Talk:History of Romania

Old discussion

Tridesch: since you claim to be a historian, please quote some historical proof of existence of the so-called "Vlachs". FYI - the Latin descent of the Romanians has been proven and agreed upon long before Ceausescu.

Also, please show some respect for your fellow Wikipedians. In your edit on 07:45, 17 Oct 2003, you write:

[...]

Of course he never had the benefit of a unbiased education (Raised in Romania of course during its communist dark - how such a person would call his education equal to ours - a mystery?)

Do you happen to know him personally? Who are you to make judgements about how much a biased/unbiased education someone has had?

Are you, by any chance, a troll? IulianU

Im NOT a historian. Its just what my BA was in. I concentrated in European history. Im merely pointing out that Bogdan is a Romanian journalist. Apparently, you arent up on your history either - Where do you think the word Wallachia comes from?

Wallachia = "land of the foreigners", just like Wales and Valonia. Romanians call it Muntenia.

Welsche - a germanic root - i speak that language actually.

"foreign" = Wales, Wallonia, Valais, Wallace, even Walnut. You havent altered the fact that it was the Vlaques who named the area north of the Danube after themselves.

- What do mean proof of the existence - does someone have to write you a thesis descibing the existence of the Celts, the Vandals, the Scythians? Believe me, if you knew about Romanian History, youd know that the statements hes added into the article ARE biased and ARE thus evidence of biased eductaion - thats where the right to judge comes from.

Biased ? Most sources (the exceptions are usually Hungarian irredentist historians), including Britannica share this point of view. So, the history taught in Hungary is biased, not ours.

Are you, by any chance, someone without a single book on East European history on your shelves - written by non ethnic Romanians i mean?

You want proofs of Romanian continuity in Romania ? There are enough books that prove that. There are loads of them, including linguistic, archeological, old chronicals etc. Some of the cited sources are even old Hungarian chronicals, which describe wars with local Romanian warlords in Transylvania. Bogdan 19:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Truth doesnt have to be Hungarian", Bogdan. The is an overwhelming actual PREVALENCE of Continuity supporting works in the world. Im not disputing that, but these sources are either pre-modern or based on pre-modern understandings - none of any proof whatsoever. Whatever Britannica says, im sure i wouldnt be surprised.

Romanian Warlords in "transylvania" trans sylvania - across the forest was that? it wasnt the one to the south and east - lets be honest its a neologism to your "pure" latin language borrowed from courtly documents originating in the west. There isnt even linguistic continuity - you have no ability to read your own 18th centruy documents, because they written before French roots were consciously replaced into a language which through centuries of drift away from the Vulgar Latin of Balkan Vlaques, had become so slavicised. Romanian - i guarrantee you there was no such term for any ancient Warlord in Transylvania. The whole official history of your country is a complete lie. Whats most important though is that you cant erase evidence of it - previously your revisionists always came up w some equal and opposite piece of "proof", but modern academia can now prove that your ancestors DID NOT infact inhabit Romania from the end times of the empire.

user:Tridesch

---

The NPOV thing to do here is to add the traditional history to the article but note that it is traditional and give the reasons why it is no longer thought to be a true account by academic historians; when it was superceded; and why the modern view is accepted instead. When the two accounts are acknowledged, compared and contrasted in this way, you have an NPOV article as opposed to a controversial article and it will probably be obvious to an intelligent but previously uninformed reader which of the two views is more likely to be correct.

Of course this won't guarantee that the edit war will stop but it does make that more likely since, at least, both accounts have been acknowledged to exist . -- Derek Ross

---

The best thing to do would be to create a page: Romanian continuity (linked from History of Romania) with arguments pro and contra this theory, everything written in NPOV. How's this proposal ? Bogdan 20:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I could see ecplaining the historical view, and contrasting it with the modern, but you and others wouldnt have it on the main page. If you want another page, just about continuity thats fine, but the main page has to reflect some element of dubiousness of continuity also, as well as include the modern view. Can you imagine trying to describe early English history without adding a single word about the Angles and Saxons? The problem is that were dealing with a view which however untruthful is an official government madanted view. It IS the traditional view favored by ALL scholars who existed before this century, but today its the only view allowed in Romania. For Gods sakes, even without a single shred of Physical evidence it would still be possible to extrapolate the Illyrian substratum in modern Romanian speech. Never possible before of course, because there was no science dealing with it.

The whole idea of continuity exists for what was previously a lack of any other theory. We also used to say that the ancient Mayans were all kidnapped, now we know that their land was overfarmed and overpoupulated causing a agricultural/demographic crash.

User:Tridesch

OK. Now how do you explain the fact that the Romanians keep the Roman names of the rivers (names used in Roman geographical works) "Aluta" -> "Olt", "Marisia" -> "Mures", "Crisia" -> "Cris", "Prut" -> "Pyretus", "Tisia" -> "Tisa" etc. ?

