|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > Ancient, Medieval and Modern History > Transylvania History|
|Posted by: Benoit Douville August 11, 2005 12:33 am|
|Is it right that the territory of Transylvania is part of Romania? I know this is a Romanian forum but try to be objective... Some Historians claims that is is right because before the Hungarian occupation it was the Kingdom od Dacia where the Romanians come from. Also another question, is true that all the important river in Transylvania don't have Romanian names?|
|Posted by: Victor August 11, 2005 05:37 am|
| Depends on who you ask. If you ask Romanians, they will say it's right, if you ask Hungarians they will say it's wrong. There will always be disputed territories and people who will say it's right/wrong. There were two internationally recognized treaties that awarded Transylvania to Romania.
As for the river names, I'm no expert, but I think some of them date back to Dacian/Roman times.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 11, 2005 07:46 am|
No, its not true.
|Posted by: Iamandi August 11, 2005 08:14 am|
In some ways we can say it is true!
... because, most of them are adapted from old dacic language to the romanian language (formed from old dacia language, enriched with latin words and by years with foreign words like "setare" from settings [i know, we have "configurare"... but i use "ma duc sa setez" and not "ma cheama ***** ala ca si-a ****** configurarile", when my office phone rings ] ).
|Posted by: sid guttridge August 11, 2005 10:18 am|
| Hi Benoit,
If one accepts the Hungarian version, the Vlachs (Romanians) moved into Transilvania from south of the Danube from the medieval period onwards.
However, this was not an invasion, but a migration. As much of the area had been depopulated by wars with Turkey, the Hungarians were content to have the land repopulated by Vlach peasants who could work it for them. In the era of multi-ethnic states before the emergence of nationalism in the early 19th Century this was not particularly controversial to either Vlachs or Hungarians.
However, in the mid 19th Centrury first Hungarian, and then Romanian nationalism emerged and came into conflict in Transilvania. By then the Romanians were the largest population group in Transilvania (see the Hungarian census of 1910), especially in most rural areas. As a result, when frontiers were redrawn on more ethnically based lines after WWI the area was awarded to Romania.
My feeling is that, even if the above essentially Hungarian line is taken, the Romanian demographic advantage in Transilvania was achieved peacably. Hungary's first defeat was demographic - the Vlachs appear to have out-bred them over several centuries. Their second defeat was the emergence of ethnicity as a factor in deciding frontiers. As a result, by the 1918 Romania's claim to Transilvania was at least as convincing as Hungary's.
Today, the ballance has shifted further in Romanian favour. Transilvania's cities, which were largely Hungarian-, German- and Jewish- populated in 1910, mostly have Romanian majorities today, while the German and Jewish minorities have largely disappeared.
Even if one ignores the Daco-Roman line of argument, I can't see any strong reason why the peaceful population trends of the last few centuries shouldn't be recognised as giving Romania a good claim to Transilvania.
|Posted by: Iamandi August 11, 2005 11:18 am|
Sid! You know a lot of the Romania's history!
What is your job? You are a historyan? a geographyst, maybe?
|Posted by: Iamandi August 11, 2005 11:29 am|
| Sid, i recommend you to make some research about names like: Gelu, Glad, Menumorut... etc. Even Chevalier Iosim Bata. Maybe Horea, Closca, Crisan...
Maybe Bobalna (Bobilna) revolt to see for yourself, because what you said here: "However, in the mid 19th Centrury first Hungarian, and then Romanian nationalism emerged and came into conflict in Transilvania. " is not ok.
You have some minuses! I will not give you an "A" at history of Transilvania...
|Posted by: sid guttridge August 11, 2005 11:42 am|
| Hi Iama,
There is a post-facto tendency for uprisings to be claimed as "nationalistic". Take for example, the Indian Mutiny, which was a localised event but which nationalist Indian historians now try to claim was a nationalist uprising.
Peasant revolts against foreign overlords have occurred throughout history. Before the 1790s the fact that one side have a particular ethnicity was often historically of little relevance in nationalistic terms. In Britain we had the Peasants Revolt, in which a peasantry of largely Anglo-Saxon stock revolted against an aristocracy of largely Norman stock. However, it was not an uprising provoked by a national consciousness. It was provoked by the conditions of serfdom and vassalage.
The mere fact that an uprising occurred amongst Romanians is not necessarily an indication that national consciousness was what provoked it. I will look up the characters you recommend.
|Posted by: Iamandi August 11, 2005 11:47 am|
| Ok! I accept your words about revolt. But, we don't came in Transilvania from the South of the Danube...
|Posted by: Imperialist August 11, 2005 01:08 pm|
Depopulated by the Turks now... Wow!
Sid, a number of theories have been launched trying to do everything to challenge the romanian claim over Transylvania.
At first it was claimed that after the Dacian Wars there were no more dacians left to romanise. Then it was claimed that the time of roman occupation was too short to lead to romanisation. Afterwards it was claimed that the romans withdrew from Dacia en masse living no roman colonist and no romanised dacian behind.
Then it was claimed that the romanians migrated from the south.
Everything had to be made up to show that at the time of the hungarian entry in Transylvania the region was depopulated, and hence the first claim of possesion goes to them.
The theory is shallow and it has been scholarly refuted by respected romanian scholars like Xenopol and Dimitrie Onciul, just to name a few.
As for the romanian migration into Transylvania, I doubt that had anything to do with the hungarian need for hired labour. It was only a natural population movement between regions always inhabited by that population. Otherwise the hungarians would have rejected the intrusion like they rejected other migrations. And that migration went the other way too, from Transylvania to the outside.
The hungarians have always been seen as occupiers in Transylvania, and the desire to liberate it has been constant.
|Posted by: sid guttridge August 11, 2005 02:25 pm|
| Hi Imperialist,
The problem for Romanian nationalists is not to show that the Roman province of Dacia existed and that there were Latin speakers in the Transilvania area some 700 hundred years before the Hungarians arrived. The problem is to show continuity in Latin occupation. This remains problematical due to the comparitively brief Roman presence and the many migrations across the area in the intervening period. I think it is perfectly plausible, but not definitively proven. Furthermore, even with proven cultural and linguistic continuity, there does not have to be national consciousness.
However, I agree fully that the chances of Transilvania ever being completely unpopulated in the last 10,000 years is virtually non existent. If Man lived in remote and inhospitable places like Easter Island, Tasmania, Tierra del Fuego, Greenland, Siberia or the Kalahari Desert, then it is inconceivable that a fertile area like Transilvania in the middle of a continental land mass was unoccupied when the Hungarians arrived.
I did not say that the theory suggested that the Vlachs moved north of the Danube in response to a Hungarian demand for labour. I suggested that the theory goes that Vlach settlers moved in autonomously after Transilvania was devastated by Turkish invasion and the Hungarians found it more advantageous to use them as serfs than to leave the area depopulated.
I think the Romanian claim to Transilvania is supportable, whether there was Daco-Roman continuity or not.
In any event, DNA analysis of burials in Transilvania should soon establish on a firmer basis whether there was or was not Daco-Roman continuity in Transilvania after the Roman withdrawal.
|Posted by: Victor August 11, 2005 02:49 pm|
I really doubt that, especialy since the Hungarians weren't the ones "occupying" it all along until 1918. Following the fall of the Kingdom of St. Istvan after the Battle of Mohacs in the early 16th century and then the subsequent Ottoman conquest of present-day Hungary in 1541, Transylvania became an autonomous principality, under the Porte's suzeranity. The western parts of Transylvania were also briefly conquered (Timisioara/Temesvar, Oradea/Nagyvarad). The principality prospered under the leadeship of several strong princes and was involved in the politics of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 16th and 17th centuries. There were several instances were the princes of the three regions allied themselves against one of them or even against the Porte. There was even the brief union of the three by the conquest of Michael the Brave.
At the beginning of the 17th century, after the death of Michael the Brave, a new power arrived in Transylvania: the Habsburgs. The principality of Transylvania was even involved in the fighting of the 30 Years War, on the Protestant side, before loosing most of its power and being incorporated into the Austrian Empire at the end of the 17th century.
The Hungarian state reappeared in 1867 and Transylvania was incorporated in it. IMO only from then can we speak of Hungarian "occupation". Prior to 1541, there were no national states.
The two peasant uprisings in 1437 and 1514 were not Romanian national uprisings, as Hungarian serfs also took part in them. The second one was even led by a Szekler. The 1784-85 revolt also had predominatly social motives behind it. Supplex Libelus Valachorum was written several years after it, by educated Romanians.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 11, 2005 04:00 pm|
Why do you start directly with the 16th century? Wasnt there a Hungary before it was defeated by the Ottoman empire?
I hope you are not mixing the subjects.Though there werent national states in the modern sense, there were political bodies built around an ethnic homogenous nucleus. Disputing this fact is weird IMHO. Also the awareness of ethnic differences was obvious as is today. A romanian could understand that he is ethnically different from an ethnic hungarian, and he instinctively grouped with his own. I think you mean to say this fact did not gain a dominant position in policy-making, but thats not the same with saying that the occupation or presence of a foreign ethnic element was not perceived!
Yes, hungarian serfs took part in them, but again you are not telling the complete story.
After the uprisings the hungarians, the germans and the szekelers joined forces in the Unio Trium Nationum. Sidelining the romanian population completely.
And I'll abstain from saying more.
edit -- ofcourse I'm talking about 1437 UTN...
|Posted by: Victor August 11, 2005 04:48 pm|
Like I said, there was no national state in the Middle Ages. Sure there was a Kindgdom of Hungary before the 16th century, but it wasn't the Hungary of 1867. It was a whole different thing. Not even the kings were always Hungarian ethnics, btw.
I believe that one cannot mix Middle Age states with modern ones, simply because they differ very much.
Sure there was ethnic awarness, but from this to claim that "occupation was perceived" there is a long way. The notion of national property did not exist or at least this is my impression. The Romanian serf did not care if he was ruled by an ethnic Hungarian or Romanian nobleman. To him it was the same. And since he had no property of his own, how could he feel under "foreign occupation"?
Actually it is you who are not saying the complete story. These weren't the "Hungarians", the "Germans" and the "Szeklers", but noblemen of this ethnicity. The Middle Ages "nations" were the nobles, the rest did not count.
You should also have mentioned what all these three groups had in common and what Romanians didn't: Catholicism. The other important status of the Middle Ages: religion.
You can be sure that if there were many Romanian catholic nobles in Transylvania, there would have been a fourth "nation". But there weren't that many Romanian noblemen around and most of them were Eastern Orthodox.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 11, 2005 05:56 pm|
I'm sorry but they were Hungarian, German and Szeklers. Their class is irrelevant as long as there were no Romanian equivalents to them allowed in UTN.
Its like saying "it was not a romanian national uprising against the hungarians/germans/szeklers because there were hungarian serfs participating, and the UTN wasnt against the romanian ethnics because the hungarians, germans and szeklers signing it were... nobles!"
I see. So this was an exclusive catholic club with no romanians or orthodox allowed. That certainly puts it in a more favourable light.
The part with the property and the exploited serf who cared not who his exploiters were sounds more like an old communist thesis. Those serfs were the prototypes of communist workers despising the shackles of exploitation regardless of nationality and joining brotherly forces with fellow workers... etc.
I dont think property has anything to do with group spirit, identity and rejection of foreign occupation.
Why did the dacians reject the roman occupation? Did they hava a modern state and national property? Why were there "free dacians" that chose to live outside that occupation? Did they comprehend what occupation meant?
