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 August 30th, 2013, 06:27 AM   #91

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,509

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marian View Post

WOLOSZY (By the Polish)
WLOCHI (The Polish name for the Italians)
Not correct.

Italians are in Polish "Włosi" and Italy is "Włochy".

Vlah people were called in the past (because now those words are not used anymore) "Wołosi" and Vlah country was called "Wołoszczyzna".

If those two examples were wrong I dare to risk saying that other might be not correct as well.
Mosquito is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 30th, 2013, 10:43 PM   #92

Vasilios's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 143

Do any of you know if the greek surname Koutsos is associated with vlachs?
Vasilios is offline  
Old August 31st, 2013, 01:09 AM   #93

Sonrisa's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Bulgaria, Black Sea region
Posts: 881

The Balkan Vlachs: Born to Assimilate?

Quote:
Nationalism in Eastern Europe

The Vlachs are a Romance-speaking Balkan population once characterized by a transhumant lifestyle. Among their many other characteristics, one must count an uncanny way of making those who study them question their most fundamental notions about ethnic groups and cultural survival.

It all begins with their genesis: The Romans conquered Macedonia in the second century B.C., intermarrying with the indigenous Balkan peoples. The indigenous Balkan peoples. The Vlachs are descendants of this union. Although their language is similar to Romanian, the Vlachs are located at quite a distance from Romania in Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The main distinguishing features of the Vlachs have long been their Romance language and their transhumance, which involved migration between summer (highland) and winter (lowland) pastures. Although today relatively few Vlachs are true transhumants, those who retain a Vlach identity still tend to make summertime excursions to their mountain villages. Because there are few books in Vlach and no standardized alphabet, Vlach culture has been fast losing ground to modern advances in communications, from books and schools to satellites and MTV.

Parallel to these changes has been the hectic pace of Balkan state-building, including fast-track efforts to assimilate minorities. Once wholly contained within the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire, early in this century the Vlachs were divided among the modern Balkan states. At that time, their population was estimated at 500,000; recent estimates cite less than half that number. Vlach population figures are notoriously hard to substantiate; the most recent scholar to study the Vlachs, Professor Tom Winnifrith of Warwick University in England, estimated in 1987 that there were 30,000 Vlachs in Greece and 20,000 in Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania. (He has since been allowed to travel throughout Albania and now estimates that the latter figure may be five to ten times higher.) Communities of Vlachs also exist in Western Europe, North America, and Australia, which together host several thousand Vlachs.

The situation seems pretty straightforward: Another ethnic and linguistic group is disappearing under the indifferent juggernaut of modernity. Yet in the case of the Vlachs, the negative effects of assimilation are not as clear cut. As it happens, they are themselves the product of a successful assimilation.

One of the forerunners of modern Western civilization was the civilization of ancient Rome. Two thousand years ago, the Balkan Peninsula south of the Danube may have been as diverse as it is today; there were Thracians, Illyrians, Epirotes, Macedonians, Greeks, Scythians, and many others. Though the memory of Rome has long been lost, those who were Romanized created a new Balkan group that in most cases calls itself Rumani or Arumani (in English, Arumanians or Aromanians). Outsiders, as usual, have dreamed up a host of other names: Vlachs, Koutsovlachs, Tsintsars, Karagouni, Chobani, Vlasi, and Macedo-Romanians, to name just a few.

By all indications, once the Roman conquest was completed, the process of adopting the Romans' language was fairly passive. Rather than force this on locals, the Romans built roads, bridges, and other means of communication; they fostered industries and markets; and, perhaps most importantly, over the centuries they opened up a vast new realm of opportunities in the army and administration. The process of Romanization gave indigenous groups entrée into a more developed collective entity and civilization. Two thousands years later, another conquest is taking place in the Balkan Peninsula, not at the tip of a sword, but at the touch of a TV remote control. It is difficult to argue that assimilation is an evil that the Vlachs must avoid, when it was assimilation that gave birth to the Vlachs in the first place.

The Vlachs make us question other cherished notions, such as that of "indigenous groups." One can argue that the Vlachs represent indigenous groups." One can argue that the Vlachs represent indigenous Balkan peoples who continued to survive in their ancestral lands-albeit speaking a new language - after the Romans came. However, as far as we know, those groups were themselves Indo-European invaders who only happened to settle in the Balkans many thousands of years ago. In our search for the legitimacy conferred by the title "indigenous," where do we draw the line?