Or even city names, like "Varadium" (now Oradea) ?

Bogdan 19:09, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why does anyone need to explain this? Exactly the same thing happens in England where the German invaders kept the Roman names for some features: Rivers - "Abus" -> "Ouse", "Gariannus" -> "Yare"; cities - "Castra" -> "Chester", "Londinium" -> "London". Even Scotland, most of which was not occupied by the Romans for any significant period, has at least one example: "Botis" -> "Bute". In fact this is common in any of the lands which were formerly part of the Roman Empire or near it and Romania is no exception. Surely, placenames are neither evidence for nor evidence against the continuity of Roman rule in an area. -- Derek Ross

Just a remark: no-one is talking about the continuity of Roman **rule**. Instead, we are talking about the continued inhabitation, not necessarily well-organized. For instance, I would presume enough latin-speaking fellows remained in Londinium, or Castra, to pass the name to the invading Germanic invaders while being assimilated (or wiped out, if you prefer). User:Dpotop

His theory is that Transylvania was uninhabited at the time of the arival of the Magyars (around 900 AD), allegedly the Romans exterminated all the Dacians, colonized Transylvania and then retracted all the Roman colonists to South of Danube and from there, around 1200, the Romanians settled in Transylvania. Bogdan 10:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

-- There are two theories, both with pretty good evidence:

• The Dacian-Roman-Romanian continuity (prefered by Romanians)
• Latin-speaking Vlachs coming from south of Danube (prefered by Hungarians)

But they are NOT mutually exclusive. There is no proof of any of it being false. So, it would be logical that they are both true. Simply the shepherd Vlachs came from Illyria and since their language was not very different from the Daco-Romanian's, they could have been assimilated and form a hybrid language. Bogdan 21:08, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Bogdan hit the nail in the head. Whole Central and East Europe was in the way of many migratory waves and ethnics boundaries are nowhere exactly determined. For a long period of time there weren't nationalistic sentiments, people just kept their traditions. They moved if they had to or if they found better living conditions someplace else. If for some reason a region became underpopulated (for its feeding posibilities), people from other regions would fill the place. Roesler theory said that large teritories were completely uninhabited for long periods of time. That's against the logic [User:MihaiC]

Choice by force?

"In 1916 Romania entered World War I on the Entente side. By the end of the war, the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires were gone; governing bodies created in Transylvania, Bessarabia and Bukovina chose union with Romania, resulting Greater Romania."

Pardon me, but do I remember correctly that these parts were actually cut from the Kingdom of Hungary and attached by the Treaty of Trianon to the surrounding states instead of letting them choose where to go? As far as I remember correctly only some cities were given the opportunity to choose. --grin ✎ 21:05, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

Sounds likely. Get the specifics, get them into the article. -- Jmabel 05:10, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Not "these parts", only Transylvania. Bukovina was a Austrian province and Bessarabia was under Russian occupation. Bogdan | Talk 15:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In saying "sounds likely," I wasn't agreeing that the Eastern provinces had been "cut from Hungary", which they are nowhere near. I was concurring with the statement that the processes of "self-determination" after WWI were not, in practice, all that democratic. Again, more specifics in the article, with citation, would be good. I don't think the article is terribly misleading as it stands, but it could be more precise on this point. -- Jmabel 00:33, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

It could not be accepted the idea that in 1918 a power greater than Germany, cut Transylvania from Kingdom of Hungary and by Treaty of Trianon, that was attached to Romania. It's like someone says that, back in 1774, the Kingdom of France cut 13 Western colonies from British Empire and by Treaty of Paris, those former colonies were attached to some uncivilised part of the world. In the world of colonial empires of the year 1918, USA was the most advanced democracy. The process followed the example of American Revolution, with the ideas of self-determination offered by president Woodrow Wilson. --Vasile 02:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly more democratic than (say) how Brittany became part of France, or how Poland aqcuired former German territories after WWII (and the USSR former Polish territories, and former Romanian territories, among others), but there was a measure of "victor's justice" in this. Again, I don't think the article is terribly misleading in saying "chose", but I think it could be more specific about exactly what percentage of the people were involved in actual choices, how the votes stacked up, etc. I don't know the answers, but I'm sure they are well-documented & would be worth having here. -- Jmabel 10:50, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing wrong with "governing bodies created in Transylvania chose union". The governing body of Transylvania was created by the Transylvanian Romanians after Hungary's defeat. AFAIK, this governing body only represented Romanians and Germans, as all negotiations with the Hungarian government failed.

The Romanians now wish to fulfil their national desires without the governmental approval and convoked to this end, on the 1st of December, at Alba-Iulia, a Romanian National Assembly. Undoubtedly, here they are going to proclaim a Romanian state on Hungarian soil. By doing this, they will actually declare the separation from Hungary; however, it is still very questionable if they also decide joining the kingdom of Romania.

