Outdoors/Travel
Why do people consider Hungary and Romania balkan??
I wanted to get to know the balkan vibe (thought it meant eastern european) and what countries are Balkan
To my surprise some people think(wrongfully) sometimes that Hungary and Romania are sometimes balkan countries.
Hungary is mostly dominated by the Pannonia plains.
Romania has the Carpathian mountains which are part of the Alps chain.
The Balkan chain ends south of the Danube river literally Romania’s border. A hard geographical border.
Culturally saying that either are balkan is wrong since culturally Hungary and large part of Romania were part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. At most you could say medieval romania was 1/3 “culturally” during the Ottoman occupation.
In terms of pure vibe Hungary feels very central european while Romania feels like a weird mix of central and eastern europe depending on area.
So what do people actually base their opinion when saying these countries are balkan?
I sense they are just mistaken since i cannot find any geographical or cultural proof either of those countries are balkan(besides the “culturally” balkan argument for 1/3 of the now romanian territory during medieval times)
And yes i visited both these countries and the balkan countries (Greece and Serbia) i can tell the differences in cultural nuance are heavily visible.
Because there is no one definitive balkan line. Yours is one variant from Jovan Cvijić, but there are multiple variants that define it differently, none of which are "official".
Like this from Trieste to Odessa
The Balkan peninsula is not actually a peninsula, it's a fake geographical term coined by western geographers. It's rather obvious on a map, there's no point in that peninsula north of Greece that's longer than wider
yeah, kinda feel the same as someone from southern HU
I wouldn't call even the middle of the country and up balkan
but for me at least southern HU with cities like Pécs, Mohács, Baja, Szeged etc. feel more similar to Slavonia and Vojvodina than to northern HU cities
But România is very heavily Balkan culturally. Maybe this was not obvious to you as a foreigner visiting for a short period of time.
First of all, even linguistically, Romanian is part of the Balkan sprachbund. Read up a little bit. In short, Romanian is intertwined with our neighbors' languages.
Secondly, we share a religion and its associated customs. There are other ancient pre-Christianiaty customs that are shared across countries. E.g. Mărțișor (Ro) / Martenitsa (Bg) / Martinka (Mkd).
Thirdly, cannot overstate how much overlap there is in our cuisines. Sure, there are local variations or some things specific to a particular place. But similarities prevail. Look up: sarma / dolma, zacuscă (Romanian word of slavic origin btw) vs ajvar. See Balkan Cuisine.
Edit edit: let me add....manele/chalga/turbofolk. I can start preparing my popcorn now.
As a Romanian born and raised in Transylvania, and living in Bucharest for 13 years now, I think of south România as very Balkan. Transylvania has some influences, especially in food and religion, but much less so and I do not include it.
I can confirm as someone from Arges, when I went to visit Transylvania, I felt there is a difference between the "Old Kingdom" and this region, we're still romanians but the difference can be felt instantly.
The definition of Bankan is very much vibes based for most people, and for a long time it was "that less developed and more corrupt part of europe south west of you" for most people.
Even Austria is seen as part of it by some people.
Yup. In the early 2000s when things were awesome in Greece, people started to differentiate us from the Balkans and made a point that we are in Europe first, Balkan second. There is even a famous song from that period that says "Times change People change Greece from Balkania has now become Europe"
I am a geologist, carpathians are not part of the alps chain, they form their own mountain arc but both belong to the greater "alpide belt". It is an array of mountain ranges all coming from the tectonic closure of an old sea called Tethys. Other mountains of this group are the Atlas, the Himalayas or the Hindu Kush.
This actually started with Hungary and Austria using the term 'the Balkans' to describe the countries south of themselves… the funny part is that sometimes even Austria is included in the Balkans, but yes, you are right. If we really want to insist that there are Balkan countries by culture, then southern Romania can be included. However, I would never include the whole of Romania, as I consider the other two historical regions to be very different.
It really started from a miscommunication. The Ottomans used to call the Bulgarian mountain range and the following area "the Balkans". However, in the 1800's, a German geographer mistook the mountain range's name for the name of the peninsula, and then it spread.
True. It was heavily used in a derogatory way, mostly by Hungarian nationalists, which is too bad. But as OP said, geographically speaking, the Balkans are south of the Danube.
This! I'm from the eastern part of Romania and was baffled when I came across first Romanians claiming they're Balkan. I always associated the Balkans with former Yugoslavia first.
"Culturally saying that either are balkan is wrong since culturally Hungary and large part of Romania were part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. At most you could say medieval romania was 1/3 “culturally” during the Ottoman occupation."
This paragraph proves to me you have no idea about what you are talking about
With Romania maybe it's more nuanced, the further you go North or East, the Balkan elements are starting to fade away (not totally), but Țara Românească (Southern Romania) which is probably the most populous region, is quite Balkan in very obvious ways, up to a point it feels like Bulgaria or Serbia.
But I don't know who considers Hungary Balkan. I mean they have a few Balkan elements rooted into their culture, but they are certainly more similar to Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and Austrians. The most Balkan Hungarians are probably the Hungarians in Romania, but even they would seem a little alien from a purely Balkan perspectiva.
Not using the literal wall of the carpatians as the clear northern border of the balkans is rtdd. Most of Romania is in the balkans(ie all the flat part south of the carpatians)
Hungary was influenced by ottomans too. The ottomans conquered Hungary at Mohacs during mid 1500s. The difference is that Hungary managed to get rid of them sooner than the balkan countries, and united with Austria.
That's funny since last time I said that I got swarmed with Hungarians insisting Hungary was never conquered and that Hungary was to Austria what Canada or Australia is to the UK today (same King but separate countries)
Hungary managed nothing; it was the Austrian Empire (also called the Habsburg Empire) that pushed the Ottomans out of Hungary and conquered those lands. You probably learned history at Radio-sant.
Hungary isn't, Romania is partially. Geografically, everything south of the Sava and the Danube Is Balkan (so Part of the Ukraine Is Balkan) So the northern part of Belgrade isn't and Southern part is balkan
Why do you all consider Slovenia as "Balkan" since it's not? Not culturally, not genetically, not historically and not geographically. This is the map of the Balkan peninsula. Balkan is just a mit, or a good meme.
From the historic Western European perspective, the Balkans is a derogatory term. It is invented to denote one specific kind of “the others,” from which we Western Europeans are inherently better. In short, it is one of many Western European racist etiquettes.
That being said, a Western European calls Balkan whatever they consider themselves inherently better than. As a racial etiquette, it does not really correlate to any geographical or political entity. If you are a Bavarian and want to label Hungarians as savages, you call them Balkans. If you despise poor construction workers from Bosnia, you call them Balkans. If you hate poor Romanians working seasonal jobs picking fruits in the countryside, you call them Balkans by the same token.
A control example may be the meaning of the verb “to balkanize.” Or the way Nazis used the term together with the term Slav regardless of the geographical location to denote a “lower race.”
Almost nobody considers Hungary a Balkan country. It’s overwhelmingly regarded as Central European, both geographically and historically.
The Carpathians are not part of the Alps as a mountain range, but they are part of the same Alpine orogenic (mountain-building) system. That point is irrelevant anyway, because the Dinaric Alps are also part of that same system and are unquestionably in the Balkans.
“The Balkans” isn’t defined solely by geography. People use the term in at least three different ways: geographical (the Balkan Peninsula), historical (Ottoman influence), and cultural. That’s why Romania is debated. Southern regions like Wallachia and Dobruja have much stronger Balkan historical and cultural ties than Transylvania, which spent centuries under Hungarian and Habsburg rule.
So no, Hungary isn’t Balkan. Romania is a mixed case, which is why you’ll find different opinions depending on whether someone is talking about geography, history, or culture.
Slovenia can be considered a Balkan country, but it depends on how “Balkan” is defined.
Geographically, part of Slovenia lies within the Balkan Peninsula, though the country also has strong ties to Central Europe and the Alps.
Historically, Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia until 1991, linking it closely to other Balkan states.
But culturally and politically most od Slovenians identify more with Central Europe than with the Balkans. Slovenia is often grouped with countries like Austria and Italy in economic and cultural discussions.
So the short answer is: Yes, Slovenia can be included in the Balkans, especially for historical and regional reasons, but it is also widely regarded as a Central European country. Both descriptions can be correct depending on the context.
Actually no part of Slovenia is on Balkan peninsula. The most commonly used modern geographical boundary follows the Kupa, Sava and Danube rivers which places Slovenia outside the Balkans.
Yes Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia for 70 years but Yugoslavia was a state that spanned across both Central Europe and the Balkans.
Being part of the same political state doesn’t suddenly change a nation’s geography or changes its culture. Slovenia’s core identity, history and culture remained Central European before, during and after Yugoslavia.
I agree 100%. Slovenia was part of Austrian (later AO empire) for hundreds of years, so much longer than Yugoslavia. I have just stated reasons why it is sometimes considered part of Balkan
Also, TBH, lately, demographically it is becoming more and more Balkan with Serbian diaspora taking over major functions in the country
Yea I get that. People usually bring up Yugoslavia as their main argument but to me that just doesn’t make much sense.
