The migration of vlachs/romanians

[Odovacar]

Anonymus says Magyars found Vlachs and Slavs in Transylvania. I know how Hungarian historiography dismisses the mention of Vlachs, and their mention also in the Kievan chronicle, without any serious reason, but how would have Anonymus knew about Slavs and also how he wouldn't know Vlachs migrated right about in the times he lived but to say they were already present when Magyars arrived. Also it's proved a Romanic population survived in Pannonia untill late, we have no reason to believe this wasn't possible in ancient Dacia, a more sheltered region. Vlachs resisted assimilation South of Danube too, where there was a massive pressure from Slavs, so these populations had some kind of imunity from external influences, explained maybe by the fact they lived where nobody wanted to live, the highlands.

Anonymus is widely disputed even today.
Anonymus mentions dozens of persons we cannot find in the sources, while mentions almost none of the persons we know from sources
(Big people like the emperor of Germany, etc.)

Anonymus mentions the names of the seven leaders of magyars. And guess what?
Even that is not correct by modern research. Several names are copies of each others or later figures. Anonymus thinks the name hungarian refers to Ungvár, a castle built in Arpad-age . Instead of onogur. Of course he never heard about onogurs.

It is generally accepted today that many personal names in the work of Anonymus was made by him. Like Zalanus, the slavic leader, whom the hungarian defeated.
Zalanus-'Zalan' from Szalánkemén. Anonymus had no idea about Svatopluk, the chief enemy of magyars, who 100 procent surely existed as we know from contemporary chronicles.


We would have to believe in what writes if he would have lived in the 10th century. But he lived around 1200.

The kievan chronicle (PVL) refers not to romanians. "Vlach' in the PVL was used to name westerners.It is the same word medieval germans used on latin foreigners "welsch".

[piroska]

Anonymus is widely disputed even today.
.

maybe he was venetian?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallus_Anonymus
because, St Gellert of Hungary was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Sagredo

[Carpathian Wolf]

'' ... the wolf is the most evil animal''
the old sheperd to his son

give me the primary source of this event : city being destroyed

Uh the post you made talks about Muscopole being destroyed...

Anonymus is widely disputed even today.
Anonymus mentions dozens of persons we cannot find in the sources, while mentions almost none of the persons we know from sources
(Big people like the emperor of Germany, etc.)

Anonymus mentions the names of the seven leaders of magyars. And guess what?
Even that is not correct by modern research. Several names are copies of each others or later figures. Anonymus thinks the name hungarian refers to Ungvár, a castle built in Arpad-age . Instead of onogur. Of course he never heard about onogurs.

It is generally accepted today that many personal names in the work of Anonymus was made by him. Like Zalanus, the slavic leader, whom the hungarian defeated.
Zalanus-'Zalan' from Szalánkemén. Anonymus had no idea about Svatopluk, the chief enemy of magyars, who 100 procent surely existed as we know from contemporary chronicles.


We would have to believe in what writes if he would have lived in the 10th century. But he lived around 1200.

The kievan chronicle (PVL) refers not to romanians. "Vlach' in the PVL was used to name westerners.It is the same word medieval germans used on latin foreigners "welsch".

So if anon is wrong about one thing, he must be wrong about everything else too?

Odovacar can you answer the questions I have to piroska?

Primary sources mentioning a migration, archeological evidence etc? Or really what exactly do you believe?

[shikaka]

The way I see the old Hungarian Kingdom is this state stretched beyond the demographic potential of Magyar people. From the beginings Magyars had only a limited potential to occupy a certain amount of territory and make it solidly Hungarian. This territory was Pannonia, where they overcame and assimilated all previous populations. But then their state expanded beyond their ethno demographic possibilities in Slovakia and Transylvania. In Transylvania they tried to colonise the region but they simply hadn't enough people to do the job and transform the province into a solid Magyar one.

