History of the Romanians and Vlachs (271-1310)

Despite the fact that the Aromanian dialects and the Romanian language are different,there are some common features which imply a common linguistic substratum,probably that of the thracians and the geto-dacians.The birth of the proto-language should have been in the northern Balkans,somewhere in Serbia and northern Bulgaria.But the ancestry of the romanic speaking people can't be common,because there were hundred of barbarian tribes in the Balkans that were romanised.On the other hand I can't really see the reason why a Greek would learn Latin in Greece or generally in the east and even more why would a Greek forget the ancestral language which was a very prestigious language at that time.It would be more natural to have been billingual Greeks,but then we should have expected the vlachs(at least these of Greece) to have been able to speak Greek in the medieval era and later.

Edited by perbund - 22-Jun-2006 at 07:13

Guys, how would you comment this article:
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

I've always asked myself questions such as:
Why the province that was held by the romans for only 160 years now wears the name ROMAnia? Compared to the other provinces it's very short time. Why it was so heavy latinised that the population there still speaks some kind of latin language. During the short time of roman rule it was a dangerous border land, a buffer that had been constantly invaded by various barbarian tribes, some of whom settled there as foederati. Compared even to the closest roman provinces such as Moesia, Ilyria, Noricum (guarded by the natural barrier of the Danube) it's looks quite wild, more similar to Germania and Panonia.
An interesting point of view on the topic is shown by the autor of the article.

Originally posted by dorian Originally posted by Arbλr Z   If the Vlachs are Hellenes, if the slavophonic Greeks from Macedonia region  (not FYROM) are Hellenes, if the arvanites are hellenes, if the orthodoxe albanians are hellenes, if the pontian grecophonic muslim community is hellene etc etc, what is not hellene? And who are the real descendants of the old hellenes?   So, you have a big problem with anything hellenic, that's what we see... It's obvious...

Originally posted by akritas Arber 600.000 Albanians that live and work in Greece make them as Greeks because are billinguals? Just a joke

The historical elements about Vlahs (Armani) are scattered in Byzantine collumnists. Their historical presence is dated about 2000 years ago from the Roman years and the Latinization of the Balkans (Porfyrogennitos, J.Lidos).

As the first written evidence of the Vlah' s language we have that of the Byzantine collumnists, Theophanis is and Theophylactus (579 A.D.) while the word Vlahs (Armani) was mentioned for the first time in 976 A.D. from Kedrinos. He talks about Vlahs travellers in the region of Kastoria-Prespa.

However Vlahs (Armani) with a few exceptions were not known with this name but with the world "Armani". This world derives from the "Romanus lives" and it is related to the decree of Karakala (Edictum Antonianium), 212 A.D. According to this decree, the right of the Roman citizen was passed on to all the residents of the whole Roman province.

The word Vlah according to recent research-originated from the German language whereby Latin speakers are called Wolhrolc and it derives from the words valon, valia, Wales etc.Besides the general name Vlahs (Armani), the Latin speakers of South Balkans are called with other names too, (Farsiarotes, Tsipani, Miglianiats=Moglenites, Grammoustiani, Mouzikiari or Tsimoureani, Sarmaniotes etc.)

The term Koutsovlahs that is used by scholars since the past century and which very often has a humiliating character, is related to "Kioutsouk Vlahia" as the Turks call Etoloakarnania. This is an area with many (Vlah  speakers) until the years of Kosmas Etolos (Epigram of  Evgeniou Etolou).

After this first evidence of Kedrinos, Vlahs (Armani) are repeatedly mentioned indicatively: Sigilia Vassiliou B, Kekavmenos, Anna Komnini, Choniatis Kinnamos, Halkokondilis, Frantzis, Latin sources, files of  Venice, Chanson  de Roland, a German epic, Nibelougen, chronical of Moreas, Erotokritos.

Furthermore, the historical presence of Vlahs (Armani) is intense. There are no foreign sightseers -during the years of the Turkish domination- there is no mention of them. We indicatively mention  the names of Pouqueville (Voyage en Grece) Leak (Travels in Northern Greece), Heuzey (1858) Kouzinery (Voyages en Macedoine) Berard (Turkish domination and Hellenism), Wace- Thomson (Nomads of Balkans)etc.

In the 18th century, under specific circumstances like the fall of the empire, successive tension of pashas, Orlophika, internal conflicts, big cities of Vlahs (Armani) like Moshopoli, Nikolitsa, Linotopi, Grammousta and many more were totally destroyed and the inhabitants were scattered towards every direction: Vienna, Budapest, Belgrad, Boukourest, Thessaloniki, Veria, Naousa, Serres, Philippoupoli, Konstantinopolis etc.

The Serb Academic, Dousan Popovic in his work "O Cincarina" mentions that Serbian markets were in undated by Vlahs (Armani) in the 18th century and all the import and export trade was in their hands and they created the bourgeois class of Serbia.

