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



Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Transylvania History
dragos
Posted: August 11, 2005 06:09 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



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.



Sources:
Ovidiu Drimba, Istoria culturii si civilizatiei, vol. 4
RIM 1(41)/1997
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dragos
Posted: August 11, 2005 06:29 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 11 2005, 07:48 PM)
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"?

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.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: August 12, 2005 09:05 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



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.

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
dragos
Posted: August 12, 2005 09:13 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Aug 12 2005, 12:05 PM)
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.

Cheers,

Sid.

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".
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 12, 2005 10:18 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Aug 11 2005, 02:25 PM)


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.


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.



PM
Top
Victor
Posted: August 12, 2005 01:21 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist)
  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!"  :roll:


It seems you still did not understand that it wasn't as much about ethnicity as it was about religion and social class.

QUOTE (Imperialist)
  I see. So this was an exclusive catholic club with no romanians or orthodox allowed. That certainly puts it in a more favourable light.  :(


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.

QUOTE (Imperialist)
    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.


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.

QUOTE (Imperialist)
      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?


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:
QUOTE
The hungarians have always been seen as occupiers in Transylvania, and the desire to liberate it has been constant.

with some proof?
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: August 12, 2005 01:33 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (dragos @ Aug 11 2005, 08:29 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.

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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 12, 2005 01:58 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 12 2005, 01:21 PM)


I am curious. Would you care to substantiate this claim of yours:
QUOTE
The hungarians have always been seen as occupiers in Transylvania, and the desire to liberate it has been constant.

with some proof?

QUOTE
It seems you still did not understand that it wasn't as much about ethnicity as it was about religion and social class.


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.

QUOTE
Actually the Communist era thesis was your initial post, which claimed that Romanians always wanted to throw down the "Hungarian yoke".


I dont remember speaking about a hungarian yoke, but about a hungarian occupation. Mine was not a communist thesis, but a national one.

QUOTE
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.


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.

QUOTE
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.


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... :roll:

QUOTE
Btw, the term of "free Dacians" is a modern one, not what they referred to themselves.


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...]

QUOTE
I am curious. Would you care to substantiate this claim of yours:
QUOTE
The hungarians have always been seen as occupiers in Transylvania, and the desire to liberate it has been constant.

with some proof?


What proof would you want?
PM
Top
D13-th_Mytzu
Posted: August 12, 2005 04:52 pm
Quote Post


General de brigada
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1058
Member No.: 328
Joined: August 20, 2004



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 ?

QUOTE
What, for example, are the Romanian words for car, or train, or television, or aeroplane, or railway station, all of which were required for the first time by the Romanian language since the mid 19th Century? I imagine they are all of Romance and/or Greek, not Slavic, in origin. I don't actually know the answer, so I am taking a risk here. Correct me if I am wrong.


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..
PMUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: August 12, 2005 07:13 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 12 2005, 04:33 PM)
QUOTE (dragos @ Aug 11 2005, 08:29 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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by dragos on August 12, 2005 07:19 pm
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Benoit Douville
Posted: August 13, 2005 03:32 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 43
Member No.: 16
Joined: June 22, 2003



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...

Regards
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 13, 2005 07:57 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



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.
It says:

QUOTE

fie ca natiunea este inteleasa ca un popor distinct de altele prin relatia de sange, prin obiceiul unitatii ori prin particularitatile de limba, care demonstreaza in gradul cel mai inalt si mai adevarat existenta natiunii si esenta ei ...


The same council produced the following idea:

QUOTE

nu conteaza daca o natiune asculta de un principe sau de mai multi


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:

QUOTE

  Natiunea nu este o realitate de prim plan a omului medieval, cum este confesiunea, de pilda, dar ea exista, este numita ca atare si trebuie consemnata si azi ca atare, cu precizarile de rigoare.
  Altfel ar fi regretabil si fals sa nu accepta comunitatea etnica medievala, cum si cata a existat, din cauza exagerarii pana la absurd a 'unitatii, permanentei si continuitatii multimilenare a romanilor' din anii comunismului. ceausist.


take care
PM
Top
udar
Posted: August 13, 2005 03:18 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



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.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 16, 2005 05:41 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



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”.

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 17, 2005 12:54 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Victor
Posted: August 17, 2005 01:30 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



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.

QUOTE (Imperialist)
The issue was awareness of ethnic differences, afterall. Your opinion that ethncity and ethnical awareness did not exist is false.


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.

QUOTE
The hungarians have always been seen as occupiers in Transylvania, and the desire to liberate it has been constant.


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?
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0373 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]