PDA

View Full Version : The Land Called Romania



Corvus
01-31-2013, 01:12 PM
Excerpted from "What, if Anything, is a Byzantine?"
by Clifton R. Fox, Professor of History - Tomball College (Texas), 1996
Source: http://afgen.com/what_is.htm

Clever diplomatic insults aside, medieval Westerners referred to the territory of the Romaion Empire with the name "Romania"[Romanland]. Case in point: from the sixth to the eighth century, the city of Ravenna was the capital of the Romaion province of Italy, the headquarters of the Exarch. The region close to Ravenna was directly governed by the Imperial authority. In the minds of the Lombards, the Germanic people who wrested much of Italy from Imperial control, the area around Ravenna was "Romania." To this day, the same region of Italy is called "Romagna," derived from "Romania."

Centuries later, the "Franks" of the Fourth Crusade stormed Constantinople in 1204. In the subsequent Imperial hiatus, these adventurers, largely French, elected their own Emperor and established their own Frankish or Latin Empire. The Frankish or Latin Imperial title: "Imperator Romaniae" [Emperor of Romania]. The "Imperator Romaniae" was something different from the "Imperator Romanorum." In Western Europe, the title the "Imperator Romanorum" belonged to the German successors of Charlemagne and Otto III when they were crowned by the Pope in Rome. After Otto III, German Kings called themselves "Rex Romanorum" [Roman King] in the interval between their election in Germany and coronation at Rome, which might be many years. After the middle of the thirteenth century, many of the German Kings never took the Imperial crown at all. They remained "Rex Romanorum" throughout their tenure. At the moment that the Fourth Crusaders elected their founding Emperor Baldwin I [reigned 1204-1205], the Western Imperial throne was vacant. German King Philip had not been crowned Emperor by the Pope and never would be crowned Emperor. Still, Baldwin I respected Western tradition: he did not dare offend the Pope by presuming to claim the title "Imperator Romanorum," but only the title of "Imperator Romaniae," Emperor of Romania. In Western eyes, only the Pope could make an individual "Imperator Romanorum."

In the West, the idea of "Imperator Romanorum" survived to describe the ranking Roman Catholic ruler until the nineteenth century. In 1508, the Pope authorized the "Rex Romanorum" to call himself "Imperator Romanorum Electus" [Elected Roman Emperor] without coronation at Rome. The last "Imperator Romanorum Electus" abdicated in 1806. Voltaire scoffed at the Holy Roman Empire in its senescence. The Holy Roman Empire was, Voltaire gibed, "...neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire." As in other matters, Voltaire ridiculed the things in which other people believed. Until the end, most Europeans, particularly Catholics, spoke of the "Sacrum Romanorum Imperium"[Holy Roman Empire] as a serious and important enterprise. Nonetheless,Western Europeans did not call themselves Romans or refer to their homeland as Romania. These words were conceded, albeit grudgingly, to Constantinople.

Western Europeans were not the only despoilers of the Romaion Empire to refer to it by the name of Rome. In the eleventh century, a branch of the Seljuk Turks established a Sultanate in Asia Minor carved out of land in Asia Minor. The Sultanate's territory had been severed from the Empire after the Battle of Manzikert [1071] in which Emperor Romanus IV [reigned 1067-1071] fell into the hands of the Turks as a prisoner. This Turkish state was called "Rum." from Rome. The Sultanate of Rum continued until after 1300 with its capital at Konya [Iconium].

The later Ottoman Turks adopted the term "Rumelia" to designate the portions of the Balkan Peninsula that they acquired from the Romaioi in the fourteenth century. "Rumelia" was a dimunitive word. If Anatolia was Rome [Rum], than the European territories were Lesser Rome [Rumelia]. The name "Rumelia" survived into the nineteenth century. After a Turkish defeat at the hands of Russia, the two combatant governments signed the Treaty of San Stefano [1877]. The Treaty included a provision to create a "Principality of Eastern Rumelia" under Russian "protection" on land now in Bulgaria. The attempt to create Eastern Rumelia never came to fruition. After diplomatic pressure from other powers, the Treaty of San Stefano underwent significant modification at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Eastern Rumelia vanished before it came into proper existence.

