Romanian Principalities

Hello,

I think there should be a new section reuniting the Romanian feudal issuers:

-- Romanian Principalities
---------- Hermannstadt (currently under Hungarian states)
---------- Kronnstadt (currently under Hungarian states)
---------- Moldavia (currently under Moldavia and Wallachia)
---------- Moldavia and Wallachia (currently under Moldavia and Wallachia)
---------- Nagybánya (currently under Hungarian states)
---------- Severin, Banate of (currently under Hungarian states)
---------- Transylvania (currently under Hungarian states)
---------- Wallachia (currently under Moldavia and Wallachia)

In general, the historic states/areas/colonies seem to be listed under the modern day issuer to which they belong geographically, just a few examples:

- China - Japanese puppet states (Japanese rule, Chinese territory: listed under China)
- Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek and Danish Estonia (Danish rule, Estonian territory: listed under Estonia)
- City of Narva and City of Reval (Swedish Rule, Estonian territory: listed under Estonia)
- Italian Eritrea (Italian Rule, Eritrean territory: listed under Eritrea)
- Kingdom of Lombardy and Venice (Habsburg state, listed under Italian states)

of course, odd exceptions:
- County of Württemberg-Montbéliard (French territory, but listed under German states), while Prince-Bishopric of Basel is listed under Switzerland, although also a German state.
- Eastern Prussia under Russian occupation, listed under German States, while
Prussian rule of Silesia is also listed under the German States.

Looking at the Hungarian States:
- City of Cattaro should be listed under Montenegro (modern day Kotor)
- City of Selmecbánya belongs to Slovakia
- Hungarian possession of Serbia self-explanatory
- Province of Slavonia is a historic region of Croatia
- City of Spalato, modern-day Split, in Croatia

I don't know of any historic reason that would justify the differentiated treatment. But happy to be shown otherwise. I suspect this is simply inherited from some generic catalogs, which rely on local dealers and catalogs. But I don't think this should be perpetuated by Numista, and a consistent politic should be adopted for all issuers.

Best
strato

Oh consistency. Old nemesis rises again.

While I might agree on some points, this ultimately goes down to where you draw a line. At that point, it becomes incosistent again.

I will take one of my countries as a prime example.

Silesia. Native Silesians which settled the area were very early incorporated into Polish state. Few coins were made there during this period. During 12th century, Bohemian kings took possession of it and for centuries, until 1742 Silesia was part of Bohemian crown (Czech medieval state), and most coins were made during this period. Bohemia itself was then as whole merged into Austria and is sometimes considered part of Holy Roman Empire. In 1742 another part of Holy Roman Empire, Prussia has taken possesion of it (funny, I lost myself here, not knowing what "it" means, but it still Silesia) and it was under its control until 1945. From then, it is Polish territorry (except for small part, which remained Bohemia and subsequently Czech until this day).

So Silesia can be described as:

Divided between Czech and Polish geographically.
Silesian, German and Polish by nationality in time.
Bohemian, Prussian, Polish by historical possession of territorry.

As you can see, each case is used several times in the catalogue. Everything is a mess, so we are basically waiting for Xavier to implement possibility to see issuers (which is THE smallest unit we can divide into) under several upper categories.

Problem is also that some countries do not fit anywhere. Livonia or Crusader states are just nice examples. If you try to push them into today's borders, they just don't fit.

So for the time being, If you think that something should be somewhere else, just make a thread for one specific thing, but I won't try to make everything right at once. This would only lead to confusion at this point, even though I agree country list is sometimes confusing already. But in the end, history is always confusing.

Thanks for the feedback Jarcek!

Sorry, I was focusing on the Romanian "states", then got carried away a bit with examples.

Silesia/Bohemia are good examples because they are independent from modern countries.

The issue with Transylvania (including City of Hermannstadt/Sibiu, City of Kronnstadt/Brasov, Nagybanya/Baia Mare, Banate of Severin) is that its history is disputed . In short:
- ruled by Wallachian (Romanian) lords until 10-13th century
- conquered by Hungarians 10-13th century
- ruled by Hungarians/Ottomans/Habsburgs/Romanians until 1918
- became part of Romania in 1918
- throughout its history, the majority of the population was consistently Romanian.

Most "independent" sources I checked would treat medieval Transylvania as a territory occupied by Hungary. Therefore I suggested the transfer to the Romanian issuers.

Nevertheless, if you want to acknowledge the dispute, these issuers could also be listed independently of Romania/Hungaria, like Bohemia. I also like the idea of listing Transylvania et al. with two parent issuers. However, I think putting it under Hungary is not the obvious choice and will surely upset a lot of historians.

With Wallachia, I think there is no issue, it should be listed as a Feudal Romanian state.

Same for Moldavia and Wallachia - this was simply renamed to Romanian Principalities in the 19th Century.

Moldavia - the only comment here is the relation to Moldova (the modern issuer). Medieval Moldavia consisted of three regions: 1. Moldavia (now in Romania), 2. Bukovina (now mostly in Romania, some in Ukraine) and 3. Bessarabia (current Moldova). So no issues here - Moldavia should be part of the Romanian states. If multiple parent issuers are possible, it could be listed under Moldova too I suppose.

... a can of worms, sorry

I will reject this for same reasons as this: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic90653.html

One simply cannot move countries around without upsetting all others.

This shall be solved by country list improvements.

Thanks! Sorry I didn't realise it's such a can of worms

A new taxonomy system would be great indeed

Nearly any country change is potential can of worms, especially movements...