Fürstenberg's report to the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the failure of the negotiations between Transylvania Romanians and the Hungarian government. from [1]

Bogdan | Talk 15:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agenda?

A series of recent edits by User:Criztu seem to me to have an agenda, and he is proceeding on them without commenting. I am not convinced he is wrong, but I am convinced this should not pass without discussion. I realize that the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity is at least controversial, probably not widely subscribed to outside of Romania, but I think we are going from naively endorsing to the theory to ignoring it. (Just to be clear, he is also adding a lot of good material, maybe lacking in citations, but this article has always been short on citations.)

Examples:

• Removed: "However, the most important and influential of the invasions, was the 7th century migration of the Vlachs, a linguistically Latin people who occupied vast portions of the territory now known as Romania after crossing the River Danube from the south, combining with the local Daco-Romanian and Slavic population to form the Romanian nation."
• "Many small and temporary Romanian states..." became "Many small local states..."
• Removed: "...although they never outnumbered the Romanian element."
• "...the three Romanian principalties..." became "Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania principalties..."

Also, and in my view much more sinisterly, "...alleged foreign and Jewish domination..." lost the word "alleged".

I could go on. This is not a comprehensive list. I am very unhappy to see edits this major proceeding without comment. I would like to see discussion here. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Also, while one could justify the removal of the adjective "quasi-mystical" from the description of the Iron Guard as NPOV, I find that impossible to accept when the same editor adds the adjective "infamous" to refer to the policies of Carol II. I am increasingly inclined simply to revert these changes wholesale and insist that they be overtly discussed one by one. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:13, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

* Removed: "However, the most important and influential of the invasions, was the 7th century migration of the Vlachs

there is no mentioning in any Chronicle or evidenced by any archaeologic data that a "vlach migration" occured anywhere in the Balkans or in the teritory of today Romania

While I don't believe there was a migration from South of Danube, it is pretty much clear that the Romanians formed in a small region (probably somewhere in Banat-Transylvania) and then assimilated the rest of the country. The "Free Dacians", by then, probably already assimilated by the Slavs were once again assimilated by the Romanians. (this can easily explain the number of Slavic toponyms)

However, we there are no conclusive proofs, so that's why we have Origin of Romanians debate article. Bogdan | Talk 21:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should a "Vlach Migration" have ever occured, references should be presented, otherwise it is just an opinion criztu

"Many small and temporary Romanian states..." became "Many small local states..."

until 1200 CE there was no such thing as a "Romanian temporary state", only "small local states in the teritory of today Romania"

"alleged foreign and Jewish domination"

in 1940, Hitler tried to buy stock shares of the romanian petroleum industry, but the romanian petroleum industry was entirely American/Jewish/Dutch owned, and Hitler couldn't buy anything.

"I find that impossible to accept when the same editor adds the adjective "infamous" to refer to the policies of Carol II"

Carol II ratified the yielding of N. Transylvania, Cadrilater and Basarabia to foreign states. perhaps it is an exaggeration to consider this as an Infamy. perhaps 'shameful' or 'blamable' would be more NPOV criztu

Oh, poor Hitler. Those darn Jews kicking him around. I am restoring "alleged" and removing the entirely POV adjective applied to Carol II. I will accept the removal of "quasi-mystical" rom Iron Guard (it's true enough but not terribly relevant here. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

the example shows that romanian petroleum industry was foreign owned, not that Hitler was a saint ... his intention was to take over the romanian petroleum industry for his Reich, not to give it to romanians criztu

Bolshevism in Russia and Hungaria

it should be known that in 1919 Bolshevic Hungary was at war with Romania, leading to the Romanian occupation of Budapest, and the eliberation of the Hungarian people from Bolshevism. since the last part of the WW1 Hungary experienced internal instability. -- criztu

Dear criztu! Which country is "Hungaria"?

Lost territory

Romania under King Carol II lost territory

This is implying that Carol was responsable for it. In fact, Carol II wanted Romania to fight and not give up goodwillingly any territory. Bogdan | Talk 15:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a result of the ratification by King Carol II of the yielding of Northern Transylvania to Hungary, S. Dobrudja to Bulgaria, and Bessarabia, Bugeac and Bukovina to USSR in 1940

did Carol II of Romania ratified the yielding/transfer of all this land to foreign states, or did the Parliament of Romania ratified the "yielding/transfer"? or was there no ratification for that yielding ? -- Criztu 16:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Think of the Bulgarian perspective. Dobroudja was entirely Bulgarian. Romanian entry in the Balkan Wars' conflict on the sides of Serbia and Greece was what gave Romania control over Dobroudja. After later military clashes and peacetalks Southern Dobroudja was ceded back to Bulgaria. In that case, we could speak about "Loss of Northern Dobroudja" thanks to wonderful neighbouring politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.230.92 (talk • contribs)

