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, 09:21 AM   #21

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,704

*Sigh*

Well, there goes the presumption of good faith (in favor of the blatant chauvinistic nature of this Trianon whining).

I'll clarify 2-3 things (As to not leave any reader of good-faith confused, one this trolling of yours had ended) and I'll proceed to ignore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
All of the archeological,


Show 1.
I brought you 10+.
Bring me 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
the linguistic,


Bring 1 source or argument. I brought you tens, dismantlement the Albanian arguments (funnily enough the very source you brought said that 1% comes from a substratum connection, not coexistence)


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
the religion sources


Bring one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
I told you a few one 15-18 in my last answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post


What? 15-18 what? Those sources at the end? 0 Historical accounts, 0 archeological studies, just opinions about the cultural lifestyle of another people (not even talking about romanians).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Nobody on the earth support the daco-roman theory


That's weird because I quoted the French Academy supporting it as well as dozens of american, british, french, italian, etc archeologists supporting it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
, only the romanian nationalist historians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post

The problem of this theories, there is a massive political reason, behind the deaco-romanian theoriy, and romanians are deny the facts, and make personal, officially onsupported theories and answers.


Honestly, you could have put far more effort in hiding your Trianon-whining scheme.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Like Marius Daiaconescu or Lucian Boia.


Please bring quotes (So I can prove that what you're referring to are quotes taken out of question, when in reality the authors criticize the romanian scientific community for being tunnel-sighted).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
This answer is completely false. First of all, the official language of the Byzantine empire was the latin language to the 7th century, after the 7th century the greek language became the official, but byzantine never been a greek state.


Pardon? We're talking (regarding your theory) about 6 centuries where the administration, legal system, religious services, everything would have been in greek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Byzantine citizens had a very strong self-idendity. They called themselfs „roman”, and they called the empire „Romania”. The territory of today's Romania was under roman rules for only 165 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post


Already addressed that.
The British Empire also only held only a small bit of today's USA for about 150 years. Shortly after the whole USA was anglo-saxon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
The romans left Dacia at 270, and never came back.


You have some reading to catch up on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_...man_withdrawal
Several military incursions, forts and outposts as well as a damn bridge (a colossal feat in those days) was built.
Please at least consult wikipedia or some minute-source like that before embarrassing yourself trying to promote the pathething ''*cry* Trianon *cry*''

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Dacia never been under byzantine rules, and the romanian’s homeland (Today’s Albania) never been under byzantine rules as well. So the lack of the greek words in the romanian language can support the two theories both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post




I suspect yesterday is the first time in your life when you heard about the ''Byzantine Empire''.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
The romans left dacia at 270, and the christiany became accepted at 312. Christianity became the Roman empire’s state religion at 380. 110 years later when the romans left dacia. So who converted the romanians to the christianity? This is a very strong logical fact, and completely deny the daco-roman theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post


Christianity was a very popular religion in the empire by that time, soon to be most popular, no conversion was needed for roman ethnics.
As proof, latin religious vocabulary, not slavic, not greek, not nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
The romanian language was separated from the other romance language, so you could use another words for the same things. Have a lot of example for this in the english language. (American and British english differences: frech fries/chips, Motorway/Highway, biscuit/cookie etc...) Or in the spanish language: european spanish: coche, latin american spanish: carro)"


O.o You just started bashing your own theory by claiming that proto-romanian was separated from the other latin languages (not in the empire = in the abandoned dacia) and giving examples of how the same language evolves differently when sepparated, it's also what I'm claiming.... well, I'm glad we agree (Actually, I know you got confused and started bashing your own points out of confusion, either way, cheers)



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Turdava/turda: coming from hungarian Torda, which is an ancient hungarian male name. Hungarians took this name from the old turkic language. The word "turdi" in turkic means "remaining"

Tape/tapia: The first written sources meantion this village in 1761. Couldn't be ancient lati/roman.

[...]

2nd theory: The firstwritten sources about the river with this name are yoming from the age of migration. Gresia/Grisia (Before romans name is Krisus


In most cases you commented you aren't even talking about the same places as I am (which isn't surprising since you admitted this is the first time you've ever looked into the matter, and a quick couple of googles revealed where you're getting some of this stuff) so I won't even bother commenting. Either way where you're not talking about a whole different place-name you're just inventing stuff or saying stuff that makes it clear you've never held a history book in your hands before in your life (example: claiming the greek ancient writers actually named the rivers xD wow.... wow. I don't know how to break this to you but in most cases they just hellenized the native/latin names of these rivers. Either way, saying stuff like this makes me not want to waste my time with you).

Either way my point is proven by the very fact we're talking about place-names virtually identical to the ancient ones, in the exact same place, this reality also being proven by the phonetic evolution of the name (example:

Turdava > Turda(v)a > Turdaa > Turda.).

You can scream ''coincidence'' (coincidence hundreds of times, sure) all you want, the provenience of these names is irrefutably proven by their phonetic evolution, besides the very evidence of their modern-ancient correspondence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
These point are just your personal hypotheses


It's a fact that Romania was the most inhospitable enviroemtn (As opposed to warm and plain, agriculturally valuable Balkans and open field Panonia):
p.9"In history the Rumanian natural forests had a surface of about 18 mill ha. This covered not only Carpathian mountains but also hills and and lower plains. About 79% of the Romanian territory was covered by forests at that time."


http://www.greenpeace.org/romania/Gl...ia_Summary.PDF

It's a fact Dacia was very poor by that time (the very fact it was abandoned as proof)

It's a fact romanians were abandoned early on and had experienced dozens of migrants by the time the slavic migration hit.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
. The historican facts and written sources says, the romans never latinised the dacians:



http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

Read the 1st point (Historical Facts) in this arcticle.



Says facts and written sources say so then quotes a site that just repeats the original statements O.o.

If facts and written sources say so (the very redundant nature of this statement reveals the childish nature of the one who wrote it) then please quote one. One written account. One archeological study. Please, be my guest.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
When you started your migration from this albanian homeland, in the 7th century, there wasn't barbaric nations anymore.


Again, it's quite clear this is the first time in your life when you're hearing of these subjects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenegs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe
ohhh, and this is close to your heart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_tribes

After Rome retreated, here was no second in the history of the north of the Danube when a barbarian elite didn't have a ''nation'' there (again, childish terminology). In the 7th century for example you had the avars there, who violently overthrew the gepids not long ago.
There has never been peace in this region since the Pax Romana. Migrations started as soon as the romans fell back and continued until the 15th century or so.
Admit youv'e never read a book about eastern europe in your life.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Yes today's romania never been slavicised, so you din't adopt the ortodox religion, the slavic sacred language, and the cyrillic alphabet in this territory. You lived somewhere else when you adopted the christianity and the orthodox religion. You lived under slavic rules in this time.


What? You make no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
These are only your personal hypthesis and personal explaining.


Pardon? They're copy-pasted from the american, english, french, german, nordic, etc authors I cited and whose books I linked.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Sorry, but i don't have time for romanian nationalist personal theories.
Good thing you got time to cry about Trianon.

Last edited by History Craft; January 11th, 2018 at 09:28 AM.
History Craft is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:22 AM   #22

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,704

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
This map is absolutely fake. Where did you found this? I show you, the real one:

http://languagesoftheworld.info/wp-c...5/DaciaMap.jpg

Less than the half of today's romania was under roman rules.

Source: http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/...son-model.html

It's funny because the guy you quote says ''yeah most historians think it's like [what I'm saying] but I...''.

Again here we have more evidence that you've never touched a book (that you haven't spent any hour) before, reading on this subject, otherwise you'd have known that Moesia originally included S-E Romania as well and that the shapes of the provinces changed with time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dacia

I'm shocked that you didn't even read the Wikipedia.

Did you just yesterday hear about Trianon and decided to go on your own personal crusade on the internet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
This article mention, have a basic problem with the romanian language, because As Etienne further explains (in personal communication), “the core problem relates to Romanian dialects: they are much too homogeneous”,
So? Romanians has intense economic and cultural relations all the way to modernity.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Amphi-Rome.PNG

This map is false as well. Check Porolissum on this map, and check on the other maps. In this map, Porolissum in in too north.

xD you're a one man history Academy by yourself mate.
Either way, sources:
Jean-Claude Lachaux: Théâtres et amphithéâtres d'Afrique Proconsulaire. Édisud, La Calade, Aix-en-Provence 1970

Raymond G. Chase: Ancient Hellenistic and Roman amphitheatres, stadiums, and theatres: the way they look now. P. E. Randall, Portsmouth 2002, ISBN 1-931807-08-6

R. J. Wilson, La topografia della Catania romana. Problemi e prospettive, in <<CATANIA ANTICA, Atti del Convegno della SISAC>>, Pisa-Roma 1996, pp. 165-167.
Mariotti 2004
Tacitus Book 4 Chapter 62
https://web.archive.org/web/20070930...nroemerbad.htm




Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
One name: August Treboniu Laurian

"Because of this alleged continuity, he supported the purification of the Romanian language by stripping it of non-Latin elements and attempting to bring it as close to Latin as possible. Between 1871 and 1876, Laurian collaborated with Ioan Massim for a two-volume Romanian language dictionary, commissioned by the Romanian Academy. The dictionary was stripped of non-Latin words, including neologisms as replacements for such words, which were supposed to be eliminated from the language."
Wiki post made by a hungarian using quotes from Lucian Boia, a writer on the Communist Pary's payroll, the same communist party which had an anti-latin and pro-dacian pro-slavist agenda ~~


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
We talking about that era, when the romanian language took many words from the french language. (Language reform) Today's romanian language's 22% is coming from the modern french language.



Where did you want us to get the modern cultural, technical, scientific, etc words from? The slavs who lacked them as well?



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
"Romanian (19th century) – replaced Cyrillic script with the Latin alphabet, deprecated thousands of Slavic words in favour of Romance ones. Romanian has undergone spelling reforms in 1904, 1953, and, most recently, in 1993, with two minor ones in 1964 and 2005."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_reform
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
So? Romanians wanted to be part of the western world, what's so surprising we changed our alphabet to fit the western world?
History Craft is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:22 AM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,281

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcatalin999 View Post
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.
Nicolae Iorga wrote a good book on the history of the Romanian Church, it is available on-line e.g. here (unfortunately it is in the Romanian original but he/she may try to use Google Translate):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Volumul_1.pdf
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/inde..._Volumul_2.pdf

Someone who has no idea about what the First Bulgarian Empire was may ask oneself how it happened that Slavonic became the liturgical language of the Romanian Church.

Last edited by Ficino; January 11th, 2018 at 09:25 AM.
Ficino is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:24 AM   #24

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,704

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Not really. Usually only romanian historians support the gesta hungarorum like an authentic historical chronichle.
I just quoted the French Academy agreeing unanimously on the fact Gesta Hungarorum is correct in statements we're talking about now.
Not long after I followed by citing several american, british, german, italian, etc sources.
Of course those you just delete/don't quote at all and ignore, only to repeat your original claims. Brilliant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
International and hungarian scholars agreed, this is not authentic historical source, more like a tale-book.
Quote one western academy work claiming this.
One.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post

"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."
I like how you put your own opinion in brackets without any source or anything and call it victory xD
You're a genius mate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
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.
That's because the magyars fought local vassals that represented the famous personalities of the time and not the famous personalities of the time themselves.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
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.
By the time the Magyars arrived there were many turkic groups in the Carpathian Basin, AKA people who spoke the same language, had the same clothing and fought just like the cumans... unsurprisingly Anonymous is using the word cuman for turkic (unsurprisingly because they're the same thing).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
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.
One of the many turkic groups to ally themselves with the magyars called themselves ''huns'' (just like many european rulers called themselves Caesar). Nothing too complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
My hungarian friend told me,
You have any idea how childish you sound with approaches/arguments such as these?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
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.
Nobody cares about what you think.
Western Academies concluded it's a concrete source, case closed. Cry about Trianon all you like.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
The strategikon don't speak about vlachs, but speak about latin peoples, who fled from illyria to the south.
They /the Vlachs/ were conquered by Emperor Trajan who had defeated and annihilated them. Their king, named Decebal, was killed (...). They are, in fact, the so-called Dacians and Bessi who used to live near the Danube and Sava rivers, where now the Serbs live, in inaccessible and inhospitable places (...) And they left the region: some of them spread to Epirus and Macedonia, although the majority of them settled in Hellas.

Kekaumenos (11th century): Strategikon[8]


Kekaumenos clearly calls them Decebal's vlachs, calling them Dacians. This group only existed North of the Danube (not Illyria).
He goes forward to say they were coqnuered by Trajan (again, the case of the Dacians, a group only existing north of the Danube).


Case closed.





Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
I translated this text with google translate, but i don't read any vlachs, in this. Anybody can check this.
You tried to translate medieval rus using google translate (which can't even translate simple modern english texts properly).... wow

WOW


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Plus Constantin Daicoviciu, the father of the Daco-Roma theory
The father of the daco-roman... what? I don't know where you got this but no father of the continuity theory exists... it's what has been claimed since the very first historians talked about the north danubian latins.

Antonio Bonifini (15th century): "Romanians are the descendents of Roman colony and legions in Dacia; this truth is proved by their Romanian language, they fought for, protecting it more then their lives."

father of the... lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
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.
Source?

