Vasile Lupu- a man of changings

Vasile Lupu, like many other less known romanian old princes, was an interesting personality, with very large ambitions. With little more luck, he could became a much important figure of romanian history.
His origins are a bit controversial: romanians claim he was aromanian from Albania, others call simply albanian. I don't know his original name.
He had early ambitions of "unifications" of the three principates which will form latter the romanian state: Moldavia, Muntenia and Transylvania. In militar terms, he was not such talented as Michael the Brave, but he surpassed michael in diplomatic intrigues and diplomacy.
He was a cultural pioneer of romanians, introducing prints in romanian language. his influence contributed to establishing of important religious personalities, including in Transylvania, working in this way for romanian cause.

As it was highlighted repeatedly, the notions of "nationality" and "ethnicity" were "invented" at the time of the French Revolution of 1789-1799. Better said, these notions became important only from the XIXth Century on, particularly starting with the revolutions that swept Europe in the mid-XIXth Century.

Therefore, one cannot speak of "unification" of the three "Rumanian" Principates, as it is nonsense. All the rulers of those times tended to increase the land they ruled on, irrespective of the language the inhabitants spoke. This is valid not only for Vasile Lupu, but Michael The Brave (Mihai Viteazuul) too, irrespective of what the XXth History Rumanian historiography up to today tries to push.

What really mattered back then was religion, again irrespective of the faithfuls' mother tongues. Therefore, there was no "Rumanian cause" as such up the so-called 'Pasoptist movement' in Moldavia and Wallachia (not including Transylvania!) of 1848/49, but rather the Orthodox cause, if any.


Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 22, 2011 10:30 am

You are right that (if we forget the ancient Greeks and Romans) "the notions of "nationality" and "ethnicity" were "invented" at the time of the French Revolution of 1789-1799." I am adding here that only years after this idea occurred in France, the German nationalism was born, much more self-centered than in France.

I am reminding to anybody willing to listen that 1848/1849 was 50 years after the nationalist ideas were born in France, and many of the young Romanian intellectuals from the 1848 generation travelled and learned in France. These young Romanians already had a nationalist concept in their minds, so I do not agree with "there was no "Rumanian cause" as such up the so-called 'Pasoptist movement' in Moldavia and Wallachia (not including Transylvania!) of 1848/49, but rather the Orthodox cause, if any." By the way, what should be understood by "...if any" ?

There were only 10 years from the end of the 1848 movement to the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia. The intellectuals of the two countries wanted unification because they were very well aware that they are the same nation. That idea was already in place in 1848.
Just in the same time, the Hungarian movement to get free from the Habsburg dynasty was based on nationalism (and there is nothing wrong in that). By 1848, Europe already embraced nationalism - and Moldavia and Wallachia were part of Europe.

This post has been edited by Florin on April 22, 2011 01:22 pm

Here are a few interesting links:
http://www.roconsulboston.com/Pages/InfoPa...ame/Origin.html

http://www.roconsulboston.com/Pages/InfoPa...omaniaName.html

Radu

As it was highlighted repeatedly, the notions of "nationality" and "ethnicity" were "invented" at the time of the French Revolution of 1789-1799. Better said, these notions became important only from the XIXth Century on, particularly starting with the revolutions that swept Europe in the mid-XIXth Century.

Therefore, one cannot speak of "unification" of the three "Rumanian" Principates, as it is nonsense. All the rulers of those times tended to increase the land they ruled on, irrespective of the language the inhabitants spoke. This is valid not only for Vasile Lupu, but Michael The Brave (Mihai Viteazuul) too, irrespective of what the XXth History Rumanian historiography up to today tries to push.

What really mattered back then was religion, again irrespective of the faithfuls' mother tongues. Therefore, there was no "Rumanian cause" as such up the so-called 'Pasoptist movement' in Moldavia and Wallachia (not including Transylvania!) of 1848/49, but rather the Orthodox cause, if any.


Gen. Dénes

And I, again and again, will mention that this is a gross (over)simplification, originated in the lack of knowledge, but more or less accidentally fitting a revisionist agenda.

And I will, again (and again) recommend Keith Hitchins - Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică la romanii din Transilvania, 1700-1868. And perhaps some more humility before emitting final value judgments in matters in which we are, at the best, self-educated hobbyists/amateurs.

You can see something about K. Hitchins (in Rom.) here: http://www.humanitas.ro/keith-hitchins, http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-presa_regional...tru-romania.htm

This post has been edited by Agarici on April 22, 2011 04:02 pm

Valium did not speak of the unification of the three Romanian Principalities but of the three principalities which will later form the Romanian state. I don't see anything outrageous about that statement.

