Nationalism, History, Communism, Scholarship

One problem I've faced in researching Romania history, aside from a dearth of anything written in the English language available in America, is the strong opinions asserted by anyone writing anything about Romanian history. 

In any scholarship, an academic is trying to prove a point, and therefore a careful reader needs to be aware of the biases and the premise of a writer trying to assert his thesis.  However, biases are particularly strong in the academia of countries with a disputed heritage, such as the South-eastern European countries whose peace and stability have been shaken by the concept of self-determination and even before then, when nomadic hoards swarm and invade lands, claiming territories as their own.  

The territory now known as Moldavia variously belonged to the Dacians, the Romans, the Avars, the Huns, the Mongols, the Tartars, the Bulgars, the Magyars, the Cumans, the Pechenegs, and finally the 'Romanians,' who became Ottoman vassals within a few centuries. The popular definition of the Romanian 'race' is the mix of native Dacians blended with the Romans.  However, Hungarian historians point to the Szeklers, Hungarians who settled in Transylvania in the 12th century, as the 'original' inhabitants of the Transylvanian lands, while the nationalistic Romanian movements over the centuries claim Transylvanian lands as a part of "Romania Mare." 

Even the most academic publications harbor one opinion or the other, and the facts/fantasies/folklore/myths of Romania's history color the current political and social situation.