Either way I provided western sources proving Franks were called Carolingians, Germans or straight forwards ''Franks'' (https://books.google.ro/books?id=x5x...=frank&f=false)

Why are we discussing this tho? Nestor says ''Volohi'' not ''Blachs''.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
(Latin was the official language in the Frank-empire)
Yet no eastern frank spoke it, not the rulers not the knights not the peasants taking care of the horses... noone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Some chonichles speak about Blachs. Blachs and Vlachs are two different nations.

Blachs are the eastern franks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blach
Nestor is calling them Volohi anyway, not Blachs (which means Vlach Wiki quote edited by some hungarian kid).

Either way, Blach is a most obvious version of Vlach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walhaz

the greeks (byzantines) called vlachs ''Blakhoi''
It's probably where Anonymous got it as well ~~ (he would have been an intellectual, thousands of byzantine texts would have went through his hands and before his eyes).


(If the books I linked earlier haven't convinced you) Check the terminology section related to eastern franks, nobody... ever called them ''blachs'' or ''vlachs''.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Francia#Terminology

''
The term orientalis Francia originally referred to Franconia and orientales Franci to its inhabitants, the ethnic Franks living east of the Rhine. The use of the term in a broader sense, to refer to the eastern kingdom, was an innovation of Louis the German's court. Since eastern Francia could be identified with old Austrasia, the Frankish heartland, Louis's choice of terminology hints at his ambitions.[9] Under his grandson, Arnulf, the terminology was largely dropped and the kingdom, when it was referred to by name, was simply Francia.[10]
When it was necessary, as in the Treaty of Bonn (921) with the West Franks, the "eastern" qualifier appeared. Henry I refers to himself as rex Francorum orientalium, "king of the East Franks", in the treaty.[11] By the 12th century, the historian Otto of Freising, in using the Carolingian terminology had to explain that the "eastern kingdom of the Franks" (orientale Francorum regnum) was "now called the kingdom of the Germans" (regnum Teutonicorum)''


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
So the gesta hungarorum and the nestor chronicle denied by international historians.
Quote one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
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)
Source?
Either way I hardly see how a post in New York Times would influence people with decades (more than you have lived) in historical research and PhDs in it.

Last edited by History Craft; January 11th, 2018 at 09:40 AM.
History Craft is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:24 AM   #25

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,704

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
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. "
Thank you Tup! You probably did a better job at it than me (I always wanted to get into slavic languages and learn both a modern one and get a hang of the old scripts as well, but up to date I never had the chance. Ironically I'm ukrainian from my mother's side and my grandmother is a linguistics teacher, expert in slavic); Cheers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
Interestingly the Magyars chased away the vlachs, but accepted to live with the slovenes

Well yeah, the slavs were already subjected (peaceful) while the vlachs were still belligerent.

Last edited by History Craft; January 11th, 2018 at 09:40 AM.
History Craft is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:29 AM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,281

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexell View Post
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.
Ostrogoths in Pannonia during the times of Magyar conquest?!
Ficino is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 09:52 AM   #27
Suspended until May 17th, 2018
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ficino View Post
Ostrogoths in Pannonia during the times of Magyar conquest?!
AFAIK in western Pannonia/eastern Alps. There were little if any Vlachs in Panonnian plain at the time.

Last edited by lexell; January 11th, 2018 at 09:54 AM.
lexell is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 10:03 AM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,281

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexell View Post
AFAIK in western Pannonia/eastern Alps. There were little if any Vlachs in Panonnian plain at the time.
I've never heard before that there were Ostrogoths in the Alps during the times of the Magyar conquest, but anyway, the text refers to what "Russian chroniclers" called "Hungarian Mountains", not to the Alps.

Last edited by Ficino; January 11th, 2018 at 10:05 AM.
Ficino is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 10:03 AM   #29

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 828

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexell View Post
AFAIK in western Pannonia/eastern Alps. There were little if any Vlachs in Panonnian plain at the time.
As far as I understood it is about this conquest:

Click the image to open in full size.

Goths as such were in that area 400 years earlier.
TupSum is online now  
Old January 11th, 2018, 10:19 AM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,281

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
As far as I understood it is about this conquest:[...]
Goths as such were in that area 400 years earlier.
I tend to agree with you.
Ficino 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 02:54 AM
Romanians and Dacians Slavon European History 368 March 7th, 2014 02:25 AM
Origin of Romanians Dany European History 13 August 19th, 2013 08:21 AM
What's your opinion about the origins of the Romanians? Perix European History 327 June 25th, 2013 09:13 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.