99th Anniversary of Romanian Unification

[Mingle]

Congrats to Romania!

Romania Great Union National Day History

Great Union Day, also known as Romanian National Day, celebrates the union of Romanian territories. On 1 December 1918, the Kingdom of Romania, then composed of Moldova and Wallachia, united with Transylvania, Crisana, Satmar, Banat and Maramures areas. 10 days later, on 11 December, King Ferdinand I signed the law and united the Romanian territories into one.

Great Union Day is celebrated annually on 1 December to mark the date on which the union was agreed upon. Throughout the years, the date has changed to mark other monumental events in Romania's history however now it is always celebrated on 1 December. The day has been celebrated officially since 1990 after Soviet and communist rule fell in Romania.

Romania Great Union National Day Facts & Quotes

• The Union paperwork was signed in the city of Alba Iulia. The declaration was then read out publicly to a large audience of Romanians.

• Moldova and Bucovina were later annexed to the Soviet Union, a part of Transylvania was lost to Hungary and Cadrilater lost to Bulgaria.

• The monarchy of Romania ruled until 1947 when Romania became a republic.

• Romania gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878.

• "The lands named in the resolution of the Alba-Iulia National Assembly of the 18th of November 1918 are and remain forever united with the Kingdom of Romania." - King Ferdinand I of Romania

-----------

https://www.wincalendar.com/Great-Un...al-Day-Romania

[Mingle]

Romania's national day sees tensions over justice laws

BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — Thousands of Romanian troops have staged a military parade to celebrate Romania's national day, but key politicians didn't attend, signaling tensions over controversial plans to revamp the justice system.

President Klaus Iohannis watched the military parade at Bucharest's Triumphal Arch, joined by the prime minister. But the leaders of the ruling left-wing coalition, Liviu Dragnea and Calin Popescu Tariceanu, didn't show up Friday.

Dragnea and Tariceanu, who are subjects of corruption-related prosecutions, have faced recent protests over proposals to restructure the justice system, which critics say will make it harder to crack down on high-level corruption. They say the proposals will make the justice system more independent.

This week the U.S. State Department called on Parliament to reject laws that would weaken the anti-corruption fight.

-----------------------------

http://www.oleantimesherald.com/news...78a2a77cb.html

[Stears]

Congrats to what, stealing Hungarian historical region of Transylvania, that was never part of the Gypsy Balkanite state before ?

One day the stolen territories will be returned to the rightful owner.

[Mingle]

Congrats to what, stealing Hungarian historical region of Transylvania, that was never part of the Gypsy Balkanite state before ?

One day the stolen territories will be returned to the rightful owner.

Transylvania was part of Hungary before it was part of the country known as Romania, but Romanians lived in Transylvania first. I think people that settle in a land first have a greater claim to it, or at least just as much of a claim. Countries are political constructs and just because one country gets one land first shouldn't mean much. Romania as a country didn't exist back then but Romanian people did.

Transylvania was part of the Kingdom of Dacia with Dacia's capital (Sarmizegetusa) being in Transylvania as well. After the Roman conquest of the land, Transylvania was part of the Roman province of Dacia as well. When Hungarians invaded, Transylvania was a Romance-speaking land.

Before Hungary annexed Transylvania, there were three Romanian (or Romance-speaking) duchies/cnezates: Menumorot's duchy (Bihor, Crishana), Gelou's duchy (somewhere in Transylvania), and Glad's duchy (Keve, part of Serb Banat today). Duke Glad was described as a "certain Romanian". These were the three duchies that tried to resist the Hungarian invasion in Transylvania, but they were soundly defeated but afterwards allowed to remain as separate entities under Hungarian suzerainty. But even at that point, not all of Transylvania was part of Hungary. The rest of Transylvania was still Romanian and remained so until King Saint Stephen conquered the rest of it in 1001. Then later in the 12th century, Hungary tried to colonize Transylvania by settling Szeklers and Germans there. That's why you see Hungarians (Szeklers) living in all the way in eastern Transylvania instead of the parts of Transylvania that border Hungary (a few live in the border regions but most live in eastern Transylvania).

[Stears]

Transylvania was part of Hungary before it was part of the country known as Romania, but Romanians lived in Transylvania first. I think people that settle in a land first have a greater claim to it, or at least just as much of a claim. Countries are political constructs and just because one country gets one land first shouldn't mean much. Romania as a country didn't exist back then but Romanian people did.

Transylvania was part of the Kingdom of Dacia with Dacia's capital (Sarmizegetusa) being in Transylvania as well. After the Roman conquest of the land, Transylvania was part of the Roman province of Dacia as well. When Hungarians invaded, Transylvania was a Romance-speaking land.

Before Hungary annexed Transylvania, there were three Romanian (or Romance-speaking) duchies/cnezates: Menumorot's duchy (Bihor, Crishana), Gelou's duchy (somewhere in Transylvania), and Glad's duchy (Keve, part of Serb Banat today). Duke Glad was described as a "certain Romanian". These were the three duchies that tried to resist the Hungarian invasion in Transylvania, but they were soundly defeated but afterwards allowed to remain as separate entities under Hungarian suzerainty. But even at that point, not all of Transylvania was part of Hungary. The rest of Transylvania was still Romanian and remained so until King Saint Stephen conquered the rest of it in 1001. Then later in the 12th century, Hungary tried to colonize Transylvania by settling Szeklers and Germans there. That's why you see Hungarians (Szeklers) living in all the way in eastern Transylvania instead of the parts of Transylvania that border Hungary (a few live in the border regions but most live in eastern Transylvania).

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.



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.


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




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.






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.


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.


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.


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.




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..






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.


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"?




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)


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.


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.


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.


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.




The imagined "glorious past" and the opposing historical reality:
The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the brutal mongol invasions and attacks in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) Cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder prince Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
Since the 16th century the settled life slowly became dominant lifestyle among the formerly mostly nomadic-shepherd romanians. It doesn't sound a very civilized interesting and important history...

[Stears]

VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE, the vast majority of Romanian population preserved its nomadic lifestyle and heritage until the end of 16th century. They were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th & 14th century. No known Vlach archiutecture existed before that period. The romanian literacy and their earliest chronicles appeared only in the early 17th century (Grigore Ureche's chronicle). USE Google books! (The word's largest digitalized library, the largest collection of printed books) See the Google Books results in English language (search the British, American, Canadian & Australian authors about medieval romanians Vlachs):


Link to the book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=bR...-gypsy&f=false


B. Fowkes (2002) : Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World -PAGE: 12


"That curious minority, the Vlachs of the Balkans, for example, were on the face of it Romanians ('Wallachians') but in fact the name was also applied to Slavs who shared the same pastoral, nomadic life as the Romanian shepherds."


Link to the book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=_q...lvania&f=false


Norman Berdichevsky (2004): Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181.


"The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania."


Link to the book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Xo...-gypsy&f=false


Victor Roudometof (2002): Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question - PAGE: 128


"The Vlachs are mainly pastoral nomads dispersed among the states of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Romania. Since they are Orthodox Christians, they have mostly become part of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox ..."




Link to the book:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...-gypsy&f=false


Roumen Daskalov, ?Alexander Vezenkov - 2015: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies PAGE: 309


"Zlatarski adds an a priori statement that the very thought of an uprising could occur only to Bulgarian local notables or voivods, not to the nomadic Vlachs, who he says were at a low level of cultural development"


Link to the book:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0-roma&f=false


Rob Humphreys, ?Susie Lunt, ?Tim Nollen - 2002 : Rough Guide to the Czech & Slovak Republics - Page 408


"Wallachian culture As far as anybody can make out, the Wallachs or Vlachs were semi-nomadic sheep and goat farmers who settled the mountainous areas of eastern Moravia and western Slovakia in the fifteenth century."




Link to the book:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...EED8gQ6AEILzAE


Marek Koter, ?Krystian Heffner - 1999 : Multicultural regions and cities - Page 164


"Nomadic shepherds from the Balkan Peninsula (Wallachians) were moving along the bow of the Carpathians in search of new pastures. "


Link to the book:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...dnCLgQ6AEIHDAA


Marek S. Szczepañski Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Œl¹skiego, Jan 1, 1997 - Ethnic Minorities & Ethnic Majority: Sociological Studies of Ethnic Relations in Poland -PAGE: 325
"They were just the Wallachian people (nomadic tribes from the present Romania) from who contemporary Lemks descended; it should be testified by both the elements of material culture, similarities of customs and languages"


Link to the book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ow...tains.&f=false


Normal J. G. Pounds - 1976 - : An Historical Geography of Europe 450 B.C.-A.D. 1330, Part 1330 -PAGE: 251


"The chief importance of the Vlachs lies, however, in the possible relationship to the Romanians. ... Ages, crossed the Danube into Walachia and continued their pastoral and semi-nomadic life in Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains."

[Tong]

Congrats to what, stealing Hungarian historical region of Transylvania, that was never part of the Gypsy Balkanite state before ?

One day the stolen territories will be returned to the rightful owner.

when? romania made hungayry their bitch b4 in 1919.

[Tong]

anyways, i rly like romania and its culture and ppl. Ik that it doesnt have such a good reputation in europe with gypsies but thats not what romania rly is. Its like a france in eastern europe

[Stears]

when? romania made hungayry their bitch b4 in 1919.

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.

[Stears]

anyways, i rly like romania and its culture and ppl. Ik that it doesnt have such a good reputation in europe with gypsies but thats not what romania rly is. Its like a france in eastern europe

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.