Page 81 of 81 FirstFirst ... 31567172737475767778798081
Results 1,601 to 1,608 of 1608

Thread: The migration of vlachs/romanians

  1. #1601
    mircea's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: The migration of vlachs/romanians

    If anyone ever read Orwell's 1984, I think he would find the positions of some of posters as remarkably akin to the ones expressed by Inner party members. For some posters 2+2=5, no matter how hard you try to explain them, for them proofs are irrelevant. I think that anyone realized that with these posters is a hopless, sisyphean task, because in the end they will drag their interlocutors to their level of stupidity, ignorance.


    Quote Originally Posted by megutlek View Post
    If there was insignificant population transfer, that means the locals, mostly in the river valleys, were already speaking hungarian before magyar conquest. That scenario, few overlords forcing their language on their peasants, it's simply stupid, such thing never happened.
    Really, than what about Haitian Creole language, and other dozens ofCreole languages. You should just bear in mind that the speakers of Creole language were slaves, lacking rights, and living in horrible conditions, with a very high mortality rate. In some cases, such as Haitian Creole, the language appeared after just an century of "co-existence", this compared with Romanization of Dacia that lasted more 165 years.



    Quote Originally Posted by megutlek View Post
    Speculations. Some slavic islands can be identified because of the placenames they left behind. Same can be done for the petchenegs(Brasov region). For latin speakers there is nothing before 13th century.
    Maybe you could remind us how many Slavic place names can be identified before 13th century? As a percent of the total number of place names it would be great

    At the same time, maybe you could show as the a comprehensive list with placenames from before 13th for regions such as Fagaras, Hunedoara, Caransebes, Apuseni Mountains, Maramures.



    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    James Mayfield is a historian and the Chairman of the European Heritage Library. I have a Cum Laude BA in History with a Minor in Germanic Studies (language and history), am presently working for my Masters in History, and plan to immediately progress to my PhD Doctorate. I have a special academic interest in Europe's diverse ethnic identities, languages, and cultures, and the political struggles of native European and immigrant minority identities.

    What is your problem with this author? And with the other one? When they will get PhD their works will be acceptable for you?
    Ohh no I see, your academic "work" belongs to Roman-Daco theory everything else is false... Great..
    Ok, maybe we demanded to much for them, after all, at kindergarten level you do not learn about things such as academic papers, quotations of sources, or peer-review
    So, before I'll demolish your 'academics', I'll offer you the chance to read something about what real academic papers really mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_papers
    Hopefully, next time, I hope that you'll not make the same mistakes, because it's embarrassing to correct your errors every time

    And now: James Mayfield - DacianRomania

    BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES USED:
    The respective owners of the displayed Youtube videos, who do not reflect our opinions
    See links and courtesy throughout the article
    "Barbarians!", hosted by Terry Jones, property of the History Channel
    Some of the images on this page have been taken from various websites. I was unable to trace their origin, as many are redistributed. If you find that you are the owner, feel free to notify us.
    CIA World Factbook

    So this should be a academic paper, with this bibliography and no footnotes????
    Epic Failure


    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    It's not a question in the academic world there are 2 theories about origin of your vlach. So when you stating only roman-daco blabla blabla is a cheap LIE!
    And yet, you failed to mentioned the modern foreign academics supporting this migration theory. Even, more, you and your buddies manged to screw so much that you heralded Wanner Phd thesis as "It demolishes the whole daco-roman wishful thinking." But no I see that he is a filthy daco-roman adept

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    It's mean there is no continuity between the Dacian period and Roman period. Clearly a new one was emerged. If your dacians were romanized I'm sure we should see romanized dacian settlement as well... The annihilation of the native communities accepted by your author show how romans unsupport your theory about romanized dacians with smile and chocolate.
    Re-read again the thesis, maybe a book or two, and afterwards comment
    You may start with these excerpts - here




    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    2. vlach left north of serbia cause the romans
    So the vlachs were pushed toward Byzantine Balkan by Byzantines? Wonderful logic
    And by they why, even someone with a little knowledge of geography knows that Epirus and Macedonia are way to the south as compared to Serbia, so the migration was from NORTH to SOUTH So, nice way of shooting yourself in the foot

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    3. only Kekaumenos wrote "vlach are said to be dacioans and bessos", could you give me more authors from ancient or medieval age?
    And yet the south to north Romanian migration ain't mention by anyone, but you still believe it

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    My ignorant oláh friend, again what's your problem with this man?:

    James Mayfield Academic Credentials: Cum Laude BA in European History and Minour in Germanic Studies (language and history) - both from California State University, Long Beach; Masters Summa Cum Laude in History - California State University, Fullerton; Ph.D. Doctorate Fellow, Stanford University.
    Yeah, I know He is not acceptable for your cause He is not an oláh-roman-vlach-daco supporter.
    Will this guy acceptable for you in the future? I guess no because He will newer support your fantasy! [/QUOTE]

    And the embarrassment continues Next time try to read a proper academic paper, and afterwards comment.
    P.S. ''Papaers" based on youtube, wikipedia and lacking reference are NOT considered as academic papers, expect at kindergarten level

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Like M. Dinic: "The Balkans, 1018-1499," in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4, pt. 1, pp. 537-541 (1966)"
    Daco-Roman, seemed to be empty theory is merely wishful thinking. (1966:560)
    Leaving aside the obsoleteness of this work, you should allow us to review with, because one quote is barely conclusive, especially when these quotes are selected by amateurs


    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    The main problem from this stupid roman-vlach-whoever-dacian theory was written by Dr. [FONT=TimesNewRoman]MICHAEL SOZAN:
    Author, title of the work, publishing house, year (how to quote an author) You should say thank you that we allow you to learn so much





    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    remained according to what? 2 ceramic objects?
    Only other oláh monkeys, like yourself ignore the facts, for example you couldn't prove how many women and children remained after the occupation of Dacia when the native communitives were annihilated by romans. Based on written sources!
    Well, if we are to base our theories on written sources only, than Anonymous' Gesta is right, than Danes are Dacians, Franks are Trojans, Goths are Getae, and Getae are Dacians.
    So, you should start writing papers on this topic, I'm sure it will be hillarious


    Recent arrivals like the petchenegs and cumans. Both the petchenegs and cumans were placed to Transylvania by him at the time of Hungarian arrival. But they were migrators in 12 - 13th century like the vlachs.
    And yet he fails to mentions the Vlach-Bulgarian Empire, which was a one of the major players in this area, but some how he mentions the few hundreds shepherds that have just migrated in the area, barely 1 decade ago
    And by they way, Constantine PROIFIREGENETOS calls Hungarians with the name Turks, so that means he wrote in 16th century when Turks conquered Hungary??



    I dare you to find any medieval chronicle included your oldest vlach chronicles which mentioned your romanized dacian or vlach states were existing in Transylvania from Dacian period.
    I dare you find a Romano-Gallic state in after the Frankish conquest, and before IXth century, or a Romano-Iberian state before 711 AD, or a Sami state



    Archaeologists find Romanian and Slavic villages in Transylvania in the 8th century... LOL
    The correct answer it would have been: this is a recent archaeological research that say otherwise But we all know that for you proofs are irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Kekaumenos the first who mentioned vlach, placed them to Balkan.
    And guess what, they continues to live there in the centuries after Kekaumenos, and they still continue living there But what pretty much no one mentions is a significant migration from South (Balkan) to North (Transylvania)


    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    What evidence you have about Dacian language? Rumenian language was formed in south-balkan close to albania that's the reason why albanian language is close to your language.
    Surely, 150 words out of 10,000, clearly identical. By these standards, Romanians migrated from France, Spain or even Moscow. But what is surprising is the lack of Ancient & Medieval Greek words in Romanian vocabulary.




    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Yes, and all of them are pure-blooeded revisionist: George and Tricart (1954:239) reflects upon Rumanian origins as follows: "The origins of the Rumanian nation have until the present been more obscure. The aforementioned theory of continuity' making the Rumanians the
    descendants of the Romanized Dacians, has now been abandoned.''
    Other refutations of the Daco-Roman origin theory are found in Dami (1967:267), Densusianu (1901), Hurmuzaki (1876, 1878), Philippide (1975:112), Rosetti (1968), Stadtmüller (1950:207-8; 1965: 90) !
    Once again: author, title, publishing house, year
    And I see that you like to quote obsolete books, probably being afraid of the recent archaeological discoveries made by Romanian and foreign archaeologists
    Further, we already discussed Densusianu and Philippide theories, who admitted that their theories could be wrong, with Densusianu even placing the Romanian homeland on both sides of Danube, all the way to Illyria

    Thanks to the vlach migration crossed the balkan from the South to North of Danube.
    Sources???



    Quote Originally Posted by snipa View Post
    Actually it's possible as our genetics are similar but not same, most of the rumenians has darker skin and hair like Hungarians. But you should inform your rumenian neo-nazi Vatra and Depra members that they are magyarized vlach and have a strong relative connection to us!
    Vatra?? Maybe Vatra Dornei, lovely mountain resort
    And Depra?? What the hell is that????


    So dear Snipa, torda, megetulk, Piroska, Getwulf & your multiple personalities, 2+2 aint't 5, and maybe some day you'll understand this, although I don't have any hope for you

  2. #1602

    Default Re: The migration of vlachs/romanians

    I feel obliged to make a point about the formation of Romanian states, Wallachia and Moldavia and the so-called contribution of Cumans or Hungarians to their foundation.

    All facts point that Cumans in fact blocked the formation of Romanian states as for Hungarians, we see how some Romanians in fact migrated from Transylvania, to found Wallachia and Moldavia in opposition to Hungary.

    For Wallachia we have a document from mid 1200's saying all Wallachia had several statal formations with leaders as Seneslau, Litovoi (Slav names) Farcas (Hungarian name) and Ioan (biblical, it could be very well Romanian). They appear shortly after Cumans were scattered from Wallachian plain. So before Basarab (supposedly Cuman name) we have leaders with Slav/Hungarian/Romanian names (Ioan-of Biblical>Greek origin); after Basarab his descendants have Slav names like Mircea, Radu, Vlad, Vladislav or Romanian names (Dan-of Biblical origin; I have to say also that Mircea and Radu are vey much Romanian names, no matter their Slav origins). So what names tell us? They are a poor indicator of ethnicity, they just show the trend, influences from various peoples.

    I doubt very much the Cuman influence on the formation of Wallachia, not to say about Moldavia where we have no hints or sources.

    There is no tradition preserved in Wallachian chronicles about Cumans, there was once Cumania named in Hungarian and Catholic documents but the name disappears completely afterwards, if Cumans were so influencial, as Bulgars were on the Slavs in Bulgaria, or as the Franks on the Gallo-Romans, then maybe we would have now Cumania, instead of Wallachia+Moldavia+Transylvania=Romanians. No memory of Cumans was preserved amongst Romanians save the doubtfull toponyms like Comana (the etymology is doubtfull as it's Comana not Cumana, and coma in Latin means ridge/hair of the head and it has the same means in Romanian - coamă).

    On the other hand the memory of Cuman and Pecheneg final settlement is very well preserved in Hungary.

    What history show us is the first Romanian statal formations appear only after Cumans are scattered and flee from Wallachian plain, so they in fact blocked the afirmation of Romanian states instead of helping them. Romanians then profit from this vacuum power and form their own states as recorded in a Hungarian Diploma in 1247. Hungary tries to assert suzerainity over them, but it fails as some Romanians unhappy of the Hungarian establishment in Transylvania migrate to Wallachia and Moldavia and instigate the creation of Romanian principalities in opposition to Hungarian Kings. So what's the big role of Cumans? That Basarab Ist had a Cuman name? His descendants had Slav names (Radu, Mircea) and his precedesor had also Slav names Seneslau/Litovoi, but also Hungarian names as Farcas, but also Romanian names as Ioan and Barbat. I think names were only reflections of foreign influences in names nothing more; as I said my name is Greek/Anglo-Saxon/Biblical(Jewish). It says nothing about my ethnicity.
    Last edited by CiviC; July 18, 2011 at 12:07 PM.

