Talk:Danubian Principalities

Debate over "Danubian" vs. "Romanian" Principalities

In older works (19th-20th century), by "Danubian principalies" it meant Wallachia, Moldavia (and Romania), Bulgaria and Serbia. Better would be to create an article Romanian principalities, to clarify some very probable future disambiguations... greier 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because:

Yes? Dahn 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You were wondering why is it necessary to have that footnote, right? I introduced it, because if I wouldn`t of done it, than you would of immediatelly reverted, and say that.... (see below your answer dater from June 18th.) Greier 13:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding your post, but I assume you mean I was wondering "why have a footnote". My full point was "why have the information at all" - if used at all, the "Romanian principalities" part is never properly used in English (except perhaps for stylistic variation or self-evident sentences). Dahn 13:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

They are used. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Greier 13:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. They are used by Romanians, whose grasp on English is as relevant as yours. Dahn 13:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic, both in arguments, and in insults... Greier 13:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not at all. When the Romanian Parliament site will stop translating "Conservator" as "Conservator" (!) into "English", when the Romanian Presidency will clean up the history part of its site of all Protochronistic info, when more texts on various official pages move beyond the basic level of literacy, when the translators of relevant information in Romanian will routinely bother to check if the terms they "introduce" into English don't already have an established form, then and only then will I trust random Romanian sources. Then they shall all be men, my son. As for your grasp of English: you still owe us all some explanations about plagiarism, if I remember correctly. Dahn 13:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You persoanlly, won`t get s#it from me. You`re a vain, egocentric person. As for your concern of protochronism, a subject by far not worthy off all this attention, I know that it`s very trendy to play the revisionist type... it put`s you in the spotlight. The third result, a book from 1818, from the first google search for the term "Romanian Principalities". Greier 13:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making you cry. I didn't mean it. Here, have a hankie. Dahn 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You hold on to that hankie, and in five minutes you can come and wipe me, alright? Greier 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There, there. Let's spoon. Dahn 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it didn't. This is common reference in English, and there is no professional use of "Romanian principalities" - it was only used by Ceauşescu. Dahn 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, ok... starting again with Ceaucescu?(everything has to have a begining:in this case it was during Ceausescu...should that mean that it has to be dismissed from the start?)... anyway, it was just an opinion... (e.g. The Principalities of the Danube) greier 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

...The three states which are usually spoken of as the Danubian Principalities are Moldavia, Wallachia, and Servia. The first two were combined under one government in 1861, with the common name of Roumania...

I have to disagree with you Dahn. 'Romanian principalities' is a coined historiographical term outside Romanian language or Romanian Communist historiography. Let's proceed with examples:

Adam Neale - The Romanian Principalities, 1818 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1818adamneal.html

Radu R. Florescu - The Struggle Against Russia in the Romanian Principalities, 1997 http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Against-Russia-Romanian-Principalities/dp/9739809138

Angela Jianu - Women, Family and Society in the Romanian Principalities, c. 1750-1850, PhD, 2002? http://www.ssees.ac.uk/dress.htm

And the list can continue for a long while (especially if I start to include texts where 'Romanian principalities' does not occur in title but in the body). Most authors will be Romanian, because accidentally, Romanian historians write most materials on Romanian history.

As a parenthesis if you have in original non-Romanian encyclopedic materials like Imanuel Geiss or other alike you may check them. In the Romanian translation is 'Principatele Romane' but I don't know if the translator chose that instead of 'Dunarene' or if he translated them accordingly. Daizus 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

More structured

"More structured" is POV unless backed by sources. Besides, the phrase is awkward: "more structured than previous the provisional ones previously enforced".

