"Io Mihailŭ, Împĕratul Românilor" - A Michael the Brave Romania Wank

[FractiousDay]

I enjoyed this one. A lot of this TL has been pretty fast so it's nice to see something slowing down.

I question the viability of a military censorship agency, given historically the massive numbers of letters sent and so on. Romania here has a state post service right? I think it was part of the centralisation, and while I understand lots of Romanian society is comparably advanced, like the press and politics, but I don't think it could realistically extend to this sort of censorship.

Also, this

The real wars were fought during the reigns of Emperor Mihai

I found unusual for Mihai to be described as. Later we get:

Another day in the Imperium created by Saint Emperor Mihai I.

So fine, but as the founder of the nation and the most famous person in the whole country for all time I would have thought he'd have a special title like 'Great Father', or similar but obviously in Romanian.

Consider how certain historical figures are famous with a name that wasn't contemporaneously used.

 

[Zagan]

1. I enjoyed this one. A lot of this TL has been pretty fast so it's nice to see something slowing down.

2. I question the viability of a military censorship agency, given historically the massive numbers of letters sent and so on. Romania here has a state post service right? I think it was part of the centralisation, and while I understand lots of Romanian society is comparably advanced, like the press and politics, but I don't think it could realistically extend to this sort of censorship.

3. Also, this: The real wars were fought during the reigns of Emperor Mihai

4. I found unusual for Mihai to be described as. Later we get: Another day in the Imperium created by Saint Emperor Mihai I.

5. So fine, but as the founder of the nation and the most famous person in the whole country for all time I would have thought he'd have a special title like 'Great Father', or similar but obviously in Romanian.

6. Consider how certain historical figures are famous with a name that wasn't contemporaneously used.

1. Thanks.

2. Yes, the Romanian Post is state owned. It is simply way too important. The army was extremely centralized and well organized. It was by far the most advanced and modern part of the society.
Each day, about 1 in 100 soldiers sent a letter home. From an army of cca. 50,000 men, this meant about 500 letters a day. One or two censors were enough to read all of them. Not a big deal.

3. Here the character is speaking.

4. Here the author is speaking.

5. His title is Viteazul (the Brave). I will add it.

6. Our character was contemporaneous with Mihai. They met in person and fought together against the Turks.

 

[FractiousDay]

censors

Ah ok, I'd recently watched a video about the censorship of German letters out of the siege of Stalingrad, and the staff of censors, though large, could open only 1% or so of letters, but if there's so few letters, I assume because of literacy rates then that's fine.

Viteazul

Hmm, fair enough, I was considering classical figures in articular, like Caesar, who even though lots of people knew him from various political and military settings, still revered him as a god when he was proclaimed as such. 'Viteazul' in this story is the same sort of divine figure, leading the nation, indeed, creating the nation. He was divinely inspired from the start, with the List and the Vision, and people still consider this in 'real life'. For example, I seem to recall you having people discussing the organisation of the flag and saying it needed to be a particular way because of how it was in the Vision.

 

[Zagan]

1. Ah ok, I'd recently watched a video about the censorship of German letters out of the siege of Stalingrad, and the staff of censors, though large, could open only 1% or so of letters, but if there's so few letters, I assume because of literacy rates then that's fine.

2. Hmm, fair enough, I was considering classical figures in articular, like Caesar, who even though lots of people knew him from various political and military settings, still revered him as a god when he was proclaimed as such. 'Viteazul' in this story is the same sort of divine figure, leading the nation, indeed, creating the nation. He was divinely inspired from the start, with the List and the Vision, and people still consider this in 'real life'. For example, I seem to recall you having people discussing the organisation of the flag and saying it needed to be a particular way because of how it was in the Vision.

1. At Stalingrad there were one million Germans, all of them literate. Here there are only 50,000 Romanians, about a half of them literate and writing rarely due to the high cost of the Post service.

2. It seems that you have in depth knowledge of my TL. I am really impressed.
Yes, most people view him as a mythical figure, a Warrior Saint or even a Prophet of God.

 

[FractiousDay]

It seems that you have in depth knowledge of my TL. I am really impressed.

Well you're pretty much the only person doing Romanian TLs on here so its pretty memorable. I even watched the film (well, half of it, till I couldn't remember what's happening and who was who eventually).

