Neoclassical Romania

[Gukpard]

Could Romania go full neoclassical after the creation of the Kingdom of Romania in 1881?

We have a thread about possible names of a restored greater greece, and one of the comments said that if Romania wanted to difference themselves from a Greater Greece (that most likely would be called Rhomania) they could rename their country to Dacia, what do you think?

 

[Arkenfolm]

Could Romania go full neoclassical after the creation of the Kingdom of Romania in 1881?

We have a thread about possible names of a restored greater greece, and one of the comments said that if Romania wanted to difference themselves from a Greater Greece (that most likely would be called Rhomania) they could rename their country to Dacia, what do you think?

I think like many Romanians would that Greece should just change their name back and stop infringing on Romania's name. Greece lost the rights in 1453.

 

[Spatharios]

Not really a big problem in most languages; Romania was actually better known as Rumania in English until fairly recently, and in several other European languages it remains so (Rumänien, Roumanie, Rumanía). Assuming that Greater Greece forms by ca. 1900 on the above premise, it will probably get dibs on "Romania" in most of the the western languages, and hence to the rest of the world.

As to OTL Romania being renamed, an extreme nationalist Romanian regime that supports protochronism might, of course, under some suitable circumstance choose to rename the country to Dacia voluntarily irrespective of Greece. Such a scenario is unlikely, but cannot be excluded.

 

[Lampiao]

I don't think that Greece would readopt Byzantine titles and call itself Roman. It simply doesn't make any sense in a 19th context. 19th century Philohellenism clearly focused on Pre-Roman Greek heritage. Also, IIRC IOTL there was a debate whether the king would style himself King of Greece or King of the Greeks, following the French model, empereur des français. As the latter would piss the Ottomans off, the king adopted the former.

 

[Gukpard]

I think like many Romanians would that Greece should just change their name back and stop infringing on Romania's name. Greece lost the rights in 1453.

I don't think that Greece would readopt Byzantine titles and call itself Roman. It simply doesn't make any sense in a 19th context. 19th century Philohellenism clearly focused on Pre-Roman Greek heritage. Also, IIRC IOTL there was a debate whether the king would style himself King of Greece or King of the Greeks, following the French model, empereur des français. As the latter would piss the Ottomans off, the king adopted the former.

Right, but this thread is about Romania being called Dacia...

As to OTL Romania being renamed, an extreme nationalist Romanian regime that supports protochronism might, of course, under some suitable circumstance choose to rename the country to Dacia voluntarily irrespective of Greece. Such a scenario is unlikely, but cannot be excluded.

Like a Legionarist Romania or something?

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

If we assume both are neo-classically inclined, I think you risk a Greece-Macedonia issue, which AFAIK is a hissy fit over a name.

Assuming that they don't do that, I think you might find a compromise on Dacian Romania and Hellenic Romania - both recognising the other as such.

However, if both are Neo-classically inclined, and both like the idea of being Romans - I could see a union of sorts - it just depends on whether their neo-classical inclinations would support partnerships between neo-classical nations. (In this case, Greeks and Dacians.)

When Romania rebels against the Ottomans alongside the Russians - the 'Dacians' could push to have the King of Greece also be their King. If Russia and Great Britain could agree potentially with each one having influence over the separate governments), then Romania + Greece could potentially fulfil an alt-Megali and have both Kingdoms ruled from Constantinople. At which point both Parliaments (if still neo-classicists at heart) may well declare themselves either Joint Kingdoms of Romania, or if they're feeling ballsy, the Empire of Romania.

 

[cmakk1012]

If we assume both are neo-classically inclined, I think you risk a Greece-Macedonia issue, which AFAIK is a hissy fit over a name.

It's mostly a hissy fit over a name. There's a bit of drama over the Slavic speaking minority in Greece as well. Macedonia claims that these are ethnic Macedonians that Greece is oppressing, preventing them from speaking their language, and other issues which are true to a degree. Greece claims that Macedonia is exaggerating the numbers of Slavic Macedonians in Greece and that it's a pretext to claim that Greek Macedonia should belong to FYROM, which is also true to a degree (1990s propaganda depicted irredentist maps of Greater Macedonia with chunks of Greece and Bulgaria).

