Why this Email and Hungary and Transylvania and Romania and Transylvania?
I have a history in Transylvania, in fact I am a first generation North American, a first generation Canadian to be precise. The rest of my family were born in Romania, in Transylvania. My extended family history however, dates back in Transylvania to 1730, which is how long the time village my family comes from has written records of birth, baptisms and deaths.
This is from both my mother's and my father's side. All these records are, or were found in the village church which has published its records or sent them to the families when requested. I write a blog on Transylvania and its history and received an email from someone who makes claims about Romania and Hungary and Transylvania.
I got this email when I mentioned something good about the peoples of Transylvania, and that they all contributed to the vitality of Transylvania, on my blog about Transylvania. More specifically when I made mention about Romania and Transylvania.
I am dismayed at the comments made by this person, as it seemed that they have a strong independence minded streak within them. I question most of the facts in this email. Also, this emailer has a number of websites which they have published much of the same content.
Not only that but when I personally tired to contact them to find out more information I have yet to receive a response from the emailer. What they have published does a great disservice to Transylvania and Romania and Hungary.
It also appears they have a "passion" for their stance since they have now published a website on their point of view about Hungary and Transylvania and what Romania is supposedly doing to Hungarian culture.
Many of the facts given are incorrect and the person who published these will not "back up" their published stance. It is all about publishing a correct version of historical facts.
Bran Castle, In Transylvania, and Maps and Writing
Websites and Emails, and Incorrect Facts
Below is the email in its entirety. I have since been able to find this email on many other websites, and not only that, but the person who wrote it does not seem to respond to any contact requests.
"It is indeed fortunate that many of the ancient Transylvanian documents, dating back as far as the 11th century, were transferred to the Hungarian National Archives in Budapest, some before World War I, and others during World War II. Thus, in spite of all the Rumanian efforts to eradicate the past, the true history of Transylvania can still be proven by thousands of ancient documents and the traces of the once great Western-oriented culture of the Hungarians in Transylvania can still be found in libraries and museums, not in Hungary alone, but also in Austria, Germany, Italy, France, England, and the United States of America.
The Romanian culture is entirely different from that known as the "Transylvanian culture", which is in reality a regional diversity of the West-oriented Hungarian culture. The Rumanian culture is Balkan-oriented, and specifically Rumanian, based on the history of the Vlach migration from South across to Albania, and from there up to Wallachia and Moldavia. It was brought forth by Balkan influences, just as the Romanian language itself, which is composed, according to the Romanian linguist Cihac, "of 45.7% Slavic, 31.5% Latin, 8.4% Turkish, 7% Greek, 6% Hungarian and 0.6% Albanian words." Even today, the Romanian culture as such, has no roots in Transylvania. It is being "imported" constantly and purposefully from Bucharest into the Transylvanian province in order to crowd out and replace the traditional Hungarian culture of this conquered and subjugated land.
Future of Transylvania and its capital Kolozsvár is to return to Central Europe and to Hungarian Culture where it belongs. Transylvania was GIVEN to Romania in 1921, and again in 1947, without a plebiscite. This notorious Treaty is known as The Diktat of Trianon, Hungarians were forced to sign in Paris. Ever since Transylvania was awarded to Romania, Hungarians, Germans and other ethnic minorities have suffered at the hands of Romanian Chauvinists. They have consistently and systematically been subjest to forced assimilation and persecution. Romania is probably the most xenophobic country in Europe today. Romanians in cities like Marosvásárhely (targu mures) and Kolozsvár (cluj) are practising ethnic cleansing an a scale only seen in former Yugoslavia. Hungarians are subject to constant discrimination, Hungarian signs are painted over or not allowed at all, intimidation by Gheorghe Funar is carried out against Hungarians on a daily basis aimed at driving out all Hungarians from this ancient Magyar land."
I have read and reread this email and have come up with a few questions which I emailed back to them a few weeks ago with no response. I was polite, but told him that I wasn't Hungarian, but Saxon, which i believe is the reason that I haven't heard back from this person. I've also, let it be noted found this email now as a website or three... looks to be a big thing for them, which is unfortunate.
Did you live in Transylvania or somewhere else? I feel that this anger must stem from the fact that you or your relatives lived in Transylvania.
What about these documents? I see you mention them, but which ones?
One last comment, Hungary was a part of the Austrian Empire in 1918 when World War I ended, and the Treaty of Trianon was signed in 1919. I know this since my grandmother was born in Transylvania, and her birth certificateate is from Romania, whereas a cousin who was born at the end of 1918 has a birth certificate from the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary. So please be advised it wasn't 1921.The date for the return of Northern Transylvania is also wrong, as my mother who was born at the end of 1945 has a Romanian birth certificate but her older siblings have Hungarian, as Northern Transylvania was a part of Hungary from 1940-1945.
I have made efforts to contact both the Romanian consulate and the Hungarian consulate in my area, in hopes that they will shed some light on the subject. They have and both have stated that this email is one which probably has come from either outside of Hungary or Transylvania. It is to them a most unfortunate email, and one which does not promote harmony in the European Union or otherwise. Both consulates have clearly stated that Transylvania is a part of Romania.
Map of Translyvania, In The Kingdom of Hungary Note the German Name Below It
Could They Be From Transylvania.. Or Simply Trying for Exposure??
Even this question makes me wonder, this email seems to have some facts correct, and yet the facts given are incorrect-- this is more true with dates, and seems to be published to make people angry. Dates are incorrect and the one thing which sticks out in my mind are the dates. They do not make a valid point if the dates they quote are incorrect it is in many ways politically motivated.
It is as if they are trying to make a point, but haven't looked up any facts. A simple review of wikipedia will give some dates. This leads me to believe that they set these dates for a reason. Both of them are two years AFTER the actual two main events that they refer to, that of World War One and World War Two. (World War end officially on November 11, 1918, but the treaties weren't signed until 1919. Hungary and Romania fought after the end of the war as well.)
In fact some simple checking from my own personal books on the Saxons show that the Hungarians, Romanians and Saxons convened at Alba Iulia and voted to join Romania. This was a vote. Hungary was falling into anarchy and Transylvania had a large number of Romanians living there even then.
Again a quick check of wikipedia gives the numbers, which I do believe were over 50% of the population in some cases.
There was also an area, which until the 1950s was a Hungarian autonomous province. This ended when Transylvania started using a county system. Hence why I wonder about cultural genocide comments, Had the Romanians in Transylvania pushed there wouldn't have been this area so such a long time.
This makes me wonder, One point that I can say is that either this person comes from Hungary or they don't know their history of the land they came form. This is most unfortunate since Transylvania has a long history dating back to the Roman Times and before than with the Dacians, but the "explosive point" is only the last sixty years or so. It is like saying that Dracula-- by this I mean the title character from Bram Stoker's novel, is really a person and not Vlad Tepes.
My Own View on Transylvania
I have stated this many times on my blog, but Transylvania is a part of Romania. It used to be a part of Hungary, however these days it is a part of Romania.
There many views and publications about Transylvania, and of course everyone including myself, have a view. My view is that Transylvania has too many things which are valued by both Romania and Hungary. The real numbers show that 35% of Romanian GDP comes from the Transylvanian region, that is a lot of money.
For the most part, The real problems come from the question of "whose in charge here?" The simplest answer is that the people who lived in Transylvania voted to join Romania, in 1918. This was a national assemby held in Alba Iulia. This is true.
Transylvania is a place that continues to hold a lot of people fascinated, and they might be from Hungary or From Romania, but there is no place for being angry and laying blame on the decisions of the past.
Due to Spam and Spam Links, If you Are Not a Member of Hubpages You Can't Post a comment,
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on June 08, 2017:
Very much nationalism, though they have gone with World War I, as the starting point.
Alan R Lancaster from Forest Gate, London E7, U K (ex-pat Yorkshire) on May 31, 2017:
It smacks of nationalism based on Nazi propaganda, although many of the 'Volksdeutsche' left Romania at the end of WWII fear of the Russians (seeking retribution on all Ethnic Germans for the actions of the German Army and Waffen SS). Many migrated to Austria, as it was their ancestors who moved there in the early days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The combination of politics and nationalism breeds strange bedfellows. We've heard all manner of weird things about life in Romania, about goings-on in children's hospitals and other malpractices from the time of Nicolae Ceausescu. How much is factual, and how much is fictional probably rests with the informants and what 'colours' their politics.
Countries across Europe are in the process of fragmentation with the waxing influence of nationalism in a show of 'self-determination', little realising that fragmentation plays into the hands of self-interested parties. Will Cataluna secede from Spain, and who stands to gain? Will the Scots get the 'hots' for Nicola Sturgeon and upset the UK applecart? Will the Germans ditch Merkel and tell Athens to 'cough up' what they owe the Euro Bank? And will fragmentationalists grow up and leave countries as they are?
frantisek78 on October 14, 2015:
Some Romanians still try to prove that they are descended from Roman soldiers, which is ridiculous. Romania has historically treated their ethnic minorities much worse than Romanians were treated whilst living as part of the Kingdom of Hungary.
Szatmari on August 19, 2015:
Its always funny to read comments posted by Roumanians to counter argue.
In particular by this Mayhem...no sources, just the standard Romanian propaganda thats been left over from the Ceaucescu era.
This Roumanian claims they're "my sources" when in fact they're American, English and French.
He claims that a part of the Hungarian population voted to join Roumania in 1918... another lie, source?
A very good book to read.....History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness - OpenEdition Books
A Roumanian who finally speaks the truth.
I believe this says it all about Roumania, from a neutral unbiased observer....
General Bandholtz’s daily contact with the Romanian military and diplomatic
personnel for these six months gave him a unique learning experience. He made no
secret about his conclusions. On November 11, 1919, he wrote in his Diary: “It is
simply impossible to conceive such national depravity as those miserable “Latins”
of Southeast Europe are displaying”.
Having spent six months in Hungary, General Bandholtz was impressed by the
Hungarians. Before his departure he concluded in his Diary:
“Personally I came here rather inclined to condone or extenuate much of the
Roumanian procedure, but their outrageous conduct in violation of all
international law, decency, and humane considerations, has made me become an
advocate of the Hungarian cause. Turning over portions of Hungary with its
civilized and refined population will be like turning over Texas and California to
the Mexicans. The great Powers of the Allies should hang their heads in shame for
what they allowed to take place in this country after an armistice.”
Major General Harry Hill Bandholtz: An Undiplomatic Diary
louisa234 on April 02, 2014:
1100 years of hungarian history.......... for those who have forgotten.
Mayhem on February 17, 2014:
This email is very similar, in manners of speech with the comment szatmari has been leaving here. First of all, much of his information provided (taking aside the wrong years) are incorrect.
He claims that there are no written and archeological evidences that showcase the daco-roman continuity in Transylvania which is completely wrong and based on the research of a political geographist of the 18th century, Robert Roesler. He was hired by the Habsburg crown, ordering him to come up with a theory to counterbalance the national conscience of the Romanian majority living in Transylvania.
First of all, Roesler's theory is based on 3 pillars. He claims that after Traian conquered Dacia, he exterminated the dacians. This fact has been proven to be wrong by Roman epigraphical sources and documents. After Traian died in 117, a huge dacian revolt took place which destroyed much of the cities built by the romans. Second, roman sources claim that dacian soldiers were present in Roman auxiliary troops stationed at the border. Those troops were called cohortes. Unlike the legions where only romans could enrol, the auxiliary troops consisted of all populations conquered by the romans.
