Debate over Transylvania

[Baron Vlad Felix]

Torna-torna frater(TORNA, TORNA, FRATRE)-τόρνα, τόρνα, φράτρε

587 .Theophylactus Simocatta..A famous expression from VI century, "torna, torna, fratre" represents the first written testimony of protoromanian language spoken in Balkan areal. ...

I will ignore you snipa,first YOU TO DONT KNOW YOUR HISTORY!...Your response to my questions is zero! and answers is crazy!..its only blabla..and MAGYAR propaganda!

And what was your written letter 12th century..its in latin?.why?..why not letter in Magyar?What is magyar alphabet?

[Romano-Dacis]

first, at least we can use hungarian written documents as against the missing daco-romans written documents from 2th. c to 14th c. !

Oooh, ouch, big man. Don't mask the fact that you have no answer behind cheap dick-waving.

Nothing! Its just a simple derive from hungarian Bonchida.

And what exactly does Szotmar mean in Hungarian? Please do provide an answer!

Yes of course sometimes its not realy simple but usual rumanians names derive from hungarian name without any meaning!

LOL, yes, like Satu Mare, Maramures, Alba Iulia, Cris etc. You know, all these names which either have meaning in Romanian or are derived from the old Roman terms.

front of the 13th c. all of szeklers were resettled to east border of Hungarian kingdom! it was the most dangerous border of the state!

Not according to some of your own historians.

its an evidence that vlachs appear around 1200 in Transylvania!
Before no any in hungarian written sources from vlach!

Nope, it really isn't. Especially when we consider Legenda Sanctii Demetrii, Annonymus, Simon de Keza, Kinnamos, and of course the various Norse chronicles like the Saga of Eymund.

Pechennegs was used by hungarian kings as frontier guard! Proved by written mentions.
When cumans defeated Pechennegs the hungarian king allow them to resettled to Kingdom of Hungary! And the king used them as frontier guard! Why u try to disprove it? From this events we have written mentions!

So uhh, you don't know that the Cumans were primarily settled on the Danube?

And you said I'm ignorant.

Can u show me written mentions about daco-romans build a city or fought against anyone from 2th c. to 14th c.?

From the post-Colonial Roman period (4th-5th century): Sucidava, Arcidava, Alba, Transalba, Drobeta, Marisca, and certainly many more which escaped Roman notice.

As for leaders: Ammianus Marcellinus names rulers North of the Danube who were attacking the Roman Empire. Judging by the names, they are clearly Dacian or Latin: Zinafer/Zinaper (son of Zina), Zizais, Usafer/Usaper (son of Usa), Rumon, Fragiledus and Agilimundus. I could go further with other authors, like for instance Kuber, the leader of the Romans taken North of the Danube by the Avars in the 6th century, but this is sufficient for now.

its prove that before hungarian king resettled the saxons in Transylvania they are missing from hungarian written mentions, after they appear according to history!

And? is it prove that they lived there before 13th c. ?
Btw i love romanians logic too, romanians said they had very good inhabited cities and urban environment with agrarian culture in Transylvania from 2th c. And now u say Romanians almost exclusively populated the forests. The forests are totaly good place for agrarian, arent it?

I stated Romanians inhabited cities? I states cities were gradually abandoned as they were magnets for barbarians. The forests were to become the defense of the Romanians. And yes, forests do allow for agriculture as people can create clearings, but I suppose such things are unfamiliar to a Hungarian. Hell, there are accounts of barbarians looking for crows circling over forests in order to find the inhabitants [Djuvara].

its realy interesting that u critizating the written mentions but u cant show us anything created by daco-romans from 2th c. to 14th c. !

It's really interesting how you don't seem to understand the prerequisite for a chancellery.

The fact remains: every medieval author is against you. You can't find one medieval source that corroborates your theory. Instead you rely on a 19th century invention for history.

I've answered enough of your stupid questions. Now you will answer mine. Why did you drastically switch historical theories in the 19th century? And yes, I realize Odo said "scientific history" started in the 19th century, but that still means they must have found evidence to require a switch of opinion from supporting Daco-Roman to anti-Daco-Roman. Give me the evidence.

More importantly: name one piece of archaeological evidence that shows Romanians were in Albania. Where is the archaeology? Do you see any cities in Albania which are of Romanian origin? Certainly "scholarly research" by Hungarians would have to include archaeology.

