Page 7 of 43 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161732 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 846

Thread: Debate over Transylvania

  1. #121

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    You took words out of my mouth, Odovacar

  2. #122

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    2. Kekaumenos mentions those Vlachs are the descendants of the Dacians and Bessi.
    And Kekaumenos hadnt mentions about vlach lived in Transylvania, right?

    3. The Romanians of Glad were also descendants of the Dacians and Bessi.
    1. Glad place of origin is Vidin according to your favorite hungarian chronicle! So Glad came from balkan! right?

    2. Glad people were cumans, bolgars and blacii not romanians, according to your favorite hungarian chronicle!



    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.
    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!

    no comment!

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

    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);
    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!

    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.
    why u wonder? i dont understand!
    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!

    Actually you need to improve your English a little. "Prior to the 11th century" means "before the 11th century"
    ohhh my very clever friend
    help me.... explain me which people were pushed to southwards by hungarians in 10th c.?

    As I was saying, discussing this issue requires knowledge (as in reading the primary sources) and logical thinking.
    yeah, yeah funny to read from someone who dont know whats mean his nation name!


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

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

    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.
    1. If the blacii were Romance speaking population of the area why anonymous separeted the "sepherd of romans" and Blacii ?

    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!

    I love the logical acrobatics the revisionist Hungarians resort to: Anonymus must be wrong in order for them to be right.
    logical acrobatics? u newer heard about medieval chronicler made mistakes?

    Btw Anonymous said magyars = huns, in the time of huns there is nothing about blacii or vlach! What is your conclusion?

    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
    ohhh but where u find this?, if i know good Hodor K. belived it was a 11th c. wooden castle!

    Do you know who the Scythians were?
    firtsly i asked u do u know where and when lived the cumans?

    Anonymus uses an anachronism just like Ana Comnena does.
    Or use the history situation of his time or use anachronism for Blacii too!

    You are well acquainted with the Byzantine sources, aren't you?
    have u ever read the Byzantine sources about Settlement of the Magyars in Hungary which was created in 10th c. ? pls check it!

    Good to see the [low] level you're dragging this debate to
    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. !


    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?
    where i said this?
    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?

    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?
    and? daco-romans got the high roman culture or not?
    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.

  3. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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 !
    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 )
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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!
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymus
    The envoys of Duke Árpád, Vsubuu and Veluc, crossed the Tisza river at the harbour of Lucj [in portu Lucy] and setting forth from there, coming to the castle of Bihar, they greeted Duke Menumorout and presented to him the gifts that their duke had sent. Then, relaying to him the message of Duke Árpád they asked for the land which we have named earlier.

    Duke Menumorout received them kindly and, enriched with divers gifts, he ordered them homewards. Nevertheless, he so replied, saying:

    "Say to Árpád, duke of Hungary, your lord, that we owe him as a friend to a friend in all the matters that he needs because a guest is a human being and lacking in much. But the land that he seeks of our grace we will in no way surrender while we live.

    We consider it shameful that Duke Salan has given him a very great land either out of affection, as is said, or out of fear, as is denied. Neither from affection nor from fear will we grant him land, even as little as he may hold in his fist, even though he says it is his right.

    And his words do not disquiet our thoughts when he tells us that he is
    descended from the line of King Attila, who is called the scourge of God, who seized this land with violent grasp from my forbear, for by the grace of my lord the emperor of Constantinople [Constantinopolitani] no one can snatch it from my hands."

    And having said this, he gave them leave to withdraw.
    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 force
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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!

    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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!
    Could it be what Nestor says is the Hungarians first arrived in the area as associates of other raiders?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Totaly wrong, why? Read again this mentions there is clearly that they were serving the Byzantine Empire...
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Btw, correct me but north of the danube delta is in Transylvania?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    huh? i said the vlach's place of origin was close to albania!
    read again my pots!
    Yes you said and you made a fool of yourself in public.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    which mean Kekaumenos has written mention about their place of origin was out of Transylvania!
    right?
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    its interesting that hungarians building survived the Tatars, isnt it?
    but all the daco-romans-vlach was destoryed! lol
    Fire and wood are not exactly good friends, are they?

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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!
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    And Kekaumenos hadnt mentions about vlach lived in Transylvania, right?
    Anonymus did And Anonymus shows how come the Vlachs attacked the Byzantines, which ended in defeat and resettlement into Thessaly.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    1. Glad place of origin is Vidin according to your favorite hungarian chronicle! So Glad came from balkan! right?
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    2. Glad people were cumans, bolgars and blacii not romanians, according to your favorite hungarian chronicle!
    Didn't we go over the Blacii a few pages ago?!
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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!
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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!
    Vlach/Wallachian/Voloh/Waloon means simply a nation which speaks a Romance language (French, Romanian, Italian).
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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!
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    why u wonder? i dont understand!
    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 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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!
    Albania is right next door to Greece. The word for "church" should therefore be derived from the Greek "ecclesia". It's not.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    ohhh my very clever friend
    help me.... explain me which people were pushed to southwards by hungarians in 10th c.?
    Still having difficulties with the meaning of the word "prior"?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    yeah, yeah funny to read from someone who dont know whats mean his nation name!
    My nation's name is and has always been "Romani" (Romans in Latin language).
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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...
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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?
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    1. If the blacii were Romance speaking population of the area why anonymous separeted the "sepherd of romans" and Blacii ?
    Because shepherd =/= Vlach. How many times do I need to explain to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    2. Where u find a mention about blacii were Romance speaking population from Anonymous?

