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 13th, 2018, 01:24 PM   #71

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 11,260
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Yeah, I agreed, there are many factors in a nation "lifetime" but, we spoke about they origin, in this case. The daco-rocam theory said, the dacians are assimilated into the romans, when they conquered the territory aren't? Like the Illyrians. So assimilation means the same in this case, dacians assimilated by the romans (Daco-romanian theory). They was dacians->they became latinised daco-romans->proto-romanians->modern romanians. We can call this demographical evolution as well, but my opinion is, these are just different words to describe the same event. My english is not good enought, but I hope you understand me.
Factually, is the only proven theory, as it's the reality, in the end: today's Romanians, as French, Spanish, Portuguese, are people that adopted (through birth, assimilation, choice, forced) a form of latin/latina vulgata/romance language.

BTW, that doesn't necessarily mean that Dacians assimilated into Romans. The romance people speaking North Danube could be very well be Latinised not by Romans directly, but by other Latinised people.

Last edited by deaf tuner; January 13th, 2018 at 01:27 PM.
deaf tuner is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 13th, 2018, 06:45 PM   #72

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 838

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
I don't know. I just wanted to demonstrate, hungarians sources also can be ultranationalist.
Actually I don't absolutely disagree with everything. I think they got the hun-sarmatian-scythian link correctly. What they made an error of was to add the cumans to these people. Cumans were turks indeed, but they came around 500 years later with the invasion of the mongols proper.
TupSum is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 10:47 PM   #73

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,963

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 ~~
I can understand why someone believe in the weaknesses of nord-Danube theory, but I can't believe the same guys believe blindly in Rosler, Albania fix ideea theory! What happened with Moesia, Panonia, Dalmathia...north of Jirenek line? Imperial latin survived longer to western imperial latin there
Perix is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 10:48 PM   #74

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,963

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.
of course! why would be a polish such into Hungarian trash literature?
Perix is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 10:51 PM   #75

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,963

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
The turkic bulgars: ...
what about the turkik Magyars?
Perix is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 10:56 PM   #76

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,963

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexell View Post
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.
Maybe you don't know, there are still Romanian speakers in Panonia.Populations moved frequently, after 500, nobody knows for sure who, when, and how...
Perix is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 11:07 PM   #77

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,963

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Have some truth in that like Basarab's cumanic origin ...
actualy the dna test of Bassarab skeleton revealed a mix teutonic-balkan origin. Having in mind the first Basarab errived from Transylvania, in a time when teutons where in power, possible Basaar-abt(the abot from the burg), to be a theory
Perix is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 11:57 PM   #78
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Romania
Posts: 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perix View Post
actualy the dna test of Bassarab skeleton revealed a mix teutonic-balkan origin. Having in mind the first Basarab errived from Transylvania, in a time when teutons where in power, possible Basaar-abt(the abot from the burg), to be a theory
The discussion about the origin of Basarab is a modern thing. It's interesting but it only serves to murky the waters. Contemporary sources call him a vlah. If he had cuman, mongol ancestry or anything else it really makes no difference.

Charles I of Hungary calls him "Bazarab infidelis Olacus noster" ="Basarab, our treacherous Vlach".
pcatalin999 is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 12:03 AM   #79
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaf tuner View Post
Factually, is the only proven theory, as it's the reality, in the end: today's Romanians, as French, Spanish, Portuguese, are people that adopted (through birth, assimilation, choice, forced) a form of latin/latina vulgata/romance language."
This should be better: Factually, is the only proven THING, as it's the reality, in the end: today's Romanians, as French, Spanish, Portuguese, are people that adopted (through birth, assimilation, choice, forced) a form of latin/latina vulgata/romance language.

So the two theories both agreed, the romanians are latinised peoples, and they lived under roman rules. This is a FACT, and nobody deny this. But the spoken language, and the current living area not means automatically a dacian-origin. India was a British colony. Many indians learned the english language, then they moved to the British Isles. So, if we fallowe the daco-romanian theory's logic, today, their descendants are could be native Brits. (they speaks english language, and they live on that territory where the brits). Just because somebody speaks the same language, and live on that territory where same language speakers lived before, it not means, they are their descendandts. This is prove only 1 thing: Ancestors of the romanians are lived under roman rules, nothing else. And here comes the problems.

Some of the roman provinces was under roman rules for 600 years, the romans never evacuated this provinces, so the latinised population remained there, and they can't survive the next centuries, and today no latinised population in these provinces. So, how can anybody think, in Dacia, where less than half of the dacians lived under roman rules only for 165 years. Where they (the men, women, childrens, everybody) always fought against the romans, plus they moved outside to the roman borders, back to their mountain fortresses. Plus where the romans evacuated the latin population. In this province had any chance for the surviving of the latin population? The chronichles saud, everybody, who speaks latin, went back to Moesia. Why anybody who speaks latin, want to stay in a province, which will be under barbaric atacks soon? Everybody who speak latin there, runt for his life back to Moesia. This is basic logic, by comparing the other provinces, and the chances.

