Hot answers tagged

33

Romania was the ancient Roman province of Dacia. Under Roman rule, the province was systematically colonised and developed. It has been theorised that these Roman settlers, intermingling with Romanised native Dacians, become the ancestors of the modern Romanian people. Under this theory, the Romanians inherited a Romance language derived from Vulgar Latin. ...


16

In addition to the excellent answer by Semaphore, there are some details about why Romania kept a much stronger character of the Latin culture and language, compared with surrounding countries. The influence of the French Revolution ( 1789 - 1799) was felt all across Europe. At the time, the territory of the modern Romania, while populated by people of same ...


10

It didn't mean anything. The reality in 1944 is that they were dividing Southeastern Europe into British and Soviet spheres of influence. A country, if it was not neutral or jointly occupied (i.e., 50-50), could only be part of one sphere or the other, not both. At least, not in any tenable way for any length of time. In practical terms, therefore, each ...


8

This is just speculation as I cannot back it up with any hard data but there might be a few causes: Dacia went an intensive colonization process after its conquest by Trajan causing a big chunk of population to be foreigners. This, coupled with the lack of written tradition in the native Dacians and the need for a now mixed population to effectively live ...


8

Disclaimer: I am not a historian, however I do have a passion for history, and have researched some of the theories regarding the origins of my language and culture. If my answer doesn't meet H SE standards please let me know and I'll try and improve it (it's my first post) I noticed this question in the HNQ list and joined the site simply so I could get my ...


7

Because the USSR didn't have unlimited resources. It was overmatched Vs Czechoslovakia, but invasions still cost money, labour, and materials. Czechoslovakia made the strategically sound decision to resist through civil disobedience, instead of militarily. However, it's not always guaranteed that a big country beats a small country in a war. Vietnam beat ...


7

The reason appears to be that Modova "traveled" with an adjacent region called Bessarabia. Romania and Moldova were under "common" rule for several hundred years, but only under the Ottoman Empire. There was a lot of "back-and-forth" in the 19th century between Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the locals. In 1859, when Romania (basically Wallachia) obtained ...


7

Roumania consists mostly of the three main sections Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia. In the 11th century (1001 to 1100) and the 12th century (1101-1200) Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia were usually part of separate realms. Wallachia, for example, was ruled by Turkic peoples such as the Pechnegs in most of the 11th century and the Cumans in the ...


6

I'm going to try to clarify this stuff from the beginning, since I see a lot of inaccuracies/ misinformation in the previous answers (sorry guys!). So, today's Moldova is just the eastern half (roughly) of what was once the Principality of Moldova (1346 - 1859). The western part of the former Principality of Moldova is now the Moldova (Moldavia in English) ...


6

Romania was already on the sidelines of Soviet influence, pretty much sailed its own course through their socialist experiment. Their armed forces weren't under (direct) Soviet control like those of the other Warsaw Pact countries, their officers weren't being trained/indoctrinated in Soviet military schools, their entire country was already mobilised ...


6

There was no really such pre 1800. As Samuel Russel points out, the modern concept of nations was born only during and after the French revolution. Hungary and Transylvania from the late medieval times were part of the Habsburg empire, but they were not united until 1867. The official languages of Hungary were the following: 1000-1784: Latin 1784-1836: ...


6

This is (at least in part) caused by Britain and their balance of power strategy. The Ottoman empire was viewed somewhere between 'not a threat' yet 'integral to the balance of Europe'. A Russia that could conquer the Ottoman empire was a Russia that could take on the whole of Europe, starting with the Austrian empire and moving to the West from there. ...


5

I don't think their current majority is an insurmountable problem for any immigration theory. At roughly the same time the coastal German tribes were migrating to England, and the southern Slavic people were migrating into the Balkans. Both are clearly a majority in those locations today. My main problem with the immigrationist theory is that it (very very ...


5

Based in historical facts, we might say that Romania was not neutral by then. Russia occupied Bessarabia and Bukovina from Romania early in the war. Hence, Romania neutrality was already violated. It was after those events that Romania entered in alliance with Germany.


5

The root cause of Romania's accommodating attitude towards Nazi Germany was a territorial dispute with Hungary. This dispute arose out of the Treaty of Trianon of 1920, which defined the borders of the new Hungarian state, one of the successors of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Quite a lot of Hungarians were left outside the borders of the new Hungary. The ...


5

There was no room for "partial war" in WW2, especially in the East First, let's make a little digression. There is a certain interpretation of WW2 events, which claims that Finland did exactly the thing you expected from Romania - i.e. (re)captured certain territories it claimed to be theirs, and then refused to advance any further into the Soviet Union, ...


4

Since this is a speculative question, I'll add mine. Romania is singular among regions in East Europe in that it is guarded on three sides - and the sides facing the directions that barbarian incursions would come - by significant hills and mountains - the Carpathians. This shield could help buffer them from attacks and from cultural influences from ...


4

It Didn't For a detailed description I would suggest The Romanian Battlefront in World War I by Glenn Torrey. The sparknotes answer is the 300 tons of daily supplies was a polite fiction. The allies claimed Romania would be supplied via Russia, or later via a successful breakout at Salonika. As the Russians were woefully short of the supplies Romania would ...


3

Few weeks ago I heard an interview on Czech radio program Radiožurnál about a possible motivation of Soviet Union to invade Czechoslovakia with such violent force: Czechoslovakia - the Soviet Bloc's sharp spike into the western Europe, had resisted silently but very vehemently a Soviet plan of stationing tactical nuclear and chemical weaponry within their ...


3

According to https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/new-evidence-romania-and-the-warsaw-pact-1955-1989#sthash.fQcgY9zu.dpuf "He [Emil Bodnaras, Romanian Minister of Transport and Communications, a key figure in the Romanian Party's support for Soviet intervention in Hungary] was probably instrumental in making arrangements for the detention of Imre Nagy ...


3

Have you found this? It says that most POWs captured by Hungarian forces were handed over to the Germans. The rest were treated badly in general. The Hungarian Occupation Forces had an auxiliary role in the German POW’s policy. These Hungarian units had no POW’s policy because their activity served the realization of German orders only. Therefore they ...


2

From my prospective the outlined 2 possibilities may be considered not only opposed, but may also be seen as complementary to each other. We have a similar situation with the Russian language which is a synthesis of "Danubian" Slavic language and "Novgorod" Slavic language, the later is a more archaic version of Slavic. What if there were a series of ...


2

Those backing the idea that Romanians are the descentants of Romance language speakers who arrived in the territory of modern day Romania during the Middle Ages are mainly Hungarian historians and this has to do with the dispute over who settled first in Transylvania. This theory is however contradicted by Hungarians' own 'national chronicle', Anonymous's ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible