Talk:Radu Paisie

message: Expanding on this: voivode is for sure the military office of the prince -- though some of the princes used it exclusively, others did not; even in Slavonic, their titles were also gospod or hospodar (sometimes used as "Voivode and Hospodar"), and when they started using Romanian, they were also domn and, as time passed, principe or prinț. The regnal function stayed the same, the titles changed randomly, as it pleased the prince -- the Phanariotes consistently called themselves Prince and Voivode, and sometimes just Prince; by the 19th century, they were all domnitori or principi, and voievode was an anachronism (as clarified for instance in the entry for "Vaivode" in Charles James's New and Enlarged Military Dictionary, Vol. II, 1810: described here as a title "formerly given to the sovereign princes of Wallachia [etc.]"). On the other hand, I can easily cite sources in Romanian applying the title of Princes to rulers from the 15th century. Consistent translations of the title as Princeps appear in Latin alongside renditions as Vaivoda, Waiwoda etc., and they probably date back to the 1500s. This suggests that it is established practice to call them princes, not just voievozi.So if we keep changing all references from prince to voivode, we turn something broad into something narrow, and risk using the title on people who never used it. What is more, I urge someone favoring that to tell me at which point in the succession of infoboxes they plan on using prince: are they also planning on calling Gheorghe Bibescu a voivode? ("voievodul gheorghe bibescu" produces three google hits, "domnitorul gheorghe bibescu" has 2,490, "principele gheorghe bibescu" has 784, "printul gheorghe bibescu" has 685)Also consider that it was the "principality of Wallachia", with common references in Romanian ro "principatul Valahiei" or "principatul Munteniei" or "principatul Țării Românești", including in Romanian sources which insist on calling the rulers voievozi. Voievodatul is rarely used as a descriptor of the country, and generally, in Romanian, it refers to smaller units that became absorbed into Wallachia, like Voievodatul lui Litovoi. Which only adds to why this determination on using voievod is really inconsistent. Dahn (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a random example of a Romanian historian focusing on proper usage, there's Florin Petrică, who argues: În general ei se numeau domni şi aşa trebuie numiţi, nu voievozi, pentru înseamnă mai puţin. Domnul nu este totuna cu domnitorul. Domnitorii apar după regulamentele organice, deci după 1830. Până atunci, toţi trebuie numiţi domni, nu domnitori ("In general they [the rulers] called themselves domni and they should be called that, rather than voievozi, because [the latter] has a lesser meaning. A domn is not the same as a domnitor. Domnitori appear after Regulamentul Organic, and so after 1830. Up to that point, they should all be called domni, not domnitori.") Domn has several translation, particularly since it has banalized itself to where it means "mister". But note that the two terms of interest on that list of variants are "Prince" and "Lord". I suggest that the former is the standard in English, as can be seen for instance when you go on google books and type "Prince or Voivode" or, conversely, "Voivode or Prince". The editorial comment in that source goes as far as to call usage of Voievod (even in Romanian, that is!) "improper". Dahn (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of voivode