The comparison is between one Russian administration and another. It is meant to explain a particular aspect of this one over another (clue: no other resulted in a constitution etc.). It simply puts things in perspective. I believe the original text was fine and self-explanatory, and that I had to change it into a form which, out of my carelessness, proved to be awkward, simply because you misinterpreted it. Sourcing a text is fine (although this was inted as a brief overview of other articles which can and should expand text more - hence, references are more necessary there than here); it is fine for all cases, except that I find it hard to believe that someone has not yet heard of the fact theat the union was not internationally recognized beyond Cuza's reign until a change in European status (namely, until the the Austrian-Prussian War)! Dahn 21:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't have to change it at all, you could've left it out. And the successive changes seem to nake it worse: what does it mean "more rationalized" when applied to a military administration?

What should I call it, friend, sice you dissmissed the first one? It means that, from a row of administrations, this was the most established and far-reaching? I know I could have left it out, I wonder if I should have left it out. Get my point? Dahn 13:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't call it anything, that's the point. When the alternatives are bare fact versus fact plus opinion, it seems to me that choosing the bare fact is more in line with the WP philosophy. Don't you think? Dmaftei 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. This was a bare fact: it was aquick way to explain to a user what the difference between the other Russian occupations and thisun actually was. Nothing in it was meant to gratify something in particular, but, if you worry that users "may not know where Romania is", then you'd better worry that they oughta understand that twenty years of Russian domination, with a new constitutional regime (and the first one to actually be written down) differ from previous easy-come-easy-go Russian presence. It simply means to indicate context. Dahn 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen there's a ton of stuff that you find "hard to believe", but that's not the point. "Sourcing a text" is a fundamental WP policy, isn't it? That's the reason for the tags in the article. Dmaftei 13:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dmaftei. What I have said is not that I am bewildered that you call for references, but that you called for this particular one: I am willing to reference the whole text (less so the mention of population shrinking, which was likely produced by user:Greier's theories on history), I was wondering whether it is possble that this was an unfamiliar notion. To you. To me, it is like asking to reference the section "Romania is a country in Europe".

The familiarity of a notion is relative. You'd be surprised to know how many times I had a dialog like:

somebody: "Where are you from?"

me: "Romania."

somebody, with a blank stare: "Oh... Where's that?!"

The point here is that what's obvious for you is not necessarily obvious for everybody else. Dmaftei 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless. Dahn 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It looked like all your edits in the text focused on things not correponding with the preordained greatness of Romanian-related events through history. So, I had to wonder. Dahn 13:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a mistery to me how you concluded, from my fact-tagging of although internationally recognized only for the period of Cuza's rule, that all your edits in the text focused on things not correponding with the preordained greatness of Romanian-related events through history, and I'm genuinely interested in hearing from you how you got from one to the other. I do not mean to offend you, but your automatic assumption that whoever has something to say that doesn't fit your views on Romanian history must be some sort of oh-Romania-is-so-great lunatic gives your argumentation a paranoic luster. I think you'd be better off if you adopted the "inocent until proven guilty" view. Dmaftei 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at all the things you asked to be referenced. If referencing the text was called for, I concluded that specific references are particular concerns of yours. All of them indicate what I have mentioned. As for jumping to conclusions... just read again what you just posted. Dahn 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There are the fact-tags:

• ...a decrease of population by 30%. [citation needed]
• The following century the population would quadruple, and in 20th century would increase by another 50%. [citation needed]
• Although internationally recognized only for the period of Cuza's rule... [citation needed]

How exactly are the population changes and the international recognition of the de facto union connected to the "preordained greatness of Romanian-related events"?! And I have read again what I just posted; what's with "jumping to conclusions"? Dmaftei 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"that whoever has something to say that doesn't fit your views on Romanian history must be some sort of oh-Romania-is-so-great lunatic gives your argumentation a paranoic luster". Thank you for rading my mind. Dahn 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reading your mind, I'm reading what you write on discussion pages. This is the third or fourth time I'm in a discussion (argument?) with you, and every single time you ended up insinuating or stating directly that whatever I had said was due to my alleged Romania-the-greatest attitude. (You directed similar remarks towards other users, though I don't know whether you were justified or not by those users' statements.)

