Transylvania or what?

[Elvain]

wOlfshand3 wrote in wrong thread

This is what historians all over europe(seing this problem from not only one nationalistic point of view)

ok ok last word :lol: i don't care of nationalism thus neither romanians nor hungarians but hungarian historians see what you are saying while the rest of the "historians" who actually studied this agree with what you're romanian friends believe in :lol:
Ever wonder what was before 1000AD? Or what are roman ruins doing in the middle of Transilvania. Books might lie but arheological sites don't :P

There are lots of facts missing like boyars were in fact nobility. Theres some russian cavalry missing called Vytiaz(now a romanian word wich means brave). Ok there are steppe cavalry but that just "generic" :D Dunno if it exist but it should be an tzar called Ivan the Terrible in Muscovy and Kazan(or some other dunno for sure should not exist in some mediaval era). Even more Kazan or the province i'm refering to was muslim when tzar Ivan burned it to the ground. That about when "Muscovy" declared church independence("the true orthodox church" as they said)

BTW i'm not a historian i just watch TV "aproved by historians all over Europe" :lol:

In the game its just for the game's sake but the fact is Ottomans had most of Balkans in their grasp and what they didn't had were "vassals"(late medieval)
Just few questions:
Are Romans the same as Romanians? I say no. Romanians are descendants of many nations, mainly of Dacs and Wallachs.
There are Roman archaelogic ruins in Slovakia and Czech republic. Does it mean Slovakians or Czechs are Romans? don't make me laugh, please

I know quite lot about what was before 1000AD in Romania :lol: Do you know what was before Turks in your country before Turks came? anything more that there were Roman ruins and Dacian empire? Have you ever read a historical book about that topic? I've seen so many lies in TV documents...
My Romanian friends were able to argue with me untill death that not a single square kilometre of (nowadays)Romania was ever ruled by Bulgarians. I had to surrender though I know that first Bulgarian empire ruled almost entire Wallachia and bordered with Greater Moravia(in western part of Carpathian basin) what means they ruled also Banat for example.

please tell me what you want to talk about and we can start. I will be pleased to help you to reveal what are school lies and what is truth(well, yes, I know I don't know everythingabout this topic, but I am sure I know something more than somenbody's propaganda)

[Xuca]

Propaganda will always mess up history. It is inevitable. Not just ancient, but also recent. Look at WWII. There are many versions what happened here - communist version, chetnik version, ustasha version, each different. Comunist one is the most aproved, because they were in power, but it is full of lies, like the other two.

btw. is this offtopic, because you said to tell you what to talk about, and we'll start? I don't know too much about Romanian history or propaganda, and I have no other choice but to agree with you.

[Mircoslavux]

do not forget Mr. Dracula!!! :go: :lol:
:cheers: bloody Romanians

BTW How do you call gypsis?

[Xuca]

we call them Cigani, but they call themselves Romi. I don't know how it is in English, but it's similar to Romanians, right?

[Mircoslavux]

we call them Cigani, but they call themselves Romi. I don't know how it is in English, but it's similar to Romanians, right?


yeh the same, by us Cigani, but they call themself Romovia and nobody knows why :scratch:

[Elvain]

I don't think they call themselver Romové/Romovia/Romi because of Romanians, because (from what I know) Romanians don't find Gypsies the same with them.

This topic was opened mostly for wOlfshand3, I was really curious what he wants to say but it seems he's not interested.

The problem is:
I heard many Romanians claiming that:
1) Transylvania was never "normal" part of Hungary and it always had autonomy.
2) Romanians live in Transylvania since the beggining of the world (:lol:I always thought such "tehories" are up to date since 1940's in Europe, but they proved me wrong)
3) Bulgarians never ruled a single part of nowadays Romania(one does not need to go so much back in history to see that it's a crap - but yes, this is not very on-topic

also other comonly shared opinions among Romanians:
1) before Turks there were Romans(in this case they mostly mean not Byzantines-what would be justifiable as Byzantines called themselves Romans- but Romans in times of Traian, Romans who fought Dacs in 1st and 2nd century AD
and one disputable opinion:
Wallachia was not even a vasal of Ottomans as Wlachs were kicking Ottomans their as*es. I'm not sure about the exact relations between Ottoman empire and Wallachia, but I KNOW it was at least Ottoman vasal. I know there were strong princes-rulers of Wallachia, like Mircea in 16th/17th century who were able to defeat Ottomans, but I don't know how would it be possible that Ottomans ruled everything around, making Transylvania their vasal, marching around Wallachia through Moldavia and Banat to Russia and Hungary leaving Wallachia independent and strong enough to smash Ottomans whenever they want :lol: no country ever would do that...

[Traveller]

Well, Elvain, you know history's often used in nationalist propaganda! "History is a collective hallucination", as I had translated in another thread. And this is just another example for Balkan nationalism (sometimes even chauvinism). I can give you even much more examples with "undisputable evidences" from some Bulgarian nationalists propaganda - and it's even funnier.