Moreover, the dissemination of Vlahs (Armani) is due to their professional occupations as they were stock-breeders wood-cutters and merchants. They were constantly "on the road" they were conveyors on not only of products but also of ideas. They connected the Greek area with the Balcans and Europe. Their contribution to Hellenism is undoubtly tremendous (armatolism, revolution, benefactors, economy, literature).

We indicatively mention a few names Rigas, Georgakis, Olympios, Yiannis Pharmakis, Hatzipetros, Vlahavei, (all the benefactors except Sigron), Zappas, Averof, Sinas, Spiridon, Lambrou, Papagos, Svolos, Kristallis, and all the others who with their strength, good spirit, money and their donations secured financially the newly established Hellenic republic and they founded it. Another aspect of the newly established Hellenic republic that is not well known is that many modern artists are of Vlah Origin just as Koutsomitis, Prokovas, Papatakis, Tsitsanis, Virvos, Kaldaras, Mitropanos, Sgouros etc

Originally posted by akritas Yeap all these athletes born in South Albania (North Epirus) . One other common point except of course their Hellenic origin.

Originally posted by Desperado I've always asked myself questions such as: Why the province that was held by the romans for only 160 years now wears the name ROMAnia? Compared to the other provinces it's very short time. Why it was so heavy latinised that the population there still speaks some kind of latin language. During the short time of roman rule it was a dangerous border land, a buffer that had been constantly invaded by various barbarian tribes, some of whom settled there as foederati. Compared even to the closest roman provinces such as Moesia, Ilyria, Noricum (guarded by the natural barrier of the Danube) it's looks quite wild, more similar to Germania and Panonia. An interesting point of view on the topic is shown by the autor of the article.

The name Romania comes from the name of the people, Romanians. It was adopted in 1959, till then the South principality being called "Tzara Rum�neasca" (Land of Romanians), the Central part being called Transylvania or Ardeal, the Western parts being called Banat, Crisana, Maramures and the Eastern principality being called Moldavia.


The short period of Roman occupation have the effect of the total romanization of the Dacians in the province, as their 90 archaeological sites (so not Roman) proves.

The resistance to romanization in others provinces like Gallia was due to the preservation of the old traditions of that peoples; in all provinces arround the empire, exceptind Dacia, the autochtonous people presrved their old place of living, lived organized in their own system, the civitates.

In Dacia situation was different: the Dacians violated the pre-war traties, they were dangerous (only a third of the Dacian teritory was transformed in province) and the geographical position made Dacia extremly vulnerable. This is why the Romans took special measures to ensure that the Dacians in the province will not preserves their identity and traditions. For that they moved them from their original places of lifee. All the Dacian sites are new villages, founded after the conquest.


About the article from that address, is full of rude mistakes and hymera.

I would like to answer anyway because that preconceived ideas could derute anybody.

In that article is afirmed these:

The occupation lasted about 160 years only, a period that was characterized not by an idyllic relationship between the two peoples but by violent rebellions of the Dacians against the invaders with consequent retaliation and repression.

In 160 years the use of the Latin language is very probable to have been adopted by all the Dacians in the province.

I have not information about that rebellions so I can't answer for that. I searched with Google and found nothing about rebellions in Dacia.

After the Romans evacuated Dacia because of the imminent Barbaric invasions, which actually happened, the hypothetical Daco-Romans were supposed to have survived for about a millennium hidden in caves and forests in Transylvania, not being noticed by the different peoples that populated the land in successive waves of immigration.

The Romanics from South of Danube have not been mentioned untill 10th century, too. This was due to the fact that in the documents were mentioned only the rulers.

Of course, there is not a single document that might prove such a theory, and from a logical viewpoint is quite unlikely that an entire people would be completely ignored by all Germanic and Eurasian settlers for such a long period.

The Romanics were not ignored but used by these migratory people. Archaeology showed the cohabitation between migrators and autochtonus, as not mixed habitations too.

The Vlach were not Dacians, but an Illyric people, originated in the south-western Balkans by the south-eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea ‒ namely, the present-day Albania and Slavic Macedonia.

If that is true why the name Vlachs is of German origin?

In Roman times, the ethnic composition in the Balkans was roughly distributed as follows: Greeks in the south, Thracians in the eastern half by the Black Sea up to the Tiras River (Dniestr), Illyrians in the western half by the Adriatic Sea, and Sarmatians/Yazyg from Pannonia up to the Bosphorus, throughout all the lands of the Thracians/Dacians, with whom they coexisted. The Yazyg were direct ancestors of modern Hungarians.

The Sarmatians were of Iranian origin, so there is no connection wwith the Hungarians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians

The Roman presence in Dacia (106-271 c.e.) was characterized by frequent revolts of the local inhabitants, and the occupation did never achieve a complete control of the region since different Dacian tribes kept their independence in earthen fortifications that they built on mountain peaks, and others moved outside the imperial borders.