It also helps that its a narrative driven story. I wouldn't normally read a Romanian TL because I care very little about the country, but I'm interested in this because its the continuation of a stry about a guy who went about in a nice hat doing stuff, so because it was a good 'story' of his life the TL about random other stuff is more interesting

 

[fluttersky]

I'm surprised at how stringent the Nationalists are. They only consider the "original Romanians" to be true Romanians? I'd have thought that by now, the original Romanians would be outnumbered by "new Romanians" (assimilated Serbs, Bulgarians, etc).

Anyway, that was a very nice slice of life update. It would be interesting to see more of those from the perspective of different families from the different cultures in Romania. For example, a family, or even a whole community, of Muslim Turks in Romania Proper who pretend to be Christian Romanians in public to avoid deportation.

 

[Zagan]

1. I'm surprised at how stringent the Nationalists are. They only consider the "original Romanians" to be true Romanians? I'd have thought that by now, the original Romanians would be outnumbered by "new Romanians" (assimilated Serbs, Bulgarians, etc).

2. Anyway, that was a very nice slice of life update. It would be interesting to see more of those from the perspective of different families from the different cultures in Romania. For example, a family, or even a whole community, of Muslim Turks in Romania Proper who pretend to be Christian Romanians in public to avoid deportation.

1. About 1700, in Romania Proper: 30% "Original Romanians", 20% "Mixed Romanians", 30% "New Romanians", 20% Non-Romanized Minorities. (approx. proportions; nobody could know for sure)
And yes, they are quite extreme. The population is stratified like this: Romanians > "Protected Nations" (Germans, Szeklers) > Minorities > Foreigners.
They want to add another stratus: "True Romanians" > "Romanized Minorities" > "Protected Nations" (Germans, Szeklers) > Minorities > Foreigners.
So far, they are not successful. Later, it would be impossible to tell them apart anyway.
What might the Nationalists obtain is to stop further Romanizations in the Orient for example.
If they win, Romania Proper will stay in Europe. If not, Romania Proper might expand in Asia and Africa, following the Empire. Only time will tell.

2. Thanks. Wonderful idea. I will do that!
Like in Spain after the Reconquista, there are lots of non-sincere converts. Their history will be interesting.

 

[fluttersky]

1. About 1700, in Romania Proper: 30% "Original Romanians", 20% "Mixed Romanians", 30% "New Romanians", 20% Non-Romanized Minorities. (approx. proportions; nobody could know for sure)
And yes, they are quite extreme. The population is stratified like this: Romanians > "Protected Nations" (Germans, Szeklers) > Minorities > Foreigners.
They want to add another stratus: "True Romanians" > "Romanized Minorities" > "Protected Nations" (Germans, Szeklers) > Minorities > Foreigners.
So far, they are not successful. Later, it would be impossible to tell them apart anyway.

Right, so the Nationalists have a pretty limited support base. Very few of the "New Romanians" will support the nationalists.

I expect the only way the Nationalists can survive will be to accept the formerly-Slav New Romanians as being true Romanians, and focus on avoiding the Romanianization of any more ethnic groups (e.g. Arabs).

Another thing the Nationalists might try to do is revoke the protected nation status of the Germans and Szeklers.

One thing I'm wondering is, how do the Romanian authorities differentiate Szeklers from Magyars, considering that they speak the same language? Is it just based on location, i.e. anyone who lives in Transylvania and speaks Magyar is classified as a Szekler? Or are there other criteria?

2. Thanks. Wonderful idea. I will do that!
Like in Spain after the Reconquista, there are lots of non-sincere converts. Their history will be interesting.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to this update

 

[Zagan]

1. Right, so the Nationalists have a pretty limited support base. Very few of the "New Romanians" will support the nationalists.

2. I expect the only way the Nationalists can survive will be to accept the formerly-Slav New Romanians as being true Romanians, and focus on avoiding the Romanianization of any more ethnic groups (e.g. Arabs).

3. Another thing the Nationalists might try to do is revoke the protected nation status of the Germans and Szeklers.

4. One thing I'm wondering is, how do the Romanian authorities differentiate Szeklers from Magyars, considering that they speak the same language? Is it just based on location, i.e. anyone who lives in Transylvania and speaks Magyar is classified as a Szekler? Or are there other criteria?

5. Thanks! I'm looking forward to this update

1. Correct. However, with each year passed, it's becoming harder to meaningfully differentiate between Romanians, new and old.

