View Full Version : How do you percieve Romania?
Cronos Impera
12-16-2005, 16:36
Vanilla RTW ( original RTW ), Medieval TW and Viking Invasion portray Romania as a rebel faction or a generic barbarian one. People associate Romania with poverty, Nadia Comaneci, Gheorghe Hagi ( sport ), or sometimes hear BBC news about the visit of president Traian Basescu in France.
What is the historical image of Romania you have in mind when it comes to the Medieval Period, the Enlightement Age and the Modern Age? And btw, what do you think about the Romanian language.
Craciun Fericit tuturor = Marry Christmas to you fans
IIRC, during the Middle Ages, Romania was the name of the Byzantine Empire. Not entirely certain of it, but I think one of my professors mentioned something along those lines.
Mouzafphaerre
12-16-2005, 17:08
.
Nadia Comaneci all the way! ~D
.
Interesting... the Byzantines didn't call themselves Byzantines? I guess calling themselves Romania actually makes sense. (Assuming this is serious, it's hard to tell with all the spam posts lately) ;)
Meneldil
12-16-2005, 18:30
My knowledge about ancient Romania is quite limited. I've heard of the Dacians, of Vlad Tepes and that's about it.
Didn't even know your president visited France :san_embarassed:
As for the Romanian language, I've been told it's quite similar to latin languages, like spanish, italian, and french (although the sentence you posted would make me think otherwise)
Marinakis
12-16-2005, 20:31
IIRC, during the Middle Ages, Romania was the name of the Byzantine Empire. Not entirely certain of it, but I think one of my professors mentioned something along those lines.
No, the heart of the eastern roman empire (greeks) called themselfs Romaioi which simply ment Romans in greek. The greeks did this because after the rise of christianity the term Hellenes (what greeks traditionally called themslefs) became taboo for its association with paganism.
RandyKapp
12-16-2005, 21:55
(although the sentence you posted would make me think otherwise)
Acctualy Romanian as far as i know is the closest modern language to ancient latin.
I don't know about 'closest', but it is a Romance Language, one of the 'big five'.
COLLABORATORS
AXIS SCUM
etc. etc.
Oh, and Ceaucescus wife and her massive collection of shoes.
And in the near future: the proud recipient of a lot of my tax money.
(but hey: nothin' but love)
COLLABORATORS
AXIS SCUM
etc. etc.
Oh, and Ceaucescus wife and her massive collection of shoes.
And in the near future: the proud recipient of a lot of my tax money.
(but hey: nothin' but love)
LOL
well if blair doesn't want to pay a thing someone has too:san_wink:
really I don't know much about Romnia except for their orphanages wich are told to be quite well lets just say it doesn't seem the nicest place to be.
I could be wrong tough.
But hey we've beaten the swiss Jebus, now we're the second richest country in the world. and if it wasn't for Wallony we might have been verry close to the USA (or richer).
so we'll probably be more used to luxe. :san_wink:
Years ago, when I was still in high school, our family had this cute little Romanian girl 'adopted'. We would send her family money for education, clothing, etc. - and she would come to Belgium for a month from time to time.
She stopped coming when she reached puberty, last thing I heard she got into prostitution and died from a drug overdose, age 16.
Sad stories, sad stories.
Come, and share in that christmas feeling. :san_cry:
O_Stratigos
12-17-2005, 00:09
No, the heart of the eastern roman empire (greeks) called themselfs Romaioi which simply ment Romans in greek.
The Greeks never called themselves "Romaioi".. maybe what you mean is that they did use the term "Rome-ee" - Ρωμιοι and also "Graek-ee" -Γραικοι.. :san_wink:
O Stratigos :bow:
RandyKapp
12-17-2005, 00:26
I don't know about 'closest', but it is a Romance Language, one of the 'big five'.
Thats just what my latin teacher told me all those years ago.
The only things about Romania I know is, that there is a city founded by germans called Siebenbuergen (somewhere in the near of Transilvania....:scared: ) where my grandfather was born.
All that I know about Romania is its geographical location, its capital is Bucharest, it was an axis nation during WWII, and it was a Soviet satellite. I also would think of Vlad the Impaler, but he was prince of Wallachia, before Romania was unified or something. Once I ate at a Romanian restaurant called "Little Bucharest". I had chicken. It was pretty good chicken, too.
Why are you asking?
RandyKapp
12-17-2005, 19:09
Because hes Romanian
The only things about Romania I know is, that there is a city founded by germans called Siebenbuergen (somewhere in the near of Transilvania....:scared: ) where my grandfather was born.
Well, Siebenburgen is actually the german equivalent of Transylvania:)
And I know something about Romania, because I live in one of its neighbour countries, in Hungary:san_rolleyes:
According to my history teacher, the Romanians have illirian origin, and not dacian, simply because the dacians werent under roman command long enough to get romanized (to get the latin language).
Jadam
Jadam, your history teacher's excuse sounds a little flimsy.
History teachers can tell very weird things, my teacher was pretty sure that aztecs were no indians for example. Not to mention my English teacher telling us that the scots north of hadrians wall all wore Bear Furs and didnt wash themselves.
Byzantine Prince
12-17-2005, 23:56
Actually Albanian is much closer to latin then any other language I've come across, even Italian.
History teachers can tell very weird things, my teacher was pretty sure that aztecs were no indians for example. Not to mention my English teacher telling us that the scots north of hadrians wall all wore Bear Furs and didnt wash themselves.
Well, this isnt weird thing. There is a discussion amongst historians about this theory. Some believes the daco - romanian descent, some dont. However, if you think over it, Dacia was conquered during Traian (around 100 AD or so), and I dont know exactly when was it lost (from the roman control), but it couldn't be more than 200-300 years. Do you think, it is enough for a barbarian people to change their language to latin? Well, many historians thinks, it isnt.
Jadam
I don't know if that's enough, and i didnt criticize your history teacher :san_wink:
I just wanted to stress the fact that History teachers aren't the all knowing Gods of history. Too many People blindly trust what they are told in school, again i don't mean you :san_wink:
I know that the romanians fought a brilliant war against the turks after the fall of Byzantium.
I know it is a lush land, very fertile with a rich wild fauna and tremendous natural ressources.
I know the language is very musical and nice to hear.
I know Romania had a very "troubled" history with very dark periods, i also know it has been a byzantine "satellite" state at moments.
I worked with a romanian woman in a lycée (the school before university in France) has an education auxiliary in a Z.E.P. (zone d'éducation prioritaire, high priority education zone) and she was mad, the kids called her "the dragon" but she was damn effective in her work. She always kept on saying "i survived Ceaucescu, i won't let brats tell me what i have to do." They quite learned not to fool with us.. little bastards :san_grin:
Simetrical
12-18-2005, 02:23
What I know about Romania:
It's a country, probably somewhere in Europe.
My old superintendent Mike was Romanian.
I liked Mike, he was a cool guy.
ScionTheWorm
12-18-2005, 03:32
I know they are awesome musicians, they never disappoint in european Melody Grand Prix
Shigawire
12-18-2005, 03:45
I haven't made up any opinion on Romania that matters, since I've never been there or studied it much.
My only associations are not very nice things. :san_smiley: :
The gruesome Triballi (Thracian tribe), Vlad Tepes, Ceaucescou hanging himself, Vlad Tepes again..
Also that 23 year old nun who was crucified in an excorcism in June 2005.
:san_rolleyes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm
I can't really make an opinion based on the historic associations. The balkan region (does that include Hungary?) has had a history of spawning monsters of one or another kind.. Triballi, Vlad, Erszebeth Bathory, the henchmen of Milosevic, etc..
The only thing I feel I can make an opinion about is the exorcism story, which surprised me a lot. We rarely see anything approaching that in any other european country. It's like Romanians have their own amish subgroup who still live in the 16th century or something. :san_cheesy:
History teachers can tell very weird things, my teacher was pretty sure that aztecs were no indians for example. Not to mention my English teacher telling us that the scots north of hadrians wall all wore Bear Furs and didnt wash themselves.
I had an english teacher with some pretty goofy ideas about history. She seemed to think that World War II happened in the 1960's and World War I happened in the 1940's. It wasn't just history, it was literature too. She once said that Odysseus's wife's name was Prudence. I told her that Odysseus's wife's name was Penelope, but she wouldn't believe me.
Reverend Joe
12-18-2005, 06:04
I had an english teacher with some pretty goofy ideas about history. She seemed to think that World War II happened in the 1960's and World War I happened in the 1940's. It wasn't just history, it was literature too. She once said that Odysseus's wife's name was Prudence. I told her that Odysseus's wife's name was Penelope, but she wouldn't believe me.
