The migration of vlachs/romanians

[Basileos Leandros I]

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.

Nobody knows what happened in many places in history, so saying the Goths are in the "missing scene" is fantasy. But I will gladly reconsider this if you provide sources my friend.

Like I told you Romanians before…

You are one, you live in Romania, so you are one as well.

Without the Goths you are nothing…!

NOTHING!
NOTHING!
NOTHING!

The only Goth I know is Goth music. And it's not bad.

EDIT:

Danes->Dacians

So based on your quote am I to assume that the Dacians are Vikings?

[CiviC]

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…!

I could ask you as well, any sources for Goths North of Danube after Huns?
And what happened with your beloved Goths? Why do we speak a Romanic language with Slav influences?

As I said, Aromanians are too missing from records untill 976. So no mention of Latinophones South of Danube between Slav migration South of Danube and 976, that's about 400 years. So Aromanians migrated too in Balkans from some other place? Albanians are first mentioned in 1080 by Byzantines, though we can be pretty sure they have to be autochtonous from somewhere in Balkans and their language originates from one of original Indo-European language South of Danube, still we hear about them for the first time in 1080!

Beside written sources and archeology, common logic says : if a Daco-Roman population existed in 200 AD North of Danube and one thousand years later we still have a Romanic population spread on a large area with a nucleus in former Roman Dacia, it must be the same population that survived to all invasions.

[piroska]

"... they enslaved us and they took wives from the gypsies"
romani legend

we have a migration!
give me the primary source of the migration!!

romani people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

[clandestino]

You should marry getwulf, you two would have great time together.

[Basileos Leandros I]

"... they enslaved us and they took wives from the gypsies"
romani legend

we have a migration!
give me the primary source of the migration!!

romani people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

This guy beats my expectations by far. The migration of the Roma explains the migration of the Dacians?

Best science fiction thread I've seen in a big while.

[piroska]

give me the primary source of romani migration!!

[CiviC]

give me the primary source of romani migration!!

What's your point, that there are no sources for Gypsy migration?
There are plenty.

[Romano-Dacis]

Unfortunately I got bored of this debate about two years ago when I realized you could give the Hungarians any evidence and they would find a way to deny it.

When it is clear that Ulfilas, "bishop over the Getic lands" who translated the bible to Gothic, knew both Latin and Greek, yet was born north of the Danube, Hungarians will just claim he learned it from the Romans to the south. This is even though prominent scholars will confirm that Ulfilas was presiding not just over Goths, but over a large Christian community of Latins (Wolfram, p. 75, 77; Cusack, pp. 39-40). When prominent scholars show that the Goths lived among a Latin-speaking population (Burns, pp. 30-31, p. 155) the Hungarians will just claim these people have been deluded by Romanian propaganda...

When Priscus Panites mentions Latinophones at Attila's court and in the lands north of the Danube, the Hungarians will claim Priscus was lying, or that it was only a few barbarians who had learned it from trade.

When Procopius mentions that an Ante (Slav) man managed to pretend he was a Roman general ("false Chilbudios" story) by learning Latin north of the Danube, the Hungarians will say it was a freak coincidence that does not prove that Latin was spoken in the region.

When Pseudo-Maurikyos stated that there were Romans north of the Danube who "had forgotten their Roman habits" (i.e. loyalty to the emperor) the Hungarians will say this was propaganda.
Please read this section by Stelian Brezeanu, a prominent Romanian historian:

Two other information sets confirm this conclusion about the importance of the Latin language’s circulation at the North of the river. The first one is advanced by Procopius and is connected to the episode of the false Chilbudios. Slav by his origins and then Roman general, Chilbudios gets in the service of Justinian, who names him as commander of the armies on the Danube, in order to stop the Barbarians’ assaults. His success is complete, but after three years he disappears in an expedition on the left side of the river. At the advise of a Roman prisoner, who had come into contact with the general, an Ant slave strikingly resembled with Chilbudios, comes to the Roman authorities, pretending that he was the imperial commander. The false Chilbudios “spoke Latin and had learned many of the Chilbudios’ manners and he was able to imitate him”. The general Narses’ perspicacity was necessary that the trick be revealed. The episode permits the conclusion that the Roman prisoners in the Wallachian field spoke Latin and the slaves themselves used it as a lingua franca. The other information is to be detected in the Pseudo-Maurykius and it refers to the so-called “refugees” (rhephugoi). A Latin technical term which meaning is not entirely clear in the modern research, it defines the guides of the imperial armies in the Barbarian territory. “Although they were Romans”, mentions the author of the “Strategikon”, “they obtained in time this position [of refugees], forgot their habits [the Roman ones] and are closer to the enemies”. Either Roman prisoners returned in the empire, or Romans definitely settled at the North of the Danube, their life together with the Slavs created solidarity of interests between the two communities. This solidarity vanished their feeling of affection towards the Roman society’s values, preferring the Barbarian life style. The Greek-speaking prisoner met by Priscus at the court of Attila also develops an ample pleading in the favor of “the Scythic way of life” and a harsh critic of the Roman society.