Finally, even a cursory acquaintance with the Vlachs will make anyone wonder what constitutes an ethnic group. Is it a common language, religion, culture, or some other such "barrier" to outsiders? The Vlachs are known for the ease with which they assimilate. However, when they are not actually assimilating, they are known for holding their Vlach identity in reserve, to be displayed when favorable circumstances exist. It was in an article about the Vlachs that anthropologist Muriel Dimen Schein decided to pose an old question in a very new way: "When is an Ethnic Group?" (italics added by author)

The Vlachs thus present a fascinating case study of a traditional society adapting to modern life. They provide a valuable contrast with many of the groups whose plight is usually presented on these pages. But as much as they may differ on the particulars, the general outline of their history is much the same: the modern world has not been friendly to their survival as an ethnic group.

A People without History?

Although the origin of the Vlachs is fairly straightforward, their trail is difficult to follow through the historical record. The Romanization of the Balkan Peninsula began during the late stages of the Roman Republic, and continued under the early Empire. Latin remained the language of officials in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire until the sixth century A.D., when Greek came to dominate. But in the more remote areas of the Balkan Peninsula, a new Romance language developed. Today, two Balkan groups trace their ancestry to these Romance speakers: the Romanians, to the north of the Danube River, and the Vlachs, to the south.

While there is a gap of several hundred years in the history of the Romanians, the Vlachs seem to have existed in the southern Balkans (though not necessarily in the same precise locations) since the Roman conquest. Here we enter the turbulent waters of Balkan history, which has regularly been subordinated to present national imperatives. In this case, the Romanians and Hungarians both covet Transylvania and have sought to legitimize their claims to it by asserting historical priority in that region. Thus, the Hungarians theorize that the Romanians are really Vlachs from the southern Balkans who migrated north of the Danube during the Middle Ages (i.e., after the Hungarians arrived). The Romanians respond by asserting that they are the descendants of the indigenous Dacians north of the Danube who, though conquered and partially assimilated by the Romans, have continued to exist in all current Romanian lands since antiquity. Romanians see the Vlachs alternately as indigenous Thracians south of the Danube who were Romanized (the Dacians were a Thracian tribe) and as Romanians from north of the Danube who migrated south.

Ethnic Conflict, State-Building, and Assimilation

Like other ethnic groups, the Vlachs' consciousness and primary loyalty have long been linked to their immediate environment - clan, village, mountain, valley - not to any national concept. Such ideas were born in Western Europe in the early nineteenth century, and only since then have Vlachs and others come to see themselves as part of a "nation." Whereas the Romanians eventually went on to create their own nation-state in the nineteenth century, the Vlachs, due to their proximity to Greek populations, have come more and more under the influence of Greek culture. In fact, all Balkan groups during the Ottoman occupation were marked by the fluidity with which they adopted aspects of each other's culture. This was especially true of Greek culture, which not only predominated through the Orthodox Church but was also the language of trade and commerce - so much so that to prosper as a merchant was to become "Greek." Once nationalism became a force in European political life in the nineteenth century, however, this relatively peaceful Balkan coexistence ended. As Ottoman strength in Europe faded, the various Balkan national groups began to fight over the remaining Turkish lands in the peninsula.

A nationalist movement began among wealthy Vlach merchants in Vienna and Budapest at the start of the nineteenth century. Thr rising Romanian state soon co-opted it, however, claiming the Vlachs as long-lost kin and investing large sums in Romanian schools and churches for them. While genuinely fraternal feelings certainly existed under the romantic form of early nationalism, the Romanians also hoped to use the Vlachs as a bargaining chip in their territorial claims against neighboring Balkan countries. This Romanian nationalist movement gave rise to the new ethnic designation Macedoromâni, "Macedo-Romanians," which meant to signify that the Vlachs were simply Romanians who happened to come from Macedonia. But the Greek state opposed the Romanian movement, and the Vlachs soon same to be divided into pro-Greek and pro-Romanian factions. The bitterness between the two was not great until Greece, in conducting a guerrilla war at the turn of this century against various armed groups of Slavic nationalists for possession of Macedonia, made the unfortunate decision to use force against the unarmed pro-Romanian Vlach nationalists.