:jawdrop:
...Wha?
fallen851
12-18-2005, 09:54
doh! Someone already said what I wanted to say before I said it but I said it before I realized they said it so I had said it and now I have edited what I said and I have to say this really confusing line to clear everything up.
:san_huh:
I had an english teacher with some pretty goofy ideas about history. She seemed to think that World War II happened in the 1960's and World War I happened in the 1940's. It wasn't just history, it was literature too. She once said that Odysseus's wife's name was Prudence. I told her that Odysseus's wife's name was Penelope, but she wouldn't believe me.
I know what you mean :san_wink:
My literature teacher has a completely unique view about history :san_laugh:
That's why I can't stand the literature lessons, and of course, because they are very boring for me.
I had an english teacher with some pretty goofy ideas about history. She seemed to think that World War II happened in the 1960's and World War I happened in the 1940's. It wasn't just history, it was literature too. She once said that Odysseus's wife's name was Prudence. I told her that Odysseus's wife's name was Penelope, but she wouldn't believe me.
That seems a bit exxagerated.
Sources, please.
maskoolin
12-18-2005, 12:00
I ve one friend from Romania and he told me : Never go to Bucarest in your life !! :san_laugh: :san_laugh: if they know your not from there, even some bad :san_rolleyes: bad taxi driver could make you :sleeping:
That seems a bit exxagerated.
Sources, please.
The World War thing is a little exagerated, but the Prudence thing is not. My class read a short story called Demon Lover that was set during or just after WWII. There was a flashback scene set in WWI. A girl asked her when the flashback was. She said that the flashback scene was in the 40's and that the main part of the story was took place 20 some years later. I corrected her. It took her a moment to realize that she was wrong.
Prudence was a vocabulary word that needed to be memorized for a test. She was going over the list of vocab words and someone asked what prudence meant. She explained what the word meant and then went on to say that Odysseus's wife's name was Prudence. I'm not sure how I kept from laughing, but I did. I told her that the name was Penelope. She told me that I wrong. Homer's epics are some of my favorite books and I was rereading the Odyssey at the time. I pulled a copy out my backpack and showed her. Then she told me that Penelope is Greek for prudence. I don't know what Penelope means, but I know that it is not prudence. I didn't say anything more because I didn't want to push my luck.
This post makes her sound sort of stupid, but she really isn't. She doesn't have a clues about history or math, but she knows more about proper english grammar than anyone alive.
This post makes her sound sort of stupid, but she really isn't. She doesn't have a clues about history or math, but she knows more about proper english grammar than anyone alive.
Sounds like a challenge. Get her on a game show or something.
Simetrical
12-19-2005, 04:20
According to Wikipedia, "[Penelope's] name is close to the Greek word for "duck," but is usually understood to be a combination of the greek word for "web" or "woof" (πηνη) and the word for "face" (ωψ), very appropriate for a weaver of cunning whose motivation is hard to decipher."
Teutobod II
12-19-2005, 13:23
not fondly:
gangs of gipsies, burglars, pickpockts and saferobbers from there roam around Western Europe. And they will be allowed to come legally once Romania is in the EU!
sorry, but thats the main impression one gets
Callatian
12-19-2005, 14:11
I think that Romania is an island somewere in the Pacific :san_tongue:
Loll if anyone decides to visit Romania make sure you ask us what to visit and what taxis to use.
Merry Christmas / Craciun Fericit.
the_handsome_viking
12-19-2005, 23:32
I think of vlad the impaler.
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-21-2005, 19:02
Interesting... the Byzantines didn't call themselves Byzantines? I guess calling themselves Romania actually makes sense. (Assuming this is serious, it's hard to tell with all the spam posts lately) ;)
The Byzantine state was really called Romani'a(with the stress in 'i').This is natural,as all the Greeks and hellenised of the eastern provinces of the empire had the title of the Roman citizen since 212 A.D.(constitutio Antoniniana).Before this date many Greeks had also the title but not all.
So,in medieval times they perceived themselves as Romans,since their grandfathers were also Romei and the Christian Roman Emperor(Πιστος Εν Χριστω Αυτοκράτωρ και Βασιλευς Ρωμαίων) still ruled in the Εast until 1453 A.D..The word for Romans in Greek is Romei(Romei,from here originates the word that the Turks use for the Christians in Turkey:Rum.The lands of modern Greece,especially Sterea Ellas was called by the Ottomans Rum-Eli=land of the Romans).One of the ethnic names of the Greeks today,except for the Ellinas and Grekos,is Romios(which has to do with the Christian identity and the medieval past).However,the word Romani'a and the Byzantine Empire has nothing to do with the modern Romanians(the citizens of modern Romania).
To Cronos:
why did the Wallachians and the Moldovans name themselves Romanians and their new state Romania?
As far as I know the Wallachians,north of the Danube never used the term Rom^an before the Union of Wallachia and Moldavia,because they had never been subjects of the Byzantine(Roman) Emperor.
Which are the real origins of the Wallachians and Moldovans?How did they get themselves up there?I personally do not believe in the Daco-Romanian continuity.(the province of Dacia was totally evacuated by the legendary pagan Roman Emperor Aurelianus).
Why did not the Wallachians name their state(Romania) Wallachomoldavia or MoldoWallachia?
The Romanian language is very close to Vulgar Latin but has a great slavic influence(this is natural).
It is as close as the Italian in vocabulary,but is closer to Vulgar Latin in grammar than Italian is
Krusader
12-23-2005, 00:16
Getai.
Wallachia
Ceausescu and his wife Elina me thinks her name was.
Gheorge Hagi
Some rumour that they considered some Roman soldiers under Trajan part of their ancestors.
Vlad the Impaler.
Romania and WW2.
Girls in Constanta should be avoided (according to sergiu)
antiochus epiphanes
12-23-2005, 02:10
getai
umm a nation that produces its own variants of soviet tanks
Zalmoxis
12-23-2005, 02:43
It bothers me uite a bit that when I tell people I'm romanian and that Romania is in Eastern Europe, they ask me if I speak Russian.
eadingas
12-23-2005, 10:57
Romania?
1. some very weird history pre WWI. Mostly under Turks, it would seem. Moldova and Wallachia and Transylvania.
2. rich nation between wars. axis ally. imprisoned Polish leaders fleeing from german invasion - not a good move
3. in punishment, they got Ceausescu, and had to ride around in Dacias :P
4. NOT Bulgaria
5. You send all your beggars and homeless abroad. I wonder how your cities look like without them?
6. Renault Logan
Spendios
12-23-2005, 13:42
Romania?
5. You send all your beggars and homeless abroad. I wonder how your cities look like without them?
6. Renault Logan
LOL !!!!!
They got pretty humiliated in WWII too. Practically every surrounding nation took a piece of it: Hungaria took Transsylvania, Bulgaria took Constanta and the Soviet Union took half of the country... And all without fireing a shot.
Pretty embarassing.
Krusader
12-23-2005, 14:03
They got pretty humiliated in WWII too. Practically every surrounding nation took a piece of it: Hungaria took Transsylvania, Bulgaria took Constanta and the Soviet Union took half of the country... And all without fireing a shot.
Pretty embarassing.
They were forced into this by Germany. Only Bessarabia (today's Moldova plus other regions me thinks) was not returned after 1945.
Transsylvania was made part of Hungary due to the Hungarian minority, where the 1989 revolution started, in Timisoara if my history is correct.
They got pretty humiliated in WWII too. Practically every surrounding nation took a piece of it: Hungaria took Transsylvania, Bulgaria took Constanta and the Soviet Union took half of the country... And all without fireing a shot.
Pretty embarassing.
Hungary took a part of Transylvania in 1940, but it was given back to Romania in 1945 after it changed sides and fought the Germans and Hungarians in Hungary and Austria.
Constanta???!!! wher did you hear that? ... The historical province of Dobrogea lost it's most Southern tip (Cadrilater) to Bulgaria in 1940. It was inhabited mostly by Buglarians, Turks and Aromanian colonists and it was more Bulgarian than Romanian in culture(my grandparents were one and they together with all Aromanians got relocated to Northern Areas, like Constanta)
Bassarabia was taken by force by the Soviet Union and never given back and it forms today's republic of Moldova(Europe's poorest state). It is not "half of the country" it is a scarcely populated, small region of the country (still v. important for national reasons).
You have to look at the political situation it was faced in 1940: Hungary, USSR and Bulgaria all had territorial demands and with the defeat of Romania's traditional ally France, they forced the country to cede those territories. Hitler and Mussolini backed the Hungarians and Bulgarians, while the Soviet Union threatend with invasions (which it deed, crossing the border without a declaration of war and without further negotiations).