Transformations

About this paragraph that I consider being a non-objective opinion: The acquisition of these territories transformed Romania "...from a small country with a largely ethnically homogenous population to the second largest country of East Central Europe with all the problems of a multi-national state." [Riff, 1992, 34]

1. Who is Michael Riff?
   • He's a UK-born historian, associated with the Anti-Defamation League, based in New York. Ph.D. from School of Slavonic and East European Studies of the University of London. He's taught at a few UK universities; more recently in New York at NYU and Hunter College (CUNY). That's about what I know. I suspect you could Google his name and learn more.

1. "Small country" before 1914 -> second largest country of East Central Europe in 1920 (Poland first largest); but in 1914, Romania was the second largest country of East Central Europe (Austria-Hungary first largest).
   • Yes, but in 1914, East Central Europe had no other nation-states. Austria-Hungary was a very different type of thing.
2. The Constitution of 1923 defined Romania as a "national state".
   • But defining it so didn't make the problems of minorities go away, did it?
3. Previous those acquisitions, Moldova had already have a large concentration of Jews (more than 20%), contradicting the "largely ethnically homogenous" assertion.
   • I don't entirely disagree, and Moldova is the one region where there had been important inter-communal conflict in Romania before that (the peasant uprisings of 1907). And even Moldova didn't compare to the issue of absorbing traditionally German and Hungarian areas in Transylvania. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:42, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
   • Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but pre-WWI, weren't most of the Moldovan Jews non-citizens?

--Vasile 03:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you feel you can word this better, please go for it, but I do think there was an important change in the character of the state at that time. Pre-WWI Romania was a lot easier country to govern. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:42, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Some might say that Romania become more difficult to govern because of the new (more) democratic system. Or mainly because of unfriendly relationship with the Union Soviet. Minorities existed in Romania prior 1920 and the Romanian interbellic policy regarding the minorities was not different, but mimetical with those applied in that time in the civilized European countries. I agree with the idea that the state of 1923 was different of that of 1914.

• The population increased and the number of nationalities too. Hungarians 8%, Germans 4%, Jews 4%, Ukrainians 3%, Russians 2%, Gipsies, Bulgarians, Gagauz.
• The old state also had difficult political time (including an assasination of a Prime-Minister) between 1856 and 1871. In 1923 there was adopted a new democratic system but the social realities wasn't changed so fast.
• In the European context, the role of Romania became less important for the great powers.

Maybe, it could be find some other differences. I still have problems to identify the right person, it is Michael A. Riff?

• The acquisition of these territories transformed Romania - this is awfull. In 1918 we speak of a "Unification of Transylvania and Bessarabia with Romania by the decision of representatives of the romanians living inside these territories", not of "Acquisition of Transylvania and Bessarabia by Romania", this acquisition aplies best for "Acquisition of Alaska by USA from Russia" or "Acquisition of Florida by USA from France", an empires' affaire. Romania was far from an empire in 1918 Criztu 12:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have no commitment to this particular wording, but it is important to say that there were some qualitative changes, not just quantitative. If we can abandon the Riff quote because someone can say it better, go for it. Riff, from what I can tell, is a decent historian, but as far as I can tell he is more expert on Poland and Hungary. It did seem better than leaving the issue unmentioned. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• all the problems of a multi-national state - if Romania experienced "all the problems of a multi-national state", then let's here what those problems were.

from wiki article Multi-national_state : A multi-national state (most commonly a binational state or a trinational state) is a nation-state that has several distinct and (if the status of the state has come to issue at all) rival cultures within it that compete for control. It is usually an unstable situation, but can come to be stabilized for long periods if the balance of power is managed carefully. - well, except the Szekely land right in the center of Romania - Mures+ Harghita+ Covasna counties with a total of 668 471 szekely and 407 035 romanians today, I don't see any other. -- Criztu 12:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, reword as you see fit. The point is that there was a significant transformation, not only an enlargement. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:53, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bukovina

Criztu, Bessarabia does include the Bugeac, but not Bukovina. Bogdan | Talk 13:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes, sorry, i've messed it up :0| -- Criztu 00:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

choosing union with Romania

governing bodies created by the Romanians of Transylvania, Bessarabia and Bukovina chose union with Romania

In Bessarabia in the Sfatul Ţării (National Council) the minorities (Ukrainians, Bulgarians, etc) were represented. Also, IIRC, in Transylvania the Germans had representation, and only the Hungarians did not. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 16:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So should it say something like "governing bodies Transylvania (where Hungarians were excluded from participating [or boycotted, or whatever is accurate: I don't know the facts on this]), Bessarabia and Bukovina chose union with Romania"? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Greater Romania?

Hello, I'd like to know why "Romania Mare" is translated here into "Greater Romania". I think that this is an incorrect translation, and that it implies a form of revisionism that does not exist in the Romanian language form (the correct translation is "Great Romania"). Actually, I believe that this should be systematically corrected.

Actually I think "Greater Romania" is a better translation. Great Romania implies "magnificent Romania" or something similar, a nuance which does not exist in Romanian. Compare also to Greater London ("Londra mare"). IulianU 20:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Iulian. We use "Great Romania" for Tudor's present-day party, but only because they use it themselves. I realize it's more literal, but Iulian has the English-language connotation exactly right. "Greater London", "Greater New York", "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"... -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. For one, your assigning of "Great Romania" to the party is not unanimously accepted. They use "Greater Romania" at the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1042702.stm.

Second, Great Romania, or "Romania Mare" implies a sense of magnificence. It was the time in history where most territories inhabited by a majority of Romanians were united. Romania Mare does not change, it has fixed bounds, and involves no sense of fighting.

Your comparison with Greater London or Greater New York does not hold: London is indeed growing, so "Greater" correctly renders this feeling of increasing space. The comparison with Japan's coprosperity sphere is outright offending, as territories in Great Romania were indeed Romanian.

At the same time, you say Great Britain, and not Greater Britain.

I do not know who coined the term "Greater Romania", but I presume it's not a Romanian. Or, if it was a Romanian, it's probably Vadim Tudor User:Dpotop.

1. Look at the English-language portion of the party România Mare's own web site. They use "Great Romania" consistently, last I checked. But that is neither here nor there for this article.

Actually, I tried looking on their site, but I can only find the review of Vadim Tudor (www.romare.ro). And, funny enough, this site ranks very high on Google searches with both "Great Romania" and "Greater Romania", meaning that somehow they declared both keywords User:Dpotop.

Or that these phrases are often linked to them. Remember that Google examines backlinks. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1. "Greater London" or "Greater New York" are not about a sense of growth. In both cases, they refer to the broader as against the narrower region that might be meant by the term. For example, I grew up in an "incorporated village" outside the boundaries of New York City, but well within the region known as "Greater New York". In London, the City of London is one square mile, Greater London refers to what almost everyone today thinks of when they say "London". Parliament, Harrod's, the Tower, Hyde Park: none of those are in the City of London, they are in Greater London. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. My first impression was clearly incorrect. However, I maintain that "Greater Romania" does not correspond to this interpretation, either. There is no "Kernel Romania" and "Larger, Greater, or Expanded Romania". Neither ethnically, nor historically. The national state of Romania was not formed by incremental conquest, but rather by self-decided unions ratified by peace conferences. And everything in a rather short amount of time. This is why all the provinces had a Romanian majority (with the notable exception of Dobrudja, which the Romanians didn't want at the time, but were forced to exchange with southern Bessarabia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs) 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The Google test

"Greater Romania" -wikipedia: 41,800 hits

"Greater Romania" -wikipedia: 39,300 hits

"Greater Romania" 1918: 857 hits

"Greater Romania" 1918 -wikipedia: 783 hits

"Great Romania": 814 hits

"Great Romania" -wikipedia: 708 hits

"Great Romania" 1918: 243 hits

"Great Romania" 1918 -wikipedia: 217 hits

I'd consider that pretty good evidence for the prevalence of "Greater Romania". I don't object to both being mentioned, but "Greater Romania" is pretty clearly common English usage.

I'd welcome other evidence, especially a survey of usage by English-language historians of Eastern Europe. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My use of Google meant by no means that I consider Google to be a fair measure of anything. Rather, I wanted to point that there was no consensus. At the same time, I really appreciate wikipedia for allowing people to discuss, understand by themselves, and reach a NPOV formulation. This is exactly what I tried to do when rephrasing the "Great Romania" section. While I consider that the translation "Greater Romania" is not fair, I did mention it extensively, and explained that "Great Romania" is the literal translation. I believe this to be a NPOV User:Dpotop.

Michael Riff

For what its worth, the Michael Riff book that Bogdan recently removed from the reference section had been added 9 Jan 2005 because I had quoted Riff. I see that the quotation has now been removed. I'm not at all sure that removal was a good thing. The remark I had quoted was apropos of the expansion of Romania after World War I:

The acquisition of these territories transformed Romania "...from a small country with a largely ethnically homogenous population to the second largest country of East Central Europe with all the problems of a multi-national state." [Riff, 1992, 34]

The quotation still seems germane to me; I'm not at all sure why it was removed. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

These recent anonymous edits look to me like they may come from an anti-Romanian bias. I don't have time right now to look more closely (about to start my workday), but someone should take a close look. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wallachia or Romania?

