Etymology of Romania -- revised(2)

Dec 2013
125
Moldova
#1
Since the last thread (http://historum.com/european-history/96888-etymology-romania-revised.html) devolved into insults and ad hominems, i figured i'll give this thread another try, but this time being more specific as to not leave much room for interpretation. Since i don't want to drag the last thread with all it's mischiefs to this new one, i shall further focus on the idea that "Romania" did not start existing since the 19th century, but since the 16th century and maybe even earlier.

So without further ado, i have found a book from 1999 called "Geneza statului în evul mediu românesc" (Genesis of the state in the romanian middle age) by romanian historian Șerban Papacostea.

He claims he found a hungarian document from the 16th century where "Wallachia" is given the name of "Romandiola" or "Romaniola". It's quite an interesting century to find this document, because it's the same century the first ever recorded name of the country was found, as the people themselves called it, " Romanian land " featured in Neacșu's letter. The name romanian historians preferred over "Wallachia"

He claims that Wallachia was an exonym, much like the name "Germany" today, and that Romania, Wallachia and Romanian land all mean the same thing. Moreso he claims, that the document was written by a hungarian which could have obviously thrown in some bias, but decided to remain objective in his observations. The document in question was a letter to the Papal Curia from a certain Shtefan Szanto, a priest that urges the pope to open up more colleges not only for hungarians, but for other nations that resided within Hungary in the past as well. Here's what he wrote:
Rogat Universa Ungaria, obtestatur nobilissima Transylvania, orat Dalmatia, obsecrat Romaniola sive Valachia inferior[...]

-Hungary demands it, the noble Transylvania implores invokes it, Dalmatia begs it, Romaniola or Wallachia inferior begs it

The next part, the author of the book notes, is important. He not only mentioned the two names in a rush, but in the second paragraph of the letter he specificly outlines the fact that Wallachia was also called in another way by it's people.

Vlachia inferior, quae Romandiola et Romaniola dicitur est provincia annexa Transylvaniae, quae olim Dacia dicebatur[...]
-Wallachia inferior which is also called Romandiola and Romaniola is a province annexed to Transylvania which was once part of Dacia
http://i.imgur.com/Gsb5UB9.png

The book is available only in Romanian, but the original letter to the Papal Curia can be found in the book " Monumenta Antiquae Hungariae, ed. L. Lukacs, B.T, I 1550-1579, Rome" on page 755

So it is thus, my firm belief that the use of "Wallachia" as a name for the country is horribly misused in world history, moreso the autochthon name of "Romanian land" used by the romanian historiographers themselves, which are terribly frighten to change it's grammatical structure to that of "Romania", while they don't seem to have an issue of using "Moldova" and "Moldovan land" in historic discussions, interchangeably.

So what do you think?
 
Feb 2014
167
Hungary
#2
Nothing. If this source even really exist (not the MAH, but this letter), then this was only sporadic designation from an educated outsider who identified the country with the object of his education: the Latin heritage onto the analogy of an Italian region's name (Romania). Since the Latin origin language of the Vlachs was a well-known fact at this time.
 
Likes: Perix

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,941
Romania
#4
I think it is pretty obvious that it is ultimately from the Roman Empire, from the Romans.
"România" comes from "român", in the older form "rumân", which is the word Romanians have used to call themselves in their language, like "armãn" is the word Aromanians have used to call themselves in their language.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2013
125
Moldova
#7
I think that you are a pitiful ignorant, who understood nothing from Şerban Papacostea's great book Geneza statului în evul mediu românesc, that's in case you actually read it.
What i understud was that the romanian national consciousness and identity was preserved within the borders of this "Romaniola" and that people from Wallachia were already acknowledging the fact that they live in a state called "Romania" and furthermore it was the exact name as "Wallachia". Papacostea perfectly illustrated this idea.

Blogen said:
Nothing. If this source even really exist (not the MAH, but this letter), then this was only sporadic designation from an educated outsider who identified the country with the object of his education: the Latin heritage onto the analogy of an Italian region's name (Romania). Since the Latin origin language of the Vlachs was a well-known fact at this time.
He could have just called it simply Wallachia, like all other diplomats or scholars before him, since the implication was that romance speakers live in it. But he specifically choose to make the difference and outline the internal usage of the name, as he probably found out from interaction with the natives, because that's how people called it as it was in the same colloquial use as "Romanian land"

Haram said:
I think it is pretty obvious that it is ultimately from the Roman Empire, from the Romans.
The roman empire's name was "Romaion" or simply "Romania", but by the time of this letter, the roman empire no longer had access to the danube for well over a couple of centuries.
 
Sep 2015
1,711
Romania
#8
Please ignore ZimZam, he is just a buttfrustrated russian (colonist brought to Moldova in the 40's by the USSR/or a romanian assimilated by the russians) and he really really wants to pick a fight on this subject.
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,941
Romania
#10
What i understud was that the romanian national consciousness and identity was preserved within the borders of this "Romaniola" and that people from Wallachia were already acknowledging the fact that they live in a state called "Romania" and furthermore it was the exact name as "Wallachia". Papacostea perfectly illustrated this idea.
This illustrates (to use your word) what I meant above. In case you really understand Romanian (natively or not), please feel free to indicate passages. I posted above the link to the book.
 

Similar History Discussions