To simplify it, it's like Belgium going to war against Germany, France and the Netherlands simultaniously.
not fondly:
gangs of gipsies, burglars, pickpockts and saferobbers from there roam around Western Europe. And they will be allowed to come legally once Romania is in the EU!
sorry, but thats the main impression one gets
I cannot disagree here... It's a fact that a lot of Europe's burglars, prostitutes and beggars come from Romania and Moldavia (both being inhabited mostly by Romanians).
But i don't see the Spaniards or Italians complaining about the VERY cheap labour force Romanians provide there.
An analogy would be Mexicans in the US. Cheap labour force that boosts both countries economies but bring burglars and beggars with them. The difference is many Romanians come back to Romania after working and a large proportion never settle there.
Someone said that all our beggars went to W Europe and that our cities look better because of this... Quite true, quite true:san_grin:
Actually Albanian is much closer to latin then any other language I've come across, even Italian.
No... Albanian is not even a romance language. It has Thracian/Illyrian origins and is considered to be even older than Latin.
Romanian is GRAMMATICALLY (as in: no necesarily in other aspects) the closest language to Latin (it is the only Romance language together with Latin that has the "neutral" genre), but the use of some (more like more than 15%) Slavic words makes it sound sometimes different.
eadingas
12-23-2005, 14:42
Most slavic languages also have neutral gender, do they not?
Wallachia, and Nerdach mac Ebhurach, since in the Epic of Orriagh, he supposedly came from an area around Dacia before he fled to Ireland. Oh, and 'Burning Club' (a derogatory thing), since that was what Nerdach called the king of the region when he fled.
Also makes me think of gypsies, which makes me think of tinkers. Those weird bastards. They make me angry. So Romania helps encourage me to anger by making me think of gypsies, which make me think of tinkers.
Mouzafphaerre
12-23-2005, 16:40
.
About the neutral gender, what happened to German das or Greek το if I may ask, or was it something else in your mind? ~:confused:
.
Most slavic languages also have neutral gender, do they not?
I am not sure about that, but i will edit that right now to "Romance" instead of "European" since there have to be some other languages that use neutral. I initially meant to say Romance but.....
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-23-2005, 18:04
Also makes me think of gypsies, which makes me think of tinkers. Those weird bastards. They make me angry. So Romania helps encourage me to anger by making me think of gypsies, which make me think of tinkers.
The gypsies in their language are called Roma.Surprisingly most of them live in a country named Romania...Is there any connection?:san_grin:
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-23-2005, 18:14
.
About the neutral gender, what happened to German das or Greek το if I may ask, or was it something else in your mind? ~:confused:
.
The weird thing with the Romanian language is that they put the definite article at the end of the word...
It is as if a German said 'Buchdas' instead of 'das Buch'.
Teleklos Archelaou
12-23-2005, 18:18
that's very strange. Where in the devil does that come from? (speaking as someone familiar with romantic languages mostly)
The gypsies in their language are called Roma.Surprisingly most of them live in a country named Romania...Is there any connection?:san_grin:
The word gypsy in Ireland is often associated with 'tinkers', who are called 'Irish gypsies'. They've got a reputation for wandering (the forerunners to such folks were 'ebrinaght'; 'wandering men'), theivery, and bizarre social practices that seem to have formed out of a void.
So you export the burglars and beggars, good, but it's too bad about the prostitutes! :san_cool:
So who are these "tinkers?" Are they the nomadic groups that we occasionally have problems with in the US?
L'Impresario
12-24-2005, 03:05
The weird thing with the Romanian language is that they put the definite article at the end of the word...
that's very strange. Where in the devil does that come from? (speaking as someone familiar with romantic languages mostly)
Well, it's a result of the special circumstances in the Balkans, where a "Sprachbund" is noted (mainly between Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek and Romanian). So even if most languages there weren't initially close to each other, after centuries some common attributes can be discerned, like in the case of the definite article already mentioned (must have been initially a baltoslavic influence), or the lack of infinitives.
So you export the burglars and beggars, good, but it's too bad about the prostitutes! :san_cool:
So who are these "tinkers?" Are they the nomadic groups that we occasionally have problems with in the US?
Yes, there are tinkers in the US, as well as Ireland (though a lot have been forced to leave the island due to their horrible reputation; they mostly can't get work), Britain, Australia, and some isolated parts of Europe and other places like New Zealand. They range from very large, with many families, to as small as a single family.
Yes, there are tinkers in the US, as well as Ireland (though a lot have been forced to leave the island due to their horrible reputation; they mostly can't get work), Britain, Australia, and some isolated parts of Europe and other places like New Zealand. They range from very large, with many families, to as small as a single family.
Are those tinkers actual gypsies ?
Those from Romania clearly come from India, they admit it, they LOOK like Indians and their culture is definetely oriental (the way their family is structured, their habits etc are different from European ones, even Eastern European).
Are those tinkers actual gypsies ?
Those from Romania clearly come from India, they admit it, they LOOK like Indians and their culture is definetely oriental (the way their family is structured, their habits etc are different from European ones, even Eastern European).
No, not at all. They're just called 'Irish gypsies' because people tend to think of them as pretty much the same way; they're nomadic for the most part, do a lot of odd jobs, etc. No one said they were 'real' gypsies, only that they're called 'Irish gypsies', as in, the Irish-equivalent of gypsies.
In Germany they are called "Zigeuner" which seems to come from something like "Zigan", don't know where that word comes from, but for me it sounds like it could be from hungary or somewhere around there.
"Sinthi" and "Roma" seem to be ethnicities of these people. We don't have many of them here though. Most were murdered under the Nazis, as "underhumans" :san_embarassed:
And today they still have a bad reputation, though almost nobody actually knows one. So it's actually quite unfair to judge them like that imho.
There are many of those "small" lies that the nazis spreaded today, such as a glorification of vikings and ancient germans, that goes that far that many people today think of nazis when they see runes.
No, not at all. They're just called 'Irish gypsies' because people tend to think of them as pretty much the same way; they're nomadic for the most part, do a lot of odd jobs, etc. No one said they were 'real' gypsies, only that they're called 'Irish gypsies', as in, the Irish-equivalent of gypsies.
Yeah, did no-one see the movie Snatch? Brad Pitt played a tinker.
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-26-2005, 18:12
Does the High king of all the Roma,(the gypsies), live somewhere in Romania?I had read something like that.Is it true?
Would answer, but resist temptation... Too many fellow OB members. And they are nice fellows. But if you ever go to Kronstadt (Brassow) or Székelyudvarhely, you'll know.
edyzmedieval
12-27-2005, 18:06
I am totally sick. *pukes outside the window, hits an unfortunate passer by*
So, let's start with the beginning.
Getai and Dacians are the same people. Greeks called them Getai and Romans called them Dacians.
Just for you to know, in 87, at the battle of Tapae, we killed a complete legion, including the general(Cornelius Fuscus) and captured the legionary eagle. :gring:
We were conquered in 106 by the Romans, and they left in 271. Till the 9th century, nothing was known about us.
In 1330, at Posada, the Hungarians suffered a crushing defeat, and they were obliged to recognise our independece. :ave:
Till the modern age, many things happened(oh by the way, Dracula is just a myth invented by some stupid american. Vlad Tepes was the Prince and later King of Wallachia. Oh, too bad he just missed killing Mehmed II. :gring: )
Long "Crusade" against the Ottomans and such.
In the early 20th century, Bucharest was considered "Little Paris".
Good example of this: Foreign families came to live in Romania.(the husband of my sister, his granpa is Italian. Came to Romania around 1900.)
In WWII, we were by the side of the Germans, then on the side of the Soviets(both of these a big mistake).Ceausescu was a stupid dictator, killed on Christmas day. :gring:
The rest is history. Oh, bout the gypsies, they are of Indian origin(they came from India along with the Ottomans). And yeah, the leader is in Romania.
Babies and beggars are, but their numbers have reduced. Why worry about us?! You too have beggars in your country!
And what's with the prostitutes?! Why do you complain?! I know you like them, Romanian women are hot. Want some pics?! :gring:
EDIT: WE DID WHAT?! We imprisoned the Polish royalty?! They should be thankful to us that we didn't hand them over to the Nazis, and their whole train full of gold!!!!!! We protected the Polish royalty!!!
EDIT2:
But i don't see the Spaniards or Italians complaining about the VERY cheap labour force Romanians provide there.
An analogy would be Mexicans in the US. Cheap labour force that boosts both countries economies but bring burglars and beggars with them. The difference is many Romanians come back to Romania after working and a large proportion never settle there.
