Transylvania: In Hungary or Romania, or Neither: Whose View Is Correct?

Queen Marie of Romania, crowned Queen in Alba Iluia, Transylvania in 1922
Queen Marie of Romania, crowned Queen in Alba Iluia, Transylvania in 1922

Why this Email and Hungary and Transylvania and Romania and Transylvania?

I have a history in Transylvania, in fact I am a first generation North American, a first generation Canadian to be precise. The rest of my family were born in Romania, in Transylvania. My extended family history however, dates back in Transylvania to 1730, which is how long the time village my family comes from has written records of birth, baptisms and deaths.

This is from both my mother's and my father's side. All these records are, or were found in the village church which has published its records or sent them to the families when requested. I write a blog on Transylvania and its history and received an email from someone who makes claims about Romania and Hungary and Transylvania.

I got this email when I mentioned something good about the peoples of Transylvania, and that they all contributed to the vitality of Transylvania, on my blog about Transylvania. More specifically when I made mention about Romania and Transylvania.

I am dismayed at the comments made by this person, as it seemed that they have a strong independence minded streak within them. I question most of the facts in this email. Also, this emailer has a number of websites which they have published much of the same content.

Not only that but when I personally tired to contact them to find out more information I have yet to receive a response from the emailer. What they have published does a great disservice to Transylvania and Romania and Hungary.

It also appears they have a "passion" for their stance since they have now published a website on their point of view about Hungary and Transylvania and what Romania is supposedly doing to Hungarian culture.

Many of the facts given are incorrect and the person who published these will not "back up" their published stance. It is all about publishing a correct version of historical facts.

Bran Castle, In Transylvania, and Maps and Writing

Bran Castle is located within the borders of Transylvania, since 1922 a part of Romania
Bran Castle is located within the borders of Transylvania, since 1922 a part of Romania
Under Michael the Brave, a Prince of Wallachia Translyvania was united with Wallachia and Moldavia, for about a year in 1600.
Under Michael the Brave, a Prince of Wallachia Translyvania was united with Wallachia and Moldavia, for about a year in 1600.
If this email, and these websites were factually correct....
If this email, and these websites were factually correct....

Websites and Emails, and Incorrect Facts

Below is the email in its entirety. I have since been able to find this email on many other websites, and not only that, but the person who wrote it does not seem to respond to any contact requests.

"It is indeed fortunate that many of the ancient Transylvanian documents, dating back as far as the 11th century, were transferred to the Hungarian National Archives in Budapest, some before World War I, and others during World War II. Thus, in spite of all the Rumanian efforts to eradicate the past, the true history of Transylvania can still be proven by thousands of ancient documents and the traces of the once great Western-oriented culture of the Hungarians in Transylvania can still be found in libraries and museums, not in Hungary alone, but also in Austria, Germany, Italy, France, England, and the United States of America.


The Romanian culture is entirely different from that known as the "Transylvanian culture", which is in reality a regional diversity of the West-oriented Hungarian culture. The Rumanian culture is Balkan-oriented, and specifically Rumanian, based on the history of the Vlach migration from South across to Albania, and from there up to Wallachia and Moldavia. It was brought forth by Balkan influences, just as the Romanian language itself, which is composed, according to the Romanian linguist Cihac, "of 45.7% Slavic, 31.5% Latin, 8.4% Turkish, 7% Greek, 6% Hungarian and 0.6% Albanian words." Even today, the Romanian culture as such, has no roots in Transylvania. It is being "imported" constantly and purposefully from Bucharest into the Transylvanian province in order to crowd out and replace the traditional Hungarian culture of this conquered and subjugated land.


Future of Transylvania and its capital Kolozsvár is to return to Central Europe and to Hungarian Culture where it belongs. Transylvania was GIVEN to Romania in 1921, and again in 1947, without a plebiscite. This notorious Treaty is known as The Diktat of Trianon, Hungarians were forced to sign in Paris. Ever since Transylvania was awarded to Romania, Hungarians, Germans and other ethnic minorities have suffered at the hands of Romanian Chauvinists. They have consistently and systematically been subjest to forced assimilation and persecution. Romania is probably the most xenophobic country in Europe today. Romanians in cities like Marosvásárhely (targu mures) and Kolozsvár (cluj) are practising ethnic cleansing an a scale only seen in former Yugoslavia. Hungarians are subject to constant discrimination, Hungarian signs are painted over or not allowed at all, intimidation by Gheorghe Funar is carried out against Hungarians on a daily basis aimed at driving out all Hungarians from this ancient Magyar land."

I have read and reread this email and have come up with a few questions which I emailed back to them a few weeks ago with no response. I was polite, but told him that I wasn't Hungarian, but Saxon, which i believe is the reason that I haven't heard back from this person. I've also, let it be noted found this email now as a website or three... looks to be a big thing for them, which is unfortunate.

Did you live in Transylvania or somewhere else? I feel that this anger must stem from the fact that you or your relatives lived in Transylvania.

What about these documents? I see you mention them, but which ones?

One last comment, Hungary was a part of the Austrian Empire in 1918 when World War I ended, and the Treaty of Trianon was signed in 1919. I know this since my grandmother was born in Transylvania, and her birth certificateate is from Romania, whereas a cousin who was born at the end of 1918 has a birth certificate from the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary. So please be advised it wasn't 1921.The date for the return of Northern Transylvania is also wrong, as my mother who was born at the end of 1945 has a Romanian birth certificate but her older siblings have Hungarian, as Northern Transylvania was a part of Hungary from 1940-1945.

I have made efforts to contact both the Romanian consulate and the Hungarian consulate in my area, in hopes that they will shed some light on the subject. They have and both have stated that this email is one which probably has come from either outside of Hungary or Transylvania. It is to them a most unfortunate email, and one which does not promote harmony in the European Union or otherwise. Both consulates have clearly stated that Transylvania is a part of Romania.

Map of Translyvania, In The Kingdom of Hungary Note the German Name Below It

Transylvania in Hugary before 1919.  The most interesting aspect to this map is the fact that the Latin and German names are used.
Transylvania in Hugary before 1919. The most interesting aspect to this map is the fact that the Latin and German names are used.
Pre 1919 map of the Balkan area
Pre 1919 map of the Balkan area

Where is Transylvania?

See results without voting

Could They Be From Transylvania.. Or Simply Trying for Exposure??

Even this question makes me wonder, this email seems to have some facts correct, and yet the facts given are incorrect-- this is more true with dates, and seems to be published to make people angry. Dates are incorrect and the one thing which sticks out in my mind are the dates. They do not make a valid point if the dates they quote are incorrect it is in many ways politically motivated.

It is as if they are trying to make a point, but haven't looked up any facts. A simple review of wikipedia will give some dates. This leads me to believe that they set these dates for a reason. Both of them are two years AFTER the actual two main events that they refer to, that of World War One and World War Two. (World War end officially on November 11, 1918, but the treaties weren't signed until 1919. Hungary and Romania fought after the end of the war as well.)

In fact some simple checking from my own personal books on the Saxons show that the Hungarians, Romanians and Saxons convened at Alba Iulia and voted to join Romania. This was a vote. Hungary was falling into anarchy and Transylvania had a large number of Romanians living there even then.

Again a quick check of wikipedia gives the numbers, which I do believe were over 50% of the population in some cases.

There was also an area, which until the 1950s was a Hungarian autonomous province. This ended when Transylvania started using a county system. Hence why I wonder about cultural genocide comments, Had the Romanians in Transylvania pushed there wouldn't have been this area so such a long time.

This makes me wonder, One point that I can say is that either this person comes from Hungary or they don't know their history of the land they came form. This is most unfortunate since Transylvania has a long history dating back to the Roman Times and before than with the Dacians, but the "explosive point" is only the last sixty years or so. It is like saying that Dracula-- by this I mean the title character from Bram Stoker's novel, is really a person and not Vlad Tepes.

From This Email, is There Value in this Anger?

See results without voting

My Own View on Transylvania

I have stated this many times on my blog, but Transylvania is a part of Romania. It used to be a part of Hungary, however these days it is a part of Romania.

There many views and publications about Transylvania, and of course everyone including myself, have a view. My view is that Transylvania has too many things which are valued by both Romania and Hungary. The real numbers show that 35% of Romanian GDP comes from the Transylvanian region, that is a lot of money.

For the most part, The real problems come from the question of "whose in charge here?" The simplest answer is that the people who lived in Transylvania voted to join Romania, in 1918. This was a national assemby held in Alba Iulia. This is true.

Transylvania is a place that continues to hold a lot of people fascinated, and they might be from Hungary or From Romania, but there is no place for being angry and laying blame on the decisions of the past.

More by this Author


Due to Spam and Spam Links, If you Are Not a Member of Hubpages You Can't Post a comment, 137 comments

frantisek78 profile image

frantisek78 14 months ago

Some Romanians still try to prove that they are descended from Roman soldiers, which is ridiculous. Romania has historically treated their ethnic minorities much worse than Romanians were treated whilst living as part of the Kingdom of Hungary.


Szatmari 15 months ago

Its always funny to read comments posted by Roumanians to counter argue.

In particular by this Mayhem...no sources, just the standard Romanian propaganda thats been left over from the Ceaucescu era.

This Roumanian claims they're "my sources" when in fact they're American, English and French.

He claims that a part of the Hungarian population voted to join Roumania in 1918... another lie, source?

A very good book to read.....History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness - OpenEdition Books

http://books.openedition.org/ceup/912

A Roumanian who finally speaks the truth.

I believe this says it all about Roumania, from a neutral unbiased observer....

General Bandholtz’s daily contact with the Romanian military and diplomatic

personnel for these six months gave him a unique learning experience. He made no

secret about his conclusions. On November 11, 1919, he wrote in his Diary: “It is

simply impossible to conceive such national depravity as those miserable “Latins”

of Southeast Europe are displaying”.

Having spent six months in Hungary, General Bandholtz was impressed by the

Hungarians. Before his departure he concluded in his Diary:

“Personally I came here rather inclined to condone or extenuate much of the

Roumanian procedure, but their outrageous conduct in violation of all

international law, decency, and humane considerations, has made me become an

advocate of the Hungarian cause. Turning over portions of Hungary with its

civilized and refined population will be like turning over Texas and California to

the Mexicans. The great Powers of the Allies should hang their heads in shame for

what they allowed to take place in this country after an armistice.”

Major General Harry Hill Bandholtz: An Undiplomatic Diary

http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/bandh/bandh.pd...


louisa234 2 years ago

1100 years of hungarian history.......... for those who have forgotten.


Mayhem 2 years ago

This email is very similar, in manners of speech with the comment szatmari has been leaving here. First of all, much of his information provided (taking aside the wrong years) are incorrect.

He claims that there are no written and archeological evidences that showcase the daco-roman continuity in Transylvania which is completely wrong and based on the research of a political geographist of the 18th century, Robert Roesler. He was hired by the Habsburg crown, ordering him to come up with a theory to counterbalance the national conscience of the Romanian majority living in Transylvania.

First of all, Roesler's theory is based on 3 pillars. He claims that after Traian conquered Dacia, he exterminated the dacians. This fact has been proven to be wrong by Roman epigraphical sources and documents. After Traian died in 117, a huge dacian revolt took place which destroyed much of the cities built by the romans. Second, roman sources claim that dacian soldiers were present in Roman auxiliary troops stationed at the border. Those troops were called cohortes. Unlike the legions where only romans could enrol, the auxiliary troops consisted of all populations conquered by the romans.

Second, other roman sources (which can be seen even on some paintings and roman scuptures on buildings) suggest that Caracala, one of the last Roman Empires, bestowed a degree of citizenship on all populations living inside the Roman Empire. Such is the fact that you could find relics with a very peculiar inscription on them 'Cives Romanus Natus Dacus' (Roman Citizen Born Dacian).

The second pillar on which the imigrationist theory (Roesler's theory) is based on is that after the Aurelian Retreat in 271, the land was laid uninhabited. First of all, Roman documents state that only the legions and the administration have fled, not the population. Second, archeological sources discovered in the 19th and 20th century concluded that the cities of Apullum, Potaisa and Porolissum were never abandoned.

His 3rd pillar suggested that Romanians have migrated from the Balkan's. This one is once again shallow since he assumend that aromanians and megleno-romanians are the same thing with the romanians north of Danube. Sure, there are some similarities, but the main difference is that those populations inhabited the south of the Jirecek Line, thus being more influenced by the Greek language rather than the latin one.

Another huge blunder made by Roesler was that he ignored the Byzantine documents and chronicles (more specifically, the Ethnica written by Stephen of Byzantium) which clearly states that there was a latin speaking population north of Danube (4th century AC).

Then we have the german sources. In the Nibelungenlid, there is a protagonist called 'Ruman' (a latin guy, 6th century AC). In the german chronicles depicting Charlemagne's battles agasint the Avar Khaganate, it says that he fought to liberate a latin, christian population living East of Pannonia (9th century AC). What is even more relevant is that the country they wanted to liberate was called 'Rumanja'. Coincidence?

Then we have the Armenian chronicles that state the presence of a christian kingdom west of the Kingdom of Kiev (7th century AC). Then we have the writings of the arab voyagers that confirm the Armenian chronicles (9th - 10th century AC).

The archeologic sources confirm dacians survived after 271, not only in free tribes but in the same Dacia Felix, the main population was dacian. Constantine was called Dacicus, Carpicus, because he fought with the dacian free tribes.

At the same, in 396, Teodoletos of Chiro wrote about Serdica (Sofia today) it was a ''dakon ethnon'' - a dacic nation.

Then we have many epigrapfhic sources from III-IV-V centuries about people with double name (dacian-latin Decebalus Aurelius, Betranius Ulpius etc)

3 martyrs are named ''Philippos, Zoticos and Attalos''. A greek name and 2 thracic names, north of danube, 5th century.