[Baron Vlad Felix]

Said byzantian emperor sadly didn't know about vlachs

Battle of Sirmium Date July 8, 1167

Byzantines, supported by Cuman, Italian, Serbian and Wallachian units!

Result:Byzantine victory!

During the early summer of 1167, the Byzantine army under Andronikos managed to lure a combined Hungarian force to battle near Sirmium. According to Byzantine Historian John Haldon (who refers to the Byzantines as Romans, in deference to their status as the continuation of the eastern Roman Empire), the disposition of the two opposing armies was thus:
"Kontostephanos drew up his forces in three divisions, as usual, at some distance from the river Sava, to his rear. The main battle line was shielded by a screen of horse archers - Turks and Cumans - and some western mercenary knights, who had made up the vanguard of the army. The centre, which had constituted the rearguard on the march, was commanded by Kontostephanos himself, and consisted of the imperial guards units, including the Varangians and Hetaireiai, units of Italian mercenaries from Lombardy (probably lancers) and a unit of 500 armored Serbian allied infantry, as well as the Wallachian Cavalry.

Battle of Levounion Date April 29, 1091:

Byzantines, supported by Cumans, Vlachs, Bulgarians and Frankish and Flemish mercenaries.
Alexios I Komnenos, Byzantine Emperor
Strength:
20,000 Byzantines
40,000 Cumans
5,000 Vlachs
500 Flemings

Result:Byzantine victory!

didn't know about vlachs?





Menumorut ,Glad ,Ahtum, Gelu.

Bravo and cumans lived in Transylvania from 9th c.!

Menumorut

The ambassadors of Árpád crossed the Tisza and came to the capital fortress of Biharia, demanding important territories on the left bank of the river for their duke. Menumorut replied:

"Dicite Arpadio duci Hungarie, domino uestro, debitores sumus ei, ut amicus amico, in omnibus, que ei necessaria sunt, quia hospes homo est, et in multis indiget. Terram autem, quam petiut a nostra gratia, nullatenus concedimus nobis uiuentibus. Hoc etiam indigne tulimus quod Salanus dux ei concessit maximam terram, aut propter amorem, ut dicitur, aut propter timorem, quod negatur. Nos autem nec propter amorem nec propter timorem ei concedimus terram, etiam quantum pugillus caperet, licet dixerit ius suum esse. Et uerba sua non conturbant animum nostrum eo, quod mandauerit nobis se descendisse de Atthile regis, qui flagellum dei dicebatur, qui etiam uiolenta manu rapuerat terram hanc ab atthauo meo, sed tamen modo per gratiam domini mei imperatoris Constantinopolitani nemo protest auferre de manibus meis."

Or:"Tell Arpad, duke of Hungary, your lord: Indebted we are to him as a friend to a friend, with all requisite to him, since he is a stranger and lacks many. Yet the territory he asked from our good will never will we bestow as long as we will be alive. And we felt sorry that duke Salanus conceded him a very large territory out either of love, which it is said, or out of fear, which is denied. Ourself on the other hand, neither out of love nor out of fear, we will ever concede him land, not even if spanning only a finger, although he said he has a right on it. And his words do not trouble our heart that he stressed he descends from the strain of king Attila, which was called the scourge of God. And if that one raped this country from my ancestor, now thanks to my lord the emperor of Constantinople, nobody can snatch it from my hands."

Duke Gelu the Romanian (originally Blacus in Gesta Hungarorum which means Romanian) was ruling over Transylvania and had his capital at Dăbâca.

Duke Glad (Bulgarian and Serbian Cyrillic: Глад) was, according to the Gesta Hungarorum, a voivod (dux) from Bundyn (Vidin), ruler of the territory of Banat, during the 9th and 10th centuries. He also ruled part of south Transylvania, and Vidin region, and was a local governor or vassal of the First Bulgarian Empire under Bulgarian tsar Simeon. Glad had authority over the Slavs and Vlachs, which consisted most of the population of mentioned regions at the time.

Duke Ahtum was of the Orthodox Christian faith, an ally of the Byzantine Empire and was sustained by an army of Bulgarians and Vlachs. He was baptized as an Orthodox Christian in Vidin, but would continue to live as a polygamist with seven wives. The territory where he ruled was located between Mureş, Tisa, and Danube rivers, and the southern Carpathians, in a region that would later be called the Banat.

