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, 01:15 PM   #41
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58

"Roman religious idols were worshiped alongside Dacian religious idols prior to the Hungarian invasion of Transylvania and after the Roman conquest of Dacia. An example would be the Roman deity Glycon who was worshiped in Dacia prior to the Hungarian invasion of the region in the 2nd century AD."
Probably you speaks about the huns. The hungarians are invaded the region at the end of the 9th century. The dacians are not existed in this time. The last sources about the dacians are coming from the 6th century.



"Sabazios was a Thracian god that was worshiped by the Romanians at the same time. If Romanians were not of Daco-Roman origin, then why would they have worshiped both Roman and Dacian gods before the Hungarians entered the land? "
Like I said, there is 500 years difference between the dacians and hungarians.



"There were also Roman sites established in Romania prior to the Hungarian invasion.
Of course, because almost 1000 years before the hungarians, the territory was a roman province. (Dacia) Western-Hungary was a roman province as well. (Pannonia) In hungary have roman sites as well (Aquincum, Savaria, Sopianae etc...)"

These are Alba Iulia, Dinogetia, Halmyris, Histria, Isaccea, Porolissum, Roșia Montană, Tropaeum Traiani, Turda, and Zlatna.
I don't have time at the moment to check all of these sites, but I remember I checked two of these sites before. (Check one of my old comment)

Turda: It could be a roman site, but modern romanian name of this site, coming from hungarian language. (Torda, ancient hungarian male name. They took from old-turkic language)

Zlatna: was a roman gold-mine, and the modern romanian name, coming from the old slavic word "zlatna". Zlatna means gold. I'm polish, in my language gold is "Zloto". You can see, very similar. So the slavs was in this territory before the romanians. If the romanians was here first, they must use their own latin name. But they adopted from the slavs, so it means, when the romanians arrived to this territory, there was a slavic population there.The new population always taking the geographical names from the last population. Good example is Transylvania:

Hungarian: Erdely coming from old hungarian "Erdo-elve" (means beyond the forest/forrestia) (Erdo means forest in modern hungarian)
Romanian: Ardeal. Which means nothing speacial in romanian language. They took from the hungarians, and they wrote like they heard. Same like you, if you (an american) hear a hungarian/polish/romanian word, and you try to write what you hear. The word will different than the original word, but will very similar, and when you read it, you will sounds like the original word.
Wallachia: Very similar to transylvania. Old-Hungarian name: Havas-elve (havas means snowy) (beyond the snow (The peaks of the carpathian mountains))
An example with a county's name:

hungarian: Udvarhely (Udvar=court/courtyard) (hely=place) So a place for a court/courtyardspace etc...
romanian: Odorheiu (odor=treasure) (heiu=no meaning, not a real word)

another example:

hungarian: Nagyvarad (nagy=big, great) (varad=your castle) (var=castle) so it means "Great-castle"
romanian: Oradea (Means nothing, not a real word)

Another one:

hungarian: Jaszvasar (jasz=Iazyges) (vasar=market)
romanian: Iasi (means nothing)

Have a lot of like these examples. So always the new population adopt the geographical names of the old population. That's why I don't understand, if the romanians where there first, why they adopted the slavic and the hungarian geographical names? Why don't the latin names? Like do the other latin-nations: Barcino->Barcelona. The point with these names is: If the romanians are the latinised dacians, and they always lived in this territory, why they don't have latin origin geographical names. "History Craft" wrote a few examples a few comments before, and he/she (I don't know whick one, sorry) said, these are latin origin geographical names. And when I checked them, all of that had greek, hungarian and slavic origin. The romanians don't have roman origin geographical names. They adopt all from the slavic, and the hungarian population. Some names have greek origin, but the hungarians use the greek origin as well, so it could mean, they took from the hungarians as well. Or, if the romanians always lived in this territory, why their word for "town" have hungarian origin. English: Town Hungarian: varos Romanian: oras. The romans was great city builders, and the dacians/romanians adopt the whole latin language, but they don't had word for "town"? So these facts are supporting, when the romanians arrived to this territory, there was a slavic/hungarian population before them.



"Some of the established by the Greeks before Roman settlement in the region, Romans also built many fortifications during the period they occupied it e.g. Jidava. There were also many Roman settlers sent there to build infrastructure and colonize the place like there were in every other region the Romans conquered. This shows that Romans were established in modern day Romania after the conquest of Dacia.)
Actually, I don't understand what you want to prove. Are you try to prove, the romans was in the territory before the hungarians? Yes, that's true. You don't need to prove that. The point of this argument is: Who been in this territory first. The romanians or the hungarians? The romanians support, their ancestors was the latinised-dacians. The hungarians support the migration theory, and they said, the ancestors of the romanians arrived in the 11-12th century. The similarity with Albanian would be because of the Dacian substrate in Romanian (). "

Wait a second! "Dacians intermingled with Illyrians". How you know this? Any sources, or this just your personal speculation? The illyrians was illyryans, and the dacians/thracians was another nation. Dacians are northern thracians. So the illyrians and the dacians/thracians are two different nations. Plus, the albanians are not illyrians or thracians, because these two nations was latinised, and the albanic language is not a latin language. So the romanian-albanian connection must be younger than the roman times.
"

"If Romanians were migrants from that region, there would be records of a mass migration from the Western Balkans like there are records of a mass Slavic migration from Central Europe to the Balkans."

The ancestors of the romanians was pastors/shepherds. Honestly, if some shepherds move with their sheeps from village, to village, is that care anybody? I'm just ask, I really don't know that. This is just my personal speculation, but the moving of some nomadic shepherds and sheeps, is not a important event to record to the chronichles. And this wasn't a big migration, like today from africa, or the summer 2 years ago, when they invaded europe. Imagine just a few persons, maybe 1-2 family, who moving with sheeps. I don't think, chronicles recordes this. This should very usual in this time. And I remember, I read about the vlachs, some hungarian chronichles mention them, when they crossed on the hungarian border at the first time. The chronichles speaks about them, like a slavic style shepherd nation. Plus the chronicles mention the actual hungarian king who let them inside. Plus don't forget this migration happend in centuries, in many wawes, not everybody together. One big wave was after the tatar invasion, when hungarian territories became abandoned, and they need some cheap peasant for the fields. The secund wave was after the battles against the ottomans. Etc...




"The Romanians mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum probably never existed and the whole book was probably fake for the most part, but the fact that Anonymous knew about the existence of Romanians in Transylvania shows that they were living there at the very least as far back as the early 1200's. This was after the Hungarians conquered the region, which means that the population of Romanians would have most likely been less back then than before the conquest since colonizers usually assimilate the people living on the land and decrease their population rather than the other way around."

Yes, that's true. Hungarians said the Vlachs/romanians arrived in the 12/13th century so, when anonymous wrote the chronicle, they definitely lived in the area. The point of this argument, who lived in that territory first. The hungarians or the romanians.



"Romania used the Cyrillic alphabet because it was culturally influenced by the Bulgarian Empire and Byzantine Empire."

Really? Why? If they are LATINISED dacians, who always lived in that territory, why they don't used the LATIN alphabet? They adopt the latin language in Dacia, so they (not everybody, only the priests of course) must learned read and write with latin alphabet, so why they had to use the cyrillic alphabet? Anyway, where are the latin texts from Dacia, after the roman "exodus"?




"All of Romania was conquered by the Bulgarian Empire and they were the ones that started using Cyrillic."

The Bulgarians in that time was an TURKIC nomadic nation. Bulgarians today are slavs, but originally they was turks. They adopted the christianity at 865, but the hungarians defeated them at 895, so in this case, the romanians had 30 years to adopt the christianity. But wait, they are latinised dacians, and the christianity became the official state religion in the roman empire at 381. So what's going on? The romanians (the latinised dacians, are adopted the latin language, the latin alphabet, and the catholic christianity, lived 600 years in this form, then under the bolgar-turk rules, they changed their latin alphabet in 30 years, for the cyrillic (what they used for 600 years before) , and adopt the christianity again, but this time they baceme orthodox. Oh, and don't forget, bolgars are don't had writing system in this time. Bulgars are adopted the cyrillic alphabet after the 9th century.



"Prior to getting the Cyrillic script from Bulgaria, the Romanians were illiterate so they didn't use any alphabet."

This is nonsense. They are latinised dacians, and they are illiterate? If some nomadic turk from asia, illiterate, that's normal. They was nomads. But we spoke about the romanians/Daco-romans who was the descendants of the ROMANS, the one of the greatest civilisation. The romanians said they had tows. So they don't have one, only one person who could write? A priest, a leader, anybody?



"Once they got the Cyrillic alphabet, they had no reason to stop using it in favor of Latin considering that it was the alphabet used by all non-Greek Orthodox Christians at the time."

But they are latinised daco-romans. What happened with their latin alphabet? Every other nation with latin ancestors could keep and use the latin alphabet (spanish, french, italians, except the romanians?)


I see on your profile, you are american, so let me to give you an advice for this topic: don't mix/confuse the ROMANS with the ROMANIANS, and the HUNS with the HUNGARIANS. These are 4 different nations, and there is almost 1000 years difference between them.

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 11th, 2018 at 02:28 PM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 11th, 2018, 02:04 PM   #42

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 827

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
The romanians (the latinised dacians, are adopted the latin language, the latin alphabet, and the catholic christianity, lived 600 years in this form, then under the bolgar-turk rules, they changed their latin alphabet in 30 years, for the cyrillic (what they used for 600 years before) , and adopt the christianity again, but this time they baceme orthodox. Oh, and don't forget, bolgars are don't had writing system in this time. Bulgars are adopted the cyrillic alphabet after the 9th century.
I wouldn't go into detail about the "turko-bulgars", it would be too off-topic,
just do yourself a favour and lookup where the name Asparuh comes from.

Here some info about the illiterate bulgars, who didn't have a writing system:

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



FYI the western roman empire didn't exist for around 400 years at that time, while Byzantium and their orthodox christianity was a powerhouse in the area.
TupSum is online now  
Old January 11th, 2018, 03:03 PM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,281

@DRytwinski89

I can't follow your walls of text, but what I can tell is that your knowledge about the history of the area is poor, and comes exclusively from a certain propaganda material. What do you think that happened with the Romans from Balkans? There were no Roman cities and Romanized population in the actual Bulgaria? In the actual Serbia? What happened to them and how it comes that now they speak there Slavic languages and have Orthodox Christianity as religion? Please do answer these questions, if you don't want me to treat you as you deserve.

Last edited by Ficino; January 11th, 2018 at 03:11 PM.
Ficino is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 03:55 PM   #44
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58

"I can't follow your walls of text, but what I can tell is that your knowledge about the history of the area is poor, and comes exclusively from a certain propaganda material. "

Propaganda? What kind of propaganda?

What do you think that happened with the Romans from Balkans?

Not easy to answer, because when you speak about romans, the first thing what is came into my mind is, roman legions and roman empire. So I can say, they are fallen and defeated. But.

In these regions on the balkan, not the latin romans lived. The illyrians was fully latinised, they keept their territory Illyria, and in the middle ages they was Dalmatae peoples. Their language the dalmatian was very similar to the romanian. But they mixed with the slavs, son and dalmatian language became a dead language at the 19th century, so they are (the latinised illirians assimilated into the slavs. Because the romanians migrated to the north, they could keept their language. So my answer is: Most of the latinised nations are assimilated into the slavic religion, only the romanians could keep their independence. Their lifestyle help a lot os for them. They was shepherds in the balkanic mountains, and when something wrong happened, they just moved back into the mountains with their sheeps.

There were no Roman cities and Romanized population in the actual Bulgaria? Cities? Yes, have, just with different name. Romanised population? Maybe the megleno romanians?

In the actual Serbia? Cities yes, population? Maybe the aromanians?

What happened to them and how it comes that now they speak there Slavic languages and have Orthodox Christianity as religion?

Who? These slavic nations, or the aromanians?

The slavs are easy. The went to the Balkan. They created new countries. They assimilated the latinised/greek population. They adopted the orthodox christianity. It'S not a big deal, we know everything about us. But what working on the slavs, these things are not working for the romanians, because you are not slavs, you been in a different place, in the different time, you not assimilated into the slavs, etc...

Please do answer these questions, if you don't want me to treat you as you deserve."

I did, and you should try to understand my questions and answers. And keep the perosnal insults, and personal speculations for yourself. You start insulting somebody just because he don't agreed with your theories? Prove your theory is true, and that's it. But it not easy, because lot of logical-paradon have inside, and you (not only you) try to fix these paradoxons with personal speculations, and theories, if these are not working, the last weapon is: personal insults.

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 11th, 2018 at 03:57 PM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 04:49 PM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,281

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Propaganda? What kind of propaganda?
Which are your sources of information about the history of Romanians?

Quote:
In these regions on the balkan, not the latin romans lived. The illyrians was fully latinised, they keept their territory Illyria, and in the middle ages they was Dalmatae peoples. Their language the dalmatian was very similar to the romanian. But they mixed with the slavs, son and dalmatian language became a dead language at the 19th century, so they are (the latinised illirians assimilated into the slavs. Because the romanians migrated to the north, they could keept their language. So my answer is: Most of the latinised nations are assimilated into the slavic religion, only the romanians could keep their independence. Their lifestyle help a lot os for them. They was shepherds in the balkanic mountains, and when something wrong happened, they just moved back into the mountains with their sheeps.
Dalmatian was not "very similar with Romanian" (which is your source for that?!!!), and it wasn't spoken on the actual territory of Bulgaria or Serbia. How only shepherds were left from the entire Romanized population of the Balkans, and who banished the Balkan-mountains shepherds to the Carpathians? And when?

Quote:
There were no Roman cities and Romanized population in the actual Bulgaria? Cities? Yes, have, just with different name. Romanised population? Maybe the megleno romanians?
What population inhabited e.g. Sofia during the Roman times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sofia)?

Quote:
In the actual Serbia? Cities yes, population? Maybe the aromanians?
What population inhabited e.g. Belgrade during the Roman times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singidunum)?

Quote:
The slavs are easy. The went to the Balkan. They created new countries. They assimilated the latinised/greek population. They adopted the orthodox christianity. It'S not a big deal, we know everything about us. But what working on the slavs, these things are not working for the romanians, because you are not slavs, you been in a different place, in the different time, you not assimilated into the slavs, etc...
Which was the number of the Slavs comparing to the population they Slavicized, and how they managed to overcome a supposedly superior culture?

Quote:
I did, and you should try to understand my questions and answers. And keep the perosnal insults, and personal speculations for yourself. You start insulting somebody just because he don't agreed with your theories? Prove your theory is true, and that's it. But it not easy, because lot of logical-paradon have inside, and you (not only you) try to fix these paradoxons with personal speculations, and theories, if these are not working, the last weapon is: personal insults.
What do I have to understand from you, and when did I insult you?

Last edited by Ficino; January 11th, 2018 at 05:31 PM.
Ficino is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 05:42 PM   #46

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 827

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
There were no Roman cities and Romanized population in the actual Bulgaria? Cities? Yes, have, just with different name. Romanised population? Maybe the megleno romanians?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
The slavs are easy. The went to the Balkan. They created new countries. They assimilated the latinised/greek population.
So slavs created the bulgarian empire? Bulgars are slavs now? I thought you were saying they were illiterate nomadic turks?

