5 ms·

There are very, very, very few Russian influences on eastern and southern Romania. While Russia did at one point claim the area as its sphere of influence, it n

There are very, very, very few Russian influences on eastern and southern Romania. While Russia did at one point claim the area as its sphere of influence, it never managed to exert any cultural influence. Rather, in those regions, the foreign cultural influences that are not Ottoman are Greek, due to the influence of the Phanariots, and then French due to the massive francophilia of the 19th century. And in fact, even Austro-Hungary arguably had more impact on non-Austro-Hungarian Romania (the Romanian dialects of even those regions abound in loanwords from German and Hungarian) than Russia.

keiferski 3y ago
The Russian Empire and then Soviet Union were one of the three largest powers in the region for hundreds of years. Yes, they had an influence on Romania, if a lesser one than the other two powers.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Some political influence on the choices available to the authorities, but not a cultural influence on the population of the country. Even when Romania was part of the Eastern Bloc, the heavy Soviet political influence lasted just two decades before Ceausescu took an independent course and made his own overtures to the West. Romanians know bugger-all about Russia, their language has almost no Russian loans, their Orthodox religion follows the Greek liturgical conventions, not the Russian ones, and French was the main foreign language taught even during the socialist era. Do you possess any actual familiarity with this country?
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Romania is a small country historically sandwiched between three larger powers. Like literally every other country in world history, it has been influenced by its neighbors. Romania's existence as an independent country and Orthodox Christianity being two huge examples. This is...common sense. I really don't get what your hostile obstinance is about, but I'm not interested in arguing over these nonsensical minor points any further.
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      Russia was the last country in the region to convert to Orthodoxy. The Balkans had already been Orthodox before Russia due to Byzantine influence. And as I said, even at a late date those regions of Romania were under heavy Greek influence due to Phanariot rule. If you believe that Russia has anything to do with Romania’s Orthodoxy, that is such a basic factual error that, again, I question that you possess any actual familiarity with the history of the country and its culture.
      - keiferski 3y ago
        I didn't say Orthodoxy came to Romania from Russia. Russia was the largest and dominant Orthodox power in the region for hundreds of years. This identity was practically the Russian Empire's foreign policy, as the independence of Romania happening because of Russia should make obvious. See also: Serbia. Unless you think that Romania is in between Russia and Serbia but has no cultural influence from either...? P.S., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariots#Russian_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariots#Russian_influence
        OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        Again, what you are talking about is political influence on rulers, not cultural influence on the population. In that regard, claiming that an independent Romania should be seen as marked by Russian influence would be like claiming that independent Vietnam is Russian-influenced. Any political ties and military aid involved a tiny amount of people and never affected the culture of either country.
        keiferski 3y ago
        So you're telling me that despite Romania being next to Russia for hundreds of years, Russian being a major foreign language taught in schools, and the actual independence of the country itself happening because of Russia, and the two countries sharing a specific religion of which Russia was the primary power, there was zero cultural influence on the country whatsoever, and was merely political influence on a small group of rulers that had no effect on the broader culture? Yeah, this argument is really becoming a nonsensical waste of time.

keiferski 3y ago

The Russian Empire and then Soviet Union were one of the three largest powers in the region for hundreds of years. Yes, they had an influence on Romania, if a lesser one than the other two powers.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Some political influence on the choices available to the authorities, but not a cultural influence on the population of the country. Even when Romania was part of the Eastern Bloc, the heavy Soviet political influence lasted just two decades before Ceausescu took an independent course and made his own overtures to the West. Romanians know bugger-all about Russia, their language has almost no Russian loans, their Orthodox religion follows the Greek liturgical conventions, not the Russian ones, and French was the main foreign language taught even during the socialist era. Do you possess any actual familiarity with this country?
- keiferski 3y ago
  Romania is a small country historically sandwiched between three larger powers. Like literally every other country in world history, it has been influenced by its neighbors. Romania's existence as an independent country and Orthodox Christianity being two huge examples. This is...common sense. I really don't get what your hostile obstinance is about, but I'm not interested in arguing over these nonsensical minor points any further.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    Russia was the last country in the region to convert to Orthodoxy. The Balkans had already been Orthodox before Russia due to Byzantine influence. And as I said, even at a late date those regions of Romania were under heavy Greek influence due to Phanariot rule. If you believe that Russia has anything to do with Romania’s Orthodoxy, that is such a basic factual error that, again, I question that you possess any actual familiarity with the history of the country and its culture.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I didn't say Orthodoxy came to Romania from Russia. Russia was the largest and dominant Orthodox power in the region for hundreds of years. This identity was practically the Russian Empire's foreign policy, as the independence of Romania happening because of Russia should make obvious. See also: Serbia. Unless you think that Romania is in between Russia and Serbia but has no cultural influence from either...? P.S., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariots#Russian_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariots#Russian_influence
      - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        Again, what you are talking about is political influence on rulers, not cultural influence on the population. In that regard, claiming that an independent Romania should be seen as marked by Russian influence would be like claiming that independent Vietnam is Russian-influenced. Any political ties and military aid involved a tiny amount of people and never affected the culture of either country.
        keiferski 3y ago
        So you're telling me that despite Romania being next to Russia for hundreds of years, Russian being a major foreign language taught in schools, and the actual independence of the country itself happening because of Russia, and the two countries sharing a specific religion of which Russia was the primary power, there was zero cultural influence on the country whatsoever, and was merely political influence on a small group of rulers that had no effect on the broader culture? Yeah, this argument is really becoming a nonsensical waste of time.