Oh well, we bolster the economy, but we get back the money with interest. :san_grin:
Dromikaites
12-27-2005, 18:45
To Cronos:
why did the Wallachians and the Moldovans name themselves Romanians and their new state Romania?
As far as I know the Wallachians,north of the Danube never used the term Rom^an before the Union of Wallachia and Moldavia,because they had never been subjects of the Byzantine(Roman) Emperor.
Which are the real origins of the Wallachians and Moldovans?How did they get themselves up there?I personally do not believe in the Daco-Romanian continuity.(the province of Dacia was totally evacuated by the legendary pagan Roman Emperor Aurelianus).
Why did not the Wallachians name their state(Romania) Wallachomoldavia or MoldoWallachia?
The Romanian language is very close to Vulgar Latin but has a great slavic influence(this is natural).
It is as close as the Italian in vocabulary,but is closer to Vulgar Latin in grammar than Italian is
The Romanians allways called themselves Romani (= Romans, in Latin language) because. They were called by the other people around them Wallachians or Moldavians.
But the name ment different things at different times. In order to understand what I mean, I'll use first the example of the Turks. Initially they were calling themselves Turk. Then whe one of their states in Western Anatolia became an empire (the Ottoman) they changed the way to call themselves into Osmanli (Ottomans) and Turk started to mean peasant or not-so-educated person. Then it was a revival of the name and they started to call themselves Turks, like they do today.
Romanians probaly kept calling themselves Romani after Aurelian withdrew the army, administration and took away those inhabitants of Dacia who afforded to leave (the rich ones). Archeological evidence shows the places continued to be inhabited after the Aurelian retreat. Then the Goths and all the other nomadic peoples kept comming and they became the masters of the place. So Roman started to mean serf or low-ranked person. In 1320, when Wallachia was unified as a state, the ruling family (Basarab) was of Cuman origin and most of the nobility was probably Cuman and Slavic in origin, but long since assimilated into the Romanian population. We know that both because of the names and because of a funny situation with written documents: the offical ones were written in Slavonic while the private letters were written in Old Romanian (Romance language).
From the 14th to the 17th century most of the people were free men so Roman had the meaning of "serf", inherited form the "Barbarian Invasions" period. However after the middle of the 17th century most of the population was turned into serfs so if one would go around and ask "What are you?" the most likely answer would have been "I am Roman" :) :) :)
In the 19th century, when serfdom was abolished not only the majority of the population would be used to be called Romani, but the intelligentsia was also proud of the name, knowing where it was comming from (the same with the Tukish intelligentsia). Therefore the moment there was a good opportunity to change the official name of the country (the union between Wallachia and Moldova on January 24th 1856) the country was baptised Romania (the country of the Romani/Romans).
Dromikaites
12-27-2005, 18:56
Does the High king of all the Roma,(the gypsies), live somewhere in Romania?I had read something like that.Is it true?
Yes, the self-proclaimed King of all the Roma lives in Romania. And so does the self-proclaimed Emperor of all the Roma. So many royalties in such a small country like ours :)
By the way, the Gypsies call themselves Rromi (with double r), which simply means "men"/"humans".
Most of the Gypsies in Europe live in Romania. They were brought to Europe first by the Mongols/Tatars then by the Ottomans. They were slaves used by those armies for specialised works like blacksmiths, grooms, etc. Each time the Ottomans or the Tatars were defeated, they were withdrawing abandoning the Gypsi slaves behind. The Romanians noblemen treated them as "spoils of war" and kept them as slaves till the first half of 19th century when slavery was abolished in Romania and they were freed. But just like in the US, they were set free without being given land. That resulted in them being poor and everything else derived form that. The communists could have done something about that but they didn't care. However nowadays the Rroma kids started to go to school and the situation seems to improve. EU and US funding certainly helps.
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-27-2005, 19:38
I am totally sick. *pukes outside the window, hits an unfortunate passer by*
So, let's start with the beginning.
Getai and Dacians are the same people. Greeks called them Getai and Romans called them Dacians.
Just for you to know, in 87, at the battle of Tapae, we killed a complete legion, including the general(Cornelius Fuscus) and captured the legionary eagle. :gring:
We were conquered in 106 by the Romans, and they left in 271. Till the 9th century, nothing was known about us.
Is there any strong evidence in the culture and in the language of the Romanians that suggests that they are descendants of the Dacians?
Edyz,it is natural for you to believe all these things about Daco-Romanian continuity since you are a Romanian and these things were taught in your school.All people want to be proud of ancient people that lived at the place where they live, and tend to regard them as their ancestors,this is also natural.Take as an example the Bulgarians who also regard themselves descendants of the Thracians even though their culture is predominantly Slavic,or the so-called Macedonians of Skopje,who even though they are nothing more or less than Western Bulgarian tribes,tend to regard themselves descendants of the ancient Macedonians.
I am afraid that all these myths are used as propaganda,in order to have claims in lands of neighbouring states.In the case of Romania,I suspect that these theories have to do with Romanian claims on the history of Transylvania...
It is wise for you to say 'we' about your Wallachian ancestors or Moldavian,but it is a bit bizarre to say that about the Dacians who lived thousands of years ago and left no trace in the language or in the culture of Romania.
What matters is the culture and the language,not the genes
By the way,Vlad impaled,as far as i know not only the Ottomans but also all the poor people in his kingdom
Stephen cel Mare was a true hero,not Vlad.
edyzmedieval
12-27-2005, 19:46
Forgot to mention.
Cassius Dio mentioned these things in his "Historia Romana".
And we are the descendants of the Dacians. In the Romanian language, there are about 200 words from the Dacians.
brad = tree
branza = cheese
prunc = offspring
Dromikaites
12-27-2005, 20:56
Is there any strong evidence in the culture and in the language of the Romanians that suggests that they are descendants of the Dacians?
Edyz,it is natural for you to believe all these things about Daco-Romanian continuity since you are a Romanian and these things were taught in your school.All people want to be proud of ancient people that lived at the place where they live, and tend to regard them as their ancestors,this is also natural.Take as an example the Bulgarians who also regard themselves descendants of the Thracians even though their culture is predominantly Slavic,or the so-called Macedonians of Skopje,who even though they are nothing more or less than Western Bulgarian tribes,tend to regard themselves descendants of the ancient Macedonians.
The Romanians are the descendants of the Daco-Romans and therefore of the Dacians. Here is why:
1) The cities, towns and villages continued to be inhabited after 273 AD, when Aurelian withdrew the army and administration and whatever population cared to follow. The Goths, the Slavs and whoever else settled there for long periods of time have distinct villages than the population that remained after Aurelian's withdrawal.
2) Besides archeological evidence it also makes sense that mostly the wealthy people withdrew. They had valuable goods that can be carried away easily (money, jewellry, etc). The poor people could not carry their plots of land away, South of the Danube, so many of them stayed in Dacia.
3) The peculiarities of the Romanian language point against being created South of Danube. Here are the most pertinent arguments:
- the word for church: biserica (from Latin basilica). In all the other Romance languages the word derives not form Latin but form Greek ecclesia (eglise in French, chiesa in Italian). The explanation is simple: in all the other Romance languages christianity became official under the reign of Constantine I, who had moved the capital of the empire to the Greek-speaking city of Constantinople. In Dacia Chrisitanity flourished because there was no Roman emperor to launch persecutions. So the word for church remained the traditional Latin one.
- the word for village: sat (Latin fossatum - surrounded by ditches). It is not associated with the Latin villa but with the idea of a fortified village. Where did it make sense to fortify the villages, south of the Danube or north of it?
- the word for ground, soil, erath or land: pamant (form Latin pavimentum - pavement). Only city boys would call the ground "pavement". It so happens that the most Romanized parts of Dacia were the cities. Whan the garrisons left, many inhabitants left to hide in remote villages. There they not only built ditches around, but called the ground with the name they used in the cities (pavement) though it was probably just dirt. Where was it more likely for the people to move from city to village, South of the Danube or North of it?
- the word for old man: batran (from Latin veteranus). A man in his 40s would have been an old man at the time. Surprise-surprise, that was the age the veterans were allowed to settle in Dacia and in other heavy militarised border provinces. Mos of the old men in the rest of the empire were not veterans, therefore the word in other Romance languages has nothing to do with veterans (vieux in French, velho in Poruguese, vechio in Italian, etc).
- the word for army: oaste (from Latin hostis, ennemy). South of the Danube the armies would be the Roman ones, so friendly armies. North of the Danube whatever army, even comming from south of the river was bad news :)
There are only a few Dacian words left in the language. We assume they are Dacian based on 2 reasons: some don't exist in any other language and some are close to the Albanian form. So they can be part of the Thraco-Ilyrian heritage.
