Debate over Transylvania

[Romano-Dacis]

You want to say is Roumanian propaganda?...actually what are you trying to say?

He's just saying that the guy referred to the Macedonians as Bulgarians.

[Braindead Colonel]

What I'm saying is, if you quote some author, don't edit his words. Also it is always better to add links to the works so that they may be verified.

[Baron Vlad Felix]

What I'm saying is, if you quote some author, don't edit his words. Also it is always better to add links to the works so that they may be verified.

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/hb/index.html

MACEDONIA: ITS RACES AND THEIR FUTURE

by H. N. Brailsford (Methuen & Co., London, 1906)

VI. The Vlachs
1. Typical Village of Pisodéri
2. Place of the Vlachs in the Economy of Macedonia
3. The Vlach Language
4. History of the Vlachs
5. Women the Conservative Force in the East
6. Weakening of the Greek Connection
7. The Roumanian Propaganda - why you written youst about this?
8. Feud with the Greeks

[snipa]

Another logical fallacy straight off the "snipa factory" I see. I prefer archaeology to documents, and archaeology is on our side. The city existed at least since the 8th century.

seems to me u cant show me any written mentions about this city created by daco-romans-vlach... right?

where is your archaeology evidence which show us the name of this city? show us we are waiting for u!

i guess romanian archaeologist found a "city table" which has a inscription "Satu Mare" from 8th c. !

no comment!

Repeating the lie won't get you anywhere.

i help u when u tell us all of cities and villages name has romanian origin, its a simple lie!

Better idea: let's check all the names and see when they're first attested archaeologically!

lets show us the archaeology evidences where we can read the name of daco-romans-vlach settlemets!

after we can compare your evidence with our hungarian written mentions!

pls begin... im ready!

Conclusion: Romanians were on the Eastern side of the religious divide between Catholic West and Orthodox East. Perhaps you will also make the conclusion that Hungarians and Poles and Czechs are the sons of Rome?! Go ahead, make my day!

what? Hungarians and Poles and Czechs are the sons of Rome?

i guess u have information about daco-romans accepted their new religion from romans. When was it?

Nope, it really doesn't. Fact is the Romanians are mentioned in the very first documents that deal with ethnicities in Transylvania. The other documents are irrelevant.

oohhh what a nice cocnlusion! So to 1210 all of hungarian royal documents is irrelevant because missed daco-romans-vlach!
no comment!

Hardly proves they were frontier guards. Being a soldier is different from being a sentry.

What more u need? We have written mentions about cumans were used as frontier guard! If u deny this one then show me your evidence! Thats all!

oohh sorry, now i know written sources is not necessary for romanians... they can make their fictions without documents!

Yet he calls them Arcagant Sarmatians and Mitigant Sarmatians. The words come from Arcarii Gentes and Limes Gentes.These terms (Arcagant and Mitigant) are not mentioned at all after Marcellinus. Therefore, they could not have been real Sarmatian tribes (like Roxolani). The question is who were the Arcagant and Mitigant Sarmatians? The answer, by the names they have and the region they are situated in, which is the only solid evidence we have of their ethnicity, is obvious: Dacians or Daco-Romans.

OMG, no comment!

Ugh, I'm not going to go over this again. You can analyze numerous hard objects with Latin inscriptions in Romania from the 4th-7th century. By the 9th century cyrillic characters become more noticeable. The fact that paper documents weren't preserved proves nothing. Hardly any original works by Roman authors were preserved either; we only have copies! Who would have copied down texts written by people North of the Danube?

huh, if there is only 150 missing years i can accept that u havent any writtens sources, copies! But we talk about 1200 years!
Again 1200 !
U cant explain this long time!

Show me archaeological evidence wherever yoou think they were. Show me a vlach document from South of the Danube. I'm waiting to see your "document = existence" theory in action.

why should i do this? u stated daco-romans-vlach-whoever lived in transylvania before hungarians i disprove all of your evidence and i stated no any vlachs lived in transylvania before 12th c.!

They were Romanized and have been since at least the 3rd century (the Romanch). Show me their documents. You'll find they have none until the 16th century.

and they lived in Transylvania before hungarians?
or what, are they also daco-romans?

Let me simplify this for you, since logic may be a little hard for you to comprehend: documentation is only one of the proofs which could be used for a population. Absence of documentation is not evidence of absence. This is especially true if you have something called archaeology to support the existence of a people.

funny to read that someone think a large bronze object show us more from history like a written document!
This is the problem with history of romania!

[Noble Savage]

Off-Topic posts deleted. Keep it on track please guys.

Ta

Noble Savage

[Romano-Dacis]

seems to me u cant show me any written mentions about this city created by daco-romans-vlach... right?

where is your archaeology evidence which show us the name of this city? show us we are waiting for u!

i guess romanian archaeologist found a "city table" which has a inscription "Satu Mare" from 8th c. !

no comment!

This is just a waste of time.

i help u when u tell us all of cities and villages name has romanian origin, its a simple lie!

Another insubstantial argument.

what? Hungarians and Poles and Czechs are the sons of Rome?

It makes as much sense as your "cyrillic characters" evidence. Put it bluntly: if the Romanians aren't Latins then the Poles aren't Slavs.

i guess u have information about daco-romans accepted their new religion from romans. When was it?

The population was Christianized gradually starting from the 2nd century, and it was only in urban areas until the Roman administrative withdrawal. Afterwards Christianity spread throughout Dacia. The Daco-Romans adopted Traditional Christianity (in the Roman/Orthodox rite) while barbarians around them primarily practiced Arianism
http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetai...0-f93d64dc56cb
If you're really interested buy the article "The Spreading of Christianity in Post-Roman Dacia (4th-7th Centuries)" by Alexandru Madgearu. It's only 3 euros, certainly the truth is worth it.

However, if you want a free article:
http://www.iatp.md/dava/Vinereanu_11/vinereanu_11.html

oohhh what a nice cocnlusion! So to 1210 all of hungarian royal documents is irrelevant because missed daco-romans-vlach!
no comment!

They're irrelevant because they don't mention any ethnicities at all in Transylvania. Your reading comprehension skills are all that deserve no comment.

OMG, no comment!

The logic... it is just too much for you.

huh, if there is only 150 missing years i can accept that u havent any writtens sources, copies! But we talk about 1200 years!
Again 1200 !
U cant explain this long time!

I can and quite easily: where are the written records of the Balkan Vlachs? Where are the written records of the Basques or Romanch? As you can see, your little theory on documents is a bit like Swiss Cheese: full of holes.

why should i do this? u stated daco-romans-vlach-whoever lived in transylvania before hungarians i disprove all of your evidence and i stated no any vlachs lived in transylvania before 12th c.!

