 1996
*Tibor Iván Berend, Decades of Crisis: Central and Eastern Europe before World War II – 2001
*Ernie Schoffham, Luminiţa Machedon, Romanian Modernism: Architecture Bucharest – 1999
*Adrian Hastings, A World History of Christianity – 2000
*Joel Beinin, Workers and Peasants in the Modern Middle East – 2001
*Lucian Boia, James Christian Brown, Romania: borderland of Europe – 2001
*James Christian Brown, Lucian Boia, History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness – 2001
*István Deák,  Essays on Hitler's Europe – 2001
*Will Guy, Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe – 2001
*Peter N. Stearns, William Leonard Langer, The Encyclopedia of World History: ancient, medieval, and modern, chronologically arranged – 2001
*Kemal H Karpat, Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays - 2002
*Hilary L. (Edt) Rubinstein, William D Rubinstein, Dan Cohn Sherbok, Abraham J. Edelheit, The Jews in the Modern World: A History Since 1750 – 2002
*Brett Neilson, Free Trade in the Bermuda Triangle And Other Tales of Counterglobalization – 2003
*Tibor Iván Berend, Ivan Berend, History Derailed: Central and Eastern Europe in the Long Nineteenth Century – 2003
*Demetres Tziovas, Greece and the Balkans: Identities, Perceptions and Cultural Encounters Since the Enlightenment - 2003
*John. Borneman, Death of the Father: An Anthropology of the End in Political Authority – 2004
*Valentina Glajar, The German Legacy in East Central Europe as Recorded in Recent German Language Literature – 2004
*Heike Raphael Hernandez, Raphael Hernand, Blackening Europe: The African American Presence  – 2004
*Research Division Federal Research Division, Kessinger Publishing, Romania: a Country Study -2004
*Melanie Tatur, The Making of Regions in Post socialist Europe: the impact of culture, economic structure – 2004
*Marija N. Todorova,  Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory  – 2004
*Viorel Achim, The Roma in Romanian History – 2005
*István Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre Ottoman Balkans, 1185 1365 – 2005
*Michael S. Radu, Dilemmas of Democracy and Dictatorship: Place, Time, and Ideology in Global Perspective – 2006
*Cowles Encyclopedia of Nations - 1968
*Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science – 1979
*Collier's Encyclopedia, with Bibliography and Index – 1986
*Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature – 1995
*The new encyclopaedia Britannica  – 1997
*The Encyclopedia Americana– 1999
*Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science – 2003
Please also note that the term "Romanian Principalities" is as old as the term "Danubian principalities". A very long list with works mentioning "Romanian Principalities" as early as 1818 can be created.
--Vintila Barbu 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The oldest work using  "Romanian Principalities" on your list comes from  1948.  It'd be good if you could provide at least a few going back  before this, to demonstrate your point. john k 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological list of works mentioning “Romanian Principalities”

message: It is not corect to assign a flag and a coat of arms that 1) Doesn't represent the whole period; 2) Belongs to ROMANIA (as stated in 1866 Constitution) not the Danubian principalities. --Alex:Dan 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one argued, I shall change Flag and CoA with a more neutral representation.--Alex:Dan 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say to just drop the infobox altogether. It is a syntagm, not a country (though, in its last stage, this article serves to cover the period of ambiguity between the Peace of Paris and the Principality of Romania). Dahn 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it even more dificult because the infobox actualy deals with the post-1859 period, while the Danubian Principalities was a therm from the XVIIIth century. Infobox out.--Alex:Dan 15:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put here the infobox, for any relevant info to be reused. The Danubian principalities were not a country, but a concept. We had Wallachia(1310 - 1859), Moldavia (1359 - 1859), United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (1859 - 1861), United Principalities of Romania (1862 - 1866), Romania (1866 - present, except RPR and RSR).--Alex:Dan (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag and CoA

message: This image is clearly incorrect. It shows the Danubian Principalities and Transylvania, which was clearly not one of them. I understand that Transylvania was transferred to Romania in 1920, but this image is still historically inaccurate.
Awesomeness999 (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Danubian Principalities in the mid 19th century" image