Transylvania

Transylvania (Romanian language: ''Transilvania'' or ''Ardeal'', Hungarian language: ''Erd�ly'', German language: ''Siebenb�rgen'', Serbian language: ''Transilvanija'', Turkish language: ''Erdel'', Slovak language: ''Sedmohradsko'' or ''Transylv�nia'', Polish language: ''Siedmiogr�d'') is a historic region that forms the western and central parts of Romania. ==Geography== Transylvania comprises the regions of Maramures, Banat, Crisana and Ardeal (proper Transylvania). Constituting the center and western parts of Romania, it borders Ukraine in the north, Hungary in the west, and Serbia in the southwest. A high plateau inside the Carpathians mountain ranges, Transylvania's relief reaches towards the Pannonian plain. The Transylvanian plateau, 300 to 500 metres (1,000-1,600 feet) high, is drained by the Mures river river, the Somes river, Cris rivers, Olt river and other tributaries of the Danube. Cluj-Napoca is the chief city; other major urban centers are Timisoara, Brasov, Oradea, Sibiu and Targu-Mures. == Economy == Economically one of the most advanced regions of Romania, Transylvania is rich in mineral resources, notably lignite, iron, lead, manganese, gold, copper, natural gas, salt, and sulfur. There are large iron and steel, chemical, and textile industries. Stock raising, agriculture, wine production, and fruit growing are important occupations. Timber is another valuable resource. Transylvania accounts for around 35% of Romania's GDP, and has a GDP per capita (PPP) of around $8,500, around 7.5% higher than the Romanian average. == Population == According to the census in 2002, the province has a population of 7,221,733 persons, with a large Romanian majority. In addition, sizable Hungarian minority in Romania (1,415,718), Roma (people) and Transylvanian Saxons communities live in Transylvania. ==Etymology== ''Main article: Etymology of Transylvania'' Transylvania was first referred to in a Latin document in 1075 as "Ultra siluam," meaning "beyond the forest." That name was later changed to "Transylvania," which has the same meaning. The German name ''Siebenb�rgen'' means "seven cities", after the Transylvanian Saxons' cities in this region. The Romanian name ''Ardeal'' and the Hungarian name ''Erd�ly'' are of uncertain origins. (''see Etymology of Transylvania'') ==History== === Ancient History: Transylvania as the heartland of the Dacian state === Herodotus gives an account of the Agathyrsi, who lived in Transylvania during the 5th century BC. A kingdom of Dacia was in existence at least as early as the beginning of the 2nd century BC under a king, Oroles. Under Burebista (Boerebista), the greatest king of Dacia and a contemporary of Julius Caesar, the Dacian kingdom reached its maximum extent. The area now constituting Transylvania was the political center of Dacia. The Dacians are often mentioned under Augustus, according to whom they were compelled to recognize Ancient Rome supremacy. However they were by no means subdued, and in later times seized every opportunity of crossing the frozen Danube during winter and ravaging the Roman cities in the recently acquired Roman province Moesia. The Dacians built several important fortified cities, among them Sarmizegetusa, near today's Hunedoara. The Roman Empire expansion in the Balkans brought the Dacians into open conflict with Rome. During the reign of Decebalus, the Dacians were engaged in several wars with the Romans (from 85 to 89). After two severe reverses, the Romans gained an advantage, but were obliged to make peace owing to the defeat of Domitian by the Marcomanni. As a result, the Dacians were left independent, as shown by the Roman emperor's agreeing to pay an annual tribute to the Dacians. In 101-102 Trajan began a military campaign (Dacian Wars) against the Dacians which included the siege of the Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa and the occupation of part of the country. Decebalus was left as a client king under a Roman protectorate. Three years later, the Dacians rebelled and destroyed the Roman troops in Dacia. The second campaign (105-106) ended with the suicide of Decebalus and the conversion of parts of Dacia into the Roman province Dacia Trajana. The history of the Dacian Wars is given in Dio Cassius, but the best commentary upon it is the famous Trajan's Column in Rome. === Early Middle Ages: From Dacia to the Great Migrations === The Romans exploited the gold mines in the province extensively, building access roads and forts to protect them, like Abrud. Colonists from Thracia, Moesia, Macedonia, Gaul, Syria, and other Roman provinces were brought in to settle the land, developing cities like Apulum (now Alba Iulia) and Napoca (now Cluj Napoca) into municipiums and colonias. The Dacians rebelled frequently, with the biggest rebellion occurring at the death of Trajan. Sarmatians and Burs were allowed to settle inside Dacia Trajana after repeated clashes with the roman administration. During the 3rd century increasing pressure from the free Dacians (Carpians) and Visigoths forced the Romans to abandon exposed Dacia Trajana. In 271, the Roman emperor Aurelian evacuated the imperial administration and reorganised a new Dacia Aureliana inside former Moesia Superior. The former Dacia Trajana province was controlled by the Visigoths and Carpians until they were in turn displaced and subdued by the Huns in 376. The Huns, under the leadership of Attila, established a base in the Pannonian plain which lasted until Attila's death in 453. After the disintegration of Attila's empire, the territory of Transylvania was controlled by the remnants of various confederates (Alans, Longobards, Rukhs-As) of Attila's Huns, and the Gepids. No major power was able to exert control over the region for any great length of time, until the Eurasian Avars from Scythia established their military leadership. The Avar Khanate was, however, crushed by the Bulgars under Khan Krum at the beginning of the 9th century and Transylvania, along with eastern Pannonia, was incorporated into the History of Bulgaria. According to Gesta Hungarorum, a chronicle dating from 12th century, the states of Gelou - ruler of the Vlachs (Romanians) in Ardeal (Transylvania proper), Glad_%28duke%29 in Banat, and Menumorut in Byhor (Bihor and Bihar counties), were defeated by the Magyars in Transylvania during the 10th century. Gesta Hungarorum and De Administrando Imperio also speak of three rulers called Geula/Gyyla/Gylas in Transylvania. (see Gyula article). The existence of these leaders is a subject of debate between various historians. In 978 Vatican missionaries established a church in a fort at the site of the present-day city of Oradea (Nagyv�rad). The history of Transylvania during the early Middle Ages is difficult to ascertain due to the scarcity of reliable written or archeological evidence. There are two major conflicting theories concerning whether or not the Romanized Dacian population (the ancestors of the Romanians) continued to live in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans, and therefore whether or not the Romanians were present in Transylvania at the time of the Human_migration#The_Great_Migrations, particularly at the time of the Hungarian conquest; see: Origin of Romanians. These conflicting hypotheses are often used to back competing nationalistic claims by Hungarian and Romanian chauvinism. === Late Middle Ages: Transylvania as part of the Kingdom of Hungary === In 1000 Stephen, prince of Hungary, swore allegiance to Rome, and became King Stephen I of Hungary, adopting Catholicism and bringing about the Christianization of the Magyars. Stephen's maternal uncle Gyula, the ruler of Transylvania, antagonised the new king by giving refuge to his opponents. Gyula also maintained control of the economically important Transylvanian salt mines. In 1003, Stephen led an army into Transylvania and Gyula surrendered without a fight. This made possible the organisation of the Transylvanian Catholic episcopacy which was finished in 1009 when the bishop of Ostia as the legate of the Pope paid a visit to Stephen; together they approved the division of the dioceses and their boundaries. The authority of the Kings of Hungary over Transylvania was consolidated in the 11th century and 12th century centuries. In the 12th and 13th century, the areas in the south and northeast were settled by Germany colonists called (then and now) Saxons. ''Siebenb�rgen'', the German name for Transylvania, derives from the seven principal fortified towns founded by these Transylvanian Saxons. The German influence became more marked when, early in the 13th century, King Andrew II of Hungary called on the Teutonic Knights to protect Transylvania in the Burzenland from the Cumans, who were followed in 1241 by the Mongols. The Cumans conversion to Catholicism, and, after they were defeated by the Mongols, looked for refuge in Transylvania; Erzsebet, a Cumanian princess, married Stephen V of Hungary in 1254. The administration of Transylvania was in the hands of a voivod, who by the mid-13th century controlled the whole region. During the 14th century the Romanian voivodes Dragos and Bogdan from Maramures established the principality of Moldavia. After the suppression of the Bob�lna revolt in 1437, the political system was based on Unio Trium Natiorum (''The Unity of the Three Nations''). Society was divided into three privileged nations, the nobility (mostly Magyars), the Szekely, and the Saxon burghers. These nations, however, corresponded more to social and religious rather than ethnic divisions. The Romanians were Romanian_Orthodox_Church, having the right to own land or access to nobility only through conversion to Roman Catholic Church, thus they were only tolerated by this system. Although the class of serfs consisted mostly of Romanians, it also included people of Saxon, Szekler, and Hungarian origin. On the other hand, a few Romanians succeeded in entering the ranks of the nobility after converting to Catholicism. A key figure to emerge in Transylvania in the first half of the 15th century was John Hunyadi, who was of Romanian and Hungarian origin. Hunyadi was awarded numerous estates and a seat in the royal council for his services to Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Kingdom of Hungary and Holy Roman Emperor. After supporting the candidature of Ladislaus III of Poland to the throne of Hungary, he was rewarded in 1440 with the captaincy of the fortress of Belgrade (''N�ndorfeh�rv�r'') and the voivodship of Transylvania. His subsequent military exploits against the Ottoman Turks brought him further status as the governor of Hungary in 1446 and papal recognition as the Prince of Transylvania in 1448. John Hunyadi was also the father of Matthias Corvinus of Hungary. === Transylvania as an independent principality === When the main Hungarian army and King Louis II of Hungary Jagiello were slain by the Ottomans in the Battle of Moh�cs (1526), John Zapolya, governor of Transylvania, took advantage of his military strength and put himself at the head of the nationalist Hungarian party, which opposed the succession of Ferdinand of Austria (later Emperor Ferdinand I) to the Hungarian throne. As John I he was elected king of Hungary, while another party recognized Ferdinand. In the ensuing struggle Zapolya received the support of Suleiman_the_Magnificent, who after Zapolya's death in 1540 overran central Hungary on the pretext of protecting Zapolya's son, John II. Hungary was now divided into three sections: West Hungary, under Austrian rule; central Hungary, under Turkish rule; and semi-independent Transylvania, where Austrian and Turkish influences vied for supremacy for nearly two centuries. Transylvania was now beyond the reach of Roman Catholic religious authority, allowing Lutheran and Calvinist preaching to flourish. In 1563, Giorgio