There's also some debate over historical studies, where both sides claim ancient Macedonia as their cultural legacy.

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

It's mostly a hissy fit over a name. There's a bit of drama over the Slavic speaking minority in Greece as well. Macedonia claims that these are ethnic Macedonians that Greece is oppressing, preventing them from speaking their language, and other issues which are true to a degree. Greece claims that Macedonia is exaggerating the numbers of Slavic Macedonians in Greece and that it's a pretext to claim that Greek Macedonia should belong to FYROM, which is also true to a degree (1990s propaganda depicted irredentist maps of Greater Macedonia with chunks of Greece and Bulgaria).

There's also some debate over historical studies, where both sides claim ancient Macedonia as their cultural legacy.

That gives FYROM too much credit. The fact of the matter is that modern "Macedonians" largely fall outside of ancient Macedonians and are just the Bulgarians of Serbia who had to invent a national myth of their own to avoid being part of the Serbian republic in Yugoslavia.

The FYROM has no claim to Ancient Macedonia and to say otherwise is a clear example of false equivalency and assuming both sides have some merit.

It is true that the Serbians and Bulgarians of Greece are mistreated, but to claim that a state with as much national identity as Moldavia (ie none) that was artificially created desires a claim to the name of state that was clearly Hellenistic and Greek speaking is ludicrous.

 

[Gwenc'hlan]

That gives FYROM too much credit. The fact of the matter is that modern "Macedonians" largely fall outside of ancient Macedonians and are just the Bulgarians of Serbia who had to invent a national myth of their own to avoid being part of the Serbian republic in Yugoslavia.

The FYROM has no claim to Ancient Macedonia and to say otherwise is a clear example of false equivalency and assuming both sides have some merit.

It is true that the Serbians and Bulgarians of Greece are mistreated, but to claim that a state with as much national identity as Moldavia (ie none) that was artificially created desires a claim to the name of state that was clearly Hellenistic and Greek speaking is ludicrous.

And so? I mean Helvetia was Celtic speaking, Belgica too and nobody bats an eye when Switzerland and Belgium claim the names of these ancients tribes.
Macedonians are in the roman province of Macedonia, they have as much of a "right" to it as Greek people. It is not like the population is radically diferent on both sides of the border.

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

And so? I mean Helvetia was Celtic speaking, Belgica too and nobody bats an eye when Switzerland and Belgium claim the names of these ancients tribes.
Macedonians are in the roman province of Macedonia, they have as much of a "right" to it as Greek people. It is not like the population is radically diferent on both sides of the border.

The FYROM doesn't cover Ancient Macedonia though, and the FYROM claims Alexander and Phillip etc, when their realm was 80+% within the confines of Modern Greece.

I'd have no problem with them claiming descent from the Roman Province, but they claim the Greek Kingdom that is mostly outside of their borders as their ancestors and that is wrong and delusional and is the closest thing I know to actual cultural appropriation.

EDIT : Even by this GIF more of "Macedonia" is in Greece than any other country.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/HistMac.gif

 

[Gwenc'hlan]

I agree with you that some of the Macedonian nationalism is quite distateful but so is most nationalism, especially in the Balkans.
It had to be constructed like any "national narrative" under quite dire circonstances (the three neighboring countries had views on their territory) and Alexander makes for a great symbol.
And lets not forget the slav minority in greece that occupied quite a lot of "true macedonia" and has faced intense assimilation from the Greek government.
All in all, I think both countries are in the right (and in the wrong). After all, German and French people claim descent from the Franks and Charlemagne, no reason nationnal symbols can't be shaired

 

[Rheinbund]

It's funny to see Greek claim Alexander the great heritage because Athenians consider Macedonians as Barbarians and no as Greek.
After don't forget that some Thracean territories was conquered by Philipp II and was under their influence.
Macedonian territories were during centuries in their orbit and we can claim that Macedonia (or Fyrom) is the sucessor of Macedonian province and Macedonian province is the successor of Macedonian Kingdom so Macedonia (Fyrom) is the sucessor of Kingdom of Macedonia. yes it's a sophism but it happen frequentlèy in history of Nation.
Many other countries claim to be the successor of former country even if they don't have many link with them.
In fact in begining Greek people encourage this cultural appropriation because it give them claim, they consider themself as Macedonian (so Greek) so it's normal that they are join our country
The Greek state also finances new schools, cultural institutions and opens three consulates in Thessaloniki, Skopje in 1887 and Bitola in 1888, they decided to be against this name after that Macedonians develop their own identites and that Greek fear they will claim Greek Macedonia.

After there is no definite rule for the history or name of a nation, so they can do what they want, they claim to be sucessor of Alexander the Great by sucession of nation.
For me it's a reasonable reason so i accept their claim
But yes they choose this heritage by propaganda and political choice we agree about this.

After for the first question about neo-classical in Romania i think that could happen maybe with a deeper french influence that liberate them, Romania was really pro-french in this time (and still now) so the King could try to use this style to make their country a sort of little France (they could also adopt the style of second empire )
http://diversite.eu/pdf/12_1/DICE_12.1_Full_Text_p51-p60-Florentina-MATACHE.pdf
By exemple Paul GOTTEREAU was a french architect that built a lot official building in neoclassical style in Romania.
So maybe with a great involvement of the kingdom, with a sort of romanian version of Haussemann plan.

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

It's funny to see Greek claim Alexander the great heritage because Athenians consider Macedonians as Barbarians and no as Greek.
After don't forget that some Thracean territories was conquered by Philipp II and was under their influence.
Macedonian territories were during centuries in their orbit and we can claim that Macedonia (or Fyrom) is the sucessor of Macedonian province and Macedonian province is the successor of Macedonian Kingdom so Macedonia (Fyrom) is the sucessor of Kingdom of Macedonia. yes it's a sophism but it happen frequentlèy in history of Nation.
Many other countries claim to be the successor of former country even if they don't have many link with them.
In fact in begining Greek people encourage this cultural appropriation because it give them claim, they consider themself as Macedonian (so Greek) so it's normal that they are join our country
The Greek state also finances new schools, cultural institutions and opens three consulates in Thessaloniki, Skopje in 1887 and Bitola in 1888, they decided to be against this name after that Macedonians develop their own identites and that Greek fear they will claim Greek Macedonia.

After there is no definite rule for the history or name of a nation, so they can do what they want, they claim to be sucessor of Alexander the Great by sucession of nation.
For me it's a reasonable reason so i accept their claim
But yes they choose this heritage by propaganda and political choice we agree about this.

After for the first question about neo-classical in Romania i think that could happen maybe with a deeper french influence that liberate them, Romania was really pro-french in this time (and still now) so the King could try to use this style to make their country a sort of little France (they could also adopt the style of second empire )
http://diversite.eu/pdf/12_1/DICE_12.1_Full_Text_p51-p60-Florentina-MATACHE.pdf
By exemple Paul GOTTEREAU was a french architect that built a lot official building in neoclassical style in Romania.
So maybe with a great involvement of the kingdom, with a sort of romanian version of Haussemann plan.

Ah yes, because the Athenians = All Greeks.

And also, the Macedonians spoke Greek, acted in a Greek fashion and ruled as Hegemons and not as Kings. Just as the Byzantines are Romans, the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks.

Look, FYROM is Bulgarian-Austria.

Again, the maps clearly showed that Ancient Macedonia fell almost entirely within the sphere of Modern Day Greece. As Alexander and Phillip spoke Greek, ruled over the Greek speaking world (and others), and their demesne lies entirely in Greece today then it's fair to say that Ancient Macedonia is part of Greek History without any Slavic claim to the nation.