1) You haven't disproven anything.
2) You claim documents are neccessary for a people to exist.
3) The Balkan Vlachs must have existed.
4) Where are their documents?

Do you see the problem with your logic now? I'm not going to spell it out for you again.

and they lived in Transylvania before hungarians?
or what, are they also daco-romans?

I'm asking you: prove the Romanch existed through your theory of "documents are neccessary to prove someone existed." Show me the Romanch documents from Switzerland in order to prove your theory. Not only will you fail in this task, but it will cause your theory to collapse like a house of cards.

Otherwise, find a Romanch document from the 4th-16th century. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

funny to read that someone think a large bronze object show us more from history like a written document!
This is the problem with history of romania!

"The problem with history in Romania: they think archaeology is actually valuable."
Case closed.

[snipa]

This is just a waste of time.

u stated this city name was "Satu Mare" before hungarians! lets show me your evidence!

Thats all...

What about Baia Mare? It is "Nagybanya" in Hungarian (again, literal translation from Romanian), not "Baiamar", and in German it is "Frauenbach", not "Baiamarkt".

hö? lol, as i said u do not try to prove that all of cities and villages had romanian origin!

ok lets check Nagybánya!

the first mention about this city from hungarian documents:
1142 in Géza II. royal letter the name of this city: Asszonypataka which mean about "runnel of woman".
a document from 1327 has mention that this city name is "Zazarbánya" by
Carlos Robert king, but its realy interesting because later Carlos Robert has another mention about name of this city as "Asszonypataka" (Rivulus Dominarum) in another royal document.

i guess u are well informed about this city so pls explain me when changed the name from Asszonypataka to Nagybánya!

And now show us the first daco-romans mentions about this city...

[Dromikaites]

u stated this city name was "Satu Mare" before hungarians! lets show me your evidence!

1. Satu Mare means "big/great village" in Romanian. A name which makes perfect sense when applied to a town/city;

2. You said the name means nothing in Romanian, showing your ignorance one more time. You see, linguistics are important for this issue.

3. The archaeological evidence shows the city was inhabited since the Bronze Age. Just in case you may not know it, the Bronze Age is before the arrival of the Hungarians in Transylvania.

4. Same archaeological evidence shows the city (at the time a village) being inhabited during the times of the Roman administration. After the Romans leave the village becomes a fortified one, like many in Dacia. It makes sense therefore to be called a fossatum. And since it's probably a rather large one by the standards of the time, it ends up being called "Satu Mare".

5. Then comes Anonymus and his "Gesta Hungarorum", confirming that Satu Mare ("Zotmar") was indeed fortified at the time the Hungarians conquered it from duke Menumorut. Chapter 21. "Of Zobolsu" (the name of a Hungarian chieftain) ends with these words:

After Zobolsu and Thosu went forth from there, they reached Zotmar castle and besieging the castle over three days of fighting they won victory.

And on the fourth day, entering the castle, they sent those warriors of Menumorout that they could catch there to the most foul depths of the dungeon, bound in iron shackles, and they took the sons of those dwelling there as hostages and left the castle full of warriors, and they began to go to the Meszes Gates.

So how can you doubt the original name of Satu Mare?

ok lets check Nagybánya!

the first mention about this city from hungarian documents:
1142 in Géza II. royal letter the name of this city: Asszonypataka which mean about "runnel of woman".
a document from 1327 has mention that this city name is "Zazarbánya" by
Carlos Robert king, but its realy interesting because later Carlos Robert has another mention about name of this city as "Asszonypataka" (Rivulus Dominarum) in another royal document.

i guess u are well informed about this city so pls explain me when changed the name from Asszonypataka to Nagybánya!

And now show us the first daco-romans mentions about this city...

Alba Iulia ("The White City of Julii") is a well documented Roman municipium (Latin for important city) in Transylvania. It was later to become the capital of the principality of Transylvania. How did the Hungarians call it? Gyulafehervar, which means roughly "The White Castle of Gyula" (or "White Castle of Gelu"). What we have here is a prime example of the way the Hungarians were Magyarizing the names of the places in Transylvania: by approximately translating them into Hungarian.

By the way, in order for the Hungarians to translate Alba Iulia into Gyulafehervar they needed to find out the original Latin name from somebody. Hence another proof there were Latin speakers in Transylvania at the time they conquered it

Now back to Nagybanya. This name means "Big/large/great Mine" in Hungarian. As it happens, the place was an important Dacian mining center. How is it called in Romanian? Baia Mare. Baia has two meanings in Romanian: mine (now obsolete) and bath (the current main meaning).

Since the mining of certain metals (gold being the most famous of them) was done by washing the sands or the excavated dirt it's easy to understand why a place where sands and dirt were washed for minerals was called "Baia". There are other ancient mining places all over Romania called "Baia": Baia de Fier (= "The Iron Mine"), Baia de Arama (="The Copper Mine"), Baia de Aries (= The Mine by the Aries [River]), etc.

While the Romanians have always called the place Baia Mare, the Hungarian name of the place changed over time, ending in the Hungarian translation of the Romanian name. Why did it end up in the translation of the Romanian name and didn't kept being called "Asszonypataka" (which is the Hungarian translation of the Latin "Rivulus Dominarum", the "Ladies' Small River")?

Well, there is a very simple explanation. Simple for those who know geography and the ethnic structure of the area where Baia Mare is located, that is

Baia Mare is the capitol city of Maramures County, the northernmost county of Transylvania. That province is overwhelmingly dominated by Romanians (85% in Baia Mare itself) and as such it's obvious why the Romanian given-name prevailed and was eventually translated into Hungarian.

[snipa]

1. Satu Mare means "big/great village" in Romanian. A name which makes perfect sense when applied to a town/city;

2. You said the name means nothing in Romanian, showing your ignorance one more time. You see, linguistics are important for this issue.

i wait for your first daco-romanian-vlach evidence which show us that this city name was Satu Mare before hungarians! U wrote again many lines of text but where is your evidence?
where is it?

3. The archaeological evidence shows the city was inhabited since the Bronze Age. Just in case you may not know it, the Bronze Age is before the arrival of the Hungarians in Transylvania.

i guess u can show me a bronza age evidence which show us the name of this city.... !
i'm waiting...

4. Same archaeological evidence shows the city (at the time a village) being inhabited during the times of the Roman administration. After the Romans leave the village becomes a fortified one, like many in Dacia. It makes sense therefore to be called a fossatum. And since it's probably a rather large one by the standards of the time, it ends up being called "Satu Mare".

read above!

5. Then comes Anonymus and his "Gesta Hungarorum", confirming that Satu Mare ("Zotmar") was indeed fortified at the time the Hungarians conquered it from duke Menumorut. Chapter 21. "Of Zobolsu" (the name of a Hungarian chieftain) ends with these words:

ohh, sory for me but "Szatmár" is closer to "Zothmar" like "Satul Mare" ... Not so difficult to check!

but u didnt show me your evidence that the city name was Satul Mare before 10th c. ! Again where is it?

