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

> Guess Who, game
21 inf
Posted: February 13, 2011 11:18 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



I dont see the link between Byzantium and name of "romei" (a variation of those listed above) and romanians. Actually, this variation of denominations describing a greek ethnicity who wanted to conect with the glory of the romans, as later did The Holy Roman Empire of german nation. I doubt that a latin nation as early romanians were very atracted to adopt a name "camouflaging" greeks as romans.

I dont know if Moldova was really under byzantine domination ever, as it was the southern part of actual Romania. As for Transylvania, were it is left in this listing? Byzantine influence in Transylvania was quite earlier also, as it is stated by Anonymus that Menumorut declared himself subject of Byzantium. I dont think that romanian comes from the name of Byzantium citisens.

I saw another hypotesis, that romanian name may come from Romania (sometimes spelled Romagna) as a left over from romans, who, after retreat from different parts of their european side of empire, left this name (in a multitude of places) to those who stayed, in order to remember them that they were roman citisens. Nowadays is suposed that Romagna provence and "romanş" name of a language is this kind of reminiscence.

A stupid theory is that romanian name, in it's early version rumân, comes from the Wallachia's social class named rumân, which designated serfs.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: February 13, 2011 11:38 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

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



QUOTE (Radub @ February 13, 2011 12:07 am)
QUOTE (cainele_franctiror @ February 12, 2011 01:12 pm)
What about this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pomutz

He was born in 1818. No one was "Romanian" in 1818. There were "Moldovans", "Wallachians" or "Transylvanians". Most likely, he might have called himself an "Olah" or "Moldovan" rather than a "Romanian".
In 1818, the word "Rumelia" (also spelled on some maps of the time as "Romania") was another by-word for "Thrace" and covered the entire European side of the Ottoman empire.
"Romania" as a word to describe the current nation of that name began to be circulated after the union of the two principalities under Cuza in 1859, but it became official when Carol I acceded to the throne. Officially, "Romania" was recognised by the rest of the world after the 9th Russian-Turkish War in 1877, known in Romania as the "War of Independence"
Radu


Now seriouslly, Radu, before repeting (again) such shocking aberations (for me at least), I think you should involve yourself in a serious basic (Romanian) history enlightment plan. Please don’t consider my statement as being personal or offensive towards you, because it wasn’t ment to be - but you are putting yourself in a trully embarassing posture by claiming loudly such pieces of sheer ignorance. The Romanian post WW 1 military aviation history isn’t a substitute for the hole Romanian history, nor is the collection of trivial counter-myths (such as the one that there was no use of the “Romanian” name - as in a substantive or adjective - before 1859) vechiculated by the bunch of semi-illiterate (in terms of history) and frustrated (in terms of professional accomplishments) students (to be read as in - in their mind - “researchers”) in social sciences and/or humanities, who could not cope with the complexity of the historical facts and are trying - with some succes, as I saw from your post – to substitute it with something dumb enough to be accesible to their minds and understanding. A key factor is that the majority of them are not historians; in addition to that, they fall victim to a common form of scientific error, simply and forcingly justaposing their present day concepts over some different (and intricate) past realities. Morover, they do not understand the common sense fact that, in order to deconstruct some “myths”, those have to be circumscribed, understood and researched first; they simply proceeded to their “quest” starting from their ab initio, preexistent ideas which simply have to be legitimated by their work.

You said in an earlier post, in a different topic, that you had been “brainwashed” by the nationalist „Cenaclul Flacăra” propaganda. Please do not let yourself being brainwashed by something different, now. There is a series of decent books and authors which, in their multi-decade work and research, were dealing with the Romanian pre-XIX-XX history. Not all of them were members or related with Cenaclul Flacăra or The Greater Romania Party. Their works had been around for over 50-100 years now, so some people ignorance is not their fault anymore. Among this all I’m taking the liberty to recommend you the works of the American professor Keith Hitchins.

I do hope I did not offend you. Also please excuse my language - if it has been to blunt - but I was trully surprised by what you claimed. My best regards, A.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Agarici
Posted: February 13, 2011 11:43 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

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



QUOTE (Agarici @ February 13, 2011 11:38 am)
QUOTE (Radub @ February 13, 2011 12:07 am)
QUOTE (cainele_franctiror @ February 12, 2011 01:12 pm)
What about this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pomutz

He was born in 1818. No one was "Romanian" in 1818. There were "Moldovans", "Wallachians" or "Transylvanians". Most likely, he might have called himself an "Olah" or "Moldovan" rather than a "Romanian".
In 1818, the word "Rumelia" (also spelled on some maps of the time as "Romania") was another by-word for "Thrace" and covered the entire European side of the Ottoman empire.
"Romania" as a word to describe the current nation of that name began to be circulated after the union of the two principalities under Cuza in 1859, but it became official when Carol I acceded to the throne. Officially, "Romania" was recognised by the rest of the world after the 9th Russian-Turkish War in 1877, known in Romania as the "War of Independence"
Radu


Now seriouslly, Radu, before repeting (again) such shocking aberations (for me at least), I think you should involve yourself in a serious basic (Romanian) history enlightment plan. Please don’t consider my statement as being personal or offensive towards you, because it wasn’t ment to be - but you are putting yourself in a trully embarassing posture by claiming loudly such pieces of sheer ignorance. The Romanian post WW 1 military aviation history isn’t a substitute for the hole Romanian history, nor is the collection of trivial counter-myths (such as the one that there was no use of the “Romanian” name - as in a substantive or adjective - before 1859) vechiculated by the bunch of semi-illiterate (in terms of history) and frustrated (in terms of professional accomplishments) students (to be read as in - in their mind - “researchers”) in social sciences and/or humanities, who could not cope with the complexity of the historical facts and are trying - with some succes, as I saw from your post – to substitute it with something dumb enough to be accesible to their minds and understanding. A key factor is that the majority of them are not historians; in addition to that, they fall victim to a common form of scientific error, simply and forcingly justaposing their present day concepts over some different (and intricate) past realities. Morover, they do not understand the common sense fact that, in order to deconstruct some “myths”, those have to be circumscribed, understood and researched first; they simply proceeded to their “quest” starting from their ab initio, preexistent ideas which simply have to be legitimated by their work.

You said in an earlier post, in a different topic, that you had been “brainwashed” by the nationalist „Cenaclul Flacăra” propaganda. Please do not let yourself being brainwashed by something different, now. There is a series of decent books and authors which, in their multi-decade work and research, were dealing with the Romanian pre-XIX-XX history. Not all of them were members or related with Cenaclul Flacăra or The Greater Romania Party. Their works had been around for over 50-100 years now, so some people ignorance is not their fault anymore. Among this all I’m taking the liberty to recommend you the works of the American professor Keith Hitchins.

I do hope I did not offend you. Also please excuse my language - if it has been to blunt - but I was trully surprised by what you claimed. My best regards, A.


PS: As for your "parallel" between Rumalia and Romania, please, for my sake, edit your initial post, do not repeat it to anyone, anymore, and deny that you have ever said that. :P
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: February 13, 2011 01:07 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



I ask the administraors to intervene. There is no room for such personal attacks on what purports to be a history discussion forum. Bullying and censorahip should not be allowed. Can we discuss the subject, however sensitive, without attacking the speaker?
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Radub
Posted: February 13, 2011 03:01 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (21 inf @ February 13, 2011 11:18 am)
I dont see the link between Byzantium and name of "romei" (a variation of those listed above) and romanians. Actually, this variation of denominations describing a greek ethnicity who wanted to conect with the glory of the romans, as later did The Holy Roman Empire of german nation. I doubt that a latin nation as early romanians were very atracted to adopt a name "camouflaging" greeks as romans.

