Talk:Romania

Hi Tgeorgescu, Super Dromaeosaurus, Norden1990, Borsoka what do you think?

I see a brand new editor started instantly an edit war, when I had 10 edits, I did not know the name of any Wiki rule, maybe a sockpuppet?

Here refered to this rule: WP:V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability So he claims that Treaty of Trianon not a verified Romania country establishment event :D

Consistency between articles, History of Romania: "Most of the claimed territories were granted to the Old Kingdom of Romania, which was ratified in 1920 by the Treaty of Trianon that defined the new border between Hungary and Romania"

Trianon Treaty Day, even it became a national day, from article: "As a result, Transylvania, as well as parts of Banat, Crișana and Maramureș, were officially allocated to Romania." The user denies in the edig log that Treaty of Trianon would belong to Romania, and that is not an establishment event. How cannot be state borders an establishment event?

Hi Welcometothejungle007,

Country info box: establishment events: Treaty of Trianon "The treaty is famous primarily due to the territorial changes imposed on Hungary and recognition of its new international borders after the First World War", this is the official treaty signed by all participants, which established exact borders of Romania, recognized by international law. Great Union is also mentioned, it was a wartime event, when Romanian troops attacked WW1 capitulated disarmed Hungary, a one sided assembly which actually claimed more Hungarian lands what Romania got finally by Treaty of Trianon, morover it was a contra assembly by Hungarians. International borders were not decided by one sided assemblies, but by treaty which determined the exact borders, and shaped the new country, which was recognized by everybody.

https://countrystudies.us/romania/20.htm "Two postwar agreements that Romania signed, the Treaty of Saint-Germain with Austria and the Treaty of Trianon with Hungary, more than doubled Romania's size, adding Transylvania, Dobruja, Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, and part of the Banat to the Old Kingdom. The treaties also fulfilled the centuries-long Romanian dream of uniting all Romanians in a single country."' Perhap this is not an establishment event?

A: Should I claim your house as mine? B: Or should we make an official legal agreement by lawyer signing by both of us? Which would be the legal official establishment event of that house: A or B?

Why do you want remove this important event?

OrionNimrod (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, OrionNimrod

Thanks for the reply. I'd like to clarify a few points:

On My Account:

I’ve been reading and using Wikipedia for years but only recently made an account myself to start editing. I read the 5 pillars and familiarised myself with the regulations, most of which I already knew beforehand. Therefore, I say per WP:FOC (Focus on Content) and WP:NEWBIE, Wikipedia decisions should be based on policy and sources, not an editor’s account age. Let’s please keep the discussion focused on article content.

On the Treaty of Trianon:

I do agree that the Treaty of Trianon had enormous legal significance in formalising Romania’s postwar borders. However, the infobox’s “establishment events” section isn’t intended to list every border treaty or legal document signed by a country — it's meant to reflect nationally recognised state-forming events.

In Romania, Great Union Day (December 1, 1918) is the national holiday celebrated as the foundational moment of the modern Romanian state. The Treaty of Trianon, while crucial internationally, is not celebrated or regarded as a founding event by Romanians themselves. Its role is already well-covered in the relevant history sections and Treaty of Trianon articles.

Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, we need to present events in proportion to their recognition in reliable sources and national context. Including Trianon here risks misrepresenting Romania’s own historical narrative, which centers on the 1918 unification.

Moving Forward:

If there's still disagreement, I'm happy to open an RFC so neutral editors can weigh in and help reach a consensus. That way we can resolve this collaboratively, in line with Wikipedia’s regulations.

Thank you. #welcometothejungle007# Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Amazing Wiki knowledge, even RFC knowledge just with about 10 edits!!! Awsome!

So you claim that Treaty of Trianon is NOT an IMPORTANT establishment event which actually established exactly the Kingdom of Romania#Greater Romania which was a much bigger and a different state than WW1 Romanian state + national day Trianon Treaty Day = it seems celebrated, but this does not matter. Perhaps do you celebrate the other listed events? Wallachia 1330? Moldavia 1346? I do not think so. So we can remove all of them according to your logic. The country box is not about celebrations, but establishement facts, this is an English encyclopedia, and Treaty of Trianon is really a key establishment fact.

