What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Transylvania
Used Book
317 pages, Hardcover
First published February 1, 1983
1 person is currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 27, 2017
a nationalist, Marxist history
Besides being home to Dracula, a blood-thirsty Romanian ruler of the 15th century actually named Vlad Tepes, Transylvania has played many roles in history. Claimed as an integral part of both Hungary and Romania, there are two parallel histories which provide separate statistics, separate interpretations of events, and separate conclusions. Let's start off straight away by saying that if you were a historian in Romania in the 1970s and '80s, you would stick to the nationalist line on the history of Transylvania or you would soon be an ex-historian. On top of that, you would have to support Marxist-Leninist historiography. To write about WW II and the communist regime that soon followed was fraught with pitfalls. Better avoid it: the book tails off in the 1930s and ends with a resounding paean of praise for Romanian unification and a glorious future. Readers of this detailed, well-organized history of a modern region of Romania must wonder about the validity of any conclusions. First of all, the author uses the Marxist "outline"---that is, that societies move in a certain order throughout history, from primitive communism, through a slave society, to feudal, bourgeois, and finally capitalist stages from which socialism and finally Communism will arise. Secondly, Transylvania contained a number of ethnic and religious groups. Were the Romanians always the main actors? The Hungarians claim that THEY were the main actors for over a thousand years. This is unlikely to be true, even if they were the nobility and large landowners. Transylvania sometimes acted as an independent principality, sometimes as part of various empires--Roman, Habsburg, Ottoman---and Hungarians, Germans, and Szeklers may have been dominant for a long time, but according to Romanians, the bulk of the peasant/worker population was always theirs. A ruler like a comet, Michael the Brave, appeared at the end of the 1500s and united Transylvania with Moldavia and Wallachia for two years. This is taken as a giant step showing the bonds of ethnic solidarity among all the Romanian-speaking countries of the day. Could it not be equally the wish to accumulate more territory as princes did everywhere in those days? As a nationalist historian, Pascu had a duty to show that Transylvania was indubitably part of Romania, and always had been. It may actually be true, but if a historian starts with a theory and insists on proving it, one may doubt the results. What about the statistics? Can they not be used to show whatever you want if you have a specific aim? The word "gypsy" occurs exactly once in the book, the word "Jew" just a couple times more. Maybe these groups were not so important. But by the 19th century they definitely existed in numbers; Jewish traders lived in Transylvania long before that. I think Pascu had to follow a certain line under Ceausescu's regime. Active awareness of national identity was part of that line. The development of agriculture and industry, trade, national awareness, and the formation of social classes are all covered admirably. It's hard to give stars to such a book, knowing what strictures guided its construction. But I think readers of today have to read something else along with this book. (Good translation by the way).
Besides being home to Dracula, a blood-thirsty Romanian ruler of the 15th century actually named Vlad Tepes, Transylvania has played many roles in history. Claimed as an integral part of both Hungary and Romania, there are two parallel histories which provide separate statistics, separate interpretations of events, and separate conclusions. Let's start off straight away by saying that if you were a historian in Romania in the 1970s and '80s, you would stick to the nationalist line on the history of Transylvania or you would soon be an ex-historian. On top of that, you would have to support Marxist-Leninist historiography. To write about WW II and the communist regime that soon followed was fraught with pitfalls. Better avoid it: the book tails off in the 1930s and ends with a resounding paean of praise for Romanian unification and a glorious future. Readers of this detailed, well-organized history of a modern region of Romania must wonder about the validity of any conclusions. First of all, the author uses the Marxist "outline"---that is, that societies move in a certain order throughout history, from primitive communism, through a slave society, to feudal, bourgeois, and finally capitalist stages from which socialism and finally Communism will arise. Secondly, Transylvania contained a number of ethnic and religious groups. Were the Romanians always the main actors? The Hungarians claim that THEY were the main actors for over a thousand years. This is unlikely to be true, even if they were the nobility and large landowners. Transylvania sometimes acted as an independent principality, sometimes as part of various empires--Roman, Habsburg, Ottoman---and Hungarians, Germans, and Szeklers may have been dominant for a long time, but according to Romanians, the bulk of the peasant/worker population was always theirs. A ruler like a comet, Michael the Brave, appeared at the end of the 1500s and united Transylvania with Moldavia and Wallachia for two years. This is taken as a giant step showing the bonds of ethnic solidarity among all the Romanian-speaking countries of the day. Could it not be equally the wish to accumulate more territory as princes did everywhere in those days? As a nationalist historian, Pascu had a duty to show that Transylvania was indubitably part of Romania, and always had been. It may actually be true, but if a historian starts with a theory and insists on proving it, one may doubt the results. What about the statistics? Can they not be used to show whatever you want if you have a specific aim? The word "gypsy" occurs exactly once in the book, the word "Jew" just a couple times more. Maybe these groups were not so important. But by the 19th century they definitely existed in numbers; Jewish traders lived in Transylvania long before that. I think Pascu had to follow a certain line under Ceausescu's regime. Active awareness of national identity was part of that line. The development of agriculture and industry, trade, national awareness, and the formation of social classes are all covered admirably. It's hard to give stars to such a book, knowing what strictures guided its construction. But I think readers of today have to read something else along with this book. (Good translation by the way).
June 23, 2016
Starting fromwandering tribes to the end of world war 1 this book covers a long time. Itcleated up some things for me, but lost me when supporting facts that could have bee shown in a chart were used to write whole paragraphs.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews