During the second half of the 19thcentury and the beginning of the 20thcentury until the First World War, the problem of Transylvania had a very special place in the mentality of the Romanian population and the politicians from the Old Kingdom. As far as the Romanians who lived abroad were concerned, they concentrated their attention on Transylvania and not on Bessarabia – a province which had been lost only some decades before. Thus, how is it possible that Transylvania, a province which had never been part of the Romanian Kingdom, was considered more important than Bessarabia, a traditional region of the historic Moldavia which had been lost at the beginning of the 19thcentury to Imperial Russia?
The image that these provinces enjoyed in the Romanian mentality influenced the political decision taken by the Government in Bucharest and the way it implemented the national project. Therefore, what are the determining elements of this situation?
It is highly likely that the most important of these elements is the national ideology. From this point of view, Transylvania was considered the birth place of the Romanian nation. In their two great historical books, Iorga and Xenopol wrote extensively on the problem of the Romanian ethnogenesis. Both of them claim that the Romanian people was born inside the Carpathian arch, at the north of the Danube. Bessarabia, however, is not mentioned in this very important problem.
Another very important element was the role which the intelligentsia played. The 19thcentury was the moment when the intellectuals appeared as a distinct social stratum, with a special educational path and a university diploma. The 19thcentury was the period when a university diploma was the ticket for social prestige and thus, it established the social role of the Intellectual. The intellectuals were involved in the political construction of modern Romania. Thus, they came back from Paris, Berlin or Vienna with Western ideas and tried to implement them in Romania, in order to help build the new state.
Also, there was a group of Transylvanian intellectuals who fled to the Old Kingdom, especially after the year 1867. In Bucharest, they became the main promoters of the Transylvanian problem:they were involved in the writing of history manuals through which they wished to promote the national project and to introduce in the Romanian mentality the idea of unity between the Romanians in Transylvania and the Old Kingdom. On the other hand, the Romanian intellectuals who stood by the cause of Bessarabia were not too many and too visible (Constantin Stere was the most famous).
Thus, in the second half of the 19th century, a Cultural League of Romanians from everywhere appeared, but unfortunately it concentrated its efforts almost exclusively on Transylvania while Bessarabia was only a marginal subject.
A third important element was the Historical Tradition. Ever since the 13th– 15thcentury, Transylvania had the tradition of early Romanian state institutions which joined the Hungarian community, in order to preserve their privileges. The Romanian state identity was maintained during the Hungarian kingdom as well as during the Ottoman domination.
The problem of the Romanians living in Transylvania was complicated after 1900, because of the Hungarization policy implemented by the Government in Budapest. The Romanians were in the favour of a federative project (supported also by the Archduke Franz Ferdinand) which corresponded to the old historical traditions which imposed a separation (an autonomy) between Hungary and Transylvania.
Bessarabia had never enjoyed a distinct historical tradition, since it had always been part of Moldavia. Even the term – Bessarabia – did not appear until 1812 and it referred only to the southern part of the province. Unlike Transylvania, Bessarabia was not a political and geographical reality.
Under these circumstances, the final aim of the First World War in the Romanian mentality was the union between Transylvania and the Old Kingdom. Thus, when the political leaders decided the union with Bessarabia in March 1918, it was perceived as a compensation for the loss of Transylvania. Yet, after the course of the war was drastically altered in a very short time, the favourable international situation made possible that Transylvania would be given to Romania as well. The Great Union between the Old Kingdom and Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania came as a big surprise to the majority of Romanians who did not expect for their country to be (re)united with Transylvania, but also with the provinces which were lost more than a century before.
First union of Transilvania, Walachia and Moldova was made by Mihai the brave. Transilvania was part of romania long before the firs war. YOUR CONCLUSION that the union was a surprise for the romanian population is wrong. This is why the romanian people fought the war, to unifiy their country.
Transilvania was “united” with the Romanian voivodships by Báthory Zsigmond first time, not by Mihai voivod (see article from a Romanian respected historian http://www.arhivaistorica.ro/?p=214), and that as well as any others were not on ethnic basis, a simple personal ambition of the random oligarch of the region.
As for Transilvania being a Romanian state in the middle ages is just as well unsupported by sources, both written and archeological, as the daco-roman continuity. Let’s do science not fiction when talking about history…. dear friend.
fak the hungurs! dont lie, nigga , Mihai the brave was, hungurs born after existed romanians…pffff
Atilla any Romanian can learn Spanish and Italian 10x faster than any Hungarian (not because that they are smarter) only because we speak a Latin language…. that’s your proof of da o-Roman continuity! Same like the word Transilvania 100% Latin!
it’s science, Attila, really is. Transylvania wasn’t “hungarian” in the Middle Ages. It was ruled by a Hungarian chauvinistic aristocracy, true, but inhabited by Romanians. In a sense, 1918 is inevitable as a phenomena for the so called Greater Hungary.
Check your own data: in 1910-so under the administration of Saint Istvan Crown- Alsó-Fehér vármegye the county of Alba de Jos or Inferior (Romanian) -Comitatus Albensis Inferior (Latin, by the way, I don’t need translation for Latin…) was 77% ROMANIAN. The region (county) is right in the middle of Transylvania. QUOT ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.
So it’s about history!
Transilvania is the Irish equivalent in eastern europe but with happy end.
Attila, it is about science! Transylvania was not Hungarian in the Middle Ages. Was ruled by a Hungarian xenophobic elite, true, but was not like Hungarian puszta territories. In a sense, 1918 was inevitable for the so called St. Stephan Hungary. Check your own statistics: in 1910 – so, during the Austro-Hungarian admninistration – the ”Alsó-Fehér vármegye”/Comitatus Albensis Inferior (lat.)/comitatul Alba de Jos (Inferior) in Romanian was populated by 77,3% Romanians and only 17,3% Hungarians. This county is right in the middle of Transylvania. Quot erat demonstrandum. Just one example!
By the way, I don’t need translation for Latin: comitatul Alba de Jos/Inferior(Romanian) – Comitatus Albensis Inferior (Latin). It’s another strong example of continuity and origins of my ancestors. So, it is about history, my friend!
Octavian! It is about science! Transylvania had hungarian majority in the middle ages. And it was a hungarian state both before and after the fall of Hungarian Kingdom in 1541. Romanians became majority only in the 18th century. You can thank a lot to the turks and tatars who killed many-many hundred thousand hungarians and germans in the 15-16-17th centuries. And also You can thank a lot to the austrian and hungarian landlords who replaced the perished hungarian peasants with immigrants from Wallachia and Moldova in the 18th century.
Anyway, did you know, that the first orthodox church of Transylvania was built by hungarians in 950 in Gyulafehérvár(today Alba Iulia) for the missioanries sent from Byzantynum?
This is a VERY STRONG EVIDENCE against your daco-romanian continuity. If there were a lot of romanian orthodox priests, why we needed missionaries from Byzantynum to preach the gospel among pagan hungarians?
And where are the romanian orthodox cemeteries, churches from the 6-7-8-9th centuries? Nowhere! Your so called historians cannot show even a piece of clay or coin connected to your imaginary ancestors.
Ponder on these things. 🙂
You are immigrants from Mongolia… we are here from before time! 3000 years ago!
No one knows Romania’s history better than romanian people.
Gesta Hungarorum, Anonymus written in ix ciele.
Just read something about it.
Whenm magyar tribes migrate they were not enough to be majority in Pannonia or Carpathian arch. Also the land was not empty. Therefore the toponims are Dacian or Roman origins. Biharea is a dacian var, Napoca or Culissium, Cibinum, Alutus, Maris,Timiscus , Alba Carolina were kept because latin continuity. Also the battles with local landlords la Gellou, remembered today with toponims like Gilau are not erased from history. We have to mention that the name ungur is caming from turkish tribes that migrate togethet with magyars called ongurs. Therefore Hungarian language has the grammar and word phrasing similar with turkish.