About Romania and Rome - afaik, they called themselves (and claimed legacy of ancient Rome) like that because the population was speaking in a large scale Latin language. It's true that today (afaik) nearly 65% of Romanian language is Italian, I've been in Bucuresti and they do talk pretty much like Italians. But, of course, this isn't a reliable source for such conclusions.
Romas (Gypsies) definitely have nothing in common with Romanians, in means of background; although (like us and maybe even more) they have a large minority of them. It's all clear for the Gypsies history - they were Indians (from India, not America :wink: ) from the Slave caste, which migrated to the West in the beginning of the second millenium (1000's). And btw I would say they haven't evolved since then...
About Bulgarians in "Romania" in the Middle Ages, I'll quote only one Romanian historian and put a link to some maps.
“History testifies that the Romanians have lived a long time in close contact with the Bulgarians, which have spread their power in the lands beyond the Danube. To this concomitance the Romanians owe their civilization in the Middle Ages.”
O. Denshianu
(Not to mention all the times chroniclers speak of our lands beyond the Danube (from Balkan/mainland Bulgarian (the coutnry's heart)/Byzantine point of view) as Bulgaria-Beyond-Danube, which is clearly in what is now Romania)
And the map (sorry it's on Cyrillic, I've just scanned it and have no time to change it...) (http://img386.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bulgariaatthetimeofsimeon89392.jpg)

When I come back home, maybe I could add something else to this...

[Xuca]

The map looks nice, but I doubt that any Romanians would agree with it. You can't change what propaganda thaught you, no matter what.

btw. how many Belgrades are there!? :biggrin: I only knew for two more, one in Croatia(Biograd) and France(Belgrad, interesting story about that)

[Elvain]

yes. Sometimes it is hard to believe that what you were taught at school is a lie.

From copletely diferent part:
I was taught at school(even at high school:nono:)that saint Constantine and Methodius came to Greater Moravia to found there independent church organization, to stress political independency of Moravians from Eastern Franks(Germans) and Vatican.
And then when I studied this topic at university, I realized that the reason was way far from scuh declaration of political independency: Moravians accepted christianity to proclaim they are part of civilized world, to show they are part of "World of Franks/christians"
and when christiansim was established, they needed priests so a bishop. But bishop of Pasau was imobile, so duke of Moravians asked for own bishop and when he haven't got him from Rome, he asked for one from Constantinople(as he didn't know about political and church rivality between Rome and Constantinople)
but nationalistic propaganda which is here logicaly anti-German, made from this "declaration of independency" :lo: isn't it funny?

well, sorry, this was just to show how national(not speaking abuot nationalistic) propaganda can be ridiculous

@Traveller: yes, the map shows average area of Bulgarian empire before Magyars were "invited" by Byzantines to help them against Bulgarians :go: I meant exactly this period and this period and this empire...

[Xuca]

From copletely diferent part:
I was taught at school(even at high school:nono:)that saint Constantine and Methodius came to Greater Moravia to found there independent church organization, to stress political independency of Moravians from Eastern Franks(Germans) and Vatican.
And then when I studied this topic at university, I realized that the reason was way far from scuh declaration of political independency: Moravians accepted christianity to proclaim they are part of civilized world, to show they are part of "World of Franks/christians"
and when christiansim was established, they needed priests so a bishop. But bishop of Pasau was imobile, so duke of Moravians asked for own bishop and when he haven't got him from Rome, he asked for one from Constantinople(as he didn't know about political and church rivality between Rome and Constantinople)
but nationalistic propaganda which is here logicaly anti-German, made from this "declaration of independency" :lo: isn't it funny?
That's how we learned it in school, also. It seems that even other countries accepted that teory.

Of course, there is propaganda in our schools, too. Some Montenegrins belive that the whole history of Montenegro is a lie, but I doubt that it will be ever proven.

But the best example is given in my first post of this thread, about WWII. There are three different versions what happened. Long the comunist one was thaught in schools, which says that the Partizans were freedom fighters, fighting Chetniks, Ustashas and Germans, which all worked together. After the war, they killed the leaders of both movements for war crimes for war crimes, although they commited as much war crimes as they did. We still learn this versions in schools, with slight modifications towards the real story. Mostly old people, former comunists belive in this version.

Most people belive in the chetnik version, wich says that the Chetniks defended the Serbian people from Germans, Partizans and Ustashas and their crimes.

I don't know wich version do people learn in schools in Croatia, but I know that they belive in the Ustasha one. It says that Ustashas were defending Croatian people in the Independent State of Croatia from the Chetniks and Partizans, which commited crimes to the Croatian people.

But the real story is:

Partizans were fighting Germans, Chetniks and Ustashas. For every killed German, 100 Serbs were shot, and for every wounded 50, so that could be considered as a crime. There are also proves that they commited crimes over Croatian people, in revenge of their crimes over Serbs.

Ustashas were puppet regime in Croatia. They were commiting mass crimes over Serbian people. Their plan was to dispose all the Serbs living in Croatia by killing 1/3, 1/3 exiling, and 1/3 catholising(I don't know the right expression).

Chetniks were the royalist organisation, fighting to restor the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. They hated Ustashas and Partizans. They cooperated with Italians in fighting Ustashas, because Italians hated Ustashas because they thought that they got their share of spoils. Chetniks commited many crimes over Croatian people, in revenge for the crimes over Serbian people. They rearly fighted Germans, in fear of their policy of killing Serbs. They even somethimes cooperated with them fighting with the Partizans because they hated them badly.

It is funny how there are three versions of what happened, each holding different part of truth. I wonder what other peoples learn about this in schools. :scratch:

[Elvain]

I have only Ustachids somehow connected with colaboration with the Nazis. But my knowledge about this is very very weak :sad: