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 9th, 2018, 11:09 AM   #1
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58
Question about the origin of the Romanians


Hi everybody!

I'm interested for this topic, and I read a lot of about this, but I still don't understand a few things. Can you explain?

Romanians prefer the daco-roman theory, and their two main reason for this theory are:

1. Romanian is a latin language
2. Gesta Hungarorum mention vlachs in the time when the hungariansconquered the carpathian basin.

My opinion is, these are very weak points.

1. Only just a small part of Dacia was under roman rules only for 165 years
The bigger part was never. Where the dacians learned the latin language on that territories, where never had roman rules.
2. Half of the balkan was under roman rules, so ancestors of the romanians could adopt the latin language at different territories.
3. In the 19th century, the romanianlanguage was renewed. The leader of this language reform was August Treboniu. He collected all the slavic words, and change for words from french language. Today, romanian language is 70% latin, 10% slavic, but 22% of the latin part, is came from the french. 15% is modern latin words, 4% italian words. So the original language was only 30% latin.
4. Gesta Hungarorum is not an authentic historian source. That is more like a tale-book, than the historical chronichle. The names, territories, wars not mentioned in any other german, byzantineor slavic chronicle from that era.
5. Anonymous wrote his chronicle 300 years after the hungarians invasion.
6. The chronicle says, the hungarians and the huns was brothers. One day, they went for a hunting, they started to fallowe a magical deer, and the deer lead them to the carpathian basin. But there is 500 years different between the arrive of the huns and the hungarians.
6. This motive (hunnic-hungarian brothership) menationed first in other chronicles.
7. The first hungarias deny the hunnic brothership.
8. Anonymous says, the forefeather of the first hungarian king, was Attila, the hun. But ancient hungarians thought, their forefather was a magical huge bird (the turul), and not Attila. The first hungarian kings are belonged to the House of Turul.
10. Anonymous speaks about blachs, not vlachs, and the blachs was the name of the eastern-franks at pannonia and the balkan.

So you can see, there are lot of problems with these 2 points.

But there are many other things what I don't understand.

1. The albanian connection:

A good amount of the non-Latin features present in Romanian language have their correspondence in Albanian, not only concerning lexicon but also structure, phraseology and idioms. These characteristics belong to two linguistic periods: the substratum, that is the language spoken by the Vlach before their Romanization ‒which may be the same of Albanian or a similar language‒, and the subsequent close contact between both peoples throughout a long period, mainly regarding their common life-style as shepherds.Linguistic research has determined that most of the words shared by Romanian and Albanian are not loans from one tongue to the other but have a common origin in the substratum, before than these two languages began to be distinguished from each other. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian. Another interesting fact concerns the very name of the capital city of Romania: Bucureşti, a word that is similar to the Albanian term "bukurisht", having the same meaning.

If the romanian homeland is Dacia, how is this possible? The 2 nation was completely separated from each other.

2. The most similar language to the romanian, was the dalmatian. Dalmatia was the roman province, Illyria.

3. The romanian sacred language is the old-slavic language. If they always been in dacia, how is this possible?

4. The missing of the germanic and turkic words in the romanian language? If they always lived in dacia, how is this possible? The territory of dacia was under germanic rules for 300 years, and turkic rules for 800 years. The adopt the latin language after 150 years roman rules, but not any words from the germanic and the turkic nations from 300 and 800 years. Plus most of dacia never been under roman rules. The only way is, they never lived there in this time.

5. Number of proved dacian words in romanian language, is below 1%. How?

6. Romanians used cyrillic alphabet to 1860. Why?

7. The neighboring roman province, Pannonia was under roman rules for 440 years, and there no any latinised population survived. How is possible in dacia, after only 165 years roman rules they are survived?

8. Romanians are orthodox. It means, when they are adopt the christianity, they lived under byzantine or slavic rules. Today's romanias territory never been under byzantine or slavic rules.

9. The bolgar-turks adopt the christiany at 865, 30 years before the hungarians arrived. If the romanians converted by them, their sacred language must be greek. If they converted under hungarian rules, their sacred language must be hungarian. How is possible, their sacred language are slavic?

10. In transylvania, the orthodox temples, are always at the border of the towns, never in the centre. Always the hungarian catholic churcs in the centre of the town. If the orthodox romanians was there first, orthodox temples must be in the centre.

11. Moldavian chronicles mention, the founding of moldva. The chronicles says, they are came from far, at 1350, the leader was dragos. So there aren't been there before 1350.

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

13. The fist wooden-temples in that area, is from 1377. No romanian architecture in Moldva before 1350.

14. No romanian architecture In romania before the 13th century. The oldest romanian building is the Densus church (13th century)

15. In the 13th century, chronicles record 511 village names. Only 3 have romanian origin name. The others are hungarians.

16.
-A runestone from the Njoshem cemetery in Gotland dating from the 11th century commemorates a merchant Rodfos who was traveling to Constantinople through “The land of the Vlachs” where he was killed. The trade routed from scandinavia to Constantinople, went throught on Kiew, or Belgrade. If he went throught on Kiev, no chance, he meet with vlachs. If he went throught on Belgrade, vlachs was at the south from the danube.

Sorry for the bad english, i don't wanted to spend too much time for the correct writing. Can you explain these points. I don'T understand, how can anybody support the daco-roman theory, after these points.

These points are supporting Roesler's theory. He thought the romanians are latinised illyrians, and their homeland was in today's albania. Later the migrated to the north. Peoples, who not left the territorie, are the aromanians. Here are some international sources, about the romanian nomads:

Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614 " Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja" Vlachs were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach (romanian) churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period.