Blandrata was appointed as court physician, and his radical religious ideas increasingly influenced both the young king John II and the Calvinist bishop Francis David, eventually converting both to the Unitarianism (Unitarian) creed. In a formal public disputation, Francis David prevailed over the Calvinist Peter Melius; resulting in 1568 in the formal adoption of individual freedom of religious expression under the Edict of Turda (the first such legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe). The B�thory family, which came to power on the death of John II in 1571, ruled Transylvania as princes under the Ottomans, and briefly under Hapsburg suzerainty, until 1602. The younger Stephen B�thory, a Hungarian Catholic who later became King Stephen_Bathory%2C_King_of_Poland of Poland, undertook to maintain the religious liberty granted by the Edict of Turda, but interpreted this obligation in an increasingly restricted sense. The latter period of B�thory rule saw a four-sided conflict in Transylvania involving the Transylvanians, the Austrians, the Ottomans, and the voivod of Wallachia, Prince Michael the Brave (''Mihai Viteazul'' in Romanian_language). Michael gained control of Transylvania in 1599 after the Battle of Selimbar in which he defeated Andrew B�thory's army. In May 1600 he also gained control of Moldavia, uniting for the first time the three principalities of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania, which were all largely inhabited by Romanians by this time. The union did not last long, as Michael was assassinated by Walloon mercenaries under the command of the Habsburg General Giorgio Basta in August 1601. The latter finally subdued Transylvania in 1604 and initiated a reign of terror in which he was authorised to appropriate the land of noblemen, Germanization the population, and reclaim the principality for Catholicism through the Counter Reformation. From 1604-1606, the Calvinist magnate of Bihar (Hungary) Stephen Bocskai led a successful rebellion against Austrian rule. Bocskai was elected Prince of Transylvania on 5 April 1603 and prince of Hungary two months later. The two main achievements of Bocskai's brief reign (he died 29 December, 1606) were the Peace of Vienna (June 23, 1606), and the Truce of Zsitvatorok (November 1606). By the Peace of Vienna, Bocskai obtained religious liberty and political autonomy, the restoration of all confiscated estates, the repeal of all "unrighteous" judgments, and a complete retroactive amnesty for all Hungarians in Royal Hungary, as well as his own recognition as independent sovereign prince of an enlarged Transylvania. Almost equally important was the twenty years Truce of Zsitvatorok, negotiated by Bocskai between the emperor and the sultan. Under Bocskai's successors Transylvania had its golden age, especially under the reigns of Gabriel Bethlen and George I Rakoczi. Gabriel Bethlen, who reigned from 1613 to 1629, perpetually thwarted all efforts of the emperor to oppress or circumvent his subjects, and won reputation abroad by championing the Protestant cause. Three times he waged war on the emperor, twice he was proclaimed King of Hungary, and by the Peace of Mikulov (December 31, 1621) he obtained for the Protestants a confirmation of the Treaty of Vienna, and for himself seven additional counties in northern Hungary. Bethlen's successor, George I R�k�czi, was equally successful. His principal achievement was the Peace of Linz (September 16, 1645), the last political triumph of Hungarian Protestantism, in which the emperor was forced to confirm again the articles of the Peace of Vienna. Gabriel Bethlen and George I R�k�czi also did much for education and culture, and their era has justly been called the golden era of Transylvania. They lavished money on the embellishment of their capital, Alba Iulia (''Gyulafeherv�r'', ''Wei�enburg''), which became the main bulwark of Protestantism in Eastern Europe. During their reign Transylvania was also one of the few European countries where Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, and Unitarians lived in mutual tolerance. Orthodox Romanians, however, were denied equal rights. Despite the efforts of Inochentie Micu-Klein, a Romanian Greek Catholic bishop, the nation status promised to those Romanians who converted to Catholicism was also not granted. === Austrian Rule and the Austro-Hungarian Empire === After the defeat of the Ottomans at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the Habsburgs gradually began to impose their rule on the formerly autonomous Transylvania. Apart from strengthening the central government and administration, the Habsburgs also promoted the Roman Catholic Church, both as a uniting force and also as an instrument to reduce the influence of the Protestant nobility. By creating a conflict between Protestant and Catholic elements, the Habsburgs hoped to weaken the estates. In addition, they tried to persuade Orthodox clergymen to join the Uniate (Greek Catholic) Church, which accepted four key points of Catholic doctrine and acknowledged papal authority, while still retaining Orthodox rituals and traditions. In 1699 and 1701, Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor decreed Transylvania's Orthodox Church to be one with the Roman Catholic Church. Many, but not all, priests converted, although it was not clear to them what the difference was between the two denominations. From 1711 onward, Austrian control over Transylvania was consolidated, and the princes of Transylvania were replaced with Austrian governors. The proclamation (1765) of Transylvania as a grand principality was a mere formality. The pressure of Austrian bureaucratic rule gradually eroded the traditional independence of Transylvania. In 1791 the Romanians petitioned Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor for recognition as the fourth "nation" of Transylvania and for religious equality, but the Transylvanian Diet (assembly) rejected their demands, restoring the Romanians to their old status. In early 1848, the Hungarian Diet seized the opportunity presented by the The_Revolutions_of_1848_in_the_Habsburg_areas to enact a comprehensive legislative program of reforms, referred to as the April Laws, which also included provision for the union of Transylvania and Hungary. The Romanians of Transylvania initially welcomed the revolution believing that they would benefit from the liberal reforms. However, their position changed due to the opposition of Transylvanian nobles to reforms such as emancipation of the serfs, and the failure of the Hungarian revolutionary leaders to recognise Romanian national interests. A Romanian national assembly at Blaj (''Bal�zsfalva'') in the middle of May, produced its own revolutionary program calling for proportionate representation of Romanians in the Transylvanian Diet and an end to ethnic oppression. The Saxons were worried from the start about the idea of union with Hungary, fearing the loss of their traditional privileges. When the Transylvanian Diet met on 29 May the vote for union was pushed through despite the objection of many Saxon deputies. On June 10, the Emperor sanctioned the union vote of the Diet. Military executions, the arrest of revolutionary leaders and other activities which followed the union hardened the position of the Saxons. In September 1848, another Romanian assembly in Blaj denounced union with Hungary and called for an armed rising in Transylvania. Warfare erupted in November with both Romanian and Saxon troops, under Austrian command, battling the Hungarians led by the Polish general J�zef Bem. Within four months, Bem had ousted the Austrians from Transylvania. However, in June 1849, Tsar Nicholas I of Russia responded to an appeal from Emperor Franz Joseph to send Russian troops into Transylvania. After initial successes against the Russians, Bem's army was defeated decisively at the Battle of Timisoara (''Temesv�r'') on 9 August. The surrender of the Hungarians followed. After quashing the revolution, Austria imposed a repressive regime on Hungary and ruled Transylvania directly through a military governor, with German again becoming the official language. Austria abolished the Union of Three Nations and granted citizenship to the Romanians. Although the former serfs were given land by the Austrian authorities, it was often barely sufficient for subsistence living. Their poor conditions obliged many Romanian families to cross into Wallachia and Moldavia searching for better lives. However, in the compromise (Ausgleich) of 1867, which established the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the special status of Transylvania ended and it became a province under Hungarian control. === Transylvania as part of Romania === Although Ferdinand_of_Romania was a Hohenzollern, Romania refused to join the Central Powers and stayed neutral when the World War I began. In 1916 Romania joined the Triple Entente by signing the Military Convention with the Entente, which recognised Romania's rights over Transylvania. As a consequence of the Convention, Romania declared war against the Central Powers on 27 August 1916, and crossed the Carpathians into Transylvania, thus forcing the Central Powers to fight on yet another front. A German-Bulgarian counter-offensive began the following month in Dobrudja and in the Carpathians, driving the Romanian army back into Romania by mid-October and eventually leading to the capture of Bucharest. The exit of Russia from the war in March 1918 in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk left Romania alone in Eastern Europe, and a peace treaty between Romania and Germany was negociated in May 1918. However, the resulting Treaty_of_Bucharest%2C_1918, never ratified in Romania, was denounced in October 1918 by the Romanian government, which then re-entered the war on the Triple Entente side. The Romanian Army advanced to the Mures River in Transylvania. By mid-1918 the Central Powers were losing the war, and the Austro-Hungarian empire had begun to disintegrate. The nations living inside Austria-Hungary proclaimed their independence from the empire during September and October 1918. The leaders of Transylvania's National Party met and drafted a resolution invoking the right of self-determination (Woodrow Wilson's 14 points) of Transylvania's Romanian people, and proclaimed the unification of Transylvania with Romania. In November, the Romanian National Central Council, which represented all the Romanians of Transylvania, notified the Budapest government that it had assumed control of twenty-three Transylvanian counties and parts of three others. A mass assembly on 1st of December 1918 in Alba Iulia passed a resolution calling for unification of all Romanians in a single state. The National Council of the Germans from Transylvania approved the Proclamation, and so did the Council of the Danube Swabians from Banat. In December 1918 the Romanian army was stationed behind the Mureş (''Maros''), but crossed the demarcation zone and advanced up to Cluj (''Kolozsv�r'') and then up to Sighetu_Marmatiei (''M�ramarossziget''), after making a request to the Powers of Versailles on the grounds of protecting the Romanians in Transylvania. In February 1919, the escalating violence in the area - Bolshevik elements were making efforts to spread the "Bolshevik Revolution" - led to the creation of a Neutral Zone between Romania and Hungary. The Prime Minister of the newly proclaimed independent Republic of Hungary resigned in March 1919, refusing to officially recognize the Treaty of Versailles which placed Transylvania under the sovereignty of Romania. When the Communist Party of Hungary, led by B�la Kun, came to power in March 1919 it proclaimed the Hungarian Soviet Republic and after promising that Hungary would regain the lands that were under its control during