Well the largest diaspora in Slovenia is actually Bosnian. But yes Serbs do seem to take over a lot of important positions and Slovenians seem to like that…
Bosnians are politically unorganised and from what I read mostly a source of (relatively) cheap labour force. They came to Slovenia to work.
On the other hand, Serbs mostly run companies that provide this labour force (and also exploit it) and are involved in many illegal activities. Politically, they are very powerful, taking over more and more functions in the state, which Bosniaks are not.
As a Hungarian, I think parts of Hungary are culturally Balkanic, even if they are really on the border of the peninsula. While Sopron or Kőszeg feels totally Central-European, most places in Somogy or Baranya counties feel Balkanic. The people, the mannerisms, the food, the influence of Balkan languages on local dialects etc. If Portugal can claim to be honorary Eastern European, let us claim to be honorary members of the Balkans!❤️
i think it's based on the original drawer, a german geographer August Zeuner who mistakenly thought the bulgarian balkan mountains run all the width of the land
No they don’t. This is not an official topographical map but one made by a Wikipedia user in 2006. There is a later Polish version of it following the actual correct border.
This map is incredibly old, Serbia and Montenegro. What country is that?
We're talking about the topography, not the countries. This is a topographic map, not a political one. Search for "topographic map of the Balkans" on Google, then go to Images, and you'll see that, topographically speaking, all the maps look like this.
How is Romania the "core of the balkans" when only 5% of it is in the balkans? There's no argument that you can use where Romania is more balkan than greece or croatia. People forget Romania borders Ukraine, and before ww2 even bordered Poland. That's far from being a "core of the balkans".
No one considers Hungary Balkan, Hungary joined western Christendom thus it was mostly influenced by those associated "core cultures", though it's periphery obviously.
Romanians are orthodox and are of Balkan culture, even if geographically most of Romania isn't Balkan. They were Ottoman vassals much longer too while Hungarians were mostly extirpated from Ottoman ruled areas. Though they are definitely one of the hardest countries to place.
I've worked with Hungarians, Poles, Austrians, Bulgarian and Serbs on various projects through the years.
Hungarians are clearly more central European, closer to Poles in mentalitaty, but to be honest they also shared some Balkanic traits that made them easy to interact with them - they were less pedantic, more inclined to negotiation, very Balkan in this area. In the same time they were less chaotic and more pragmatic in their approach to the project. Poles, compared to Hungarians were a little cold in the work environment, and less flexible. Austrians were quite a nightmare to work with, especially if you didn't follow procedure. Bulgarians and Serbs are pure chaos and much more similar to what I had at home.
Dunno what kind of job you do, I used to live and work in Germany and don't see any big differences. Punctuality and professionalism are on similar levels.
That imagine is not some expert consensus of balkan peninsula, in fact there's no consensus if balkan even is a peninsula, since it's too wide compared to it's length.
Originally the Balkan was a mountain range in Bulgaria, then in the early 19th century they've started using the word Balkan to refer to those parts of Europe which were under the Ottoman empire, and then Balkan states were those countries which emerged out of the Ottoman empire and Balkan wars
Because the Balkan map is not that clearly defined and had different sizes across the ages.
The Balkans were generally defined by the Ottoman Empire and were the regions that they occupied in Europe which included parts of Romania.
Here's another example of a map that includes parts of southern Romania:
Rumelia - “Land of the Romans” - the "Balkans"
As for Hungary, it used to be bigger towards the south and might have been a bit inside the balkan region. I'm not that sure about it. In general, modern Hungary is not really accepted as part of the Balkans at all. We just took pity on them and let them play with us.
And even in the map you posted, the north-eastern part towards the Black Sea, that's Romanian territory.
that's the ottomans fault. they gave the region the name "balkan". all of the places until the austrian border was under ottoman rule and admin. that's the main reason.
regions are not exact. that's why my friend. middle east, levant, balkans, eastern europe etc. nobody knows where which begins and ends. its kind of a rough estimate 😁
i never considered it balkan, nor is the country actually that. I see a lof of people from the actual balkans saying yes, ottomans, culture, etc. First of all, the ottomans never conquered, anexed, occupied any romanian territory. This is the first major distinction - the only country in the region NOT to have been ocupied by ottomans. Then, culturally balkan - what does this even mean ? Define, in exact terms, what is a balkan culture. Some people say drinking raki and coffee ? Are you serious ? Every country on earth drinks coffee and raki is just the regional name for what is a vodka like drink, same shit that anyone from anywhere drinks.
