Talk:Daniel of Galicia

Untitled

This article should be merged with Daniel of Kiev. Andres 11:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm finally merging in the dates of rule from that article. This one has more of an edit history, so better to rename this than move material from here to there.

This one stated "from 1253 King of Rus", the other: "King of Galicia (1255-1264)". I don't know off-hand which is more correct.

—Michael Z. 02:59, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the article should be titled "Daniel of Galicia"? Cossack 15:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ну его прозвище скорее происходит от города Галича, чем от Галиции. Термин "Галиция" появился гораздо позже. --ZAVR 20:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

succession box

Is it correctly to write that Svarn succeeded both principalities?

After Danylo's death:

• Volhynia was under Vasilko Romanovich and (1269-1288) under his son Volodymir-Ivan, and (1288-1293) under Mstislav Danilovich.
• Lev had Lviv and Peremysl
• Shvarn had Halych(?), Chelm and Dorogochyn.

So if we talk about Prince of (both) Galicia and Volhynia - it could be only Lev Danilovich, first after Danylo united these lands together (in 1293).

Proposal to move the article to Danylo of Halych

I am not sure why the article was created as Daniel of Halych, but perhaps it would be more accurate to move this under Danylo of Halych rather than Daniel as it currently stands. The ever fallible google search yields over 1000 hits for Danylo [1] and just over 200 hits for Daniel [2]. A more reliable google books search yielded 5 hits for Danylo [3] and 0 for Daniel [4].--Riurik ^(discuss) 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was apparently moved as per naming conventions but Daniel of Halych is not a correct name nor is it as common as Danylo of Halych. —dima/s-ko/ 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just in front of me, he's called Daniil Romanovich by Janet Martin, Daniel Romanovich by Meyendorff; elsewhere he's "Daniel of Galicia-Volhynia". Danylo is weird. Presumably this is the modern Ukrainian version of the name ... well, that's not how English-speaking historians refer to medieval Rus' rulers. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. This name is ridiculous. This is not how historians writing in English refer to him: this will give a better idea:

• "Daniel of Galicia" 94 hits
• "Daniil Romanovich" 57 hits
• "Daniel Romanovich" 39 hits
• "Daniil of Galicia" 22 hits
• "Daniel of Galich" 16 hits
• "Daniil of Galich" 12 hits
• "Danylo of Halych" 10 hits (mostly Ukrainian works with only tertiary coverage)

Halych is not called such generally in historical works in English, and as with so many Ukrainian placenames, Ukrainianization should be avoided with medieval subjects. Honestly, this article has to move. It makes a very famous European ruler unrecognizable even to English-speaking audiences very familiar with the the details of Rus' history. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, this article should be moved to Daniel of Galicia. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur as well. Olessi (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainisation is indeed unacceptable, but I'm not sure this is the right path to take. Since there's no other broadly applicable means of naming Rus princes that I'm aware of, we could do worse than call him "Daniil Romanovich" as Fennell, Martin and Meyendorff do. Still, I can see that there is a case for an exception here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Angus, patronymic is the clear consensus way of disambiguating these names in English secondary sources. I didn't wanna confused the issue just now though. My preference for this article title would be Daniil Romanovich, the name all the paper sources I have with me use (add to your list Rowell and Dimnick). Many of the remaining problems with this couple of principalities can be found at Category:Halych-Volhynia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well, the mosaic in the page image clearly says "Danilo Romanovich" (ДАНИЛО РОМАНОВИЧ), so why are we even having this conversation? The correct spelling is right there - on the wall of the church.

There needs to be an O at the end of the name. 73.207.69.89 (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Names

Can someone provide a link to the Chronicles or some sort of proof of how Lviv and Daniel were called in colloquial local language the 13th century? About the Chronicles from this source: "Hypatian Chronicle. Compendium of three chronicles: Nestor the Chronicler's Povist’ vremennykh lit (Tale of Bygone Years, ca 1110) with some alterations, particularly at the end of the text, the Kyiv Chronicle of the 12th century, and the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. The oldest redaction of the compendium, dating back to the early 15th century, was discovered by Nikolai Karamzin at the Hypatian Monastery in Kostroma, Russia. There are two more redactions from the 16th century, the first of which was probably written in Belarus. The best sources of information about the Hypatian Chronicle are Mykhailo Hrushevsky's works Istoriia Ukraïny-Rusy (The History of Ukraine-Rus’, vol 3) and Istoriia ukraïns’koï literatury (History of Ukrainian Literature), and works by Aleksei Shakhmatov, V. Pashuto, Dmytro Chyzhevsky, M. Priselkov, I. Eremin, and N. Berezhkov. It was published by the Imperial Archeographic Commission as Ipat’evskaia letopis’ (The Hypatian Chronicle) in Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The Full Collection of Rus’ Chronicles, vol 2, 1843), republished in a second edition as Letopis’ po Ipatskomu spisku (The Chronicle According to the Hypatian Redaction, 1871), and again republished as part of the second edition of the complete collection under the title Ipat’evskaia letopis’ (The Hypatian Chronicle, 1908). It was republished incomplete again by Shakhmatov in his third edition of the Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (vol 2, 1923). After the removal of several north Russian features such as the spelling of ě in place of the strong ь, the Hypatian Chronicle displays, though unsystematically, several features of Old Ukrainian. Consequently, of all chronicles it is the most important source for studies of Old Ukrainian. Variations between Church Slavonic components and Old Ukrainian components in the text were generally motivated by stylistic considerations." Faustian (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A Roman Catholic?

See here: [5], pg. 13. "Danylo...was inclined to join the anti-Mongol coalition, and although he actually did not accept the union, he was involved in negotiations. That was why he got the crown, not because he converted. Taken from In P. Potichnyj (ed.) (1992). Ukraine and Russia in their historical encounter. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Instittue of Ukrainian Studies Press, University of Alberta. Also Vernadsky's History of Russia published by Yale :[6] on pg. 65 states that Daniel told the Pope his clergy would recognize his authority, not that they did so. Those lands remaiend Orthodox until the 17th century. Another source here: The Slavs in European History and Civilization By Francis Dvornik, Rutgers University Press pg. 214 states that Daniel renounced overtures towards the Roman Catholics after no soldiers were sent for his desired anti-Mongol crusade.

Of course, if you can find a reliable source (not primary involving what the Roman Catholic Church claimed) we should include that also.Faustian (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

what source used this terminology?

" Utta von Schwarzburg-Blankenburg, who was the eponymous ancestor of the House of Reuss" An EPONYMOUS ancestor is one who gives his/her name to an ethnic group or dynasty. How does this woman's name work out as "Reuss"? 100.15.120.162 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lol

First it called here "King of Rus", then "King of Galicia", then "Galicia–Volhynia", then "King of Ruthenia", "Ruthenia-Ukraine", "King of Rus etc...

Some descriptions like "King of Galicia" or "King of Volhynia" are more western european interpretations and are more related towards views of western countries. On the other hand "King of Rus" or "King of Ruthenia" are more Russia-related and emphasize the Russian history.

I don't know, maybe a middle way would be good. --92.196.44.61 (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Move Daniel of Galicia to Daniel Romanovych

Article name should be changed from "Daniel of Galicia" to "Danylo Romanovych" to accurately reflect his historical significance as the king of all of Ruthenia, not just Galicia. This change challenges the Russian narrative that Danylo was merely a local ruler and aims to counteract the efforts of Russian historians to diminish his role and downplay his legacy. The change was also made in response to the Russian myth that power was transferred to Moscow and that Ukrainian lands were rightfully theirs without any Kingdom in place.

Russian myth was promoted during the periods of Kuchma and Yanukovych's presidencies, when Russian historians had significant influence in Ukrainian politics and academia. These historians sought to rewrite Ukrainian history to fit the Russian narrative and to diminish the country's claim to its own national identity. The change from "Daniel of Galicia" to "Danylo Romanovych" is a small but significant step in countering this narrative and restoring Danylo's rightful place in Ukrainian history Serhiitop (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)