I suggest that the territories dealt with in this article are always properly called, according to the historical period we are talking about. Expressions "Romania" should not be used for the period before the 19th century when Romania was founded. Wallachia and Moldavia is more appropriate, like in the case of the image in this article. There, the poster is properly said to be Wallachian. Similarly, using "Vlachs" to describe ethnicity would be better in historical articles than "Romanians". --KIDB 17:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The state's name in English is "Wallachia" (the Romanian name was Ţara Românească, i.e. Romanian Country, but it doesn't matter), while the ethnicity's name is "Romanians". bogdan 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no point in using "Vlachs" instead of "Romanians". Using two forms would just confuse the readers. In case you wondered, the Romanians called themselves back then Români and/or Rumâni, although the Slavs and the Hungarians did use the "Olah/Vlach" name. bogdan 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Has Wallachia always been called Tara Romaneasca by the Romanians during the middle ages? And how about Moldavia? --KIDB 17:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wallachia was "Ţara Românească/Rumânească". Unlike in Transylvania and Wallachia, where the name of the ethnicity was clear -- "Romanian", in Moldavia it was a bit more ambiguous: they also called themselves "Moldoveni" (Moldavians), although the language was still usually named "românească". bogdan 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Following Alexander 007's suggestion, I copied here the discussion from Bogdan's page.--KIDB 09:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC) :

Voivodships of Romania in 1600

Are you sure Transylvania was a ROMANIAN voivodship in 1600? As far as I know, the expression "Romanian" was only used in Wallachia, and only after the 19th century, the creation of modern Romania was the meaning extended to Moldova? And to Transylvania after 1920.
The explanatory text you have written is misleading anyway. A foreigner not familiar with Transylvanian history would think that Transylvania was united with the two other principalities for quite a long time during the middle ages and this state was called Romania. --KIDB 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

KIDB, would you mind correcting the English in this sentence of yours: "As far as I know, the expression "Romanian" was only used in Wallachia, and only after the 19th century, the creation of modern Romania was the meaning extended to Moldova?"...Alexander 007 18:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what you intend, but the way you wrote it was quite ambiguous. The expression "Romanian" was used throughout Transylvania and Moldavia, but was it used when speaking of voivodships (e.g., a Romanian voivodship of Transylvania). Non-Romanian, non-Hungarian readers stumbling upon this page can easily read your sentence and get the impression that the adjective/noun Romanian simply dropped from the sky after the 19th century, when in fact it goes back before 1600 as shown by documents (much earlier than that, there are simply no documents, but no historian or linguist disputes that the term evolved directly from the Latin word Romanus, meaning a Roman Citizen, e.g., a citizen of the Roman Empire, citizenship (thus, the right to call oneself a Roman) having been extended to all who lived in the Roman territory. Alexander 007 18:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Readers, for more on this, see Talk:History of Romania#Wallachia or Romania?. Alexander 007 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My vote goes to KIDB on this one.He is right-for-all-purposes on the question of the adjective (sure the term features in Miron Costin's or whatever's works, but it is nowhere meant to imagine a state). If it is meant for ethnicity:

• 1. Let us be reserved about attributing ethnicieties in the Middle Ages;
• 2. Let us admit that Transylvania was not Romanian-ruled (ethnically, or state-included... since, well, the state only originated in 1866).Dahn 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Romanian, I do not agree with your point number 1. The Vlachs, foremost, used a term deriving from romanus to describe themselves: that term was/is român and/or rumân (=Romanian, in English). Their ethnicity was Romanian (those north of the Danube). Of course, we cannot speak of a Romanian nationality back then, but ethnicity, I see no problem. Does any historian see a problem here? Alexander 007 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity is contrieved, just as well. The identity was given by Orthodoxy, if need be, and by the fact that they were serfs. Their serfdom and, thus, not-really-there-officially status within Transylvania is the most relevant reason for caution with "Transylvania being Romanian". Consider as parallels: "Mexico is Aztec", "Canada is Algonquin", "Australia is Aborigenous Australian" etc. The fact is that there was no nation other than nobility (and ethnicity was defined within it, if need be, for Hungarians, Szeklers and Saxons: which was not a distinction in the modern sense, since they were different social categories - respectively noblemen-proper, free men, colonists obeying the king). The "Romanian Principality of Transylvania" is a leftover of Ceausescu rhetoric (mainly whitewashing). I hope the point I'm making does not make me look like being on the different side of a barricade. I just aim for less subjectivity. Dahn 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, can you be more specific? Saying: "Their identity was given...by the fact that they were serfs..." is not quite illuminating for an English reader, nor does it seem accurate. Nor would historians agree that their ethnic identity was given by their Orthodoxy or their "serfdom". If a Slav was a serf, and Orthodox, he would still not be a Vlach/Romanian. Unless I'm mistaken, you are speaking of social status, not ethnicity. Alexander 007 19:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To repeat: I disagree completely with your point number 1 as far as Romanians in the Middle Ages are concerned. Alexander 007 20:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Hungarians were concerned, people of all origin could be serfs. However, some Catholics were serfs, as opposed to all Orthodox being serfs (by law). The identity was exclusively religious from the point of view of the functional/functioning state-structure. On the bottom level, the situation cannot really be reconstructed. I. e.: I do not think that "Slav" serfs and "Romanian" serfs made a distinction among themselves as for the sake of it. Whatever people called themselves cannot be known for sure. Why? Because a person who had the means to learn to write (and thus record it), up until the XVIth century or so (and in many regions for long after that), was no longer connected in any way with serfs etc. That "they considered themselves..." is a generic statetment, for which there can be no proof. Whatever identity was slowly forged, it was given in time by servitude itself. Most serfs would not see whatever was beyond the domain they were tied to (it's a documented fact, I've read books that made this clear for serfs in Northern Italy or Southern France, such as that of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie - I really see no point for it being otherwise here). The grinding mechanism of other forces, introduced by modernity, has ssslllooowwwllllyyyy constructed different options. And even then, if you look at the Romanian Transylvanian peasants as late as 1848, they were deeply loyal to the Emperor in Vienna. Even intellectuals in the Transylvanian School had used the ideology of our Latin origin to prove: 1. that we had as "clean" a pedigree as any other nation (since prejudice against them had been turning to ethnical themes, a contribution of secularism within the Empire); 2. that we were deeply connected to the person of a still-offically-Roman Emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire, of course).Dahn 20:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But pehaps all of this is beside the point: even under your own assumptions, Transylvania cannot be "Romanian", since it never had a Romanian administration.Dahn 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with your point 1 completely in this case. Your speculation that the average Slav and Vlach in the same social class did not make an ethnic distinction is unverifiable, and contradicted by evidence to the contrary (I seem to remember, for example, Vlachs, Bulgars, and Greeks, Bulgars by that time meaning Bulgarians (a Slav people), unless I'm mistaken). If you look at the Aromanians and Istro-Romanians in diaspora, they also preserved their own idea of a distinct romanus-derived ethnicity up into modern times. Your speculation is rather wrong, and it is preferable that you don't include your speculation in Wikipedia articles unless you have suitable references. But yeah, probably the lines between ethnic groups were often eclipsed by social status, but that doesn't negate ethnic distinctions. The Daco-Romanian speaking Vlachs of the Middle Ages were ethnic Romanians of their time, nor do I know of a historian who would disagree with that terminology. It is not quite an anachronism, as you speculate. Alexander 007 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again. What contributed to the distinctions (and it did so in time) was the fact that serfs were not allowed to move. Which led to uniformity in regions. You assume that they were dealing with speakers of several languages on a regular bases. I don't think that they did. I mean, look around: social levels and languages/identities tend to co-incide, which led to assimilations within one level and differentiations between levels. Let me point out that, if "Iancu" Hunyadi ever identified himself as "Romanian" or whatever, he was still regent of Hungary. How is "being Romanian" matter here, even if appliable?! The same for Aromanians (which are only arguably and wishful-thinking-fuly "Romanian"). What mattered in their difference was the fact that most were sheepherders, mobile and free. But, for the third time, even if I am completely wrong about all of these, nothing makes 1600s Transylvania "Romanian". If you don't change the legend on the map, I'm gonna go over to the United States article and change the title to the "Sioux United States". If they consider me a vandal, it's your fault entirely. :) Dahn 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that ethnic distinctions existed as well as social status. The caption in the image was not written by me and it is not my responsibility. Alexander 007 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See Romania in the Middle Ages for a different caption to the same image. Alexander 007 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Do as you will. Let me go out on this note: I did provide proof for my statements (or directed in that general area). An anthropological studies of records have shown that ethnicity was purely abstract in the Middle Ages (Ladurie, for one). Lucian Boia has also made ample comments on XIXth century etc, national mythology and its dream of etarnal existence. The Scool of Annales has shown that nuance and carefulness should dominate our perspective about the past, especially the time dealt with here (since it has been the working tool of nationalism for so long). Check out Fernand Braudel's La Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen a l'époque de Philippe II for a perspective on what dominated the Balkans during the 1590s (his is an analysis that also looks deep beyond that time). The prevailing point of view is that people's identities were constantly shifting: the common, generic, level was Christendom (or a particular Church). Beyond it was the social order you belonged to, and then the ellusive ethnicity (which never "stayed put": compare with the many avatars of Bosniaks, Croats, Ukrainians etc.). Dahn 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the Vlachs (all branches). Whatever situation there was in France or Italy doesn't apply. I will provide more evidences later. Alexander 007 21:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. You're right. Romania is unique. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it. Also, here we can breathe under water and leap over high buildings. (Note: Braudel made points about the Balkans as well. He has 1000 books or so in his bibliography, including Gheorghe Bratianu.) Dahn 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing to consider: The former territory of the Eastern Roman Empire was also sometimes called Romania, or Rumelia, this also might lead to confusion. In fact I have at home an original late 18th century English map where "Romania" is indicated around the present European part of Turkey... And of course there is Wallachia and Moldavia a bit Norther up...--KIDB 09:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I am lucky, I didn't have to go home, here is a similar map on Wikipedia: [2]--KIDB 09:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is something I'd like to add to this discussion. Wallachia was inseparable from the First Bulgarian Empire. Wallachia played a prominent role in the resurrection of the Bulgarian (Second) Empire. I have read an argument about what happened meanwhile, under Byzantine administration for approximately 180 years. According to this argument, the Vlachs began to be viewed as a separate from the Bulgarian ethnos only after the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire. That is to a large extent due to Byzantine diplomacy and administration. The question here is the WHAT. I don't have that document on me unfortunately but I'm sure some of you would know what I'm talking about. Please do add any further comments. There are other questions to be considered here: Why did the Vlachs play such a central role in the Second Bulgarian Empire? Why would they not opt for a Wallachian state but support a Bulgarian one? Why did they still use Bulgarian language (as late as the 18th C) and why were so many of the names (Tihomir, Mircha, Vladislav, Vlad) and titles of their nobles/leaders (bolyar, voevoda) clearly Bulgaro-Slavic?

As far as the name is concerned, I believe Wallachia should be clearly separated from the modern term Romania. It is inacurate, confusing and rather politicised. (Kaloyan) {{unsigned|60.229.230.92}

Excellent questions!! 08/21/06

(Latin Empire of) Romania

Very interesting. On the territory, which later was called Rumelia by Turks, there was a Latin state called Romania in the 13th century. (The region was still indicated to be Romania on some original maps until the 18th century [3].) A couple of decades after this state ceased to exist, a new feudal state was founded in Wallachia (14th cent.). People living in Wallachia call themselves Romanians and speak a modern Latin language. I wonder what the connection between these facts is. Had the crusiader knigts fleeing from the Byzantium any role in creating this new state of Wallachia? --KIDB 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The official name of the Byzantine Empire was "Romania", the name 'Byzantine' being only a late invention of a German historian. The "Latins" (Venetians and Genoese) organized a crusade, which resulted in the "Latin conquest of Constantinople" and created a "Latin Empire", but it has nothing to do with the Romanians. In fact, before the 10th century, you'd find almost *nothing* in the Byzantine chronicles about them. Apparently, the Byzantines did not even knew that there were any Romanic peoples in the area. bogdan 12:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the ineteresting in the story is that these guys might have used Latin as their official language, although this is only a speculation from my side. And the streghtening of Wallachia coincides with the period when crusiaders had to leave from the Byzantium. A couple of hundreds of knights were already a quite strong military force in those times. --KIDB 13:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, at that time we know that before the "Latin Empire", Romanians lived north of the Balkan Mountains (see the Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion of 1185), so they had nothing to do it. However, the Byzantine chronicles don't say how far north the territory inhabited by the Romanians extended. bogdan 14:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Byzantium ceased to exist several centuries before Rumania was even thought of and well before the name was changed to Romania to support the Daco-Roman continuity "theory". —This unsigned comment was added by 24.57.195.26 (talk • contribs) 20 March 2006.

While I'm no believer in Daco-Romanian continuity, I'm pretty sure there are not "several centuries" between the fall of Byzantium (1453) and the use of Ţara Românească to designate what is now Wallachia (Wallachia coming etymologically from the same root as Vlach). Our article on Romania (uncited) says Ţara Românească was used as early as 1521. Unfortunately, the article does not give a clear citation, but the date sounds about right to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pechenegs and Cumans

I notice that this was recently dropped (by Greier): "Kings of Hungary invited the Pechenegs and Cumans from Wallachia to settle in Transylvania…" This is not something I know a lot about, but since it was removed without comment: was this false? Unimportant? or what? - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd expect a reference for that. :-) I know that the Cumans settled throughout the Kingdom of Hungary, but I don't know how many were settled in Transylvania. IMO, it's not that important, compared to the Szekely and Saxons, who actually had a great influence over the affairs of Transylvania. bogdan 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ferdinand and Marie

I notice that neither King Ferdinand nor Queen Marie get so much as a mention in the current article. Ferdinand was rather ineffectual, but Marie was probably the most important Queen Consort in 20th century Europe. Among other things, she headed the Romanian delegation to Versailles after WWI. Am I alone in thinking she deserves a mention? - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)