2. Most probably. And this is simpler as well. Just throw in some rasist jumbo-mumbo and voila, Turks, Arabs, etc cannot become Romanians because they do not even look like us, etc. Supplementary, their conversion to Christianity could be considered false, rightfully or no.

3. Sure, they might. It's interesting that the Progresists are trying to do the same thing, only in the different direction -- make them equal with the Romanian majority.

4. Well...
4.1. Self-identification. Before cca. 1900, including in OTL, the Szeklers themselvs had a clearly different national identity from Magyars.
4.2. Language. The Szekely dialect was considerably more different from standard Hungarian than today, let's say like Low German to High German.
4.3. Documents. How were your parents classified?
4.4. Location. Most Hungarians have been expulsed to Rump Hungary.
4.5. Appearance. Clothes, customs, architecture, songs, etc.

5. In one of the remaining chapters from the Century of Peace (3-5 chapters, I believe).

 

[Sir Omega]

Wouldn't foreigners be somewhat above minorities? TTL Romania has reasonably good relations with its neighbors, and generally there are more tensions between the majority population and some minorities than with foreigners which have less history with their adoptive country.

 

[Zagan]

Wouldn't foreigners be somewhat above minorities? TTL Romania has reasonably good relations with its neighbors, and generally there are more tensions between the majority population and some minorities than with foreigners which have less history with their adoptive country.

Well, the foreigners are obviously not harrassed or anything (if they are Europeans and Christians), but they do have less rights, for example they cannot own land or reside permanently in Romania. The minorities, while not Romanian Citizens, are at least Romanian Subjects. This is what I meant.

Of course, there are foreigners and foreigners. We cannot expect a Muslim Arab, a Jew or an Animist African to be treated exactly like a Catholic Pole or a Protestant German. We don't live in a perfect society even now and that certainly wasn't the case 300 years ago in Imperial Romania.

 

[Zagan]

I think it's better to make things a little clearer regarding the proto-parties.
And, since a little bit of humor won't hurt, here you are:

The Conservatives: Feudal Privileges were awesome. Now that you cancelled them, we'd like to at least maintain our wealth and political clout. No more stupid stuff like equality with the stupid peasants or other non-sense. Deal?

The Progressives: Full equality in front of the Law! Citizenship for all Subjects of the Imperium! Democracy! Rule of Law! Responsable Government! Now!

The Nationalists: No Union with Greece! No more expansion of our borders! The Romanian Nation is being diluted by the massive influx of foreign, Slavic blood. We must stop the process of ethnic assimilation or else the Romanians of the future will be a bastardized people.

Minority Candidates: Fellow [Germans / Szeklers / etc], vote for one of your own! Only I can secure our rights and fight for our survival as a people.

Independents: Whatever. Just vote for me.

The Church: You can vote for anyone you want. We are not allowed to influence you. Just make sure it isn't a crazy Nationalist or a Godless Progressive!

The Army: Meh. We don't care. We yield the greastest power in Romania anyway. However, the Nationalists look kind'a cool. For now.

The Empress: The Conservatives would be fine, it's just that we nearly had a civil war with them. The Nationalists are really scary, they may break the cohesion of the overbloated Romanian Nation with their non-sense about "original true Romanians". The Progressives are too radical, but at least I can talk with them. What the heck, I'll stick with them and try to moderate their talk.

 

[FractiousDay]

The Romanian Nation is being diluted by the massive influx of foreign, Slavic blood.

Remind us if you would what ITL Romanians consider themselves as? There's the Roman/Trojan thing going on but I generally assumed they are some variation of Slav?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Remind us if you would what ITL Romanians consider themselves as? There's the Roman/Trojan thing going on but I generally assumed they are some variation of Slav?

Romanians are Romance not Slavic, that's why they're called Romania.

 

[Zagan]

Remind us if you would what ITL Romanians consider themselves as? There's the Roman/Trojan thing going on but I generally assumed they are some variation of Slav?

OTL: Romanians are not Slavs and we have never considered us Slavs. In fact, nobody considers us Slavs. We are a Romance People. The National foundation myths consider us as Daco-Romans, Dacians being a subset of Thracians. In reality, we are an admixture of more Dacians / Thracians, some Celts, some Slavs / Baltics, a few Romans / Latins, a few Migratory Peoples from Asia.

TTL: The National myths are similar, only with the broader Thracian category instead of the Dacians, mainly in order to account for the Balkan Romanians (Aromanians, etc). The reality is also similar, just with a much largar Slavic admixture due to the assimilation of almost two million Balkan Slavs (which themselves were a mixture of Thracians, Romans, Slavs, etc, in different proportions... It's rather complicated).

TL;DR: We are not Slavs.

 

[FractiousDay]

Romanians are Romance not Slavic, that's why they're called Romania.

TL;DR: We are not Slavs.

Fair enough, as I've said I know very little about Romania, but I think in hindsight I was talking more about ethnicity, rather than culture? The quote from the story post was about 'Slavic blood', which I found odd since I had considered Romanians to be Slavic, or rather of Slavic extraction. I'm aware Romanian as a language looks a lot like Italian because it is indeed a Romance language.

The Nationalists seemed to be worried about 'diluting' the Romanian blood with Slavic blood, this was what I found unusual, that there seemed ITL to be a definite identification and promotion of the idea that the Romanians are ethnically different (by blood, for whatever qualification you use) rather than simply by culture.

Doing some very quick research seems to support this? There's no ethnic ties (the sort the Nationalists seem to be concerned about) between Hispanians, Latins and Gauls that make up the 'Romance' ethnicity, its a cultural thing. Similarly, Romanians are Dacian-Roman, at the very least half Slavic like the Portuguese are half Suebi.

I did not think it would be justifiable, ITL for the Nationalists to say the Slavs were significantly divergent from them in terms of 'blood', given there surely cannot have been enough Romans who settled there to significantly change the 'blood' to Roman?

Of course if this is just a matter of the Nationalists claiming that the ITL Romanians are special then fair enough, that's pretty standard for nationalist parties to do. See Franco declaring all languages to be dialects of Spanish.

 

[Sian]

I did not think it would be justifiable, ITL for the Nationalists to say the Slavs were significantly divergent from them in terms of 'blood', given there surely cannot have been enough Romans who settled there to significantly change the 'blood' to Roman?

'Blood' shouldn't be taken literately, but is used as a shorthand of "Disgusting foreign culture"

 

[Zagan]

Fair enough, as I've said I know very little about Romania, but I think in hindsight I was talking more about ethnicity, rather than culture? The quote from the story post was about 'Slavic blood', which I found odd since I had considered Romanians to be Slavic, or rather of Slavic extraction. I'm aware Romanian as a language looks a lot like Italian because it is indeed a Romance language.

The Nationalists seemed to be worried about 'diluting' the Romanian blood with Slavic blood, this was what I found unusual, that there seemed ITL to be a definite identification and promotion of the idea that the Romanians are ethnically different (by blood, for whatever qualification you use) rather than simply by culture.

Doing some very quick research seems to support this? There's no ethnic ties (the sort the Nationalists seem to be concerned about) between Hispanians, Latins and Gauls that make up the 'Romance' ethnicity, its a cultural thing. Similarly, Romanians are Dacian-Roman, at the very least half Slavic like the Portuguese are half Suebi.

I did not think it would be justifiable, ITL for the Nationalists to say the Slavs were significantly divergent from them in terms of 'blood', given there surely cannot have been enough Romans who settled there to significantly change the 'blood' to Roman?

Of course if this is just a matter of the Nationalists claiming that the ITL Romanians are special then fair enough, that's pretty standard for nationalist parties to do. See Franco declaring all languages to be dialects of Spanish.

1. For simplicity's sake, let's say that the Romanian People is around one quarter Slavic. And so are the Bulgarians and the Serbians for that matter (the Thracian component is stronger, only their languages are Slavic).

2. Do not ever try to reason with an extremist Nationalist. It is pointless, as they do not use reason, but feelings.

'Blood' shouldn't be taken literately, but is used as a shorthand of "Disgusting foreign culture"

Well, no. They meant it ad literam. They used "blood" only because they didn't know the word "genes" at that time.

It is absurd, I know. The Romanians, Bulgarians and Serbs are indistinguishable genetically even today, much less in the 17th century.

 

[FractiousDay]

Well, no. They meant it ad literam. They used "blood" only because they didn't know the word "genes" at that time.

It is absurd, I know. The Romanians, Bulgarians and Serbs are indistinguishable genetically even today, much less in the 17th century.

Yea this was my understanding, thanks for the explanation

 

[Grammar Kaiser]

What are Romania and Turkey's (what's left of it in 17xx) individual area?