the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it decided to attack Czechoslovakia and Romania. The Hungarian Army began the offensive in Transylvania in April 1919 along the Somes (Szamos), K%F6r%F6s_River, and Mureş (Maros) rivers. A Romanian counter-offensive pushed forward to reach - and halt at - the Tisza River in May. A new Hungarian offensive in July penetrated 60 km into Romanian lines before a further Romanian counter-offensive led to the occupation of the Hungarian capital Budapest in August, putting an end to the Hungarian Soviet Republic. The Romanian army withdrew from Hungary between October 1919 and March 1920. The Treaty of Versailles, formally signed in June 1919, recognised the sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania. The Treaties of Treaty of St. Germain (1919) and Treaty of Trianon (signed on June 1920) further elaborated the status of Transylvania and defined the new border between the states of Hungary and Romania. Ferdinand_of_Romania and Princess_Marie_of_Edinburgh were crowned at Alba Iulia in the year 1922. In August 1940, during the Second World War, Hitler awarded the northern half of Transylvania to Hungary by the second Vienna Awards (Vienna Arbitration Award or Vienna Diktat). The Treaty of Paris (1947) at the end of the Second World War rendered the Vienna Award void, and the territory of northern Transylvania was returned to Romania. The post-WWII borders with Hungary, agreed on at the Treaty of Paris were identical with those set out in 1920. === Coat of Arms of Transylvania === The Coat of Arms of Transylvania has three parts: * a lammergeier (a bearded vulture representing the medieval nobility) with the Sun and the Moon (both representing the Szeklers) on a blue background * a red dividing band * seven red towers on a yellow background representing the seven castles of the Transylvanian Saxons The Coat of Arms of Transylvania is also part of the Coat of Arms of Romania. ===See also=== *Aftermath of World War I *Austria-Hungary *History of Hungary *History of Romania *List of Transylvanian rulers ==Tourist attractions== * Medieval city of Sighisoara (Sch��burg / Segesv�r) * Brasov (Kronstadt/Brass�) city and Poiana Brasov ski resort * Villages with fortified churches in Transylvania * Hunedoara (Eisenmarkt / Vajdahunyad) - 14th century Hunyadi Castle (''Castelul Huniazilor'') * Maramures (Maramuresch / M�ramaros) area - Wooden Churches of Maramures * Dacian Fortresses of the Orastie Mountains (Sarmizegetusa) * The medieval city of Sibiu (Hermannstadt / Nagyszeben) * The medieval city of Alba Iulia (Karlsburg / Gyulafeh�rv�r) ==Culture== * Johannes Honter - important reformer and cultural personality of Transylvania * Transylvania in fiction - in the Western world, Transylvania is famously the home of Bram Stoker's Count Dracula. ==References== * ==External links== * [http://www.therealtransylvania.com The Real Transylvania] - about contemporary Transylvania * [http://people.freenet.de/Transsylvania/ Historical Literature about Transilvania and Neighbouring Territories], Klaus Popa, Germany *[http://www.osi.hu/ipf/publications/AlinaPP-nation.html Subjective Transylvania: A case study of post communist nationalism], Alina Mungiu Pippidi, Bucharest, Romania *[http://www.ce-review.org/99/14/lovatt14.html Tolerant Transylvania-Why Transylvania will not become another Kosovo], Katherine Lovatt, in Central Europe Review, Vol 1, No 14 27 September 1999. * [http://people.freenet.de/Transsylvania/Out.htm An Outline of Transilvanian-Saxon History], Klaus Popa, Germany *[http://www.sibiweb.de/geschi/7b-history.htm The History Of Transylvania And The Transylvanian Saxons], Dr. Konrad G�ndisch, Oldenburg, Germany *[http://www.hhrf.org Hungarian Human Rights Foundation] Transylvania

Transylvania

==Romanians== Moldova was founded by hungarian vassals called Dragos and Bogdan, coming from the Northern Transylvania. These are Romanian names of Slavic origin, so there were Romanians in Transylvania as soon as 950 AD, in significant numbers so they could rule their own lands. The occupation of Romans, that led to the formation of the Romanian people, was limited to the south and western parts of the actual Romania, so if there was any place for Romanians to be at the beginnings of their history (placed between the retreat of Romans in the third century and the formation of first Romanian states in the tenth century), southern Transylvania is definitely part of it. Also, after long years of union with Hungary, at 1918 Romanians were a large majority, so the union with Romania was not a foreign politicy issue, but a democratic will of the majority. It was not the (incontestable) Romanization politic that made Romanians a majority in Transilvania, they were a majority even before these politics could exist. --------- The theory of completely deserted land is hard to swallow, at least for me. Not to mention the Dacian tribes that remained outside the Roman empire in that part of the Carpathian mountains that today are in northen Romania and Ukraina. Those tribes, also generically named "free Dacians", made many incursion into Roman empire, with one occasion reaching Macedonia. In 1848 Romanians didn't help Austrians or Russians per se. They just opposed Hungarians because they didn't offer equal rights to everybody in their projected independant Hungary. Most of those fightings were with Romanian defending themselves in Apuseni/Occidental Carpathian mountains. User:MihaiC ==Dracula / Vlad Tepes / Vlad Dracul== Did :Vlad Tepes rule Transylvania, or a neighboring state? Vlad Tepes ruled Wallachia the kingdom of the Romanians, and he was a Romanian (Vlach). User:Decius 08:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Vlad Tepes never ruled Transylvania, but he was born there , lived there and died there. He ruled the neighboring country of Tara Romaneasca(Valachia) in two reignes. ---- I'm not sure -- thinking it was in Carpathia...:JHK That's an interesting thought you have, because "Carpathia" never existed. User:Decius 08:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) ----- There never was a country Carpathia, he ruled Valachia. ----------- Any note or explanation on why Dracula is supposed to have lived in Transylvania? (its an anecdotic fact, but its the first thing people think when they hear Transylvania) ---- maybe it was "His father, Vlad Dracul, at that time appointed military governor of Transylvania by the emperor Sigismund" that caused the association, as well as his place of birth. Just search google for "wallachia dracula" and then for "transylvania dracula" (no quotes) and you'll see the great difference between the result sets. --user:Daniel Mahu : didn't the book "Dracula" have the vampire arriving from Transylvania? User:MyRedDice ---- Another fact that that made people believe Dracula has ruled Transylvania: he received the ownership of some cities there and he travelled there avoiding to be captured by the turcs. --- Vlad Tepes was killed in a fight with turks in 1476 in Wallachia, near the capital, Bucharest. And yes, there never was a Carpathia. Maybe in movies or novels. User:MihaiC Jun 1st 2004 hey people im romanian i want to say that i come from Transylvania and i know alot vlad tepes and well he lived in castle in romania and the truth about him is that he ate peoples meat and flash and drank there blood don't get me wrong thts the truth my friends and i know more so talk to me if u want to know more. Danut ==Géza / St. Stephen / Gisela / Vajk mixup== To :JHK there is something wrong: "The Magyar leader Géza converted to Christianity and began to convert his people and build a Christian Hungarian state. His son, Vajk, succeeded him in :997. With his wife Gisela, daughter of the Emperor Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor, he continued his father's mission" :Geza, king of Hungary had a son named (St):Stephen of Hungary born 969, acceeded 997 as king of Hungary, died 1038. St.Stephen was married to Gisela or Giselle of Bavaria (father Henry II the Wrangler ,Duke of Bavaria and his wife Gisela of Burgundy).Gisela of Bavaria was the sister of St. Henry I, Holy Roman Emperor ,emperor . Gisela's and St. Stephen's child was Hedwig. Hedwig's child was St. Cunigunde of Luxemburg . Otto III died age 22 without heirs. user:H.J. ==The naming of Transylvania / Ardeal / Erd�ly== origins of ardeal: word probably originated from hungarian ''erd�ly'', which itself probably originated in the hungarian word ''erd?'' which means forest. ''erd�ly'' is probably an older form of the word, meaning a huge forest area, or "foresty land". i'm not a reliable source of information, but this seems pretty logical to me, as it's a beautiful forest area. :-) --User:Grin 22:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) : "Arde" is an old Indo-European (probably Celtic or Thracic, as both lived in current Hungary) word meaning forest. You can find similar toponyms of forested regions all over Europe: ''Forest of Arden'' in England [http://www.google.com/search?q=forest+of+arden], ''Ardennes woods'' [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=Ardennes+forest] in Belgium, etc. Latins took the word as ''ardere'' - to burn. :Also, the word "erdo" is not a fino-ugric word, so it was probably borrowed from the older inhabitants of Hungary. :"Deal" in Romanian means "hill", which is logical since most land of Transylvania is covered with hills. What does "dely" means in Hungarian? Nothing. User:Bogdangiusca 13:06, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC) Actually, the Latin word that corresponds here is ''Arduus'', that meant 'steep, towering, lofty, high' and the Latin word is from the Indo-European root Ered-, which means 'High'. The Latin word 'ardere' is from another root, As-, meaning 'hot, dry'. ''Ardeal'' may well be from the Indo-European root Ered (high, steep), and in that case it is in no way "hungarian", because they are not Indo-European speakers. User:Decius 02:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- Transylvania comes from latin and means the Land onthe othe side of the Forest, maybe Erdely is just a translation. ---- ::Celtic in Hungary? :) ::: Celts lived in Hungary before the Romans, Goths (and a few other German tribes), Huns and then Magyars settled in the Pannonian Plains. Hungarians are most likely descendents of all of these. If that makes you feel better. Hungarians are at heart a non-Indo-European Magyar(Hungarian) people, who speak a non-Indo-European Finno-Ugric language. Finno-Ugric is often classed together with Uralic, Altaic, and even Turkic. :: Anyway I ain't not linguist and I don't have etimological dictionary handy; as far as I can find (by etimologists on the net, which is not a completely reliable source) "Erd�ly" was supposed to origin from the word "erdő" and "elve" and was once supposed to mean "the land at the other side of the forest" (over the forest?). (And by the way "Trans-sylvania" happens to mean just the same.) Just to satisfy your curiousity "-d�ly" is a formative affix changing the meaning of the original to something covering a larger area of land (like "meredek" meaning steep sth., "mered�ly" meaning a valley, side of a hill or an open shaft). Apart from that it is well acceptable (for me) that "Ardeal" has nothing to do with "Erd�ly" just they are accidentally similar. Origins of old words are constantly debated anyway, and the result depends on the intentions of the analyser.) ::: Yeah, probably one of the nations got it from the others and "adapted" it to their language. It's hard to say who "invented" it. :: Have you seen the movie ''My Big Fat Greek Wedding''? You know... every word have a greek origin. :-) ::: Of course. :-) ::I hope this information helps you to shed some light on the other possibilities of the origin of this word. --User:Grin 