This is a history forum. Ideas are presented and discussed, hopefully without emotions and without labelling others.
Please present your ideas and they shall be taken into consideration.
What credentials are needed to elevate anyone above the position of "self-eduated [sic] hobbyist/amateur". Please start with your own credentials.
Radu

This is a history forum. Ideas are presented and discussed, hopefully without emotions and without labelling others.
Please present your ideas and they shall be taken into consideration.
What credentials are needed to elevate anyone above the position of "self-eduated [sic] hobbyist/amateur". Please start with your own credentials.
Radu

I have none, and that's exactlly what I said before.

That's why I recommended a professional historian, who in plus dedicated a lifetime to that particular matter. But I'm affraid that for you it could be more confortable to search sources which fits you aleady existing view on the internet. And I can bet that you will always find at least a few, so this could go on and on forever. For me it will make sense to continue this conversation after you will have read/browsed at least one book in that field, in printed format or not, with referentials at least equal to that of Mr. Hitchins.

PS: I edited the typo in my original post, thanks for pointing it out.

OFF-TOPIC: Happy Easter to everyone!

This post has been edited by Agarici on April 22, 2011 04:09 pm

This is a history forum. Ideas are presented and discussed, hopefully without emotions and without labelling others.
Please present your ideas and they shall be taken into consideration.
What credentials are needed to elevate anyone above the position of "self-eduated [sic] hobbyist/amateur". Please start with your own credentials.
Radu

I have none, and that's exactlly what I said before.

That's why I recommended a professional historian, who in plus dedicated a lifetime to that particular matter. But I'm affraid that for you it could be more confortable to search in on the internet sources which fits you aleady existing view. And I can bet that you will always find at least a few, so this could go on and on forever. For me it will make sense to continue this conversation after you will have read/browsed at least a book in that field, with referentials at least equal to that of Mr. Hitchins.

PS: I edited the typo in my original post, thanks for pointing it out.

Agarici,
As I said, this is a forum where we discuss things.

You mentioned one book many times. Some of us do not have it, but please do not assume that if we did not read one book, we did not read a hundred others.
Please post here the paragraphs with the points you are trying to put across. If you do not want to type the the entire paragraphs, please give us a summary of the main points.

Then, we may be able to "listen" to what you are trying to say and even discuss it.

Radu

As it was highlighted repeatedly, the notions of "nationality" and "ethnicity" were "invented" at the time of the French Revolution of 1789-1799. Better said, these notions became important only from the XIXth Century on, particularly starting with the revolutions that swept Europe in the mid-XIXth Century.

Therefore, one cannot speak of "unification" of the three "Rumanian" Principates, as it is nonsense. Gen. Dénes

Hungarian transylvanian nobility acused Horea, the leader of moţi people uprising from 1784, that he wanted to create a new Dacian Empire, consisting of all three provinces inhabited by romanians: Transylvania, Muntenia and Moldova.

The acusation was not founded on facts, it was invented by hungarian transylvanian nobility in order to make sure his death penalty by austrians (Transylvania was ruled by Austria at that time).

So, idea of nationality and union of romanian provinces was not invented in XIXth century or by the french revolution from 1789. It is atested at least by this hungarian afirmation during 1784 Horea's uprising and was well BEFORE french revolution. A letter from 13 november 1784, written by the administrators of Catholic Bishopric (Episcopia Catolică) said that the romanians atacked the local "şpan" saying that they wanted "să stârpească întreg neamul unguresc" (because the majority of nobility in Transylvania was hungarian, very soon after the uprising started, the programe changed from a social one to a national [or at least ethnic] one).

Actually, the programe of the moţi uprising was well advanced as ideas, at least comparable to the french revolution one. Giving the fact that the programe came from the part of a uneducated romanian peasant (in reality it seems that Horea spoke at least german, hungarian and latin, excepting his mother language, romanian), it is remarcable. Here is the programe of Horea's uprising, 1784:

1. Ca nobilul comitat dimpreună cu toţi posesorii şi cu toată seminţia lor să pună jurământul sub cruce!
2. Nobilime (nemeşime) să nu mai fie, ci fiecare nobil, dacă va putea să capete vreo slujbă împărătească, să trăiască din aceea.
3. Stăpânii nobili să părăsească odată pentru totdeauna moşiile nobilitare.
4. Că dânşii (nobilii) încă să plătească dările întocmai ca poporul contribuabil plebeu.
5. Pământurile nemeşeşti să se împărţească între poporul plebeu, în înţelesul poruncii ce o va da Maiestatea Sa Împăratul.

So, short version of the english translation would be: no more nobility, all nobles to aply to get a job and live from salary (leveling the social organisation of the society) and agrarian reform (the lands of the nobles to be given to the commoners). Except point one from the french 1789 programme (5 years AFTER Horea's uprising), which is generally common for both events, Horea's programe is far more advanced as he claims agrarian reform, which the french don't.