I don't know if the author is refering to the free Dacians or to the ones inside the province. But anyway is wrong, nor the free Dacians nor the occupied ones have built or ihabited fortified places after the conquest. Is true that in a document is mentioned a castelum Carpicum but is a singular exception and was not yet archaeologicaly identified.

Roman historians attest that the pugnacious Dacian people were hard to surrender and even women and children fought the Roman legions.

This is true for the period of Decebalus and for the Roman-Dacian wars, not later.

In such a background it is honestly very difficult to imagine a process of assimilation of any kind. Far from adopting the invaders' language, the Dacian groups that were not subjected by them would have reverted any process of Romanization (in case that there was any) as soon as the Romans fled away from the country.

In the first century AD the Romans were being seen as an invading element but in 2-3rd century they started to be seen (by the outsiders of the empire, in Europe) as an invidied society. This is why, from now on,the Barbarians wished become Romans and adopted elements of Roman life and culture. The free Dacians were in a process of self-romanization in 2-3rd centuries. The archaeological culture of the Carpians (Dacians of Moldavia) is a mixture of Dacian with Roman elements. At the Dacian sites in Muntenia is proved archaeologicaly the adoption of the Latin language.

The Goths who lived for a while together with the Carpians, adopted too the Roman culture. Even if the Goths are a Germanic people, there is nothing German or Barbarian in their material culture, named
Chernyakhov_Culture .

The Goths' archaeological culture is just Roman and Dacian in its expression. The fact that the Goths adopted from Dacians not only the Roman forms but also the Dacian ones is perhaps because they identified the Dacians, even the free ones, with the Romans, due to the fact that a part of Dacians have been made Roman citizens.

Consequently, the theory that suggests a possible Daco-Roman blend is untenable in the light of the historic events.

There was not such a blend because the Roman colonists were having not the permission of marrying local women.

The Dacians in the province have been completely romanized as the archaeology proves. In their sites was discovered pottery of strong Dacian tradition, also Dacian rites of inhumation, but the Roman elements are dominating. And I'm speaking about the Dacian, not colonists sites.

Dacians were skilled fortress-builders and Romans excelled in building towns and roads, notwithstanding, no remains of such constructions have yet been found in Transylvania except the Roman roads. The Roman population of Dacia was not so numerous and consisted mainly in soldiers with no particular interest in colonizing or spreading the Roman culture, so they did not build important towns but only garrison strongholds.

How I already sayed, not any fortress was built or inhabited after the conquest, nor in the province or in the teritory of free Dacians.


About the Roman foundations, there were some cities big enough. Apulum was the stabiliment of Legio_XIII_Gemina
The city and the settlement of the Legion were declared municipality and respectively colony.

The capital of the province, Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetusa, have many public buildings:


Other towns with rang of municipality were Napoca, Potaissa, Porolissum, to speak about the ones in Transsylvania only.

Besides these, were many other cities, castres, villages, villas.

You could find more at Roman Dacia



[quotee]Indeed, it was the imperial policy to allow the subdued peoples to keep their own culture and language; Romanization was not an overriding issue.[/quote]

This was not appliable in a province like Dacia, so much exposed to invasions.

It is very unlikely that also the Dacian inhabitants joined them in their relocation, as they had not any good reason to do so ‒ and in such case, the non-Romanized Dacians from beyond the boundary would have repopulated the land weeping away any trace of Roman culture.

Is true that most of the Dacians of the province were not having reasons to go South of Danube. For them, the Barbarians were preferable to Romans and the Barbarians were free Dacians, their brothers. The Goths have installed themselves in Moldavia and Muntenia, in Transylvania there are only isolated discoveries.

But the invading free Dacians were not having reasons to destroy the Roman civilisation. Themselves wished to become Romans, adopting Roman language and culture.

Historical records and archaeological finds show overwhelming evidence that by that time and until the 12th century c.e., the Vlach people, that spoke Romanian language and had Romanian culture and religious tradition, were dwelling in another place: in southern Illyria, from where the majority of them were slowly moving towards present-day Romania through a long-lasting sojourn in Bulgaria.

I never heard till today about archaeological discoveries of Balkan Vlachs. And anyway, the Balkan Vlachs are not Romanians, there are two (in fact three) related people, not the same.

The afirmation above are grounding on nothing.

Archaeological evidences show that after the Roman evacuation the Dacians did not perform any kind of continuity, they did not dwell in the former Roman towns, which seem to have been deserted. Constructions in stone or brick were no longer made, nor monuments or inscriptions of any kind, and even burial rites changed.

This afirmation is a lie. It's obvious even by the fact that the second phrase contradict the first phrase, where is sayed that a someones were still burried.

Actually, the presence of romanized population is clearly proved, especially by the necropolis at Bratei but by other discoveries too.