One might wonder why the name "Romania" became applied to the present nation called Romania. The association of the name "Romania" with the present nation "Romania"stems from the nineteenth century. In their first appearances in the historical record of the Middle Ages, the Romanians were called "Vlachs" by chroniclers from Hungary and Constantinople. A principality called "Wallachia" emerged among the Vlachs before 1300. Separate Vlach principalities of Moldavia and Transylvania followed. Later, scholars realized that the Vlach language derived from Latin; Vlach was a sister language to Italian, French and Spanish. How did Latin speakers find their way to this remote part of Europe north of the Danube River? Scholars developed the theory that the Vlachs were descended from Roman colonists and Latinized natives who lived in the area north of the Danube River during the second and third centuries AD. In the period, the region constituted the Roman province of Dacia. Whether the theory is right or not, it became the basis of Romanian nationalist feeling in the nineteenth century. The idea of a Roman descent gave Vlachs new pride in themselves. After Wallachia and Moldavia coalesced into a single entity in 1859, the name "Romania" was selected in 1862 to describe the combined state. At the time, Romanian unity and independence required the support of France under Emperor Napoleon III [1852-1870]. The "Latin connection" with France aided the Romanian cause by inspiring French interest in their "sister nation" of Romania.

In light of the late date at which modern Romania acquired its name, it appears clear that earlier, the term "Romania" referred to the territory where the Greek speaking "Romaioi" lived. For more than a millennium, the state that we call, inaccurately, the Byzantine Empire was "Romania." After the end of the Empire, Greek speaking inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire continued to call themselves "Romaioi."

Modern Greeks call themselves "Hellenes," like the ancient Greeks did. The switch from "Romaioi" back to "Hellene," like the switch from "Vlach" to "Romanian," came from the politics of nationalism in modern times. Greeks needed Western European help to become independent in the early nineteenth century. The Greeks were not likely to attract assistance if the Western peoples thought of Greeks as Byzantines. However, if the Greeks were imagined as the children of Plato and Pericles, then the sympathies of educated Westerners, steeped in the Classical tradition, would be with Greece. In the Greek Revolution of 1832, the "Philhellenic"[Greek loving] sympathies of Britain and other European governments were deeply engaged. Intervention on behalf of Greek independence proved decisive. The name of "Hellene" was revived in order to create a national image which rejected the "Byzantine" past.

Corvus
01-31-2013, 01:25 PM
Here is another article concerning this topic:

When did Romania become known as the country by that name?
by Dan Dimancescu

The "name" question is interesting if only because the factual answer is not widely known. I tried the same question once in England. When did the country first get officially named England? Few people knew, though many knew that in ancient times the main Isle was widely known as Albion and that until 1000 A.D. a long lineage of Welsh Kings preceded the current Royal lineage.

How about Romania (or Rumania or Roumania as it has also been spelled)? The nation consists in present times of three primary regions or provinces: Transylvania (North and West), Moldavia (East), and Wallachia (south) which were briefly united in 1599-1600 by Mihai the Brave (Mihai Viteazul). Transylvania, in ancient times known as Dacia, fell in more recent centuries under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire only to become united into modern Romania after WW One. The two other regions long known as Wallachia and Moldavia were commonly referred to in the 1500s to 1700s as "The Two Principalities'. They were under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Turkish Empire until a first major defeat by the Russians in 1769 weakened that hold. Austria, too, started to exert more influence in the northern Bucovina region and south of the Carpathian Mountains in Wallachia. This opened the door to early expressions of nationalism among the populace. But by 1812, Russia relinquished control to the Turks.

Twenty years later the tide would turn again and Russia would reestablish its influence by taking advantage of Turkish weaknesses. In what would later be viewed as an enlightened decision, Count Paul Kisselev was sent by the Tsar to rule the two Principalities. His rule, writes historian R. W. Seton-Watson, "is the transition from chaos and decay to the first rudiments of ordered and decent government." His legacy survives today in the name of one of Bucharest's most beautiful tree-lined boulevards.

More importantly was his introduction of a "constitutional' regime accepted in Wallachia in 1831 and a year later in Moldavia. By agreement with Turkey they would be ruled by local aristocratic families; the former by Prince Ghica and the latter to be ruled by Prince Sturdza. During this period peasants were granted greater rights though still abused by the land-owning class through taxation and endentured work. At the same time, this wealthy boyard class, influenced by studies in western Europe, started to talk of union between the two provinces. This movement led to the elimination of custom boundaries in early 1846 and the two provinces were relabeled "The United Principalities." A period of revolutionary ferment ensued emanating from France, Italy and other countries and with it emerged a new young generation of western inspired leaders by the names of Bibescu, Bratianau, Rosetti, Eliade, and Golescu. But their thirst for radical change was soon tamed by the renewed influence of Russia and Turkey on the Principalities while Austria and France advanced their own schemes to exert influence.

Paris became a refuge for the new young leaders and their hoped-for revolution. It was in Paris, in 1855, that a review was launched entitled "The Future Romania" (Romania Viitoare) and another called Republica Romana. The name "Romania was" used for the first time in reference to the united Principalities and the long-nurtured dream of reunification with Transylvania during the late 1500s. Ion Bratianau wrote of a free nation with "10 million Romanians." France, then under the reign of Napoleon III, was viewed as the home and patron of modern 'nationality' and the Emperor was persuaded to acknowledge the cause of the "Romanian principalities." Soon after Britain's House of Commons voted to recognize and encourage the movement towards unity. In the Wallachian Diet "four points", autonomy, union, a foreign prince [as ruler], and representative government, were cheered with shouts of "Long Live Romania." However, this enthusiasm did not prevent the Great powers from officially reverting to the lengthened official name "United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia" and agreeing to let both remain under suzerainty of Turkey but with externally guaranteed rights.

By late 1858, Moldavia elected Alexander Cuza, a nationalist, as king of the Province. Shortly after he was elected in Wallachia and thus became the symbol of unity between the two provinces. On January 24 of 1862, the name Romania was officially established with its capital city to be Bucharest in Wallachia. As Seton-Watson observed: "Roumania had safely come to birth, but not thanks to the midwifery of the presiding Great Powers." Cuza would last eight turbulent years before being deposed. One of the instigators was Ion Bratianu who, like others, favored a foreign prince as ruler and unifier. Working in concert with Napoleon III, Bratianu identified a German von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, Prince Charles (Carol), as a suitable candidate - with the added benefit of being related by adoption through his grand-mother to Napoleon. In March of 1866 he was elected Prince and then in 1881 as King and by constitutional reform became a hereditary ruler of Romania. Some of those heriditary rights, though limited to property and nominal titular ones, were reinstituted by the post-Communist government.

Corvus
01-31-2013, 01:32 PM
It is intresting to see, how in the 19th century Romanians identified with France and regarded themselves as a Latin nation, which also was the main reason for the installation of the Latin derived name and now they are again embracing their
Slavic-Thracian roots and therefore many insist on a name change

Corvus
01-31-2013, 01:52 PM
And finally that`s what Wiki says:

During the transition from Vulgar Latin to Romanian, there were some phonetical changes that modified romanus into român or rumân. The accusative form romanum was retained.

ending "-m" dropped (occurred in all Romance languages)
ending "-u" dropped (regular change; in Old Romanian was however still present)
"a" → "â" (regular change; vowels before nasal stops turned into "â"/"î")
"o" → "u" (regular change; however, in some regions of Romania, the variant with "o" was kept)

A reference to the name Romanian could be contained in the Nibelungenlied: "Duke Ramunc of Walachia,/with seven hundred vassals, galloped up before her/like flying wild birds men saw them ride".[2] It is argued that "Ramunc" could represent a symbolic figure, representing Romanians.[3]