But the one thing that demolishes any kind of theory is the fact that we retained the names of the ancient toponimes and hidronimes. If, like Roesler said, we migrated from the south of Danube to the north of danube why do we retain so many ancient names of cities or rivers? Who could've told them? The Hungarians? I doubt it. For example, Timisoara is a word play. Tames (moesic) with varad (magyar). Deva was actually called during the dacian times 'Dava' which means a city built on hills, or more precise, a castle. Vrancea and Buzau are both ancient Dacian names.

'Several competing theories have been proposed to explain the origin of modern Romanians. Linguistic and geo-historical analysis tend to indicate that Romanians coalesced as a major ethnic group both south and north of the Danube in the regions previously colonized by Romans.''

The cyrillic alphabet he mentioned was used only in church gatherings, not in official, secular documents. This is a huge fraud perpetrated by the Hungarian State propaganda against the Romanians.

"So the vote in Gyulafehervar (Alba Iulia) ...the great vote by Romanians was just a pretext...no Hungarians voted as the author of the article claimed. Their vote was in Kolozsvar, to remain with Hungary."

A part of the Hungarians did vote for unification. The majority though was made out of Romanians and Saxons. Thus, a majority of over 65% of the population wanted the unification.

Also, the statement of the US MP is unnatural. The MP says that the negotiation was in secret. It was indeed since from 1914 to 1916 we were negotiating with both the Central Powers and the Entente for entering the war. The Entente promised Transylvania so we entered the war on their side. The US entered the war in 1917, a year after the negotiations were completeted. That is why they considered it as a sort of diktat, which isn't. It is the international law that gave legitimacy to the future border changes in Europe. Thus 3 nations finally found justice, Serbia, Romania and Slovakia.

The most important issue though is that there is no discrimination against Hungarians is Romania as the Hungarian Government tries to imply. They all benefit from having their language taught in our school, the national television features hungarian subtitles, they have 3 universities in their own language, much of their cultural events are financed by the state, and 50% of the revenue alocated by the government does not come from their own districts.

On the contrary, since 1989, hundreds of Romanian families living in the so called Szekelyfold have been subject of discrimination. Many of them fled the region because of social marginalization, Romanians have no acces to public functions in that region because the hungarian administration imposed the knowledge of hungarian language (monopolizing the institutions with only hungarian people), even kids were threatened when they exposed the Romanian flag in schools on our national day.

The discrimination is not against hungarians, but it is against romanians. The former aggressor tries hardly to flip the tables. They pose as victims when they are the ones with the fangs all exposed.


Szatmary 3 years ago

What a bunch of misinformation and chauvinistic propaganda.

Anyone thats really interested in the history of Transylvania can easily find the answers in unbiased sources on the net.

First of all this hogwash about Romanians being descended from Dacians...

No written or architectural evidence bears witness to the presence of "proto-Romanians" the lands north of the Danube during the millennium after Rome's withdrawal from Dacia.

United States Library of Congress Research Division

Latin was the language of Hungarian kings, nobles, scholars and clergy when the Christian Kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000 AD.

It has nothing to do with the language of Romanians/vlachs, who had no written script until the late 1500s which was cyrillic.

Here are documents that have been preserved in archives...

Unius linguae uniusque moris regnum imbecille et fragile est)"

St. Stephen in a letter to his son St. Emeric (Imre), 1036 A.D..

"Make the strangers welcome in this land,

let them keep their languages and customs,

for weak and fragile is the realm which is based

on a single language or on a single set of customs."

Transylvania was first referred to in a Latin language document in 1075 as "Ultra silvam," meaning "beyond the forest."

In 1075 King Géza I of Hungary when endowing the Benedictine abbey of Garamszentbenedek Transylvania - Etymology - Encyclopedia II

The majority of place names in Transylvania were originally Roman and the Hungarian names are derived from Latin...Temesvar, Segesvar, Nagyavarad etc....the Romanian equivilents are just phonetic copies that have no meaning...(timisoara, sighisoara, oradea) Romanian "oaras" is a phonetic copy of Hungarian '"Var or Varos" which means castle or city....even the place of my birth Szatmar.....

The Hungarian name of the town Szatmár is believed to come from the personal name Zotmar, as the Gesta Hungarorum gives the name of the 10th-century fortified settlement at the site of today's Satu Mare as Castrum Zotmar. Until 1925, in Romanian, the name Sătmar was used, which is the Hungarian name transcribed to Romanian orthography. Since 1925, the name of the town in Romanian is officially Satu Mare, which is similar in pronunciation to the original name, and, by popular etymology, conveys meaning in Romanian, namely "great village".

Now as far as modern History goes....Romania signed a secret treaty, The Treaty of Bucharest in 1916 being promised Transylvania by the Entente in the event of their victory in WW1.

So the vote in Gyulafehervar (Alba Iulia) ...the great vote by Romanians was just a pretext...no Hungarians voted as the author of the article claimed. Their vote was in Kolozsvar, to remain with Hungary.

Trianon Diktat.....

They showed so little moderation in their attitude towards Hungary that more than a year before the signature of the treaty of Trianon, Lloyd George had been alarmed by the greediness of the vultures hovering over helpless Hungary.

Black Hand Over Europe by Henri Pozzi

Characteristic of the illustration of this procedure are the borders imposed on Hungary, which created today's still unsolved problems. This is all the more absurd when we see that the majority of the Hungarian minorities live on the border with their mother country. If only there had been a little more common sense and if only - for reasons of geographic ignorance - they had not been deceived by forged maps provided by such political tricksters as Eduard Benes, events would have evolved differently.

The American Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, abandoned the Trianon Conference, disgusted by what he saw. He wrote subsequently:* "Everybody seemed to talk in whispers and never to say anything worth while except in confidence. The open sessions of the Conference were arranged beforehand. They were formal and perfunctory. The agreements and bargains were made behind closed doors."

The Conference from which the treaty of Trianon resulted was a base comedy. The honest men who imagine that the plenipotentiaries weighed in anguish the pros and cons of the arguments and decided only with proofs in hand, are deluding themselves with childish illusions.

Henri Pozzi Black Hand Over Europe -

Rumanian versions of their history and ethnic origins have been written by politically motivated writers and are blatantly biased to the point of falsifying and inventing historical events.

Professor Michael Sozan


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 4 years ago from Canada Author

calin-klaus-- i think that the point is not names, which can be argued forever, but rather historical facts that this email is trying to give to people, not only that but they now have a website up giving these supposed historical facts.


calin-klaus 4 years ago

In the beginning of your post, you quoted a hungarian opinion, which was something like this"90 % of the Transilvania places have hungarian names (FALSE in fact) " which is a false sentence.Let me prove you: let's take the name of the BRAD city (a romanian name , NOT hungarian),which in english would be translated as "fir tree" and in hungarian it would be "fenyo" but surprise in hungarian they use also the ROMANIAN name "BRAD". Another example: CLUJ-NAPOCA city ,which is derrived from latin expression "clusium" meaning closed (city) because is surrounded by mountains, in hungarian his name is "kolosvar" read "koloj (coming from cluj) +var= "city" in hungarian language, has the ancient dacian name NAPOCA. Other example, the name of the rivers: CRIȘ in romanian language (the ancient name was CRISIUS) , in hungarian is "Koros", is not in romanian close to the ancient name ?(dacian and latter borrowed by romans ). Also river and county TIMIȘ (in hungarian Temes) is not closer in romanian than hungarian, to the ancient dacian name TIBISCUS? Or DAVA in dacian language meanig CITY, which romanian language preserved under the form of the city DEVA (hungarians says also Deva) ? Other fact: hungarians became so pattetic , they even transformed , NOT translated (!!!!) the city names of some cities from Moldova region (that it was not under their rulling like romanian Transilvania region was) : LUNCȘOARA in romanian (meaning Little meadow) , pattetically transformed in hungarian language (NOT translated) as Lunksora... :-))))....So hungarian are talking about forging history acusing romanians? UNBELIEVABLE !!!


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 4 years ago from Canada Author

150 years uhm matthew? are you certain that there was no one-- as in Transylvania an empty area? that I believe isn't factually correct.


Matthew 4 years ago

"So, Petra and Mr Happy, the truth is that Dacians was conquered andd killed by the Romans in A.D. 105-106. After Transylvania was ruled by gepidas, Huns, Avars, and Bolgars, and in 896 came the Hungarian people and settled in Transylvania, which was unpopulated that time. Int he sam period the Romanians lived on the Balcan , int he present-day Serbia and Bulgaria (you know that int he Romanina language has a lot of relative words with Albanina, because the Romanians lived next to Albanians.). The second Bulgarian Empire (from 1186) had a numerous Romanian/Vlach population.

In the 13th century the Romanians started to settle in Transylvanian mountains. At that time the Hungarians was the majority in centre of Transylvania (Campia Transilvaniei), and the East (Szeklers), and the Saxons ruled the southern part. Fort he Romanians were place only in Mountains (Bihor, Maramures, Hateg). 95 % of the names of Transylvanian vilagges, cities, rivers, hills is Hungarian. The Romanian names are only mirror-translations (e.g. Torda-Turda, Nagyvárad – Oradea, Segesvár – Sigisoara etc. etc.). The argument is that the Hungarian names mean s gin Hungarian, but the Romanin names does not mean anything in Romanian (what does it mean in Romanian: Oradea sau Sic sau Sigisoara? nothing, because the Romanians adopted these words from Hungarian language).

Because of the Turkish rule in Muntenia and in Moldova more and more Romanian peasent moved to prosperous Transylvania. But instead of this Transylvania had a Hungarian majority till the end of 17th century. In this period the Ottomans destroyed the centre of Translyvania (and the Hungarians who lived there) a lot of times. After destroying the regiopn became empty, and the Romanian shepherds had opportunity to move from the mountains to the plain of Transylvania.

It is true that from 1700-50 Transylvania has a Romanian majority (about 50-55 % Romanian, 30-35 % Hungarians, and Saxons), but the culture and the cities remained Hungarians till the WWII (second world war). 50 years ago, almost all Transylvanian cities had a Hungarian majority, but during Ceausescu Era hundred thousends of Romanians were moved to Hungarian cities: Cluj, Oradea etc. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradea#Ethnicity; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluj-Napoca#Demograph ).

So it the Romanians stoled Transylvnia after WW I, and now they are trying to stole and change history of Transylvania."

I'm totally agree with you. 150 years wasn't enough to create a new folk. I mean romans + dacians = romanians? 150 wasn't enough. Cumans came into Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century, and they were exist until 18th century. So... And btw, Transylvania was an empty area, with miners and with some legionarii. But NOT even with roman legionarii. They recruit legonarii from the original population. And one more point. Romanians came from Balkans. Cuz in Greece you can found Aromanians. They are speaking in romanian. So... In Dacia wasn't enough roman people to create the romanians. However with the Balkans.

And yeah. Sad true for the romanians but Transylvania is a Hungarian area. Hungarians did not came from Asia thats bullshit, formed by the Habsbrug Empire. Everybody discovered Hungarians were here in 15.000 BC. Really good proof the Bosnian Pyramids. They found 7.000 years old Székely-Magyar alphabet!!!! And the Pyramids older than the STONE HENGE! Another proof is Michelangelo Naddeo. So dear stupid romanians!!! Please accept the true, Transylvania is a hungarian are. And we aren't racist. Romania hate Székelys and Hungarians. Cuz WE HAVE GOT HISTORY. And your history was created in the 19th century! By some stupid romanians. Every archeologist scoff at your history! And all of the WORLD. Cuz this is a really good tale, but not a history.


jacqklin profile image

jacqklin 4 years ago from ITALY

Does anyone know the name Vlahovich? My great grandmother is either from Hungry, Romania or other.....I would like to know the origins...if possible. Thanks


Mircea 4 years ago

Vlach migration across Albania?...Where did you get that?...Transylvania might have a large Hungarian and German influence in old administrative buildings such as castles, palaces or imposing churches. Without the high concentration of Szekels (the old Avars who have nothing ethnically in common with Hungary) and a small region of Saxons around Sibiu and Brasov, all Transylvania is Romanian by origin, language and culture (which does not refer only to some minor influences and architecture).


annepalmer 4 years ago

Hi, I am from America my mom's dad was from Hungry or transelvania? sorry for the error if so. the name is Paul Szabo not sure when they came to america I don't know much more her name is Rita Szabo she live in Belmont, Mass and had 15 children and was married to A Ted Harmon her mom name crap I don't remember and know nothing more. I am from 15 children my mom and dad had and was married for about 50 plus years when she dies. I don't know when they came to america can anyone help me please.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 4 years ago from Canada Author

really? I've never heard of that hisotry-- mostly the Dacians and Romans-- after all if you look up about Tranjan there is even mention of Transylvania on some of the monuments there.

A very interesting take.


Hungarian Men 4 years ago

Its true about economy in Transylvania. I did visited Bucharest and saw the modern district is generally most from Transylvania economy to build up most part in Capital city.

Most likely more before the WW1 was more Hungarians and Germans cities in Transylvania. After 2 World Wars absolutely change living style due T give to Romania, so they can influence and people move in Transylvania. Can see most of Romanians are coming from "real" land in Romania. Can found mix Romanian and Hungarian into family generations (marriage). So Romanians able create culture and buildings into Transylvania.

I don't mind with them because look into history that show us there have massive wars happened in many centuries ex: Ottoman, Tatar, etc so they can build their tradition house or castle can found a lot in Eastern Europe. Myself raised up in Hungary also so can found very similar building purpose in Transylvania too. Made cleary that everything have mixed up all over.

Just one thing is Transylvania orginially belong to Kingdom of Hungary/ Monarchia of Austro and Hungary or before names called something -- Árpád Fejedelem -- so he created this land in before AD 900 who immirgation from Mongolia. They were first settle down in Transylvania then expand to west. There lots to say. Well all I can given. But if you do research from Árpád Fejedelem to Today will give you a lot to learn why there and those.. Its very hard...

Bottom line: Indepedence from Romania most likely not happened in future due many reasons. One biggest reason is most Ethnic people already emirgated to everywhere in world. Its hurt more for those people cannot make emirgate based/due economy lacks or Farm sector need upkeep. My relatives same this issues so they must stay there. Other 70% of my relatives did emirgated since 1979.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 4 years ago from Canada Author

Hungarian Men-- from what i understand Transylvania gives Romania 35% of Romania's GDP, so it's not a small sum. On the other hand many of the cities were predominantly Romania- for example some of the Northern cities were mostly Romanian in origin, however it is not as easy to go independent then the case might be since Transylvania has also had links to Hungary... A very interesting post.


Hungarian Men 4 years ago

Your post and other comments almost right and wrong. I try make simple post.

Transylvania have "Ethnic" issues in many centuries. All kind of Ethnic were make more problematic in Transylvania. Especially where most population live in city more caused ethnic problems.

Example: Find a job at post office or police must speak only Romanian in Judetul Mures and Cluj, maybe in Bihar too. Not sure other Judetul. So there not allowed use Hungarian on public sights and other stuffs on public.

So people more desperately try to understand each other, just went wrong is more people speak over Romanian. Whose people really rooted from Hungarian or German where I was live in the city.

Talking about indepedence from Romania. Its true but never reached stand up. Only under hood talking each other many "ethnic" people whose wish get own government and sort out all stupid issues be over and go forward own economy. Because Transylvania can do alone IF independent state from Romania. There problem is Romania cannot let them go because Economy SOURCE is from mainly Translyvania. If this real happpened would be damaged for Romania. Other note Translyvania would be next very higher wealthiest country in Europe and in World. Because they have massive resources and tourist sector.

Last thing, I emirgated to other country due ethnic issues in Transylvania. Now I glad we did right thing about leave Romania.


SZÉP NAGY MAGyarország 4 years ago

Majd az id? eldönti, hogy kiknek van igaza!

Erdély az Erdély! Felvidék az Felvidék! Újvidék az Újvidék!

Kárpátalja az Kárpátalja........

Együtt mind, azonban a Magyar Haza ellopott kincse!

Dáko-román elmélet_:)? Na ne:)


liviu 4 years ago

There will be always Romanian or Hungarian approaches about Transylvania and no others. Just because T stands as a stake only for those two countries. This third option of yours, Rebecca, is at a first sight, at least peculiar. We can speak about a German Transylvania only if we speak about an independent Transylvania, and I believe that this question has never posed, maybe just in the 1918 context, anyway without any chance of success. Transylvania is being an issue between Romania and Hungary. The German aspects are, unfortunately for you, just secondary aspects of an other main problem.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 4 years ago from Canada Author

liviu-- i am sorry I misunderstood-- I shall have to think about this for a while.

You raise a very interesting point about the Hungarians wanting people to leave. I in fact have a Saxon past, and find it interesting that it is more the Hungarian and Romanian point of view which comes out the most.


liviu 4 years ago

What I was trying to say is the fact that we can meet the purpose of this action if we quit posting views for the sake of being there and then. I read some comments and I have answers for them, counterarguments and what it seems to me as being explanations or right interpretation of data. The point is that everyone who claims something has to expect at replies and has to possess extra arguments. Otherwise, everything is pointless.

Starting with the very beginning, Hungarian theory insists on a total leaving of Transylvania by the Romans, I mean all of the inhabitants, 0 populace. It is absurd, nowhere, never this has happened. And this without any evidence. What is your opinion, Rebecca? I am curious what believes someone with Hungarian past and Romanian present.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 4 years ago from Canada Author

liviu-- there is that to take note of, I find that it is still a subject which interests people, and is something that can be politically charged. Excellent point


liviu 4 years ago

Even though I haven’t read all the comments, I notice that everyone has his approach related to his nationality: Romanian or Hungarian. I am Romanian but I can understand Hungarian when they claim Transylvania, in a certain way they are rightful to do so. But Romanian are, at least, the same right to claim T. So, what do we supposed to do? I believe that we have to remain as objective as we can when we try to sustain a viewpoint. First of all we have to resort to genuine documents and logical opinions. For instance, Hungarian claim that when they arrived in Pannonia and later in Transylvania, they found no one on such a large territory. Discussing honestly on each issue with arguments and contraarguments we will succeed in perceiving the truth.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

Spzerka-- while you've traised a good issue, I'll ask this of you: What you've noticed is an interesting point, what else did you find?


Sprzerka 5 years ago

Aristopolous. Please do not take it as disrespect, but how do you know that Hungarians use only Hungarians as source? This makes me smile. Lots of Hungarian names are completely unrecognisable for origin. You must be a language genius Greek, who researched a lot (and I honestly applaud you if you are), or just an other ‘under-cover Romanian’ trying to look someone else to prove a point.

Am I the only one who noticed that all the Romanian commenters are claiming to be university professors, PhDs, historians, or at least living somewhere in the world, where they have direct access to the ultimate truth? And has anyone actually noted how many commenters were blaming mysterious Hungarian conspiracy for trying to ‘hide some sort of proof from the world’? Am I the only one who see the massive contradictions between the desperate comments of ‘Hungarians should go back to Mongolia where they are from’ vs ‘Hungarians are just “Magyarized” Romanians and Germans’. Am I the only one laughing here? Why are you so obviously desperate? I let you answer this question yourself…


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

Aristoplous-- I never noticed that before, but now that you mention it-- I'll be taking a closer look. Maybe it is because of the Latin base with Romanian? as for sources, you are correct there are a lot of Hungarian sources and a lot of non-Hungarian sources.


Aristopolous 5 years ago

As greek,i must say the controversy seems of little importance to me,but one thing jumped in my eye reading the article and the comments: have you noticed that the romanians name lots of non-romanian historians as sources(german,italian,greek,etc.)while the hungarians name exclusively hungarian sources?


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

Sprzerka-- you have raised some good points, and it is true, for many years, it has been the number of epople who lived in Transylvania were Romanian in cultural origin. Hungarians camea close second.

Again a very interesting take.


Sprzerka 5 years ago

Can anyone ever hope to bridge the gap simply by explaining a point of view to the other side? Hardly. Romanians are convinced that they are absolutely correct, while the Hungarians are certain that almost the exact opposite is true. Let’s face it, the problem will stay there forever.

Nevertheless, a little food for thought.

Romanians assume that the Hungarians’ view of their own history is built on the same kind of system as theirs. i.e. they have been also brainwashed in the schools about their greatness, heroism, special place in the world, culture, and their superiority vs other people who they live with etc. etc. It may surprise you, but it is actually completely untrue. For nearly 50 years, during the communist era, Hungarians were denied to be even remotely proud of their history. During the ‘Pax Sovietica’ any sort of national pride was considered to be absolute evil in Hungary. The Russians knew that the Achilles' heel of the Eastern ‘peace camp’ was the Hungarian problem, i.e. that Hungary has territorial claims against three of its neighbours, who to keep their unpleasant neighbour in the bay, formed an anti-Hungarian military alliance before WWII. How to make this bunch to love each other under their paternal umbrella? They had to keep Hungary quite. But how? Answer: they had to systematically wipe out any sort of nationalism in Hungary. In schools kids did not learn much about greatness, but they were taught specifically highlighting the bad bits about their nation: that they have been weak, they were evil, they oppressed others, and they collaborated the Nazis etc. The great historic heroes were systematically ridiculed. All with one objective DO NOT BE PROUD TO BE HUNGARIAN! And Transylvania? What Transylvania? Oh, that’s ancient history. Let’s not speak about that.

And how effective was that? Just ask Transylvanian Hungarians, who travelled to Budapest in the late 1980’s. They were called Romanians, and people asked them where they learned to speak Hungarian so well. It was absolutely shocking. The communists manipulated the interpretation of the history just to serve the purpose of the Eastern Friendship. We were told to love each other with Russians, Romanians, Czechoslovakians etc. even more than our own selves. One thing even the communists could not do. To fabricate a whole new history. That would have been so obviously untrue. And that was the problem with the Daco-Roman legend. It was so obviously a fairytale, which was fabricated just to serve a nationalistic agenda, that they did not dare to touch it. I am sure that it was considered, as it would have been so convenient to use to shut the nationalists up with this once and for all, but they did not. So they just ignored it.

Some comments were accusing the Hungarians for manufacturing their(!) history to serve some sort of unclear agenda. I found that opinion really surprising. For good or bad, the Hungarian history has been actually pretty well (almost too well) documented throughout the last millennium, and for that reason it is quite difficult to find out new things about it, not to mention fortifying that.


Sprzerka 5 years ago

Very heavy subject, hard to answer in short.

Let me have a go with an 'executive summary':

- Transylvania belongs to Romania. Right or wrong? Right, becuse there are significantly more Romanians there, who probably prefer that to Hungary or to independence.

- Romanians rule lots of Hungarians in Transylvania against their will. Right or wrong? Wrong. Romania was too greedy after WW1, and run over large lands with absolute Hungarian majority, at the time when Hungary was pretty much defenseless. The land, which was taken from one country and then given to an other had little more than 50% Romanian population.

- Romania has historic and therefore moral rights to rule Transylvania. Well, that's really-really dodgy. There are massive holes in the 'logic', which is quite obvious, even if you read nothing else but merely this forum.

- Hungary has historic and moral rights to rule Transylvania. Well, that's dodgy too I guess. Despite the recorded history seems to be a little bit stronger to support the Hungarian version of the story, history actually did not stop hundreds of years ago, so it does not matter. It's actually happening even now.

What matters, is the will of the people living in a land.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

Julian's comments: You're right: Queen Mary was the one who had an English origin and managed to change Romania's direction from pro-Germany toward pro-England (even though his husband, king Ferdinand was german!) Carmen Sylva was a most remarcable romantic personality with a profound understanding of Romanian soul, she spoke fluently five languages and really loved the romanian tradition, folk and people, constantly dressing herself in wonderful traditional clothes - despised by the snobs as "peasant" (she was so compassionate and did so many charitable acts that romanians named her "mother of wounded"). Contrary to Queen Mary, she didn't mingle with politics and was even exiled for three years because she arranged the marriage of her friend Elena Vacarescu with prince Ferdinand (an innocent act that could have hard political consequences)


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

NagyT-- I shall look into it. I hope other will write hubs on Transylvania.


NagyT 5 years ago

brill idea. continue on my hub


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

NagyT-- very interesting, love to read the rest, will you be writing a hub on this one?


NagyT 5 years ago

dear Rebecca, if it`s simply to long, just read it for yourself. it might turn up your curiosity to investigate deeper. regards

Separating Myths and Facts

In the History of Transylvania-

The United Nations has been investigating the problem. The prestigious Reader`s Digest in its February 1989 issue has a compilation of articles from newspapers the world over that condemn the events in Rumania and Transylvania. The Rumanian dictator is the most despised

person in international politics next to Hitler and Stalin.

1. the rumanian bias: Following the Daco-Romanian theory, Hategan starts Rumanian history before 107 A.D.,

when the troops of Emperor Trajan?s Roman legions first occupied. Transylvnia, then part of Dacia.

Accordingly, Hategan claims that

?the inter-mingling and inter-marriage of the native Dacian population with the Roman

colonists gradually gave birth to a new nation, whose inhabitants were eventually called

Romanians . . . By the time Emperor Aurelian withdrew the Roman legions, the new

Romanian nation was already established.?

Hategan readily admits that this theory is not universally accepted: ?Though a few prejudiced

scholars have certain contrary theories, all serious and objective historians agree that there was a

continuity of the Romanized Dacia in the lands which is Romania today, and especially in the

province of Transylvania.? It is obvious, of course, that historians who disagree with Hategan are

?prejudiced?, and those who agree with him are ?serious and objective.?

The chief weakness of the Daco-Roman theory is that there is absolutely no evidence of the

?new Romanian nation? in any document, archaeological find or geographical name for over a

thousand years. There does not exist even indirect evidence suggesting that some ?unknown? tribe

of people would be hiding out in the Carpathian mountains for over a thousand years.

2.

Daco-Romanian Theory Refuted

This might sound as a plausible plot for some fiction, but as a historical explanation it

does not stand up. It has not only been discussed, analyzed, and refuted by several historians,

but a much more plausible theory has been proposed and documented.

A handy volume, ?Transylvania and the Theory of DacoRoman-Rumanian Continuity? has

been published by the Committee of Transylvania in 1980. It not only refutes the Daco-Roman

theory but includes an excellent bibliography. But perhaps the most telling and undisputable

evidence comes from Colin McEvedy, a ?historian?s historian,? who specializes in boundary changes

over time.

The map indicating territorial borders for the year 923 shows Transylvania as Hungarian

occupied area. According to the 998 map the Principality of Hungary, and on the 1028 map the

Kingdom of Hungary includes not only Transylvania but part of the area that later became known as

Wallachia.

On the other hand, the territory of Rumania proper, the Regat (including Wallachia and

Moldavia), since 923 changed hands several times, without ever mentioning the Rumanians. The

4

Wallachian region belonged to the Bulgarians first, later it came under Byzantine rule. Moldavia was

under Byzantine and even Russian rule, until both Mojdavia and Wallachia became occupied and

ruled by the Cumenians. Moldavia and Wallachia as separate principalities did not appear until

1360,with the following explanation in the footnote:

?The Latin-speaking Wallachians and Moldavians, inhabiting modern Rumania, are first

mentioned at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Their claim to be descendants of the Roman

colonists planted there in the second century A.D. seems tendentious and improbable, for the

Romans? withdrawal from Rumania (270 A.D.) and the appearance of the Vlach states are

separated by a millennium in which the country was the property of the Slav and nomad and which

is devoid of all evidence of Roman survival. Almost certainly, the Vlachs came from the Western

Balkans and only migrated into Rumania as the nomads abandoned it in the late thirteenth and

early fourteenth century.

