Trianon and the nationalities issue in royal Hungary
Stephen Dancs
So, the 1998 Encyclopedia Britanica is just freshly off the presses, so
let's se what it contains regarding Hungary's history, specifically her
nationalities and Trianon, 'cause I see that our Romanian friends are
still being kept hostage by brainwashing and grandiose Dako-Roman
Continuity Theories, and posters a la Gheorghe a' Hreanului continue to
talk about in a dispiteful manner of "foreign" administrations in
Transylvania and some others dispute the 3 million figure of the
Hungarians left out of Hungary after Trianon.
Habsburg Rule, 1699-1918
THE NATIONALITIES. The population of Hungary, even excluding
Croatia, had never been purely Magyar, but the pre-Magyar
inhabitants of the plains and the newcomers to them (outside the
towns) had quickly become Magyarised; and while this was not true
of the peripheral areas, their populations were relatively
sparse. By the end of the 15th century the Slovaks and Ruthenes
of the north; the Germans of the free boroughs, the Szepes, and
Transylvania; and the Romanians numbered hardly more than 20 to
25 percent of the total. The Magyar majority included almost the
entire politically active "noble" class, the non-Magyar recruits
to which assimilated most readily. The surviving non-Magyar
peasants had neither the wish nor the ability to question the
Magyar character of the state, which for its part was uninterested
in which languages were spoken by the politicaly disregarded,
unfree populace.
Between 1500 and 1800, however, the ethnic composition of the
country changed. The most purely Magyar areas were heavily
depopulated during the Turkish wars. Those loses were accompanied
by mass immigrations of Serbs, Croats, and romanians from the
Balkans and later by the introduction by the Austrian government
of large number of Germans and other colonists. By 1720 the
Magyars numbered only some 35 percent of the total population. By
1780 the figure had risen to nearly 40 percent, but the periphery
was still largely non-Magyar. Moreover, as a ressult of this
ethnic colonisation, the population of Hungary grew to nine
million by the end of the 18th century, more than double the
countries population in 1720.
In this environment the ideas of the French revolution and of
nationalism, one of its major consequences, took hold. Hungarians
and most of the other ethnic groups discovered their own national
identities. From the late 18th century, poetry, drama, fiction
and literary criticism combined to elevate the Hungarian
vernacular to the standard of a literary language, partly in
response to the forced Germanization by the Habsburgs but even
more as part of an international trend that was particularly
strong in central Europe.
(E. B., vol. 20, p. 706)
So to all my Romanian friends so weary of the Austrian "occupation," I'd
say be happy and kiss the Austrians' asses, 'cause w/o Vienna using your
and the Serbs' dissafection as leverage to control Hungary, no one else
would have been able to "make your day" in Transylvania.
The Regency, 1920-45
THE TREATY OF TRIANON. The Allies had long had their peace terms
for Hungary ready but had been unwilling to present them to an
earlier regime. It was, thus, the Simonyi-Semadam government that
was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920). The
Allies not only assumed that w/o question that the country's
non-Hungarian populations wished to leave Hungary, but also
allowed the successor states to, especially Czechoslovakia, to
annex large areas of ethnic Hungarian population. The final result
was to leave Hungary with only 35,893 of the 125,641 sq miles that
had constituted the lands of the Hungarian crown. Romania,
Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia took large fragments, while others
went to Austria and even Poland and Italy. Of the population of
20,866,447 (1910 census), Hungary was left 7,615,568. Romania
received 5,257,467; Czechoslovakia, 3,517,568; Yugoslavia,
4,131,249; and Austria, 291,618. Of the 10,050,575 persons for
whom Hungarian was the mother tongue, no fewer than 3,219,579 were
alloted to the sucesssor states: 1,704,851 to Romania, 1,063,020
to Czechoslovakia, 547,735 to Yugoslavia, and 26,183 to Austria.
While the homes of some of these -- e.g. the Szeklers -- had been
in the remotest corners of historic Hungary, many were living
immediately across the frontiers.
In addition, the treaty required Hungary to pay in reparation
an unspecified sum, which was to be "the first charge upon all its
assets and revenues," and limited its armed forces to 35,000 to be
used exclusively for the maintenance of internal order and
frontier defence.
(Ibid., p. 708)
So guys, if you do the mathematics you can see that as late as 1920,
Hungarians made out 48.17% of the total population of royal Hungary, and
32.43% of the population of the territory anexed to Romania, and lost
3,341,789 ethnic Hungarians (my family included), i.e. 33.25% of its
ethnic Hungarian population to the successor states.
With the strenght of these numbers, no wonder that the Romanian government
chickened out and "forgot" to hold a referendum in the territory of
Transylvania, Banat, Maramures and Crisana -- the chunks they would have
managed to chip away would have been drastically reduced.
I know that this raises painful issues, especially to the Romanians
brainwashed into believing the D-RCT nonsense, but c'est la vie fellow
Romanian... colonists (Hahaha, de la Britanica cetire!! ;-) ) it's time
for a reality check.
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
(Je me souvien.)
--*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
bv...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bv561/
Dr. D'Rei
Stephen Dancs wrote:
> So guys, if you do the mathematics you can see that as late as 1920,
> Hungarians made out 48.17% of the total population of royal Hungary, and
> 32.43% of the population of the territory anexed to Romania, and lost
> 3,341,789 ethnic Hungarians (my family included), i.e. 33.25% of its
> ethnic Hungarian population to the successor states.
Well, I for one am happy that at long last your revanchist, revisionist
Hungarian tendencies are finally coming out. Doesn't it feel better to
be honest and open about your hostile feelings toward Hungary's
neighbors ?
Go on now, get rid of all those historical chips on your shoulder
already !
Dr. D'Rei
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs wrote:
>
> So, the 1998 Encyclopedia Britanica is just freshly off the presses, so
> let's se what it contains regarding Hungary's history, specifically her
> nationalities and Trianon, 'cause I see that our Romanian friends are
> still being kept hostage by brainwashing and grandiose Dako-Roman
> Continuity Theories,
Did you study Roessler for the last days ?
> and posters a la Gheorghe a' Hreanului continue to
> talk about in a dispiteful manner of "foreign" administrations in
> Transylvania and some others dispute the 3 million figure of the
> Hungarians left out of Hungary after Trianon.
You are confused in mind. The statement was that 3.000.000 hungarians
lived
in Romania, which was wrong. The 3.000.000 left out of Hungary are
evident -
in fact slightly more, and I gave the exact figures (the thread
continued
over the border in scm). Actually the hungarian gentleman was amazed
discovering
that, contrary to his education knowledge, the number of hungarians in
Romania _increased_ after Trianon continuously. Obviously, with all the
"cultural
genocide" fairy tales, the poor uninformed man probalby expected that
hungarians
are currently kept in museums in Romania. This is not astonishing also
because
this is what happened to minorities (Slovak, Romanian, German) in
Hungary, after
Trianon. If you wanted to face facts, data has been published repeatedly
here.
As I told, Romanians in Hungary decrease from 300000+ (Trianon official)
to
15000 today, and there was no population exchange like with Slovakia.
You must
admit, it is quite a dramatic evolution. But the Romanians are all still
there,
counted by the statistics as hungarians of greek catholic faith (see
recent
hungarian census). Il faut le faire!
You are hard to follow and the Britanice hard to believe. It was as a
consequence
of the French revolution that your national Pistea declared in his 1848
program that the burgeois of Hungary (hungarian population 40%) are all
_hungarians_. The Pistea who had betrayed earlier before our Pistea, I
mean Balcescu, and was eventually betrayed himself leading to the
special
aversion of hungarians against festive beer drinking (they drink beer
but do
not say cheers ). And as to forced assimilation - if hundred years later
you
do not admit that it was the massive hungarian assimilationist policy of
K&K
that prepared the grave of the empire, you're handicaped to enter modern
history. Remeber that in 1918 even the Germans in Romania voted for
union of
Transylvania to Romania, being fed up with the hungarian
assimilationsism.
And they had definitely a better treatment than romanians, didn't they ?
>
> The Regency, 1920-45
>
> THE TREATY OF TRIANON. The Allies had long had their peace terms
> for Hungary ready but had been unwilling to present them to an
> earlier regime. It was, thus, the Simonyi-Semadam government that
> was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920). The
> Allies not only assumed that w/o question that the country's
> non-Hungarian populations wished to leave Hungary, but also
> allowed the successor states to, especially Czechoslovakia, to
> annex large areas of ethnic Hungarian population. The final result
> was to leave Hungary with only 35,893 of the 125,641 sq miles that
> had constituted the lands of the Hungarian crown. Romania,
> Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia took large fragments, while others
> went to Austria and even Poland and Italy. Of the population of
> 20,866,447 (1910 census), Hungary was left 7,615,568. Romania
> received 5,257,467; Czechoslovakia, 3,517,568; Yugoslavia,
> 4,131,249; and Austria, 291,618. Of the 10,050,575 persons for
> whom Hungarian was the mother tongue, no fewer than 3,219,579 were
> alloted to the sucesssor states: 1,704,851 to Romania, 1,063,020
> to Czechoslovakia, 547,735 to Yugoslavia, and 26,183 to Austria.
> While the homes of some of these -- e.g. the Szeklers -- had been
> in the remotest corners of historic Hungary, many were living
> immediately across the frontiers.
The figures are different from the official Trianon figures: Romania
1.430.000,
Slovakia 1.290.000 (cca). And what you should look up in another article
in
your Britanica, is the number of minorities which remained in Hungary
after
Trianon. They are mentioned in the official Trianon data - I quoted some
above,
for the romanians.
> In addition, the treaty required Hungary to pay in reparation
> an unspecified sum, which was to be "the first charge upon all its
> assets and revenues," and limited its armed forces to 35,000 to be
> used exclusively for the maintenance of internal order and
> frontier defence.
> (Ibid., p. 708)
>
> So guys, if you do the mathematics you can see that as late as 1920,
> Hungarians made out 48.17% of the total population of royal Hungary, and
> 32.43% of the population of the territory anexed to Romania, and lost
> 3,341,789 ethnic Hungarians (my family included), i.e. 33.25% of its
> ethnic Hungarian population to the successor states.
It is well known and was not contested by any one.
Too bad for them, they did not know to develop sane minority policy and
none of the minorities supported them - not even the germans! It is not
this whining that creates the good back ground for a good living with
the
past.
By the wat, do you happen to know how many Romanians stayed out of the
borders in 1945 ?
>
> With the strenght of these numbers, no wonder that the Romanian government
> chickened out and "forgot" to hold a referendum in the territory of
> Transylvania, Banat, Maramures and Crisana -- the chunks they would have
> managed to chip away would have been drastically reduced.
>
Are you drunk ? Ever heard of Alba Iulia ?
> I know that this raises painful issues, especially to the Romanians
> brainwashed into believing the D-RCT nonsense, but c'est la vie fellow
> Romanian... colonists (Hahaha, de la Britanica cetire!! ;-) ) it's time
> for a reality check.
Si de la Dancs smintire.
It would be interesting to know also the author of the articles. Not
that
they brought unexpected data or grave faults (except of the story about
the german assimilation in the 18-th century, which is questionable -
not
that the Austrian were very much better than the Hungarians (think of
Horia
and his revolt) but they were further away ...
And maybe you enlighten us too: what is the reality check you imagine
having brought with mediocrities ?
Stephen Dancs
"Dr. D'Rei" (b...@strateg1.demon.co.uk) writes:
> Stephen Dancs wrote:
>>
>> So guys, if you do the mathematics you can see that as late as 1920,
>> Hungarians made out 48.17% of the total population of royal Hungary, and
>> 32.43% of the population of the territory anexed to Romania, and lost
>> 3,341,789 ethnic Hungarians (my family included), i.e. 33.25% of its
>> ethnic Hungarian population to the successor states.
>
> Well, I for one am happy that at long last your revanchist, revisionist
> Hungarian tendencies are finally coming out. Doesn't it feel better to
> be honest and open about your hostile feelings toward Hungary's
> neighbors ?
Revisionist? Look who's talking about, Dr. D-RCT, hahaha... Not at all mon
bebe, just presenting you the facts, de la Encyclopedia Britanica cetire.
Hungarian "tendencies?" More rubish, I have not only the "tendencies" but
the whole real Hungarian thing mon bebe... can't help it, that's the
"thing" my mother shited me into this world, I wasn't even asked, can you
believe it? LOL LOL ;-)
Hostile towards Hungary's neighbours? Not at all, just love to search for
the truth and laugh at morons in delusionary states...
> Go on now, get rid of all those historical chips on your shoulder
> already !
And you should go on consulting a psychologist 'cause it seems to me you
got some problem with perceiving reality and even to interpret a mere
posting.
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
(The Grounge.)
Preda Mihailescu
> >> Hungarians made out 48.17% of the total population of royal Hungary, and
> >> 32.43% of the population of the territory anexed to Romania, and lost
> >> 3,341,789 ethnic Hungarians (my family included), i.e. 33.25% of its
> >> ethnic Hungarian population to the successor states.
> >
> > Hungarian tendencies are finally coming out. Doesn't it feel better to
> > be honest and open about your hostile feelings toward Hungary's
> > neighbors ?
>
> Revisionist? Look who's talking about, Dr. D-RCT, hahaha... Not at all mon
> bebe, just presenting you the facts, de la Encyclopedia Britanica cetire.
>
> Hungarian "tendencies?" More rubish, I have not only the "tendencies" but
> the whole real Hungarian thing mon bebe... can't help it, that's the
> "thing" my mother shited me into this world, I wasn't even asked, can you
> believe it? LOL LOL ;-)
>
> Hostile towards Hungary's neighbours? Not at all, just love to search for
> the truth and laugh at morons in delusionary states...
>
> > Go on now, get rid of all those historical chips on your shoulder
> > already !
>
> And you should go on consulting a psychologist 'cause it seems to me you
> got some problem with perceiving reality and even to interpret a mere
> posting.
>
> "soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
>
>
Dancs, you had quite some facts from me, why do you prefer to respond
to simple provocation ? Is it maybe because your vocabulary is richer
than your knowledge ? After all, a simple Encyclopedia - even the
Britanica - is not what I would call the ultimate historical source.
Did you run out of arguments after shedding your Britanica over us and
found out it had nothing new to teach us ?
I kind of liked you most when you left your hungarian melancholy sing
about Budapestan nights etc. - that was almost poetic and sincere, it
fits you better than provoking without even knowing why you do that -
not to say not knowing what you talk about!
Just for your intelectual record built up upon Ceausescu history:
romanian history was written before Ceausescu and the communists too,
and said similar things about origins of Transylvania & co - but in a
rational and pondered way. In other words, not everything that has been
said under (ptiu - I like to quote you on that) was wrong because he
said it. I think he also sustained that the Earth evolves around the
sun, and this fact appears to be true nevertheless.
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs
Preda Mihailescu (miha...@inf.ethz.ch) writes:
> Stephen Dancs wrote:
>>
>> So, the 1998 Encyclopedia Britanica is just freshly off the presses, so
>> let's se what it contains regarding Hungary's history, specifically her
>> nationalities and Trianon, 'cause I see that our Romanian friends are
>> still being kept hostage by brainwashing and grandiose Dako-Roman
>> Continuity Theories,
>
> Did you study Roessler for the last days ?
Oh course I did... he just resuErrected and came to visit me saying "hey,
here's my 1998 edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica," hahaha... Why, did
you spent your days lately studying the Vienna financed Transylavanian
School nationalists? ;-)
> Actually the hungarian gentleman was amazed discovering that, contrary
> to his education knowledge, the number of hungarians in Romania
> _increased_ after Trianon continuously.
No kidding? I disscussed already about year ago or so about the
"increase," so I wont repeat myself again, that's why dejanews is for.
> Obviously, with all the "cultural genocide" fairy tales, the poor
> uninformed man probalby expected that hungarians are currently kept in
> museums in Romania.
Fairy tales? That's what you and naives like you think mon bebe, I for
one lived and seen it there LIVE, so go sell your non-sense somewhere
else. Most of my Hungarian friends ended up with me in Romanian schools,
about half my class was Hungarian, 'cause there were very limited
Hungarian classes available, especially after the fucker (ptiu!) changed
the education law in 1972 and made it very difficult for Hungarians to
get a Hungarian education.
When I compare my Hungarian writing skills or Hungarian literature
knowledge to that of my older cousins that still managed to get a
Hungarian education, I'm appaled.
And tell me, how many universities do the Hungarians had in Transylvania
since the Romanians took over? Where could a Hungarian Aurel Vlaicu go
to study right now? Fairy tales, eh?
> This is not astonishing also because this is what happened to
> minorities (Slovak, Romanian, German) in Hungary, after Trianon. If you
> wanted to face facts, data has been published repeatedly here. As I told,
> Romanians in Hungary decrease from 300000+ (Trianon official) to 15000
> today, and there was no population exchange like with Slovakia. You must
> admit, it is quite a dramatic evolution. But the Romanians are all still
> there, counted by the statistics as hungarians of greek catholic faith
> (see recent hungarian census). Il faut le faire!
The issue isn't whether they assimilated or not, but how they did it:
forced by Hungarians or on their own. And I don't know how it really went
for the modern, post-Habsburg times, but for the previous ones, it wasn't
the Hungarians that counted them forcefully as Greek Catholics, but the
Romanians themselves.
Now why would a Romanian count himself as a Greek Catholic? Because
Vienna had an interest in consolidating the Roman Catholic Church in
Hungary at the time in order to be able to deal more forcefully with the
Hungarian Protestants who were the group most opposed to Austria, and to
achieve that, they promissed rights to the until then mostly rightless
and tolerated Romanians if they converted to Catholicism. As simple as
that it went mon bebe.
As for the Germans, who could stop them to leave for Germany? How many
Germans did you got left in Romania today? You see what I mean?
At least the Hungarian regime didn't sell them like cattle as the
Ceausescu regime did.
As for Slovak/Hungarian population swaps, Hungary wasn't the one asking
for them, but the Slovaks in order to get rid of Hungarians. That stupid
ashole Meciar just as recent as 1995/97 proposed to Horn another swap,
the fucking imbecile.
> Remeber that in 1918 even the Germans in Romania voted for union of
> Transylvania to Romania, being fed up with the hungarian
> assimilationsism. And they had definitely a better treatment than
> romanians, didn't they ?
Yes, the Germans were favoring union with Romania at the beginning, but
once the deed was done, only then they woke up that they "au luat plasa"
(got screwed) by the Romanians 10 fold as much as they did from the
Hungarians, hahaha... not funny, not funny...
> The figures are different from the official Trianon figures: Romania
> 1.430.000, Slovakia 1.290.000 (cca). And what you should look up in
> another article in your Britanica, is the number of minorities which
> remained in Hungary after Trianon. They are mentioned in the official
> Trianon data - I quoted some above, for the romanians.
Let say that your figure is right and the Britanica is wrong, now a 0.3
million increase in Romania's Hungarian population from 1920 to 1992,
isn't that "normal," is it? Give me a break man...
And if you do the math with the figures I gave you, you can see that the
minority population of post-Trianon Hungary was, percentage wise, that of
today's Hungary, ca. 10%.
> It is well known and was not contested by any one.
> Too bad for them, they did not know to develop sane minority policy and
> none of the minorities supported them - not even the germans!
Boy, did the Germans supported you guys for long after the "unification"
hahaha... what can I say... ;-)
> It is not this whining that creates the good back ground for a good
> living with the past.
Who's the one whining here? I just stated how we Hungarians see things.
If Romanians can't handle the past and have invented all this D-RCT
nonsense, that's not the Hungarians' fault man. Just keep
self-delusioning yourself with it, no problem, but don't acuse Hungarians
of whining when we just say our side of the story.
> By the wat, do you happen to know how many Romanians stayed out of the
> borders in 1945 ?
I don't, and I couldn't care less... what bearance has this on the
Hungarian minority issue? Or you're just trying to say that "if my goat
is dead, my neighbour's goat should die too?"
>> With the strenght of these numbers, no wonder that the Romanian government
>> chickened out and "forgot" to hold a referendum in the territory of
>> Transylvania, Banat, Maramures and Crisana -- the chunks they would have
>> managed to chip away would have been drastically reduced.
>
> Are you drunk ? Ever heard of Alba Iulia ?
Ah, the "big show" with maybe 100,000 Romanian peasants? Give me a break
man, I think it's you who needs a drinking check-up, now that we speak of
national alcoholidays, hahaha...
If the Romanian's had so big balls at the time, why didn't they go for a
referendum and staged a peanuts show in a marketplace? Do you think that
you can fool the world with a grand meeting? Get a life man... not all
the world has the intelligence level of the Romanian government of the
time, hahaha... ;-)
>> I know that this raises painful issues, especially to the Romanians
>> brainwashed into believing the D-RCT nonsense, but c'est la vie fellow
>> Romanian... colonists (Hahaha, de la Britanica cetire!! ;-) ) it's time
>> for a reality check.
>
> And maybe you enlighten us too: what is the reality check you imagine
> having brought with mediocrities ?
I thought this is obvious like the daylight, but if you still can't see
it, then all I can do is pitty you -- got no time to spoonfeed babies,
sorry.
So long, "pui de dac" (Dacian kid)! ;=^)
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
(Your fellow colonist.) LOL LOL ;-)
--=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs wrote:
>
> Oh course I did... he just resuErrected and came to visit me saying "hey,
> here's my 1998 edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica," hahaha... Why, did
> you spent your days lately studying the Vienna financed Transylavanian
> School nationalists? ;-)
>
Which Vienna financed, are you day dreaming again: all that comes from
Vienna is money for Hungarian irredempist, since when has veinna
sympathy for Romania, you must be kidding!
> > Actually the hungarian gentleman was amazed discovering that, contrary
> > to his education knowledge, the number of hungarians in Romania
> > _increased_ after Trianon continuously.
>
> No kidding? I disscussed already about year ago or so about the
> "increase," so I wont repeat myself again, that's why dejanews is for.
>
He was nevertheless astonished!
[ snip - snap ]
>
> When I compare my Hungarian writing skills or Hungarian literature
> knowledge to that of my older cousins that still managed to get a
> Hungarian education, I'm appaled.
>
When I compare the education I received under communism to the education
received by my parents before the war, I am appaled too. Stop whining,
you
may become desgusting. You surely only had an eye to what happened to
you
as hungarian in Romania, never realized to the others it was the same
thing, only without being hungarians!
> And tell me, how many universities do the Hungarians had in Transylvania
> since the Romanians took over? Where could a Hungarian Aurel Vlaicu go
> to study right now? Fairy tales, eh?
>
Since when is a university in a minority language a necessity for
learning ? Would Vlaicu have learned at a Romanian university in KaKaNia
? You bet.
Not even France has a german univeristy in Alsacia! Give it up.
[snip -snap]
> (see recent hungarian census). Il faut le faire!
>
> The issue isn't whether they assimilated or not, but how they did it:
> forced by Hungarians or on their own. And I don't know how it really went
> for the modern, post-Habsburg times, but for the previous ones, it wasn't
> the Hungarians that counted them forcefully as Greek Catholics, but the
> Romanians themselves.
>
Ma petite enfante, do you really beleive that was the point; are you so
stupid, is english difiicult, or just running away from the problem. The
point was that the greek - catholic, obviously romanian, did not figure
in the same census as romanians. That means, they had lost their
_nationality_, this is what I call "Zwangsassimilierung", forced
assimilation. Don't tell me they all decided being hungarian is better
than being romanian and gave up name, language and customs. Common, we
know how hungarians treated romanians in Transylvania, before 1918 -
while being (the hungarians) a minority! In Hungary, where they were
majority and Romanians a minority of 350 000 they probably tortured
their soul till they just gave up - ti pare, caro ?
>
> As for the Germans, who could stop them to leave for Germany? How many
> Germans did you got left in Romania today? You see what I mean?
>
That is not the point. In Romania they did not loose their culture. This
is the point, in Hungary, 80% of them do not know to speak german any
more.
How come do you missunderstand so easily, each time the problems lays in
Hungary ?
>
> > Remeber that in 1918 even the Germans in Romania voted for union of
> > Transylvania to Romania, being fed up with the hungarian
> > assimilationsism. And they had definitely a better treatment than
> > romanians, didn't they ?
>
> Yes, the Germans were favoring union with Romania at the beginning, but
> once the deed was done, only then they woke up that they "au luat plasa"
> (got screwed) by the Romanians 10 fold as much as they did from the
> Hungarians, hahaha... not funny, not funny...
Only then was about at the time of Ceausescu, quite a time later. Under
communism, naturally, everyone whished he were somewhere else! Me too,
you too!
>
> > The figures are different from the official Trianon figures: Romania
> > 1.430.000, Slovakia 1.290.000 (cca). And what you should look up in
> > another article in your Britanica, is the number of minorities which
> > remained in Hungary after Trianon. They are mentioned in the official
> > Trianon data - I quoted some above, for the romanians.
>
> Let say that your figure is right and the Britanica is wrong, now a 0.3
> million increase in Romania's Hungarian population from 1920 to 1992,
> isn't that "normal," is it? Give me a break man...
>
Romania's global population, do you know by what percentage it increased
in
the same period ? Roughly the same. Only the roma encreased by a factor
-
only God knows how much. Do you regret not being one of them ?
> And if you do the math with the figures I gave you, you can see that the
> minority population of post-Trianon Hungary was, percentage wise, that of
> today's Hungary, ca. 10%.