The self-designation of Romanians as Romans is mentioned in scholarly works as early as the 16th century by mainly Italian humanists travelling in Transylvania, Moldavia and Walachia. Thus, Tranquillo Andronico writes in 1534 that Romanians (Valachi) "now call themselves Romans".[4] In 1532, Francesco della Valle accompanying Governor Aloisio Gritti to Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia notes that Romanians preserved the name of the Romans (Romani) and "they call themselves in their language Romanians (Romei)". He even cites the sentence "Sti rominest ?" ("do you speak Romanian ?" for originally Romanian "ştii româneşte ?").[5] Ferrante Capeci writes around 1575 that the inhabitants of those Provinces call themselves “Romanians”,[6] while Pierre Lescalopier notes in 1574 that those inhabiting Walachia, Moldavia and the most part of Transylvania say to be descendants of Romans, calling their language "romanechte" (French transcription for Romanian româneşte - Romanian).[7]

Other first-hand evidence about the name Romanians used to call themselves comes from authors having lived in Transylvania and/or Romanian principalities: the Transylvanian Saxon Johann Lebel confirms in 1542 that common Romanians call themselves "Romuini",[8] Orichovius (Stanislaw Orzechowski) notes as late as 1554 that "in their own language, Romanians are called Romini, after the Romans, and Walachs in Polish, after the Italians",[9] Anton Verancsics writes around 1570 that Romanians living in Transylvania, Moldavia and Walachia call themselves Romans (Romanians) [10] and Martinus Szent-Ivany cites in 1699 Romanian expressions: "Sie noi sentem Rumeni" (modern standard Romanian "Şi noi suntem români") and "Noi sentem di sange Rumena" (in modern standard Romanian "Noi suntem de sânge român") [11]

Historical Romanian documents display two spelling forms of "Romanian": "român" and "rumân". For centuries, both spelling forms are interchangeably used, sometimes in the same phrase.[12]

In the 17th century the term "Romanian" also appears as Rumun (Johann Tröster), Rumuny (Paul Kovács de Lisznyai), Rumuin (Laurentius Toppeltinus), and Rumen (Johannes Lucius and Martin Szentiványi).[13]

In the Middle Ages the ethno-linguistical designation rumân/român also denoted common people. During the 17th century, as serfdom becomes a widespread institution, common people increasingly turns into bondsman. In a process of semantic differentiation in 17th-18th centuries the form rumân, presumably usual among lower classes, got merely the meaning of bondsman, while the form "român" kept an ethno-linguistic meaning.[14] After the abolition of the serfage by Prince Constantine Mavrocordato in 1746, the form "rumân" gradually disappears and the spelling definitively stabilises to the form "român", "românesc".[15]

Dacul
01-31-2013, 01:57 PM
^
Maybe that is because now exists DNA tests which showed as false the latin origins of romanians?
You should know that rumân in old romanian language meant serf,lol.
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/rum%C3%A2n

Pobre Diablo
01-31-2013, 06:04 PM
and now they are again embracing their
Slavic-Thracian roots and therefore many insist on a name change

that's not true, don't troll me like that please :(

Corvus
01-31-2013, 06:10 PM
that's not true, don't troll me like that please :(

I am not intending to troll, I am striving to contribute to the Romanian section in a postive manner

Dacul
01-31-2013, 06:43 PM
that's not true, don't troll me like that please :(
Lol he is not trolling.
The name of the country and of the language is not right.
These people who are removed words of slavic origins and inserted instead words from french and latin are actually denationalizing romanians.
What good to live in a big lie?
Most romanians needs a lot of education not to increase the arrogance of the people with such lies,as telling them they are descendants of old latins,rofl.

Szegedist
01-31-2013, 08:17 PM
I am glad that the purge of Slavic words from Romanian and the adoption of words from Romance language to Latinize the language is known among Romanians too.

Dacul
02-01-2013, 06:24 AM
No Szegedist is not known,even my father who loves me a lot (more than he loves my sister and we are the only 2 children he has) got very upset when I told about this.
Is fun to see people from Romania who can not even speak romanian right telling they are descendants of latins.
If we are descendants of latins,where is the latin civilisation in our country?
Romania is the shame of European Union,with how much corruption is here,they said they will build Transylvania highway,to link the rest of Europe to Bulgaria and Greece and I think there are 10 years from when they started to build that.
And in these 10 years they made exactly 60 km!
And they spent billions of euros!
Is not mountainous areas,just plain and hills,would be very easy to build this road.

Bucharest is looking like big garbage dump,I only saw in India such a dirt,nowhere else in Europe,including Turkey.