3.the true romanian cradle

Since there is no archeological or historical evidence of their presence in the territory of

modern Rumania or Transylvnaia, the only basis of the Daco-Roman theory is that there are a considerable

number of Roman/Latin expressions in the Rumanian language.

But upon closer examination, the linguistic studies also fail to support the Daco-Roman

theory. Many Latin words in the modern Rumanian language are late acquisitions: to buttress the

Daco Roman theory, in the 19th century, there was a conscious effort to ?latinize? the Rumanian

language. As for the original Roman linguistic heritage in the Rumanian language it is traced to a

much later period than the 3rd century .A.D. by many linguists, including the noted Rumanian

linguist, Ovid Densusianu (1973-1938

This, along with the fact that a significant number of common Albanian-Rumanian words

exist, especially specific shepherd words3 suggesting contact with Albanians who are still in the

same region on the Western Balkan.

Thus, there seems to be an element of truth in the DacoRoman theory, but it should be more

properly called WallachRoman or Illyrian-Rumanian theory.

Stadtmuller?s date of 1200 A.D. as the

beginning and McEvedy?s date as the conclusion of the Wallachian migration, when the

Wallachians show up in large mass on the Eastern Balkan.

the ?Rumanishe? wandered into Transylvania along the Orsova

Narrows, and into the Southern Danube region from around Northern Albania, i.e. the Albanian

Alps.

This new, more probable theory, while

putting the cultural continuity with the Romans on a much firmer ground, would, of course, mean

changing the place and the date of the origin of the Rumanian nation by well over a thousand years.

According to this theory the Wallachians came to the Transylvanian region long after the Hungarian

settlement, thus the territorial claim based on the falsely asserted historical connection between

Dacia and Rumania is false.

It is pure coincidence that some Balkan shepherds whose language included Latin words

ended up in an area where about one thousand years earlier Roman troops happened to be stationed.

But there is absolutely no historical connection between the two events.

4.Transylvania a Hungarian Province

Since the Hungarians have settled in Transylvania, (McEvedy?s map indicating the borders in

923 does include Transylvania with the Hungarian Principality; the traditional date of the

Hungarians entry into and occupation of the Carpathian basin in 896) it was an organic part of the

Hungarian Principality, and after 1001 of the Kingdom of Hungary, politically, culturally, and

economically until the Turkish occupation. Following the Battle of Mohacs in 1526, when the

Hungarian troops suffered a decisive defeat from the Turks, McEvedys map of 1559 shows

Transylvania as an independent Principality under Turkish rule.

in Transylvania,Hungarian was the traditional language and culture, and even the uncultured Vlachs, instead of

being assimilated or oppressed, received their first Bible translations from the Hungarian.

""the very first Wallach book printed with Latin alphabet was George Szegedy?s

translation of Psalms from Hungarian: it was edited by the Hungarian printing shop of Gaspar

Heltal in 1570 A.D. The same printing shop came out with the Calvinist catechism in Wallach

language, translated from Hungarian. The first Wallach translation of the New Testament, by

order of Duke Rakoczi, was published (in Transylvania) 40 years before the first Bibletranslation

in Wallachia on the Balkan"

After the liberation from the Turks (1699) Transylvania culturally and economically returned to

Hungary, although for political reasons, it was governed from Vienna as a Great Principality by the

Hapsburgs in their capacity as Hungarian Kings until 1876, when it was legally reunited with

Hungary. McEvedy?s 1848 map of population includes the territory of Transylvania with Hungary,

while the 1849 map shows it as part of the Republic of Hungary.

It is interesting to note that the


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

NagyT-- I am sorry but your comment was simply too long and I am not even sure of the point. You are welcome to add a cooment, however adding an entire hisotrical document is not needed. I am certain that Mos will have read about the commentary Auriel said about Transylvania... but what does it have to do with this hub? This will do nothing but make other angry and provoke conflict.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

Janos-- thanks for the comment.


Janos Ioan 5 years ago

Thank u Rebecca E. for you're hub

'ONE WORLD ONE GOD ONE FUTURE'


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

I don't want to pick sides, everyone is allowed a point of view... a disscussion is welcome!


@rebecca E. 5 years ago

i'm sure you're not picking sides


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

anon-- I am sure you have your views on this and will not change them.


@atilla 5 years ago

every single map or reference to these rivers(a sample of what you're asking for) shows these names, be it roman map, dacian references, romanian, hungarian, german, or whatever, since the beginning of recorded history... I'm sure it wasn't the ghosts of the dacians who told the hungarians/pecenegs/avars/etc what these places are named... Oh, i've got one even better : Pannonian plane !!!


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

anon-- the names are probably still in use by the culture that used them, for example I know Brasov as Kronstadt-- and will use both dependatnt upon whom I am with, if I am with Saxons more often than not I refer to the ciyt as the latter, but with most of my friends it is Brasov.


@atilla 5 years ago

Dacia’s main rivers – Maris, Samus, Crisia, and Alutus are today named Mures, Somes, Cris and Olt.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

question-- from my understanding the magyars are from Hungary, if that is the case, then you would need to say that you will need to look westward, as for the gypsies, are you referring to roma? The saxons, my family, referred to them as roma, but also some of the romanian and hungarians (and also other Germans) were referred differently by the saxons, for some would also refer to Hungarians as skekeylies ( I am misspelling it) and they were Hungarians whow had many ties to Transylvania, and fewer to Hungary, and fewer still to Romania.

As for leaving a mark, where did you look for your info? As far as I understand on that front, a migrartory tribe often does not leaving long lasting "marks"


question 5 years ago

The gipsies are a tribe that migrated from Northern India into Europe without leaving a trace on the way.Coincidently or not, the magyars never left any trace on their way to Europe as well. although their "ancestors" left tons of traces in Asia and the Caucasus. Every other migratory tribe left a mark wherever they passed. I tried for a long time to find a different explanation, but the only logical explanation is that they are THE SAME TRIBE !


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

hey attilia-- hate to break it to you, but so do you. Most romanians whom I know have said for the most part they have a lot of different ancestors. The fact remains that you have added nothing to this discussion.

As for fightting to change the hisotry so does Romania, and Germany, and Austria, and just about every other country... so really it is a matter of hisotry and dates and not people... since it seems that even romanians have a 95% chance of being not romanian. =)


hey atilla 5 years ago

you have 95% chances of being something other than hungarian. I propose that every hungarian speaker study their genealogic tree and adopt the culture and language of their ancestors. That way Hungary will dissapear off the map in 100 years since 95% of them are in fact magyarized romnians, slovaks, germans, serbs, etc... This is why the Hungarian state fights so much to change their history the way it suits them, because if people knew who they are, this fake state would dissapear. They've been trying to change history for half a millenia and are still at it ... Pathetic


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

attilia-- I won't comment about cities outside of Transylvania, mostly because I am not certain about them. There are many problems that this area faces, and unfortunately to make it right, a lot of people will need to break the mentality of "us vs them" since both Hungary and Romanai have both so much potential.


attila 5 years ago

Yes indeed, but I was talking about cities outside of Transilvania. Those are indeed Romanians, but with the cities in Transilvania it's a different story, they have nothing to do with their own language, they are ortodoxes, and have been writing in latin language for a couple of hundred years, but still they say they are the children of catholic Latins.

Anyhow what's done it's done and sadly it's mostly the Hungarians fault the situation is like this: they left everyone into Transilvania for a thousand years and now we had to pay the price. We took part in both World Wars and sadly on the "wrong" side, unlike romanians who waited for the best opportunity to enter the war.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 5 years ago from Canada Author

attila-- that could be, but for the most part, many of my friends -- who are Romanian have said some of the Romanian titles for a city were in fact based upon a Roman/Latinized name, which the Romanians would dirive into their own version.

In a sense it is the same with any of the city names almost anywhere. it may not be Saxon (as in my ancestors village!) but it was certainly "german" sounding enough to be okay for them.


attila 5 years ago

Regarding a post by Alexandru Poenaru about Romanian village names that mean nothing in Romanian because the olah people have a rich imagination: some of them have logical deductions while the others actually mean nothing, because they are NOT Romanian!

Craiova - Craiove?ti family, Crai also meaning King in Romanian language;

Bucuresti - derived from Bucur, a Romanian name;

Also you can check Buzau, Iasi or any other name, Romanians don't have a high imagination, they are all derived names from different meanings in different languages. It's a shame that a so called Romanian can write posts here and really doesn't know he's own history and language...


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Em-- as i've said I suspect we are all proud of our heritage and yes I think it is a more European thing or even non-North American thing to be more nationalistic.

the email is in fact real I received it from a reader of my blog Things about Transylvania.


Em 6 years ago

The letter seems very authentic. )I grew up in Transilvania and moved to the US only a coupld of years ago.) Unfortunately - due to centuries of wars - there is a lot of hatred and extremism going on between Romanians and Hungarians in Transilvania and the above letter reads like an extremist hungarian one (I am not a Hungarian too so I am not being a hater here).

The one thing that people (Americans) need to understand is that the concept of acceptance and let's all just embrace each other's culture is NOT something European nationals aspire to. We are all very proud Hungarians / Romanians / Germans etc. and we do not appreciate people trying to change that.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

moblie entrepeneur-- I like your points, and one which places side by side without much of a basis (and we all have them!) this is good food for thought. I think the email is do a disservice to all the cultures of Transylvania.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Radu-- I have both heard about and read some of these people's writings, In particular Roth's writings which I was able to read while in Germany... I also suspect that unbaised will be hard on all sides, (not only hungarian or Romanian, but Saxon as well, along with many others) which is why we have to think of Transylvania in terms of historical facts.


Radu 6 years ago

I'm not talking about books... Most history books are written hundreds of years after the event... I'm talking about the contemporary official documents and neutral accounts locked away mostly in Budapest and the Vatican... An unbiased study of true historic accounts would forever bury hungarian irredentism with respect to Transilvania... The only problem is that one side of the debate refuses to wake up to the 21st century realities...

Some names for you to check :

Abdolonyme Ubicini

Antonio Veranzio

Carl F. Marienburg

Etienne Györffy

Miron Costin

Kohn Abrest

?tefan Ludwig Roth

Huszti Andras

R. Haquet

Count von Marenches

Dr. Julius Jung

André Armad

Milton G. Leher

Antonio Veranzio

Enrico Grace

Simion Péter

You will never find any statements made by these eye-witnesses of transylvanian history in any hungarian historical (or should I say, histerical) books so don't be surprised that you get that kind of emails...

P.S.

1) most of the posters before me(romanian and hungarian alike) are widely off the mark,

2) schwabs in transylvania were not angels either so before reading about any of the people I mentioned above make sure you give up any pride you might have for your origins, and

3) I hold a PhD in European History and teach in Rome.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Radu-- some points to consider, and I am in full agreement with learning from books, and compariing them to the online articles.

As for the quotes i have read them before, and the Saxons of Transylvania are starting to say that they have long romanticized their history.


Radu 6 years ago

and people, please stop studying history on youtube and wikipedia. A cat accidentally stepping on a keyboard can upload information on there...


Radu 6 years ago

.........from Sinca Veche (today’s Fagaras), spoken on his deathbed : "I die happy because I don’t leave a wife and kids behind me in slavery."

sorry for the typos


Radu 6 years ago

There are ~ 1.5 million hungarian speakers in Transylvany, of which:

~ 300.000 magyarized romanians

~ 600.000 magyarized szekelys

~ 200.000 magyarized gypsies

~ 400.000 magyars

The sad thing is that the person sending that email has more than 75% chances of having other ethnic origins than he thinks. To understand how this is possible, you have to look at what neutral medieval travellers in Transylvania said about its social structure (see bellow), you have to pay a visit to old cemeteries and check the magyarized names on the tomb stones, you have to consider the fact that a large part of transylvanian villages are first mentioned in the 11th and 12th centuries because of decrees by hungarian kings confiscating their land, and most important, you have to be a rational person.

The social structure of medieval Transylvania was as follows:

- first among the equals: the arian nation of the magyars

- second, the germans, because of their work ethics and non-rebelious nature

- third, the szekelys, as long as they gave up their language and traditions and did not challenge the leadership

- fourth, the gypsies, as long as they satyed out of the arian nation's sight

The romanians were not considered human.

This is what the german geologist R. Haquet said about the romanian treatment he witnessed in the years(1763-1764) spent in Transylvania :

"

This neglected and opressed nation owns the least fertile lands in the country. These lands are taken away from them as soon as they are deforested by them with sweat and ready to be seeded with corn. Every german or Hungarian can use the romanian’s land as they wish or can become its owner even if the latter was the rightful owner for hundreds of years. The Romanian is chased away with his whole family in the mountains where he only finds rock, and is sometimes forced to leave the country.