Now, you think you can explain how the population changes and the international recognition of the de facto union connected to the "preordained greatness of Romanian-related events"? Thanks. Dmaftei 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor mention first (I have posted this already): I cannot vouch for the decrease in numbers, which seems to be Greier's version of history, but I can vouch for the increase (mentioned by Djuvara, if I remember correctly - I will pick up the book and others when I will reference this article, although, again, I feel that references belong more on the linked pages, where people can see the detailed topics). Now, I'm going to say this: I do and reference quite a lot on wikipedia, and for the love of me I can't see why others don't just go and pick up references instead of calling for them in what is otherwise common sense information. As for accusations et al, Dmaftei: this is the second time you imply I'm insane, and I don't appreciate it much. Since you called for references for the entire text (which, to repeat myself, is rather superfluous for a summary article), I am left with to wonder why you needed citation tags for some, and not, hell, all words. That is my personal assessment, just as your personal assessment is that I am paranoid. What I know is that the mention of international recognition not being applied until Carol is not flattering and was generally obscured (especially in films by Sergiu Nicolaescu). Also, since you chose to delete a mention of specifity in Regulamentul Organic and constantly point to a version that lists it as one among other occupations, I was led to believe that you are simply dissmissing its relevancy to the region's history. Dahn 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us hope that this will put many issues to rest:

1. I do not know who put the three phrases that I tagged in the text. I tagged them not because they were Dahn's or Greier's edits, but because I thought they are specific enough to deserve the tag.
2. Things are done in different way by different people, some go and pick references, others call for references. I see no reason to get upset because of this.
3. The "call for references" was not directed to you, Dahn, apparently you took it personally, and I don't see why... If you feel inclined and have the ability to add references, do so, the article will be better. If not, maybe somebody else will do it. If not, well, then the article will remain what it is now, a story without references (albeit one that many know to be true.)
4. I understand perfectly your not appreciating somebody calling you insane. The problem is, I don't understand why you're telling me this: I have never implied or stated, and I do not think, that you are insane. In the few discussions we've had I referred to your opinions -- expressed in articles or discussion pages -- not to your person. Heck, for all I know you could be the most wonderful person on Earth, or the ultimate jerk; I don't care...
5. I don't know who is "not flattered" by the lack of international recognition until Carol. I do know that I don't have any emotion about the fact. (And I don't see what Sergiu Nicolaescu's films have to do with it.)
6. What I chose to delete was the "more structured" qualifier, I didn' touch the "while the two principalities were given the first common governing document (the Organic Statute), which confirmed a modernizing government, but was never fully implemented". You can check this for yourself: [5]. I'm sorry you misinterpreted my edit, but I don't feel responsible for that.
7. For what is worth, I don't have objections to the current formulation of the sentence in question. Dmaftei 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then. Dahn 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

an intriguing information in the footnote

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)

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)

POV

The article as it is promotes a POV namely the usage of the term 'Danubian principalities' over 'Romanian principalities'. Probably there is not possible to make a fair balance between the two terms so my suggestion is to split the article in two parts (in the same or in two different articles) corresponding to two time spans - one for 14th-late 18th century (Romanian principalities), one for late 18- mid 19th centuries (Danubian principalities). Also the links in Wikipedia article should reflect that (i.e. an article on John Hunyadi or Stephen the Great should refer to the two principalities as Romanian principalities, while an article on 1821 revolution should refer to them as Danubian principalities). Some may argue this is OR (historians prefering one term or another), but I see no other way to balance them. I welcome any other suggestions. Daizus 11:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m glad Daizus, that you’re calling attention to this crucial aspect of the article. Actually, the title “Danubian Principalities” is usurping the legitimate scientific term Romanian Principalities, the only term used in the modern historiography (be it English, Romanian, French, German or whatever) to designate the two Principalities Wallachia and Moldavia in the time before their union (1859) and the proclamation of the United Romanian Principalities, the precursor of the present Romania. Replacing both Romanian Principalities (an established historical term) and United Romanian Principalities (an official term) with “Danubian Principalities” means operating sheer original research of dubious sort. Please understand that Danubian Principalities is by no means an alternative name for Romanian Principalities. The former is merely a geo-political moniker given by the Austrian chancellery to Moldavia and Wallachia in the late 18th century, being subsequently adopted by other European chancelleries as an informal designation and being eventually abandoned after 1859. It never has been an official name nor has it been systematically used instead of “Romanian Principalities”, being always used as complementary naming, with a stylistic role. Just as “Serenissima” was a surname for the Republic of Venice or “perfide Albion” was a pamphletary sobriquet for England, “Danubian Principalities” was a surname for Wallachia and Moldavia. I don’t think therefore, that is any need to “make a fair balance between” a name and a surname, when treating them in an encyclopaedia. The designation “Romanian Principalities” is the titular name, while “Danubian Principalities” is a sobriquet.