AND while saying the slavs assimilated the latinised greek population, just one sentence above that you were claiming there was NO romanized population?



Here a list of Roman fortresses/towns only in Bulgaria, from UNESCO:

Frontiers of the Roman Empire - The Danube Limes in Bulgaria - UNESCO World Heritage Centre


Edit: Just to clarify and provide some information:

Slavs on the Balkans started to come around 500AD, they spread all over the place up to south to Tessaloniki, which is northern Greece. They DIDN'T create ANY country.

Other people created countries for them. Namely Bulgars in Bulgaria, Magyars in Hungaria, Lithuanians in Poland, Rus (scandinavians) in Kievan Rus etc etc.

Slavs were not the state founding type. Maybe to this day.

Last edited by TupSum; January 11th, 2018 at 05:56 PM.
TupSum is online now  
Old January 11th, 2018, 06:03 PM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 6,281

deleted (superfluous)

Last edited by Ficino; January 11th, 2018 at 06:06 PM.
Ficino is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 01:30 AM   #48

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

Okay, so I suggest we stop giving attention to the guy who thinks Albania was never in the Byzantine Empire, that Constantine I never crossed the Danube and that ancient greek authors were the ones giving names to Europe's rivers/mountains;

I only originally gave him any attention because he was pretending to be a person of good-faith, simply confused about some historical aspects... Sadly, he is here just a troll crying about Trianon ~~
History Craft is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 01:38 AM   #49
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 2,966

Quote:
Originally Posted by History Craft View Post
Okay, so I suggest we stop giving attention to the guy who thinks Albania was never in the Byzantine Empire, that Constantine I never crossed the Danube and that ancient greek authors were the ones giving names to Europe's rivers/mountains;

I only originally gave him any attention because he was pretending to be a person of good-faith, simply confused about some historical aspects... Sadly, he is here just a troll crying about Trianon ~~
When i saw your initial post i had a deja vu about a similar long discussion between you and a guy that ended with his suspension. It happened a year ago i think. My first thought was your last. Trianon.
At Each Kilometer is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 02:11 AM   #50
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58

Look, my english is not the best, and maybe very easy to misunderstand me, plus I don't have too much time, to write a few pages of texts, but i will try to answer for everybody. And I'm not a troll. You mentioned trianon many time. I know that event, but i'm not hungarian, so what is the connection between me and trianon? Actually I don't care that. We got a little teritory with trianon as well. And somebody said these questions, are propaganda. Why? Because I don't accept your theory, and your personal speculations? I can say the same for you. All of your theories just a romanian propaganda. Like at the romanian geographical and town-names. All of that have hungarian or slavic origin, every town-name in transylvania can be translated from the hungarian/saxon/slavic languages, and they means something, but the romanian town-names are just phonetic-translations, or simply means nothing. Your word for "Town" is Oras, which is coming from the hungarian word "Varos". So, why do you using a hungarian word for the town, if you always lived there? These are FACTS, and you deny this. In the case of the roman ruins, like forts, they keept the original roman name. Like the hungarians at Aquincum. So what's this, if not a romanian propaganda? So please stop repeating trianon and propaganda, and keep the personal insults for yourself. (This is not personal. I say this not only for one person, for everybody who said, trianon and propaganda...) This is a historic forum, so try to stay at this point. Leave the politics for the politicians.

TupSum! Don't act like who don't understand the bulgars, or what I'm talking about.

The bulgars originally was a nomadic turkic nation, but later, after the slavic migration, they lost their original language and culture, adopt the slavic language, and today, they are a southern slavic nation.

The turkic bulgars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars

The slavic bulgars (bulgarians?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians

Maybe that one letter difference made the confusion in your mind.

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 12th, 2018 at 02:33 AM.
DRytwinski89 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.