Transylvania History

Is it right that the territory of Transylvania is part of Romania? I know this is a Romanian forum but try to be objective... Some Historians claims that is is right because before the Hungarian occupation it was the Kingdom od Dacia where the Romanians come from. Also another question, is true that all the important river in Transylvania don't have Romanian names?

Depends on who you ask. If you ask Romanians, they will say it's right, if you ask Hungarians they will say it's wrong. There will always be disputed territories and people who will say it's right/wrong. There were two internationally recognized treaties that awarded Transylvania to Romania.

As for the river names, I'm no expert, but I think some of them date back to Dacian/Roman times.

No, its not true.

No, its not true.

In some ways we can say it is true!

... because, most of them are adapted from old dacic language to the romanian language (formed from old dacia language, enriched with latin words and by years with foreign words like "setare" from settings [i know, we have "configurare"... but i use "ma duc sa setez" and not "ma cheama ***** ala ca si-a ****** configurarile", when my office phone rings ] ).


Iama

Hi Benoit,

If one accepts the Hungarian version, the Vlachs (Romanians) moved into Transilvania from south of the Danube from the medieval period onwards.

However, this was not an invasion, but a migration. As much of the area had been depopulated by wars with Turkey, the Hungarians were content to have the land repopulated by Vlach peasants who could work it for them. In the era of multi-ethnic states before the emergence of nationalism in the early 19th Century this was not particularly controversial to either Vlachs or Hungarians.

However, in the mid 19th Centrury first Hungarian, and then Romanian nationalism emerged and came into conflict in Transilvania. By then the Romanians were the largest population group in Transilvania (see the Hungarian census of 1910), especially in most rural areas. As a result, when frontiers were redrawn on more ethnically based lines after WWI the area was awarded to Romania.

My feeling is that, even if the above essentially Hungarian line is taken, the Romanian demographic advantage in Transilvania was achieved peacably. Hungary's first defeat was demographic - the Vlachs appear to have out-bred them over several centuries. Their second defeat was the emergence of ethnicity as a factor in deciding frontiers. As a result, by the 1918 Romania's claim to Transilvania was at least as convincing as Hungary's.

Today, the ballance has shifted further in Romanian favour. Transilvania's cities, which were largely Hungarian-, German- and Jewish- populated in 1910, mostly have Romanian majorities today, while the German and Jewish minorities have largely disappeared.

Even if one ignores the Daco-Roman line of argument, I can't see any strong reason why the peaceful population trends of the last few centuries shouldn't be recognised as giving Romania a good claim to Transilvania.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid! You know a lot of the Romania's history!
What is your job? You are a historyan? a geographyst, maybe?

Iama

This post has been edited by Iamandi on August 11, 2005 11:30 am

Sid, i recommend you to make some research about names like: Gelu, Glad, Menumorut... etc. Even Chevalier Iosim Bata. Maybe Horea, Closca, Crisan...

Maybe Bobalna (Bobilna) revolt to see for yourself, because what you said here: "However, in the mid 19th Centrury first Hungarian, and then Romanian nationalism emerged and came into conflict in Transilvania. " is not ok.

You have some minuses! I will not give you an "A" at history of Transilvania...

Iama

Hi Iama,

There is a post-facto tendency for uprisings to be claimed as "nationalistic". Take for example, the Indian Mutiny, which was a localised event but which nationalist Indian historians now try to claim was a nationalist uprising.

Peasant revolts against foreign overlords have occurred throughout history. Before the 1790s the fact that one side have a particular ethnicity was often historically of little relevance in nationalistic terms. In Britain we had the Peasants Revolt, in which a peasantry of largely Anglo-Saxon stock revolted against an aristocracy of largely Norman stock. However, it was not an uprising provoked by a national consciousness. It was provoked by the conditions of serfdom and vassalage.

The mere fact that an uprising occurred amongst Romanians is not necessarily an indication that national consciousness was what provoked it. I will look up the characters you recommend.

Cheers,

Sid.

Ok! I accept your words about revolt. But, we don't came in Transilvania from the South of the Danube...

Iama

Depopulated by the Turks now... Wow!

