Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (11) « First ... 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) |
21 inf |
Posted: January 13, 2010 07:26 am
|
General de corp de armata Group: Retired Posts: 1512 Member No.: 1232 Joined: January 05, 2007 |
Ok. I was just surprised by the figures.
|
Imperialist |
Posted: January 13, 2010 09:22 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
Denes, you must have misread what I said. No, I did not take note or agree with your point that his quote is either taken out of context or manipulated! Your only point was that Transylvania had several ethnicities that would have disagreed with Lazaro's view on the Transylvanians' ancestry and I clearly said that I don't think your post disputes in any way the importance of Soranzo's statement since it's obvious by logical deduction that he is talking about the Romanians in the three principalities. As for the taken out of context or manipulation suspicions, see for yourself: You can find his book online too. -------------------- I
|
||
21 inf |
Posted: January 13, 2010 10:53 am
|
General de corp de armata Group: Retired Posts: 1512 Member No.: 1232 Joined: January 05, 2007 |
Denes, I understand what you was saying to Imperialist, I am just amazed how in those centuries romanians were only 25% of all nationalities from Transylvania. Even taking into acount the theories of foreigners (explaining the romanian ethnogenesis in south of Danube) who claim that romanians were coming in great numbers only after XIVth century in Transylvania and greatly multiplied their numbers due to high rate of birth, the figures seems hard to believe. Also for the saxons, the numbers are odd. It is just my curiosity now to confront the info from those hungarian sources with other, if available.
For comparison, the figures for hungarians might look to high, in the light that some historians claims that the number of hungarians decreased dramatically due to heavy fightings against turks. The down of hungarian numbers and increase of romanian numbers are put by some historians (not romanians and most of them adepts of Roesler theory or similar) mainly on 2 reasons: high rate of mortality due to wars (hungarians) and high rate of natality (for romanians). I realy can't put together now this explanation of foreign historians: the greater number of hungarians vs smaller number of romanians. I supose there it is something wrong with those evaluations and further reseach needed. Another question is why were declared "recept" only the religions of hungarians, seklers and saxon in XV-XVI century and romanian religion declared only as "tolerated" if romanians were in so low number? Why to bother to discuss in a so important gathering a so unimportant matter as the status of religion of a small ethnicity as were considered (by the mentioned figures) the romanians? |
dead-cat |
Posted: January 13, 2010 01:40 pm
|
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
a XVIth century census is not comparable to a XXth century one. especially not when it comes to completeness or accuracy.
i also doubt the individuals were queried. probably the numbers are an aggregation of parish records forwarded by the local clergy and the distinction was made on religious base. it's unlikely that every parish was queried, that all those queried gave results and that the results returned were accurate. therefore the numbers might be distorsed by a certain margin. but certainly, the percentage of hungarians was higher than today. |
contras |
Posted: January 13, 2010 02:23 pm
|
Maior Group: Members Posts: 732 Member No.: 2693 Joined: December 28, 2009 |
In a letter written by Inochentie Micu Klein to the Austrian emperorr, dated in 1735, he mentioned the fact that Romanian nation is more numerous like any other nation in Transylvania.
I do not understand how Hungarians decreased in two centuries in a half. Deceased by wars were Romanians too, if you take a look at every battle in Transylvania against Turks or any kind, Romanians were part of it, too. |
21 inf |
Posted: January 13, 2010 03:38 pm
|
||
General de corp de armata Group: Retired Posts: 1512 Member No.: 1232 Joined: January 05, 2007 |
Of course that the censuses from diferent centuries are not the same as results. Even so, my question regarding the "recept" and "tolerated" religions still stands: why in 1568 the important, powerfull and wealthy nobles and patricians of hungarian, sekler and saxon nations from Transylvania bother to discuss the religious oficial status of a small nation (if it really was so small), iliterate one, considered eretic by the time standards, with no major or medium nobility, no economic power, a nation of serfs, not very diferent from slaves?? The other idea discused: Giving the fact that the "census" could be made by asking the parishes to give their numbers, it is very posible in that case that the ortodox parishes were not contributing to "census" by the simply fact that they were not asked. They were under autority of serb ortodox church and romanian ortodox priest were no more than serfs, so they were not well regarded. Ortodox romanian priest were considered serfs, no more than semi-iliterate serfs, they even paid the same taxes as romanian serfs and they rarely colaborated with land autorities, being them noblemen, landlord or the ruler of the country. Again as a curiosity, dead-cat, on what sources are you refering when you said that certanly percentage of hungarians was higher than today? And if so, how much higher your sources point the percentage was? This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 13, 2010 03:56 pm |
||
dead-cat |
Posted: January 13, 2010 05:12 pm
|
||||||
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
they already did after the peasant revolt of 1437.
comon sense and post-ww1 demographics. after ww1 a number of hungarians left Transsylvania for what was left of Hungary. On the other hand there was (just as in Banat) a net migration from the other provinces.
perhaps they were, perhaps not, or perhaps partially. i have no way to know. i don't even know the degree of contribution of the parish records to the census results. perhaps there was input from the local lords. unless the methodology is specified somewhere, there is no way to know. that is precisely what i had in mind when i said that a XVIth century census is not comparable to a XXth century one. |
||||||
21 inf |
Posted: January 13, 2010 06:07 pm
|
General de corp de armata Group: Retired Posts: 1512 Member No.: 1232 Joined: January 05, 2007 |
Ok, dead-cat, it is ok, i was just looking for some proofs to sustain a common sense answer, something more particular or researchable. For the sake of the discussion, as you told above, there it is not a good way to compare situation on diferent centuries, so the facts which inflenced post-ww1 demographic structure in Transylvania are not the same as in Middle Age.
I didnt related the discussion with Unio Trium Nationum from 1437, but with the declaration from Turda from 1568, the declaration of freedom of religion issued by representatives of hungarians, saxons and seklers. As we reached the subject, Unio Trium Nationum was at the very begining a union between noblemen (disregarding nationality, which included romanian nobles), seklers and saxons against serfs (disregarding nationality) and turkish danger. In romanian acception from today, most of romanians are teached that UTN was an aliance between hungarians, saxons and seklers against romanians, which a little bit more wrong as a historical fact. |
contras |
Posted: January 13, 2010 08:21 pm
|
Maior Group: Members Posts: 732 Member No.: 2693 Joined: December 28, 2009 |
Excuse me, but I think the discussion is far away from the topic. The topic is about Romanians vs. Romanians. But I really believe that this debate must be put in other topic, because is more important. About the facts, I really don't believe that in any part of history, Romanians were minoritar in Transylvania. That theory is whitout sense. I came here with one fact, such important, and every time lesser in debates.
When they came in Europe, Hungarians had a major problem, like other migrated peoples. The number of them. They were so few in number, that they cannot dominate the land that they occupied. They're suuces in battles was not the result of number, but the result of superior tactics, based on raiding the enemy and put him on the arrows throhwn by their powerfull bows. The chronics said about huns, magyars, and other invaders that they cannot be defeated in battle, because when the battle was wheights against them, they running away and attacked in other part of the front battle. It was another way to wage the war, a way that European people was not abble to support. Their reduced number is the origin of their tactics, when they tried to conquer Transylvania, and other territories. They sustain a battle against one local lord, and if defeated him, the defeated became a vasal, and later, year by year, they imposed more rules, more landlord of the land, and later tried to became predominant in the rulers class. To conquer Transylvania they need two centuries, and they become predominant only on the ruler class, the nobles. The rest, the servants, were always a majority, and they were Romanians, even if were settled many colonists on the frontiers (szekels, saxons). Population majority were the Romanians. It's the only logical explanation of the results of census made later. |
21 inf |
Posted: January 14, 2010 03:21 am
|
General de corp de armata Group: Retired Posts: 1512 Member No.: 1232 Joined: January 05, 2007 |
Contras, you are right: the discussion turned off-topic. If you want to open another topic to discuss the matter, i'll join.
|
Sebastian |
Posted: January 14, 2010 07:56 am
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 20 Member No.: 2652 Joined: October 29, 2009 |
The topic is indeed different, but is nice to read how hot the debates still are regarding the ethnic diversity in Transylvania in XIV-XV-XVI century, in a period when these people did not even think aboyt themselves in terms of ethnicity. Again, history is what we make of it, or a great instance between use and abuse of history.
I would still appreciate your help with names of people from Transylvania and Bukovina, who loyally fought for Emperor in WWI, and later joined, or were rejected, by the Romanian national army in 1919. I would appreciate names with people who either refused (I have few) or were rejected by the Roumanian military authorities out of reasons of treason or just lack of trust. |
Imperialist |
Posted: January 14, 2010 09:04 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
It's not clear to me whether by " did not even think aboyt themselves in terms of ethnicity" you mean they were aware of ethnicity but did not attach to it the significant political importance it was to gain in the 19th century (emergence of nationalism) or whether you mean they had no clue of ethnicity. If you mean the first thing, I agree. If you mean the second, I disagree. If they were not aware of their ethnicity, how come Hungarian chronicler Mathias Miles writes in Siebenburgischer Wurg-Engel Chronicle (1670) referring to the events after the Battle of Selimbar: "Wie bald dass Gerucht von Michaelis Siege ins Land ausschallette, haben sich zuhand die Wallachen vnsers Landes zusammen rottieret und heimlig auch offentlig der Edler Leute Gutter und Hoffe auffgeschlagen unnd vill ihre Herren ermordet..." "As soon as the rumor spread throughout the country about Michael's victory, immediately the Wallachians from this country gathered together and both secretly and openly attacked the lands and courts of the nobles and killed many of their owners." -------------------- I
|
||
21 inf |
Posted: January 14, 2010 11:24 am
|
||
General de corp de armata Group: Retired Posts: 1512 Member No.: 1232 Joined: January 05, 2007 |
Simion Ghişa, former AH oficer, borned in Transylvania, served in romanian army during ww1, from aprox. 1917 until aprox. 1924-1925 as sublocotenent. |
||
Sebastian |
Posted: January 14, 2010 01:32 pm
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 20 Member No.: 2652 Joined: October 29, 2009 |
For imperialist:
I mean they did not have any ethnic allegiance, because there was nothing like this in the entire Europe. "Wallachian" is not Romanian in ethnic sense. Sorry to tell you this! For 21Inf: thank you very much. Do you have any reference (memoir, journal, book, articles) about his experience of transfering from an imperial to a national army? |
Dénes |
Posted: January 14, 2010 03:26 pm
|
||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
Thanks, Imp., for the facsimile. This clarifies the manipulation issue. However, the 'taken out of context' claim - in my opinion - still stands. If I understand it correctly, when talking of 'Transylvanians', the chronicle mentions by name 'Coruinus' (probably John or more possibly Matthias Corvinus) and two 'Battories' (i.e., Báthory) – all are hardly Rumanians. Therefore, Soranzo apparently does not take into consideration the ’Transylvanians’ diverse ethnicity – quite natural for those times, when this detail didn't really count, just as I’ve said. Gen. Dénes This post has been edited by Dénes on January 14, 2010 06:35 pm |
||
Pages: (11) « First ... 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... Last » |