You took words out of my mouth, Odovacar
And Kekaumenos hadnt mentions about vlach lived in Transylvania, right?
1. Glad place of origin is Vidin according to your favorite hungarian chronicle! So Glad came from balkan! right?3. The Romanians of Glad were also descendants of the Dacians and Bessi.
2. Glad people were cumans, bolgars and blacii not romanians, according to your favorite hungarian chronicle!
yeah and the Byzantine chronicle writers forgot to write this event in their 10th c. chronicles! And aforgot to write about Glad too who came from Byzantine!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.
no comment!
pls chechk whats mean "vlach"!!!! u will surprise when u find "sepherd" and "foreigner" ! So the people called your ancestor cause of their job or because their come from a foreign country!Was the Daco-Romans' fault the Germanic and Slavic nations (and later the Hungarians) called the Romance language speakers Waloon, Wallachian, Voloch, Vlach?
wrong, if we check the huns, avars, magyars, cumans and tatars campaings we can see only the fortress, castles and cities with wall could buck against the nomadic armies! So the rumanian fiction that the people moved away from the cities to find a better defended place its realy funny!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);
why u wonder? i dont understand!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.
Many italian colonists were resettled to balkan from italy or from other province by the emperor! After the roman withdraval from dacia the romans population was resettled to moesia also! They didnt switched their 'church' word for other!
Your language prove that the "vlach" who lived close to albania assimilated the local romans colonist... As we check the smiliar albanian language! Simple logic!
ohhh my very clever friendActually you need to improve your English a little. "Prior to the 11th century" means "before the 11th century"
help me.... explain me which people were pushed to southwards by hungarians in 10th c.?
yeah, yeah funny to read from someone who dont know whats mean his nation name!As I was saying, discussing this issue requires knowledge (as in reading the primary sources) and logical thinking.
if we check the well documented attack against hungary by cumans and tatars its obvious that firstly they moved through the carpatian mountains after enter into Transylvania! Not so difficult if u check a geographical map!The logic supports the documentary evidence because Pannonia being a flat grassland was the target of choice for a steppe nation.
So the idea by rumanians that "hey they moved to pannonia firtsly" is realy funny! Just look a map...
realy, then why u accept Anonymous without doubt because he used Bolgars, Cumans and Blacii warriros! But its obviosly that those nations (if Anonymous used Blacii for vlach) work together only the time of 2nd. bolgar empire, isnt it?1. There was no Bulgarian-Romanian empire at the time of the Hungarian invasion.
1. If the blacii were Romance speaking population of the area why anonymous separeted the "sepherd of romans" and Blacii ?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.
2. Where u find a mention about blacii were Romance speaking population from Anonymous?
It would be better for u if anonymous used "latin speaking vlach" but its just a dream for rumanians!
logical acrobatics? u newer heard about medieval chronicler made mistakes?I love the logical acrobatics the revisionist Hungarians resort to: Anonymus must be wrong in order for them to be right.
Btw Anonymous said magyars = huns, in the time of huns there is nothing about blacii or vlach! What is your conclusion?
ohhh but where u find this?, if i know good Hodor K. belived it was a 11th c. wooden castle!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
firtsly i asked u do u know where and when lived the cumans?Do you know who the Scythians were?
Or use the history situation of his time or use anachronism for Blacii too!Anonymus uses an anachronism just like Ana Comnena does.
have u ever read the Byzantine sources about Settlement of the Magyars in Hungary which was created in 10th c. ? pls check it!You are well acquainted with the Byzantine sources, aren't you?
yeah u must to critizating other because u cant prove your fictions! Its your problem not mine! when u read Byzantine sources we can talk about Transylvania in 9-10th c. !Good to see the [low] level you're dragging this debate to
where i said this?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?
seems to me you have a little weak-headed...
i asked u: Basque was romanized people and got the romans culture as u said about daco-romans or not?
and? daco-romans got the high roman culture or not?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?
if yes where are their written documents to 14th c.?
Basque got the high roman culture or not?
Last edited by snipa; September 19, 2008 at 08:23 AM.
Again a case of inability to understand
The expedition of Manuel I Comnenos took the Hungarians by surprise because it didn't go through the expected route, which would be through Serbia into Pannonia. Instead Manuel crossed the Danube into Wallachia and from there he entered Transylvania and attacked Hungary through there, like the Mongols would do again almost 100 years later.
Kinnamos wrote he used Vlach guides. Not just Vlach soldiers. Vlach guides. Do you get it now?
(Hint: either those Vlachs were local guides, as it was customary for the armies prior to the drawing of aerial or satellite maps or those Vlachs spoke the language of the locals in Transylvania. Go figure what that language was )
Humm, come again? The Huns were there before the Daco-Romans? What kind of logic are you using?
But let's quote from Anonymus precisely the part where duke Menumorut answers the envoys of the Hungarian chieftain Arpad:
So you see the attitude Romanians' attitude towards historical claims hasn't changed much in the last 1,000 years. Whatever was taken through brute force was kept only as long as the brute had the force to keep it. We are patient and we wait for the right time to act. Eventually the brute runs out of forceOriginally Posted by Anonymus
First of all please look up a proper English translation of Nestors' chronicle then talk about the meaning of various phrases in it
Second Nestor's chronicle is consistent with Anonymus' account which places the Vlachs, Slavs and Bulgars (the Turkic nation) in Transylvania. So your point is?
Could it be what Nestor says is the Hungarians first arrived in the area as associates of other raiders?
OK, let's make it simple and in short sentences:
1. The episode confirms the presence of the Vlachs North of the Danube river, in Moldova. Which sinks you fantasy theory they were in the Balkans at the time the Hungarians conquered Transylvania;
2. As state also by Anonymus, the dukes from Tranyslavnia were either vassals of the Bulgar emperor or of the Byzantine emperor (and knowing the Romanian style of playing two powers against each other I bet some were vassals to both ). Why do you think the dukes of Moldova would be different?
North of the Danube delta is in Moldova and at the same latitude as Transylvania is. Which is relevant because it places the Romanian far away from the fantasy location of yours (in the Balkans) at the time of the Hungarian conquest of Transylvania.
Yes you said and you made a fool of yourself in public.
1. The place of origin of the Vlachs of the Balkans is outside the Balkans, according to Kekaumenos. Therefore far from Albania
2. The place of origin of the Vlachs is from somewhere outside the borders of the Roman Empire, otherwise they would use a word derived from the Greek "ecclesia" for church, just like all the other Romance language nations from the Roman Empire do.
Which part of the Roman Empire was abandoned in the area? Dacia!
Fire and wood are not exactly good friends, are they?
Logic fails you again or what you've wrote there is again due to lack of knowledge about early Christianity?
Technically any building could be used as a place of worship. That is a 7th century old place of worship, probably converted from an even older building.
What really matters is it is yet another piece of hard evidence of the Daco-Roman continuity in Transylvania. Like the Latin inscriptions on the Christian tombstones, like the Biertan Donarium, like Dabaca, the capitol city of Gelu's duchy, first discovered in 1837 by a Hungarian archaeologist.
Two words: Dabaca and Bihara
You see, your problem is Anonymus' Hungarian chronicle is confirmed by the archaeological findings of Hungarian archaeologists.
Isn't it pathetic that Hungarians who claim they were the first in Transylvania have to fight Hungarian chronicles and Hungarian archaeological discoveries?
Anonymus did And Anonymus shows how come the Vlachs attacked the Byzantines, which ended in defeat and resettlement into Thessaly.
Glad's capitol was in Vidin. He didn't come from anywhere, he was there. His Duchy however was mostly in the Serb and Romanian Banat and in Western Transylvania. Your point is?
Didn't we go over the Blacii a few pages ago?!
I repeat my advice: before dismissing Anonymus go and read the thread in which I've debated the issue with people who know a thing or two about the issue.
Vlach/Wallachian/Voloh/Waloon means simply a nation which speaks a Romance language (French, Romanian, Italian).
Did you miss the point there was nobody qualified to man the walls after the Romans withdrew their legions in 273AD?
You have the archaeology showing the gradual displacement of the population from cities to villages. Do you know how the archaeologists can tell that?
This is a qualifications test: tell us in order to show you're properly qualified to discuss the issue
Your logic fails me
In 273 AD Christianity was illegal. Whan it became legal all the Romance languages within the Roman Empire acquired the "ecclesia" variant for "church" (French eglise, Italian chiesa, Spanish iglesia, Portuguese igreja).
In Romanian and Aromanian (the language of the Thessaly Vlachs) the word is based on the Latin "basilica". Proof that the language was formed outside the borders of the Roman Empire.
By the way if the Vlachs would be originating from the Balkans and not like Kekaumenos writes resettled in Greece, wouldn't it be normal for them to use a word of Greek origin for church? I mean, the Portuguese who are at the other end of Europe from Greece do.
As I said, all the Hungarian revisionists need to engage in logic acrobatics in order to disprove all the documentary, archaeological and linguistic evidence which proves their fantasies wrong.
Albania is right next door to Greece. The word for "church" should therefore be derived from the Greek "ecclesia". It's not.
Still having difficulties with the meaning of the word "prior"?
My nation's name is and has always been "Romani" (Romans in Latin language).
Aha, now we're lacking knowledge about the Mongol invasions, aren't we?
Anonymus said the Hungarians came into Slovakia first and then into Pannonia.
Below is the map of the Mongolian invasion of Hungary:
I know ignorance is a bliss but you're overdoing it...
Both Moldova and Wallachia were at the time covered in forests thus unable to support large cavalry forces. Nor were they ideal for cavalry battles. That's why the Hungarians and then the Mongols chose the northern route which was leading straight to the Pannonian plains.
As I said, this particular debate requires knowledge and logic. Stamina is not enough.
Huh?! Why? Because the Second Bulgarian Empire is the Romanian-Bulgarian Empire that rules out any cooperation between Romanians, Slavs and Bulgars during the first empire?
Because shepherd =/= Vlach. How many times do I need to explain to you?
Blacii are the Vlachs. Vlachs = Romance language speakers. Vlachs =/= shepherds. Get it?
Acrobatics because you need to flick-flack your way through several documents corroborating each other (like Nestors' chronicle, Kekaumenos' "Strategikon", Anonymus "Gesta Hungarorum", etc), archaeological and linguistic evidence.
So it's not only acrobatics. A good dose of contorsionism is also required.
Read harder! Anonymus says Arpad claimed to be a descendant of Attila.
And your point is? Hodor lived in 1837. Not exactly the age of carbon dating
Blacii can't be an anachronism since they were called like that before and after Anonymus.
So far the only fiction on this thread seems your idea about the origins of the Romanians.
Look, it's not my fault if your English leaves room for interpretation. You keep pestering me about the lack of Romanian documents for 1000 years as a proof the Romanians didn't exist for 1000 years. I asked you if by the same standards the Basques existed.
Sorry, I can't make it more simple than that.
OK, let's go on easy steps:
What is the lack of documents supposed to prove according to you?
What does language have to do with surviving documents? Especially when you have surviving inscriptions (stone and bronze being more resilient than paper).
Huh?! Documents are good to certify only the use of Romance languages?
Other languages can't be judged by your same standards?!
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum
my very clever friend this is your evidence? That they used Vlach guides??
Huhhh...
Again, where is the mention of Kinnamos that in Transylvania lived vlach?
As we can read vlach soldiers were serving the Byzantine Empire and attacked Kingdom of Hungary!
Those vlach had a sheperd lifestyle moved cross over the whole balkan! They reached Transylvania too but its not mean they lived there as u like it!(Hint: either those Vlachs were local guides, as it was customary for the armies prior to the drawing of aerial or satellite maps or those Vlachs spoke the language of the locals in Transylvania. Go figure what that language was )
If there lived vlachs in transylvania why didnt fight against the byzantine army?
huhh seems to me the very good romanian's logic doesnt work sometimes!Humm, come again? The Huns were there before the Daco-Romans? What kind of logic are you using?
Lets check it again, When huns ruled this area is there any mentions about vlach or daco-roman in Anonymous GH?
No comment!
Im sure its a little bit tiresome for romanians that they havent any chronicles, written mentions about their history created by vlachs! They have to use foreign documents! LOL
The high cultured daco-romans couldnt write anything! Poor vlachs
Second Nestor's chronicle is consistent with Anonymus' account which places the Vlachs, Slavs and Bulgars (the Turkic nation) in Transylvania. So your point is?
My point is that Nestor chronicle clearly said that "woloch" came from outside of Transylvania so newer lived there before!
u cant change the fact!
In other hand only the rumanians very clever historicals says they are "vlach" the rest says they are frank!
Could it be what Nestor says is the "Woloch" conquered this area from slavs as associates of Frank?Could it be what Nestor says is the Hungarians first arrived in the area as associates of other raiders?
Which according to History!
Wrong! Vlach's place of origin is in south-balkan closed to Albania. Cause of their main job (sepherd) they had a migrant nomadic lifestyle and later reached Bolgaria around 11th c. after Wallachia and Transylvania around 12-13th c...1. The episode confirms the presence of the Vlachs North of the Danube river, in Moldova. Which sinks you fantasy theory they were in the Balkans at the time the Hungarians conquered Transylvania;
its prove the first hungarian written mentions about vlach! 1210 ! before no any!
What a surprise...!! right?
There are some very good written mentions about vlach in hungarian documents which prove that their lifestyle was nomadic in 13th c.
This documents show us in transylvania they lived in tent near to villages and from april 2 september they go back to hilltops! This is the case why only 7 villages had vlach origin in 13th c. No more!
As i wrote here u cant change the fact!
im realy glad that u understand there are many many different mentions in medieval chronicles!1. The place of origin of the Vlachs of the Balkans is outside the Balkans, according to Kekaumenos. Therefore far from Albania
1. we should check this word was an exist word before the reform of romanian language in 19th c. or it was created after the reformation.2. The place of origin of the Vlachs is from somewhere outside the borders of the Roman Empire, otherwise they would use a word derived from the Greek "ecclesia" for church, just like all the other Romance language nations from the Roman Empire do.