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

Snipa....

This thread is about Transylvania not about serbian lies

About Transylvania

Hey olah guys you didn't answered my questions! So please

Is this debate about Transylvania?...Is this magyar RESOURCE?

[Odovacar]

Said byzantian emperor sadly didn't know about vlachs

Said byzantian emperor: Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos.
Read more carefully....He didnt know about vlachs then. That doesnt mean byzantians never knew about vlachs.

I am out of here, from this festival of stupidity....

[Baron Vlad Felix]

SNIPA:

i dont belive this... This name "romanians" wasnt used to 19th. c!
So dacians turned into vlach? But vlach came from south balkan...

Give me RESOURCE?!

Because the vlach borrowed albanian words in south-balkan after they moved to north as Byzance source show us!

Give me RESOURCE?!

give me the source where Anonymous said "vlach" in his Gesta Hungarorum!
i suppose u read GH, tell me what Anonymous said who lived in central Transylvania...

Here is the answer:

A 13th century Hungarian chronicle, Gesta Hungarorum, claims that when the Magyars arrived in Pannonia, the surrounding areas were inhabited by Vlachs (Romanians).!

Said byzantian emperor: Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos.
Read more carefully....He didnt know about vlachs then. That doesnt mean byzantians never knew about vlachs...



I am out of here, from this festival of stupidity....

It is his problem that he didnt know about vlachs...but is iportant before him Vizantians emperors knew!...

Torna,torna frater:

festival of stupidity....Of magyar false reality and evidence!....pa,pa..salut:thumbsup4!

[snipa]

Torna-torna frater(TORNA, TORNA, FRATRE)-τόρνα, τόρνα, φράτρε

587 .Theophylactus Simocatta..A famous expression from VI century, "torna, torna, fratre" represents the first written testimony of protoromanian language spoken in Balkan areal. ...

I will ignore you snipa,first YOU TO DONT KNOW YOUR HISTORY!...Your response to my questions is zero! and answers is crazy!..its only blabla..and MAGYAR propaganda!

well, your points mean from romanians point of view that:
- Theophylactus Simocatta is a daco-romans
- He lived in area what today called as Romania
- this "daco-romans" document with 3 words is the base of daco-romans theory!

right?

And what was your written letter 12th century..its in latin?.why?..why not letter in Magyar?What is magyar alphabet?

1055 when the first hungarian document created in hungarian language! and yours? ahh sory u said from 587 ! u are absolutly right!

Oooh, ouch, big man. Don't mask the fact that you have no answer behind cheap dick-waving.

hmm? read again u got an answer! just seems to me u didnt notice that because your nationalist feeling blind your eyes!

And what exactly does Szotmar mean in Hungarian? Please do provide an answer!

u choosed a bad example for u!
The first informations about this city from 1241. (There was a ground-castle.)

the correct and full name of this city is: Szatmárnémeti

2 different cities Szatmár and Németi wre unioned..
The name Szatmár was derived from germans settlers they called this city as: Salzmarkt (mean Salt Market)

The name Németi which mean "german" in hungarian was also belongs to germans. Germans settlers was resettled to this village by queen Gizella wife of St. Stephen.

combined this 2 words: Szatmárnémeti

now lets check the romanian name:
Satu Mare ->
Satu mean nothing in romanian language! its obviously derived from hungarian "Szat" word!
Mare mean "Great" in romanian language which not according to the meaning of this city name!

Szatmár -> Satu Mare; as u can see and try to pronounce Satu Mare comes from hungarian Szatmár by ear!

LOL, yes, like Satu Mare, Maramures, Alba Iulia, Cris etc. You know, all these names which either have meaning in Romanian or are derived from the old Roman terms.

i suggest u do not try to prove that all names of old villages and cities had romanian name and later change to hungarian!
its a simple lie!

at least u should write here the few romanian name of villages which has origin romanian name and i cant disprove!
Those are too easy! I do not want to waste my time for it!

Not according to some of your own historians.

lets explain me! There are 4 different theories for szeklers! Today no one is accepted by hungarian historicals without doubt. I interested about what a vlach "knows?" from them!

Nope, it really isn't. Especially when we consider Legenda Sanctii Demetrii, Annonymus, Simon de Keza, Kinnamos, and of course the various Norse chronicles like the Saga of Eymund.

easy...
correct me, but i asked u to give me hungarian old document which has mentions about vlach before 1200...
which one belongs to my question from your points?

