Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 11th, 2018, 04:14 AM   #11
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58

"The western academies of history all agree on the fact it's an authentic work of history and what it states is true."

Not really. Usually only romanian historians support the gesta hungarorum like an authentic historical chronichle. International and hungarian scholars agreed, this is not authentic historical source, more like a tale-book.

"Concerning this historical period, the supporters of the Daco-Roman myth consider it to be the background for the epic accounts of the Gesta Hungarorum, which are often quoted by them with the purpose of proving that the Vlach were the inhabitants of Transylvania before Árpád conquered the land. This literary work, that belongs to the fiction genre, mentions the dukes of Bihar, Bánát and Transylvania, who are said to be respectively a Khazar, a Slav and a Vlach. There is no trace of such characters in any contemporary document because they are completely imaginary. On the other hand, very prominent personalities that were indeed quite engaged with the Magyar conquest like Emperor Arnulf of the Franks, Kings Svatopluk and Mojmir II of Moravia, Czar Simeon of Bulgaria or Leon VI of Byzantium are not mentioned at all in the Gesta Hungarorum ‒ any trustworthy history treatise would not fail to mention them. Besides this, important battles are omitted and there are many anachronisms mainly regarding peoples that were not present in the Carpathian Basin in that period, like Cumans and Vlach. The author was an anonymous writer of the 12th century c.e. that projected the situation of his time back to three centuries earlier, and his accounts are in sharp contrast with the contemporary sources that reported the Magyar conquest as eyewitnesses. Such documents attest that the peoples involved in the events related with the Magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin were Slovenes and other Slavic tribes, Moravians, Avars, Bulgarians, Franks and Gepids, but no Romans, Vlach or Cumans. The author of Gesta Hungarorum may have been led into confusion by Slavic accounts about the fact that the Magyars seized the Danubian Basin from the Franks, that were then called (as well as Italians) "Voloch", "Vlasi" by the Slavs ‒ hence the Hungarian translation of the toponyms containing the term "frank/franc" into "olasz[i]", and the Romany name of France, "Valshi", derived from the Slavic term."

So the main problem with the gesta hungarorum is, the names are not mentioned in any other slavic, byzantine or german chronichles in that time. This leaders got their name, from local geographical places, and the places where they died are usually the same.

Anonymous mention cumans at the carpathian basin, when the hungarians conquered that, but cumans came to europe 300 years later. So anonymous used the current political map of the area, and he used this to describe the events 300 years before.

Anonymous mention, the hungarians and the huns are two brother nation. They went together for hunting, and they fallowed a magical deer, this is the whey, how they arrived to Europe. But there is 500 years difference in the time between the Huns and the hungarians, they couldn't be brothers. My hungarian friend told me, they learn in the schools their closest brothers are the finns and the estonians, and the hungarian academy of science deny the hunnic origin. Only a small ultranationalist group of the hungarians believe in this theory.

So you can see, there is a lot of problems with the Gesta Hungarorum. I think the Bible is a more authentic historic book, than the Gesta.
Or:

"https://imgur.com/a/9Vh3M

A screenshot from the book "Manufacturing the past for the present"
http://www.brill.com/sites/default/f...?itok=fFsVxsq9


The strategikon don't speak about vlachs, but speak about latin peoples, who fled from illyria to the south. (Because of the slavic attacks) (these peoples was the ancestors of the modern Romanians)

"Въ лето 6406. Идоша угри мимо Киевъ горою, еже ся зоветь ны не Угорьское, пришедъше къ Днепру, и сташа вежами; беша бо ходяще, аки се половци. Пришедъ от [въ]стока и устремишася чересъ горы великия, и почаша воевати на жиущая ту волхи и словени. Седяху бо ту преже словени, и волъхве прияша землю словеньску. Посемъ же угри прогнаша волъхи, и наследиша землю, и седоша съ словены, покоривше я подъ ся. Оттоле прозвася земля Угорьска."

I translated this text with google translate, but i don't read any vlachs, in this. Anybody can check this.
Plus Constantin Daicoviciu, the father of the Daco-Roma theory refused and deny his own theory before his death at 1973. He said: "The nestor chronicle don't speaks about daco-roman vlachs, it speaks about franks. When Anonymous "Eac pastores Romanorum, he spokes about the latinised easrtern-frank shepherds of Pannonia. (Latin was the official language in the Frank-empire)

Some chonichles speak about Blachs. Blachs and Vlachs are two different nations.

Blachs are the eastern franks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blach

So the gesta hungarorum and the nestor chronicle denied by international historians. But did you knew that, the romanian government bought an advertisement in the New York Times, and promote the Gesta Hungarorum like an authentic historical chronicle? (This happened in 1987)

I will try to react for all of your answers later.