If a Romanian settlement sits next to a german or Hungarian village, the Romanian is not allowed to get closer to these privileged nation’s villages than a gipsy. No one offers him a kind word and he can never have a holly day. I will never forget the words of a lone old man of the Romanian nation, from Sinca Veche (today’s Fagaras), spoken on his death bed :

While living among them I had the opportunity to find out that the Romanian is kind. How his heart was lightened when he was treated like a brother… No matter how rough these people were, I could witness, during the years I spent among them, treats that could not have been shameful for the most civilised man. How much suffering the hate and indifference brought to this once great and flourishing nation…

"

P.S. You’re probably trying to assess the Romanian transilvanian’s attitude towards ethninc Hungarians. Well, I am sorry to disappoint you but there are no animosities between us and the proportion of extremists on both sides is much less than one might think. Only that they are as expected, much louder. And to answer your true question, there will not be any kind of autonomy for the magyarized szeklers in the medium term. Not only that their leaders are systematically offending the Romanian state symbols at every opportunity they get and practising ethnic cleansing in the area, but there are also keeping the region poor and refusing foreign investment because they’re afraid of ‘damaging the ethnic balance’. Such mentality belongs in the dark ages and as long as the szeklers let a bunch of extremists rule them there will be no chance of autonomy in the area.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

ciprian-- my thoughts exactly, and texas is one I never really thought of but great anaology.


ciprian 6 years ago

The same way the history of Texas is related to the history of Mexico and USA, the history of Transylvania is related to the history of Hungary and Romania.

That email referenced above contains false informations and data probably used for political and nationalist purposes. It doesn't make too much justice to the people of Transylvania as it promotes hatred between Transylvanian (mainly Romanian and Hungary) people.

A way better source of information about Transylvania is the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania

Romania and Hungary belong both to EU now and there will be no real border between these 2 countries starting some time next year. Within this context, the apparent ethnic conflicts will be pushed to irrelevance.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Alexandru-- from what I understand, and I refer to one of my romanian friends, you did have school and Romanian orthodox churches in Transylvan while it was a part of both Hungary and than the Autro-Hungarian Emrpire- simply because there were a great dealt of unest in the area, so they didn't want a rebellion on their hands, as in 1848.

The mina feature was that the school sna dchurches were taxed at higher rates, and also romania itself was not a country untilt eh late 1800, under the rule of Prince Carol (later King Carol I) so there is something to be said about Transylvaniam culture.


Alexandru Poenaru 6 years ago

To Toronto1990, Romania is the sovereign state of Transilvania so even if you like it or not in this country you need to speak the official language. If romanians are so bad why you even have hungarian schools/churchs ? We do not want to erase you and your culture from the history of this land.

Note: in the time of the hungarian domination of Transilvania most of the Romanian schools and churches were forbidden.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Toronto-- yes I've nto been back but alot of what was my family's is now owned by others, although they were gracious enough to let fmaily members who did go back inside the house. I suspect they feel the same as you only in reverse.


Toronto1990 6 years ago

i was born in 1990 in transilvania i lived there for 15 years and moved to toronto my grandparents parents they were all hungarianhs and after romanians got transilvania our family had to become romanian citizens .Myself i never speaked romanian i only speak hungarian and romanian went to hungarian school hungarian church maybe they took our land and they try to contolss uss but in our heart were hungarians and im proud that our people still try their best to get back out land our school that romanians took away ! God help us


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Alexandru-- a very interesting point of view, i can see where you are coming from, one thing trasylvania was a part of Hungary during the Ottoman invasions, so I think that is why it wasn't under that sort fo rule, but it was used as passage in effort to get to Austria and the rest of Europe.


Alexandru Poenaru 6 years ago

I suggest another point of view, one more "viewable".

I'm almost 21 years old, and i am from Romania. Since 2007 I've traveled across Europe (France, UK, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Turkey and Bulgaria. At my age my eyes locks on women (even if i want or not, it's something naturally, damn hormones). My point is, I've never seen more beautiful women like in Romania anywhere else (in this Countries) and you can search the web(forums, youtube, even dating sites), even try to visit. OK, I've seen beautiful woman in Paris, London, Budapest, but there are a few, in Romania wherever you look you see a head-turning girl.

Hope you understand my point of view

Another topic is the debate on the Romanian names of the cites in Transylvania, they say they are meaningless. Please tell me what my town's name "Buzau" means in Romanian, or "Craiova", or "Iasi", or even our capital city name "Bucharest". Let me tell you NOTHING. Romanians have a very good imagination and they are very creative.

We can make something from nothing.

And another comment is on the fact that romanian countries only paid tribute to the Turks,so they were almost free.Ottomans invaded Hungary from Serbia, not from the Romanians countries. And let's not forget that Transylvania was never under ottoman power and the rest of the Hungary was, and that make me think...WHY ?

Sorry for my English.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

UnRoman-- an interesting point of view, well said at the end.


Un Roman 6 years ago

My dear so-called huns, hungarians or magyars friends,

run a genetic analysis please. You'll discover that you have romanian genes or germanic genes (genotypes A1 or A2). Your genetic resemblings with your asian ancestors are not into your genes. A recent genetic study shows that 0.5% of people from Hungary have hun or magyar (asian) genes. So... who are you???

I think you are my brothers and sisters!


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

iulian-- I'll have to read these poems in romanian, my understanding of the laguage being slight but enough to get by.

Yes Oberth was a fancinating man, and it is a pity more people don't know about people (saxon, jewish, romanian, and hungarian) who made Transylvania the wonderful place it is... hm, maybe I should write a hub one that!


iulian 6 years ago

well, I don't know German, and in my opinion to read a translation of her poems wouldn't be a good choice (I think that, essentially, poetry is untranslatable and generally even a good translation means a heavy loss for a poem). But I'll try to read her memories when I'll have some time, she was a valuable reviewer, critic and observer of romanian tradition, society and culture... I also have to admit I was never very good at reading poetry, I must shamefully confess I only read some poems of Eminescu (but he would pardon me as during his lifetime there was published a single volume of his poems and even that without his consent!) Personally, my favourite poets are Toparceanu and Minulescu (both of them, together with Eminescu, have poems that became lyrics for some of Romania's musical gems - if you like rock or folk music I can send you some samples)

By the way, Eminescu was very strict, even with his own works, and when he was asked by the queen (Carmen Sylva) to give his opinion about some of her poems, he bluntly remarked: "They can not be published in this form..." (because of their rudimentary) and Carmen Sylva - who had been used to be flattered by romanian artists and all her circle (there are always profiteers around a sponsor, especially if she's a royal person!) - replied: "You forgot that you're talking with your Queen!" ... and Eminescu shortly remarked: "Yes, I'm talking with the Queen of Romania, but not with the queen of poetry!"

Well, being the king of poetry, Eminescu was entirely qualified to make such remarks, but for sure his main reason was the respect and friendship for the queen in not allowing her to publish something with gross imperfections, that could only harm her prestige and literary reputation.

I have a lot of consideration for many remarcable Saxon personalities from Transylvania, I met some of them personally (Carl Lehman, Walter Gutt) or by my circle of friends who talked with them (Hermann Oberth), by some common actions and mutual interests (Alfred Prox, Julius Bielz, J. Martin Honigberger) or simply by reading about them (Stephan Ludwig Roth). Most of them are of world status and deserve a much greater fame and reverence than the one they enjoy today. By the way, Stephan Ludwig Roth was the most brave to express and support the romanian's national and religious rights in Transylvania, and was executed by the hungarian administration ( I guess you don't know romanian, so the following american link would be very useful to find details about Roth: www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/roth.htm )

In my opinion, Hermann Oberth was by far the greatest saxon of Transylvania, not only by his genius (among others, he is the father of spaceflight) but also for his character. He was a real sage and a man of peace, he choosed to not disclose some discoveries that could make him greater than Oppenheimer or Einstein, because he knew that their military application would put an end to our human race. He was much respected even by the soviets; after WW2 he was taken to Russia and asked for help in some difficulties they had with rocket technology, afterwards he was freed and later asked by the americans to get them out of the technical obstacles that had blocked their space program. Werner von Braun, his best student and director of the american flight to the Moon, used to say: "Professor Oberth was constantly twenty years ahead us" (while they tried to solve the problem of going to the Moon, Hermann had already found solutions for the ion propeller, that even today is not yet made). He never forgot where he came from, and after retirement he visited his native region (Sighisoara and Rupea), asking about his childhood friends and acquaintance. Indeed, he was a Herr-man and an Ober-th, even his name speaks about the greatness of his soul. By his studies he was a physician, and even without practicing this noble art, he was by his soul a healer and a true sage, always looking to the skies but humble, warm-hearted and never complaining or asking anything for him (even when he was near dying of hunger in Germany after WW2). We could learn so much from him...

It's sad we are so passionate about the wrong deeds of the past or so narrow-minded in our nationalism that instead of trying to enrich our spirit by learning from our neighbour nations their qualities and culture, or try to find more about their valuable personalities, we mostly look in their garbage bags, to show their sins, shortcomings and vices as these make us feel a bit better than we really are. Even I can blame myself for being too harsh or maybe superficial on Attila by naming him a brute (as the Huns were generally perceived at their arrival in Europe), maybe his warrior spirit was much too exagerated in mass-media... in fact, it's only a speculation that he killed his brother (to become sole ruler of huns) and indeed, what we know is that at his time the huns had already mixed with the "german" tribes (ostrogoths, heruls, gepides, etc) and adopted their language and a lot of their customs - even Attila could have a german or byzantine noble mother, as it seems the huns hadn't come to Europe with (many) womens. Some historical facts prove that even if we can't say anything about Attila's religious faith (he had been exposed to christianity, and if he was been given the ring by Honoria plus the fact that he was accepted in the Roman Empire as militia leader, he was ready to be baptised to make possible such a marriage, and at least respected the christian faith... we also know he decided to end the attacks on Troyes and Rome after meeting local bishop, respectively pope Leo) but he proved diplomacy, cleverness, forgiveness and magnanimity in critical instances, so he was much respected not only by his fellow "germanic" allies but even by his ennemies. Of course, this doesn't excuse his greed (after being given Panonia, he dared to ask Gallia, the best roman province, as dowry for marrying Honoria) and brutality (he completely razed Aquileia - leaving no trace of it behind, destroyed Metz - where the bishop was killed in the church, etc) but even in his case we should learn from his goodwill (where he showed it) and forget about his obvious sins and faults (especially megalomany, so absurd was his idea of replacing the Roman Empire with a barbarian federation ruled by the huns, with Attila and his succesors as emperors!) Even the gothic kings (Alaric and his brother) that conquered Rome understood the fact that germanic tribes could not replace the gigantic greek-roman culture and the empire to make a barbarian empire instead, so they decided to keep the Roman dinasty and the romanity as a "lesser evil" (if not a good think) - a vision that Hitler didn't fully agree, with the results we all know.

Finally, just for enjoyment, I'll take an excellent English fragment of (one of) the best poems of Eminescu (though its perfection can only be tasted in Romanian, as it has some very subtle alliteration on "m" and a return of strophes from the end to the beginning), with the most philosophically and spiritual profound message that you could find in romantic poetry:

Glossa

Time goes by, time comes along,

All is old and all is new;

What is right and what is wrong,

You must think and ask of you;

Have no hope and have no fear,

Waves that rise can never hold;

If they urge or if they cheer,

You remain aloof and cold.

To our sight a lot will glisten,

Many sounds will reach our ear;

Who could take the time to listen

And remember all we hear?

Keep aside from all that patter,

Seek yourself, far from the throng

When with loud and idle clatter

Time goes by, time comes along. (....)


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

julian-- I'll check ou these sites, I have found that both sides are passionate about what is history... but I will look at these sites. Have you read any carmen sylva?


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Julian-- an other good point, however King Carol I wife was Elizabeth or carmen slyva her pen name-- an she wa a German princess, their nephew Ferdinand, was married to Queen Marie of Romania, who was the randdaughter of Queen Victoria.

As for the peasent revolt, I can say i have not seen records of that being mntioned, but a quick look at Europe between 1905 to 1908 finds: Russia, Greece, Romania, and Spain facing forms of revolt, also there was revls in Austr-Hungary in 1908 so it was widespread


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

MT-- very interesting points, but one thing I have learned, everyone has their views, perhaps because of the land and the movement between the countries...


MT (Szász Előd) 6 years ago

my family name Szász means Saxon...so it is 100% that i have saxon blood in my venes but i`m hungarian, more exactly secler, and we have a lot of ammunition to say that we have been here first, not romanians.. this would be indifferent for me who came first here to Transylvania, but romanians angers me when they say for me their lyings and their made up hystori...the daco-romanian hystori is just a theory, but in hystori books in schools and everywhere now it is written as the true history of romanians...


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

bswan-- this area has been a part of a rather large debate for many years, Recently I have read a history of Empress Elizabeth of Austria and her views on Hungary... very informative on her views on Hungary and the area of Transylvania


bswan 6 years ago

Interesting comments..............for those who think Dacia is Romanian..........well I have news for you...Dacia was the translation of Koros which is hungarian and who were hungarians that lived there for 5000years before the magyars, avars etc arrived. I am an Australian, studied european history, in particular hungarian history. After extensive studie I can feel for the hungarians who have had their land stolen (Treaty of Trianon was in fact a fraud) from them by Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, Ukraine, Austria and Slovenia. I hope the Hungarians get back their land because legally it belongs to them.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

skekely-- interesting fact and figures, but it is about the people and of course the dates, i think that living in harmony takes work, and as a saxon, I think there are some great things about Trasylvania... this is a great area.


skekely bogdan 6 years ago

Salut, i am 50% romanian, 50% maghiar( hun, hungarian, etc).

Right now i live in Romania from 2004. In 1987 my family came in Hungary, and went back to Romania in 2004.

Transilvania was always been inhabited by people, gepizi, dacs,romans,slavs,huns(there are the newest people) etc.

Roman Empire comquer only 1/5 of Dacia, a part of this people move to S Danube, ALbania, Macedonia, Greek.

Romanians didn't came to Romania from S Danube, Romania inhabited both N and S Danube from ancient times, Carpathian, Moldova.

History is distorsioned both from Romania and Hungary, each have their arguments.

But to say that Transylvania was not inhabited when Huns arrived there is outrageous.

What was romanians? Animals? To say that huns didn't find any population at all?....:D

I like both Romania and Hungary. I admited, Romania is ancient european country, Hungaria are a newer nation in Europe.

I think that Hungary managed a lot, think about it, a hun tribes came in Europe, and now is like 100.000km2 and 10 milions people.

Hungarian nation is a combination of german and hun, a part of population look just like germans, other just like romanians.

In Romania, maghiars live in armony with romanians, if i ask an maghiar about Greater Hungary Empire, or autonomy, nobody support this, except extremists.

Romania have romanians extremist that want russian people to die, maghiar, etc, and also Hungary has extremists that want romanians die.

Transylvania was a hungarian colony for few houndred years, but full of romanians.This is facts, archives full of german cronicles, italian, britanics, french.

In Trianon France support Romania with Transylvania because this is the true, Transylvania is romanian ancient land, conquered by huns.

Parts of my family are " sas", other think are germans, svab, etc.

Hungary was bringing germans,jews,pols, gipsy in Transilvania, give them land.

Thank you for that.

I went back to Romania because my family was having some big difficulties in Hungary, because i am half romanians, and i do know little about hungarian language.

All my collegues laugh at me all the ime, moch at me because im romanian in their knowledge.

We all lived in Budapest.

In 2002 romanian state give us our land back confiscated by comunists and went back to Romania, i find out a great nation in 2004, but with a lot of problems regarding hungarians extremists....this is sad...

Romanians think at me as hungarian, and Hungarians think as me as romanian.....

I have a romanian girl right now, i do not have problems with she regarding my nationality.

But she laugh at me all the time because i like green color:D.

I like both countries so much, hungarians have great culture, beatifull female, as well romanians.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Dominique-- that is an interesting point of view about the Hapsburgs, but of course it was also the time, I'd argue that for every empire and every kingdom at that time. Still you are inddedd corrrect about the people of Romania, there were a lot of Romanians who lived in the area, my family can recall that as well.


Dominique 6 years ago

Quite evidently, the consequinces of Imeperialism are everywhere Imperialism planted the seeds of hate;including those seeds of the hungry Habsburgs. As we know, Imperialists, in order to benefit themselves, everywhere they occupied land and netions, first thing they've done was to destroy all documents, followed by the pride of the occupied people through destroying their language, cultures and even pushed them to change their names as it has happened in occupied Transylvania. Personally, I've met many people of Transylvania who had/has hungarians names and they had no knowledge of a word of the hungarian language. And let's be honest, the Hungarians of Romania always had TV. Newspapers,Theaters, Universities in their language. I wish the Romanians of today, will be treated by the Hungarians with the same respect as the Romanians have for ever. One more thing. All Romanians in Romania proper, including (occupied) Moldova, Banat, and all suroundings of Romania, count for about 35-40 millions. Transylvania alone has more Romanians than all Hungarians of Hungary. Question: Were these 40 million Romanian born Yesterday? Where do they come from if they were decimated by the barbarians? People, understand the fact that Imperialists always desmembered and occupied and vice versa, leaving behind hate, poverty,so they can continue to prosper. I hope the Hungarians will understand that their former master _The Habsburgs, lost to the Bourbons,and to the Americans, and the only way to prosper is not a continuation of hate for the slaves that finally have gotten their land back; Romanians,Slovaks,Serbs, and yes The Spaniards. Do not forget that "Carlos Quinto" was hiding under this name, but he was a Habsburg who controlled half of Soth America. "Maybe the Habsburgs ahould try to get back South America too, since they are in mood of a revanche; and why not Spain and the other former colonies?


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Zoltan-- My family were Saxons from the North, so closer to Bistritz ( or Bistritsa-- sorry if I am misspelling this!) so a lot of what went on in the Southern areas were quite a bit different than in the North.

In fact I will refer to Transylvania as Siebenburgen more often than not, simply because to me Siebenburgen means seven castles ( roughly of course...) but that is what the German referred to the area as. This is of course more of a fansination about dates and hisotry to me, in terms of what each culture has to say.

I will however say that incorrect dates, such as the one given in these emails, do not help with anything, except more difference of views.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Zoltan-- interesting post, a lot of valuable information here, I am not up on laguages but I have looked through the website you have listed. Again I think it is cultures that people are talking about. Still this does give me some better historical inisights, which we can all use.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

adi-- some excellent points which add to this topic, thanks for them. Some cities which are "considered" a part of Transylvania are in fact a part of the Banat or other smaller areas ont eh outside of Transylvania.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Flo-- yes the Saxons from Southern Transylvania did, but the ones who lived in the North Bistritsa did not. this was simply because they sent a delegation of learned individuals who came from the Southern Cities-- Cluj and Brasov.


adi 6 years ago

ps: sorry for the multiple typos and such. i wrote in a hurry.


adi 6 years ago

3. transylvania is the cradle of romanian culture, it is not a myth. the region of dacia (now transylvania) was the dacian heartland, it as the most heavily romanized as such it had the most romanians. both wallachia and moldavia were formed by romanians fleeing from transylvania. if romanians would have migrated from the balakans the balkans moldavia and wallachia would have been formed before the romanians reached transylvania.

regarding you question it is like saying that the french came from across the pyrenees because spain is also inhabited by romance speakers.

the proto-romanians formed on both sides of the danube. the aromanians and macedoromanians are the descendants of the latinized thracians while the romanians are the descendants of the latinized dacians. the dacians and thracians where the same language.

when the slavs migrated to the balkans they cut the eastern romance speakers in 2 parths, the north romance speakers (romanians, panonians) and the south romance speakers (aromanians, macedoromanians, dalmantians, etc. that is why you have romanian related nations south of the danube.

4. here you make a terrible mistake. romania as a whole belongs to central-europe both geographically and historically.

but please explain why i as a "transylvanian" (both me and my entire extended family live in or near oradea so i'm as transylvanian as you can get) belong to central europe and my friend in suceava does not.


adi 6 years ago

this a reply to what flo said

1. there is plenty of written evidence. the only problem is hungarian historians seem to ignore it altogether.

here is just a quick run down on all the ancient, dark age and early medieval chroniclers/chronicles that mention romanians north of the danube: historia augusta, 4th century AD. procopius, jordanes (though i see him more as a clown, some take him seriously), anna comnena, an 8th century khazar khan, his name has been lost, mentions in a letter to the rabi of cordoba that romans live in the region of ardiil (aka ardeal aka transylvania), preiscus of paninum (448, mentions dacians raiding the byzantine empire across the danube), the letter of emmerich of elwangen to the abbot of st gall (~860 AD, mentions dacians living east of panonia), the vhronicle of jansen enikel mentions charlemangne fighting against dacians, germans, slavs and sarmatinas in eastern pannonia. the chronicle of st nestor mentions romanians fighting arpad's magyars. magister petrus (aka anonymus) also says the same thing though hungarians dismiss his chronicle. simon of keza (also known as the greatest hungarian chronicler to have ever lived) says the same thing. descriptio europae orientalis mentions that arpad defeated 10 vlach kings, khorenatsi speaks about the country of the vlachs where the dfacians lived (aka trnasylvania), gesta henrici, the biography of st olaf of norway etc. also i suggest you read the works of any pre-1848 hungarian historian and you'll se they aprove of the continuity theory.

regarding physical evidence we have baths and walls built around sarmisegetusa 150 years after the withdrawal (i doubt the gepids or the huns knew how to build such thins), we have an entire donarium at biertan, we have numerous roman style cemeteries and dacian cemetaries all around the country. also there is also a church suspected to date right ot the 6th century under the statue of mathias corvinus in cluj.

2. the cultural differences between ardeal and the rest of romania are as relevant as the cultural differences between manchester and london or the differences between los angeles and new your, i.e. not at all.

a. most towns and all major cites in romania are a continuation of the old roman and dacian cities/forts. the differences. there were cathedrals built in wallachia in the 13th century, curtea de arges for instance. it is also strange to demand that an orthodox nation build gohtic cathedrals. and you have not taken into account that unlike transylvania, wallachia and moldavia suffered the full force of the mongol hordes, who obliterated any standing city. the mongols that invaded hungary were merely a scouting force.

the romanian folk songs in transylvania are almost identical with those from the rest of thr the country. the romanian folk costumes differ from region to region. those from oltenia are not the same as those from bucovina or muntenia.


flo 6 years ago

actually rebbeca the saxons did have a right to vote.

the romanians voted on dec 1st at abla iulia

then the saxons, upset that in 1869 thew hungarian administration removed their privileged status, gathered at mediasch on december 15th and voted for the union with romania, i don't recall if the danube swabians also voted at mediasch or they gathered in a different city. but the representatives of all germans from transylvania voted on december 15th.

then on december the 25th the hungarian nobility gathered in cluj and expressed their loyalty to hungary.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

peep-- i am of Transylvania Saxon origin and i find value in both cultures, which is why my avatar is the way it is. It is sad really that one can not talk about the beauty of the land, and the hisotry without running into who is better or who has rigths to it. Of course building a future is important. Transylvania is important.


peep 6 years ago

I meant cousin, sorry.


peep 6 years ago

I think the problem about this history bit is that the Romanian regime after WW II. has changed most of the facts or at least tried to. In my opinion Transylvania is nor Hungarian neither Romanian but Transylvanian. They should be independent. They always have been different from both cultures.

It is true though that Hungarians moved there at around 895 and the first Vlah people only appeared in the 13th century. These are facts, not made up things by naughty Hungarians.

By the way not all Hungarians hate Romanians. We cannot say such things about a whole nation. A country/nation consists of different people.

My grandad was born in Arad, he was Hungarian. His godmother was married to a Romanian man. Therefore my grandad's cusin mainly speaks Romanian and her children are all Romanians.

People should rather consider being human and build a future together.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

v-- I'll also mention that for me, when contacting the Romanian consulate, they sent me information on Bucharest and not Transylvania. I suspect there is a lot of politics alive and well in the area.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Delia-- the great national meeting was Romanian and Southern Transylvanian Saxons who voted, As far as I have read the Northern Transylvanian Saxons did not have a right to vote, and the city where the vote came was in Alba Iluia, one of the oldest Romanian Settlements. This being in Southern Transylvania.


6 years ago

Delia, postings like this should not exceed a certain length but most importantly, rule which applies for any form of communication, IT HAS TO BE COHERENT. If you say a lot of senseless things you don´t make a point. I would try to structure an answer which dresses most of your..."ideas"

1. written evidence of Romanian continuity. This is a problem you have in southern Romania and it is indeed a mystery, how come people could live hundreds of years without leaving the slightest evidence? In Transylvania after the Aurelian redraw we had the gepidic kingdom, the most notable king Omharus was berried at Apahida (near Cluj) this is a piece of information which is carefully ignored by Romanian (bucharest dictated history). Of course you cannot call the people living in transylvania before the hungarian migration "romanians" as they were substantially different from the extracarpatic romanians, given that the later existed at all and if so, dear Delia nobody was oppressing them at that time whatsoever.

2. you mention the cultural differences between transylvania and romania as beeing irrelevant.

a. urban development: since early ages, urban settlements in Transylvania had a determinate geographical structure, institutional presence and ruling in all aspects of social life. In southern romania there were settlements with no structure, identity or clear ruling, mentioned for the first time around 1400 when in Transylvania Gothic cathedrals were already raised. Transylvania had detailed maps in which land ownership and borders were clearly stated, such a document never existed in romania with consequences up to the present date.

b.traditions: the folk music and costumes from Transylvania are considerably different from those in southern romania, and defiantly of centraleuropean influence, easter traditions, the christmas carols have different themes, ornamental patterns on pottery, wooden or stone decorations etc.

3. you mention something about romania having cultural roots in transylvania. I don´t understand how this myth appeared, it has a striking resemblance to the serbians claming that kosovo was their cultural cradle. If extracarpatic romanians don´t come from the Balkans why then we have Aromanians and Istroromanians in the balkans and Istria and and Maglenoromanians in northen Grece?

4. You decided not to comment on a statement wich is interesting and a key issue, namely the fact that we as Transylvanians, belong to the central european world, nations and values and till present date, bucharest forces us to join a geopolitical groups to which we don´t belong denying our identity.

I´ll be back


Delia 6 years ago

I don't know what happened. After I pushed the post comment button a page error showed up. Now I see it's missing a part of what I wrote. Maybe it was too long. Sorry! I still want to continue. So...

For 150 years, they didn't have even the right to choose their own religion. In the middle of 18th century the general Bukow with his army forced over 500 orthodox churches to pass to Greek – Catholic Church asserted to Vatican. Those priests who refused, were killed and their church destroyed. They destroyed over the 200 Orthodox Monasteries, too. Transylvania never had other Orthodox monasteries before 1918. What about Austro-Hungarian Empire who, in the WWI, forced Romanians to enroll their army and put them in the first line to fight against their brothers from Romania? Isn't this sadistic ethnic cleansing? What about Horthy's ethnic cleansing (both, Jewish and Romanian people)? It's a fact and it's recognized in world history as genocide.

Now let's look at Hungarians rights. Did/do they have the right to choose their own religion? Yes. The right to learn not only their language in public schools, but to learn everything in their language (from primary schools to universities)? Yes. The right to use their language in administrative institutions? Yes. Do they have the right to culturally express themselves in their own language/tradition? Yes. There is a low specifying that they have different status than Romanians? No. Than, where is the discrimination? I'm sorry, but if they want more, they want privileges, not rights. And this is not right for Romanians, as well as for the other nationalities living in this country.

Yes, there are isolated cases who declared against Hungarians, like Gheorghe Funar. But first, nobody can blame a whole nation for someone's individual opinion and second, this men is only a circle clown with big mouth. Did he ever kill, arrest, oppress, and force to leave the Cluj city or even punch an innocent Hungarian? No. What is the worst thing he did (except his public declarations)? As a mare of Cluj Napoca, now a Romanian city, with a large majority of Romanian population, he changed Hungarian names with Romanian. There will be voices telling he was a lieder of a party and many Romanians shared his opinions. Many, but not all. The prove is that party doesn't exist anymore. Does this make Romania the most xenophobic country in today Europe?

