Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

question about scythian, turanian and samartian
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: question about scythian, turanian and samartian
    Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 02:18
"It doesn't matter what I like or not. It's simply fake."
 
Prove it. You can't just say "it's fake" you aren't God or anybody like that where you can just proclaim something like that and it is. You just don't like it because it shatters the fake image of Mongol invincibility in Europe.
 
"This is not civility. But Wallachs treated them in the same manner very often. So, can you decide who was more civil? Leave it to the God..."
 
LOL We treated the Mongols and Turks in the same manner? We invaded Mongolia and the Turkish steppe for slaves and to conquor their homes? Did we go and enslave their children? Please this is pure and utter non sense.
 
"Just one example. From the most publically available source..."
 
The Romanians didn't just feign retreat. They dismounted off their horse, kept shooting, and then charged themselves with spears in hand. Meaning the horse archer had a spear with him, and he himself did the whole thing. What you showed above is a simple feign retreat, mounted lance charge.
 
"Hmmm... But what I said is just that it wasn't a unique innovation of of Getae archery. That's it."
 
I didn't say it was. But it wasn't a Scythian invention either. Putting poison on weapons isn't something just invented by one people.
 
"And now I'm just asking you. Whose account is older Herodotus' or Ovidius' ? Well, the conclusion is obvious again..."
 
What kind of question is this? i wasn't pitting Herdotus and Ovid against each other. They don't contradict each other at least in the things we are discussing. You're grasping at straws.
 
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 02:22
Originally posted by Seko

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
Actually I never said they dealt with Assyrians and Japanese and Koreans and all of that. I simply listed people who used horse archery.
 
 
After Sarmat12 asked you who the Daicans dealt with:
 
I also didn't get what you meant by other nomades which Dacians dealt with? There were no others in the region except Scytho-Sarmatians at that time.
 
You answered with:
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
 
Assyrians, Huns, Magyars, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Dacians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and a slew of other tribes and peoples all through northern and central asia.
 
 
"Greeks and Romans for example were incapable of it neither did Celts, Germans, Thracians and etc..."
 
Greeks didn't need it. Romans did in fact adopt it. Celts and Germans didn't really need it for the most part but for the rest they just didn't use it. Thracians did use it, the Dacian part of them anyway.
 
I guess you'd have to prove somehow that the Dacians used horse archery due to the steppe people since it isn't impossible they invented it by themselves. In any case it looks pretty bad for the Scythians to be beaten by their own tactic.
 
Dacians delt with Huns but I guess by then they'd be "Romanized Dacians." Then later the Mongols and Turks.
 
 
That ^ was in response to a question about the usage of steppe horse archery.
 
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
 
I failed to mention that they fought the Romans because we were discussing Dacian/steppe people interaction so it would be irrelevant to mention the Romans.
 
 
I will accept that. However to make your understanding very clear it would make sense to include all influences in Dacian culture, especially Roman.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
I did not say the Romanians were solely Dacian. But they are mostly Dacian, then Roman and perhaps some slavic mixture. Those are the three biggest compositions of the people. Please do not bring in the rossler non sense theory here. It states that Romanians are actually Albanian shepherds and we all migrated from Albania. This is a propagandist theory made by the Austrians to quell nationalism in Romania in the 1800s.
 
 
All hyoperbole and nationalistic intent to shape history. After you tend to highlight a Dacian influence you equivocally diminish any other influence in Romanians. You stretch the timeline to an era where Romanians are not known to be Dacians!
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
The other migrants you mentioned were in few numbers and left little or no cultural or genetic influence on the mostly Daco-Roman + minor slavic elements of the people.
 
I didn't deny that they ceased to be called Dacian by the 13th century. They adopted the name and kept it of Roman which we still use today. But that is irrelevant because we weren't discussing etymology, but the horse archer tactics of the Getae/Dacians (two names for the same people).
 
 
Yes, back to the horseback archery. I find this interesteing and may even have a comment about that in the near future!. Go on.
 
The term Dacian was used as a tactical term. Meaning that their horse archery was employed. It is true the pure Dacians did not fight the Turks and Mongols, but their descendents did.
 
It would make sense to include the Romans if it was relevant. Next will you wonder why I didn't mention the Celts and Persians?
 
What is hyperbole? I was speaking about the Dacian influence because we were discussing horse archery. We also discussed the influence of the Cumans who ruled but never really mixed with the Romanians. I did not stretch any time line, the thing being discused was horse archery, not the ethnic make up of my people.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 03:00
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
Prove it. You can't just say "it's fake" you aren't God or anybody like that where you can just proclaim something like that and it is. You just don't like it because it shatters the fake image of Mongol invincibility in Europe.
 
No source talks about this at all. All the European chronicles of that time are felt with horror and frustration about the Mongols. The things that are described are the conquest of Hungary and battle of Lignietz. Besides Mongols lost some minor battler. A detachment of Mongols was defeated in Czechs for example. It's also a known fact and I don't deny it.
 
But no ANY serious talks about any defeat of Batu by "Vlachs." And also there would be no reason at all to hide such promising news for Europeans. And as I said I just care about the facts. What you gave it some strange rumor... May be the author even confused Vlachs with Czechs... Simply nodody mentions this battle. Besides, I don't know anyting about the context where this passage was put. I might actually talk about something else. Perhaps, you invented this by yourself who knows... You won't able to show any prove or alternative source for this anyway because it simply doesn't exist.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
LOL We treated the Mongols and Turks in the same manner? We invaded Mongolia and the Turkish steppe for slaves and to conquor their homes? Did we go and enslave their children? Please this is pure and utter non sense.
 
Yeah, haven't your heard about the Vlad Tepesh campaign below Danube you don't know what he did with defenseless Turkish women and children? This is a pure indication that you lack knowledge of basic facts of Romanian history.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
The Romanians didn't just feign retreat. They dismounted off their horse, kept shooting, and then charged themselves with spears in hand. Meaning the horse archer had a spear with him, and he himself did the whole thing. What you showed above is a simple feign retreat, mounted lance charge.
 
All Mongols and Tatars have bows even the heavy cavalry with spears. What's unique? Is it that archers had spears?  All Steppan armies had spears. And if they fought dismounted what is the whole point about talking about unique horseback archery tactics ???
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 03:17
"
No source talks about this at all. All the European chronicles of that time are felt with horror and frustration about the Mongols. The things that are described are the conquest of Hungary and battle of Lignietz. Besides Mongols lost some minor battler. A detachment of Mongols was defeated in Czechs for example. It's also a known fact and I don't deny it.
 
But no ANY serious talks about any defeat of Batu by "Vlachs." And also there would be no reason at all to hide such promising news for Europeans. And as I said I just care about the facts. What you gave it some strange rumor... May be the author even confused Vlachs with Czechs... Simply nodody mentions this battle. Besides, I don't know anyting about the context where this passage was put. I might actually talk about something else. Perhaps, you invented this by yourself who knows... You won't able to show any prove or alternative source for this anyway because it simply doesn't exist."
 
"All the world rejoiced when the Mongols were defeated by the Vlachs." I gave you the source too. If you don't like it or can't check up upon it then it isn't my problem. What you are asking for is a chronicle that talks about another chronicle talking about the event. If we used that method then I guess almost all of history is a lie, with people that wrote chronciles just to lie.
 
"Yeah, haven't your heard about the Vlad Tepesh campaign below Danube you don't know what he did with defenseless Turkish women and children? This is a pure indication that you lack knowledge of basic facts of Romanian history."
 
Oh yea and he boiled babies alive and then ate them while raping women ontop of the corpse of their dead husbands, Blah blah blah, i've heard this rubbish non sense before from the Saxons and the Turks who both hated Vlad and wanted to lie about him. The other sources, the unbias ones speak of him as a pious individual, a very harsh, but just as just ruler. Even if that is the truth, the south of the danube isn't the Turk's homeland. Even Anatolia isn't. So again when did the Romanisn go invade Mongols or Turks and do the things that those two tried to do to us? We can even pretend that non sense written about vlad is true. Let's say he's the devil. But aside from ONE guy (keep in mind i don't buy into the Saxon/Turk lies about him) can you name any other?
 