When scholars say the ninth-century Tivertsians who lived around Moldavia were called "translators" (tolkoviny) since they knew both Romanian and Slavic (Spinei, p. 85), the Hungarians will claim it is wrong without any plausible counter-argument.

When Hungarians are told literally by their oldest chronicle (Gesta Hungarorum) that they attacked the Romanians and Slavs, they will say Anonymous was likely a frequent cannabis-smoker who was totally unreliable... even though he worked at the royal court. When his history is confirmed in the Chronicle of Nestor, the Hungarians will say that Nestor was confusing Romanians with Eastern Franks (absurd, given that the Franks are explicitly called Franji and the word Volohi used in the chronicle has never, and I mean never, been used to designate a Germanic people). Furthermore, they will say that Anonymous (who wrote the Gesta Hungarorum) had invented the Romanians by misinterpreting what Nestor wrote. This is even though Anonymous had no idea on how to read Slavonic or Cyrillic (which Nestor wrote in), the authors lived more than a century apart, and the sources are completely independent of one another, with no signs of similar phrasing or copying.

When the English scholars point out the absurdity of claiming Dacia was completely evacuated, and show strong evidence of cultural continuity, the Hungarians will just put on the blinders.

When Viking rune stones mention encountering Romanians along the Varangian path as far east as the Dniepr river in the tenth century, the Hungarians will make up anything - even claiming the Vlachs (Blokumenn) were in fact Africans ("black men") to try to get rid of the Romanians.

Frankly, I am tired of explaining the same thing over and over again because some people find it politically expedient to deny the obvious. You Hungarians will continue to live in your own world regardless of what we show you. I cannot tell if you are arguing against this because you are sincerely deluded, or because you just hate Romanians that much. Whatever the case may be, the world has moved on without you. Just look at the numerous English-language sources I have cited and ask yourself whether this is all some Romanian global conspiracy or maybe, just maybe, you are wrong? As someone who has read extensively on this topic, I find your arguments in particular, piroska, to be an offense both to the truth and to everyone else's time.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Any questions? Pretty simple.

Hey getwulf how would you translate "ticalos" in English?

[piroska]

TO WHOM AM I SPEAKING?
“….give me a sign that it is really You talking to me.”

we have a migration!!
give me the primary source of this migration!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Dobruja
On 7 September 1940 Southern Dobruja was restored to Bulgaria under the Treaty of Craiova. The treaty was followed by a mandatory population exchange: about 110,000 Romanians (almost 95% of which settled there after 1913) were forced to leave Southern Dobruja, whereas 77,000 Bulgarians had to leave northern Dobruja. Only a few hundred Romanians and Aromanians are left in the region to this day.[2]

and we have a explanation who were this 110 000 romanians:
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadrilater
As a result of encouraging the establishment of the Balkan Aromanian and romanians from other provinces, the share of Romanian element increased significantly by 1940. Here were settled the romanians from Bulgarian Timoc region.

today, this mean ~ 200 000 person

so far we have 2600000 plus 200000 = 2800000 migrators from south.
if we consider the romani people, we have: 2800000 + 500 000 ( census data)= 3300000
if we consider that many romanians mixed with romani, and many romani declare himself romanian we can say:
3300000 + 1000000(romanian-romani)= 4.300.000 people migrated from south.

[Romano-Dacis]

I also have to mention something to Odovacar, because he made a claim that all Roman settlements in Pannonia died out in order to strengthen his supposition that the same happened all over the northern fringe of the Roman Empire.