Furthermore, there were and there is no separate use of the two names corresponding to two time spans - one for 14th-late 18th century (Romanian principalities) and one for late 18- mid 19th centuries (Danubian principalities). In English, the two terms appeared in the early 19th century, “Romanian principalities” being either a genuine English construction or a French borrowing, while “Danubian principalities” was a German borrowing. As you very well know dear Daizus, they were used in parallel up to the 1860s, as “Danubian” gradually disappeared. Modern English historiography uses exclusively the term “Romanian principalities” when Wallachia and Moldavia are referred together, whereby the name apply to the whole length of their history, from the 14th to the mid 19th century. Occasionally and only for the first half of the 19th century, the term “Danubian principalities” is complementary used.

The Romanian historiography leads back the use of the terms “Romanian Lands” and “Romanian Principalities” to the Romanian chronicler’s writings from the 17th century. From the mid 19th century, these terms are exclusively and constantly used when Wallachia and Moldavia are mentioned together. Certainly, Romanian historiography is rich in periphrastic designations of Romania, like, “Carpatho-Danubian Area”, “Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic Area”, “Lower Danube Area”, “Danubian Principalities”, “Danubian Lands”, etc.

This article should be renamed “Romanian Principalities”, mentioning in a special section any other historical or slang sobriquets. --Vintila Barbu 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct in calling "Romanian principalities" as being the only legitimate historical term in scholarly terms. After all, even the list Dahn provided in my talk page pointed to some scholarly works (while true, many of them written before WWII and quite a large part of them written in the 19th century!!, so it would may be another subsequent issue - if the term is still in fashion in the current scholarly use). On the other hand, in the current version of the article "Danubian principalities" is justified by a work written in German (and as I said somewhere else, this looks like OR - to legitimate a term in English by free translation from other languages) in 1984, hence recent. So the term is certainly used in a degree (which we don't know how large/small) in the current scholarship in various languages (while here we have to emphasize the term in English, while we may provide other alternatives in other languages). I also want to add that some recent scholarly works published in English, like those of Barbara Jelavich (invoked by Dahn to support his views) or the History of Transylvania edited by Hungarian Academy use apparently indiscriminately both terms (a more careful analysis may be performed to determine if the usage is in anyway triggered from context).

These being said I don't support the full replacement of "Danubian principalities" with "Romanian principalities". I just want the usage of terms here in Wiki to reflect as accurately as possible their usage in current scholarship published in English language, that's all. Looking at books published in the last 30 years, let's say, indeed it looks "Danubian principalities" it is not quite in fashion and its usage is bound to the conflicts between Habsburgs, Russia and Ottomans. For instance, there are Wiki articles on the events between Habsburgs, Ottoman Empire and Russia, about "Regulamentul Organic", etc. - in those articles I believe "Danubian principalities" has a justified usage. Also I believe in this page, "Danubian principalities" can be the title of a section covering that part of the history (e.g. 1774-1859/61) if not even an article of itself (if some promoters of the Danubian principalities as an apple of discord between the three neighbouring powers would support that). Daizus 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let’s try moving towards a least common denominator. My point is that “Romanian” is a main designation (legitimated by general use in Romanian, English, etc. historiography), while “Danubian” is a collateral naming. Your point is that be it collateral or not, “Danubian” is present in many historical works, so that the wiki-reader should be offered adequate information on what “Danubian Principalities” was. Fine. To sum it up, I’m pleading for the primacy of “Romanian”, while you, for the specificity of “Danubian”. Let’s put it together in an article called “Romanian Principalities”, where a section (make it as vast as you please) will be “Danubian Principalities”, concentrating on the specific historical period the term refers to. (Certainly, “Danubian Principalities” should continue to be wikilinked to the events they are relevant to)