So uhh, you don't know that the Cumans were primarily settled on the Danube?

And you said I'm ignorant.

ohh pls, im sure i have more knowledge about cumans in Hungary like u!
Cumans were resettled between danube and tisa river by IV. Bela before the Tatar invasion.

After the tatar invasion we have written sources about 40.000 cuman families were resettled to Hungarian kingdom from cumania u know your current country without Transylvania.

But its not mean that before this events no any cumans lived in Hungary!
If its realy important for u we can discuss about cumans in Hungary!

From the post-Colonial Roman period (4th-5th century): Sucidava, Arcidava, Alba, Transalba, Drobeta, Marisca, and certainly many more which escaped Roman notice.

As for leaders: Ammianus Marcellinus names rulers North of the Danube who were attacking the Roman Empire. Judging by the names, they are clearly Dacian or Latin: Zinafer/Zinaper (son of Zina), Zizais, Usafer/Usaper (son of Usa), Rumon, Fragiledus and Agilimundus. I could go further with other authors, like for instance Kuber, the leader of the Romans taken North of the Danube by the Avars in the 6th century, but this is sufficient for now.

Huh, clearly dacian or latin? funny! i see romanians fiction project works very well!

Ammianus said: "nobles of sarmatas Rumo, Zinafer and Fragiletus take an oan that in the future they will accept the orders without reluctance"

As e knows some groups of sarmata were serving the Romans to defend the border of empire! They were sarmatas not dacian or latin!

The fact remains: every medieval author is against you. You can't find one medieval source that corroborates your theory. Instead you rely on a 19th century invention for history.

hö?

I've answered enough of your stupid questions. Now you will answer mine. Why did you drastically switch historical theories in the 19th century?

stupid? i think rather annoying for u!

for your question: it was supported by Austria

And yes, I realize Odo said "scientific history" started in the 19th century, but that still means they must have found evidence to require a switch of opinion from supporting Daco-Roman to anti-Daco-Roman. Give me the evidence.

ahhh, i've already wrote u mass numbers of evidence which disprove the daco-roman theory!

More importantly: name one piece of archaeological evidence that shows Romanians were in Albania.

lol, pls read my posts again! where i stated they were in Albania?

and I've been waiting for romanian written documents created by daco-romans from 2th c. to 14th c. !
its the 4th times when i request from romanians!

[Romano-Dacis]

hmm? read again u got an answer! just seems to me u didnt notice that because your nationalist feeling blind your eyes!



u choosed a bad example for u!
The first informations about this city from 1241. (There was a ground-castle.)

the correct and full name of this city is: Szatmárnémeti

2 different cities Szatmár and Németi wre unioned..
The name Szatmár was derived from germans settlers they called this city as: Salzmarkt (mean Salt Market)


Szatmár -> Satu Mare; as u can see and try to pronounce Satu Mare comes from hungarian Szatmár by ear!

Totally off. The word "Satu Mare" comes from "Satul Mare" meaning "Great Village." Second of all, archaeologically the city has been there at least since the 8th century.

i suggest u do not try to prove that all names of old villages and cities had romanian name and later change to hungarian!
its a simple lie!

No comment!

at least u should write here the few romanian name of villages which has origin romanian name and i cant disprove!
Those are too easy! I do not want to waste my time for it!

Make my day. You seem quite intent on wasting everyone else's time by writing useless tripe and illogical arguments. Arguments of the style "Romanians had cyrillic letters, therefore they are not Latin."

lets explain me! There are 4 different theories for szeklers! Today no one is accepted by hungarian historicals without doubt. I interested about what a vlach "knows?" from them!

Normally I don't pick on people for ESL, but I honestly can't understand what you're saying.

easy...
correct me, but i asked u to give me hungarian old document which has mentions about vlach before 1200...
which one belongs to my question from your points?

Why should I settle for Hungarian when Anna Komenos mentions "Dacians" North of the Danube (being part of Tzelgu's army) in her Alexiadis in the 12th century? How about Gardizi who mentions a population that was "from Rome" (az Rum), bound between the Moravians, the Black Sea, and the Nipru river in the 11th century? It's not my fault Hungarians only started mentioning ethnicities in Transylvania in the 13th century (caused by the arrival of the Saxons).

ohh pls, im sure i have more knowledge about cumans in Hungary like u!
Cumans were resettled between danube and tisa river by IV. Bela before the Tatar invasion.