In fact, this is not the case. The Fenekpuszta culture clearly demonstrates that there was a Roman element in Pannonia that survived well into the Avar age. If you read the article by Tivadar Vida "Conflict and Coexistence: The Local Population of the Carpathian Basin Under Avar Rule" you will find that there was in fact a very large and wealthy population in Pannonia that descended from the Romans. These could in essence have been the Vlachs of Pannonia that were mentioned by Nestor and other chroniclers. Hungarians have of course tried to deny that these were the inheritors of the Pannonian Celto-Romans, claiming instead that they were likely recent prisoners... but the burial assemblages are absolutely fabulous and the population shows clear signs that it had been there for some time. It could not have been some recent settlement.

Read my source from page 31 to 39. In particular check out the following line:
"It is hard to imagine the transmission of such models without the physical survival of a Roamized population from the fourth to the sixth century." (p. 36)
"The evidence presented so far thus points to the likely possibility that the local Romanized population played a considerably greater role than previously believed in the forging of the Early Avar qaganate." (p. 37)

In other words: the Roman population of Pannonia survived, even though they were trampled over by the Huns, Lombards, Gepids, Slavs, and Avars... and they did it without anyone ever writing anything about them!!!

Now, if a Roman population could survive in the open plains of Pannonia, a stalking ground for migratory barbarians, then why should we be in any way inclined to believe a Roman population could not survive in Transylvania, which by many accounts is a natural fortress, surrounded on all sides by mountains and covered by forests. It would be stupid to believe the Daco-Romans of Dacia could not survive while the Celto-Romans of Pannonia could. In fact, it is proven that the Daco-Roman population survived, and their spread is confirmed in archaeology (I speak here of the Ciurel and Bratei cultures). From what we can see archaeologically, no cities in Dacia were abandoned by Aurelian's withdrawal (Wanner, PhD. thesis, 2010, pp. 115-119). In other words: the one event that might have actually ended Roman life in Dacia in fact even failed to end it in the cities! With a survival of urban life after Aurelian, the evacuation of the countryside is also completely out of the question. More importantly, the auxilia of Dacia appear to have completely disappeared into the province after 271, without mention of any violent attack; they were just dismissed. Forget civilians: Aurelian did not even evacuate the whole army from Dacia! Dacia's abandonment was never intended as permanent, and it was juridically still considered Roman soil even when the Avars were in the region (Southern, 2001. p. 121: "It was something of a desperate measure for an Emperor who was bent on restoring the Empire, and was perhaps undertaken in a moment of duress, not intended as a permanent arrangement but unfortunately never reversed. Some time later, before 285, the single province was split into two smaller ones, called Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea.")
From the same page, Southern writes: "Archaeology reveals that life in the old Roman province of Dacia continued to 272 without any discernible decline or expectation of termination. Even if there had been a partial evacuation under Gallienus, which is itself disputed, it did not seem that the population was clamouring for removal to another part of the Roman world."

So you see, if you dig a little, you can uncover the truth.

[piroska]

deceiving?
from the same book, same page

[Getwulf]

Any questions? Pretty simple.

Hey getwulf how would you translate "ticalos" in English?

Ticalos…? Probably the closest you will come to is “jerk”. Although, “ticalos” also carries a certain element of comedy that “jerk” doesn’t. I don’t think that it translates entirely into English.

Nobody knows what happened in many places in history, so saying the Goths are in the "missing scene" is fantasy. But I will gladly reconsider this if you provide sources my friend.



You are one, you live in Romania, so you are one as well.



The only Goth I know is Goth music. And it's not bad.

EDIT:


So based on your quote am I to assume that the Dacians are Vikings?

No, Dacians are not Vikings because the Vikings didn’t exist at that time. Nevertheless, according to Parvan they did sort of make their way out of Prussia towards our Dacia. As for the Goths being the missing link you’d better believe it. I can provide lots of sources but if you don’t understand what they say than it won’t matter. Professional historians don’t understand what they say either. The sources are as follows: Getica by Iordannes, Hervarar Saga and Gesta Normannorum by Dudo of St. Quentin. You will also find other sources that more or less back up what is being said there but without professional sources backing me up I can’t make a convincing argument. Let’s face it… The professional historians have completely ignored the vast amount of writing on the subject. The sources tell us how the Getae are Goths and how these Goths morph into the Viking age… Danes=Dacians = North Germans while Goths = Getae = Romanians and of course some Bulgarians, the Spanish and Portuguese etc…

Unfortunately I got bored of this debate about two years ago when I realized you could give the Hungarians any evidence and they would find a way to deny it.