Second, other roman sources (which can be seen even on some paintings and roman scuptures on buildings) suggest that Caracala, one of the last Roman Empires, bestowed a degree of citizenship on all populations living inside the Roman Empire. Such is the fact that you could find relics with a very peculiar inscription on them 'Cives Romanus Natus Dacus' (Roman Citizen Born Dacian).
The second pillar on which the imigrationist theory (Roesler's theory) is based on is that after the Aurelian Retreat in 271, the land was laid uninhabited. First of all, Roman documents state that only the legions and the administration have fled, not the population. Second, archeological sources discovered in the 19th and 20th century concluded that the cities of Apullum, Potaisa and Porolissum were never abandoned.
His 3rd pillar suggested that Romanians have migrated from the Balkan's. This one is once again shallow since he assumend that aromanians and megleno-romanians are the same thing with the romanians north of Danube. Sure, there are some similarities, but the main difference is that those populations inhabited the south of the Jirecek Line, thus being more influenced by the Greek language rather than the latin one.
Another huge blunder made by Roesler was that he ignored the Byzantine documents and chronicles (more specifically, the Ethnica written by Stephen of Byzantium) which clearly states that there was a latin speaking population north of Danube (4th century AC).
Then we have the german sources. In the Nibelungenlid, there is a protagonist called 'Ruman' (a latin guy, 6th century AC). In the german chronicles depicting Charlemagne's battles agasint the Avar Khaganate, it says that he fought to liberate a latin, christian population living East of Pannonia (9th century AC). What is even more relevant is that the country they wanted to liberate was called 'Rumanja'. Coincidence?
Then we have the Armenian chronicles that state the presence of a christian kingdom west of the Kingdom of Kiev (7th century AC). Then we have the writings of the arab voyagers that confirm the Armenian chronicles (9th - 10th century AC).
The archeologic sources confirm dacians survived after 271, not only in free tribes but in the same Dacia Felix, the main population was dacian. Constantine was called Dacicus, Carpicus, because he fought with the dacian free tribes.
At the same, in 396, Teodoletos of Chiro wrote about Serdica (Sofia today) it was a ''dakon ethnon'' - a dacic nation.
Then we have many epigrapfhic sources from III-IV-V centuries about people with double name (dacian-latin Decebalus Aurelius, Betranius Ulpius etc)
3 martyrs are named ''Philippos, Zoticos and Attalos''. A greek name and 2 thracic names, north of danube, 5th century.
But the one thing that demolishes any kind of theory is the fact that we retained the names of the ancient toponimes and hidronimes. If, like Roesler said, we migrated from the south of Danube to the north of danube why do we retain so many ancient names of cities or rivers? Who could've told them? The Hungarians? I doubt it. For example, Timisoara is a word play. Tames (moesic) with varad (magyar). Deva was actually called during the dacian times 'Dava' which means a city built on hills, or more precise, a castle. Vrancea and Buzau are both ancient Dacian names.
'Several competing theories have been proposed to explain the origin of modern Romanians. Linguistic and geo-historical analysis tend to indicate that Romanians coalesced as a major ethnic group both south and north of the Danube in the regions previously colonized by Romans.''
The cyrillic alphabet he mentioned was used only in church gatherings, not in official, secular documents. This is a huge fraud perpetrated by the Hungarian State propaganda against the Romanians.
"So the vote in Gyulafehervar (Alba Iulia) ...the great vote by Romanians was just a pretext...no Hungarians voted as the author of the article claimed. Their vote was in Kolozsvar, to remain with Hungary."
A part of the Hungarians did vote for unification. The majority though was made out of Romanians and Saxons. Thus, a majority of over 65% of the population wanted the unification.
Also, the statement of the US MP is unnatural. The MP says that the negotiation was in secret. It was indeed since from 1914 to 1916 we were negotiating with both the Central Powers and the Entente for entering the war. The Entente promised Transylvania so we entered the war on their side. The US entered the war in 1917, a year after the negotiations were completeted. That is why they considered it as a sort of diktat, which isn't. It is the international law that gave legitimacy to the future border changes in Europe. Thus 3 nations finally found justice, Serbia, Romania and Slovakia.
The most important issue though is that there is no discrimination against Hungarians is Romania as the Hungarian Government tries to imply. They all benefit from having their language taught in our school, the national television features hungarian subtitles, they have 3 universities in their own language, much of their cultural events are financed by the state, and 50% of the revenue alocated by the government does not come from their own districts.
On the contrary, since 1989, hundreds of Romanian families living in the so called Szekelyfold have been subject of discrimination. Many of them fled the region because of social marginalization, Romanians have no acces to public functions in that region because the hungarian administration imposed the knowledge of hungarian language (monopolizing the institutions with only hungarian people), even kids were threatened when they exposed the Romanian flag in schools on our national day.
The discrimination is not against hungarians, but it is against romanians. The former aggressor tries hardly to flip the tables. They pose as victims when they are the ones with the fangs all exposed.
Szatmary on October 17, 2013:
What a bunch of misinformation and chauvinistic propaganda.
Anyone thats really interested in the history of Transylvania can easily find the answers in unbiased sources on the net.
First of all this hogwash about Romanians being descended from Dacians...
No written or architectural evidence bears witness to the presence of "proto-Romanians" the lands north of the Danube during the millennium after Rome's withdrawal from Dacia.
United States Library of Congress Research Division
Latin was the language of Hungarian kings, nobles, scholars and clergy when the Christian Kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000 AD.
It has nothing to do with the language of Romanians/vlachs, who had no written script until the late 1500s which was cyrillic.
Here are documents that have been preserved in archives...
Unius linguae uniusque moris regnum imbecille et fragile est)"
St. Stephen in a letter to his son St. Emeric (Imre), 1036 A.D..
"Make the strangers welcome in this land,
let them keep their languages and customs,
for weak and fragile is the realm which is based
on a single language or on a single set of customs."
Transylvania was first referred to in a Latin language document in 1075 as "Ultra silvam," meaning "beyond the forest."
In 1075 King Géza I of Hungary when endowing the Benedictine abbey of Garamszentbenedek Transylvania - Etymology - Encyclopedia II
The majority of place names in Transylvania were originally Roman and the Hungarian names are derived from Latin...Temesvar, Segesvar, Nagyavarad etc....the Romanian equivilents are just phonetic copies that have no meaning...(timisoara, sighisoara, oradea) Romanian "oaras" is a phonetic copy of Hungarian '"Var or Varos" which means castle or city....even the place of my birth Szatmar.....
The Hungarian name of the town Szatmár is believed to come from the personal name Zotmar, as the Gesta Hungarorum gives the name of the 10th-century fortified settlement at the site of today's Satu Mare as Castrum Zotmar. Until 1925, in Romanian, the name Sătmar was used, which is the Hungarian name transcribed to Romanian orthography. Since 1925, the name of the town in Romanian is officially Satu Mare, which is similar in pronunciation to the original name, and, by popular etymology, conveys meaning in Romanian, namely "great village".
Now as far as modern History goes....Romania signed a secret treaty, The Treaty of Bucharest in 1916 being promised Transylvania by the Entente in the event of their victory in WW1.
So the vote in Gyulafehervar (Alba Iulia) ...the great vote by Romanians was just a pretext...no Hungarians voted as the author of the article claimed. Their vote was in Kolozsvar, to remain with Hungary.
They showed so little moderation in their attitude towards Hungary that more than a year before the signature of the treaty of Trianon, Lloyd George had been alarmed by the greediness of the vultures hovering over helpless Hungary.
Black Hand Over Europe by Henri Pozzi
Characteristic of the illustration of this procedure are the borders imposed on Hungary, which created today's still unsolved problems. This is all the more absurd when we see that the majority of the Hungarian minorities live on the border with their mother country. If only there had been a little more common sense and if only - for reasons of geographic ignorance - they had not been deceived by forged maps provided by such political tricksters as Eduard Benes, events would have evolved differently.
The American Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, abandoned the Trianon Conference, disgusted by what he saw. He wrote subsequently:* "Everybody seemed to talk in whispers and never to say anything worth while except in confidence. The open sessions of the Conference were arranged beforehand. They were formal and perfunctory. The agreements and bargains were made behind closed doors."
The Conference﻿ from which the treaty of Trianon resulted was a base comedy. The honest men who imagine that the plenipotentiaries weighed in anguish the pros and cons of the arguments and decided only with proofs in hand, are deluding themselves with childish illusions.
Henri Pozzi Black Hand Over Europe -
Rumanian versions of their history and ethnic origins have been written by politically motivated writers and are blatantly biased to the point of falsifying and inventing historical events.
Professor Michael Sozan
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on December 03, 2012:
calin-klaus-- i think that the point is not names, which can be argued forever, but rather historical facts that this email is trying to give to people, not only that but they now have a website up giving these supposed historical facts.
calin-klaus on December 01, 2012:
In the beginning of your post, you quoted a hungarian opinion, which was something like this"90 % of the Transilvania places have hungarian names (FALSE in fact) " which is a false sentence.Let me prove you: let's take the name of the BRAD city (a romanian name , NOT hungarian),which in english would be translated as "fir tree" and in hungarian it would be "fenyo" but surprise in hungarian they use also the ROMANIAN name "BRAD". Another example: CLUJ-NAPOCA city ,which is derrived from latin expression "clusium" meaning closed (city) because is surrounded by mountains, in hungarian his name is "kolosvar" read "koloj (coming from cluj) +var= "city" in hungarian language, has the ancient dacian name NAPOCA. Other example, the name of the rivers: CRIȘ in romanian language (the ancient name was CRISIUS) , in hungarian is "Koros", is not in romanian close to the ancient name ?(dacian and latter borrowed by romans ). Also river and county TIMIȘ (in hungarian Temes) is not closer in romanian than hungarian, to the ancient dacian name TIBISCUS? Or DAVA in dacian language meanig CITY, which romanian language preserved under the form of the city DEVA (hungarians says also Deva) ? Other fact: hungarians became so pattetic , they even transformed , NOT translated (!!!!) the city names of some cities from Moldova region (that it was not under their rulling like romanian Transilvania region was) : LUNCȘOARA in romanian (meaning Little meadow) , pattetically transformed in hungarian language (NOT translated) as Lunksora... :-))))....So hungarian are talking about forging history acusing romanians? UNBELIEVABLE !!!
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on October 14, 2012:
150 years uhm matthew? are you certain that there was no one-- as in Transylvania an empty area? that I believe isn't factually correct.
Matthew on October 14, 2012:
"So, Petra and Mr Happy, the truth is that Dacians was conquered andd killed by the Romans in A.D. 105-106. After Transylvania was ruled by gepidas, Huns, Avars, and Bolgars, and in 896 came the Hungarian people and settled in Transylvania, which was unpopulated that time. Int he sam period the Romanians lived on the Balcan , int he present-day Serbia and Bulgaria (you know that int he Romanina language has a lot of relative words with Albanina, because the Romanians lived next to Albanians.). The second Bulgarian Empire (from 1186) had a numerous Romanian/Vlach population.
In the 13th century the Romanians started to settle in Transylvanian mountains. At that time the Hungarians was the majority in centre of Transylvania (Campia Transilvaniei), and the East (Szeklers), and the Saxons ruled the southern part. Fort he Romanians were place only in Mountains (Bihor, Maramures, Hateg). 95 % of the names of Transylvanian vilagges, cities, rivers, hills is Hungarian. The Romanian names are only mirror-translations (e.g. Torda-Turda, Nagyvárad – Oradea, Segesvár – Sigisoara etc. etc.). The argument is that the Hungarian names mean s gin Hungarian, but the Romanin names does not mean anything in Romanian (what does it mean in Romanian: Oradea sau Sic sau Sigisoara? nothing, because the Romanians adopted these words from Hungarian language).