However there are some Albanian scientists who seriously doubt Albanians are descendents of the Illyrians. Those scientists tend to think it is more likely the Albanians are a mixture of not-so-Romanized Thracians and of the Carpi (a Dacian tribe who raided the Balkans in the 3rd century AD before being crushed by Diocletian). They say so because there are 2 known Illyrian tribes who moved to Italy. They left inscriptions using the Greek alphabet but those words can't be related to any of the two Albanian dialects. Instead the fact there are some 200 similar words between the Albanian and the Romanian language combined with the above mentioned proofs (archeologiacal and linguistic) that Romanian language was formed on the territory of Dacia may indicate the Albanians are indeed the descendents of the Thracians and/or of the Carpi.
Bottom line: there are not many words left in French or in Spanish to point to the pre-Roman conquest populations. So there is nothing surprising the Romanian language only kept a very few words of Dacian origin. However archeology and language structure combined support the idea the language was formed in Dacia, not south of the Danube.
I am afraid that all these myths are used as propaganda,in order to have claims in lands of neighbouring states.In the case of Romania,I suspect that these theories have to do with Romanian claims on the history of Transylvania...
Don't be affraid, we're not talking about myths here :) It's archeology plus linguistics that supports the Daco-roman continuity theory. Beisdes Transylvania became part of Romania because 66% of the population there was Romanian and some 10% German and in December 1918 both the Romanians and the Germans voted to unite with Romania. Of course, there were the 24% Hungarians who wanted to keep it part of Hungary but numbers worked against them and the fact they've lost both WWI and the 1919 war against Romania didn't help them much. Even if Romanians would have been the descendents of Nigerians instead of Dacians, Transylvania would have had the same fate.
It is wise for you to say 'we' about your Wallachian ancestors or Moldavian,but it is a bit bizarre to say that about the Dacians who lived thousands of years ago and left no trace in the language or in the culture of Romania.
What matters is the culture and the language,not the genes
So I assume by the same reasoning the French have nothing to do with the Gauls, not the Spaniards with the Iberian populations, right?
Bottom line: there are not many words left in French or in Spanish to point to the pre-Roman conquest populations.
This is not necessarily true, in the case of the French. While the Gallic language was quite thoroughly replaced by Latin, the reason it happened so easily is because the two were already so similar. Pre-Roman inscriptions on Gallic figurines and similar all often feature words rather closely similar to Latin. Of course, a lot of it is not at all similar, but there is a distinct relationship between Latin and the Gallic language. Even 'Galla' itself is from a Celtic word (which is from a Punic word), just meaning 'foreigners'.
Dromikaites
12-27-2005, 22:50
This is not necessarily true, in the case of the French. While the Gallic language was quite thoroughly replaced by Latin, the reason it happened so easily is because the two were already so similar. Pre-Roman inscriptions on Gallic figurines and similar all often feature words rather closely similar to Latin. Of course, a lot of it is not at all similar, but there is a distinct relationship between Latin and the Gallic language. Even 'Galla' itself is from a Celtic word (which is from a Punic word), just meaning 'foreigners'.
Ah, I was under the impression the Gauls were Celts and their language was closer to modern day Welsh, Irish or Scottish dialects.
Ah, I was under the impression the Gauls were Celts and their language was closer to modern day Welsh, Irish or Scottish dialects.
They were Celts, and had a Celtic language (there is not one Celtic language, there are many,). However, Gallic was heavily influenced by the Greek language (Gallic nobility all spoke, read, and usually wrote {when they bothered to} Greek). As such 'Continental' Celtic is sometimes called 'K-Celtic', because the series of languages, like Gallic, adopted the letter K from Greek; other Celtic languages do not have K. As such, a lot of Hellenic influence is apparent in the language. Further, Rome was not far from a large Gallic population center in northern Italy. Exchanges in language, loanwords, etc., were inevitable. Gauls did not speak Greek though, some peopl read this and make that mistake. Many Gauls could grasp or read Greek, but they had their own unique language. However, some parts of it were clearly exchanges with the Greeks and various Italic peoples. That doesn't make their language any less Celtic.
Also, I'll point out here again that Irish/Scottish are languages, not dialects (they are not versions of the same language, they are entirely indepedent languages), and they are not remotely close to Welsh but for a few words. Niether group is close to Gallic. Celtic language is divided into three families, but only two remain in use.
'Continental' Celtic languages - Gallic/Lepontic/Galatian; heavily influenced by Greek
Gadelic/Goidelic Celtic languages - Modern Irish/Scottish/Manx, as well as the ancient languages of some isolated parts of eastern Europe and northern Iberia {which brought the language to Ireland}; Generally isolated languages that are probably somewhat similar to the original language of the Keltoi, though they had some Punic and then later Greek influence, but not near as much. Not all speakers of these were actually Celts
Brythonic Celtic languages - Modern Welsh/Cornish/Bretonic. Heavy heavy Latin influence in the latter languages, but before that, a ton of Greek and Punic and presumably Gallic, as well as pre-Celtic influences. Was also spoken in some parts of Europe, such as Bononia (the land, not the city in Italy; Bononia was the old Boii kingdom in central Europe).
Dromikaites
12-27-2005, 23:47
Thanks, great info on the Gauls!
Would answer, but resist temptation... Too many fellow OB members. And they are nice fellows. But if you ever go to Kronstadt (Brassow) or Székelyudvarhely, you'll know.
Ohh... Don't be shy. Come on, tell us how do you percieve Romania!
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-28-2005, 12:59
There are only a few Dacian words left in the language. We assume they are Dacian based on 2 reasons: some don't exist in any other language and some are close to the Albanian form. So they can be part of the Thraco-Ilyrian heritage.
However there are some Albanian scientists who seriously doubt Albanians are descendents of the Illyrians. Those scientists tend to think it is more likely the Albanians are a mixture of not-so-Romanized Thracians and of the Carpi (a Dacian tribe who raided the Balkans in the 3rd century AD before being crushed by Diocletian). They say so because there are 2 known Illyrian tribes who moved to Italy. They left inscriptions using the Greek alphabet but those words can't be related to any of the two Albanian dialects. Instead the fact there are some 200 similar words between the Albanian and the Romanian language combined with the above mentioned proofs (archeologiacal and linguistic) that Romanian language was formed on the territory of Dacia may indicate the Albanians are indeed the descendents of the Thracians and/or of the Carpi.
How do you realy know that these words are not of Illyrian ,Thracian or even Gothic origin?
What I believe about the origins of the Wallachians is these:
The Dacians were decimated and massacred after the wars with the Romans(after the conquest of Dacia by Trajan a massacre of the Dacian population must have followed.The Romans could forgive once but not twice...)
Their lands were made a Roman province and Roman colonists(of whatever origin) were brought from the nearby provinces of Moesia,Illyria and even Asia Minor.
Those few Dacians that survived,lived under Roman rule and could not worship their gods,speak the language of their ancestors or use their names(Decebalus for example).So they were assimilated by the majority of the Roman colonists.
When the province was evacuated,nobody stayed behind,because the population was obliged to do so(we are talking about forced evacuation and martial law).They were resettled south of the Danube,at the provinces of Moesia and Nova Dacia.
After alot of centuries some of these latin speaking people crossed the Danube and settled in Wallachia,where they found slavic tribes already settled there.Through intermarriage with them,after some centuries,the Wallachian nation was created.
How could the Dacians be latinised in such a short period of occupation?
And when the Romans left,why didn't they unite with the Free Dacians and stop speaking the language of their conquerors?
The native population south of the Danube were already latinised hundreds of years ago.They were under Roman rule since before the birth of Christ.
They were the Romans that colonised Dacia.
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-28-2005, 13:08
Don't be affraid, we're not talking about myths here :) It's archeology plus linguistics that supports the Daco-roman continuity theory. Beisdes Transylvania became part of Romania because 66% of the population there was Romanian and some 10% German and in December 1918 both the Romanians and the Germans voted to unite with Romania. Of course, there were the 24% Hungarians who wanted to keep it part of Hungary but numbers worked against them and the fact they've lost both WWI and the 1919 war against Romania didn't help them much. Even if Romanians would have been the descendents of Nigerians instead of Dacians, Transylvania would have had the same fate.
I agree with you that since the Romanian(Moldowallachian) population became more than the Magyar/Hungarian polulation(for various reasons),Transylvania was natural to become part of the Romanian state.What I do not like however,is that many Romanians do not acknowledge that Transylvania was the cradle of the Hungarian civilisation in medieval times,(the civilisation of Transylvania was Hungarian back at that time).The greatest part of Transylvania's history has to do with Hungary.