In other words: you agree with me. Between the Danube and Tisa is hardly a "frontier region."

After the tatar invasion we have written sources about 40.000 cuman families were resettled to Hungarian kingdom from cumania u know your current country without Transylvania.

Somebody tell that to the Ukranians!

Huh, clearly dacian or latin? funny! i see romanians fiction project works very well!

Nice retort man. Next time you should try some substance.

As e knows some groups of sarmata were serving the Romans to defend the border of empire! They were sarmatas not dacian or latin!

Their names are clearly Dacian and Latin. They show no resemblance to any Scythian name seen in the past. On the other hand the name Zizais is encountered in Roman documents as being the name of the wife of Costoboc (as in Dacian) king Pieporus. Zinaper again has numerous analogues in Dacian names, like Zina, Zena, Zinama, Ziepyr, Ziaporus, Ziper etc. Usafer/Usaper has his name, Usa, very similar to Sarmizegetusa. Meanwhile Rumon, Fragiledus, and Agilimundus are clearly Romanized names. Any evidence they were Sarmatians? Don't think so. Zizais, Zinafer, and Usafer are most probably of Carpic (Dacian) origin, as Maximianus Gallerius had ordered their colonization into the Empire in 295.

stupid? i think rather annoying for u!

for your question: it was supported by Austria

Wow, supported by your partner-in-crime in the AH Empire. Who-would-a-thunk, eh? Looks to me like the Austrians didn't want to lose their empire either.

ahhh, i've already wrote u mass numbers of evidence which disprove the daco-roman theory!

Incidentally, your "evidences" couldn't prove their way out of a paper bag.

lol, pls read my posts again! where i stated they were in Albania?

I'm not going to go quote-hunt for some amnesiac, but just check your post #122: "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!" So, show me the evidence! It's not a hard task is it? Surely Hungarians have done some archaeological digs to try to prove their BS?

The truth is not only can you not find "vlach artifacts" in Albania, but you won't even find an archaeological record of mass relocations in Moesia Inferior in 275. Furthermore, over 70% of the archaeological sites and cemetaries in Dacia show continuous habitation from 250-330. In other words, those sites were not evacuated by the Romans!

and I've been waiting for romanian written documents created by daco-romans from 2th c. to 14th c. !
its the 4th times when i request from romanians!

Except your request doesn't prove anything one way or the other because:
a) Solid objects with written Latin were preserved (Biertan Donarium, Latin-inscribed ring from Micia, dozens of pots with Latin writing etched in them, tombstones etc. This alone is evidence Latin speakers persisted in the area.
b) Written documents requires some form of storage place for them, which requires a library, which requires a state. How many Basque documents do you see? How many Gallo-Roman documents do you see? The fact is there aren't any documents from Transylvania in this period not because people didn't live there but because the region was very unstable. Hard objects which could survive did; anything on paper didn't.

Dromikaites has already explained this to you 3 other times. I'm not going to do it a 5th time. Since you so falsely view documents as the only credible evidence for a population's existence, can you please give me the first Romansh document written in Switzerland? What about the first vlach document from Albania (or anywhere in the Balkans!)? I think you'll find that your little theory about documents holds no water, and I only need a few select examples to prove it.

[Dracula]

Dear Mr. Vlad (Felix).
This is a forum for people who debate history

If all hungarians know history like that and believe every unscientific crap that is in circulation,I'll have to change my oppinion on Hungary to very low.

And Vlad's english is comparatively good,btw.

[yxc qwert!]

If all hungarians know history like that and believe every unscientific crap that is in circulation,I'll have to change my oppinion on Hungary to very low.

And Vlad's english is comparatively good,btw.

Compared to what? A snail?

[Dromikaites]

now lets check the romanian name:
Satu Mare ->
Satu mean nothing in romanian language! its obviously derived from hungarian "Szat" word!
Mare mean "Great" in romanian language which not according to the meaning of this city name!

Szatmár -> Satu Mare; as u can see and try to pronounce Satu Mare comes from hungarian Szatmár by ear!