 
"All Mongols and Tatars have bows even the heavy cavalry with spears. What's unique? Is it that archers had spears?  All Steppan armies had spears. And if they fought dismounted what is the whole point about talking about unique horseback archery tactics ???"
 
It isn't unique that a horse archer had a spear, even though in the steppe mostly the heavy cavalry used this tactic. The uniqueness was that they dismounted, shot while dismounted and then fought on foot with the spear.
 
What is the point of fighting dismounted if you have a horse? You can keep a tighter formation dismounted. Fighting melee off of a horse isn't as easy as you see it in the films. So feinging a retreat while shooting arrows from horse back, and then dismounting while you are far away enough taking a couple other shoots, more accurate shots while on foot, and then charging in tightly with spears is actually a good tactic.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 04:01
Let me just show you what you're doing.
 
I found recently a previously unknown Chinese source by Shui Huiwen (13th century) saying: "Unknown tribe of Vlachs were the weakest enemies glorious Mongol armies ever encountered. Like coward rabbits they run up and to the mountains and hide their in disgrace as soon as they saw the tails of Mongolian horses."
 
If you don't like it or can't check up upon it then it isn't my problem.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 04:42
But seriously speaking, I suggest you to upgrade your knowledge and read this book:
 
Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250: By Florin Curta, Paul Stephenson
 
 
It gives all the sources about the Mongol invasion in Balkans and describes inter alia how local Wallachian voivods were defeated by Batu's generals. Batu himself was preoccupied with more important task i.e. conquest of Hungary.
 
I'm sure you'll discover a lot of interesting and unknown things. Smile


Edited by Sarmat12 - 17-Jul-2008 at 04:54
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 05:01
But you're out right lying. And you know this. I'm not. It is an actual source that was provided. The Mongols were in Poland and Hungary and ravaged it. But they didn't do the same to the Romanians because...they decided to be nice?
 
But it is nice to see you are just trying to save face of the invincible Mongols as you have not replied to the comment about the horse archer tactics at all what so ever.
 
I didn't say the Vlachs completely destroyed and routed the Mongols. From the chronicle it could have just been one single victory of 10,000 losses. The Romanians weren't unified then and if any victory was at hand itwas due to tactical use of terrain more then anything else. Whatever was the reason, they didn't slaughter 60 percent of the population like they did in Hungary or devestate the area in the manner they did everywhere else.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 05:31
LOL  Funny, because you are creating your own imaginary world.
 
Seriously, read the book I recommended to you first and then make assumptions, it's written by a Romanian historian BTW
 
Perhaps you didn't get my irony at all... But what I wrote about Shui Huiwen is exactly the way you represent your sources.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 05:53
You have a very poor way to debate things. I can say "well obviously little aliens control your brain" and it would be just as valid as your assertion that i'm making my own imaginary word.
 
I gave you a book and page to the sources I gave you.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 07:00
But the information from this book is wrong. Haven't you realized that yet?
 
Or may be you just messed up something and don't want to confess that the book was talking about something else.
 
Can you tell me at least the year to which that reference to the great misterious debacle of Batu was made?
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 17:26
It's wrong why? Just because you say so? You think I made it up? I was just as surprised as you are.
 
Maybe you messed something up by being ignorant of this chronicle and you don't want to confess it since you're some "steppe expert".
 
I think the chronicle speaks of 1243.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 18:35
LOL
You think so? 
 
In 1243 Batu was in Russia. You just proved that all your "information" is fake.
And I'm not "expert," I just know some basic historical facts in striking contrast to you...
 
I gave you the whole book published in Cambridge and written by Romanian professor, listing all the sources on the history of the region and describing Mongol's campaing on the territory of Modern Romania.
 
I don't know about your source. But if you have any idea about ancient chronicles you should know that they make mistakes and confusing statements very often.
 
According to the Gothic historian Jordan for example, your beloved Dacians in fact were Germanic Goths etc. and I can give you even more example of such confusions.
 