>
I didn't get that one - so I won't give a phantasy answer, in your way.
> > It is well known and was not contested by any one.
> > Too bad for them, they did not know to develop sane minority policy and
> > none of the minorities supported them - not even the germans!
>
> Boy, did the Germans supported you guys for long after the "unification"
> hahaha... what can I say... ;-)
Laughing releases and makes anyone feel well, right or wrong.
HaHaHaHa Ha Ha! (can you hear Beethoven ?)
>
> > It is not this whining that creates the good back ground for a good
> > living with the past.
>
> Who's the one whining here? I just stated how we Hungarians see things.
> If Romanians can't handle the past and have invented all this D-RCT
What is that now ? But yes, some of you hungarians are damned nombrilist
whiners. When it is possible to skip subject, they rebecome normal and
sympathtetic. But when it comes to victimizing - just buy tons of
oropax,
since no rational discussion can change it!
> nonsense, that's not the Hungarians' fault man. Just keep
> self-delusioning yourself with it, no problem, but don't acuse Hungarians
> of whining when we just say our side of the story.
>
> > By the wat, do you happen to know how many Romanians stayed out of the
> > borders in 1945 ?
>
> I don't, and I couldn't care less... what bearance has this on the
> Hungarian minority issue? Or you're just trying to say that "if my goat
> is dead, my neighbour's goat should die too?"
This speaks miles: you do not care about the conditions of the people
among which you live, you want to live there, as if the conditions were
- and only for you - broken down from fairy tales and books on human
rights. They call this egoism, do you know ?
> >
> > And maybe you enlighten us too: what is the reality check you imagine
> > having brought with mediocrities ?
>
> I thought this is obvious like the daylight, but if you still can't see
> it, then all I can do is pitty you -- got no time to spoonfeed babies,
> sorry.
Because it was new for you it does not mean it was new for everybody!
>
> So long, "pui de dac" (Dacian kid)! ;=^)
Sugi pula lui Ceausescu (ptiu), Dancsiule, caci doar el a fatat pui de
dac!
Eu eram de mult plecat cind s-a nascut vorba - si sint totusi roman.
Dorin M. Petre
>You are confused in mind. The statement was that 3.000.000 hungarians
>lived in Romania, which was wrong. The 3.000.000 left out of Hungary are
>evident
Least we forget the real injustice of the Trianon dictate: by the
stroke of the pen, the Western Powers deprived the Kingdom of Romania
of huge tracks of land, the Western Crisana and Northwestern
Maramures, which they gave to Hungary. Let us remember that this land
was liberated by the Romanian Royal Army during the 1919 war with
Hungary, and promised to Romania by the Allies in exchange for her
retreating her occupying forces from Hungary.
Further more, by the Trianon dictate, the Western Powers rejected the
legitimate and legal demand of the Romanian Kingdom for war
reparations from Hungary for the 1916-1918 occupation, as well as its
aggression of 1919.
Although the Trianon dictate is a perfect example of the Western
Powers' shameless bias in favor of Hungary, we must live with its
consequences, accept today's reality, and move on towards a new,
united and peaceful Europe.
Dorin M. Petre
Preda Mihailescu
Dorin M. Petre wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:17:33 +0100, Preda Mihailescu
> <miha...@inf.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
> Least we forget the real injustice of the Trianon dictate: by the
> stroke of the pen, the Western Powers deprived the Kingdom of Romania
> of huge tracks of land, the Western Crisana and Northwestern
> Maramures, which they gave to Hungary. Let us remember that this land
> was liberated by the Romanian Royal Army during the 1919 war with
> Hungary, and promised to Romania by the Allies in exchange for her
> retreating her occupying forces from Hungary.
>
Was it not in these regions that the 350 000 Romanians which were left
in Hungary were living ?
Stephen Dancs
Preda Mihailescu (miha...@inf.ethz.ch) writes:
> Stephen Dancs wrote:
>>
>> Oh course I did... he just resuErrected and came to visit me saying "hey,
>> here's my 1998 edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica," hahaha... Why, did
>> you spent your days lately studying the Vienna financed Transylavanian
>> School nationalists? ;-)
>
> Which Vienna financed, are you day dreaming again: all that comes from
> Vienna is money for Hungarian irredempist, since when has veinna
> sympathy for Romania, you must be kidding!
No I'm not. Most of the activity of the 18th century Transylvanian
Romanian nationalists was financed and encouraged by Vienna who by doing
that figured that they'll weaken the Hungarian opposition to Austrian
rule. By not knowing even a basic thing like this, it just shows how
little you know about the real Hungarian-Austrian dynamic throughout
centuries.
>> No kidding? I disscussed already about year ago or so about the
>> "increase," so I wont repeat myself again, that's why dejanews is for.
>
> He was nevertheless astonished!
Had he read my postings, he wouldn't have been. ;-)
> When I compare the education I received under communism to the education
> received by my parents before the war, I am appaled too. Stop whining,
> you may become desgusting.
Leaving ideological nonsense aside, the Communists did have a good
educational system, much better than the one I saw in Germany, and waaay
better then the present moronic US system.
> You surely only had an eye to what happened to you as hungarian in
> Romania, never realized to the others it was the same thing, only
> without being hungarians!
I never said that non-Hungarians didn't suffer as much as Hungarians or
sometimes even more than Hungarians. All I'm saying is that in certain
instaces, Hungarians got the normal portion, and then some, added as an
"extra" toping just for being Hungarian.
>> And tell me, how many universities do the Hungarians had in Transylvania
>> since the Romanians took over? Where could a Hungarian Aurel Vlaicu go
>> to study right now? Fairy tales, eh?
>
> Since when is a university in a minority language a necessity for
> learning ?
And who are you to tell me that I as a Hungarian am not allowed to opt to
go and learn at a Hungarian university in Transylvania if I wish so?
> Would Vlaicu have learned at a Romanian university in KaKaNia ? You bet.
The point I was trying to bring home to you was that Vlaicu chose to
learn at a Romanian university in Transylvania because there was one,
while ever since Transylvania is in Romanian hands there's no Hungarian
university left.
> Not even France has a german univeristy in Alsacia! Give it up.
So? Why should I care what France has or has not? Does Switzerland have
German and French and maybe Italian universities? You bet it does. And so
will Hungarians have at least one in Transylvania, sooner or later,
whether you Romanians like it or not.
> Ma petite enfante, do you really beleive that was the point; are you so
> stupid, is english difiicult, or just running away from the problem. The
> point was that the greek - catholic, obviously romanian, did not figure
> in the same census as romanians. That means, they had lost their
> _nationality_, this is what I call "Zwangsassimilierung", forced
> assimilation. Don't tell me they all decided being hungarian is better
> than being romanian and gave up name, language and customs. Common, we
> know how hungarians treated romanians in Transylvania, before 1918 -
> while being (the hungarians) a minority! In Hungary, where they were
> majority and Romanians a minority of 350 000 they probably tortured
> their soul till they just gave up - ti pare, caro ?
Mon bebe, I new exactly what the point was, and that's why I told you
that most of the Romanians that lost their Orthodoxness and Romanianness
did so in order to gain privileges so in a way they decided, to say it
with your own words "to be Hungarian [was] better." Many opportunistic
Hungarians became Romanians later exactly in the same fashion.
>> As for the Germans, who could stop them to leave for Germany? How many
>> Germans did you got left in Romania today? You see what I mean?
>
> That is not the point. In Romania they did not loose their culture. This
> is the point, in Hungary, 80% of them do not know to speak german any more.
> How come do you missunderstand so easily, each time the problems lays in
> Hungary ?
Germans in Hungary were much more uniformly distributed geographically,
while in Romania they were not. It's easier to assimilate when you're
more uniformly diluted then when you're not. Hungary didn't have Sibiu's
and the like.
>> Yes, the Germans were favoring union with Romania at the beginning, but
>> once the deed was done, only then they woke up that they "au luat plasa"
>> (got screwed) by the Romanians 10 fold as much as they did from the
>> Hungarians, hahaha... not funny, not funny...
>
> Only then was about at the time of Ceausescu, quite a time later. Under
> communism, naturally, everyone whished he were somewhere else! Me too,
> you too!
That's not true at all and it only shows how little you know about your
own history. Germans regretted their mistake right immediately after the
"unification" and not "about the time of Ceausescu."
>> Let say that your figure is right and the Britanica is wrong, now a 0.3
>> million increase in Romania's Hungarian population from 1920 to 1992,
>> isn't that "normal," is it? Give me a break man...
>
> Romania's global population, do you know by what percentage it increased in
> the same period ? Roughly the same. Only the roma encreased by a factor
> - only God knows how much. Do you regret not being one of them ?
Nonsense, Romania's population just in Transylvania increased from ca. 3
million in 1920 to ca. 7 million in 1992, i.e. more than doubled. That's
not exactly "roughly the same."
>> Boy, did the Germans supported you guys for long after the "unification"
>> hahaha... what can I say... ;-)
>
> Laughing releases and makes anyone feel well, right or wrong.
> HaHaHaHa Ha Ha! (can you hear Beethoven ?)
Nope... I can only see a guy with no knowledge of his own history. ;-)
>> Who's the one whining here? I just stated how we Hungarians see things.
>> If Romanians can't handle the past and have invented all this D-RCT
>
> What is that now ? But yes, some of you hungarians are damned nombrilist
> whiners. When it is possible to skip subject, they rebecome normal and
> sympathtetic. But when it comes to victimizing - just buy tons of oropax,
> since no rational discussion can change it!
I think it's the Romanians that should check their rationality when they
discuss such topics as D-RCT, hahaha... once a Hungarian says to them
that their "baby darling" is nothing but baloney, they at shoot him with
being an irredentist whiner.
>> I don't, and I couldn't care less... what bearance has this on the
>> Hungarian minority issue? Or you're just trying to say that "if my goat
>> is dead, my neighbour's goat should die too?"
>
> This speaks miles: you do not care about the conditions of the people
> among which you live, you want to live there, as if the conditions were
> - and only for you - broken down from fairy tales and books on human
> rights. They call this egoism, do you know ?
I call it only being off the topic. How many Romanians were left out or
in, doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand here.
>> I thought this is obvious like the daylight, but if you still can't see
>> it, then all I can do is pitty you -- got no time to spoonfeed babies,
>> sorry.
>
> Because it was new for you it does not mean it was new for everybody!
Nope, it was old story for me and an intended reality check for the likes
of Gheorghe a' Hreanului and Dorin `Magaru' Petre.
>> So long, "pui de dac" (Dacian kid)! ;=^)
>
> Sugi pula lui Ceausescu (ptiu), Dancsiule, caci doar el a fatat pui de dac!
> Eu eram de mult plecat cind s-a nascut vorba - si sint totusi roman.
Again, not true at all: he was the one that made the brainwashing a
little bit more intensive and elevated the theory to higher and higher
peaks of desilusion. But the term, is as old as the Transylvanian School
and their discovery of Nicholaus Olachus.
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
Regards,
cristian
Dorin M. Petre wrote:
> Although the Trianon dictate is a perfect example of the Western
> Powers' shameless bias in favor of Hungary, we must live with its
> consequences, accept today's reality, and move on towards a new,
> united and peaceful Europe.
> Dorin M. Petre
See, this is my beef with late Romanian politics of being politicaly
corect.
No, we don't have to live with it. The gents that signed the recent treaty
with
Hungary were imbeciles, politicaly speaking. They got nothing, these gulible
individuals did in exchange for hope of NATO membership, hehehe pipe dreams !
We don't have to live with it ! Hungary and NATO ought to kiss some ass for
a quiet and behaved neigbour, and that is the least ! Nothing is for free
gentlemen,
and I am tired and you ought to be tired as well of this big Romanian
giveaway and
give in on every issue !
m. cristian
Stephen Dancs,Toronto Canada
In a previous article, o...@nospam.interaccess.com (Dorin M. Petre) says:
>
> Although the Trianon dictate is a perfect example of the Western
> Powers' shameless bias in favor of Hungary, we must live with its
> consequences, accept today's reality, and move on towards a new,
> united and peaceful Europe.
Western Powers' bias for Hungary? Auleo, Dorinel, mititel, ya'r outta ya'r
mind asS ususal, hahaha...
If the bias in favour of Hungary was sooo BIG, why didn't the occupying
Romanians hold a referendum to be able to grab even more territory, eh?
Can ya imagine all those Romanian administration loving people who'd have
managed to sneak in, hahaha... ;-)
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
(The great French Bias -- 100% anti-Romanian, ;-) hahaha...)
--=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
Stephen Dancs
General Averescu (pseudo_...@alias.cyberpass.net) writes:
>
> If you think its editors share your views on
> this theory, why don't you quote directly
> Britannica's position on the Daco-Roman
> continuity?
Why, am I the official SCR SCRib? How about you moving that
generalissimo ass of yours a bit?
> Actually, unless I missed something here, the
> disputed claims referred to the 3-million
> Hungarians living in Romania.
>
> "Istvan Lippai" <szat...@worldnet.att> wrote:
> > The treatment of 3 million ethnic Hungarians living in Romania...
Ok, I guess the word "Lippai" explains it all... :-)
> Britannica does not say anywhere that Transylvania
> ever had a Hungarian majority.
Of course it does, but by inference:
THE NATIONALITIES. The population of Hungary, even excluding
Croatia, had never been purely Magyar, but the pre-Magyar
inhabitants of the plains and the newcomers to them (outside the
towns) had quickly become Magyarised; and while this was not true
of the peripheral areas, their populations were relatively
sparse. By the end of the 15th century the Slovaks and Ruthenes
of the north; the Germans of the free boroughs, the Szepes, and
Transylvania; and the Romanians numbered hardly more than 20 to
25 percent of the total. ^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^
If you assume that all of the 25% maximum limit of the total population
were Romanians living all in Transylvania, it would take only 1/3 of the
reamining 75% of Hungarians to tie them. ;-)
> As for the Habsburgs,
> true, they sponsored the Uniate Church and,
> indirectly, Scoala Ardeleana. In other words,
> Vienna brought some support against the
> magyarisation pressure coming from Budapest.
You mean the Magyar secessionist tendencies, mon general...
> Nonetheless, when it really mattered, they sided
> with the Hungarians.
But the hook is, that each time that it mattered, came only when the
Austrians were weak, like after their defeat by Germans, when they gave
Hungary some Ausgleich in 1867, so basically, by siding with Hungarians,
they sided with themselves... ;-)
> No need to love them, no
> need to hate them. It is all in the past anyway.
I say you better kiss their asses, 'cause w/o them... you know the spiel.
> > went to Austria and even Poland and Italy. Of the population of
> > 20,866,447 (1910 census), Hungary was left 7,615,568. Romania
> > received 5,257,467;
>
> Out of which only about 1.6 millions were
> Hungarians. What should I say? Vae victis!
True, but given the way the Hungarian population was distributed
geographically, in case of a referendum Romanian would have grabed a
significantly reduced chunk of land, basically just Transylvania proper,
and nothing from then eastern Hungary, presently western Romania, and
from nothwestern Transylvania.
> From a certain angle the figures are quite
> impressive, but when it comes to you I am
> sure our Hungarian friends count you as a
> loser not as a loss.
Unlike you, a loser completely AT loss with logic and math... ;-)
> What are you talking about? There was a
> referendum, one organized by the victors,
> i.e. the Romanians, a referendum which
> legitimized the conquest of Transylvania
> from Hungary and its annexation by the younger
> and stronger Kingdom of Romania.
When was it held and what was the vote outcome?
> The reality is that the Romanian army conquered
> Transylvania at the end of WWI. I see nothing
> painful in that, nor in the fact that we, the
> mighty Romanians, got to kept it. You know
> what they say, the stronger dog fucks. Crying
> on the 20th volume of Britannica won't help
> with your reality check.
But of course it did mon general, just look at you, y'already talking of
"conquests," "mighty dogs fucking," etc. and nothing of the 14 Wilsonian
points, self-determination, and "peoples' will," etc...
"Following yourself, you just followed me" (sic)... we are making
real progress here, hahaha... ;-)
PS: And mon general, don't count the same soldier four times 'cause that
won't quadruple your army personnel... oh, excuse me, I forgot that
you are at a loss with logic and math... Bocsaaanaaat!... :_)
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
(Iago.) ;=)
--=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
bv...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bv561/
Stephen Dancs
Preda Mihailescu (miha...@inf.ethz.ch) writes:
>
> Just for your intelectual record built up upon Ceausescu history:
> romanian history was written before Ceausescu and the communists too,
> and said similar things about origins of Transylvania & co - but in a
> rational and pondered way. In other words, not everything that has been
> said under (ptiu - I like to quote you on that) was wrong because he
> said it. I think he also sustained that the Earth evolves around the
> sun, and this fact appears to be true nevertheless.
We are not discussing about _everything_ here, but about the rubishness
of the Daco-Roman continuity theory and the false perception of Trianon
existing out there among most Romanians.
And anyone telling you that the Earth revolves around the sun told you a
partial truth: depends where do you set your system of reference. In the
simplest, 2-body model, with the simplest ecuations of motion, they both
revolve around the centre of mass of the sun-Earth system. Set your
reference system on Earth, and the sun starts revolving around it, only
the ecuations of motion will be a bit messier in this RS. ;-)
As a physiscist, this should be peanuts for you, so I'm really
disapointed in you here... :-(
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
(Galileo PrincipLe.)
--=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Dorin M. Petre
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:19:45 GMT, Pa...@Zoology.UNP.AC.ZA
(Istvan.Pajor) wrote:
>You call, leaving a Hungary with less than 1/3rd of its former area,
>a bias in favour of Hungary?!?
Yes, of course! And here's why:
According to the Christian Tradition, "he that lives by the sword,
shall perish by the sword". Or, we all know, Hungary committed an act
of aggression in 1919 when, in violation of the Armistice and the
orders of the Allied High Command, attacked the Romanian Royal Army
three times (Apr. 18, Jun. 28 and Jul. 26, 1919) Consequently, the
state of war between the Kingdom of Romania and The Soviet Republic of
Hungary led to open hostilities, the defeat and occupation of Hungary
and the liberation of the territories of Transilvania, Crisana,
Maramures and Banat which were incorporated into the Kingdom of
Romania. Let us remember that this is in no way different from how
Hungary incorporated the said territories originally: by military
force!!! In other words, what's good for the goose, got to be good for
the gender too, wouldn't you say so?!
Now, while all these were taking place, here come the Allies and tilt
the balance in Hungary's favor: a good portion of the provinces of
Crisana and Maramures are given to Hungary without any regard of the
Romania' interest, or the outcome of the war between the two
countries!
Further more, the Allies deny Romania's legitimate claim to war
reparations from Hungary without any explanation!!! Why?! Didn't the
same Allies allow France to collect war reparations from Germany in
addition to the territorial gains?! I can't find but one, and only one
answer: the Allies were shamelessly bias in favor of Hungary!
>No treaty is for eternity.
Of course not! That's why wars are being waged for, isn't it so?!
>As Australian and Canadian aborigines get their rightful claims in
>these days and get at last a bit of justice, more than 100 years after the
>huge injustice that happened to them, so also this dictate should be re-
>evaluated.
Sure, but, you know, Hungarians are not Tansilvanian aborigines, maybe
Caucasus'... Hungarians conquered these regions by military force,
just as the White Europeans did conquer Australia and Canada. So, I'm
afraid, your example is not very suitable for the subject at hand.
>And with the last bit "..move on towards a new, united and peaceful Europe"
>I can agree. A united Europe where minority rights and human rights are
>fully implemented.
Of course! Like, for instance, the human rights of a couple of nuns
who want to open an orphanage in Odorheiul Secuiesc, right?
Dorin M. Petre
Mircea
Stephen Dancs wrote:
> > If you think its editors share your views on
> > this theory, why don't you quote directly
> > Britannica's position on the Daco-Roman
> > continuity?
>
> Why, am I the official SCR SCRib?
Britannica mentions that the Daco-Roman continuity is contested in Hungary.
Notwithstanding, Britannica chose to expand upon this theory when presenting
the origins of Romanians; probably because Britannica's editors regarded
Daco-Romancontinuity as a very solid theory from a scientific point of view.
> > Britannica does not say anywhere that Transylvania
> > ever had a Hungarian majority.
>
> Of course it does, but by inference:
> of the north; the Germans of the free boroughs, the Szepes, and
> Transylvania; and the Romanians numbered hardly more than 20 to
> 25 percent of the total. ^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> If you assume that all of the 25% maximum limit of the total population
> were Romanians living all in Transylvania, it would take only 1/3 of the
> reamining 75% of Hungarians to tie them. ;-)
I'd argue that by the end of the 15th century Transylvania's population was
around 500,000, out of which 200,001 were Romanians, and 199,999 Hungarians. I
assume that Romanians were less than 10% of the whole population of medieval
Hungary. My numbers are just guesses, but they fit very well with Britannica's
guesses.
> > Vienna brought some support against the
> > magyarisation pressure coming from Budapest.
>
> You mean the Magyar secessionist tendencies, mon general...
Are you saying that Budapest's Magyarisation policy was aimed simply at shaking
the Austrian yoke? It doesn't make to much sense.
> > What are you talking about? There was a
> > referendum, one organized by the victors,
> > i.e. the Romanians, a referendum which
> > legitimized the conquest of Transylvania
> > from Hungary and its annexation by the younger
> > and stronger Kingdom of Romania.
>
> When was it held and what was the vote outcome?
December 1, 1918, at Alba Iulia, where 1228 delegates, representing the
majority of the Transylvanian population, voted for union with Romania.
> But of course it did mon general, just look at you, y'already talking of
> "conquests," "mighty dogs fucking," etc. and nothing of the 14 Wilsonian
> points, self-determination, and "peoples' will," etc...
Well, you know how it is, history is written by the victors.
Mircea
Stephen Dancs
Mircea (mir...@enteract.com) writes:
>
> Britannica mentions that the Daco-Roman continuity is contested in Hungary.
> Notwithstanding, Britannica chose to expand upon this theory when presenting
> the origins of Romanians; probably because Britannica's editors regarded
> Daco-Romancontinuity as a very solid theory from a scientific point of view.
I didn't really want to do this, but here it goes. Encyclopedia Britannica
expands on the D-RC out of the well known British sense of fairness and
sportsmanship.
The fate of Romanized, or Daco-Roman, population north of the
Danube after Aurelian's withdrawal has been a subject of great
controversy. Many scholars, especially Hungarians, argue that
Romanization in Dacia was, in fact modest and that the later
Romanian population living north of the Carpathians was not
native to the region but migrated there from south of the Danube.
Other scholars, including the majority of Romanians, insist that
a substantial Romanized population maintained itself continuously
in old Dacia and that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people
occurred precisely there. The account that follows expands on the
latter interpretation.
(E. B., 1998, vol. 14, p. 656)
And than on p. 657 they continue
THE ROMANIAN NATIONAL IDEA. In the 2nd half of the 18th century,
Micu-Klein's disciples strove to achieve recognition of the
Romanians as a constituent nation of Transylvania. They also
elaborated a modern, ethnic ideea of nationhood based on the
theory of Roman origins and the continuous presence of the
Daco-Romans since Trajan's conquest. It was to serve as the
ideology of the Romanian national movement in the 19th century.
(Merde, in the end it was still me who did your job...)
Do you see how many time the concepts of "ideea," "theory," and
"ideology" are underlined? So it's far from the Britannica to consider
it "solid from the scientific point of view," but a courtesy call to
show "the other side of the coin."
While the Romanians' migration into Transylvania is presented as a FACT
at the Hungarian history part, D-RC is always reffered to as an IDEEA at
the Romanian history chapter, while not mentioned at all in the chapter
dealing with Hungarian history.
> I'd argue that by the end of the 15th century Transylvania's population was
> around 500,000, out of which 200,001 were Romanians, and 199,999 Hungarians.
> I assume that Romanians were less than 10% of the whole population of
> medieval Hungary. My numbers are just guesses, but they fit very well
> with Britannica's guesses.
Except that the Brittannica estimate is based on an educated guess, while
yours is just grudgy mumble-jumble now that you were proven incapable to
logicaly infer from some simple math calculations. ;-)
>> > Vienna brought some support against the
>> > magyarisation pressure coming from Budapest.
>>
>> You mean the Magyar secessionist tendencies, mon general...
>
> Are you saying that Budapest's Magyarisation policy was aimed simply at shaking
> the Austrian yoke? It doesn't make to much sense.
Nope, all I'm saying is that Vienna's support of the Romanians was in
order to counterbalance Hungarian secesionism, you are the one who mixed
Magyarisation into the equation, not me.
> December 1, 1918, at Alba Iulia, where 1228 delegates, representing the
> majority of the Transylvanian population, voted for union with Romania.
You claimed that there was a _referendum_ mon bebe. Well, 1228 delegates
"representing the majority of the population" it's not quite a
referendum, now is it?
TRIANON, TREATY OF. By the terms of the treaty, Hungary was shorn
of at least 2/3 of its former territory and 2/3 of its
inhabitants. [...] Except for plebiscites in two small regions,
all the transfers were effected w/o any plebiscites.
(Ibid., vol. 11, p. 917)
This is the truth mon bebe, that there was NO REFERENDUM in any part of
Transylvania, 'cause the Romanians were affraid that lots of regions
would have chosen to stay in Hungary, so your Alba Iulia "dog" is one
that just doesn't hunt. ;-)
>> But of course it did mon general, just look at you, y'already talking of
>> "conquests," "mighty dogs fucking," etc. and nothing of the 14 Wilsonian
>> points, self-determination, and "peoples' will," etc...
>
> Well, you know how it is, history is written by the victors.
That's only the case when the defeated part doesn't survive. Hungary did,
and it's doing just fine thank you very much. :))
PS: can anyone provide me with his/her E. B. Online account, 'cause I'm
tired of running to the library each time a lazy general isn't
willing to do his job, or play EBO around with 2 weeks free accounts
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
Regards,
Mircea
Stephen Dancs wrote:
> I didn't really want to do this, but here it goes. Encyclopedia Britannica
> expands on the D-RC out of the well known British sense of fairness and
> sportsmanship.
Not really!?! :-) Is it something wrong with presenting a sound theory in all
fairness? Are you suggesting the Brits were not good sports with Hungarians because
Britannica did not expand on their pet theory? Moreover, just for your information,
Britannica (good to see you learned the double _n_ is still there) was sold to a
Chicago company before the First World War. The last British edition, the Eleventh
Edition, was printed in 1911.
> Do you see how many time the concepts of "ideea," "theory," and
> "ideology" are underlined?
Your point being? "Idea" and "ideology" refer to the concept of nationhood, whereas
emphasizing "theory" in the case of the Daco-Roman continuity is extremely suitable
in this context; history is not an exact science.
> So it's far from the Britannica to consider
> it "solid from the scientific point of view," but a courtesy call to
> show "the other side of the coin."
Which other side? Britannica expands only one side: the Romanian side. A matter of
courtesy was to mention that not all Hungarians embrace this historical scenario.
Nonetheless, Britannica chose not to expand on the irrelevant side of the coin, i.e.
on the Hungarian one.
> While the Romanians' migration into Transylvania is presented as a FACT
> at the Hungarian history part, D-RC is always reffered to as an IDEEA
You are not reading Britannica, but probably "Erdely tortente," right? As a matter of
fact, in the 15th century, Romanians' descendence form Trajan's colonists was not
doubted by anybody, the most vocal supporter of this fact being King Matthias' court
historian, Antonio Bonfini.
> > I'd argue that by the end of the 15th century Transylvania's population was
> > around 500,000, out of which 200,001 were Romanians, and 199,999 Hungarians.
> > I assume that Romanians were less than 10% of the whole population of
> > medieval Hungary. My numbers are just guesses, but they fit very well
> > with Britannica's guesses.
>
> Except that the Brittannica estimate is based on an educated guess, while
> yours is just grudgy mumble-jumble now that you were proven incapable to
> logicaly infer from some simple math calculations. ;-)
If that's the case, you failed to prove it. Please, note there is absolutely no
contradiction between my figures and Britannica's. As for my math abilities, I have a
lot of confidence in them.
> > Are you saying that Budapest's Magyarisation policy was aimed simply at shaking
> > the Austrian yoke? It doesn't make to much sense.
>
> Nope, all I'm saying is that Vienna's support of the Romanians was in
> order to counterbalance Hungarian secesionism, you are the one who mixed
> Magyarisation into the equation, not me.
Now you understand why the Habsburgs' initiative was not meant for the benefit of
Romanians, and why we have no reason to be greatful to them?
> > December 1, 1918, at Alba Iulia, where 1228 delegates, representing the
> > majority of the Transylvanian population, voted for union with Romania.
>
> You claimed that there was a _referendum_ mon bebe.
I did? I think you are wrong. I think you probably missed "General Averescu's"
sarcasm.
> Well, 1228 delegates
> "representing the majority of the population" it's not quite a
> referendum, now is it?
Yet, that was enough for legitimizing the will of the Transylvanian majority.
>This is the truth mon bebe, that there was NO REFERENDUM in any part of
> Transylvania, 'cause the Romanians were affraid
Actually, the ones who feared the result of a referendum were the Hungarians. On
October 18, 1918, Vaida-Voevod proclaimed the Transylvania's independence in
Budapest, in front of the Hungarian Parliament. Between November 13-15, 1918,
Romanian-Hungarian negotiations regarding the organization of a popular balloting
failed because the Hungarian part refused to participate; simply put, the outcome was
too obvious.
> > Well, you know how it is, history is written by the victors.
>
> That's only the case when the defeated part doesn't survive. Hungary did,
> and it's doing just fine thank you very much. :))
Transylvania, 80 years later, is at least as Romanian as it was 1100 years ago. This
is why Britannica presents the Transylvania's Romanian version of history.
Mircea
Creative Intelligence Agency
Dorin M. Petre <o...@nospam.interaccess.com> wrote in article
|>these days and get at last a bit of justice, more than 100 years after
|>the huge injustice that happened to them, so also this dictate should be
|>re-evaluated.
|
|Sure, but, you know, Hungarians are not Tansilvanian aborigines, maybe
|Caucasus'... Hungarians conquered these regions by military force,
Interesting, I had been admonished by one Hungarian for suggesting way back
that they had taken the lands forcefully from somebody, and I was clearly
told that this did not occur, that the Hungarians "settled" there.
|just as the White Europeans did conquer Australia and Canada. So, I'm
|afraid, your example is not very suitable for the subject at hand.
Point taken.
|>And with the last bit "..move on towards a new, united and peaceful
|>Europe" I can agree. A united Europe where minority rights and human
|>rights are fully implemented.
|
|Of course! Like, for instance, the human rights of a couple of nuns
|who want to open an orphanage in Odorheiul Secuiesc, right?
Oh isn't this the incident that Joe Pannon got upset about, and made wild
suggestions that these nuns were subverting Hungarian culture, and other
paranoid claims?
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs,Toronto Canada wrote:
>
> If the bias in favour of Hungary was sooo BIG, why didn't the occupying
> Romanians hold a referendum to be able to grab even more territory, eh?
> Can ya imagine all those Romanian administration loving people who'd have
> managed to sneak in, hahaha... ;-)
Have you heard about the referendum by which the Alsacian chose
their way back to France ? No. Thus Blaj was for the time pretty
the most there has been interms of post war referendum! Why do
you always want more than one can ever encounter in real life ?
PM
>
> (Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
> "soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
>
> (The great French Bias -- 100% anti-Romanian, ;-) hahaha...)
> --=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
> Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
> sda...@freenet.hut.fi http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bv561/
> --
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs wrote:
>
> Preda Mihailescu (miha...@inf.ethz.ch) writes:
> >
> > Just for your intelectual record built up upon Ceausescu history:
> > romanian history was written before Ceausescu and the communists too,
> > and said similar things about origins of Transylvania & co - but in a
> > rational and pondered way. In other words, not everything that has been
> > said under (ptiu - I like to quote you on that) was wrong because he
> > said it. I think he also sustained that the Earth evolves around the
> > sun, and this fact appears to be true nevertheless.
>
> We are not discussing about _everything_ here, but about the
> rubishness of the Daco-Roman continuity theory
Wait a minute border - jumper! Just what do you mean with
"rubishness of the Daco-Roman continuity theory " ? Do you think
with a coky word you may spear arguments ? There is no other "theory",
not even on hungarian side, they gave up Roessler since a long time.
So what are you talking about in fact ?
> and the false perception of Trianon
> existing out there among most Romanians.
>
And what is this now ? I gave you several small and backed up arguments.
What do I have to do with a perception "existing out there". And even
more, with the way _you_ perceive that perception ? Answer or answer
not, but with "your perception is wrong - no your one is wrong" we won't
get much of a communication, are we ?
> And anyone telling you that the Earth revolves around the sun told you a
> partial truth: depends where do you set your system of reference. In the
> simplest, 2-body model, with the simplest ecuations of motion, they both
> revolve around the centre of mass of the sun-Earth system. Set your
> reference system on Earth, and the sun starts revolving around it, only
> the ecuations of motion will be a bit messier in this RS. ;-)
Such a smart ass you are!
Did I not say it revolves around its own ax too ? What ever, your
ass is smart indeed. Thank you for reviving Galilei.
>
> As a physiscist, this should be peanuts for you, so I'm really
> disapointed in you here... :-(
>
Who told you I were a physicist ? I am not.
> (Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
> "soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
>
> (Galileo PrincipLe.)
> --=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs wrote:
>
> Of course it does, but by inference:
>
> Croatia, had never been purely Magyar, but the pre-Magyar
> inhabitants of the plains and the newcomers to them (outside the
> towns) had quickly become Magyarised; and while this was not true
> of the peripheral areas, their populations were relatively
> of the north; the Germans of the free boroughs, the Szepes, and
> Transylvania; and the Romanians numbered hardly more than 20 to
> 25 percent of the total. ^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^
Dancs, would you ask the hungarian (or KaKaNian) author of this article,
on what population census or on what estimations from the 15-th
century he bases his assertion ? How come it is by high factors
different from what german and french historians know ?
And let me ask you one more question: What happened from the 15-th
to the end of the 19-th century ? I'll tell you:
After 1521, lots of hungarians came from their home land (lost to the
turks) to Transylvania. Point for hungarians.
17-18 th century: records of numerous transylvanian romanians fleeing
away mainly to Walachia, but also to Moldavia.
During all this period and until 1918, strong magyarization of
Romanians (yourself, you gave this in in a recent post). And what do
we find in the 1911 (!!!) hungarians census in Trnasylvania ? A
romanians majority. How the fuck did this happen. Seems we have a
tallent for unnoticeably falling out from the sky in order to disturb
magnificent hungarian peace of mind of being the only ones in this (part
of the) world. I love and admire romanians for such an exploit. From a
minority of less than 20% in the 15-th century, they keep being
assimilated, overcrowded by hungarians and fleeing away to Walachia, but
at the end of the time, they are majority! Looks like an Escher image to
me ... or else, it is you who have a problem with mathematics and do not
understand correctly what these percentages are taken from. Personally,
I think
a) the information is unsufficient.
b) may be wrong
c) you interpret the bit of information that is in there in a biased
manner.
d) I don't care about this sources - you know the facts!
>
> If you assume that all of the 25% maximum limit of the total population
> were Romanians living all in Transylvania, it would take only 1/3 of the
> reamining 75% of Hungarians to tie them. ;-)
>
> But the hook is, that each time that it mattered, came only when the
> Austrians were weak, like after their defeat by Germans, when they gave
> Hungary some Ausgleich in 1867, so basically, by siding with Hungarians,
> they sided with themselves... ;-)
We know you don't love the austrians for what they have done to Bella
K, but neverthelesss you have a love hate to them which made that from
all poor nations that dealt with them you always were eager to be the
prime vallets in their beautifull empire! (Crawl up their asses, in your
way of putting. Did you ever see KaKanian movies or read KaKanian siroup
novels - you see what I mean.
> But of course it did mon general, just look at you, y'already talking of
> "conquests," "mighty dogs fucking," etc. and nothing of the 14 Wilsonian
> points, self-determination, and "peoples' will," etc...
>
Dancs, fetita scumpa, do not ask from others more than you can offer
yourself, says an old wisdom! How many times shall I repeat it to you ?
In Hungary, 350 000 Romanians just disappeared from the earth surface
(speak were ruthlessly magyarized) after 1920. Were the $%&@ fuck are
the Wilsonians in this case ? Are you hungarians born to keep asking and
asking but never give ? Well keep on trying, and then whine vae victi!
Good whining
Preda Mihailescu
> "Following yourself, you just followed me" (sic)... we are making
> real progress here, hahaha... ;-)
>
> PS: And mon general, don't count the same soldier four times 'cause that
> won't quadruple your army personnel... oh, excuse me, I forgot that
> you are at a loss with logic and math... Bocsaaanaaat!... :_)
>
> (Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
> "soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
>
> (Iago.) ;=)
Istvan.Pajor
>Transylvania, 80 years later, is at least as Romanian as it was 1100 years ago. This
>is why Britannica presents the Transylvania's Romanian version of history.
>Mircea
Oh really?? Transylvania was Romanian 1100 years ago? Could you dig up just
one map or written document from the 9th century right up to the 20th
century that indicates that Transylvania was Romanian??
P.I.
att...@idt.net
A.B.
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs wrote:
>
>
> Do you see how many time the concepts of "ideea," "theory," and
> it "solid from the scientific point of view," but a courtesy call to
> show "the other side of the coin."
>
> the Romanian history chapter, while not mentioned at all in the chapter
> dealing with Hungarian history.
What about bringing some _direct_ proofs in favour of your Roesslerian
pet theory ? Did it occur to you that not even the hungarian academy is
not supporting it any more in their history of Erdely ? Because all that
theory did was destroing any sensible argument and than saying: since we
destroyed the argument in favor of continuity, it follows logically that
romanians came from somewhere else, the south. No proof what so ever in
favour of a mass migration being brought - say nothing about the fact
the a whole _agriculture_ oriented population migrating all of the
sudden would be unique for the european middle age !
Try harder, you still have some important open questions -
1. respect of the Wilsonian provisions in after - Trianon Hungary,
2. example of the kind of referendum you miss in Transylvania, in a
comparable situation (post WWI territorial changes) - France with
Alsacia is not a helpfull one for you.
3. The Escher - like romanian population evolution in Transylvania since
your 15-th century to 1918: while continuously decreasing for different
reasons, they ended up by building the majority .... whereas according
to your reading of the Britannica they were a minority at the end of the
15-th century.
By the way, did you know the deputies at Blaj were ellected ? Anything
against representative democracy ?
PM
Preda Mihailescu
Istvan Pajor,
Your question contains the answer. But why restrict to these kind of
proofs which for good reasons do not exist ?
Imagine following slightly similar situation: an American Indian is
asked to produce written documents and maps proving that the great
plains of Dakota were Sioux in the year 1500 (or whatever ... ). His
being unable to do so does by no means prove that the settler found a no
man's land in the 19-th century. Of course, we have all the documents of
the americans themselves, but the american indians did not live in htis
kind of terms: state, written documents, maps.
The situation has one more similitude to Transylvania: toponemy is what
was left. In Transylvania, almost without excetption, the toponemy above
1200 m of altitude is _latin_. You find rivers like _Sebes_, which has
its upper valley name _Frumoasa_, etc.
There are many more arguments and indications, but I am not a historian
so I would not indulge into a long pseudo specialized discussion. The
simple evidence is that the kind of living and organization of whatever
the Romanians of the year 1000 in Transylvania might be called, was
inconsistent with own written records, maps, states, etc.
On the other hand, the romanian were important in the 14-th century,
since in the first version of the Unio Trio Natiorum they failed to be
the fourth nation in the union. Now if any "fallen down from the moon"
theory about the Romanians in Transylvania would be true,
a) they must have fallen down form the moon in a very short time
interval, between 1100 and 1300. At that time hungarians had already
pretty many written documents. How come such an improtant event as the
aparition of a whole migrating population which was soon to be taken
into account as one of the four nations of Transylvania was mentioned by
none ? There are traces of much smaller and earlier migrations such as
pechenegs, cumans, etc. If there had been a Romanian migration,
happening after the year 1000, it should have left traces both in
byzantine as in the hungarian historiography !
b) how come that Transylvania was naturally ruled 100 years later by a
Roamanian (Ioan de Hunedoara or Ianos Hunyady, whose romanian origin is
today accepted even by Hungarian historians) ? It would be quite
spectacular for a recently fallen from the moon population to give its
prince ruling over the "inborn" hungarian, if Roessler was right!
If you cannot answer these questions, maybe we can agree about the
settling theroy and dedicate to more fructuous contemporaneous
discussions ! (But please, common sense answers ... )
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs,Toronto Canada
Mircea (mir...@enteract.com) writes:
> Stephen Dancs wrote:
>
> Not really!?! :-) Is it something wrong with presenting a sound theory
> in all fairness? Are you suggesting the Brits were not good sports with
> Hungarians because Britannica did not expand on their pet theory?
On the contrary, the Brits did present the Hungarian version presenting
it as actual FACTS all along, while they decided out of a spirit of
fairness to expand on the D-RCT underlining many times its purely
theorethical status not backed up by any evidence.
> Moreover, just for your information, Britannica (good to see you
> learned the double _n_ is still there) was sold to a Chicago company
> before the First World War. The last British edition, the Eleventh
> Edition, was printed in 1911.
Nevertheless, the British spiritness of the Encyclopedia was preserved --
less the quality of the paper though, the 1911 encyclopedias were printed
on crisp, acid free, Bible quality paper and even today look to be in far
better shape (physically) than the 1970s encyclopedias for example.
>> Do you see how many time the concepts of "ideea," "theory," and
>> "ideology" are underlined?
>
> Your point being? "Idea" and "ideology" refer to the concept of
> nationhood, whereas emphasizing "theory" in the case of the Daco-Roman
> continuity is extremely suitable in this context; history is not an exact
> science.
The point being that when they relate the Hungarian version, they not
once refer to it as a theory, ideea, ideology, etc., while they keep
overemphasizing the theorethicalness of the D-RC, and do so NOT because a
"suitability" issue due to "history not being an exact science," but
solely because there's nothing to back it up factually, but with ideas
and speculations.
>> So it's far from the Britannica to consider
>> it "solid from the scientific point of view," but a courtesy call to
>> show "the other side of the coin."
>
> Which other side? Britannica expands only one side: the Romanian side.
> A matter of courtesy was to mention that not all Hungarians embrace this
> historical scenario. Nonetheless, Britannica chose not to expand on the
> irrelevant side of the coin, i.e. on the Hungarian one.
But of course they did expand on the Hungarian one when presenting
Hungary's history, there, w/o even bothering to mentioning the D-RC
controversy, and presenting it all along as generally accepted FACTUAL
version, while when they present Romania's history, they first mention
the controversy and then present it as a courtesy always emphasising its
theoreticalness. Therefore they don't expand on the Hungarian version
there not because it's irrelevant, but because you can find it somewhere
else, namely at Hungary's history.
>> While the Romanians' migration into Transylvania is presented as a FACT
>> at the Hungarian history part, D-RC is always reffered to as an IDEEA
>
> You are not reading Britannica, but probably "Erdely tortente," right?
> As a matter of fact, in the 15th century, Romanians' descendence form
> Trajan's colonists was not doubted by anybody, the most vocal supporter
> of this fact being King Matthias' court historian, Antonio Bonfini.
That's utter rubish, D-RCT was nowhere around in the 15th century, and
the first guy to talk about it was the humanist Nicolaus Olachus.
> If that's the case, you failed to prove it. Please, note there is
> absolutely no contradiction between my figures and Britannica's.
There's no _mathematical_ contradiction, but a huge logical, common
sensical one. Your model would put only 13.33% of the total ethnic
Hungarian population (i.e. only 0.2 million out of 1.5 million) on a
territory that was 1/3 of Hungary, i.e. a very improbable distribution.
> As for my math abilities, I have a lot of confidence in them.
Ok, then go ahead and calculate the statistical plausability of your
population modeling with that of mine.
>> Nope, all I'm saying is that Vienna's support of the Romanians was in
>> order to counterbalance Hungarian secesionism, you are the one who mixed
>> Magyarisation into the equation, not me.
>
> Now you understand why the Habsburgs' initiative was not meant for the
> benefit of Romanians, and why we have no reason to be greatful to them?
Not being "meant" to do something but nevertheless ending up being
favorable for that not "meant" something, should make the Romanians send
thank you notes to the Austrians, instead of bragging badly about their
"administration" and this and that.
>> You claimed that there was a _referendum_ mon bebe.
>
> I did? I think you are wrong. I think you probably missed "General
> Averescu's" sarcasm.
Had the general meant it as sarcasm, he wouldn't have gone on and on
about Alba Iulia. ;-)
>>This is the truth mon bebe, that there was NO REFERENDUM in any part of
>> Transylvania, 'cause the Romanians were affraid
>
> Actually, the ones who feared the result of a referendum were the
> Hungarians. On October 18, 1918, Vaida-Voevod proclaimed the
> Transylvania's independence in Budapest, in front of the Hungarian
> Parliament. Between November 13-15, 1918, Romanian-Hungarian negotiations
> regarding the organization of a popular balloting failed because the
> Hungarian part refused to participate; simply put, the outcome was too
> obvious.
Nonsense, the Hungarians were just not interested in a raked "referendum"
organized under Romanian intimidation amidst conditions of general chaos
and total societal break-down.
> Transylvania, 80 years later, is at least as Romanian as it was 1100
> years ago.
I'm not so sure about the 1100 years ago part, but that's irrelevant to
the issue at hand which was who writes history, and in Transylvania's
case, both sides do.
> This is why Britannica presents the Transylvania's Romanian version of
> history.
As I said for the n-th time, they do that only in the section dealing
with Romania's history, and that too, out of fairness while always
emphasising its theoreticality and controversity, while in the part
dealing with Hungary's history, Transylvania's factual history is
related, with all the Serb and Romanian, etc. mass immigrations with _no
controversy_ whatsoever about them.
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
Regards,
--=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
Mircea
I think that would be an extremely easy task, Istvan. Until the 17th century, Europe had
little doubt the Romanians' origins were in Dacia. I can mention not one, but scores of
facts supporting a theory accepted as extremely probable by almost every history school
today.
Mircea
Istvan.Pajor wrote:
> In article <34C95BB9...@enteract.com> Mircea <mir...@enteract.com> writes:
>
> >Transylvania, 80 years later, is at least as Romanian as it was 1100 years ago. This
> >is why Britannica presents the Transylvania's Romanian version of history.
>
Mircea
On 24 Jan 1998 18:07:30 GMT, sda...@mail.freenet.hut.fi (Stephen Dancs,Toronto
Canada) wrote:
>On the contrary, the Brits did present the Hungarian version presenting
>it as actual FACTS all along, while they decided out of a spirit of
>fairness to expand on the D-RCT underlining many times its purely
>theorethical status not backed up by any evidence.
Nowhere says Britannica that Daco-Roman continuity is not based on facts. Au
contraire, although it was intended mostly for the general audience, Britannica
mentions some of these facts. For example:
Sfântu Gheorghe, [...] The museum also contains Dacian silver coins and
other materials from a Daco-Roman settlement over which the town was
built[...]
Sfântu Gheorghe was built on the site of a Daco-Roman settlement and was
occupied by Hungarians (Magyars) during medieval times.
Sebes, [...]The site had Neolithic and Daco-Roman settlements before
Sebes was refounded in the 12th century by German settlers.
[...]remnants of Daco-Roman villages have been found at Aiud, Sebes, and
Alba Iulia.
What are all these settlements mentioned by Britannica if not facts supporting a
Daco-Roman presence in Transylvania prior to the Magyar arrival?
When it comes to the Hungarian version, which is barely referred to, no
supporting evidence for the migration of Romanians is presented. If I am wrong,
please post the facts and humor me on specifics. Even when it mentions the
possible migration of some Romanians in Transylvania, Britannica stresses that
it was a fact carried through by the end of the 13th century. That is contrary
to the Hungarian version, which insists that Romanians came in Transylvania only
after the Mongol invasion. I quote:
By the 13th century the Vlachs were reestablished in the
lands north of the Danube, including Transylvania, where
they constituted the bulk of the peasant population. From
Transylvania they migrated to Walachia ("Land of the
Vlachs")
More important, Britannica has no doubts that Romanians were in Transylvania
when the Magyars arrived. I quote:
Having formed the nucleus of the Dacian (Getic) kingdom
(flourished 1st century BC-1st century AD) and the Roman
province of Dacia (after AD 106), Transylvania was
overrun by a succession of barbarian tribes after the
Roman legions withdrew about AD 270. Thereafter the
Romanized Dacian inhabitants either moved into the
mountains and preserved their culture or migrated
southward. The area then was repopulated by peoples
from the Romanized lands south of the Danube River or
from the Balkans. The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered
the area at the end of the 9th century
>> Your point being? "Idea" and "ideology" refer to the concept of
>> nationhood, whereas emphasizing "theory" in the case of the Daco-Roman
>> continuity is extremely suitable in this context; history is not an exact
>> science.
>
>The point being that when they relate the Hungarian version,they not
>once refer to it as a theory, ideea, ideology, etc.,
Britannica hardly acknowledge the Hungarian version.
>while they keep overemphasizing the theorethicalness of the D-RC,
That is not true. It refers to it as a theory. Period.
>solely because there's nothing to back it up factually, but with ideas
>and speculations.
You might have glanced over Britannica too fast (see above). That would explain
your misinterpretations.
>> You are not reading Britannica, but probably "Erdely tortente," right?
>> As a matter of fact, in the 15th century, Romanians' descendence form
>> Trajan's colonists was not doubted by anybody, the most vocal supporter
>> of this fact being King Matthias' court historian, Antonio Bonfini.
>
>That's utter rubish, D-RCT was nowhere around in the 15th century, and
>the first guy to talk about it was the humanist Nicolaus Olachus.
You are misinformed. Nicolaus Olachus wrote nothing about the Daco-Roman
continuity. He was rewarded in 1548 with an aristocratic title by Ferdinand of
Habsburg, who mentioned with that occasion that:
"Those are the beginnings of all the noble nations, among which Romanians, your
people, are not the last ones, [since] it is known they come from Rome, the lady
and mistress of all empires, and they settled into a part of the wealthy
Dacia..."
Nonetheless, Nestor, Magister P., Simon de Keza, Poggio Bracciolini, Silvio
Piccolomini, Laonic Chalcocondil, Antonio Bonfini, Francesco della Valle, Georg
Reicherstroffer, I. Dubravius, and many others, all lived before Nicolaus
Olahus. I am sure you are very well acquainted with their writings regarding
the origin of Romanians. What parts of their testimonies are rubbish and why?
>> If that's the case, you failed to prove it. Please, note there is
>> absolutely no contradiction between my figures and Britannica's.
>
>There's no _mathematical_ contradiction,
Thank you!
>> Actually, the ones who feared the result of a referendum were the
>> Hungarians. On October 18, 1918, Vaida-Voevod proclaimed the
>> Transylvania's independence in Budapest, in front of the Hungarian
>> Parliament. Between November 13-15, 1918, Romanian-Hungarian negotiations
>> regarding the organization of a popular balloting failed because the
>> Hungarian part refused to participate; simply put, the outcome was too
>> obvious.
>
>Nonsense, the Hungarians were just not interested in a raked "referendum"
Not exactly. Hungarians knew the Romanians had the necessary majority to enforce
their will through a referendum. Refusing to participate meant refusing to
legitimate with their own hands the loss of Transylvania.
>As I said for the n-th time, they do that only in the section dealing
>with Romania's history,
Well, your information was incomplete (see above).
Mircea
The Eleventh Commandment of Cyberspace:
"Thou Shalt Not Be a Bandwidth Pig"
Stephen Dancs
Mircea (mir...@enteract.com) writes:
> I think that would be an extremely easy task, Istvan. Until the 17th
> century, Europe had little doubt the Romanians' origins were in Dacia. I
> can mention not one, but scores of facts supporting a theory accepted as
> extremely probable by almost every history school today.
You are talking again a bunch of rubish. Not even as of today you guys
got anything that supports this non-sensical theory, and no history
school accepts it as factual but the majority of Romanian historians,
whose number decreases every day, especially after they leave behind the
brainwashing they are exposed too during their university studies and go
out there in the real world and find absolutely NOTHING to support it,
hahaha...
So, shoot a few of the "scores" of FACTS that support it, will ya?
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
Regards,
--=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
bv...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bv561/
Alexander N. Bossy
bv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Dancs) wrote:
>We are not discussing about _everything_ here, but about the rubishness
>of the Daco-Roman continuity theory and the false perception of Trianon
>existing out there among most Romanians.
Years ago (before you arrived on s.c.r.) I posted a challenge to the
various opponents of Romanian continuity: Name one book written in
French or English, published since 1980 that questions the veracity of
Romanian continuity. No one could name one then. I strongly doubt
that you can name one now. Mere mention of Out-of-Illyria does not
count.
The fact of the matter is that no credible historian today disputes
Romanian continuity. And, that subject should be removed from
discussions of minority rights to which it has no relevance
what-so-ever.
Alexander
Stephen Dancs
Mircea (mir...@enteract.com) writes:
>
> Nowhere says Britannica that Daco-Roman continuity is not based on facts. Au
> contraire, although it was intended mostly for the general audience, Britannica
> mentions some of these facts. For example:
>
> Sfântu Gheorghe, [...] The museum also contains Dacian silver coins
> and other materials from a Daco-Roman settlement over which the town
> was built[...]
It says only that there was a Daco-Roman setlement over which the town
was built, nothing about _continuity_ and there's also no case for a
logical inference of continuity.
> Sfântu Gheorghe was built on the site of a Daco-Roman settlement and
> was occupied by Hungarians (Magyars) during medieval times.
Again, nothing but the first thing repeated, and no inferrence of D-R
continuity here. When and who has built the city?
> Sebes, [...]The site had Neolithic and Daco-Roman settlements before
> Sebes was refounded in the 12th century by German settlers.
Again no talk of continuity here, even worse, the city was refounded!!
> [...]remnants of Daco-Roman villages have been found at Aiud, Sebes,
> and Alba Iulia.
Yes, the remnants of D-R villages were found, because D-R villages indeed
existed. But does that mean that they continued to exist after the Roman
withdrawal or throughout the savage invasions of migratory people? Of
course not.
So all in all, so far you showed us that the Britannica acknowledges that
D-R setlements existed but not that they continued to exist throughout
all times till the times of the Magyar invasion.
> What are all these settlements mentioned by Britannica if not facts
> supporting a Daco-Roman presence in Transylvania prior to the Magyar
> arrival?
D-R presence yes, but continuity UP UNTIL the time of the Magyar arrival,
NADA!! ;-)
> When it comes to the Hungarian version, which is barely referred to, no
> supporting evidence for the migration of Romanians is presented. If I am wrong,
> please post the facts and humor me on specifics.
Read my initial posting again. The priest doesn't tell the mass twice for
deaf people.
> Even when it mentions the
> possible migration of some Romanians in Transylvania, Britannica stresses that
> it was a fact carried through by the end of the 13th century. That is contrary
> to the Hungarian version, which insists that Romanians came in Transylvania
> only after the Mongol invasion. I quote:
>
> By the 13th century the Vlachs were reestablished in the
> lands north of the Danube, including Transylvania, where
> they constituted the bulk of the peasant population. From
> Transylvania they migrated to Walachia ("Land of the
> Vlachs")
I'm not sure that the Hungarian version says that the Romanians
immigrated ONLY after the Mongol invasion, but if they do, so what? The
Magyars came at the end of the 9th century, so what does it matter that
the Romanians came in the 13th or who knows which century as long as it
isn't earlier than the 9th?
> More important, Britannica has no doubts that Romanians were in Transylvania
> when the Magyars arrived. I quote:
>
> Having formed the nucleus of the Dacian (Getic) kingdom
> (flourished 1st century BC-1st century AD) and the Roman
> province of Dacia (after AD 106), Transylvania was
> overrun by a succession of barbarian tribes after the
> Roman legions withdrew about AD 270. Thereafter the
> Romanized Dacian inhabitants either moved into the
> ^^^^^^
> mountains and preserved their culture or migrated
> southward. ^^
This is the EITHER OR that once again underlines that the whole thing is
just an intelectual exercise based on no facts whatsoever.
> The area then was repopulated by peoples
> from the Romanized lands south of the Danube River or
> from the Balkans. The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered
> the area at the end of the 9th century
Again, a big straw right through the hearth of D-RC, hahaha... if the
area needed to be repopulated it means that your baby darling
"continuity" was obviosly interupted!! ;-)
And the big OR again shows the uncertainty of the whole thing, but we
know that they were the Bulgars, or even Vlacho-Bulgars at best, but in
each case, the D-RC baby darling is finished and you just shot yourself
in the leg, hahaha... ;-)
>>The point being that when they relate the Hungarian version,they not
>>once refer to it as a theory, ideea, ideology, etc.,
>
> Britannica hardly acknowledge the Hungarian version.
Read Transylvania's history dealt with at the Hungarian history part of
the encyclopedia, and see for yourself. It's all in there. ;-)
>>while they keep overemphasizing the theorethicalness of the D-RC,
>
> That is not true. It refers to it as a theory. Period.
And isn't a theory... theoretical? ;-)
>>solely because there's nothing to back it up factually, but with ideas
>>and speculations.
>
> You might have glanced over Britannica too fast (see above). That would
> explain your misinterpretations.
You meant to say YOUR misinterpretations. Nothing of the passages you
have shown logically conclude CONTINUITY, on the contrary, you just shot
yourself in the leg by quoting a part that logically implies
DIScontinuity, hahaha...
> You are misinformed. Nicolaus Olachus wrote nothing about the Daco-Roman
> continuity.
Well, that's what I was thought back in Romanian school. If someone
presently in Romania can look it up for me to convince you, it would be
appreciated.
> He was rewarded in 1548 with an aristocratic title by Ferdinand
> of Habsburg, who mentioned with that occasion that:
>
> "Those are the beginnings of all the noble nations, among which Romanians,
> your people, are not the last ones, [since] it is known they come from
> Rome, the lady and mistress of all empires, and they settled into a part
> of the wealthy Dacia..."
>
> Nonetheless, Nestor, Magister P., Simon de Keza, Poggio Bracciolini, Silvio
> Piccolomini, Laonic Chalcocondil, Antonio Bonfini, Francesco della Valle, Georg
> Reicherstroffer, I. Dubravius, and many others, all lived before Nicolaus
> Olahus. I am sure you are very well acquainted with their writings regarding
> the origin of Romanians. What parts of their testimonies are rubbish and why?
I'm not acquinted at all, but I guess they couldn't have known more than
there's to know about the issue today, and let's face it, even today
there's not much known about the origins of Romanians. So if the menue is
rubish today, for sure it was rubish yesterday.
>>There's no _mathematical_ contradiction,
>
> Thank you!
And now how about the plausibilty of your distribution of population
part? How plausible it is compared to mine?
> Not exactly. Hungarians knew the Romanians had the necessary majority to
> enforce their will through a referendum. Refusing to participate meant
> refusing to legitimate with their own hands the loss of Transylvania.
Listen man, the Hungarians lost complete cotrol of the territory and the
Romanians could do whatever they wanted to do in there, with or without
Hungary's "participation." The Romanians didn't do it because THEY were
the cowards, not the helpless and fucked around by anyone (including
Austrians) Hungarians.
Your logic really doesn't make any sense and sucks BIG TIME man, so go
get yourself a Logic 101 book, before bulshiting us around with your
nonsense any longer.
>>As I said for the n-th time, they do that only in the section dealing
>>with Romania's history,
>
> Well, your information was incomplete (see above).
Nope, you logic's break-down and misinterpretation was complete. ;-)
> The Eleventh Commandment of Cyberspace:
> "Thou Shalt Not Be a Bandwidth Pig"
So, then why aren't you following it? ;-)
(Note: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
Regards,
--=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
bv...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bv561/
Stephen Dancs
Alexander N. Bossy (spamfree...@pipeline.com) writes:
>
> Years ago (before you arrived on s.c.r.) I posted a challenge to the
> various opponents of Romanian continuity: Name one book written in
> French or English, published since 1980 that questions the veracity of
> Romanian continuity. No one could name one then. I strongly doubt
> that you can name one now. Mere mention of Out-of-Illyria does not
> count.
When I was a student at the Univ. of Toronto back in 1993, there was an
Ukrainian-Canadian professor??? specialized in the Kievan-Russ history
that just published a book on the subject in which the D-RCT was not only
dismissed, but mentioned as specifically an ideological weapon used by
the Romanian governments to justify their policies in Transylvania.
If someone from the U. of T. would tell me this fellow's name, i might be
able to find again the book.
> The fact of the matter is that no credible historian today disputes
> Romanian continuity. And, that subject should be removed from
> discussions of minority rights to which it has no relevance
> what-so-ever.
Of course it has no _present_ relevance for minority rights, but it had a
huge relevance in the past, so it's important to know about it out of a
purely historical interest.
Preda Mihailescu
Mircea wrote:
[ ... good intentioned help for Dancs ]
Maybe you should give up bringing reason to him. Ask him rather
what _his_ pet theory is and what proofs and defenses he finds for it.
He will imediately disappear from the cyber surface and let discussions
flow to other more constructive areas (unfortunately for him).
Preda Mihailescu
Preda Mihailescu
Stephen Dancs wrote:
>
> Alexander N. Bossy (spamfree...@pipeline.com) writes:
> >
> > Years ago (before you arrived on s.c.r.) I posted a challenge to the
> > various opponents of Romanian continuity: Name one book written in
> > French or English, published since 1980 that questions the veracity of
> > Romanian continuity. No one could name one then. I strongly doubt
> > that you can name one now. Mere mention of Out-of-Illyria does not
> > count.
>
> When I was a student at the Univ. of Toronto back in 1993, there was an
> Ukrainian-Canadian professor??? specialized in the Kievan-Russ history
> that just published a book on the subject in which the D-RCT was not only
> dismissed, but mentioned as specifically an ideological weapon used by
> the Romanian governments to justify their policies in Transylvania.
>
> If someone from the U. of T. would tell me this fellow's name, i might be
> able to find again the book.
>
The challenge you had for a longer time is to state some proofs not
against continuity (which are rubbish even for the hungarian historians
who have written in 1989 the history "Erdely") but in favour of your
pet theory. Since Romanians, acceptably even by you, were there in the
13-th century, they must have fallen from the moon! Now this important
event leaves traces, which shouold be your proofs. Bring any proofs in
favour of this moon landing (you can substitute moon with Illyria,
Macedonia, Panonia or Hyperborea, anything different from Dacia that you
wisht: but prove!). Or else have the guts to admit: "I do not have any
better theory on romanian origins, but I emotionally cannot stand the
continuity issue because it was fucked into my brains by Ceausescu
propaganda" - which, to my opinion, is your problem, and not history
itself or truth!
Preda Mihailescu
Mircea
On 25 Jan 1998 08:39:33 GMT, bv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Dancs) wrote:
>> Sfântu Gheorghe, [...] The museum also contains Dacian silver coins
>> and other materials from a Daco-Roman settlement over which the town
>> was built[...]
>
>It says only that there was a Daco-Roman setlement over which the town
>was built, nothing about _continuity_ and there's also no case for a
>logical inference of continuity.
Britannica is very clear: the Szekelys built the town over the Daco-Roman
settlement. "Daco-Roman" is a historical term applied to the population left in
Dacia after the Roman retreat. Even the simple fact that Britannnica uses this
term suggests its editors admit as factual the continuity theory.
>> Sebes, [...]The site had Neolithic and Daco-Roman settlements before
>> Sebes was refounded in the 12th century by German settlers.
>
>Again no talk of continuity here, even worse, the city was refounded!!
The site was a Daco-Roman settlement before it was rebuilt by German immigrants.
If there was a lack in continuity, most probably happened after the 10th
century, when the settlement was sacked by Hungarians, and lasted until the 12th
century when it was refounded by Germans.
>> [...]remnants of Daco-Roman villages have been found at Aiud, Sebes,
>> and Alba Iulia.
>
>Yes, the remnants of D-R villages were found, because D-R villages indeed
>existed. But does that mean that they continued to exist after the Roman
>withdrawal or throughout the savage invasions of migratory people?
"Daco-Roman" is specifically used to designate the population left in Dacia
after the Roman retreat.
>So all in all, so far you showed us
If you use the royal "we" why not just call God to the keyboard, tell Him your
password, and cut out the middleman?
>that the Britannica acknowledges that
>D-R setlements existed but not that they continued to exist throughout
>all times till the times of the Magyar invasion.
Nowhere says Britannica that the Daco-Roman settlements did not last until the
Hungarian arrival.
>> What are all these settlements mentioned by Britannica if not facts
>> supporting a Daco-Roman presence in Transylvania prior to the Magyar
>> arrival?
>
>D-R presence yes, but continuity UP UNTIL the time of the Magyar arrival,
>NADA!! ;-)
Britannica clearly states that many Daco-Romans preserved their ethnic identity
after the Roman retreat until the Hungarian invasion.
>> When it comes to the Hungarian version, which is barely referred to, no
>> supporting evidence for the migration of Romanians is presented. If I am wrong,
>> please post the facts and humor me on specifics.
>
>Read my initial posting again. The priest doesn't tell the mass twice for
>deaf people.
I read it. The priest failed to mention thus far even one single fact supporting
his "inferences" based on an extremely biased "reading" of Britannica.
>> By the 13th century the Vlachs were reestablished in the
>> lands north of the Danube, including Transylvania, where
>> they constituted the bulk of the peasant population. From
>> Transylvania they migrated to Walachia ("Land of the
>> Vlachs")
>
>Magyars came at the end of the 9th century, so what does it matter that
>the Romanians came in the 13th or who knows which century as long as it
>isn't earlier than the 9th?
Archeological and documentary evidence show without any doubt that Romanians'
ancestors were present in Transylvania prior to the Hungarian invasion.
>> More important, Britannica has no doubts that Romanians were in Transylvania
>> when the Magyars arrived. I quote:
>>
>> Having formed the nucleus of the Dacian (Getic) kingdom
>> (flourished 1st century BC-1st century AD) and the Roman
>> province of Dacia (after AD 106), Transylvania was
>> overrun by a succession of barbarian tribes after the
>> Roman legions withdrew about AD 270. Thereafter the
>> Romanized Dacian inhabitants either moved into the
>> mountains and preserved their culture or migrated
>> southward. ^^
>
>This is the EITHER OR that once again underlines that the whole thing is
>just an intelectual exercise based on no facts whatsoever.
Incorrect. It shows that the population chose two paths: some retreated into the
mountains, others moved temporarily southward.
>> The area then was repopulated by peoples
>> from the Romanized lands south of the Danube River or
>> from the Balkans. The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered
>> the area at the end of the 9th century
>
>Again, a big straw right through the hearth of D-RC, hahaha... if the
>area needed to be repopulated it means that your baby darling
>"continuity" was obviosly interupted!! ;-)
First and foremost Britannica states that the Magyars arrvied *after* the area
was repopulated by Romanians. Secondly, "repopulated" does not necessarily imply
total abandonment.
>And the big OR again shows the uncertainty of the whole thing, but we
>know that they were the Bulgars, or even Vlacho-Bulgars at best, but in
>each case, the D-RC baby darling is finished and you just shot yourself
>in the leg, hahaha... ;-)
Is it true that emoticons are used by people who cannot express themselves
clearly using the twenty-six letters of the alphabet with which Shakespeare
created "Hamlet"?
>> Britannica hardly acknowledge the Hungarian version.
>
>Read Transylvania's history dealt with at the Hungarian history part of
>the encyclopedia, and see for yourself. It's all in there. ;-)
I read it. The Hungarian version of Romanians' origins is not presented there.
However, Britannica's article dealing specifically with Transylvania leaves no
doubt about the fact that Romanians "welcomed" Hungarians when they sought
refuge in Transylvania.
>And isn't a theory... theoretical? ;-)
Emoticons aside, the theory of Daco-Roman continuity was checked against
countless archeological, documentary, and lingvistic evidence. Daco-Roman
continuity is a generally accepted explanation for this set of data, and, thus,
worthy to be called a theory.
>> Nonetheless, Nestor, Magister P., Simon de Keza, Poggio Bracciolini, Silvio
>> Piccolomini, Laonic Chalcocondil, Antonio Bonfini, Francesco della Valle, Georg
>> Reicherstroffer, I. Dubravius, and many others, all lived before Nicolaus
>> Olahus. I am sure you are very well acquainted with their writings regarding
>> the origin of Romanians. What parts of their testimonies are rubbish and why?
>
>I'm not acquinted at all, but I guess
I see.... You have formed such a strong opinion without taking into
consideration all the facts. No wonder you have problems comprehending
Britannica's presentation.
>Listen man, the Hungarians lost complete cotrol of the territory and the
>Romanians could do whatever they wanted to do in there, with or without
>Hungary's "participation."
That's what I said too. The Hungarians knew too well that without political
control over the area they could not stop the majority's will expressed through
a referendum. They feared the outcome and chose not to participate. Nonetheless,
the majority of the population sent their representatives to cast their votes at
Alba Iulia.
>The Romanians didn't do it because THEY were the cowards,
You exhausted the intellectual arguments based on Britannica?
Mircea
-----
The Second Commandment of Cyberspace:
"Thou Shalt Not be Boring"
Corollary: ...nor predictable
Mircea
On 25 Jan 1998 04:44:27 GMT, bv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Dancs) wrote:
>You are talking again a bunch of rubish. Not even as of today you guys
>got anything that supports this non-sensical theory, and no history
>school accepts it as factual
Since you are at the encyclopedia level, here is how the 1994 edition of
Funk&Wagnalls presents the origins of Romanians. Please note the ridicule of
your claim.
Mircea
HISTORY The territory that is now modern Romania first appeared in history as
the greater part of the Roman province of Dacia (q.v.), conquered by Emperor
Trajan about AD 106. Most of its inhabitants, known as the Daci, had originally
emigrated from Thrace in northern Greece.
Roman colonists were sent into the province, and Rome developed the area
considerably, building roads, bridges, and a great wall, its ruins still
visible, from the present Black Sea port of Constanta across the Dobruja
(Dobrogea) region to the Danube River.
During the 3d century AD, raids by the Goths became so grave a menace that the
Roman legions were withdrawn across the Danube. While successive waves of
invaders, including Goths, Huns, Slavs, and Bulgars, made Dacia a battleground,
the Romanized population preserved a Latin speech and identity.
Gradually, through intermarriage and assimilation with Slavonic tribes, these
people developed into a distinct ethnic group, called Walachians or, in
Slavonic, Vlachs, whose nomadic and warlike customs became a constant threat to
the neighboring Byzantine Empire. Under Bulgarian rule, in the 9th century, the
Orthodox form of Christianity was introduced.
About the end of the 13th century Hungarian expansion by Magyars drove many of
the people from the western provinces to settle south and east of the
Carpathians. Here they established the principalities of Walachia and later that
of Moldavia, each ruled by native princes, or voivodes.
Mircea
I am very surprised nobody proved you wrong.
Mircea
Dorin M. Petre
>Oh really?? Transylvania was Romanian 1100 years ago? Could you dig up just
>one map or written document from the 9th century right up to the 20th
>century that indicates that Transylvania was Romanian??
Yes, of course: Nestor's Russian Chronicles!
Dorin M. Petre
Gustav Horvath
Dear Readers,
The site bellow, gives you even more insight into this rather
complicated problem.
http://web.ucs.ubc.ca/szeitz/books/haraszti1/content.html
Cheers, Gustav
Stephen Dancs
Mircea (mir...@enteract.com) writes:
>bv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Dancs) wrote:
>>
>>> Sfântu Gheorghe, [...] The museum also contains Dacian silver coins
>>> and other materials from a Daco-Roman settlement over which the town
>>> was built[...]
>>
>>It says only that there was a Daco-Roman setlement over which the town
>>was built, nothing about _continuity_ and there's also no case for a
>>logical inference of continuity.
>
> Britannica is very clear: the Szekelys built the town over the Daco-Roman
> settlement. "Daco-Roman" is a historical term applied to the population left
> in Dacia after the Roman retreat. Even the simple fact that Britannnica
> uses this term suggests its editors admit as factual the continuity
> theory.
Non-sense, "over a D-R settlement" means exactly what it means, over a
D-R settlement. No need to imply its continuity. If you go to Budapest,
you can see that it was founded over a Roman setlement. Does that imply
that the setlement did survive until the arival of the Magyars? Of course
not.
>>> Sebes, [...]The site had Neolithic and Daco-Roman settlements before
>>> Sebes was refounded in the 12th century by German settlers.
>>
>>Again no talk of continuity here, even worse, the city was refounded!!
>
> The site was a Daco-Roman settlement before it was rebuilt by German immigrants.
> If there was a lack in continuity, most probably happened after the 10th
> century, when the settlement was sacked by Hungarians, and lasted until the
> 12th century when it was refounded by Germans.
Nonsense, again, the thing means exactly what it means: that it had
Neolithic and D-R setlements, nothing more nothing less, and that it was
refounded in th 12th century by the Germans, and therefore could have
been abandoned at any time prior to its refounding in the 12th century.
>>> [...]remnants of Daco-Roman villages have been found at Aiud, Sebes,
>>> and Alba Iulia.
>>
>>Yes, the remnants of D-R villages were found, because D-R villages indeed
>>existed. But does that mean that they continued to exist after the Roman
>>withdrawal or throughout the savage invasions of migratory people?
>
> "Daco-Roman" is specifically used to designate the population left in Dacia
> after the Roman retreat.
Not at all, it means exactly what it means: D-R, that is something that
came into being as a combination of two peoples. There's no implication
until what time these D-R villages lasted in time.
>>So all in all, so far you showed us
>
> If you use the royal "we" why not just call God to the keyboard, tell Him
> your password, and cut out the middleman?
Who told you that I'm not (my own) God? No middle man around here,
hahaha... ;-)
And now seriosly, the "we" is meant to be we the SCR/SCM publicum, got a
problem with that too?
> Nowhere says Britannica that the Daco-Roman settlements did not last until
> the Hungarian arrival.
Nowhere does it say that they did and until when either. Only that they
were D-R in nature and new cities were built over them later, and that's
all.
>>D-R presence yes, but continuity UP UNTIL the time of the Magyar arrival,
>>NADA!! ;-)
>
> Britannica clearly states that many Daco-Romans preserved their ethnic
> identity after the Roman retreat until the Hungarian invasion.
Give us the quote where it actually says that.
>>> When it comes to the Hungarian version, which is barely referred to, no
>>> supporting evidence for the migration of Romanians is presented. If I am
>>> wrong, please post the facts and humor me on specifics.
>>
>>Read my initial posting again. The priest doesn't tell the mass twice for
>>deaf people.
>
> I read it. The priest failed to mention thus far even one single fact
> supporting his "inferences" based on an extremely biased "reading" of
> Britannica.
It wasn't an inference, the Britannica clearly said that the Romanians
and Serbs, etc. massively immigrated there. And if you read the whole
section of the Encyclopedia, you can see how during the Turkish
tripartition of Hungary the Romanians started to become a majority. I'm
not paid though to type in and post the parts for you, sorry.
>>> By the 13th century the Vlachs were reestablished in the
>>> lands north of the Danube, including Transylvania, where
>>> they constituted the bulk of the peasant population. From
>>> Transylvania they migrated to Walachia ("Land of the
>>> Vlachs")
>>
>>Magyars came at the end of the 9th century, so what does it matter that
>>the Romanians came in the 13th or who knows which century as long as it
>>isn't earlier than the 9th?
>
> Archeological and documentary evidence show without any doubt that Romanians'
> ancestors were present in Transylvania prior to the Hungarian invasion.
