Transylvania History

So what you are saying is that the UTN was not directed only against Romanians, and not only because of their ethnicity, but also because of their religion and social status. Is that it? I dont want to put words in your mouth, so I'll wait your response before following my argument further.

So what you want is an inscription or something that would show the dacians in question considered themselves free from roman occupation. And if that inscription is not found, the "free" part is just a 19-20th century term that makes us better understand the political reality of that time, but does not necessarily depict correctly that reality. Have you ever considered that the "free" term might be actually taken from an ancient text or an ancient author? Why was your first reaction to dismiss it because of its 19 or 20th century "age"? Somehow this looks very much similar to what Sid is doing in the linguistic discussion. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats how I view it.

If you ever read the political-historical and philosophical books of the antiquity you'd know that the political thought of the times was fairly advanced.
The very complicated idea that I attributed to the dacians was that of "freedom/being free". If you allow me a little sarcasm, I bet the dacians needed a combustion engine for the idea of "freedom" to pop in their little heads...

Please continue the discussion on Romanian language here:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2382

It's great to see that this thread is still about Transylvania History... Anyone here interested to talk about the Polish occupation of Transylvania during the period of 1572 to 1576. I have to mentionned that it was during the time of the Kingdom of Poland & Lithuania from 1569 to 1795. How was the life during that occupation?

Regards

I don't think it can be called Polish occupation. It was more of a unioin under the same monarch. The King of Poland, Stephen Bathory (1575-1586), was also the prince of Transylvania. He had been viovode of Transylvania since 1571, before becomming King of Poland and was born in Transylvania in a family that had given another two voivodes before him.

Well, Imperialist, I have waited 4 days now and still you haven't come forth with anything to back your initial statement. You seem to avoid doing it for whatever reason.

Unio Trium Nationum was wrongly protrayed, especially in the Comunist era, as a 15th century conspiracy directed against Romanians. I, personally, find it very far-fetched, given the feudal mentality on the importance of ethnicity, when compared to religion and social status. It wasn't 1867 Hungary, but feudal Hungary. If there were any big Romanian Catholic nobles around they would have most likely joined in.

This whole UNT stuff started off from the Bobilna Revolt discussion, which as already said wasn't a Romanian national uprising, but just a peasant revolt, with Hungarian peasants participating, as well as Romanians.

The "free Dacians" discussion is probably another digression you introduced, probably lacking any arguments to support your initial claim. I don't see much point in it, but I will indulge you and answer your questions.

Unless you come up with an example of ancient text depicting the Carpians, Costobocs etc. as "free Dacians" there is no need for me to consider it. Let's stick to facts that we can back up.

The political thought was advanced in the "civilzied" parts of the ancient world. Like I said, we don't know that much about the Dacian tribes and their level of of political civilizations, so assuming too much, without facts, is far-fetched. I doubt that the Carpians, when raiding Roman Dacia made any difference between other Dacian tribes and Roman settlers when pillaging or that they wanted to "liberate" Dacia. Of course, you are welcome to try to proove it.

And I fail to see your exasperation at me pointing out the exclusive non-romanian character of the UTN. You even admitted that was the case, because romanians were poor and orthodox. So? Was it or was it not an exclusive club, closed to romanians? And for how long did UTN last, and what was its impact on keeping the romanians poor and below the favoured Trio of Nations?

Then dont consider it. Its your choice how you study history.

Given that the dacian tribes were united under a single leadership and assumed a single political identity, I think the political thought was fairly well advanced.

Tribal alliances and temporary personal unions don't necessarily mean advanced political thought. And the Dacians never really had a coherent state. Not even during the times of Burebista and Decebal. And even if ethnic identity can be proven in ancient times it will have long been washed away by the Dark Ages. After all, we are not really Dacians or Romans, the Italians are not Romans, the French are not Gauls and the English are neither Saxons nor Celts. Just the fact that we trace our ancestry to any of these peoples doesn't make us one and the same with them.

As for the ideea of freedom, no one really contests it. It's as old as time. The real issue here is what kind of freedom are we talking about? The Middle Ages are filled with peoples' demands for personal freedom, social emancipation, religious freedom, but national freedom is unheard of. It's really not even an issue yet. I'm sure anybody can produce evidence of ethnic affiliation but that alone is no evidence of national identity. A nation is a lot more than ethnicity.