Because of the Turkish rule in Muntenia and in Moldova more and more Romanian peasent moved to prosperous Transylvania. But instead of this Transylvania had a Hungarian majority till the end of 17th century. In this period the Ottomans destroyed the centre of Translyvania (and the Hungarians who lived there) a lot of times. After destroying the regiopn became empty, and the Romanian shepherds had opportunity to move from the mountains to the plain of Transylvania.
It is true that from 1700-50 Transylvania has a Romanian majority (about 50-55 % Romanian, 30-35 % Hungarians, and Saxons), but the culture and the cities remained Hungarians till the WWII (second world war). 50 years ago, almost all Transylvanian cities had a Hungarian majority, but during Ceausescu Era hundred thousends of Romanians were moved to Hungarian cities: Cluj, Oradea etc. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradea#Ethnicity; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluj-Napoca#Demograph ).
So it the Romanians stoled Transylvnia after WW I, and now they are trying to stole and change history of Transylvania."
I'm totally agree with you. 150 years wasn't enough to create a new folk. I mean romans + dacians = romanians? 150 wasn't enough. Cumans came into Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century, and they were exist until 18th century. So... And btw, Transylvania was an empty area, with miners and with some legionarii. But NOT even with roman legionarii. They recruit legonarii from the original population. And one more point. Romanians came from Balkans. Cuz in Greece you can found Aromanians. They are speaking in romanian. So... In Dacia wasn't enough roman people to create the romanians. However with the Balkans.
And yeah. Sad true for the romanians but Transylvania is a Hungarian area. Hungarians did not came from Asia thats bullshit, formed by the Habsbrug Empire. Everybody discovered Hungarians were here in 15.000 BC. Really good proof the Bosnian Pyramids. They found 7.000 years old Székely-Magyar alphabet!!!! And the Pyramids older than the STONE HENGE! Another proof is Michelangelo Naddeo. So dear stupid romanians!!! Please accept the true, Transylvania is a hungarian are. And we aren't racist. Romania hate Székelys and Hungarians. Cuz WE HAVE GOT HISTORY. And your history was created in the 19th century! By some stupid romanians. Every archeologist scoff at your history! And all of the WORLD. Cuz this is a really good tale, but not a history.
jacqklin from ITALY on October 12, 2012:
Does anyone know the name Vlahovich? My great grandmother is either from Hungry, Romania or other.....I would like to know the origins...if possible. Thanks
Mircea on June 07, 2012:
Vlach migration across Albania?...Where did you get that?...Transylvania might have a large Hungarian and German influence in old administrative buildings such as castles, palaces or imposing churches. Without the high concentration of Szekels (the old Avars who have nothing ethnically in common with Hungary) and a small region of Saxons around Sibiu and Brasov, all Transylvania is Romanian by origin, language and culture (which does not refer only to some minor influences and architecture).
annepalmer on February 28, 2012:
Hi, I am from America my mom's dad was from Hungry or transelvania? sorry for the error if so. the name is Paul Szabo not sure when they came to america I don't know much more her name is Rita Szabo she live in Belmont, Mass and had 15 children and was married to A Ted Harmon her mom name crap I don't remember and know nothing more. I am from 15 children my mom and dad had and was married for about 50 plus years when she dies. I don't know when they came to america can anyone help me please.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on February 06, 2012:
really? I've never heard of that hisotry-- mostly the Dacians and Romans-- after all if you look up about Tranjan there is even mention of Transylvania on some of the monuments there.
A very interesting take.
Hungarian Men on February 05, 2012:
Its true about economy in Transylvania. I did visited Bucharest and saw the modern district is generally most from Transylvania economy to build up most part in Capital city.
Most likely more before the WW1 was more Hungarians and Germans cities in Transylvania. After 2 World Wars absolutely change living style due T give to Romania, so they can influence and people move in Transylvania. Can see most of Romanians are coming from "real" land in Romania. Can found mix Romanian and Hungarian into family generations (marriage). So Romanians able create culture and buildings into Transylvania.
I don't mind with them because look into history that show us there have massive wars happened in many centuries ex: Ottoman, Tatar, etc so they can build their tradition house or castle can found a lot in Eastern Europe. Myself raised up in Hungary also so can found very similar building purpose in Transylvania too. Made cleary that everything have mixed up all over.
Just one thing is Transylvania orginially belong to Kingdom of Hungary/ Monarchia of Austro and Hungary or before names called something -- Árpád Fejedelem -- so he created this land in before AD 900 who immirgation from Mongolia. They were first settle down in Transylvania then expand to west. There lots to say. Well all I can given. But if you do research from Árpád Fejedelem to Today will give you a lot to learn why there and those.. Its very hard...
Bottom line: Indepedence from Romania most likely not happened in future due many reasons. One biggest reason is most Ethnic people already emirgated to everywhere in world. Its hurt more for those people cannot make emirgate based/due economy lacks or Farm sector need upkeep. My relatives same this issues so they must stay there. Other 70% of my relatives did emirgated since 1979.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on February 04, 2012:
Hungarian Men-- from what i understand Transylvania gives Romania 35% of Romania's GDP, so it's not a small sum. On the other hand many of the cities were predominantly Romania- for example some of the Northern cities were mostly Romanian in origin, however it is not as easy to go independent then the case might be since Transylvania has also had links to Hungary... A very interesting post.
Hungarian Men on February 04, 2012:
Your post and other comments almost right and wrong. I try make simple post.
Transylvania have "Ethnic" issues in many centuries. All kind of Ethnic were make more problematic in Transylvania. Especially where most population live in city more caused ethnic problems.
Example: Find a job at post office or police must speak only Romanian in Judetul Mures and Cluj, maybe in Bihar too. Not sure other Judetul. So there not allowed use Hungarian on public sights and other stuffs on public.
So people more desperately try to understand each other, just went wrong is more people speak over Romanian. Whose people really rooted from Hungarian or German where I was live in the city.
Talking about indepedence from Romania. Its true but never reached stand up. Only under hood talking each other many "ethnic" people whose wish get own government and sort out all stupid issues be over and go forward own economy. Because Transylvania can do alone IF independent state from Romania. There problem is Romania cannot let them go because Economy SOURCE is from mainly Translyvania. If this real happpened would be damaged for Romania. Other note Translyvania would be next very higher wealthiest country in Europe and in World. Because they have massive resources and tourist sector.
Last thing, I emirgated to other country due ethnic issues in Transylvania. Now I glad we did right thing about leave Romania.
SZÉP NAGY MAGyarország on January 18, 2012:
Majd az id? eldönti, hogy kiknek van igaza!
Erdély az Erdély! Felvidék az Felvidék! Újvidék az Újvidék!
Kárpátalja az Kárpátalja........
Együtt mind, azonban a Magyar Haza ellopott kincse!
Dáko-román elmélet_:)? Na ne:)
liviu on January 09, 2012:
There will be always Romanian or Hungarian approaches about Transylvania and no others. Just because T stands as a stake only for those two countries. This third option of yours, Rebecca, is at a first sight, at least peculiar. We can speak about a German Transylvania only if we speak about an independent Transylvania, and I believe that this question has never posed, maybe just in the 1918 context, anyway without any chance of success. Transylvania is being an issue between Romania and Hungary. The German aspects are, unfortunately for you, just secondary aspects of an other main problem.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 08, 2012:
liviu-- i am sorry I misunderstood-- I shall have to think about this for a while.
You raise a very interesting point about the Hungarians wanting people to leave. I in fact have a Saxon past, and find it interesting that it is more the Hungarian and Romanian point of view which comes out the most.
liviu on January 07, 2012:
What I was trying to say is the fact that we can meet the purpose of this action if we quit posting views for the sake of being there and then. I read some comments and I have answers for them, counterarguments and what it seems to me as being explanations or right interpretation of data. The point is that everyone who claims something has to expect at replies and has to possess extra arguments. Otherwise, everything is pointless.
Starting with the very beginning, Hungarian theory insists on a total leaving of Transylvania by the Romans, I mean all of the inhabitants, 0 populace. It is absurd, nowhere, never this has happened. And this without any evidence. What is your opinion, Rebecca? I am curious what believes someone with Hungarian past and Romanian present.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 07, 2012:
liviu-- there is that to take note of, I find that it is still a subject which interests people, and is something that can be politically charged. Excellent point
liviu on January 06, 2012:
Even though I haven’t read all the comments, I notice that everyone has his approach related to his nationality: Romanian or Hungarian. I am Romanian but I can understand Hungarian when they claim Transylvania, in a certain way they are rightful to do so. But Romanian are, at least, the same right to claim T. So, what do we supposed to do? I believe that we have to remain as objective as we can when we try to sustain a viewpoint. First of all we have to resort to genuine documents and logical opinions. For instance, Hungarian claim that when they arrived in Pannonia and later in Transylvania, they found no one on such a large territory. Discussing honestly on each issue with arguments and contraarguments we will succeed in perceiving the truth.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on November 25, 2011:
Spzerka-- while you've traised a good issue, I'll ask this of you: What you've noticed is an interesting point, what else did you find?
Sprzerka on November 24, 2011:
Aristopolous. Please do not take it as disrespect, but how do you know that Hungarians use only Hungarians as source? This makes me smile. Lots of Hungarian names are completely unrecognisable for origin. You must be a language genius Greek, who researched a lot (and I honestly applaud you if you are), or just an other ‘under-cover Romanian’ trying to look someone else to prove a point.
Am I the only one who noticed that all the Romanian commenters are claiming to be university professors, PhDs, historians, or at least living somewhere in the world, where they have direct access to the ultimate truth? And has anyone actually noted how many commenters were blaming mysterious Hungarian conspiracy for trying to ‘hide some sort of proof from the world’? Am I the only one who see the massive contradictions between the desperate comments of ‘Hungarians should go back to Mongolia where they are from’ vs ‘Hungarians are just “Magyarized” Romanians and Germans’. Am I the only one laughing here? Why are you so obviously desperate? I let you answer this question yourself…
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on November 19, 2011:
Aristoplous-- I never noticed that before, but now that you mention it-- I'll be taking a closer look. Maybe it is because of the Latin base with Romanian? as for sources, you are correct there are a lot of Hungarian sources and a lot of non-Hungarian sources.
Aristopolous on November 19, 2011:
As greek,i must say the controversy seems of little importance to me,but one thing jumped in my eye reading the article and the comments: have you noticed that the romanians name lots of non-romanian historians as sources(german,italian,greek,etc.)while the hungarians name exclusively hungarian sources?
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on October 19, 2011:
Sprzerka-- you have raised some good points, and it is true, for many years, it has been the number of epople who lived in Transylvania were Romanian in cultural origin. Hungarians camea close second.
Again a very interesting take.
Sprzerka on October 19, 2011:
Can anyone ever hope to bridge the gap simply by explaining a point of view to the other side? Hardly. Romanians are convinced that they are absolutely correct, while the Hungarians are certain that almost the exact opposite is true. Let’s face it, the problem will stay there forever.
Nevertheless, a little food for thought.