Conflict erupted on the academic front as well. Greek nationalist scholars, seeking to prove Greek historical priority and continuity in Macedonia from antiquity (i.e., before the arrival of the Slavs), adopted the theory that the Vlachs were really "Vlachophone Hellenes," that is, Greeks by "race" who had learned a Romance language. Though this thesis has never been supported outside of Greece, it has enjoyed a remarkable staying power among both Greeks and Hellenized Vlachs. Its effect on Vlach identity has been tremendous - if one is "biologically" Greek, and one's Latin idiom merely an anomaly, then indeed why not abandon that idiom and return to one's true "race?"

Modern nationalism divided the Vlachs in other ways. Once contained entirely within the Ottoman Empire, the various Vlach territories were dismembered along with that Empire through most of the 19th century in order to form or enlarge the modern Balkan nation-states. The Vlachs were by no means passive in this process: when the cession of Thessaly from the Ottoman Empire to Greece was proposed in 1881, a large number of Vlachs petitioned the Sultan in protest. The petition cited their fears of assimilation by the expansive Greek state, as well as the fact that the new border cut right across the main north-south migration route for transhumant Vlach shepherds. But their protests went unheeled. By 1918, the Vlachs were effectively divided among Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and what was to become Yugoslavia. Mass migrations created diaspora communities in America between 1900 and 1920, and in Romania between 1920 and 1940. Vigorous assimilation was the rule everywhere, and after the Second World War, it looked as if the Vlachs' disappearance as an ethnic group was imminent.

Revival and Renewed Conflict

During the international "ethnic revival" of the 1980s, it seemed that the Vlachs' situation might change. Émigré communities in America and Western Europe took new interest in their culture and language and encouraged their compatriots in the Balkans to do the same. At the same time, the Pan-Hellenic Union of Vlach Cultural Societies was founded in Greece as an umbrella organization for the country's far-flung Vlach villages. In Yugoslavia, concessions were made to Vlachs seeking to preserve their culture - books were published, records pressed, organizations founded, and TV and radio broadcasts produced. An alternative to the destructive Romanian-Greek dichotomy also emerged as a number of Vlachs in France, Germany, America and Greece stepped forward for the first time to assert a Vlach identity.

But - perhaps is response to the revival of the 1980s - ethnic pride gave way to ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, with great ramifications for cultural survival. For the Vlachs, the first blow came in 1991, when crisis between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ratcheted up nationalist sentiments on both sides of that border. The Vlachs of Greece had only timidly asserted their ethnicity in the first place, since the Greek state claims it has no ethnic minorities within its borders. The Macedonian problem made the assertion of any non-Greek identity almost impossible.

Similar developments occurred on the other side of the border in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Before the break-up of Yugoslavia, the Vlachs there were organized into several associations. They are now recognized as a minority in the Constitution of the Macedonian Republic, and they enjoy television and radio broadcasts in their language. The Macedonian crisis, however, once again made them a pawn in a power struggle, with both Slavic Macedonians and Greeks making claims on the Vlachs' loyalties. Slavic Macedonian ultra nationalists, apparently fearing the consequences should they constitute less than an absolute majority in that fragile, multiethnic republic, threatened to retaliate against Vlachs who classify themselves as anything other than "Macedonian." Then neighboring Greece began to claim a "Greek minority" of 250,000, and they included the Vlachs of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in that number. A new census has just been completed, in which the Vlachs confirmed their penchant for hiding behind other identities - only 8,000 people said they were Vlach, though local activists say the number is more like 80,000.

The second blow was delivered when relations between Greece and Albania deteriorated sharply last year over the state of the Greek minority in Southern Albania. One of the more surprising discoveries made by western visitors to Albania as it began to open up in the 1990s was the size of the Vlach community there, Dr. Winnifrith, who has toured Southern Albania extensively in the last 3 years, now places the number of Albanian Vlachs at up to 200,000 - a huge figure considering that Winnifrith previously had estimated only about 50,000 Vlachs in the entire Balkan Peninsula. When a new democratic government was elected in Albania in April, 1992, the Vlachs there were allowed to organize an ethnic society. For a short while, it looked as if they might be able to hold their own and avoid the fate of all other Vlach cultural preservation efforts over the last two centuries.