The Dacian culture was completely different from the Roman one, and no sort of continuity through assimilation is documented after the Roman retreat.

This again is a big lie. I have put a photocopied book at this address:
Soporu de C�mpie.
It's in Romanian but there are images and you can see clearly how the people from this Dacian village of 2-3rd century mixed Roman and Dacian form of pottery. This is one of the most important sites for this historic aspect, but how I sayed, there are 90 other sites. There is a doctorate writen in Romanian language about the Dacians in the Roman province: GETO-DACII �N CONFIGURATIA DEMOGRAFICA A DACIEI ROMANE

It is obvious that the Dacian population of Muntenia and Moldavia, being outside the empire had never been Romanized ‒ as very likely not even the subjected Dacians were.

How I sayed, the archaeology showed that the free Dacians adopted the Roman form of culture and even language. Due to the connection with the romanized Dacians and being close to the teritories of the Roman province, their willing of becoming Romans is presumable that oriented them for adopting Latin language in different degrees and at different moments. This is well proved by the archaeology for the period of 5-7th century, when the culture (especially pottery) in the areas once peopled by free Dacians shows the mixture of Roman and Dacian traditions. And I speak about the sites of the Daco-Romans, not Slavians or other ethnic groups, which also are archaeological identified and have a different culture, as archaeologists and historians know.

Even though the Roman settlements in Dacia were inhabited by a mixed population of Roman contingent coming from many different regions of the empire, those of Italian origin were not numerous and consisted mainly of government officials ‒ whose sojourn was usually limited in time and consequently they were often replaced by other colleagues. Only very few of the inhabitants from Italy were permanent residents. The majority of the Roman settlers came from different regions of the empire (about twenty provenances are mentioned), from the most remote areas in Africa, Spain, Britain, Asia Minor, etc. The supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity myth allege that since they had different origins, they had to know Latin in order to understand each other. As a matter of fact, only part of these settlers were Romanized, and many were not at all ‒ and anyway, they were not autochthonous people but foreign occupants.

The author is seeing the romanization some kind like a mechanical process. Actualy, it was about learning a language. Is very presumable that all the colonists in Dacia, also the Dacians, speaked Latin.

Reports from eyewitnesses attest that Romans abandoned Dacia in a great hurry because of the attacks of the Goths and mainly because of the raids carried on by the Yazyg, who are said to have made thousands of Roman prisoners and caused enormous devastations.

Probably most of the colonist families went away, but the Dacian families were not having motives to go.

Anyway, the population which moved South of Danube seems to be of unsignifiant size: there is not any new town or village founded in the period and the size of the towns didn't appears to have grown.

The Yazyg ‒J�sz‒ may be properly regarded as early Hungarians.

The emperor, knowing that all the territories north of the Danube were lost, removed the Roman soldiers and inhabitants from Dacia to the lands by the southern shore of the river, in Moesia. Therefore, those Latin-speakers that sojourned in Dacia during the Roman occupation were foreigners, and their descendants cannot advance any claim on that country.

Till now the author was saying that these colonists were not romanized.

Latin-derived languages did not survive after four centuries of Roman rule over Pannonia, Thrace, Illyria ‒except in some areas of the Adriatic coastland‒; how could it be preserved in Dacia, where Romans left almost no traces of themselves?

Actualy Pannonia, Thrace (the Northern, non-Hellenized part) and Illyria have been completely romanized but the Romanic population there disapeared, assimilated by later migratory populations. The Hungarian archaeologists and historians could confirm that for the author of this article.

In only 165 years, the only part of the native population that could have learnt the Latin language would have been people that had some important relationship with the Roman officials or wealthy traders that may have reached economic agreements with the imperial authorities.

Actualy, learning a language take even less than an year.

Another glaring example for comparison is Britannia, today England, on which Romans ruled for 365 years, where they left hundreds of remains, towns, roads, baths, etc. and where the Roman past is attested by a large amount of toponyms and even cultural features like the Scottish kilt. It is more than plausible that Latin was widely spoken in Britannia after more than three and a half centuries of Roman influence; notwithstanding, few years after the first Germanic invasions, no Latin-speaking people remained in the whole land of Britannia.

The society of Roman Britain didn't encouraged the adoption of the Latin language by the Britons. The Britons there, like in most of the Roman provinces, preserved their native localities and organizations, called civitates.
In Dacia, the situation was different to any other province. You could read about that on the page
Roman Dacia. The Making of a Provincial Society

If the Romanization of Dacia was so complete as alleged by the supporters of the Daco-Roman theory, a huge amount of archaeological finds and Latin toponyms should have remained, but there is nothing of all this.

The toponimy survived only there where urban and organized life had a continuity. In Dobrogea for example, some ancient toponimes survived. Of them, some arrived to us translated in Slavian language. For example, the ancient documentary atested Petra arrived to us as Kamena (stone in Slavian) and Lycostomo (Wolf's mouth in Greek) as Vilcov (the same).

