what's the Romanian core military ideology?

[bushbush]

well we were discussing the continuation of Confucianism, the core political and social ideology for imperial China, in Chinese civilization.

Carpathian wolf believed that Romanians had their own "core ideology" that can match Confucianism in its influence and continuity in history.

Romanians have a core ideaology concerning the military since the times of the Dacians. So how is your example anymore unique?

I am just asking what exactly is this ideology? where are its classical books (like Confucians' 4 books and 5 classics)? where are the signs of its administrative implementation? where is the continuation of following this doctrine legally and politically in every generation of "romanians" from their own time of being Dacians?

i am eager to learn.

[Applesmack]

Well can't you ask him....? I'm sure he knows

[bushbush]

Well can't you ask him....? I'm sure he knows

i am eagerly waiting for his answer to enlighten me.

[Dromikaites]

The ideology you are mentioning was written down by Neagoe Basarab, king of Wallachia between 1512 and 1521 ("The Teachings of Neagoe Basarab for His Son Theodosie").

The interesting thing is reading it and looking at how, for instance Decebal tried to defend his country from the Romans, how Basarab I defeated the Hungarians in 1330, how Mircea the Elder (1386 – 1418), Vlad III Dracula or Stephen the Great fought the Ottomans (all the events happening before Neagoe Basarab wrote his "king's handbook") one can see that the same principles had been applied repeatedly from the Dacian times as if somebody was using the book as a checklist.

On the other hand such ideas are useful for any medium-size state which would have similar manpower and would have to defend on similar terrain against much stronger foes. So in a way that type of advice is timeless given the same geographic and demographic settings.

[bushbush]

The ideology you are mentioning was written down by Neagoe Basarab, king of Wallachia between 1512 and 1521 ("The Teachings of Neagoe Basarab for His Son Theodosie").

The interesting thing is reading it and looking at how, for instance Decebal tried to defend his country from the Romans, how Basarab I defeated the Hungarians in 1330, how Mircea the Elder (1386 – 1418), Vlad III Dracula or Stephen the Great fought the Ottomans (all the events happening before Neagoe Basarab wrote his "king's handbook") one can see that the same principles had been applied repeatedly from the Dacian times as if somebody was using the book as a checklist.

On the other hand such ideas are useful for any medium-size state which would have similar manpower and would have to defend on similar terrain against much stronger foes. So in a way that type of advice is timeless given the same geographic and demographic settings.

wait.

1. so this book is written AFTER the facts, wouldn't that be considered a "summary" and "analysis" of historical events from the past to learn lessons from it?

versus other influential ideologies in history where the classics were written by some thinkers and others follow and implement those ideas into practice next.

2. is it predominantly military and tactic-oriented? does it touch on subjects like military organization, social structure, morals, values and social responsibilities?

[Dromikaites]

Given the state of the "historiography" in the area I seriously doubt Neagoe Basarab knew Decebal ever existed. I think he simply took the trouble to write down what was considered traditional wisdom plus his own thoughts (he was a deeply religious man judging by his writings)

The book touches subjects like:
- how to select members of the royal council and assign responsibilities;
- how to make the nobles loyal to the king;
- how to deal with foreign ambassadors;
- how to train your own ambassadors;
- how to fight the war both at tactical level (use of the vanguard, rear guard, scouts, infantry, cavalry, choosing the terrain, etc.) and strategic level (don't try to defeat the enemy in a single battle - wear him off instead, fight a mobile war, always disengage to preserve as much as your forces as possible if the battle looks difficult, etc).

While we don't know how the Dacian kings chose their advisers we know how Dromichete (Dromikaites ) and Decebal fought the Macedonians and the Romans respectively. Same is true for the other kings which preceded Neagoe. So at least the military part of his teachings seems to embody a tradition which was already 2000 years old when he captured it in writing.