The french Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789:

1. Men are born free and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only on public utility.

2. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The sources of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no body, no individual can exercise authority that does not proceed from it in plain terms.

4. Liberty consists in the power to do anything that does not injure others; accordingly, the exercise of the rights of each man has no limits except those that secure the enjoyment of these same rights to the other members of society. These limits can be determined only by law.

5. The law has only the rights to forbid such actions as are injurious to society. Nothing can be forbidden that is not interdicted by the law, and no one can be constrained to do that which it does not order.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part personally, or by their representatives, and its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, art equally eligible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacities, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.

7. No man can be accused, arrested, or detained, except in the cases determined by the law and according to the forms it has prescribed. Those who procure, expedite, execute, or cause arbitrary orders to be executed, ought to be punished: but every citizen summoned were seized in virtue of the law ought to render instant obedience; he makes himself guilty by resistance.

8. The law ought only to establish penalties that are strict and obviously necessary, and no one can be punished except in virtue of a law established and promulgated prior to the offense and legally applied.

9. Every man being presumed innocent until he has been pronounced guilty, if it is thought indispensable to arrest him, all severity that may not be necessary to secure his person ought to be strictly suppressed by law.

10. No one should be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not upset the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man; every citizen can then freely speak, write, and print, subject to responsibility for the abuse of this freedom in the cases is determined by law.

12. The guarantee of the rights of man and citizen requires a public force; this force then is instituted for the advantage of all and not for the personal benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.

13. A general tax is indispensable for the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of administration; it ought to be equally apportioned among all citizens according to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to ascertain, by themselves or by their representatives, the necessity of the public tax, to consent to it freely, to follow the employment of it, and to determine the quota, the assessment, the collection, and the duration of it.

15. Society has the right to call for an account of his administration by every public agent.

16. Any society in which the guarantee of the rights is not secured, or the separation of powers not determined, has no constitution at all.

17. Property being a sacred to and inviolable right, no one can be deprived of it, unless illegally established public necessity evidently demands it, under the condition of a just and prior indemnity.

Agarici, I am, for a long time, acquinted with Keith Hitchins' works. I have his book, published by Calendon Press in Oxford, titled 'Rumania, 1866-1947' [notice the spelling], on my shelves since 1994, the year it was printed, and consulted it often.

Let me quote from this book:
"Inspired by the modern idea of ethnic nation, they (the fourty-eighters) also contemplated the formation of a greater Rumaniathat would include the Rumanians of the Habsburg and Russian Empires, and to this end they promoted contacts with Rumanian intellectuals outside the principalities, especially in Transylvania." [underline mine]. (Page 5)
This quote also demonstrates that the (modern) ideas of ethnicity and nationhood (coming from France) were embraced by Rumanian intellectuals in early to mid-XIXth Century.

In the earlier pages, the author does not talk about any national goals, or similar, but the connection to the Orthodox church and countries where this religion - just like in the Principalities - was predominant, as a tool to escape Ottoman rule.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 22, 2011 04:36 pm

21inf, I appreciate your contribution to this forum.
However, your last one, detailing the rebel Horea's (unrealistic) agenda, does not speak of any national ideas at all. It does talk about the social class struggle and the longing to have land, but not about some sort of 'ethnic union'. It could not be, because the peasants he lead were not all Rumanian speakers, but other language speakers, too. As I said, it was not the ethnicity, but the religion (and, in this case, the social status) that actually counted back then.

Gen. Dénes

Denes, why do you apreciate as unrealistic the programe of Horea's uprising?

On the other hand, the vast majority of Horea's peasants actually were romanians. This of course doesnt exclude an unspecified number of peasants of other ethnicity, which doesnt make any diference. I wanted only to underline that the supositions that national spirit (not only romanian) raised only in XIXth century, is not so valid, as people mind went into this direction well before XIXth century. I also maybe detailed a little longer the subject above, as I wanted to make a small "history" of how the diferent ethnicities confronted in Transylvania in XVIIIth century.

Sorry if off-topic.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on April 22, 2011 05:26 pm

Not off-topic, but the reunification of the three Romanians provinces was part of one ambitious program made by Ecaterina the Great, Russias Tsarine. This reunification will be under the name of Dacia, and of course, under Russian protectorate.

Actually during Horea's uprising there was a 4th leader of the romanian peasants, named Mihai Poperski or Mihai Popescu, who vanished early in the uprising. He told that he was from acrosd Carpathians and sometimes that he was a russian officer. A also found a hungarian source pointing that a force of 3.000 moldavians tried to help the romanian rebel peasants fro
Transylvania, but were defeated at the austrian border. I dont know if this is true, as this source is not confirmed by other writings, might be a propaganda of hungarian nobility of the time. The same propaganda was "Horea rex Daciae", which is now used by romanians, even if it was not true, but an invented slogan.