This is very much false in the matter that cultural assimilation is a quite modern thing.
Medieval hungarian didn't care about origins.
Cumans, jasons, pechenegs, armenians, germans (saxons), italians, french, romanians, slavs, etc. were all welcomed and were given land. Until the mongol invasion, even muslim villages were present (calisians).
Hungary had foreigners in the high nobility, among burghers, among warrior classes (I guess you know that Hunyadi - governor of Hungary once - was most likely romanian in origin, Stibor was polish, Pippo Scolari was italian, etc.)

in the race for Transylvania Romanians won as the most endurant people.

Race? There was no race.
There was a war and harsh territorial punishment afterwards.

[Carpathian Wolf]

But they cared about religion...

[CiviC]

So what it is that you are trying to deny here, that Vlachs are originally from Romania or Valachia or Vlaska, or that Romanians migrated from south of the Danube??

That Aromanians (or Vlachs as this name aplies only to them today) were born South of Danube and Romanians (or Daco-Romanians) were born North of Danube. There was no North to South or South to North migration over Danube. Aromanians not only they didn't migrate North of Danube but they were pushed South of Jiricek line by Slavs. As for Romanians, the only clear migration is that of some Romanians from Fagaras to found Wallachia and that of Romanians of Maramures to found Moldova, both in regions already inhabited by Romanians. Romanians preserved very well the memory of this founding events, still they have no memory of a large migration from South of Danube. After all we speak of a population ocupying the largest area in South Eastern Europe.



This would be the largest invasion by stealth in history. Also Balkans would have been literally emptied if so many people left. And they left for what? They gave the relatively civilised Balkans to live in wilderness among people like Cumans and exposed to all kinds of Barbarian invasions from North Pontic steppes? And the greatest coincidence : Romanians live exactly in the same area as Dacians, in the same area of Roman Dacia, they speak a Latin language, there is no clear proof of a large migration from Balkans, there are sources to say Magyars found Romanians and Slavs there (and Romanian language has now about 20% Slav loanwords and there is no trace of original Slav population in Romania, indicating assimilation), are we really talking about just coincidences?

This is very much false in the matter that cultural assimilation is a quite modern thing.
Medieval hungarian didn't care about origins.

Yes, they cared. Starting with XIVth century a quasi-apartheid regime against Romanian Orthodox population was instituted. At first it was against Orthodox religion, but considering religion was in Middle Ages also culture and even ethnicity the measures were directed exclusively to Romanains. All Romanians that passed to Catholicism were assimilated into Hungarian ethnicity, so resisting conversion was also resisting assimilation. After Rennaissance the opression became national, not only religious, as Hungarians realised the danger of Romanian majority for their privileged position.

Race? There was no race.
There was a war and harsh territorial punishment afterwards.

There was a historical race to make Transylvania majoritary Hungarian and keep it under Hungarian control. It started from XIVth century with the atempt to assimilate Romanians to Hungarian nation by the mean of Catholic religion. This atempt succeeded only at elites level, all Romanian nobles became Hungarian Catholics; those who refused were deprived of their noble status. The discrimination continued in Rennaisance period when freedom of religion was given to all confessions, Catholic, Calvinis, Lutheran, Unitarian, except for Romanian Orthodox, considerated as "tolerated"! In more recent times Hugarian nationalism in the frame of Austrian Empire fought not only for Magyar nation freedom but also to not let nationalities in the Old Hungarian Kingdom to have their freedom. This succeeded for a while in the AH Dualism. Trianon Treaty wasn't a "punishment" for losing the war, it was the consequence of principle of self-determination for nationalities in former AH Empire; Romanians had a popular assemby at Alba Iuia where they decided as the majoratiry people, the Union with Romania; Germans of Transylvania joined this decision too. Trianon only ratified the will of Transylvanians. If you want an example of territorial punishment then look at The Treaty of Bucharest (1918) where Romanian border was pushed in favour of AH along the Carpathians.

[shikaka]

But they cared about religion...

Well, it was the middle ages after all


But until the late middle ages (I think roughly the reformation is a good estimate), they left the religious minorities alone, except for heretics and pagans of course.
until the mongol invasion the calisians kept their muslim faith (they didn't convert but were destroyed), and there were numerous orthodox christian settlements on the southern and eastern parts of the country with strong jewish minorities in some towns.