So how can you doubt the original name of Satu Mare?

simple, we have very good written informations about this city as i wrote here, but there is nothing from romanian written sources!

Alba Iulia ("The White City of Julii") is a well documented Roman municipium (Latin for important city) in Transylvania. It was later to become the capital of the principality of Transylvania. How did the Hungarians call it? Gyulafehervar, which means roughly "The White Castle of Gyula" (or "White Castle of Gelu"). What we have here is a prime example of the way the Hungarians were Magyarizing the names of the places in Transylvania: by approximately translating them into Hungarian.

wrong example for yourself!
1. The name of this city was Apulum by romans

2. here are the hungarian written sources about this city name:
955 Gyula dux Civitatem Albam in Ereel
1071 Frank Episcopus Belleggradiensis
1134 Albae Civitatis;
1153 Belegrada;
1177 Albensis Ultrasilvanus;
1199 eccl. Michahelis;
1200 Albe Transilvane;
1201 Albe Transsilvane;
1213 canonicis Albensibus;
1206 castrum Albens;
1219 Albensis eccl. Transsylvane;
1231 ell. B. Michaelis arch. Transsilv.;
1242 Alba... Civitas;
1245 Alba sedex ep-tus;
1291 Alba Jula
1572 Feyrvar;
1574 Feyérvár;
1576 Weissenburg;
1579 Belugrad;
1619 Gyula Feyervár;
1690 Gyula Fehérvár;
1715 Karlsburg...

and what a surprise there is a written mention about this city was called by vlach as "Belgrade" !

By the way, in order for the Hungarians to translate Alba Iulia into Gyulafehervar they needed to find out the original Latin name from somebody. Hence another proof there were Latin speakers in Transylvania at the time they conquered it

yeah, the roman name was Apulum !

And there is another example for "fehérvár" ! Székesfehérvár was founded by Géza in 972 in west of Hungary. It was called in hungarian royal documents as: Alba Regia

But in the romans time the settlement name was: Gorsium

so if we use your logic the name of this city has dac-romanians origin???

Now back to Nagybanya. This name means "Big/large/great Mine" in Hungarian. As it happens, the place was an important Dacian mining center. How is it called in Romanian? Baia Mare. Baia has two meanings in Romanian: mine (now obsolete) and bath (the current main meaning).

And?
lets show me your first daco-romans mention about this city!

While the Romanians have always called the place Baia Mare, the Hungarian name of the place changed over time, ending in the Hungarian translation of the Romanian name. Why did it end up in the translation of the Romanian name and didn't kept being called "Asszonypataka" (which is the Hungarian translation of the Latin "Rivulus Dominarum", the "Ladies' Small River")?

again many lines of text
show me your evidence that this city was always named as Baia Mare...

and lets explain me when was changed the name "Asszonypataka" to Nagybánya...

Well, there is a very simple explanation. Simple for those who know geography and the ethnic structure of the area where Baia Mare is located, that is

yeah, sure and now show me your first evidence about the name of this city!

[Dromikaites]

i wait for your first daco-romanian-vlach evidence which show us that this city name was Satu Mare before hungarians! U wrote again many lines of text but where is your evidence?
where is it?

In the name of the city itself. Were else?

i guess u can show me a bronza age evidence which show us the name of this city.... !
i'm waiting...

ohh, sory for me but "Szatmár" is closer to "Zothmar" like "Satul Mare" ... Not so difficult to check!

You mean Zotmar is close to Satu Mare

but u didnt show me your evidence that the city name was Satul Mare before 10th c. ! Again where is it?

In the name of the city itself. The city is in Transylvania, the name of the city means "Big/Great Village" in Romanian, the Hungarians had to conquer it, the Hungarian chronicles report its distorted name as being Zotmar.

and what a surprise there is a written mention about this city was called by vlach as "Belgrade" !

The Slavic name of the city is Belgrad (meaning "the White City"). It is used as such in the Romanian medieval documents because the language of the official documents was Old Slavonic. Just like the language of the official documents was Latin in Western Europe.

The first name of the city was Apulon (mentioned in Ptolemy's "Geography" as being a Dacian city). The Romans call it Apulum, Municipium Aurelium Apulense, Colonia Aurelia Apulensis. At some point in time after the Roman legions' withdrawal its name turns from a variation of "Apulum" into "[Cetatea] Alba" and "Belgrad" respectively (both meaning "White City"), depending on how the Slavic or Romanian populations living there together called it. The key point here is the city continued to be inhabited by people after the Roman legions' withdrawal.

The last known Romanian ruler was a duke Gelu (could be the same as the one defeated by the Hungarian chieftain Tuhutm or another one) since the Hungarians call it "Gelu's White Castle", Gyulafehervar. Alba Iulia (The white city/castle of Julii/Gelu) is how the Romanians called it.

yeah, the roman name was Apulum !

And the Romanian and Slavic names were [Cetatea] Alba and Belgrad respectively. Both the Slavs and the Romanians were there at the time of the Hungarian conquest therefore both names are legitimate.

And there is another example for "fehérvár" ! Székesfehérvár was founded by Géza in 972 in west of Hungary. It was called in hungarian royal documents as: Alba Regia

But in the romans time the settlement name was: Gorsium

so if we use your logic the name of this city has dac-romanians origin???

That would be using your logic

Your assumption is Alba Iulia is a late re-translation of the Hungarian name. I say Alba Iulia is the Daco-Roman/Romanian name of the city, which was translated (just like Nagybanya) by the Hungarians.

As to why the Slavs and the Romanians called it the white city we can only guess: a much more famous "White City" - Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, was called by the Romans Singidunum.

In the case of Alba Iulia the reason might be the white marble Roman buildings of the city, but that's just guesswork. An unnecessary one by the way since even you don't dispute its Slavic name was indeed Belgrad ("White City").

And?
lets show me your first daco-romans mention about this city!

Still grasping at the straws of the missing Daco-Roman documents?

again many lines of text
show me your evidence that this city was always named as Baia Mare...

The mining in the area predates even the Roman conquest of Dacia. "Ladies' Little River" makes much less sense than "The Big Mine" for a place where mining happens for more than 2,000 years.

yeah, sure and now show me your first evidence about the name of this city!

Let me guess: you would only accept a Daco-Roman document?

And a note on "logic acrobatics" the revisionists engage:

As me and Romano-Dacis have mentioned in several posts on this thread there are quite a lot of old documents mentioning the Romanians (Vlachs) in Transylvania, north of the Danube and out of the Balkan peninsula at the time of the Hungarian conquest of Transylvania. If all those mentions about Vlachs are considered Romanians all those different documents (including the two oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles) are corroborating each other. And not only they are consistent with each other but they are supported by archaeology and linguistics.