14:37, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC) ---- The first document in which the term Ultra siluam is used dates from 1075 A.D. Its meaning is over the forest. The terms Partes Transsilvanae [parts beyond the forest] dates from the same century and after that becomes the term used in the Latin documents of the Hungarian Kingdom [Transsilvania]. Instead of the Latin name the Hungarian Erdoelve (area beyond the forest), of which the Latin is a literal translation, was popularly used. We can first read this in the form Erdeuelu in the 12th century Chronicles of Anonymus. The Hungarian name for Transylvania was translated into Germans as well: the names Uberwald, uber Walt (over the forest) appear in 13th and 14th century documents. Later the Germans gave their own name, Siebenburgen (seven castles), to this region. The common Romanian name, Ardeal is first known to occur in a document dated 1432, as Ardeliu. It obviously is the translation of the Hungarian and has nothing to do with "deal" (hill). Actually is a common phonetic metamorphosis from Hungarian to Romanian, just to give an example: the village Erdod (in Hungarian) in Satu-Mare/Szatmar county, with the same clear Hungarian meaning became Ardud in Romanian! There are many such examples ("erdo" is one of the most common components of Hungarian toponims), but there is no meaning of the Romanian Ardeal, no relation to "deal"-hill (for example in Predeal -Romanian- "deal" has a clear meaning)... ---- By the way, Anonimus was a romanian, he gave the name of Hungarica to his work, so the romanians put names to magyars ... :Actually the name ''Hungarian'' seems to originate in the old Onogur meaning "Ten Arrows" in some old Turkic dialect, and being transformed by the Slavic languages pronounciation... ---- The Romanian name for Transylvania was borrowed from Hungarian: Ardeal. It is first mentioned in a document from 1432, in the form Ardeliu (stated also by Pascu, although not in the English translation but in Voievodatul Transilvaniei, I, p. 22). This form derives from Hungarian Erd�ly (the e > a change in Rumanian borrowings from Hungarian is demonstrated by many examples: Hungarian egres > Rumanian agris ("gooseberry"), Hungarian Egyed > Rumanian Adjud, etc. 81 This is still the popular name of Transylvania, used by the people; "Transilvania" is a coined word, taken from the Latin translation of Erdo-el� > Erd�ly "beyond the forest". In the documents, the name of this territory is first mentioned in its Latin translation: Ultra silvam ad castrum quod vocatur Turda...(1075 A.D.), then, in 1111, the chief assigned for the territory by the Hungarian king is mentioned: Mercurius princeps Ultrasilvanus. This form is used also by Rogerius, prebend of Nagyv�rad (Oradea) in his description of the Tartar invasion in 1241: Ultra Silvam, Ultrasilvanus episcopus. However, in the Legenda Sancti Gerhardi, written in the first half of the 12th century, we find Partes Transsilvanae, and beginning with the 14th century, this name is used generally in the documents. 82 The first mention in a written text of the Hungarian name is in Anonymus' Gesta Hungarorum, from the end of the 12th century: siluam igfon que iacet ad erdeuelu (chapter 11; cf. Illy�s, 1992, facing p. 17; cf. also pp. 335 - 336), in modern Hungarian: erdo-elve "beyond the forest," from which the present form developed: Erd�ly. ---- I tried to merge the theories, NPOV them a bit and inserted in the main article. --User:Grin user_talk:grin 10:31, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC) ===Why y=== Why is there a ''y'' in Transylvania? Neither Romanian nor Latin have it. :The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language says it's Medieval Latin (looked up sylvan). people want to talk to a romanian thts me ==Controversial text removed from the article== ::Talk:Transylvalia/removed replaced the already existing history instead of being integrated in the already existing text. Please check the facts and NPOV, as it seems to be a Magyar POV. (it main purpose seems to be demonstrating that Transylvania should be Hungarian). It also includes the United Nations Convention on Genocide which is unapropriate here. :::If based on accepted facts, the exposed bits of Hungarian history related to Transylvania belong under the History of Hungary, and a link to that article should be provided here either in the "For more about this debate..." or the "See also" lines. It would be a pity to leave out such information, but again, provided it is based on accepted and verifiable facts and is formulated neutrally. :: Also, this text seems to be a copyvio see: http://www.geocities.com/transmagyar/Part_1_.htm :::I've reverted, because when you revert to remove that text, you're also losing changes I've made. User:Pigsonthewing 20:57, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) ::: Now again, somebody with another IP address cut and pasted the text from that page. I reverted it as it was likely to be a copyvio. ==Considered for removal== How would the reference to ''Planet "Transexual Transylvania" in The Rocky Horror Picture Show'' be helpful to someone trying to learn some facts about Transylvania? === Expectation === : The question is a red herring, Please keep the refernce. User:Pigsonthewing 20:22, 15 May 2004 (UTC) :: If you are talking about the question above in the ''Considered for removal'' section, it is not a red herring. The "reference" links to ''The Rocky Horror Picture Show''. If you visit that particular article, there is no Transylvania-related reference in there, which means listing this in the Transylvania article, even as a disambiguation line, is irrelevant. Therefore I don't see any point in having this link in the ''See also'' section.--User:Unconcerned 21:56, 15 May 2004 (UTC) :::There is now. User:Pigsonthewing 08:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC) : Unfortunately Wikipedia maintains no decency/relevance standards. For example, if a pornstar choosed ''Schubert'' as an artistic name, it wouldn't be considered inappropriate to include a porn link in the main Schubert article. I completely disagree with this, ~~but wouldn't risk an editing conflict with other contributors less concerned with decency.~~ As a side note -- such irrelevant links do indeed serve as red herrings, but this is just my viewpoint.--User:Unconcerned 17:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC) : It appears that some commentators are speaking for a censorial, moralist satndpoint ("sexual fantasy" (presumably from someone who has not seen the film or play), "Wikipedia maintains no decency/relevance standards", "pornstar", "concerned with decency"), and not about what makes for the most useful Wikipedia entry :-( The link is not "irrelevant". User:Pigsonthewing 18:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC) :: I don't see my standpoint as ''censorial, moralist''. I think it is unaesthetic to mix together topics that accidentally share a name and nothing more. I think it is indecent to link a reference to "Transexual Transylvania" in the main Transylvania article, perhaps because I am a parent. But this is just my position and I don't plan to unilaterally edit the article if other contributors disagree.--User:Unconcerned 18:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC) How about moving the Transylvania#See_also to Transylvania (disambiguation)? -- User:Docu ::It's a coincidence that I created the page just now .. anyways, keep the info you like to keep in the "see also" section as well. -- User:Docu User:Pigsonthewing, please agree to leave your link in the form ''The Rocky Horror Picture Show (a movie)''. Here's a true "red herring": the page is disputed enough in other respects, and the ''Transexual Transylvania'' phrase would just add up to the tension. Please acknowledge that most of the contributors to this article are emotionally tied to the region named Transylvania and could easily take offense from the phrase above. While you managed to make the link hold by including a reference to the imaginary galaxy ''Transylvania'' in the specific movie article, I don't see any solid reason in keeping what could be somewhat offensive for some of the editors and readers. Thanks and regards.--User:Unconcerned 09:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC) : I acknowledge your claim that "most of the contributors to this article are emotionally tied to the region named Transylvania and could easily take offense "; and am gald to be able to offer a contrasting NPoV, free from a wish to impose such emotions in the form of censorship. User:Pigsonthewing 10:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC) :: By which standards do you classify your ''"Transexual Transylvania" in The Rocky Horror Picture Show (a movie)'' phrase as more NPoV than ''The Rocky Horror Picture Show (a movie)''? And what exactly is the biased POV you detect in the listing of a contracted form of the link name?--User:Unconcerned 10:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC) (P.S: RTFM is not an answer) :User:Pigsonthewing, please read in detail NPOV and dispute resolution before blindly reverting the link name contraction. I specifically insist in your reading and understanding the paragraph below quoted from ''dispute resolution''. Until you do so, I will consider the contracted link name be a good enough compromise in having both the link in and not hurting anyone's feelings. ::''The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. '''Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.''''' :--User:Unconcerned 15:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC) ::User:Pigsonthewing, you already have the link in. Would you please join the discussion on the accompanying text for your link? According to NPOV and dispute resolution practices, a compromise has to be reached on the disputed text. Simply reverting with the "mine is more NPOV than yours" attitude isn't very helpful.--User:Unconcerned 23:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC) :::Don't mis-quote me. Thank you. User:Pigsonthewing 23:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC) :::: It was not intended as a (mis)quote at all -- please read it ''Simply reverting with the mine-is-more-NPOV-than-yours attitude isn't very helpful.'' Also, please ''"Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary"'' (quoted from dispute resolution). Other than my poorly-chosen punctuation, what other arguments for your link text would you like to present?--User:Unconcerned 23:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC) :Maybe you could add an article like "References to Transylvania in fiction and media" and stash all such links there (Dracula, Rocky Horror, etc.). Just a thought from a random observer. User:Gwimpey 23:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC) :: The idea sounds good. What do you think User:Pigsonthewing?--User:Unconcerned 23:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC) :::I think all Wilkipedians should resist censorship. User:Pigsonthewing 19:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC) :: Please read and understand dispute resolution, especially this fragment: ''"Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary."'' You have failed both to ''discuss'' this and to ''try to reach compromise''. User:Pigsonthewing, this is not your first, nor last edit war where you refuse to discuss and/or seek compromise. Please do not extrapolate your editing behavior seen on Birmingham to other articles. You had the link on the main Transylvania page, and you weren't happy enough with it. I doubt you are actually acting ''in good faith'', unless you prove me wrong by ''discussing'' your edits. It is evident you're more interested in feeding conflict than editing articles. Please refrain from doing this. Just to help you, I removed the redundant link from the main page, as having it on the disambig page is more than enough. Thanks for your understanding and I'm looking forward to ''discuss'' this with you.