Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website

Pages: (3) 1 2 [3]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> WW1 only or "National Reunification War", Poll
The description of the forum on WW1 and Regional Wars:
Should include the term "National Reunification War", as it would bring benefit in understanding and comprehension of Romanian history. [ 13 ]  [48.15%]
Both the title of the forum and the description should refer to the standard notion of "WW1" only, in order not to cast misunderstanding and disinterest on foreign visitors. [ 14 ]  [51.85%]
Total Votes: 27
Guests cannot vote 
Posted on July 07, 2005 02:37 pm
Quote Post

General de armata

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005

QUOTE (Ahmed @ Jul 7 2005, 02:05 PM)
His interpretations of Romanian myths are only very loosely based on facts, his writing owing more to literature then to scientific method.

You mean his interpretations of Romanian history... :D
Posted on July 08, 2005 12:15 am
Quote Post

Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003

Imperialist & Ahmed, you missed the point. I did not quote Boia per se. Instead, from the book authored by Boia I quoted other historians, as Onciul and Bratianu. Other reveered Rumanian historians, quoted in the same chapter, are A. D. Xenopol, N. Iorga, C. C. Giurescu et al - all converging to the same idea, namely that a clear 'national unity' vision in Mihai Viteazul's plans did not exist - could not exist - during his conquest of Transylvania on the turn of the XVIth and the XVIIth Centuries.

As I said, check out the book and you'll see what these illustrious historians mean.

Finally, I did not learn of the actual time of birth of the 'nation' only recently, but many years ago, in a context totally different than Mihai Viteazul's. It's nothing new, as it's a classic, well established historical concept. What is new is the attempt to push the envelope, so it would fit a certain political agenda. This happened mainly after the war, during the Communist times, and is curently uphold by a certain segment of historians - professionals and amateurs alike.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 08, 2005 03:10 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Posted on July 08, 2005 04:15 pm
Quote Post

Sergent major

Group: Members
Posts: 214
Member No.: 6
Joined: June 18, 2003

The problem of unification during the Middle Ages is very complex. There were many unifications during that period (the unification of France, the unification of Norway, the unification of the Visigothic and the Hispano-Roman communities in Spain) that all were later used as a territorial base for "nations".
Could we say, from this perspective, that what was Mihai Viteazu’s kingdom (that unified those who spoke the same language even if this was not the purpose of his actions but anyway it was a kind of unification) became later the base of the Romanian nation (as historical process).

Every nation, since the appearance of the concept, referred itself to some kingdom that existed before. The relation between nation and territory is more powerful than we think. And this is the cause of the conflicts and disputes that appeared later. Many territories changed sides many times (look at the situation in the Balkans), that’s why it was very difficult to “split” two neighbors. How could one do it? Taking in consideration the old kingdoms or taking in consideration the ethnicity of the population?

Maybe this would be a question for an other thread that would try to analyze the technical relation between a state as structure, territory, people and nation.

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on July 08, 2005 04:16 pm
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 2 [3]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll


[ Script Execution time: 0.0846 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]