Romanian ethnic identity and language

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Imperium Vlachos et Bulgarios. That was the name of the Empire. If it doesn't appear in your history books :X

"It appears. It also appears as "Empire of Bulgars" or "Tsar Blgarom". :)"

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf ecause the Serbs migrated in a different pattern then the other Slavs. They were invited to defend against the Avars. While the Slavs in Thrace did the usual barbarian migration thing. So the former melted in with the population while the latter killed/melted into the population.

Anton: You seem to be confused. Romanized Thracian does NOT mean that the Thracians completely forget their original herigate. Simply that there is a Roman influence on it. The rest of your points I really don't disagree with. Just keep THAT in mind. Romanized Thracian does not mean that they forget their Thracian culture. What I am disputing is that the Bulgars somehow managed to find Thracians completely unaltered by the Romans and the Bulgars mixed with those Thracians.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf LOL okay. The Persians and Turkics mention a nation of Vlachs north of the danube out numbering the Hungarians in Transilvania in the 800s and later and i don't know how to read it. Sorry you are losing your patience, but I don't think it is due to anything other then your frustration that the facts don't match up to your fallacy.

I am losing the patience because you recite propaganda from Romanian sites, without
being able to quote the proper sources, without understanding that those sites repeat
the same nationalistic propaganda.

Let me give you an example, regarding the Persian sources you mentioned.
The Persian author is Gardīzī'. He metions two peoples:  V.n.nd.r/N.nd.r and M.rdāt.

Your Romanian nationalists claim that V.n..nd.r or sometimes written as N.nd.r are the Vlahs.

First of all I don't see any Vlah among those words. Secondly these V.n.nd.r are
the N.nd.r, the Danubian Bulgars for which there is alo the spelling: W(u)ł(u)ndur Bułkar,
or Wunundur, or Wulundur.
Therefore, V.n.nd.r is read Vunundur which sounds similar to Onoghundur (a Bulgarian tribe).

Another interpretation is that N.nd.r is the Hungarian Nandor, which means the same thing, Bulgar.
In Maghyar, Nándor Fejérvár means Belgrad

USA educated people don't swallow all the Romanian nationalistic nonsense like you are doing.

Whenever I have time I will show you that most of your statements are bullshit Romanian nationalistic
propaganda.


Edited by schiau - 13-Jun-2008 at 01:06

"I am losing the patience because you recite propaganda from Romanian sites, without
being able to quote the proper sources, without understanding that those sites repeat
the same nationalistic propaganda."

Originally posted by schiau Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf LOL okay. The Persians and Turkics mention a nation of Vlachs north of the danube out numbering the Hungarians in Transilvania in the 800s and later and i don't know how to read it. Sorry you are losing your patience, but I don't think it is due to anything other then your frustration that the facts don't match up to your fallacy. I am losing the patience because you recite propaganda from Romanian sites, without being able to quote the proper sources, without understanding that those sites repeat the same nationalistic propaganda. Let me give you an example, regarding the Persian sources you mentioned. The Persian author is Gardīzī'. He metions two peoples:  V.n.nd.r/N.nd.r and M.rdāt. Your Romanian nationalists claim that V.n..nd.r or sometimes written as N.nd.r are the Vlahs. First of all I don't see any Vlah among those words. Secondly these V.n.nd.r are the N.nd.r, the Danubian Bulgars for which there is alo the spelling: W(u)ł(u)ndur Bułkar, or Wunundur, or Wulundur. Therefore, V.n.nd.r is read Vunundur which sounds similar to Onoghundur (a Bulgarian tribe). Another interpretation is that N.nd.r is the Hungarian Nandor, which means the same thing, Bulgar. In Maghyar, Nándor Fejérvár means Belgrad USA educated people don't swallow all the Romanian nationalistic nonsense like you are doing. Whenever I have time I will show you that most of your statements are bullshit Romanian nationalistic propaganda.

to wolf ::::::::::::::::::: the rest of your posting is made from too many different quotes, i perhaps you could learn to say more about less.

my replies are in your text as shown [[here]].

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf "there was never an ancient germanic laguage which did not derive from thracian (unless it was gothic or finno-ugrian). all the most ancient north central europeans were descended from danubian migrants. those danubians who remained on the danube became the thracians. [obviously someone who is V'lakh is in the legion.] there was an ancient danubian language which divided along cultural and economic differences long before the romans ever took control of their city from the etruscans. the three groups of dialects from the original danubian were;   [[ you wanted to claim that germanic did not derive from thracian. i believe that i have shown you that the peoples whom the latins once called "german" are migrants from the thracians, or from the same people who later became thracians. you seem to believe that some of the barbarian tribes were german, and some were not. that is not realy the case. the latins called all the people east of the rhine and north of the danube "germani barbari" the most barbarian, the most pertinent to barbarism. the words 'german' and 'germaine' do derive from the same latin word. there were never any ancient people who ever named themselves "german".]] I was speaking of the term Vlach itself. It is derived from Germanic meaning latin speaker. "Germans" may have migrated from the Danubian space many years ago as the ice caps melted but i'm speaking of the Germanic migrants tribes. Slavs and Thracians are two different groups. One did not come out of the other unless you are refering "way back when" but at that point we might as well just discuss about how we all come from the same source. Does nothing for this discussion. [[ the slavs and thracians as as much two different groups as the latins and the french, or the latins and the spanish. the slavs and the other ancient barbarians (whom the romans called german) originate from the early thracians, or early illyrians. we are always refering to "way back when" whenever we refer to descent languages from language groups.]]

perhaps you want to discuss who were the deutsch (please note that is not germans, it is a modern name) and who were the slovaks.

the slovaks like to say that they have no history because they never did anything wrong. the deutsch originate as the child prisoners which charlemagne took from the avars. that is to say they were the avar children, mostly boys, saved at the time of the destruction of the avar horde. (at balaton) the danube bulgars (also the christian bulgars) took most of the girls and placed them with slavic villiages in makadonia. the boys (as were the girls) were from either the avars, or from their prisoners; and they were given to lothar son of charlemagne. lothar raised them, yes, there were hundreds, with the help of latin speaking roman rite priests. they were raised to be soldiers for lothar, the start of west european knighthood. then their descendents, yes, there were thousands, became the kings knights when otto became the first king of the deutsch. these knights settled all over the new roman empire and as they assimilated among the other peoples in central europe, they remained the dominant ethnic group. they were the first deutsch, and this time you may say that they did not descend from the thracians. but, perhaps you would prefer to claim thracians.

vlad

Edited by vladzo2 - 14-Jun-2008 at 17:26

[[ you wanted to claim that germanic did not derive from thracian. i believe that i have shown you that the peoples whom the latins once called "german" are migrants from the thracians, or from the same people who later became thracians. you seem to believe that some of the barbarian tribes were german, and some were not. that is not realy the case. the latins called all the people east of the rhine and north of the danube "germani barbari" the most barbarian, the most pertinent to barbarism. the words 'german' and 'germaine' do derive from the same latin word. there were never any ancient people who ever named themselves "german".]]

Guys,