During the ages, the dominant populations imposed their translation of toponyms if the old toponyms were not connected with a strong tradition or a civic life.

For a close example, in Transylvania some toponyms arrived only in Hungarian or Slavian forms, used by the today Romanians, but the documents mention Romanian variants (with the same signification) of that toponymes in the early centuries of Hungarian domination in Transylvania.

After the evacuation, Romans did not leave anything. They established the Danube as the last frontier, and built a series of fortifications along the river in order to prevent attacks from the other side.

Actually, the Romans never ceased to consider Dacia lost, they allways thinked to regain it.

The Greek historian Procopius wrote by the middle of the 6th century c.e. about the fact that Romans renounced to any attempt of keeping any cultural influence or diffusion of their language in the lands of the Goths and other Germanic tribes, which means that a Latin-speaking people would have had possibilities of survival only within the imperial borders, that is south of the Danube.

The Goths totaly leaved Dacia at their movement in the empire in 376. The archaeology proved that there is not any Gothic inhumation in the sites of the S�ntana de Mures culture in the period, remaining only that of the Dacians.
In 6th century in Transylvania were the Gepids. I don't know where Procopius is saying that and I dont understand why were being the Byzantines (Greek speaking) interested in spreading the Latin North of Danube and how could they do that as they were not speaking Latin themselves.

The Huns built a powerful empire that lasted until 454 c.e. It is in this time that the Sz�kely people established a permanent presence in Transylvania, as they were part of the Hun tribes that did not return back to the east.

There is not prove of any archaeological presence else than the one of the Romanic people in that time in the teritory today colonized by Szekelyans. The colonization of Szekelians and their route from Pannonia to Southeast Transylvania is clearly proved documentary and toponimicaly. This colonization took place in 12-13th century, in the same time with the Saxon colonization in Southern and Northeast Transylvania.

One century later, the Avars (a people related with the Huns and Magyars) came from the east and ruled over the whole Carpathian Basin for two and a half centuries.

The Avars were a touranic people, not Iranian like the Yaziges.

Procopius wrote: "The River Ister (Danube) flows down from the mountains in the country of the Celts, who are now called Gauls; and it passes through a great extent of country which for the most part is altogether barren, though in some places it is inhabited by barbarians who live a kind of brutish life and have no dealings with other men. When it gets close to Dacia, for the first time it clearly forms the boundary between the barbarians, who hold its left bank, and the territory of the Romans, which is on the right".

The Barbarians mentioned were probably Slavs. The image Procopius was having is based not on his visit to the North of Danube, but on what he imagined about that teritory. Because in his books, when he meet a people, he detalied describes it.

Jordanes wrote: "I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only".

The Gepids were located in the central Transylvania. If the Aluta (today Olt) river was separating Yaziges of the Roxolani, were could Gepids lived? It's clear that Jordanes never was himself in Dacia and that he mixed diverse information, from old or contemporary sources, in a totaly wrong way. Look the map of Romania with the Olt river:

Not even Jordanes did mention any Romans or Romanized inhabitants in Dacia, but "Yazyg, Roxolans and Sarmatians (Alans)", namely, Hungarian ancestor tribes!

Jordanes also identified the Dacians, that were known by Greeks as G�ta, with the Goths, by saying: "Then, when Burebistas was king of the Goths" - Getica, XI, 67. Burebistas was actually a king of the Dacians in 60-44 b.c.e. We cannot know how much reliable this assertion of Jordanes might be, however, it is obvious that he found a noticeable resemblance between the Dacians and his own Germanic people so as to identify each other as the same, and not between Dacians and Romans. Therefore, we may conclude that it is quite likely that Dacians joined the Goths and mixed with them.

This subject has no more mistery for the historians. Read this:
Jordanes

During the Avar kingdom, in the 6th century c.e., successive waves of Slavs moved from the Russian plains to the Balkans and settled in Transylvania, leaving there some place names and the vojvoda administrative system that continued under Hungarian rule.

Such afirmation have not any ground. The first vojvodes of Transylvania mentioned in Gesta Hungaronum are Romanians.

They usually adapted the Roman toponyms to their own phonetics, nevertheless, in the lands north of the lower Danube we do not find any inherited Latin toponyms: not a single name of a Roman town or any other kind of settlement was preserved.

The fact that in Balkans the Slav speaking people adopted some toponyms of Latin origin is due to the fact that these toponyms were used in the cancelary of the Byzantine empire or other statal organizations. In the North of Danube such organization appeared later, after the Slav migration.

It was the Bulgarian kingdom that exerted its influence on Transylvania ‒that was inhabited mainly by Slavic peoples‒ until the arrival of �rp�d's hosts.

Documents and archaeology mention Romanians as the main inhabitants.

By the mid-9th century, Bulgarians adopted Christianity according to the Byzantine rites, the very same religion practised by the majority of Romanians, and it is indeed in Bulgaria where they acquired it.

Actualy, the main Christian vocabulary of Romanian language is of Latin origin. For example the equivalents of priest, eucharisty, church and others.

When the Magyars entered the Carpathian Basin by the end of the 9th century c.e., they confronted the armies of Czar Simeon of Bulgaria, that by that time ruled over Transylvania through Slavic vassal princes.

How that? Brothers are fighting one with another?

The region was predominantly populated by Slavs in that period, and not any Romanic-speaking group was present.

And what were the ones which were not predominant? As a curiosity, because such afirmation has not any ground.

It is essential to point out that there was not a single toponym in Transylvania that might have had Latin origin when the Magyars arrived in the region. Most of the place names and river names were Slavic except some few, which were not Romance anyway.

That has no relevance. Even in 16th century the Romanian vojvodes and boyars were using the Slav language as oficial language.
All the toponyms were translated in the language considered oficial. In 14th century Wallachia, the Cuman language was considered an oficial language and for that toponyms like Cozia arrived to us in such a Cuman translation, even a document mention also the Latin version, Nucet, meaning the same think.

Concerning this historical period, the supporters of the Daco-Roman myth consider it to be the background for the epic accounts of the Gesta Hungarorum, which are often quoted by them with the purpose of proving that the Vlach were the inhabitants of Transylvania before �rp�d conquered the land. This literary work, that belongs to the fiction genre, mentions the dukes of Bihar, B�n�t and Transylvania, who are said to be respectively a Khazar, a Slav and a Vlach. There is no trace of such characters in any contemporary document because they are completely imaginary.

I don't know if that was a beletristic work but the fortresses of the three vojvodes exist at Biharia, Dab�ca and Cenad, in localities with names mentioned in Gesta. The fact that those vojvodes have non-Romanian names (in fact Gelou is not a name but a nick gived by the chronicler) doesn't mean they were not Romanian. Anyway, they are mentioned as the leaders of Romanians (and Slavs), not other ethnic groups.

The author was an anonymous writer of the 12th century c.e. that projected the situation of his time back to three centuries earlier, and his accounts are in sharp contrast with the contemporary sources that reported the Magyar conquest as eyewitnesses.

Evidently, this work is based on some traditions and is clearly wrong in many points. But the reality is that it is originated in real historical situations.

And I repet that in localities with the same names as in Gesta, fortresses from exactly that period (end of 9th century) and of exact characteristics were discovered. By the way, these fortresses are the most important archaeological sites for that period in Transylvania.

Their arrival in Transylvania happened only in the 13th century c.e., when the Hungarian kings allowed the Vlach to settle in that land, including Vlach rulers, to protect them from the Turks that had conquered Walachia.

Hmm. No information about the 'mainly Slavic' inhabitants of Transylvania? Where did they disapeared?

So as a conclusion of this chapter, we can say that it is enough to point out that the Yazyg presence in the Carpathian Basin is contemporary with the Thracian period, and ancient toponyms and river names show overwhelming evidence of this fact, including the name of a former Romanian capital: Jassy ‒ J�szv�s�r (Yazyg Market)

Consequently, the name Vlach is the most appropriate and historically correct; ʹVlachʹ and ʹRomanianʹ are thus interchangeable, because there is no mention of any other people with the same characteristics.

The author try to say that the South Danube Vlachs and the North Danube are the same people. Ofcourse this is not true.

Who passed on to them the Christian message, and how did those hypothetic missionaries find them while the rulers, warriors and settlers did not know about their existence for one thousand years?

There were missionaries, for example there are mentioned for the 4th century, among the Goths in the today Buzau county. Archaeologicaly, the spreading of Christianism is atested in Transylvania for 4th century.

Could it be possible that not even one of the Goths, Gepids, Huns, Sarmatians, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Magyars or Kumans has ever found at least by chance one of the troglodytes?

The archaeology proves that migratory people and Romanic people lived together or in different locations, in a variety of situation in different periods and regions.

Nor any of the monks or whoever would have been going to the caves with the Gospel has ever been discovered?

As I sayed, the proto-Romanians were already (maybe not all of them) Christians.

Why the alleged caves have still not been identified, and not any religious object, relic, image or inscription has been found in any cave or catacomb, neither on walls nor on gravestones, as in every other place where Christianity, either openly or secretly existed?

Because the level of civilization was very low.

Look how are objects from a site of proto-Romanians from 5-7th century:

There is not any Romanian church or writing or document of any kind in Transylvania previous to the 13th century c.e.

Actualy there are. This is a church of 11th century:


Others, even older, were discovered archaeologicaly. All are of stone, perhaps they are exceptions and the most were made of wood and didn't survived traces.

After the discovery of a Latin-speaking Christian people by the church authorities (because if they became Christians there must have been somebody who was sent as missionary that reached them), Transylvania would have been regarded as an outpost of Christendom in barbaric lands, and churches and monasteries would have been founded, mainly after the later 9th century c.e., when the Bulgarian rulers would have favoured such a promotion of Christianity within their domain.

Nonsenses. Churches and monasteries are built only when a strong political organization ensure a stability.

The Bulgarians were only politicaly interested.

The liturgical language of the Romanian church has never been Latin, but Old Slavonic until the later 19th century c.e. Why would the proud descent of the Romans accept such a thing, when their own language was the official one of the church?

If the Romanian have came from Balkans, why didn't founded there the monasteries etc.?

notice that Romanians are the only Latin-speaking people that is not traditionally Roman Catholic.

I got tired answering at these infantilities. The answer, anyway, is that Roman Catholic has became a 'rite' and a 'religious pole' later than Constantinople.

Or else, who allowed them, as subjects of the Hungarian king, to follow a confession already declared illegal?

The domination of the Hungarians in Transylvania was much nominal in the 11-12th century.

When Byzantium annexed the kingdom of Bulgaria, the emperor assigned all the Vlach people to the archbishopric of Ochrida, that is in southern Albania, according to the original homeland of this people. Indeed, the whole Romanians were still under the archdiocese of Ochrida until the 18th century c.e., even when other Orthodox Slavic rites bishoprics existed much nearer to Romania.

So, the Romanians migrated from South to North Danube but remained assigned to the archbishopry of Ochrida. Interesting theory but fake (how such a migration was not mentioned in the documents of the bishopry?). Is more logical that the Balkan Vlachs were assigned to Ochrida and the Romanians, which only later have got organized Church life, were identified with the Balkan Vlachs and put under the same jurisdiction.

Evidences prove that there was only one Vlach language until the 11th century c.e., when the mediaeval ancestors of present-day Romanians began to get in touch with the peoples dwelling in the lands north of the lower Danube and thus they progressively acquired loanwords from them, while Aromanian continued its development separately.

That is false, the difference between Romanian and Aromanian are two big that they could originated from a common language. The fact that Romanian constituted separated from Aromanian is proved by the fact that in the last 8 centuries the language remained the same in all three provinces, Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia, even politicaly they were separated. How was possible that before 13th century (or even before earlier centuries) Romanian to have got such a strong evolution and in the last 8 centuries (since the Romanians are atested in these teritories) to have not evoluted at all?

Yet, both dialects are still understandable to each other.

Fake. We understand several words (like in French, Italian), but the phrases, the verbs are totaly different.

The characteristics of modern Romanian show that this language evolved in the southwest of the Balkan region since its very origins and during the centuries of Roman domination, that there was an intensive interaction with Albanian and a close relationship with the Southern-Italian dialects during that period, and that later it developed within the Bulgarian realm until the 11th century c.e.

On the other hand, there is a complete absence of Old Germanic terms that must have been transferred into Romanian, at least in a minimum amount, during the centuries of Gothic-Gepid rule, if Romanians were actually in Transylvania as the Daco-Roman myth supporters claim.

The same information is presented in an article on Wikipedia:
Origin of Romanians


I think that is from some old books. Recently, a study was published in a collective work. The study proves that in Romanian there are ~70 words of sure Old Germanic (Gothic and Gepidic) origin.

I promised on another topic of AE to put photocopies of the article but the book from the library in which I found it is missing momentarly.

The book is called "Ethnic contacts and cultural exchanges north and west of the Black Sea" and appeared in 2005 at Iasi, at Trinitas editorial house. The article is "Lexical elements that reflect close contacts between old germanic and autochtonous populations in southeast Europe" by Alexandru Poruciuc (a reputated linguist).

This is the list of the words I extracted from the article (it may not be complete):
a ateia
-barda
-bort
-brusture
-burta
-a caina
-a cotropi
-fara
-filma (z�na rea)
-grind
-r�nc
-rapan
-ruda
-scruntar+simcea
-stranut
-stinghie
-stima
-tufa
-tureac
-bordei
-buda
-gaman
-holm
-hultui
-r�nca
-r�nciog
-scr�nciob
-tala
-teafar
-plug
-punga
-r�nd
-scrada
-slin
-aldan
-a banui
-a b�ntui
-bernevici
-br�ndusa
-bumb
-bunda
-boarta
-cioareci
-ciuf
-cocon
-cotiga
-cotingan
-gata
-gati
-ghibort
-grindei
-grindel
-grundet
-grunz
-h�nsar
-�nsaila
-julfa
-targa
-nasture
-smalt
-smida
-sprintar
-stean
-sturlubatic
-troaca

And these are some quoted passages:


"...In all, we can count on over 70 Romanian words for which Old Germanic origins can be safely assumed..."