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 11th, 2018 at 04:41 AM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 11th, 2018, 06:17 AM   #12

Xilaw's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 1,482

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
"
"Въ лето 6406. Идоша угри мимо Киевъ горою, еже ся зоветь ны не Угорьское, пришедъше къ Днепру, и сташа вежами; беша бо ходяще, аки се половци. Пришедъ от [въ]стока и устремишася чересъ горы великия, и почаша воевати на жиущая ту волхи и словени. Седяху бо ту преже словени, и волъхве прияша землю словеньску. Посемъ же угри прогнаша волъхи, и наследиша землю, и седоша съ словены, покоривше я подъ ся. Оттоле прозвася земля Угорьска."

I translated this text with google translate, but i don't read any vlachs, in this.
It mentions "волхи" (transl. Volchi) twice in that passage. It says the Hungarians found Slavs and Vlachs there, chased the Vlachs away from the territory, settled themselves among the Slavs and ruled over them, if I'm not mistaken.
Xilaw is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 08:11 AM   #13

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 709

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post

"Въ лето 6406. Идоша угри мимо Киевъ горою, еже ся зоветь ны не Угорьское, пришедъше къ Днепру, и сташа вежами; беша бо ходяще, аки се половци. Пришедъ от [въ]стока и устремишася чересъ горы великия, и почаша воевати на жиущая ту волхи и словени. Седяху бо ту преже словени, и волъхве прияша землю словеньску. Посемъ же угри прогнаша волъхи, и наследиша землю, и седоша съ словены, покоривше я подъ ся. Оттоле прозвася земля Угорьска."

I translated this text with google translate, but i don't read any vlachs, in this. Anybody can check this.
It's old slavonic, I will try to translate a bit. Here it goes:

"In the year 6406. Ugri (magyars?) came around Kiev mountain (city?), which now is called Ugorskoe, came to Dnepr river and settled; (they) were in(new) comers like the polovci. They came from the east and dashed through the great mountain and started to fight(made war to) the vlachs and slovenes that were living there. Before that there were slovenes and vlachs taken in the slovene lands. After that the Ugri(magyars) chased away the vlachs and inherited the lands and settled with the slovenes, which they subjugated. CSince then it is called Ugri lands. "

Interestingly the Magyars chased away the vlachs, but accepted to live with the slovenes

TupSum is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 08:24 AM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 2,718

Quote:
"In the year 6406 (898), the Hungarians passed near Kiev, over the hill which is now called Ugor Koie, reached the Dnieper and they stretched their tents, because they were nomads as the Polovcs. Coming from the east, they went rushing through the high mountains, which were called Hungarian (the Carpathians) and they began to struggle with Volochs (Vlachs, Romanians) and Slavs who lived there. The Slavs were set there before and the Volochs conquered the country of the Slavs. But the Hungarians drove out afterwards the Volochs, they conquered the country and sat there together with the Slavs; since then the country is called Hungary."
History or Utopia: 18) Anonymus about... Transylvania (~ 9th century)
At Each Kilometer is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:02 AM   #15
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Romania
Posts: 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Hi everybody!



16.-A runestone from the Njoshem cemetery in Gotland dating from the 11th century commemorates a merchant Rodfos who was traveling to Constantinople through “The land of the Vlachs” where he was killed. The trade routed from scandinavia to Constantinople, went throught on Kiew, or Belgrade. If he went throught on Kiev, no chance, he meet with vlachs. If he went throught on Belgrade, vlachs was at the south from the danube.
This is in my opinion a dishonest way to approach the subject. You are basically telling us that if the merchant traveled through Belgrade than the runestone it authentic and proof that the Vlachs lived south of the Danube. But if he traveled through Kiev (which by the way was more than likely the route used due to the fact that it was shorter and easier) than the runestone must be erroneous because there couldn't have been vlachs north of the Danube. The runestone can't be both true and false in the same time. You are giving value to evidence solely to the degree to which it supports you narrative.
This is the exact thing that you are doing to gesta hungarorum. Because it doesn't support your narrative is classified as SF and you ignore that many aspects presented in it are corroborated by other accounts of the period.

Quote:
11. Moldavian chronicles mention, the founding of moldova. The chronicles says, they are came from far, at 1350, the leader was dragos. So there aren't been there before 1350.
This is a lie by omission. The chorincle states that he was a vlach nobleman from Maramures, a county in northen Transilvania.

Quote:
12. Romanian chronicles mention, they are arrived in the 13th century. (Romanian chronicles written in the 17th century narrate that a herțeg or duke of Făgăraș and Almaș, named Radu Negru (‘Radu the Black’) or Negru Vodă (‘The Black Voivode’) was the first voivode of Wallachia.[1][9][53] These texts state that Radu Negru, together with some colonists ("Romanians, Catholics and Saxons") arrived from the region of Făgăraş in Transylvania.[54] The first documentary evidence for a terra Blacorum (‘land of the Vlachs’) on the territory later called Făgăraș is an early 13th-century property register which mentions the order of King Andrew II of Hungary that estates previously in Vlach hands be transferred to the Cistercian abbey at Cârța.[55][56] Radu Negru and his followers crossed the Carpathians to Muntenia and founded Wallachia with its capitals in Câmpulung and Curtea de Argeș.[9][54] The chronicles narrate these events under the year 1290 or 1292.[9])
A Romanian noble moves his court from Transilvania to Wallachia.