Romanians assume that the Hungarians’ view of their own history is built on the same kind of system as theirs. i.e. they have been also brainwashed in the schools about their greatness, heroism, special place in the world, culture, and their superiority vs other people who they live with etc. etc. It may surprise you, but it is actually completely untrue. For nearly 50 years, during the communist era, Hungarians were denied to be even remotely proud of their history. During the ‘Pax Sovietica’ any sort of national pride was considered to be absolute evil in Hungary. The Russians knew that the Achilles' heel of the Eastern ‘peace camp’ was the Hungarian problem, i.e. that Hungary has territorial claims against three of its neighbours, who to keep their unpleasant neighbour in the bay, formed an anti-Hungarian military alliance before WWII. How to make this bunch to love each other under their paternal umbrella? They had to keep Hungary quite. But how? Answer: they had to systematically wipe out any sort of nationalism in Hungary. In schools kids did not learn much about greatness, but they were taught specifically highlighting the bad bits about their nation: that they have been weak, they were evil, they oppressed others, and they collaborated the Nazis etc. The great historic heroes were systematically ridiculed. All with one objective DO NOT BE PROUD TO BE HUNGARIAN! And Transylvania? What Transylvania? Oh, that’s ancient history. Let’s not speak about that.
And how effective was that? Just ask Transylvanian Hungarians, who travelled to Budapest in the late 1980’s. They were called Romanians, and people asked them where they learned to speak Hungarian so well. It was absolutely shocking. The communists manipulated the interpretation of the history just to serve the purpose of the Eastern Friendship. We were told to love each other with Russians, Romanians, Czechoslovakians etc. even more than our own selves. One thing even the communists could not do. To fabricate a whole new history. That would have been so obviously untrue. And that was the problem with the Daco-Roman legend. It was so obviously a fairytale, which was fabricated just to serve a nationalistic agenda, that they did not dare to touch it. I am sure that it was considered, as it would have been so convenient to use to shut the nationalists up with this once and for all, but they did not. So they just ignored it.
Some comments were accusing the Hungarians for manufacturing their(!) history to serve some sort of unclear agenda. I found that opinion really surprising. For good or bad, the Hungarian history has been actually pretty well (almost too well) documented throughout the last millennium, and for that reason it is quite difficult to find out new things about it, not to mention fortifying that.
Sprzerka on October 19, 2011:
Very heavy subject, hard to answer in short.
Let me have a go with an 'executive summary':
- Transylvania belongs to Romania. Right or wrong? Right, becuse there are significantly more Romanians there, who probably prefer that to Hungary or to independence.
- Romanians rule lots of Hungarians in Transylvania against their will. Right or wrong? Wrong. Romania was too greedy after WW1, and run over large lands with absolute Hungarian majority, at the time when Hungary was pretty much defenseless. The land, which was taken from one country and then given to an other had little more than 50% Romanian population.
- Romania has historic and therefore moral rights to rule Transylvania. Well, that's really-really dodgy. There are massive holes in the 'logic', which is quite obvious, even if you read nothing else but merely this forum.
- Hungary has historic and moral rights to rule Transylvania. Well, that's dodgy too I guess. Despite the recorded history seems to be a little bit stronger to support the Hungarian version of the story, history actually did not stop hundreds of years ago, so it does not matter. It's actually happening even now.
What matters, is the will of the people living in a land.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on October 14, 2011:
Julian's comments: You're right: Queen Mary was the one who had an English origin and managed to change Romania's direction from pro-Germany toward pro-England (even though his husband, king Ferdinand was german!) Carmen Sylva was a most remarcable romantic personality with a profound understanding of Romanian soul, she spoke fluently five languages and really loved the romanian tradition, folk and people, constantly dressing herself in wonderful traditional clothes - despised by the snobs as "peasant" (she was so compassionate and did so many charitable acts that romanians named her "mother of wounded"). Contrary to Queen Mary, she didn't mingle with politics and was even exiled for three years because she arranged the marriage of her friend Elena Vacarescu with prince Ferdinand (an innocent act that could have hard political consequences)
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on July 08, 2011:
NagyT-- I shall look into it. I hope other will write hubs on Transylvania.
NagyT on July 06, 2011:
brill idea. continue on my hub
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on July 06, 2011:
NagyT-- very interesting, love to read the rest, will you be writing a hub on this one?
NagyT on July 05, 2011:
dear Rebecca, if it`s simply to long, just read it for yourself. it might turn up your curiosity to investigate deeper. regards
Separating Myths and Facts
In the History of Transylvania-
The United Nations has been investigating the problem. The prestigious Reader`s Digest in its February 1989 issue has a compilation of articles from newspapers the world over that condemn the events in Rumania and Transylvania. The Rumanian dictator is the most despised
person in international politics next to Hitler and Stalin.
1. the rumanian bias: Following the Daco-Romanian theory, Hategan starts Rumanian history before 107 A.D.,
when the troops of Emperor Trajan?s Roman legions first occupied. Transylvnia, then part of Dacia.
Accordingly, Hategan claims that
?the inter-mingling and inter-marriage of the native Dacian population with the Roman
colonists gradually gave birth to a new nation, whose inhabitants were eventually called
Romanians . . . By the time Emperor Aurelian withdrew the Roman legions, the new
Romanian nation was already established.?
Hategan readily admits that this theory is not universally accepted: ?Though a few prejudiced
scholars have certain contrary theories, all serious and objective historians agree that there was a
continuity of the Romanized Dacia in the lands which is Romania today, and especially in the
province of Transylvania.? It is obvious, of course, that historians who disagree with Hategan are
?prejudiced?, and those who agree with him are ?serious and objective.?
The chief weakness of the Daco-Roman theory is that there is absolutely no evidence of the
?new Romanian nation? in any document, archaeological find or geographical name for over a
thousand years. There does not exist even indirect evidence suggesting that some ?unknown? tribe
of people would be hiding out in the Carpathian mountains for over a thousand years.
Daco-Romanian Theory Refuted
This might sound as a plausible plot for some fiction, but as a historical explanation it
does not stand up. It has not only been discussed, analyzed, and refuted by several historians,
but a much more plausible theory has been proposed and documented.
A handy volume, ?Transylvania and the Theory of DacoRoman-Rumanian Continuity? has
been published by the Committee of Transylvania in 1980. It not only refutes the Daco-Roman
theory but includes an excellent bibliography. But perhaps the most telling and undisputable
evidence comes from Colin McEvedy, a ?historian?s historian,? who specializes in boundary changes
The map indicating territorial borders for the year 923 shows Transylvania as Hungarian
occupied area. According to the 998 map the Principality of Hungary, and on the 1028 map the
Kingdom of Hungary includes not only Transylvania but part of the area that later became known as
On the other hand, the territory of Rumania proper, the Regat (including Wallachia and
Moldavia), since 923 changed hands several times, without ever mentioning the Rumanians. The
Wallachian region belonged to the Bulgarians first, later it came under Byzantine rule. Moldavia was
under Byzantine and even Russian rule, until both Mojdavia and Wallachia became occupied and
ruled by the Cumenians. Moldavia and Wallachia as separate principalities did not appear until
1360,with the following explanation in the footnote:
?The Latin-speaking Wallachians and Moldavians, inhabiting modern Rumania, are first
mentioned at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Their claim to be descendants of the Roman
colonists planted there in the second century A.D. seems tendentious and improbable, for the
Romans? withdrawal from Rumania (270 A.D.) and the appearance of the Vlach states are
separated by a millennium in which the country was the property of the Slav and nomad and which
is devoid of all evidence of Roman survival. Almost certainly, the Vlachs came from the Western
Balkans and only migrated into Rumania as the nomads abandoned it in the late thirteenth and
early fourteenth century.
3.the true romanian cradle
Since there is no archeological or historical evidence of their presence in the territory of
modern Rumania or Transylvnaia, the only basis of the Daco-Roman theory is that there are a considerable
number of Roman/Latin expressions in the Rumanian language.
But upon closer examination, the linguistic studies also fail to support the Daco-Roman
theory. Many Latin words in the modern Rumanian language are late acquisitions: to buttress the
Daco Roman theory, in the 19th century, there was a conscious effort to ?latinize? the Rumanian
language. As for the original Roman linguistic heritage in the Rumanian language it is traced to a
much later period than the 3rd century .A.D. by many linguists, including the noted Rumanian
linguist, Ovid Densusianu (1973-1938
This, along with the fact that a significant number of common Albanian-Rumanian words
exist, especially specific shepherd words3 suggesting contact with Albanians who are still in the
same region on the Western Balkan.
Thus, there seems to be an element of truth in the DacoRoman theory, but it should be more
properly called WallachRoman or Illyrian-Rumanian theory.
Stadtmuller?s date of 1200 A.D. as the
beginning and McEvedy?s date as the conclusion of the Wallachian migration, when the
Wallachians show up in large mass on the Eastern Balkan.
the ?Rumanishe? wandered into Transylvania along the Orsova
Narrows, and into the Southern Danube region from around Northern Albania, i.e. the Albanian
This new, more probable theory, while
putting the cultural continuity with the Romans on a much firmer ground, would, of course, mean
changing the place and the date of the origin of the Rumanian nation by well over a thousand years.
According to this theory the Wallachians came to the Transylvanian region long after the Hungarian
settlement, thus the territorial claim based on the falsely asserted historical connection between
Dacia and Rumania is false.
It is pure coincidence that some Balkan shepherds whose language included Latin words
ended up in an area where about one thousand years earlier Roman troops happened to be stationed.
But there is absolutely no historical connection between the two events.
4.Transylvania a Hungarian Province
Since the Hungarians have settled in Transylvania, (McEvedy?s map indicating the borders in
923 does include Transylvania with the Hungarian Principality; the traditional date of the
Hungarians entry into and occupation of the Carpathian basin in 896) it was an organic part of the
Hungarian Principality, and after 1001 of the Kingdom of Hungary, politically, culturally, and
economically until the Turkish occupation. Following the Battle of Mohacs in 1526, when the
Hungarian troops suffered a decisive defeat from the Turks, McEvedys map of 1559 shows
Transylvania as an independent Principality under Turkish rule.
in Transylvania,Hungarian was the traditional language and culture, and even the uncultured Vlachs, instead of
being assimilated or oppressed, received their first Bible translations from the Hungarian.
""the very first Wallach book printed with Latin alphabet was George Szegedy?s
translation of Psalms from Hungarian: it was edited by the Hungarian printing shop of Gaspar
Heltal in 1570 A.D. The same printing shop came out with the Calvinist catechism in Wallach
language, translated from Hungarian. The first Wallach translation of the New Testament, by
order of Duke Rakoczi, was published (in Transylvania) 40 years before the first Bibletranslation
in Wallachia on the Balkan"
After the liberation from the Turks (1699) Transylvania culturally and economically returned to
Hungary, although for political reasons, it was governed from Vienna as a Great Principality by the
Hapsburgs in their capacity as Hungarian Kings until 1876, when it was legally reunited with
Hungary. McEvedy?s 1848 map of population includes the territory of Transylvania with Hungary,
while the 1849 map shows it as part of the Republic of Hungary.
It is interesting to note that the
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on July 05, 2011:
NagyT-- I am sorry but your comment was simply too long and I am not even sure of the point. You are welcome to add a cooment, however adding an entire hisotrical document is not needed. I am certain that Mos will have read about the commentary Auriel said about Transylvania... but what does it have to do with this hub? This will do nothing but make other angry and provoke conflict.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on March 18, 2011:
Janos-- thanks for the comment.
Janos Ioan on March 17, 2011:
Thank u Rebecca E. for you're hub
'ONE WORLD ONE GOD ONE FUTURE'
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 21, 2011:
I don't want to pick sides, everyone is allowed a point of view... a disscussion is welcome!
@rebecca E. on January 21, 2011:
i'm sure you're not picking sides
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 21, 2011:
anon-- I am sure you have your views on this and will not change them.
@atilla on January 20, 2011:
every single map or reference to these rivers(a sample of what you're asking for) shows these names, be it roman map, dacian references, romanian, hungarian, german, or whatever, since the beginning of recorded history... I'm sure it wasn't the ghosts of the dacians who told the hungarians/pecenegs/avars/etc what these places are named... Oh, i've got one even better : Pannonian plane !!!