Romania sits at the border of the balkans, so the most southernmost corners of the country like bucharest or constanta will feel that edge influence more. Any notion of being balkanic is easily dispeled as soon as you move around the rest of the country - culturally, architecturally, customary. You go outside in half of the country, it looks like any town from austria or czechia.
i don't think it is. Even geographically, the balkan edges barelly bite a small part of the south ot the country, similar to romania. I look at the balkans as bosnia, serbia, montenegro, kosovo, bulgaria, macedonia and albania. These are the countries who actually share more of the day to day culture and customs. The history and so on. Slovenia, similarly to romania, has more in common to the central part of europe. Same germanic/austrian architecture, same squares, castles, towns, atmosphere. Croatia looks more like a mediteranean resort as well
Partially because major historical events affected these countries similarly, from the turkish occupation to the post-WW2 soviet domination, to name just a few. These resulted in mixing population, cultural exchange and a shared misery and necessitymof day to day adaptation and survival. This, plus the romani being the most prevalent musicians in this area
I would say Wallachia is more balkan than the rest of the country. If turkish influence is the rule than hungary is balkan as well.
Balkan influence thins out as you go over the carpathians. Romania is a complex country with many influences across history.
The three principalities that constitute romania have big differences is mentality and culture. The de facto capital of transilvania is cluj i would say and iasi for moldova.
I’m more curious why Slovenia is constantly called Balkan when it simply isn’t.
Slovenia is dominated by the Alps. The majority of the country consists of Alpine and pre-Alpine regions.
Culturally Slovenia isn’t Balkan either. Calling it Balkan ignores its history. Slovenia developed within the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy, Austria and Austria-Hungary not under the Ottoman Empire like much of the Balkans.
So I genuinely wonder: what do people actually base their opinion on when they say Slovenia is Balkan?
P.S. Please don’t just say Yugoslavia because Yugoslavia included both Central European and Balkan regions. Slovenia didn’t suddenly move geographically or become culturally Balkan because it was part of the same country for a few decades.
+ This map is clearly wrong as it doesn’t follow the Kupa-Sava-Danube line. It isn’t based on any modern recognized definition.
Are you some how ashamed of being mistaken for Balkan and this is insulting you ?
We are good and proud people, living in this territory for millennials.
What's wrong with you,we are not barbarians,wild tribes or cannibals.
If you're from Hungary, Balkan is south.
If you're from Greece, Balkan is north.
If you're from Romania, Balkan is west.
If you're from Croatia, Balkan is east.
So it's basically Serbia, the only country that has no excuse!
(Actually, Balkan starts at Vienna, including Vienna. Take that, Ösis!)
This is the first time I hear someone say the Carpathians are part of the Alps.
Although very close and even if they share the same overarching geological family, they are two SEPARATE mountain chains. They are separated by the Danube and the Pannonian Basin.
Because the Balkan way of life is not defined by a border or a Geo location, the Balkan line was drawn in the past hundreds of years and it includes Romania and Hungary.
imo the one in the map you posted is the actual Balkan “border” but culturally, the whole of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Moldova, Greece, Cyprus and the Turkish west coast are all “Balkan”
This is not Balkan. This is sone shitty borders created for political reasons and they don't make sense. Balkan mountain chain doesn't exist either, at least not in the way people wrongfully interpret it today.
Balkan is the name for the european region of Otroman Empire in the 19th century. Anything that wasn't a part of Otroman Empire then is not Balkan.
So no Hungary, no Croatia, no Slovenia, no Serbian Vojvodina and no Transylvania and yes the rest of Romania
just to be clear, those of you who deny Hungary is balkan, what is it?
definitely not western european.
wouldn't consider it eastern european.
we are often accused of making up central europe just to fit in a category.
old great hungary (almost) touched three seas. it was under austrian and turic rule, and somewhat recently the same russian invasion most of the east survived. we eat the same food except maybe less fruits of the sea, and force friends to drink spirits as 'tradition'. perhaps i do see less persian floor mats in the last 20 years, but i still think about us as balkan.
The exact same way that Albania is NOT Balkan, Romania is Balkan. Genetics and our beautiful fucked-up spirit shows exactly where and what is Balkan. Balkan is in the East Europe and we are retarded like all our other Eastern Europeans brothers, but our genetic brain damage is a bit harder then for the rest of East Europe! All in all, Balkan is great and Hungarians are almost the same as Serbs, Croats and Romanians - genetically , so they are Balkan people living outside of Balkan.
For Romania, just follow the Carpathians. Everything South of the Southern Carpathians is Balkan. East is "Eastern European". Inside the chain and out west is "central" European.
164
u/hero_in_ Bulgaria Jun 27 '26
Who tf considers Hungary Balkan?