That's what make us, Romanians, angry. Hungarians have the right to rise their voice all over the world and deplore their "bad" situation, but if a Romanian dare to only open the moth they quickly blame him/her as being a liar, chauvinist or xenophobe.

I can understand the frustration of Hungarian noblemen who really lost their privileges: first, the power to administrate a country and give the lows they like, then they lost the Romanian and Hungarian workers from their lands. In communism was even worst because they lost even their land and homes. But this wasn't a discriminatory policy. It was applied to every landowner, doesn't matter his nationality.

What I don't understand is the angry of the other Hungarians. Peasants represented the largest population of Transylvania (doesn't matter their nationality). And history shows Hungarian peasants fighting shoulder to shoulder with Romanian, Szekeler and Saxon peasants against the oppression of Hungarian noblemen. They understood each other and respected each other. They didn't fight and hate each other because they always knew that not their neighbor is guilty for what happen, but those who lead the country and make the low.

Conclusions: We all want to find out the truth. And the truth is we'll never find it. Hungarian as well as Romanian versions of history, are full of holes filled with suppositions. Both are far from perfect and could be combated. Is that simple. There in no way to have a dispute if one of them would be correct and clear.

I really want to underline this for those who believe that they can't talk with Romanians because they are indoctrinated and unable to accept other people point of view. Maybe Romanians are indoctrinated, but not in a larger measure than Hungarians. Both nations were indoctrinated, each one with it's own version of history. Unable to accept others opinion? Yes, as much time I see the holes in Hungarian versions, I can't accept it. But the same thing is valid for Hungarians, being unable to accept Romanian version.

And here comes the philosophical question: WHY? Why we still fight? Why can't we live in peace, without all these debates? Why did I write all this? Simply because if a Hungarian complains about Romanians and nobody shows why he's wrong, people will tend to believe he's right. Please show me how many such debates are opened by Romanians (on Internet) and I'll rest my case.

I often asked myself why don't Hungarian and Romanian historians get together (eventually with a third neutral party) and start digging to find the truth? And the answer that finally came was so simple: because they don’t want to. Why? Because each side is afraid to discover something that drives the truth into the other side hands.

Soooo sad, but politics always overrun people thoughts and feelings. History demonstrate that historians are only asserted people to their leaders or to their own interests.


Delia 6 years ago

I discovered this article a couple of days ago, but I hardly thought if I should comment or not. Why? Because this is an unending debate. A kind of: ”Who was the first? The egg or the hen?” But I always blamed Romanians because they hated to write. There are few written evidence in Romanians history. And this caused a lot of troubles and speculations. So, I decided to write. This is a long reading, but I really can't do it shortest.

And I have to tell you that even I'm Romanian, I'm not angry.

"It is indeed fortunate that many of the ancient Transylvanian documents, dating back as far as the 11th century, were transferred to the Hungarian National Archives in Budapest, some before World War I, and others during World War II. Thus, in spite of all the Rumanian efforts to eradicate the past, the true history of Transylvania can still be proven by thousands of ancient documents and the traces of the once great Western-oriented culture of the Hungarians in Transylvania can still be found in libraries and museums, not in Hungary alone, but also in Austria, Germany, Italy, France, England, and the United States of America."

I'd like to know how an oppressed nation with absolutely no rights (for centuries) can popularize their own version of the history when they didn't have the right to learn their own language in schools. All they learned was the spoken Romanian language, together with their traditions, from their parents and grandparents. And they did a great job. We still have over 2000 year old traditions alive.

"The Romanian culture is entirely different from that known as the "Transylvanian culture", which is in reality a regional diversity of the West-oriented Hungarian culture."

How comes this regional diversity of West-oriented Hungarians other than from the mix of the three major cultures from Transylvania: Romanians, Hungarians and Saxon people? It's a fact that Saxon people living in Transylvania have very different and unique traditions compared with Germans living in Germany. It's also a fact that Hungarians living in Transylvania have similar, still different traditions compared with those living in Hungary. It's the same with Romanians living in Transylvania compared with the others.

Heinrich Kiepert, German geographer (1818-1899) wrote:

"The blood kinship between today Romanian or Wallach and his Dacian ancestors two thousand years ago reveals striking similarity to their appearance, not only in terms of facial features and hair, but in keeping unchanged the port as we see the many faces of Dacian warriors defeated on some sculptures dedicated to the glorification of the victories of Trajan (especially the Column and the Arch of Triumph in Rome)."

And Antonio Bonfini, 1434—1503, historian of Matias Corvin wrote:

”Romanians' language couldn't be extirpated even they live in the middle of so many barbarian people, and they fight so hard to not leave it, that looks like they care more for their language than for their own lives."

"The Rumanian culture is Balkan-oriented"

Yes, Southern Romanian culture was influenced by, not oriented to, the Turkish culture. Exactly like the Transylvanian Romanian culture was influenced by Hungarian (only a few by Saxon) culture, but not Hungarian oriented. Our folk costumes as well as our traditions (from all three Romanian provinces) have deep roots in Dacian culture. They were kept almost the same. They kept them by overlapping them on the Christian holidays. An interesting fact: did you know that, traditionally speaking, the Easter is the only pure religious holiday in Romanian traditions? All the other traditions have pagan rituals connected to sun, seasons, etc., much older than Christianity.

"and specifically Rumanian, based on the history of the Vlach migration from South across to Albania, and from there up to Wallachia and Moldavia."

This is only a theory based on suppositions. This doesn't mean history.

"It was brought forth by Balkan influences, just as the Romanian language itself, which is composed, according to the Romanian linguist Cihac, "of 45.7% Slavic, 31.5% Latin, 8.4% Turkish, 7% Greek, 6% Hungarian and 0.6% Albanian words."

This is funny. Why all Hungarians quote Mr. Cihac and forget to cite other (maybe hundreds) linguists (Romanians and foreigners as well) who show where and why Cihac was wrong? It's also interesting that they write only percentages, not the number of words. Maybe they love to show us as Slavic migratory people who came on this land after them. Let me be more accurate and explain a bit.

Alexandru Cihac made that study on 5765 words (100%). From those, 2361 were Slav (40.95%) and only 1165 were Latin (20.21%). The others were 965 from Turkish (16.74%), 635 from modern Greek (11.01%), 589 from Hungarian (10.22%) and 50 from Albanian (0.87%). But Romanian language has many more words than those studied by Cihac. So, were Cihac words representatives? Were enough? Linguists showed he was wrong; not only with the chosen words and their number, but even with the etymology of lots of words he studied. The more words were studied the lesser was the Slavic percentage (under 15%). But such statistics are relative. Why? English, for example, has more Romance words (borrowed from French and Latin) than Germanic words. It's still a Germanic language. Because what matter is the most used words in a language. In Romanian, we can say a full phrase only with words of Latin origin, but it is impossible to put together a single sentence using exclusively Slavic, Turkish, Greek or Hungarian originated words.

"Even today, the Romanian culture as such, has no roots in Transylvania."

Over 2000 years old occupations (sheep and cattle breeding, bee keeping, viticulture, wooden and metal crafts) and the traditions connected to them are much older than Hungarian culture. Culture doesn't mean only writing (what certainly miss at Romanians). It means a lot more.

"It is being "imported" constantly and purposefully from Bucharest into the Transylvanian province in order to crowd out and replace the traditional Hungarian culture of this conquered and subjugated land."

Well, this phrase is such an aberration that I don't know where to start in order to give a logical answer. Imported by whom? By Hungarians? This is a joke! By Romanians? Oh, my God! Let me rephrase this. Romanians from Transylvania imported Romanian culture from Bucharest. Question: what made them Romanians in this case? If they have a Hungarian culture before importing the Romanian culture, what differentiated them from Hungarians? Why did they call themselves Romanians?

"Future of Transylvania and its capital Kolozsvár is to return to Central Europe and to Hungarian Culture where it belongs."

No comment.

"Transylvania was GIVEN to Romania in 1921, and again in 1947, without a plebiscite."

The Great National Meeting from 1st of December 1918 was a plebiscite. Right, it was a Romanians' plebiscite. But Romanians were at that time the majority of Transylvanian populations (at that time, as well as in past times, showed by every census made in Transylvania).

"This notorious Treaty is known as The Diktat of Trianon, Hungarians were forced to sign in Paris. Ever since Transylvania was awarded to Romania, Hungarians, Germans and other ethnic minorities have suffered at the hands of Romanian Chauvinists. They have consistently and systematically been subjest to forced assimilation and persecution. Romania is probably the most xenophobic country in Europe today. Romanians in cities like Marosvásárhely (targu mures) and Kolozsvár (cluj) are practising ethnic cleansing an a scale only seen in former Yugoslavia. Hungarians are subject to constant discrimination, Hungarian signs are painted over or not allowed at all, intimidation by Gheorghe Funar is carried out against Hungarians on a daily basis aimed at driving out all Hungarians from this ancient Magyar land."

Well, this is really malicious, offensive and not fair. I have to remember him/her that Romanians were subject to constant discrimination for centuries. They were considered slaves with absolutely no rights. For 150 years, they didn't have even the right


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

v-- yes I was trying to focus the debate on the email, and what the contents in there were, which is also out on the web as cris pointed out.

It is history and who teaches it, I mean wikipedia has some dates on Transylvania, which when I read my Tranyslvanian Saxon history I can see are correct, of course everyone is taught differently.

And yes the ones who are most "angry" in this debateare people who are Romanian in origin.


6 years ago

Well, I think you have here a debate focused on, the more or less real romano-hungarian conflict, which is exactly the kind of polarization such arguments more often then not lead to. In my opinion the argument is undoubtedly a real one but the Hungarians have little to do with it. The main confusion, is that you refer to the romanian-speaking Transylvanians as Romanians ignoring the fact that ethnogeneticaly they are a totally different folk and they are not much similar to the romanians (valachs and moldavians)as the French, Italians or any other neolatin people.

Basically the ethnogenetic layering has, in the case of romaninan-speaking transylvanians, three components: celtic, roman and gepidic, in the case of extracarpatic romanians has also three components: dacian, roman and cumanic (some suggest also slavic or peceneg). The hungarians came to Transylvania after the ethnogenesis was completed but however, like most of the communities coming there were accepted and live till today preserving their language and traditions. There has been a degree of cultural exchange between the populations living in Transylvania therefore the romanian-speaking transylvanians are much more similar to hungarians than to extracarpatic romanians and actually they go along, live and work together much better than they would with the valachs or the moldavians. Transylvania belongs to Romania since 1918 and it is actually true that was given to Romania according to the same principles through which Cechoslovachia and Yugoslavia were created. In Romania there is a nationalistic current of indoctrination which tries to justify the present geographical borders and of course, therefore the Romanian point of view seems far-fetched and comes easily in contradiction with historic facts. It is however difficult to discuss this with romanians because most of them, due to the strong propaganda became genuinely incapable to accept other points of wiew.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

erzsi/doina-- that is very neat your story, but I would imagine parts of it would be something some people who read the email and website would agree with,

No I have many friends both hungarian, romanian and saxon who are friends with each other and they are all great people.


erzsi/doina 6 years ago

wow, the woman who raised me was hungarian. she would agree with some of the e-mail(been dead for 18yrs). The blood inside me is romanian. my birth name at the Sibiu orphanage was Doina. As a child i felt confused and bad when mom said bad things about the romanians. later when i was twenty i wondered why did she adopt me if we were two different nationalities and personalities. I have a sister in Sibiu 59 or 55 yrs old whom i never met. I am 57. Does any one know the Sibiu Orphanage's name in 1952? I hope the romanian people are not bad people because that would make me a bad one to. thanks


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

haunty-- thanks for the wonderful response to adi, this is great!


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

adi-- thanks for the sources They will add to my collection.


Haunty profile image

Haunty 6 years ago from Hungary

@adi: I am sorry about my statement re Romanian - Dacian connection. There is no question that Transylvania belongs to Romania and that the Romanian population far outnumbers the Hungarian population there.

Nationalism in Hungary is more of a reaction to the workings of internal subversive forces than a characteristic of our nature. We should make peace with the past and learn how to live in friendship.

Some of my relatives have had the pleasure of visiting Transylvania and said that the people are very warm and friendly. Also, I know Romanians who are learning to speak Hungarian, just because they live in a place where they are surrounded by a lot of them.

Thank you for the sources! :)


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Haunty-- I care deeply for Trnayslvania. That is my primary consern. If the truth is out there I'll find it somewhere, somehow.

it's a wonderful province and it's history is valueable, that is the important part.


Haunty profile image

Haunty 6 years ago from Hungary

I've just read cris' comment. He is misinformed on the history of Wallachia. Let me give you the names of a few historians who concern themselves with the topic: Ioan Bogdan, Nicolae Iorga, Radu Florescu, Nicolae Stoicescu. Please, note they are all Romanian authors, yet I'm afraid cris or cristina would not derive much pleasure from reading their works.

Once again, Romanians or Hungarians, there isn't much difference for me. They both protect their own interests, but still there is a truth.

Regarding Alberto, I'm not sure he is who he claims to be.


Haunty profile image

Haunty 6 years ago from Hungary

Hey Rebecca :)

I stand in awe of you as you are trying to get to the root of this story. As a Hungarian, I am honored by your genuine interest. Thank you.

Yes, the email reflects the frustration that most Hungarians feel over the loss of Transylvania (Erdély in Hungarian). There are few in the country who could maintain a cool head when addressing this topic.

The Treaty of Trianon was instated in Hungarian law in 1921, hence the date in the email. But, in actuality, Transylvania was overrun by Romanian forces and taken over in 1919.

