Southeast Europe

centralising trends, also supported by the Szeklers’ integration into the new nation, the
Saxons’ situation would certainly have been different. They followed their own path. By
the end of the 18 th century, the “Transylvanian awareness” of the elite in the kingdom
was replaced by the specific national awareness of different ethnic people. The
Hungarians failed in their attempt to form Transylvanian identity awareness in the Early
Modern Age based on the religious system and official nations. This failure was due to
the development of modern ethnic nations, to the absence of the Romanians and
Orthodoxism within the system, and to the political and religious intervention of the
Hapsburg State that promoted Catholicism (Erdély története, II, 1987: 1083-1140,
Gündisch, 1998: 124-127, Roth, 1986: 82-94).
The tendency to clarify the Transylvanian Hungarian identity was revealed by debates
in the Diet. During the first half of the 19 th century, opportunities to express political
opinions were quite limited. After1830, however, following the model of Hungary, a
liberal reform movement started among the young generation of the Hungarian nobility.
The main representative of the liberal nobility in Transylvania was Baron Miklós
Wesselényi (1796-1850). The reform oriented nobility promoted ideas such as the
improvement of the peasants’ condition, equality before the law, general tax payment,
bourgeois development, and modernisation and development of the nation and of
national culture. Considering that the ethnic proportions in Transylvania were
unfavourable for Hungarians and the development of the reform process Hungary had
reached, the Hungarian nobility believed that “salvation” consisted in the unification of
Transylvania and Hungary. This led to a more intensified conflict with other nations,
meanwhile, the Romanians and the Saxons also developed their national awareness.
Controversy started when Hungarians proposed to introduce Hungarian as the official
language of administration in 1841 (19. századi magyar történelem, 1998: 197-246,
Erdély története, III, 1987: 1263-1345).
In 1848, parallel to similar events in Europe, revolution also broke out in Transylvania.
The liberal noblemen and the Hungarian intellectuals organised meetings in Cluj and
other cities where county and chair assemblies met and wrote up manifestos. These
meetings often turned into people’s spontaneous meetings. Besides democratic and
liberal reforms (such as freeing the serfs, equality before the law etc.), they also
demanded that the Diet be convoked to vote on unification with Hungary. The Diet
convened after several postponements. As the Hungarians and the Szeklers formed a
majority, they voted the unification against the will of the Romanians and Saxons.
Though the Romanians agreed to most of the democratic demands, Romanian-
Hungarian relations worsened and degenerated into an interethnic conflict that turned
into a civil war because collective national rights were not provided for. Vienna used
this situation to improve its position. As the interethnic conflict escalated, the
Hapsburgs won Romanians and Saxons to their side and turned them against the
Hungarians. Given their national awareness, the Szeklers fought on the side of the
Hungarian revolutionary army. The battle lasted longer than expected. In the summer of
1848, Nicolae Bălcescu mediated an agreement between Lajos Kossuth, the Hungarian
leader, and Avram Iancu, the Romanian leader in Transylvania. Though a Law of
Nationalities was finally adopted, it was too late. Austria had already asked for the
Russian Tsar’s support, and the Hungarian Revolutionary Army was forced to surrender
at Şiria, on August 13, 1849. Repression followed soon afterwards: 13 Hungarian
revolutionary generals were executed in Arad, and more executions followed. Many
were imprisoned or enrolled forcibly in the Austrian army; others were exiled (Egged,
1999, Erdély története, 1987: 1346-1424).
8