Page 6 of 43 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151631 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 846

Thread: Debate over Transylvania

  1. #101

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by Dracula View Post
    OK kiddie. Now do you have something on the subject to oppose to the many sources of Romano-dacis or I should declare you the most childish debater on TWC who just repeats what some perverted scholars in Hungaria say in spite of all what the international community claims ? Do you understand how low level and unserious your position is ?
    LOL

    give me the numbers of hungarian soldiers and german soldiers who fought against the betreyal romanians in I. WW ! After we will talking about this situation!

    You are proud that romanians was in Budapest once (btw hungarians were also in Bukarest!) but what was the situation what is different? The Antant sent an ultimatum to hungary to take down the weapon or they will attack us! To this point nobody was in Budapest!
    What a wonderfull victory for romanians, czechoslovakians, serbs and austria! Great victory! LOL 4 vs 1 is a good balance, isnt it?

    When u have enough informations we will discuss about this time!

    (give me time and i'll confute romano-dacis)

  2. #102

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    what, OMG pls check history of Basque! There is no any common things between situation of romania and situation of Basque...

    you stated that basque was romanized or what else? OMG
    You seem to imply that if a population doesn't write documents, that population doesn't exist. In this case explain the Basques please.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Lol, u cant change the fact, romanized daco-romans didnt make any written documents through 1000 years! Thats all!
    So a population which doesn't make written documents doesn't exist? Explain the Basques then!

    Besides, why are documents special compared to inscriptions? Inscriptions are written sentences and phrases on materials more solid than paper. Therefore the inscriptions survive better than the documents. In the case of the Daco-Romans (or more correctly, of the Latin speakers in Dacia) we have the objects with inscriptions which prove the existence of Latin speakers in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Roman legions.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Why? Because it was their land! If someone invaded your country what will u do?
    Depends a lot on the ability of the natives to defend themselves. What did the Czechoslovaks do in 1968 when the Warsaw pact troops invaded their country?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Huh?, show me any records about daco-romans lived under Huns control!
    If you dislike the term Daco-Romans (which is similar to Gallo-Romans) then use Latin-speakers instead. That won't change the fact when your ancestors came to Transylvania they had to conquer a Romance language speaking population.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    And this idea is realy nonsense, just imagine: Romans legio leaved the area and left their roman civilians there? OMG
    yeah, romanian fiction project is working!
    You mean that has never happened before?

    Your level of ignorance is matched only by your eagerness to display it in public
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    HAHAHA OMG
    did u learn this from romanian book? Nice!
    Actually everybody learned it straight from Priscus' report.
    Quote Originally Posted by Priscus
    "After war the Scythians live in inactivity, enjoying what they have got, and not at all, or very little, harassed. The Romans, on the other hand, are in the first place very liable to perish in war, as they have to rest their hopes of safety on others, and are not allowed, on account of their tyrants to use arms. And those who use them are injured by the cowardice of their generals, who cannot support the conduct of war. But the condition of the subjects in time of peace is far more grievous than the evils of war, for the exaction of the taxes is very severe, and unprincipled men inflict injuries on others, because the laws are practically not valid against all classes. A transgressor who belongs to the wealthy classes is not punished for his injustice, while a poor man, who does not understand business, undergoes the legal penalty, that is if he does not depart this life before the trial, so long is the course of lawsuits protracted, and so much money is expended on them. The climax of the misery is to have to pay in order to obtain justice. For no one will give a court to the injured man unless he pay a sum of money to the judge and the judge's clerks."
    Happy to be exposed as an ignorant one more time?

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    again, where is the evidence that this people were daco-romans????
    u think priscus didnt know the history? He didnt know who was the dacs?
    The evidence is those people were Latin speakers. And this matches nicely what the Hungarian chroniclers Anonymus and Simon of Keza wrote in "Gesta Hungarorum" and "Kepes Kronika" respectively, that when the Hungarians came to Transylvania they had to conquer the land from the Vlachs.

    So you have documentary evidence that Latin and then Romanian were spoken in Transylvania and you have the archaeology to match the documentary evidence. What else is missing?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Basque was systematical romanized area? U find anything from a Basque-roman theory?
    inform me when u have some knowledge about basque!
    You claim that if in 1000 years a population doesn't have any surviving document that population doesn't exist (in spite of that population having tons - literally, since the tombstones are heavy - of inscribed objects).

    I show you a population (the Basques) which in 1537 years (1537 > 1000 by 53.7%) didn't produce any surviving document and still existed. Case closed.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    1. who state that this object was created 150 years after the withdrawal of the Roman legions? romanian historicals? LOL nice proof!
    Show me a Hungarian academic who questions the validity of the dating of the archeological findings.

    Actually ask Odovacar for help. Unlike you he knows a thing or two about debating on historical issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    2. dont u think that there is many other possibilities how this object was in dacia, ex. raided campaings by a nomadic tribes etc...
    It's a 2kg donarium for heavens' sake!

    A donarium is a custom-made object for the purpose to be given to the church on behalf of somebody who has his/her name inscribed on it. Since the donarim is inscribed with a name it has value only for the person whose name is on it. For everybody else is just scrap metal. As such it has zero value as an object for trade and zero value as an object to plunder.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    again?
    are u a basq? OMG pls check the history of basque!
    You say: "because there are no written documents there is no proof those people existed". I say "OK then, please explain the existence of the Basques"
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    what are u talking about?
    I'm talking about you coming up with some evidence that an educated professional questions the validity of the dating of the artifacts.

    So far this line of attack (="the dating is wrong") comes from the average Internet forum revisionist whose level of knowledge is pretty much like yours.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    wrong? what wrong?? check when was founded the greek church in greece!
    what language of the church was used by daco-romans?
    So we should add ignorance of the history of early Christianity to you long list of blind spots?

    Early Christians worshiped in the languages they were speaking: Latin speakers in Latin, Greek speakers in Greek, Syrian speakers in Syrian, Coptic speakers in Coptic language, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    boring!
    Tell me about it!

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    when and where?
    evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    and how is it connect to daco-romans?
    It simply shows how qualified you are for debating this issue: you have no clue what languages were used in the Orthodox church.


    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    evidence?

    You have Christian artifacts inscribed in Latin and then you have Christian artifacts inscribed in Cyrillic. Looks like a switch to me. and to everybody else, except you apparently
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Why they switched to Cyrillic?
    Because the priests and bishops were Slavs or trained in the Slav monasteries south of the Danube.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Where is their church in transylvania?
    Wood was the material of choice for the Dacians and Romanians. One glimpse at the Trajan column or a visit to the traditional villages still found in Transylvania should suffice. For how long do you expect a wooden church to last, especially on a territory crisscrossed by nomadic nations?!
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    I help u:
    hungarian(romanian); hungarian built time ; romanian built time
    Arad(Arad) 1139 1865
    Beszterce (Bistrita) 1288 19th century
    Bethien (Beclean) 15th century 19th century
    Bonchida (Bontida) 13th century 18th century
    Brassó (Brasov)* 1223 1495
    Fogaras (Fagaras) 16th century 17th century
    Fugyivásárhe1y (Osorheiu) 13th century 18th century
    Gyu1afehérvár (Alba-lulia) 11th century 1600-1601
    Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) 12th century 1796-1797
    Lugos (Lugoj) 15th century 1759
    Marosvásárhely (Targu-Mures) 14th century 1750
    Nagyenyed (Aiud) 14th century 20th century
    Nagyszeben (Sibiu) 14th century 17th century
    NagyvArad (Oradea) 1093 1784
    Piskolt (Piscolt) 14th century 1869
    Temesvár (Timisoara) 1323 1936
    T6vis (Teius) 13th century 17th century
    vizakna (Ocna Sibiului)* 13th century 16th century
    You conveniently forget to mention the Romanians were not allowed to live in the Transylvanian towns until late. Therefore the earliest Romanian churches in your list are in the Saxon towns, which were autonomous from the Hungarian crown and therefore had their own rules.

    Those Saxon towns were dependent on the trade with Wallachia and Moldova and as such had to allow Orthodox churches on their territory, so their Orthodox business partners have a place to worship.

    As I was saying before, you really need to know what you're talking about before entering in such a debate.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    so pls, forget the daco-romans theory! your first vlach church was built in wallachia around 13th c!
    The oldest surviving church was built of stone at the time the Romanians finally succeeded in having powerful enough states to guarantee some stability and protection. Which happens to be the 13th century. Again, your point is?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Daco-romans like nation newer exist! This theory was appear in 19th c. In the first time it was roman-romanians and later switched to daco-romans!
    This is a simple fiction because romanians cant accept that they are a sepherds from south-balkan!
    Look, we have your own Hungarian chronicles stating your ancestors had to fight our ancestors for Transylvania.

    We have archaeological evidence which confirms your chronicles are correct.

    We have medieval authors other than the Hungarians who place use north of the Danube river.

    What do you have?