The alternative hypothesis requires "logic acrobatics" because in one documents the Vlachs need to be a Turkic population, in another one they must be Franks, in a third one they need to be Albanians and so on. And after much "brain contortionism" we are still forced to even more mental acrobatics in order to deal with the archaeology and with the linguistics.


One hypothesis (the Daco-Roman continuity) is straight forward and is backed by documents, archaeology and linguistics, with all the items non-contradictory.

The opposite hypothesis is self-contradictory, has to dismiss the surviving chronicles, has to ignore the archaeological evidence and completely misses the linguistic arguments.

Oh, and the revisionist fans also miss their favorite fantasy's main purpose! Here is why: those who created it in the 19th and early 20th century intended to keep Transylvania as part of Hungary in spite of the demographic situation (the Romanians being the largest population there and outnumbering the Hungarians by at least 2 to 1). It didn't work then. We're now in 2008, both Romania and Hungary are members of the EU, the Hungarian-Romanian border is symbolical, the citizens of both countries can move freely, buy properties in the other country, etc. What exactly do the hooligans from Cimbye's video hope to achieve?

[clandestino]

For that Vlach-Albanian conspiracy theory based on couple of shared words I just can say that it doesn't proves anything, in mediaeval period Vlach people lived all over the Balkans from Istria to Greece they were mostly nomadic shepherds and many of their words, especialy those ones about cattle breeding, entered ALL BALKAN languages, from Croatian to Greek, including the Albanian. On the other hand if we accept that Albanians are slightly Romanized autochthonous people that also can explain some share of Latin originated words in Albanian language, so the theory is even more lame. The fact remains that Albanian and Romanian are totaly different languages, suggesting that Romanians are descendents of Albanians and basing that on the apearance of word ''coban'' ( Turkish word for shepherd, known in all Balkan languages ) in both languages is pathetic attempt, at best.

[Baron Vlad Felix]

What I'm saying is, if you quote some author, don't edit his words. Also it is always better to add links to the works so that they may be verified.

don't edit his words!

http://www.albanien.ch/nla/26/art262.html

www.adevarul.com/page/2 - 387k

brunodam.blog.kataweb.it/2006/09/17/i-vlachs-dellalbania/

http://www.farsarotul.org/nl20_4.htm

In 1906 Brailsford, a British scholar, said in his book Macedonia and its Races: »they (the Aromanians) are not numerous in comparison with Macedonians, or even the Albanians, but without them the Greeks would cut a sorry figure.«

[Romano-Dacis]

The problem with snipa's logic is that he believes a document gives priority to a name. It would be impossible (in his mind) for a city to have a name that's not recorded.

Let's just try another name: Campulung. The first capital of Wallachia, Campulung (literally: Long Field) is first recorded by Italian monks as "Longo Campo" in 1300. However, what kind of an idiot would assume that Basarab I's capital city was not only named by Franciscan monks but also founded by them!?

Well, this thread shows what kind.

First documentation != First name. Otherwise we have to believe that the Dacians gave their cities names like "Porolissium" which are obviouslly at least Latinized, if not altered in other ways by the Romans. I really don't understand what's so hard to understand about this concept.

P.S. Snipa, I'm still waiting for your Romanch, Basque, and Balkan Vlach documents. Surely these people did not just spring up out of the ground or crawl their way out from the seas? Show the documentation or else, according to your logic, these people never existed... or will you admit your logic is wrong?

[snipa]

In the name of the city itself. Were else?

so u agree with me that there is no any mentions how was named this city before hungarians!

which mean hungarians can show u their written mentions about this city and the evidence of romanians only "it was named always as xy by romanians" !

now its clear for everyone that daco-romans-vlach didnt create any documents to 14th c. !

but romanians stated this city was named as Satu Mare by daco-romans...

huh... what a nice proof! ok, at least can u show me any foreign mentions about this city from east or wes-roman empire? or from bolgars, germans, serbs, arabs?



and u and daco-romans said: "snipa is ignorant man who has a horrible logic"

The true, i only use the written mentions against romanians theories which hasnt any evidence!

You mean Zotmar is close to Satu Mare

Check again: Zotmar -> Szatmár -> Satu Mare
i wonder why so difficult for u!

The Slavic name of the city is Belgrad (meaning "the White City").

And what a surprise that romanians named this city as Belgrade in medieval ages instead of their old name Alba Iulia !

Many suprise!

It is used as such in the Romanian medieval documents because the language of the official documents was Old Slavonic. Just like the language of the official documents was Latin in Western Europe.

yes yes, so u have romanian documents from this city in old slavonic language(old slavonic? i guess daco-romans forget their latin)! but, hurry up there is a document!
pls show us!

At some point in time after the Roman legions' withdrawal its name turns from a variation of "Apulum" into "[Cetatea] Alba" and "Belgrad" respectively (both meaning "White City"), depending on how the Slavic or Romanian populations living there together called it. The key point here is the city continued to be inhabited by people after the Roman legions' withdrawal.

yes, i guess u have mentions when the people named this city as "Alba" and "Belgrad" after the Roman legions' withdrawal...

pls do not spare us, show those mentions!

i can show u hungarian written mentions from the name of this city:
955 Gyula dux Civitatem Albam in Ereel
1071 Frank Episcopus Belleggradiensis
1134 Albae Civitatis;
1153 Belegrada;
1177 Albensis Ultrasilvanus;
1199 eccl. Michahelis;
1200 Albe Transilvane;
1201 Albe Transsilvane;
1213 canonicis Albensibus;
1206 castrum Albens;
1219 Albensis eccl. Transsylvane;
1231 ell. B. Michaelis arch. Transsilv.;
1242 Alba... Civitas;
1245 Alba sedex ep-tus;
1291 Alba Jula
1572 Feyrvar;
1574 Feyérvár;
1576 Weissenburg;
1579 Belugrad;
1619 Gyula Feyervár;
1690 Gyula Fehérvár;
1715 Karlsburg...

and do not forget to show us your first romanian document! (doesnt matter it was created in old slavic or latin )

And the Romanian and Slavic names were [Cetatea] Alba and Belgrad respectively. Both the Slavs and the Romanians were there at the time of the Hungarian conquest therefore both names are legitimate.

Slavs yes, vlach didnt live there in this time!

Your assumption is Alba Iulia is a late re-translation of the Hungarian name. I say Alba Iulia is the Daco-Roman/Romanian name of the city, which was translated (just like Nagybanya) by the Hungarians.

1291 Alba Jula

pls show us your first romanian document from this city!

i say romanians statments that this city name Alba Iulia is an old daco-romans name is a simple lie!

As to why the Slavs and the Romanians called it the white city we can only guess: a much more famous "White City" - Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, was called by the Romans Singidunum.

so Romanians called this city as Belgrade (which comes from slavs) !
what a surprise again...

Still grasping at the straws of the missing Daco-Roman documents?

so its clear for everyone that romanians cant prove their statments with their written sources!

Let me guess: you would only accept a Daco-Roman document?

yeah i see its a big problem for romanians!

but ok, lets show me any documents from other states (Byzantine, West romans, bolgars, serbs, germans) which has mentions about this cities! After we can compare with hungarian royal documents.

And a note on "logic acrobatics" the revisionists engage:

u mean logic acrobatics is when someone try to prove something from 2th c. to 11th c. without any written mentions and deny the foreigner written sources! (its funny that romanians accept Anonymous GH but deny the rest hungarian royal documents )

yeah u are right my friend!

As me and Romano-Dacis have mentioned in several posts on this thread there are quite a lot of old documents mentioning the Romanians (Vlachs) in Transylvania,

not realy!
after 1210 there are old documents mentioning the Romanians in Erdély/Transylvania! Before nothing!

Oh, and the revisionist fans also miss their favorite fantasy's main purpose! Here is why: those who created it in the 19th and early 20th century intended to keep Transylvania as part of Hungary in spite of the demographic situation (the Romanians being the largest population there and outnumbering the Hungarians by at least 2 to 1). It didn't work then. We're now in 2008, both Romania and Hungary are members of the EU, the Hungarian-Romanian border is symbolical, the citizens of both countries can move freely, buy properties in the other country, etc. What exactly do the hooligans from Cimbye's video hope to achieve?

omg, am i a revizionist because we discuss about history of Erdély/Transylvania ? u should be a very clever guy!

maybe u forget this thread: debate over history of Transylvania!

The problem with snipa's logic is that he believes a document gives priority to a name. It would be impossible (in his mind) for a city to have a name that's not recorded.

your problem with my logic that i can use the old hungarians documents!
and u have nothing to 14th c. !

It would be [B]impossible (in his mind) for a city to have a name that's not recorded!

i have to correct this one:
It would be [B]impossible to make statments for example cities names from 2th c to 14th c. without any written sources! Maybe romanians historicals could go back to past and speaking with the old people!

how we knows the old roman settlemet's name: Apulum ?
from written sources! thats all!

Well, this thread shows what kind.

yes u are right because debate with someone who hasnt any evidences is realy pointless !

i told u many times, ok u have a statments lets show me your evidences! And whats happen? u cant do that...

P.S. Snipa, I'm still waiting for your Romanch, Basque, and Balkan Vlach documents. Surely these people did not just spring up out of the ground or crawl their way out from the seas? Show the documentation or else, according to your logic, these people never existed... or will you admit your logic is wrong?

are they lived in Transylvania and became daco-romans?
i stated the daco-romans theory is a fiction and vlachs' place of origin was in south-balkan close to albania!

[Romano-Dacis]

huh... what a nice proof! ok, at least can u show me any foreign mentions about this city from east or wes-roman empire? or from bolgars, germans, serbs, arabs?

What literate people were there in Transylvania in the 8th-9th century? Therefore, who would have written stuff, anything, about what was going on in that area?

and u and daco-romans said: "snipa is ignorant man who has a horrible logic"

Still pretty true since you seem to believe Satu Mare didn't exist before the Hungarians, yet archaeological remains are clearly there, for all to see. Therefore, yes, you do have pretty bad logic.

Check again: Zotmar -> Szatmár -> Satu Mare
i wonder why so difficult for u!

I'm waiting for your analogues to this etymology. Show another "mar" city which turns to "Mare". I'm waiting.

And what a surprise that romanians named this city as Belgrade in medieval ages instead of their old name Alba Iulia !

And maybe it's a surprise that Hungarians named it "Civitas Alba" instead of "Gyulafehervar". Perhaps you do not understand that the court language in the Middle Ages was rarely the vernacular language? Wouldn't be the first thing you don't understand about the Middle Ages...

yes yes, so u have romanian documents from this city in old slavonic language(old slavonic? i guess daco-romans forget their latin)! but, hurry up there is a document!
pls show us!

Unprofessional, amateurish argument. "Poles used Latin!? Maybe they forget they're Slavs." I'm not even going to mention you Magyars, which aren't even Indo-European yet you wrote in Latin. You don't seem to understand the progression in the Middle Ages: generally literacy developed from churches. Ahh, but this is something missing in your distorted interpretation of the Middle Ages.

Slavs yes, vlach didnt live there in this time!

Well it's an improvement on the 1930's Magyar interpretation of history that Transylvania was completely desolate of people when they arrived. You're halfway to the truth, keep going!

so Romanians called this city as Belgrade (which comes from slavs) !
what a surprise again...

The only surprise is that it disproves your theory entirely! If the Romanians called it Belgrade from the Slavs, they must have been living in the city among the Slavs before the Magyars arrived. Otherwise there is no way they would have gotten that name, since the Slavs were gone from Transylvania by the 13th century.

It's the same as the Slavic river name Tarnava, also found in Transylania and used by the Romanians. Why don't the Romanians use the Hungarian name "Kukulo" if by the time they came there the Magyars were the predominant ethnic element? It's these little (big) holes which the Hungarian historians love to ignore.

so its clear for everyone that romanians cant prove their statments with their written sources!

If historic truth depended only on written sources then universal history would be missing several hundred pages. Thankfully Romanians use something called archaeology, you know, that thing I'm still waiting for you to show me in Albania. They're called the "Dark Ages" for a reason after all: not a lot was written down, and even less of it was written down in Eastern Europe (excluding Byzantium), which became a Terra Incognita for 7 centuries.

after 1210 there are old documents mentioning the Romanians in Erdély/Transylvania! Before nothing!

Legenda Sanctii Demetrii - 8th century (Romans taken North of Danube by Avars, become great and numerous people)
Chorenatsi - 9th century (country of Balak)
Oguzname - 9th century (Ulaqi met East of Carpathians)
Njoshem Cemetary Stone - 11th century (Rodfos killed by Vlach guides)
Saga of Eymund - 11th century (Blokumenn fighting in Kievan wars of succession)
Gardizi - 11th century (nation az Rum)
Kinnamos - 12th century (vlach guides through the Carpathians, says "they are colonists arrived long ago from Italy")

As you can see, there are quite a few sources. Get reading.

It would be impossible to make statments for example cities names from 2th c to 14th c. without any written sources! Maybe romanians historicals could go back to past and speaking with the old people!

If by analyzing all other chronicles, archaeology, and general rules of etymology makes it the only possible solution then yes. Otherwise, find me an analogue to the etymology (another example of markt -> mar -> mare). You can't, you won't, and you lose. It's as simple as that.

There were supposedly thousands of cities in Transylvania. Why did Annonymus choose to make Satu Mare one of the fortresses the Magyars encountered?

BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer as to why and how Annonymus managed to get confused about an event that happened within his own lifetime (the hypothetical vlach migration).

are they lived in Transylvania and became daco-romans?
i stated the daco-romans theory is a fiction and vlachs' place of origin was in south-balkan close to albania!

Are you dense or something?
I'm asking you to prove your theory in general. I'm using the Basques, Romanch, and Balkan Vlachs as examples of people who existed but obviously never wrote anything down until much later. Speaking of Albanians, they are another example of people who existed but never wrote anything. Therefore, I'm asking you to prove to me how writing is the only indication of a people's existence. If you can't prove it, then my counter-examples cause your theory to collapse (and they already have, you just need to reach the conclusion for yourself by now).

So, you say vlachs lived near Albania? Fine: show me their documents (according to your theory)!

Otherwise, admit that it's not impossible for a people to exist in a region and (understandably, given instability) not write anything.

You've already lost the "documents argument", you may as well admit it.

[Dromikaites]

so u agree with me that there is no any mentions how was named this city before hungarians!

And your point is?

Have you heard about the city of Lyon, the 3rd largest in France? In Roman times it was called Lugdunum. It got to be called Lyon only in the 13th century.

But there's more to it: the first French document is from 842 (the so called "Oath of Strassbourg"). So according to your logic:

1. There should be something wrong with Lyon since it's name isn't Lugdunum like in the Roman times;

2. For 400 years at least the Gallo-Romans (from the fall of the Western Roman Empire) didn't exist because there were no documents written in French.

3. Since the name of Lyon is for the first time mentioned in a 13th century document for sure it's not the Gallo-Romans/French themselves who changed it but somebody else.

which mean hungarians can show u their written mentions about this city and the evidence of romanians only "it was named always as xy by romanians" !

How about Lyon?

now its clear for everyone that daco-romans-vlach didnt create any documents to 14th c. !

And this proves what exactly?

but romanians stated this city was named as Satu Mare by daco-romans...

Who else spoke a Romance language in the area?

huh... what a nice proof! ok, at least can u show me any foreign mentions about this city from east or wes-roman empire? or from bolgars, germans, serbs, arabs?

Archaeology isn't good enough?

The true, i only use the written mentions against romanians theories which hasnt any evidence!

Your method would imply the French popped-up out of nowhere in the 9th century because before that there is no document in French and everybody talks only about the overlords of that area, the Germanic Franks

Check again: Zotmar -> Szatmár -> Satu Mare
i wonder why so difficult for u!

You see it's Satu Mare before Szatmar. Daco-Romans before the Hungarians. Just like Kepes Kronica and Gesta Hungarorum say, both being the oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles

And what a surprise that romanians named this city as Belgrade in medieval ages instead of their old name Alba Iulia !

Huh? The Old Slavonic name is Belgrad. Old Slavonic was the language used for the official documents in all the Orthodox countries in Europe except Greece.

Latin was the official language of the documents for all the Catholic countries in Western Europe. Ooops, I forgot you didn't have any clue about that

yes yes, so u have romanian documents from this city in old slavonic language(old slavonic? i guess daco-romans forget their latin)! but, hurry up there is a document!

By the same standard the Germans and the English were speaking Latin

Is it so difficult for you to understand the language of the chancelleries and the language of the church both in Western Europe and in Eastern Europe had little to do with the language of the population?

Slavs yes, vlach didnt live there in this time!

Wrong! Anonymus, Simon of Keza, Nestor and several others say they lived

1291 Alba Jula

That would be about the time Lyon is first mentioned as such, wouldn't it?

pls show us your first romanian document from this city!

Why does it have to be Romanian? You wanted a document where the city is called Alba Julii and you provided yourself a date for it

i say romanians statments that this city name Alba Iulia is an old daco-romans name is a simple lie!

Does "Alba Julii" mean anything in Hungarian? 'Cause it does in Latin

so Romanians called this city as Belgrade (which comes from slavs) !
what a surprise again...

Old Salvonic official documents. The chancelleries of the Orthodox countries (other than the Byzantines) used Old Slavonic. Make a note somewhere and remember that

so its clear for everyone that romanians cant prove their statments with their written sources!

Why does those have to be our own written sources. The Hungarian ones do the job

after 1210 there are old documents mentioning the Romanians in Erdély/Transylvania! Before nothing!

Try the Hungarian conquest

Doesn't strike you that your ancestors wrote in their chronicles they conquered the land from the Romanians instead of saying the Romanians came and were colonized there, like the Saxons?

omg, am i a revizionist because we discuss about history of Erdély/Transylvania ? u should be a very clever guy!

Thank you for your kind words!

your problem with my logic that i can use the old hungarians documents!
and u have nothing to 14th c. !

And I find your Hungairan documents perfect for my case. Problem is you can;t explain why in those documents it says your ancestors conquered those lands from the Romanians instead of saying the Romanians were colonized there, like say the Saxons or the Cumans

i have to correct this one:
It would be [B]impossible to make statments for example cities names from 2th c to 14th c. without any written sources!

Lyon

i stated the daco-romans theory is a fiction and vlachs' place of origin was in south-balkan close to albania!

Yes and you are alone with your revisionist friends. Not even your own chronicles support your theory.

[Braindead Colonel]

don't edit his words!

http://www.albanien.ch/nla/26/art262.html

www.adevarul.com/page/2 - 387k

brunodam.blog.kataweb.it/2006/09/17/i-vlachs-dellalbania/

http://www.farsarotul.org/nl20_4.htm

In 1906 Brailsford, a British scholar, said in his book Macedonia and its Races: »they (the Aromanians) are not numerous in comparison with Macedonians, or even the Albanians, but without them the Greeks would cut a sorry figure.«

Ok, then it was Bogdan Banu that edited the author's words. You are just repeating the mistake. Brailsford uses the term "macedonian" to specify all those living in the region of macedonia. The Vlachs, Slavs, Greeks etc.

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/hb/index.html

[Baron Vlad Felix]

Ok, then it was Bogdan Banu that edited the author's words. You are just repeating the mistake. Brailsford uses the term "macedonian" to specify all those living in the region of macedonia. The Vlachs, Slavs, Greeks etc.

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/hb/index.html

Ok,but the source is not Bogdan Banu!..and I am not repeating the mistake!..I have "Who are the Vlachs,Vlach-Meglan,The Vlah Minority Macedonia,greck.Vlahi-peninsulei balcanice.Morlacchi quarnaro...etc":

Sugar, P.F., 1977. Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354-1804,By Dr. Gary Kocurek, 104 S. Georgetown, Round Rock, Texas Caragiu, M.,Dostal, F., 1956.Valasska povstani za Triceltilete Valky,Hanna K. 1988. Tracing Valach Surnames in Texas,Kann R.A. & David, Z.V., 1984. The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 543 pp.,Magocsi,Prof. Dr. Iosif Popovici (1876-1928), P.R., 1993, Historical Atlas of East Central Europe. University of Washington Press, Seattle,Pechm S.Z., 1969. The Czech Revolution of 1848. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 286 pp.,Podolak, J. 1969.A. Kovačec, The pastoral culture of the Carpathians as a subject of an ethnological study.Vasiliev, Α. Α. 1964.Wace, Alan and Maurice Thompson, 1973, Ethnologia Slavica, v. 1, 67-82.,Polisensky, J.V., 1971. The Thirty Years War, University of California Press,Wace A,J.B. & Thomson, M.S.,Winnifrith, T.J., 1978. The Vlachs: The History of a Balkan People. St Martin’s Press, New York. 1914. The Nomads of the Balkans, an Account of life and Customs Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus,Winnifrith,Dimintrakos, D. 1959. T.J., 1978. .............etc!

[snipa]

And your point is?
Have you heard about the city of Lyon, the 3rd largest in France? In Roman times it was called Lugdunum. It got to be called Lyon only in the 13th century.

Have u ever heard about the city Gyulafehérvár which was called as Apulum in Roman times?

Can u show me any evidence the people how named the city between the 2 dates?
What do u think is it a believable evidence that romanians stated it was always named as "Alba Iulia" ! -> is it an evidence?

I can show u how was called this city from 11th c. by hungarians proved with written mentoins and what's your proof? "it was always named as "Alba Iulia" by romanians !

No comment!

Btw i realy want to read the first romanian mention about this city! Pls share with me!

now its clear for everyone that daco-romans-vlach didnt create any documents to 14th c. !

And this proves what exactly?

Its proves that romanians cant prove their statments!

Who else spoke a Romance language in the area?
Archaeology isn't good enough?

yes sur, but lets show me your archaeology evidence which prove that the name of this city was Satul Mare before hungarians.

What i can show u the old hungarian royal documents which prove:
It was called as "Saltmark" (Saltmarket) by germans settlers according to the close salt travel road. And it was called as Zothmar and Szatmár in 13th. c. by hungarians.

And romanians stated the name of this city was Satul Mare which mean Big Village (Saltmarket <-> Big Village) before hungarians. Ok no problem i belive u show me your evidence! Show me your first romanians document or your archaeology evidence where we can read the name! Thats all and this question will be closed!

Your method would imply the French popped-up out of nowhere in the 9th century because before that there is no document in French and everybody talks only about the overlords of that area, the Germanic Franks

maybe u newer read about Caroling !

You see it's Satu Mare before Szatmar. Daco-Romans before the Hungarians. Just like Kepes Kronica and Gesta Hungarorum say, both being the oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles

hmm? GH has mention that the city name was Zothmar ! Not Satu Mare !

Huh? The Old Slavonic name is Belgrad. Old Slavonic was the language used for the official documents in all the Orthodox countries in Europe except Greece.

Latin was the official language of the documents for all the Catholic countries in Western Europe. Ooops, I forgot you didn't have any clue about that

Firts, u stated that Romanians was romanized ang got Cristianity from 2th c. Its mean u got the latin Catholic culture from romans!

Do u know when was the slavs migration to balkan? After the slav migration yeah appear the orthodox religion!

Wrong! Anonymus, Simon of Keza, Nestor and several others say they lived

yeah Anonymous lived in 13th c. Nestor wrote his chronicle around 1113.
And as i wrote u many times Anonymous used his time to create GH. He stated cumans and pchenegs lived in center of Transylvania, but there is no question that in 9th c. this tribes lived in east around Ural.

Pls explain me when appear firts the cumans in the place of moldavia and wallachia!

Why does it have to be Romanian? You wanted a document where the city is called Alba Julii and you provided yourself a date for it

1291 Alba Jula so its your evidence? From a hungarian royal document?
But there are other evidences that the name of the city were:
955 Gyula dux Civitatem Albam in Ereel
1071 Frank Episcopus Belleggradiensis
1134 Albae Civitatis;
1153 Belegrada;
1177 Albensis Ultrasilvanus;
1199 eccl. Michahelis;
1200 Albe Transilvane;
1201 Albe Transsilvane;
1213 canonicis Albensibus;
1206 castrum Albens;
1219 Albensis eccl. Transsylvane;
1231 ell. B. Michaelis arch. Transsilv.;
1242 Alba... Civitas;
1245 Alba sedex ep-tus;

Does "Alba Julii" mean anything in Hungarian? 'Cause it does in Latin

Its a simple translated from hungarian to latin. As Székesfehérvár to "Alba Regia" but now we all knows this city was also inhabited by romanians and the name come from their daco-romans-vlach language! LOL

Old Salvonic official documents. The chancelleries of the Orthodox countries (other than the Byzantines) used Old Slavonic. Make a note somewhere and remember that

yes because the daco-roman theory show us that slavs lived in balkan from begin of time!

Why does those have to be our own written sources. The Hungarian ones do the job

which mean every medieval written sources created by hungarians from Transylvania and no one created by romanians![/B]

But u stated the cities' name and the regio was romanians from begin of time!

Try the Hungarian conquest

perfect!
if we check the 10th c. Byzantine sources about Hungarian arrives, we can see their enemies were moravs(slavs), bolgars and franks. If we want to use this sources to search "vlach lived in Transylvania before 12th c." we will surprise because there is nothing from this!

If we chechk the germans sources about 9th c. There are mentions about hungarians defeated the moravs, bolgars and franks but there is nothing from vlach!

The only one which has mention about Blacii is a hungarian chronicle from 13th c. created by Anonymous.

Doesn't strike you that your ancestors wrote in their chronicles they conquered the land from the Romanians instead of saying the Romanians came and were colonized there, like the Saxons?

1. there are written sources from Saxons resettled in Erdély/Transylvania before 13th c. For example 1142.
2. From this point we have very good informations about Saxons lived in Erdély.
3. We have very good informations about vlach appear in south-transylvania around 1210.
4. From this point we have well documented informations about vlach migration to Erdély

what else u need?

what a surprise there are nothing from vlach lived in Transylvania before 13th c. This is the fact! But lets show me any foreign written sources created in 12th 11th 10th c. which prove that vlachs lived in Transylvania before 1210 !

Yes and you are alone with your revisionist friends. Not even your own chronicles support your theory.

the problem is that romanians make their fictions without any evidences!

[Dromikaites]

Have u ever heard about the city Gyulafehérvár which was called as Apulum in Roman times?

Can u show me any evidence the people how named the city between the 2 dates?