But then the Greek-Albanian crisis erupted. The Greeks claim their minority numbers 400,000, while the Albanians place it at 60,000 - neither side's figures are reliable. Greek nationalists tend to count all the Orthodox Christians of Albania as "Greek," including Vlachs and Albanians. There has been an active effort to bolster Greek claims by wooing the Vlachs, and in contrast to half-hearted Romanian attempts to do the same, the Greeks are meeting with a good measure of success, for many reasons. First, the Vlachs see Greece as a powerful protector against the Moslem majority of Albania. They also see that extraordinary economic opportunity are theirs for the taking across the border in Greece, if only they declare themselves "Northern Epirotes" (the Greek term for their minority in Albania). Finally, when speaking of impoverished descendants of sheepherders, one must never underestimate the powerful attraction of the dignity conferred by an imputed link with Socrates, Plato, and Homer. The result is that in Albania, too, the Vlachs are playing into the hands of the economic, political, social, and diplomatic forces conspiring to assimilate them.

These Balkan machinations are wreaking havoc in the three largest indigenous communities of Vlachs - those in Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Albania. Almost all other Vlach communities are transplanted. In Bulgaria, there is no remaining community to speak of, save a few villages in the Dobrogea, which Romania colonized with Vlachs when it held that region briefly between the two world wars. And while a 1992 census found 28,088 Vlachs in Romania proper, Vlachs there routinely cite figures in the hundreds of thousands. Whatever their actual number, the community in Romania is committed to assimilation into Romanian society.

The Vlach Diaspora

Among Vlachs in the United States, interest shown in the overseas community has been complicated by the political situations being played out there. Many of those old divisions are reproduced intact in the USA, with the result that the American Vlach community usually keeps to itself. The United States is the home of the oldest and largest Vlach organization in continuous existence, the Society Farsarotul (founded 1903, 400 members today), which publishes a newsletter twice a year that attempts to track the situation of the Vlachs throughout the world. The main goal of the Society Farsarotul is to preserve the ethnic community in America by providing it with an institution, a voice and a focal point for members, as well as a point of contact for outsiders.

A few Vlachs also settled in Western Europe, and since the early 1980s, some of them have tried to create a base from which to launch an international Vlach cultural revival, holding conferences and appealing to the European Union for help. Led by a professor named Vasile Barba, who is affiliated with the University of Freiburg, this group is known as the Union for Arumanian Language and Culture (Uniunea tri Limba shi Cultura Aromana, or ULCA). Although the Union is made up largely of Vlachs who come out of the old pro-Romanian movement, it broke with that movement by advocating a Vlach (as opposed to a Romanian) identity. The ULCA also created an alphabet for the Vlach language rather than use the Romanian or Greek alphabets, the practice of Vlachs in those two nationalist movements.

But the ULCA has been strident in tone towards the pro-Greek Vlachs, who are the key to the Vlachs' cultural survival. The most developed segment of the remaining Vlach population is in Greece; the only remaining Vlach town, Metsovo, is located in Greece; the most appealing nation-state for Vlachs to throw in their lot with has traditionally been Greece.

The Western European Vlachs have doomed their cultural preservation efforts to failure with their anti-Greek rhetoric. And with them, the Vlachs may have lost their last chance at survival - their last chance at survival as Vlachs - because the indigenous peoples who are today Vlachs survived, in part, by assimilating, and are merely doing so again. Unless some kind of incentive is developed to encourage Vlachs to remain Vlachs (such as funding schools to teach the language, and newspapers to extend its currency and usefulness), it is reasonable to expect this ethnic group to disappear within one or two generations. Their case reminds us that, while humankind is perhaps diminished by the loss of an ethnic or linguistic group, the individual members of the group themselves can sometimes gain.
The Balkan Vlachs: Born to Assimilate? | Cultural Survival
Sonrisa is offline  
Old August 31st, 2013, 02:10 AM   #94

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 7,685

hell the bloody greek megale ideea
Perix is online now  
Old August 31st, 2013, 04:38 AM   #95
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: România
Posts: 1,400

The vlachs were split in many groups...the most important and numerous of them were the daco-romanians. Many of today people refer to the vlachs the ones living outside Romania.
Dany is offline  
Old August 31st, 2013, 06:03 AM   #96

Sonrisa's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Bulgaria, Black Sea region
Posts: 881

I am copying the post of Dany here because the discussion must continue in the Appropriate thread.