When it is clear that Ulfilas, "bishop over the Getic lands" who translated the bible to Gothic, knew both Latin and Greek, yet was born north of the Danube, Hungarians will just claim he learned it from the Romans to the south. This is even though prominent scholars will confirm that Ulfilas was presiding not just over Goths, but over a large Christian community of Latins (Wolfram, p. 75, 77; Cusack, pp. 39-40). When prominent scholars show that the Goths lived among a Latin-speaking population (Burns, pp. 30-31, p. 155) the Hungarians will just claim these people have been deluded by Romanian propaganda...

When Priscus Panites mentions Latinophones at Attila's court and in the lands north of the Danube, the Hungarians will claim Priscus was lying, or that it was only a few barbarians who had learned it from trade.

Romano-Dacis gets it right here…

So the continuity is Daco-Gothic and some of the Goths have entered the service of the Roman empire… So who are the Gothic-Latins…? Yeah…! Take a wild guess! Just match the Balkan settlements of the Goths from Getica by Iordannes with modern populations and what do you get…??? Yup… You have your Vlachs…! Mind you... there are a lot of other populations that also need to be taken into account. I'm only dealing with majorities.

Just for the record, I’ll say it again… Without the Goths you’re NOTHING!!! AND Getae=Goth… You’d better believe it…!

[Romano-Dacis]

deceiving?
from the same book, same page

I don't understand how your quote is contradicting me. In fact, if you had bothered to read the second sentence (i.e. "there would be many who would remain in their homes...") you might have prevented making a total ass of yourself. The author's position basically states as such:
1) Aurelian abandoned Dacia.
2) Some sources claim Dacia was evacuated.
3) We cannot trust these sources; they are probably propaganda.
4) There was no logical reason for why the Daco-Romans would leave their homes, nor is there any evidence to suggest they did. All the evidence uncovered is in favor of continuity.

capisci?

[Getwulf]

I don't understand how your quote is contradicting me. In fact, if you had bothered to read the second sentence (i.e. "there would be many who would remain in their homes...") you might have prevented making a total ass of yourself. The author's position basically states as such:
1) Aurelian abandoned Dacia.
2) Some sources claim Dacia was evacuated.
3) We cannot trust these sources; they are probably propaganda.
4) There was no logical reason for why the Daco-Romans would leave their homes, nor is there any evidence to suggest they did. All the evidence uncovered is in favor of continuity.

capisci?

Oh no...! Not that mafioso "capisci" thing!
Like I said earlier...

Whithout the Goths you're NOTHING!

Update...
(Deleted math thing... Wasn't funny!)

[Basileos Leandros I]

No, Dacians are not Vikings because the Vikings didn’t exist at that time. Nevertheless, according to Parvan they did sort of make their way out of Prussia towards our Dacia. As for the Goths being the missing link you’d better believe it. I can provide lots of sources but if you don’t understand what they say than it won’t matter. Professional historians don’t understand what they say either. The sources are as follows: Getica by Iordannes, Hervarar Saga and Gesta Normannorum by Dudo of St. Quentin. You will also find other sources that more or less back up what is being said there but without professional sources backing me up I can’t make a convincing argument. Let’s face it… The professional historians have completely ignored the vast amount of writing on the subject. The sources tell us how the Getae are Goths and how these Goths morph into the Viking age… Danes=Dacians = North Germans while Goths = Getae = Romanians and of course some Bulgarians, the Spanish and Portuguese etc…

Your logic makes...no sense.

Nodoby doubts the fact that Goths settled in the area. But saying they are the same people as the ones who lived during the Roman times is mind-boggling.

Just for the record, I’ll say it again… Without the Goths you’re NOTHING!!! AND Getae=Goth… You’d better believe it…!

Getae = Dacians.

Trusting Iordannes when he makes the assumption over Orosius' earlier work and inspired by Cassiodorus is anything but a proper conclusion. He used so many authors without citing their work it's hilarious, it's like grouping whatever he could manage to make them.

The guy was visibly confused. He tried to make a history and got too muddled up with old texts to even make the difference.

And I find it funny how the first one to use the term Goth for Getae was Julian the Apostate, in the fourth century AD, when the Goths came along. You call that coincidence?

[Getwulf]

Your logic makes...no sense.

Nodoby doubts the fact that Goths settled in the area. But saying they are the same people as the ones who lived during the Roman times is mind-boggling.




Getae = Dacians.

Trusting Iordannes when he makes the assumption over Orosius' earlier work and inspired by Cassiodorus is anything but a proper conclusion. He used so many authors without citing their work it's hilarious, it's like grouping whatever he could manage to make them.

The guy was visibly confused. He tried to make a history and got too muddled up with old texts to even make the difference.

And I find it funny how the first one to use the term Goth for Getae was Julian the Apostate, in the fourth century AD, when the Goths came along. You call that coincidence?

Well in that case you'd better get used to not existing north of the Danube until the 12th C. AD like Piroska says.

I have never seen people argue against their own self interest the way Romanians do.

I mean... Why would you want to have a history that makes sense...? OR one where we may have actually beaten somebody in a battle? Best to be nothing... Forever on the defensive nobodies.

[CiviC]

I think it's safe to assume Getwulf isn't Romanian, at least by his comments that sets Romanians apart from himself. I know he has a command of Romanian language, but no matter if this a learned language or if he was born Romanian but later he assumed a different imagined (fantesist I may say) identity, it's his right to self identification, so for now on we should treat him as a non-Romanian. He is a "Goth" (sic!), and I really mean "Goth" (sic!), with the quote marks and the (sic!).

[Basileos Leandros I]

Well in that case you'd better get used to not existing north of the Danube until the 12th C. AD like Piroska says.

I have never seen people argue against their own self interest the way Romanians do.

I mean... Why would you want to have a history that makes sense...? OR one where we may have actually beaten somebody in a battle? Best to be nothing... Forever on the defensive nobodies.

Well, as far as I know, there's no Gothic nation.

The map says there is a Romanian nation and I rather live in the present than 1500 years ago, so in this case, I'm taking Romania.

[Getwulf]

Well, as far as I know, there's no Gothic nation.

The map says there is a Romanian nation and I rather live in the present than 1500 years ago, so in this case, I'm taking Romania.

Yeah... But then you can more or less commit historical and eventually political suicide when the Hungarian revisionists tear your history apart the way they have done in this thread. After that their revisionism will challenge the sovereignty of the Romanian state and its right to exist. It is as simple as that just in case you didn’t notice which way the wind is blowing.

I think it's safe to assume Getwulf isn't Romanian, at least by his comments that sets Romanians apart from himself. I know he has a command of Romanian language, but no matter if this a learned language or if he was born Romanian but later he assumed a different imagined (fantesist I may say) identity, it's his right to self identification, so for now on we should treat him as a non-Romanian. He is a "Goth" (sic!), and I really mean "Goth" (sic!), with the quote marks and the (sic!).

As for you “Romanians” spare me the nationalist rhetoric of denouncing other Romanians publicly. You know, the way all you losers did during Ceausescu’s time.

BTW I still don’t get the Latin thing. If you’re all Latin and proud as you claim… Then why is it that the vast majority of Romanian leaders have “Scythian” names? Yeah… Ceausescu, Basescu, Koga-lniceanu… etc…

You want to go down the list of “Romanian” leaders…? I can absolutely assure that there isn’t a “Latin” amongst them.

From a historical point of view it is pretty clear what happened…

We have a trend starting around the 7th C. AD (give or take) of Byzantines helping migratory tribes settle around what is today Romania as a bulwark against the “Getae”. Later on these “nomads” of Scythian origin would marry into prominent Byzantine families.

Yeah… That’s basically how the “Vlachs” and the “Latins” got their Scythian names. See the example of Basarab.

Now if Romania really is and Romanians really are just a mixture of Cumano-Tatars with Byzantine Vlachs then you can count me out as I’m definitely not of those races.

I’m a Getae and we are still the silent majority. You’d better take note of Ceausescu’s horrible death in 1989 because his Tatar brain just didn’t get it. The same goes for you Huns.