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 20, 2011:
anon-- the names are probably still in use by the culture that used them, for example I know Brasov as Kronstadt-- and will use both dependatnt upon whom I am with, if I am with Saxons more often than not I refer to the ciyt as the latter, but with most of my friends it is Brasov.
@atilla on January 20, 2011:
Dacia’s main rivers – Maris, Samus, Crisia, and Alutus are today named Mures, Somes, Cris and Olt.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 17, 2011:
question-- from my understanding the magyars are from Hungary, if that is the case, then you would need to say that you will need to look westward, as for the gypsies, are you referring to roma? The saxons, my family, referred to them as roma, but also some of the romanian and hungarians (and also other Germans) were referred differently by the saxons, for some would also refer to Hungarians as skekeylies ( I am misspelling it) and they were Hungarians whow had many ties to Transylvania, and fewer to Hungary, and fewer still to Romania.
As for leaving a mark, where did you look for your info? As far as I understand on that front, a migrartory tribe often does not leaving long lasting "marks"
question on January 17, 2011:
The gipsies are a tribe that migrated from Northern India into Europe without leaving a trace on the way.Coincidently or not, the magyars never left any trace on their way to Europe as well. although their "ancestors" left tons of traces in Asia and the Caucasus. Every other migratory tribe left a mark wherever they passed. I tried for a long time to find a different explanation, but the only logical explanation is that they are THE SAME TRIBE !
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 14, 2011:
hey attilia-- hate to break it to you, but so do you. Most romanians whom I know have said for the most part they have a lot of different ancestors. The fact remains that you have added nothing to this discussion.
As for fightting to change the hisotry so does Romania, and Germany, and Austria, and just about every other country... so really it is a matter of hisotry and dates and not people... since it seems that even romanians have a 95% chance of being not romanian. =)
hey atilla on January 14, 2011:
you have 95% chances of being something other than hungarian. I propose that every hungarian speaker study their genealogic tree and adopt the culture and language of their ancestors. That way Hungary will dissapear off the map in 100 years since 95% of them are in fact magyarized romnians, slovaks, germans, serbs, etc... This is why the Hungarian state fights so much to change their history the way it suits them, because if people knew who they are, this fake state would dissapear. They've been trying to change history for half a millenia and are still at it ... Pathetic
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 12, 2011:
attilia-- I won't comment about cities outside of Transylvania, mostly because I am not certain about them. There are many problems that this area faces, and unfortunately to make it right, a lot of people will need to break the mentality of "us vs them" since both Hungary and Romanai have both so much potential.
attila on January 12, 2011:
Yes indeed, but I was talking about cities outside of Transilvania. Those are indeed Romanians, but with the cities in Transilvania it's a different story, they have nothing to do with their own language, they are ortodoxes, and have been writing in latin language for a couple of hundred years, but still they say they are the children of catholic Latins.
Anyhow what's done it's done and sadly it's mostly the Hungarians fault the situation is like this: they left everyone into Transilvania for a thousand years and now we had to pay the price. We took part in both World Wars and sadly on the "wrong" side, unlike romanians who waited for the best opportunity to enter the war.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on January 11, 2011:
attila-- that could be, but for the most part, many of my friends -- who are Romanian have said some of the Romanian titles for a city were in fact based upon a Roman/Latinized name, which the Romanians would dirive into their own version.
In a sense it is the same with any of the city names almost anywhere. it may not be Saxon (as in my ancestors village!) but it was certainly "german" sounding enough to be okay for them.
attila on January 11, 2011:
Regarding a post by Alexandru Poenaru about Romanian village names that mean nothing in Romanian because the olah people have a rich imagination: some of them have logical deductions while the others actually mean nothing, because they are NOT Romanian!
Craiova - Craiove?ti family, Crai also meaning King in Romanian language;
Bucuresti - derived from Bucur, a Romanian name;
Also you can check Buzau, Iasi or any other name, Romanians don't have a high imagination, they are all derived names from different meanings in different languages. It's a shame that a so called Romanian can write posts here and really doesn't know he's own history and language...
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on December 02, 2010:
Em-- as i've said I suspect we are all proud of our heritage and yes I think it is a more European thing or even non-North American thing to be more nationalistic.
the email is in fact real I received it from a reader of my blog Things about Transylvania.
Em on December 01, 2010:
The letter seems very authentic. )I grew up in Transilvania and moved to the US only a coupld of years ago.) Unfortunately - due to centuries of wars - there is a lot of hatred and extremism going on between Romanians and Hungarians in Transilvania and the above letter reads like an extremist hungarian one (I am not a Hungarian too so I am not being a hater here).
The one thing that people (Americans) need to understand is that the concept of acceptance and let's all just embrace each other's culture is NOT something European nationals aspire to. We are all very proud Hungarians / Romanians / Germans etc. and we do not appreciate people trying to change that.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on December 01, 2010:
moblie entrepeneur-- I like your points, and one which places side by side without much of a basis (and we all have them!) this is good food for thought. I think the email is do a disservice to all the cultures of Transylvania.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on November 21, 2010:
Radu-- I have both heard about and read some of these people's writings, In particular Roth's writings which I was able to read while in Germany... I also suspect that unbaised will be hard on all sides, (not only hungarian or Romanian, but Saxon as well, along with many others) which is why we have to think of Transylvania in terms of historical facts.
Radu on November 21, 2010:
I'm not talking about books... Most history books are written hundreds of years after the event... I'm talking about the contemporary official documents and neutral accounts locked away mostly in Budapest and the Vatican... An unbiased study of true historic accounts would forever bury hungarian irredentism with respect to Transilvania... The only problem is that one side of the debate refuses to wake up to the 21st century realities...
Some names for you to check :
Carl F. Marienburg
?tefan Ludwig Roth
Count von Marenches
Dr. Julius Jung
Milton G. Leher
You will never find any statements made by these eye-witnesses of transylvanian history in any hungarian historical (or should I say, histerical) books so don't be surprised that you get that kind of emails...
1) most of the posters before me(romanian and hungarian alike) are widely off the mark,
2) schwabs in transylvania were not angels either so before reading about any of the people I mentioned above make sure you give up any pride you might have for your origins, and
3) I hold a PhD in European History and teach in Rome.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on November 21, 2010:
Radu-- some points to consider, and I am in full agreement with learning from books, and compariing them to the online articles.
As for the quotes i have read them before, and the Saxons of Transylvania are starting to say that they have long romanticized their history.
Radu on November 21, 2010:
and people, please stop studying history on youtube and wikipedia. A cat accidentally stepping on a keyboard can upload information on there...
Radu on November 21, 2010:
.........from Sinca Veche (today’s Fagaras), spoken on his deathbed : "I die happy because I don’t leave a wife and kids behind me in slavery."
sorry for the typos
Radu on November 21, 2010:
There are ~ 1.5 million hungarian speakers in Transylvany, of which:
~ 300.000 magyarized romanians
~ 600.000 magyarized szekelys
~ 200.000 magyarized gypsies
~ 400.000 magyars
The sad thing is that the person sending that email has more than 75% chances of having other ethnic origins than he thinks. To understand how this is possible, you have to look at what neutral medieval travellers in Transylvania said about its social structure (see bellow), you have to pay a visit to old cemeteries and check the magyarized names on the tomb stones, you have to consider the fact that a large part of transylvanian villages are first mentioned in the 11th and 12th centuries because of decrees by hungarian kings confiscating their land, and most important, you have to be a rational person.
The social structure of medieval Transylvania was as follows:
- first among the equals: the arian nation of the magyars
- second, the germans, because of their work ethics and non-rebelious nature
- third, the szekelys, as long as they gave up their language and traditions and did not challenge the leadership
- fourth, the gypsies, as long as they satyed out of the arian nation's sight
The romanians were not considered human.
This is what the german geologist R. Haquet said about the romanian treatment he witnessed in the years(1763-1764) spent in Transylvania :
This neglected and opressed nation owns the least fertile lands in the country. These lands are taken away from them as soon as they are deforested by them with sweat and ready to be seeded with corn. Every german or Hungarian can use the romanian’s land as they wish or can become its owner even if the latter was the rightful owner for hundreds of years. The Romanian is chased away with his whole family in the mountains where he only finds rock, and is sometimes forced to leave the country.
If a Romanian settlement sits next to a german or Hungarian village, the Romanian is not allowed to get closer to these privileged nation’s villages than a gipsy. No one offers him a kind word and he can never have a holly day. I will never forget the words of a lone old man of the Romanian nation, from Sinca Veche (today’s Fagaras), spoken on his death bed :
While living among them I had the opportunity to find out that the Romanian is kind. How his heart was lightened when he was treated like a brother… No matter how rough these people were, I could witness, during the years I spent among them, treats that could not have been shameful for the most civilised man. How much suffering the hate and indifference brought to this once great and flourishing nation…
P.S. You’re probably trying to assess the Romanian transilvanian’s attitude towards ethninc Hungarians. Well, I am sorry to disappoint you but there are no animosities between us and the proportion of extremists on both sides is much less than one might think. Only that they are as expected, much louder. And to answer your true question, there will not be any kind of autonomy for the magyarized szeklers in the medium term. Not only that their leaders are systematically offending the Romanian state symbols at every opportunity they get and practising ethnic cleansing in the area, but there are also keeping the region poor and refusing foreign investment because they’re afraid of ‘damaging the ethnic balance’. Such mentality belongs in the dark ages and as long as the szeklers let a bunch of extremists rule them there will be no chance of autonomy in the area.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on October 21, 2010:
ciprian-- my thoughts exactly, and texas is one I never really thought of but great anaology.
ciprian on October 20, 2010:
The same way the history of Texas is related to the history of Mexico and USA, the history of Transylvania is related to the history of Hungary and Romania.
That email referenced above contains false informations and data probably used for political and nationalist purposes. It doesn't make too much justice to the people of Transylvania as it promotes hatred between Transylvanian (mainly Romanian and Hungary) people.
A way better source of information about Transylvania is the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania
Romania and Hungary belong both to EU now and there will be no real border between these 2 countries starting some time next year. Within this context, the apparent ethnic conflicts will be pushed to irrelevance.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on September 29, 2010:
Alexandru-- from what I understand, and I refer to one of my romanian friends, you did have school and Romanian orthodox churches in Transylvan while it was a part of both Hungary and than the Autro-Hungarian Emrpire- simply because there were a great dealt of unest in the area, so they didn't want a rebellion on their hands, as in 1848.
The mina feature was that the school sna dchurches were taxed at higher rates, and also romania itself was not a country untilt eh late 1800, under the rule of Prince Carol (later King Carol I) so there is something to be said about Transylvaniam culture.
Alexandru Poenaru on September 28, 2010:
To Toronto1990, Romania is the sovereign state of Transilvania so even if you like it or not in this country you need to speak the official language. If romanians are so bad why you even have hungarian schools/churchs ? We do not want to erase you and your culture from the history of this land.
Note: in the time of the hungarian domination of Transilvania most of the Romanian schools and churches were forbidden.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on September 24, 2010:
Toronto-- yes I've nto been back but alot of what was my family's is now owned by others, although they were gracious enough to let fmaily members who did go back inside the house. I suspect they feel the same as you only in reverse.