OK, so here's a short lesson of Romanian language:

a village = un sat (remember the fossatum, "surrounded with ditches"?)
the village = satul. In Romanian language the article is placed at the end of the word (unlike in any other Romance language - yet another indication Romanian branched out from Latin outside the borders of the Roman Empire )

Now if the word "village" is used as a name of a place the final "l" from the definite article is dropped. This way the listener knows I'm talking about Satu Mare (the city) and not about "satul mare" (the big village).

Where exactly have you learned Romanian?!

[snipa]

Totally off. The word "Satu Mare" comes from "Satul Mare" meaning "Great Village." Second of all, archaeologically the city has been there at least since the 8th century.

ok, lets show me the first daco-romans written document from Satul Mare!

And we will see who has right!

Remember the first hungarian written source from Szatmár is created in 1241!
Which show us:
(There was a ground-castle.)

the correct and full name of this city is: Szatmárnémeti

2 different cities Szatmár and Németi were unioned..
The name Szatmár was derived from germans settlers they called this city as: Salzmarkt (mean Salt Market)

The name Németi which mean "german" in hungarian was also belongs to germans. Germans settlers was resettled to this village by queen Gizella wife of St. Stephen.

Szatmár(németi) -> Satu Mare; as u can see and try to pronounce Satu Mare comes from hungarian Szatmár by ear!

No comment!

if u want we can check all names!
And we will compare the first hungarian and romanian written documents from those cities!

Make my day. You seem quite intent on wasting everyone else's time by writing useless tripe and illogical arguments. Arguments of the style "Romanians had cyrillic letters, therefore they are not Latin."

useless tripe and illogical arguments yeah, because i disprove the daco-roman theory as well!

Romanians used cyrillic letters to 18th c. in turn they got the latin culture! Not only in documents of ortodox church or their documents of government... They used this alphabet to write a letter!
Everybody can make a conclusion!

Normally I don't pick on people for ESL, but I honestly can't understand what you're saying.

huh?

when i wrote theories of szeklers, your answer was: Not according to some of your own historians.

and i asked u: lets explain me! There are 4 different theories for szeklers! Today no one is accepted by hungarian historicals without doubt.

It's not my fault Hungarians only started mentioning ethnicities in Transylvania in the 13th century (caused by the arrival of the Saxons).

so u agree with me that no any hungarian written mentions about vlach lived in Erdély/Transylvania before 1200!
Sorry for me but this one is deny your theory!

In other words: you agree with me. Between the Danube and Tisa is hardly a "frontier region."

So u think only the borders people was used as frontier guard?
If u have correct informations about cumans u should know they were rider nomadic people. They need plain for their life style. But their main job was serving the king as soldiers. (they had a special right and only the king used them)

And this cumans warriors was used as frontier guard as well! In other hand they were used in hungarian army too. Kun László hungarian king had 8000 cuman warriors in his army!

As i told u we have written mentions about cumans warriors were used as frontier guard. If u want to disprove it show me your evidence!

Somebody tell that to the Ukranians!

what?

Any evidence they were Sarmatians? Don't think so. Zizais, Zinafer, and Usafer are most probably of Carpic (Dacian) origin, as Maximianus Gallerius had ordered their colonization into the Empire in 295.

What more u need?
Ammianus clearly said: "nobles of sarmatas Rumo, Zinafer and Fragiletus take an oan that in the future they will accept the orders without reluctance"

In other hand I guess u have a very good list of dacian names in your daco-romans written documents!

Wow, supported by your partner-in-crime in the AH Empire. Who-would-a-thunk, eh? Looks to me like the Austrians didn't want to lose their empire either.

And?

Incidentally, your "evidences" couldn't prove their way out of a paper bag.

Incidentally, romanians havent any written sources created by daco-romans-vlach to 14th c.
In turn reputedly they are latinized people who got the roman culture from 2th c. Its mean they didnt write anythings through 1200 years! And in their first written sources used cirill alphabet from 14th c. !

its interesting, isnt it?

But romanians can make their fiction history without their written sources...

I'm not going to go quote-hunt for some amnesiac, but just check your post #122: "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!" So, show me the evidence! It's not a hard task is it?

so u think "close to albania" mean "in albania" ?