I'm yet to read all the comments here, but what Mr. Happy claims is pure myth. There is no proven connection between Dacians and Romanians. True, Dacians lived in that region at the mentioned date, but they have nothing to do with Romanians.

Honestly, I'm not much of a nationalist and I have nothing against Romanians. I have quite a few Romanian friends.

I'm sorry I can't provide you more details on this, but my brother is a history freak and he knows the ins and outs of this topic. Shall I tell him to come and share what he knows? Warning: If I do, you can expect a looong comment. :)


Petra Vlah profile image

Petra Vlah 6 years ago from Los Angeles

It seems to me there is a misunderstanding, probably due to the complexity of the English language.

The entire point of this hub is to combat the erroneous and biased conception regarding Transylvania’s historical and cultural affiliation with Romania. Since both parties agree with this valid and well documented point, there is no reason to fight each other and even less reason to initiate a personal attack against Rebecca who repeatedly made her position clear.

Her only intention was to bring the problem to the attention of a large public and I commend her for doing so.

It is not surprising that ill informed and politically motivated websites are trying to disseminate inflammatory attacks that have no historic base.

And yes, Transylvania IS PART of Romania and NOT the other way around.


Hewlett Packard 6 years ago

No, Romania is not a part of Transilvania. TRANSILVANIA IS A PART OF ROMANIA.

Quierida Rebecca, deja la historia allí donde está. Gente como tú que siempre se dedica a dar vueltas a las realidades pues lo que consigue sera sólo gastarse el tiempo en nada. En las Universidades de Valencia y Madrid hemos hecho casi 11 seminarios sobre la tierra de Transilvania, su origen ROMANO Y RUMANO, hemos colaborado con Universidades de Colonia[Köln/Alemania] y tambien con dos de Budapesta. ¿El rsultado? Tras 8 meses de trabajo intenso hemos llegado a lo que llegó la historia universal: Transilvania, a parte de la conquista hungara, HA SIDO, ES Y SERA PARTE DE SU TIERRA MADRE: RUMANÍA, ¡OS GUSTA O NÓ!, da igual. Como profesor universitario, persona y europeo me da igual que clase de e-mail has recibido tú, no nos interesa. Pero por Dios, nó llenais el mundo de mentiras. GO TO TRANSILVANIA AND YOU'LL SEE WHAT LANGUAGE THEY SPEAK AND WHAT FEEL THE PEOPLE OF TRANSILVANIA. Sus sentimientos son y seran por su pais: Rumanía, nada mas.

Este es mi ultimo mensaje, mis mas sinceros saludos.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

hewlett Packard-- In fact i do have many books on Transylvania, and when I received this email I was offended by it, as it forgets history. However, a historian does not ever take sides and allows the other person to voice their views, however incorrect they might be.

you migth have 50 years of experience in history, however, I also have many years of experience in hsitory as well, i have a degree in history.

Hewlett Packard, unlike many of these fine people who have commented here, they have not once personally attacked me,

yes Romania is a part of transylvania, of this i doubt there is an argument.

the question I have posed is this: Does this email which was sent to me (which as Chris so wonderfully pointed out is also a website) have any validity other than being historically inaccurate?

as it stands you have simply lashed out to the question poser, and not answered the question.


Hewlett Packard 6 years ago

Soy profesor de historia en Valencia, español de hace casi 50 años y estoy seguro que sé mas historia europea que tu Rebecca. Transilvania ha sido tierra rumana, eso sí conquistada mas tarde de los hunos que llegaron en la Panonia. Lo que tú estás haciendo me parece una verguenza, perdona la sinceridad. Transilvania es Rumania y siempre seguira siendo. Allí hay un casi 90% idioma rumano. MI CONSEJO PARA TÍ REBECCA: BUSCATE UN TRABAJO O UN LIBRO DE HISTORIA! Find a job for you or better a history book! Alberto de Cristobal Jerrera/ Valencia.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Chris-- acutally the person who i suppose owns or visits the website sent me the email, to my gmail account a couple of months ago, when I mentioned that Trnayslvania had a population which was a majority of Romanian people.

I looked over the email, and when I clicked ont heir name that website came up, still i don't think this is done by a amatuer historian, as the dates are incorrect


Chris 6 years ago

I would like to point out that the text quoted "from an email" is part of a larger text published on the internet, word for word at http://www.angelfire.com/nm/hun/

I am Canadian and was merely trying to learn about Hungary and Romania. I read that first and this page second.

I would suggest that the angelfire page is either an original amateur attempt at history, or a direct lift from a more scholarly publication, but that either way assessing it requires some research into where the text came from.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

cris-- thanks for bring this part up, and I checked into this about "free dacia' and you are exactly correct, excellent logical argument.

As for "romanian" terriotries, certainly that is true, of course from a Saxon point of view, the romaian territoires were in fact Moldovia, Swabia, Banat, and Wallachia, btu then of course it was never hungarian--- go figure =)


cris 6 years ago

yes that's true the greater romania was first born in 1600

but the fact is Transylvania, Moldova and Valachia were always called the 3 'romanian' territories. romanians were a "minority" that constituted the majority. as for the Turkish rule, hungary was the one who was under ottoman occupation, the 3 other states were never more than tributary states which means they were never under complete control and that's exactly what our kings fought for to keep the integrity of romanians. Hungarians always wanted more and more they tried to occupy Valachia too but Vlad dracula, who was born in transylvania by the way, defended it fiercely and then he fought the ottomans too

and this theory about dacians being extinct doesn't stand up. the roman empire occupied 14% of Dacia, the rest of the people were called were "free dacians" if daco-romans were all killed by romans - which sounds like a stretched theory- what happened to the free dacians? and why do we still speak a latin based language who brought it here? if daco-romans were all killed how come we suddenly started speaking latin in a sea of slavic countries?

in between the roman occupation and the 11th century there are no written documents to say what happened here, that's were people make up their own facts. until someone bothers to look into the vatican library where hundreds of documents lie and bring light to this whole debate this is going to continue endlessly. but logic suggests one thing we were never "extinct", that's pretty insulting to rewrite people's history and tell them they come out of nowhere and all because of political interests...and that's all I have to say.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Cristina-- another good point of view, again one that is romanian, I gather you are romanian, however, in one regard I would like to add that Romania has not been a country "Greater Romanaia" I mean, until after 1918, but also only during 1600.

So might this last commentor have a point?


cristina 6 years ago

transylvania has been part of romania for thousands of years they took over a few hundred years ago and then romania took it back. their excuse is that transylvania was uninhabited when they came there, they say romanians were extinct by that time(?)the land was empty and the romanians of today are a mix of migrating tribes and their slavic neighbors, but if you ask them to prove that you get no answer not to mention it's an insult to the native people of romania to tell them that, and as far as I know it's the hungarians who migrated from central asia in the 9th century not the other way around

to say hungarians are angry is an understatement they hate romanians to the bone sadly it's part of their culture, they are angry and envious because they couldn't keep their hands on such a beautiful piece of land if it were an empty desert they couldn't have cared less. they also claim abuse of human rights violation took place - this goes to show how desperate they are, all these claims are based on hearsay you never see or hear about concrete proof or real events

to say transylvania is part of hungary is similar to saying moldova is a slavic territory that actually belonged to "mother russia"

nowadays apparently anyone can write their own history I see but we are not in the 5th grade here I want to hear from real historians I want them to show what's in the Vatican library where our history lies


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Hun-- an interesting point you laid out here, and one that follows logic, can anyone else enter the debate on this? I am not much up on the language part, but the population counts hun gives are found in wikipedia.


Hun 6 years ago

So, Petra and Mr Happy, the truth is that Dacians was conquered andd killed by the Romans in A.D. 105-106. After Transylvania was ruled by gepidas, Huns, Avars, and Bolgars, and in 896 came the Hungarian people and settled in Transylvania, which was unpopulated that time. Int he sam period the Romanians lived on the Balcan , int he present-day Serbia and Bulgaria (you know that int he Romanina language has a lot of relative words with Albanina, because the Romanians lived next to Albanians.). The second Bulgarian Empire (from 1186) had a numerous Romanian/Vlach population.

In the 13th century the Romanians started to settle in Transylvanian mountains. At that time the Hungarians was the majority in centre of Transylvania (Campia Transilvaniei), and the East (Szeklers), and the Saxons ruled the southern part. Fort he Romanians were place only in Mountains (Bihor, Maramures, Hateg). 95 % of the names of Transylvanian vilagges, cities, rivers, hills is Hungarian. The Romanian names are only mirror-translations (e.g. Torda-Turda, Nagyvárad – Oradea, Segesvár – Sigisoara etc. etc.). The argument is that the Hungarian names mean s gin Hungarian, but the Romanin names does not mean anything in Romanian (what does it mean in Romanian: Oradea sau Sic sau Sigisoara? nothing, because the Romanians adopted these words from Hungarian language).

Because of the Turkish rule in Muntenia and in Moldova more and more Romanian peasent moved to prosperous Transylvania. But instead of this Transylvania had a Hungarian majority till the end of 17th century. In this period the Ottomans destroyed the centre of Translyvania (and the Hungarians who lived there) a lot of times. After destroying the regiopn became empty, and the Romanian shepherds had opportunity to move from the mountains to the plain of Transylvania.

It is true that from 1700-50 Transylvania has a Romanian majority (about 50-55 % Romanian, 30-35 % Hungarians, and Saxons), but the culture and the cities remained Hungarians till the WWII (second world war). 50 years ago, almost all Transylvanian cities had a Hungarian majority, but during Ceausescu Era hundred thousends of Romanians were moved to Hungarian cities: Cluj, Oradea etc. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradea#Ethnicity; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluj-Napoca#Demograph... ).

So it the Romanians stoled Transylvnia after WW I, and now they are trying to stole and change history of Transylvania.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 6 years ago from Canada Author

Petra, excellent points you've made to this piece thanks.


Petra Vlah profile image

Petra Vlah 6 years ago from Los Angeles

There is nothing new about malicious websites that are making outrageous and unfounded claims.

To make it perfectly clear for the ones that are still in doubt; Transylvania is PART of Romania and it has always been, just like Mt. Happy so eloquently explained.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed Transylvania for less than 100 years and the province regained independence in 1918.

Romanian people have NEVER abandoned the Transylvanian territory and have always been the majority of its inhabitants.

To even think that Transylvania is part of Hungary is the Equivalent of considering Poland as part of Germany or India as part of Great Brittan.

It is about time to stop the insanity and the distorted views of ill informed people, motivate by greed and unrealistic dreams of becoming world powers.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 7 years ago from Canada Author

More to come...


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 7 years ago from Canada Author

It is indeed sad, and the biggest problem is that people who don't know the area could believe this. I looked at the email, and in fact it goes to a website, with the exact SAME information as the email.


RegniA 7 years ago

It is sad this kind of misinformation can be posted! With lies and hatred nobody can be believed for long time.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 7 years ago from Canada Author

ediggity, I certainly shall post a hub when I find out more.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 7 years ago from Canada Author

Thanks Horrya, it's important to read this.


ediggity profile image

ediggity 7 years ago

Good luck on your quest for the truth.


Horrya profile image

Horrya 7 years ago

I'm from Caransebes (Romania)! Thank you for your Hub !


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 7 years ago from Canada Author

ha ha good one Mr Happy =)


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 7 years ago from Toronto, Canada

The email is highly biased and does not cover the history of Transylvania - that is why I mentioned Sarmisegetuza (the capital of the Dacian people in Transylvania before 80 BC)... to understand anything about Transylvania one has to look as far back in history as when the Dacian people lived on that land. The Dacians were not Hungarians ... the email is highly flawed in the information it provides because it is very partial to say the least. (There! I didn't even mention Romania lol)


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 7 years ago from Canada Author

yes it is, but this email refers only to Transylvania. =) nothing more. I'm not up on the rest of Romania, and I am not conserning myself about who should have this land, frankyl to me it's a part of Romania. I am dealing wiht what this email says, which conserns only Transylvania.

Clear everyone? =) ( I already needed to deny 5 comments because of this!, please don't make me do more! so if you're wanting to tell me that Bucharest is part of Transylvania or that Hungary sould have a part of Chek or Slovak, this isn't the hub for you!))


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 7 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Trasylvania is part of Romania. It has been so for thousands of years ... yes we "lost" it at some points in our history to those who came to conquer us but it was only temporary.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 7 years ago from Canada Author

Thanks Mr. Happy, but what about Transylvania?

Kindly everyone, remeber that I won'd accept comments that are inflamatory, but this a discussion of teh correctness that this email has, I've pointed out many facts that are inccorect.

Again this is about TRANSYLVANIA. not about Romania.


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 7 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Here are some facts of the ethnicity of people in Romania: Romanian 89.5%, Hungarian 6.6%, Roma 2.5%, Ukrainian 0.3%, German 0.3%, Russian 0.2%, Turkish 0.2%, other 0.4% (2002 census)

On languages: Romanian 91% (official), Hungarian 6.7%, Romany (Gypsy) 1.1%, other 1.2%

Transilvania is ours, has been and always will be ... Hungarians as well as Russians and Germans are a minority. We, (Dacians) have been fighting to keep our land together since 82 BC when we had a capital in Transilvania at Sarmisegetuza and our country was: the Dacian Kingdom. We are ancient people and that is where we have been for thousands of years. We have stood against the Romans, the Ottoman Empire, the Autro-Hungarian Empire, etc ... I guess it is in our blood to fight for what is ours.


Rebecca E. profile image

Rebecca E. 7 years ago from Canada Author

I'd love to know. Apperently this email comes from Website.


jiberish profile image

jiberish 7 years ago from florida

My familiy and I are from Hungary, I'm not sure how authentic the e-mail is, but I will forward this to some relatives and see if I can get a response. Thank you for your Hub.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working