99th Anniversary of Romanian Unification

[Tong]

THE WESTERN (Catholic-protestant) WORLD is depicted in dark blue on the map of prof. S. Huntington:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ations_map.png


What is Western Civilization?
The earliest mention of Western civilization “Occidental civilis”
After the Great Schism (The East-West Schism /formally in 1054/, between Western Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity.) Hungary determined itself as the easternmost bastion of Western civilisation (This statement was affirmed later by Pope Pius II who wrote that to Emperor Friedrich III, “Hungary is the shield of Christianity and the protector of Western civilization”)


It is not a secret in history, that countries civilizations are/were not in the same level of development.
It is well-known that Western and Central Europe, ( the so-called Western civilization) was always more developed than Orthodox Slavic or Eastern European civilization.
The differences in culture (material and verbal), legal constitutional, societal, political, economical, infrastructural, technological and scientific development, between Orthodox countries and Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries were similar great, as the differences between Northern America (USA Canada) and Southern- (Latino) America.




MEMENTO:
Western things which were not existed in orthodox world:




1. POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL development: Medieval appearance of parliaments (The parliament is a legislative body(!), DO NOT CONFUSE with the “councils of monarchs” which existed since the very beginnings of human history), the estates of the realm, the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners,


2. Local SELF GOVERNMENT status of big royal/imperial cities, which are the direct ancestors (the continuity) of modern local self governmental systems. Do not confuse the local self governments with the so-called city states. Sovereign city states were the earliest form of states in Human history ( For example: Sumerian city states), and that legal concept has nothing common with the self-governments/local governments of cities within a country or within an Empire.

3. ECONOMY: The medieval appearance of banking systems and social effects and status of urban bourgeoisie, the absolute dominance of money-economy (when the vast majority of trade based on money and the taxes customs duties were collected in money) from the 12th -13th century, instead of the former primitive bartel-based commerce (barter dominated the economies orthodox world until the 17-18th centuries.)


4. HIGHER EDUCATION: The medieval appearance of universities and the medieval appearance of SECULAR intellectuals,


5. CULTURE: Knights, the knight-culture, chivalric code, (and the technological effects of crusades from the Holy Land,)
Music and literature: courtly love, troubadours, Gregorian chant, Ars nova, Organum, Motet, Madrigal, Canon and Ballata, Liturgical drama, Novellas,
medieval western THEATER: Mystery or cycle plays, morality and passion plays, which developed into the renaissance theater, the direct ancestor of modern theaters.
Philosophy: Scholasticism and humanist philosophy,


6. The medieval usage of Latin alphabet and medieval spread of movable type printing,


7. TECHNOLOGY: The guild system is an association of artisans or merchants, which organized the training education, and directed master's exam system for artisians. Due to the compulsory foreign studies of the artisian master's candidates, the guilds played key role in the fast spread of technologies and industrial knowledge in the medieval Western World.


8. The defence systems & fortifications: The spread of stone/brick castle defense -systems, the town-walls of western cities from the 11th century. (In the orthodox world, only the capital cities had such a walls . The countries of the Balkan region and the territory of Russian states fell under Ottoman/Mongolian rule very rapidly - with a
single decesive open-field battle - due to the lack of the networks of stone/brick castles and fortresses in these countries. The only exception was the greek inhabited Byzantine territories which were well fortified.)


9. FINEARTS and ARCHITECTURE: western architecture, sculpture paintings and fine-arts: the Romanesque style, the Gothic style and the Renaissance style.
The orthodox church buildings and „palaces(?)” were very little, they had primitive structure and poor decorations, their style were influenced by non-European arabic and persian influenced Byzantine ornamentics.


10.The renaissance & humanism , the reformation and the enlightenment did not influenced/affected the Orthodox (Eastern European) countries.