Quote:
Your statement are based on pure speculations. Vlachs inside Bulgaria year 1200 were vlachs, North of Danube also vlachs.. This vlachs(aromanians+vlachs) in year 1900 were more than 300.000 in the lands of today Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria, Albania..the lands that were part of second Bulgaro-Romanian Empire/State. This vlachs keep their traditions and language. I don't believe they were to many schools in year 1200, bulgarians were living on the plains , vlachs in the mountains..and they had good relations.

Between year 300 and 1920 vlachs were slowly moving from South to North in to the core of the daco-romanians.

So in year 1200 bulgarians were few than in 1800..that is for sure..not only that vlachs and other people lived in the Second Empire but..it was after dark ages, wars..and people tend to multiply over the centuries.

I made with KGP a calculation of bulgarian people in 1912 when Bulgaria was big..you know how many Bulgarians were, just Bulgarians?

You know that in 1919 Romania was big and moved many of the vlachs population from South of danube to Dobrogea ? So bulgarians were 4,5-5 millions in the world , romanians 14-16 millions in 1912...We were 17 millions in Great Romania 1930...after official census.

maybe you should had say that between year 600 and 1300, before ottomans and slavic people cam there ..romanians and bulgarians were 2 very close nations, but different..Not what you said

My point of view is that it is imposible that bulgarians in 1200 were more than in 1600...than in 1900 is just to much. Every country has minorities..you call them bulgarians to? You believe that in 1200 they had citizenship? They were vlachs..they spoke romanain or aromanian...and they were not bulgarians. Maybe from the national awaking we can speak of a bulgaran assimilation of some vlachs but..in 1200...things were very different...slavs and vlachs were to different(very different) that vlachs to accept to be assimilated and in 1200 you were all ready slavicised. The fact that they survive in that lands 600 years of ottomans rule and between bulgarians what tells you? of course many of them moved between 1200 and 1900 to Romania.. but still they were many in 1911..and even today few of them live there, speaking romanian.
To those not aware of the dispute - the subject is Vlachs in Bulgaria


The population of Bulgaria according to EuroStats (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/...bleAction.do):

1960: 7,829,246
1970: 8,464,264
1980: 8,846,417
1989: 8,986,636
2000: 8,190,876
2007: 7,679,290
2013: 7,282,041

estimation after 2014: less than 7,000,000 million

...

When the Bulgarians regained freedom from the Ottoman empire the population accounted for about 4,000,000 people, taken the victims of revolution against the Ottoman I would suppose that in early 1800 the Bulgarian population would have been a little more. On the map below you can see the territories of Bulgaria prior to Ottoman conquests. I cannot find statistics on how many Bulgarians have been killed during Ottoman times. But let me suggest the following. If the Berlin Congress have not left Macedonia outside free Bulgaria and the two countries remained one state the population of Bulgaria would have been with a couple of millions larger. Of course it cannot compete with Romania and the 16 million Vlachs in early 1900.

Just a funny fact, for less than 20 years the Bulgarian population declined with almost 3,000,000 people and if we soon join the Shengen area it could reach the level of early 20th century .

...

Anyway, my point is the following. In early 9th century, in the Province of Thessalonica, the Byzantines Saints Cyril and Methodius (of either Bulgarian or Macedonian origin) developed the Cyrillic alphabet which main use was to translate the Bible in the language of Slavic peoples. They used the spoken Old Church Slavonic or Old Bulgarian which was largely spoken by non-Greeks surrounding the Byzantine empire. At first the Cyrillic scripts of the Bible were prohibited by the Pope, but later the Cyrillic became the third official language of the Church after Roman and Greek. Until today, Old Church Slavonic is the main liturgical language from the Balkans to Russia.

The spread of Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavonic) started in the First Bulgarian Kingdom, where the written Glagolithic and Cyrillic were taught in the Preslav Literary School (in capital Pliska) and Ohrid Literary School (in Macedonia). Both schools were following the orders of Boris I who brought Christianity in Bulgaria, and happened to kill about 60 royal clans.

The difference between Preslav and Ohrid schools, is that Ohrid used the Glagolithic until 12th century where as in Preslav they used the Cyrillic. I suppose that this would make the difference between the development of written Bulgarian and Macedonian languages which differ is some aspects.

Old Church Slavonic, or early Old Bulgarian and Old Macedonian spread to Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Bohemia, Lesser Poland, and Kievan Rus which will all adopt the new written language, but according to each nation develop their own writing systems which differs according to the local dialects.

...

I wanted you to read this because you often refer to Bulgarians as being Slavized, but you don't see that the written language of all Slavic nations is created in Bulgaria and Macedonia, primarily for the people of Bulgaria and Macedonia, who under Boris I were Christianized. The very alphabet itself is developed based on the spoken language of Bulgarians and Macedonians who at that time were the only major force next to Byzantine.

...

After the Ottoman conquest in 14th century, the written language of Bulgarians will sharply disappear because the Ottomans burned down every single Bulgarian Church and all possessions, including Christian books and literature; and ones being slaves, the Bulgarians did not have the opportunity to engage in any kind of education. So for the next 5 centuries, the most of Bulgarian population is illiterate. Around, 18th century begins the process of revival where the first schools are build, but everything is taught in Greek, which will remain the main language for a very long time.

Remarkably, the written Old-Bulgarian survives although it goes through significant changes, and for example some of Bulgarian grammar is closer related to Greek and Albanian than other Slavic languages. But still taken the influence of Greeks and Ottomans it is quite a miracle.

...

About the Vlachs living south of the Danube, please consider the following:

1. Greeks try to promote the Greek culture being dominant even inside the Ottoman empire, among Christian people. Greeks tried to demolish and destroy everything related to Bulgarian language and culture, starting from the burning down of Church documents written in Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavonic).

2. Despite, the Greek and Ottoman influences the spoken language of Bulgarians and Macedonians remains the same between 13th and 19th century, although it goes through significant changes and has a lot of borrowed word. During 20th century Bulgarian scholars tried to replace borrowed words by using reconstruction of Old Bulgarian language, but this was not entirely complete.

3. Old Church Slavonic, spreading from Macedonia and Bulgaria to Poland and Russia is the dominant language of the Orthodox Church, where the Cyrillic alphabet is adopted by about 252 million people, including Romanians prior to 19th century. Do you believe that a nation of insignificant peoples in number can spread their language to such extend?

...

In my opinion, regardless of the number of Vlachs outside the territories of Romania, those people could not have spoken a language different from the dominating Slavic or Greek languages. In the case of Bulgaria, Vlachians will either speak Bulgarian or Macedonian, or Greek and any other Slavic forms.

Even if Vlachian people descend from Romanized Thracians and Dacians, the dominance of Byzantine and Ottoman versus Hungarian empires in the regions of south and north of the Danube will determine the faith of those people. You cannot compare Romanians (Vlachians) to the Vlachians living in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia and declare that the people are the same - maybe genetically, but not culturally and linguistically.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 730px-BG_14_vek.jpg (66.8 KB, 5 views)

Last edited by Sonrisa; August 31st, 2013 at 06:24 AM.
Sonrisa is offline  
Old August 31st, 2013, 02:58 PM   #97
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: România
Posts: 1,400

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonrisa View Post
Yes, about the enichars it must be mentioned that young boys were taken from every family and sometimes if your family has just one son he would be taken away. So the unfortunate parents are left without posterity.

I want to show you a map of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom which speaks clearly about the distribution of Bulgarian population. When, you look at it can you roughly say on average how much was the Bulgarian population before Ottoman arrival? Then compare it to Bulgaria today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonrisa View Post
Of course on the territories shown on the maps lived other peoples not only Bulgarians, but the Bulgarians were dominant at that period of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonrisa View Post
Bulgarians are Slavs. The Vlachian people at that time considered themselves Bulgarian.

No, no the dispute is what i quote

What are you trying to say before i get over my head again?

How can vlachs be vlachs if they had bulgarian culture and speak bulgarian language? In the map you show me North of danube were daco-romanians...and South also vlahs.. the ones who didn't speak romanian were not vlachs is simple...and after 700 years of wars and slowly moving to the North of danube there still were more than 300.000 vlachs South of danube..in Bulgaria and Macedonia....and many of them moved North between 1918 and 1945.

Also between year 1812 and 1950 the russians killed an send to Siberia ,estimated, more than 4 millions romanians..

From were your number that 4 millions bulgarians die because of Ottomans..between what years?