  3. #1603

    Default Re: The migration of vlachs/romanians

    Quote Originally Posted by Getwulf View Post
    Nothing historical about this post... Just more crap from the usual sources. We've already covered WHY a bunch of times before.

    I'M NOT SPEAKING OUT AGAINST MY OWN PEOPLE. I'm speaking out against the LATINIZED-JAPANESE of Eastern Europe who do nothing but cause trouble for the entire region. Pointing out that vast parts of the "Romanian" population have Turkic names is quite relevant to the debate. See... You can't be a "Latinized-Dacian" if you're descended from Turkics who arrived much later in the region.

    As for Goths, you can relax... THE GETAE, WERE GOTHS! AND YOU AIN'T GETAE! On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with praising my proud Getic/Gothic ancestors and being proud of my heritage.

    Feel free to be all the Turko-Cumano-Bulgar you can be! I won't stop you... I just want you to get it right though!



    Another brilliant "...bag of doorknobs" comment...!



    Don't stop with your brilliance sweetheart...! Let your little light shine! Go on... Keep on proving that Romanians are Slavo-Turkics which brainwashed themselves into thinking that they're Latins! You're doing such a brilliant job and for once I don't disagree with you!
    Wow. Just wow. With this post all your credibility should pretty much be gone. I don't even know why people bother responding to some of this stuff; all it does is incite more controversy over a theory that I don't think anyone else on this entire forum believes. To say your desperation about this personal agenda with your "people" is coming out is an understatement here.. Your views on other cultures and races are pretty obvious (latinized japanese lol?), despite your thinly veiled attempts to mask them and sound politically correct. What exactly are you so proud of regarding your Gothic people anyway? You even said it yourself, they didn't preserve their ancient culture- plus many of these other "barbarian" people you're trying to avoid being associated with were much more accomplished in history than your Goths anyway.

    Like the others said, it's pretty funny how you assume that your ancestors lived for 2000 years in isolated "white" villages that preserved their culture while most other Romanians were replaced by invading hordes. And for some reason you automatically assume that just because we argue against you, we must be these evil Turk invaders and can't possibly be your great Goths, without even having any idea who we are. If that's not flawed, I don't know what is. So basically if someone agrees with you, then they're cool as a "Goth" in your eyes lol.

    About the Cumans, as Djuvara said I'm sure they had some significant impact on the time of the establishment of what eventually led to the Romanian state, but not enough to say that they pretty much replaced the older people; they were assimilated like other peoples before them. They didn't seem to leave much of a notable linguistic mark anyway, other than some names and place names. I wonder why if they were rulers, they decided to adopt the language of the existing peasantry they conquered in favor of their own Turkic one; in other cases of elite dominance, it was the invaders who were a small minority that imposed their language on their more numerous subjects (like perhaps in Hungary and Turkey).

    As for the language, aside from the contributions from other sources, there's two main parts of the Latin part. It's obvious that one (most of the basic central vocabulary and grammar) is ancient as it has underwent much more change from its original form naturally over time in an organic fashion. It parallels many of the developments that occurred in other Romance languages that came from Vulgar Latin, so it couldn't have been just imported in an attempt to fit in with prestige in Medieval times. That doesn't make sense anyway in that period as they didn't even care about that back then (not till the late 18th and 19th centuries). And yes, the other large part of the Latin vocabulary is clearly borrowed in the 19th century but these words stand out because they were imported mostly unchanged (with a few exceptions that tried modeling them after existing old Romanian patterns or words), or from French words, many of which were themselves borrowed from Latin in Medieval or Renaissance times, and these are mainly modern, scientific, academic, and international words that many languages adopted (although maybe not to the extent that Romanian did due to the obsession with that aspect of their culture at the time). I admit that was when they wanted to fit in more with the rest of the "romance" world probably.