2. we should check this word in albanian language
3. also we should chechk this word in the language of rest vlach who stayed in south-balkans
btw this reformation is realy intersting!
so daco-romans couldnt build anything with stone through 1100 years? lolFire and wood are not exactly good friends, are they?
yeah the romans could build stone building but romanized daco-romans couldnt any in turn they got the roman culture!
seems to me you have some very good logic fails! but its do not disturb uLogic fails you again or what you've wrote there is again due to lack of knowledge about early Christianity?
We knows the true!Isn't it pathetic that Hungarians who claim they were the first in Transylvania have to fight Hungarian chronicles and Hungarian archaeological discoveries?
1. daco-romans theory is a fiction without good evidence
2. vlach came from south-balkan
3. we know who lived here when we arrived, moravs/marót(slavs), bolgars, avars and franks... Maybe some huns too!
4. we wasn't the first and when hungarians created their kingdom there wasnt any vlach!
thats all!
Greek Vláhi Shepherd/Romanian/Latin
Bulgarian влах Romanian / Vlach
Bulgarian влах man from Wallachia
Bulgarian влах cattle breeder, shepherd
Czech Valach man from Wallachia
Czech Valach man from Valasko (in Moravia)
Czech valach shepherd
Czech valach gelding (horse)
Czech valach lazy man
Czech Vlach Italian
Macedonian влав cattle breeder, shepherd
Polish Włoch Italian
Polish Wołoch Romanian
Polish wałach gelding (horse)
Old Russian волохъ man speaking a Romance language
Russian валах Romanian / Vlach
Serbian Влах citizen of the Republic of Dubrovnik
Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian Влах, Vlah Romanian / Vlach
Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian Влах, Vlah man from Wallachia
Serbian (Uice dialect) Вла(х), Старовла(х) medieval nomadic people from Stari Vlah and Mala Vlaka
Croatian Vlah Istro-Romanian
Croatian (Dubrovnik dialect) Vlah man from Herzegovina (pejorative)
Croatian (western dialects) Vlah Italian (pejorative)
Serbian and Croatian влах, vlah medieval nomadic cattle breeder
Croatian (dialects of Istria) vlah new settler (pejorative)
Croatian (Dalmatian dialects) vlah (vlaj) plebeian (pejorative)
Croatian (Dalmatian insular dialects) vlah man from the mainland (pejorative)
Croatian (western and northern dialects) vlah (vlaj) Orthodox Christian, usually Serb (pejorative)
Croatian (Podravina dialects) vlah Catholic who is a neoshtokavian speaker (pejorative)
Bosnian vlah, влах non-Muslim living in Bosnia, usually Serb (pejorative)
Bosnian vlah Catholic (pejorative)
Slovak Valach man from Wallachia
Slovak Valach man from Valasko (in Moravia)
Slovak valach shepherd
Slovak valach gelding (horse)
Slovak Vlach Italian
Slovene Lah Italian (pejorative)
Western Slovenian dialects Lah Friulian
Slovene Vlah Serbian immigrant (pejorative)
Ukrainian волох Romanian / Vlach
case closed!
i wrote:
if we check the well documented attack against hungary by cumans and tatars its obvious that firstly they moved through the carpatian mountains after enter into Transylvania! Not so difficult if u check a geographical map!
So the idea by rumanians that "hey they moved to pannonia firtsly" is realy funny! Just look a map...
and your map according to my mention!
what are u talking about?
Last edited by Dromikaites; September 22, 2008 at 09:56 AM.
Could it be because the Byzantines were the enemies of their oppressors?
Read the damn "Gesta Hungarorum" for haven's sake!
When the Hungarians arrived in Transylvania they had to defeat the Romanians there. When Arpad claimed those lands were his since they were Attila's lands before the answer of duke Menumorut was Attila was an invader who had no rights over those lands. Funny how the opinion of the Romanians haven't changed a bit in 1000 years
Must be hard for a Hungarian revisionist to have to dismiss the oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles, ha?
Did I mention tombstones and big bronze objects?
As in who else thinks those are the German speaking Franks?
As in some of the leaders were Romanians. Other were Slavs. Other were Turkic Bulgars. "Gesta Hungarorum" is your friend
Pay attention, you may learn a thing or two about how historians deal with this type of things:
1. They look at all the documentary evidence available (all the chronicles) and look at which scenario fits best all of them.
2. They look for additional evidence like archaeological discoveries and linguistic elements.
3. The theory which isn't contradicted by any of the existing evidence is accepted as the legitimate one.
So far the only hypothesis consistent with all the evidence (documentary, archaeological and linguistic) is the Romanians are the descendants of the Romans and Dacians.