That maybe so, but the issue at hand was your big significance given to
an apparent small detail difference between the Hungarian version and a
Britannica statement: does it matter whether the Hungarian version claims
that the Romanians immigrated ONLY after the Mongol invasions (ca. 1240s)
or before that by the end of the 13th century as long as it was after the
9th?
Ah, that you think that it was previous to the 9th, that's ok, too, but
it has nothing to do with the apparent contradiction of the Hungarian
version, because by claiming whether that the Romanians were sttled there
before or after an event (namely the Mongol invasion) of the 13th
century, it's not that important because it happened after the 9th
century anyhow.
Now let's say Britannica would have said that the Romanians were
reestablished by the 9th century and the Hungarian version would claim
that they did reestablished themselves only after the Martian invasions
of 890, than you'd have had a point in bringing up the importance of the
event, given the fact that if the Romanins could have been ressetled
before the 890 Martian invasions, let's say by 850, then they could have
beaten the Magyars by 40 years. But a "before or after" little detail
dealing with an event in the 13th century, has no great deal of
significance.
>>This is the EITHER OR that once again underlines that the whole thing is
>>just an intelectual exercise based on no facts whatsoever.
>
> Incorrect. It shows that the population chose two paths: some retreated into
> the mountains, others moved temporarily southward.
Ok, true, that interpretation works too. Nevertheless all this is true
only if the D-RCT is valid which the Britannica nowhere says that it is,
but only out of a sense of fairness expands on it.
>>> The area then was repopulated by peoples
>>> from the Romanized lands south of the Danube River or
>>> from the Balkans. The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered
>>> the area at the end of the 9th century
>>
>>Again, a big straw right through the hearth of D-RC, hahaha... if the
>>area needed to be repopulated it means that your baby darling
>>"continuity" was obviosly interupted!! ;-)
>
> First and foremost Britannica states that the Magyars arrvied *after* the
> area was repopulated by Romanians. Secondly, "repopulated" does not
> necessarily imply total abandonment.
It doesn't imply total abandonment true, but it doesn't imply that it was
a D-R populace that the "repopulators" joined either. So the Magyars
might have come after the Romanians after all, but the quote doesn't
imply necessarily a D-R continuity. ;-)
>>And the big OR again shows the uncertainty of the whole thing, but we
>>know that they were the Bulgars, or even Vlacho-Bulgars at best, but in
>>each case, the D-RC baby darling is finished and you just shot yourself
>>in the leg, hahaha... ;-)
>
> Is it true that emoticons are used by people who cannot express themselves
> clearly using the twenty-six letters of the alphabet with which Shakespeare
> created "Hamlet"?
Who knows, maybe, nevertheless, untrue in my case. :)
> I read it. The Hungarian version of Romanians' origins is not presented there.
True, buttheir mass migration into Transylvania is.
> However, Britannica's article dealing specifically with Transylvania leaves
> no doubt about the fact that Romanians "welcomed" Hungarians when they sought
> refuge in Transylvania.
That maybe so, but does that prove D-RC? It proves only that they were
there before the Hungarians, nothing more.
> Emoticons aside, the theory of Daco-Roman continuity was checked against
> countless archeological, documentary, and lingvistic evidence. Daco-Roman
> continuity is a generally accepted explanation for this set of data, and,
> thus, worthy to be called a theory.
There's no archeological evidence for D-RC whatsoever. You are just
dreaming in technicolor.
> I see.... You have formed such a strong opinion without taking into
> consideration all the facts. No wonder you have problems comprehending
> Britannica's presentation.
If the Britannica presentation includes the synthesis of all the facts
known up till today about the subjact as it should, I found the case for
a D-R as very weak.
>>Listen man, the Hungarians lost complete cotrol of the territory and the
>>Romanians could do whatever they wanted to do in there, with or without
>>Hungary's "participation."
>
> That's what I said too. The Hungarians knew too well that without
> political control over the area they could not stop the majority's
> will expressed through a referendum. They feared the outcome and chose
> not to participate. Nonetheless, the majority of the population sent
> their representatives to cast their votes at Alba Iulia.
Man, you are either stupid or stupid: if the Romanians were so sure for
the outcome why they didn't just ignore whether the Hungarians wish or
wish not to participate in a referendum, bring in the Allied observers
and get on with the vote???
The Alba Ilulia nonsense WASN'T a referendum, sorry, but exactly the
opposite, a scam to give the impression of legitimacy, but NOT a
refferendum. And why wasn't a referendum? Not because the Hungarians
refused to participate -- who gave a hoot about the Hungarians'
participation at the time?? -- but because the Romanian's were affraid of
one, because they knew that many reagions with no Romanian population
whatsoever would have chosen to get rid of the Romanian administration.
So don't give me this bullshit with your Alba Iulia nonsense man, but
keep it for your brainwashed Romanian friends for your Dec. 1st
alcoholidays. If you'd have had the guts back in those times, you'd have
organized a clear cut referendum and the problem would have been solved
once and for all with no ethnics ending up in the other country.
>>The Romanians didn't do it because THEY were the cowards,
>
> You exhausted the intellectual arguments based on Britannica?
It's you who keeps his brian in his pocket w/o making some common
sensical thinking man, and yes, the Romanians were the cowards back then,
not the Hungarians, and the Britannica tells you clearly: there was no
referendum in Transylvania, whether you Romanians like it or not. Time to
face reality about it.
> "Thou Shalt Not be Boring"
> Corollary: ...nor predictable
You said it man, so how about you keeping up with this comandement too?
Istvan.Pajor
In article <34CA28...@inf.ethz.ch> Preda Mihailescu <miha...@inf.ethz.ch> writes:
>Istvan.Pajor wrote:
>>Oh really?? Transylvania was Romanian 1100 years ago? Could you dig up just
>>one map or written document from the 9th century right up to the 20th
>>century that indicates that Transylvania was Romanian??>> >> P.I.
>Your question contains the answer. But why restrict to these kind of
>proofs which for good reasons do not exist ?
>Imagine following slightly similar situation: an American Indian is
>asked to produce written documents and maps proving that the great
>plains of Dakota were Sioux in the year 1500 (or whatever ... ). His
>being unable to do so does by no means prove that the settler found a no
>man's land in the 19-th century. Of course, we have all the documents of
>the americans themselves, but the american indians did not live in htis
>kind of terms: state, written documents, maps.
The situation is not quite the same. I did not take, look up Hungarian maps
or documents, but, look up any map or document. Be it from Byzance, the
Western Roman Empire, the German empire, Egypt or where ever else. If
Transylvania was indeed occupied by Romanians at that time it should be
indicated so, shouldn't it? Because you still may find maps of America
from the say 16th century, drawn by _white_ settlers_, that indicate rather
well the indian tribes there and their territory.
>The situation has one more similitude to Transylvania: toponemy is what
>was left. In Transylvania, almost without excetption, the toponemy above
>1200 m of altitude is _latin_. You find rivers like _Sebes_, which has
>its upper valley name _Frumoasa_, etc.
This is interesting indeed, but i wouldn't see this as a proof of _pre-
Hungarian_ settlement. Obviously for Hungarian the _Sebes_ is the Sebes
right throughout its course and not only at its lower parts.
>.....
>The
>simple evidence is that the kind of living and organization of whatever
>the Romanians of the year 1000 in Transylvania might be called, was
>inconsistent with own written records, maps, states, etc.
Why was it inconsistent? Why are there no written Romanian records of it?
Peoples, descendant of the mighty and literate Roman empire should have been
able to write down their own documents, or not?
>On the other hand, the romanian were important in the 14-th century,
>since in the first version of the Unio Trio Natiorum they failed to be
>the fourth nation in the union. Now if any "fallen down from the moon"
>theory about the Romanians in Transylvania would be true,
>a) they must have fallen down form the moon in a very short time
>interval, between 1100 and 1300. At that time hungarians had already
>pretty many written documents. How come such an improtant event as the
>aparition of a whole migrating population which was soon to be taken
>into account as one of the four nations of Transylvania was mentioned by
>none ? There are traces of much smaller and earlier migrations such as
>pechenegs, cumans, etc. If there had been a Romanian migration,
>happening after the year 1000, it should have left traces both in
>byzantine as in the hungarian historiography !
Most probably written records exist of the Pechengs, Cumans because they
were warriors and their migration had a different impact upon the history of
that time as the migration of Romanians into the Hungarian Kingdom.
>b) how come that Transylvania was naturally ruled 100 years later by a
>Roamanian (Ioan de Hunedoara or Ianos Hunyady, whose romanian origin is
>today accepted even by Hungarian historians) ?
Wow-wow-wow.... Now this is a point which is not accepted by any Hungarian.
Why on earth should have Hunyadi Janos be called Ion de Hunedoara, when he
in fact was called Hunyadi Janos?? Of course he was from Transylvania,
butthat makes him in no way a Romanian.
>It would be quite
>spectacular for a recently fallen from the moon population to give its
>prince ruling over the "inborn" hungarian, if Roessler was right!
Of course that would be spectacular, but, Hunyadi was and is regarded as an
outstanding Hungarian.
>If you cannot answer these questions, maybe we can agree about the
>settling theroy and dedicate to more fructuous contemporaneous
>discussions ! (But please, common sense answers ... )
>Preda Mihailescu
All right Preda, I also appeal to the common sense
(I will not around for a week for future postings).
Regards
P.I.
week
Mircea
On 25 Jan 1998 04:44:27 GMT, bv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Dancs) wrote:
>You are talking again a bunch of rubish. Not even as of today you guys
>got anything that supports this non-sensical theory, and no history
>school accepts it as factual but the majority of Romanian historians,
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Edition 5, 1993 p9893
Dacia. (Reference Source)
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1993 Columbia University Press
ancient name of the European region corresponding
roughly to modern Rumania (including Transylvania). It
was inhabited before the Christian era by a people who
were called Getae by the Greeks and were called Daci by
the Romans. They were a people of advanced material
culture, with a tribal organization. Augustus claimed them
as tributary allies but the Daci paid little heed, and
Domitian, after inconclusive campaigns against them, was
forced (a.d. 90) to pay them tribute to keep them quiet.
Trajan invaded Dacia in a.d. 102 and again in 105. He
established a large number of colonies, and Dacia became
a Roman province. The Goths invaded (250–70) the
region, and Aurelian was obliged to concede Dacia. It was
the Roman colonists in Dacia who formed the
Latin-speaking nucleus that established the Romance
tongue Rumanian, which is still spoken in that region.
-----
The Third Commandment of Cyberspace:
"Thou Shalt Maintain a High Signal-to-Noise Ratio"
Mircea
On 25 Jan 1998 04:44:27 GMT, bv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Dancs) wrote:
>You are talking again a bunch of rubish. Not even as of today you guys
>got anything that supports this non-sensical theory, and no history
>school accepts it as factual
Since you are at the encyclopedia level, here is how the 1994 edition of
Mircea
Mircea
On 25 Jan 1998 22:41:13 GMT, bv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Dancs) wrote:
>> "Daco-Roman" is specifically used to designate the population left in Dacia
>> after the Roman retreat.
>
>Not at all, it means exactly what it means: D-R, that is something that
>came into being as a combination of two peoples. There's no implication
>until what time these D-R villages lasted in time.
The theory of continuity describes our ethnogenesis in terms of three successive
stages: Daco-Roman, Proto-Romanian, and Romanian. Daco-Roman covers the time
period between the 4th and 7th(8th) centuries; the term is also applied for the
same time period to archeological remains related to the indigenous population
of Transylvania. Most Hungarian textbooks do not acknowledge this Daco-Roman
stage, and are quick to emphasize that no population with this name was ever
mentioned in documents.
Without any other comments, Britannica presents the primitive settlements from
Sfantul Gheorghe, Sebes, and other Transylvanian localities, as Daco-Roman. It
means the editors of Britannica have embraced the Romanian viewpoint regarding
the settlements' age and origins.
It would be absurd to expect that proof for 1000 years of continuity should come
from just one archeological site. Most human settlements are used for a while,
than abandoned; the original population moves to another area, richer in
resources, or is replaced by a group of a different ethnicity. These shifts are
perfectly normal, especially in an area that attracted scores of invaders.
From an archeological viewpoint, the theory of continuity is based on the
assumption that, taken as a whole, the Daco-Roman settlements span, without any
significant break, all this period. Our archaeologists insist that field
research has confirmed the continuity assumption. Their findings have convinced,
among many others, Britannica's editors, who chose to make reference to some of
these Daco-Roman settlements in their encyclopedia.
>> Britannica clearly states that many Daco-Romans preserved their ethnic
>> identity after the Roman retreat until the Hungarian invasion.
>
>Give us the quote where it actually says that.
Sure, it's my pleasure:
"Thereafter the Romanized Dacian inhabitants either moved into the
mountains and preserved their culture or migrated southward."
>> I read it. The priest failed to mention thus far even one single fact
>> supporting his "inferences" based on an extremely biased "reading" of
>> Britannica.
[...]
> I'm not paid though to type in and post the parts for you, sorry.
That's OK, no harm done. I asked just for the facts listed by Britannica at the
core of the Hungarian version. Had you posted them already, as you said, it
would have been just a matter of cut-and-paste, not typing.
>> Archeological and documentary evidence show without any doubt that Romanians'
>> ancestors were present in Transylvania prior to the Hungarian invasion.
>
>That maybe so,
Of course it is so, and I am glad you consider it a reasonable possibility.
>but the issue at hand was your big significance given to
>an apparent small detail difference between the Hungarian version and a
>Britannica statement:
When the "small detail" concerns at least 300 years of history, I think it has a
considerable significance.
>Ah, that you think that it was previous to the 9th, that's ok, too,
We were talking about what Britannica says, and Britannica admits that at least
part of the Romanians' ancestors were in Transylvania prior to the 9th century.
>> Incorrect. It shows that the population chose two paths: some retreated into
>> the mountains, others moved temporarily southward.
>
>Ok, true, that interpretation works too.
Thank you!
>Nevertheless all this is true
>only if the D-RCT is valid which the Britannica nowhere says that it is,
>but only out of a sense of fairness expands on it.
Britannica expands only on the Daco-Romanian continuity. Britannica's ability
to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty, i.e., its fairness, it
is illustrates when it mentions that not all Hungarians agree with the version
upon which the editors chose to expand.
>So the Magyars
>might have come after the Romanians after all, but the quote doesn't
>imply necessarily a D-R continuity. ;-)
Nonetheless, it is another "small difference" between Britannica's and
Hungarians' views on this matter. The quotation proves that Britannica gives
more credit to the Romanian viewpoint.
>> I read it. The Hungarian version of Romanians' origins is not presented there.
>True, buttheir mass migration into Transylvania is.
Britannica also hints to other mass migrations, the ones that preceded the post
15th century return of *some* Romanians to their ancient Transylvanian
settlements; the emigrations related to the foundations of Wallachia and
Moldova.
>> However, Britannica's article dealing specifically with Transylvania leaves
>> no doubt about the fact that Romanians "welcomed" Hungarians when they sought
>> refuge in Transylvania.
>
>That maybe so, but does that prove D-RC? It proves only that they were
>there before the Hungarians, nothing more.
Britannica's goal is to give the average reader a general overview of different
topics. An encyclopedia does not aim to demonstrate, for example, the theory of
gravitation, but to present it at a rather introductory level.
>There's no archeological evidence for D-RC whatsoever. You are just
>dreaming in technicolor.
I guess you probably know this topic better than me. Can you please explain why
the findings associated with the cultures of Bratei, Sfantu Gheorghe, Lechinta
de Mures, Cipau, Manastur, Dridu, Ipotesti-Candesti-Ciurelu, or Bucov do not
count as archeological evidence for continuity?
>If the Britannica presentation includes the synthesis of all the facts
>known up till today about the subjact as it should, I found the case for
>a D-R as very weak.
Nevertheless, Britannica's editors found it sufficiently persuading to expand
*only* on this theory when presenting the Romanians' origins.
>> That's what I said too. The Hungarians knew too well that without
>> political control over the area they could not stop the majority's
>> will expressed through a referendum. They feared the outcome and chose
>> not to participate. Nonetheless, the majority of the population sent
>> their representatives to cast their votes at Alba Iulia.
>
>Man, you are either stupid or stupid:
Oh yeah?
Mircea
-----
The Tenth Commandment of Cyberspace:
"Thou Shalt Not Pour Thy Sexual Frustrations On-Line"
Creative Intelligence Agency
Mircea <mir...@enteract.com> wrote in article
|these people developed into a distinct ethnic group, called Walachians or,
|in Slavonic, Vlachs,
Which is the politically correct way of saying: mutts.
Alexander N. Bossy
bv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Dancs) wrote:
>Alexander N. Bossy (spamfree...@pipeline.com) writes:
>>
>> Years ago (before you arrived on s.c.r.) I posted a challenge to the
>> various opponents of Romanian continuity: Name one book written in
>> French or English, published since 1980 that questions the veracity of
>> Romanian continuity. No one could name one then. I strongly doubt
>> that you can name one now. Mere mention of Out-of-Illyria does not
>> count.
>
>When I was a student at the Univ. of Toronto back in 1993, there was an
>Ukrainian-Canadian professor??? specialized in the Kievan-Russ history
>that just published a book on the subject in which the D-RCT was not only
>dismissed, but mentioned as specifically an ideological weapon used by
>the Romanian governments to justify their policies in Transylvania.
Until you provide sufficient details for the rest of us to locate this
book, i.e., the authors name and its title, this remains hearsay, and
thus isn't evidence. Can you name any other book?
>> The fact of the matter is that no credible historian today disputes
>> Romanian continuity. And, that subject should be removed from
>> discussions of minority rights to which it has no relevance
>> what-so-ever.
>
>Of course it has no _present_ relevance for minority rights, but it had a
>huge relevance in the past,
At the time of Hungarian conquest, yes. But, minority rights wasn't
exactly on the international agenda in those days. :-(
In 1918-21, Romania got Transylavania because 1) it was evident that
the majority of the inhabitants of Transylvani were in favor of it
(even though there admittedly were significant Hungarian-majority
areas that were adamantly opposed), and 2) Hungarian mistreatment of
all of her minorities in the years 1867-1918 were abysmal that the
Western powers didn't think that she could be trusted with minorities
(something that Romanians should remember, least we repeat the
mistakes of the Hungarians of yesteryear).
Alexander
Alexander N. Bossy
No, Wally, hybrids. And you have heard about hybrid vigor, haven't
you? ;-)
Wally Keeler
Alexander N. Bossy (spamfree...@pipeline.com) writes:
Polymorphus Perversity
is preferable to
Monotonous Reversity.
Creative Intelligence Agency
Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in article
|On 26 Jan 98 17:23:26 GMT, "Creative Intelligence Agency"
<poet...@idirect.com> wrote:
|
|>Mircea <mir...@enteract.com> wrote in article
|>|Gradually, through intermarriage and assimilation with Slavonic tribes,
|>|these people developed into a distinct ethnic group, called Walachians
|>|or, in Slavonic, Vlachs,
|>
|>Which is the politically correct way of saying: mutts.
|
|The Slut from Hellgary, right Wally?
Polymorphus Perversity.
Wally Keeler
Anonymous (Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]) writes:
> On 26 Jan 98 17:23:26 GMT, "Creative Intelligence Agency" <poet...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>>Mircea <mir...@enteract.com> wrote in article
>>|Gradually, through intermarriage and assimilation with Slavonic tribes,
>>|these people developed into a distinct ethnic group, called Walachians or,
>>|in Slavonic, Vlachs,
>>
>>Which is the politically correct way of saying: mutts.
>
> Kind of like the hybrid between a Canuck and
> The Slut from Hellgary, right Wally?
Polymorphus Perversity
A. Albu
Preda Mihailescu wrote:
>
> This is beautifull: if the migration of Romanians passed so easily
> unnoticed to the hungarian chronicles, we may conclude that they failed
> to write down _everything_ that concerned their beloved Transylvania.
> Why could we not assume then, that they failed to write about those
> inborn who withdrew to the mountains, once they did not have to fight
> them militarily ? Is it more logical to assume that hundred thousands of
> romanians traverse unnoticed the whole balkan rather than that they
> withdraw unnoticed (by the documents, of course) to the mountains where
> they always did when there was a new invasion ? I mean the first
> movement would have created much more trumoil, since on their way they
> should feed, necessarily attack some places, since hundred thousands can
> hardly migrate while peacefully begging here and there. On the other
> hand, if they retire to the mountains which they are used to inhabit -
> less damages to others, less documents! I do not see the logic for
> favouring this rather than that point of view ! I see some interests,
> but even those should be rather faded away into the dust of of the past
> and exile!
Lasind la oparte animozotatile, gasesc plauzibila ipoteza Maghiara, cu
atit mai mult ca este bine asezata in context istoric.
restul la
<http://web.ucs.ubc.ca/szeitz/books/haraszti1/content.html>
Adalbert Albu
IV.
VLACHS IN THE "FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE"
(VIII - XI. CENTURIES)
IV.
VLACHS IN THE "FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE"
(VIII - XI. CENTURIES)
In 867, the Schism between Byzantine- and Roman Christianity was
associatedwith the sharp controversy between the pro-Roman Ignatius and
PatriarchPhotius, who proved to be not only an enthusiastic
Greek-Orthodox by faith,but an anti-Roman and pro-Greek by national
feeling. (*44). His patriarchatecoincided with the rule of Basil I.,
founder of the Macedonian Dynasty(867-886), an Armenian, whose reign
initiated what was probably the mostglorious period of Byzantine
history. Under his direction the Empire becamea purely Greek Monarchy.
In 867. Photius had been banished and Ignatius, thepro-Roman, was
recalled for a while, to symbolize the peace with Rome onpapal terms
(*45), but the conflict between Greeks and Latins becamepermanent. The
emperor himself was only Armenian by extraction, but he wasborn in
Macedonia, thus he concentrated on Balkanic affairs much more thanhis
predecessors had done.
We could rightly assume, that the reinforced re-Hellenization, and
theincreased bureaucratization of the Balkans disturbed the lives of all
thoserural fragments, which still communicated using some sort of
deformed,vulgarized Latin, and did not wish to adopt Greek language and
culture.These clans, families and individuals followed the ways of
those, who leftEpirus, Thessalonica and Macedonia decades (perhaps even
centuries) ago.This northward migration used the natural roadways of
rivers (and theirvalleys) flowing into the Aegean Sea (Vardar, Strymon,
Hebrus, etc.). Theyalso moved along the Adriatic coast up to Dalmatia,
where the direction oftheir movement turned to the east. and using the
rivers (Drina, Morava,Sava) again, most of them reached the area south
of the Lower Danube. In877, this northward movement of these pastoral
societies assumably becamequicker, when the enthusiastically pro-Greek
Photius was restored once moreagain, and he, in alliance with imperial
troops, turned sharply againstRoman customs and Latin-speaking groups
everywhere in the Byzantine Empire.It was true that Leo VI (the "Wise;
886-912) put Ignatius back in poweragain, but at this time (c. 900) most
of the Romanized inhabitants alreadyleft the Southern Balkans.
*44: In the Council of Constantinople (867), Photius anathematized the
pope,
and rejected the idea of Rome's primacy.
*45: The popes of this time were Nicholas I. (the Saint: 858-67), and
Adrian
II. (867-72).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must not think that the Romanized elements of the Balkans knew
anythingabout the Greek-Latin controversy. Living in the mountains, or
on theAdriatic coast, occupied with grazing their animals, they were
separatedfrom internal and international events not only by their
permanentseparation but by their illiterate characteristics too. They
really did notknow anything about political, social, religious, etc.
reasons, but actuallysuffered under the circumstances of the growing
Greek pressure.
The most attractive place of migration was (or seemed to be) Bulgaria
whereSymeon, second son ot Boris I. was ruler at this time. (893-927).
He was aproud, ambitious ruler, and the first of those Bulgarian kings.
who assumedthe title of "Tsar". (*46). He had been educated at
Constantinople (as amonk), and he was deeply imbued with Hellenistic
culture, but he alsorealized that his people were a mixture of many
racial elements, and not anyof these elements were Greeks. (*47).
Ambitioning to be the only authorityon the Balkans, he turned against
Byzantium several times with force, andobviously, he welcomed non-Greek
refugees, especially those peaceful-lookingshepherds, in his country.
The Balkan Mountains proved to be not only a good pastoral area for
thenewcomers, but it was a relatively peaceful place, quite far-away
from warsof the north and of the south. (*48). As a result of these wars
Bulgarialost its territories in Southern Transylvania, Munthenia and
Moldavia.(*49). In the south, the Byzantine forces prevented Symeon from
becomingruler of Byzantium, however, this event could not stop "the
Tsar" toproclaim himself as "Emperor of the Romans and the Bulgars."
(*50)
At the times, when various Romanized pastoral fragments were
migrating(northwards) on the Balkans, and many of them found temporary
security inthe Balkan Mts. of the Bulgarians, it was also
*46: "Tsar", or "Czar" was actually a shortened form for the Latin
"Caesar".
*47:The term "Bolgar" ("Bulgar") means "mixture" in Old Turkish
language.This term is understandable, if we consider that Old-Bolgary
(N. of theBlack Sea) already consisted elements of Hun, Turkish, Tatar,
Mongol, etc.The Slavization of the Balkan-Bulgars, who were still ruled
by Hunaristocracy, represented newer elements of mixture. The majority
of theBulgars became Slavs. The adaptation of the Romanized population
from thesouth brought another racial and linguistic element into the
country.
*48: In the north, Symeon was allied with the Petchenegs against
theMagyars, but finally, the Bulgarian Zalan was driven out from Maros
valley(Transylvania). The Petchenegs stopped at the Carpathians, but
conqueredMoldavia and all areas N. of the Lower Danube. In the south,
the Bulgarsdefeated the Greeks in 894, peace was made three years later,
but Symeonattacked Byzantium in 914 again, raiding into Macedonia,
Thessaly, andAlbania, Symeon also defeated the Serbs (926), but was
unable to takeConstantinople without a fleet.
*49: The Petchenegs (Slav: Patzinaks, Hung: Besenyős) were Turko-Tatar
nomads.
*50: Constantinople considered itself as "the Second Rome", thus the
titlerepresented the claim to rule both Bulgars and Byzantines. Emp.
Constantinos(Porphyrogenitos; 913-59) protested, but Pope John X.
(914-28) recognized
his title.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
possible that some limited groups crossed already the Lower Danube, and
eveninfiltrated to S. Transylvania. Anonymus, notary of King Béla III
(or IV),mentioned "certain Vlach", named "Gelou", who ruled a small
group of "Vlachsand Slavs" in Transylvania in the Xth Century. Although
Anonymus confusedhis own (political, social, ethnographic) age (which
was the XII-XIII C.)with the age of the Hungarian Conquest (IX-X
Centuries), after all, it wasnot completely impossible that some small
Vlach settlements alreadyinfiltrated from the Balkans. (*51). Rumanian
historians, however, welcomed"Gelou" as the "missing- and-found link"
between the "Dako-Romans" andmodern Rumanians of Transylvania, and they
introduced Gelou as "Prince" of a"Wallachian Principality" in
Transylvania in the X Century. (*52).
The Magyars, arrival to the Carpathian Basin (considered as the
"Inheritanceof Attila") at the end of the IXth Century, called
Transylvania as"Erdőelve" ("Erdő: forest, "elve": principle, or - in
this case - inland;later it became "Erdély", and Transylvanian Vlachs
deformed it to "Ardeal).In the X-XI Centuries, the most powerful lord or
Erdőelve was Gyula, achieftain, whose daughter, Saroldu (Sarolta) was
educated in Constantinopleand married to Prince Geza, who was later to
become head of the Hungarianstate. (972-97). Saroldu became the mother
of Vajk (Christianized asIstvan), first king of Hungary (997-1038);
canonized in 1083). (*53).Although "Wallachian Principalities" did not
exist in Hungarian Transylvaniaafter the Hungarian conquest (or before
it), one should not completely denythe possibility of the existence of
small Vlach clans on both sides of theLower Danube and even on the
Transylvanian Alps. Most of them, of coursewere victimized by
bloodthirsty Petcheneg nomads, who ruled the outsidesemi-circle of the
Carpathians at this time, or forced to assimilate. Thereis no evidence
of any Vlach principality in Transylvania in the X-Xlthcenturies, and
there is not any authentic historical map of the world whichwould show
"Wallachians", or "Vlach principalities" on the map ofTransylvania
before the XIllth Century.
The Magyars assert when they entered it, Transylvania was still
uninhabited, unless the Székelys were there, or a few Bulgars and
*51: We will return to this Anonymus-problem in our Chapter VI.
*52: Rumanian historians are mentioning also "Menumorut", and "Glad"
as"Wallachian princes" in Xth Century Transylvania. According to
Anonymus,"Men-Ma-rot" was the grandson of Marót, one of Árpád, the
Conqueror'schieftain, who settled in the area of the Maros-Szamos
rivers. (He became"Mén - Marót because he kept too many concubines.
Hung: "mén": horse). Glad was probably a Bulgarian chief, living south
of the Maros at this time.
*53: The term "gyula" meant a high military position among the
Magyars,based on the Turkish "jula". It became the name of a
respectfulTransylvanian Magyar family in which the high position of the
"gyula" wasinherited from father-to-son throughout generations. Gyula's
residence wasGyulafehérvár (Rum: Alba Julia). The Petcheneg
tribal-system have had also atribe, named "Gyula".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavs. The Roumanians, they say, are of Balkan origin, and
entered Transylvania only after the twelfth century as refugees,
vagabonds, and wandering shepherds. The Roumanians claim with
passion that their ancestors have, on the contrary, inhabited
Transylvania, in unbroken continuity, since the days of Roman
greatness ... I have no intention attempting to judge between these
rival views ... Whether, in any case, there were no Roumanians in
the tenth century, or one, or thousands: whether they constituted a
quorum within the meaning q f the act or no, they cannot have been
either numerous or important, neither can they have possessed any
ordered social or political society. tor the organization which
Hungary adopted for her new possession took small account of them;
at most, perhaps, accepting the allegiance of certain mountain
chieftains, who were, presumably, held responsible for the conduct
of their followers. The were not, however, granted any status as a
"nation" nor do we find any record even of isolated groups
possessing "privileges'' in the interior of the
country. (*54).
As we realize from this quotation, C.A Macartney, the eminent
Britishhistorians a specialist of medieval East-Central European history
attemptedto be as cautious and as objective as humanly possible. With
the exceptionof Anonymus' (mentioned) "Gelou", he could not find any
traces of Vlachs upto the XIIIth Century in any of the (Byzantine,
Bulgarian, Slav, orHungarian) sources. but he assumes some slight
possibility of some Vlachfragment even before it. He did not believe
however, that "Gelou", or anyother Vlach existence in the country of the
early Árpáds (*55) couldrepresent any evidence of the "Dako-Roman
continuity", only supposed thatthe pre-XIII Century Vlachs (if there
were any) were the first forerunnersof the Wallachian infiltration to
Transylvania.
Unquestionably, Symeon's Bulgaria, which was forced to abandon the
Northernside of the Lower Danube to the Petchenegs, still owned a
stronghold at thepoint, where the River Sava flows into the Danube. Its
Byzantine name wasSingidunum. Assumably, Tsar Symeon sent only trustful,
reliable and warlikeBulgarians to guard this fortress. some of them
could be Vlach by origin.
(*56).
Symeon died in 927, and his son and successor was Peter (927-69), a
ruler,who was pious, well-intentioned, but rather weak. He made peace
withConstantinople, and Leo (the Wise) recognized him as Bulgarian
ruler, and healso acknowledged Bulgaria as a semi-independent
*54: C.A. Marcartney: Hungary and Her Successors. Oxford University
Press,
1937. p. 256.
*55: "The Árpáds": kings of the Árpád dynasty, descendants and
successors of
Árpád the Conqueror.
*56: Singidunum was called as "Nándorfehévár'' by the Hungarians.
("Nándor":north-bulgars, "fehérvár: white fortress). The city is called
as "Belgrade"today, and it is the capital of Jugoslavia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greek-Orthodox patriarchate. Bulgaria, during this period was
preoccupied bythe constant threat from the Magyars and the Petchenegs
(or Patzinaks)(*57), who occasionally reached even the mountainous
hiding places of theVlachs. The Croatians and Serbians simultaneously
established their smallbut independent nation-states, (*58), and
gradually became quite hostile toBulgaria. In the second half . Of the
Xth Century, Sviatoslav and his Kievan(Russian) Slavs invaded Bulgaria.
In 967, King Peter was able to forceSviatoslav to withdraw, but his
successor, Boris II (969-72) was able todefend Bulgaria only by the help
of Byzantium. As a consequence the king ofthe Bulgars was obliged to
abdicate, thus the Bulgarian patriarchate wasabolished, and Bulgaria
itself became a Byzantine vassal-state for a while.
These were black years for the Romanized shepherd-societies of the
BalkanMountains. They were disturbed by the attacks of Magyars,
Petchenegs, KievanSlavs, and also by Byzantine bureaucracy which reached
them once more againSeveral of them abandoned their ancient occupations,
such as sheep-breeding,and instead they became trans- port-carriers. As
a matter of fact, probablyso many of them adopted this new occupation,
that the Bulgars and Serbiansused them as "kjelators" (carriers, or
transporters in medieval Slavic
language. (*59).
The year of 976 was a significant year in Bulgaria both from the
Bulgarian-and a Wallachian point of view. In this year, Samuel, son of a
Bulgariangovernor of one of the western districts, which had been
unaffected by theRussian invasion, set himself up as the new ruler of
Bulgaria. (*60). Inthis very year, the Byzantine chronicler, named
loannas Skylitses, notedthat one of Samuel's brothers, named David, was
murdered by some of the"kjelator-Vlachs", somewhere in the region of the
Lakes Prepa and Kastoria.(*61). According to our best knowledge this was
the very first occasion,when the word "Vlach" appeared in historical
writing. The Byzantinechronicler obviously picked this expression up
from the Slav-Bulgarianvocabulary, since the Bulgarians (and also the
Serbians) called almost allpeoples of the Balkan Mountains as
"kjelator-Vlachs", or simply as "Vlachs"at this time. (Its linguistic
variations are: "Vlahi", "Volochi"; its Greekversions are: "Vlachos",
and "Vlachus").
*57: The tribes of Zsolt, Vaisz, and Taksony (successors of Árpád
theConqueror) raided Bulgaria in 934, 943, 958 and 962. The Petchenegs
crossedthe Lower Danube and raided Bulgaria on 944.
*58: Tomislav became King of Croatia already in 924, accepting a crown
fromPope John X. (914-28), and turning his people towards Roman
Christianity.The Serbians remained Byzantine-Orthodox, but under King
Chaslav (960) theyseparated themselves both trom Bulgaria and Byzantium.
*59: "Calator" is a brother-word of "kjelator'' in the modern Rumanian
language. It still means: pastoral-, or carrier-Vlachs.
*60: Samuel expended his dominion to Sofia, re-established the
Bulgarianpatriarchate and after 986, extended his power to the Black
Sea.
*61: These lakes are at the area, where the River Vistrica springs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first Bulgarian Empire (founded by Isperikh in the VIIth
Century)disintegrated at the end of the Xth Century Already in 996,
Emperor Basil II(who was called by Byzantine as "Bulgaroktonos", "Slayer
of the Bulgarians";976-1025) proceeded to reduce one Bulgarian
stronghold after another. Samuelwas helpless, since officers defected
from his army, and remembering thetragedy of his brother, David, he saw
the probability betrayal of his Vlach subjects too. His son Gabriel
Radomir (or "Romanus") was murdered by his owncousin, (1016), John
Vladislav, (1016-18), who (as successor of theBulgarian throne)
continued the war against the Byzantine. He was alsokilled in the battle
near Dyrrhacium. Following this, Bulgaria wasincorporated into the
Byzantine Empire. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was oncemore abolished,
only the Archbishop of Ochrid retained practical autonomyMany members of
the Bulgarian aristocracy settled in Constantinople andassimilated into
the leading Byzantine families.
Some of the Vlach subjects were obviously trying to save themselves by
betraying their Bulgarian lords to the Byzantine. Others, however
probably those on the northern slopes of the Balkan Mountains attempted
to leave dangerous Bulgaria, by migrating northwards. Many Vlach
fragments crossed the Danube and appeared in Petcheneg- occupied
Munthenia, offering their services to the Petchenegs. They chose life in
the unknown, dangerous Petcheneg land, fearing the possible Byzantine
persecution. In the first half of the XIth Century, the gravity of the
Vlachs was still in Northern Bulgaria, but more and more Vlachs moved
one-step-northwards again.
Click here for next Chapter V.
Click here for Map 3.: Bulgaria and the Balkans in the Xth Century
Click here for Table of Contents
Click here for List of Maps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mihai Chivulescu
Preda Mihailescu wrote:
>
>
> The challenge you had for a longer time is to state some proofs not
> against continuity (which are rubbish even for the hungarian historians
> who have written in 1989 the history "Erdely") but in favour of your
> pet theory. Since Romanians, acceptably even by you, were there in the
> 13-th century, they must have fallen from the moon! Now this important
> event leaves traces, which shouold be your proofs. Bring any proofs in
> favour of this moon landing (you can substitute moon with Illyria,
> Macedonia, Panonia or Hyperborea, anything different from Dacia that you
> wisht: but prove!). Or else have the guts to admit: "I do not have any
> better theory on romanian origins, but I emotionally cannot stand the
> continuity issue because it was fucked into my brains by Ceausescu
> propaganda" - which, to my opinion, is your problem, and not history
> itself or truth!
>
> Preda Mihailescu
Ion Bogdan published a well known book regarding Romanian sources in
Transylvanian arhives. It is interesting to point out, that most of
the onomastic of the Romanian "cnezi" and "jupan" were of slavic
origin. The density of slavic names is predominant.
These documents cover the XIII-XIV1 century.
It is very hard to prove the Romanian continuity north of the Danube.
The daco-romanian continuity has its origin in the maghiar nobelman
claim on the territory they owned. The greek catholic students,
challenged
this claim by pointing out the daco romanian origin of the "olahs".
Xenopol raised this thesis to a doctrine which was diminished into
kitsch by the communists and their offsprings. In fact during the
tenure of Daicovitsch at the History Department Univ. of Cluj, most of
the arheological sites covering the V - XI century were closed, due
to their content which pointed to germanic, or mongoloid populations.
The Romanian historiography is not entirely biased toward daco-romanity.
Some of them were embracing a theory which claimed that a small
number of a neo-latin speaking people survived in various parts of
present Romania, but during the centuries their number increased not
only due to the natural demographics, but also due to the migration
of vlahs from the south of Danube.
A similar situation happens now in Romania, were the Gypsy population
increased also due to the border crossing. For example, it is known,
that Banat was populated after the "Schwaben" emigrated to Germany,
by Gypsies coming from Yugoslavia, and other Balkan countries.The
communists encouraged this trend. In Transylvania, many German villages
were populated by Gypsies, Hungarians, and Moldavians. The entire
cultural fabric was changed.
For me, daco-romanity served its purpose. It helped the Romanians to
raise their voice in front of the vanity of the Maghiar nobility.
But now, I think,it is of no help to us.
Mihai Chivulescu
Preda Mihailescu wrote:
>
> A. Albu wrote:
> >
> > Preda Mihailescu wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is beautifull: if the migration of Romanians passed so easily
> > > unnoticed to the hungarian chronicles, we may conclude that they failed
> > > to write down _everything_ that concerned their beloved Transylvania.
> > > Why could we not assume then, that they failed to write about those
> > > inborn who withdrew to the mountains, once they did not have to fight
> > > them militarily ? Is it more logical to assume that hundred thousands of
> > > romanians traverse unnoticed the whole balkan rather than that they
> > > withdraw unnoticed (by the documents, of course) to the mountains where
> > > they always did when there was a new invasion ? I mean the first
> > > movement would have created much more trumoil, since on their way they
> > > should feed, necessarily attack some places, since hundred thousands can
> > > hardly migrate while peacefully begging here and there. On the other
> > > hand, if they retire to the mountains which they are used to inhabit -
> > > less damages to others, less documents! I do not see the logic for
> > > favouring this rather than that point of view ! I see some interests,
> > > but even those should be rather faded away into the dust of of the past
> > > and exile!
> >
> > Lasind la oparte animozotatile, gasesc plauzibila ipoteza Maghiara, cu
> > atit mai mult ca este bine asezata in context istoric.
> > restul la
> > <http://web.ucs.ubc.ca/szeitz/books/haraszti1/content.html>
> >
> > Adalbert Albu
> >
>
> prima carte cu detalii asupra acestei perioade istorice pe care o
> cititi ? Acum zece m-am chinuuit prin Iorga si Mommsen, care folosind
> aceleasi date - probabil, caci cartea maghiara am spicuit-o numai - si
> probabil altele revalatorii trecute de maghiar cu vederea, ajung la
> concluzia contrara. Cred ca este intr-adevar chestiunea unui specialist
> sa raspunda la polologhii atit de lungi - ele iti taie respiratia cind
> nu cunosit toate interpretarile posibile ale datelor respective.
> Pentru un laic ca mine un argument important ramine simplitate ideii de
> baza, or teza maghiara este abracdabranta din mai multe motive
>
> 1) Daco - romanii trebuie sa fi disparut total de pe fata pamintului.
> 2) Vlahii sint romanii transilvaneni de astazi - or din punct de vedere
> lingvistic teza nu sade in picioare, deoarece tezaurul lingvistic al
> daco - romanilor si al megleno-romanilor denota o separare ce a avut loc
> cu mult inainte de 900.
> 3) "Vlahi" inseamna pentru celti (iar de la ei, si pentru slavi si
> germanici) romani - de aici numele de Valais in Elvetia, Welsh in
> Anglia, etc. Deci nu este in nici un fel legat teritorial de sudul
> peninsulei balcanice. In secolul X-XI exista in sudul poloniei un cnezat
> Valah (wolochenski cneaz) - de unde veneau aceia, tot din Tesalia ? Nu
> este mai firesc sa asumi teoria romaneasca (si germana, franceza, etc.)
> ?
> 4) Maghiarii care se bazeaza puternic pe surselel lor, le relativizeaza
> de indata ce pot folosi ca argumente impotriva propriei lor teze.
> Exemplul cu Cronicarul lui Bella este revelatoriu si bine cunoscut. In
> alte contexte el este acceptat ca sursa infailibila - nu mai cu privinta
> la Gelu, Glad si Menumorut nu.
>
> Franta a fost fondata de conducatori germani (francii). Chiar marele
> Cahrlemagne a fost german, si este considerat de Germani sub alta
> perspectiva decit de Francezi. Cu toate acestea, nimeni nu a mers atit
> de departe incit sa creeze o teorie conform careia galii romanizati s-ar
> fi retras dincolo de Pirinei la navalirea germanilor, si ar fi reaparut
> goniti de arabi, pentru a da tenta latina poporului franc (de
> denominatie germana). Asemenea aberatii se nasc doar in jurul nostru...
>
> Dincolo de cele spuse, este probabil la latitudinea fiecaruia sa aleaga
> ce argumente il conving, deoarece stiinta exacta istoria evului mediu nu
> poate fi, nici daca ai petrece zece cu sursele si textele
> interpretative!
>
> Succes
>
> Preda Mihailescu
Realitatea este ca daco-romanitatea romanilor este putin probabila,
mai degraba o nascocire. Noi sintem urmasii vorbitorilor de limba
latina, ce au supravietuit dupa retragerea administratiei romane.
Supravietuirea lor a avut loc fara sprijinul unui stat. De aceea si
multe neguri care acopera aceasta istorie. Ungurii au folosit aceasta
lipsa de dovezi istorice pentru a-si afirma suprematia asupra
Ardealului, iar romanii au combatut-o prin daco-romanitate. Este
o problema politica, si mai putin una istorica. In ziua noastra
cind "affirmative action" este la ordinea zilei, mai bine ne-am
folosi si noi de teza societatii romanesti de "underdog" in societatea
transilvana dominata de unguri. N-are rost s-o dam pe daco-romanitate.
Personal sint mindru ca sint roman si ma trag din latini, din
cei care au creat cea mai inaintata civilizatie antica, decit din daci
care nici nu stim cine au fost(celti mai mult ca probabil).
Vorbitorii de limba latina care au supravietuit in Balcani si la nord
de Dunare(este mai mult ca sigur, dar numarul lor a fost mic, si mai
mult ca sigur ca au trait in grupuri razlete, probabil in Transilvania
au fost cel mai bine reprezentati, dovada anumite trasaturi puternice
culturale la moti, la maramureseni, la fagaraseni, si ceea ce se
cunoaste mai putin, la romanii care odinioara populau muntii Harghita),
au supravietuit pe cont propriu, precum astazi tiganii dovedesc aceeasi
capacitate. Realitatea este ca romanii si-au creat un spatiu existential
fara forta armelor, precum si tiganii(ceea ce nu e de ris), datorita
culturii si civilizatiei lor apropiata de cea a popoarelor neolitice.
Anii terorii comuniste, au dovedit ca structura de rezistenta a omului,
cea care il face sa supravietuiasca in cele mai ostile si primitive
situatii, poate deveni caracteristica unei intregi societati. Pe aceasta
structura am dainuit de a lungul secolelor si nu inteleg aceasta
ingimfare si infatuare, pe care daco-romanitatea o trezeste in
mintea unora. Nu sint religios, dar experienta limita pe care am
trait-o fiind torturat de "fortele de ordine" ale lui Ceausescu,
clipele de solitaritate traita intr-o celula fara fereastra cu usa
din fier, fara conditii minime de igiena, m-au facut sa inteleg
cum au reusit romanii sa supravietuiasca ca un popor la limita cea mai
de jos a bogatiei materiale. Infatuarea celor care echivaleaza pe
boierii nostri cu nobilii feudali este aberanta. Ardelenii cel putin
nu au aceasta pretentie, deoarece n-a existat nobilime romana in
Ardeal. Boierii regateni, au origine slava, bulgara, poloneza,
lituaniana, si ulterior greceasca. Ce interesant este cum a aparut
numele de "ruman"? (roman a aparut in sec. XIX). O explicatie ar fi
denumirea pe care si-o acordau bizantinii: romeiro. Poate asta si
explica denumirea pe care si-o acorda tiganii.
Sint multe de zis. Va fac o recomandare: cititi-l si pe Onicescu.
Mihai
Preda Mihailescu
A. Albu wrote:
>
> Preda Mihailescu wrote:
>
> >
> > This is beautifull: if the migration of Romanians passed so easily
> > unnoticed to the hungarian chronicles, we may conclude that they failed
> > to write down _everything_ that concerned their beloved Transylvania.
> > Why could we not assume then, that they failed to write about those
> > inborn who withdrew to the mountains, once they did not have to fight
> > them militarily ? Is it more logical to assume that hundred thousands of
> > romanians traverse unnoticed the whole balkan rather than that they
> > withdraw unnoticed (by the documents, of course) to the mountains where
> > they always did when there was a new invasion ? I mean the first
> > movement would have created much more trumoil, since on their way they
> > should feed, necessarily attack some places, since hundred thousands can
> > hardly migrate while peacefully begging here and there. On the other
> > hand, if they retire to the mountains which they are used to inhabit -
> > less damages to others, less documents! I do not see the logic for
> > favouring this rather than that point of view ! I see some interests,
> > but even those should be rather faded away into the dust of of the past
> > and exile!
>
> Lasind la oparte animozotatile, gasesc plauzibila ipoteza Maghiara, cu
> atit mai mult ca este bine asezata in context istoric.
> restul la
> <http://web.ucs.ubc.ca/szeitz/books/haraszti1/content.html>
>
> Adalbert Albu
>
Lasind animozitatil, Dl Albu: cartea acestui emigrant maghiar este cumva
Magyari Endre
> I think that would be an extremely easy task, Istvan. Until the 17th century, Europe had
> little doubt the Romanians' origins were in Dacia. I can mention not one, but scores of
> facts supporting a theory accepted as extremely probable by almost every history school
> today.
I don't believe you.The theory is stated to be true,yes.But where are the
facts?
Give me one book ,paper,whatever,any kind of proof saying something about
romanians' activity in transyilvania before 1100.
You'll will surprised if you took the time ....even the romanian version of
romanians history does not say a thing,an event about their activity between
700-1200.How do you imagine the true one does?
cheers,
Endre Magyari System Administrator
en...@math.bme.hu Math Institute,Technical University
00-36-1-463-2974 Budapest,Hungary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorin M. Petre
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:28:40 +0100, Magyari Endre <en...@math.bme.hu>
wrote:
>Give me one book ,paper,whatever,any kind of proof saying something about
>romanians' activity in transyilvania before 1100.
One book it is: Nestor's Russian Chronicles!
Dorin M. Petre
A. Albu
I do not exclude any posibility. I just argue for the most plausible
one. Some of reasons why I believe you could be wrong are enumerated
below. That they may have been Romanians in Carpatian Basin is possible
but is clear that the vast majority of romanized latin speaking
population lived and survived south on the Balcans and Dalmatia....
Then in the entire middle the Romanians are in the background within
Transylvania and this until the demography shifts to favor them. Just
how could the Romanians if they were the majority be exempted from tithe
or tenth until the end of the 15 century when this was the major tax of
the day. Or how is that was no real reformation in an area densely
populated by Romanians such as Transylvania of outside of it Bihor. It
is clear that they arrived or multiplied in numbers only after these
times.
1 The Time Factor
Let us take a final look at the Carpathian and Balkanic provinces of the
Roman Empire. Let us compare Dacia with the other East-European
territories, with possibility of Romanization in
mind:
Year of Year of Years of
Province Conquest Evacuation Colonization
Illyricum & Dalmatia 168 B.C. 476 A.D. 644
Epirus & Achaea 168 B.C. 395 A.D. 563
Macedonia 146 B.C. 395 A.D. 541
Thracia 46 B.C. 395 A.D. 441
Moesia 44 B.C. 395 A.D. 439
Pannonia 10 B.C. 408 A.D. 418
Dacia 107 A.D. 271 A.D. 164(!)
In the Dalmatian coast, in Epirus, in Macedonia, in Thracia and in
Moesia, even in Pannonia, many hundreds of years provided the
opportunity of Romanization. In the depopulated mountains of Dacia only
a relatively limited period was associated with the Roman conquest. The
mountainous regions of the Balkans, however, preserved some fragments of
Romanized, rural peoples, which were called later as Vlachs .
Romanization of the Balkans were stopped when Emperor Flavius died
(395), and the Empire was dividedbetween his sons: Arcadius and
Honorius. Arcadius received the eastern part of the Empire including the
Balkans. His rule marks the beginning of Re-Hellenization.