--User:Unconcerned 23:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC) ::: Please read and understand dispute resolution, especially this fragment: "Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary." Then contrast that with this fallacy: ''It is evident you're more interested in feeding conflict than editing articles.'' User:Pigsonthewing 16:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) :: Misquote. Sorry for not being clear enough. The intended logic was: ::# You have failed to discuss/seek compromise ::# This isn't your first edit war ::# Having the link in wasn't enough ::: Therefore, evidence indicated interest in conflict. :: Honestly, let's discuss about that darn link and forget about proving each other wrong. Noone will ever be 100% right and thats where collaboration fits in.--User:Unconcerned 21:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::Your point #1 is false; as is your conclusion. User:Pigsonthewing 21:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) :: Look, the ''Considered for removal'' section is 3 months old and there was no reply. Just look at the amount of subsequent response on the talk page. It is mostly me talking to the myself (aside from Vasile's removed comments) You labelled me a moralist and censorial, period, which is not exactly what I call seeking a compromise. Forgive me if I have rushed to conclusions. Now, I already told you what potential harm (kind of) the initial link name was doing. I understand you want the link in. Let's find a way in between to both have the link and prevent any emotions about it. Are you okay with moving it on the disambig page?--User:Unconcerned 21:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) ---- ::: I see now a seggregation between characters. I consider that "Dracula" should be put to eternal rest on the disambig page as "Dracula, imaginary located in Transylvania".--User:Vasile 02:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC) ::::Be bold in updating pages--User:Unconcerned 20:37, 29 May 2004 (UTC) == Cultural "superiority" == I consider unacceptable the sentence that Transylvania is "culturally one of the most advanced regions of Romania".--User:Vasile 13:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) ---- == Theories == The theory grounding on an antique record about Dacians extermination after the Roman victory and few dozens of similar words in Romanian and Albanian, claims that the Romans and the romanised Dacians withdrew south of the Danube at the time of the Great Migration of nations at the dusk of the Ancient Ages, when barbarian tribes consequently pushed in. Most prominent of these probably were the Huns. These centuries of war and invasion, changing domination by Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs expurged all romanisation and Roman influence from the Carpathian Bassin, which includes Transylvania. South of the Danube under the protection of Byzantium, the romanised population could survive, where the Vlach people were formed. From the 14th century, due to by-then Ottoman domination, Vlachs started migrating north into the territory of Transylvania seeking security, where they became herdsmen and peasants of local Hungarian lords. Romanians were called Vlachs in the Middle Ages. I left here only the main ideas of the theories, the proofs/evidences/details should be included in Origin of Romanians. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 11:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) : These theories are related with Translyvania, so you should add those proofs/details. I revert to the previous version. --User:Vasile 15:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) :: Why ? Since the proofs and details are far from complete in here, they are not NPOV. If they would be complete, they would simply duplicate everything that is written on Origin of Romanians. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 14:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) ---- == Hunyadi == "Janos Hunyadi, while not undisputably hungarian, was neither romanian. His mother was a slavic woman from the banat, his father, most probably, a hungarian high-ranking officer. It is acceptable to claim him slavic/serb, but he was definiately not romanian. This is a historic corruption claimed by romanian nationalistic ideologues." Few of ethnic Romanians succeded to enter the ranks of the nobility, most notably Janos Hunyadi (Iancu de Hunedoara in Romanian language), captain of Hungary and hero of the Turkish wars. Hunyadi's son the Transylvanian Matyas Hunyadi of Hungary went on to become one of Hungary's greatest Kings. This was left as a comment in the article. I think it belongs here. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 11:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) :You seem to be absolutely sure Hunyadi's father was not Romanian. Why are you so sure about that? --User:Vasile 15:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) :: Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that B�n�t (Banat) and Hunyad (Huneudoara) are not part of either Moldavia or Wallachia and thus were not part of Romania until 1918, which is a bit later date than the birth of the Hunyadis. But even if it was they're only part of Romania till 1859. They can be Hungarians or Transylvanians (or Serbians, if you insist), but no Romania was there around anywhere so I see no reason to call them so. Reference: History of Romania. --User:Grin user_talk:grin 21:14, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC) ::: Excuse me? If Banat or Distric of Hunedoara were not part of Romania at the time Iancu de Hunedoara lived that means no romanians could have live there? Iancu de Hunedoara is undesputed romanian. And there is no such thing as 'Transylvanians' lol. I am from Gyula, Hungary. This town was never part of Romania? Doas that make me less romanian? NO. ::::Let's sort this out. ::::* I stated that being born in B�n�t/Hunyad/Huneudoara does not mean that someone is Romanian. You seem to agree with that, so that's great. ::::* You stated that the family is Romanian because it is an undisputed fact. This is wrong, as this whole discussion is about that ''it is disputed'', and I believe this fact is false. Since I am no historian I cannot prove you wrong or me right, so I kindly ask you to provide supportive evidences about your claim (that the Hunyadis/Huneudoaras are of Romanian/Vlach nationality) and I try to do my best to provide info on that they were not. (It would be great to have a knowledgeable scientific opinion on that matter without involving heavily biased Romanian or Hungarian historists but I believe that's not really possible.) Until then I plan to be bold and modify the remains of that paragraph that the origins of the family is in fact disputed. ::::* Naming "transilvanians" was not intended as a joke. T. was a semi-autonomous area with many nationalities presenting itself throughout the history as a semi-country. I wanted to point out that "Romania" is in fact a similar entity covering many nationalities, which includes "vlachs" (who I suppose you call "romanians"). Please help me and point out who is a "romanian nationality" before the creation of "romania"? Vlachs? Serbians? Magyars? Avars? If I accept my suspicion that you call "vlachs" romanians then it seem to be easy to show that the Hunyadis were not romanians. But let us use well defined terms. Help! ::::* If you were born in Gyula then you were born as Hungarian, probably with a nationality of Romanian (since you don't seem to be 400+ years old). If you were born in Gyula in the 15th century you probably were Hungarian with a nationality of vlach (or whatever your minority is in greater romania). But if you were born in Timisoara and you would speak Hungarian then you would be Magyar nationality, no matter that it's in Romania, but you were a citizen of Romania. We seem to agree on that, right? ::::So I suggest to define which nationality (not country) do you consider "romanian" in 16th century, then let us see whether the members of the family were originated from that nationality. --User:Grin user_talk:grin 17:12, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC) ::::: About Hunyady origin: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07564b.htm. His nationality is not disputed. ::::: Romanian nationality existed before the creation of a state named "Romania". Jews nationality existed before state of Israel. American nationality was created by American revolution.--User:Vasile 22:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) It's important that you don't confuse "nationality", which today is a legal term referring to citizenship in a given nation, and "ethnicity", which means belonging to a liguistic-cultural group. There was no Jewish "nationality" or Romanian "nationality" before the respective states existed; however, the ''ethnic groups'' did exist. If you are born in Timisoara speaking Hungarian, you are ethnically Magyar, of Romanian nationality. I think the confusion lies in the fact that ethnically-defined peoples are referred to as "nations", although the word "nationality" comes from nationstates. With all that said, there were Romanians - the ethnic category - in Transylvania 400 years ago; however, maybe it's misleading to retroactively call them Romanians, since the term wasn't around back then. Back then, perhaps Vlach applies better; however, the word "Vlach" has since evolved into "Romanian" without really changing meaning, so I don't see why they shouldn't be interchangeable. If you want to avoid confusion, just make the correct distinction between Romanian nationality (which includes Hungarians, Germans, etc) and Romanian ethnicity (which excludes them).--User:Andreidude 04:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) : Citizenship is not the same with nationality. A recent example, there were Soviet citizenship, but the Soviet nation appeared to be just a fiction. As for your example, a Magyar from Timisoara could consider part as any nation he/she wants. The nationality may be optionally. However, you could replace "Romanian" with "Vlach", if you think that is historically more accurate. --User:Vasile 01:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- :: Vasile, I never expressed my opinion about Hunyadi, I move it here just because the text was commented out (using HTML <!-- tag). Comments belong to the talk page, not to the text of the article. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 15:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Avars empire == "No major power was able to exert control over the region for any great length of time, until the Avars, who came from Scythia, established an empire there. By 568, the Avars under the leadership of their Kagan, Bajan, established in the Carpathian Basin an empire that lasted for 250 years." Maybe is exagerated to admit that 250 years ''empire'' of Avars in Carpathian Basin. To have an empire it is not enough that a man to pretend to be an emperor. --User:Vasile 01:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) == History Section == Over the past couple of days I've made some major changes to the history section, adding content, editing for consistency with other articles (though I'm aware that other articles may themselves not be entirely accurate), correcting the English. Below are some notes on what I've done: Section Names: I've made these more descriptive, but of course, these are my interpretation of the period (based on the current text in the relevant section). I'm not satisfied with the title Twentieth Century: Transylvania Ceded to Romania, but there again the text for this section perhaps should be expanded to incorporate at least some description of Transylvania in the second half of the twentieth century. Early History: This is still fairly rough, but I believe that some references were needed to the period between Roman rule and the 10th Century. Late Medieval Era: I think more content is still needed here. I expanded on the exploits of Hunyadi as he was a key personality of the era. I removed reference to his nationality/ethnicity as this is covered in the article on him (although this is based too heavily on 1911 EB and may not be accurate). Whatismore, it seems very likely that he was of mixed ethnicity anyway. Ottoman Influence and Golden Age: much of the additional content here was taken from 1911 EB, for which I apologise. However, my library is currently in boxes after a move, so I currently don't have access to other more up-to-date sources. I will certainly rewrite this when I get my hands on the relevant books, including the highly detailed and well-researched, "Calvinism on the Frontier, 1600-1660" (Graeme Murdock, Oxford University Press). Austrian Rule and the Austro-Hungarian Emprire: this needs to be expanded. Maybe a little more on the Rakoczi uprising. Possibly the existing text on the events of 1848/49 could be improved. Twentieth Century: well, this is a little formal, but I tried to be careful with this controversial issue. Adding more details about the actual events might be justified as this was a major event in the history of Transylvania. However, reliable and impartial sources will need to be used. User:Scott Moore 8th of October, 2004 == "Golden Age of Transylvania" == I believed using the term "Golden Age of Transylvania" is biased, since some people (i.e. Romanians) do not view that period as a Golden Age. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 18:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) You are right to raise this point, however I don't think this is a biased term. I've seen this term used in a number of sources, both British and Hungarian. This period was remarkable for Transylvania because it was probably only at this time in its history that Transylvania had a degree of autonomy and was able to project itself in European affairs. In addition, Transylvania briefly become a religious and cultural centre of truly European importance. Of course, a term such as "Golden Age" is not an absolute one, but rather a relative one. And, of course, golden ages are never golden for everyone. So maybe you could suggest an alternative term which describes the first half of the 17th century in Transylvania User:Scott Moore 09:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Criztu additions == : from Romanian 'A lui Gelu' meaning 'of Gelu', a ruler of these lands at the time of magyar arrival. That's really silly, "alugelu" it is not even close of "ardealiu". :: Gelu(or Gyalu/Gyula) ruled Ardeal(proper Transylvania) in 900 CE, "A lui Gelu" would be pronounced in romanian "Al'Gyelu" in today popular(not literary) romanian speaking. Bogdania(Moldova) meant 'of Bogdan', Basarabia(Valahia) meant 'of Basarab'. ::as a comparation the romanian name Amariei comes from "Al Mariei" and "A Mariei", a common pronounciation in spoken romanian being "A lu Maria"/"A l' Maria" (of(belonging to) Maria); see "a lu sor mea" vs. literary "al sorei mele" (of(belonging to) my sister), "a lu ma sa" vs. literary correct "al mamei sale", etc. as you can see in romanian the spoken/popular "a lu" becomes "al" in the literary form. ::the name George is pronounced Gheorghe(Gyorgy) in archaic/popular romanian, Gelu would be pronounced Ghelu(Gyalu) like is archaic/popular Ghiavol(Gyavol). ::: I am still not convinced. "L" just doesn't turn that easy in a "R".User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 15:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::: compare the romanian words "a sari" vs. "a salta" both meaning "to jump". the relation with the ruler of Ardeal, Gelu(Gyalu/Gyula) should be considered. ::::: I don't know what you want to say by this. They're derived from different Latin words. Anyway, linguistics is a science, so words evolve by a series of strict rules. Anything that does not abide to these rules is just kookery. ::::: Also, Wikipedia has a policy about "Wikipedia:No original research", so, unless you give me an external reference to this theory (a book, a magazine article, a website that is not your own, etc) I'll have to delete it. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 18:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::::I understand and agree, I'll return with evidence to back Gelu/Gyalu/Gyula/Iuliu conection with the name of Ardeal -- criztu ::when is the romanian form "Ardealiu" for Transylvania attested for the first time ? -- criztu : after beeing (sic!) repelled by the Saxons in the west. Saxons in 9th century Transylvania ? Strange... I knew that they came only in th 1100s. :: the magyar expansion in the West of Pannonian Plain was repeled(pushed back) by the Saxons in the battle of Lechfeld (955 CE). the Chronicles record the slaughtering of 40 000 magyar warriors by the saxons in this battle. -- criztu : The population living in Transylvania (romanians, szeklers, saxons, magyars, czechs and slovacs) voted for Union with Romania. voted ? not at all clear what actually happened. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 19:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) :: indeed, "opted" is more NPOV than "voted" in 1918 Hungary was a defeated state, who was charged with War Penalties. It might explain why Transylvania opted to adhere to Romania on the Winning Side -- criztu ::: I think that it had more to do with the ethnic composition than with the winning side.User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 15:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) Twentieth Century - 'Ceded' is more accurate than 'join' as we are referring to a formal transfer as a result of a treaty. :there was no treaty that ceded Transylvania to Romania in 1918. in 1919 the war between Hungary and Romania resulted in the occupation of Hungary by Romania. A Treaty was made in 1920 and ceded parts of Romania to Hungary -- criztu - "Fighting off the bolshevic army of Bela Kun, Romania eliberated Budapest and Hungary from the Bolshevic Rule in 1919." If anywhere, this belongs in the history of Hungary article (but please check for spelling before you add any text). :Bolshevik Regime in Hungary waged war against Romania, resulting in its downfall owed to Romania's military effort. -- criztu ::the problem here is your simplification of the events. The Romanian army's advance to Budapest was certainly a major factor in the downfall of Kun's regime, but not the only one. Using the word "liberated" is not NPOV. User:Scott Moore 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Romanian Army occupied Budapest, not ''"advanced to Budapest"''. thus Hungary ''"got rid"'' of Bolshevism thanx to Romania (if ''liberated'' sounds POV) ::::well the Romanian army had to 'advance' to Budapest before it could 'occupy' it. My point is that Kun fled 'before' the Romanian army reached Budapest. As I said before, what you write is not neutral, not because it is wrong, but because it simplifies the events; in other words, it is incomplete. You could also equally validly write that Hungarians liberated themselves from Bolshevism. In fact, Kun's regime collapsed because of multiple factors which included both the advance of the Romanian army, and opposition from factions within Hungary. Also, you should bear in mind that the presence of the Romania army in Transylvania was a factor in the rise of bolshevism in Hungary in the first place. The previous "pacifist democratic" government collapsed partly because they were perceived as not being able to defend Hungary from the foreign armies on its borders. - "union of Transylvania with Romania": the word 'union' is not accurate here User:Scott Moore 12:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::: In which way, the presence of Romanian army was a factor in the rise of Bolshevism in Budapest? --User:Vasile 14:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) :the formulation "Transylvania ceded to Romania in 1918" is inaccurate here. The Treaty of versailles in 1920 ratified the status of Transylvania beeing under Romanian administration since 1918, and ceded parts of it to Hungary -- criztu :: well, the article does need to explain how the formal status of Transylvania changed from being part of Hungary, to part of Romania. Why not add some details about the 1918-1920 period to the article? User:Scott Moore 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::indeed, ''Transylvania changed from beeing part of Austria-Hungary to beeing part of Romania''. there was no treaty between Romania and Hungary (or bwtween Romania and any other state) by wich Hungary(or any other state) ''ceded'' (ceding - cession, surrendering, abandoning, renunciation) Transylvania to Romania. Transylvania chose side according to "Right to Self Determination". Union with Romania was voted in the General Assembly of Deputies of Transylvania in December 1st 1918. if ''"union"'' sounds POV, then ''Transylvania joined Romania'', otherwise it has to be explained How and Who ''ceded'' Transylvania to Romania. in 1918 Austria-Hungary was declared "Federation" by Charles of Austria-Hungary in 1918. the Treaty of Trianon in 1920 ratified the Status Quo of Transylvania inside Romania borders, and was signed by Hungary (after Hungary was delivered/liberated/got rid of Bolshevism by Romanian Army in 1919) -- criztu ::::OK, the easiest way to resolve this is to remove the word ceded from the title, which I've already done. Again, you are simplifying the situation. You cannot say that "Transylvania" chose union with Romania. The Romanians in Transylvania may have chosen union, but the Hungarians/Szeklers and Saxons certainly didn't. Also, the territory acquired by Romania included not just Transylvania proper but also e.g the Partium (area between Transylvania and the Great Plains) which had a majority of Hungarian inhabitants (so in their case you could argue that the right to self-determination was ignored by the victorious powers) User:Scott Moore 13:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::: If one would follow the empirical method may discover that Romanians were in majority in Partium. In 1918, no civilized person could count only the inhabitants of a couple of towns as inhabitants. --User:Vasile 14:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::I'll search for the term used in the treaty of Trianon(1920) for the ''transfering'' of Transylvania from Hungary to Romania -- criztu :::::quote from Transylvania wikipedia article: ''In 1848 the Hungarians proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Hungary''. I think it is safe to say ''In 1918 the Romanians ans Saxons proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Romania ratified by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920'' -- criztu Early History - Re the text: "In Transylvania, they defeated the local cnezates of Gelu, Glad and Menumorut" - according to Gesta Hungarorum. Much of what is written in the Gesta Hungarorum regarding Transylvania is disputed. If you want to present what is written there, then you should also point out the opposing views concerning this source, and also present complementary or conflicting information from other sources. User:Scott Moore 12:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Gesta Hungarorum mentions Gelu, Glad and Menumorut states in Transylvania. THey belong to Transylvania History -- criztu PS According to one (Hungarian) historian: "The Gesta of Anonymous is the romantic gesta that became fashionable in Western Latin literature in the 12th century, in which the author presented the olden times in keeping with his own idea. The author of the romantic gesta does not write stories striving for authenticity on the basis of sources or memory, but a literary piece evoking interest as sources are missing, or he deliberately puts them aside. The event constituting the backbone of the story may have taken place, like the Hungarian Conquest, it may be an invented one, like originating the Francs from Troy ? Therefore the story narrated in the romantic gesta does not function as an authentic source for historians." Gy�rgy Gyorffy, 1988 : please provide stats for Gy�rgy Gyorffy, I couldn't find any. -- criztu :: I'm not sure what you are asking for User:Scott Moore 16:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::who is Gyorgy Gyorffy ? is he an ''author'', or a ''historian''? what's the name of his work ? -- criztu ::::I know little about him. He was a medievalist who died in 2000. In his obituary, it says that his life work was perhaps the most important body of Hungarian historical research of the twentieth century. He was the author of various books on Hungarian history (some of which have been translated into English and German). You can see these by searching on Amazon. He wrote a book about Anonymus Gestarum Hungarorum published in Hungarian in 1988. The title was: "Anonymus: Rejt�ly avagy, t�rt�neti forr�s? : v�logatott tanulm�nyok". User:Scott Moore 14:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Another (Romanian) historian writes: "Being a medieval gesta, the purpose of the source was not the recording of the past, but the legitimation of the present by means of history. GH has a propagandistic character. Its prototype was another Gesta Ungarorum, written in the late 11th century. The Anonymous Notary (also known as Anonymus) used several traditions and oral genealogies, but he tried to write a truthful story. His critical spirit is remarkable. It is also true that his work contains several anachronisms and confusions....Despite such confusions, GH remains a valuable source". Alexandru Madgearu, 2001 User:Scott Moore 13:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) :it doesn't justify erasing the Lechfeld (955) massacre of magyar army explaining the conquest of Transylvania by the magyars. it doesn't justify erasing Gelu, Glad, Menumorut (whom are documented not only in GH) from History of Transylvania article. Bihor/Bihar county bears the name of Menumorut's state. -- [criztu]] ::If you mention Lechfeld in the article you should explain in more detail why and how it impacted on Transylvania. According to some sources the conquest of Transylvania by the Magyars occured by 934 AD, according to a recent theory we can't talk about a conquest until around 1000 AD. So aren't you, in fact, referring to the ''settlement'' of Transylvania by the Magyars? User:Scott Moore 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::magyars made a detour of the Carpathian mountains and fought Salan in the Pannonian Plains, from there they fought saxons in the West and were defeated, and then turned East and fought Glad, Menumorut - in Bihor/Bihar, and Gelu(Gyalu/Guyla/Iuliu) - in Ardeal/Erdely(proper Transylvania). Gesta Hungarorum mentions only the western borders of Gelu's domain, it shows by the time of Gesta, the magyars didn't reach the interior of the Eastern Carpathians. -- criztu :::perhaps the Battle of Lechfeld(955) shouldn't be mentioned as ''the'' key moment for the magyar conquest of Transylvania, certainly ''saxons repeled/defeated the magyars in the west'' is relevant. Transylvania was settled by the Kings of Hungary with saxons, seklers, pechenegs, cumanians, etc. -- criztu From what I've read, the defeat at the Battle of Lechfeld caused the Magyars to settle permanently in the Carpathian basin. There's an interesting article on Wikipedia about the Arpads dynasty, which states that Transylvania was not ruled by the Arpads, and hence not part of the emerging Hungarian state, until it was subjugated by King Stephen between 997 and 1006. Maybe we can say that the defeat at Lechfeld spurred the process of the creation of the Kingdom of Hungary, but Magyar rule over Transylvania seems to have been unrelated to Lechfeld. User:Scott Moore 14:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Etymology of Ardeal == I read somewhere that an Arabian geograph wrote that the land of "Ardeal/Erdely" was named its ruler, the Gepid king "Arderich" (also spelled Ardarich, Ardaric, Arderic). I was just wondering whether anybody has a reference to this (the name of the geograph, etc). User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca ==Twentieth Century== Criztu, wasn't it just the Treaty of Trianon which settled the border between Romanian and Hungary? Treaty of Versailles set the borders of Germany, and Treaty of Saint Germain of Austria. Why don't you link to the existing Wikipedia articles on the treaties rather than the locations? User:Scott Moore 11:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) :there were a series of treaties, starting with Versailles, by wich Romania was allowed to station armies in Transylvania within some initial borders, Trianon - the peace betwen Hungary and Romania and the resettling of the border, and Sevres - readjusting some ethnic issues within the borders. -- criztu -------- I've now futher expanded on this section relying mainly on other Wikipedia articles as sources (Treaty of Versailles, Treaty of Trianon, Aftermath of World War I, History of Hungary, Ferdinand of Romania) but also on some external Web sources for details of the military events including: [http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/minorpowers_romania.htm][http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/comba_romania_t.html] [http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/diplomacy_world_war_one.html] [http://countrystudies.us/romania/18.htm] I've used the word "transfer" in the title as this is a neutral term (although not the most accurate; I would prefer to use "ceded" but Criztu regards this as inaccurate). The Website containing the US Library of Congress material uses the phrase "Transylvania was acquired by Romania", but I don't think this would be acceptable. User:Scott Moore 19:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) :quote from Transylvania wikipedia article: ''In 1848 the Hungarians proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Hungary''. I think it is safe to say ''In 1918 the Romanians proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Romania'' -- criztu ::proclaim can mean "officially declared", or it can just mean "announced publicly". These are quite different meanings. I think we should be more specific in the article e.g the sentence "passed a resolution calling for unification of all Romanians in a single state" shows that it was an organised process (implying democracy in action, which relates to your point on self-determination). Saying "proclaimed the unification of Transylvania with Romania" implies merely that it was said publicly. User:Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::even more specific: "passed a resolution calling for unification of Transylvania with Romania in a single state" - this shows the romanians living in Transylvania decided for themselves, and weren't neither "transfered" nor "ceded" to Romania. -- criztu :::: Criztu, you don't seem to recognise that the Hungarians of Transylvania didn't decide to unite with Romania. A decision by one section of the population (albeit a small majority) didn't make Transylvania an independent state. In fact, a decision by the whole population would not have made it an independent state. As you insist on comparing with 1848 - the Hungarian declaration of independence did not make Hungary an independent state - it was still part of the Austrian Empire. User:Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ---------- ''Transylvania Transfered to Romania'' - Transylvania decided for itself in 1918. it is not a property, to be transfered. in 1918 Austria-Hungary became a federation. Transylvania might have had autonomous status(i don't know exactly) : From the Library of Congress source: "In November, the Romanian National Central Council, which represented all the Romanians of Transylvania, notified the Budapest government that it had assumed control of twenty-three Transylvanian counties". If Romania has been autonomous, they would have had no reason to notify the Budapest government. : "Transylvania decided for itself in 1918". Based on the sources I've read, this isn't true. It seems only the Romanians of Transylvania made the decisions. In general, the position of the Hungarians and other minorities in Transylvania is missing from this section of the article. I haven't yet found any suitable references. What do you know about this, Criztu? User:Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::the same thing goes for ''In 1848 the Hungarians proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Hungary'' - why don't you corect this sentence into ''In 1848 it seems only the Hungarians of Transylvania proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Hungary, but this is inaccurate, more accurate is in 1918 Transylvania was ceded(transfered) to Austria(after 1867 Austria-Hungary) which advanced into Transylvania and occupied it'' ? -- criztu :::Criztu, I really don't see why you keep comparing with 1848. I didn't write the above sentence, so why are you asking me to correct it? In any case, it seems that you haven't read (or understood) the paragraph - later it states "The Romanians and the Saxons rejected the offer" making clear that they didn't support the Hungarians. Also as I wrote before one of the meanings of "proclaim" is "to state publicly", which is what the Hungarians did. ''Romanian sent an army into Transylvania and had occupied most of the region by the beginning of December'' - Romanian army entered Transylvania as a result of a decision taken by the Powers of Versailles - Belgrade Armistice november 1918 : Criztu, I don't mind if you replace what I've written provided that it is based on reliable sources. What I wrote came from a number of sources which I've listed above. If you believe these are wrong then please note here in the talk section and provide a list of the sources you've used. User:Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::''Romania declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary on the 19th August 1916 and on the same day Romanian troops crossed the border and advanced into Transylvania'' - what does "''Romania declared war and on the same day crossed the border''" mean ? are you suggesting Romania was acting evil ? if not, then you should specify the date when each and every country involved in WW1 declared war, and after how many days exactly did each one of them crossed the borders of every province in their way to defeat the enemy command center. -- criztu :::Criztu, you are deliberately being confrontational. I clearly stated that what I wrote was based on other Wikipedia articles and external sources, which I listed. If you had bothered to check those sources (obviously you didn't) you would have seen that the sentence "Romania declared war and on the same day crossed the border" comes directly from the article on the www.firstworldwar.com Website, written by Matt Simpson. If you have a problem with what he wrote, then I suggest you contact him (his email address is provided). He also lists the sources he used, so you can check them if you want. User:Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ''Kun's regime initially halted the Romanian advance into Hungary, but in July the Romanian army broke through Hungarian lines and marched into Budapest'' - Romanian advance halted on Tisza river, the Hungarian attack in july 1919 lead to Romanian advanced into Hungary and occupation of Budapest. : The Treaty of Versailles wasn't ratified until 1920, so you could argue that officially Transylvania was not yet part of Romania, and hence the Romanian army was invading. But, I'll remove the phrase "Romanian advance into Hungary" as this may not be accurate. User:Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::the United States of America declared independence in 1776 and were officialy recognised in 1783. ::''Kun's regime initially halted the Romanian advance, but in July the Romanian army broke through Hungarian lines and marched into Budapest'' - now you have the oportunity to write down the exact date when Romania declared war on Hungary and after how many days it crossed the border into Hungary. -- criztu ''Ferdinand crowned King of Greater Romania'' - i don't think ''Greater'' was used in this coronation : This is not what I wrote. I used "greater Romania" a term which came directly from the Library of Congress source. The Wikipedia article on King Ferdinand states that he "succeeded his uncle as King of Romania on 10 October 1914". If he was already King of Romania, then being crowned again in 1922 doesn't make sense to me (unless it was purely ceremonial). Perhaps you can clarify. In the meantime I'll take this sentence out of the article, as its a little confusing as it is. User:Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::you should know that Mihai Viteazul united Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia in a single state in 1600 at Alba Iulia, so perhaps it was a symbolic coronation. -- criztu :::Yes, I do know, but the fact that he united them briefly is entirely irrelevant to the discussion around what happened in the twentieth century.User:Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ''Russian successes in 1916 convinced Romania to join the Allied Powers in the hope of acquiring territory, especially Transylvania'' - Romania entered WW1 on the side of the Entente powers after signing the aliance treaty of Bucharest on august 1916. Romania (reigned by german king Ferdinand Hohenzollern) stayed neutral and refused to enter the war on the side of Germania Austria-Hungary. : What I wrote before (which comes from multiple sources), doesn't seem to conflict with what you wrote. So there's no reason why it shouldn't all be included. User:Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::''Russian successes in 1916, among other factors, convinced Romania to join the Allied Powers in the hope of acquiring territory, especially Transylvania'' - Romania entered the WW 1 joining the Triple Entente according to a Treaty specifying its role and goals. we can speculate on what factors determined Romania to enter the WW1 forever. -- criztu :::I'm not speculating. I based what I wrote on the sources I listed before. User:Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ''and, following the withdrawal of Russian troops, to the surrender of Romania to the Central Powers in May 1918'' - following the peace Treaty between Russia and Germany in march 1918, in may 1918 Romania and Central Powers initiated a Peace Treaty, that wasn't ratified by october 1918 when Romania reentered the War. -- criztu : Yes, I had already read a more detailed account of what happened, but thought that these details are better located in the article on the history of Romania. Also, again, what I wrote doesn't seem to conflict with what you wrote ie Romania surrendered, but didn't ratify the Peace Treaty. After all, the US never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, but this doesn't mean that the treaty wasn't valid. User:Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::''Following the Russian-German Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, Romania surrendered to the Central Powers in May 1918'' - Romania and Central Powers negotiated a Peace Treaty(not a ''Surrender Treaty'') that wasn't ratified. -- criztu :::I didn't write "Surrender Treaty". I wrote that Romania surrendered (see again the article by Matt Simpson). User:Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ======== Overall, Criztu, you seem to have the aim of being obstructive rather than of contributing constructively to this article. What I have written was not my personal opinion or point of view, but a summary of what I read in the various sources I listed. As such, it is not comprehensive and may generalise too much or miss important points. However, rather than try to improve what I have written, you just delete sentences which you don't agree with. You have not even taken the time to check those sources I gave. You haven't given any sources yourself, so I can only presume that what you have written is unsourced. User:Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==More Changes== I have already explained above the sources for what I wrote. Please don't delete it again without any reasons. I have deleted the following sentences which you wrote, for the following reasons: :reasons I offered you, you don't seem to agree there is a difference between two countries at war negotiating and ratifying, between a Peace Treaty and a Surrender Treaty, between Soviet Republic of Hungary and Austria-Hungary, between ''signing an Alliance Treaty (with duties and goals)'' and ''russian successes among other factors'' -- criztu :: "surrender" means "giving up" and can be done without a formal treaty (e.g soldiers on the battlefield can surrender). "Russian successes..." is a reason, signing of the Alliance Treaty is a formal mechanism. "Romania and Central Powers initiadet a peace Treaty, wich remained not ratified by october 1918 when Romania re-entered the war." This should be put in the history of Romania article. I had already wrote that Romanian surrendered, which I think is sufficient without describing the process of treaty signing and (lack of) ratification. Also note that the English is very poor here - maybe you can write perfectly well in English, but if this is the case then obviously you can't be bothered to put in the effort to check spelling before you add anything to the article. :as long as you insist on ''Romania surrendered'' i am forced to correct you - Romania and Central Powers negotiated a Peace Treaty that was not ratified. http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/bucharest1918.htm :: According the the Web site "Romania surrendered at the Peace of Bucharest". I had already read the article on the Treaty of Bucharest. I don't object to putting some of the details, and the fact that the Treaty wasn't ratified in the artilce. User:Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ''"Romania, having started the war as a neutral, entered on the side of the Allies in August 1916, led by Ion Bratianu, the Allies having promised support for the fulfilment of Romanian national unity.'' :: We can include this as well. What I wrote is still valid though, it cites Romania's reasons for going to war. ''Revolution in Russia in 1917, followed by the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, brought about the end of German operations on the Eastern Front. With the withdrawal of her Russian allies on the Moldavian front peace was forced upon Romania, who realistically could not continue to fight alone against the Germans.'' ''The resulting Treaty of Bucharest, between Romania and the Central Powers, was initially ratified by the following bodies upon the given dates:'' ''German Bundesrat (4 June 1918) Romanian Chamber (28 June 1918) German Reichstag (3 July 1918) Romanian Senate (4 July 1918)'' ''The treaty never completed ratification in Romania and was denounced in October 1918 by the Romanian government, which then re-entered the war on the Allied side.'' ''With the Allied-German armistice of 11 November 1918 the treaty was declared void (along with the Russian Brest-Litovsk treaty)."'' :Scott Moore, you provided this same website as your source, yet you didn't seem to have read this. -- criztu "Austria-Hungary was desintegrating by 1918, the nations (romanians, czech, polish, slovacks, croats, serbs, bosniacs, slovenes, montenegrins, italians, etc.) living inside its border proclaiming their independence". A full list of the ethnic groups (I don't think nation should be used here, given how vague a term it is) in Austria-Hungary is more appropriate in the article of the same name. You missed out Hungarians (who also declared their independence), but this doesn't surprise me given your obvious bias. And don't you think these peoples deserve a Capital Letter and the correct spelling of their names? :the title Austria-Hungary implies explicitely the austrians and the hungarians living inside its borders. -- criztu no it doesn't, it was just a short version of the formal name of the state User:Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)] ::''the nations living inside Austria-Hungary proclaiming their independence'' gives a bigger picture to what hapened in Transylvania in 1918. Romanians in Transylvania proclaimed their independence from Austria-Hungary and unification with Romania just like the poles, italians, serbs, czechs, slovaks, bosniaks, slovens, croats, etc. if you erase ''the nations living inside former Austria-Hungary Empire proclaimed their independence'', i'll have to put it back. -- criztu :::Put to put "ethnic groups living inside...", but no need to list all of them User:Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) "The war between Romania and Hungary lead to the defeat of Bela Kun's Soviet Republic." We have already discussed the reasons for the collapse of Bela Kun's regime....You haven't provided any sources for this statement. I haven't seen any references in the sources I've read to a declaration of war at this point. Why are you now using present tense, when the rest of the article is in past tense? User:Scott Moore 12:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) :what sources should i provide you? wasn't there a war between Romania and Hungary in 1919 ? wasn't Hungary a Soviet Republic in 1919 ? wasn't Budapest occupied by Romanian Army ? you don't know all this ? should i provide you sources for the official title of the Soviet Republic of Hungary in 1919 ? read Wikipedia. ::I'm asking for sources for the conclusion that the war "led to the defeat of Bela Kun's Soviet Republic". User:Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Why don't you provide me the date when Romania declared war on the Soviet Republic of Hungary in 1919 ? or is it because Soviet Republic of Hungary declared war on Romania in 1919 that you don't provide source for this too ? I used a neutral sentence ''war between Romania and Hungary'' you use a POV sentence ''hungarian Bela Kun halted the advance of Romania into Hungary'' :yes, i appologise, i conjugated to present tense, it should have been ''led'' instead o ''lead'' -- criztu --------------------------- I'll wait for others to express their opinion on ''Transylvania during the World Wars'', I think that ''in 1918 the romanians living in Transylvania proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Romania'' and ''following the Treaty of Versailles in 1916 with the Triple Entente Romania entered the WW1'' and ''the war between Romania and Hungary in 1919 led to the defeat of Soviet Republic of Bela Kun'' are NPOV, while ::Well, that's just your opinion. As far as I can tell, everything you are writing is just your opinion. You may have a very valid opinion, but that's impossible for me to tell at the moment. User:Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::we should clarify things point by point then: *di