Ţara Ungurească or Partium?, discussion

Guys, we were talking on another topic on this forum about what mean Ţara Ungurească and Denes said that it might be the so called Partium in hungarian history, a name that it is not used by romanian history.

Anyway, because the discussion was somehow related in other topics about the western frontier of Romania and the reasons Romania entered ww1 on Antante side, I found the text of the secret treaty between Romania, Russia, England, France and Italy, from 1916, which mentioned the borders which will be recognised to Romania if she entered ww1 on the Allied side. I reproduce it in romanian, as I dont think my english is good enough to translate it acuratelly. The Treaty was signed at 4/17 august 1916 and our subject is on point IV:

"de la vârful Stog (cota 1655), frontiera urma linia de separaţie a apelor Tisei şi Vişeului pentru a atinge Tisa în dreptul satului Trebuza, mai sus de locul unde se uneşte cu Vişeul; de aici ea cobora talvegul Tisei până la 4 km în josul confluenţei sale cu Someşul, lăsând comuna Vasarosnameny la România; continua apoi în direcţia S-SV până la un punct situat la 6 km est de Debrecen; de aici atingea Crişul la 3 km în josul confluenţei Crişului Alb cu Crişul Repede; apoi se orienta spre Algyo la vest de comunele Oroshaza şi Bekessamson, la 3 km de care făcea o mică îndoitură; urma din nou talvegul Tisei, începând din dreptul satului Algyo, la nord de Szeged, continuând pe talvegul Dunării până la vechea frontieră româno-bulgară."

By this treaty, Romania had recognised for herself a teritory bigger with 9.000 square km than it was recognised at Trianon.

This part could be Ţara Ungurească. For sure this part is named in hungarian history as being the Partium.

This might be of help:

This map i know from a romanian book, it is 100% identical, except legend, which is in romanian.

Looking at the map it strikes me the obvious question: on what ground did the Western Powers offer foreign territories to another country, only to lure her to their side? What legitimacy their various offers, borderlines drawn at random, had?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 13, 2011 04:05 pm

On the same basis they always did: they are powerfull and can do whatever they want? The history repeats on and on all the time - the great powers use the right of power, not the power of right. In 1848 hungarians were denied by austrians to have their own country, in 1916 it was only a game of chance that Romania received what she asked and what she fight for, short before ww2 started Czechoslovakia was erased from the map without being at least consulted, Poland was split between Germany and USSR, Romania was choped in 1940 and the examples can continue forever, until our days, with creation of new states or choping some countries in favour of others. Other countries were beneficiaries on the other side's grief...only because the great powers wanted so.

In the early moments imediate after ww1 was over, Hungary has a big capital of simpathy from western great powers, even if she was on defeated side. The fact might be odd, that a former enemy has a so good image, but the reason is simple: american businessmen learned that in Hungary is a very big oppotunity for business and they can earn easily a lot of money. Romania was not so open to foreign investments, so initially she was denied the rights aquired by the secret treaty. So, the great powers did what they wanted, were they had the bigger interess in earning money. The source for this info's is the documents and letters from the Peace Conference from Paris between 1919/1920.

The right of the winner.

The winners are writing the history. You know what Brennus the Gaul said to romans when they complained that the gauls are cheating when measuring the gold paid by the romans as ransom for Rome to be spared of burning and pillaging: throwing his heavy sword on the balance which was measuring the gold, he said "Vae victis!" (Woe to the vanquished (ones)).

In the case we are discussing, the winners were not favorited even a state who was allied, Romania, which was dragged in ww1 by the very great powers: England and France. Russia was not counting anymore as it's former form of organisation vanished under bolshevic revolution and USA didnt signed the secret treaty.

For Romania to receive what she was promised in the secret treaty and for what she fight in ww1, having a high death toll to pay, she had to make very big pressure on the great powers, who put in discussion a lot of arguments in order not to have to recognise the secret treaty. If this is the way to treat a ally, it is odd, at least.

Something to read: Masacrele comise de unguri împotriva populației românești din Transilvania de Nord (1940-1944) http://soim.ro/story.php?title=masacrele-c...-nord-1940-1944

Let's not go off-topic, please.

I agree. Soim's post is off topic and should be moved where it belongs.

As for the topic's main question, as I've said earlier, for Hungarians Partium (i.e., Parts in Latin) is a term used only after the 1920 Trianon Peace treaty, meaning the Hungarian territories West and North-West of Transylvania, attached to Rumania. The Rumanians do no use it.

As for "Tara Ungureasca" (i.e., Hungarian Lands) - as it was used by Rumanians in December 1918 - I believe it meant a territory delimited by natural borders (see for example 'Tara Romaneasca', or Wallachia). If so, it must have meant the Hungarian territory up to River Tisza/Tisa/Theiss, although I do not have a proof of this claim.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 14, 2011 01:15 pm

Here's some info about Medieval Partium:

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

As I write earlier I read a comment about the Leopold diploma (Diploma leopoldina) from 4 december 1691, who functioned as a constitution for the habsburgic contolled Transylvania, but I can't say for sure if this text is quote or not :
the Western Territories "Partium" are included in Transylvania, so Maramures, Satu Mare, Crasna, Solnocul de Mijloc, Bihorul, Zarandul, Aradul with parts of Ugocea, Szabolcs, Hajdu, Bekes, Cenad are now parts of the Principality of Transylvania. The territories liberated from the Turks from Banat (Caransebes, Lugoj, Orsova) are also included in Transylvania at that time.
The question remains : Does anyone know if in the original document the term Partium is expressed as such, or not?

I think there is no Tara Ungureasca or Partium..i think we are speaking about Crisana.
Before 1920, Crisana was entirely inside Romania's borders. after Trianon, the regoin was split in 2, the western part was given to Hungary.

This post has been edited by Speedy on June 27, 2012 02:48 pm

Read the 1 Dec. 1918 proclamation of Alba-Iulia and you'll see, there was. There are other examples taken from Rumanian historiography, using the same term, "Tara Ungureasca".

Can you clarify this? It makes no sense as you wrote it.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 27, 2012 06:41 pm

Before 1920 Romania's western border was on the Carpatian Mountains. Atfer Trianon was establish were it is today.