2 The Population Factor
Based on the above just what happened with the large romanic population
of the Balcan provinces after half a millennium of romanization.
3 I understand that the naming the Romanian places of dweling indicates
a clear path of migration from south of the Danube to the north, then in
to Transylvania, and then towards south east again, and then to the
north again.
Adalbert Albu
Preda Mihailescu wrote:
>
> A. Albu wrote:
> >
> > Preda Mihailescu wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is beautifull: if the migration of Romanians passed so easily
> > > unnoticed to the hungarian chronicles, we may conclude that they failed
> > > to write down _everything_ that concerned their beloved Transylvania.
> > > Why could we not assume then, that they failed to write about those
> > > inborn who withdrew to the mountains, once they did not have to fight
> > > them militarily ? Is it more logical to assume that hundred thousands of
> > > romanians traverse unnoticed the whole balkan rather than that they
> > > withdraw unnoticed (by the documents, of course) to the mountains where
> > > they always did when there was a new invasion ? I mean the first
> > > movement would have created much more trumoil, since on their way they
> > > should feed, necessarily attack some places, since hundred thousands can
> > > hardly migrate while peacefully begging here and there. On the other
> > > hand, if they retire to the mountains which they are used to inhabit -
> > > less damages to others, less documents! I do not see the logic for
> > > favouring this rather than that point of view ! I see some interests,
> > > but even those should be rather faded away into the dust of of the past
> > > and exile!
> >
> > Lasind la oparte animozotatile, gasesc plauzibila ipoteza Maghiara, cu
> > atit mai mult ca este bine asezata in context istoric.
> > restul la
> > <http://web.ucs.ubc.ca/szeitz/books/haraszti1/content.html>
> >
> > Adalbert Albu
> >
>
Gustav Horvath
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:40:41 GMT, mir...@enteract.com (Mircea) wrote:
>(...) its inhabitants, known as the Daci, had originally
>emigrated from Thrace in northern Greece.(...)
This is so much close to the historical truth as it could get.
Not to long time ago I read (a rather unflattering) thread about this
and a related issue (without any Hungarian participation) on s.c.
greek. It did not mention anything about the Daci, but rather more
about the Vlachs.
Also, the time of their migration was closer to, one that supports
the Hungarian version. It is also supported by the fact that despite
the Roumanians quasi latin language, they chose to belong to the
Orthodox Church, instead that of the Church of Rome.
We should not forget, that after the Turks left Transylvania, the
Hapsburgs started the rather ruthless process the counter-reformation.
So if the Austrian government, was a promoter of the latter so much,
that almost all the formerly reformed Hungarian churches and their
congregations had to do so, why not took up the "Dacis" on the
opportunity, and at least in religion followed their -supposedly real-
culture/religion?
We believe the answer is because their real life roots were closer to
their Greek/Vlach and Slavic ancestors, vs the Roman ones.
Gustav
Mircea
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:28:40 +0100, Magyari Endre <en...@math.bme.hu> wrote:
>
>> I think that would be an extremely easy task, Istvan. Until the 17th century, Europe had
>> little doubt the Romanians' origins were in Dacia. I can mention not one, but scores of
>> facts supporting a theory accepted as extremely probable by almost every history school
>> today.
>
>I don't believe you.The theory is stated to be true,yes.But where are the
>facts?
>Give me one book ,paper,whatever,any kind of proof saying something about
>romanians' activity in transyilvania before 1100.
Povest ' vremenykh lyet, aka Tale of Bygone Years, aka Nestor's Chronicle, aka
The Pussion Primary Chronicle
Gesta Hungarorum by Anonymus, aka Magister P., aka Petrus the notary of King
Bela III.
Mircea
>You'll will surprised if you took the time ....even the romanian version of
>romanians history does not say a thing,an event about their activity between
>700-1200.How do you imagine the true one does?
>
>cheers,
>
>Endre Magyari System Administrator
>en...@math.bme.hu Math Institute,Technical University
>00-36-1-463-2974 Budapest,Hungary
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
"Thou Shalt Give to the Net in Order to Take from the Net"
Mircea
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:50:24 GMT, tu...@junctionnet.com (Gustav Horvath) wrote:
>>(...) its inhabitants, known as the Daci, had originally
>>emigrated from Thrace in northern Greece.(...)
>Also, the time of their migration was closer to, one that supports
>the Hungarian version.
I think you misread something in the above excerpt.
>It is also supported by the fact that despite
>the Roumanians quasi latin language, they chose to belong to the
>Orthodox Church, instead that of the Church of Rome.
Romanians became Christians before there was any religious schism between Rome
and Constantinople. Several decades before Saint Istvan officially adopted
Christianity for all his kingdom, the Gyulas of Transylvania had been baptized
in Constantinople. Was their preference for closer ties with Byzantium a
reflection of the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population
(Romanians and Slavs), was leaning, from a religious viewpoint, in the same
direction?
Mircea
>We should not forget, that after the Turks left Transylvania, the
>Hapsburgs started the rather ruthless process the counter-reformation.
>So if the Austrian government, was a promoter of the latter so much,
>that almost all the formerly reformed Hungarian churches and their
>congregations had to do so, why not took up the "Dacis" on the
>opportunity, and at least in religion followed their -supposedly real-
>culture/religion?
>We believe the answer is because their real life roots were closer to
>their Greek/Vlach and Slavic ancestors, vs the Roman ones.
>Gustav
-----
Mircea
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:11:42 -0500, "A. Albu" <aarc...@idt.net> wrote:
>Just
>how could the Romanians if they were the majority be exempted from [taxes?]
>or tenth until the end of the 15 century when this was the major tax of
>the day.
Simply because the tax assessments of the time do not include the not-taxable
categories, among which were the poor, i.e., that part of the population that
had too little wealth to be taxable. Romanians, the tolerated nation,
constituted most of this category.
>1 The Time Factor
As much time as there is factual proof for a Daco-Roman and Romanian presence in
Transylvania, why speculate theoretically upon factors whose importance is
poorly understood?
>2 The Population Factor
>Based on the above just what happened with the large romanic population
>of the Balcan provinces after half a millennium of romanization.
Part of them died, part of them assimilated into the Slavic sea, part of them
are still in the Balkans, and the rest might have joined the ranks of their
brothers beyond the Danube.
>3 I understand that the naming the Romanian places of dweling indicates
>a clear path of migration from south of the Danube to the north, then in
>to Transylvania, and then towards south east again, and then to the
>north again.
That's sounds interesting yet difficult to comprehend! Can you please elaborate?
Mircea
Nick Arden
Dorin M. Petre wrote:
>
> One book it is: Nestor's Russian Chronicles!
>
> Dorin M. Petre
In cateva cuvinte, spune-ne te rog ce contin aceste cronici?
Cu multumiri,
Nick Arden
Nick Arden
Dorin M. Petre wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:26:35 -0800, Nick Arden <nic...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In cateva cuvinte, spune-ne te rog ce contin aceste cronici?
>
> sa nu te mai faci da bacanie si sa rida copiii da tine!
>
Mai Petrache Lupu, ce fel OM (?) esti TU, daca nu ai bunul simt sa imi
raspunzi la o simpla intrebare politicoasa decat cu 'smecherii de
Regatzean' dela Calafat?' Acum sa sti ca nici nu trebuie sa raspunzi
pentruca daca tu esti fericit cu Cronicile Rusesti ale lui (what was his
name?).......bravo, ma Petrache, eu te las sa fi fericit ma baiete si sa
visezi mai departe la demonstrarea existentei Romanilor pe meleagurile
Europei chiar inainte de Cristos. Esti multumit? Mai mult ma, daca tu
vrei, eu ma inclin si zic si ca Romanii sunt de origine nobila, ca au
civilizat Europa si tot ce vrei tu.
Numai sa te creada si ISTORIA ma baiete.
Nick Arden
Dorin M. Petre
>In cateva cuvinte, spune-ne te rog ce contin aceste cronici?
Cronicili zice sa te duci tu pa la biblioteca si sa citesti oleaca ca
sa nu te mai faci da bacanie si sa rida copiii da tine!
Acu', pa bune, daca te-ai prins tu asa da bine la istoria Romaniei si
la veridicitatea Scripturilor, cum sa face ca nu stii ceva elementar
ca Povestea Vremurilor Trecute a lu' Nestor?! Ce fel da telectual esti
tu?!
Dorin M. Petre
Alexander N. Bossy
tu...@junctionnet.com (Gustav Horvath) wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:40:41 GMT, mir...@enteract.com (Mircea) wrote:
>the Roumanians quasi latin language,
Romanian is a Romance language. In fact, it is the only one of the
modern Romance languages to retain decentions. Calling it only "quasi
latin" serves to show your lack of objectivity in this matter.
>they chose to belong to the
>Orthodox Church, instead that of the Church of Rome.
>We should not forget, that after the Turks left Transylvania, the
>Hapsburgs started the rather ruthless process the counter-reformation.
>So if the Austrian government, was a promoter of the latter so much,
>that almost all the formerly reformed Hungarian churches and their
>congregations had to do so, why not took up the "Dacis" on the
>opportunity, and at least in religion followed their -supposedly real-
>culture/religion?
Do at least a tiny bit of research on the Orthodox-Catholic schism;
you'll not that it took place significantly after the fall of the
Western Roman Empire. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, was the religion
of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Besides which, according to you, the Germans and English should still
be hanging the heads of sacrificial victims on their Christmas trees,
all of the Romance nations should still feed Christians to the lions
in their circuses, and the Hungarians should burn spend their time
pillaging half of Europe. Thankfully, though, the rest of us can
progress beyond what our ancestors did.
Alexander
Dorin M. Petre
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:07:59 -0800, Nick Arden <nic...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>[...] eu ma inclin si zic si ca Romanii sunt de origine nobila, ca au
>civilizat Europa si tot ce vrei tu.
Lasa, ba, ca voi, hazarii, sunteti de neam si mai nobil!: da la
Regele Bulan I, manca-ti'as!
Dorin M. Petre
Gustav Horvath
(Alexander N. Bossy) wrote:
>Romanian is a Romance language.
Alexander,
While I have a rather good idea concerning the roots of this "Romance"
language -as you say- I do not wish to expand on this thread before my
previous question gets at least a half-satisfactory answer.
>Do at least a tiny bit of research on the Orthodox-Catholic schism;
>you'll not that it took place significantly after the fall of the
>Western Roman Empire. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, was the religion
>of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Well, indeed, I already did a bit of research on the question of
schism (perhaps even a "tiny" bit more, than you would give me credit
for.)
- but my question did not go back that far. If you read it more
carefully you should see that It has to do with the time of
counter-reformation, namely if the originally eastern Magyars,
(you might say if you wish, "asiatic Magyars" I certainly do not mind)
had become so western oriented as religion goes, why not, for heaven
sakes got the "Dacis"? Why did they let this get past over and in this
process let the Magyars become more Roman then the "ROMANians
themselves.
I do not think that the Hapsburgs would have had any problems if they
also wanted to catch-up. (-to their long lost true culture and related
religion?) The Hapsburgs without any question pursued an
anti-Magyar, pro-Catholic agenda (Madefalva and others) that was not
only mainly guilty but also led to the dispopulation of the Szekler
villages and to the "daciasition" of their residents. The colonizers
certainly had no problems with the Ortodox population, and if the
latter chose Catholicism they would even love them more so; versus the
always rebellious Magyars that is.
Cheers, Gustav
Nick Arden
General Averescu wrote:
> What are you talking about? There was a
> referendum, one organized by the victors,
> i.e. the Romanians, a referendum which
> legitimized the conquest of Transylvania
> from Hungary and its annexation by the younger
> and stronger Kingdom of Romania.
> The reality is that the Romanian army conquered
> Transylvania at the end of WWI. I see nothing
> painful in that, nor in the fact that we, the
> mighty Romanians, got to kept it. You know
> what they say, the stronger dog fucks. Crying
> on the 20th volume of Britannica won't help
> with your reality check.
>
> General Averescu
Mon General:
Cu tot respectul, vin inaintea Dumneavoastra cu o problema care imi
provoaca foarte multe emotii negative, din cauza careia nu imi pot trai
viata cu demnitate si securitate. Problema mea, mon General se refera la
expresiile Dumneavoastra din textul citat mai sus, expresii care dupa
parerea mea si a altor colegi ai mei, scuipa ISTORIA in fata, in fiecare
zi, cu o aroganta suparatoare si vulgara.
Nu discut talentul Dumneavoastra militar. Stiu ca ati fost victorios in
Primul Razboi Mondial, si ca--cu toate ca de fapt ati fost practic
eliminati din competitie dupa numai cateva luni de catre trupele
Germane--ati reusit sa ocupati cu forta o parte din teritoriul unei tari
mici, pasnice, vecine, care nicioata nu v-a atacat pe Dumneavoastra. Nu
contest victoria Dumneavoastra, mon General, si va rog sa ma credeti si
nici nu doresc o modificare a situatiei prezente, care sa va stirbeasca
dreputurile Dumneavoastra de "victori". Bucurati-va de victorie si fiti
fericit si sanatos, domnule General Averescu. Dar dati-mi voie sa
vorbesc putin despre afirmatia Dumneavoastra ca "referendumul dela Alba
Iulia din 1 Decembrie 1918 a 'legitimat' cucerirea facuta de trupele
Dumneavoastra, plus alte comentarii care ...credem noi, nu prea sunt
expresii de 'general'. Eu cred ca sunteti GRESIT.
Imi permit sa va reamintesc (a cata oara oare), mon General, ca
"referendumul dela Gyulafehervar" nu a tinut seama de stipulatia clara
dela punctul 10 din cele "14 puncte" recomandate de Presedintele Woodrow
Wilson. Ma refer la "dreptul popoarelor la autodeterminare" (sper ca ati
auzit de asta).
Referendumul dela Alba Iulia trebuia sa fie UNIVERSAL, deci al TUTUROR
CETATENILOR, de TOATE NATIONALITATILE, pentruca asa a dorit Presedintele
Statelor Unite. Asa a fost? Nicidecum. Sa facem o analiza cronologica:
La 8 Aprilie 1918, liderii ai tuturor minoritatilor nationale din
Transylvania se intalnesc in meetingul dela ROMA, si acolo ei declara ca
vor sa se "separe de Austro-Ungaria". In luna Octombrie, membrii
Partidului National Roman din Ungaria (un fel de UDMR invers), sub
presedentia lui Vajda Vojevod, au un congres propriu la Nagyvarad
(Oradea) unde, in baza principiului de autodeterminare, REPETA dorinta
Romanilor de a se "SEPARA de Imperiu". Mai mult, la putine zile dupa
Oradea, Vajda Vojevod declara in Parlamentul dela Budapesta ca "Romanii
din Transylvania s-au HOTARAT sa procedeze la autodeterminare si
unificare ca "O NATIUNE SEPARATA".
La 1 Decembrie, la "referenumul dela Alba Iulia", se hotaraste unirea
cu Romania, fara ca minoritatile Maghiara si Germana sa fie reprezentate
sau macar consultate. Franta, Anglia si Rusia se grabesca sa ratifice.
Mon General, sa stiti ca Presedintele Wilson a fost foarte afectat de
faptul ca la Alba Iulia au participat numai Romanii, in general numai
reprezentantii clerului, scolilor Romanesti si ai posturilor de
Jandarmeri, plus vreo doua mii de tarani locali Romani. Daca
Dumneavoastra numiti asta un "referendum legitim", eu nu mai zic nimic.
Ce a urmat dupa "referendumul legitim" stim: colegii Dumneavoastra au
trasat imediat hotarul acolo unde au vrut, au schimbat imediat
denumirile oraselor si satelor, au confiscat pamanturile Ungurilor si cu
ele au impropietarit soldatii Dumneavoastra care au fost lasati la vatra
in Transylvania.
Dumneavoastra sustineti ca toate astea sunt "legitime"?
Cui i-ar place, domnule General, sa i se smulga un picior din corp si sa
mai zica si "merci"? Si cine ar accepta ca dupa traumatismul acesta, sa
mai fi si scuipat in fata, injurat si umilit? Cine are de castigat, mon
General, din aceasta atitudine si sfidare a principiilor de mila
Crestina si justitie umanistica? Castiga pacea oare?
Stim, domnule General Averescu ca e greu sa va recunoasteti gresala.
Mai ales la o varsta venerabila ca a Dumneavoastra. Nici un om normal nu
primeste cu placere vestea ca "a grestit", sau ca trebuie sa-si schimbe
principiile filozofice, sau stilul de viata. E greu, dar nu imposibil,
domnule. Trebuie putin efort intelectual, e drept, dar merita sa se
incerce. Dumneavoastra ziceti ca ati incercat si nu puteti?
Scuzati-ma, dom' General, astazi traim in 1998. Numai doi ani ne mai
despart de mileniul al treilea. Dumneavoastra ati implinit cam de
multisor "suta", nu-i asa, domnule? Spuneti-ne, nu e oare timpul sa va
puneti sabia ruginita, toba sparta si chipiul sifonat la naftalina, si
sa iesiti dracu' la pensie? (oooops!). Pentruca noi, oamenii inteligenti
si de bun simt, prietenosi si iubitori de viata, mon General, vrem sa
traim in prietenie cu vecinii Unguri si cu toti ceilalti vecini. Si
chiar cu Dumneavoastra, mon General, am fi bucurosi sa auzim ispravi din
razboi, povestite de Dumneavoastra la un pahar de palinca de Debrecin.
Ce daca aveti 120 de ani de varsta si (posibil) Altzheimer, facem un
concurs de 'minciuni gogonate din campaniile militare'.
Acum serios, domnule, noi suntem hotarati sa facem tot ce putem ca sa
ridicam barierele artificiale care au fost puse de altii, intre Ungaria
si Romania. O VOM FACE CU CLASA SI STIL si speram ca pana la urma vom
reusi si bunul simt va prevala. Dar pana atunci, domnule, vrem ca sa nu
mai fim scuipati in ochi, numai pentru vina ca am pierdut un razboi.
Adevarul este ca nu noi, ci Austriecii si Kaiserul l-au pierdut (sic).
Fiti convins ca in momentul cand Dumneavoastra, domnule General, veti
inceta sa mai maltratati istoria, si sa umiliti adevarul istoric, in
clipa aceia, toate barierele in calea respectului meu pentru
Dumneavoastra vor fi ridicate si respectul lumii civilizate va fi
demonstrat din plin pentru persoana Dumneavoastra.
Sper, mon General, ca o sa reflectati asupra problemei expuse in
prezentul memoriu, si veti proceda in consecinta, cu cea mai mare
intelepciune pe care o aveti dela Dumnezeu.
Cu deosebita stima si respect
Nick Arden, un Don Quijote modern.
bulichi
Nick Arden wrote:
>
> Dorin M. Petre wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:26:35 -0800, Nick Arden <nic...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In cateva cuvinte, spune-ne te rog ce contin aceste cronici?
> >
> > Cronicili zice sa te duci tu pa la biblioteca si sa citesti oleaca ca
> > sa nu te mai faci da bacanie si sa rida copiii da tine!
> >
>
> raspunzi la o simpla intrebare politicoasa decat cu 'smecherii de
> Regatzean' dela Calafat?' Acum sa sti ca nici nu trebuie sa raspunzi
> pentruca daca tu esti fericit cu Cronicile Rusesti ale lui (what was his
> name?).......bravo, ma Petrache, eu te las sa fi fericit ma baiete si sa
> visezi mai departe la demonstrarea existentei Romanilor pe meleagurile
> Europei chiar inainte de Cristos. Esti multumit? Mai mult ma, daca tu
> civilizat Europa si tot ce vrei tu.
> Nick Arden
A zis Nick Arden. Noi am tras apa!
bulichi
Mai Nick, tu esti beat tot timpul dupa cum se pare.
Mihai Chivulescu
> Cu deosebita stima si respect
>
> Nick Arden, un Don Quijote modern.
D-le Nick,
E clar ca acel "general Averescu", si-a facut lectia de istorie la
seral, la Academia Stefan Gheorghiu. Dar si d-voastra prezentati
doar niste fapte, fara a sugera ca intelegi care erau evenimentele
ce au dus la aceste fapte. Personal auzisem si eu citeva din ele,
precum faptul ca Viena in 1918 a ajuns in debandada, iar la un moment
dat ordinea a fost pastratata de catre soldati romani din armata
imperiala. Am inceput sa inteleg in momentul cind prin 1994/1995 am
vazut o emisiune la TVR a lui Vartan Arachelian, care il avea ca
invitat pe Corneliu Coposu. Acesta a prezentat istoria PNT-ului si
rolul lui Maniu. De fapt momentul 1 decembrie 1918, asa cum a prezentat
Coposu, este creatia lui Maniu. Maniu care fusese colonel in armata
imperiala, dezerteaza si fuge din Italia, aparind la suprafata in
Viena, unde ministrul de razboi ii asigura o aripa a ministerului
unde Maniu organizeaza trupele de ordine ale Vienei. Maniu se impune
ca o personalitate de prim rang printre romanii ardeleni, si in mare
parte abilitatea lui politica influenteaza mersul evenimentelor.
In mare parte, Bratienii sint pusi in fata unui fapt implinit. Dupa
actul unirii, functionarii unguri din administratia Transilvaniei
intra in greva generala, iar Maniu reuseste sa mobilizeze spiritul
voluntar al intelectualitatii ardelene pentru a prelua administratia.
Evenimentele la care faceti referire, luarea cu japca a posesiilor
latifundiarilor maghiari, stiu ca s-au intimplat, de la rudele mele,
care mi-au relatat despre acele evenimente. Am inteles ca numeroase
castele au fost tabarite, s-a luat tot ce s-a putut. Din pacate
nu prea am reusit sa localizez perioada: 1919, 1920?
Oricum, stiu ca Averescu a venit cu acea lege populista prin care
s-au impropietarit taranii, luindu-se din averile latifundiarilor
(fenomen care a avut loc aproape peste tot), si in care arendasii
deveneau proprietarii terenului arendat. La perioada asta se refera
atacarea castelelor nobilimii maghiare?
Mihai
Cezar Campeanu
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Nick Arden wrote:
> General Averescu wrote:
>
> > What are you talking about? There was a
> > referendum, one organized by the victors,
> > i.e. the Romanians, a referendum which
> > legitimized the conquest of Transylvania
> > from Hungary and its annexation by the younger
> > and stronger Kingdom of Romania.
> CETATENILOR, de TOATE NATIONALITATILE, pentruca asa a dorit Presedintele
> Statelor Unite. Asa a fost? Nicidecum. Sa facem o analiza cronologica:
Ok si se schimba ceva?
Asta una si a doua: care-i problema? Ce nu-i clara inca
apartenenta Transilvaniei la Romania?
C.C.
Dorin M. Petre
> Din pacate nu prea am reusit sa localizez perioada: 1919, 1920?
Pacat, domnule istoric: aia'i perioada a mai interesanta! Aia cu
razboiul dintre Romania si Republica Sovietica Ungara, cu ocuparea
Budapestei si cacealmaua Aliatilor de la Trianon. N'ai ceva rude sa'ti
spuna cum au inceput ostilitatile? (Niste nenorociti de soldati romani
au lovit cu piepturili niste gloante pasnice unguresti care tomnai
treceau si ele p'acolo in cautare de recomandari de la Marele
Comandament Aliat, sau cam asa ceva)
Dorin M. Petre
PS Mi'a venit o idee foarte originala: ce-ar fi sa te treci pa la o
biblioteca?! Poate reusesti sa localizezi perioada 1919, 1920.
Preda Mihailescu
Mihai Chivulescu wrote:
>
> Preda Mihailescu wrote:
> >
> >
> > The challenge you had for a longer time is to state some proofs not
> > against continuity (which are rubbish even for the hungarian historians
> > who have written in 1989 the history "Erdely") but in favour of your
> > pet theory. Since Romanians, acceptably even by you, were there in the
> > 13-th century, they must have fallen from the moon! Now this important
> > event leaves traces, which shouold be your proofs. Bring any proofs in
> > favour of this moon landing (you can substitute moon with Illyria,
> > Macedonia, Panonia or Hyperborea, anything different from Dacia that you
> > wisht: but prove!). Or else have the guts to admit: "I do not have any
> > better theory on romanian origins, but I emotionally cannot stand the
> > continuity issue because it was fucked into my brains by Ceausescu
> > propaganda" - which, to my opinion, is your problem, and not history
> > itself or truth!
> >
> > Preda Mihailescu
>
> Ion Bogdan published a well known book regarding Romanian sources in
> Transylvanian arhives. It is interesting to point out, that most of
> the onomastic of the Romanian "cnezi" and "jupan" were of slavic
> origin. The density of slavic names is predominant.
It is known that the "descalecari" of the romanian wojwodates were
triggered
by slavs and cumans. This is by the way typical for many european
nations,
like France , Italy: the first states were built by germans. However
noone
had problems with the latin continuity of french and they are also
allowed
to call the Galls there ancestors - in fact also the black in the
colonies
learn about "nos ancetres les gaulois :-)".
> [ ... some interesting stuff ... ]
>
> For me, daco-romanity served its purpose. It helped the Romanians to
> raise their voice in front of the vanity of the Maghiar nobility.
> But now, I think,it is of no help to us.
It is true that continuity was both a fact and a means. The to work
badly
together. Especially after falling
into the Ceausescu kitch, improvement of knowledge became impossible.
I am convinced that continuity is a _fact_, it only is not the only fact
about early middle age on romanian soil - or in balkan. As long as the
named vanity and the "scientific" sarcasm that gos with it, on one side,
and, on the other (romanian) side the defensive attitude consisting in
a total fear of any facts that _seem_ inconsistent with fundamentalist
conitnuity, I do not think that understanding can grow. It is only when
history will be deprived of political impact that we will learn to
understand how daco-roman continuity cohabitated with invasions, slav
state
building, hungarian conquest and so many more. We probably look in the
wrong
direction while we are obsessed by the question "coninuity yes or no ?".
Preda Mihailescu
g
Gustav Horvath wrote:
>From: tu...@junctionnet.com (Gustav Horvath)
>Subject: Re: Trianon and the nationalities issue in royal Hungary
>Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:02:34 GMT
>Message-ID: <34d0e5f0...@news.junctionnet.com>
> (Alexander N. Bossy) wrote:
>
>>Do at least a tiny bit of research on the Orthodox-Catholic schism;
>>you'll not that it took place significantly after the fall of the
>>Western Roman Empire. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, was the religion
>>of the Eastern Roman Empire.
>
>[__]
>
>- but my question did not go back that far. If you read it more
>carefully you should see that It has to do with the time of
>counter-reformation, namely if the originally eastern Magyars,
>(you might say if you wish, "asiatic Magyars" I certainly do not mind)
(Of course you don't, "Tu(g)rul" keeps hovering..., arkada$! :)
>had become so western oriented as religion goes, why not, for heaven
>sakes got the "Dacis"? Why did they let this get past over and in this
>process let the Magyars become more Roman then the "ROMANians
>themselves.
Becoming "more Roman" than other Romanians? What do you mean? Do you
really imply that accepting Vatican's ecclesiastic jurisdiction means
being a "Roman" or "more Roman" ?! If so, why? Does the linguistic
community (of the Romance languages) have no relevance in this context
(let alone ethnicity)?
>The Hapsburgs without any question pursued an
>anti-Magyar, pro-Catholic agenda (Madefalva and others) that was not
>only mainly guilty but also led to the dispopulation of the Szekler
>villages and to the "daciasition" of their residents. The colonizers
>certainly had no problems with the Ortodox population, and if the
>latter chose Catholicism they would even love them more so;
What is this "daciasition" supposed to be? [Any allusion to Benedek
Jancso's and I. Acsady's statistical works on Transylvania's population
in the 18th century? -- Cf. Jancso' Benedek, "A roma'n nemzetise'gi
to:rekve'sek to:rte'nete e's jelenlegi a'llapota", I+II, Budapest
1896-99; Acsa'dy I., "Magyarorsza'g ne'pesse'ge a <<Pragmatica Sanctio>>
kora'ban 1720-21", Budapest 1896, XII of Magyar Statisztikai
Ko:zleme'nyek (a periodical).]
As for Austria's policies: indeed, many Romanians (or "az ola'hok" - if
you prefer) in Transylvania opted for the union with the R.-Cath. Church
(for the so-called Uniat or Uniate Church) towards 1700. Moreover, there
are Uniate clergy representatives (historiographers) who have said that
actually the entire Romanian population opted then for the union, and
that only due to Orthodox prozelytism esp. supported by the Serb clergy
did a part of the R. population return to Orthodoxy later on, in the
18th century -- this version of the story being rejected by numerous
other scholars.
Besides, you don't imply that the Hungarian Catholic Church did not
support Vienna's "pro-Catholic (= anti-Reformation) agenda" in the
decades after 1683, do you?
>Cheers, Gustav
rgds,
g
["nospam" = "ns"]
Mircea
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:29:50 -0800, Nick Arden <nic...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Primul Razboi Mondial, si ca--cu toate ca de fapt ati fost practic
>eliminati din competitie dupa numai cateva luni de catre trupele
>Germane--
Isn't so? Yes, quite a few months have passed from August 1916, when Romania
entered the war, until March 1918, when Marghiloman government negotiated a
peace settlement with the Central Powers. And let us not forget that the
Romanian army did not receive the support promised by her Entente allies. The
French efforts at Verdun were so "powerful" that the Germans were able to
transfer eighteen divisions from the Western Front to the east. The Brusilov
offensive on the Russian southwestern front lost momentum too soon, and the
Anglo-French troops at Thessasolika were chased away by the Bulgarians. Romanias
were practically left alone.
Thus, the Romanian troops, which were supposed to face only the
Austro-Hungarians, were forced to retreat. Stopped in the north by General Erich
von Falk's 9th army, attacked form the rear by a combined
German-Bulgarian-Austrian-Turkish force led by Field-Marshal August von
Mackensen, with no supplies coming from the Allies, and Russia collapsing under
the February revolution, personally I am amazed Romanians lasted almost twenty
months.
>ati reusit sa ocupati cu forta o parte din teritoriul unei tari
>mici, pasnice, vecine, care nicioata nu v-a atacat pe Dumneavoastra.
If you are referring to August 26, 1916, Romania went to war against the Dual
Monarchy, which was neither a small nor a peaceful country. If you are referring
to the events of 1919, the Bolshevik Hungarian Republic, as small as it was, it
was the aggressor, not the aggressee.
>"referendumul dela Gyulafehervar" nu a tinut seama de stipulatia clara
>dela punctul 10 din cele "14 puncte" recomandate de Presedintele Woodrow
>Wilson. Ma refer la "dreptul popoarelor la autodeterminare" (sper ca ati
>auzit de asta).
Wilson's Fourteen Points speech, delivered in January 8, 1918, made no
reference to national self-determination for *all* the people, but referred
specifically to the people of Russia (#6) and autonomy for the nationalities of
Austria-Hungary (#10), which means Wilson's views did not include yet
breaking-up Austria-Hungaria.
Wilson will elaborate only later on national self-determination--
see his Four Principles (February 11) and Five Particulars (September
27) speeches.
In October 1918, the Germans asked for a general armistice based on Wilson's
Fourteen points, but the territorial matters were complicated because Wilson had
no clue about the treaties already signed between the European Allies, on one
side, and Romania and Greece, on the other side. Nonetheless, the Peace Treaty
was signed in the spring of 1919, **after** the December 1, 1918, National
Assembly of Alba Iulia.
Moreover, it is incorrect to say the resolution drafted at Alba Iulia did not
take into account Wilson's national self-determination principle (see below).
> Referendumul dela Alba Iulia trebuia sa fie UNIVERSAL, deci al TUTUROR
>CETATENILOR, de TOATE NATIONALITATILE, pentruca asa a dorit Presedintele
>Statelor Unite. Asa a fost? Nicidecum.
When and who decided what was supposed to happened at Alba Iulia? Romanians
summoned at Alba Iulia a **national** assembly. The resolution signed by 1228
delegates proclaimed **Romanians'** will for union. It says nothing about where
the frontiers will be, and decided nothing for the other nationalities of
Transylvania. It specifically recognized the right of the Peace Conference to
settle "the definitive boundaries of the state thus constituted" and pledge to
treat minorities "in accordance with the principle enumerated by President
Wilson."
>La 8 Aprilie 1918, liderii ai tuturor minoritatilor nationale din
>Transylvania se intalnesc in meetingul dela ROMA,
For your information, that was the Congress of **Oppressed** Nationalities. It
was organized for all the non-Hungarian and non-German nationalities from
Austria-Hungary, not only for those of Transylvania. Nevertheless, no Romanian
leader from Transylvania participated.
>Presedintele Wilson a fost foarte afectat de
>faptul ca la Alba Iulia au participat numai Romanii,
Can you back up this statement with an exact reference and a quotation?
Mircea
Mircea
>precum faptul ca Viena in 1918 a ajuns in debandada, iar la un moment
>dat ordinea a fost pastratata de catre soldati romani din armata
>imperiala.
It was in Prague where a large part of the garrison was constituted of Romanian
troops, not in Vienna.
>Maniu care fusese colonel in armata
>imperiala, dezerteaza si fuge din Italia, aparind la suprafata in
>Viena, unde ministrul de razboi ii asigura o aripa a ministerului
>unde Maniu organizeaza trupele de ordine ale Vienei.
It was at Vaida's suggestion that Archduke Joseph, himself recently returned
from Italy, allowed Maniu to leave the front and represent Romanians interests
in Vienna. The Austrians still hoped to save the empire, and were willing to
patch things with Romanians over the Hungarians' heads. Maniu formed a "Sfat" of
Romanian soldiers, with over 100 officers, but their activity was purely
political.
Mircea
Mihai Chivulescu
Dorin M. Petre wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 05:36:24 -0800, Mihai Chivulescu
> <mihai.ch...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
rastalmacesti intelesul vorbelor mele? Eu ma refeream la faptul ca
nu reusesc sa plasez in timp, perioada in care taranii romani ardeleni
au pradat castelele grofilor. Majoritatea familiilor romanesti isi
amintesc de aceasta perioada. Tu ca regatean care te tragi probabil
din Baragan(ai tai probabil ieseau pe brinci din bordeiele lor), nu
prea poti intelege ce vreau sa spun. Nu ma surprinde.
>
> Aia cu
> razboiul dintre Romania si Republica Sovietica Ungara, cu ocuparea
> Budapestei si cacealmaua Aliatilor de la Trianon. N'ai ceva rude sa'ti
> spuna cum au inceput ostilitatile? (Niste nenorociti de soldati romani
> au lovit cu piepturili niste gloante pasnice unguresti care tomnai
> treceau si ele p'acolo in cautare de recomandari de la Marele
> Comandament Aliat, sau cam asa ceva)
>
pe derbedeul ala de evreu sovietic, Bella Kuhn, de unde a venit, afla
ca au fost ostasii romani din Ardeal care au facut treaba aia buna de
care tu ca regatean brincinar nu prea poti percepe. Asta tot rudele
mele mi-au spus, care mai mi-au povestit de paduchiosii din regat.
> Dorin M. Petre
>
> PS Mi'a venit o idee foarte originala: ce-ar fi sa te treci pa la o
> biblioteca?! Poate reusesti sa localizezi perioada 1919, 1920.
Ai aceleasi reactii ca acel S.Dancs, cu alte cuvinte, esti infantil.
Tot cu puta-n nisip?
Mihai
Mihai Chivulescu
este dominat de pecenegi, cumani, tatari, unguri, bulgari, greci, ca
apoi de-a lungul secolelor elementul romanesc sa devina predominant
asimilind pe cel ce inainte ii fusese elementul dominant, si precum
spui ca acelasi fenomen social, cultural este de regasit in istoria
a multor altor popoare, ce e rau prin urmare la noi romanii?
Ce este rau in faptul ca elementul neaos, romanesc a fost de a lungul
secolelor IV-XIV total abscons, ca dintr-o data in sec. XIV sa
rabufneasca la suprafata? Ceea ce uiti, citind probabil istorie,
este ca o metoda stiintifica de studiu, de obliga sa faci si studii
comparative, si interdisciplinare. In perioada interbelica Romania a
cunoscut o excelenta scoala sociologica, cea a lui Gusti (Scoala
Sociologica de la Bucuresti), care prin studiile ei da sens, si da
demnitate societatii romanesti. Datorita faptului ca aceasta scoala
a produs foarte multi simpatizanti ai miscarii legionare(sa nu-l uitam
si pe celebrul Mircea Eliade, sau pe Cioran), perioada comunista a
reusit sa distruga in mare parte din constiinta istoricilor importanta
descoperirilor acestei scoli. Un eminent reprezentant al acestei scoli
a fost H.H.Stahl, care printre altele a avut mai multe lucrari despre
societatea devalmasa romanesca, si a elaborat o teorie a societatii
tributale romanesti. In orice caz fenomenul romanesc este prea complex
pentru a fi tratat marxist, conform dialecticii, ca un conflict
etnic intre daco-romani si unguri. Efectiv sint ridicoli toti cei
care trateaza astfel problema.
> > [ ... some interesting stuff ... ]
> >
> > For me, daco-romanity served its purpose. It helped the Romanians to
> > raise their voice in front of the vanity of the Maghiar nobility.
> > But now, I think,it is of no help to us.
>
> It is true that continuity was both a fact and a means. The to work
> badly
> together. Especially after falling
> into the Ceausescu kitch, improvement of knowledge became impossible.
> I am convinced that continuity is a _fact_, it only is not the only fact
> about early middle age on romanian soil - or in balkan. As long as the
> named vanity and the "scientific" sarcasm that gos with it, on one
side,
"scientific sarcams" -- ce vrei sa spui????? De unde vezi tu sarcasm,
cind ma refer la vanitatea unor nobili, care nu pot accepta ca opincarul
care ii munceste pamintul, ar putea avea pretentii aspura pamintului
lui datorita originii sale daco-romane?
> and, on the other (romanian) side the defensive attitude consisting in
de unde mai vezi aceasta "atitudine defensiva"? d-le, vad ca ai
o capacitate paranormala de a citi printre rinduri? Nu esti cumva
unul din acele ciudatenii din dosarele X?
> a total fear of any facts that _seem_ inconsistent with fundamentalist
> conitnuity, I do not think that understanding can grow. It is only when
Intr-adevar, cu atitudinea fundamentalista funoriota, WC public, am
o problema serioasa.
> history will be deprived of political impact that we will learn to
> understand how daco-roman continuity cohabitated with invasions, slav
> state
> building, hungarian conquest and so many more. We probably look in the
> wrong
d-le, mai studiaza putin societatile medievale europene! Interesant
in evul mediu, a fost tocmai diversitatea etnica, culturala a
societatilor care formau un stat feudal. Insasi vasalii erau de origine
etnica diferita, dar ce sa mai spunem de gloata? De aceea aportul
sociologilor este foarte important. Ceea ce istoricii sint incapabili
sa lamureasca, o fac insa cu succes sociologii. De exemplu, noi vorbim
de societatea romaneasca, uitind sa vorbim de numeroasele minoritati
coabitatante. Stiati ca niste monografii facute pentru Gusti, au
relevat faptul, ca in Moldova, undeva pe Bistrita, exista un sat
intreg format din descendenti ai avarilor? Insasi trasaturile
antromorfologice erau orientale. Sint multe astfel de exceptii pe care
istoricii au reusit sa le reduca la tacere, pentru ei ele formind niste
exceptii, si de aceea le-au ignorat, le-au devalorizat.
Mi se pare ridicol sa vorbim de daco-romani, cind habar nu avem ce
au insemnat dacii, cine au fost ei? Care sint urmele culturale, genetice
pe care ni le-au transmis? Cuvintele brad, brinza etc? Lingvistii au
cam dat-o in bara la acest capitol. Parerea mea, ca marxismul, prin
dialectica istorica, lupta intre forte opuse ca forta motrica a istoriei
si-a pus amprenta din plin asupra kitsch-ului continuitatii daco-romane
si daca am fi decenti, i-am lasa pe unguri singuri sa se omoare cu ea.
Vanitatea lor, are cel mai mult de suferit.
Preda Mihailescu
Gustav Horvath wrote:
>
> Alexander,
>
> While I have a rather good idea concerning the roots of this "Romance"
> language -as you say- I do not wish to expand on this thread before my
> previous question gets at least a half-satisfactory answer.
>
> >you'll not that it took place significantly after the fall of the
> >Western Roman Empire. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, was the religion
> >of the Eastern Roman Empire.
>
> schism (perhaps even a "tiny" bit more, than you would give me credit
> for.)
> carefully you should see that It has to do with the time of
> counter-reformation, namely if the originally eastern Magyars,
> (you might say if you wish, "asiatic Magyars" I certainly do not mind)
> sakes got the "Dacis"? Why did they let this get past over and in this
> process let the Magyars become more Roman then the "ROMANians
> themselves.
>
You should know, if you do have so good ideas about "romance" issues...
The roots of the catholic schism lay in the year of 800, when the
bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne as Emperor of the Western Roman
Empire (revived). At that time, Romanians had been christians for more
than four centuries and were tied to the Byzantine empire (Roman empire
without interruption). In fact Byzance did not agree with the germanic
refoundation of the western empire, and the dissense grew and eventually
lead also to a schism of the churches. During this process, the
hungarians, which were, as we know, not yet christians, came in closer
contact with the forces close to the western empire and thus, while
being christianized by the one church, at the time of schism, there ties
were on the part of Rome, while those of the Romanians were on the part
of Byzance. Both, roman in the acception of the times. And your
confounding roman ethnicity with roman church jurisdiction is rather
strange. So obviously there was not a choice in terms of romanity and
non romanity, but both hungarians and romanians stayed on the side on
which they had been already before the schisms. Romanity was not an
issue, since both churches claimed to be Rome (one was the church of
Rome, the other, the church of the still existing Roman Empire of East).
But while we are at answering questions with other questions, I have
myself a question - which has less to do with romanity, but much to do
with another topic which is very often raised by Hungarians: the claim
that the Wilsonian points were not respected by Romanians after Trianon.
Can you explain, how did the Hungarians themselves respect these points
with respect to the Romanians which remained in Hungary ? Short after
Trianon, their number was about 350 000, presently it reduced to 20000 !
How much better should Romania behave than Hungary ?
Have a nice week end
Preda Mihailescu
Mircea
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:05:57 +0100, Preda Mihailescu <miha...@inf.ethz.ch>
wrote:
>During this process, the
>hungarians, which were, as we know, not yet christians,
It is very probable that Arpad's federation included some Christian elements
too. After all, Constantine visited the Hungarian clans several years before
starting the Moravian mission.
>came in closer
>contact with the forces close to the western empire and thus, while
>being christianized by the one church, at the time of schism, there ties
>were on the part of Rome,
Christianity among Hungarians entered first in Transylvania, via Constantinople.
Vajk, latter St. Istvan, received his Christian name, Stephen, after a
Transylvanian uncle.
Mircea
Preda Mihailescu
Mihai Chivulescu wrote:
> >
> > It is known that the "descalecari" of the romanian wojwodates were
> > triggered
> > by slavs and cumans. This is by the way typical for many european
> > nations,
> > like France , Italy: the first states were built by germans. However
> > noone
> > had problems with the latin continuity of french and they are also
> > allowed
> > to call the Galls there ancestors - in fact also the black in the
> > colonies
> > learn about "nos ancetres les gaulois :-)".
> >
> Si care ar fi problema?
- se pare ca sintem de acord, de ce toata tirada ?
>
> "scientific sarcams" -- ce vrei sa spui?????
Nu lua totul personal ! Sarcasm de genul cartii de exil maghiar citata
aici, care isi denumeste primul capitol in modul "continuitatea
daco-romana, o frumoasa povestire romantica" sau asemanator.
>
> de unde mai vezi aceasta "atitudine defensiva"? d-le, vad ca ai
> o capacitate paranormala de a citi printre rinduri? Nu esti cumva
> unul din acele ciudatenii din dosarele X?
>
Vad intr-adevar ca sinteti fixat pr propria persoana. Atitudinea
romeasca defensiva este din pacate foarte raspindita - eu nu am spus ca
dumneavoastra sinteti un exponent acestei atitudini. Poate eu sint mai
mult, poate Bulichi sau Mitichi, Dumnezeu stie. Fapt este ca existenta
unei atitudini defensive nu este - din pacate - de tagaduit. Iata chiar
si in aceste discutii, cum diversi maghiari - la inceput doar Dancs, au
putut ridica chestiuni din cele mai semidocte, evita raspunsul la
intrebari meritate, totul cu cea mai mare detasare. Iar romanii care nu
i-au injurat, ce-au facut: lungi explicatii! La aceasta ma refer, intre
altele.
> > a total fear of any facts that _seem_ inconsistent with fundamentalist
> > conitnuity, I do not think that understanding can grow. It is only when
>
> Intr-adevar, cu atitudinea fundamentalista funoriota, WC public, am
> o problema serioasa.
>
> > history will be deprived of political impact that we will learn to
> > understand how daco-roman continuity cohabitated with invasions, slav
> > state
> > building, hungarian conquest and so many more. We probably look in the
> > wrong
>
> d-le, mai studiaza putin societatile medievale europene! Interesant
> in evul mediu, a fost tocmai diversitatea etnica, culturala a
> societatilor care formau un stat feudal.
Poate le explici ungurilor aceste lucruri, d-le ! Nu prea inteleg pe ce
pozitii ma situezi ?
> Insasi vasalii erau de origine
> etnica diferita, dar ce sa mai spunem de gloata?
Evident, iar nobilimea romana se maghiariza in timp ce nobilii maghiari
saraciti si Robin Hood ai lor, prin pauperizare deveneau "romani". Vezi
Gehorghe Doja, etc. You preach to the convert.
> [ ... ] Parerea mea, ca marxismul, prin
> dialectica istorica, lupta intre forte opuse ca forta motrica a istoriei
> si-a pus amprenta din plin asupra kitsch-ului continuitatii daco-romane
> si daca am fi decenti, i-am lasa pe unguri singuri sa se omoare cu ea.
> Vanitatea lor, are cel mai mult de suferit.
Aici nu sint sigur ca am inteles idea ?
Preda Mihailescu
Dorin M. Petre
>Eu ma refeream la faptul ca nu reusesc sa plasez in timp, perioada in care
>taranii romani ardeleni au pradat castelele grofilor.
Deh, ma, fiule, vorba neamtului: a la guerre, comme a la guerre!
>Tu ca regatean care te tragi probabil din Baragan
Nu, nu! Io ma trag din Oltenia, din Boierii Craiovesti, aia care au
dat 8 domnitori Tarii Romanesti si l'au facut Voda pa Mihai Viteazu'.
> (ai tai probabil ieseau pe brinci din bordeiele lor)
Sa poate sa ai dreptate, fiule, ca ai mei avura mosii multe, iar pa
aia da la Daciulesti, primita cu hrisov de la Tepelus Voda, aveau si
tarani legati da glie.
>Si inca o chestie, bai tembelule, cind in 1919, romanii l-au trimis
>pe derbedeul ala de evreu sovietic, Bella Kuhn, de unde a venit, afla
>ca au fost ostasii romani din Ardeal care au facut treaba aia buna de
>care tu ca regatean brincinar nu prea poti percepe.
Ei, acu' ca'mi explicasi asa da elocvent am inteles si io, in fine!
Multumesc! Auzi, numa' ca uite ce zice acilea in carticica asta da
istorie: cica primele regimente romanesti care au intrat in Budapesta
au fost Regimentul 2 Dorobanti Valcea si Regimentul 10 Dorobanti
Braila! Io's plecat cam da mult din Romania, asa ca, spune'mi si mie,
pa unde prin Transilvania sunt Valcea si Braila? Poate le intrebi si
pa rudele alea ale tale...
>Tot cu puta-n nisip?
Nu! Da' daca trebuie, invata-ma si pa mine cum faci!
Dorin M. Petre
Alexander N. Bossy
tu...@junctionnet.com (Gustav Horvath) wrote:
> (Alexander N. Bossy) wrote:
>
>>Romanian is a Romance language.
>While I have a rather good idea concerning the roots of this "Romance"
>language
It is a Romance language. There is no need to put the word Romance in
quotes, since that implies that you question the rather obvious fact.
>>Do at least a tiny bit of research on the Orthodox-Catholic schism;
>>you'll not that it took place significantly after the fall of the
>>Western Roman Empire. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, was the religion
>>of the Eastern Roman Empire.
>
>Well, indeed, I already did a bit of research on the question of
>schism (perhaps even a "tiny" bit more, than you would give me credit
>for.)
If you did, you certainly didn't let that research inform your
question in any way whatsoever.
>- but my question did not go back that far. If you read it more
>carefully you should see that It has to do with the time of
>counter-reformation, namely if the originally eastern Magyars,
>(you might say if you wish, "asiatic Magyars" I certainly do not mind)
>had become so western oriented as religion goes, why not, for heaven
>sakes got the "Dacis"?
1) By the time of the counter-reformation, we're talking about
Romanians not Dacians.
2) Why should their religious beliefs have anything to do with who
their ancestors were more than a thousand years earlier?
>Why did they let this get past over and in this
>process let the Magyars become more Roman then the "ROMANians
>themselves.
Huh? Are you arguing that all Romans have to be Catholic? Does this
include people like Augustus and Romulus?
Alexander
Preda Mihailescu
> tu...@junctionnet.com (Gustav Horvath) wrote:
>
>>Do at least a tiny bit of research on the Orthodox-Catholic schism;
>>you'll not that it took place significantly after the fall of the
>>Western Roman Empire. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, was the religion
>>of the Eastern Roman Empire.
>
>Well, indeed, I already did a bit of research on the question of
>schism (perhaps even a "tiny" bit more, than you would give me credit
>for.)
Then let us see it! Are you aware ( accepting might be a more accurate
word in the context ) that the first germs for the schysm were laid by
the bishop of Rome crowing a germanic (the franc Charlemagne) litteraly
as emperor of the western Roman empire ? Byzance which was an
uninterrupted heir of the romanity did not recognize this title and the
discord droped slowly in the church leading to the schysm.
You see thus, that at that time who is who in romanity was read
differently, and you should not be lead astray by the denomination of
"roman church" sometimes used for the catholic one.
Anyhow after all the history discussed here, a position from your side
concerning the proved fact that Romanians did not choose catholicism
mainly because of the hungarian interference with the pope and of their
trying to reduce them to vassality by means of the church, should be
fair - and substantial.
All the best
Preda Mihailescu