Toronto1990 on September 24, 2010:
i was born in 1990 in transilvania i lived there for 15 years and moved to toronto my grandparents parents they were all hungarianhs and after romanians got transilvania our family had to become romanian citizens .Myself i never speaked romanian i only speak hungarian and romanian went to hungarian school hungarian church maybe they took our land and they try to contolss uss but in our heart were hungarians and im proud that our people still try their best to get back out land our school that romanians took away ! God help us
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on September 21, 2010:
Alexandru-- a very interesting point of view, i can see where you are coming from, one thing trasylvania was a part of Hungary during the Ottoman invasions, so I think that is why it wasn't under that sort fo rule, but it was used as passage in effort to get to Austria and the rest of Europe.
Alexandru Poenaru on September 20, 2010:
I suggest another point of view, one more "viewable".
I'm almost 21 years old, and i am from Romania. Since 2007 I've traveled across Europe (France, UK, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Turkey and Bulgaria. At my age my eyes locks on women (even if i want or not, it's something naturally, damn hormones). My point is, I've never seen more beautiful women like in Romania anywhere else (in this Countries) and you can search the web(forums, youtube, even dating sites), even try to visit. OK, I've seen beautiful woman in Paris, London, Budapest, but there are a few, in Romania wherever you look you see a head-turning girl.
Hope you understand my point of view
Another topic is the debate on the Romanian names of the cites in Transylvania, they say they are meaningless. Please tell me what my town's name "Buzau" means in Romanian, or "Craiova", or "Iasi", or even our capital city name "Bucharest". Let me tell you NOTHING. Romanians have a very good imagination and they are very creative.
We can make something from nothing.
And another comment is on the fact that romanian countries only paid tribute to the Turks,so they were almost free.Ottomans invaded Hungary from Serbia, not from the Romanians countries. And let's not forget that Transylvania was never under ottoman power and the rest of the Hungary was, and that make me think...WHY ?
Sorry for my English.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on September 07, 2010:
UnRoman-- an interesting point of view, well said at the end.
Un Roman on September 07, 2010:
My dear so-called huns, hungarians or magyars friends,
run a genetic analysis please. You'll discover that you have romanian genes or germanic genes (genotypes A1 or A2). Your genetic resemblings with your asian ancestors are not into your genes. A recent genetic study shows that 0.5% of people from Hungary have hun or magyar (asian) genes. So... who are you???
I think you are my brothers and sisters!
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on September 03, 2010:
iulian-- I'll have to read these poems in romanian, my understanding of the laguage being slight but enough to get by.
Yes Oberth was a fancinating man, and it is a pity more people don't know about people (saxon, jewish, romanian, and hungarian) who made Transylvania the wonderful place it is... hm, maybe I should write a hub one that!
iulian on September 02, 2010:
well, I don't know German, and in my opinion to read a translation of her poems wouldn't be a good choice (I think that, essentially, poetry is untranslatable and generally even a good translation means a heavy loss for a poem). But I'll try to read her memories when I'll have some time, she was a valuable reviewer, critic and observer of romanian tradition, society and culture... I also have to admit I was never very good at reading poetry, I must shamefully confess I only read some poems of Eminescu (but he would pardon me as during his lifetime there was published a single volume of his poems and even that without his consent!) Personally, my favourite poets are Toparceanu and Minulescu (both of them, together with Eminescu, have poems that became lyrics for some of Romania's musical gems - if you like rock or folk music I can send you some samples)
By the way, Eminescu was very strict, even with his own works, and when he was asked by the queen (Carmen Sylva) to give his opinion about some of her poems, he bluntly remarked: "They can not be published in this form..." (because of their rudimentary) and Carmen Sylva - who had been used to be flattered by romanian artists and all her circle (there are always profiteers around a sponsor, especially if she's a royal person!) - replied: "You forgot that you're talking with your Queen!" ... and Eminescu shortly remarked: "Yes, I'm talking with the Queen of Romania, but not with the queen of poetry!"
Well, being the king of poetry, Eminescu was entirely qualified to make such remarks, but for sure his main reason was the respect and friendship for the queen in not allowing her to publish something with gross imperfections, that could only harm her prestige and literary reputation.
I have a lot of consideration for many remarcable Saxon personalities from Transylvania, I met some of them personally (Carl Lehman, Walter Gutt) or by my circle of friends who talked with them (Hermann Oberth), by some common actions and mutual interests (Alfred Prox, Julius Bielz, J. Martin Honigberger) or simply by reading about them (Stephan Ludwig Roth). Most of them are of world status and deserve a much greater fame and reverence than the one they enjoy today. By the way, Stephan Ludwig Roth was the most brave to express and support the romanian's national and religious rights in Transylvania, and was executed by the hungarian administration ( I guess you don't know romanian, so the following american link would be very useful to find details about Roth: www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/roth.htm )
In my opinion, Hermann Oberth was by far the greatest saxon of Transylvania, not only by his genius (among others, he is the father of spaceflight) but also for his character. He was a real sage and a man of peace, he choosed to not disclose some discoveries that could make him greater than Oppenheimer or Einstein, because he knew that their military application would put an end to our human race. He was much respected even by the soviets; after WW2 he was taken to Russia and asked for help in some difficulties they had with rocket technology, afterwards he was freed and later asked by the americans to get them out of the technical obstacles that had blocked their space program. Werner von Braun, his best student and director of the american flight to the Moon, used to say: "Professor Oberth was constantly twenty years ahead us" (while they tried to solve the problem of going to the Moon, Hermann had already found solutions for the ion propeller, that even today is not yet made). He never forgot where he came from, and after retirement he visited his native region (Sighisoara and Rupea), asking about his childhood friends and acquaintance. Indeed, he was a Herr-man and an Ober-th, even his name speaks about the greatness of his soul. By his studies he was a physician, and even without practicing this noble art, he was by his soul a healer and a true sage, always looking to the skies but humble, warm-hearted and never complaining or asking anything for him (even when he was near dying of hunger in Germany after WW2). We could learn so much from him...
It's sad we are so passionate about the wrong deeds of the past or so narrow-minded in our nationalism that instead of trying to enrich our spirit by learning from our neighbour nations their qualities and culture, or try to find more about their valuable personalities, we mostly look in their garbage bags, to show their sins, shortcomings and vices as these make us feel a bit better than we really are. Even I can blame myself for being too harsh or maybe superficial on Attila by naming him a brute (as the Huns were generally perceived at their arrival in Europe), maybe his warrior spirit was much too exagerated in mass-media... in fact, it's only a speculation that he killed his brother (to become sole ruler of huns) and indeed, what we know is that at his time the huns had already mixed with the "german" tribes (ostrogoths, heruls, gepides, etc) and adopted their language and a lot of their customs - even Attila could have a german or byzantine noble mother, as it seems the huns hadn't come to Europe with (many) womens. Some historical facts prove that even if we can't say anything about Attila's religious faith (he had been exposed to christianity, and if he was been given the ring by Honoria plus the fact that he was accepted in the Roman Empire as militia leader, he was ready to be baptised to make possible such a marriage, and at least respected the christian faith... we also know he decided to end the attacks on Troyes and Rome after meeting local bishop, respectively pope Leo) but he proved diplomacy, cleverness, forgiveness and magnanimity in critical instances, so he was much respected not only by his fellow "germanic" allies but even by his ennemies. Of course, this doesn't excuse his greed (after being given Panonia, he dared to ask Gallia, the best roman province, as dowry for marrying Honoria) and brutality (he completely razed Aquileia - leaving no trace of it behind, destroyed Metz - where the bishop was killed in the church, etc) but even in his case we should learn from his goodwill (where he showed it) and forget about his obvious sins and faults (especially megalomany, so absurd was his idea of replacing the Roman Empire with a barbarian federation ruled by the huns, with Attila and his succesors as emperors!) Even the gothic kings (Alaric and his brother) that conquered Rome understood the fact that germanic tribes could not replace the gigantic greek-roman culture and the empire to make a barbarian empire instead, so they decided to keep the Roman dinasty and the romanity as a "lesser evil" (if not a good think) - a vision that Hitler didn't fully agree, with the results we all know.
Finally, just for enjoyment, I'll take an excellent English fragment of (one of) the best poems of Eminescu (though its perfection can only be tasted in Romanian, as it has some very subtle alliteration on "m" and a return of strophes from the end to the beginning), with the most philosophically and spiritual profound message that you could find in romantic poetry:
Time goes by, time comes along,
All is old and all is new;
What is right and what is wrong,
You must think and ask of you;
Have no hope and have no fear,
Waves that rise can never hold;
If they urge or if they cheer,
You remain aloof and cold.
To our sight a lot will glisten,
Many sounds will reach our ear;
Who could take the time to listen
And remember all we hear?
Keep aside from all that patter,
Seek yourself, far from the throng
When with loud and idle clatter
Time goes by, time comes along. (....)
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on August 15, 2010:
julian-- I'll check ou these sites, I have found that both sides are passionate about what is history... but I will look at these sites. Have you read any carmen sylva?
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on August 11, 2010:
Julian-- an other good point, however King Carol I wife was Elizabeth or carmen slyva her pen name-- an she wa a German princess, their nephew Ferdinand, was married to Queen Marie of Romania, who was the randdaughter of Queen Victoria.
As for the peasent revolt, I can say i have not seen records of that being mntioned, but a quick look at Europe between 1905 to 1908 finds: Russia, Greece, Romania, and Spain facing forms of revolt, also there was revls in Austr-Hungary in 1908 so it was widespread
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on July 25, 2010:
MT-- very interesting points, but one thing I have learned, everyone has their views, perhaps because of the land and the movement between the countries...
MT (Szász Előd) on July 24, 2010:
my family name Szász means Saxon...so it is 100% that i have saxon blood in my venes but i`m hungarian, more exactly secler, and we have a lot of ammunition to say that we have been here first, not romanians.. this would be indifferent for me who came first here to Transylvania, but romanians angers me when they say for me their lyings and their made up hystori...the daco-romanian hystori is just a theory, but in hystori books in schools and everywhere now it is written as the true history of romanians...
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on July 12, 2010:
bswan-- this area has been a part of a rather large debate for many years, Recently I have read a history of Empress Elizabeth of Austria and her views on Hungary... very informative on her views on Hungary and the area of Transylvania
bswan on July 12, 2010:
Interesting comments..............for those who think Dacia is Romanian..........well I have news for you...Dacia was the translation of Koros which is hungarian and who were hungarians that lived there for 5000years before the magyars, avars etc arrived. I am an Australian, studied european history, in particular hungarian history. After extensive studie I can feel for the hungarians who have had their land stolen (Treaty of Trianon was in fact a fraud) from them by Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, Ukraine, Austria and Slovenia. I hope the Hungarians get back their land because legally it belongs to them.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on June 30, 2010:
skekely-- interesting fact and figures, but it is about the people and of course the dates, i think that living in harmony takes work, and as a saxon, I think there are some great things about Trasylvania... this is a great area.
skekely bogdan on June 30, 2010:
Salut, i am 50% romanian, 50% maghiar( hun, hungarian, etc).
Right now i live in Romania from 2004. In 1987 my family came in Hungary, and went back to Romania in 2004.
Transilvania was always been inhabited by people, gepizi, dacs,romans,slavs,huns(there are the newest people) etc.
Roman Empire comquer only 1/5 of Dacia, a part of this people move to S Danube, ALbania, Macedonia, Greek.
Romanians didn't came to Romania from S Danube, Romania inhabited both N and S Danube from ancient times, Carpathian, Moldova.
History is distorsioned both from Romania and Hungary, each have their arguments.
But to say that Transylvania was not inhabited when Huns arrived there is outrageous.
What was romanians? Animals? To say that huns didn't find any population at all?....:D
I like both Romania and Hungary. I admited, Romania is ancient european country, Hungaria are a newer nation in Europe.
I think that Hungary managed a lot, think about it, a hun tribes came in Europe, and now is like 100.000km2 and 10 milions people.
Hungarian nation is a combination of german and hun, a part of population look just like germans, other just like romanians.
In Romania, maghiars live in armony with romanians, if i ask an maghiar about Greater Hungary Empire, or autonomy, nobody support this, except extremists.
Romania have romanians extremist that want russian people to die, maghiar, etc, and also Hungary has extremists that want romanians die.
Transylvania was a hungarian colony for few houndred years, but full of romanians.This is facts, archives full of german cronicles, italian, britanics, french.
In Trianon France support Romania with Transylvania because this is the true, Transylvania is romanian ancient land, conquered by huns.
Parts of my family are " sas", other think are germans, svab, etc.
Hungary was bringing germans,jews,pols, gipsy in Transilvania, give them land.
Thank you for that.
I went back to Romania because my family was having some big difficulties in Hungary, because i am half romanians, and i do know little about hungarian language.
All my collegues laugh at me all the ime, moch at me because im romanian in their knowledge.
We all lived in Budapest.
In 2002 romanian state give us our land back confiscated by comunists and went back to Romania, i find out a great nation in 2004, but with a lot of problems regarding hungarians extremists....this is sad...
Romanians think at me as hungarian, and Hungarians think as me as romanian.....
I have a romanian girl right now, i do not have problems with she regarding my nationality.
But she laugh at me all the time because i like green color:D.
I like both countries so much, hungarians have great culture, beatifull female, as well romanians.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on May 26, 2010:
Dominique-- that is an interesting point of view about the Hapsburgs, but of course it was also the time, I'd argue that for every empire and every kingdom at that time. Still you are inddedd corrrect about the people of Romania, there were a lot of Romanians who lived in the area, my family can recall that as well.
Dominique on May 25, 2010:
Quite evidently, the consequinces of Imeperialism are everywhere Imperialism planted the seeds of hate;including those seeds of the hungry Habsburgs. As we know, Imperialists, in order to benefit themselves, everywhere they occupied land and netions, first thing they've done was to destroy all documents, followed by the pride of the occupied people through destroying their language, cultures and even pushed them to change their names as it has happened in occupied Transylvania. Personally, I've met many people of Transylvania who had/has hungarians names and they had no knowledge of a word of the hungarian language. And let's be honest, the Hungarians of Romania always had TV. Newspapers,Theaters, Universities in their language. I wish the Romanians of today, will be treated by the Hungarians with the same respect as the Romanians have for ever. One more thing. All Romanians in Romania proper, including (occupied) Moldova, Banat, and all suroundings of Romania, count for about 35-40 millions. Transylvania alone has more Romanians than all Hungarians of Hungary. Question: Were these 40 million Romanian born Yesterday? Where do they come from if they were decimated by the barbarians? People, understand the fact that Imperialists always desmembered and occupied and vice versa, leaving behind hate, poverty,so they can continue to prosper. I hope the Hungarians will understand that their former master _The Habsburgs, lost to the Bourbons,and to the Americans, and the only way to prosper is not a continuation of hate for the slaves that finally have gotten their land back; Romanians,Slovaks,Serbs, and yes The Spaniards. Do not forget that "Carlos Quinto" was hiding under this name, but he was a Habsburg who controlled half of Soth America. "Maybe the Habsburgs ahould try to get back South America too, since they are in mood of a revanche; and why not Spain and the other former colonies?
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on May 14, 2010:
Zoltan-- My family were Saxons from the North, so closer to Bistritz ( or Bistritsa-- sorry if I am misspelling this!) so a lot of what went on in the Southern areas were quite a bit different than in the North.
In fact I will refer to Transylvania as Siebenburgen more often than not, simply because to me Siebenburgen means seven castles ( roughly of course...) but that is what the German referred to the area as. This is of course more of a fansination about dates and hisotry to me, in terms of what each culture has to say.
I will however say that incorrect dates, such as the one given in these emails, do not help with anything, except more difference of views.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on May 13, 2010:
Zoltan-- interesting post, a lot of valuable information here, I am not up on laguages but I have looked through the website you have listed. Again I think it is cultures that people are talking about. Still this does give me some better historical inisights, which we can all use.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on May 10, 2010:
adi-- some excellent points which add to this topic, thanks for them. Some cities which are "considered" a part of Transylvania are in fact a part of the Banat or other smaller areas ont eh outside of Transylvania.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on May 10, 2010:
Flo-- yes the Saxons from Southern Transylvania did, but the ones who lived in the North Bistritsa did not. this was simply because they sent a delegation of learned individuals who came from the Southern Cities-- Cluj and Brasov.
adi on May 10, 2010:
ps: sorry for the multiple typos and such. i wrote in a hurry.
adi on May 10, 2010:
3. transylvania is the cradle of romanian culture, it is not a myth. the region of dacia (now transylvania) was the dacian heartland, it as the most heavily romanized as such it had the most romanians. both wallachia and moldavia were formed by romanians fleeing from transylvania. if romanians would have migrated from the balakans the balkans moldavia and wallachia would have been formed before the romanians reached transylvania.
regarding you question it is like saying that the french came from across the pyrenees because spain is also inhabited by romance speakers.
the proto-romanians formed on both sides of the danube. the aromanians and macedoromanians are the descendants of the latinized thracians while the romanians are the descendants of the latinized dacians. the dacians and thracians where the same language.
when the slavs migrated to the balkans they cut the eastern romance speakers in 2 parths, the north romance speakers (romanians, panonians) and the south romance speakers (aromanians, macedoromanians, dalmantians, etc. that is why you have romanian related nations south of the danube.
4. here you make a terrible mistake. romania as a whole belongs to central-europe both geographically and historically.
but please explain why i as a "transylvanian" (both me and my entire extended family live in or near oradea so i'm as transylvanian as you can get) belong to central europe and my friend in suceava does not.
adi on May 10, 2010:
this a reply to what flo said
1. there is plenty of written evidence. the only problem is hungarian historians seem to ignore it altogether.
here is just a quick run down on all the ancient, dark age and early medieval chroniclers/chronicles that mention romanians north of the danube: historia augusta, 4th century AD. procopius, jordanes (though i see him more as a clown, some take him seriously), anna comnena, an 8th century khazar khan, his name has been lost, mentions in a letter to the rabi of cordoba that romans live in the region of ardiil (aka ardeal aka transylvania), preiscus of paninum (448, mentions dacians raiding the byzantine empire across the danube), the letter of emmerich of elwangen to the abbot of st gall (~860 AD, mentions dacians living east of panonia), the vhronicle of jansen enikel mentions charlemangne fighting against dacians, germans, slavs and sarmatinas in eastern pannonia. the chronicle of st nestor mentions romanians fighting arpad's magyars. magister petrus (aka anonymus) also says the same thing though hungarians dismiss his chronicle. simon of keza (also known as the greatest hungarian chronicler to have ever lived) says the same thing. descriptio europae orientalis mentions that arpad defeated 10 vlach kings, khorenatsi speaks about the country of the vlachs where the dfacians lived (aka trnasylvania), gesta henrici, the biography of st olaf of norway etc. also i suggest you read the works of any pre-1848 hungarian historian and you'll se they aprove of the continuity theory.
regarding physical evidence we have baths and walls built around sarmisegetusa 150 years after the withdrawal (i doubt the gepids or the huns knew how to build such thins), we have an entire donarium at biertan, we have numerous roman style cemeteries and dacian cemetaries all around the country. also there is also a church suspected to date right ot the 6th century under the statue of mathias corvinus in cluj.
2. the cultural differences between ardeal and the rest of romania are as relevant as the cultural differences between manchester and london or the differences between los angeles and new your, i.e. not at all.
a. most towns and all major cites in romania are a continuation of the old roman and dacian cities/forts. the differences. there were cathedrals built in wallachia in the 13th century, curtea de arges for instance. it is also strange to demand that an orthodox nation build gohtic cathedrals. and you have not taken into account that unlike transylvania, wallachia and moldavia suffered the full force of the mongol hordes, who obliterated any standing city. the mongols that invaded hungary were merely a scouting force.
the romanian folk songs in transylvania are almost identical with those from the rest of thr the country. the romanian folk costumes differ from region to region. those from oltenia are not the same as those from bucovina or muntenia.
flo on May 10, 2010:
actually rebbeca the saxons did have a right to vote.
the romanians voted on dec 1st at abla iulia
then the saxons, upset that in 1869 thew hungarian administration removed their privileged status, gathered at mediasch on december 15th and voted for the union with romania, i don't recall if the danube swabians also voted at mediasch or they gathered in a different city. but the representatives of all germans from transylvania voted on december 15th.
then on december the 25th the hungarian nobility gathered in cluj and expressed their loyalty to hungary.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on April 14, 2010:
peep-- i am of Transylvania Saxon origin and i find value in both cultures, which is why my avatar is the way it is. It is sad really that one can not talk about the beauty of the land, and the hisotry without running into who is better or who has rigths to it. Of course building a future is important. Transylvania is important.
peep on April 14, 2010:
I meant cousin, sorry.
peep on April 14, 2010:
I think the problem about this history bit is that the Romanian regime after WW II. has changed most of the facts or at least tried to. In my opinion Transylvania is nor Hungarian neither Romanian but Transylvanian. They should be independent. They always have been different from both cultures.
It is true though that Hungarians moved there at around 895 and the first Vlah people only appeared in the 13th century. These are facts, not made up things by naughty Hungarians.
By the way not all Hungarians hate Romanians. We cannot say such things about a whole nation. A country/nation consists of different people.
My grandad was born in Arad, he was Hungarian. His godmother was married to a Romanian man. Therefore my grandad's cusin mainly speaks Romanian and her children are all Romanians.
People should rather consider being human and build a future together.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on April 08, 2010:
v-- I'll also mention that for me, when contacting the Romanian consulate, they sent me information on Bucharest and not Transylvania. I suspect there is a lot of politics alive and well in the area.
Rebecca E. (author) from Canada on April 08, 2010:
Delia-- the great national meeting was Romanian and Southern Transylvanian Saxons who voted, As far as I have read the Northern Transylvanian Saxons did not have a right to vote, and the city where the vote came was in Alba Iluia, one of the oldest Romanian Settlements. This being in Southern Transylvania.
v on April 08, 2010:
Delia, postings like this should not exceed a certain length but most importantly, rule which applies for any form of communication, IT HAS TO BE COHERENT. If you say a lot of senseless things you don´t make a point. I would try to structure an answer which dresses most of your..."ideas"
1. written evidence of Romanian continuity. This is a problem you have in southern Romania and it is indeed a mystery, how come people could live hundreds of years without leaving the slightest evidence? In Transylvania after the Aurelian redraw we had the gepidic kingdom, the most notable king Omharus was berried at Apahida (near Cluj) this is a piece of information which is carefully ignored by Romanian (bucharest dictated history). Of course you cannot call the people living in transylvania before the hungarian migration "romanians" as they were substantially different from the extracarpatic romanians, given that the later existed at all and if so, dear Delia nobody was oppressing them at that time whatsoever.
2. you mention the cultural differences between transylvania and romania as beeing irrelevant.
a. urban development: since early ages, urban settlements in Transylvania had a determinate geographical structure, institutional presence and ruling in all aspects of social life. In southern romania there were settlements with no structure, identity or clear ruling, mentioned for the first time around 1400 when in Transylvania Gothic cathedrals were already raised. Transylvania had detailed maps in which land ownership and borders were clearly stated, such a document never existed in romania with consequences up to the present date.
b.traditions: the folk music and costumes from Transylvania are considerably different from those in southern romania, and defiantly of centraleuropean influence, easter traditions, the christmas carols have different themes, ornamental patterns on pottery, wooden or stone decorations etc.
3. you mention something about romania having cultural roots in transylvania. I don´t understand how this myth appeared, it has a striking resemblance to the serbians claming that kosovo was their cultural cradle. If extracarpatic romanians don´t come from the Balkans why then we have Aromanians and Istroromanians in the balkans and Istria and and Maglenoromanians in northen Grece?
4. You decided not to comment on a statement wich is interesting and a key issue, namely the fact that we as Transylvanians, belong to the central european world, nations and values and till present date, bucharest forces us to join a geopolitical groups to which we don´t belong denying our identity.
I´ll be back
Delia on April 08, 2010:
I don't know what happened. After I pushed the post comment button a page error showed up. Now I see it's missing a part of what I wrote. Maybe it was too long. Sorry! I still want to continue. So...
For 150 years, they didn't have even the right to choose their own religion. In the middle of 18th century the general Bukow with his army forced over 500 orthodox churches to pass to Greek – Catholic Church asserted to Vatican. Those priests who refused, were killed and their church destroyed. They destroyed over the 200 Orthodox Monasteries, too. Transylvania never had other Orthodox monasteries before 1918. What about Austro-Hungarian Empire who, in the WWI, forced Romanians to enroll their army and put them in the first line to fight against their brothers from Romania? Isn't this sadistic ethnic cleansing? What about Horthy's ethnic cleansing (both, Jewish and Romanian people)? It's a fact and it's recognized in world history as genocide.
Now let's look at Hungarians rights. Did/do they have the right to choose their own religion? Yes. The right to learn not only their language in public schools, but to learn everything in their language (from primary schools to universities)? Yes. The right to use their language in administrative institutions? Yes. Do they have the right to culturally express themselves in their own language/tradition? Yes. There is a low specifying that they have different status than Romanians? No. Than, where is the discrimination? I'm sorry, but if they want more, they want privileges, not rights. And this is not right for Romanians, as well as for the other nationalities living in this country.
Yes, there are isolated cases who declared against Hungarians, like Gheorghe Funar. But first, nobody can blame a whole nation for someone's individual opinion and second, this men is only a circle clown with big mouth. Did he ever kill, arrest, oppress, and force to leave the Cluj city or even punch an innocent Hungarian? No. What is the worst thing he did (except his public declarations)? As a mare of Cluj Napoca, now a Romanian city, with a large majority of Romanian population, he changed Hungarian names with Romanian. There will be voices telling he was a lieder of a party and many Romanians shared his opinions. Many, but not all. The prove is that party doesn't exist anymore. Does this make Romania the most xenophobic country in today Europe?
That's what make us, Romanians, angry. Hungarians have the right to rise their voice all over the world and deplore their "bad" situation, but if a Romanian dare to only open the moth they quickly blame him/her as being a liar, chauvinist or xenophobe.
I can understand the frustration of Hungarian noblemen who really lost their privileges: first, the power to administrate a country and give the lows they like, then they lost the Romanian and Hungarian workers from their lands. In communism was even worst because they lost even their land and homes. But this wasn't a discriminatory policy. It was applied to every landowner, doesn't matter his nationality.
What I don't understand is the angry of the other Hungarians. Peasants represented the largest population of Transylvania (doesn't matter their nationality). And history shows Hungarian peasants fighting shoulder to shoulder with Romanian, Szekeler and Saxon peasants against the oppression of Hungarian noblemen. They understood each other and respected each other. They didn't fight and hate each other because they always knew that not their neighbor is guilty for what happen, but those who lead the country and make the low.
Conclusions: We all want to find out the truth. And the truth is we'll never find it. Hungarian as well as Romanian versions of history, are full of holes filled with suppositions. Both are far from perfect and could be combated. Is that simple. There in no way to have a dispute if one of them would be correct and clear.
I really want to underline this for those who believe that they can't talk with Romanians because they are indoctrinated and unable to accept other people point of view. Maybe Romanians are indoctrinated, but not in a larger measure than Hungarians. Both nations were indoctrinated, each one with it's own version of history. Unable to accept others opinion? Yes, as much time I see the holes in Hungarian versions, I can't accept it. But the same thing is valid for Hungarians, being unable to accept Romanian version.
And here comes the philosophical question: WHY? Why we still fight? Why can't we live in peace, without all these debates? Why did I write all this? Simply because if a Hungarian complains about Romanians and nobody shows why he's wrong, people will tend to believe he's right. Please show me how many such debates are opened by Romanians (on Internet) and I'll rest my case.
I often asked myself why don't Hungarian and Romanian historians get together (eventually with a third neutral party) and start digging to find the truth? And the answer that finally came was so simple: because they don’t want to. Why? Because each side is afraid to discover something that drives the truth into the other side hands.
Soooo sad, but politics always overrun people thoughts and feelings. History demonstrate that historians are only asserted people to their leaders or to their own interests.
Delia on April 07, 2010:
I discovered this article a couple of days ago, but I hardly thought if I should comment or not. Why? Because this is an unending debate. A kind of: ”Who was the first? The egg or the hen?” But I always blamed Romanians because they hated to write. There are few written evidence in Romanians history. And this caused a lot of troubles and speculations. So, I decided to write. This is a long reading, but I really can't do it shortest.
And I have to tell you that even I'm Romanian, I'm not angry.
"It is indeed fortunate that many of the ancient Transylvanian documents, dating back as far as the 11th century, were transferred to the Hungarian National Archives in Budapest, some before World War I, and others during World War II. Thus, in spite of all the Rumanian efforts to eradicate the past, the true history of Transylvania can still be proven by thousands of ancient documents and the traces of the once great Western-oriented culture of the Hungarians in Transylvania can still be found in libraries and museums, not in Hungary alone, but also in Austria, Germany, Italy, France, England, and the United States of America."
I'd like to know how an oppressed nation with absolutely no rights (for centuries) can popularize their own version of the history when they didn't have the right to learn their own language in schools. All they learned was the spoken Romanian language, together with their traditions, from their parents and grandparents. And they did a great job. We still have over 2000 year old traditions alive.
"The Romanian culture is entirely different from that known as the "Transylvanian culture", which is in reality a regional diversity of the West-oriented Hungarian culture."
How comes this regional diversity of West-oriented Hungarians other than from the mix of the three major cultures from Transylvania: Romanians, Hungarians and Saxon people? It's a fact that Saxon people living in Transylvania have very different and unique traditions compared with Germans living in Germany. It's also a fact that Hungarians living in Transylvania have similar, still different traditions compared with those living in Hungary. It's the same with Romanians living in Transylvania compared with the others.
Heinrich Kiepert, German geographer (1818-1899) wrote:
"The blood kinship between today Romanian or Wallach and his Dacian ancestors two thousand years ago reveals striking similarity to their appearance, not only in terms of facial features and hair, but in keeping unchanged the port as we see the many faces of Dacian warriors defeated on some sculptures dedicated to the glorification of the victories of Trajan (especially the Column and the Arch of Triumph in Rome)."
And Antonio Bonfini, 1434—1503, historian of Matias Corvin wrote:
”Romanians' language couldn't be extirpated even they live in the middle of so many barbarian people, and they fight so hard to not leave it, that looks like they care more for their language than for their own lives."
"The Rumanian culture is Balkan-oriented"
Yes, Southern Romanian culture was influenced by, not oriented to, the Turkish culture. Exactly like the Transylvanian Romanian culture was influenced by Hungarian (only a few by Saxon) culture, but not Hungarian oriented. Our folk costumes as well as our traditions (from all three Romanian provinces) have deep roots in Dacian culture. They were kept almost the same. They kept them by overlapping them on the Christian holidays. An interesting fact: did you know that, traditionally speaking, the Easter is the only pure religious holiday in Romanian traditions? All the other traditions have pagan rituals connected to sun, seasons, etc., much older than Christianity.
"and specifically Rumanian, based on the history of the Vlach migration from South across to Albania, and from there up to Wallachia and Moldavia."
This is only a theory based on suppositions. This doesn't mean history.
"It was brought forth by Balkan influences, just as the Romanian language itself, which is composed, according to the Romanian linguist Cihac, "of 45.7% Slavic, 31.5% Latin, 8.4% Turkish, 7% Greek, 6% Hungarian and 0.6% Albanian words."
This is funny. Why all Hungarians quote Mr. Cihac and forget to cite other (maybe hundreds) linguists (Romanians and foreigners as well) who show where and why Cihac was wrong? It's also interesting that they write only percentages, not the number of words. Maybe they love to show us as Slavic migratory people who came on this land after them. Let me be more accurate and explain a bit.
Alexandru Cihac made that study on 5765 words (100%). From those, 2361 were Slav (40.95%) and only 1165 were Latin (20.21%). The others were 965 from Turkish (16.74%), 635 from modern Greek (11.01%), 589 from Hungarian (10.22%) and 50 from Albanian (0.87%). But Romanian language has many more words than those studied by Cihac. So, were Cihac words representatives? Were enough? Linguists showed he was wrong; not only with the chosen words and their number, but even with the etymology of lots of words he studied. The more words were studied the lesser was the Slavic percentage (under 15%). But such statistics are relative. Why? English, for example, has more Romance words (borrowed from French and Latin) than Germanic words. It's still a Germanic language. Because what matter is the most used words in a language. In Romanian, we can say a full phrase only with words of Latin origin, but it is impossible to put together a single sentence using exclusively Slavic, Turkish, Greek or Hungarian originated words.
"Even today, the Romanian culture as such, has no roots in Transylvania."
Over 2000 years old occupations (sheep and cattle breeding, bee keeping, viticulture, wooden and metal crafts) and the traditions connected to them are much older than Hungarian culture. Culture doesn't mean only writing (what certainly miss at Romanians). It means a lot more.
"It is being "imported" constantly and purposefully from Bucharest into the Transylvanian province in order to crowd out and replace the traditional Hungarian culture of this conquered and subjugated land."
Well, this phrase is such an aberration that I don't know where to start in order to give a logical answer. Imported by whom? By Hungarians? This is a joke! By Romanians? Oh, my God! Let me rephrase this. Romanians from Transylvania imported Romanian culture from Bucharest. Question: what made them Romanians in this case? If they have a Hungarian culture before importing the Romanian culture, what differentiated them from Hungarians? Why did they call themselves Romanians?
"Future of Transylvania and its capital Kolozsvár is to return to Central Europe and to Hungarian Culture where it belongs."
"Transylvania was GIVEN to Romania in 1921, and again in 1947, without a plebiscite."
The Great National Meeting from 1st of December 1918 was a plebiscite. Right, it was a Romanians' plebiscite. But Romanians were at that time the majority of Transylvanian populations (at that time, as well as in past times, showed by every census made in Transylvania).
"This notorious Treaty is known as The Diktat of Trianon, Hungarians were forced to sign in Paris. Ever since Transylvania was awarded to Romania, Hungarians, Germans and other ethnic minorities have suffered at the hands of Romanian Chauvinists. They have consistently and systematically been subjest to forced assimilation and persecution. Romania is probably the most xenophobic country in Europe today. Romanians in cities like Marosvásárhely (targu mures) and Kolozsvár (cluj) are practising ethnic cleansing an a scale only seen in former Yugoslavia. Hungarians are subject to constant discrimination, Hungarian signs are painted over or not allowed at all, intimidation by Gheorghe Funar is carried out against Hungarians on a daily basis aimed at driving out all Hungarians from this ancient Magyar land."
Well, this is really malicious, offensive and not fair. I have to remember him/her that Romanians were subject to constant discrimination for centuries. They were considered slaves with absolutely no rights. For 150 years, they didn't have even the right