Many Wikipage alredy sourced that: Kingdom of Romania#Greater Romania "At the Paris Peace Conference, Romania received the territories of Transylvania, part of Banat and other territories from Hungary, as well as Bessarabia (Eastern Moldavia between Prut and Dniester rivers) and Bukovina. In the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary renounced in favor of Romania all the claims of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy over Transylvania.[12]" = Borders were decided by Paris Peace Conference, which established Greater Romania. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone. My opinion is that, while I don't particularily care whether Trianon is featured on the infobox or not, I do find it a bit superfluous with the Great Union, as it not only encompasses Transylvania but also Bukovina and Bessarabia. After all, we're not including Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1919 that confirmed Bukovina's union with Romania or (unenforced) Paris 1920 that confirmed Bessarabia's. Welcometothejungle007 is right in that the Great Union is much more celebrated among Romanians than Trianon specifically, with the Trianon Treaty Day being a recent holiday approved in 2020. I believe it is appropriate to include important "establishment" events in the infobox of each country taking mainly into account the POV of the national historiography of said country and the relevance given to each event. So, if it's up to me, I would not include Trianon. Super Ψ Dro 22:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Super, I think this is an encyclopedia with important facts, and not the Great Union made the borders which became Greater Romania in 1920, but Trianon treaty established that X and Y and Z city became part of new Romania. Receiving important huge territories it cannot be less important than changing constitution. It should be here as state establishment event. 1859, 1877, 1881 also listed, however those also quite related. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• I honestly in the end do disagree with the inclusion of the Treaty of Trianon on the infobox. It was restored following Welcometothejungle007's ban. The Treaty of Trianon is not given nearly as much attention in Romanian historiography as the 1918 Great Union, the opposite to Hungarian historiography. The two events have sort of similar purposes at the infobox anyway, plus it also generates the question on why is Trianon but not Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919, for Bukovina) or Paris (1920, for Bessarabia). The three treaties and what they formalised are already included within the Great Union, but Transylvania's case specifically is given a second event. OrionNimrod, I understand the huge presence and importance given to the treaty in Hungarian historiography, and for this reason I do find it normal that it is listed as an establishment event at the Hungary article, but I believe this might have led you to overstate its perceived relevance outside of Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 01:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Super, I understand that you know the home situation better than me. Just brainstorming. I just thought official treaties is a country establishment events, as this shaped the borders and not a one sided assembly. Or this Great Union even was a starting point of the events (1918-20), start end of 1918 ended in mid 1920? It was also a Hungarian-Romanian war after WW1 in 1918-19. Regarding the current Russian-Ukrainian war, IF any territory change, I suppose the end of the war treaty could be an establishment event, as you said Trianon was the establishment event in Hungarian state, a signed treaty after end of war between parties. And I feel contradictory in the timeline, because we talk about the same big territory which was part of Hungary, so how can be the establishment event in 1918 exactly the same territory (area was not decided or was different, or just a wish) which was finally decided and signed in 1920 and belonged to Hungary officially before the signature? We can talk about war details, or occupation, but for example at the time of Great Union 1 December, Romanian troops did not occupy most of those lands (Oradea and many others) which was wished to be part of Romania, and even they claimed in the Great Union much more area what officially was given by the signed Trianon treaty. I also would include the another treaties what you mentioned as this is an encyclopedia.

  But I accept that you know better your home situation. However, for me the most strange thing was not the infobox, but that this Trianon event was not at all mentioned in this country article itself. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

These establishment events are subjective elements from Wikipedia, I don't think it makes sense to try establish a standard for all countries, instead we should review cases individually. In some historiographies some treaties are given great importance and in others this simply does not happen (e.g. the Slovakia article features the treaty in the infobox, as I assume it is seen as liberation by Slovaks, but it is not included at the Serbia article). The day the 1918 assembly in Transylvania met to vote unification with Romania is nothing less than Romania's national day, it is not comparable to the view of the Treaty of Trianon in the country, which is seen as simply formalising the situation on the ground. You say you would be willing to list the three treaties but this is definitively excessive, considering the Great Union is meant to cover all three events as a concept. Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war case, we can't know but I doubt a treaty or agreement will be included in the infobox of either, if it is it will depend on the importance it is given in each country. Hopefully I am making my point understood: I think we should focus more on perceived (justified or not) than on real importance on the event in the country in particular.