Sid, a number of theories have been launched trying to do everything to challenge the romanian claim over Transylvania.
At first it was claimed that after the Dacian Wars there were no more dacians left to romanise. Then it was claimed that the time of roman occupation was too short to lead to romanisation. Afterwards it was claimed that the romans withdrew from Dacia en masse living no roman colonist and no romanised dacian behind.
Then it was claimed that the romanians migrated from the south.
Everything had to be made up to show that at the time of the hungarian entry in Transylvania the region was depopulated, and hence the first claim of possesion goes to them.

The theory is shallow and it has been scholarly refuted by respected romanian scholars like Xenopol and Dimitrie Onciul, just to name a few.

As for the romanian migration into Transylvania, I doubt that had anything to do with the hungarian need for hired labour. It was only a natural population movement between regions always inhabited by that population. Otherwise the hungarians would have rejected the intrusion like they rejected other migrations. And that migration went the other way too, from Transylvania to the outside.

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

take care

Hi Imperialist,

The problem for Romanian nationalists is not to show that the Roman province of Dacia existed and that there were Latin speakers in the Transilvania area some 700 hundred years before the Hungarians arrived. The problem is to show continuity in Latin occupation. This remains problematical due to the comparitively brief Roman presence and the many migrations across the area in the intervening period. I think it is perfectly plausible, but not definitively proven. Furthermore, even with proven cultural and linguistic continuity, there does not have to be national consciousness.

However, I agree fully that the chances of Transilvania ever being completely unpopulated in the last 10,000 years is virtually non existent. If Man lived in remote and inhospitable places like Easter Island, Tasmania, Tierra del Fuego, Greenland, Siberia or the Kalahari Desert, then it is inconceivable that a fertile area like Transilvania in the middle of a continental land mass was unoccupied when the Hungarians arrived.

I did not say that the theory suggested that the Vlachs moved north of the Danube in response to a Hungarian demand for labour. I suggested that the theory goes that Vlach settlers moved in autonomously after Transilvania was devastated by Turkish invasion and the Hungarians found it more advantageous to use them as serfs than to leave the area depopulated.

I think the Romanian claim to Transilvania is supportable, whether there was Daco-Roman continuity or not.

In any event, DNA analysis of burials in Transilvania should soon establish on a firmer basis whether there was or was not Daco-Roman continuity in Transilvania after the Roman withdrawal.

Cheers,

Sid.

I really doubt that, especialy since the Hungarians weren't the ones "occupying" it all along until 1918. Following the fall of the Kingdom of St. Istvan after the Battle of Mohacs in the early 16th century and then the subsequent Ottoman conquest of present-day Hungary in 1541, Transylvania became an autonomous principality, under the Porte's suzeranity. The western parts of Transylvania were also briefly conquered (Timisioara/Temesvar, Oradea/Nagyvarad). The principality prospered under the leadeship of several strong princes and was involved in the politics of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 16th and 17th centuries. There were several instances were the princes of the three regions allied themselves against one of them or even against the Porte. There was even the brief union of the three by the conquest of Michael the Brave.

At the beginning of the 17th century, after the death of Michael the Brave, a new power arrived in Transylvania: the Habsburgs. The principality of Transylvania was even involved in the fighting of the 30 Years War, on the Protestant side, before loosing most of its power and being incorporated into the Austrian Empire at the end of the 17th century.

The Hungarian state reappeared in 1867 and Transylvania was incorporated in it. IMO only from then can we speak of Hungarian "occupation". Prior to 1541, there were no national states.

The two peasant uprisings in 1437 and 1514 were not Romanian national uprisings, as Hungarian serfs also took part in them. The second one was even led by a Szekler. The 1784-85 revolt also had predominatly social motives behind it. Supplex Libelus Valachorum was written several years after it, by educated Romanians.

I really doubt that, especialy since the Hungarians weren't the ones "occupying" it all along until 1918. Following the fall of the Kingdom of St. Istvan after the Battle of Mohacs in the early 16th century and then the subsequent Ottoman conquest of present-day Hungary in 1541, Transylvania became an autonomous principality, under the Porte's suzeranity. The western parts of Transylvania were also briefly conquered (Timisioara/Temesvar, Oradea/Nagyvarad). The principality prospered under the leadeship of several strong princes and was involved in the politics of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 16th and 17th centuries. There were several instances were the princes of the three regions allied themselves against one of them or even against the Porte. There was even the brief union of the three by the conquest of Michael the Brave.

At the beginning of the 17th century, after the death of Michael the Brave, a new power arrived in Transylvania: the Habsburgs. The principality of Transylvania was even involved in the fighting of the 30 Years War, on the Protestant side, before loosing most of its power and being incorporated into the Austrian Empire at the end of the 17th century.

The Hungarian state reappeared in 1867 and Transylvania was incorporated in it. IMO only from then can we speak of Hungarian "occupation". Prior to 1541, there were no national states.

The two peasant uprisings in 1437 and 1514 were not Romanian national uprisings, as Hungarian serfs also took part in them. The second one was even led by a Szekler. The 1784-85 revolt also had predominatly social motives behind it. Supplex Libelus Valachorum was written several years after it, by educated Romanians.

Why do you start directly with the 16th century? Wasnt there a Hungary before it was defeated by the Ottoman empire?

I hope you are not mixing the subjects.Though there werent national states in the modern sense, there were political bodies built around an ethnic homogenous nucleus. Disputing this fact is weird IMHO. Also the awareness of ethnic differences was obvious as is today. A romanian could understand that he is ethnically different from an ethnic hungarian, and he instinctively grouped with his own. I think you mean to say this fact did not gain a dominant position in policy-making, but thats not the same with saying that the occupation or presence of a foreign ethnic element was not perceived!

Yes, hungarian serfs took part in them, but again you are not telling the complete story.
After the uprisings the hungarians, the germans and the szekelers joined forces in the Unio Trium Nationum. Sidelining the romanian population completely.
And I'll abstain from saying more.

edit -- ofcourse I'm talking about 1437 UTN...

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 11, 2005 04:04 pm

Like I said, there was no national state in the Middle Ages. Sure there was a Kindgdom of Hungary before the 16th century, but it wasn't the Hungary of 1867. It was a whole different thing. Not even the kings were always Hungarian ethnics, btw.

I believe that one cannot mix Middle Age states with modern ones, simply because they differ very much.

Sure there was ethnic awarness, but from this to claim that "occupation was perceived" there is a long way. The notion of national property did not exist or at least this is my impression. The Romanian serf did not care if he was ruled by an ethnic Hungarian or Romanian nobleman. To him it was the same. And since he had no property of his own, how could he feel under "foreign occupation"?

Actually it is you who are not saying the complete story. These weren't the "Hungarians", the "Germans" and the "Szeklers", but noblemen of this ethnicity. The Middle Ages "nations" were the nobles, the rest did not count.

You should also have mentioned what all these three groups had in common and what Romanians didn't: Catholicism. The other important status of the Middle Ages: religion.

You can be sure that if there were many Romanian catholic nobles in Transylvania, there would have been a fourth "nation". But there weren't that many Romanian noblemen around and most of them were Eastern Orthodox.

Actually it is you who are not saying the complete story. These weren't the "Hungarians", the "Germans" and the "Szeklers", but noblemen of this ethnicity. The Middle Ages "nations" were the nobles, the rest did not count.

You should also have mentioned what all these three groups had in common and what Romanians didn't: Catholicism. The other important status of the Middle Ages: religion.

You can be sure that if there were many Romanian catholic nobles in Transylvania, there would have been a fourth "nation". But there weren't that many Romanian noblemen around and most of them were Eastern Orthodox.

I'm sorry but they were Hungarian, German and Szeklers. Their class is irrelevant as long as there were no Romanian equivalents to them allowed in UTN.

Its like saying "it was not a romanian national uprising against the hungarians/germans/szeklers because there were hungarian serfs participating, and the UTN wasnt against the romanian ethnics because the hungarians, germans and szeklers signing it were... nobles!"

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

The part with the property and the exploited serf who cared not who his exploiters were sounds more like an old communist thesis. Those serfs were the prototypes of communist workers despising the shackles of exploitation regardless of nationality and joining brotherly forces with fellow workers... etc.

I dont think property has anything to do with group spirit, identity and rejection of foreign occupation.
Why did the dacians reject the roman occupation? Did they hava a modern state and national property? Why were there "free dacians" that chose to live outside that occupation? Did they comprehend what occupation meant?
Yes, we shouldnt mix
modern states with medieval political entities, but neither should we claim the 19th century national revolution invented anything else but the political expectations for national unification. It did not invent the nations or the self-awareness needed for that, it capitalised on existing values/awareness.

take care