Alexandre said:
I agree wholeheartedly that one should at least try to take a look at the various sides involved before making any judgement on issues such as this. Obviously there are always two (sometimes very) different sides to each story. However, I believe there is a fundamental problem with this aproach in the given context: there is hardly any neutral side let alone a lot of international research conducted around this topic. Let's face it, the issue of Transylvania was never ever exactly (and it is not today) at the center of global or even european interest, which is fine I believe. However, I find it a bit disappointing that whenever it comes to European history in general it is always assumed that it is about the western, sometimes southern or northern part of the continent or Russia. There is hardly any genuine interest to whatever happened in Central or Eastern Europe throughout history, especially not the middle ages. I've read plenty of history books (I had the opportunity to study abroad in various countries), thus I have a fairly good view about how things are portrayed, and I can tell You that apart from some reference to the Hussite's wars, OE advancement and some indications to the Union of Poland-Lithuania there is practically nothing worth to mention about this region as far as the middle ages are concerned.
My point is thus, that there is hardly any information, book, research conducted about these things that are not biased, because there is simply no interest whatsoever apart from the two countries involved (and perhaps some of their neighbours) of course.
As for the analogy between Wales and Transylvania, well I do not see any parallel to be drawn here, hence I believe it is irrelevant to read books on that particular subject. It is my understanding (read my previous post) that Romanians did not settle in Transylvania before the XIIIth century, and that their massive influx was partly a direct consequence of the OE advancement on the Balkans and partly due to the better economic, social conditions prevailing in Transylvania compared to that in Wallachia and Moldavia. If there is any parallel to be drawn here at all, than in my understanding it should be drawn between Albanians and Romanians (or Vallachs rather, since the name Romanian is a product of the XVIIIth century
). Both nations have moved from their previous positions, they have strolled throughout the Balkans, had very similar patterns of living (predominantly rural way of living, prefering the rather scarcely populated mountanious regions, etc.), thus they constantly moved from one place to another until the Romanians arrived to what was later Wallachia. From there they spread around and moved to Moldavia and Transylvania, as the region was rather unstable troughout the X-XIIthe century. Remember that all the steppe-nations that moved westwards (Cumanians, Mongols, Tartars) more or less controlled the plains north of the Danube up north to the Carpathians for a couple of centuries. The lack of a central power, administration the constant internal disorder and later the OE advancement where the "push factors" for both Albanians and Romanians (Vlachs) to move northwards, settling down in Kosovo and Transylvania. Thus, again, according to my understanding Wales is completly irrelevant here, as there is no proof (written sources, archeological findings, etc.) whatsoever that Romanians (Vlachs) were living in Transylvania before the XIIIth century.Alexandre said:
I sort of tried to ansver this in my previous comments, there is one more addition however: Hungarians did indeed settle down outside of the Hungarian Kingdom, thus crossing her natural (hence well protected) boundary: the Carpathians both to the east and south. There were significant Hungarian comminities living in Iasi (hence the Hungarian name Jászváros) and also on the southern slopes of the Carpathian mountains. Btw, even up until today there are surviving Hungarian communities in Romania outside of Transylvania the Csángo minority, who aparently managed to keep their traditions their religion (Catholics) and a part of their language as well for quiet a few centuries.
Alexandre said:
Well, Hungary did not exactly "suffer total annexation" (Btw, that is another rather popular misbelief) it was partly occupied by the OE for a period of 150 years. The rest of the Kingdom was ruled from Vienna, thus the Habsburgs, whereas Transylvania enjoyed a status that was weaker than independence but certainly more than an autonomy, and it was constantly trying to get her balancing act together between the 2 dominant powers (OE and Habsburgs).
As for the question why Hungarians didn't move up there, well there were huge movements to the various parts of the country, both to the remainder of the Kingdom (thus northern and western parts) and also to Transylvania, but a significant part of the population was simply killed in the many wars that raged between the various sides for more than 150 years. (According to some estimates the population of Hungary dropped by 30-40% during the XVI-XVII.th century compared to the "golden age" under Mathias Corvinus in the XVth century. As far as I know neither Wallachia nor Moldavia did suffer a similar population drop, hence the migration towards the north (Transylvania) did not cause such a "depopulation" of those 2 countries.) Besides, unlike Wallachia and Moldavia, Transylvania was raided several times by both the Ottomans (and their vassal the Tartars of Crimea) and the Habsburgs, wiping out entire cities (hence killing mostly the Hungarian population) several times in order to punish Transylvania whenever she did side with one or the other of the 2 powers. Thus, all in all the ethnic situation in Transylvania changed because of all these factors mentioned above, not just due to the influx of Romanians.
Again, there is plenty of written material of Hungarian landlords settling Romanians (Vlachs) from that period. Whereas there is NONE about Romanians (Vlachs) living there before the XIIIth century!! :wacko: Furthermore there is NO archeaolgical evidence, no sign of any kind would indicate a trace of an older established culture preceding the arrival of the Hungarians. Not even the legends, folk tales, ballads or folk songs of any one of the cohabiting ethnic groups suggest anything of this kind, except the oldest Hungarian (Székely) legends which date back to the time of Attila and the empire of the Huns. In the same way, the folk art of the Transylvanian Romanians is identical with those of Moldavia and Wallachia, and they clearly show the Slavic influences, the Bulgarian, Greek, and important Albanian motifs, picked up by the migrating Vlach herdsmen on their way from the Albanian border to their present location.
Alexandre said:
AFAIK it is not the oldest surviving Hungarian document about Transylvania, there are quiet a few dated at least 2 centuries earlier.
As for the "indigenous Latinate population", could I have a link to this please? I would be more than astonished to find out anything about this, as there is obviously none of that sort in there. I am of course always open to any new evidence, should there be any. Alexandre said:
Sure, and I really apreciate the civilised atmosphere prevailing in this thread, but I fear there are others who will eventually transform this into the same heated overly nationalistic quarrel I have wittnessed the last couple of year. We will see.
Alexandre said:
Some??? That is rather an understatement. I will try to gather statistics for that, which will bear a proof of that. Although this has not much to do with the current question, but I will try to give my view on this one as well.
Alexandre said:
Again please be patient Alexandre until I will dig up all those statistics.
Alexandre said:
Yes I completely agree, unfortunately the current mechanics of the game is not sophisticated enough to portray these things.
o Oh boy, a rather long post once again, but let's keep up the civilised manner everyone, we will certainly no be able to solve old disputes, but we might come closer to understand eachother, who knows?
Cherioo
