Talk:Romania

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Question to all

Is "Moderator" a common title for the head of state on IB ? If its not, NAL seems to have a rather unusual influence on the world.--Marc Pasquin 10:02, 18 November 2005 (PST)

I was assuming that the NAL assumed a more prominent place in world affairs as a result of the two great wars (albeit not to the extent of the US *here*) and as such the title "Moderator" would have gained some prestige/popularity. Of course, this is a proposal and as such open to debate. Zahir 10:12, 18 November 2005 (PST)
Regarding the NAL`s place, I certainly hope not. One of the fun thing about IB is that the power structure is spreaded more evenly then *here*.--Marc Pasquin 10:22, 18 November 2005 (PST)
Certainly more evenly, to be sure, but the NAL certainly seems like a major nation to me. And keep in mind that *here* Romania's current constitution is based on the French Fifth Republic--and the NAL seems to be just as a good a source of inspiration. One the other hand, why not call the leader of the Council of State the First President a la Louisianne? Why ::::::: not indeed????? Zahir 10:28, 18 November 2005 (PST)
Or you could have it be the Chancellor pro tempore, and each president of the respective nations serves as a Chancellor on the national council. I won't complain if you follow Louisianne, mind... BoArthur
Didn't think you would... heh heh heh Zahir 10:47, 18 November 2005 (PST)
Even without direct inspiration from Louisianna, "First Presidency" would make sense if the 3 members of the federation (Moldova, Muntenia and Oltenia) were all headed by president.--Marc Pasquin 10:54, 18 November 2005 (PST)
I agree--or even if only two of them were! Or were at the time of the constitution being written. I've already changed my proposal along those lines. Zahir 10:58, 18 November 2005 (PST)
May I suggest "Chairman of the Presidency" a la Bosnia and Herzegovina? You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
208.63.63.94 11:16, 18 November 2005 (PST)Erskine

Ceausescu

Do we want to keep Ceausescu (presumably as a Snorist) and the revolution against him? Or do we want some other dictator? Or something else entirely? Zahir 23:36, 18 November 2005 (PST)

From Russia#The years 1949-1958:
Russian control over its satellites [...] remained unstable, though, despite the presence of huge amounts of Russian troups on their territories. Muntenia's leader Gheorghe Milţeanu, whose ideology was close to the SNOR, reigned his country with terror, but instead of being servile to Moscow he developed his own independent foreign policy of cooperation with the CSDS and the West. In Oltenia, the SNOR caused ethnic tension by favouring the Serbian population over the Romanian, and by using members of the Hungarian minority for the dirty work (secret police, etc.) in order to direct the population's hostility against the Hungarians and distract it from the Serbs and the SNOR itself. In Moldova, the most servile of Russia's satellites, Russia made effort to artificially boast up the share of Russians and Ukrainians by enhancing emigration there; while the figurehead president himself was a Moldovan, most other powerful positions were held by Russians and Ukrainians, which eventually caused an increased popularity of "Romanism" among the Moldovans. And in Hungary, after the death of the old regent in 1975, an ideological change took place that turned it into the most liberal of all countries under Russian domination.
This is more or less what Ferko and I developed together once. So in other words: yes, Muntenia had its own Ceausescu, but with a different name. I'm sure we never discussed the details of how and when snorist rule ended precisely in the satellite states: bloody revolution, velvet revolution, etc. --IJzeren Jan 03:40, 19 November 2005 (PST)

Some notes

Much as I welcome the amount of work being done on the Romanias, I have to make a few reservations:

  • In the case of Romania, ownership lies a bit complicated. Ferko is primarily the owner of Dalmatia and *there*'s equivalent of Yugoslavia, but Romania lies firmly within his "territory owned by default" (in his case, the Balkans). This should of course not stop anybody from working on it, but it does mean that nothing can be qssified without his consent.
  • On Conculture, Sergei Lazarev and Jesse Bangs are currently working on *there*'s Romanian (the language, I mean).
  • According to FOIB, Oltenia is a principality, Moldova a Kingdom and Muntenia a "state" (no further details). I think that should be considered QSS; turning Oltenia into a Republic now would be in violation of that.
  • I don't know what effect that would have on Romania's "first president". In fact, before establishing the title of the Romanian head-of-state, I suppose we should first establish what kind of character the federation has. If it's a really loose federation of three still independent states, it might not have a head of state at all.

--IJzeren Jan 00:54, 20 November 2005 (PST)

Okay. I will alter my proposal vis-a-vis Oltenia to make it a principality. Please let me know any other any other established facts. Zahir 06:24, 20 November 2005 (PST)
Very fine! Actually, there was no need to remove the bits about the Voivode Party, the Socialist Union, the Oltenian League, the 179-member Chamber of People's Representatives and the Boyar's Forum. It was merely the fact of Oltenia being a principality that I wanted to address. I'm not aware of any other preexisting facts about Oltenia, except the way it gained independence (but you know that already) and its ethnical composition (Romanian majority, sizable Hungarian and Serbian minorities). Perhaps others know something that I've missed. --IJzeren Jan 07:04, 20 November 2005 (PST)
Thank you. No, I just tailored each proposal for the idea of (1) An official republic with a call for a return to monarch versus (2) A state that has re-established itself as a principality after decades of Snorist rule. I wanted to develop the idea of the House of Florea, whose sigil is the bat, and who've played an important role in Oltenian history. I don't know any more than anyone else at this stage. Zahir 07:19, 20 November 2005 (PST)
Well, it's certainly possible that Oltenia under snorist rule was not a principality at all but a republic. I'm not sure about that though: the SNOR was not anti-monarchist or something. But if that be the case, the Oltenians could have hailed the current pretender for the principate back from exile immediately after the revolution (?).
Alternatively, the SNOR could simply have put somebody different one the throne: a collaborating member of the same family, a member of some completely different family, or even worse: a SERB, or a RUSSIAN! In that case, they'd probably have hailed back the real pretender in the same way. --IJzeren Jan 01:41, 21 November 2005 (PST)

I removed my proposal for the government specifically because I agree that the basic nature of the Federation needs working out. Zahir 07:49, 6 December 2005 (PST)

Federation

I was thinking there's a very legitimate point made about what kind of Federation the Romanian one actually is. Does anyone have any thoughts or preferences? Zahir 14:57, 26 November 2005 (PST)

Well, given the fact that all three states were fully independent until 1990 and merged on a completely voluntary base, I'd guess the federation must be a very loose one. Say, something along the lines of the HRE or the FK. You know, a common currency, a coordinated foreign policy and all that... Just like the HRE and the FK, I think the RF can hardly be considered a state, it's rather something between a state and a supranational organisation. But that's just my opinion. --IJzeren Jan 03:24, 27 November 2005 (PST)
That makes sense to me. So what if in my proposal I scrap the parliament if favor of treating each legislature of the members as one house in a tricameral federal Senate? The Supreme Council of State would consist of the Head of Government and the Head of State (or, if they were the same person, that person's second-in-command) with a rotating first presidency. The Supreme Council would nominate the members of commissions to coordinate the different bureacracies and maintain a unified foreign policy for the Federation as a whole. How does that sound? No Federal Supreme Court. Zahir 08:00, 27 November 2005 (PST)

Ferko: Hm. My thoughts. The Federation as I see it is extremely, extremely loose. The military is united, to a degree, and united teams are sent to international sporting events, but in the day-to-day practice, they are still three countries, on the domestic front...

Alright, but what about inter-member commerce? Do they have tarrifs in regards one another? Do they extradite criminals as if between totally different countries? Do they attempt to use the same standards when it comes to things like electrical appliances? That is the sort of thing I was referring to vis-a-vis commissions of coordinate bureacracies. Zahir 13:25, 27 November 2005 (PST)

As regards each other, it is pretty much like the Schengen states *here*... Dalmatinac

Diacritic Additions

Someone has come and added an anonymous addition to the RF in the form of diacritics that I'm not even sure fit with Romanian *there*. Do we have some sort of canonical source for the Romanian that exists in Ill Bethisad ? BoArthur 17:25, 26 November 2005 (PST)

As far as I can see, these diacritics are correct. I don't know the details about Romanian *there* (it's currently under development), but I don't think the diacritics are radically different. --IJzeren Jan 03:16, 27 November 2005 (PST)

Names of the three states

Would not the names Moldavia, Walachia and Transylvania not do beter?? --Sikulu 23 December 2005, 10:36 (GMT)

Well, most of what is known as Transilvania *here* is actually part of Hungary *there*. If you would then imagine the rest of Romania divided into three parts, probably it would be the most natural to imagine these three countries to be Muntenia, Oltenia and Moldavia(Moldova).
Oltenia and Muntenia together makes up Valahia *here*, although it is more often refered to as Ţara Românească, "Romanian land" rather than Valahia by the Romanians.
Of course the borders for Muntenia and especially Oltenia *there* are quite so different from the borders of Muntenia and Oltenia as we know them *here* but that is simply because of a different history. RoMex 05:02, 23 December 2005 (PST)

Historical Reference *here*?

I found this graphic on Wikipedia under the Transylvania article. Could this be used in our Romanian Federation? BoArthur 18:13, 25 January 2006 (PST)

Move?

I'm thinking this article should be at just Romania. We don't have a Japanese Empire article, for example, and the Russian Federation page is just a redirect to Russia - Nik 19:12, 25 January 2006 (PST)

I don't know, It is the Romanian Federation,a dnI'll admit, I think of the three states AS Romania, but what do the others say? BoArthur 19:31, 25 January 2006 (PST)
I would agree. It makes more sense having an article called "Romania" rather than "Romanian Federation" since Romania is the name most naturally used when refering to the nation. RoMex 08:47, 23 March 2006 (PST)

A history thing?

David/Zahir, thought you might be interested in this, since Romania is somewhat in your sphere of interest...Organic Reglementation. BoArthur 21:12, 30 January 2007 (PST)

Religion

What does mean by "Orthodox Catholic" Misterxeight 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that refers to Uniate Catholics, whose relationship between the Orthodox and Catholic Church is akin to those Anglicans who convert to Roman Catholacism *here* (kinda sorta). This was established in the Middle Ages. Zahir 00:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
discussion