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

Zagan

Donor
Interesting. Can you please expand on this and why it is a poor choice for Romanian language? Sorry for the somewhat off topic question.

The reason for this question is because in Moldova, the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet was used until its independence from USSR and continues to be used in Transistria.

One would think (at least me, only familiar with Romanian through speaking with my in-laws) that a sound is a sound whether represented by a Latin letter or Cyrillic letter. Thanks...

There is not a one to one correspondence (bijection) between the Romanian alphabet and the Soviet imposed "Moldavian" Cyrrilic alphabet. For example, machine transliteration is impossible.

The problem is that:
1. The Cyrrilic alphabet has letters corresponding to a lot of Slavic sounds absent or different in Romanian.
2. The Cyrrilic alphabet does not have letters for sounds specific to Romanian which do not exist in the Slavic languages.

The criminal soviet regime forced it anyway upon the Romanians in the conquered areas with awful results. Even now, that abomination is still forced on the Romanians still under communist oppression (Transnistria).

The fact is that you cannot write any language with any alphabet.
Well, in fact you can. You use the International Phonetic Alphabet. The problem is that it has hundreds of letters!
 
Last edited:

Zagan

Donor
Latin and or greek

:confused:

Latin has not been used since Proto-Romanian split from Vulgar Latin, before A.D. 1000.

Greek has never been used by the Romanians / Proto-Romanians themselves.

The only native language spoken by the Romanians has been the Romanian language.
 
Last edited:

Zagan

Donor
Zagan you need to control your map skills, they're getting out of control. :D

:D

I do already have some diachronic map prepared as well.
The first of them will be the territorial evolution of Romania 1601-16xx (after the following war).

If you need a map, I am glad to try and help.
 
Last edited:
That map is just awesome.
As for the alphabet question, I´m not so sure as to which alphabet "fits" Romanian phonemes better. After all, Romanian is phonetically much more influenced by Slavic languages than the modern Romance languages in the West.
So, to compare compatibilities:
In the Cyrillic alphabet, you have a few graphemes that are of little use for Romanian (the palatalised ones and some diphtongs): ё, љ, њ, щ, ю and я, and one grapheme with does not occur in Romanian ever: х
Instead, there is no grapheme for the Romanian phoneme "h" in Cyrillic.
In the Latin alphabet, on the other hand, you have the graphemes x, y and q that are of no use for Romanian. Instead, there are no graphemes for the Romanian phonemes which are today written as ă, î, ş and ţ and also none for the soft g and c.

OTL, the decision for Latin meant simply that ROmanians don`t have a use for x, y, q and w on their keyboards unless they write in foreign languages, or loanwords from such languages. Instead, diacritic solutions had to be found for the above-mentioned lacking graphemes - for which, to be clear, Cyrillic options exist.

Had ROmanians decided to stick with the Cyrillic alphabet, then phonology surely wouldn`t have been an obstacle. The "X", "x" could indeed simply have changed its phonetic value in Romania from the guttural to the voiced glottal fricative.
 
The difference is political symbolism:
In the 20th and maybe even 21st century, Latin feels more Western, Cyrillic has its political associations with communism.
In the 19th century, Latin also felt Western, while Cyrillic had the overtones of autocratic Tsardom.
In TTL`s early 17th century, Latin may underline the claim to be some sort of "Nova Roma", I´m not sure how Cyrillic was viewed back then, though.
 

Zagan

Donor
That map is just awesome.
As for the alphabet question, I´m not so sure as to which alphabet "fits" Romanian phonemes better. After all, Romanian is phonetically much more influenced by Slavic languages than the modern Romance languages in the West.
So, to compare compatibilities:
In the Cyrillic alphabet, you have a few graphemes that are of little use for Romanian (the palatalised ones and some diphtongs): ё, љ, њ, щ, ю and я, and one grapheme with does not occur in Romanian ever: х
Instead, there is no grapheme for the Romanian phoneme "h" in Cyrillic.
In the Latin alphabet, on the other hand, you have the graphemes x, y and q that are of no use for Romanian. Instead, there are no graphemes for the Romanian phonemes which are today written as ă, î, ş and ţ and also none for the soft g and c.

OTL, the decision for Latin meant simply that ROmanians don`t have a use for x, y, q and w on their keyboards unless they write in foreign languages, or loanwords from such languages. Instead, diacritic solutions had to be found for the above-mentioned lacking graphemes - for which, to be clear, Cyrillic options exist.

Had ROmanians decided to stick with the Cyrillic alphabet, then phonology surely wouldn`t have been an obstacle. The "X", "x" could indeed simply have changed its phonetic value in Romania from the guttural to the voiced glottal fricative.

Well, you seem to be more knowledgeable than me in this regard.

