,,The rule of Michael the Brave, with its break with Ottoman rule, tense relations with other European powers and the leadership of the three states, was considered in later periods as the precursor of a modern Romania, a thesis which was argued with noted intensity by Nicolae Balcescu. This theory became a point of reference for nationalists, as well as a catalyst for various Romanian forces to achieve a single Romanian state.[36] To Romanian Romantic nationalists,[37] he was regarded as one of Romanias greatest national heroes. The prince, who managed for a short time in 1600 to rule the three territories that were to be united some three centuries later in modern Romania, begins to be perceived as a unifier only towards the middle of the 19th century. Such an interpretation is completely lacking in the historiography of the 17th-century chroniclers, and even in that of the Transylvanian School around 1800. What they emphasized, apart from the exceptional personality of Michael himself, were the idea of Christendom and his close relations with Emperor Rudolf. The conquerors ambition is likewise frequently cited as a motivation for his action, occupying in the interpretative schema the place which was later to be occupied by the Romanian idea. In the writings of the Moldavian chronicler Miron Costin, Michael the Brave appears in the role of conqueror of Transylvania and Moldavia, the cause of much spilling of blood among Christians, and not even highly appreciated by his own Wallachians: The Wallachians became tired of the warful rule of Voivode Mihai.[38] The perspective of the Wallachians themselves is to be found in The History of the Princes of Wallachia, attributed to the chronicler Radu Popescu (1655–1729), which bundles together all Michaels adversaries without distinction. Romanians and foreigners alike: He subjected the Turks, the Moldavians, and the Hungarians to his rule, as if they were his asses. The picturesque flavor of the expression serves only to confirm the absence of any Romanian idea. Samuil Micu, a member of the Transylvanian School said in his work Short Explanation of the History of the Romanians (written in the 1790s): In the year 1593, Michael, who is called the Brave, succeeded to the lordship of Wallachia. He was a great warrior, who fought the Turks and defeated the Transylvanians. And he took Transylvania and gave it to Emperor Rudolf.[39] Panaitescu states that in Mihais time, the concept of the Romanian nation and the desire for unification did not yet exist.[40][verification needed] A. D. Xenopol firmly states the absence of any national element in Michaels politics, holding that Michaels lack of desire to join the principalities administrations proved his actions were not motivated by any such concept.[41] Mihai Viteazul, a commune in Cluj County, was named after Michael the Brave. Michael is also commemorated by the monks of the Athonite Simonopetra Monastery for his great contributions in the form of land and money to rebuilding the monastery which had been destroyed by a fire. Mihai Viteazul, a film by Sergiu Nicolaescu, a famous Romanian film director, is a representation of the life of the Wallachian ruler and his will to unite the three Romanian principalities (Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania) in one country. The Order of Michael the Brave, Romanias highest military decoration, was named after Michael.[42] Mihai Viteazul name and portrait appear on at least 2 Romanian coins: 5 Lei 1991 which only 3 pieces of this type were minted and the coin was not entered into circulation, and on 100 Lei which circulated through the 1990s upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Theodor_Aman_-_Mihai_Viteazul_si_capul_lui_Bathory.jpeg
Posted on: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:17:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015