What I know is that if you were a noble you had to convert. For the others, it didn't matter.


But the general idea, that 'hungarians tried to assimilate everyone but couldn't' is false for the medieval period. It is partly true from the 19th century though.

[piroska]

To whom am I talking?
byzantine's

indoeuropeans

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[CiviC]

What's your point piroska? That Romanians are Orthodox people? or that Romanians speak an Indo-European language and you are not? You confuse Orthodoxy with Byzantines?

[clandestino]

I think that Byzantine is intended to be an insult.

[Odovacar]

So if anon is wrong about one thing, he must be wrong about everything else too?

Anonymus is wrong about most things. Even the most basic things.

Primary sources mentioning a migration, archeological evidence etc? Or really what exactly do you believe?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what question you asked to Piroska.
As for what i believe: vlachs formed into an ethnicity on the Balkans. They migrated into Tr. in 12th century. The aromanians thus my be the most authentic romanians.
At this stage of of our knowledge it's just a theory.

A few notes about the claim that this migration must have many sources.
Well, when thr magyars conquered Old-Hungary it was a rather big event. It effectively changed the region's history for ever.
And what do we have? About 2 pages from Fulda Annales, some other pages mentoning the "new avar enemy" and no byzantian contemporary source.
There are earlier byzantian sources mentioning that "ugors" exist, and meet with Method and that's all.

Maybe there were such sources but they are lost by now.

[CiviC]

I think that Byzantine is intended to be an insult.

What do you expect from a Romish and Papist?

[megutlek]

First of all I think it's not really relevant who was first to determine if Transylvania belongs to Romania or Hungary. Demographic majority of Romanians and the right of self determination made Transylvania part of Romania. Without demographic majority the whole argument of Daco-Romanian continuity was irrelevant.

The way I see the old Hungarian Kingdom is this state stretched beyond the demographic potential of Magyar people. From the beginings Magyars had only a limited potential to occupy a certain amount of territory and make it solidly Hungarian. This territory was Pannonia, where they overcame and assimilated all previous populations. But then their state expanded beyond their ethno demographic possibilities in Slovakia and Transylvania. In Transylvania they tried to colonise the region but they simply hadn't enough people to do the job and transform the province into a solid Magyar one. They found a Romanian and Slav population they could ignore for a while - the Slavs were assimilated either by Romanians either by Magyars, and Romanians were ocupying areas not of much interest at start for Magyars, hills and mountains; Germans were invited to help populate and develop the region; maybe the endevour to make Transylvania wholy Magyar would have succeeded without the Mongol invasion. At that invasion Hungarians learnt why Romanians avoided living in exposed settlement in the lowlands. After invasion and the destructions, the demographic trend changed. Hungarians were incapacitated demographically to become a majority while Romanians remained the largest ethnic group, they survived as ever. Their Orthodox faith also prevented them to be assimilated to Hungarians, and this mostly because the discrimination from Catholic Hungarians. After roughly 1000 years of rule in Transylvania, Hungarians were in 1918 still a minority and Romanians the majority. History had enough patience and finally gave reason to the Romanians; in the race for Transylvania Romanians won as the most endurant people.

I don't recall who is questioning here Transylvania belongs to Romania, i don't, we are discussing the possible migration of Vlachs. You are theoretizing too much about early Magyars, you are wasting your time, because even professional historians don't know what happened, too many things need to be cleared. At first they should prove that the invading Turk magyars from 9'th century spoke hungarian(they can't), then we can discuss further. You should theoretize less and read more

After 6th century there is no clear mention of Latinophones untill Kendrenes mentions for the first time the existence of Vlachs in 976.
Anonymus says Magyars found Vlachs and Slavs in Transylvania. I know how Hungarian historiography dismisses the mention of Vlachs, and their mention also in the Kievan chronicle, without any serious reason, but how would have Anonymus knew about Slavs and also how he wouldn't know Vlachs migrated right about in the times he lived but to say they were already present when Magyars arrived. Also it's proved a Romanic population survived in Pannonia untill late, we have no reason to believe this wasn't possible in ancient Dacia, a more sheltered region. Vlachs resisted assimilation South of Danube too, where there was a massive pressure from Slavs, so these populations had some kind of imunity from external influences, explained maybe by the fact they lived where nobody wanted to live, the highlands.