Anyway, keeping the Cyrillic alphabet would have been politically unwise in TTL and politically suicidal in OTL. (we wanted to distance ourselves from Russia as much as possible, since in the 19th century, Russia wanted to conquer us)

The difference is political symbolism:
In the 20th and maybe even 21st century, Latin feels more Western, Cyrillic has its political associations with communism.
In the 19th century, Latin also felt Western, while Cyrillic had the overtones of autocratic Tsardom.
In TTL`s early 17th century, Latin may underline the claim to be some sort of "Nova Roma", I´m not sure how Cyrillic was viewed back then, though.

Mihai's Romania wanted to assert its Latinity.
Even in OTL, Mihai had always looked to the Occident for inspiration, guidance and help.
 
Last edited:
:confused:

Latin has not been used since Proto-Romanian split from Vulgar Latin, before A.D. 1000.

Greek has never been used by the Romanians / Proto-Romanians themselves.

The only native language spoken by the Romanians has been the Romanian language.

Before the 1800s only the clergy, official scribes and some lucky nobles could reed and write. Correspondence between nations was in latin and later french. The Romanian Ortodox church used greek like the Catholic church used latin. There is evidence that some priest tried to make a cyrillic romanian alphabet but it was not widespread or even widely known.
 

Zagan

Donor
Before the 1800s only the clergy, official scribes and some lucky nobles could reed and write. Correspondence between nations was in latin and later french. The Romanian Ortodox church used greek like the Catholic church used latin. There is evidence that some priest tried to make a cyrillic romanian alphabet but it was not widespread or even widely known.

That is exactly what I wrote in earlier posts: Literacy was extremely low.
That's why the Romanian Cyrrilic alphabet (an artificial creation anyway) was not missed by anybody and the transition to the Latin alphabet was so easy.
 
Last edited:
The difference is political symbolism:
In the 20th and maybe even 21st century, Latin feels more Western, Cyrillic has its political associations with communism.
In the 19th century, Latin also felt Western, while Cyrillic had the overtones of autocratic Tsardom.
In TTL`s early 17th century, Latin may underline the claim to be some sort of "Nova Roma", I´m not sure how Cyrillic was viewed back then, though.

Im pretty sure, Cyrillic was more or less the "lingua franca" alphabet, like in the rest of the Orthodox world which is why it took root in Romania. Also, Old Churcvh Slavonic was the liturgical language for Orthodoxy and even today, this language uses an archaic ancient form of Cyrillic that contains letters eliminated from modern use.
 
Last edited:

Zagan

Donor
Im pretty sure, Cyrillic was more or less the "lingua franca" alphabet, like in the rest of the Orthodox world which is why it took root in Romania

Not in the Greek areas though. The Greeks, although Orthodox have never used the Cyrrilics.

Anyway, let us put the alphabet issue aside, because it is already settled and an update will be online today.
 
Last edited:
That map is just awesome.
As for the alphabet question, I´m not so sure as to which alphabet "fits" Romanian phonemes better. After all, Romanian is phonetically much more influenced by Slavic languages than the modern Romance languages in the West.
So, to compare compatibilities:
In the Cyrillic alphabet, you have a few graphemes that are of little use for Romanian (the palatalised ones and some diphtongs): ё, љ, њ, щ, ю and я, and one grapheme with does not occur in Romanian ever: х
Instead, there is no grapheme for the Romanian phoneme "h" in Cyrillic.
In the Latin alphabet, on the other hand, you have the graphemes x, y and q that are of no use for Romanian. Instead, there are no graphemes for the Romanian phonemes which are today written as ă, î, ş and ţ and also none for the soft g and c.

OTL, the decision for Latin meant simply that ROmanians don`t have a use for x, y, q and w on their keyboards unless they write in foreign languages, or loanwords from such languages. Instead, diacritic solutions had to be found for the above-mentioned lacking graphemes - for which, to be clear, Cyrillic options exist.

Had ROmanians decided to stick with the Cyrillic alphabet, then phonology surely wouldn`t have been an obstacle. The "X", "x" could indeed simply have changed its phonetic value in Romania from the guttural to the voiced glottal fricative.

My view as well. You have in use Latin Alphabets that have different pronunciations in different languages. For instance: questo (this) in Italian has the "kw" sound in first syllable. In Spanish, the word quise (I wanted) instead has a hard "k" sound in first syllable.

Agree on your example with Cyrillic X and Latin H, same example. The alphabet has a different sound depending on what country it is spoken in.

Otherwise, Zagan, your point about Mihai wanting to emphasize the Latin-ness of Romanian remains true and also agrees with OTL Romanian shift to a Latin alphabet in the 1800s. I would say the shift to Latin is even more appropriate in this TL since I remember earlier you mentioned that certain words in the language that were Slavic, Turkish etc... origin were eliminated.
 

