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


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 12th, 2018, 03:43 AM   #51

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,678

Quote:
Originally Posted by At Each Kilometer View Post
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.
I genuinely hoped this guy was some amateur historian, a person of good-faith, confused about these aspects... I was wrong, and I apologize if this short posting-spree was uncomfortable for anyone (I seem to have stressed out mr Johnin and Tsar).
History Craft is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 12th, 2018, 03:48 AM   #52

Tsar's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Serbia
Posts: 1,691
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by History Craft View Post
I genuinely hoped this guy was some amateur historian, a person of good-faith, confused about these aspects... I was wrong, and I apologize if this short posting-spree was uncomfortable for anyone (I seem to have stressed out mr Johnin and Tsar).
No problem, Serbian forums made me used to that.
Tsar is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 03:56 AM   #53

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,678

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsar View Post
No problem, Serbian forums made me used to that.
With eastern european history being as messy as it is, it probably shouldn't surprise us that there are many people ready to rant... not to mention the 100 year anniversaries coming soon.

In any case, I'll do my best to stay clear from trolls from now on ^^ I get triggered easily by the thought that people of good-faith could come by and see trolling left unanswered
History Craft is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 04:31 AM   #54
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Krakow
Posts: 49

"And here is the "daco-romanian" latin names:"

No any of these names have daco-romanian origin!

Alba Iulia:

Not latin origin. Original old-slavic name: Belgrad (Not confused with the other Belgrade)
"Bel" means "White", and "Grade" means "Castle". Slavic translation: White-castle
When the first slavic settlers arrived into this territory, they found the roman stone ruins, that's why they give the White-castle name for the town.
Old-romanian name: Bălgrad. Means nothing in romanian language. A simple phonetic-translate from the slavic word.
Hungarian name: Gyulafehervar. This is a fusion of 3 words.
Gyula (Romanian Gelau): anciend hungarian male name plus a political title. The Gyula was the 2nd biggest rank at the hungarian pricipality. Hungarians took this word from the old-turkic language. The turkish form is: Jula (means torch).
Feher: means white in hungarian language.
Var: means castle in hungarian language.
Full hungarian translate: Gyula's white-castle or White castle of the Gyula

Modern-Romanian name: Alba Iulia:
Alba: means "white" in romanian language.
Iulia: the phonetic translate of the hungarian word "Gyula". No other meaning of this word in the romanian language. So full traslate: "White Gyula"

You can see, the romanian name of the town is not roman or latin. First was slavic, than hungarian origin.



Dinogetia: was a roman fortress. Abandoned by the romans. The romanians kept the original roman name of the fortress. Like the hungarians at Aquincum. This is not a proof for the daco-roman origin. Hungarians are not a latinised nation, they moved into the territory 500 years after the romans, and they kept the roman fortress names as well. Romanians could do the same. ABANDONED RUINS



Halmyris: same like Dinogetia. Roman frortress. Romanians kept the original roman name. ABANDONED RUINS



Histria/Istria:

Istria is a romanian village. It got it's name from the ancient ruins of the GREEK town, Histria. Histria founded by the ancient GREEKS, at 657 BC. The town's name coming from the river Danube's greek name, which was Hister. Greek origin name, not roman.



Isaccea: romanian town, origin of his name is unkown. The theories:
Constantin Giurescu historian's theory: The town got his name, from the ancient market-centre, Vicina. But they don't find the ruins of Vicia.
Nicolea Lorga historian's theory: the town got his name from a local warlord, Saccea.
Nicolae Radulesco historian professor's theory: the origin of the town name is turkish. Like other turkish origintown names: Ibraila, Ismail, Izmir. The turks put an I before the Saccea word. I+Saccea = Isaccea.
So only the 1st theory support the latin origin, but they don't find the original latin town in tha area.



Porolissum: ancient roman ruins. Got his name from the region roman name, Dacia Porolissensis. The first town in the area was Porolissum. So these are ruins, the romanians kept the roman name like Dinogetia and Halmyris. ABANDONED RUINS



Roșia Montană: commune in Romania. Ancient roman gold-mining site. Roman name: Alburnus Maior.

Hungarian name: Verespatak (2 words)
"Veres"=Red. In modern hungarian is "Voros". "Véres" in modern hungarian means "Bloody".
"patak"= creek
Hungarian translate: Red-creek

Romanian name: Rosia Montana
Rosia: No meaning for this word in romanian language.
Montana: similar to english "mountain". Meaning mountain in romanian language.

So the romanian translation is: Rosia-mauntain? Looks very meaningless. And if the romanians stay on this territory after the romans, why they don't kept the roman name of the territory. They are latins as well. Alburnus Maior and Rosia Montana are very different. osia Montana definitely not romance origin.



Tropaeum Traiani: roman Triumphal arc. Don't need latin language to translate, because very similar to the english words: Trophy, and Traianus. Romans built this at 109. The romanians kept the original roman name, like wee seen before at the forts. NOT A TOEN, IT'S A TRIUMPHAL ARC!



Turda:
The word turda means nothing in the romanian language. It's the phonetic translate of the hungarian word "Torda". We seen this before at Alba Iulia (Gyula -> Iulia), and Trasylvania: Erdely->Ardeal.
Hungarian name is Torda: Torda/Turda is an ancient hungarian male name. Hungarians adopted this name from the old turkic language. Turkish version: Turdi: means: stay, left. Not latin origin.



Zlatna:
This was an ancient roman gold mine (Ampelum).
Hungarian name: Zalatna. Means nothing in hungarian language. Hungarians took from the slavs.
The romanian name "Zlatna" coming from the slavic word "Zlatna". (Zlatna means Gold in the old-slavic language). In my language is Zloto. So the romanians adopt this village-name from the slavs. If they always lived in this territory why they don't kept the roman/latin name, why they use the slavic one? Because the slavs was on the territory, and the romanians arrived after them.


These are facts, not "propaganda", anybody can check these with a dictionary/google translate. Don't have to be a romanian or a hungarian to check. The romanians kept the latin names of the ABANDONED roman forts, like the non-latin hungarians, but every other place and town, which wasn't abandoned, they took the names from the slavs and the hungarians. Or sometimes they using their own name like Rosie Montana, but in these cases, they don't have an ancient roman/latin/daco-romanian origin? No any romanian, currently inhabited town have roman/latin origin name. (Except the abandoned fortress ruins.) So, if the romanians always lived in today's romania territory, and they are the latinised dacians, why they don't kept the latin names? If the daco-roman theory is true, the hungarians and slavs should take the names from the romanians, and today, these towns should have latin origin name. But we see the opposite situation.


History Craft! Please come down from the high horse, and explain these facts about the romanian town-names for me! Ah, and why your word (Oras) for Town, coming from hungarian word (Varos)? The romans was huge city-builders. The daco-romans/proto romanians adopted the whole latin language, except the word "town"? Why they don't had their own word for the towns? You lived under bulgar rules. Bulgars was settled down before the hungarians arrived. They had their own word for "town". Why you don't adopt from them? You adopted from the hungarians, so it means, you don't had towns before, you don't settled down before. You settled down, and found your first towns at the hungarian era, after the arriving of the hungarians.

English: town
Romanian: Oras
Hungarian: Varos

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 12th, 2018 at 05:42 AM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 05:23 AM   #55
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 121

Volochs of Panonia were likely eastern Goths. Not Dacians. To this day Lithuanians of Grodno (north-western Belarus) and Vilnius (neighbouromg region of eastern Lithuania) call Belarusians Gudai (plural) , Gudas singular. The term is derived from Goths. But north-western Belarusians and their ancestors were not Germanic.
lexell is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 11:33 AM   #56
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Romania
Posts: 43

Quote:
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...
Quote:
Fist of all, when the great barbarian migrations happened (3rd to 6th century), the vlachs/romanians lived under the very safe roman rules, in the balkanic mountains (today Albania). When you started your migration from this albanian homeland, in the 7th century, there wasn't barbaric nations anymore.
Quote:
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.*

I will play along and assume that you are right and you're theory is true.

You are telling us that between the 7th century and the 13th century vlachs migrated north from the ancient homeland of the Albanians in small groups with their entire herds and that is the reason nobody noticed it.

But i do have some questions about it.

1. What prompted this migration? We know the reason for every migration, that tribe was pushed by that one and so on.
2. Why would vlachs shepherds migrate to such a forested area?
3. Why would orthodox vlachs migrate to catholic hungary a kingdom that considered ortodoxy a heresy and denied them any rights to practice their religion?
4. How could vlachs given the proposed slow and small migration keep their religion and language given the fact that they would be perpetually surrounded by different groups of people that would easily assimilate them?

And some necessary observations.
Vlachs were indeed known as shepherds but they were not nomads. What they practiced was a seasonal changing of pastures. In Romanian is called transhumanta. Yes they had some privileges that pertain to movement that the common peasant did not but in the winter time they lived in villages. They paid taxes like any other subject of the empire. So them up and leaving would certainly be noticed. Proof of that is the rebellion that led to the creation of the Second Bulgarian Empire. When Isaac II Angelos increased the taxes the vlachs from the Haemus mountains rebelled.

You mention the tatar invasion from 1241 (Hungarian sources generally call this a tatar invasion not mongol like other European sources, thus you giving us a hint of you're reading material) as the catalyst for the first wave of vlach migration in Transylvania. But if this the case then the vlach should have not been mention in Transylvania because the Gesta Hungarorum was already finished in 1230. The mongols displaced populations but there is no mentions of vlachs moving to Transilvania. What Bela IV mentions is the settlement of 17000 families of cumans along the tisa and of some russian boyars.

I will not discuss the ottoman wars because they came far to late for your proposed period of the vlach migration.

You propose the starting period of the vlach migration as the 7th century. Magyars entered the Carpathian basin in 895. I think you just answered your question:
"The point of this argument, who lived in that territory first. The hungarians or the romanians?*"
I believe it is not the answer you were looking for. Please keep in mind that those are your statements not mine.
pcatalin999 is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 01:07 PM   #57

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 10,679
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
...
They are latinised dacians, and they are illiterate? If some nomadic turk from asia, illiterate, that's normal.
...
I suppose You're joking, aren't You? Literate farmers, sheperds, literate, in the 5th, or 10th, or 15th C ??

In Your opinion, what percent of the population (anywhere in Europe) was literate ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
...
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?) ...
IDK.

But following Your argument, we could classify European people in tree main cathegories:

1. Greeks - using Greek alphabet

2. Neo-Greeks - using Cyrillic ( which is an adapted/evolved Greek alphabet): Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs ...

3. Neo-Latins - using Latin alphabet: Hungarians, Polish, Germans ...



Last edited by deaf tuner; January 12th, 2018 at 02:43 PM.
deaf tuner is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 04:18 PM   #58
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Krakow
Posts: 49

"1. What prompted this migration? We know the reason for every migration, that tribe was pushed by that one and so on.
2. Why would vlachs shepherds migrate to such a forested area?
3. Why would orthodox vlachs migrate to catholic hungary a kingdom that considered ortodoxy a heresy and denied them any rights to practice their religion?
4. How could vlachs given the proposed slow and small migration keep their religion and language given the fact that they would be perpetually surrounded by different groups of people that would easily assimilate them?"

I will answer to the best of my knowledge, but honestly nobody can give proved answers for these questions. These are just speculations.

Answer 1. Overpopulation. Maybe there wasn't enough fields for everybody?

Answer 2:

Transhumance pastorism. I read this before about the vlachs, but I never attach a great importance for this. Now you mentioned, so I read about this type of pastoralism. I found some interesting things.

"In the Balkans, the Sarakatsani, Aromanian and Yörük peoples traditionally spent summer months in the mountains and returned to lower plains in the winter. When the area was part of the Austro-Hungary and Ottoman empires, borders between Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia were relatively unobstructed. In summer, some groups went as far north as the Balkan Mountains, and they would spend the winter on warmer plains in the vicinity of the Aegean Sea. The Morlach were a population of Vlach shepherds who lived in the Dinaric Alps (western Balkans in modern use), constantly migrating in search of better pastures for their sheep flocks. But as national states appeared in the area of the former Ottoman Empire, new state borders were developed that divided the summer and winter habitats of many of the pastoral groups. These prevented easy movement across borders, particularly at times of war, which have been frequent." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumance)

1. 100 years ago, the balkan area was relatively unobstructed. In the middle age, before the age of the modern border patrols, it must be the same. Many nations moved in that time, so the proto-romanianscould move easily.

2. In summer, some groups went as far north as the Balkan Mountains, and they would spend the winter on warmer plains in the vicinity of the Aegean Sea. It means these shepherds moved between the Carpathian mountains and the Aegan Sea. This is a huge distance. They could move from the southern balkan to the north.

So these 2 points reflect for these peoples moved cross the balkan, because they always looking for better fields.

In the hungarian wikipedia article (because I'm using sometimes) i found some extra informations:

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transz...ztorkod%C3%A1s

1. "A transzhumáló pásztorkodás nevezetes példája az Erdély peremén élő román juhászok legelőváltása a Kárpátok magasan fekvő legelői, valamint Havasalföld és Moldva (kisebb mértékben az Erdélyi-medence és az Alföld) között. A jelenség látványos volta ellenére azonban a tulajdonképpeni transzhumálás az erdélyi románok juhtartásának időben és térben csak egy kis szeletére volt jellemző."

"The remarkable example of transhuming shepherding is the Romanian shepherds on the fields of Transylvania between the high alpine pastures of the Carpathians and Wallachia and Moldavia (to a lesser extent between the Transylvanian basin and the Great Plain). Despite the spectacularness of the phenomenon, this type transhumation, was the characteristic of the Transylvanian Rumanian shepherds only in a small part of time and place.


"Az erdélyi juhtartás kezdetei körül sok a tisztázatlan kérdés, részben az adatok szűkössége miatt. A juhötveneddel adózó románok középkori legelőváltása azonban a kutatók többsége szerint inkább félnomád jellegű lehetett, mint transzhumáló."

"Around the beginnings of Transylvanian shepherding there are many unclear questions, because the lack of data. The researchers agreed, the that romanian shepherds in Transylvania, who paid taxes above 50 sheeps (quinquagesima ovium) was more semi-nomadic than transhumers."

"Az Erdély és Havasalföld közötti transzhumálásról az első adat 1363-ból való"

The first recorded data about the transhumance between transylvania and Wallachia, is written in 1363.

4. "A nomád–félnomád és a transzhumáló állattartás átmeneti típusát alakították ki a balkán-félszigeti vlachok. Háborús időkben gyakran nomadizáltak, békében megtelepedtek és transzhumálást űztek. "

The balkanic vlachs created a special form of nomadic/semi-nomadic transhumance pastoralism. In war-time they was nomads, and peace time they was transhumers.
So, here is some very important points:

1. Romanian shepherds did this transhumance pastorialism in transylvania, but only for a short time, and only in special areas.
2. Later, the Romanian shepherds in transylvania, switched to the semi-nomadic pastoralism. The childrens and the women stay in the villages, and the men moved with the herd.


The reason of this switch, is the special enviromental characterictics of transylvania. (You said the same: too many forests, and this enviromental unsuitable for transhumance pastoralism.)


These points are explain, a very very important thing: why your word for town, is not latin, or slavic, and coming from the hungarian language. Because in transylvania you coudn't keeping up your transhumance pastoralism (too much forests), so you must settled down. This never happened before. And because you lived in hungarian habitat, you adopt the word from them. Plus no recorded data about transhumance pastoralism before 1366 in the area.

What you think about this?

So my answer for your 2nd question: the shepherds who migrating with their flocks, can't know what they will find after the next 100 km, 500 km, 1000 km later. Is very natural for us, to know, most of transylvania is forest, but in that age, for that peoples who started their rout from "albania" this wasn't a basic information. They just went forward, and forward, to find some better fields for the animals. So i think, they wasn't planned to migrate to that very forested area, it's just happened. But this is just my personal theory, of course.

Answer 3:

Because the religion don't fallowes the borders? Honestly, there wasn't border patrol on the hungarian border, or warning signs like "Warning! Now you are entering to the catholic hungary!" When you walking on fields with your sheep stock, you crossing through on the border. And probably, there was more important to find new fields, than your personal religion.

Answer 4. How could the aromanians keep their religion and language for today, in a total different slavic habitat area? Plus don't forget, in hungary the orthodox religion was banned, but they don't killed the orthodox peoples. And they not tries to convert the orhodox peoples for catholicism.


"but in the winter time they lived in villages."

Can you give me more information about this? My sources said, the tranhumer pastors are on the route all year. They always changing their places, and never settled down. If they settled down for winter time, why they can settle down for the summer time as well? I know, because the winter is cold, to sleep under the sky, but english sources mention, the vlachs lived in blach tents. Maybe these tents are suitable for winter time as well? Like a yurt?