I dont know if Moldova was really under byzantine domination ever, as it was the southern part of actual Romania. As for Transylvania, were it is left in this listing? Byzantine influence in Transylvania was quite earlier also, as it is stated by Anonymus that Menumorut declared himself subject of Byzantium. I dont think that romanian comes from the name of Byzantium citisens.

I saw another hypotesis, that romanian name may come from Romania (sometimes spelled Romagna) as a left over from romans, who, after retreat from different parts of their european side of empire, left this name (in a multitude of places) to those who stayed, in order to remember them that they were roman citisens. Nowadays is suposed that Romagna provence and "romanş" name of a language is this kind of reminiscence.

A stupid theory is that romanian name, in it's early version rumân, comes from the Wallachia's social class named rumân, which designated serfs.

Rumelia, "the land of Romans" also included Wallachia and Moldova. Wikipedia has a medieval map showing that. Furthermore, for centuries "the principalities" of Moldova and Wallachia were ruled by Greek Christians, Rumelians, or Romaioi. We know these rulers as "Fanarioti", people like Sturdza, Ghika, Mavrocordat, Cantacuzino, Stirbei, etc. These people came from old Greek Byzantine families living in the Fenerbahce district of Constantinople (Byzantium) which was the last remnant and keeper of values of the "Roman Empire" after the fall of Rome. This rule by Fanarioti ended in 1859 when Alexandru Ioan Cuza became ruler of both principalities of Wallachia and Moldova, which then became known as "the united principalities".
The Romanians call themselves "the last remnants of Rome". The Romanians were under more influence from the Byzantine side of the Roman Empire and for a longer time than "Rome" in the Italian Peninsula. The fact that we wre not Catholics is clear evidence of that.
There are maps drawn in the 17th century in which Rumelia is spelled "Romania" and is described as "the land of Romans".
But this is besides the point. The country (as a legally recognised entity, with a ruler, government and parliament) that is called "Romania" did not exist until Carol I acceded to the throne. This country gained its "independence" from the Ottoman Empire in 1877, a fact that is taught in 8th grade history to 13 year-olds.
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: February 13, 2011 04:08 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4340
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Agarici, we do not encourage the use of such strong words. The forum is a rather impersonal way of communicating and brutal language only leads to bad things in such a "one-dimensional" environment.

I also disagree with Radu, but I am convinced that there is a much better way to prove him wrong by discussing his arguments. After all, this why are all together here: to discuss.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Radub
Posted: February 13, 2011 05:14 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



These are the medieval maps that refer to "Rumelia" as "Romania".
http://www.bergbook.com/htdocs/Cache520.htm
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: February 13, 2011 06:08 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4340
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Agarici @ February 13, 2011 01:38 pm)
Among this all I’m taking the liberty to recommend you the works of the American professor Keith Hitchins.

More to the point of this issue is probably the book of Ioan-Aurel Pop: Natiunea romana medievala, Ed. Enciclopedica, 1998.

On page 120, there is a quote from a work of Giorgio Tomasi, first secretary of the Papal Chancellery during Michael the Brave's reign:
QUOTE
They [the Romanians] consider the name of Valacco as an insult and do not wish to be called something else than Romanischi, taking pride in their Roman origin. In religion they acted with so much determination that they never allowed heresy to take a foothold and did not accept any ruler than a Christian one, despite the fact that the Turks attempted to install their Pashas there.


The term Vlach/Olah was not a term used Romanians, but by their neighbors. It even arrived to be seen as a derogatory term in Transylvania. Thus it is unlikely that a Romanian might declare himself Olah on his own free will.

But to quote again Ioan-Aurel Pop, in all likelihood, the medieval Romanian considered himself first a Christian, then Moldovean/Muntean/Hategan etc. and in the last instance Romanian.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Radub
Posted: February 13, 2011 06:43 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (Victor @ February 13, 2011 06:08 pm)
The term Vlach/Olah was not a term used Romanians, but by their neighbors. It even arrived to be seen as a derogatory term in Transylvania. Thus it is unlikely that a Romanian might declare himself Olah on his own free will.