Zagan

Donor
Otherwise, Zagan, your point about Mihai wanting to emphasize the Latin-ness of Romanian remains true and also agrees with OTL Romanian shift to a Latin alphabet in the 1800s. I would say the shift to Latin is even more appropriate in this TL since I remember earlier you mentioned that certain words in the language that were Slavic, Turkish etc... origin were eliminated.

Eliminated words... :eek:
TTL they have tried that, but with less than satisfactory results.
A spoken language rarely responds well to laws...
Anyway, a few words got eliminated and some got their frequency reduced compared to their Romance synonims, but don't imagine that the language got to be pure Romance!
 
Last edited:
I.37. Romanian Historiography

Zagan

Donor
Teaching the National History of the Romanians is one of the most important tools we have
in our neverending battle of strengthening the National Consciousness of our People.


Romanian Historiography



The History of the Romanians had always been used with the overt purpose of instilling Romanian Nationalism in the young generations of students regardless of their ethnicity, contributing thus to the assimilation of the ethnic minorities.

To illustrate the merger of historiography and propaganda we provide some notable examples from Romanian historical publications.


History of the Romanians (Istoria Românilor)

Note: Textbook used in the second year of the Gymnasium (12 year old children) all over Romania, published by the Romanian Ministry of Education in 1687.


Lesson 3. The Romanian Ethnogenesis

[...]

As shown in the first lesson, The Thracians, the territory of modern Romania was inhabited in the past by a people called Thracians.

According to Herodotus, the Father of History, the Thracians were the most numerous people in the whole World, after the far away Indians.

[...]

Unfortunately, the Thracians have never achieved National Unity as we did under Emperor Mihai Viteazul. They were divided into several powerful kingdoms: Dacia, Moesia, Pannonia, Illiria, Scythia, Macedonia and many others.

The lack of National Consciousness had allowed the subversion of the Macedonian Empire (the Greatest Empire in the World before the Iberian Empire) by the scheming Greeks, a nefarious feat which they similarly managed a millenium later, the subversion of the Eastern Roman Empire.

In our time, such a phenomenon is unconcievable because we the Romanians are not only a People but a Nation and Nations do not allow their State to be stolen from beneath their feet without fighting to the death.

[...]

The same lack of National Unity and National Consciousness of the Thracians allowed the growing Roman Empire to conquer them, as described in the previous lesson, The Roman Conquest.

Fortunately, the Romans were a beacon of light in the darkness of that period and, instead of being destroyed as it most always happens with conquered populations, the Thracians actually benefitted enormously from the integration into the superior society of the Roman Empire.

Over the following centuries, the Thracians enjoyed a happy, prosperous and safe life, united for the first time in their history under the benevolent umbrella of the Roman Empire.

[...]

Being part of the Roman State and in continuous contact with the superior Roman way of life, mores, customs, culture and civilisation, the Thracians gradually adopted all these and thus became Romans.
In a few generations, the old Thracian language was gradually forgotten and the Thracians began to speek the official language of the State, Latin.

This process is called Romanization and it was an Empire-wide phenomenon, its result being not only the Romanians, but also the Italians, the Iberians and the French.
Some people, like the Greeks, the Germans, the Britons and the peoples from the Asian and African parts of the Roman Empire did not get romanized.
We can thus conclude that we were lucky to have the honour to be the proud bearers of the Torch of Latinity through the Dark Ages up to the Glorious Present.

[...]

The various forms of the Latin language spoken in the Roman Provinces evolved during the following centuries, diverging from Latin into the present day Romance languages of Romanian, Italian, Iberian and French.

Now we can only lament the lost beauty of that primordial Romanian language, unspoiled by the later admixture with the ugly languages of our invaders.
Fact is that hundreds of foreign words crept into the Romanian language because of the unfortunate presence among us of the Slavic, Hungarian and Turkic invaders.

Fortunately, the Romanian population had always been so massive all over the Romanian Lands that, no matter how many Slavs, Hungarians and Turks settled there, the result was always the same: they vanished, absorbed into the mass of Romanians.
These invaders left only minor influences in our language and customs, influences which are now being weeded by our self-conscious Nation.

[...]


Lesson 4. The Dark Ages

[...]

Until the beginning of the 7th century, the Romanians were still more or less protected by their State, the declining Roman Empire.
The invaders used to come and go, pillaging the Romanian Lands but leaving no permanent marks on the History of the Romanians.

Sadly, everything changed with the dual catastrophe of the 7th century:
the Great Slavic Invasion and the Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Around A.D. 610, the Slavic Tribes invaded the Eastern Roman Empire. Unlike the previous invaders, the Slavs were more numerous and despite being savages, they practiced agriculture and were not fundamentally nomadic.

There is no question that without the betrayal of the Greeks, the still mostly intact State structures and Legions of the Roman Empire would have overcome the Slavic menace and would have kept the aging Empire alive.

