File talk:GreatestRomaniaInEurope.png

To the author: problems with this map[edit]

I just saw this map and I do not understand what it is supposed to represent? I mean, the description "Possible extend of historic Romanian territories in Central and Southeastern Europe" is totally confusing. First if you refer to something "historic" then you have to specify exact historical period (year, century, etc) to which term "historic" apply. Second, you have to specify does term "Romanian territories" apply to Romania as a state or to Romanians as a people (as example, Serbian part of Banat neither ever belonged to the state of Romania neither was mainly populated by ethnic Romanians in any part of the history, so I do not understand why this territory is described as "Romanian territory"?). Third, instead of the word "possible" you should mention names of historians whose work you used to create this map, otherwise it would have to be regarded as original research and proposed for deletion. If you explain what exactly you wanted to show with this map and to which history period it apply, we can discuss how to improve it and how to made it useful for Wikipedia, but in current form, it is a piece of junk (sorry for the description). PANONIAN 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

What I'm trying to represent by this map is a maximum extent of Romania which would have been possible if certain events in history would have been slightly different.

All of those extra territories in the map have a significance for Romania, either that they were inhabited by a Romanian majority or a significant minority at some point in history, or that they were under Romanian rule.

So again, this map just represents a hypothetical maximum extent of Romania which would have been possible under certain circumstances.

Regarding " it is a piece of junk (sorry for the description)."

I don't think you are sorry at all for the description!

I don't see what all the fuss is about since this map resides solely on my userpage.

Cheers Scooter20 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on your other map talk page, these maps could be easy found with google search: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=Greatest+Romania&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi so they residing in much wider Internet space instead "solely on your userpage". Anyway, if I understand correctly, you claim that you in fact draw a map from an "alternate reality" in which Romania would have such borders if outcome of World War I was different. Ok, I am satisfied with that explanation, but in that case you should to specify that in the map itself and in the map page as well so that people are not confused about what that map represent. PANONIAN 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter20, this map tells me much about you.--Nmate (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it! Are you by any chance a Hungarian? Scooter20 (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You won. I am Hungarian. The Romanian gamble business could lose much money if you would buy lottery ticketts more often. But as to the map, whether what ensues from this map, according to you, unless that is, the way how Romania is drawn on your map as you'd like it to be in real life?--Nmate (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still doubt it! I do not play the lottery!

Your English makes no sense whatsoever, but regardless of that, I'll try to reply!

Read the posts above, I already said that the map offers a hypothetical alternate view of Romania which could have been possible if certain events in history would have been slightly different.

Regarding if that is how I would like Romania to be in real life, I won't lie, I wouldn't mind if Romania looked more or less like that today!

Every territory that is drawn on that map as part of Romania, has ties with Romania, whether it was under Romanian rule, it had/has a Romanian majority or had/has a significant Romanian minority!

Scooter20 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Hungary until the Tisza River incorporated into the fictional area? Qorilla (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I included that region because:

Burebista's Dacian Kingdom spanned until and across the Tisza to the west (see here)
Roman province of Dacia spanned until Tisza to the west at its greatest extent (see here)
Borders on rivers and mountains were more natural in the past because they were easier to defend.
Romanian ruler, Mihai Viteazu ruled over part of the region in 1600 (see here).
Romanian national awakening in the XIXth century envisioned a Romanian state that spanned from Nistru (Dniester) to Tisa (Tisza) (see here and here)
An important Romanian minority lived in that region in the XIXth century and early XXth century (see here and here)
Romania occupied Budapest and thus that region for a few months in 1919. (see here).

Those are some of the reasons why I included that region!

Hope this answers your question!

Cheers! Scooter20 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The problem with this map is that some may find the pic through Google and they may not realize that it does not - well how to say - stand on firm grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qorilla (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but they would see the map description and realize what the map represents.

Regarding the territory that Nagy Lajos held in the XIVth century, the point of view isn't similar.

My map doesn't represent a maximum possible extent of the Romanian territories that were held at some point in history but the extent of the territories which have something to do with Romania, which held/hold a Romanian majority or important minority.

Every territory integrated within Romania on that map has or had ties with Romanians (language, culture etc) at a certain level.

For instance, I didn't include half of Hungary (until the Danube), even though Romania controlled Budapest for a short time in 1919, or that territory was part of Burebista's Dacia. I included the region until the Tisza river because it has ties with Romania and it had an important Romanian minority.

Most of the territories held by Nagy Lajos had nothing to do with Hungary, and were inhabited by virtually no Hungarians except of course Proper Hungary (today's Hungary), Southern Slovakia, some parts of Transylvania, some parts of Vojvodina, some parts of the Burgeland and so forth.

So the differences between the two maps are quite big and obvious!

If we were to overlay an ethinc map with todays data on each of the 2 maps, you will find that Hungarians will be a small minority on Lajos' map, while Romanians would be the absolute majority on my map (64% of the population according to my estimations)!

Scooter20 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many quite dubious issues here, but this is not a general forum, so I'll skip that. Just one thing, 'Hungary proper' is not today's small Hungary, but Hungary minus Croatia-Slavonia. The new borders were made up after WW I (the border with Croatia along the Dráva is the only border that existed before), so one can not talk about current Hungary as an entity in the 14th century. Qorilla (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of this ridiculous map has certainly a poster with Vadim Tudor above his bed(Iaaasi (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't!

Scooter20 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "similar" map on the right represents Kingdom of Hungary in 1370, while your map is embarrassing, it is a crude invention(Iaaasi (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Did I claim somewhere that the map is real? It represents an alternate history view where territories that are significant to Romanians are united into one state.

Scooter20 (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The territory between the rivers Dniester and Bug was under Romanian administration only between 1941 - 1944 and it was never inhabited by Romanians (Iaaasi (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That territory was inhabited partially (closer to Nistru than Bug) by Dacians in ancient times and later Romanians/Moldavians since medieval times. Even today there are important Romanian-speaking minorities in Transnistria (a third), Moldova and Odessa Oblast Ukraine.

Scooter20 (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you include only Transnistria?(Iaaasi (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In the same time the Romanians represented in 1910 only 2,3% of Cadrilater population (Iaaasi (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

B[edit]

Tg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.187.237.159 (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]