Bulgarians had they culture but they mix and were out number by slavic people, that way i say were slavized..and many of their traditions..not only the language..I am sure that thracian language was not slavic...Also the general view of bulgarians is that they are slavic...EVEn if they have so many thracian connections...
Dany is offline  
Old August 31st, 2013, 10:20 PM   #98

Sonrisa's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Bulgaria, Black Sea region
Posts: 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dany View Post
No, no the dispute is what i quote

What are you trying to say before i get over my head again?

How can vlachs be vlachs if they had bulgarian culture and speak bulgarian language? In the map you show me North of danube were daco-romanians...and South also vlahs.. the ones who didn't speak romanian were not vlachs is simple...and after 700 years of wars and slowly moving to the North of danube there still were more than 300.000 vlachs South of danube..in Bulgaria and Macedonia....and many of them moved North between 1918 and 1945.

Also between year 1812 and 1950 the russians killed an send to Siberia ,estimated, more than 4 millions romanians..

From were your number that 4 millions bulgarians die because of Ottomans..between what years?



Bulgarians had they culture but they mix and were out number by slavic people, that way i say were slavized..and many of their traditions..not only the language..I am sure that thracian language was not slavic...Also the general view of bulgarians is that they are slavic...EVEn if they have so many thracian connections...
I wrote that after Ottoman wars in early 1900 there were 4,000,000 Bulgarians left to form a new country, I cannot find statistic of how many were killed. So you basically claim that Vlachs in northern Bulgaria between Balkan mountain and Danube were Romanians? Is that so? If I understand you correctly then there is no way I can agree with such statement.

About Slavs, I wrote in other threads that there is no proof of ''Slavs'' living in First Bulgarian Kingdom, or prior to the formation of Bulgaria. Those ''Slavs'' are referred as ''Sclavoi'' which means ''Slaves'' and recent Bulgarian scholars are more prone to believe that the ''Sclavoi'' are the native Moesians from Moesia Minor and Moesia Superior who unite with Bulgars. On the other hand, we can argue about Bulgars, some believe that they are Getae others that they are Turk or Mongol, and others that they are Iranians. Anyway, during the Second Bulgarian Kingdom the Bulgars are a minority and as I wrote already, Boris I tried to exterminate them. Although, the subject is controversial because they were proofs that Bulgars were early Christians where as Boris I killed them because some say they were pagans.

After Boris I, the population of Bulgaria is predominantly Slavic, but those Slavs are now called ''Slovene'' because they speak the ''God's word'' and use the Cyrillic. So from ''Sclaboi'' meaning ''Slaves'' we now progress to ''Slovene'' meaning ''people of God's word''. You can clearly see that none of the terms means ''Slavs'' to the definition that you have today. Slavs is an invention by historians, nothing else. What were the original people bearing the name ''Sclaboi'' - here we can argue until the truth is discovered.

Here our histories diverge, because you say that native Dacians survive under the name Vlachs who are Romanized and therefore speak the Latin language. On the opposite hand, one part of Bulgarian historians believe that our language and culture (called Slavic) is actually Thracian. This possible taking into account that the entire territory of Bulgaria was under Greek influence until the creation of Bulgarian Kingdom, where as the territory of Romania was under Roman influence.

But if you want to follow official Bulgarian history, then you should consider that Bulgar armies were numerous and Bulgars had significant effect on whatever population was left in both Bulgaria and Romania. The history explains that Kubrat creates Old Great Bulgaria next to Azov sea but expands its territories and often fights with Avars, where at the end Avars are expelled. Some of those fights happen at the Pannonian plains. However, the Khazars attack Old Great Bulgaria and take over its territories. At that time Kubrat dies and his sons divide and spread in different locations. Asparukh takes an army and attacks Byzantine, he wins over Byzantine and make Byzantine pay taxes to First Bulgarian Kingdom which is situated between Danube and Balkan mountain.

If you think logically, there is no way Asparukh armies could have been small because those people had to fight with well trained Roman soldiers who were prepared with all kings of weapons possible to defend the borders of Byzantine. Yet, the Bulgar army proves to be stronger and wins over.