1. Read Kekaumenos again;
2. Explain why church is called "biserica" instead of something derived form "ecclesia", why the ground is called "pamant" (pavimentum) and why the villages had to be protected by ditches.
So I get Anonymus is not Hungarian? How about of Simon of Keza, the author of the other oldest Hungarian surviving chronicle, "Kepes Kronika"? 'Cause both of them place the Romanians in Transylvania.
There are some very good written mentions about vlach in hungarian documents which prove that their lifestyle was nomadic in 13th c.
This documents show us in transylvania they lived in tent near to villages and from april 2 september they go back to hilltops! This is the case why only 7 villages had vlach origin in 13th c. No more!
And all point to the fact the Romanians were indeed in Transylvania before the Hungarians. On top of that list we have the Hungarian oldest surviving chronicles.
Cimbye's video is not exactly the best source to learn about the Romanian language
It's "kisha", as in Italian "chiesa" and Greek "ecclesia".
As I said, even though ignorance is a bliss, you are definitely abusing it.
You can't understand English, can you?
In Aromanian (the Vlachs who came from the North and were settled in Thessaly) is "biserica". So it's not that they are the ancestors of the Romanians, it's exactly the other way around. Just like Kekaumenos and Anonymus inform us.
Indeed though I doubt you have any clue about it apart from that garbage on Youtube.
Villages aren't exactly large urban centers able to generate enough resources for big public works are they?
And it seems your "truth" is rather restricted to a handful of Hungarian revisionists
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum
From a historic point of view the best would be, that both Hungarian and Romanian historians and researchers would sit down to a round table and do a research based on nothing else but evidence and facts. Gesta Hungarorum or the Pictum Hungaricum and other sources can't be claimed neither facts nor evidences, same on the side of Romanian folk tales and books written with a chauvinistic taste.
But just a memo, this is solely for scientific research and to correct/replace/add to the known history, not to claim lands or decide where to draw borderlines.
@Dromikaites
just on a sidenote
basilica is a word of Greek origin from basiliké. I don't want to disturb your discussion, just wanted to mention that this area lies in the boardering area between the latin and greek speaking parts of the former empire where mixes of the languages are even more likely than in areas further away, so one has to be careful when assuming where they might have taken which words from.Whan it became legal all the Romance languages within the Roman Empire acquired the "ecclesia" variant for "church" (French eglise, Italian chiesa, Spanish iglesia, Portuguese igreja).
In Romanian and Aromanian (the language of the Thessaly Vlachs) the word is based on the Latin "basilica". Proof that the language was formed outside the borders of the Roman Empire.
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS
formerly known as L.C.Cinna
Last edited by Baron Vlad Felix; September 19, 2008 at 03:00 PM.
1.whether we can answer someone who are Hungarians,where they are come from?
2.when they come?
3.Are magyar,turkish,mongol or finoungu..tribe?
4.Are Mongolia motherland,or Kavkaz?
5.And actuali what they want from: Transivania,Vojvodina,Slavonija,Slovakia,Istra,half Dalmatian and Bosnia?..and why do they not asky for their old lands,from mongolia or from Kavkas,isn't that more realistic?!
6.And why they not asky first themself who their are!,than they can ask about the othres!
WILL SOME OF YOU MAGYAR OR HUNS,TURKS ,MONGOLS.... GIVE ME ANSWER ON MY QUESTIONS,WITH PROOF AND RESOURCE?
Last edited by Baron Vlad Felix; September 19, 2008 at 02:11 PM.
Alright, let's just play a little trump card shall we: why is it that Romanians use the word pacura (derived from Latin picula) as a word for fossil fuels? The Romans used tar and other petroleum products while they were in Dacia, and Wallachia and Moldavia were large producers of this substance (they still produce a fair bit today). How could the Romanians have preserved this term South of the Danube, where there is almost no oil and the first oil rig was made in the 20th century in Albania?Originally Posted by Horse Archer
2nd of all, regardless of what idiotic caricatures float around in the minds of Magyar "academics" no nation has ever based itself purely on shepherding. Even the vlachs in Bosnia and Serbia are known to have practiced farming, because we can see terracing in the foothills and a highly-developed social structure (Jus Valachorum). Therefore, why is it that Albanians call all vlachs "ciobani" (literally: shepherd in Romanian). To me this seems analagous to the word "viking." "Cioban" or "vikingir" are just occupational terms, which were only adopted as ethnic terms by people who had limited contact with them/only met them practicing this occupation. That is why the English and French referred to them as "vikings" while their neighbors called them "Nordmenn." Therefore, it is the same with Romanians. When Romanian shepherds migrated to Albania from their homelands further North they were encountered by the Albanians, and when asked who they were, they said "we are ciobani" (we are shepherds) in the same way the Nordmenn raiders designated themselves as "vikingir."
In other words: By etymology of ethnic terms the Romanians had less contact with the Albanians than anyone else before the 9th century. Is it a coincidence that Albania and Romania are on opposite sides of SE Europe?
It's also undeniable that Romanians were marginalized quite heavily in Transylvania. Such that somehow Romanians were 80% of the rural population and yet the population in cities became majority Hungarian, not even mentioning university ratios in the 19th century.
Yes, some believe he could be referring to Franks. Unfortunately for those people, the Eastern Franks were Germans, not Latins. Therefore, he would have named them "Nemczi." Even if by some miracle they were proven to be Franks, what of the "Pastores Romanorum"? Who can they be other than vlachs?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.
Last edited by Romano-Dacis; September 19, 2008 at 03:25 PM.
He doesn't realize that vlach could be a word that had one meaning initially but may have changed over time. Or perhaps we are to consider the Italians (who are called olah and wlochy) as shepherds as well? Haven't you ever heard of those Welsh and Walloon shepherds? Honestly, that such basics of logic could be overlooked or even deliberately distorted is shocking.
It doesn't even make any damn sense. If vlach meant shepherd, one would assume "valh" or something similar would mean sheep, but surprise surprise, it doesn't.
Last edited by Romano-Dacis; September 19, 2008 at 03:23 PM.
not realy there werent romanians! Their enemies were bolgars, moravs and franks!
who is a hungarian revizionist?Must be hard for a Hungarian revisionist to have to dismiss the oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles, ha?
because i disscuss with u about Transylvania in 9th c. ?
seems to me u have a little persecution mania...
yes i know that, daco-romans made many tombstones and bigger bronze object then the empire state building and ..... they newer build any stone building and newer write any documents!Did I mention tombstones and big bronze objects?
no any informations about their leaders, their generals their cities their events .... etc etc etc through 1000 years!
yeah, you are absolutly right! LOL
what does it matter? they werent vlach, thats all!As in who else thinks those are the German speaking Franks?
yeah, and when we came here with Attila we didnt find any Blacii!As in some of the leaders were Romanians. Other were Slavs. Other were Turkic Bulgars. "Gesta Hungarorum" is your friend
"Gesta Hungarorum" is our friend"
and if there are some deficient informations they filled with their fictions as romanians do it!2. They look for additional evidence like archaeological discoveries and linguistic elements.
if u show me written documents which were creted by daco-romans i will say: u are right! But u cant show me at least 1 stone building or church that they built! U cant show me any leaders, generals of daco-romans! U have nothing just some crumb from different chronicles created by foreign writers!So far the only hypothesis consistent with all the evidence (documentary, archaeological and linguistic) is the Romanians are the descendants of the Romans and Dacians.
pls show me a daco-romans history chronicle! and this discussion will end! pls i want to read it!
not necessary, Kekaumenos hasnt any mention about vlach lived in Transylvania! Thats all...1. Read Kekaumenos again;
Thanx for L.C.Cinna he spare time for me!2. Explain why church is called "biserica" instead of something derived form "ecclesia", why the ground is called "pamant" (pavimentum) and why the villages had to be protected by ditches.
basilica is a word of Greek origin from basiliké...
ok i try it again!So I get Anonymus is not Hungarian? How about of Simon of Keza, the author of the other oldest Hungarian surviving chronicle, "Kepes Kronika"? 'Cause both of them place the Romanians in Transylvania.
we have about 400 written documents from 1000 to 1300 out of the chronicles! Do u understand to this point?
Well, there are many informations about Kingdom of Hungary! Lands, nobles, people, names, events, battle reports etc... Do u understand to this point?
The first written mentions about vlach in hungarian documents: 1210!
The first written mentions about vlach lived in Erdély/Transylvania: 1246!
Do u understand to this point? (yeah maybe all writers were hungarian revizionist and direct missed the vlach! LOL )
So whats happen, why missing the vlach mentions through 210 years?
Ohhh maybe vlachs werent there? We have informations about saxons, pechenegs, cumans, bolgars, croats etc etc, juts nothing from vlach!
Its deny the whole of your theory!
as i wrote u, There are some very good written mentions about vlach in hungarian documents which prove that their lifestyle was nomadic in 13th c.
This documents show us in transylvania they lived in tent near to villages and from april 2 september they go back to hilltops! This is the case why only 7 villages had vlach origin in 13th c. No more! This is the fact!
yes yes if someone can confute your fiction, what is it?: ignoranceAs I said, even though ignorance is a bliss, you are definitely abusing it.
boring...In Aromanian (the Vlachs who came from the North and were settled in Thessaly) is "biserica".
basilica is a word of Greek origin from basiliké...
again, revizionist...And it seems your "truth" is rather restricted to a handful of Hungarian revisionists
what are u talking about?
check again who deny that vlach also means sepherd and foreigner!
Last edited by Dromikaites; September 19, 2008 at 04:18 PM.
While the word was indeed borrowed from Greek into Latin, it was already 450 years old in Latin by the time of the Roman legions withdrawal (the first basilica had been built in Rome in 184 BC, the withdrawal of the Roman troops happened in 273 AD).
The pre-Christian Roman basilicas were similar to the current shopping malls. Actually they were a combination of shopping malls and court houses.
The early Christians would end up in the basilicas as defendants and would use the opportunity of the public trials to profess their faith, give an example of firmness in face of danger and win new converts if possible. Hence the association between the word "basilica" and the place where faith was publicly affirmed.
When Christianity became a legal religion within the Roman Empire the Christians were allowed to build their own dedicated places of worship. The Greek word "ecclesia" (meaning "gathering place [for the Christians]") became the preferred term for church throughout the empire.
It's also worth mentioning that the Jewish word for synagogue, "[beit] knesset" means "house of assembly". The very word "synagogue" is also of Greek origin and means "assembly". We can actually see a pattern: the Jewish religion was legal so the Jews could gather to their worship places in broad daylight, hence the Greek word for their places of worship suggests gathering. Then when Christianity becomes legal within the Roman Empire the Christians can gather to worship together unhindered hence the word for church also means "gathering place".
The Latin-speaking Christians from outside the Empire, who had become Christians when the religion was still illegal and the gatherings needed to happen in secrecy kept the word "basilica" which was associated with "professing faith in face of imminent danger" or something along those lines.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum
ALOO....WILL SOME OF YOU MAGYAR OR HUNS,TURKS ,MONGOLS.... GIVE ME ANSWER ON MY QUESTIONS,WITH PROOF AND RESOURCE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Honfoglalas.gif
before hungarians arrived to Transylvania They lived in Levedia and Etelköz.
From Levedia the Magyar tribes moved westwards settled down on the territory that the Byzantine emperor calls Etelküzü (or Etel and Küzü). The territory was located around the Dnieper, Southern Bug, Dniester, Prut and Siret Rivers. Which mean they lived in the area what today called as: Romania!
From Magna Hungaria around 5-6th c.!2.when they come?
good question, today some says they are ugric people others says they are Turk. (i think they are mixed people, turk & ugric and others)3.Are magyar,turkish,mongol or finoungu..tribe?
Byzantine writers called them like Turk or Schityans...
The so-called Kabaroi were of the race of the Chazars. Now, it fell out that a secession was made by them to their government, and when a civil war broke out their first government prevailed, and some of them were slain, but others escaped and came and settled with the Turks in the land of the Pechenegs, and they made friends with one another, and were called 'Kabaroi'.
---De Administrando Imperio[
An arab traveler wrote from Magyars when he met with them:
The Magyars are a reace of Turks and their leader rides out with 20,000 horsemen and this king is called kündüh and this name denotes their king, for the name of the man who is actually king over them is Gyula and all the Magyars accept the orders of their Gyula in the matter of war and defence and the like.
These Magyars are a handsome people and of good appearance and their clothes are of silk brocade and their weapons are of silver and are encrusted with pearls.
---Ahmad ibn Rustah
For huns maybe! For Magyars i dont think so! Some historicals says Baskiria has a good chance to get the name: Magna Hungaria4.Are Mongolia motherland,or Kavkaz?
what we want? learn history without fictions!5.And actuali what they want from:
Transivania,Vojvodina,Slavonija,Slovakia,Istra,half Dalmatian and Bosnia?..and why do they not asky for their old lands,from mongolia or from Kavkas,isn't that more realistic?!
6.And why they not asky first themself who their are!,than they can ask about the othres!
we are realy calm, u know the history is history... While nobody knows whats happen in the future we have informations about past!
u got it!WILL SOME OF YOU MAGYAR OR HUNS,TURKS ,MONGOLS.... GIVE ME ANSWER ON MY QUESTIONS,WITH PROOF AND RESOURCE?
Last edited by snipa; September 19, 2008 at 04:31 PM.
That's it?...hahahahaha........
1.Settled down on the territory Etelküzü
why and what they do there?
2.From Magna Hungaria around 5-6th c...
Are you sure?..or maybe latter?.......Magyars (Hungarians) arrived in 896!
3.Today some says they are ugric people others says they are Turk!
Just like i tought!..you dont know what your are......BUT FOR THE OTHERS YOU KNOW!!!
4.For huns maybe! For Magyars i dont think so! Some historicals says Baskiria!
Again just like i tought!..you dont know where are you from!
5.what we want? learn history without fictions!
Aswer is imature and stupid!!
GIVE ME ANSWER ON MY QUESTIONS,WITH PROOF AND RESOURCE?..and dont blablabla trolling!
Last edited by Baron Vlad Felix; September 19, 2008 at 05:16 PM.