We could bring some other editors into the discussion but I don't think it is necessary as I think some will simply confirm that the treaty itself is simply not given as much importance as events like the foundation of Wallachia and Moldavia in Romanian historiography. And if the treaty was not mentioned in the article itself, that was definitively inappropriate and should have been fixed (the treaty is mentioned at the article as I am writing this). Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Super I see your points. Btw I added the treaty in the article text recently, that is why you can see now.

(It is not the topic, but Hungarian dont think "liberation" of Slovaks by Trianon, because Czecoslovakia got full Hungarian populated regions (even Pozsony/Bratislava had 15% Slovaks in 1920, it was mostly German majority city during all of its history), from Hungary Czechoslovakia got 1,7 million Slovaks + 900 000 Hungarians + 200 000 Germans (58% Slovak - 42% non-Slovak) and even Benes wanted more and more Hungarian lands as "lliberation of Hungarians from Hungarians?", like Miskolc and big part of western Hungary to make a corridor to Yugoslavia, Czecoslovakia also got Transcarpatia with 0 Czech population and history or 0 Slovak population, just simple to make an ally blockade around Germany, and the Entente paid his new allies from the territory of Hungary. Yugoslavia also demanded much more Hungarian lands like Romania demanded much more lands until Tisza and full Banate. Regarding in the artifical state strange long Czechoslovakia, the number of Germans were much more than Slovaks and they were treated as second class citizens together with Hungarians. Many bad deeds against Hungarians "in that liberated area" still until today (Hungarians not did those things with Slovaks) like language laws, like Benes decrees: ), which is still active in 21st century EU , just some recent things . And the numbers tells everything, the number of Slovaks increased in Hungary before 1920, after the numbers of Hungarians decreased much hardcore.) OrionNimrod (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you're not opposed anymore, so I've removed the treaty's entry at the infobox. Thanks for mentioning the treaty in the main article.

Yes, I am familiar with the general details of the situation you described. I meant strictly from the ethnic Slovak perspective. As some notes: (Hungarians not did those things with Slovaks) 19th-century Magyarization was real, and the ethnic composition of the Kingdom of Hungary did change by the start of the next century (by 10%, I believe), it is important to recognize its existence. This is not to whitewash though subsequent abuses against Hungarians, which should also be recognized, I think all of us (Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks, etc.) should live peacefully as friendly neighbours and with full mutual rights for each other, because we are civilized unlike certain people at the east. By the way, as far as I know, Romania never claimed land officially beyond the 1916 Treaty of Bucharest (or, at most, beyond this, but I don't know if it was officially claimed by the state), leaving for instance Debrecen out.

Anyway, thanks for this discussion. Have a nice day, Super Ψ Dro 20:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding to be peacefully as friendly neighbours! We also know in Hungary that Habsburgs were many times behind to incite ethnic people each other, Romanians against Hungarians as divide and conquer strategy.

So I think anti-Hungarian hate things in Slovakia, Romania in 21st century cannot be justified because "magyarization" in 19th century. That "magyarization" was just some decades and not so effective (but numbers tells everything in Slovakia and in other areas Oradea#Demographics + Cluj-Napoca#Demographics etc), comparing UK, France, Russia or even Romania, in contrast: Austria-Hungary was far way more liberal country and treated better its minorities in the standard of that age. On 28 July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in Europe, an act acknowledging the rights of non-Hungarians to use their own language on local and minor administrative levels and to maintain their own schools. Hungarian money called the "Kossuth bankó" (Kossuth banknote), with inscriptions in Hungarian and the languages of the nationalities on it: German, Slovak, Croatian, and Romanian (Cyrillic at that time):File:Kossuth bankó.jpg. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868). It was a liberal piece of legislation and offered extensive language and cultural rights. A-H money also had more languages: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/AHK_1000_1902_obverse.jpg/1920px-AHK_1000_1902_obverse.jpg