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    No evidence! No latin written mentions by daco-romans! its a simlpe lie!
    Then the donarium is a 2kg bronze lie
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    There are many old slavic church which was built before 10th. c! When was built the first vlach church? 13th c. U cant change the facts!
    When were the Romanian states powerful enough to defend themselves successfuly? 13th century. Had our ancestors been better organized earlier on your ancestors would have been able to conquer Gelu's, Glad's and Menumorut duchies
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    your nation name "vlach" which mean sepherd and foreigner! its realy funny that a vlach dont know whats mean his nation name!
    For your information I am Romanian, not Vlach

    And no, Vlach doesn't mean shepherd. Vlach means Romance-language speaker.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    And? Byzante also called hungarians as turk and scythians!
    So Anonymous used cumans instead of vlach? lol

    Anonymus used "Cuman" for the Turkic populations living in the area at the time of the Hungarian arrival in Pannonia and Transylvania. Most likely those Turkic nations were remnants of the Avars and even more likely Volga Bulgars.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Those vlach people has a common motherland which was in south-balkan near to albania!
    Those "Vlach people" were actually 4 different nations speaking 4 different Eastern Romance languages (just like Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese are another 4 Western Romance languages) and living in the Balkans (those currently called Vlachs) and in Romania (the Romanians).
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    not? how was founded wallachia and moldavia? both were created by hungarian support! thats all! u like or not this is the true!
    Moldova yes. Wallachia maybe. Anyway your point is?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    This was another betreyal from vlach! Basarab promised to Charles Robert that he accept again his vassal status.
    Aha, so the Hungarian king had the right to force Basarab surrender his independence but Basarab didn't have the right to teach the Hungarians a lesson, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    The king adoptedd basarab's offer and back to Transylvania. His army was led by vlach sepherd through the mountains and basarab made a trap...
    In other words Charles Robert d'Anjou was dumb enough to fall in the trap. And arrogant enough to imagine Basarab would roll over like a puppy. The Charles Robert d'Anjou forgot the chivalry code and ran away disguised in his servant's clothes.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    But is it important? Later in 1344 june 15 Basarab's son accepted his vassal status again in Brassó!
    You conveniently forget to go into details: the Wallachian king received 2 domains in Banat form the Hungarian king (the duchy of Severin). In other words he was bought off in a face-saving operation typical for the Middle Ages.

    The king of England was also the vassal of the king of France because technically he had possessions on the French territory (Normandy and Aquitaine).

    The best illustration of how this vassal-overlord relation worked is what Basarab I grandson, Vladislav I Vlaicu (1325 - 1377) did: he crushed the Hungarians in the battle of Gherghita and then was bought off with the Transylvanian counties of Almas and Fagaras.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    LOL learn a little history!
    Do you care to go into details so we can extend the map of your ignorance into WW1 territory?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    I mean romanians made another betreyal again! As they did many times in the past!
    Yes, we have the nasty habit of waiting for the right time for setting scores. Don't want to be on the receiving end when the right time comes? Don't mess with us in the first place
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    LOOOOL, correct me but Florin Curta has romanian origin or not? Thats all!
    You obviously don't understand how the academic world functions, do you?

    One can't just publish rubbish and still keep his job at a major American University. Nor can a reputable publishing house afford to publish garbage since they live on publishing academic-grade books.

    But I tell you what: why don't you come up with the correct translation of the same paragraph of Kekaumenos' "Strategicon" and expose the nefarious work of Dr. Curta once and for all?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  3. #103
    Dracula's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    LOL

    give me the numbers of hungarian soldiers and german soldiers who fought against the betreyal romanians in I. WW ! After we will talking about this situation!

    You are proud that romanians was in Budapest once (btw hungarians were also in Bukarest!) but what was the situation what is different? The Antant sent an ultimatum to hungary to take down the weapon or they will attack us! To this point nobody was in Budapest!
    What a wonderfull victory for romanians, czechoslovakians, serbs and austria! Great victory! LOL 4 vs 1 is a good balance, isnt it?

    When u have enough informations we will discuss about this time!

    (give me time and i'll confute romano-dacis)
    I am not romanian and don't live in Romania. I am also not quite aware what happened between Hung and Ro in WWI.

    But would both sides please restrain from crappy statements like "lol our army marched in your capital,you are stupid and weak". If history should teach anyone in the world it must be the european nations that fortune changes and many things are incidentall most true for Europe where almost everybody was everywhere at a moment.

  4. #104

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    You are proud that romanians was in Budapest once (btw hungarians were also in Bukarest!) but what was the situation what is different? The Antant sent an ultimatum to hungary to take down the weapon or they will attack us! To this point nobody was in Budapest!
    Aha, so your ignorance also encompass the 1919 Hungarian-Romanian war? Good! The more you write the more you "consolidate" your credibility

    The Entente did send warnings. Only they sent them to the Romanians. Twice In both telegrams the Entente ordered the Romanian troops to stop at the Tisza river.

    However the Romanian government considered the 1919 war was solely a Hungarian-Romanian affair and ignored both warnings, crushed the Hungarian army (July 20th - July 30th 1919) and entered Budapest (August 3rd 1919).
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    What a wonderfull victory for romanians, czechoslovakians, serbs and austria! Great victory! LOL 4 vs 1 is a good balance, isnt it?
    Correction:
    1. In 1919 the Hungarians only fought the Czechs and the Romanians.

    2. If you wanted the Romanians to remain neutral you should not have attacked on July 20th 1920. Nobody forced Bela Kun to attempt to re-annex Transylvania. He started the war willingly.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Aha, so your ignorance also encompass the 1919 Hungarian-Romanian war? Good! The more you write the more you "consolidate" your credibility

    The Entente did send warnings. Only they sent them to the Romanians. Twice In both telegrams the Entente ordered the Romanian troops to stop at the Tisza river.

    However the Romanian government considered the 1919 war was solely a Hungarian-Romanian affair and ignored both warnings, crushed the Hungarian army (July 20th - July 30th 1919) and entered Budapest (August 3rd 1919).

    Correction:
    1. In 1919 the Hungarians only fought the Czechs and the Romanians.

    2. If you wanted the Romanians to remain neutral you should not have attacked on July 20th 1920. Nobody forced Bela Kun to attempt to re-annex Transylvania. He started the war willingly.
    my ignorance? LOL

    lets check the situation my very clever friend!

    little prehistory:
    1918. oct. 17. Tisza István announced in the parlament that Hungary lost the war
    1918. oct. 27. austro-hungary requested ceasefire
    1918. oct. 28. Czech national council announced the independ republic of Czechslovakia
    1918. oct. 29. Zagreb national council announced the independ Croatia
    1918. oct. 30. Slovakian national council announced the independ republic of Czechslovakia too
    1918 nov. 1. Hungarian national council announced the independ Hungary
    (prime minister is Karolyi Mihály )
    The Entente sent Wilsons's points (i hope u know what was this points!) to Hungary. One of them was the loosers have to disarm their army! Karolyi wanted to keep this points.
    1918. nov. 3. Austro-Hungary signed the ceasefire in Padova
    -------------------
    from this point the events were realy interesting!

    1918. nov. 7. Hungary sent a delegation to Belgrad to negotiation with the delegation of Entente which was led by d’Esperrey. Entente gave an ultimatum to hungarian delegation. If hungarians do not follow the points the Entente break the negotiation with Hungary!!! What a nice peace, right?
    One of those points was:
    - Hungarians have to leave the following areas: Maros-Szabadka-Baja-Pécs-Szigetvár

    1918. nov 8. Czech army attacked areas of Nagyszombat and Trencsén
    Hungary keep 5 divisions in arms, the Entente sent a warning to Hungary do not use this divisons against the Czech attack!

    1918. nov 9. The Oláh/Romanian national council claimed Transylvania
    1918. nov 25. Slav national council announced that the south hungarian counties joined to Serbia
    1918. dec 1. Gyulafehérvár, Romanian national council announced Transylvania unio with Romania. Many uncontrol events happened by new formed nations so Hungary requested a delegation from the Entente. They sent Vix. Vix deny the opposition!
    1918. dec 23. Oláh/Román army captured Kolozsvár without opposition and without declare a war!
    1918. dec 25. South-slavs captured Muraköz without opposition
    1918. dec 29. Czechslovakia captured Kassa without opposition
    1918. dec 30. South-slavs captured Szeged without opposition
    1919. jan 1. Czechslovakia captured Pozsony without opposition
    1919. jan 5. Szekler divison begin to fight against romanians!(this was the only one in this time which fought against the whole romanian army in Transylvania)
    1919. jan 8. France balkan expedition army marched to Szeged


    1919. jan 18. Begin the peace talk in Paris BUT Entente didnt allow for hungary to send a delegation!!!!
    1919. feb. 26. Entente claimed from Hungary to make an agreement with Romania in this agreement they appointed the line of demarcation in the Tisza river!
    1919. márc 20 Vix's catalog arrived to Hungary
    1919. márc 24. Kun Béla accepted the agreement of Belgrade, but deny the Vix catalog
    1919. ápr 4. General Smuts arrived to Hungary with a new catalog. This catalog content the new border. If Hungary accept this new one the Entente will ended the economi blockade of Hungary... (Kun Béla accepted)

    1919. apr. 16. The romanian army betreyal again and step over the line of demarcation in the Tisza river and moved to Szolnok. The Czechslovak army also attacked again and capture Sátoraljaújhely, Eger, Miskolc and heading to Salgótarján. Hungary try to recreate an army to stop them.

    1919. apr 19 Rumanian army marched in Szatmárnémeti, Nagyvárad, some days later Nagykároly, Arad, Debrecen and Gyula
    Also the france expedition army marched in Hódmezővásárhelye and Makó. The france emissary deny for hungarians to make any opposition!

    1919. maj. 1. Hungarian (red) army recapture Salgótarján
    1919. maj. 15. Hungarian army recapture Miskolc
    1919. maj. 30. Hungarian army recapture middle and east area of north-hungary(Felvidék) today Slovakia

    1919. jun. 9 1st. Clemenceau-catalog arrived to Hungary which claimed that Hungarian government call back the hungarian army from north-hungary and take back this land to Czechslovakia. In exchange for this event Entente allow to Hungary to send a delegation to the peace talk!
    1919. jun. 10. Hungarian army recapture Bártfa
    1919. jun. 14 2nd. Clemenceau-catalog arrived to Hungary. Its content the new border of Hungary and if Hungary take over this new catalog Romanian army will exit from the state! Hungarian government did it but romanian army betreyal again and stay in the state!

    1919. jun 29. Hungarian government call back the army from north!

    1919. jul 20 Romanian army didnt want to exit from the state instead of Entente agreement so hungarian army try to make an attack against the outnumbered romanian army. It was unsuccessful...

    1919. jul 24. Romanian attack and break through the front-line near to Szolnok

    1919. jul 31. Romanian army crossing over the Tisza
    1919. aug 3-4. Marched in Budapest
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    what do u think about this events? There was any chance against the outnumbered enemies? There was any chance to avoid the Entente ultimatums? As u can see romanians didnt keep any agreements! What a honourable nation!
    How do u make a peace talk if only one side are there in the meeting???

    Well, are u proud that romanian marched in Budapest in 1919??? LoL What a wonderfull "victory" !? If u like do it its your choose!

    if its happened in 1916 now i would respect u! But in 1916 the whole brave rumanian army escaped to Bessarabia close to Russian army!

    btw i think this events not belongs to our discussion from medieval ages! So i hope u dont want to make another discussion about I. WW!

    now pls give me enough time to confute romano-dacis!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dracula View Post
    But would both sides please restrain from crappy statements like "lol our army marched in your capital,you are stupid and weak".
    pls check who was the first!

    Quote Originally Posted by Romano-Dacis View Post
    In any case, let's just do a brief list of sources which mentions the Romanians living North of the Danube long before the Hungarian historians would like you to believe, or provide other information which contradicts the Hungarian theory:
    Byzantine Sources:
    -Kekaumenos clearly says the Vlachs of Thessaly come from North of the river Danube and Sava.
    First Kekaumenos lived in 11th c.

    your clearly mention is totaly Wrong!
    he placed their origin where the Danube and Sava Rivers meet!

    Correct me but where the Danube and Sava Rivers meet are not in Transylvania... right?

    So its not an evidence that vlach was in transylvania! Rather its an evidence that vlach was out of transylvania!

    While Kekaumenos maintained that the Vlachs were the descendants of the Dacians (not dac & romans only dacians) and the Besses, he placed their origin where the Danube and Sava Rivers meet and not in Transylvania. That his geographic information rests on solid grounds is attested by the fact that the Roman government, after the abandonment of Dacia, transferred this name to the regions south of t he Danube.


    I found some interesting Kekaumenos' mentions:

    He asked the vlach sepherds in Thessalia: where are your family and herds?
    Vlachs' answer: We left our families and herds in mountains of bolgaria.

    Kekamenos said: Its a vlach's habit that they left their family and herds in hilltops from april to september when vlachs man come back to their old land Edessa.

    Kekamenos also said from vlach: "insecure and traitor people"!

    In his mention he noticed his fellow-countrymans that "newer allow to vlach to enter our towns and avoid the contact with them"!

    Its realy interesting, isnt it?
    Seems to me the vlach's fame was same like later! But now its not important...


    Kekaumenos referred to the existence of a military Vlach corps in Thessaly in 980.

    Kekaumenos settled “the Vlachs’ land”, wandered through by the river of Plęręs, in Thessaly. The river and the “land of the Vlachs” are settled in the Western side of Thessaly, belonging to the thema of Hellas.

    Kekaumenos clearly states that during the 11th century the Vlachs inhabited Edessa, Macedonia, and Hellas, that is, the Balkans, where their linguistic relatives have survived to the 20th century. His reports are incompatible with the aims of Rumanian historians. Rumanian linguists claim the Rumanian language to be a Latinized derivative of the Dacian language. Since all linguistic data on this language have disappeared (Constantinescu and Pascu 1975:313-20), this statement is illegitimate.
    Last edited by Dromikaites; September 18, 2008 at 09:48 AM.

  6. #106

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    1919. jul 20 Romanian army didnt want to exit from the state instead of Entente agreement so hungarian army try to make an attack against the outnumbered romanian army. It was unsuccessful...

    1919. jul 24. Romanian attack and break through the front-line near to Szolnok

    1919. jul 31. Romanian army crossing over the Tisza
    1919. aug 3-4. Marched in Budapest
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    what do u think about this events? There was any chance against the outnumbered enemies? There was any chance to avoid the Entente ultimatums? As u can see romanians didnt keep any agreements! What a honourable nation!
    The 1916 Romanian treaty with the Entente was the future Hungarian-Romanian border should be on the Tisza river. On July 20th 1919 the Romanian army was on the left bank of the Tisza river just like its pre-war treaty with the Entente stated.

    The Hungarian army attacked, managed to cross the river in some sectors then it was pushed back and routed within the next 10 days (July 20th 1919 - July 30th 1919).

    If the Hungarians would have remained on their side of the Tisza river the war with Romania would have been avoided.

    After the Hungarian attack on July 20th Romania considered itself at war with Hungary (the Hungarian attack had canceled the armistice between Austria-Hungary and Romania).

    From that moment on Romania regarded the conflict as distinct from the WW1 (which had officially ended with the armistice). Therefore the two subsequent Entente telegrams telling the Romanians to stop were disregarded and the Romanian troops took Budapest. All that could have been avoided had the Hungarian troops stayed on their side of the river.

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post

    Well, are u proud that romanian marched in Budapest in 1919??? LoL What a wonderfull "victory" !? If u like do it its your choose!

    if its happened in 1916 now i would respect u! But in 1916 the whole brave rumanian army escaped to Bessarabia close to Russian army!

    Try again: the Romanian army was still in Romania as the Germans and the Austro-Hungarians had been stopped at Marasesti and Oituz in 1917.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    btw i think this events not belongs to our discussion from medieval ages! So i hope u dont want to make another discussion about I. WW!
    Actually this thread was initiated by Cimbye's post about Transylvania being legally Hungarian. So far I'm still waiting to find out the legal grounds of his claim since Hungary has signed several treaties after Trianon confirming the current borders (including those which allowed it to join NATO and the EU).

    While waiting for Cimbye's legal arguments I am forced to deal with your distorted view of history. It's not me who said the Romanians came from the South of the Danube river, is it?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    now pls give me enough time to confute romano-dacis!
    You have all the time in the world. This forum isn't leaving anywhere in the near future
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Romano-Dacis View Post
    -Kinnamos, upon encountering the vlachs in the Carpathian passes in 1167, states "it is said they are colonists arrived long ago from Italy"
    Well, Kinnamos has very good mentions about that vlach didnt live in Transylvania! They served under Byzante as soldier.

    In the subsequent years, Byzantium waged fierce battles against the Petchenegs, mostly on Bulgarian territory. Finally, the emperor settled the Petchenegs in northeastern Bulgaria, from where they conducted incursions into other parts of the country. In 1059, the Hungarians attacked Byzantium and reached Sredetz (Sofia). Later in the same century, the Uzes, another Turk population, ravaged Bulgaria. In 1066, the Vlachs living in the region of Larisa revolted against Byzantium. In 1072, a new revolt started in Bulgaria, led by George Woitech, a Bulgarian nobleman. In this revolt, the Petchenegs helped the Bulgarians against Byzantium. However, even this revolt was subdued.

    Towards the end of the 11th century, Bulgaria successively lost its separate status and was no longer considered an autonomous country but a part of Byzantium. The social situation of the population deteriorated; taxes were high and many peasants lost their property to the owners of big farms. The Byzantine Empire collected soldiers from Bulgaria, who were needed in the wars against the Petchenegs and the Cumans in the north and against the Turk-Seldjuks in the southeast. Many people fled to the forests especially when soldiers were sought. The situation worsened further in the first half of the 12th century, with the incursions of the Cumans (1124 AD), and the ravages of the Crusaders. A large part of the population of Bulgaria was forced into serfdom on the estates of rich noblemen or moved into the towns, where the masses of poor people increased. In Byzantine documents from this period, Bulgaria is called Moesiaor Sagori and the Bulgarians are referred to as Moesiansor Vlachs. This indicates that there must have been a considerable number of Vlachs living among the Bulgarian population. Writing about the war between Byzantium and Hungary in 1161B1168, Kinnamos mentions Vlachs in the Byzantine army, Aof whom it is said that they are former colonists from Italy.