    Anyway, I admit it's true there are holes in Romanian history and parts that are darker and more unclear, but it's a shame someone with views like yours had to emerge from that lack of clarity. It's kind of odd, but whatever... Can't blame you anymore than the system that made you think this way.
    Last edited by Andros Antonius; July 18, 2011 at 01:31 PM.

  4. #1604

    Default Re: The migration of vlachs/romanians

    Quote Originally Posted by Andros Antonius View Post
    And yes, the other large part of the Latin vocabulary is clearly borrowed in the 19th century but these words stand out because they were imported mostly unchanged (with a few exceptions that tried modeling them after existing old Romanian patterns or words), or from French words, many of which were themselves borrowed from Latin in Medieval or Renaissance times, and these are mainly modern, scientific, academic, and international words that many languages adopted (although maybe not to the extent that Romanian did due to the obsession with that aspect of their culture at the time). I admit that was when they wanted to fit in more with the rest of the "romance" world probably.
    To explain why so many French borrowings in Romanian, beside Francophilia, we must put it in the context of French being the most prestigious language in the period, the predominant culture in Europe (all European elites spoke French), and not at least, being a Latin language, French words were very easily to adapt to Romanian language unlike Germanic words; one note, French words were adapted in general under an Italian model, more closely to Romanian then French, so these neologisms fit very well in the vocabulary, they don't seem forced.

    There was no conspiracy as some say, simply Romanian culture, many centuries retarded by a backward conservative elite, just didn't had many words to express modern concepts. Guess what, many French "smart" words are in fact adapted during Rennaissance from Latin, so even French language underwent a process of "re-Latinisation".

    Most Slav words went out of use because they expressed medieval concepts, oblsolete in modern times; so many Slav words would also be qualified neologisms in Middle Ages, and we could talk about the Slavicisation of Romanian in Early Middle Ages. What remains unchanged is the core vocabulary, expressing basic words you use in every sentence and in every day life, and they are overwhelmingly Latin, and of course the grammar, the Romanian grammar is 99% Latin, it's even more conservative in many aspects then French, Italian or Spanish.

    But when you read The Letter of Neacsu from 1521, by the way the first attested document written in Romanian, you are surprised how simmilar was the language with the one spoken today, and that in fact the great majority of words is of Latin etymology. We have the confirmation that at the end of Middle Ages, before nationalism and etc. Romanians spoke almost the same language as today, there was no radical change in 19th c. beside the fact new words were added in time to vocabulary to express new realities, unknown in Middle Ages.
    Last edited by CiviC; July 18, 2011 at 02:19 PM.

  5. #1605

    Default Re: The migration of vlachs/romanians

    30 persons in one galley
    100 galleys in one year
    3000 persons in one year
    300 000 persons in 100 year

    so, this is the colonization process of vlachs from south of italy to moldova with venetian galleys
    Free Székely Land! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kely_Land
    Autonomy for Transylvania!

  6. #1606

    Default Re: The migration of vlachs/romanians

    Quote Originally Posted by piroska View Post
    30 persons in one galley
    100 galleys in one year
    3000 persons in one year
    300 000 persons in 100 year

    so, this is the colonization process of vlachs from south of italy to moldova with venetian galleys
    After 80+ pages we have snipa with his "bedroom heritage libraries" and YouTube-based "academic" papers, piroska with her very original "Venetian colonization" and Getwulf with his "racially superior self-respecting Goths".

    I think this thread deserves to be put to rest by the moderators. In less than a month one of the 3 "champions" will open a similar thread, with fresher YouTube clips (though I wouldn't be surprised to watch again some oldies but goldies).
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  7. #1607

    Default Re: The migration of vlachs/romanians

    lol so after all that snipa comes up with a BA and the likes of Noel Malcolm. LOL how sad.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  8. #1608
    Nikos's Avatar VENGEANCE BURNS
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,216

    Default Re: The migration of vlachs/romanians

    This thread has LONG overstayed it's welcome.

    Thread Closed

    -Nikos
    Learn about Byzantium! http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...Toward-Warfare
    Civitate
    ,Ex Content Writer,Ex Curator, Ex Moderator

    Proud patron of Jean=A=Luc
    In Patronicum sub Celsius


Posting Permissions

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