Such an entry (Rom. Princ.) should in the first instance clear why this term has been coined by historians. There are not only ethno-linguistic, but first and foremost structural, cultural and (geo-)political reasons for this. Let me mention – in a rush – but the Byzantine heritage, which decisively shaped the two feudal countries. Pointing out at the common ground which entitled historians to treat similarly Wallachia and Moldavia would then help to differentiate the Rom. Princ. from Transylvania, where the Romanian demographic majority were not sufficient to qualify the feudal state as “Romanian”. Thus, I’d rather concentrate on what makes a difference for the two feudal states to be treated together, while leaving the details of factual history to the respective entries Wallachia and Moldavia. These are so far my suggestions. --Vintila Barbu 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Splendid. I think we have plenty of material in this page for "Danubian Principalities", what we should work on is to explain/justify/fundament the term "Romanian Principalities". Also there should be another mention which I cannot find it anywhere in Wiki at this moment - that in some moments of time (before and after Michael Brave's union, since 19th century revolutions) "Romanian Principalities" refered even to all three historical provinces - Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania, not only to the former two. Daizus 16:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Danubian Principalities" is a term with a long pedigree in English, and I have seen it used in many works of history written in English, including both primary documents from the 19th century and recent historical works. The term seems to mostly come up in the context of European diplomacy - I haven't read any works on the domestic affairs of Wallachia and Moldavia. I personally don't recall any works that use "Romanian Principalities," which strikes me as a somewhat anachronistic term, since the people weren't commonly referred to as "Romanian" until rather later, as I understand it. I'm willing to accept that "Danubian Principalities" tends to be used for the 18th/early 19th centuries, but I don't really know about this one way or another, because that's the period I've read about. It seems to me that the term "Danubian Principalities" makes sense largely to refer to the role these principalities played in European international politics, and perhaps in their relationship to the Sublime Porte, but it's hard to distinguish. As far as Transylvania, I think we should be careful. Iirc, he Transylvanian Diet recognized three nationalities - Magyars, Szeklers, and Saxons. Romanians had no representation, and Transylvania as a principality was pretty Hungarian-oriented, except for the very brief Michael the Brave period. Its history has also been tremendously different from that of the other two principalities. So I think we ought to be careful there. I don't oppose in principle a move to Romanian Principalities, but I'd like to see some more sources cited about what terms are in common usage in English. john k 16:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a relatively small list I compiled using Google (the books which do not have the "Romanian principalities" in their title, they have it in the body - you can check using Google books):