    The first known mention of Vlachs north of the lower Danube was writtern by the Polish chronicler Jan Dlugosz (1415B1480). It relates that Ruthenians, Petchenegs, and Vlachs were in 1070 AD fighting in Moldavia in the army of prince (cnez) Wiaczeslav against Boleslaw, who later became the king of Poland (Boleslaw II. Smialy). Vardan, an Armenian historian, who wrote his Geographia in the mid-thirteenth century, mentioned that Vlachs were found north of the lower Danube in the second half of the 11th century. Niketas Akominatos reported that Andronikos, who fled to Haliic, was in 1164 captured by some Vlachs serving the Byzantine Empire. Kinnamos reported Vlachs north of the lower Danube from 1166. Thus, from the second half of the 12th century onwards, Vlachs were mentioned north of the lower Danube by several chroniclers, but for more than 100 years there was no indication of Vlach settlements. From 1213 it is reported that Germans (Transylvanian Saxons), Szeklers, Vlachs, and Petchenegs were fighting in the army of the Hungarian king Andreas II (1205B1235), but it is not stated where these Vlachs came from. A document from 1222 describes the Aterra Blachorum@ along the southeastern frontiers of Transylvania (in present day F|g|raŐ). The Diploma of Pope Gregeory IX from 1234 mentions Vlachs living in the Diocese of the Cumans in the region of present day FocŐani in southern Moldavia.

    This population, migrating from the region of the high mountains in the central and northern parts of the Balkan peninsula, found their niche B areas suitable for shepherding B in the Southern Carpathians, the mountainous parts of Moldavia, and later also in the Transylvanian Alps (MunŰii Apuseni). The bulk of the Vlachs came to these areas, which in that time were sparsely populated and partly uninhabited, because the Slavs and the Hungarians (as also the Cumans and other Turk populations) pursued agriculture and the raising of animals and were mainly living on the plains, in the valleys and in the region of lower mountains. In their new habitat, the Vlachs were exposed to the invading armies (for example the Tartars in the 13th century ) in a much lesser degree than the surrounding populations in the valleys. These and a number of other circumstances explain the relatively rapid increase of this population in the centuries after the Tartar invasion, which almost extinguished Hungary. As shown by the Rumanian influence on several Slavic languages spoken in the northern Carpathains and also beyond them (cf. above, pp. 133B137), groups of Vlachs reached also these territories, but these groups were not sufficiently strong to resist assimilation into the surrounding Slavs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Romano-Dacis View Post
    -Nicetas Choniates tells us that as Andronic Comnenos was heading towards the Cneazate of Hailici in 1164, but was captured by Vlachs along the way. The vlachs are clearly indicated as being North of the Danube.
    OMG
    clearly indicated? How?
    Niketas Akominatos reported that Andronikos, who fled to Haliic, was in 1164 captured by some Vlachs serving the Byzantine Empire.

    do u know whats mean serving the Byzantine Empire? So the pace where this brave vlach captured Andronikos lived in Byzantine Empire!

    Where u find that this was North of the Danube! Its a fiction!

    Btw u think is this an evidence that vlach lived in Transylvania?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    If the Hungarians would have remained on their side of the Tisza river the war with Romania would have been avoided.
    From other side, if romanian keep the agreement that romanian army have to leave the state as Entente promise to hungarian government this hungarian attack would have been avoided... Dont forget who was in another country! Maybe they would had to wait a little bit more to recruit more soldiers...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Try again: the Romanian army was still in Romania as the Germans and the Austro-Hungarians had been stopped at Marasesti and Oituz in 1917
    is it change the fact that almost the whole romania was captured?
    Last edited by Dromikaites; September 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    First Kekaumenos lived in 11th c.

    your clearly mention is totaly Wrong!
    he placed their origin where the Danube and Sava Rivers meet!

    Correct me but where the Danube and Sava Rivers meet are not in Transylvania... right?

    So its not an evidence that vlach was in transylvania! Rather its an evidence that vlach was out of transylvania!

    While Kekaumenos maintained that the Vlachs were the descendants of the Dacians (not dac & romans only dacians) and the Besses, he placed their origin where the Danube and Sava Rivers meet and not in Transylvania. That his geographic information rests on solid grounds is attested by the fact that the Roman government, after the abandonment of Dacia, transferred this name to the regions south of t he Danube.
    You can't understand what you read, can you?

    First:
    The Bessi were the Thracians inhabiting Moesia. After 273 AD Moesia was divided into 3 parts from West to East: Moesia Superior (roughly north-eastern Serbia of today, including the Serbian Banat), Dacia Aureliani (roughly the western half of Bulgaria above the Balkan mountains) and Moesia Inferior (roughly the eastern half of Bulgaria above the Balkan mountains). Therefore Dacia Aureliani was some 300km east of the point where Sava and Danube meet, on the other side of the mountains.

    Unlike you Kekaumenos knew where those provinces were. So if he says the Vlachs are the descendants of the Dacians and of the Bessi and if the only Bessi between Sava and Danube are those from Moesia Superior guess which Dacians is he talking about? Can't be the "Dacians" from Dacia Aureliani cause those are separated by a mountain and by the Sava river itself from the place where he places the origins of the Vlachs.

    Second
    Kekaumenos writes about the Vlachs being defeated by a Roman (=Byzantine) emperor sometimes before the 11th century and as a result of that defeat they were resettled in Thessaly.

    If the Byzantines would have been the ones attacking the Vlachs the most likely result would have been a withdrawal of the Vlachs northwards, in Pannonia or Dacia proper.

    The resettlement of the defeated populations was the consequence of Roman or Byzantine victories over invaders who brought their families with them. This means two things:

    1. The Vlachs attacked from the North;

    2. They brought their families with them.

    Does this look familiar? It should, if you happen to know a bit of history: the same pattern had been followed by the Goths in Moesia and the Sarmatians in Pannonia when they were pushed by the Huns.

    Who were the last nomads to push people Southwards prior to the 11th century? The Hungarians!

    - What were they invading at the time? First Pannonia then Banat and after that Transylvania!

    - Who had they defeated in the area next to Sava and the Danube river? None others than the dukes Salan (Pannonia) and Glad (Banat). We know it from "Gesta Hungarorum", a Hungarian chronicle!

    - Was duke Glad one of the dukes of the "Vlachs" from Dacia proper? Yes he was!

    If we put together "Gesta Hungarorum" and "Strategikon" we have the full picture: the Hungarian invasion pushed south the Romance speaking population ("Vlachs"). Those Vlachs tried to enter the Byzantine territory in force, were defeated and resettled in Thessaly.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    I found some interesting Kekaumenos' mentions:

    He asked the vlach sepherds in Thessalia: where are your family and herds?
    Vlachs' answer: We left our families and herds in mountains of bolgaria.

    Kekamenos said: Its a vlach's habit that they left their family and herds in hilltops from april to september when vlachs man come back to their old land Edessa.
    Do yourself a big favor and look at a map where Thessaly is in relation to what was called Bulgaria when Kekaumenos was having that conversation. This way you will understand

    Hint: it's nowadays Bulgaria + Northern Greece. You could have googled Edessa for yourself and see it's close to nowadays Greek administrative province of Thessaly. In other words consistent with Kekaumenos' account of the resettlement of the Vlach into Thessaly.

    Your point therefore is?


    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Kekamenos also said from vlach: "insecure and traitor people"!
    Your translation is funny. What you mean is according to Kekaumenos the Vlachs were "untrustworthy and traitors"
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    In his mention he noticed his fellow-countrymans that "newer allow to vlach to enter our towns and avoid the contact with them"!
    Funny, the Hungarians thought the same and didn't allow the Romanians to live in their cities. Centuries later a Hungarian asks on these boards why didn't any of the wooden churches from the Romanian villages survived
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Its realy interesting, isnt it?
    Seems to me the vlach's fame was same like later! But now its not important...
    Remember what I told you about settling the scores when the time is right?

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Kekaumenos clearly states that during the 11th century the Vlachs inhabited Edessa, Macedonia, and Hellas, that is, the Balkans, where their linguistic relatives have survived to the 20th century. His reports are incompatible with the aims of Rumanian historians.
    How so?

    1. The Hungarians pushed some of the Romanians from Glad's Duchy southwards when they invaded Banat. Those are the Vlachs descending from Dacians and Bessi Kekaumenos was talking about. The northernmost Bessi lived in what is now know as the Serbian Banat (at the time Moesia Superior), Glad's Ducky included both the Romanian and the Serbian Banats hence Glad's Vlachs would be descendants of both the Dacians and of the Bessi. Perfect match between "Gesta Hungarorum" and "Strategikon".

    2. The Byzantines defeated them and resettled them in Thessaly where their descendants live until today.

    Where exactly is the incompatibility?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Rumanian linguists claim the Rumanian language to be a Latinized derivative of the Dacian language. Since all linguistic data on this language have disappeared (Constantinescu and Pascu 1975:313-20), this statement is illegitimate.
    Huh?! If anything, Kekaumenos' account combined with Glad's story from "Gesta Hungarorum" shows that contrary to the Hungarian fantasy theories, the language of the Vlachs from Thessaly (Aromanian) evolved from old Romanian and not the other way round.

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    From other side, if romanian keep the agreement that romanian army have to leave the state as Entente promise to hungarian government this hungarian attack would have been avoided...
    Let's see:
    1. In 1916 when the Entente was hard pressed because the Germans were close to overrunning France Romania signs a treaty with the Entente which stipulates the Tisza river as future Hungarian-Romanian border.