Yes, we shouldnt mix
modern states with medieval political entities, but neither should we claim the 19th century national revolution invented anything else but the political expectations for national unification. It did not invent the nations or the self-awareness needed for that, it capitalised on existing values/awareness.
|Posted by: dragos August 11, 2005 06:09 pm|
| At the arrival of Hungarians (in 896) on the territory of actual Transylvania, there were older political formations, voievodate, whose military leaders (having also juridical and administrative attributions) were named voievozi. Beside voievodate, there were smaller formations called cnezate. Their leaders, cnezi, were maintaing order, gathering tolls, raising the armies and deciding minor juridical cases. The presence of Wallachians (volohi) and several slavic tribes in the course of assimilation in Transylvania at the time the Hungarians arrived is attested by the chronicle of Nestor from Kiev. Gesta Hungarorum, the chronicle of anonimus notary of Hungarian king Bela, about the conquest of Transylvania, in chapter IX presents the existing people of the region as the shepherds of the Romans: Wallachians and Slavs, armed only with bows and arrows. The Hungarian notary wrote that in 896 there were three voievodate in Transylvania, which were conquered and subdued one by one by the Hungarians. The first one, ruled by Menumorut, in Crisana, covering the Biharea and Satmar castles. The second one, the voievodat of Glad, in Banat, with the Cuvin and Orsova castles. The last one, the voievodat of Gelu, in the intra-Carpathian space, with the castle Dabaca.
The progessive advance of Hungarians, followed by the invasions of Pecenegs, Cumans and Mongols in 1241 prevented the formation of a larger state before the XIV century. By the middle of this century, the Romanian nobles, maiores terrae, took part side by side with the Hungarians and Germans in the political and military life, and in the feudal exploitation, which led to the people's revolt of Bobilna (1437) and the peasants' war led by Gheorghe Doja (1514).
Outside the Carpathian arc, the first independent Romanian state, Tara Romaneasca, was ruled by Basarab I (1310-1352), voievod of Arges and Cimpulung, which defeated his liege, the Hungarian king Carol Robert de Anjou, at Posada in 1330. Moldavia became independend during the rule of Bogdan, voievod of Maramures, which rised against the Hungarian king in 1359 and repulsed several attacks.
The Mongol invasion was devastating, many cities in Transylvania being conquered and looted. However, according to Constantin C. Giurescu, the Mongol invasion prevented the Hungarian advance further in the East and the Mongols even helped Basarab I.
Ovidiu Drimba, Istoria culturii si civilizatiei, vol. 4
|Posted by: dragos August 11, 2005 06:29 pm|
What about the Scots under the abusive rule of King of England Edward I ? Their rise seems to me fairly based on ethnic principles. It is true, before the English occupation there was a solid Scottish state based on a independent kingdom, but the point is that Scots have proved a strong ethnic awareness.
|Posted by: sid guttridge August 12, 2005 09:05 am|
| Hi Dragos,
Don't take the Hollywood film "Braveheart" as history. That put a 20th Century Scottish nationalist gloss on what was a more complex picture.
In fact Scotland, like England, was largely ruled by a Norman-descended aristocracy at the time.
|Posted by: dragos August 12, 2005 09:13 am|
Sid, I'm not using the movie as historical reference. I have read various article on the Internet, including about the innacuracies of the movie, and I have seen a very interesting documentary on Discovery Civilization titled "Braveheart - Myth or Reality".
|Posted by: Imperialist August 12, 2005 10:18 am|
To form an accurate opinion, the dates of these "theories" being forwarded should be noted:
- Istvan Szamoskozy - before 1601 he claimed the romanians were the descendants of the roman colonists. After 1601 he changed his mind, deciding that saying they werent descendents of the romans was better. Hmmm, I really wonder why he changed he mind so abruptly after 1601 and what was the politics of that change...
- Franz Josef Sulzer - his theory was dated to 1781
- Roesler - theory dated around 1871
- Corvinus Library - generally republishes these theories under different angles, date - 21st century
The first and the third examples are clearly examples of politicised theories.
|Posted by: Victor August 12, 2005 01:21 pm|
It seems you still did not understand that it wasn't as much about ethnicity as it was about religion and social class.
Initially it was Catolic. In the 17th century it became a Calvinist "club", when Prince Gabriel Bethlen wanted to convert the Romanians en masse to this protestant rite. When the Austrians took over Catholicism returned and this time there were Romanians willing to unite with Rome. These were the same Romanians that later wrote Supplex Libelus Valachorum.
Actually the Communist era thesis was your initial post, which claimed that Romanians always wanted to throw down the "Hungarian yoke".
It is true that a serf in Wallachia or Moldavia had slighter better life than one in Transylvania (at least until Michael the Brave tied down the serfs also in Wallachia), but that was because of the different type of feudal lords. When you live the life they were living I doubt one would actually care if the lord was Romanian or Hungarian. Life was too hard for the poor bastards. More like they would have madea distinction between a zeelous Catholic lord that would not have respected their Orthodox faith and a lord that would have let them be as they were.
The conquest of Dacia by the Romans is much different from the conquest of Transylvania by the Hungarians. The first one was a short and bloody conquest, while the latter took quite some time and it wasn't always violent. The Dacians had a strong state and leader uniting the tribes. The small Vlach/Pecheneg states in Transylvania were divided and lacked a unitary command.
You ask why there were the so-called Free Dacians. The answer is extremely simple. The Romans did not have the resources and the interest to subdue the rest of the tribes. The nucleus of the Dacian state and its gold mines had been seized. Why engage the legions in a senseless guerrila war with cavalry in Moldavia and the steppes beyond it. Btw, the term of "free Dacians" is a modern one, not what they referred to themselves.
I am curious. Would you care to substantiate this claim of yours:
with some proof?
|Posted by: Victor August 12, 2005 01:33 pm|
There was a Scottish state for more than two hundread years before Longshanks appeared in Scotland. Furthermore, there were a couple of pretendants to the Scottish throne and sizeable local noble class, which possesed the land. A totally different situation to what was in Transylvania.
