Romanian ethnic identity and language

Originally posted by Anton Yeah and who is repeating communist nationalistic propaganda after all?

As long the Bulgarians are the followers of the Thracians, you repeat a national-communist
propaganda.

The same for the Romanians which repeat the Daco-Romanian continuity.
That theory is  bullshit.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Why is it bullshit? I have given you quotes from as early as the 400s that speaks of a latin population north of the danube. Also several chronicles detailing how not every, or even most people withdrew in the Aurelian withdrawl.   So again until any of you give an alternative i'll just chalk up your opinions due to nationalistic envy/propaganda.

First of all, let us state the problem, let us see what Daco-Roman continuity means.
It is the theory, that a population, continuously lived  in the same place, in the same territory over a certain
time interval (from time A to time B).

In our case the time period starts with the Roman occupation of the north Danubian territory up to today.
The territory is the former Roman province, Dacia Traiana.
The people which continuously lived in this territory are the Daco-Romans.

But first let us define the Daco-Romans.
If we start to define these people, we run in a problem.
The first problem starts with the Dacians. Practically we don't know anything about these people.
We don't know their language, we don't know their culture.
The only thing we know about them is that Greeks called them Getians, and the Romans called them
Dacians (which is part of the confusion, because the Goths were very seriously in pretending
that the Getians were their forefathers, and this up to recently).

Not only this, but a lot of authors who studied the Dacian arhaeological artifacts are puzzled
by the similarities of the Dacian civilization with that of the Celts, which can't be said about
the Getians.

We know also very little about their religion (Zamolxis, Deceneu), about several kings,
like Burebista (around the time of Cezar) and Decebal (around the time of Traian) and that
is all.

From 106 starts the Roman civilization north of the Danube, with the help of very many colonists,
the majority being from all the empire, fewer "veterans" (therefore impossible that the word
"veteran" entered the Romanian language as "batran"  north of Danube, but very probable
this happend south of the Danube were the veterans had a long history of settling).

But in year 272 all the Romans leave the place, together with a large part of the Dacian population,
being resettled south of the Danube (there is a lot of documentation proving this assertion).

Thus, the question arise, who are the Daco-Romans?

Assume, that some of these Daco-Romans (a fictitious entity, bread be the minds of fanatic
Romanian nationalists) survived north of the Danube.

But where?

The first Romanian state north of Danube was in Valahia, the second in Moldavia.
But both these states were defined over a territory which never belonged to Dacia Traiana.

Therefore, how can we talk about a Daco-Roman continuity, if the first Romanian states
(the states of those continuous Daco-Romans) were formed in a territory which never
belonged to Dacia Traiana?

Do you see the fallacy of these Daco-Roman continuatists?

I proved you that the Daco-Roman continuity was incorporated in the stack of Romanian nationalistic
dogma without a serios logical foundation.

Next, I prove you that  there are no historical facts to state that any Latin speakers (I mean
also Vulgar Latin or a neo Latin language, such as a proto-Romanian) lived during the period of
VI-th to X-th century, north of the Danube.

Beginning with the III-th century Dacia, but also territories adjacent to the Roman province,
become the homeland of the Goths, of the Huns, of the Gepid. Later on we see the arrival of
the Avars (VI-th century), of the Slavs, then of the Bulgars, followed by Turk people such
as the Pecenegs and Kumans.

The Romanian owe to the Turks (these are the Old Turks) the fact that they moved north of
Danube and established their homeland their. The Old Turks gave the Romanians/Vlahs
the chance to escape the Sklavinoi.

Already Mauricius organized the empire in such a way to use the peasantry as soldiers.
His reforms established the Themes, which later were expanded by Heraclius with a lot of success.
These Themes were the skeleton of the Sklavinoi structure, which allowed several basileus
in Constantinopolis to deal with the invasion of the Slavs.

Obviously that the Latin speakers (the forefathers of the Romanians) disappeared from the radar
of the Byzantines because they were absorbed into the Sklavinoi, subdued by the Slavs,
which is evident in the addstratum of the Romanian Language which borrowed loanwords related
to institutions (church and state) such as the Slavonic church related words, or those related
to social organizations, kneaz, voievod, etc.

It was due to the Old Turks that the Romanians escaped the Sklavinoi.
First it was the Bulgars (the Turks). Then it was the Pechenegs, and the last on the list
the Kumans (actually the Tatars had also their share, mostly regardin the expansion of
the Romanians/Vlahs up to the Dniester)

Originally posted by Flipper Balkan wars again?  How do we succeed each time?

Among the science fiction works regarding the Dacian I quote "Prehistoric Dacia" by Densusianu,
a very nice piece of art work (fiction), but nothing else.

The Dacians never christiniazed because they vanished from history.
Some historians claim that Albanians are Dacians who added an addstratum to their
language due to their cohabitation with the Romanians/Vlahs.

Jordanes claim that the Goths are Getians was adopted by most of the Germans, all over Europe.
The Spanish kings claimed that even recently. On maps during the XVI-th century the occurrence
of Dacia among German lands is pretty often.

THe Celts left a very important legacy in Transylvania because they introduced the La Tene culture,
which is a period of the Iron Age  during 450 BCE to  the 1st century BCE, which spread only
in Transylvania (not other Romanian territories) around 300 BCE . Most of the Dacian arheological
artifacts are actually Celtic.

I know much better than you the Dacian civilization, as you see.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Romanians were both north and south of the danube. The difference is that the south became assimilated over the years by slavic groups.

You have a paroxysmal attitude by promoting continuity north of Danube,
by denying to the same people continuity south of the Danube.

Are you able to see the paradox?