There are 1,5 m Hungarians there and you should respect their rights.
Dromikaites
12-28-2005, 15:55
How do you realy know that these words are not of Illyrian ,Thracian or even Gothic origin?
Illyrian origin - not likely because how did the Illyrians get to the North of the Danube? Unless of course they were colonists form the Roman empire.
Thracian - It seems you missed the fact Dacians were a Thracian tribe.
Gothic - Nope, because they are not Germanic words.
What I believe about the origins of the Wallachians is these:
The Dacians were decimated and massacred after the wars with the Romans(after the conquest of Dacia by Trajan a massacre of the Dacian population must have followed.The Romans could forgive once but not twice...)
The Romans didn't wipe out the Carthaginean population even though they razed the city and plowed the place. There was no reason why they would exterminate a whole population because dead people don't pay taxes.
Their lands were made a Roman province and Roman colonists(of whatever origin) were brought from the nearby provinces of Moesia,Illyria and even Asia Minor.
True. And they intermarried with the Dacians, who were not wipped out. No account of Trajan's deeds says he ordered everybody killed. And if you are really curious, take a look at the last scenes of the Trajan column: the Dacian villages submit to Trajan and the Romans start to organize the new province.
Those few Dacians that survived,lived under Roman rule and could not worship their gods,speak the language of their ancestors or use their names(Decebalus for example).So they were assimilated by the majority of the Roman colonists.
The Romans usually didn't interfere with the religion of the conquered populations unless it was something blatantly against their views (like the alleged children sacrifices of the Carthagineans or the human sacrifices of some of the Celtic populations). Other than that, they didn't bother.
When the province was evacuated,nobody stayed behind,because the population was obliged to do so(we are talking about forced evacuation and martial law).
Nope, there was no such thing as forced evacuation. Why don't you read the ancient chronicles about how the Romans were doing those things before commenting? When they abandoned Brittain or the provinces beyond the Rhine they simply took the troops away. The population who wanted to leave, followed the withdrawal.
EDIT: And do you know why? Because relocating a population would imply to take responsibility for their re-settlemet. Moesia was one of the bread baskets of the empire and as such it was a rather dense populated area. Where would the newly arrived people go? To put them in the countryside would have ment to give them land to work and there was no free land. To take them to the cities would have ment to solve housing and food supply problems ("bread and circus"). It wasn't a good idea to have unrest in a province threatened by the Goths so I doubt a competent emperor like Aurelian would have risked it. After all, he did withdraw because Dacia was too expensive to defend.
They were resettled south of the Danube,at the provinces of Moesia and Nova Dacia.
After alot of centuries some of these latin speaking people crossed the Danube and settled in Wallachia,where they found slavic tribes already settled there.Through intermarriage with them,after some centuries,the Wallachian nation was created.
Why would a population leave the relative safety of an empire for the lands known to be under the control of the people who were raiding the empire, killing that population and pillaging their towns and villages on regular basis? It would be like people from Beslan would migrate to Chechnia. There would always be some individuals who would seek refuge in enemy lands (like Orestes who went to Attila) but they were most of the time frustrated politicians or disgruntled generals, not common people. And not in large numbers!
Let's look closely at your theory: the Romanians come from South of the Danube to a territory inhabited by the Slavs and they are in such large numbers that they assimilate the Slavs. That would be the exact opposite of what has happened in the Balkans. How could that be?
Besides, as I mentioned, the Romanian language was formed North of the Danube because of those peculiarities I've quoted.
How could the Dacians be latinised in such a short period of occupation?
And when the Romans left,why didn't they unite with the Free Dacians and stop speaking the language of their conquerors?
1) They were Romanized so quickly for the simple reason most of the colonists didn't follow the Roman army. Given the word used for the Church (biserica/basilica instead of chiesa/ecclesia) it is quite likely there were quite a lot of Christians there while the territory was still Roman and before Constantine made Christianity legal. So not only they stayed because they weren't so rich as to afford to leave, they also stayed behind because many of them were Christians and the Romans at the time were not exactly Christian-friendly.
Here's some food for thought: when the Turks conquered the Balkans there wasn't a massive migration of the Christians to Hungary and Wallachia. Do you know why? Because the Turkish taxes were much lower (like 20 times lower!!!) than those of the native kings and the Turks were not persecuting (at that time) the Chrisitians. Procopius complains that some Romans leave the empire for the Hun teritory because the Huns have lower taxes and they also allow runnaway slaves to be free men. We are talking about the Huns, who were by all accounts worse than the Goths who took over Dacia in 273 AD. So why would the population leave?
2) The Free Dacians were behaving just like the Goths. When Dacia was Roman they were raiding it. When their associates the Goths took it over it became off limits. They simply continued to raid together with the Goths the Roman empire south of Danube.
The native population south of the Danube were already latinised hundreds of years ago.They were under Roman rule since before the birth of Christ.
They were the Romans that colonised Dacia.
Yes, they were very Romanized in 273 AD (almost 500 years of Roman rule) therefore in their language they could not have had the words "pavimentum" (pavement) for ground, "fossatum" for village and "hostis" for army.
Dromikaites
12-28-2005, 16:17
I agree with you that since the Romanian(Moldowallachian) population became more than the Magyar/Hungarian polulation(for various reasons),Transylvania was natural to become part of the Romanian state.
The very obvious reason was they allways outnumbered the Hungarians in transylvania. At that time there was no such thing as the contraceptive pill. So the birth rates would be similar for both populations sharing the same territory.
What I do not like however,is that many Romanians do not acknowledge that Transylvania was the cradle of the Hungarian civilisation in medieval times,(the civilisation of Transylvania was Hungarian back at that time).
Huh? The Hungarians ruled Transylvania for some 1000 years and that's in every Romanian historybook. And after the battle of Mohacs (1526) Transylvania was the only European state left to be ruled by Hungarians (with the brief interruption of Michael the Brave union with Moldova and Wallachia from 1599 to 1601). That's also in the Romanian history books. So what exactly would you like to be added to that?
The greatest part of Transylvania's history has to do with Hungary.
In the sense most of the decision-makers were Hungarians, yes, you're right. And nobody is arguing against that in Romania.
There are 1,5 m Hungarians there and you should respect their rights.
Humm, are you aware that since 1996 the Hungarians were part of the government of Romania and that today one of the 3 vice-Prime Ministers is the president of the main party of the Hungarian minority in Romania? That doesn't look like the Hungarians are persecuted. Unless of course you consider being vice-Prime Minister of Romania a punishment :) :) :)
Are you also aware that Hungary was the first EU country to ratify the Romanian asscension to EU treaty? That since the early '90s there is a joint Hungarian-Romanian Rapid Reaction Force (a military force made of troops form the Hungarian and Romanian armies)? Either the Hungarian government and the Hungarian generals are betraying their own nation by supporting Romania and organizing military units together or you are severely misinformed.
I agree with you that since the Romanian
There are 1,5 m Hungarians there and you should respect their rights.
The rights of the Hungarians are not respected?? Please show us some specific cases of Hungarians and Szeklers being opressed in the post-1989 era. I don't want this thread to become a Romanian vs extremist Hungarian battle, but although Romania has a lot of problems, the way it deals with minorities is not one, and if it is, it is not worse or better than the ones Western or Central European countries have.
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-30-2005, 12:28
I did not know all these.It really seems then that despite problems with corruption and poverty,Romania has made a great progress when it comes to human rights.
That is good.Cooperation between Hungary and Romania will bring wealth to both countries.:gring:
When will Romania join the EU?
SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
12-30-2005, 13:12
Illyrian origin - not likely because how did the Illyrians get to the North of the Danube? Unless of course they were colonists form the Roman empire.
Yes,this is what I mean.You said that there are 200 common words between the Albanian language and the Romanian.
The Romans usually didn't interfere with the religion of the conquered populations unless it was something blatantly against their views (like the alleged children sacrifices of the Carthagineans or the human sacrifices of some of the Celtic populations). Other than that, they didn't bother.
They bothered when the religion was the pole of unity for the people they conquered.That is why they persecuted the Druids(so that the numerous Celtic tribes never could be united).The same did to the Dacians.They razed to the ground all the temples of Zalmoxis so that the remaining Dacian population could be easily assimilated by the colonists.And it worked.The remaining Dacians were assimilated by the Romans and Dacians seized to exist as a people in the Roman province of Dacia.