I am not saying that people weren't aware of the fact that they belonged to the same or to a different ethnicity, but this wasn't as important then as it was in the last two centuries.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 12, 2005 01:58 pm|
Yes, apparently the exclusively non-romanian ethnicity was a coincidence. Not a conspiracy, not a deliberate choice, a coincidence. Lets focus on religion and class...
My point was that though in the case of the uprisings Hungarian participation is immediately pointed out to neutralise any idea of exclusive ethnic romanian uprising (or nationally aware), in the case of the Unio.T.N, the lack of Romanian participation should be glossed over as only natural, and nothing to do with an Union against the ethnic romanians.
I dont remember speaking about a hungarian yoke, but about a hungarian occupation. Mine was not a communist thesis, but a national one.
In theory maybe they wouldnt, but he could certainly differentiate between a hungarian speaking lord and a romanian speaking one. Between a catholic one and an orthodox one. The issue was awareness of ethnic differences, afterall. Your opinion that ethncity and ethnical awareness did not exist is false.
That was not the point of the comparison.
The point was that it seems you claim the dacians had a state before the 19th century. Made up mostly of ethnically related dacians. How could that be?! Did they know they were dacians? Did they have so complex system of ethnic awareness and identity that they looked upon the romans as foreigners? Did they comprehend what occupation was all about? That certainly is not possible before the 19th century when ethnic awareness and national property entered the modern age...
Come on, this is kindergarten stuff. I know the term "free Dacians" is used in modern times should that mean they were not?! Does that mean they werent free, and possibly its an invention dated to the first apparition of the term "free dacians"???
Come on... lets be mature about this. If they were "free" I think they knew it. They felt it. And its highly likely they viewed themselves like that. How do you know they didnt call themselves "free"?
Following this logic the Sun is not billion years old, but an invention of mankind who cameup with the term "sun", and one cannot speak about a "sun" prior to its first mentioning in human texts.... [hope you get the comparison...]
What proof would you want?
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 12, 2005 04:52 pm|
| I have a question: was Romania ever spelled Ruminia ? I know during comunism it wasn't, before and during ww2 it wasn't either, now it sure isn't spelled Ruminia, so was it in the 19th Century spelled like that ?
Car = masina (machine)
Train = tren (sounds like in french)
Television = televiziune
Aeroplane = avion (just like french)
RailwayStation = Gara (a little like french)
Sid - I never heard at history classes or romanian languge and literature classes (and I did speak a lot especially with my history teacher) about what you said with the french teachers. However, we did have some bright minds who were able to do this instead of calling help from another country. It is true that most of them had a very good education and spoke french..
|Posted by: dragos August 12, 2005 07:13 pm|
Yes, I know the situation in Scotland was different, and that the ethnic awareness was not the same as in the XX century when nationalist propaganda virtually became a science, but your claim that the common peasant did not care who is exploiting him as long as he had no property falls into other extreme. What happened in Scotland, where there were also Scottish nobles who were cooperating with the English, shows that the folk could rise distinctively against a ruler of a different ethnic group, especially when their freedoms are limited.
|Posted by: Benoit Douville August 13, 2005 03:32 am|
| I really appreciated everybody contribution to this thread so far, I am also an outsider like Jeff and I try to improve my knowledge about Romanian History. Stay calm folks...
|Posted by: Imperialist August 13, 2005 07:57 am|
| Victor, I recommend the "Natiunea Medievala" article in Magazin Istoric no.1/January 2003.
There it is said that the first definitions of the medieval nation were formulated at the Counsil of Konstanz 1414-1418. The english envoys ellaborated the document Anglicae Nationis Vindicatio, in the defense of the english nation.
The same council produced the following idea:
The article is balanced, highlighting the role of religion and the lack of numerous mass movements in the name of the nation, but it does caution not to consider the nation inexistent in medieval times.
The conclusion of the article:
|Posted by: udar August 13, 2005 03:18 pm|
|About continuity of romanians in Transilvania,this question became rhetorical today.For the first time the idea that hungarians find Transilvania empty,and than,after a while,they let the romanians,who come from south of Danube to settle here,was promoted by austrians,and austro-hungarians,when romanians become to be much aware about their history,and claim more rights in Transilvania.The Austro-Hungarian empire feel more treat by Romanian union from 1859,and start with this ideas,not prouved,until now.By contrary,today,when so many archeological descoveries was done all over to Romanian teritory,and on neighbour teritories,it is well know that never in his history,from the aparition of man to this area,and until today,Transilvania was empty.The prouves,besides the most evident(the archeological ones),is given even by hungarians who come here at that time(9-10 century),the famous Anonymus chronicle,the fact that hungarians not settle here from the first(even if is one of the most rich land in Europe)but try to conquer lands in west,and the fact that all the names of important rivers and mounts(Carpatian Mounts) is dacian names.|
|Posted by: Agarici August 16, 2005 05:41 pm|
| Sid, I’ve red all your posts from this topic and I can’t see what is the point you’re trying to make.
First, the Roslerian-type theories were used in the sense of the “jus primus ocupantus” arguments, which could have been relevant only until the XX century. Even from this perspective, they addressed some question raised by the Daco-Roman continuity in the early Middle Age (the “Dark Ages”). By the time when the Hungarian tribes reached the Transylvanian Plain, contemporary sources of Hungarian, Byzantine and Kievian origin (so including every important neighboring states) mentioned the existence of the Blachians/Vlachians/Valachians in Transylvania (Somes and Crisuri regions) and Banat, not only as a distinct population but as organizes feudal “states”. So even using that Roman law measure (“jus primus ocupantus”) the Romanian claim over Transylvania could be sustained.