You are saying, that Romanians were both north and south of the Danube.
But south of Danube they disappeared.

Basically you promote a discriminatory attitude, very much in the footsteps of nationalists in
the Balkan states, such as Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Croats, Albanians, etc.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf I already posted a peice of Aurelian's biographer's chronicle saying that only the Roman administration withdrew and most of the population were more fearful to travel then to live under the Goths.

Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by diegis    Well, from what i know, we have the "Martisor" celebration, wich i heard bulgarians have to ( Martenitsa, or something like that )   Martenitsa/Martisor custom is considered to be of Thracian origin.

Originally posted by diegis    Well, to be correct, thracian- dacians are especialy our ancestors, even if they was a part in "construction" of other nations too, but in a much lesser degree, so its obviously from who you take that custom, when you arrive in Balkans

Originally posted by Anton This Turkic Bulgars got intermixed with locals rather than used them.

The locals, in the former Moesia Inferior, were Slavs, among them the Severins,
remembered in Romania in the toponomy: Turnu Severin, Banatul Severinului.

Most of the Vlahs/Romanians at the arrival of the Bulgar Turks were spread
in the mountainous areas of the Balkans (mostly western  and south western).
The Bulgars met them predominantly in the former Moesia Superior, among
others around Serdica were Romanians/Vlahs had a presence up to recently.

The famous "Letter of the merchant Neacsu from Campulung" which exposes
the first time the Romanian language, in the year 1521, was written by a
Romanian/Vlah/Valach who had his main residence in Sofia (Serdica).

Another place of interaction between the Bulgars and the Romanians/Vlahs
was Machedonia, mainly around Ohrid.

The western parts of Bulgaria represent the backbone of the Romanian/Vlach
ethnical survival during the transition which occured in the  Balkans between
the years 600-1000.

There was an intensive interactions between the Romanians/Vlachs and their
Slavs neighbors. Thus, the Romanian language borrowed loanwords from the
Bulgars and the Serbs, as adstratum, mostly in the realm of institutionalized life.
But Romanian is still a Latin language and not a Slavic language.
Albanian borrowed a lot from Romanian, being aside Romanian/Vlach the only  balkan
language with a large Latin lexicon.



Edited by schiau - 12-Jun-2008 at 15:38

Originally posted by Anton There plenty of large cities soon or later conquerred by Bulgars. Equalizing of locals living in mountenous area with Vlachs is weird and has nothing to do with reality. They were ordinary Roman citizens not necessarily speaking Latin (but also Greek and their own languages).

It seems ethnicity has no meaning for you.
I was not talking about Romaioi (about the Roman citizen), I was talking about the
disenfranchised Latin speakers of the Balkans, who after the Avar/Slav invasions of the
VI-th century, lost their grip on power due to the huge financial loses provoked by the
destructions committed by those barbarians.

Those primitive people who invaded the Balkans harmed profoundly the Latin speakers.
They were completely displaced, reduced numerically, but also socially.
The Latin speakers became the underdogs of the Balkans, the Vlachs, a ridiculed people,
called by the Greeks also "village idiot".

The Romanians are an offspring of these Vlachs.

Originally posted by Anton Poor Latin speakers. That is why probably you does not recognize Dridu culture as that of Bulgars as soon

From the view point of the Daco-Roman continuity north of Danube, the Dridu culture
is an example of continuity of the inhabitants.

But, from the opposite viewpoint of Daco-Roman continuity north of Danube, the Dridu culture is
an example of a Slavic population who lived on both sides of the Danube, maybe the Severins.

Personally, I don't believe in the Daco-Roman continuity, I don't believe that the Dridu culture
represents Daco-Romans.

Therefore, what is your point about the poor Latin speakers of the Balkans?

Originally posted by Anton How do I know? Chronicles, linguistic analysis and archeological data. No signs of signifficant reduction of population number.

Procopius statements contradict whatever you are saying.
Recently, a USA team of archeologists, after digging in the area between Vidin and Russe,
proved all historical facts regarding the events in Moesia: plundering, destroying
of large estates, such as cities, fortifications, etc, profound demographical changes,
barbarians taking over the territory, etc.

Originally posted by Anton The official language is being Latin and Greek. It does not necessarily mean that their home language was Latin and/or Greek. Actually linguistic analysis of Latin and Greek inscriptions show that home language was not Latin/Greek. It is the same as to say that Romanians spoke Bulgarian untill 17th century.

It is not the same. In 1521, a Romanian merchant from Sofia (Serdica), in Bulgaria, writes from
Campulung (a Valachian town) to the Burgermeister of Kronstadt, in Romanian.
Sorry, but this means that in Bulgaria people were speaking Romanian around 1500.
On the other side, as I proved you in my previous posting, the latinization of the people
in the Balkans was 100% accomplished in the area dominated by the Latin language.

You are using Balkan nationalistic stereotypes. According to these stereotypes, the
barbarians are actually the descendants of the civilized Thracians, Illyrians.
Wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Anton Typical propaganda. "Letopis popa Duklianina" describes the fact that when Bulgars adopted Christianity Latin speakers were welcomed back. Again stopry with Kuber Bulgars describe how Avars, Bulgars and Slavs dealed with local population. After some point of time they weer allowed to go back.

hahahahahahahahahaha...
Ljetopis' Popa Dukljanina has often been dismissed out of hand by historians.
Bullshit.

Originally posted by Anton Poles call Italians Vlachs. Nothing to do as you might suppose with Balkans.

The same in the Balkans: Vlah, Vlasi, Vlax, Vlach
And always used with a derogatory meaning by the Bulgars, Serbs, Greeks, etc.