[bushbush]

Given the state of the "historiography" in the area I seriously doubt Neagoe Basarab knew Decebal ever existed. I think he simply took the trouble to write down what was considered traditional wisdom plus his own thoughts (he was a deeply religious man judging by his writings)

The book touches subjects like:
- how to select members of the royal council and assign responsibilities;
- how to make the nobles loyal to the king;
- how to deal with foreign ambassadors;
- how to train your own ambassadors;
- how to fight the war both at tactical level (use of the vanguard, rear guard, scouts, infantry, cavalry, choosing the terrain, etc.) and strategic level (don't try to defeat the enemy in a single battle - wear him off instead, fight a mobile war, always disengage to preserve as much as your forces as possible if the battle looks difficult, etc).

While we don't know how the Dacian kings chose their advisers we know how Dromichete (Dromikaites ) and Decebal fought the Macedonians and the Romans respectively. Same is true for the other kings which preceded Neagoe. So at least the military part of his teachings seem to embody a tradition which was already 2000 years old when he captured it in writing.

ah...ok I think I have a more clear picture on this. I guess "ideology" would be a wrong word to describe this book and the military tradition on this. Otherwise, Sun Zi 's Art of War can be considered an ideology of its own. That's not what ideology means.

what's ideology?

"A complex term, but in (very) short, ideology refers to a belief system or world-view; a coherent structure of thinking which obscures incongruous elements in order to uphold a particular social order."

Neagoe Basarab's brilliant book is more like a practical set of know-hows he believed leaders of the future should learn and follow. Your term "king's handbook" is the most appropriate description.

comparing that to confucianism is probably apple and orange. Confucious and his followers aimed to devise an understanding of the world and create a social order and structure based on that understanding.

---------

an appropriate comparison would be with the Four Great Books of Song, a book compiling tons practical knowledge and lessons with the purpose of educating future leaders and government officials.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Why do you have a habit of talking down to other people bushbush? It's getting old.

[Dromikaites]

ah...ok I think I have a more clear picture on this. I guess "ideology" would be a wrong word to describe this book and the military tradition on this. Otherwise, Sun Zi 's Art of War can be considered an ideology of its own. That's not what ideology means.

what's ideology?

"A complex term, but in (very) short, ideology refers to a belief system or world-view; a coherent structure of thinking which obscures incongruous elements in order to uphold a particular social order."

Neagoe Basarab's brilliant book is more like a practical set of know-hows he believed leaders of the future should learn and follow. Your term "king's handbook" is the most appropriate description.

comparing that to confucianism is probably apple and orange. Confucious and his followers aimed to devise an understanding of the world and create a social order and structure based on that understanding.

---------

an appropriate comparison would be with the Four Great Books of Song, a book compiling tons practical knowledge and lessons with the purpose of educating future leaders and government officials.

Neagoe's ideology in the sense of your definition would be the Christian one. All the time he tells the readers something along the line "never forget all this would work only if God is on your side" and "make sure whatever you do while following these advices you do it without offending God".

[bushbush]

Why do you have a habit of talking down to other people bushbush? It's getting old.

so you got nothing?

at least Dromikaites has shown me something (though I wouldn't call it an ideology because it doesn't quite fit the definition).

Neagoe's ideology in the sense of your definition would be the Christian one. All the time he tells the readers something along the line "never forget all this would work only if God is on your side" and "make sure whatever you do while following these advices you do it without offending God".

I think it was on the right path and stopped short. The author was probably a very practical thinker who wanted to give the future rulers a set of useful notes, but he was not really devising an understanding of the world and building a social structure based on that understanding.

you can say communism, liberalism, confucianism, even fascism as some major ideologies that dictate from the top (government structure, social order, legal system) to the bottom (everyday behavior of citizens).

[Carpathian Wolf]

so you got nothing?

at least Dromikaites has shown me something (though I wouldn't call it an ideology because it doesn't quite fit the definition).

Obviously I do but you consider this not an ideaology just cause well, it isn't Chinese and if it was, they probably got it from the Chinese to begin with right?

[bushbush]

Obviously I do but you consider this not an ideaology just cause well, it isn't Chinese and if it was, they probably got it from the Chinese to begin with right?

ummm...I said it's not an ideology because it does not fit the definition as well as standard set by other ideologies.

not because it's not Chinese...lol. I consider liberalism, communism, fascism all ideologies, are they all Chinese?

[The Dude]

Obviously I do but you consider this not an ideaology just cause well, it isn't Chinese and if it was, they probably got it from the Chinese to begin with right?

Bushbush is right. Ideology is not the word to apply here. Doctrine is.

But you're not a native English speaker so I think the argument of semantics is rather unfair in this case.

[bushbush]

Bushbush is right. Ideology is not the word to apply here. Doctrine is.

But you're not a native English speaker so I think the argument of semantics is rather unfair in this case.

I really doubt it was an error of word choice...more like failed attempt of nationalistic dickwaving.

here is another classic:

Actually Dacians were not barbarians. They were the industrial heartland of Europe literally "cursed with gold". They had forward curving metal blades that are a sign of the technological advancement while the Chinese had to wait for the nomads to come show them "if you curve the blade it works better dur".

oh wow

[Romano-Dacis]

Romania's ideology? "Badass" is a way to describe it.

No, jk. Honestly bushbush, you basically started a thread to try to insult an entire country because you were (rightfully) frustrated in another? I mean jeez, that's just low.

I'll be the first to say that there has probably never been a "Romanian core military ideology." There have been political manuals like that of Neagoe's, but to say there was some long-lasting ideology is silly. Romania is a nation placed at the crossroad of civilization. The first humans in Europe settled in Romania. Romania was the place where the Romans reached ther maximum expansion limit (they literally only conquered 40% of modern Romania). The Great Schism literally split Romania into two pieces. For the past 400 years alone it has been a volcanic zone of warfare between three empires (Habsburgs, Ottomans, Russians). I doubt the Romanians could have been so successful if they weren't so adaptive. That is I believe we have no "core military ideology" above "wait for the right time to settle scores." You'll notice the three empires which once bordered us have all collapsed; seems like the ideology was successful.

And the Dacians were indeed not barbarians. Barbarians do not build such advanced walls:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[bushbush]

Romania's ideology? "Badass" is a way to describe it.

No, jk. Honestly bushbush, you basically started a thread to try to insult an entire country because you were (rightfully) frustrated in another?

not insulting another country really. More like trying to get some facts out of a certain member on our forum...

I'll be the first to say that there has probably never been a "Romanian core military ideology." There have been political manuals like that of Neagoe's, but to say there was some long-lasting ideology is silly. Romania is a nation placed at the crossroad of civilization. The first humans in Europe settled in Romania. Romania was the place where the Romans reached ther maximum expansion limit (they literally only conquered 40% of modern Romania). The Great Schism literally split Romania into two pieces. For the past 400 years alone it has been a volcanic zone of warfare between three empires (Habsburgs, Ottomans, Russians). I doubt the Romanians could have been so successful if they weren't so adaptive. That is I believe we have no "core military ideology" above "wait for the right time to settle scores." You'll notice the three empires which once bordered us have all collapsed; seems like the ideology was successful.

It was a set of brilliant military tradition.

And the Dacians were indeed not barbarians. Barbarians do not build such advanced walls:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

thanks for the picture. I take back what I said on that.

[dogukan]

There is some misusage of a word involved in this I believe.

[bushbush]

There is some misusage of a word involved in this I believe.

I think so too, ideology is an inappropriate word here. Carpathian Wolf should not have used it to describe it. Military tradition is a more appropriate word.

[Wolfcp11]

Why did this require a new thread? A PM or a reply to the old one would have been enough.

edit: did anyone else read this as Roman, not Romanian at first?

[Romano-Dacis]

edit: did anyone else read this as Roman, not Romanian at first?

The similarity is not coincidental.

But yes, in all honesty this would have been resolved far better between you and CW personally in a private message.