Talk:House of Basarab

Untitiled

A parallel can be found with the Asen dynasty, also Vlachs of Cuman origins, who founded a dynasty and eventually were assimilated as Bulgarians.

To be of cuman origin it takes more than a nickname, especially when no chronicle says they were cumans, and when the nickname is explainable, since they had cumans in their armies. Greier

This article is a proof of the complete mess the Romanian historiography made of its own rulers. Cascading errors, lots of BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.165.39 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

members of the Basarab dynasty

I think it would be great to have a list of Basarab family members that ruled romanian states Criztu 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Current head

Dear IP,

please present sources for your addition first. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC))

Borjigin?

Borjigin does not seem to be the name of a dynasty. Any source available? 86.120.179.251 (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Family tree

Who was the father of Vladislav II and Basarab III (aka Basarab cel Batran)? Was it Dan II or Dan III? The article List of rulers of Wallachia, the article for Dan III, and the Genealogy section of the article for the House of Basarab all say it was Dan II. The articles for Vladislav II and Basarab III also say it was Dan II, although they each only refer to themself, and not their brother. The article for Dan II says Dan II was the father of Vladislav II, but it doesn't mention him being the father of Basarab III. And the printed family tree section of the article for the House of Basarab say it was Dan III. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:94C:7118:D1E4:B6B1 (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Debated cuman origin.

It appears that the status of the Basarab Familly, and it's origins, is being constantly debated by editors of the Wikipedia article, ignoring the fact that, per what is written in the article itself, the classification of the familly as Cuman is simply an alleged claim based on the name of the dynasty, rather then a confirmed and undeniable accepted fact. Most sources, according to what is written on this article, proclaim the Basarabs as being Vlach, and therefore, no consensus has been reached on the matter of origin. If that is so, shouldn't the statement that they are Cumans not be present in one of the first lines of the page? 213.233.108.207 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The preponderance of scholarly opinion is that at least the name Basarab is of Cuman or Pecheneg origin, and Basarab's father or grandfather may have even been Cuman or Pecheneg himself. However, there is no consensus. So the editor is going way beyond his remit in stating in the very first sentence of the article that "The Basarabs were a family of Cuman origin" citing only one source: Vásáry, István (2009). Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365 (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. It looks a great source to me, but on p. 153, it clearly says:

"Be that as it may, Basarab obviously bore a name of Turkic origin, and possibly so also did his father. Though it cannot be definitely proved, they were probably of Cuman extraction. But Basarab himself is expressly stated to be a Vlakh; King Charles I speaks of him as Bazarab infidelis Olacus noster." So King Charles I (of Hungary) identifies Basarab I as a Wlach.

Also, the specific text the editor quotes, I don't think actually comes from the text of the book, but from a blurb? Is it from this URL? http://assets.cambridge.org/052183/7561/frontmatter/0521837561_frontmatter.htm I think so, in which case, it should definitely not be quoted in the voice of István Vásáry himself. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

As it happens...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404992/

https://www.romania-insider.com/genome-research-provides-new-information-on-romanias-medieval-rulers

The pertinent paragraph from the Romania Insider article: "The study also provided more information on the origin of the dynasty. There has been controversy over whether the Basarab princes were of Cuman origin, one of the Turkic tribes that came to Europe from the Eurasian steppe during the middle ages. Research found a lack of Eastern Asian lineage among the subjects, which can be interpreted as a lack of evidence of Cuman origin for the dynasty, according to the researchers. However, the report indicates that at least partial Cuman origin cannot be completely ruled out."

Just for curiosity's sake, don't think it should necessarily be included in the article. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Romanian legend has made such a mess with its historical princes most of it is bulls. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:6DD4:F86F:E4D9:6DEA (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"presumably" Cuman

Inserting the qualifier "presumably" doesn't go far enough to maintain NPOV imo. Again, the preponderance of writers - at least in Western European languages - tend towards the theory that not just the name but perhaps the ancestry of Basarab was Turkic of some sort... but likewise, most of them say "perhaps" or "probably" or whatever. And there are plenty enough who disagree. There is no consensus. So we can't pretend there is... especially on the basis of ONE source, and especially in the FIRST SENTENCE of the article on the entire House/dynasty! - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Calm down. There's nothing wrong with the source. It's a WP:RS. What's the problem? Also Radvan (At Europe's Borders: Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities): The ethnical origin of the latter is subject to debate, some claiming him to be Pecheneg or Cuman. He was most likely a Romanianized Turk Beshogur (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me to calm down, I was really losing it there for a second.

Who said there was anything wrong with the source? It's been there for years before you came along. The problem is it's "one" source, and you're using it to provide a piece of contested theory that simply doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lede. His "possible" or "probable" or "presumed" ethnic ancestry is not the most notable thing about Basarab. He was referred to and regarded as a Vlach, as a leader of Vlachs, and the House is famous for its role in establishing the first Wallachian polity. This is the most significant info about the House of Basarab, not its debated ethnic origins.

Look at the article on Basarab himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarab_I_of_Wallachi

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Now, see, you're doing it again, you're finding your own sources, without bothering to look what's already in the article, what's already been published in the academic literature, and weighing it up accordingly. That is, according to what the relevant literature says, not your own personal selection or interpretation of it. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's look at just one other academic source:

Coman, Marian. (2012) Land, Lordship, and the Making of Wallachia, Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2012/I: 79-94

"Traditionally, Basarab is considered to be Seneslau’s descendant, a 13th century Wallachian local lord attested by a Hungarian charter. However, no written evidence substantiates this hypothesis. Considering the scarcity of written sources on early Wallachia, one might turn to archaeology to find a connection between Seneslau and Basarab. Unfortunately, the archaeologists, the same as the historians, took for granted the idea of the continuity between 13th century polities and the 14th century Wallachian state. Hence, their interpretations are not always to be relied on, as some of their conclusions are based on unsubstantiated premises."54

54. See, for instance, the intricate interpretation advanced by the archaeologist Nicolae Constantinescu with regard to Argeş, Basarab’s fi rst documented court. Although Nicolae Constantinescu claims a direct continuity throughout the 13th and the 14th centuries, thus linking directly Basarab to Seneslau, he actually fails to provide a conclusive material evidence for the existence of a thirteenth century laic edifi ce at Argeş. Therefore, the connections between the 13th century church and the fourteenth century church and princely court has yet to be elucidated.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Historian Vlad Georgescu provides a wholly Wlach geneaology, writing: "The unification of these realms was probably hastened by the arrival of Romanians from beyond the mountains who had fled the imposition of Catholicism (undertaken by the Hungarian king at the pope's urging. The trend toward unification seems to have begun with Litovoi, who in 1277 was at war with the Magyars over lands the king claimed for the crown, but for which the voivode refused to pay tribute. Litovoi was killed in battle; his brother Barbat was captured and forced not only to pay ransom but also to recognize Hungarian rule. Barbat was probably followed by Tihomir, who was succeeded in turn by his son Basarab. This ruler systematically expanded his territory until it extended south to the Danube and east into Moldavia to the Danube delta. In 1323 Basarab's armies joined in the fighting between Bulgaria and Byzantium. In the following years they fought with the Tatars, gradually driving them out of the country." - Georgescu, Vlad (1991). The Romanians: A History. Ohio State University Press. (p. 16-17)

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Revise the Origins Section.

I personally do not have an account. I have been editing and improving this article for a long time by this point. I ask kindly that other members of the community help in revising the origins section. I would consider that the grammatical errors and irrelevant information blatantly present in said section are opposed to the article as a whole and it's ideally unbiased nature. I recommend using Basarab The Founder's article as a starting point. The origin section on said article is significantly more developed and accurate than the one present here. As a critique, I wish to ask: What does the Asen familly and the debate around their origin have to do with the Basarabs? I admit the situation is similar, but stating in this article that the Asens are objectively Cuman (or Non-Bulgarian, which is wrong), as to back the claim that the Basarabs are Cuman also, does not make for a logical argument. 213.233.110.55 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• House of Draculesti Arms.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have tried to expand on the origins subject, presenting the autochtonous hypothesis, emphasising the lack of certainty when it comes to the actual origin of the dynasty. My edits are constantly under attack by user:Turkiishh without proper critique. Most sources I have used are already used and considered reliable in the Basarab I article which is considered to be of greater quality than the current state of the House of Basarab one. Georgios Basiklios (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)