Sadly, not being content with everything the Romans provided during the centuries, the Greeks betrayed the Empire that protected and nourished them and through a coup d'état, they killed the Thracian Emperor Phocas and changed the Official Language from Latin to Greek.

Thus, the Eastern Roman Empire ceased to exist and a Greek Byzantine Empire took its place.

The Romanians lost their country. Its Southern part was mischievously appropriated by the Greeks while its Northern part was conquered by the Slavs who settled in great numbers in our Lands.

[...]

The question arises: were the two catastrophic events a mere tragic coincidence or the Slavs and the Greeks had worked hand in hand for the destruction of the Roman Empire and the enslavement of the Romanians?
We can only hope that, in the future, History would answer this question and expose that sinister anti-Romanian conspiration.

[...]

The Romanians would not have States of their own for the following six centuries, living under the constant oppression of their foreign masters, the Greeks and the Slavs.
Now, in this Time of Greatness, it is difficult for us to comprehend the shame felt by our ancestors who were ruled by such petty peoples as the Greeks, the Slavs and later the Hungarians and the Heathen Turks.

But misery and desolation could not last forever and our tormenters finally lost the backing of Satan.
Beginning with the 13th century, the Romanians were once again masters of their Lands and created several Romanian States: The Romanian-Bulgarian Empire ruled by the Romanian dynasty Asan, The Romanian Land, also called Wallachia ruled by the ancestors of our first Emperor, Moldavia and Transylvania.

[...]

A mention should be made here of the derogatory terms Wallachia / Vlach, still used today by some of our enemies.
It cannot be stressed more forcefully that we, the Romanians, have never used those despicable words. They were, from the very beginning, used only by foreigners in order to deny us our glorious Roman heritage and were especially important for the Greeks who had stolen the name Roman for themselves.

During the centuries, that enormous lie (that the Greeks were Romans) started to be accepted by the Occident and, since we could not complain, it allowed the Germans to style themselves as Romans as well.

Imagine the paradoxal situation in which an Empire ruled by Greeks and another Empire ruled by Germans, both styled themselves as Roman Empires, while neither was actually Roman.
In the mean time, the real Romans either called themselves something else (Italians, French, Catalans, Castilians, Portuguese) or were denied the name Romans and called Vlachs (us, the Romanians).

Everything was turned upside-down. We had to wait for Emperor Mihai to rise and once again place European History on its normal tracks, for which we and Europe will be forever grateful.

[...]


Thracians in Asia Minor - Troy (Traci în Asia Mică - Troia)

Note: Article published in the prestigious Historia Magazine in May 1855 by Romanian historian Ioan Alexe.

[...]

The discovery of the ruins of the Ancient City of Troy in Asia Minor near the Strait of the Dardanelles is one of the most important archeological successes of this century.

[...]

Although taken for granted long before because of the T-R consonant group, the fact that the Ancient Trojans were in fact Thracians has been finally proven without doubt by careful examination of the thousands of artefacts unearthed by the archeologists.

[...]

Conclusions:
1. The Trojans were Thracians.
2. The Thracians lived not only in the Balkan Peninsula, but in Asia Minor as well.
3. The enmity between the Thracians and the Greeks stems from times immemorial, from prehistory.
4. Homer was writing about historical events. The Iliad is not a work of fiction.
5. The Romanian annexation of Asia Minor was not a conquest of foreign territory, but the recovery of our Lands lost by our ancestors a long time ago to Greek perfidy (the Trojan Horse).
6. Justice had finally been done to the Trojans.
7. If the Iliad has been already proven to be historically accurate, it is now very probable that the Aeneid is historically accurate as well.
8. If the Aeneid is historical as well, then our ancestors, the Trojans, are the founders of Rome and thus of the European Civilization itself! It seems that the Romanians are not an offshoot of the Occident, but its backbone!


Note: It was not until the 20th century that Romanian Historiography finally began to dissociate itself from propaganda and started to slowly turn from an instrument of the State into a real Science.
 
Last edited:

Zagan

Donor
Thoughts for the future:

1. More modernization of the State and Society.

2. Some democracy (for Romanians only) and Elections (with census suffrage).

3. Internal unrest / troubles and responce.

4. Colonial issues; more wars.


I am having some trouble with a reasonable time frame for no. 2.

New chapter possibly today or at least tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
So what did the Romanians think of the usurpation of Phocas from Maurice?

The Romanian historiography of the ERE was so f#$ked up it was actually funny!They made no mention of the Persians at all.
 
Was that too extreme even for a Nationalist State?

Maybe in modern times. In the 1600s, it fits. Sure to inspire and whip up a nation state into a nationalistic fervor. By tying Romanians into ancient Troyans it provides a casus belli for a future war in Asia Minor.

For sure the end of Ottoman power and perhaps state
 
Top