What do you think what happened with the whole latin population of the Balkans after 6'th century??They evaporated? You say that latin survived north of the Danube, in the middle of nowhere, and you deny the latins of the Balkans? Up to the 6'th century there was huge latin cities, churches, etc. For few centuries the Balkans was the center of the Roman Empire(see Illyrian emperors). They did not dissapear after the slavic invasion, they just retreated into their cities and forts, there is plenty documentation and arheological evidence about this. The real mystery is how they got north of the Danube. Its even irrelevant discussing about pockets of survived latinity in Transylvania.. anyway they were minor compared to the Balkan latin civilisation.
About how they got to the north of the Danube, you should read your own first romanian chronicles to get a glimpse, Piroska even presented one of them in this thread.
Hungarian historiography dismisses Anonymous for a good reason, Odo explained very well.. Beside this, that chronicle could be very well a fake, AFAIK it was found in the 19'th century, it was copied by someone, written by an anonymous person to a nearly anonymous king , and none saw the original gesta(i may be wrong on this, maybe someone could tell how this was found?).

You say romanic population survived in Pannonia.. you are right here, there was a sizeable latin population near the Balaton lake, but you forget something when you make comparison, they are not a ghost population like the Transylvanian "daco-romanians". They are attested in sources, as well in arheology, after the establishment of the Avar khaganate they were under the protection of the avars, and.. in times of need they even could retrat to their fortified city(or the abandoned roman fortress wich they mantained, i dont remember). You can find no such things in the mountains of Tr. They even could be(at least partially) from the Balkans, some blind guy mentions 300 thousand of people captured by avar raids and taken away.Actually these people could be the ancestors of the romanians(at least partially), AFAIK there are arheoligical hints of their migration to Transylvania together with the Magyars(If this is true then the whole "who was first" discussion is pointless because we arrived together).

[megutlek]

Aromanians not only they didn't migrate North of Danube but they were pushed South of Jiricek line by Slavs.

And what happened with the rest? who didn't got pushed to south? Some romanian chronicles say that they asked a place to say from "craiul Ladislau", he was pleased and invited them to stay between Maros, Tisa and Cris. Other romanian chronicle says they passed the Danube at Severin and and they wandered north until they reached Maramures.

[CiviC]

What do you think what happened with the whole latin population of the Balkans after 6'th century??They evaporated? You say that latin survived north of the Danube, in the middle of nowhere, and you deny the latins of the Balkans?

I just wanted to demonstrate that if a population is missing from historical records for a while, this isn't a proof that population didn't exist, especially as sources are very scarce for the period. We have a gap in historical records for Romanians, it's true, but I showed you a similar gap for Aromanians too. And Aromanians lived in a much civilised zone, still Byzantines ignore them untill Vlachs start to bother them.

Up to the 6'th century there was huge latin cities, churches, etc. For few centuries the Balkans was the center of the Roman Empire(see Illyrian emperors). They did not dissapear after the slavic invasion, they just retreated into their cities and forts, there is plenty documentation and arheological evidence about this.

Actualy they deserted the cities and forts, Naissus the center of Romanic populations South of Danube is the best example. Aromanians changed from a sedentarised rural and urban population to a mostly highland pastoral one.

The real mystery is how they got north of the Danube. Its even irrelevant discussing about pockets of survived latinity in Transylvania.. anyway they were minor compared to the Balkan latin civilisation.
About how they got to the north of the Danube, you should read your own first romanian chronicles to get a glimpse, Piroska even presented one of them in this thread.

Those chronicles just present examples of chieftans and their retinue moving to a domain, they can't explain this



Beside this the founding of Wallachia and Moldavia was in the same way, some feudals moved with their retinue over the mountains, still they settled amongst other Romanians.