Mandell Creighton, Justin Winsor, Samuel Rawson Gardiner: The English Historical Review page:- 615. "He shows that the Vlachs of the Balkan peninsula throughout the middle ages are nomads of the strictest type, ... that Vlachs began to move north of the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania "

Robert William Seton-Watson: A history of the Roumanians: from Roman times to the completion of unity, page: 12 "The Roumanians undoubtedly preserved their nomadic habits to a very late date, as is proved by the existence of Vlach colonies in Moravia (the so-called "Little Wallachia" — long since completely Slavised)"

Joan E. Durrant, Anne B. Smith Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights ( PAGE 210) "Between the 3rd century A.D. and the 14th century A.D., Dacia was invaded successively by nomadic peoples, including the ... Romanians "

Norman Berdichevsky: Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181. "The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania." Other elements in the population of Greece are the Wallachians or Vlachs, the Turks, and the Jews, but they have never ... The Wallachians are a curious nomadic race

David Bruce Macdonald - 2002 Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered ... page- 131 "These hinterland Romans evolved into highland herdsmen, who for centuries led a primitive nomadic life"

Lampe, John R, Jackson, Marvin R. Balkan Economic History, 1550 - 1950: From Imperial Borderlands to ... page - 612. "Vlachs had first acquired their commercial connections in the course of moving their livestock seasonally back and forth between high and low ground. ...

Alan J.B. Wace and M.S. Thompson, The Nomads of the Balkans (New York, 1914; New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1971)"

Jane Perry Clark Carey, Andrew Galbraith Carey : The Web of Modern Greek Politics - page 73 "shepherds and nomadic herdsmen, wandering through the Balkans and the north of Greece. On their early migrations they gave the Vlach name to various districts, including the province of Wallachia in present-day Romania"

Chambers's Encyclopedia - Volume 14. page:- 339. "The Vlachs are usually mentioned as following nomadic or semi-nomadic lives as shepherds etc. in wild mountain ... nth century was known as 'Great Wallachia' and seems to have contained a relatively dense and settled Vlach population."

Denys Hay: Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries page: 220 "In the first half of the fourteenth century there also appeared there the two Romanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. ... or whether the Hungarians are right in their thesis that these Vlachs were recently immigrated nomadic shepherds"

Frank Moore Colby, Talcott Williams, Herbert Treadwell Wade: The New International Encyclopaedia Voluma 20. Page: 219 "Owing to their nomadic and predatory dispositions these Vlachs, as they are called by the Greek writers, were a ... the autonomous Rumanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, which grew rapidly towards south and east until the former"

Isaiah Bowman: The New World: Problems in Political Geography page - 282 "or Wallachians The Rumanians, or Wallachs (hence Wallachia), are of mixed race but of distinct speech, the Ruman, ... Home places of the nomadic Vlachs The Vlachs , Rumanian nomadism is seen in its purest form among the detached"

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

Tibor Frank, Frank Hadler : Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe, page: 251 "Reference to Romanians in their preunification (1859) history was linked to the regional designation of Wallachia (today Oltenia and Muntenia) to the south ... This designation relates to the nomadic existence of the Balkan Vlach population."

Paul Coles : The Ottoman Impact on Europe - page: 114 " nomadic pastoralism provided a new lease of life for the Rumanian-speaking Vlachs, migratory herdsmen whose native principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had fallen under Ottoman dominion during the fifteenth century"

Wace, Alan J. B. and Maurice S. Thompson. 1914.: "The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Custom Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus."

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 9th, 2018 at 12:31 PM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 10th, 2018, 06:46 AM   #2

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,706

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
These points are supporting Roesler's theory. He thought the romanians are latinised illyrians, and their homeland was in today's albania. Later the migrated to the north. Peoples, who not left the territorie, are the aromanians. Here are some international sources, about the romanian nomads:


First of all, the one making the claims has to prove them. Are there any arcehological sources, scriptic sources... any kind of sources indicating such a migration?
It sounds seriously sci-fi as people back then were regarded more as good and the lord of a land would never let the people migrate away, willingly, as they were the guys paying taxes/producing added wealth/defending the place; By every legal code of those times the lord of the land would stop those people from going away/any lord finding migrants on his land would have to return them... I mean, this would be a massive event, we're talking about a migration big enough to latinise 300.000 square kms+, this is bigger than the slavic migration which was very well recourded.... yet here we see no record. Not arcehological, not scriptic... nothing.
Also, may I know why those latins would migrate from the relative protection of the byzantines into the direction from which every violent, conquering barbarian so far has come? I mean, it looks like running head-on into a wall... why?
Regardless, we're looking at 0 written evidence. 0 archeological studies backing this up... and it literally makes no sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Can you explain these points. I don'T understand, how can anybody support the daco-roman theory, after these points.
Besides the mountain of archeological/genetic evidence I posted towards the end and in the middle of my post?

1) The fact romanian has virtually zero influence from byzantine greekinfluence from Byzantine Greek. (about 3-4 words in total, military stuff unsurprisingly, as some romanians used to be mercenaries for the byzantines).
In all the other Roman languages the name comes from the Greek ecclesia: French eglise, Italian chiesa, Spanish iglesia and Portuguese igreja.

Why is that? Because all the other Romance language nations were still part of the Roman empire when Christianity became the official religion and the capital of the empire was the mainly Greek-speaking Constantinople.

The Daco-Romans however kept the Latin name basilica because initially one of the gathering places for the Christians were the basilicas - large colonnade buildings similar to the nowadays shopping malls. If that dumb theory about the Romanians coming from the South of the Danube would be true the Romanian word for "church" would be the same as in the rest of the former Roman Empire. Because the empire controlled the Balkans for another 300 years after the withdrawal of the legions from Dacia.

So great influence existed even on latins as far as Iberia... yet we see 0 influence as far as these eastern latins ( that you are claimed to have been under byzantine rule). The theory makes no sense.


2) Romanian has quite a few words that come from original, ancient latin, for trees/natural resources (Pacura, Zada, etc) found only North of the Danube.