11. Before 1870, the industrialization that had developed in Western and Central Europe and the United States did not extend in any significant way to the rest of the world. In Eastern Europe, industrialization lagged far behind, and started only in the 20th century. Their infrastructural and economic development was also very very slow, and many determinant factors of modern civilization - as we called them as civilized way of life - (railways, the electrification of cities, drain & sewer systems, water pipe systems, spread of tap water and bathrooms, telecommuncations etc... spread many-many decades (60-80 years) later.


It is no wonder that their contribution in science technology and innovations are completely negligible in Human history by the WESTERN standards.

idc
also romania has loads of scientists

[Tong]

You are wrong.Austria and Hungary conscripted 9 million soldiers during the war (fighting forces were 7,2 million) itself Kingdom of Hungary drafted 4 million soldiers (more than the total male population of preWW1 Romania or the total population of Serbia).The majority (75%) of the army of Hungarian kingdom was Hungarian,and the majority was German speaking in the Austrian part of the Empire. Hungarian army contained more than 1,4 M. soldiers in 1918.


Don't forget, both Romania and Serbia were completly & brutally backward agricultural and rural balkan style countries combined with traditionally backward colonial-level "infrastrucutre". They belonged culturally to the Orthodox eastern civilization. They started the 20th century without industrialization , without serious urbanization, and the majority of their adult male population couldn't read & write before the WW1.So it was not a wonder, that Romania lost the WW1 with record speed. In WW1 history, the shortest period frontline was the Romanian, romanians were able to wage war only for a half year, even Bucharest the capital city was captured within 4 months. Then romania call for armistice in the theatry of Bucharest. Romanian army suffered the highest casualty ratio during the history of WW1.




Despite the A-H forces had not numerical superiority, Serbia lost the ww1 within one year and three months, their defeat led to the complete occupation of Serbia. Near the end of 1915, in a massive rescue operation involving more than 1,000 trips made by Italian, French and British steamers, 260,000 Serb soldiers and the Serbian government were transported to Corfu, where they waited for the chance of the victory of Allied Powers to reclaim their country. Serbian army couldn't return to the empty military evacuated Serbia from the Saloniki front until the end of WW1, after the A-H Monarchy dissolved.


Russian Empire economically & military collapsed and finally the revolution arrived.


After the end of the WW1, by a notion of Woodrow Wilson's pacifism, the naive liberal Hungarian PM Mihály Károlyi ordered the full disarmament of Hungarian Army, which contained more than 1,4 M. soldiers. Also Don't forget, the timed attack of "brave" Czechs Romanians Serbian-French armies started their joint military operations only AFTER the Hungarian total self-disarmament.

no im right. romanian cavalry marched in budapest and gave hungarians food.

[Stears]

idc
also romania has loads of scientists

Like african or asian countries. But they have not any significant international scientific awards.

[Stears]

no im right. romanian cavalry marched in budapest and gave hungarians food.

Romanian gypsy, it is a cheap propaganda, it is similar to the Soviet food propaganda during the occupation of Budapest..

[Stears]

no im right. romanian cavalry marched in budapest and gave hungarians food.

Foreign policy scandal and downfall[edit]

József Pogány ("John Pepper") speaks to communist soldiers.

See also: Revolutions and interventions in Hungary (1918–1920) and Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919
In late May, after the Entente military representative demanded more territorial concessions from Hungary, Kun attempted to "fulfill" his promise to restore Hungary's borders. In June, the Hungarian Red Army invaded the eastern part of the newly-forming Czechoslovak state (today's Slovakia), the former so-called "Upper Hungary". The Hungarian Red Army achieved some military success early on: under the leadership of Colonel Aurél Stromfeld, it ousted Czech troops from the north, and planned to march against the Romanian army in the east. Despite communist promises on the restoration of the former borders of Hungary, the communist declared the establishment of the Slovak Soviet Republic in Prešov on 16 June 1919.^[16] After the proclamation of the Slovak Soviet Republic, the Hungarian nationalists and patriots soon realized that the new communist government had no intentions to recapture the lost territories, only to spread communist ideology and establish other communist states in Europe, and thus sacrificing Hungarian national interests.^[17] Despite the series of military victories against the Czechoslovak army, the Hungarian Red Army started to disintegrate due to this fundamental tension between patriots and communists during the establishment of the Independent Slovak Soviet Republic, and this concession shook the popular and military support of the communist government, particularly among professional military officers, patriots and nationalists in the Hungarian Red Army; even the chief of the general staff Aurél Stromfeld, in fact, resigned his post in protest.^[18]

[Mingle]

The full text is here: http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm


In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherd tribesmen (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The irrational daco-romanian continuity myth is nothing more than a "NATIVIST" state-propaganda. This chauvinist propaganda was born & started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" (A politically very active "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening & nationalism. The fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" served and followed strictly the romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. It's the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives , this national belief/religion became the central part of modern Romanian identity. Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.
Vlach (name for medieval & early modern romanians in European chronicles) was the latest nation who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe.

BS. Why did you ignore my post and paste this? How do you explain Duke Glad being called a "certain Romanian"? If Romanized Dacians didn't live in Transylvania before, then who did at the time of the Hungarian invasion? Who were Menumorot and Gelou if they weren't Romanians?

1st: There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) proofs for the survival of Dacian ethnic group after Roman withdrawal.

There are VERY few Thracian texts. So that isn't that hard to believe if true. After the Roman withdrawal, Dacia got Romanized which is why there may not be evidence of Dacians there.

2nd: Dacian vocabulary did not remain for the posterior, only same names of tribal leaders remained.

Okay? And? There are still Dacian substrates in Romanian.

The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike in the case of other neo-latin/romance languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin romance language.

Neo-Latin? Are you talking about the "re-Latinization" that happened in the 19th century?

3rd: The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process.

The Geto-Dacians (like other Thracians) were not a literate people. Even in Bulgaria, there are little to no Thracian texts. We have a few texts that tell us about their existence, largely in Greek documents, but there aren't much manuscripts available in their language. The Romans on the other hand were literate so there is going to be more sources in Roman from that time period. But that doesn't mean that nobody spoke Dacian.

4th: The BARBARIZATION of the Roman Army: Despite that average Romanian people believe that they are also descendants of the "Ancient Romans/Latins" it is very far from historical reality. The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS.

Okay...

5th: The migration of series of BRUTAL BARBARIAN tribes: There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Longobards, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs and later Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 9th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /romance speaking population. However there are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.

There was also no record of the survival of the Thracians in Bulgaria after the Turks/Slavs colonized the area.

6th: The complete LACK OF any LINGUISTIC INFLUENCES OF BARBARIANS of the area on Romanian language: There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans: The the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Dacian_origin

7st: The earliest romanian chronicle was Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century(!!!), who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of medieval literacy and medieval literature and own romanian history writing/chronicles, the poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..

This is from the early 16th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neac%C8%99u%27s_letter

8th: There are no material proofs (cemetries or vlach cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s.

I already mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again.

The text in Latin was dux Blacorum or quidam Blacus which means "chief of the Vlachs, a certain Vlach" in reference to Duke Gelu who was a duke before the Hungarians annexed his duchy: https://www.google.com/search?biw=13....0.iZpujkMXBRM

9th There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s. WERE WERE YOU HIDING FROM THE EYES OF CHRONICLERS for more than 800 years dear "daco"-"romans"?

See above.

10th Only the BALKAN Valchs were recorded as neo-latin speakers in the Eastern European and South-Eastern European region in the contemporary Chronicles (4th-13th century). Which is not surprising, because the Roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlach neo-latin speaker nomads were very often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles)

What do you mean by this?

11th: The problem of HYDRONYMS and TOPONYMS: Other interesting fact, that Romanian language borrowed the already existing Slavic, Hungarian and Saxon origin toponyms and hydronyms of Transylvania. It is a very well known and clear practice if immigrant populations.

Many Romanian county names have a Dacian or Latin toponym: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...me_etymologies

12th: The "great Latin" medieval Romanian vlachs always fiercely resisted against the Western Latin (Catholic) Church and its Latin liturgy, they chosed the Slavic Orthodox church which used church-slavonic language istead of Latin. (It was due to the fact that old romanian language contained more slavic words than latin, so the liturgy was more understandable for their people.

They chose Slavic because the priests were from Bulgaria which was a bordering Slavic nation. Why do you think that Romanians belong to the same sect of Christianity as other Southeast Europeans? Old Church Slavic had a lot of influence in Romanian religious lexicon like how Latin did in Hungarian. Does that make Hungarians "Romans" since you use Latin words for religious stuff? Since Romania was in Eastern Europe, it didn't have as much connection to Romance-speaking lands, however it was bordering Slavic Bulgaria.

13th: Huge LINGUISTIC REFORMS of the 19th century: During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from the vocabulary of the romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full modern French expressions were adopted to replace the old ones. These new modern Western European (modern French & Italian) romance expressions and words simply did not exist in the era original ancient latin speaking populations or in the vulgar latin languages.

That is true. But what does this prove? Nothing.

14th: ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM in old romanian language: Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained serious ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM before the linguistic reforms. Moreover, the old Romanian language was the only language in Europe which contained Albanian substratum. This also supports the balkan migrations in the high medieval period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Illyrian

[Tong]

Romanian gypsy, it is a cheap propaganda, it is similar to the Soviet food propaganda during the occupation of Budapest..

ur calling me romanian and a gypsy now?

[Szegedist]

BS. Why did you ignore my post and paste this? How do you explain Duke Glad being called a "certain Romanian"? If Romanized Dacians didn't live in Transylvania before, then who did at the time of the Hungarian invasion? Who were Menumorot and Gelou if they weren't Romanians?



There are VERY few Thracian texts. So that isn't that hard to believe if true. After the Roman withdrawal, Dacia got Romanized which is why there may not be evidence of Dacians there.



Okay? And? There are still Dacian substrates in Romanian.



Neo-Latin? Are you talking about the "re-Latinization" that happened in the 19th century?



The Geto-Dacians (like other Thracians) were not a literate people. Even in Bulgaria, there are little to no Thracian texts. We have a few texts that tell us about their existence, largely in Greek documents, but there aren't much manuscripts available in their language. The Romans on the other hand were literate so there is going to be more sources in Roman from that time period. But that doesn't mean that nobody spoke Dacian.



Okay...



There was also no record of the survival of the Thracians in Bulgaria after the Turks/Slavs colonized the area.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Dacian_origin



This is from the early 16th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neac%C8%99u%27s_letter




I already mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again.

The text in Latin was dux Blacorum or quidam Blacus which means "chief of the Vlachs, a certain Vlach" in reference to Duke Gelu who was a duke before the Hungarians annexed his duchy: https://www.google.com/search?biw=13....0.iZpujkMXBRM





See above.



What do you mean by this?



Many Romanian county names have a Dacian or Latin toponym: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...me_etymologies



They chose Slavic because the priests were from Bulgaria which was a bordering Slavic nation. Why do you think that Romanians belong to the same sect of Christianity as other Southeast Europeans? Old Church Slavic had a lot of influence in Romanian religious lexicon like how Latin did in Hungarian. Does that make Hungarians "Romans" since you use Latin words for religious stuff? Since Romania was in Eastern Europe, it didn't have as much connection to Romance-speaking lands, however it was bordering Slavic Bulgaria.



That is true. But what does this prove? Nothing.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Illyrian

Its time for this Afghan gypsy to find himself a different hobby and does what he does best, dance bacha bazi and get raped by old afghan men., instead of sticking his hook nose into matters he knows nothing about.

[Szegedist]

Don't forget, both Romania and Serbia were completly & brutally backward agricultural and rural balkan style countries combined with traditionally backward colonial-level "infrastrucutre".

Not "were" but still ARE.

[Antimage]

Its time for this Afghan gypsy to find himself a different hobby and does what he does best, dance bacha bazi and get raped by old afghan men., instead of sticking his hook nose into matters he knows nothing about.