Since you so falsely view documents as the only credible evidence for a population's existence, can you please give me the first Romansh document written in Switzerland?

one question the people who lived in Switzerland were systematical romanized as romanians stated from daco-romans or not?
Is there a theory that they had a survived romans culture and states through many hundred years as romanians stated from daco-romans?

as i told your friend i belive u just show me the daco-romans written documents from 2th 3th 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th c.
Not so difficult because romanians had a very nice history im sure u can prove it with your written sources! Its a very simple request... Thats all...

[yxc qwert!]

OK, so here's a short lesson of Romanian language:

a village = un sat (remember the fossatum, "surrounded with ditches"?)
the village = satul. In Romanian language the article is placed at the end of the word (unlike in any other Romance language - yet another indication Romanian branched out from Latin outside the borders of the Roman Empire )

Now if the word "village" is used as a name of a place the final "l" from the definite article is dropped. This way the listener knows I'm talking about Satu Mare (the city) and not about "satul mare" (the big village).

Where exactly have you learned Romanian?!

Like all other cities, Székelyudvarhely(Odorheiu Seculuiesc), Nagyvárad (Oradea (from Várad)), the county Beszterce-Naszód (Bistrica-Nasaud(from german Bistritz, like in Hungarian)), or the funny case when the Village-renaming delegation renamed the two villages Magyarlapád (Hun. Lapád) and Románlapád(Rom. Lapád) to Lopadea Noua (=new lapád =Hun. Lapád) and Lopadea Veche (=old lapád= Rom. Lapád).

[snipa]

OK, so here's a short lesson of Romanian language:

a village = un sat (remember the fossatum, "surrounded with ditches"?)
the village = satul. In Romanian language the article is placed at the end of the word (unlike in any other Romance language - yet another indication Romanian branched out from Latin outside the borders of the Roman Empire )

Now if the word "village" is used as a name of a place the final "l" from the definite article is dropped. This way the listener knows I'm talking about Satu Mare (the city) and not about "satul mare" (the big village).

Where exactly have you learned Romanian?!

we can compare the first hungarian and romanian sources from this city!
So the mention from 1241 which said tatar army destoryed the ground-castle, in this document the city name was: Szatmár

Later we have written mention about this city was named as Saltmark by germans.

The first mention about this city in hungarian royal documents created in 1150, here the name of the city was: Zothmar (Zothmar is a hungarian person name, but the current name of this city Szatmár comes from german Saltmark)

so? i wait for your first romanian mentions about this city!

[Romano-Dacis]

ok, lets show me the first daco-romans written document from Satul Mare!

And we will see who has right!

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

Szatmár(németi) -> Satu Mare; as u can see and try to pronounce Satu Mare comes from hungarian Szatmár by ear!

Repeating the lie won't get you anywhere.

if u want we can check all names!
And we will compare the first hungarian and romanian written documents from those cities!

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

Romanians used cyrillic letters to 18th c. in turn they got the latin culture! Not only in documents of ortodox church or their documents of government... They used this alphabet to write a letter!
Everybody can make a conclusion!

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

so u agree with me that no any hungarian written mentions about vlach lived in Erdély/Transylvania before 1200!
Sorry for me but this one is deny your theory!

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

And this cumans warriors was used as frontier guard as well! In other hand they were used in hungarian army too. Kun László hungarian king had 8000 cuman warriors in his army!

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

What more u need?
Ammianus clearly said: "nobles of sarmatas Rumo, Zinafer and Fragiletus take an oan that in the future they will accept the orders without reluctance"

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

In other hand I guess u have a very good list of dacian names in your daco-romans written documents!

In case you didn't know the Romans generally wrote stuff down about the people they fought.

And?

First step to a crime is a motive.

Incidentally, romanians havent any written sources created by daco-romans-vlach to 14th c.
In turn reputedly they are latinized people who got the roman culture from 2th c. Its mean they didnt write anythings through 1200 years! And in their first written sources used cirill alphabet from 14th c. !

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

its interesting, isnt it?

Nope, more boring than interesting.

so u think "close to albania" mean "in albania" ?

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

one question the people who lived in Switzerland were systematical romanized as romanians stated from daco-romans or not?
Is there a theory that they had a survived romans culture and states through many hundred years as romanians stated from daco-romans?

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

as i told your friend i belive u just show me the daco-romans written documents from 2th 3th 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th c.
Not so difficult because romanians had a very nice history im sure u can prove it with your written sources! Its a very simple request... Thats all...

A request that proves nothing other than documents weren't preserved, which is a natural occurance everywhere around the world.

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

[Pontifex Maximus]

Please focus on debate in here please.

[Dromikaites]

Like all other cities, Székelyudvarhely(Odorheiu Seculuiesc), Nagyvárad (Oradea (from Várad)), the county Beszterce-Naszód (Bistrica-Nasaud(from german Bistritz, like in Hungarian)), or the funny case when the Village-renaming delegation renamed the two villages Magyarlapád (Hun. Lapád) and Románlapád(Rom. Lapád) to Lopadea Noua (=new lapád =Hun. Lapád) and Lopadea Veche (=old lapád= Rom. Lapád).

1. Odorheiul Secuiesc is simply the Romanian translation of the Hungarian name. The name plates of the city are anyway bilingual so if you send a letter to Székelyudvarhely you can be sure it would be delivered to Odorheiul Secuiesc

2. Bistrita-Nasaud comes from the river Bistrita. That river's name is Slavic and means "Fast [running river]". By the way, close to its springs the river is called Repedea (from Latin [i]rapidus[/u], meaning the same "Fast [running river]"). If you have carefully read this thread you would have seen the name of the river supports the Daco-Roman continuity hypothesis (the Latin speakers sought refuge up in the mountains while the Slavs settled in the valley).

3. Given the Romanians were in Transylvania at least 500 years before the Hungarians (more if we count also the Dacians) can be the Hungarian village older than the Romanian one?

Satu Mare exists from before the Hungarian conquest of Transilvania as the archaeological evidence shows. The Hungarians kept the name of Gelu's capital (Dabaca became Doboka in Hungarian) and Menumorut's capital (Bihara became Bihar in Hungarian). Alba Iulia became Gyulafehervar (an approximate translation of the Latin name of the city). Satu Mare means Great Village, a name which makes perfect sense. Why would the Hungarians make an exception in this case?

[Romano-Dacis]

Satu Mare means Great Village, a name which makes perfect sense. Why would the Hungarians make an exception in this case?

Let's just analyze similar names of villages and cities in Transylvania and see if the etymologies stack up with reality.
1) On "Mare" coming from "Mar" coming from "Markt"
We have the example of Targu Mures (meaning "Mures Market), which in German was "Neumarkt am Mieresch" yet in Hungarian it is called "Marosvasarhely" (note: in this case the "Mar" in "Maros" is actually the name of the Mures river, and is not derived from "Markt"). If the Hungarian etymology were correct, the Romanian name should be "Mures Mare" but it isn't. Therefore, this etymology does not stack up.

2) Another analysis of names is "Copsa Mare", which in German is "Grosskopisch" (in other words, a literal translation of "Great Copsa") and not "Kopischmarkt" as the Hungarians claim it should be.

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

4) Zillenmarkt in German becomes "Zalau" in Romanian, not "Zile Mare", and in Hungarian it becomes "Zilah", not "Zilmar".

I could go on with examples like this forever, but the case is clear: your etymology snipa, does not make sense when we look at analogues to it. If a name made sense the Romanians copied the name by meaning, not by sound (e.g. Targu Secuiesc from Szecklermarkt, both mean the same thing). There is not one name we can find that goes from "Markt" to "Mare", not one!

[Baron Vlad Felix]

MIster yxgfhh qwehtrt!...I want to hear from you!:

1.whether we can answer someone who are Hungarians,where they are come from?-Your friends aswer me,but evan they dont know for sure!
2.when they come?..9-10 century!
3.Are magyar,huns,turkish,mongol or finoungu..tribe?or "Madjars" from Kazakhstan!?-but evan they dont know for sure!
4.Are Mongolia motherland,or Kavkaz,kazakstan?-but evan they dont know for sure!
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?!-didnt aswer the question!

proof,evidence?

[Braindead Colonel]

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

Actually what Brailsford said was:

The Vlachs are, in a sense, the pivot of the Macedonian question. They are not numerous in comparison with the Bulgarians, or even with the Albanians. But without them the Greeks would cut a sorry figure.

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/hb/hb_6_7.html

[Baron Vlad Felix]

Actually what Brailsford said was:

The Vlachs are, in a sense, the pivot of the Macedonian question. They are not numerous in comparison with the Bulgarians, or even with the Albanians. But without them the Greeks would cut a sorry figure.

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/hb/hb_6_7.html

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