The development of Romania without World War I?

W

WolfBear

Well-known member
What would the development of Romania without World War I have looked like? I'm asking because Romania is one of my favorite countries and I know that Transylvania and Bukovina were two of the most literate and most advanced parts of Romania both 100 years ago and right now:





As you can see, Romania's most literate parts in 1930 were generally in Transylvania, Bukovina, and, of course, the Banat, which Romania also acquired as a result of World War I. (There's also a speck of high literacy in the Budjak, near the Black Sea, which Romania acquired as a result of World War I as well.) And Romania's high human development index (HDI) territories right now are generally either in Transylvania or in the Banat, which, again, were acquired by Romania as a result of World War I. So, without all of these territories, Romania should be significantly set back, no?

There is, of course, the possibility that Austria-Hungary will eventually agree to give up Bukovina to Romania if Russia will ever experience a successful revolution even without World War I and thus an independent Polish state will come into being. In such a scenario, Poland could get Galicia in exchange for getting a Hapsburg King and Romania could get either southern Bukovina (in which case northern Bukovina would obviously go to Poland) or all of Bukovina. But I really don't see Hungary ever voluntarily giving up Transylvania without a major war, unfortunately.

So, how do you think that Romania would have developed in this TL? And would Romania have still kept its monarchy up to the present-day in this TL? Any thoughts on all of this?
 
WolfBear said:
What would the development of Romania without World War I have looked like? I'm asking because Romania is one of my favorite countries and I know that Transylvania and Bukovina were two of the most literate and most advanced parts of Romania both 100 years ago and right now:





As you can see, Romania's most literate parts in 1930 were generally in Transylvania, Bukovina, and, of course, the Banat, which Romania also acquired as a result of World War I. (There's also a speck of high literacy in the Budjak, near the Black Sea, which Romania acquired as a result of World War I as well.) And Romania's high human development index (HDI) territories right now are generally either in Transylvania or in the Banat, which, again, were acquired by Romania as a result of World War I. So, without all of these territories, Romania should be significantly set back, no?

There is, of course, the possibility that Austria-Hungary will eventually agree to give up Bukovina to Romania if Russia will ever experience a successful revolution even without World War I and thus an independent Polish state will come into being. In such a scenario, Poland could get Galicia in exchange for getting a Hapsburg King and Romania could get either southern Bukovina (in which case northern Bukovina would obviously go to Poland) or all of Bukovina. But I really don't see Hungary ever voluntarily giving up Transylvania without a major war, unfortunately.

So, how do you think that Romania would have developed in this TL? And would Romania have still kept its monarchy up to the present-day in this TL? Any thoughts on all of this?
Click to expand...


Transylwania is more developed,becouse it belong to hungarians.Which was not only catholics,but also partially gentry and descendents of Kingdom where people have their rights.

Rest of Romania was orthodox and ruled by princes which Will was Law.

Hence differences - Western Europe is more developed not becouse of being Western,but becouse people there had rights.
You want more developed Romania - made them catholics from the start.
 
ATP said:
Transylwania is more developed,becouse it belong to hungarians.Which was not only catholics,but also partially gentry and descendents of Kingdom where people have their rights.

Rest of Romania was orthodox and ruled by princes which Will was Law.

Hence differences - Western Europe is more developed not becouse of being Western,but becouse people there had rights.
You want more developed Romania - made them catholics from the start.
Click to expand...

Was the same situation the case in the Byzantine Empire back when it existed? And in the Russian Empire? Is a lack of a rule of law a general thing for Eastern Orthodox countries relative to Catholic and Protestant ones?

Interestingly enough, had pre-World War I Romania secured (southern) Bukovina, then it would have had great borders:

Romania_location_map_Topographic.png


The Carpathians would have been a great defensive border for it relative to Austria-Hungary. But what would have sucked would have been having a huge Romanian diaspora outside of Romania's borders.
 
WolfBear said:
Was the same situation the case in the Byzantine Empire back when it existed? And in the Russian Empire? Is a lack of a rule of law a general thing for Eastern Orthodox countries relative to Catholic and Protestant ones?

Interestingly enough, had pre-World War I Romania secured (southern) Bukovina, then it would have had great borders:

Romania_location_map_Topographic.png


The Carpathians would have been a great defensive border for it relative to Austria-Hungary. But what would have sucked would have been having a huge Romanian diaspora outside of Romania's borders.
Click to expand...

Yes,catholics belived that church is not tool of state,and could judge rulers.Protestants turned church into too of state again - but it was too late,people arleady thought that they could judge rulers for what they did.

When in orthodox states church always was tool of rulers,so they could do whatsever they wanted.

Seems nice - but,as a result,leave people as a mob unable to discover anything.States are stronger on short term,but weaker in long term.
Becouse you must be free to do discover anything or get riches in honest way.
 
I wonder if that island of higher literacy in 1930 in the Budjak might be Protestant German settlers.
In Erdely and Erdely and the Banat Prots - Hungarian or German - also could be literacy boosters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Buba said:
I wonder if that island of higher literacy in 1930 in the Budjak might be Protestant German settlers.
In Erdely and Erdely and the Banat Prots - Hungarian or German - also could be literacy boosters.
Click to expand...

Very possible, Yes:


Germans1897ua.PNG


In Transylvania, in the Banat, and in the Budjak, Germans and/or Magyars (Hungarians) almost certainly contributed to the high-literacy pockets that existed there.

In the Soviet Union in 1926, among the 50+ year-olds, Germans were by far the most literate group, with only the Jews even coming anywhere remotely near the Germans:

Russian Anti-Semitism, Or Just Affirmative Action In Action?

akarlin.com akarlin.com
 
Last edited:
Buba said:
I wonder if that island of higher literacy in 1930 in the Budjak might be Protestant German settlers.
In Erdely and Erdely and the Banat Prots - Hungarian or German - also could be literacy boosters.
Click to expand...
Probably.Orthodox do not cared about literacy to the point that in Moscov state orthodox church had so called "Djaks" which were people which only function was write and read for illiterate priests.
 
A "Djak" = Deacon, lowest level of Priesthood (below Presbiter and Bishop). Revived (as Permanent Deacons in lieu of Transitory Deacons, i.e. a dude who takes Deaconly Vows and then Presbiter Vows shortly afterward) in the Roman Church not so long ago. Of course Uniate Churches had them all along (and married Presbiters too!).
I can imagine illiterate Presbiters (the Western Church was no better at times), but the Deacons' purpose is not that. I think you are going by some urban legend here ...

BTW - there is a Church functionary called Lector (i.e. reader) - does this mean that all Parish Presbiters are illiterate?
 
WolfBear said:
Very possible, Yes:


Germans1897ua.PNG


In Transylvania, in the Banat, and in the Budjak, Germans and/or Magyars (Hungarians) almost certainly contributed to the high-literacy pockets that existed there.

In the Soviet Union in 1926, among the 50+ year-olds, Germans were by far the most literate group, with only the Jews even coming anywhere remotely near the Germans:

Russian Anti-Semitism, Or Just Affirmative Action In Action?

akarlin.com akarlin.com
Click to expand...

FWIW, as the link above shows, Germans in the Soviet Union in 1989 were actually relatively uneducated (albeit obviously not illiterate). I wonder just how much of this had to do with them being forcibly deported en masse to Siberia and Central Asia in 1941 and being forced to stay there for the next several decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top