3 ms·

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

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.
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      > Russian being a major foreign language taught in schools This lasted only for two decades immediately following the war, during the years of Soviet control, but Romania famously began to depart from that Soviet control in the 1960s. French then fully returned to its position as the major foreign language taught in schools, and while Russian was still taught at a few schools here and there, it was no longer a language prescribed at the national level. Again, this is a pretty well known fact. You are out of your depth here. Even if Romania and Russia shared Orthodox religion, they had different conventions in terms of liturgy, monastery organization, etc., and whenever there are Russian–Greek differences, Romania always goes with the Greek convention. If you claim Russian cultural influence on Romania, let’s have some examples.
      - keiferski 3y ago
        The entire reason Romania had a communist government was because of the Soviet Union. The fact that they later distanced themselves from the USSR doesn't change this fact. That seems like a pretty major Russian cultural influence to me. Unless you're suggesting that Romanian culture under communism arose independently and had no connection whatsoever to the USSR at any level? It just appeared from the ether, and Romania's presence in an Eastern Europe dominated by the Russian Empire and then USSR made no difference whatsoever, that it's at the same level as Russian influence on Zimbabwe or on Indonesia? Here's the actual reality: all states are influenced by larger powers in their neighborhood, even the unpopular ones. Especially in Eastern Europe with regards to Russia. It may be unpopular, especially these days and especially in places like Romania, Poland, and Lithuania, but to pretend that somehow these cultures evolved on separate planets is not an intellectually honest position.
        OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        Political influence does not equal cultural influence. There are innumerable instances throughout history of powers politically influencing smaller states but without making any significant impact on their culture. Why you keep trying to assert Russian cultural influence on Romania without evincing any actual familiarity with the country, or being able to produce any concrete examples, is baffling. Just admit that you don’t know this region very well and are operating from vague stereotypes.

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.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    > Russian being a major foreign language taught in schools This lasted only for two decades immediately following the war, during the years of Soviet control, but Romania famously began to depart from that Soviet control in the 1960s. French then fully returned to its position as the major foreign language taught in schools, and while Russian was still taught at a few schools here and there, it was no longer a language prescribed at the national level. Again, this is a pretty well known fact. You are out of your depth here. Even if Romania and Russia shared Orthodox religion, they had different conventions in terms of liturgy, monastery organization, etc., and whenever there are Russian–Greek differences, Romania always goes with the Greek convention. If you claim Russian cultural influence on Romania, let’s have some examples.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      The entire reason Romania had a communist government was because of the Soviet Union. The fact that they later distanced themselves from the USSR doesn't change this fact. That seems like a pretty major Russian cultural influence to me. Unless you're suggesting that Romanian culture under communism arose independently and had no connection whatsoever to the USSR at any level? It just appeared from the ether, and Romania's presence in an Eastern Europe dominated by the Russian Empire and then USSR made no difference whatsoever, that it's at the same level as Russian influence on Zimbabwe or on Indonesia? Here's the actual reality: all states are influenced by larger powers in their neighborhood, even the unpopular ones. Especially in Eastern Europe with regards to Russia. It may be unpopular, especially these days and especially in places like Romania, Poland, and Lithuania, but to pretend that somehow these cultures evolved on separate planets is not an intellectually honest position.
      - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        Political influence does not equal cultural influence. There are innumerable instances throughout history of powers politically influencing smaller states but without making any significant impact on their culture. Why you keep trying to assert Russian cultural influence on Romania without evincing any actual familiarity with the country, or being able to produce any concrete examples, is baffling. Just admit that you don’t know this region very well and are operating from vague stereotypes.