3) The hundreds of place-names, mountain-names, water-names, etc coming from antiquity. I somewhat doubt those migrating vlachs carried history books with them to rename those places/waters.


Example: Turdava - Turda, Tape - Tapia, Galtis - Galt, Oitensioi - Oituz, etc
examples of river names from Antiquity that have survived up to today, Ancient - Modern: Alutus - Olt, Maris - Mures, Pyretus - Prutul, Ampelum - Ampoi, Tamis - Timis, Crisus- Cris, etc



In any case... as I said... do you really think enough people left the balkans (people mean money, so many people would be worth trillions to the byzantines in today's money) to run into the direction every violent barbarian invasion so far came from, while the byzantine/bulgars/whoever was the ruler over that territory at that time look at his money walking away without saying one thing (pardon without anyone saying anything)?



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
7. The neighboring roman province, Pannonia was under roman rules for 440 years, and there no any latinised population survived. How is possible in dacia, after only 165 years roman rules they are survived?
The territory of today's Romania didn't get slavicised or anything-else-ised because:

1. The migrants were trying to make it to the rich Byzantine lands not in the extremely poor romanian populated lands. It’s exactly what we see with today’s migrant crisis. Hundreds of thousands of asians and north africans passing through the south-eastern countries but not settling there (because they’re going for the rich north-western ones).
2. Because the territory with later became romanian (and where proto-romanians lived) was extremely inhospitable (80% of the territory was dense forest, besides having really steep mountains and marshes), while the byzantine lands were quite hospitable.
3. The proto-romanians were abandoned by the roman army early on and exposed to progressively worse and worse in terms of barbarians (initially exposed to the extremely liberal goth who’d leave you alone if you paid some very small taxes); Thus they had time to adapt and practice this ‘’survivalist’’ lifestyle. The southern-romans (the ones that got slavicised) however were far more used to having an army defend them. Thus they suffered from a shock exposure and didn’t survive. It’s exactly like comparing a person who was vaccinated to a person who wasn’t vaccinated, both having to deal with the disease.
4. Romanians were very localized. In other places, if you slavicised a city, the language and culture would greatly radiate around it. This happened a lot in other territories, but in the romanian-populated ones there were no cities (no centers of power) and the few that were/appeared were of little/no interest to the population.
5. In the territories where slavic imposed itself we’re usually dealing with flat-out win for the slavs and loss for the latins (which got taken into slavery); However, in the proto-romanian inhabited lands, things are a bit more complicated. We got cases of the latins winning (check Nestor’s Chronicle 1116, in which he states that the magyars found a latin population ruling over a slavic population which was beaten and taken into slavery, when they entered the Carpathian Basin) and cases of latins and slavs living as allies (Startegikon of Maurikius) which frustrated the byzantines; Besides the slavic rule.
6. Slavic became the main language of authority, of prestige, in the territory that became slavicised. However, in the territory inhabited by today’s romanian, you had pockets of slavic rule, turkic rule, germanic rule, finno-ugric rule, greek rule, etc nullifying each-other out (no dominating prestigious language, no practical one either).

7. In the territories that got slavicised, the slavs first imposed their pagan religion and only later became christianised (in rather a collective way). In the proto-romanian inhabited lands, they became christian by exposure to the local latin, christian population (taking a big, cultural, step, by each individual’s accord, towards the romanian identity and away from their slavic, pagan identity)
etc

As you can see many of the factors which protected the latin population in what is today Romania didn't protect the panonian (and balkan) romans. Basically, they were a tempting target for subjugation, they were very exposed and were never used to defend themselves at a micro-level.

Proto-romanians on the other hand were dirt-poor and thus unattractive, were very inaccessible and were used to this kind of life.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
1. Only just a small part of Dacia was under roman rules only for 165 years
Assimilation isn't necessarily a process of duration but rather one of intensity.
Simply put, the romans really wanted to latinise certain lands. In the case of Dacia they wanted to latinise it because it was a very hard to defend land and the population was hostile... so they wanted at least to have a not-hostile population there.
How did they pull it off?
Colonization. You can latinise any country in the word virtually instantly if you conquer it and take enough latins and throw them there. To be noted that much of the male population was culled during the wars/after... this was followed by large amounts of roman soldiers (single men) being placed in the area.
Administration. The dacians were civilized. They were used to having a legal system, an administration, laws to work with and a prestigious language. When their own legal system, administration and laws were destroyed and put outside the law, they just orientated towards the roman ones (which were imposed) which were also very prestigious (you need to remember that nationalism as a form of loyalty would appear in almost 2000 years from now).
Religion. When Christianity was persecuted, many christians fled to the backwater (by that time the former economic pearl of the empire, Dacia, was pretty dry) called Dacia, further leading to it's latinisation. Also, Christianity, originally was introduced in latin, in Romania, (the romanian religious vocabulary is latin, not slavonic or greek).

And you need to understand that Romanians continued to be under roman military/economic/cultural (later byzantine) for hundreds of years to come although not part of the empire.

Look... we got creole language (european colonial languages - native hybrids) forming in less time than

Last edited by History Craft; January 10th, 2018 at 06:55 AM.
History Craft is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 06:46 AM   #3

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,706

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
The bigger part was never.
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/23/29/c7/2...5f1f684db0.jpg

Yes but like 90% of today's Romania was.

After about two decades, it evolved into this

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Amphi-Rome.PNG

Maybe they were small parts of the former Dacian state at it's zenith, but it's most (As well as the core) of today's Romania.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Where the dacians learned the latin language on that territories, where never had roman rules.
We're talking about some pretty small bits (what's that, 10-15% of today's Romania?) we see a similar situation with the anglo-saxosn kingdoms in Britain.