Why fon't have any latin text or source from the territory after the roman getaway? I know, the peoples can't wrote in this time, but there is 1000 years between the roman evacuation and the first mention of vlachs in the area. There wasn't 1, just 1 person for 1000 year, who could write something? It looks like no, because the romanians first alphabet was cyrillic. And their religion is orthodox. These two things (the cyrillic alphabet and the religion) are strange, because it looks like, there was a "hermetically closed" border between Dacia and the empire. Nothing can cross throught on this border. Peoples and informations as well. If we accept the daco-romanian theory, in both of the two provinces (dacia nd the neighboring provinces) was lived latinised peoples. How is possible, the daco-romans can't comminicate with the empire? The same peoples lived on the two side of the roman border, Why the empire don't went back to their citizens later, why the empire left them there? Why the empire don't wanted to keep up the communication with his own citizens? Give them the latin alphabet, and the christianity from their neighboring relatives? They don't communicated and traded with each other, despite of, they spokes the same language? Just image, the world biggest empire losing one province, which is till his neighbour, and later not going back for the their citizens, fortresses, towns etc... Because after the evacuation nobody was there, who speaks latin language, only the barbarians.

We have important documents written in this period (these are supporting my last 2 points): among which those of Procopius, a Greek chronicler and Jordanes, the Goth historian: Procopius wrote: "The River Ister (Danube) flows down from the mountains in the country of the Celts, who are now called Gauls; and it passes through a great extent of country which for the most part is altogether barren, though in some places it is inhabited by barbarians who live a kind of brutish life and have no dealings with other men. When it gets close to Dacia, for the first time it clearly forms the boundary between the barbarians, who hold its left bank, and the territory of the Romans, which is on the right". - Peri Ktismaton (Buildings), Book IV, 9-10. Procopius shows in an unequivocal manner that there was no Roman-like people dwelling in the lands on other side of the Danube, namely, in Dacia. Jordanes wrote: "I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only". - Getica, XII, 73-74. Not even Jordanes did mention any Romans or Romanized inhabitants in Dacia, but "Yazyg, Roxolans and Sarmatians (Alans)", namely, Hungarian ancestor tribes! Jordanes also identified the Dacians, that were known by Greeks as Gæta, with the Goths, by saying: "Then, when Burebistas was king of the Goths" - Getica, XI, 67. Burebistas was actually a king of the Dacians in 60-44 b.c.e. We cannot know how much reliable this assertion of Jordanes might be, however, it is obvious that he found a noticeable resemblance between the Dacians and his own Germanic people so as to identify each other as the same, and not between Dacians and Romans. Therefore, we may conclude that it is quite likely that Dacians joined the Goths and mixed with them. Some strange things in their language. So the historians are don't speaks about any latinised population in the area, 300 years after the roman evacuation. No any written latin text after the roman evacuation, and the historians are don't mention any latinised population. How is this possible if they always lived there?


There are other strange things with their language. The strong albanian connection. How? Plus no germanic and turkic words in the romanian language, but they lived 300 years with germans, and 800 years with turks. (transilvania area)

And the city-names? The most oldest romanian towns (with romanian name) were built at the 13th century, Plus they adopt the word for city from the hungarians. They don't had word for a town, for 1000 years.
All of the transylvanian towns have hungarian or slavic origin, and the romanian names are most phonetic-translations. We know the 3 oldest town in transylvania, and they built at the 13th century? No romanian architecture before the 13th century. Where are the currently lived town's latin/daco-roman name? Just look at in spain, Italy, of French, the towns got their name from the ancient roman names. In the original romania, Wallachia and Moldbva, have romanian origin town names, but thease are modern, romanian latin names, and not ancient roman.

It looks like, the romans left dacia, the latinised population went to moesia, and there wasn't latinised population again, just when the first vlachs are arrived. So the romanians formed under roman rules, but not ther, and not then. Illyrians -> Latinised Illyrians -> Proto-romanians -> Romanians

The dalmatian language is very similar to the romanian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmat...es_to_Romanian




Quote:
Originally Posted by deaf tuner View Post
BTW, that doesn't necessarily mean that Dacians assimilated into Romans. The romance people speaking North Danube could be very well be Latinised not by Romans directly, but by other Latinised people.
by who for example?

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 14th, 2018 at 01:07 AM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 01:15 AM   #80
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perix View Post
Maybe you don't know, there are still Romanian speakers in Panonia.Populations moved frequently, after 500, nobody knows for sure who, when, and how...
My friend spoke about this to me. He said in Hungary have a gypsy ethnic group, who speaks romanian language. This is their mother language. The government support the minoritys rights, so you can make your final exam on their language, and you can make a language-certificate about that language. Maybe you speak about this gypsies? Only they speaks romanian language in Pannonia. Their language is the "beas". Coming from the word "miner" or something. I showed a page of final exam in beas language for a romanian guy, and he could understand it. In Poland, we don't have this romanian-speaker ethnic group.

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 14th, 2018 at 02:12 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.