Also for your knowledge, almost no respectable foreign historian (meaning not a Romanian or a Hungarian one) takes seriously the Roslerian hypothesis. That’s why I wonder why you are so receptive to this style of rudimentary propaganda, designed for the not so smart high-school graduated…
You mentioned the peasants’ revolts from Transylvania, but you ignore a fact (among so many others): Transylvania had a large stratum of free peasantry and the feudal arrangements (the peasants’ obligations to the nobles or to the king) were among the less oppressive in Europe. Also this peasantry jealously guarded its rights. In time, gradually, the arrangements became more oppressive and the obligations multiplied - hence the two peasants revolts, among the most powerful and violent in Europe. The peasants organized real armies, and if you ever come to Cluj you’ll have the opportunity to see the complexity of the weapons they used in the local history museum. In 1437 for example, they allied with the lesser citizens and took over the city of Cluj, organizing a “republic”. So given their favorable initial situation and the fact that they were not at all willing to “negotiate” it, it’s really hard to sustain that they have settled as a workforce after the Hungarians arrival; such a thing would imply that they would have been forced to accept almost every arrangement, regardless of how unfavorable this was for them. A far more plausible hypothesis would be that after the gradual occupation of the Valachian “states” (between the Xth and the XIIth century) large privileges were granted to the majoritary local peasantry (together with the elimination/cooptation of the Valachian/Romanian incipient nobility) in order to prevent any turmoil. But however this is not the point, since the presence of the Romanians by the time of the Hungarian tribes’ arrival is a proven fact. And since you go on and on talking about Romanian nationalism, you might wonder what kind of motivations stood behind the Roslerian-type “theories”.
|Posted by: Victor August 17, 2005 01:30 pm|
| Imperialist, I wish to get one thing straight with you. I don't like it when you put words into my mouth that aren't in my posts.
I did not say that ethnic awareness did not exist. In fact I have said the contrary at least twice. I just questioned that it was a driving force for the peasant uprisings or that there was always the desire among other Romanians to "liberate" Transylvania, something that you still avoid proving to the forum.
As for the rest of your reply to me, brushing aside the unnecessary sarcasm, you still did not bring forth any argument that Unio Trium Nationum was directed only against Romanians and only because of their ethnicity, except your conspiracy theory.
The same for the "Free Dacians". Your irony won't take the place of sources, proof etc. Better start producing some of it, although I doubt you ever will. The "Free Dacians" were Dacian tribes that lived in the territory of present day Romania that had not been incorporated into the Roman Empire. The tribes had names: Carpians, Costobocs, Great Dacians etc. I had a map of the Dacian tribes, but unfortunately it isn't available to me now. The point is that they weren't in Roman Dacia so your question if they seen Romans as occupiers is a pointless.
As for the Dacian state, we don't know that much about it, do we? So jumping to certain conclusions and attributing to them ideas that usually didn't exist in ancient times and at their level of civilization is far-fetched IMO.
I read the article of Ioan Aurel Pop in that issue of Magazin Istoric. He also wrote a book: Natiunea romana medievala: solidaritati etnice romanesti in secolele XIII-XVI, Editura Enciclopedica, 1998. But again: I didn't say that ethnic awareness didn't exist.
And now let's go back to your claim that started this whole thing.
Would care to come up with proof sustaining your claim? Some examples of Moldavian and Wallachian princes wanting to liberate Transylvania? Any mention in the Moldavian or Wallachian chronicles or official acts of a Hungarian occupation of Transylvania?
Otherwise, interesting discussion on linguistics, but what is its relation with Transylvania?
|Posted by: Imperialist August 17, 2005 09:35 pm|
So what you are saying is that the UTN was not directed only against Romanians, and not only because of their ethnicity, but also because of their religion and social status. Is that it? I dont want to put words in your mouth, so I'll wait your response before following my argument further.
So what you want is an inscription or something that would show the dacians in question considered themselves free from roman occupation. And if that inscription is not found, the "free" part is just a 19-20th century term that makes us better understand the political reality of that time, but does not necessarily depict correctly that reality. Have you ever considered that the "free" term might be actually taken from an ancient text or an ancient author? Why was your first reaction to dismiss it because of its 19 or 20th century "age"? Somehow this looks very much similar to what Sid is doing in the linguistic discussion. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats how I view it.
If you ever read the political-historical and philosophical books of the antiquity you'd know that the political thought of the times was fairly advanced.
The very complicated idea that I attributed to the dacians was that of "freedom/being free". If you allow me a little sarcasm, I bet the dacians needed a combustion engine for the idea of "freedom" to pop in their little heads...
|Posted by: dragos August 18, 2005 11:29 am|
| Please continue the discussion on Romanian language here:
|Posted by: Benoit Douville August 20, 2005 06:57 pm|
| It's great to see that this thread is still about Transylvania History... Anyone here interested to talk about the Polish occupation of Transylvania during the period of 1572 to 1576. I have to mentionned that it was during the time of the Kingdom of Poland & Lithuania from 1569 to 1795. How was the life during that occupation?
|Posted by: Victor August 22, 2005 05:49 am|
|I don't think it can be called Polish occupation. It was more of a unioin under the same monarch. The King of Poland, Stephen Bathory (1575-1586), was also the prince of Transylvania. He had been viovode of Transylvania since 1571, before becomming King of Poland and was born in Transylvania in a family that had given another two voivodes before him.|
|Posted by: Victor August 22, 2005 06:13 am|
| Well, Imperialist, I have waited 4 days now and still you haven't come forth with anything to back your initial statement. You seem to avoid doing it for whatever reason.
Unio Trium Nationum was wrongly protrayed, especially in the Comunist era, as a 15th century conspiracy directed against Romanians. I, personally, find it very far-fetched, given the feudal mentality on the importance of ethnicity, when compared to religion and social status. It wasn't 1867 Hungary, but feudal Hungary. If there were any big Romanian Catholic nobles around they would have most likely joined in.
This whole UNT stuff started off from the Bobilna Revolt discussion, which as already said wasn't a Romanian national uprising, but just a peasant revolt, with Hungarian peasants participating, as well as Romanians.
The "free Dacians" discussion is probably another digression you introduced, probably lacking any arguments to support your initial claim. I don't see much point in it, but I will indulge you and answer your questions.
Unless you come up with an example of ancient text depicting the Carpians, Costobocs etc. as "free Dacians" there is no need for me to consider it. Let's stick to facts that we can back up.
The political thought was advanced in the "civilzied" parts of the ancient world. Like I said, we don't know that much about the Dacian tribes and their level of of political civilizations, so assuming too much, without facts, is far-fetched. I doubt that the Carpians, when raiding Roman Dacia made any difference between other Dacian tribes and Roman settlers when pillaging or that they wanted to "liberate" Dacia. Of course, you are welcome to try to proove it.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 22, 2005 07:04 am|
And I fail to see your exasperation at me pointing out the exclusive non-romanian character of the UTN. You even admitted that was the case, because romanians were poor and orthodox. So? Was it or was it not an exclusive club, closed to romanians? And for how long did UTN last, and what was its impact on keeping the romanians poor and below the favoured Trio of Nations?
Then dont consider it. Its your choice how you study history.
Given that the dacian tribes were united under a single leadership and assumed a single political identity, I think the political thought was fairly well advanced.
|Posted by: Tudor August 27, 2005 08:14 pm|
| Tribal alliances and temporary personal unions don't necessarily mean advanced political thought. And the Dacians never really had a coherent state. Not even during the times of Burebista and Decebal. And even if ethnic identity can be proven in ancient times it will have long been washed away by the Dark Ages. After all, we are not really Dacians or Romans, the Italians are not Romans, the French are not Gauls and the English are neither Saxons nor Celts. Just the fact that we trace our ancestry to any of these peoples doesn't make us one and the same with them.
As for the ideea of freedom, no one really contests it. It's as old as time. The real issue here is what kind of freedom are we talking about? The Middle Ages are filled with peoples' demands for personal freedom, social emancipation, religious freedom, but national freedom is unheard of. It's really not even an issue yet. I'm sure anybody can produce evidence of ethnic affiliation but that alone is no evidence of national identity. A nation is a lot more than ethnicity.
National issues only really come into play once a nation has defined and claimed it's identity. Before that we're talking about ethnic issues at best. Moreover, I think that in order for a group (nation in this case) to be acknowledged as such it must be internally and not externally defined. Even if the group is identified as a threat from the outside (i.e. Hungarians or whatever persecuting the Vlachs) it's not really relevant before that group decides that it shares a common cause and has to stick together.
As a relevant example, although England and France have repeatedly clashed over feudal issues in the early Middle Ages both French and British historians only consider it a conflict between the English and the French peoples from the time of the 100 Years War onwards. Before that it's purely a feudal conflict. And it was likely the same in early Medieval Transylvania. This, of course does not disprove continuous Romanian occupation of the area. It's simply that nationality was not much of an issue at the time.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 28, 2005 09:48 am|
Well, if we are to be strict about this, neither social emancipation was an issue. The idea of social emancipation in the ME was a marxist interpretation of events. Even the idea of personal freedom being an issue in the ME could most likely be traced to the period of struggle against the monarchies in Europe for more political power and personal freedoms.
|Posted by: udar August 30, 2005 01:02 pm|
About free dacians,and about dacian advanced political thought there is couple antiq prouve for this.Even they dont have an united state for a long time,the greeks was spread in couple cities-states too(at least until Phillip the Second and Alexander the Great forced unification.Germanic people even dont have an unified state,under a single ruler.I dont think dacians can be considered out of "civilized"part of antiq world.By contrary.And i dont want to talk about Dacia under Burebista or Decebal,who build a state who became one of the main powers of antiq world and most of people know of this.A prouve that "free"Dacians,Carpians and Costobocs was considered free in antiq times,is the fact that a long list of roman emperors,after Traian wars,and even after Aurelian retreat roman administration from north of Danube,take the over name Dacicus or Carpicus(maximus),who was gived for defeating an enemy.And this enemy was obviously an extern and free enemy.About Political thought of dacians after wars with Traian,ones of the raids in Roman empire was coordinated with rebelions of ocupied dacians,who fight too against romans.And another example of the fact that dacians considered himself as a nation was the roman emperor Caius Galerius Valerius Maximianus,250-311 AC(the Ler Imparat from our legends).Acording with Lactantius(240-320 AC)a roman christian writer,Galerius,who afirmed his dacian identity"he had avowed himself the enemy of the roman name,and he proposed that the empire should be called not the Roman,but the Dacian empire".And on his triumph arch from Salonic(erect to celebrate the victory against persian empire)can be see that many of his soldiers was dacians(apear even the famous dacian<draco>flag).Galerius,acording with Lactantiu,treating the romans citizens with cruelty,like conquerers treat the conquered,in the name of the same treatment who Traian applied to conquered dacians(forefathers of Galeriu)with two centuries before.I think this will prouve that dacians have a continuity in their political thought,and fight for freedom and a powerfull country(and nation).About nationality in Middle Age,we cant breake(in Transilvania) the religion believes from nationality.The best examples was Iancu de Hunedoara and his son Matei Corvin.They was able to rull in Transilvania and Hungary just if they renounce to Ortodox religion,and become Catholic,and,ofcourse speake hungarian.And i think we can define a nation not just base on sanguine link,but base on their religion,language,mits and common habits too
|Posted by: bogmih September 04, 2005 11:29 am|
| Back to the original question.
My very biased oppinon is that it's right.
The important rivers in Transilvania have Dacian names. The Dacians were conquered by the Romans and romanized. If the Hungarians' theory that all the people of Dacia left the province when the Romans retreated in 270-275 were true, then the rivers' names should have a different origin. Instead, we have: Mures (the original name was Marisus), Somes (Samus), Timis (Tibiscus), Olt (Alutus), Cris (Crisia), Cerna (Tsiernia).
Dacia included what is now Transilvania, indeed. The roman province of Dacia was more 'centered' on Transilvania, if I may say so, because it didn't include many other territories (only Oltenia and Banat). This is where the romanization took place, so that's where you may place the 'craddle' of the Romanian nation. Of course, this is also my biased oppinion.
|Posted by: Dan Po September 04, 2005 03:17 pm|
Tisia for actual Tisa
Porota for the Prut
Piretus for Siret
Ampelum for Ampoi
Ordessos for Arges.
Some foreign historians think that those are not evidences of the continuity of daco-romans in Transilvania. They think the transformation from the ancient names to the modern romanian names didn t follow the rules of the developement from latin to romanian language.
This cannot be accepted becouse we don t know if those dacian names were exactely and precisely writed with latin letters. So, we don t know the original pronunciation of the dacians >>>> we cannot establish the phonetic evolution - not a precisely one.
More than that, we can see another phenomenon: the new commers use to adapt the originaly names to their language:
the ancient dacian name of Bersovis (archeologicaly certified) was called by slavians Berzava (in slavic berzava is mean quick, fast, rapid), and now its still Berzava.
the ancient town Tsierna >>> and the river Tsierna , also certified with inscriptions) was called by slavians as Cerna >>. black, muddy.
|Posted by: Victor September 04, 2005 05:20 pm|
|The off-topic discussion on the Hundread Years' War was moved http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2429.|
|Posted by: Victor September 04, 2005 06:12 pm|
| udar, you misunderstood. The idea is if the "Free Dacians" were called so by the Romans themselves (Licens Dacorum - I believe this is the translation, but my Latin is rather poor). I seriously doubt such texts exist. That is why the "Free Dacians" were designated according to the tribes they belonged to. The term "free Dacians" is a modern creation.
Of course the Greeks were organized in a multitude of city-states, making up several different leagues. But, again, that is not the issue. The issue is that the state of cultural development they reached cannot be assumed for everyone living in the same century with them. If we would compare the level of the Dacian civilization with others, it must be with Celts, Germans, Thracians, not Greeks or Romans. They are a totally different category and claiming otherwise is the realm of fantasy. Unfortunately, even today the Communist theme of glorifying Dacians, of making them more than they actually were, continues.
Getting back to more relevant things regarding Transylvania, I don't understand why you say we shouldn't dissociate between Christian rite and ethnicity. In the 15th century there were three ethnicities of Roman Catholic rite. Later, when a part of the Romanians became Catholic themselves, there was a big difference between them and the Orthodox Romanians. The Romanians who wrote [i Supplex Libelus Valachorum[/i] were Catholics. The first Romanian high schools in Transylvania were Catholic. You yourself mention Iancu de Hunedoara/Janos Huniady, who was half Romanian, half Hungarian, and who, being a nobleman and a Catholic, got to rule over the entire Hungarian Kingdom. There isn't a better example for the importance of religion and social status in the Medieval times (obviously his successes played an important role). His son, Matia (not Matei=Matthew), was already more Hungarian than Romanian.
Imperialist, I see you continue to avoid answering one simple request to back up your initial statement. I'm not surprised.
|Posted by: udar September 07, 2005 07:25 am|
|I am not sure if is a antiq roman text who name the not ocupied Dacians-"free Dacians".But,the fact that many roman emperors,who fight against dacians,after Traian,take the over name <Dacicus>,or <Carpicus>mean that Romans consider Dacians as free,and the name <free Dacians>,even if is gived in modern times,represent a reality of antiq times,recognized in that times.About the theme(so called by you) of gloryfing Dacians,you are wrong,is not start in comunist time,but long before(B.P.Hasdeu,N.Densusianu,etc.).And many of this ideas is prouved.Ofcourse,Dacians dont have a write culture,and dont reach the cultural development reach by greeks,for example,but was nor "barbarians",for example.They have an original and quite developed culture,an advanced political thought,a powerful military development,and was not just couple "barbarians" tribes who just leave the caves,and fight blindly with everyone who find around. About Transilvania in Middle Age time,yes,was three ethnicities who was Catholic,the same for Unio Trium Nationum(-by the way,the szekels-secuii,was considered a diferent nation than hungarians).About a part of romanians(a relative small part) who become Catholic,they dont become Roman catholic,but greek-catholic.From what i know about this,it mean that they keep the Ortodox rituals,and just recognize the Pope as the leader of Church.About Iancu de Hunedoara,he became a leader of Transilvania and Hungary just when he renounce to ones of his national atributes(Christian rit,language)and take it from foreign ocupiers they rits and language.And even so,he become such important political leader because was an great military leader,and in front of danger,hungarians accept foreign leaders.In fact,not long time after Iancu and his son,Matei(Matia)rule,Hungary(but not Transilvania),was conquered and transformed in Ottoman province.|
|Posted by: bogmih September 07, 2005 07:46 am|
| Udar, after "." or "," press space before writing a new word.
The greek-catholic faith only appeared in the XVIIIth century, after the Austrian Empire conquered Transylvania. It wasn't introduced by the Hungarians.
|Posted by: Imperialist September 07, 2005 12:39 pm|
I think I already said earlier in the thread that the term "free dacians" could be a modern one, but that doesnt mean their quality of being "free" was a modern invention also. And I mentioned that they probably felt free because they were not under Roman occupation. Moreover, as Udar pointed out, they even continued to have military clashes with the Romans.
And as a matter of curiosity, if you say the term "free dacians" is a modern one (could very well be), it should be easy to spot its appearance. When was it invented?
|Posted by: Iamandi September 07, 2005 12:46 pm|
| Off topic (?) :
Densusianu is a credible source? Because i read only one book of him and is ... incredible.
|Posted by: sid guttridge September 08, 2005 10:01 am|
| Hi Guys,
In the UK we have numerous river names which are pre-Roman that the Romans adopted and used themselves. It is also generally thought that many of these also predate the peoples who the Romans conquered. How does one distinguish a Dacian river name from one the Dacians themselves adopted from earlier peoples?
Widening the question, is there enough information on the Dacian language to specify where it fits into the Indo-Eurpean language family tree? Has it any living relatives?
On an earlier thread it was mentioned that there are thought to be about 200 words of Dacian origin still in the Romanian language. Have you any examples?
|Posted by: Zayets September 08, 2005 10:12 am|
Who lived here before the Dacians?And what language have they spoken?
Well,I think is enough to say Dacian is an Indo-European language.Yes,they were shown in the thread about Romanian language origins.
Dacian words?They are pretty easy to identify(manz,viezure,varza??? etc.) But the sites giving the 200-330 Dacian words have more infos about this.
|Posted by: sid guttridge September 08, 2005 10:45 am|
| Hi Zayets,
Identifying the languages and identities of resident populations before written history is extremely difficult. The names of geographical features, particularly rivers, are perhaps the only linguistic traces left of some peoples. Historically we can be sure of the Dacians, but not of any of their prehistoric predecessors.
It is presumably possible that the Dacians themselves inherited the names for some geographical features, especially rivers, from earlier populations. We know that the Danube valley was the route by which agriculture entered Europe in the 7th millenium BC and copper working in the 4th millenium BC. Both were accompanied by migrations. However, we don't know if the Dacians were already resident or part of these migrations because we have no historic trace of them before the 1st millenium BC.
|Posted by: Zayets September 08, 2005 11:02 am|
That's true.Isn't it amazing that Europe as we know it today,was one of the last continents to benefit from advantages of "civilization" (I exclude America although South America was pretty much a different case).We can trace back Egyptians,Assirians,Babylonians,Chineze etc. with historical artifacts/documents.Yet Europe was pretty late in these.Is not the case of Dacians only.Who lived before the Gauls?Or Romans?Or Celts?Or Vikings?Or Greeks?(Well , for the Greeks we have much more accounts but notice thier proximity with the Asian teritories,Tiger & Euphrat the so called "craddle of civilization").There's no doubt that today Europe was/is known for her driving force into what we consider today progress,still we have less information than we have about what today we call 3rd world .Isn't that ironic?
Definitely Dacians took/inherited names/words from what was supposed to be once their predecessors.But who were they?There are traces back to the neolithic age/bronze age in Romania. But I don't think everyone agrees what for language these people used.Museums in Romania hold a lot of such artifacts.And no, there's not so many writen ones,if you wonder.
|Posted by: petru September 13, 2005 09:29 pm|
|I heard "Gesta Hungarorum" mention some clashes in Transylvania at their arrival. Most of the Hungarian point of view comes from a description of the Aurelian withdrawal, in which it was said that so many people left that the land remained "deserted". This is probably is just a composition style, but they are interpreted ad literam. It is hard to believe. There are no written documents that they left, but there are no documents they stayed. The fact that the romanian language is so different from what is around us, could imply some conclusions that Hungarians don't like. However if you have a mass of people on the move you would expect some traces. We will probably not know the answer for some time. I don't think the ADN is too reliable.|
|Posted by: Redrake September 15, 2005 06:29 pm|
That line about Dacia being evacuated completely was inserted there by the roman historians because they didn't want to show emperor Aurelian as an emperor who abandoned one of the roman provinces. It would not have been apropriate for a roman emperor to look like he abandoned roman citizens, so they invented the withdrawal idea and to cover this up, Aurelian established south of the Danube 2 new provinces, Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea. The withdrawal from Dacia was made in less than a year. Is impossible to even consider that all the population could have been moved. Only the administration and the armies were most likely withdrawn, although roman armies (and later on byzantines) still kept control of several castres north of Danube.
As for genetics, that's not a viable argument. There is not pure romanian as there is no pure hungarian.
|Posted by: Valium April 22, 2011 06:51 am|
As I know, The more important rivers origin(Mures, Olt, Somes) suggest an unknown, antic origins(posible avar, gepid, roman, dacian, even older), and the majority of the others slavic origins. The cvasi-hungarian origins, sustained by hungarian lingvist, is also speculative.
As the romanian language itself has an important range of slavic origins, we couldn't say the slavic origin of the names is not romanian. The vlachs from 19 cnt, were not the same with the vlachs in 9-10 cnt. In 9-10 cnt, at the magyars arrival, probably vlachs lived at highlands, while slavs and pecenegs lived in lowlands. hard to say who were majoritars: slavs, pechenegs, or vlachs. but, probably the number slavs+pechenegs surpassed vlachs. Anyway, as the first desired teritories by magyars were lowlands, they started to banish the slavs and pechenegs. The remaints of tehm were asimilated by both slavs and magyars.
|Posted by: Valium April 22, 2011 07:07 am|
The one who saw Cerna river, could wonder why today is a cristal-clear river. Anyway, i think is a slavic name. probaly the name has nothing to to with mud, but with reflection of the dark clouds in it. Cerna is a quite big mountain river today, and posible it was much bigger in the past.
|Posted by: Valium April 22, 2011 07:22 am|
It is not hard to believe, is imposible
|Posted by: Valium April 22, 2011 07:30 am|
It depends very much how is interpreted, how the sample are prelevated...
Anyway, is absolutely true, the genetics could be irelevant. There are few examples of today european nations, which sources suggest an asian origins, but now they look completely as europeans. Asimilation, repopulation, invasions...could have a decisive effect in an millenia, without changing the cultural traits dicisivelly.