We know the Slavs (which were assimilated by 12 century) called it Belgrad. Which means the "White City". The Slavs were lucky the Old Slavonic became the offical language of the Church and of the chancelleries in the Orthodox world (except for the Greeks and the Orthodox in the Middle East). So the Slavic name of the city survived in documents.

The Romanian name survived in the spoken language. The Romanian name has a meaning which:
1. is adequate for the city;
2. is mentioned as such in your sources;
3. is consistent with the surviving Slavic name;
4. the Hungarian name itself represents a translation of the Romanian name.

What more is there to it?

yes sur, but lets show me your archaeology evidence which prove that the name of this city was Satul Mare before hungarians.

1. Archeology shows the city existed before the Hungarians came.

2. Anonymus testifies the Hungarians conquered it from the Romanians;

3. The Romanian name is Satu Mare, which means Big Village, which again makes sense.

So your point is?

maybe u newer read about Caroling !

Maybe you should apply a standard that works for every possible case. If applying your standard results in garbage conclusions in other cases then probably the standard is wrong. Just a thought

hmm? GH has mention that the city name was Zothmar ! Not Satu Mare !

And do you expect Anonymus to be fluent in Romanian? Or the authors of the documents he declares to have used when writing "Gesta Hungarorum"?

Firts, u stated that Romanians was romanized ang got Cristianity from 2th c. Its mean u got the latin Catholic culture from romans!

Ignorance is a bliss even when abused by you

When the Romanians became Christians (as shown by the archaeological evidence) Christianity was still illegal in the Roman empire. So the Catholic/Orthodox distinction simply doesn't apply. It became an issue like 600 years later.

Do u know when was the slavs migration to balkan? After the slav migration yeah appear the orthodox religion!

Sorry, you'll need to rephrase that. Otherwise I would understand that you somehow consider Orthodoxy to be a consequence of the Slavs' migration.

That in itself won't be surprising coming from you but still

yeah Anonymous lived in 13th c. Nestor wrote his chronicle around 1113.
And as i wrote u many times Anonymous used his time to create GH.

Really? But then according to you and to the other revisionist geniuses Anonymys should have known the Romanians are recent migrants to Transylvania, shouldn't he?

He stated cumans and pchenegs lived in center of Transylvania, but there is no question that in 9th c. this tribes lived in east around Ural.

And Ana Comnena wrote her father defeated the Scythians instead of calling them Pechenegs.

Pls explain me when appear firts the cumans in the place of moldavia and wallachia!

We do not know if there was any significant difference between the language and the habits of the Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars or even Avars. All were Turkic tribes and all were wrongly labeled as Scythians (an Iranian population judging by their artifacts) by the Byzantine chronicles.

Why do you want Anonymus to be different than the chroniclers of his time?

1291 Alba Jula so its your evidence? From a hungarian royal document?

Unlike you, I consider the Hungarian documents of the time a reliable source. You on the other hand have issues with some of them like "Gesta Hungarorum" and "Kepes Kronika". Tough luck, they seem to be the oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles.

But there are other evidences that the name of the city were:
955 Gyula dux Civitatem Albam in Ereel

Is it just me or that name means "The White City of Gelu"?

1071 Frank Episcopus Belleggradiensis

White City again, this time in Slavic version

1134 Albae Civitatis;

1153 Belegrada;

1177 Albensis Ultrasilvanus;

"White [city] from Transylvania" - are you committing cultural suicide in public or what?

1200 Albe Transilvane;
1201 Albe Transsilvane;

1213 canonicis Albensibus;
1206 castrum Albens;
1219 Albensis eccl. Transsylvane;

Cultural suicide in public and a messy one!

1242 Alba... Civitas;
1245 Alba sedex ep-tus;

Massive

Do you feel better now?

yes because the daco-roman theory show us that slavs lived in balkan from begin of time!

Huh?! Again, you need to rephrase this sentence otherwise I understand:
1. the Slavs are somehow exclusively associated with the Balkans.
2. Transylvania is in the Balkans.

which mean every medieval written sources created by hungarians from Transylvania and no one created by romanians![/B]

Hungarian sources as in "Gesta Hungarorum" and "Kepes Kronika"?

But u stated the cities' name and the regio was romanians from begin of time!

Given the Romanians inhaited the place before your ancestors arrived what else can be the straightforward conclusion?

perfect!
if we check the 10th c. Byzantine sources about Hungarian arrives, we can see their enemies were moravs(slavs), bolgars and franks. If we want to use this sources to search "vlach lived in Transylvania before 12th c." we will surprise because there is nothing from this!

Please excuse me but if you don't like your own chronicles version about how your ancestors conquered Pannonia and Transylvania you have the other sources listed by Romano-Dacis.

If we chechk the germans sources about 9th c. There are mentions about hungarians defeated the moravs, bolgars and franks but there is nothing from vlach!

Moravs - had a large kingdom at the time of the Hungarian arrival;
Bulgars - had a large empire at the time;
Franks - the same, including large parts of Germany.

And you are surprise the dukes who ruled over territories which at best were as large as 3 counties nowadays and who were the vassals of either the Bulgars or the Byzantines don't get the same attention in the German chronicles?

They did get the deserved attention in the chronicles of those who had to defeat them in hand-to-hand combat though. Meaning in the two oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles. Hard to beat first hand information methinks

The only one which has mention about Blacii is a hungarian chronicle from 13th c. created by Anonymous.

Read again that thread about Kepes Kronika. You might be in for a surprise

1. there are written sources from Saxons resettled in Erdély/Transylvania before 13th c. For example 1142.
2. From this point we have very good informations about Saxons lived in Erdély.
3. We have very good informations about vlach appear in south-transylvania around 1210.
4. From this point we have well documented informations about vlach migration to Erdély

what else u need?

Well why did Anonymus write the Hungarians conquered Transylvania from the Romanians then? He was the royal notary (=secretary of the king) at the time you pretend the Vlachs were allowed to settle into Transylvania. So not only he should have known that but all those who read his chronicle when he first released it should have known that as well. So he would have been instantly ridiculed, don't you think?

His works would not have been copied and archived and therefore would not have been preserved till today if his contemporaries, who were witnessing the alleged Vlach migration into Transylvania would have laughed their butts off while reading "Gesta Hungarorum".

what a surprise there are nothing from vlach lived in Transylvania before 13th c. This is the fact! But lets show me any foreign written sources created in 12th 11th 10th c. which prove that vlachs lived in Transylvania before 1210 !

Read above.

the problem is that romanians make their fictions without any evidences!

OK, what would you think about a modern historian who would write a history of Great Britain and would mention there how the Angles and the Saxons conquered the land from the Polish?! 'Cause today it is public knowledge there was a recent migration of Poles in the UK. Just as a Vlach alleged migration would have happened during Anonymus' times