In any case, the roman province which they bordered was the economic and cultural center of the region, most of them would have went working/trading/partying there. We see a similar phenomenon (language and culture radiating from the centers of power) with the european empires during the colonial era.

Besides, read again what I said about religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
3. In the 19th century, the romanianlanguage was renewed. The leader of this language reform was August Treboniu. He collected all the slavic words, and change for words from french language. Today, romanian language is 70% latin, 10% slavic, but 22% of the latin part, is came from the french. 15% is modern latin words, 4% italian words. So the original language was only 30% latin.
Hooooo, hoooo, hold your horses.
The guy who told you what was either lying or he was clueless.
Nobody took any slavic words out of romanian and no plan to latinise romanian existed. Romanian was up to that point a medieval, peasantish language; It was just emerging as a nation willing to become civilized. Since the vast majority of our intellectuals were educated in Paris, of course french had a huge impact on a language lacking any modern words. Besides that, the upper class was enamored (to the point of bad taste) with the french lifestyle, greatly influencing the middle and lower classes as well.
I've read (and got) thousands of romanian texts (from all regions) from per-modernity and I'm absolutely convinced about what I'm saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
4. Gesta Hungarorum is not an authentic historian source. That is more like a tale-book, than the historical chronichle. The names, territories, wars not mentioned in any other german, byzantineor slavic chronicle from that era.
The western academies of history all agree on the fact it's an authentic work of history and what it states is true.
Édouard Sayous, Histoire générale des Hongrois, BiblioBazaar, 2014, ISBN 978-1-293-88800-1
(here's the French Academy backing up Gesta as historically accurate, for example)

The fact is, in many if not most cases, control over a territory was only nominal; The de-facto control being in the hands of local nobles (vassals of the people of fame) and the bands of battle brothers/paid soldiers they had. The fact is that the names used by the historians of the time and the names of the people living there were completely different. The fact is 90% of local skirmishes aren't ever recorded because they don't involve people of fame/anything really relevant.

What we see in Gesta is nothing surprising. The Magyars found and fought local vassals of notable rulers, originally using the local (actual) names to describe the situation (rather than the historical - latinised names). It's actually very typical of medieval chronicles.

Besides that, we got several chronicles (Nestor's Kievan Rus Chronicle, the Byzantine Strategikon of Kekaumenos, Descriptio Europae Orientalis, etc)

https://tiparituriromanesti.files.wo...bb-8-od0b1.jpg
Въ лето 6406. Идоша угри мимо Киевъ горою, еже ся зоветь ны не Угорьское, пришедъше къ Днепру, и сташа вежами; беша бо ходяще, аки се половци. Пришедъ от [въ]стока и устремишася чересъ горы великия, и почаша воевати на жиущая ту волхи и словени. Седяху бо ту преже словени, и волъхве прияша землю словеньску. Посемъ же угри прогнаша волъхи, и наследиша землю, и седоша съ словены, покоривше я подъ ся. Оттоле прозвася земля Угорьска.

''In the year 6406 (898) the magyars passed by Kiev, over the mountains that today we call Ugor Koie and reached the Dniper where they put up their tents, for they were nomands, as are the Polovcii. Coming from the East they ran through the tall mountains and started fighting the vlachs and slavs who lived there. For the slavs settled there a while before , only to be conquered by the vlachs. In the end tho, the magyars banished the vlahcs and took this land, settling together with the slavs who were again subjects, and from then onward this country was named Hungary''.

If this doesn't suffice, I can bring the byzantine Strategykon of Kekaumenos (11th century) saying how the Byzantines had problems with the vlachs north of the Danube or the Strategykon of Maurikius (6th century) saying that the romans north of the danube are filthy traitors because they're friends with the slavs.

So either way, we're not just talking about Anonymous smoking crack and talking against his own people, we're talking about Anonymous copy-pasting the account of the magyars that actually entered the Carpathian Basin, accounts that are backed up by the Byzantines and the Rus.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
5. Anonymous wrote his chronicle 300 years after the hungarians invasion.
Yes but he admits to be copy-pasting the accounts of the magayrs that were there and then, 300 years before Anonymous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
6. The chronicle says, the hungarians and the huns was brothers. One day, they went for a hunting, they started to fallowe a magical deer, and the deer lead them to the carpathian basin. But there is 500 years different between the arrive of the huns and the hungarians.
Every petty ruler in medieval/Renaissance Europe was giving himself the title ''Caesar'' every petty band of horse-riders were calling themselves ''huns''; Even the germans were called huns. Simple as that. Or maybe the magyars actually found remnants of the forces that long-ago aided Atilla in raiding Europe. Or maybe they found some turkic group somewhat resembling huns and said ''yeah, huns''. Either way, I find it quite irrelevant; can you explain any relevance?



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
6. This motive (hunnic-hungarian brothership) menationed first in other chronicles.
Weren't the hungarians accompanied by several turkic groups when they migrated to Europe (before ever finding the guys they/that claim to be huns)? (Rhetorical question, they did).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
7. The first hungarias deny the hunnic brothership.
Source?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
8. Anonymous says, the forefeather of the first hungarian king, was Attila, the hun. But ancient hungarians thought, their forefather was a magical huge bird (the turul), and not Attila. The first hungarian kings are belonged to the House of Turul.
We see the chroniclers of English linking their power/talking about Arthur and then giving accurate historical accounts.
We see the Romans linking themselves to Trojans then giving accurate historical accounts.
It was a common thing for groups to grab the noblest legacy at hand, again, very common for such Chronicles and if we would consider such things to ''taint'' the actual accounts of historical events, we should throw out every single medieval/pre-medieval chronicle/account we got.

In any case, as I said before, we got several chronicles (Kekaumenos, Nestor, etc) backing this up. We're not dealing with 1 single author and his claims.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
10. Anonymous speaks about blachs, not vlachs, and the blachs was the name of the eastern-franks at pannonia and the balkan.
The people who told you this are either lying or historically illiterate.