I know Romanians refer usually to Lex Appony law as "huge suppress", which was in 1907 (so quite late) (it also increased the salary of teachers) asked that to know the state language as second language, it does not mean Romanians needed to learn as Hungarian in Romanian schools, just like we learn English today as second language. It is quite normal I think. Today in Romania, in Slovakia this is expected from local Hungarian to know the state languages. Because in Kingdom of Hungary the universities were Hungarian, so it was a handicap in high education if ethnic people did not know the language, carrier. In 1918, there were 2,043 Romanian schools for the approximately 2.8 million Romanians in Hungary. More than that the 7 million Romanians had in the Kingdom of Romania at that time. In contrast: Romanian education in 1900: who acquired Romanian nationality, the children were able to study only in Romanian schools, and they total ellimanted multiethnic Romania, what happened in Dobruja and against Csangos? Morover today for Hungarians in Romania much hardcore the education law compared with Lex Apponyi as Hungarians even need make exams in Romanian.

And propaganda everywhere. Černová massacre, Slovaks said in 1907 to European press "massacres by evil Hungrians", and actually Slovak policemen shoot Slovaks... Or Romanian politican, member of Hungarian parliament Vaida-Voevod said his hardcore anti Hungarian poem in Hungarian parliament "Law-breaking Asian scum, You’ve been a rogue people from the very start, Not even knowing from where you came, You’ve become its fierce and wicked devils. For ten cursed centuries you’ve been leeching, Like bloodthirsty bedbugs on this land. Oh, you thieving horde!...", of course Hungarian members were angry, he timed his provocation exactly the same time when many foreign press was present in Budapest, so that Europeans can see what "angry Hungarian politicians how behave against a Romanian politician"...

In contrast Romanians did not mention the positive thing regarding Hungarians, this is a Transylvanian journal OrionNimrod (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ilie Bolojan - 15 September (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Please someone correct into "ousting" Zehlendorfer (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Sha lalad 09:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is Romania considered a technocratic regime since 2025? AeroVolk, Parody of DeroVolk (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we should do this to the infobox. ~2026-12680-00 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes, I will do this on that article on the infobox. AeroVolk, Parody of DeroVolk (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to do that either. AeroVolk, Parody of DeroVolk (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@CivicWeaver:, why do you consider a text supported primarily by references to primary sources, language manuals, and works published during the Communist period in Romania to be preferable to one based on more recent peer-reviewed scholarship? Furthermore, under WP:NPOV, theories should not be presented as established facts. It would therefore be inappropriate to treat one interpretation of Romanian ethnogenesis as definitive, particularly when citing a scholar (Vékony) who in fact represents a contrasting position. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Borsoka: Your recent edits involve the wholesale removal of established historical context regarding the Dacian Kingdom and Roman Dacia, which is problematic under several core policies:

WP:NPOV: While Wikipedia recognizes that historical interpretations can vary,

WP:WEIGHT requires us to give prominence to the prevailing academic consensus. The Romanization of Dacia and the subsequent Daco-Roman culture is not a "Communist-era theory"; it is the standard historical framework used by international archaeology and linguistics.

WP:FRINGE: Attempting to relegate the Daco-Roman continuity to a "minority theory" while prioritizing negationist views (like those often found in Vékony) violates the policy against giving undue weight to fringe or minority positions.

WP:TEND: Deleting well-sourced, foundational history about the Dacian tribes and the Roman conquest (106 AD) rather than refining the text is a form of disruptive editing.

The dismissal of archaeological data as 'Communist-era' appears to be an attempt to bypass WP:RS (Reliable Sources) in order to facilitate WP:POV pushing. Archeological evidence—such as Roman inscriptions, castra, and Daco-Roman pottery—is not subject to political ideology; these are empirical data points. Dismissing established history regarding the Romanization of Dacia under the guise of 'modernization' is a common hallmark of WP:TEND (Tendentious Editing) and WP:FRINGE revisionism.

