mandead said:
Not quite. I'm talking about the *province*, not the state. I'd leave the state as Hungarian and Catholic (later reformed) since the Romanian majority was deprived of any political rights from before the start of EUIII till 1867. (Before then, there were three recognized nations, the Hungarians, Szeklars (a subspecies of Hungarians) and Saxons (Germans), and four recognized religions: Catholicism, Unitarian, Lutheran and Reformed, while the narrow majority/very large plurality Romanian/Orthodox population had no rights -- one 19th century Hungarian historian refered to them as the seven deadly sins of Transylvania.) The only, very partial, exception was when Michael the Brave ruled Transylvania, but that was for only one year, and he did not undermine the position of the Hungarian nobility.
The problem with making the province Hungarian is that it makes it easy to incorporate into Hungary, as just another province. However, despite numerous attempts to do just that, Hungary couldn't. There were several reasons for that, but primarily it was because the Transylvanian march had been granted its priviledges for so long that by the time that the Romanian population had been beaten into submission*, the rights had become customary. The reason that they had become customary was because the majority of the population (and until just before the start of EU III, a significant fraction of the nobility) was Romanian and Orthodox. [Moldavia and Wallachia were founded by Romanian nobles who fled Hungrian rule in Transylvania. Initially, both principalities were therefore Hungarian vassals.]
Alexander
* I don't want this to be taken as Hungarian bashing. It was no different than what the English did in Wales, for example. In fact, the two processes were almost identical.