In other words, if you can't prove your assumption by several sources and other reliable evidence, such kind of information can't be relied upon.
 
And I repeated several times that all the sources of the Batu's invasion to Europe don't talk about any defeats from Vlachs.  By contrast there are just references to the defeats of Vlachs in this regard by some Mongol generals described independently by Rashid ad-Din and several European chronicles.
 
And what information should be more reliable in your opinion?  Your strange chronicle only just because you like it so much  or several chronicles and reliable researches from numerous acknowledged historians?
 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Romano-Dacis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Romano-Dacis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2008 at 23:11

The Tatars initially defeated the Romanians, but on their return trip from Hungary they were defeated by the Romanians at the passes in the Carpathian mountains, as shown in the Chronique Rhimee by Philippe Mousket. The chronicle dates from 1243 but the events he talks about take place in 1242. As such, unless Philippe was drunk or an idiot, there is little chance for confusion. He must literally have written about it as he heard of it (according to him, the victory was greatly renowned).

Sarmat, you're confusing two different events. The Romanians were defeated by the Tatars on the initial attack Joan of Ypres and Marino Sanudo speak of the Romanians and Szecklers putting up fierce resistance in the Carpathian mountains but sadly being defeated. Rashid-ed-Din speaks of the Wallachians losing as well in "Kara Oulag." These events all happened in early 1241.
 
However, the Romanians are shown as putting up increasingly successful resistance to the Tatars later on. According to the Rus chronicle Voskresenskaja, after the Battle of Mohi, the Tatars reach the Danube chasing after the Hungarian king Bela, where they have a reportedly undecisive battle with the Romanians (volohii). Batu's army retreats from Hungary and in 1242 his force is defeated by the Romanians (vlachs) at "the passes [of the Carpathians]" as recorded by Philippe Mousket.
 
Therefore, what you're doing is very anachronistic Sarmat. You're comparing the records of the initial attacks to their retreat from Hungary. The Tatars against the Romanians were successful initially (1241), then not really (after Mohi), then finally not at all (1242).
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2008 at 23:28

Which chronicles write about it except Mousket's ?

Batu didn't return back through the mountains he moved to Bulgaria and then through Dobruja and the rest of the pre-Pontic steppe. If Mousket's chronicle is indeed talking about the battle in the mountains with Batu it at least contradicts all the other sources and historical analyses.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Romano-Dacis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Romano-Dacis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2008 at 23:57

One army crossed the Danube and went for Split, then Cataro, then headed East through Serbia. Another army linked up with them West of Vidin, South of the Danube. This combined force crossed the Danube near Giurgiu and passed over Eastern Wallachia. Another Mongol army passed into Wallachia through the Carpathian mountains at the same time, and this is the one which Philippe is refering to. I've provided an image of the map where I'm getting this from:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/idsguy/mongolMap.jpg
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2008 at 00:05

Batu was with with the army that went through Dalmatia and then Bulgaria as I've already said, so he wasn't crossing the Carpathian mountains from Hungary to Wallachia.

And secondly, are there any other chronciles which confirm that battle except Mousket's? I'm afraid there are none.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
HistoryGuy View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 193 		  Quote HistoryGuy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2008 at 02:30
Sarmatians and Scythians mixed with neighbouring peoples. This is how humans are...Wink Yes, I believe the Sarmatians and Scythians were Iranic, they did however seem to influence the mythology of the Slavic Antae quite a bit... With gods like Khors, etc.

Edited by HistoryGuy - 23-Jul-2008 at 02:48
هیچ مردی تا به حال به شما درباره خدا گفته.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 20:25
Hello! Sorry for my enghish. I speak very bad...I
I'm new to this forum, but I was shocked by fixed ideas and serious mistake made by my conational Carpathian Wolf. There are no documents and no archaeological evidence except Trajan's Column on the use of "draco" in Dacia. In Romania, Draco became the national symbol and is seen as something purely Romanian. Nobodyin Romania has ever made a study about the presence of this simbol flag on other nations (sarmathians,romans, british).

There are no serious studies on the Romanian army in the Middle Ages! The thing with the vallachian cavalry is an aberration! As the Romanians were the best that mongols ?!???? Ha, ha ...
In the formation of the Romanian people participated Slavs and Cumana in a significant numbers ( this theory is not loved by romanian natinalists) . In recent years has developed in Romania crazy about dacology. All are considered direct descendants of the Dacians. It's one thing ... the Romanian country (Valachia and Moldavia) have been in the Middle Ages under Turkish suzerainty. So there may be that there were only small remaining independent countries in Eastern Europe. These things are remains of comunist-nationalist education.Confused
Back to Top
diegis View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jan-2007
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2 		  Quote diegis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Oct-2009 at 10:26
Originally posted by radu

Hello! Sorry for my enghish. I speak very bad...I
I'm new to this forum, but I was shocked by fixed ideas and serious mistake made by my conational Carpathian Wolf. There are no documents and no archaeological evidence except Trajan's Column on the use of "draco" in Dacia. In Romania, Draco became the national symbol and is seen as something purely Romanian. Nobodyin Romania has ever made a study about the presence of this simbol flag on other nations (sarmathians,romans, british).

There are no serious studies on the Romanian army in the Middle Ages! The thing with the vallachian cavalry is an aberration! As the Romanians were the best that mongols ?!???? Ha, ha ...
In the formation of the Romanian people participated Slavs and Cumana in a significant numbers ( this theory is not loved by romanian natinalists) . In recent years has developed in Romania crazy about dacology. All are considered direct descendants of the Dacians. It's one thing ... the Romanian country (Valachia and Moldavia) have been in the Middle Ages under Turkish suzerainty. So there may be that there were only small remaining independent countries in Eastern Europe. These things are remains of comunist-nationalist education.Confused
 
 
 Oh boy, you are the one with fixed (and silly) ideas, implemented by some small and new "breed" of historians who want to re-write somehow the history and make to look more "european" and less "national", for political reasons as well.
  At least read some more books, before post something. First mention of Dacian draco was found on a piece of ceramic find at Budureasca/Buduresti, Prahova county, and dated around 400 BC, so long before Sarmatians to be mentioned in the area. As well, on the Traian Column, where are showed Sarmatians too, the only ones always depicted at using "draco" is Dacians, never Sarmatians. You know, there is a reason why was called "Dacian draco" by Romans, and not "Sarmatian". As well, "draco" start to be used in Roman army just after Dacian units recruited from province Dacia entered in Roman army (there are know such units, some of the most known being one based at Birdoslwald, in Britania).
 About who inspired from who in using archers cavalry, this is pretty much a natural and logical thing to do when you live in areas as large fields, stepes, etc. It was no need for Getians/Dacians to learn this from others. The best example is Native Americans. When horses was introduced on their continent, they imediatly use them to hunt buffalo's, in combination with bows and arrows, without to have any Scythians around to teach them.
 Dacian and Getae are the same people, Trogus Pompeius, Strabo, Dio Cassius, Traian, his personal doctor Criton, or Julian the Apostate said that, as well the mainstream historiography, archeology or linguistic. The most critical point of view to this is that they was two regional parts of the same peoples, but never that they are two diferent peoples, which is silly.
 Slavs never participate "in large" numbers in formation of Romanian peoples, they are let say a small minority, the only one who count in the Daco-Roman mix, but even less then let say Germanic in celto-roman mix who formed the french.
 Cumans doesnt deserve too much mention, they was either pagans and later catholics (so hard to believe they mixed with orthodox Romanians), then migrated in Hungaria. Yes, there are couple names left by them, but thats just it, nothing more.
 And yes, Romanian countries in Medieval times was many times vassals to Otomans, but manage to keep their freedom, and never was transformed in provinces of foreign power (even Transilvania, was usualy under hungarian suzeranity, but never province of hungarian kingdom, and sometimes even independent or united with other romanian countries), unlike pretty much all other neighbours of us, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungaria, etc., who was transformed in province of other empires.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.