• Viorel Achim The Roma in Romanian history
• Zoltan Barany The East European Gypsies in the imperial age
• Norbert Blistyar Use of the "Porto" Markings by Austrian Posts in the Romanian Principalities
• Manuela Boatca Peripheral Solutions to Peripheral Development: The Case of Early 20th Century Romania
• Radu Carp, Governmental responsability and Parliamentary irresponsability in the Romanian Constitutional tradition
• Daniel Chirot The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe: Economics and Politics from the Middle Ages Until Early Twentith Century
• Radu Florescu, The Struggle Against Russia in the Romanian Principalities: A Problem in Anglo Turkish Diplomacy, 1821 1854
• Tahsin Gemil, The Romanian principalities in the international political context (1621 1672)
• Vlad Georgescu, Political Ideas and the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities (1750 1831)
• Keith Hitchins, The Romanians, 1774 1866'
• Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans (where she uses also Danubian principalities)
• Angela Jianu, Women, Family and Society in the Romanian Principalities, c. 1750 1850
• Bela Kalman Kiraly, Gunther Erich Rothenberg, War and Society in East Central Europe
• Kemal Karpat, Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays
• John R. Lampe, Marvin R. Jackson Balkan Economic History, 1550 1950: From Imperial Borderlands to Developing Nations
• Horia C. Matei National Report. Romania
• Michaela Mudure, Sexual Inter courses: Romanian Master Gypsy Slave
• Adam Neale, The Romanian Principalities, 1818
• G. A. Niculescu Disciplinary identity and autonomy at the beginnings of archaeology in Romania
• Nicolae Roddy, Sociocultural Appropriation of the Testament of Abraham in Eighteenth Century Romanian Lands
• Al. Gh. Savu The army and the Romanian society
• Jean W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000 1500
• Valeriu Stan, Nicolae Balcescu, 1819 1852
• Pompiliu Teodor Enlightenment and Romanian Society
• Marija N. Todorova Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory
• Istvan Vasary Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre Ottoman Balkans, 1185 1365

Also, please note that a large part of them (actually the majority) were published in the last few decades.

I want to clarify I'm not talking about their name in contemporary documents. After all, Danubian Principalities (if you want to go by contemporary testimonies) is mostly used anachronistically here on Wikipedia (the term being in usage only since the late 18th century). Let's check few examples: Judet, Phanariotes, Moldavia, Wallachia, Islam in Romania etc.. But if we go by scholarship, historiographies, even if the term "Danubian principalities" had its history in English, it seems (I can concede if I see evidence to prove the contrary) the recent scholarship rather prefers "Romanian principalities". Using the same search in Google books, it seems like the sheer majority of works mentioning Danubian Principalities are written in the 19th century and first half of 20th century. Daizus 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Daizus, that's helpful. I'll concede that "Romanian Principalities" seems better on this basis. Danubian Principalities should probably only be used in particular specific contexts, particularly for the late 18th/early 19th centuries. john k 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pondering the right use of historical concepts

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)

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)

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)

Chronological list of works mentioning “Romanian Principalities”

• 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)

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)

Flag and CoA

Danubian Principalities United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia Principatele Dunarene Principatele Unite
1859–1881
Flag (after 1866) Coat of arms (after 1866)
Motto: Romanian: Toti in unu Latin: Nihil Sine Deo (after 1866)
Anthem: Romanian: Hora Unirii (unofficial) Romanian: Marş triumfal şi primirea steagului şi a Măriei Sale Prinţul Domnitor (since 1862)
The United Principalities until 1878
Capital	Bucharest and Iaşi Bucharest (after 1862)
Common languages	Romanian
Religion	Eastern Orthodox
Government	Monarchy
Domnitor
• 5 January/24 January, 1859 - 11 February, 1866	Alexandru Ioan Cuza
• 10 May, 1866 - 15 March, 1881	Carol I
Prime minister
• Upper house	Corpul Ponderator (1864 - 1866) Senatul (1866 - 1881)
• Lower house	Adunarea Deputaţilor
Historical era	19th century
• Treaty of Paris (1856)	1856
• Personal union under Alexandru Ioan Cuza	24 January, 1859 1859
• First common Government under Prime-Minister Barbu Catargiu	22 January, 1862
• Statute expanding the Paris Convention	10 May, 1864
• overthrow of Cuza	11 February, 1866
• Charles I of Hochenzollern elected Prince	10 May, 1866
• Kingdom proclaimed	15 March, 1881 1881
Currency	leu (since 1867)
ISO 3166 code	RO
Preceded by Succeeded by Wallachia Moldavia Kingdom of Romania

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)

Since no one argued, I shall change Flag and CoA with a more neutral representation.--Alex:Dan 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"The Danubian Principalities in the mid 19th century" image

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)