You say romanic population survived in Pannonia.. you are right here, there was a sizeable latin population near the Balaton lake, but you forget something when you make comparison, they are not a ghost population like the Transylvanian "daco-romanians". They are attested in sources, as well in arheology, after the establishment of the Avar khaganate they were under the protection of the avars, and.. in times of need they even could retrat to their fortified city(or the abandoned roman fortress wich they mantained, i dont remember). You can find no such things in the mountains of Tr.

Porolissum is atested to have a continuum population untill late. We have in 200 AD a Romanic population in Dacia then without any mention of large migration we have a Romanic population in the same place a millenium later, occupying very solidly the territory as they were there since ever. Beside that there are scarce mentions to what could be Vlachs in the intermediate period, like the mention of Blakumen by Vikings.

And what happened with the rest? who didn't got pushed to south? Some romanian chronicles say that they asked a place to say from "craiul Ladislau", he was pleased and invited them to stay between Maros, Tisa and Cris. Other romanian chronicle says they passed the Danube at Severin and and they wandered north until they reached Maramures.

Many Vlachs South of Danube were assimilated by Slavs. As for the chronicles, the one of Stoica Ludescu says apparently in a very ahistorical way about the origin of Romanians, being from Romans and then describing the conquest of Dacia as the author imagines it without any historic context. See also the theory of ad migration, an intermediate one, advocating for some migration from South of Danube enforcing the already Romanic populations North of Danube. Remember also that initially Lower Danube wasn't a border as it's now between Romanians and South Slavs, but there was a continous Latin population South and North of Danube before the settlement of Slavs and under pressure from South Slavs is possible some Vlachs moved North to live amongst their people there. The ping pong theiry with Daco-Romans moving South of Danube then movign back to Transylvania is a bit streched out.

[clandestino]

I just wanted to demonstrate that if a population is missing from historical records for a while, this isn't a proof that population didn't exist, especially as sources are very scarce for the period. We have a gap in historical records for Romanians, it's true, but I showed you a similar gap for Aromanians too. And Aromanians lived in a much civilised zone, still Byzantines ignore them untill Vlachs start to bother them.

In fact Byzantine sources ignore much of the central and western Balkan from early 7th up to early 10th century since those areas were out of reach of Byzantine government and influence, it's enough to say that Serbs and Croats weren't mentioned by the ( preserved ) Byzantine sources until 950's, only when Byzantine power was consolidated in the vicinity of the Serbs and Croats they began to appear in the sources. It's safe to presume that Byzantines had little clue what was happening in western and central Balkan for some 200-250 years, that explains how in 10th century entire nations like Serbs, Croats and Vlachs appear out of nowhere in the sources.

[Getwulf]

Bai...

Nu v-am zis eu vouo...?!!!

Fara Goti sunteti nimic!

NIMIC!
NIMIC!
NIMIC!

Dar nu conteaza...

Va las asa sa va chinuiti.

Ca ce PLM...!? Sunt un domn!

[megutlek]

I just wanted to demonstrate that if a population is missing from historical records for a while, this isn't a proof that population didn't exist, especially as sources are very scarce for the period. We have a gap in historical records for Romanians, it's true, but I showed you a similar gap for Aromanians too. And Aromanians lived in a much civilised zone, still Byzantines ignore them untill Vlachs start to bother them.

Actualy they deserted the cities and forts, Naissus the center of Romanic populations South of Danube is the best example. Aromanians changed from a sedentarised rural and urban population to a mostly highland pastoral one.

Those chronicles just present examples of chieftans and their retinue moving to a domain, they can't explain this



Beside this the founding of Wallachia and Moldavia was in the same way, some feudals moved with their retinue over the mountains, still they settled amongst other Romanians.

Porolissum is atested to have a continuum population untill late. We have in 200 AD a Romanic population in Dacia then without any mention of large migration we have a Romanic population in the same place a millenium later, occupying very solidly the territory as they were there since ever. Beside that there are scarce mentions to what could be Vlachs in the intermediate period, like the mention of Blakumen by Vikings.