National issues only really come into play once a nation has defined and claimed it's identity. Before that we're talking about ethnic issues at best. Moreover, I think that in order for a group (nation in this case) to be acknowledged as such it must be internally and not externally defined. Even if the group is identified as a threat from the outside (i.e. Hungarians or whatever persecuting the Vlachs) it's not really relevant before that group decides that it shares a common cause and has to stick together.

As a relevant example, although England and France have repeatedly clashed over feudal issues in the early Middle Ages both French and British historians only consider it a conflict between the English and the French peoples from the time of the 100 Years War onwards. Before that it's purely a feudal conflict. And it was likely the same in early Medieval Transylvania. This, of course does not disprove continuous Romanian occupation of the area. It's simply that nationality was not much of an issue at the time.

Well, if we are to be strict about this, neither social emancipation was an issue. The idea of social emancipation in the ME was a marxist interpretation of events. Even the idea of personal freedom being an issue in the ME could most likely be traced to the period of struggle against the monarchies in Europe for more political power and personal freedoms.

About free dacians,and about dacian advanced political thought there is couple antiq prouve for this.Even they dont have an united state for a long time,the greeks was spread in couple cities-states too(at least until Phillip the Second and Alexander the Great forced unification.Germanic people even dont have an unified state,under a single ruler.I dont think dacians can be considered out of "civilized"part of antiq world.By contrary.And i dont want to talk about Dacia under Burebista or Decebal,who build a state who became one of the main powers of antiq world and most of people know of this.A prouve that "free"Dacians,Carpians and Costobocs was considered free in antiq times,is the fact that a long list of roman emperors,after Traian wars,and even after Aurelian retreat roman administration from north of Danube,take the over name Dacicus or Carpicus(maximus),who was gived for defeating an enemy.And this enemy was obviously an extern and free enemy.About Political thought of dacians after wars with Traian,ones of the raids in Roman empire was coordinated with rebelions of ocupied dacians,who fight too against romans.And another example of the fact that dacians considered himself as a nation was the roman emperor Caius Galerius Valerius Maximianus,250-311 AC(the Ler Imparat from our legends).Acording with Lactantius(240-320 AC)a roman christian writer,Galerius,who afirmed his dacian identity"he had avowed himself the enemy of the roman name,and he proposed that the empire should be called not the Roman,but the Dacian empire".And on his triumph arch from Salonic(erect to celebrate the victory against persian empire)can be see that many of his soldiers was dacians(apear even the famous dacian<draco>flag).Galerius,acording with Lactantiu,treating the romans citizens with cruelty,like conquerers treat the conquered,in the name of the same treatment who Traian applied to conquered dacians(forefathers of Galeriu)with two centuries before.I think this will prouve that dacians have a continuity in their political thought,and fight for freedom and a powerfull country(and nation).About nationality in Middle Age,we cant breake(in Transilvania) the religion believes from nationality.The best examples was Iancu de Hunedoara and his son Matei Corvin.They was able to rull in Transilvania and Hungary just if they renounce to Ortodox religion,and become Catholic,and,ofcourse speake hungarian.And i think we can define a nation not just base on sanguine link,but base on their religion,language,mits and common habits too

Back to the original question.

I'll try.

My very biased oppinon is that it's right.

The important rivers in Transilvania have Dacian names. The Dacians were conquered by the Romans and romanized. If the Hungarians' theory that all the people of Dacia left the province when the Romans retreated in 270-275 were true, then the rivers' names should have a different origin. Instead, we have: Mures (the original name was Marisus), Somes (Samus), Timis (Tibiscus), Olt (Alutus), Cris (Crisia), Cerna (Tsiernia).

Dacia included what is now Transilvania, indeed. The roman province of Dacia was more 'centered' on Transilvania, if I may say so, because it didn't include many other territories (only Oltenia and Banat). This is where the romanization took place, so that's where you may place the 'craddle' of the Romanian nation. Of course, this is also my biased oppinion.

This post has been edited by bogmih on September 04, 2005 11:30 am

The important rivers in Transilvania have Dacian names. The Dacians were conquered by the Romans and romanized. If the Hungarians' theory that all the people of Dacia left the province when the Romans retreated in 270-275 were true, then the rivers' names should have a different origin. Instead, we have: Mures (the original name was Marisus), Somes (Samus), Timis (Tibiscus), Olt (Alutus), Cris (Crisia), Cerna (Tsiernia).

another examples:

Tisia for actual Tisa

Porota for the Prut

Piretus for Siret

Ampelum for Ampoi

Ordessos for Arges.

Some foreign historians think that those are not evidences of the continuity of daco-romans in Transilvania. They think the transformation from the ancient names to the modern romanian names didn t follow the rules of the developement from latin to romanian language.

This cannot be accepted becouse we don t know if those dacian names were exactely and precisely writed with latin letters. So, we don t know the original pronunciation of the dacians >>>> we cannot establish the phonetic evolution - not a precisely one.

More than that, we can see another phenomenon: the new commers use to adapt the originaly names to their language:

the ancient dacian name of Bersovis (archeologicaly certified) was called by slavians Berzava (in slavic berzava is mean quick, fast, rapid), and now its still Berzava.

the ancient town Tsierna >>> and the river Tsierna , also certified with inscriptions) was called by slavians as Cerna >>. black, muddy.

This post has been edited by Dan Po on September 04, 2005 03:18 pm

The off-topic discussion on the Hundread Years' War was moved here.

udar, you misunderstood. The idea is if the "Free Dacians" were called so by the Romans themselves (Licens Dacorum - I believe this is the translation, but my Latin is rather poor). I seriously doubt such texts exist. That is why the "Free Dacians" were designated according to the tribes they belonged to. The term "free Dacians" is a modern creation.

Of course the Greeks were organized in a multitude of city-states, making up several different leagues. But, again, that is not the issue. The issue is that the state of cultural development they reached cannot be assumed for everyone living in the same century with them. If we would compare the level of the Dacian civilization with others, it must be with Celts, Germans, Thracians, not Greeks or Romans. They are a totally different category and claiming otherwise is the realm of fantasy. Unfortunately, even today the Communist theme of glorifying Dacians, of making them more than they actually were, continues.

Getting back to more relevant things regarding Transylvania, I don't understand why you say we shouldn't dissociate between Christian rite and ethnicity. In the 15th century there were three ethnicities of Roman Catholic rite. Later, when a part of the Romanians became Catholic themselves, there was a big difference between them and the Orthodox Romanians. The Romanians who wrote [i Supplex Libelus Valachorum[/i] were Catholics. The first Romanian high schools in Transylvania were Catholic. You yourself mention Iancu de Hunedoara/Janos Huniady, who was half Romanian, half Hungarian, and who, being a nobleman and a Catholic, got to rule over the entire Hungarian Kingdom. There isn't a better example for the importance of religion and social status in the Medieval times (obviously his successes played an important role). His son, Matia (not Matei=Matthew), was already more Hungarian than Romanian.

Imperialist, I see you continue to avoid answering one simple request to back up your initial statement. I'm not surprised.

I am not sure if is a antiq roman text who name the not ocupied Dacians-"free Dacians".But,the fact that many roman emperors,who fight against dacians,after Traian,take the over name <Dacicus>,or <Carpicus>mean that Romans consider Dacians as free,and the name <free Dacians>,even if is gived in modern times,represent a reality of antiq times,recognized in that times.About the theme(so called by you) of gloryfing Dacians,you are wrong,is not start in comunist time,but long before(B.P.Hasdeu,N.Densusianu,etc.).And many of this ideas is prouved.Ofcourse,Dacians dont have a write culture,and dont reach the cultural development reach by greeks,for example,but was nor "barbarians",for example.They have an original and quite developed culture,an advanced political thought,a powerful military development,and was not just couple "barbarians" tribes who just leave the caves,and fight blindly with everyone who find around. About Transilvania in Middle Age time,yes,was three ethnicities who was Catholic,the same for Unio Trium Nationum(-by the way,the szekels-secuii,was considered a diferent nation than hungarians).About a part of romanians(a relative small part) who become Catholic,they dont become Roman catholic,but greek-catholic.From what i know about this,it mean that they keep the Ortodox rituals,and just recognize the Pope as the leader of Church.About Iancu de Hunedoara,he became a leader of Transilvania and Hungary just when he renounce to ones of his national atributes(Christian rit,language)and take it from foreign ocupiers they rits and language.And even so,he become such important political leader because was an great military leader,and in front of danger,hungarians accept foreign leaders.In fact,not long time after Iancu and his son,Matei(Matia)rule,Hungary(but not Transilvania),was conquered and transformed in Ottoman province.

Udar, after "." or "," press space before writing a new word.

The greek-catholic faith only appeared in the XVIIIth century, after the Austrian Empire conquered Transylvania. It wasn't introduced by the Hungarians.