Also going back to the idea, we might also see Popular Monarchy with the title of the monarchs being "King of the Romans" and the "Kingdom of the Romans" as the name of the state. That or the Dacian idea for sure.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

@Rheinbund its all about self-identity (and then having others recognise you as such)

Regarding Philip of Macedon - he considered himself Hellenic, Macedonian, and Greek. He ruled Greeks, and Macedonia considered themselves Greek (and later MADE others consider them Greek). First chose to identify, and then had others agree.

In contrast, FYROM (to many) as a Nation-State, claims to be the Macedonian Nation - and the Macedonian of Philip of Macedon. This seems bizarre as besides land (which is more Paeonia than Macedonia in that time period), there is no continuity. If anything, there is more evidence (through language, treaties, etc), that the region was thoroughly Slavicised - effectively destroying any tie between them and Philip.

However, despite not living in the original kingdom, having any significant proof they are Macedonian besides blind assertion, nor speaking any language related to their claimed legacy, seem to have as much claim to being Macedonian in the Philip and Alexander sense as Croatia has of calling itself Illyrian.

I ain't got no beef with anyone calling themselves any name they want - but its when you start claiming a legacy without grounds (besides... well... ground), then I'm calling nonsense.

 

[Indicus]

Macedonia claiming descent from Alexander and Philip is no less nonsensical than modern Greece claiming descent from the ancient Greeks.

 

[cmakk1012]

Can we at least all agree that Skopje's downtown is a weird nationalist mess?

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/apr/11/skopje-macedonia-architecture-2014-project-building

On a serious note, at least Greece speaks a very, very similar language to the ancient Greeks, unlike Macedonia.

 

[Rheinbund]

Yep but many country doing it during history, so if we follow your logic we should change the name of many countries.
By example in France the german heritage of Germanic invasion make only 5 to 10 %, we get different culture, different language, ... But we claim to be the successor of Frankish, for us our first king is Clovis. we claim to be the heir of Charlemagne and Merovingian, and everybody acknowledge this.
But we kept this name and this heritage by sucession of nation as Macedonians so for me it's normal they calim to be sucessor of Macedonians and Alexander the Great.
Heritage of nation, is not necessarily about language or culture.
It exist many way to define a nation.

And yep Skopje's downtown is a weird nationalist mess
For me if they claim to be sucessor of alexander the Great they should devlopp more the greek culture, i feel sometime that some of their elites are hypocritical about this.

 

[Lampiao]

On a serious note, at least Greece speaks a very, very similar language to the ancient Greeks, unlike Macedonia.

Nationalism doesn't need to make sense. United-statians took their proud name from an Italian navigator in the service of the Spanish crown who never really set foot on their land and probably didn't even know about a land that would be later colonized by the British. By the way, the navigations are much more celebrated there than in the areas that actually took part in the events because Spanish America just happened to have a better national legend with ancient civilizations and stuff.

National narratives are not supposed to be true, not even plausible, only "glorious".

 

[Indicus]

On a serious note, at least Greece speaks a very, very similar language to the ancient Greeks, unlike Macedonia.

Because they changed it and purged it of all Turkish and Italian loanwords. A Greek speaker in 1800 would not have been able to understand Ancient Greek, unless they had a classical education.

 

[cmakk1012]

Because they changed it and purged it of all Turkish and Italian loanwords. A Greek speaker in 1800 would not have been able to understand Ancient Greek, unless they had a classical education.

Oh, that's right. Wiki says modern Greek has elements of both colloquial and "purified" 19th century Greek?

The real truth is every country in the Balkans has suppressed certain minorities and historical truths to pretend at glory. I've heard that the Peloponnese was significantly Albanian until Greek independence (when they assimilated), while modern Macedonia is 25% ethnic Albanian.

EDIT: I feel bad about getting the thread off track of Romania. Would it help to complain about the Székelys? /s

I honestly doubt that Romania and Rhomania would seek unification. They could end up close allies by religion and common interest against Bulgaria, though. Maybe Romania could be the state of "ethnic Romans," while Rhomania could be the (multi-ethnic) state of the "revived Empire"?