Many Vlachs South of Danube were assimilated by Slavs. As for the chronicles, the one of Stoica Ludescu says apparently in a very ahistorical way about the origin of Romanians, being from Romans and then describing the conquest of Dacia as the author imagines it without any historic context. See also the theory of ad migration, an intermediate one, advocating for some migration from South of Danube enforcing the already Romanic populations North of Danube. Remember also that initially Lower Danube wasn't a border as it's now between Romanians and South Slavs, but there was a continous Latin population South and North of Danube before the settlement of Slavs and under pressure from South Slavs is possible some Vlachs moved North to live amongst their people there. The ping pong theiry with Daco-Romans moving South of Danube then movign back to Transylvania is a bit streched out.

You are behaving like if something is missing from historical records proves its existence. The mention of latins north of the Danube is missing from written records, so you must prove it another way, if you can. Where latin christians lived they are very well identifiable by arhaelogists, and they were missing from north of the Danube. Naissus was devastated but not completely abandoned, Iustinian was born here for example. Those examples i gave u actually tell a lot.. i didn't mean all of them moved at once, they moved in separate waves. The migration Simion Dascalu mentions could be, and probably it is separate from the one mentioned by Ludescu. By the way, why do you say Ludescu talks about the conquest of Dacia? He is very clear, he talks about romans "wandering" to north, "roman" here meaning eastern roman, byzantine if you like.About foundation of Wallachia and Moldova..yes, some lords moved there with retinues, thats right, but that they settled among romanians, that's something you must to prove, otherwise is just fantasy. I say its more possible that after these chieftains moved there and established a solid base(cities/forts), gave the possibility to others to move there, and they formed a solid base to assimilate the ohters(slavs, cumans, turks, or whatever else).
About Porolissum..what romanic population you talk about? You again assume too much. First you must prove that those who lived there were between 4'th-12'th century were romanic, wich i doubt you can, and you must prove that in the 12'th century romanics lived there, wich you can't also. I bet if you check the first population records you would have a surprise here if you expect romanics
Also, that nice map is today's situation, that is completely irrelevant to the situation in 11'th century you should understand that once.
And again.. you say that there was a continous roman population at the north bank of the Danube, you must prove that, and few roman bronze coins prove nothing, possible commerce, but nothing else.

[CiviC]

Getwulf! Gethelp!

Those examples i gave u actually tell a lot.. i didn't mean all of them moved at once, they moved in separate waves. The migration Simion Dascalu mentions could be, and probably it is separate from the one mentioned by Ludescu. By the way, why do you say Ludescu talks about the conquest of Dacia? He is very clear, he talks about romans "wandering" to north, "roman" here meaning eastern roman, byzantine if you like.

Medieval Romanian chronicles never call Byzantines "Romans", they called them Greeks. Ottomans are called usually "Turks". Medieval Romanian authors identify peoples by their language.

About foundation of Wallachia and Moldova..yes, some lords moved there with retinues, thats right, but that they settled among romanians, that's something you must to prove, otherwise is just fantasy. I say its more possible that after these chieftains moved there and established a solid base(cities/forts), gave the possibility to others to move there, and they formed a solid base to assimilate the ohters(slavs, cumans, turks, or whatever else).

It's very well established Romanian polities existed in Wallachia and Moldavia before the foundation of respective principalities. See the Diploma Bela IV gave to Knights Hospitalliers in 1247. Eymundar's Saga mentions Petchenegues fougth togetheer with Blokkumen in Kievan Rus in 1010's. Oghuz Name says Cumans defeated many nations, amongst them Ulaq. Andronicus Comnenus in 1164 fleeing to Halych was captured by Vlachs at the border of this state in what is now Northern Moldavia.

Also, that nice map is today's situation, that is completely irrelevant to the situation in 11'th century you should understand that once.

My point is the moment Romanians are mentioned they appear at once as occupying the whole area, there is no hint of progressive occupation. Moreover Vlachs in Moldavia seem to be mentioned first by Kievans, while by the logic of migration from Balkans they should be the last to be mentioned, only after Romanians in Wallachia and Transylvania.