The important thing to note here is that indeed both Moldavia and Wallachia were establised by romanian nobles (there is no mass migration here, a noble and his court were in conflict whith the hungarian king so they left their estate) that came from Transilvania not form somewhere in the balkans. So there is some evidence of vlach moving but funny enough is from Transilvania south to Wallachia and East to Moldova.


And I would also like to touch on one the the other quotes:

Quote:
Norman Angell : Peace Theories And The Balkan War page: - 107. "It had been founded by a conquering caste of non-Slavonic nomads from the trans-Danubian steppes, but these were completely ... This Bulgarian state included a large 'Vlach' element descended from those Latin-speaking provincials whom the Slavs had pushed ... had established itself in the mountains of Transylvania, and was just beginning to push down into the Wallachian and Moldavian plains"
The book can be found here:http://ia600200.us.archive.org/23/it...eBalkanWar.pdf

At page 107 there is nothing that resembles that quote. In fact there is no mention of "Vlach", "Transylvania", "Wallachian " or "Moldavian" in that book.
pcatalin999 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:27 AM   #16
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,063

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
3. In the 19th century, the romanianlanguage was renewed. The leader of this language reform was August Treboniu. He collected all the slavic words, and change for words from french language. Today, romanian language is 70% latin, 10% slavic, but 22% of the latin part, is came from the french. 15% is modern latin words, 4% italian words. So the original language was only 30% latin.
About the effects of Laurian's dictionary you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Treboniu_Laurian. And no, he didn't try to replace non-Latin words with French words, he try to replace them with Latin words, but such puristic attempts were more successful with other languages that with Romanian. Re: "the original language was only 30% latin", someone like you may fancy that the Romanian language has now the same number of words as during the times of Laurian, but I tell you that a lot of borrowings are words (like scientific and technical terms) for which there was no equivalent in the language before, other European languages borrowed such words too, for a comparison you can read e.g. about Bulgarian here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_lexis.
Ficino is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:39 AM   #17
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,063

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Plus Constantin Daicoviciu, the father of the Daco-Roma theory refused and deny his own theory before his death at 1973. He said: "The nestor chronicle don't speaks about daco-roman vlachs, it speaks about franks. When Anonymous "Eac pastores Romanorum, he spokes about the latinised easrtern-frank shepherds of Pannonia. (Latin was the official language in the Frank-empire)

Some chonichles speak about Blachs. Blachs and Vlachs are two different nations.

Blachs are the eastern franks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blach
Constantin Daicoviciu was not "the father of Daco-Roman theory". BTW, which is the source of your quote from Daicoviciu? If Blachs were different from Vlachs, whose lands were called "terra blachorum"?

Last edited by Ficino; January 11th, 2018 at 09:45 AM.
Ficino is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:49 AM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,063

Quote:
Originally Posted by History Craft View Post
false, it was built in the 7th century. ''Additions were made in the 13th century''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densu%C8%99_Church
The Romanian Wikipedia article about the church is more serious: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biseri...in_Densu%C8%99.
Ficino is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:51 AM   #19
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Romania
Posts: 43

Quote:
8. Romanians are orthodox. It means, when they are adopt the christianity, they lived under byzantine or slavic rules. Today's romanias territory never been under byzantine or slavic rules.
No. All it means that when the Romanians adopted Christianity at a time when ERE was the preeminent economic, cultural, military power in the region, because if we were to follow your logic to the end we would have to conclude that Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians migrated also from somewhere south of the Danube. And that wold make the Balkan peninsula more crowded than the Tokyo metro at rush hour and the Byzantines the worst rulers that ever existed.
pcatalin999 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 10:15 AM   #20
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 122

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xilaw View Post
It mentions "волхи" (transl. Volchi) twice in that passage. It says the Hungarians found Slavs and Vlachs there, chased the Vlachs away from the territory, settled themselves among the Slavs and ruled over them, if I'm not mistaken.
That's monk Nestor's text of Kiev in old Ruthenian. The author called Volchi Goths, if I am not mistaken. That makes sense, because East Goths lived in Panonnian plain at the time, while Vlachs settled in what's today southern Romania and northern Bulgaria.
lexell is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
dacoroman, origin, romanians, theory



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the origin of the Romanians? decebalus European History 31 December 3rd, 2014 03:54 AM
Romanians and Dacians Slavon European History 368 March 7th, 2014 03:25 AM
Origin of Romanians Dany European History 13 August 19th, 2013 09:21 AM
What's your opinion about the origins of the Romanians? Perix European History 327 June 25th, 2013 10:13 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.