What about the Romanized Thracians/Dacians at that time? They either had to unite with the new kingdom or be killed because Bulgars perceived both Romans and Greeks as their enemies. History says that Bulgars and Slavs united peacefully. Who are those Slavs that had the power to raise against the empire? Wouldn't it be possible that Romanized Thracian/Dacian soldiers turn against the Byzantine and unite with Bulgars, so that Bulgars win over Byzantine by turning Roman trained Thracian soldiers against the rest of Roman soldiers - creating revolution inside Roman armies??? Bulgars were either very smart in terms of war strategies or they got help from the so called ''Slavs''.

Last edited by Sonrisa; August 31st, 2013 at 10:38 PM.
Sonrisa is offline  
Old August 31st, 2013, 10:38 PM   #99

Sonrisa's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Bulgaria, Black Sea region
Posts: 881

Just a short notice: Krobyzoi are Getae tribe. Krobyzoi and Kubrat are written in the same way in Greek. The logical translation is from Old Bulgarian where the verb ''krova'' means ''to protect'' and the noun ''krov, krovat'' means ''roof and shelter''. Kubrat (Krovat) is the first Bulgar ruler from the Dulo clan, his names is written in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. The Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans is a fake document not accepted in official Bulgarin history where Kubrat is written Kurt. Some suggest that the document is of Assirian origin and refers to the rules of other state. People who support the Asian theory of Bulgar origin use this document and tried to prove that Bulgars are Bactrians or Iranians. On the other hand, the Bulgarian scholars used the names of Bulgar Khans and all of them have equivalent in Old Bulgarian and Thracian, where for example Khan Tervel is called in some Byzantine sources Terbelis such as the Thracian tribe Triballi which in Old Bulgarian is translated as ''Three-times Great''.


I have tried to make my own comparison and have taken several Thracian tribes which names can be translated using Old Bulgarian dictionary:

Besi: băsă - бъсъ (bad spirit), băsănovat/besnovat - бъсъноват (rage)
Bistoni: băstvo - бъство (escape), băsănă - бъсънъ (mad)
Brenae: brană, braniti - бранъ, бранити (defend, swaddle)
Brigi: brăgă - бръгъ (shore, steep)
Brizi: brăza - бръза/бърза (fast, hasten)
Vitini: vitat, vitaeshă - витат, витаешъ (dwell, nesting)
Veneti: voevat - воеват (make war), vănit, vănideshă - вънит, вънидешъ (enter)
Geti/Goti: gotovat - готоват (prepare), gotovă - готовъ (prepared)
Dateni: daat, daut - даат, дают (to give)
Drozi: dărza - дърза (dare), dărzat - дързат (brave)
Krobyzoi: krovă - кровъ (to protect; a roof)
Nipsaei: napăsat, napsanie, napăsanie - напъсат, напсание, напъсание (written, name)
Napae: nai, naipae - наи, наипае (the most)
Odrisi: odră - одръ (plank-bed), odrăjaină - одръжайнъ, одръжание (domain), odrăjă - одръжъ (gripped)
Osi: osiă, osie, osiăt - осиъ, осие, осиът (surrounded by lights)
Paeti: paie, păe - пайе, пъе (more, better)
Pieres: piră - пиръ (feast, regale)
Sapaei: săpăsă - съпъсъ (save)
Satri: sătrăti - сътръти (levigate, scrunch)
Tranipsae: trănie, trăsvati - трънийе / тръсватъ (three times wholy) + nipsae
Trausi: traviti, travishi - травити, травиши (destroy by eating)
Triballi: tri velii - три велий (three times great, stronger)

*some letter are turned around when translated, such as Bulgarian ''iskam'' and Macedonian ''sakam'' which are identical and mean ''I want''.

Last edited by Sonrisa; August 31st, 2013 at 11:04 PM.
Sonrisa is offline  
Old August 31st, 2013, 11:16 PM   #100
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Romania
Posts: 3,041

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasilios View Post
Do any of you know if the greek surname Koutsos is associated with vlachs?
Not necessarily, AFAIK kutsovlahos means "lame Vlach", so Koutsos means "lame", isn't it?
Ficino is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
origine, vlach


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Greatest Looking People... In History Earl_of_Rochester General History 176 November 12th, 2013 03:54 AM
Famous Fey people of History unclefred General History 24 June 3rd, 2012 08:50 AM
Underrated people in history Arkhipov General History 90 February 7th, 2011 10:21 PM
People first to fly in the history Efendi Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 6 August 26th, 2010 07:25 AM
Scary people in history Distracted General History 138 May 9th, 2010 11:31 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.