And again.. you say that there was a continous roman population at the north bank of the Danube, you must prove that, and few roman bronze coins prove nothing, possible commerce, but nothing else.

Or you must prove the large migration from South of Danube. Archeological cultures can't prove with certainty the existence of an ethnicity anyway. Can you be sure archeological findings in Transylvania belonged to Slavs or to Romanians or why not, it was a common material culture (after all Romanians assimilated the Slavs North of Danube).

[Getwulf]

You are behaving like if something is missing from historical records proves its existence. The mention of latins north of the Danube is missing from written records, so you must prove it another way, if you can. Where latin christians lived they are very well identifiable by arhaelogists, and they were missing from north of the Danube. Naissus was devastated but not completely abandoned, Iustinian was born here for example. Those examples i gave u actually tell a lot.. i didn't mean all of them moved at once, they moved in separate waves. The migration Simion Dascalu mentions could be, and probably it is separate from the one mentioned by Ludescu. By the way, why do you say Ludescu talks about the conquest of Dacia?[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] He is very clear, he talks about romans "wandering" to north, "roman" here meaning eastern roman, byzantine if you like.About foundation of Wallachia and Moldova..yes, some lords moved there with retinues, thats right, but that they settled among romanians, that's something you must to prove[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG], otherwise is just fantasy. I say its more possible that after these chieftains moved there and established a solid base(cities/forts), gave the possibility to others to move there, and they formed a solid base to assimilate the ohters(slavs, cumans, turks, or whatever else).
About Porolissum..what romanic population you talk about? You again assume too much. First you must prove that those who lived there were between 4'th-12'th century were romanic, wich i doubt you can, and you must prove that in the 12'th century romanics lived there, wich you can't also. I bet if you check the first population records you would have a surprise here if you expect romanics[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
Also, that nice map is today's situation, that is completely irrelevant to the situation in 11'th century you should understand that once.
And again.. you say that there was a continous roman population at the north bank of the Danube, you must prove that, and few roman bronze coins prove nothing[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG], possible commerce, but nothing else.

Megutlek pretty much nails it here… The timeline is as follows give or take…

80 AD – 107-8AD Decebal’s Dacia
108 AD – 250-70 AD Roman Dacia
270 AD – 8-12th C. AD “SCENE MISSING” / Nobody “knows” what happened.

Then… We have what Civic says…

Medieval Romanian chronicles never call Byzantines "Romans", they called them Greeks. Ottomans are called usually "Turks". Medieval Romanian authors identify peoples by their language.



It's very well established Romanian polities existed in Wallachia and Moldavia before the foundation of respective principalities. See the Diploma Bela IV gave to Knights Hospitalliers in 1247. Eymundar's Saga mentions Petchenegues fougth togetheer with Blokkumen in Kievan Rus in 1010's. Oghuz Name says Cumans defeated many nations, amongst them Ulaq. Andronicus Comnenus in 1164 fleeing to Halych was captured by Vlachs at the border of this state in what is now Northern Moldavia.



My point is the moment Romanians are mentioned they appear at once as occupying the whole area, there is no hint of progressive occupation. Moreover Vlachs in Moldavia seem to be mentioned first by Kievans, while by the logic of migration from Balkans they should be the last to be mentioned, only after Romanians in Wallachia and Transylvania.



Or you must prove the large migration from South of Danube. Archeological cultures can't prove with certainty the existence of an ethnicity anyway. Can you be sure archeological findings in Transylvania belonged to Slavs or to Romanians or why not, it was a common material culture (after all Romanians assimilated the Slavs North of Danube).

AND it really proves nothing because the sources of “Romans” north of the Danube only appear after around the 11th C. AD… again give or take! So there is obviously a huge piece of history that everyone is missing. The Gothic history…! (Actually, there are also other pieces along with that one but for Romania the main one is the Gothic one.)

Like I told you Romanians before…

Without the Goths you are nothing…!

NOTHING!
NOTHING!
NOTHING!