But the country was called Valahia. This name appears on contemporraneous maps.
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
21 inf
Posted: February 13, 2011 07:37 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



QUOTE (Radub @ February 13, 2011 08:43 pm)
QUOTE (Victor @ February 13, 2011 06:08 pm)
The term Vlach/Olah was not a term used Romanians, but by their neighbors. It even arrived to be seen as a derogatory term in Transylvania. Thus it is unlikely that a Romanian might declare himself Olah on his own free will.

But the country was called Valahia. This name appears on contemporraneous maps.
Radu

In medieval times romanians from Transylvania were also called by other nations as wallachians, olahok (same as wallach, in hungarian), but the province was not called Wallachia or Olahia. In Transylvania were living also hungarians, szeklers and saxons, and they were the rulling nations, but the province was not named Hungary, Szekleria (term I invented now, for this discussion - God, I love to invent new english words! :) ) or Saxonia.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: February 13, 2011 07:43 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

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



Victor, Radu, I stick to my initial lecture recommendation. I also give a title: Keith Hitchins - Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică la românii din Transilvania, 1700-1868 (National consciousness and political actions of the Romanians from Transylvania, 1700-1868), Editura Dacia, Cluj, 1987.

Radu, regardless of any administrative actions on the forum, I reiterate my initial disclaimer. Please do not take my reply personally, and please do appologize my tone. But, I must repeat, what you said is a proof of sheer ignorance on that matter, and there are lots of information out there, available to be consulted. What have shocked me mostly was the fact that you presented your oppinion in a assertive "without doubt" manner, which I think one should avoid unless he or she is trully familiarized with that particular domain and very sure about his information - which on that particular issue was not the case. As a humble suggestion, please try to avoid obscure internet links and try using some of the allready known and consecrated authors on that field/subfileld. Showing some respect for those who invested their time to do that won't hurt, either.

As for the Romania-Rumalia association, it is indeed a way too extensive discussion to be even briefly replicated here, and I do not have time for that. But it is (or at least I thought so), sort of common knovledge that the Byzantine empire claimed the succesorate of the Roman empire (hence various names and toponyms for its emperors, inhabitants and European provinces), without any connection with nowadays Romania. The so called “Oriental Romania”/"Romania Orientala" is a completelly diferent matter, of which you seem completely unaware of, one which was approached and researched by various historians (N. Iorga, for example) as early as the beginning of XXth century. As a hint, it has something to do with the Wlach population from the Balcans and with the various states that incorporated them (in some as a part of the rulling strata), and not with the Western part of the Byzantine Empire. Please do not take my suggestion regarding that matter as bullying, I was only trying to put it in a jockingly manner, because it was the only way to adress such a (pardon me, again) nonsense.

Please do rest assured of my best regards and my consideration for you. I appologize again if I heated the debate, it was not in my intention.

[EDIT: As a side note, I am distrustfull of the gradually consolidating practice to bring forth arguments only form the world.wide.web, made availble there in a simplified “half-cooked, ready to go” manner, and to consider them equivalents or substitutes to the (sometimes) tens of thousand of pages researched and written on a particular matter. THAT is not a balanced debate/discussion. On the one hand it requires an extensive (and unfair) investment in time from those who red, on the other it is (in my oppinion) an innacurate (and even dangerous) overestimation from those who use exclusivelly the www sources. Perhaps that’s why I have sort of overreacted; what I have just said is not connected in any way with Radu.
The logic and the practice of argumentation are not “democratic arts”, and the opinions of the uninformed are not (or should not be) equal to those of the documented ones - and I am not including myself in the latter cathegory. The internet is an useful tool for the formers, but only as long as they use it in order to learn, when needed (or to put in a softer form, to improve their level of knowledge), and not only to put forth their beliefs and oppinions and stick to them no matter what. I would be the first - and certainly not the only one - to aknowlegde that I have learned a lot of things on that forum.
I do not know if, and in what degree, am I right on that, but that is my oppinion.]