Alright, I will ignore Vlad Felix with his "mongolian" theories.
Here is the summary of Hungarian Early Middle Ages Lexikon, a work by various academics and experts.
(page 115, under "blakok")
Vlach
Appears first in anonymus in forms of Blacus, Blachii, Blasii, Blacorum.
This is a french influenced writing form of the name "vlach" which appeared presumably in the Arch Gesta (the lost source of Anonymus) and in the Nestor chronicle.
It was applied not to the romanians of today but to the franks of the Carpathian basin.
The origin of the word is volcus meaning first celt then romanised celt. -->old high german "walh" -"latin people"
In the work of Anonymus the vlachs are the romanians, who created together wih bulgars and cumansd the Asenid empire (1186)
This event was relocated into the past by Anonymus. (Extrapolation in time is a common medieval tendency especially by Anonymus -note by Odo)
L. Rásony claims that the vlachs of Anonymus are the bulaqs of the turk sources ( karluk tribe) who wandered with the proto-bulgarians into Transylvania and the Balkans.
This theory however needs further proofs.
Article written by Mária Ivanics.
A side note by me: "Romans" in the work of Anonymus always refer to germans ie. inhabitants of the HRE.
Anonymus wrote his chronicle at the time of Andras II, who had a Babenberg (Meranian) wife.
As a result of this marriage germans (relatives and servants of Getrud of Meran) swarmed the hungarian court, and got important positions.
The hungarian nobility, whose mouth Anonymus was, opposed the german influence by creating an ideology of their old and (supposed to be in many cases) original ancestry, against the newcomers.
In 1212 Berthold, a brother of Getrud was appointed to be voievoda of Transylvania, which was a highly prestigious rank.
When Anonymus venomously remarks "and they (the vlach sepherds) are the pastors of the romans up to this day" he refers to this event.
He suggests that the germans control Transylvania and the vlach sepherds are their servants and not the hungarian king's.
In 1213 Gertrud was slain in the forrest of Pilis, together with her henchmen.
The ideology of "original ancestry" the superiority of old nobles against the newcomers survived and was adapted into later chronicles which also adapted passages from Anonymus.
Source: Gyula Kristó: History and history of the period, Magvető, BP. 1977 (in hungarian)
Alright, I will ignore Vlad Felix with his "mongolian" theories.
MISTER ODOVACAR!
WHAT,YOU TO DONT KNOW YOUR HISTORY?
FRIST IS NOT MY THEORIES,BUT SOME MAGYAR HISTORIANS AND OTHERS HISTORIANS SAYS !
AND TELL ME YOUR THEORIES! AND GIVE ME ANSWER WITH PROOF AND RESOURCE?...WITHOUT MAGYAR PROPAGANDA!
AND DONT TROLLING ABOUT WLACHS!...BECAUSE FOR WLACHS,HISTORIANS
HAVE PROOF!,BUT FOR MAGYAR NOT!
AND DECIDE ARE YOU HUNS OR MAGYARS,OR YOU ARE "Madjars" from Kazakhstan!
Last edited by Baron Vlad Felix; September 19, 2008 at 05:41 PM.
But uhh, IT DOESN'T. Just because vlachs who had migrated to some areas or been pushed into the foothills of regions by the Slavs and others were eventually associated with cattle-breeding and shepherding doesn't mean that they mean the same thing.Originally Posted by snipa
If you can prove otherwise please provide the etymology of vlach. Where does it come from? Why is it that the Italians are also called Olasz and Wlochy? Do you even realize how ridiculous your argument is?
Whoa whoa Odo, slow down. You've already disproven your country man twice in roughly 6 lines of text. So we agree that:Originally Posted by Odovacar
a) Blacii are Vlachs, as written under the French-influenced form (after all lots of crusaders went through Hungary) and not some strange "bolgar-turkic tribe"?
b) vlach does not mean shepherd and is not derived from the act of shepherding, but is in fact derived (as I stated) from a German term for Romanized people.
Alright, onto the next argument: so the pastores romanorum and the vlachs are both Franks according to you (and I know you may have read it somewhere else)? I find this more than a little hard to believe. First of all, why would he mention the same people, in the same geographical area, under two different names? Second of all, Descriptio Europae Orientalis mentions that the vlachs of Thessaly came from Pannonia, as they were expulsed when the Magyars came. While I can't claim this is perfect fact (as I don't have a time machine) it adds considerable credibility to the notion that pastores romanorum were Romanians.
EDIT: VLAD, calmeaza-te. Sau macar scrie intrun font mai mic. Don't be so aggressive man; the truth does not need 28-point bold red letters to stand out. Besides, the most productive debates are those that aren't adversarial.
Last edited by Romano-Dacis; September 19, 2008 at 05:42 PM.