If you wish to challenge the academic consensus of the Daco-Roman continuity, you must provide (International) peer-reviewed sources that explicitly refute these findings instead of specific nationalist sources, rather than unilaterally deleting sections to suit a specific Hungarian nationalist narrative. Any further attempts to 'blank' this history without WP:CONSENSUS will be treated as a violation of WP:GS CivicWeaver (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no academic consensus on the continuity theory. For instance, The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages concludes that the "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" in the debate about the Romanian ethnogenesis [Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 283–334 (on page 287). ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0.] This view is repeated by The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, published in 2016, which reiterates that "the location and extent of the territory where "Daco-Romance" originated" is uncertain [Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro–Romanian, Megleno–Romanian, and Arumanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–125 (on page 91). ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.]. I still do not understand why primary sources, language manuals and books published in the 1970s and 1980s should be preferred to recently published peer reviewed academic works. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this is English international Wikipedia in 21st century, and not a one sided 20th century nationalcommunist book.

adding "Dacia as a Romania state" is a hardcore national-communist ideological dacopathy propaganda. The nationalcommunist dictator Caecescu also celebrated in 1980 the anniversary of "2050th years Romania" in North Korea style and claimed himself of the incarnation of Dacian king Burebista (a communist want to be a king, an ideology tweak?) Followers of a theory produced many absurd fake history maps, like "Dacia" state between 800-1300 between Tisza-Dniester with historical irredentist political motivations. National communist maps in museum, Romania 1400s: [1] [2] between Tisza-Dniester. These absurd falsified maps at the expense of real history and history of another countries, clearly tells a lot about the political motivations of this political nationalist theory. (International history maps not like that File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg)

Should we add also Roman Pannonia as a Hungarian state? Roman Britannia for England? Byzantine Empire for Turkey? Gallia for France?... etc I dont think so.

1 CivicWeaver Daco-Roman addition while he removed the paleolitic things, he also extended the text with a lot of Dacian contents, while he removed 1000 years history in the region of others like Goths, Huns, Slavs, Avars, Hungarians, etc...

Daco-Roman theory (theory=not fact) is not accepted at all outside Romania (even inside Romania also not every Romanian historians accept it) and especially by neighboring countries as it does not match at all with their own historiography. Because it is a supermassive 1000+ years black gap between Dacians and late medieval Vlachs (ancestor of Romanians). (Despite, the followers of the theory claim "always majority population")

Harsh critics of this theory and its nationalistic political motivation:

Romanian historian, Cătălin Nicolae Popa [48] 2016 Cambridge University Press

"One of the peaks of the Dacomaniac phenomenon was reached in 1980, when, following the Iranian model that Ceauşescu witnessed, celebrations were held for the 2,050th anniversary of the first unitary Romanian state, that of the Geto-Dacian king Burebista"

"the Dacomaniac movement took shape, under the guidance of top Communist Party members. The adepts of these ideas continued the interwar protochronistic discourse and saw the Dacians as the only, or at least the most important, element that led to the ethnogenesis of the Romanians."

"how the Dacians and Romanians came to be connected, a process that resulted from a combination of nationalistic zeal on behalf of archaeologists and the nationalist propaganda of the Ceauşescu regime during the 1970s and 1980s."

"the latter that were chosen to provide an ancestral golden age, since the Dacian past alone, dating back to the Late Iron Age, supplied the uniqueness sought by Romanian nationalists and, at the same time, legitimated the 20th-century borders of the country."

"Some of the Dacian narratives produced in this environment are infused with strong nationalist messages and have the potential to fuel extreme right-wing and even xenophobic movements"

"during the first two decades of Communism, nationalist interpretations from the interwar period were disguised under a veneer of Marxist–Leninist discourse, which flooded the whole spectrum of archaeological writing."

"the deliberate intervention of the state, helped by museums, national education and targeted propaganda, the inhabitants of Romania were literally transformed into descendants of the Dacians, a process that I have named the ‘Dacianization’ of the Romanians. Such a development was likely aided by the framework of the totalitarian regime, which was able to control all the main sources of information."

Romanian historian, Andrei Gandila 2018 Cambridge University Press

"Although to some extent the manipulation of archaeological material was true of most Eastern European schools between 1945 and 1989, the Romanian case became the most conspicuous in its attempt to distort the past in order to serve the communist regime’s quest for legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s. Along with the pressures of an increasingly abusive dictatorship" ... "Indeed, the nationalistic discourse dominating the last communist decades in Eastern Europe distorted not only the interpretation of the archaeological evidence discussed in the previous chapter, but also views on the development of Christianity. Most studies shared a common agenda: to demonstrate the cultural continuity of the Daco-Roman population across centuries of vicissitude when the descendants of the Roman colonists had to deal with numerous barbarian invasions, while struggling to maintain their connection to the Roman world and assimilate the newcomers into their superior culture." ... "such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day."

Romanian historian, Ioan Marian Tiplic 2005

"the end of the 9th century to the beginning of the 12th is still a debated subject. Due to the lack of archaeological data that could prove the existence of the Romanian population in Transylvania, starting with the 19th century, the Romanian historiography transformed the stages of the formation of Romanian people into a political issue related to that time’s status-quo...Identifying archaeological artefacts belonging to the Hungarian population within the Carpathian Basin is only a routine exercise for today’s archaeologists...the medieval archaeology, regarded as a branch of the Romanian historical researches, it is not a surprise that a big part of the results are corrupted and unreal."

Romanian historian, Dennis Deletant 1992

"Most Romanian historians claim a continuous Romanian presence in Transylvania from the time of the Roman colonization of Dacia after its conquest by Trajan at the beginning of the second century AD. The Romans introduced into the province settlers from all parts of the Empire who intermarried with the local Dacian population and Romanized it, I bus producing the Daco-Roman people who were the forebears of the Romanians. After the Roman withdrawal from the province in 271-75, (lie province became a gateway to the south for successive invaders, with the Daco-Romans seeking refuge in the mountainous regions, thus preserving their Latin language and culture. This explanation of the Romanian presence in Transylvania is known as the theory of Daco- Roman continuity. The use of the word theory can be justified in the absence of convincing archaeological and historical evidence to support the case and it is precisely because of this that it is open to question. Hungarian historians discount the continuity theory by claiming that when the Romans abandoned Dacia its inhabitants accompanied them and by arguing that when the Magyars entered the central Danubian basin at the end of the ninth century, Transylvania's only inhabitants were Slavonic tribes."

"More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant- General Dr Ilie Ceau§escu, a brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Geiou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who ’succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities' population on the border, in mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory’,66 Such aberrations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Geiou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of mythos."

British historian, Martyn Rady 2000

"The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."

OrionNimrod (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"Should we add also Roman Pannonia as a Hungarian state? Roman Britannia for England? Byzantine Empire for Turkey? Gallia for France?... etc I dont think so."

The ancestors of Hungarians we're a nomadic people in Eurasia (just like Romani people are in romania), arriving from Mongolia to the Ural Mountains and then illegally occupied the Carpathian Basin and started endless wars with Dacian Kingdom and Roman Dacia over Dacian Territory of Transylvania, Dacians (Ancestors of modern Romanians) had Transylvania since 82 BC before getting occupied illegally by the Huns in 895 – 900 AD. CivicWeaver (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Please show me any war from this "endless Hungarian wars with ancient Dacian kingdom and Roman Dacia from around 900", modern academic international source please. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Dear CivicWeaver, The Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians were the latest shepherd nomad people among the present-day nations of Europe. Vast majority of Wallachians were shepherd nomads until the early modern period (!) Here is the collection of books and exact quotes of Western academic historians about the late nomadism of Romanians: https://daco-roman.blogspot.com/2021/02/romanians-latest-nomadic-ethnic-group.html Good reading ! --Adacks (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)