    2. In 1919 the Romanian army is on the left bank of the Tisza, just as the 1916 treaty stipulated.

    3. Scared about the progress of the Hungarian Red Army into Slovakia and fearing the Hungarian Red Army and the Soviet Red Army would link up, thus allowing the Soviet Red Army to encircle and destroy the Polish army, the Entente decides to forget about the 1916 treaty with Romania. Is it so surprising the Romanian government gave the Entente the finger?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Dont forget who was in another country! Maybe they would had to wait a little bit more to recruit more soldiers...
    Maybe. But the Hungarians aren't famous for their cool thinking, are they? In 1526 the Hungarian noblemen decided to attack the numerically superior Ottomans without waiting for the Transylvanian army to link up with them. The result was Hungary ceased to exist until 1861.

    By reflecting on the consequences of impulsive behavior you might understand why the Romanians like to wait for the right time to settle old scores
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    is it change the fact that almost the whole romania was captured?
    It confirms you knowledge about history is very approximate and yet that doesn't stop you to write dumb things time and again.
    Last edited by Dromikaites; September 18, 2008 at 11:48 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  9. #109
    Dracula's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania





    I don't understand why does it have to be so complicated. For ex. there are two versions of the f. provinces Moesia and Dacia,even three. And this one is considered the earliest in time ?

    Added Spoiler - Huge Piccy .Noble Savage
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Last edited by Noble Savage; September 18, 2008 at 02:38 PM.

  10. #110

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    It confirms you knowledge about history is very approximate and yet that doesn't stop you to write dumb things time and again.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ania-WW1-3.jpg

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nFront1917.jpg

    your ignorance is realy funny!

    lets explain us whats happen in 1917. december 9 ? what did the brave fantastic romania???

  11. #111

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Deleted hard to read post. Sorry to other whose posts were deleted .If I left them they would not of made any sense.

    Please ,if you want to discuss things in a non-English language - Please go here

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55

    Ta

    Noble Savage
    Under the protection of jimkatalanos
    with further protection from
    Calvin R.I.P mate, Cúchulainn , Erebus26 , Paggers Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    and Future Filmmaker

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Maybe. But the Hungarians aren't famous for their cool thinking, are they? In 1526 the Hungarian noblemen decided to attack the numerically superior Ottomans without waiting for the Transylvanian army to link up with them.
    Many maybe ;-)
    maybe wait for the west hungarian army too or wait for the polish support army... Doesnt matter! They did the best fought against the outnumbered enemy and lost!

    if i know good the number of ottomans army was outnumbered even all of hungarians armies arrived to mohacs in time.


    Btw should we collect when vlach did the same mistakes in the past!? Or maybe u believe vlach newer did the same, newer lost?

    The result was Hungary ceased to exist until 1861.
    yeah, your ignorance again! if we check the first rumanian king it was a romanian? ohhhh, No? Realy? So kingdom of Romania wasnt exist before 19th. c after they had a foreign king so ceased to exist until 1946? great!

    Btw explain me at least 20 years when both Vlach principalities were independ and they not was vassal of others!

    By reflecting on the consequences of impulsive behavior you might understand why the Romanians like to wait for the right time to settle old scores
    yeah, its another composition of betreyal! right?
    im sure its not an accident that the people knows the same from vlach from medieval ages!
    Its a very good fame for romanians!
    "untrustworthy and traitors" (thx for u that correct me! )

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post

    First:
    Unlike you Kekaumenos knew where those provinces were. So if he says the Vlachs are the descendants of the Dacians and of the Bessi and if the only Bessi between Sava and Danube are those from Moesia Superior guess which Dacians is he talking about? Can't be the "Dacians" from Dacia Aureliani cause those are separated by a mountain and by the Sava river itself from the place where he places the origins of the Vlachs.
    Huh? He didnt talking about Dacians but talked about vlach. And he said Vlachs are the descendants of the Dacians and of the Bessi and they origin is where the danube and sava rivers meet! Not so difficult!

    And what a surprise this area are out of Transylvania!

    And pls give me some mentions when Bessi was resettled to Dacia! Without this resettled event how the vlach has 2 different ancestors? Dacians and Blessi! They had different living area!

    ohh sorry not 2, they had 3 romans-dacians-Bessi...
    ohh sorry not 3, they had 4 romans-dacians-bessi-ausomi
    ohh not not 4, doesnt matter who and how many if they can speak any latinized language and lived close to dacia!


    If the Byzantines would have been the ones attacking the Vlachs the most likely result would have been a withdrawal of the Vlachs northwards, in Pannonia or Dacia proper.
    Hmm? They did it when the second bulgarian empire ended! They escaped to north from south! we have very good written mentions about this event! U newer read this story?

    Btw when and why the name daco-romans switched to vlachs!?

    if you happen to know a bit of history: the same pattern had been followed by the Goths in Moesia and the Sarmatians in Pannonia when they were pushed by the Huns.
    and what do u think about whats happen with daco-romans-vlach-whoever when thos inveders arrived to this area?

    Who were the last nomads to push people Southwards prior to the 11th century? The Hungarians!
    11th. c realy? u have to check it a little!

    - What were they invading at the time? First Pannonia then Banat and after that Transylvania!
    first Transylvania after pannonia! check the 10th c. byzantine sources...

    - Who had they defeated in the area next to Sava and the Danube river? None others than the dukes Salan (Pannonia) and Glad (Banat). We know it from "Gesta Hungarorum", a Hungarian chronicle!
    Anonymus referred to the Blaks as soldiers in Glad's domain, which lay between the Danube, Tisza, and Maros rivers. Therefore, in his view, the Blaks were not oppressed commoners but rather the ruling elite or at least armed 'freemen'. There has been some speculation that Anonymus' Blaks were the Turkic people who are mentioned in medieval sources as bearing the same name and living east of the Carpathians. Judging from his account of Glad, Anonymus could only have been referring to the Vlach-Romanian warriors of the Bulgar-Romanian empire, who were assisted by the Cumanians. This would have been consistent with his belief that the Hungarians had driven out of the Carpathian Basin the Slavs' former masters, and that, in his day, the latter could only be found along or beyond Hungary's frontiers. In fact, this picture coincided to some extent with the situation in Anonymus' time: the Bulgar-Romanian empire, founded in 1185, had a common border with Hungary along the upper reaches of the Lower Danube, and reliable sources indicate that there were Vlach-Romanians living in the Southern Carpathians.

    Do u know who were the cumans and where lived this people?

    - Was duke Glad one of the dukes of the "Vlachs" from Dacia proper? Yes he was!
    its a fiction, there is nothing about Glad from 10th c. Byzantine sources!

    Do yourself a big favor and look at a map where Thessaly is in relation to what was called Bulgaria when Kekaumenos was having that conversation. This way you will understand
    What? Kekaumenos had a conversation with a vlach! Which prove the vlach lived around Thessaly... And?
    it would be better for u if this vlach said "hey greek, im a daco-romans-vlach from Transylvania" ...

    Your point therefore is?
    My point? I just wrote here Kekaumenos' mentions about vlach! And this mentions doesnt show us that vlach lived in Transylvania!
    Thats all...

    Funny, the Hungarians thought the same and didn't allow the Romanians to live in their cities. Centuries later a Hungarian asks on these boards why didn't any of the wooden churches from the Romanian villages survived
    ohhh, what a surprise, u wrote latinized daco-romans made stone tomb, large bronze object after they built a wooden church???? OMG

    Daco-romans built stone bridge but couldnt build stone church!
    Daco-romans lived in dacia from 2th c. but they couldnt create any towns rather they lived villages through 1300 years in Transylvania!

    Yeah i see romanians fiction project is working very well!

    Remember what I told you about settling the scores when the time is right?
    yes yes, i know that! its another term for betrayal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    You seem to imply that if a population doesn't write documents, that population doesn't exist. In this case explain the Basques please.

    So a population which doesn't make written documents doesn't exist? Explain the Basques then!
    the question is wait for u! The basque was systematical romanized as u stated from daco-romans or not?

    U stated that daco-romans was romanized latin speaking people from 2th c. and now u wonder that i missing the written sources by daco-romans?

    I belive u just show me some written documents which was created by daco-romans! Im sure its not a difficult project for a romanian because daco-romans lived in dacia from 2th c. build towns, churchs etc etc. created inscription in tombs etc etc so they got a high culture from romans! I dont think so that they couldnt write anything through 1300 years!

    lets show me and i'll belive u!
    Last edited by Dromikaites; September 18, 2008 at 10:22 PM.

  13. #113

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Well, Kinnamos has very good mentions about that vlach didnt live in Transylvania! They served under Byzante as soldier.
    Of which some were recruited from South of the Danube, and others came from North of the Danube. That's why they were used as guides through the mountain passes. Or perhaps you haven't read Kinnamos enough?

    Vlachs were mentioned north of the lower Danube by several chroniclers, but for more than 100 years there was no indication of Vlach settlements.
    You mean other than those mentioned by Gesta Hungarorum and those we've discovered archaeologically? Isn't the capital of Transylvania Alba, as in Civitas Alba, as in Alba Iulia? Case closed.

    As shown by the Rumanian influence on several Slavic languages spoken in the northern Carpathains and also beyond them (cf. above, pp. 133B137), groups of Vlachs reached also these territories, but these groups were not sufficiently strong to resist assimilation into the surrounding Slavs.
    According to who? The Romanians were there, and according to Nestor, they even conquered the Slavs. I fail to see where this baseless conclusion is derived from.



    OMG
    clearly indicated? How?
    Niketas Akominatos reported that Andronikos, who fled to Haliic, was in 1164 captured by some Vlachs serving the Byzantine Empire.
    Totally wrong. He was captured North of the Danube Delta, at least in Southern Moldavia. How the hell were they serving the Byzantine Empire?

    Btw u think is this an evidence that vlach lived in Transylvania?
    It's enough to say they weren't in Albania, which disproves your theory.

    is it change the fact that almost the whole romania was captured?
    This "fact" is supported by what? Southern Romania was captured, however the entire region of Moldavia remained independent.

    Btw should we collect when vlach did the same mistakes in the past!? :wink: Or maybe u believe vlach newer did the same, newer lost? :wink:
    I'd be surprised if you could find 4 defeats between 1345-1526. Needless to say, our ratio of victories is very impressive.

    yeah, your ignorance again! :original: if we check the first rumanian king it was a romanian? ohhhh, No? Realy? So kingdom of Romania wasnt exist before 19th. c after they had a foreign king so ceased to exist until 1946? great!
    So you're comparing foreign monarchies to foreign occupation?! Do you realize every state (pretty much) had foreign, or at least partly-foreign kings by the 19th century? If Prussia had annexed Romania and installed Carol I you had a point. At this rate you literally have no argument. Hungary became a Pashalik after a brief stint as a Turkish vassal (1526-1541). Hungary literally ceased to exist.

    im sure its not an accident that the people knows the same from vlach from medieval ages!
    What, intelligence, or strategic planning? It's not our fault our opponents were stupid.

    lets explain us whats happen in 1917. december 9 ? what did the brave fantastic romania???
    An armistice was created between Romania and the Central Powers that was never ratified or signed by the Romanian king. Therefore, Romania never left the war. You also aren't in a position to criticize any nation's performance in WW1. Hungary had to be saved by the German Army. They had to be saved from the Russians, then from the Romanians, and could barely even fight the Serbs. The only campaign in which there was some success was the Italian campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Huh? He didnt talking about Dacians but talked about vlach. And he said Vlachs are the descendants of the Dacians and of the Bessi and they origin is where the danube and sava rivers meet! Not so difficult!

    And what a surprise this area are out of Transylvania!
    You're right. Give us Pannonia, now!

    Hmm? They did it when the second bulgarian empire ended! They escaped to north from south! we have very good written mentions about this event! U newer read this story?
    And vlachs and cumans were called by the 2nd Bulgarian Empire from the North when it was being founded. Therefore, I fail to see the big demographic change. BTW, I don't believe you about the "escaped north" crap. Provide a "good written mentions" as you called them so that I can assess the evidence for myself. As I recall the 2nd Bulgarian Empire ended in 1393 (1396 if we count Vidin Tsardom); I've never heard some report of population migrations, save for Bulgarian refugees being settled along the Northern bank of the Danube and in Dobrogea .

    Btw when and why the name daco-romans switched to vlachs!?
    Unfortunately, you cannot realize 2 things:
    1) Daco-Roman is a scientific name, not one used by contemporary sources. This is similar to Gaullo-Roman and other ethnic mixtures. This is purely a scientific simplification.
    2) The name was an exonym which simply spread during the collapse of the Roman Empire. Hence, we have the names Wallon, Vallais, Welsh, Wlochy, all used to indicate various populations throughout Europe that were affected culturally by the Roman Empire.

    Anonymus referred to the Blaks as soldiers in Glad's domain, which lay between the Danube, Tisza, and Maros rivers. Therefore, in his view, the Blaks were not oppressed commoners but rather the ruling elite or at least armed 'freemen'. There has been some speculation that Anonymus' Blaks were the Turkic people who are mentioned in medieval sources as bearing the same name and living east of the Carpathians.[/quote]
    I assume you have documentation to prove this "Blaki" people? Especially since Anonymus wrote at a time when Hungarians were adopting several Frankish words. It is clear his writing was influenced by the French word "Blaques".

    its a fiction, there is nothing about Glad from 10th c. Byzantine sources!
    The ruler may have been an invention, or at least his name, but if you're telling me there are no Byzantine sources for Romanians North of the Danube all I can say is...

    Go back and read my post again.

    What? Kekaumenos had a conversation with a vlach! Which prove the vlach lived around Thessaly... And?
    it would be better for u if this vlach said "hey greek, im a daco-romans-vlach from Transylvania" ...
    Well Kekaumenos made his own conclusion that the vlachs of Thessaly came from around the Sava and Danube rivers, and that is consistent with the fact that Hungarians wrote of Southern Pannonia as az Olahok!


    My point? I just wrote here Kekaumenos' mentions about vlach! And this mentions doesnt show us that vlach lived in Transylvania!
    Thats all...
    He proves vlachs lived North of the Danube, in Pannonia, and others prove their population stretched all the way to the Nistru river. Transylvania is inbetween these 2. The rest is a logical conclusion.

    ohhh, what a surprise, u wrote latinized daco-romans made stone tomb, large bronze object after they built a wooden church???? OMG
    It's a fact that Hungarians didn't allow the Romanians to build any churches made from stone. It was a law in Hungary. It's also a fact that the Tatars had ravaged the whole region, likely destroying anything beyond the Carpathians. It's also a fact that in Legenda Sancti Gerardi we are told Ahtum constructed a Church in Banat, which was obviously later destroyed. Therefore, it's not surprising at all that most of them are destroyed.

    But I digress, just take a look at Densus church in Transylvania. It is built in a style obviously evocative of the 7th century Roman style. It looks almost Armenian or Georgian in architecture. It is an ancient church, older than the Hungarians in Europe in any case (and yes, I know additions were made to it in the 13th century).

    Daco-romans built stone bridge but couldnt build stone church!
    Daco-romans lived in dacia from 2th c. but they couldnt create any towns rather they lived villages through 1300 years in Transylvania!
    Ugh, absolute nonsense. There are plenty of cities, ones mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum and discovered archaeologically. Alba, Bihor, Mures, Satu Mare etc. were all there when the Hungarians came, and archaeology proves it.
    Last edited by Romano-Dacis; September 18, 2008 at 08:13 PM.

  14. #114

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    post merged.

  15. #115

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    And pls give me some mentions when Bessi was resettled to Dacia! Without this resettled event how the vlach has 2 different ancestors? Dacians and Blessi! They had different living area!
    1. Kekaumenos mentions a Byzantine victory over a large Vlach population, followed by the resettlement of that population from where it initially was (Sava & Danube) to where Kekaumenos found them - Thessaly.

    2. Kekaumenos mentions those Vlachs are the descendants of the Dacians and Bessi.

    3. The Romanians of Glad were also descendants of the Dacians and Bessi.

    4. The duchies of Salan and Glad were right above where Kekaumenos places the initial location of the Vlachs who were resettled into Thessaly after being defeated by the Byzantines.

    5. When the Hungarians invaded the duchies of Salan and Glad a large number of the Romance language speaking inhabitants ("Vlachs") were pushed south together with their families. They collided with the Byzantines, were defeated and resettled to Thessaly.

    So you see, "Strategikon" and "Gesta Hungarorum" are pretty much supporting each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Btw when and why the name daco-romans switched to vlachs!?

    Was the Daco-Romans' fault the Germanic and Slavic nations (and later the Hungarians) called the Romance language speakers Waloon, Wallachian, Voloch, Vlach?

    As I have told you previously we kept calling ourselves "Romani" (= Romans in Latin language) for the last 2000 years. The others called us Vlachs.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    and what do u think about whats happen with daco-romans-vlach-whoever when thos inveders arrived to this area?
    We have the archaeology, linguistics and the names of the rivers to tell us what happened:

    1. First the population moved away from the cities (which were primary targets for any plundering expedition) and into the villages, preferably villages located in hard-to-get-to areas and on occasions fortified ones (hence the Romanian word for village - sat, coming from the Latin fossatum, which means surrounded by ditches);

    2. After the political situation stabilized they were descending from the upper areas back into the plains and valleys. This back and forth movement is captured by the names of some rivers. The river Bistrita is called Bistrita (a Slavic word meaning "fast running [river]") in its lower part and Repedea (from the Latin "rapidus" - fast) in its upper part.

    If your fantasy would be true there would be impossible to explain how come the river has a Slavic name in the plains and a Latin name near the springs.

    Speaking of linguistic evidence here are two more pieces of the puzzle which destroy your fantasy:

    1. The Romanian word for ground/soil is pamant from the Latin pavimentum (pavement). In all the other Romance languages the name comes from the Latin terra (land/soil/ground): French terre, Italian terra, Spanish tierra, Portuguese tera.

    Who would call the ground "pavement"? Only city-boys forced to move to the villages. Fortified villages that is

    2. The Romanian word for church is biserica from the Latin basilica. In all the other Roman languages the name comes from the Greek ecclesia: French eglise, Italian chiesa, Spanish iglesia and Portuguese igreja.

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

    The Daco-Romans however kept the Latin name basilica because initially one of the gathering places for the Christians were the basilicas - large colonnade buildings similar to the nowadays shopping malls.

    If your dumb theory about the Romanians coming from the South of the Danube would be true the Romanian word for "church" would be the same as in the rest of the former Roman Empire. Because the empire controlled the Balkans for another 300 years after the withdrawal of the legions from Dacia.

    More than that, if the Balkan Vlachs would be the ancestors instead of the descendants of the Daco-Romans/Romanians then their word for "church" would be derived from Greek, like for everybody else who was still in the Roman Empire when Christianity became the official religion.

    However big surprise, the Balkan Vlachs' word for "church" is...biserica!!! This is 100% consistent with Kekaumenos assertion the Vlachs from Thessaly are the descendants of the Romanized Dacians, coming from outside the Eastern Roman Empire.

    As I was saying, dealing with an issue like this one requires extensive knowledge in many fields. And logical thinking

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    11th. c realy? u have to check it a little!
    Actually you need to improve your English a little. "Prior to the 11th century" means "before the 11th century"
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    first Transylvania after pannonia! check the 10th c. byzantine sources...
    As I was saying, discussing this issue requires knowledge (as in reading the primary sources) and logical thinking.

    So the sources ("Gesta Hungarorum") tells us about the conquest of the duchy of Salan (in Pannonia) and of Glad (in Banat) and only after that of the attacks on the Transylvanian duchies of Gelu and Menumorut.

    The logic supports the documentary evidence because Pannonia being a flat grassland was the target of choice for a steppe nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Anonymus referred to the Blaks as soldiers in Glad's domain, which lay between the Danube, Tisza, and Maros rivers. Therefore, in his view, the Blaks were not oppressed commoners but rather the ruling elite or at least armed 'freemen'.
    Yes, and where was this Vlach armed elite living? North of the Danube river, in what is now the Romanian Banat and Western Transylvania.

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Judging from his account of Glad, Anonymus could only have been referring to the Vlach-Romanian warriors of the Bulgar-Romanian empire, who were assisted by the Cumanians.
    Actually that would be a dumb judgment on several accounts:

    1. There was no Bulgarian-Romanian empire at the time of the Hungarian invasion.

    2. The "Vlachs" were the Romance speaking population of the area. In order to say "biserica" instead of "ecclesia" you need to be a Romance-speaking population from outside the Roman Empire.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    This would have been consistent with his belief that the Hungarians had driven out of the Carpathian Basin the Slavs' former masters, and that, in his day, the latter could only be found along or beyond Hungary's frontiers. In fact, this picture coincided to some extent with the situation in Anonymus' time: the Bulgar-Romanian empire, founded in 1185, had a common border with Hungary along the upper reaches of the Lower Danube, and reliable sources indicate that there were Vlach-Romanians living in the Southern Carpathians.
    I love the logical acrobatics the revisionist Hungarians resort to: Anonymus must be wrong in order for them to be right.

    How about the normal thing: Anonymus is right, his account is consistent with Kekaumenos' "Strategicon" and with the archaeological evidence which confirms the existance of duke Gelu's capitol city Dabaca and of duke Menumorut's capitol city Bihara right where "Gesta Hungarorum" places them.

    Moreover, both archaeological discoveries were made by Hungarians. Of course, K. Hodor (the one who unearthed Dabaca) had no clue in 1837 that some Hungarian ignorant would accuse him of being a Romanian propagandist in 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Do u know who were the cumans and where lived this people?
    Do you know who the Scythians were?

    Anonymus uses an anachronism just like Ana Comnena does.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    its a fiction, there is nothing about Glad from 10th c. Byzantine sources!
    You are well acquainted with the Byzantine sources, aren't you?

    Do yourself a favor and read this thread where I am discussing the issue of the reliability of Anonymus' "Gesta Hungarorum" with two Hungarians who unlike you are indeed knowledgeable on these matters: Odovacar and Horse Archer.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    What? Kekaumenos had a conversation with a vlach! Which prove the vlach lived around Thessaly... And?
    it would be better for u if this vlach said "hey greek, im a daco-romans-vlach from Transylvania" ...
    Good to see the [low] level you're dragging this debate to
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    My point? I just wrote here Kekaumenos' mentions about vlach! And this mentions doesnt show us that vlach lived in Transylvania!
    Thats all...
    1. Kekaumenos shows the Vlachs in the Balkans came from outside the Balkans (the Balkan peninsula ends at the Sava-Danube line). In your fantasy they are originary from the Balkans;

    2. Anonymus shows why they were pushed into attacking the Byzantines, which resulted in them being relocated into the Balkans;

    3. Linguistics show the language of the Vlachs in the Balkans (Aromanians) was formed outside the borders of the Roman Empire. Which means the Aromanians descended from the Romanians and not the other way round. Something consistent with Kekaumenos story and with the "Gesta Hungarorum". Checkmate!

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    ohhh, what a surprise, u wrote latinized daco-romans made stone tomb, large bronze object after they built a wooden church???? OMG

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Daco-romans built stone bridge but couldnt build stone church!
    What stone bridge?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Daco-romans lived in dacia from 2th c. but they couldnt create any towns rather they lived villages through 1300 years in Transylvania!
    Yep. Cities were gradually left as they proved to be the magnet for all the plundering raids. Archaeology confirms it. Linguistics confirm it ("city boys" calling the ground "pavement").
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Yeah i see romanians fiction project is working very well!
    I'd rather say your fiction doesn't quite take off
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    yes yes, i know that! its another term for betrayal!
    Look, before messing with us you should think twice. If you don't, whose fault is it?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    the question is wait for u! The basque was systematical romanized as u stated from daco-romans or not?
    You said that if a population didn't leave behind documents that population didn't exist. I asked you to explain how come the Basques exist?

    Or how do we know they spoke Basque before 1537?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    U stated that daco-romans was romanized latin speaking people from 2th c. and now u wonder that i missing the written sources by daco-romans?
    I'm also stating the Basques spoke Basque from 2nd century onwards in spite of having the first Basque document only from 1537. Do you get it?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    I belive u just show me some written documents which was created by daco-romans!
    Keep grasping at straws
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    I dont think so that they couldnt write anything through 1300 years!
    How about the Basques? What did they speak before 1537?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  16. #116

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by Romano-Dacis View Post
    Of which some were recruited from South of the Danube, and others came from North of the Danube. That's why they were used as guides through the mountain passes. Or perhaps you haven't read Kinnamos enough?
    Kinnamos, refering to the army of Manuel I Comunen, in the expeditions against hungarians from 1161-1168, said that they were the descendants of italian colonist. This army came from south to attack Hungary. Where is the evidence that Kinnamos said, vlach lived in transylvania? Its an evidence that vlacs served to Byzantine Empire. And now open a history book and check the borders of Hungary and Byzantine between 1161 to 1168 !

    You mean other than those mentioned by Gesta Hungarorum and those we've discovered archaeologically? Isn't the capital of Transylvania Alba, as in Civitas Alba, as in Alba Iulia? Case closed.
    funny to read that romanians always use Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum to prove your fictions! But u forget some very interesting mentions.

    - Anonymous also said that the magyars are descendant of huns!
    - Attila is an ancestor of Árpád. And Attila was also a great king for magyar!
    - Huns ruled this area from pannonia to black sea!
    - Anonymous hasnt any mentions about Blacii or vlach or daco-romans in time of huns!
    - Anonymous said from leader Glád that his place of origin is Vidin, which mean Glád came from south, and his warriors: cumans, bolgars and blacii (we all knows which nations created the 2nd bulgar empire in Anonymous time! )
    - Anonymous separated the "sepherd of romans" and "blacii" which mean they are different group of people
    - Anonymous also said from Blacii: "they are the most coward and poor people of the world, their weapons some week bow, they was easy enemy of hungarians"


    According to Anonymous GH with romanians' logic:
    1. magyar = hun
    2. huns was here before blacii
    3. magyar take back their "hun" land

    is it simple, isnt it?

    case closed!


    According to who? The Romanians were there, and according to Nestor, they even conquered the Slavs. I fail to see where this baseless conclusion is derived from.
    im realy happy that u noticed Nestor.
    He clearly noticed the situation:
    "When the slavic people lived around the duna/danube the bolgars came from szkitya and settled down near to Duna also and they became the oppressor of slavs. Next the white-magyars came and conquered the land of slavs and dismiss the wolochi cause before wolochi was conquered the land of slavs. This hungarians/magyars appear first in this region when Herakleiosz emperor of byzance had a campaing against Khoszrau king of szasszanid. (Herakleiosz emperor of byzance 610-641, I. Khoszrau king of szasszanid around 614)."

    Ok, we use again the romanians' logic:
    - 1st was slavs!
    - 2nd was bolgars
    - 3th was woloch
    - 4th was white-hungarians

    Nestor said: "dismiss the wolochi" which mean they leaved the area!
    Who was the woloch? Rumanins says they was "vlach" but if they was vlach they just came after slavs and bolgars! After dismissed by white-hungarians!

    Others says which is closer to real history, woloch mean Frank/Roman. As we knows Pannonia was under Frank control when hungarians arrive! We know this from 10th c. Byzantine sources! And yes Frank was dismissed by hungarians from pannonia!
    Perfect!

