Transylvania: In Hungary or Romania, or Neither: Whose View Is Correct?

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.

Scroll to Continue

Reader Review of 'How To Solve Your Own Murder' by Kristen Perrin

Business Magic: Turning Ordinary Customers Into Raving Fans

Why Politics Really Isn’t that Important

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

http://books.openedition.org/ceup/912

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

http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/bandh/bandh.pd...

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.

Trianon Diktat.....

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.