History of the Romanians and Vlachs (271-1310)

Oh, this is a definitely unsure and disputable topic! Much has been written about the Vlachs and/in the Second Bulgarian Tsardom. Although I remember one excerpt of a contemporary chronicler, who says that the Vlachs had called themselves before Moesians (term used many times for the Bulgarians). But I dare not make any claims on this matter, on which I know so little!


Edit: Although, in an unofficial hypothesis, this could mean that actually Vlachs and Bulgarians are kin and are really descendants of the Hellenized and Romanized Thracians. This would explain those strange genetics... Hey, if I make a fantasy-history book, I should include it!


Edited by NikeBG - 20-Jun-2006 at 08:05

    

Although I remember one excerpt of a contemporary chronicler, who says that the Vlachs had called themselves before Moesians (term used many times for the Bulgarians)

All explanations of this kind are just opinions of that medieval people. We cann't accord credit to such opinions because they were not based on documentary sources, they were just suppositions or legends. I mean when a man from that epochs is talking about periods before him. But even when he is talking about events contemporary to him, many times the information is eronated.

Although, in an unofficial hypothesis, this could mean that actually Vlachs and Bulgarians are kin and are really descendants of the Hellenized and Romanized Thracians. This would explain those strange genetics.

We can speak only in percentages.

The Romanic population of Balkans should be the descendants of Thracians and Illyrians.



Many people think that the romanized population from Dacia couldn't survived and that the Romanians are the descendants of some Balkanic groups migrated at a later time in Carpathians. This is contradicted by archaeological discoveries, by the fact that Romanian language is most less resembling with the Balkanic (Romanic, Albanian, Greek) languages.



There are many linguistic, archaeological and documentary proves that the Romanians are the descendants of the romanized Dacians.



For the Romanian member(s) I reccomend this forum were such problems are disscused for several months:
http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?showtopic=80323&st=2340



Resuming the result of archaeological researches, there are hundreds of sites for the "dark" period history of the proto-Romanians. The romanization of the Dacians inside the Roman province, before and after the abandonment by the imperial adminstration and army is clearly proved. The gradual romanization of the Dacians outside the Carpathic basin too (the last forms of Dacian pottery dissapeared in 7-8th century). The Dacian and Roman tradition is clearly observable.



There is a clear distinction between the material culture of the Daco-Roman population and Germanic, Slavic and other migratory population cultures. The exception is that of Gothic culture (called S�ntana de Mures or Chernyakhov) which is of Roman and Dacian tradition, even if it's a creation of Goths. That's because Goths pretended they are federates of the Roman Empire and that's why they adopted forms of Roman culture, especialy in pottery. They also adopted Dacian pottery in an early period, when they were being in contact with the Costobocs, a northern Dacian tribe (extended as far as today Slovakia). The Gothic confederation included populations of Gothic, Sarmatic and Daican ethnicity.



The analysis of the Romanian language shows characteristics which make it impossible to be of Southern origin. The spreading of Latin terms is from Transylvania (the interior Carpathic basin) to Moldavia (region East of the Carpathians). In Transylvania there are Latin origin terms which are not present in Moldavia (but there is not any Latin origin word in Moldavia not to be found in Transylvania) or Wallachia (the Southern Romania, between Carpathians and Danube). In Wallachia also there are linguistic forms which are not present in Transylvania.

In Banat (the region shared between Romania and Serbia) there are words of Latin origin which are not to be found in any other Romanian region, nor Transylvania.


Romanian language is the most closed to ancient Latin among all the Romanic languages in Europe, except the Italian. In the last 8 centuries it developed in all three historical regions of Romania (Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia) without changing almost at all, so it's the same language in all these territories, with small differencies of vocabulary or accent, even these provinces had a different history. This is a proof that the unity of the Romanian language (which for some scholars is an evidence of a pretended recent spread of this language from a migratory nucleus of population) is a result of a social process which was the same in the centuries before the year 1000 as in the last 8 centuries. And I make the specification that the Romanian language was not suported by a writen culture like in the Western countries, its unity developed naturaly.
    


We should not make the confussion between the Balkan Vlachs and the Romanians, which in the medieval epoch were also called Vlachs, Wallachians etc.

Even in the Balkans, the people called Vlachs are not the same. The genetic researches showed that Aromanians are the people less related with other people in Balkans. Romanians too are far from the Balkanic people.


The resemblance between Romanian, Aromanian and other Romanic language groups in this European area is explainable: all these languages derive from the Latin adopted by Dacians, Thracians (which have had almost identical languages) and Illyrians, which probably were related with Thracians. So, adopting the Latin by people related linguisticaly lead to resemblant (not identical) languages.

I spcifify for the people not knowing these languages that Romanian cann't be understand and speak by an Aromanian and viceversa, the differencies are big.
    

Edited by Menumorut - 20-Jun-2006 at 14:44

    The answer at this question is that the Balkanic Vlachs (which are three groups strongly differenciated one of antoher) have all very few Greek language influences.

Also, geneticaly they are more distanced from Greeks even than the Albanians.

    I just took the information from
here

I really want some answer on this:
during the period mentioned,where there a latin speaking population i n the area of modern romania?-this was a crossroad for several nomad tribes.
could a latin speaking population be preserved there?if yes was it so silent?(are there any evidence of such existence)


And..can we speak for a migration towards the southern Balcans?And migration from where?

 I m not sure for common ancestry of all the vlachs of the balcans and those of romania.Linguistic and cultural differences are obvious.

Didn't you notice that the study was conducted by the University of SKOPJE?

Well, you can find here a good summary of the general Hungarian view about the question of the origin of the Romanians.

I understand that you want to complete this topic in a friendly way with a Hungarian point of view but I think the site of mr. Gabor V�kony is totaly unmatching.

This kind of websites are just personal views, with not scientific evidences and not any authority. I think this kind of sites are not made by specialists but by passionate and amator people who only have read few books and started to imagine some theories. Myself, I have read true scientific materials writen by Hungarian archaeologists and are very different from such materials on this site, which I think is pure propaganda from a personal initiative.

during the period mentioned,where there a latin speaking population i n the area of modern romania?

The existence of romanized Dacians in the roman province of Dacia is atested in 90 arhcaeological sites by the presence of Dacian type of pottery.

After the withdrawal of the Roman administration, the former province was invaded by Dacians from Moldavia, called Carpians. But the forms of Romanic culture were preserved, as pottery discovered atests.


There are not strong documentary mentions of the Romanic speaking population in Carpathians but some remarks conduct to such a conclusion. Jordanes is describing the Roman withdrawal from Dacia (basing himself on the documents he had read) but, not like the source he uses, he is not saying that the Romans emptied the province, he says they only removed the troups.

Such a deliberate modification is explained by that he was knowing that in Dacia there is a Romanic population (he lived in 6th century).


Another accounts are these from Wikipedia ("Origin of Romanians"):

"-In 545, Procopius mention "the trick played by an Ant (a Slav or Alan from present-day Moldavia) who is supposed to have passed himself off as a Byzantine General by speaking a form of Latin which he had learned in these regions.

-An ancient letter from one Emmerich of Elwangen to Grimaldus, abbot of St.Gall, written about 860 mention Vlachs living north of Danube together with Germans, Sarmatians, and Alans.


-The Weltchronik of 1277, referring to the ninth century," calls those Dacians for "Wallachen".


-The Weltchronik of Jansen Enikel, written in Vienna in 1277, mentions Charlemagne going on a campaign in the east (around 8th century) and met with Wallachians.


-Nestor's Chronicle, (Kiev, 1097-1110), relating events from 862 to 1110, mention Wallachians attacking and subduing the Slavs north of Danube and settling among them.


-The Anonymous Notary of King Bela II (1131-1141) or Bela III also mention the presence of Vlachs in Pannonia and them mixing with Slavs, but retaining their language and culture."





I make the specification that the name Vlachs and its derivates was designing a Latin speaking population.







The presence of a Romanic population is proved too by other facts, not documentary.

There are hundreds of archaeological sites which prove the continuity of the Dacian people in the former Roman province and in the rest of Dacia (only a part of Dacia was incorporated in the Roman empire). Also these sites show the process of Romanization of the Dacians in Moldavia by the contacts with the Romanic population from today Transylvania. This coresponds exactly with the spreading of Latin words from Transylvania to Moldavia.


The existence of some Latin words only in some parts of the Romania is another proof that the Romanians are not the result of a migration but the successors of the Romanized habitants of the former Roman Dacia.


Also, if the Romanians would have came from South of Danube their language should be resembling at least one Romanic language from Balkans, but its characteristics shows that it constituted separately from the Balkan languages.

this was a crossroad for several nomad tribes. could a latin speaking population be preserved there?if yes was it so silent?

The nomads were not as numerous as we use to think. They were tens thousands each group or even smaller. Their passage and temporary settlings were made only in small area of the land. They were not violent to the poor people. They attacked especialy the cities and rich people.


The silence of Dacia in the first millenium AD is due to the total absence of a civic, organized social life. The entire population was rural and backwarded.

And..can we speak for a migration towards the southern Balcans?And migration from where?

The opinion that such a migration could existed belongs to the people who not studied the realities in Roman and Byzantine empire and in the Balkans and Dacia in the period we study.


For the inhabitants of the Roman Dacia, leaving their lands for going South of Danube was preferably only for the rich and townspeople. For others, the Barbarians was not such a threat.
Also, for the Southern Latin speaking people, there were not reason for migrating in a savage teritory.

I m not sure for common ancestry of all the vlachs of the balcans and those of romania.Linguistic and cultural differences are obvious.

The syntax of the Romanian language is much different from the Romanic languages in Balkans which constitute a group with some resemblances one to another.



You can dowload and read this study made by a reputated specialist:
    Romanian and the Balkans: some Comparative Perspectives

This difference betweeen the Romanian and the Romanic languages in Balkans could be explained only by that Romanian was formed separately from the Balkanic languages.

well Digenis, the traditional answer given to your question, is that a latin population survived as pastoralists in today's Romania and parts of Serbia. They lived in the mountains and high hills that would have been avoided by horse nomads such as the avars, cumans and the pechenegs. In today's Romania, mountains (over 800m or so), occupy about 80 thousand square km, with the hills another 85 thousand. Also, if you look at a map, these mountains almost completely surround the Transylvania region, which would have been a heavily forrested area, with many cultivable oases scattered throughout, which would have supported an agrarian population.

This is a presumption, not a scientifical theory. The archaeological researches have showed that the proto-Romanians were agricultors firstly, then animal breeders and then handicraftsmen. Ofcourse, it's possible that communities of pastoralists existed, but they didn't left archaeological traces.

Also, the proto-Romanians didn't lived in the mountains but in all forms of relief, plains, hills.


I posted several weeks ago (on another topic) images from archaeological sites of the proto-Romanians (there are several cultures for different periods and zones), I could do this again if somebody wishes.





    


Edited by Menumorut - 21-Jun-2006 at 16:10

Originally posted by Lyngos How come you missed the fact that the origins of the Vlachs and their History are identical with that of the Hellenes?

    I studied some archaeological reviews and a book:
"Avar finds in the Hungarian National Museum"