Romanian Factions Requierd

[Mircea85]

QUOTE]But when you say "Romanians," you are using a modern concept (describing people on the basis of a nation-state), rather than a tribal one.[[/QUOTE] So medieval society was a tribal one. Very nice. I see now that you lack any knowledge of history. As a historian you are ZERO.

describe Dacians and then Vlachs.

Hello, chronology.

And again, let's pray to the holy hungarian historians, but also to the justice made by the treaty of Trianon. Cheers

[Russ Mitchell]

Hey, don't blame me for a hundred years of ink: the Daco-Roman controversy is a propaganda based on the blatant stupidity of both sides... Gents, I really am *not* an irredentist, and could care less about Trianon. And, frankly, Trianon is predicated upon Versailles, and without Versailles, as ugly as that could get, the history of the 20th century would have been even worse. (Can you imagine East Timor without it?) The history to which I refer is the standard internationally-accepted historiography. Show me better sources, and I withdraw my objections.

Where, then, was Seneslau's land? I seem to have misremembered. Have to look that up.... Either way, these gentlemen are simply irrelevant to the question: Caroberto was engaged in a classic example of extreme overreach, and everybody involved knew it.

The Gesta Hungarorum, otoh, is widely known to be completely unreliable for the period of the Hungarian entry into the Carpathian Basin. And it moves against the grain of how we know that the Vlachs in the period lived... as mountain shepherds/highlanders, not all that dissimilar to Appalachian folks in my country. Keza I don't have to hand. Turda is, again, an Angevin critter, 14th century. DEO, again, post-Interregnum, 14th century. Chronicon Pictum's account of Posada is very good, but who would accept it for the 9th century?

So, if one insists, does one then have a nationalist rebellion in 1330? Should Moldavian and Vlach then become synonymous? How then should the rest of the political timelines be rearranged to suit these fantasies?

Not that it makes a difference. These gents seem to have their mod well in-hand without our arguments...

[Mircea85]

The Gesta Hungarorum, otoh, is widely known to be completely unreliable for the period of the Hungarian entry into the Carpathian Basin. And it moves against the grain of how we know that the Vlachs in the period lived... as mountain shepherds/highlanders, not all that dissimilar to Appalachian folks in my country. Keza I don't have to hand. Turda is, again, an Angevin critter, 14th century. DEO, again, post-Interregnum, 14th century. Chronicon Pictum's account of Posada is very good, but who would accept it for the 9th century?

So, we have to disregard the historical sources, but we must belive the hungarian version of history, even if this version is not based on any historical source.

Hey, don't blame me for a hundred years of ink: the Daco-Roman controversy is a propaganda based on the blatant stupidity of both sides...

TRUE

The history to which I refer is the standard internationally-accepted historiography.

Standard international historiograhy if you read history from the site hungarian-history.com or other modern hungarian sources. Here we learn about the mighty and peaceful hungarain kingdom, about how they defended the Europe against the nomadic hordes (forgeting to mention the river Sajo battle), how they the Christianized the romanians (we were Christian long before the hungarian invasion in Pannonia - see Saint Andrew), we learn about the great hungarian general Janos Hunyadi (who was in fact of romanian origin, son of cnez Voicu) and the great Nikola Šubić Zrinski or Miklós Zrínyi who is called a great hungarain , about the so called "migration of romanians in Transylvania" in 13th century ( Disregarding the fact that no medieval chronicle mentions any large-scale migrations of Romanic peoples from the Balkans to Romania; contrary to a south to north movement, a chronicle indicates rather a north to south movement: according to Cecaumenos' Strategicon (1066), the Vlachs of Epirus and Thessalia came from north of the Danube and from along the Sava and almost all historical sources), we learn about the evil Woodrow Wilson and his 'Fourteen Points' in wich he dared to say that every nation has the right of self-determination (including the barbarious romanians, slovaks, croatians etc). We also learn how the hungarians understand freedom (at 1848 revolution, the hungarians valiantly fought for freedom, but they denied the freedom of romanians and others subjugated nations, HYPOCRISY). We also learn about the fiery policy of romanization (partialy true, we see how efective was this policy by comparing the numbers from 1910 census (1,662,000 hungarians, Note that 1910 the census did not count "ethnicity", but native language as well as "the most often spoken language", which led to manipulations with census results) to that of 2002 census (1,415,718 hungarians). But, they forget to tell us about the policy of forced magyarization implemented by various Hungarian authorities at various times.

So, if one insists, does one then have a nationalist rebellion in 1330? Should Moldavian and Vlach then become synonymous? How then should the rest of the political timelines be rearranged to suit these fantasies?

I already expresesd my opinion. A romanian faction is not possible because the first true romanian state gained it's independence in 1330.

P.S. Unfortunately, romanian history is hard to find on the net or in the librararies in US. But you can read on this site: http://rotravel.com/romania/history/index.php

Cheers

[Russ Mitchell]

So, we have to disregard the historical sources, but we must belive the hungarian version of history, even if this version is not based on any historical source.

Let's assume we're sufficiently competent to look at historical sources on all sides and assess them critically. Plenty of historical ink has little to no basis, and if you honestly believe that I'd accept a 19th-century nationalistic assessment of the Hungarian medieval role... well, then you'd think that I was like a lot of early scholars who DID simply choose one side or another... which is silliness. You may recall my saying that I am colleagues with both Romanian and Hungarian scholars? Just because I married the girl from Buda, rather than the art-historian from Cluj-Napoca... well, don't judge by the addresses on my profile.

I already expresesd my opinion. A romanian faction is not possible because the first true romanian state gained it's independence in 1330.

And my rejoinder, again: do they refer to themselves in 19th-century terms, or are they an antecedent to the modern construct? What evidence is there that the Moldavian archers sent to assist against the Teutonic Order in even the early fifteenth century thought of themselves as Romanian, rather than Moldavian? I've got plenty of 17th-century Scots-Irish ancestors, but they sure didn't think of themselves as "British..." the idea hadn't been invented yet.

For Pike and Musket, such a faction would not only be great game-wise, but is also critically important to the regional strategic balance.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Russ, this is a completely off topic question (so is this whole thread anyway): are you by any chance back in Budapest?

[Russ Mitchell]

No, but I will be in about three weeks... if you need something, please don't be shy. (If I don't know where to track something down, I'm sure I can find somebody who can.)