"thus you giving us a hint of you're reading materia"

Yes, i'm using hungarian sources as well. Mostly english and hungarian, sometimes romanian. (But honestly I read the official romanian history education is not independent enough, i mean nationalism is too strong in romania, and they deny all the most simple and logical facts as well. (For example Erdely->Ardeal) "The romanians never accept any fact or theory, which is dany-their identity. Doesn't matter how many proofs you show them, they always deny them, and they always create new and new theories and speculations." So how can I trust in the romanian sources? That's the reason Why I don't like to use romanian sources.) My hungarian friend show me a video, about a romanian historian professor, who speak about this things, and he said, there is lot of lies in the romanian history education.)



Here is the video. I don't undertand that, but my friend explain me, what is he talking about. Something about the lies in the romanian historian education. He complaining about the students, who start studying on the University, where he is teaching. They learned in the elementary school total false informations, or something like this. So, i can't trust in the romanian sources. Romanian sources are too biased, and history falsification, supported by the government and the education system.

Plus the problem with this topic is, this is a very special part of the history, and important only for two nations: the romanians and the hungarians. So because of this, not easy to find anything in english, or polish language.



"the catalyst for the first wave of vlach migration in Transylvania. But if this the case then the vlach should have not been mention in Transylvania because the Gesta Hungarorum was already finished in 1230."

I don't understand this point. The two thing don't deny each-other. We know about the gesta hungarorum, anonymous projected his current details back to the time. (He wrote the chronicle 300 years after the hungarians arrive). So there could live vlachs in his time. Gesta finished at 1230. The tatar/mongol invasion was 1240. The invasion was just a catalyst (like you said), and not the starting point of the migration. But after the mongols huge territories bacame abandoned, half of the hungarian population died. The hungarian king, Bela 4 hired settlers.

Read this about Anonymous and the Gesta:
Anonymus on the Hungarian Conquest of Transylvania

Plus look at this map: http://mek.oszk.hu/04700/04729/html/img/big/01-045.jpg how the rate of the hungarians and the romanians are changed during at 200 years.

I don't have too many sources about the rates of the hungarians and romanians during the centuries, but i know, a few hundreds years ago, the hungarians was the majority in romania. Maybe easier for you to find details about this changes, because you are romanian.

"What Bela IV mentions is the settlement of 17000 families of cumans along the tisa and of some russian boyars."

I don't know the details, what was the nationality of these settlers. Can you give me more details about this? And I wasn't right when I said the first wave was after the mongol invasion. I withdraw that! I read more about this topic, and some sources said the first wave of the romanians migration into transylvania was after a plague at 1348-49.

This supported by the other source, what i mentioned at the transhumance pastoralism. "The first recorded data about the transhumance between transylvania and Wallachia, is written in 1363"

Plus this supported by a 3rd source:

"In the 13th century, chronicles record 511 village names in Transylvania. Only 3 have romanian origin name. The otherones are hungarians."

So it looks like vlachs could lived at transylvania at the era of anonymous, but they arrive in high numbers after 1348. Before this year, their numbers was very low in transylvania.

The 2nd wave was in the 18th century, but mostly between 1740 and 1760.


The 3rd at the
Ceaușescu era.


"You propose the starting period of the vlach migration as the 7th century. Magyars entered the Carpathian basin in 895. I think you just answered your question:"

Yes, but when i spoke about the starting point, I mean from the balkanic homeland. And I never said, hungarians was before europe than the romanians. The romanians was in europe, before the hungarians, this is a fact. But they wasn't in the carpathian basin when the hungarians are arrived. Read this:

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


Can you write in a list, what are the strongest points of the daco-roman theory? I mean, not the personal speculations, rather the facts.

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 12th, 2018 at 06:15 PM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 06:43 PM   #59
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Krakow
Posts: 49

History Craft! I seen your comment just now:

"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. "




The dacian name of this village: Dierna
The roman name of this vilalge: Potaissa

And you said "
these names is irrefutably proven by their phonetic evolution" Can you show me the phonetic evolution from Dierna to Potaissa, than to Turda?

This kind of arrogance always surprising me! You copy-pasted the phonetic-evolution from romanian wikipedia: There is also don't have any expalantion about the phonetc-evolution, but the authors said: "Tur + Dava, so dacian origin.

https://ro.wiktionary.org/wiki/Turda

"
În privința originii numelui localității Turda, atestată documentar în 1202-1203, există mai multe ipoteze. Una din aceste susține că ar fi de origine dacică (Tur + dava = Turdava), nume care, în primele trei secole ale erei noastre ar fi devenit: Turdava > Turda(v)a > Turdaa > Turda." It means:

Regarding the origin of the name of Turda, documented in 1202-1203, there are several hypotheses. One of these claims is of Dacian origin (Tur + dava = Turdava), a name that in the first three centuries of our era would have become: Turdava> Turda (Turda)> Turdaa> Turda."

Hungarian wiki tells us more:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torda

"Géza király 1075-ből származó oklevele, ahol név szerint említik az erdélyi Turda [Torda] várához tartozó sóvámot, mely az Aranas [Aranyos] folyó mellett van."
Translation: Geza's (I of Hungary) certificate from 1075 mention the salt tax, which is belongs to Torda, which is near to rives Aranas (Aranyos means "gilded").

And my friend showed this:
http://mek.oszk.hu/04700/04756/html/47.html

"Turda vezér a honfogaló Árpádnak egyik rokona s kiváló vezére volt, a ki Tuhutummal együtt Erdélyt meghóditván, annak egyik legfontosabb hadászati pontján erős hadállást foglalt s ott várat épitvén, vagy a megvolt római várat kiigazitván és megszállván, alapját veté meg a nevét örökitő Torda városának"
Translation: Leader Turda, was the relative and fine leader of Arpad, who conquered Transylvania with Tuhutum, and on the one of the most important strategic point, he built a fortress, or reconstructed and occupied the old roman fortress, and found the city of Turda."

So it looks like, Torda is not only a hungarian name, but a warlord/leader from the first hungarian pagan army, who helped to conquer Transylvania.

So the FACTS:
1. The first written source about the town is from 1075.
2. Turda is in Transylvania.
3. In 1075 Transylvania belonged to the Hungarian Kingdom. (Hungarians conquered transylvania at 1003)
4. When the sources mentioned the town at the first time, it was belonged to the hungarian kingdom.
5. The hungarian name of the village is an ancient hungarian male name, with turkic origin.
6. This is the name of an ancient local hungarian leader as well.
6. The romanian name of the village means nothing in the romanian language, but phonetically very similar to the hungarian town-name.

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

Torda névnapja
Torda's name day: 1st of Jun, and 27th of Jun

Torda - Keresztnév, névnap jelentése, eredete
Origin: hungarian/turkic
Meaning: stopped, stayed
Similar names: Tordas, Tordos

And what said the romanian wiki? This town name, Turda, have dacian origin!

Dacian origin! Of course, what else on a romanian website? This is what my friend talking about when he spokes about the ultranationalists arrogance. Can you explain what means Turdava/Turda or any of these versions in romanian language? Probably nothing. Dacian origin? Absulutely nonsense and tragicomedic! Maybe your historians should show some "dacian" words for the turks, the slavs and the hungarians. I wouldn't be surprised, if most of these words would be hungarian/turkic/slavic origin.


This village is a good example, when the romanians arrived to the territory, hungarian population lived here. The romanians adopted the name from the hungarian name.
Like at Zlatna, the ancient roman/romanian gold mine. Of course Zlatna is a latin/dacian origin name as well! Check this map:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/3mbxzy/the_word_for_gold_in_various_european_languages/


I make mistakes as well, because most of the times, I'm hurry with the answers, and I don'T check the dates, maps, facts point by point, just write from my merories. (in lack of time). But this is, what the romanian wiki doing, is definitely a history falsification. So please less arrogance, and more objectivity! (Sorry for my style)

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 12th, 2018 at 08:41 PM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 09:08 PM   #60
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Krakow
Posts: 49

Here is some bonus about the romanian village names:

Place-names and Ethnicity

And I forgot to wrote this to my last answer.

Population of Torda from 1850, to 1956:

1850:
Total: 8743
Romanians: 1861 (21%)
Hungarians: 6287
Others: 595

1900:
Total: 13587
Romanians: 3469 (25%)
Hungarians: 9433
Other: 685

1956:
Total: 35606
Romanians: 26550 (74%)
Hungarians: 7338
Other: 1718

Source:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torda

We talking about a 100 yers period, and we can see a huge population-changing. So imagine the changings on a 1000 years period.

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 12th, 2018 at 09:27 PM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Reply

  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.