    Blacii are the Vlachs. Vlachs = Romance language speakers. Vlachs =/= shepherds. Get it?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    It would be better for u if anonymous used "latin speaking vlach" but its just a dream for rumanians!

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    logical acrobatics? u newer heard about medieval chronicler made mistakes?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Btw Anonymous said magyars = huns, in the time of huns there is nothing about blacii or vlach! What is your conclusion?
    Read harder! Anonymus says Arpad claimed to be a descendant of Attila.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    ohhh but where u find this?, if i know good Hodor K. belived it was a 11th c. wooden castle!
    And your point is? Hodor lived in 1837. Not exactly the age of carbon dating
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Or use the history situation of his time or use anachronism for Blacii too!
    Blacii can't be an anachronism since they were called like that before and after Anonymus.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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. !
    So far the only fiction on this thread seems your idea about the origins of the Romanians.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    where i said this?
    seems to me you have a little weak-headed...
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    i asked u: Basque was romanized people and got the romans culture as u said about daco-romans or not?
    OK, let's go on easy steps:

    What is the lack of documents supposed to prove according to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    and? daco-romans got the high roman culture or not?
    if yes where are their written documents to 14th c.?
    What does language have to do with surviving documents? Especially when you have surviving inscriptions (stone and bronze being more resilient than paper).
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Basque got the high roman culture or not?
    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

  4. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    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?
    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!


    (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 )
    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!

    If there lived vlachs in transylvania why didnt fight against the byzantine army?

    Humm, come again? The Huns were there before the Daco-Romans? What kind of logic are you using?
    huhh seems to me the very good romanian's logic doesnt work sometimes!
    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 Hungarians first arrived in the area as associates of other raiders?
    Could it be what Nestor says is the "Woloch" conquered this area from slavs as associates of Frank?
    Which according to History!

    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;
    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...
    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!



    1. The place of origin of the Vlachs of the Balkans is outside the Balkans, according to Kekaumenos. Therefore far from Albania
    im realy glad that u understand there are many many different mentions in medieval chronicles!

    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.
    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. 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!



    Fire and wood are not exactly good friends, are they?
    so daco-romans couldnt build anything with stone through 1100 years? lol

    yeah the romans could build stone building but romanized daco-romans couldnt any in turn they got the roman culture!

    Logic fails you again or what you've wrote there is again due to lack of knowledge about early Christianity?
    seems to me you have some very good logic fails! but its do not disturb u

    Isn't it pathetic that Hungarians who claim they were the first in Transylvania have to fight Hungarian chronicles and Hungarian archaeological discoveries?
    We knows the true!
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Vlach/Wallachian/Voloh/Waloon means simply a nation which speaks a Romance language (French, Romanian, Italian).


    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 Valašsko (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 (Užice dialect) Вла(х), Старовла(х) medieval nomadic people from Stari Vlah and Mala Vlaška
    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 Valašsko (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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post

    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.


    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.

  5. #125

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    If there lived vlachs in transylvania why didnt fight against the byzantine army?
    Could it be because the Byzantines were the enemies of their oppressors?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    huhh seems to me the very good romanian's logic doesnt work sometimes!
    Lets check it again, When huns ruled this area is there any mentions about vlach or daco-roman in Anonymous GH?
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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
    Must be hard for a Hungarian revisionist to have to dismiss the oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles, ha?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    The high cultured daco-romans couldnt write anything! Poor vlachs
    Did I mention tombstones and big bronze objects?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    In other hand only the rumanians very clever historicals says they are "vlach" the rest says they are frank!
    As in who else thinks those are the German speaking Franks?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Could it be what Nestor says is the "Woloch" conquered this area from slavs as associates of Frank?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Wrong! Vlach's place of origin is in south-balkan closed to Albania.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    its prove the first hungarian written mentions about vlach! 1210 ! before no any!
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    im realy glad that u understand there are many many different mentions in medieval chronicles!
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    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.

    Cimbye's video is not exactly the best source to learn about the Romanian language
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    2. we should check this word in albanian 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    3. also we should chechk this word in the language of rest vlach who stayed in south-balkans
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    btw this reformation is realy intersting!
    Indeed though I doubt you have any clue about it apart from that garbage on Youtube.
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    so daco-romans couldnt build anything with stone through 1100 years? lol

    yeah the romans could build stone building but romanized daco-romans couldnt any in turn they got the roman culture!
    Villages aren't exactly large urban centers able to generate enough resources for big public works are they?
    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    We knows the true!
    And it seems your "truth" is rather restricted to a handful of Hungarian revisionists
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  6. #126

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    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.

  7. #127
    Flavius Nevitta's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    1,747

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    @Dromikaites

    just on a sidenote

    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.
    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.
    RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

    MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS

    formerly known as L.C.Cinna

  8. #128

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania








    Last edited by Baron Vlad Felix; September 19, 2008 at 03:00 PM.

  9. #129

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    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.

  10. #130

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by Horse Archer
    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.
    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?

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Odovacar View Post
    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 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.

    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.
    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?
    Last edited by Romano-Dacis; September 19, 2008 at 03:25 PM.

  11. #131

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post


    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 Valašsko (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 (Užice dialect) Вла(х), Старовла(х) medieval nomadic people from Stari Vlah and Mala Vlaška
    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 Valašsko (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 am VLACH from Serbia..My language,name and surname is Romanian!..and what?

  12. #132

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    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.

  13. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    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
    not realy there werent romanians! Their enemies were bolgars, moravs and franks!

    Must be hard for a Hungarian revisionist to have to dismiss the oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles, ha?
    who is a hungarian revizionist?
    because i disscuss with u about Transylvania in 9th c. ?

    seems to me u have a little persecution mania...

    Did I mention tombstones and big bronze objects?
    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!
    no any informations about their leaders, their generals their cities their events .... etc etc etc through 1000 years!

    yeah, you are absolutly right! LOL

    As in who else thinks those are the German speaking Franks?
    what does it matter? they werent vlach, thats all!

    As in some of the leaders were Romanians. Other were Slavs. Other were Turkic Bulgars. "Gesta Hungarorum" is your friend
    yeah, and when we came here with Attila we didnt find any Blacii!
    "Gesta Hungarorum" is our friend"

    2. They look for additional evidence like archaeological discoveries and linguistic elements.
    and if there are some deficient informations they filled with their fictions as romanians do it!

    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.
    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!

    pls show me a daco-romans history chronicle! and this discussion will end! pls i want to read it!

    1. Read Kekaumenos again;
    not necessary, Kekaumenos hasnt any mention about vlach lived in Transylvania! Thats all...

    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.
    Thanx for L.C.Cinna he spare time for me!
    basilica is a word of Greek origin from basiliké...

    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.
    ok i try it again!
    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!

    As I said, even though ignorance is a bliss, you are definitely abusing it.
    yes yes if someone can confute your fiction, what is it?: ignorance

    In Aromanian (the Vlachs who came from the North and were settled in Thessaly) is "biserica".
    boring...
    basilica is a word of Greek origin from basiliké...

    And it seems your "truth" is rather restricted to a handful of Hungarian revisionists
    again, revizionist...
    what are u talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Romano-Dacis View Post
    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.
    check again who deny that vlach also means sepherd and foreigner!
    Last edited by Dromikaites; September 19, 2008 at 04:18 PM.

  14. #134

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna View Post
    @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.
    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

  15. #135

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    ALOO....WILL SOME OF YOU MAGYAR OR HUNS,TURKS ,MONGOLS.... GIVE ME ANSWER ON MY QUESTIONS,WITH PROOF AND RESOURCE?

  16. #136

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by VLAD FELIX View Post
    1.whether we can answer someone who are Hungarians,where they are come from?
    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!

    2.when they come?
    From Magna Hungaria around 5-6th c.!

    3.Are magyar,turkish,mongol or finoungu..tribe?
    good question, today some says they are ugric people others says they are Turk. (i think they are mixed people, turk & ugric and others)

    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

    4.Are Mongolia motherland,or Kavkaz?
    For huns maybe! For Magyars i dont think so! Some historicals says Baskiria has a good chance to get the name: Magna Hungaria

    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!
    what we want? learn history without fictions!
    we are realy calm, u know the history is history... While nobody knows whats happen in the future we have informations about past!

    WILL SOME OF YOU MAGYAR OR HUNS,TURKS ,MONGOLS.... GIVE ME ANSWER ON MY QUESTIONS,WITH PROOF AND RESOURCE?
    u got it!
    Last edited by snipa; September 19, 2008 at 04:31 PM.

  17. #137

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    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.

  18. #138
    Odovacar's Avatar I am with Europe!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arrabona (Győr, Hungary)
    Posts
    6,120

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Alright, I will ignore Vlad Felix with his "mongolian" theories.


    Quote Originally Posted by Romano-Dacis View Post
    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?
    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)
    Last edited by Odovacar; September 19, 2008 at 05:16 PM.
    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. #139

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    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.

  20. #140

    Default Re: Debate over Transylvania

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa
    check again who deny that vlach also means sepherd and foreigner!
    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.

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Odovacar
    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"
    Whoa whoa Odo, slow down. You've already disproven your country man twice in roughly 6 lines of text. So we agree that:
    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.

Posting Permissions

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