First of all the eastern-franks were germanic and not latins and were referred to as Franks, Carolingians or even germans.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=x5x...=frank&f=false

Secondly, the author also refers to them as ''pastoral''... the traditional vlach (romanian) profession... Do I need to say more? Does anyone think the strongest knights of central europe (the franks) were here for sheep herding.

Thirdly, we got a population description (we're talking about masses of people in Panonia and Transylvania)... I'd ask the guys claiming Anonymous is talking about franks to show me traces of the frankish populations in Transylvania and Pannonia.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
1. The albanian connection:
A good amount of the non-Latin features present in Romanian language have their correspondence in Albanian, not only concerning lexicon but also structure, phraseology and idioms. These characteristics belong to two linguistic periods: the substratum, that is the language spoken by the Vlach before their Romanization ‒which may be the same of Albanian or a similar language‒, and the subsequent close contact between both peoples throughout a long period, mainly regarding their common life-style as shepherds.Linguistic research has determined that most of the words shared by Romanian and Albanian are not loans from one tongue to the other but have a common origin in the substratum, before than these two languages began to be distinguished from each other. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian. Another interesting fact concerns the very name of the capital city of Romania: Bucureşti, a word that is similar to the Albanian term "bukurisht", having the same meaning.
Yes this is perfectly correct. To be remembered that we're talking about 0.9% of the romanian vocabulary tho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
If the romanian homeland is Dacia, how is this possible? The 2 nation was completely separated from each other.
Albanians descend either form thracians (meaning their ancestors spoke the exact same language as the people in Dacia, case in which I got nothing more to say) or from illyrians (who were a people closely related to the thracians, which included the dacians, or were even dialects of the same language: thracian & illyrian).
So, in conclusion: The ancestors of today's albanians and today's romanians (who still preserve 1% of the dacian langauge, the 1% we're discussing now) were relatived... or even the same people.
So that's that.

Last edited by History Craft; January 10th, 2018 at 07:03 AM.
History Craft is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 06:47 AM   #4

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,706

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
2. The most similar language to the romanian, was the dalmatian. Dalmatia was the roman province, Illyria.
May I see a source for this?
Either way, if it's true just read again what I said regarding the previous point.
So romanians are daco-romans (romanized relatives of the illyrians) and dalmatians illyro-romans (romanized relatives of the dacians).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
3. The romanian sacred language is the old-slavic language. If they always been in dacia, how is this possible?
I don't see what's unclear here. The proto-romanians (daco-romans) were here since the third century, slavs migrated to the region in the 5th/6th century and church slavonic became the holy language of the region starting with the 9th century. I don't see what's unclear here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
4. The missing of the germanic and turkic words in the romanian language? If they always lived in dacia, how is this possible? The territory of dacia was under germanic rules for 300 years, and turkic rules for 800 years. The adopt the latin language after 150 years roman rules, but not any words from the germanic and the turkic nations from 300 and 800 years. Plus most of dacia never been under roman rules. The only way is, they never lived there in this time.
Again, you've been mislead by low-quality/biased sources. Romanian has many germanic and turkic words from those times. They represent something like 5% of our language today (after the vocabulary expanded to include modern scientific, cultural, technical, etc terms taken from french and english).

What you also need to consider is that:

1) The Romans:
- Killed a good part of the male population and placed massive amounts of troops (single males) here for a pretty long time.
- Colonized the area massively with latin speakers.
- Was a huge (far more than the USA or the EU combined are today) economic and cultural presence for hundreds of years in the area.
- Ran an actual state with a legal system, administration, etc

2) The Goths and Cumans, Tatars, etc:
- Never really touched the native population, mostly fighting other migratory warrior elites/the roman/byzantine/bulgar states. The goths never even settled here.
- Were a few thousands guys spreading themselves over very large territories, often speaking diverse languages/dialects with absolutely no intention of imposing their language or culture, wanting only money and power.
- Never represented an economic or cultural force, not even for short periods of times.
- Never ran any state just wanted tribute (which was far smaller than the one the romans demanded).

So it's like asking why a man died in 1 second when stabbed with a katana while another died in 10 days when being pierced with a needle. [QUOTE=DRytwinski89;2883720]QU

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
. Number of proved dacian words in romanian language, is below 1%. How?
How what? Why is it so small? Mostly because the romans did what they did well. They wanted to romanize the area, they did it (just a few shattered words remain, I'd say that's a pretty good job).
History Craft is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 06:51 AM   #5

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,706

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
6. Romanians used cyrillic alphabet to 1860. Why?
Because everybody in the area did (the cultural centers of the area promoted it) and it was the alphabet associated with our liturgy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
8. Romanians are orthodox. It means, when they are adopt the christianity, they lived under byzantine or slavic rules. Today's romanias territory never been under byzantine or slavic rules.
1) Wrong. Please read the history of Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
Romanians are orthodox because we were closer to the cultural centers promoting the orthodox religious opinions & we were closer to the orthodox powers so being friends with them was the most profitable thing.

If Christianity would have been introduced by the byzantines/slavs our religious vocabulary wouldn't be latin but byzantine/slavic.


[QUOTE=DRytwinski89;2883720]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
9. The bolgar-turks adopt the christiany at 865, 30 years before the hungarians arrived. If the romanians converted by them, their sacred language must be greek. If they converted under hungarian rules, their sacred language must be hungarian. How is possible, their sacred language are slavic?
Yes greek was probably the sacred language before slavonic was taken on (again, political and geographical reasons).
Also, hungarians became catholic so their sacred language was latin not hungarian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
10. In transylvania, the orthodox temples, are always at the border of the towns, never in the centre. Always the hungarian catholic churcs in the centre of the town. If the orthodox romanians was there first, orthodox temples must be in the centre.
This is so because romanians were second hand citizens, considered tolerated... which is often what happens to the conquered.

As communities evolved, with time and evolved into cities (which mostly happened to the magyar communities, as the oppressed and exploited romanian ones weren't doing so well as to become cities)... but romanians weren't allowed to build/at times to even settle there, because they were the second-hand citizens, the conquered.
They also lost the right to build churches or any building out of stone or any durable material, soon enough. The romanian priesthood was also not recognized and suppressed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
11. Moldavian chronicles mention, the founding of moldva. The chronicles says, they are came from far, at 1350, the leader was dragos. So there aren't been there before 1350.
It's not talking about the population it's talking about the rulers. Dragos was a romanian supported by hungarians, mandated to create a state friend to Hungary. Bogdan who came after was an enemy of the hungarians, he beat Dragos and took leadership of Moldova. It talks only about the leaders (and their knights).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
12. Romanian chronicles mention, they are arrived in the 13th century. (Romanian chronicles written in the 17th century narrate that a herțeg or duke of Făgăraș and Almaș, named Radu Negru (‘Radu the Black’) or Negru Vodă (‘The Black Voivode’) was the first voivode of Wallachia.[1][9][53] These texts state that Radu Negru, together with some colonists ("Romanians, Catholics and Saxons") arrived from the region of Făgăraş in Transylvania.[54] The first documentary evidence for a terra Blacorum (‘land of the Vlachs’) on the territory later called Făgăraș is an early 13th-century property register which mentions the order of King Andrew II of Hungary that estates previously in Vlach hands be transferred to the Cistercian abbey at Cârța.[55][56] Radu Negru and his followers crossed the Carpathians to Muntenia and founded Wallachia with its capitals in Câmpulung and Curtea de Argeș.[9][54] The chronicles narrate these events under the year 1290 or 1292.[9])
Yes many romanian communities/many future romanian leaders fled from Transylvania/Hungary due to magyar oppression.

I don't get the point of this tho... by the time these chronicles speak about these events, the romanian states were already known and present, thus they wouldn't support any migration theories..



Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
13. The fist wooden-temples in that area, is from 1377. No romanian architecture in Moldva before 1350.
You know why people built things out of wood here? Because when the turks/magyars/polish etc would come we could just burn it and build it again when they left (wood = cheap and fast to build, no pity).
This stopped in the 14th century when we made our own state and no longer had to use such tactics, at least not as often.

Also, we did have small, cave churches: Alunis ? Nucu ? Bozioru, the mystical cave complex in Buzau - The Romania Journal
History Craft is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 06:53 AM   #6

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,706

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
14. No romanian architecture In romania before the 13th century. The oldest romanian building is the Densus church (13th century)
false, it was built in the 7th century. ''Additions were made in the 13th century''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densu%C8%99_Church


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
15. In the 13th century, chronicles record 511 village names. Only 3 have romanian origin name. The others are hungarians.
As I said, romanians were considered non-citizens, tolerated people, and thus they weren't recognized. The exceptions were 3 or so romanians who earned the favor of the hungarians (probably by becoming catholic and making oaths).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
16.-A runestone from the Njoshem cemetery in Gotland dating from the 11th century commemorates a merchant Rodfos who was traveling to Constantinople through “The land of the Vlachs” where he was killed. The trade routed from scandinavia to Constantinople, went throught on Kiew, or Belgrade. If he went throught on Kiev, no chance, he meet with vlachs. If he went throught on Belgrade, vlachs was at the south from the danube.
I don't know why you think it can be either one or the other. Romanians definitely existed both in the Balkans and north of the Danube, as a matter of fact.

Also, he almost certianly went through Moldova and Dobruja:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Black_Sea.jpg

Source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=RkN...vlachs&f=false





Quote:
Originally Posted by DRytwinski89 View Post
Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614 " Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja" Vlachs were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach (romanian) churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period.

[...]

Paul Coles : The Ottoman Impact on Europe - page: 114 " nomadic pastoralism provided a new lease of life for the Rumanian-speaking Vlachs, migratory herdsmen whose native principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had fallen under Ottoman dominion during the fifteenth century"

Wace, Alan J. B. and Maurice S. Thompson. 1914.: "The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Custom Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus."
In the vast majority of cases, they're not talking about Transylvanian, Moldovan or Wallachian romanians but a sub-type of romanian, called aromanian which aren't even described correctly (they aren't migratory, they're pastoral, part of the men migrate with sheep for part of the year then come back to the village) although to be fair the correct word does not exist in english, or in any case they're quoting biased hungarians/russians.

In any case, the Western Academies and in general schools of history don't support this opinion, here are just a few examples (mostly archeological):

Potaissa: "Coins and pottery show that the town lived on, still with Roman air about it, after Aurelian's withdrawal from Dacia in 271. A large necropolis in Potaissa's territory, a dozen miles to the NE, shows by pottery dated after 271 that the natives stayed when Romans left." Source: The Dacian Stones Speak by Paul Lachlan MacKendrick p.126 and Archeology Report
Napoca: 'Coins of Aurelian - extremely rare in Dacia -show that economic life went on in Napoca down to the abandonment of province, coins of Emperor Tacitus (275-276) and of Crispus (son of Constantine the Great) show that it continued thereafter.' Source: The Dacian Stones Speak by Paul Lachlan MacKendrick p.128
Porolissum: 'Many Roman veterans probably remained and the city was occupied for at least a century in an interesting parallel existence with the Roman Empire. Based upon the title Dacicus, it is believed that Constantine re-conquered Dacia in the latter part of his reign. Interestingly, a small number of Roman coins dating ca. AD 324-375 have been found at Porolissum (Gazdac 2006) and other centers in Dacia. This is a likely moment for the reputed conversion of one of the pagan temples into a Christian church in the 4th or 5th century.' Source: https://www.saintmarys.edu/files/Soc...20proposal.pdf and N. Gudea, W. Schuller: Porolissum. Ausschnitte aus dem Leben einer dakisch-römischen Grenzsiedlung aus dem Nordwesten der Provinz Dacia Porolissensis.
Sarmisegetuza: 'older excavations established that during IV century, the amphitheater was transformed into a fortress, the entrance being blocked with reused materials.'W. S. Hanson, Ian Haynes - Roman Dacia: the making of a provincial society and Andrew MacKenzie - Archaeology in Romania: the mystery of the Roman occupation: 'was followed by the intensification of rural life and the diminution of the urban one, clearly shown by archaeological research.''

