Vasile Lupu- a man of changings

I agree it was over rated as importance in romanian historiography- it is something natural in every national historiography. But to deny any older national conscience is also an extremist point of view, and serve anything else than true sake. It is sure both Michael the Brave and Vasile Lupu were power thirsty, but they used for this the romanian nationa ideea, and we don't know how much they realy believed these ideeas. It was nothing about any orthodox state they aimed, but sources refere to romanian inhabited lands

Denial is a natural (first) reaction when one hears something totally new that is opposite to what he/she was taught by then, all along. Others (also members in this forum) go even further, and readily jump to accusation of extremism, revisionism, bias, etc., and focus on personal attacks, instead of weighing the merit of the original sentence.

The idea of "unification" (or even better "reunification") of the "three Rumanian lands" si deeply entrenched in the recent Rumanian historiography. Therefore, it is hard to convince people even to consider the idea that e.g., Vasile Lupu, or Michael the Brave, did not (could not) consider this "unification", because the idea of nationhood or ethnic nation simply did not exist back then. Same goes for Hungary, or Bulgaria, etc. - before anyone would start labelling me extremist, biased, etc.

As stated, the first time this whole current concept of ethnic nation (we are wrongly using in hindsight for events far back in history) was seriously considered was in the late XVIIIth/early XIXth Century, and started in ernest during the 1848/1849 Revolution that swept across most of Europe.

See the works of Lucian Boia, for example. He is also facing the same reaction from some 'old-school' fellow historians for his myth-busting ideas.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 26, 2011 08:27 pm

A custom union (uniune vamală) existed between Moldavia and Muntenia since 1842. How many people know today that at the 3/15 May 1848, at the Marea Adunare Naţională de la Blaj, between other romanian transilvanian, moldavian and wallachian revolutionaries, was Alexandru Ioan Cuza in person? Isn't it an "odd" coincidence that he will be, only 10 years after 1848/1849 revolution in Transylvania, the first ruler of what will be Principatele Unite, the precursor of Romania (Vechiul Regat)? If the 1848 generation had the idea of union, the idea must be older, at least 1 or 2 generations, this will make 25 or 50 years earlier, at least.

Denial is a natural (first) reaction when one hears something totally new that is opposite to what he/she was taught by then, all along. Others (also members in this forum) go even further, and readily jump to accusation of extremism, revisionism, bias, etc., and focus on personal attacks, instead of weighing the merit of the original sentence.

The idea of "unification" (or even better "reunification") of the "three Rumanian lands" si deeply entrenched in the recent Rumanian historiography. Therefore, it is hard to convince people even to consider the idea that e.g., Vasile Lupu, or Michael the Brave, did not (could not) consider this "unification", because the idea of nationhood or ethnicity simply did not exist back then. Same goes for Hungary, or Bulgaria, etc. - before anyone would start labelling me extremist, biased, etc.

As stated, the first time this whole current concept of ethnic nation/ethicity (we are using in hindsight to events far back in history) was seriously considered was in the late XVIIIth/early XIXth Century, and started in ernest during the 1848/1849 Revolution that swept across most of Europe.

See the works of Lucian Boia, for example. He is also facing the same reaction from some 'old-school' fellow historians for his myth-busting ideas.

Gen. Dénes

Now you deny the notion of ethnicity didn't exist before? Absolutely wrong! I could understand hungarian point of view, I could understand romanian overrated point of view(in the balkans, including Hungary, romanian historiography is the less extremist). I disagree with both.
Romanians were absolutely conscious about their ethnicity long before 19 century, because is logical so, and there are indirect sources, including ones from Vasile Lupu.

This post has been edited by Valium on April 26, 2011 05:55 pm

Simply did not exist or was not seriously considered? Which is which.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on April 26, 2011 07:42 pm

I have to refine what I wrote to correct the mishap Imp. correctly pointed out: the first notion is valid, namely "the idea of nationhood or ethnicity [better say, by quoting Hitchins "the modern idea of ethnic nation"] simply did not exist back then... the first time this whole current concept of ethnic nation (we are wrongly using in hindsight for events far back in history) was born in the late XVIIIth/early XIXth Century, and started to be used in ernest during the 1848/1849 Revolution that swept across most of Europe".
I hope I made my point clearer.

Please, by all means, look for the definition and origins of '(ethnic) nation' in a serious English reference souce and share your findings here (or in a separate thread), to everyone's benefit.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 26, 2011 08:28 pm