"...There also is a similarity between the character of the Old Germanics of th Romanian and that of the Ostrogothic elements of Italian..."


"...All evidence sustains the idea that old Germanic populations couldd influence pre-Romanians..."


"...Words of provable Old Germanic origin (e.g. barda, cioareci, gard, rapan) survive in both Daco/Romanian and Macedo/Romanian (However, it is woth observing that Daco/Romanian - and, implicitly, the standard language of Romana -is by far richer than Macedo/Romanian in temrs of old Germanic origins)..."

A good amount of the non-Latin features present in Romanian language have their correspondence in Albanian, not only concerning lexicon but also structure, phraseology and idioms.

Why only non-Latin are common?

...because the whole complex of proofs point out in a definitive manner to the area of present-day Albania and surrounding territory as the birthplace of the early Romanians and not the eastern side of the Balkans

So, Romanians got romanized after meeting Albanians?

A further factor is that there is not any historical record attesting any hypothetic migration of Albanians from Dacia (and there is not any vestige of their presence in that land)

But the vestiges of Szekelians in Transylvania before 12th century are?

It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian.

So, this proves that Romanian didn't shared a history with the Balkanic Slavs.

Another interesting fact concerns the very name of the capital city of Romania: Bucureşti, a word that is similar to the Albanian term "bukurisht", having the same meaning.

Perhaps the medieval Romanians were good etymologists and chosed a "pure substratum" word for the name of the Capital. Actualy, Bukarest became capital after three other cities, C�mpulung, Curtea de Arges and T�rgoviste.

While the Vlach people were thoroughly Latinized, Albanian language has also received the influence of Latin since early times.

But is not any corespondence between the Latin-origin words in Romanian and Latin-origin words in Albanian.

A common territory and life-style shared by both peoples have produced the same semantic changes in both languages: a considerable number of Latin terms have undergone identical changes of meaning without parallel in any other tongue, and they cannot have happened just by chance or by any logical reason except because both peoples were living in a common environment and in the same territory.

I never heard about this till now.


Please download read this study comparing Romanian and Albanian and other Balkanic languages, made by a reputed scholar:
Romanian
and the Balkans: some comparative Perspectives


In that study the conclussion is that Romanian is very different from the Balkanic languages. Too different to have constituted in the Balkans, I would add. Among all the Balkanic languages (Albanian, Greek, Romanic, Slavic)are similarities but not with Romanian.

Today in Salento (the "heel" of Italy) we can hear that local people greet each other saying "ce faci?", that is exactly like in Romanian, or else in Sicily they leave each other saying "ne vedem", which is also the same expression used in Romanian; if we are in Naples perhaps we can by chance hear the phrase "sora ta" with the same literal meaning as in Romanian, or maybe that a young man would "nsura", pronounced like "�nsura" in Romanian and with the same meaning... These are only few examples from a long number of similar parallelisms. Such amount of expressions are not a coincidence but the result of an active interaction between the early ancestors of Romanians and Southern Italians in the period previous to the arrival of the Slavic peoples in the Balkans, that is, before the 6th century c.e. ‒ This evidence is not unknown by the Daco-Roman myth supporters, but purposely neglected.

So, when did Romanians learned latin so well? When they were in Balkans? Than why other Romanic groups out there doesnt speak such a good Latin?

So, according to their common characteristics, we can assert that Vlach and Messapii have been neighbours and once they both have adopted Latin as their language, the tongues spoken by both peoples followed a similar evolution.

Great theory production!

Another phenomenon concerning the infinitive that is verified in the same way in Romanian and Italic is the elision of the Latin ending ~re; for example: c�nta[re], asculta[re], dormi[re], etc.

I'm to tired now and I could follow the logic. Maybe later I'll answer these problems.





In the end, a funny image:



(for the ones who dont know, the archaeological discoveries of Gepides are concentrated in the central Transilvania, on the Mures Valley).




And a conclussion: with such lies and phantasmagories authors like this one are compromising the image of Hungarian historiography (even he seems to not be a History specialist).

    
    

Edited by Menumorut - 22-Jun-2006 at 23:11

I don't know if that was a beletristic work but the fortresses of the three vojvodes exist at Biharia, Dab�ca and Cenad, in localities with names mentioned in Gesta. The fact that those vojvodes have non-Romanian names (in fact Gelou is not a name but a nick gived by the chronicler) doesn't mean they were not Romanian. Anyway, they are mentioned as the leaders of Romanians (and Slavs), not other ethnic groups.

Zubur:

Gelou:

 

 

Originally posted by Menumorut Could zou supplz the full passages, to see the context?

You can find the whole latin text here.

Originally posted by Menumorut Thanks. I think that this summary: Gesta Hungarorum is relevant, saying that the people ruled by the three vojvodes were mainly Romanians. What you say?

I think it is a acceptable summary. By the way the article says