Conflict And Coexistence: The Local Population Of The Carpathian Basin Under Avar Rule (Sixth To Seventh Century)**»**Brill Online
Read my source from page 31 to 39. In particular check out the following line:
"It is hard to imagine the transmission of such models without the physical survival of a Roamized population from the fourth to the sixth century." (p. 36)
"The evidence presented so far thus points to the likely possibility that the local Romanized population played a considerably greater role than previously believed in the forging of the Early Avar qaganate." (p. 37)

Now, if a Roman population could survive in the open plains of Pannonia, a stalking ground for migratory barbarians, then why should we be in any way inclined to believe a Roman population could not survive in Transylvania, which by many accounts is a natural fortress, surrounded on all sides by mountains and covered by forests. It would be stupid to believe the Daco-Romans of Dacia could not survive while the Celto-Romans of Pannonia could. In fact, it is proven that the Daco-Roman population survived, and their spread is confirmed in archaeology (I speak here of the Ciurel and Bratei cultures). From what we can see archaeologically, no cities in Dacia were abandoned by Aurelian's withdrawal (Wanner, PhD. thesis, 2010, pp. 115-119). In other words: the one event that might have actually ended Roman life in Dacia in fact even failed to end it in the cities! With a survival of urban life after Aurelian, the evacuation of the countryside is also completely out of the question. More importantly, the auxilia of Dacia appear to have completely disappeared into the province after 271, without mention of any violent attack; they were just dismissed. Forget civilians: Aurelian did not even evacuate the whole army from Dacia! Dacia's abandonment was never intended as permanent, and it was juridically still considered Roman soil even when the Avars were in the region (Southern, 2001. p. 121: "It was something of a desperate measure for an Emperor who was bent on restoring the Empire, and was perhaps undertaken in a moment of duress, not intended as a permanent arrangement but unfortunately never reversed. Some time later, before 285, the single province was split into two smaller ones, called Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea.")
From the same page, Southern writes: "Archaeology reveals that life in the old Roman province of Dacia continued to 272 without any discernible decline or expectation of termination. Even if there had been a partial evacuation under Gallienus, which is itself disputed, it did not seem that the population was clamouring for removal to another part of the Roman world."

Here is another, english, source providing archeological evidence showing, without a doubt Dacia staid latin after the Aurelian withdrawl up to modernity: http://arheo.ffzg.unizg.hr/ska/tekst...ra_deserta.pdf
Here's another one: https://books.google.ca/books?id=MxY...ed=0CCkQ6AEwAA

If you want more archeological/genetic sources please do ask. In any case, as I said, these are academic, archeological evidence of my claims and not cultural observations.
History Craft is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 01:33 AM   #7
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58

"First of all, the one making the claims has to prove them. Are there any arcehological sources, scriptic sources... any kind of sources indicating such a migration?
It sounds seriously sci-fi as people back then were regarded more as good and the lord of a land would never let the people migrate away, willingly, as they were the guys paying taxes/producing added wealth/defending the place; By every legal code of those times the lord of the land would stop those people from going away/any lord finding migrants on his land would have to return them... I mean, this would be a massive event, we're talking about a migration big enough to latinise 300.000 square kms+, this is bigger than the slavic migration which was very well recourded.... yet here we see no record. Not arcehological, not scriptic... nothing.Also, may I know why those latins would migrate from the relative protection of the byzantines into the direction from which every violent, conquering barbarian so far has come? I mean, it looks like running head-on into a wall... why?
Regardless, we're looking at 0 written evidence. 0 archeological studies backing this up... and it literally makes no sense."

All of the archeological, the linguistic, the religion sources are supporting the migration theory. I told you a few one 15-18 in my last answer. Nobody on the earth support the daco-roman theory, only the romanian nationalist historians. Some romanian historians support the migration theory as well. Like Marius Daiaconescu or Lucian Boia. 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.

"Besides the mountain of archeological/genetic evidence I posted towards the end and in the middle of my post? "The fact romanian has virtually zero influence from byzantine greekinfluence from Byzantine Greek. (about 3-4 words in total, military stuff unsurprisingly, as some romanians used to be mercenaries for the byzantines). In all the other Roman languages the name comes from the Greek ecclesia: French eglise, Italian chiesa, Spanish iglesia and Portuguese igreja." Why is that? Because all the other Romance language nations were still part of the Roman empire when Christianity became the official religion and the capital of the empire was the mainly Greek-speaking Constantinople."

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. 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. The romans left Dacia at 270, and never came back. 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. Plus: 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.



"The Daco-Romans however kept the Latin name basilica because initially one of the gathering places for the Christians were the basilicas - large colonnade buildings similar to the nowadays shopping malls. If that dumb theory about the Romanians coming from the South of the Danube would be true the Romanian word for "church" would be the same as in the rest of the former Roman Empire. Because the empire controlled the Balkans for another 300 years after the withdrawal of the legions from Dacia.

Yes, they controlled the Balkan for 200 years, but not Dacia. The romans left Dacia at 270, and Byzantine empire never went back. Your statement about this one word is nonsense. 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)"




So great influence existed even on latins as far as Iberia... yet we see 0 influence as far as these eastern latins ( that you are claimed to have been under byzantine rule). The theory makes no sense. 2) Romanian has quite a few words that come from original, ancient latin, for trees/natural resources (Pacura, Zada, etc) found only North of the Danube. 3) The hundreds of place-names, mountain-names, water-names, etc coming from antiquity. I somewhat doubt those migrating vlachs carried history books with them to rename those places/waters.


Example: Turdava - Turda, Tape - Tapia, Galtis - Galt, Oitensioi - Oituz, etc
examples of river names from Antiquity that have survived up to today, Ancient - Modern: Alutus - Olt, Maris - Mures, Pyretus - Prutul, Ampelum - Ampoi, Tamis - Timis, Crisus- Cris, etc

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.

Galtis/galt: Galt is the saxon name of the village. No connection between the ancient gauls. (Other names: Szaszugra, Ungra). Founded by saxon settlements. The name of the village changed throught the years:

1211: Noilgiant (First written source)
1222: Noilat
1366: Ugra
1400: Galt
1488: Gald
1532: Galde

Oituz: The most southern hungarian village. Coming from hungarian Ojtoz. The legends says, the village got his name about the Oituz pass, because the soldiers hardest battle was in the Oituz pass.

So I don't see any latin/romance origin place-names.

Alotus/olt: coming from ancient greek language by Strabon, and Ptolemaeus. Not a roman/latin origin name.
Maris/Mures: coming from ancient greek as well by Herodotos. (Maris) Not roman/latin origin name.
Pyretus/Prutul: ancient greek. (Puretos) a river of Scythia.
Ampelum and Ampoi: it's totally nonsense!

Ampleum was a roman gold mine in Dacia. The romanian name of the territory today is Zlatna. Zlatna coming from the slavic word "zlatna" (means gold). So, the romanian name of the village have slavic origin. In my languge is "złoto" means gold. Polish currency: złoty etc...

Ampoi: a river in Romania. Ampoi coming from the hungarian word Ompoly.

Timis: coming from ancient greek (Tibisis) Τίβισις

Cis: I found 2 theories about this name. The 1st one says, the name cis, coming from the persian emperor Kurus II. Many other rivers got his name about him.

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).

So this last river name is very complex, but there is not a single toponym in Transylvania that might have had Latin origin when the hungarians arrived in the region. Most of the place names and river names were Slavic except some few, which were not Romance anyway.


"As you can see many of the factors which protected the latin population in what is today Romania didn't protect the panonian (and balkan) romans. Basically, they were a tempting target for subjugation, they were very exposed and were never used to defend themselves at a micro-level."

These point are just your personal hypotheses. 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.



Oil giant case... as I said... do you really think enough people left the balkans (people mean money, so many people would be worth trillions to the byzantines in today's money) to run into the direction every violent barbarian invasion so far came from, while the byzantine/bulgars/whoever was the ruler over that territory at that time look at his money walking away without saying one thing (pardon without anyone saying anything)?

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.

The territory of today's Romania didn't get slavicised or anything-else-ised because: ...

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.

"Assimilation isn't necessarily a process of duration but rather one of intensity.
Simply put, the romans really wanted to latinise certain lands. In the case of Dacia they wanted to latinise it because it was a very hard to defend land and the population was hostile... so they wanted at least to have a not-hostile population there. How did they pull it off? Colonization. You can latinise any country in the word virtually instantly if you conquer it and take enough latins and throw them there. To be noted that much of the male population was culled during the wars/after... this was followed by large amounts of roman soldiers (single men) being placed in the area.
Administration. The dacians were civilized. They were used to having a legal system, an administration, laws to work with and a prestigious language. When their own legal system, administration and laws were destroyed and put outside the law, they just orientated towards the roman ones (which were imposed) which were also very prestigious (you need to remember that nationalism as a form of loyalty would appear in almost 2000 years from now). Religion. When Christianity was persecuted, many christians fled to the backwater (by that time the former economic pearl of the empire, Dacia, was pretty dry) called Dacia, further leading to it's latinisation. Also, Christianity, originally was introduced in latin, in Romania, (the romanian religious vocabulary is latin, not slavonic or greek). And you need to understand that Romanians continued to be under roman military/economic/cultural (later byzantine) for hundreds of years to come although not part of the empire. Look... we got creole language (european colonial languages - native hybrids) forming in less time than[/QUOTE]

These are only your personal hypthesis and personal explaining. Sorry, but i don't have time for romanian nationalist personal theories. Please talk about the historian facts. Your personal feeling and theories are not relevant.

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

Read the fist point, these are facts. Later I will give answer for your other edits.

Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 11th, 2018 at 02:03 AM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 02:34 AM   #8

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,527

If I were a mod on here.....................................
johnincornwall is online now  
Old January 11th, 2018, 02:41 AM   #9
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Poland/England
Posts: 58

"https://i.pinimg.com/236x/23/29/c7/2...5f1f684db0.jpg
"Yes but like 90% of today's Romania was."

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

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”,

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.

"We're talking about some pretty small bits (what's that, 10-15% of today's Romania?)"

False again. We talking about 60-70% of today's Romania, where peoples never lived under romanrules. And not 10-15%! This is a huge difference!

"Hooooo, hoooo, hold your horses.
The guy who told you what was either lying or he was clueless.
Nobody took any slavic words out of romanian and no plan to latinise romanian existed.

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."

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

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.

"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



Last edited by DRytwinski89; January 11th, 2018 at 02:43 AM.
DRytwinski89 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 03:07 AM   #10

Tsar's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Serbia
Posts: 1,847
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
If I were a mod on here.....................................
Tell me about it.
Tsar 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.