    In other hand according to Nestor:
    "This hungarians/magyars appear first in this region when Herakleiosz emperor of byzance had a campaing against Khoszrau king of szasszanid."

    If we check the history:
    Herakleiosz emperor of byzance ruled between 610-641, I. Khoszrau king of szasszanid around 614 ...
    Which mean the hungarians arrive was around 610 ! According to Nestor!


    Totally wrong. He was captured North of the Danube Delta, at least in Southern Moldavia. How the hell were they serving the Byzantine Empire?
    Totaly wrong, why? Read again this mentions there is clearly that they were serving the Byzantine Empire...

    Btw, correct me but north of the danube delta is in Transylvania?


    It's enough to say they weren't in Albania, which disproves your theory.
    huh? i said the vlach's place of origin was close to albania!
    read again my pots!

    This "fact" is supported by what? Southern Romania was captured, however the entire region of Moldavia remained independent.
    When u said Budapest was captured by romanians i just wrote u a same example from your capitol!
    For Moldavia: Not entire, check a map! but its not important the fact Bukarest was occupy more then 1 year!

    I'd be surprised if you could find 4 defeats between 1345-1526. Needless to say, our ratio of victories is very impressive.
    interesting why both principalities was vassal of other!

    can i count when wallachian and moldavian army was support army for others?

    So you're comparing foreign monarchies to foreign occupation?! Do you realize every state (pretty much) had foreign, or at least partly-foreign kings by the 19th century? If Prussia had annexed Romania and installed Carol I you had a point. At this rate you literally have no argument. Hungary became a Pashalik after a brief stint as a Turkish vassal (1526-1541). Hungary literally ceased to exist.
    check the titles of habsburg rulers! is there a "King of Hungary" or not?
    2nd. Principality of Transylvania was also a hungarian country ruled by hungarian! Its have almost a same status like moldavia and wallachia! What are u talking about? Transylvania wasnt exist like wallachia or Moldavia?

    What, intelligence, or strategic planning? It's not our fault our opponents were stupid.
    huh? the betrayal is intelligence, or strategic planning????
    LOL

    An armistice was created between Romania and the Central Powers that was never ratified or signed by the Romanian king. Therefore, Romania never left the war. You also aren't in a position to criticize any nation's performance in WW1. Hungary had to be saved by the German Army. They had to be saved from the Russians, then from the Romanians, and could barely even fight the Serbs. The only campaign in which there was some success was the Italian campaign.
    check again the history!


    You're right. Give us Pannonia, now!
    yeah i see fiction project is working in romania!

    Provide a "good written mentions" as you called them
    i will!


    Well Kekaumenos made his own conclusion that the vlachs of Thessaly came from around the Sava and Danube rivers,
    which mean Kekaumenos has written mention about their place of origin was out of Transylvania!
    right?


    It's a fact that Hungarians didn't allow the Romanians to build any churches made from stone. It was a law in Hungary.
    Fact? where, which?

    It's also a fact that the Tatars had ravaged the whole region, likely destroying anything beyond the Carpathians.
    its interesting that hungarians building survived the Tatars, isnt it?
    but all the daco-romans-vlach was destoryed! lol

    But I digress, just take a look at Densus church in Transylvania. It is built in a style obviously evocative of the 7th century Roman style. It looks almost Armenian or Georgian in architecture. It is an ancient church,
    1. nobody knows what was the real function of this building
    2. nobody knows who built many says romans! but not by vlach
    3. what we know the vlach use this building to built their first church in 13th c.



    Ugh, absolute nonsense. There are plenty of cities, ones mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum and discovered archaeologically. Alba, Bihor, Mures, Satu Mare etc. were all there when the Hungarians came, and archaeology proves it.
    huh, Anonymous used the 13th c. towns and castle in his GH and he also used the 13th c. nations like cumans. Its just prove that when he wrote his GH this towns and castles were exist!

    Alba, Bihor, Mures, Satu Mare give me the first written documents which prove that here lived vlachs!!
    Do not forget Anonymous wrote his GH in 13th c.!

  17. #117
    Dracula's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    I have created a romance language synposion social group. Everybody of the kind is invited to join and have a chat

  18. #118
    Odovacar's Avatar I am with Europe!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arrabona (Győr, Hungary)
    Posts
    6,120

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    I intend to appear in his thread, as it is my duty.
    However, I think the thread is full of misconceptions.

    These are:

    1, "who was here first" matters in political matters...hungarian achievements in Transylvania are simply undeniable.
    (So long as another Ceacescu doesnt demolish them with bulldosers as he did with our villages)

    It's also undeniable that currently Romania controls that territory which is very dear for us, and we are not going to start a war for it, whether daco-romanians exist or not. It wouldn't be a solution even if would have a clone army with future weapons.

    2, who was more kickass in WW1 matters..no one was. The entente would never win if in Germany there is no discontent and hunger. The germans lost the war but the entente did not pawn them on battlefield. Simply their efforts were in vain from the very beginning.

    So, I see no point in starting a flame war emotionally in this.

    Why do we not believe daco-romanian theory in its present form?

    Romanian answer: because we are nationalist.
    This answer is wrong. Some of my prof's were considered straight "traitors" and "cmmies" by hardcore nationalists, but even they doubted the daco-roman theory.

    Rather because:
    1, we do not see it supported with enough proof
    2, this theory is used in context of wild nationalist claims

    No hungarian will favourably react when a romanian first claim a cloudy descendancy from dacians then labels hungarians as "bozgors" and "mongols".

    Thats why our transylvanian friends and brothers (like my godfather) aren't constructive in these matters.
    On the other hand, the exact claims of romanian historians aren't widely available.

    My proposal is. We should rather concentrate on debating about the sources, and their credibility, instead of who is supposed to have pawned whom.


    As for Nestor (correctly: Provesty vremenneh leh, PVL, because Nestor did not write the whole thing) what do mean vlachs for him?
    The name "vlach" doesn't neccesarily mean a person from Vallachia or Moldavia.

    I would also give much to know whether Anonymus is credible on this or that.

    I was recently informed that even the names of seven magyar leaders in the work of Anonymus are presumably false, as several of them have the same name as Arpad's descendants distorted.

    Not to mention Anonymus' rather cheap linguistic ideas (csobamagyer --subamagyer--ostoba magyar) or "Ungvár " -->hungarian which were openly false from the very beginning.

    However its really interesting how romanian people came to being so its more beneficial to concentrate on that.
    Last edited by Odovacar; September 19, 2008 at 05:36 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB HORSEARCHER
    quis enim dubitat quin multis iam saeculis, ex quo vires illius ad Romanorum nomen accesserint, Italia quidem sit gentium domina gloriae vetustate sed Pannonia virtute

    Sorry Armenia, for the rascals who lead us.


  19. #119

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by Odovacar View Post
    ... the thread is full of misconceptions ...

    My proposal is. We should rather concentrate on debating about the sources, and their credibility, instead of who is supposed to have pawned whom.
    Totally agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odovacar View Post
    However its really interesting how romanian people came to being so its more beneficial to concentrate on that.
    Odovacar, I wonder if this is something characteristic to Romanian people alone? Isn't that in human nature, in general?

    Here is the passage I was writing just minutes before Odovacar posted.

    Btw, what the discussion is about? Oh, yeah, about certain lands being lawfully belonging to a certain nation. To me, there is little sense in looking back into history only to justify lawfulness of territorial possessions. Let alone, this is a dangerous exercise. Because it depends how far in history you look, right? Then, multiply this by fact that the truth about historical event is often illusive, particularly if you go far in the past.

    Edit: Shouldn't we look back in history to learn its lessons and never repeat mistakes made by our forefathers?
    Last edited by Stilgar CG; September 19, 2008 at 05:56 AM.

  20. #120
    Odovacar's Avatar I am with Europe!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arrabona (Győr, Hungary)
    Posts
    6,120

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Equitum View Post
    Odovacar, I wonder if this is something characteristic to Romanian people alone? Isn't that in human nature, in general?
    My sentence, (maybe poorly construced) was about changing our thread from nationalistic debate to an enquiry into the origin and states of "vlachs"

    However I understand your question.
    In this part of Europe, 19th century lasts longer than elsewhere.
    Because of the historical catastrophes and crazy political agreements and so called "peace treaties" this area is full with hate, anger and debate over territories using "historical rights" which change very little in the current situations.

    These often not correct debates ending finally in hate-fests are sometimes generated by politicians who otherwise lack in skills to lead their country.
    So they just discover someone to blame.

    Alas, in our everydays these problems are permanent. Like one of my friends working in Ireland is constantly hated because being a hungarian by his slovakian and sadly even polish collegaus.
    Ironically, his ancestors are slovakian he just doesnt speak the language by now.

    On the other hand I witnessed polish, checz, hungarian lorry drivers drinking together in good East-European fashion in Spain.

    Once left by our "popes", "wise men"' and self-declared heavenly destined "national leaders" we can just behave correctly.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB HORSEARCHER
    quis enim dubitat quin multis iam saeculis, ex quo vires illius ad Romanorum nomen accesserint, Italia quidem sit gentium domina gloriae vetustate sed Pannonia virtute

    Sorry Armenia, for the rascals who lead us.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •