I know this question will spark heated debates, but the purpose of this thread is to bring into discussion the romanian question regarding their formation, and maybe come to a reasonable conclusion as to where they formed, north or south of the Danube. Of course the official version they teach romanians in schools is that the ethnogenesis happened exclusively north of the Danube, suggesting romanian nativity to present day romanian territories, which make them rightfully theirs. But it does not have an explanation to some serious questions regarding the theory. These are the things that need to be taken into account when advocating for romanian formation to north of the Danube:
Lack of primal conditions
It is said the romanian ethnogenesis couldn't have happened in a mere timespan of 164 years during roman occupation of Dacia. That this isn't sufficient time for a new language and ethnicity to be born, as specially when other places of the empire were conquered and colonized for a far greater time length than Dacia, and still did not adopt the latin language. Adding this to the fact that on the territory of Roman Dacia, during the occupation, there have been an important number of dacian revolts and raids of the remaining free dacians from the carpathian basin, which would make the romanization and latinization process almost impossible.
Lack of written sources
The lack of historical sources regarding the presence of romanians north of the Danube. There is absolutely no record of romanians north of the Danube after the Aurelian retreat in 271 AD. Aside the Gesta Hungarorum written by Anonymus, which relates the history of the carpathian-danubian area in the 9th and 10th century, it's considered by many more a work of fiction and not necessarily an objective outlook on history. Romanians, or "vlachs" as they are called in historical sources, are mentioned in the area around Transylvania for the first time, in a letter of the Order of Saint John to hungarian king Bela the IVth in the 13th century! That's a gap of 10 centuries from the Aurelian retreat. The obvious question to this, is where exactly did they disappear and manage to form, enough so that they created a cohesive homogenous language and culture, on the background of countless migrations of peoples that passed in the area, and in large enough numbers, so they could occupy large chunks of territories in the carpathian-danubian basin later in medieval times.
In order for us to answer these holes and gaps, it is necessary to look elsewhere for the place where the romanian people were born. During the withdrawal of rome from Roman Dacia, in the balkans, from the diocese of Moesia, Aurelian created the diocese of Dacia as a new place to settle the administration and part of the population. This new region represented a strategical advantage because it had the natural defence of the Danube so it made it harder for migrating invasions to raid, and more easier for the romans to defend. Thus, it's logical to assume that the only geographical and political place, stable and economically-politically enough to create a new ethnicity, is the south of the Danube. And comming to the aid of this theory are an abudant historical facts and sources. For example, the earliest mentions of "vlachs" are around the 6th century AD in the balkans. And from then on, such historical accounts like Startegikon of Maurikius (6th/early 7th century), Norse Writing of Gothland (11th century), Staregikon of Kekaumenos (11th Century), represent a steady increase in the mentioning of the vlachs exclusively in the lower part of the Danube, up until the letter of the Order of Saint John in the 13th century, which could suggest that romanians made their way northwards to present day Romania gradually, caused by the migration of the slavs in the balkans that dispersed them.
Similarities with albanian
The fact that there are many words romanian language has in common with albanian language is very interesting. With grammatical characteristics such as the rhotacism of the letter ”N”, the common presence of the sound ”Ă” (Written ë in albanian) and words like "Cătun/Katund; Vatră/Vatër", with little historical contact between the two cultures that couldn't be significant enough to change basic vocabulary words, there is simply no room to explain this phenomenon within the north continuation theory. The only 160 dacian words left in the romanian vocabulary for example, have 90 words which are also found in the albanian language, having some common archaic root (Brad/Berdh, mânz/mëz, gât/fyt, buză/buzë). As such we are forced to conclude that the romanian ethnogenesis and the albanian ethnogenesis happened in close proximity, which places both of them, again, in the balkans. And the last argument as to why the romanians made their way into today's Romania, is the presence of balkan romanian languages of today; istrian, aromanian, and meglenite languages. There is no explanation as to how these languages formed, if we strictly follow the north continuation theory. Unless we accept the idea that romanians somehow managed to form northwards, and then migrate in large numbers deep into the south of the balkans in medieval times, it is highly unlikely to think of a process which could have triggered this hypothesised backward romanian migration.
Having presented the key issues the current narrative is facing, this is why i'm inclined to believe romanians do not originate in today's present borders of Romania, but rather in what is today Serbia, FYROM and Bulgaria.
Discuss.