The Romans respected mostly the religion of the people that lived in the Hellenised East.As far as I know they did not respect the religion of the barbarians.
Nope, there was no such thing as forced evacuation. Why don't you read the ancient chronicles about how the Romans were doing those things before commenting? When they abandoned Brittain or the provinces beyond the Rhine they simply took the troops away. The population who wanted to leave, followed the withdrawal.
EDIT: And do you know why? Because relocating a population would imply to take responsibility for their re-settlemet. Moesia was one of the bread baskets of the empire and as such it was a rather dense populated area. Where would the newly arrived people go? To put them in the countryside would have ment to give them land to work and there was no free land. To take them to the cities would have ment to solve housing and food supply problems ("bread and circus"). It wasn't a good idea to have unrest in a province threatened by the Goths so I doubt a competent emperor like Aurelian would have risked it. After all, he did withdraw because Dacia was too expensive to defend.
I do not see any logic behind that.Why would the Romans leave valuable manpower behind?
They would simply move the population to Moesia in order to strengthen the defense of this province and boost its economy.
In the third and fourth century,the Romans in order to boost the shattered economy of Moesia and Thracia,brought people not only from distant parts of the empire but also from outside of the empire.Why then would leave true Romans behind instead of relocating them?
You mentioned what happened in Britain.The situation in Britain at these times(we are talking about two centuries later!!!!!-the empire was not as it was during the reign of Aurelian) was very different.Would it be easy to transport so many Romanised British with ships-and relocate them where?to Gaul?At Gaul it was like hell,worse than in Britain or at least the same...
Why would a population leave the relative safety of an empire for the lands known to be under the control of the people who were raiding the empire, killing that population and pillaging their towns and villages on regular basis? It would be like people from Beslan would migrate to Chechnia. There would always be some individuals who would seek refuge in enemy lands (like Orestes who went to Attila) but they were most of the time frustrated politicians or disgruntled generals, not common people. And not in large numbers!
Do you really think that during the 6th or 7th century the people who lived in Moesia or in what is now Serbia were in the empire?Constantinople had no idea what was happening at the Balkans during this period.Only the fortified cities and those places that were next to the sea were really under Byzantine control.
When i say that latinised people from Moesia crossed the Danube and settled at Dacia I mean during these centuries when Balkans were in turmoil.Do not forget that many latinised people in the Balkans were transhumant shepherds,not farners at THAT times.There are also many Byzantine sources that mention numerous Romanian-speaking populations living in Bulgaria in medieval times.Tsar kalojan was one of them.
2) The Free Dacians were behaving just like the Goths. When Dacia was Roman they were raiding it. When their associates the Goths took it over it became off limits. They simply continued to raid together with the Goths the Roman empire south of Danube.
If the Dacians of the province of Dacia were conscious of being Dacians and not Romans theu would unite with them,with their free brothers the Carpi and the free Dacians
I am not persuaded by your arguments.
edyzmedieval
12-31-2005, 12:59
Yes,this is what I mean.You said that there are 200 common words between the Albanian language and the Romanian.
They bothered when the religion was the pole of unity for the people they conquered.That is why they persecuted the Druids(so that the numerous Celtic tribes never could be united).The same did to the Dacians.They razed to the ground all the temples of Zalmoxis so that the remaining Dacian population could be easily assimilated by the colonists.And it worked.The remaining Dacians were assimilated by the Romans and Dacians seized to exist as a people in the Roman province of Dacia.
The Romans respected mostly the religion of the people that lived in the Hellenised East.As far as I know they did not respect the religion of the barbarians.
Excuse me, the Dacians were far more intelligent than that. Interpretatio romana, or roman interpretation. Try to think what it means.
:rtwno:
Oh, and one more question, are you Hungarian?!
They bothered when the religion was the pole of unity for the people they conquered.That is why they persecuted the Druids(so that the numerous Celtic tribes never could be united).
Actually, the Britons were not united by druids, but by a royal succession of the Catuvellauni; they had already been a united power when the Romans invaded (when the Romans landed at Cantium there were soldiers from as far away as the Carveti in the Catuvellauni army), and they did not rely on the druids to be united. Powerful kings held them together before the Romans came, and Venetius, if he had conquered Brigantia from his wife when younger (as he was an old man when he took his Carveti on campaign and ousted her) may have re-taken large portions of Britain. Druids could encourage unity, but that wasn't the whole reason to kill them. The druids were not concerned with 'unity', so much as kicking the Romans (who were seen as heathenous) out of Britain by starting revolts, which usually had little cohesion. That and the Romans hated Celtic religion because they found some of the practices unnerving (though they left temples in place, but replaced the priests, otherwise mass exterminating the temple guards, priests, and attendants).
The gypsies in their language are called Roma.Surprisingly most of them live in a country named Romania...Is there any connection?:san_grin:
the word Romanian comes from the latin word Romanus (roman). Earliest document where Romanian and Romanian Country appear, is a letter written in 1521 (the letter of Neacsu).
about the Tzigany (gypsies) calling themselves as Roma in their language i dont know. i know the Tzigany were organized as some sort of slave cast. they were the property of their leader, (Bulibasha) who would employ them as slave workers for balcanic LandLords. given they spread in europe from Byzantine Empire (ROmania) after 1500, they probably adopted the name Roma to designate themselves as it would associate them with the glory of the empire. There are no more or less tsigany living in ROmania than in Serbia or Hungary or Slovakia or Bulgaria if you look at the percentages. Romania has 22 millions citizens, Bulgaria 8 millions, Hungary 10 millions Slovakia 5 millions.
I think there is a lot of propaganda associating the Tzigany with Romania because after WW2 there was a massive hungarian emigration to west europe and america, and they still dream to a Great Hungary, which would encompass Transylvania, which is a 3rd of Romania. the hungarians from Hungary tho' are less interested into this propaganda and they dream of making money, but the hungarians from america already have money, and they would like to see ROmania broken like it happened with Yugoslavia, which also had a lot of teritory that was part of Hungarian Empire thousand years ago. they are nuts those american hungarians who wage this propaganda war agains ROmanians and Romania I tell you ;)
I think there is a lot of propaganda associating the Tzigany with Romania because after WW2 there was a massive hungarian emigration to west europe and america, and they still dream to a Great Hungary, which would encompass Transylvania, which is a 3rd of Romania. the hungarians from Hungary tho' are less interested into this propaganda and they dream of making money, but the hungarians from america already have money, and they would like to see ROmania broken like it happened with Yugoslavia, which also had a lot of teritory that was part of Hungarian Empire thousand years ago. they are nuts those american hungarians who wage this propaganda war agains ROmanians and Romania I tell you ;)
This is a thing i noticed too: on forums where the Transylvanian "issue" is debated most revisionist Hungarians are those living in Western Europe and especially Canada and the US. Those living in Hungary have gone through 50 years of Communist opression themselves and are aware of the problems Romania has.
Dromikaites
01-02-2006, 10:33
Yes,this is what I mean.You said that there are 200 common words between the Albanian language and the Romanian.
It would also imply the Illyrian colonists in Dacia were in larger number than the colonists from other parts of the Empire. Possible but that doesn't solve the other half of the puzzle: why none of the 2 Albanian dialects has any similarity with the written stuff the Illyrians left behind?
They bothered when the religion was the pole of unity for the people they conquered.That is why they persecuted the Druids(so that the numerous Celtic tribes never could be united).The same did to the Dacians.They razed to the ground all the temples of Zalmoxis so that the remaining Dacian population could be easily assimilated by the colonists.And it worked.The remaining Dacians were assimilated by the Romans and Dacians seized to exist as a people in the Roman province of Dacia.
The Romans respected mostly the religion of the people that lived in the Hellenised East.As far as I know they did not respect the religion of the barbarians.
I think Ranika clarified the issue regarding the relation between the Roman Empire and the barbarian religions. Razing temples does make sense in RTW vanilla and even more sense in the S.P.Q.R mod but in real life would have been a measure guaranteed to create unrest.
I do not see any logic behind that.Why would the Romans leave valuable manpower behind?
They would simply move the population to Moesia in order to strengthen the defense of this province and boost its economy.
They took the army, they took the clerks and invited everybody else to follow. Some went, most didn't. Archeological evidence points to the fact Dacia continued to be inhabited.
In the third and fourth century,the Romans in order to boost the shattered economy of Moesia and Thracia,brought people not only from distant parts of the empire but also from outside of the empire.Why then would leave true Romans behind instead of relocating them?
The people brought to Moesia and Thracia were going there of their own free will. The same was true about those people who followed the Roman army in 273 AD. The key words here are free will. Some followed, most didn't.
You mentioned what happened in Britain.The situation in Britain at these times(we are talking about two centuries later!!!!!-the empire was not as it was during the reign of Aurelian) was very different.Would it be easy to transport so many Romanised British with ships-and relocate them where?to Gaul?At Gaul it was like hell,worse than in Britain or at least the same...
Following your line of reasoning, it would have been a good idea to relocate the Romano-Brits to Gaul in order to strenghten it.
Do you really think that during the 6th or 7th century the people who lived in Moesia or in what is now Serbia were in the empire?Constantinople had no idea what was happening at the Balkans during this period.Only the fortified cities and those places that were next to the sea were really under Byzantine control.
Yes, possible, but those numbers were probably small compared to the population in Dacia who was speaking the proto-Romanian language. Otherwise the language won't have those peculiarities mentioned in my previous post which are due to the fact it was formed north of the Danube.
When i say that latinised people from Moesia crossed the Danube and settled at Dacia I mean during these centuries when Balkans were in turmoil.Do not forget that many latinised people in the Balkans were transhumant shepherds,not farners at THAT times.There are also many Byzantine sources that mention numerous Romanian-speaking populations living in Bulgaria in medieval times.Tsar kalojan was one of them.
Yes, it is possible that Romanized people from the Balkans crossed the Danube. Also some were brought into Dacia as slaves/prisoners by the nomadic raids. But they didn't represent an important percentage of the already existing population of Dacia who was speaking proto-Romanian. Otherwise the language would have been different. And we would not have archelological evidence of continous life north of the Danube.
If the Dacians of the province of Dacia were conscious of being Dacians and not Romans theu would unite with them,with their free brothers the Carpi and the free Dacians.
He, he, according to the same line of reasoning the Swiss should have joined Charles le Temeraire, duc of Burgundy. Ethnicity didn't count as much at that time. Remember the Free Dacians and the Carpi were treating the Daco-Romans as raiding targets. Free Dacians were not even united as a single people, they were divided in tribes and Carpi was one of those tribes.
I am not persuaded by your arguments.It's a free Internet :)
I did not know all these.It really seems then that despite problems with corruption and poverty,Romania has made a great progress when it comes to human rights.
Yeah, like I was saying, it pays to be informed before talking about a topic.
That is good.Cooperation between Hungary and Romania will bring wealth to both countries.:gring:
It does so since the early '90s.
When will Romania join the EU?
Unless something really bad happens, on January 1st, 2007.
Dromikaites
01-02-2006, 10:45
I think there is a lot of propaganda associating the Tzigany with Romania because after WW2 there was a massive hungarian emigration to west europe and america, and they still dream to a Great Hungary, which would encompass Transylvania, which is a 3rd of Romania. the hungarians from Hungary tho' are less interested into this propaganda and they dream of making money, but the hungarians from america already have money, and they would like to see ROmania broken like it happened with Yugoslavia, which also had a lot of teritory that was part of Hungarian Empire thousand years ago. they are nuts those american hungarians who wage this propaganda war agains ROmanians and Romania I tell you ;)
People need to find a meaning to their lives. Some people dedicated themselves to the task of reversing the effects of the Trianon treaty. It's a free world, to each his/her hobbies :)
No amount of propaganda can change the borders of a country unless that country screws itself up. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of how not to handle the ethnic minorities issue. Romania chose not to follow that path and therefore stayed in one piece.
Bohdan, Lord of Courland
01-02-2006, 14:15
EDIT: WE DID WHAT?! We imprisoned the Polish royalty?! They should be thankful to us that we didn't hand them over to the Nazis, and their whole train full of gold!!!!!! We protected the Polish royalty!!!
What "Polish royalty" are you talking about? The only Poles who fled from Poland to Hungary and Romania (Romania had formally signed an alliance pact with Poland in 1923) was the Polish government and several important military leaders (soon to become the government in exile) and thousands of ex-soldiers and airmen who later arrived in England and France to join the ranks of the French army and the British RAF (a large contingent of Polish airmen took part in the Battle for Britain too) to continue the fight against the Germans on several fronts (including Narvik, France, North Africa and later, after 1941, Russia)
Poland did not have any kind of king as it was a Republic, and therefore, there simply was no "Polish Royalty".
edyzmedieval
01-02-2006, 15:57
Sorry, my mistake.
They didn't have royalty.
Dromikaites
01-02-2006, 16:10
Yes, Poland was a republic in 1939. Right after the end of WWI marshall Pilsudski toyed for a while with the idea of a Polish-Romanian union. He came to Bucharest to negotiate the issue. There were two versions of this plan: a strong union under the Romanian king as sovereign of both countries and a loose union, with the brother of the Romanian heir as king of Poland. Eventually the project was abandoned and replaced with the military alliance against the Soviet Union.
In 1939 when the Soviet Union attacked Poland Romania was required to enter the war. The Polish government was realistic and told the Romanian government it was freed from the obligations of the 1923 treaty. Instead they asked for safe passage to the Polish Treasury, government and army. The passage was granted inspite of Hitler's threats. That was something Adolf took into consideration the next year, when he and Mussolini awarded the north of Transylvania to Hungary. The Hungarians were a minority even in that piece of Transylvania they've got as a result of the Vienna Diktat.
Bohdan, Lord of Courland
01-02-2006, 21:58
Pilsudski planning a Polish-Romanian union? While it is true that he planned a union with Lithuania akin to the Union of Lublin which created the "Commonwealth of Both Nations" (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów) five centuries earlier, I had absolutely no idea that he planned to do the same thing with Romania. He also tried to take Kiev in 1920 and create some sort of a loose union with Ukraine (which was to be made a new state: It was part of the Soviet Union then) in order to create some sort of a "buffer state" between Poland and the Soviets, but a union with Romania? :dizzy2:
I'd better search for more information on this...
Dromikaites
01-03-2006, 10:38
Pilsudski planning a Polish-Romanian union? While it is true that he planned a union with Lithuania akin to the Union of Lublin which created the "Commonwealth of Both Nations" (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów) five centuries earlier, I had absolutely no idea that he planned to do the same thing with Romania. He also tried to take Kiev in 1920 and create some sort of a loose union with Ukraine (which was to be made a new state: It was part of the Soviet Union then) in order to create some sort of a "buffer state" between Poland and the Soviets, but a union with Romania? :dizzy2:
I'd better search for more information on this...
Yep, the situation in the center east at the end of WW1 with two big countries (Germany and Russia) and lots of smaller ones forced the local politicians to think of all sorts of solutions.
The Hungarians also came with an interesting solution: to replace the former Austro-Hungarian empire with a federal state called the Danubian Federation. There were several configurations proposed for that state, which in the largest version included Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia.
Nothing came out of that project either. On one hand Yugoslavia and Romania could not be part of the same federation because both were victors of WW1 and none of the two kings was ready to accept not to be the head of the federation.
On the other hand none of the other countries accepted the Hungarian proposal that the seats in the federal parliament should be equally divided among the countries instead of being proportional to the population. The Hungarian proposal was not completely out of line even though it seemed to give Hungary more weight inside the federation. The number of ethnic Hungarians in the proposed federation could have justified the number of seats in the federal parliament. However that would have implied that the Hungarian minorities in the other states would be sort-of represented by Hungary, something none of the other members of the proposed federation could accept.
Hungary took a part of Transylvania in 1940, but it was given back to Romania in 1945 after it changed sides and fought the Germans and Hungarians in Hungary and Austria.
Constanta???!!! wher did you hear that? ... The historical province of Dobrogea lost it's most Southern tip (Cadrilater) to Bulgaria in 1940. It was inhabited mostly by Buglarians, Turks and Aromanian colonists and it was more Bulgarian than Romanian in culture(my grandparents were one and they together with all Aromanians got relocated to Northern Areas, like Constanta)
Bassarabia was taken by force by the Soviet Union and never given back and it forms today's republic of Moldova(Europe's poorest state). It is not "half of the country" it is a scarcely populated, small region of the country (still v. important for national reasons).
You have to look at the political situation it was faced in 1940: Hungary, USSR and Bulgaria all had territorial demands and with the defeat of Romania's traditional ally France, they forced the country to cede those territories. Hitler and Mussolini backed the Hungarians and Bulgarians, while the Soviet Union threatend with invasions (which it deed, crossing the border without a declaration of war and without further negotiations).
To simplify it, it's like Belgium going to war against Germany, France and the Netherlands simultaniously.
*replies way too late*
Hey, don't take it personally. It wasn't meant as an insult... I feel sorry for ya buggers.
For those who wan't to know more about romania they should really check this article about them:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Romania:juggle2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.