This is a very interesting thread.
Yes I think it would definitely have made a difference. The XXth century was a very, very instable time. Basically, I think with only very small changes of the history course, a lot could have been different. Such a change would definitely have altered the course of history totally. Maybe after WW2, if this was how Romania would have looked like, it would have become a bit more like Yugoslavia during the communist regime... minus the post-communist war period which wouldn't have had any trigger (no separatist movements whatsoever, unlike in Yugoslavia). Who knows. Maybe if it was strong enough, it wouldn't have fallen under Soviet influence, and it would still have the Monarchy. Alternate history is a very interesting topic though, IMHO.
We have a History Forum, this should have been there.
I believe the post-WW2 borders of Romania really are a mistake. I mean, there are almost 1 million Romanians living in Ukraine right now, and they don't even have teaching in their own language (while in Romania there is for any minority of over 20% of a town). It's obvious that the current borders are simply a result of Russian expansionism. Moldova right now is divided between 3 countries, only because of this same reason.
Strange dreams you have man... (j/k) . Romania never invaded a country... except the USSR
in the WWII... Transilvania is a part of Romania just like Bavaria is of Germany
. Unfortunately nobody had dreams of a great empire here, hehe...
Technically it did... But never for expansion, that's true. For example Mihai Viteazu (Michael the Brave), when he united Wallachia (Teara Romaneasca) with Moldova and Transylvania (Transilvania) in 1600, didn't really unite them peacefully...
It's true that he did have the support of the people, for the most part. But technically, he did attack other countries. His results are remarkable
, though they only lasted until 1601.