This post has been edited by Agarici on February 13, 2011 10:37 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: February 13, 2011 10:33 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (Agarici @ February 13, 2011 07:43 pm)
The internet is an useful tool for the formers, but only as long as they use it in order to learn, when needed (or to put in a softer form, to improve their level of knowledge), and not only to put forth their beliefs and oppinions.

OK Agarici... let me see if I got this right... The internet is good for learning but not for teaching? So... who does the teaching then if we are all supposed to listen?

Look, I came across this argument before: "Your sources are wrong", "Only my sources are right", "Do not listen to those random dudes on the internet!", "Those guys tell lies!", "Anyone can write on Wikipedia", "The internet is not to be trusted". But you are just another random dude on the internet too! You are just as much an "anyone" as that "anyone" from Wikipedia. You are telling me this via the medium of the internet! So, if the internet is bad as a medium, then that applies equally to you.

I think you are confused about "ignorance". It is not ignorant to strive to look at things from different perspectives. It is ignorant to "believe and not question". Most leaps in human knowledge were made when the status quo was challenged. Maybe what i said here was not clear enough or well-presented but I am sure that I already planted the seed of an idea in some of your minds (I know of at least one such mind). ;) Seek the truth and the truth shall set you free.

I said all I had to say in this matter.

Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: February 13, 2011 11:30 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

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



Radu, the internet can be used for both of them. I’m only suggesting a separation between the trivial knowledge from the internet, also called “heuristical” by some, and the professional knowledge, wherever that might be found.

The first one can look plausible from some (and not plausible for others), is usually internally coherent, and might be true (or not); the only problem is that it is not necessarily consistent with the reality, being made mostly of mere opinions.

The second is represented by the work of a professional community, owns a critical/documentary apparatus, a set of rules in order to be recognized and it is critically sanctioned by that professional community. In a word, it is scientific.

Now my suggestion was to learn mostly form the second type of sources, weather available on the internet or not, and to be cautious with the first ones, not forgetting that they are only heuristically aggregated knowledge; and not to use them in a (too) assertive manner.

Of course (and here I completely agree with you) that some of the most innovative and productive thinkers in the history of human knowledge were the innovators, those capable of a non-linear thinking. But this was proven not to be an easy thing to do. In order to do it, at least in a discipline like history, you must KNOW the previous theories and their line of arguments, in order to be able to contradict and revolutionize them. And there are many writings which would radically contradict your initial post which was addressed by me - enough of them quite easily accessible and quite lavishly documented. If you are going to address any of them in a critical manner, trying to prove your point, I would be more than ready to follow your arguments. Until then, they seem to me rather something like saying “the wheel is square, and it works quite well like that, ‘cos I didn’t know that it could be round too.” :P It is a pity to ignore the work of all those authors, who dedicated part of their lives to that subject. Nobody has a patent of knowledge in all the fields.

That was the only point I was trying to make. I tried to be as clear as I could, but it’s possible that this sometimes “details insensitive” environment had distorted some of the meanings.

This post has been edited by Agarici on February 13, 2011 11:32 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Victor
Posted: February 14, 2011 03:20 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4340
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Radub @ February 13, 2011 08:43 pm)
But the country was called Valahia. This name appears on contemporraneous maps.
Radu

Maps made by Romanians or by foreigners? Are the maps in Romanian or Latin?
The words Vlach/Walachia are exonymes (spelling?). They were used by the neighboring ethnicities when referring to Romanians. As the quote I posted earlier demonstrates, the term even arrived to be considered insulting, most likely in Transylvania where it was used by the three nations to refer to the 2nd class citizens that were the majority of Romanians.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Radub
Posted: February 14, 2011 03:34 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



I have no further intention to dissect the origins of names of countries or lands.
Yesterday I received a very unpleasant email because of this thread.
I am out!
Radu

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: 0.0381 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]