History of the Romanians and Vlachs (271-1310)

An element which contradict the migrationist theory is the popular cultural heritage of Romanians�

We see that migratory people doesnt preserves much else their language when they come to a new teritory.

The richness of Romanian folklore, its genuity and its archaic expression couldnt be related with a migration from somewhere.

I think we agree that Magyars were migratory people. Though we preserved much more than just language.

In a sense, yes.


But you know how a Magyar man looked:


Partial horse burial of a Magyar man at Kunadacs.
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/husa/origins/magyarhist/magyarsir.html


__________________________________



Now, turning to the subject of origin of Romanians, I would like to observe that the people who say that was a migration from Balkans into Dacia ground their opinion on nothing. There is not a clear reason to believe that Romanians descends from Balkanic Latin-speaking and not romanized Dacians. They say Dacians vanished, either before or after the Roman withdrawal. Also this theory of vanishing is grounded on nothing.


I think this kind of building a theory grounded only on personal, subjective sensations (a kind of intuition, I could say) is wrong.

    
    

Edited by Menumorut - 18-Jul-2006 at 08:12

Horse burials ceased after the convertion to christianity, but there is continuity in the burial auxiliaries etc.

What I sayed was that a migration could not lead to such a character Romanian folklore has.

For the migratory theory Hungarian historians usually mention the gradual decrease of charters etc mentioning Romanians in Serbia, Bulgaria while as a paralell event the graudal increase of these documents in Hungary.

How are the thinks in Slovakia? Are the Slovaks mentioned more than Romanians?


Anyway, the occupation of Transylvania by Hungarians finished only in 11th century. Who were the people who oposed Hungarians?


The decrease of Vlachs (these Vlachs could have a language different from Vlachs in Carpthians) in Serbia and Bulgaria is not necesary explained by a migration of Vlachs. Ratherly, is explained by assimilation. Why to migrate the Vlachs and not the Serbs or Bulgarians?

I only disagreed you that migratory people lost all of their cultural heritage except language.

I found this image posted by you:

Despite I think the image is not very correct, it seems quite different from the image of the Hungarian peasant:




Look an image more correct, I think:




And one which shows a little about how Magyar warriors looked:



(from http://istvandr.kiszely.hu/ )

What are the elements of Magyar costumes or music you think were specifical for them at the moment of their establishment in the Central Europe? And what from that heritage was preserved till the modern age?

I outlined my theory (the gradual extension of gyep�, while the border remained) in the Medieval Transylvania topic. (Chilbudios heavily criticized it.)

I visited that topic ( http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5700&KW=   ) but havent the time to read the posts.


Do you think there was a romanic population in Transylvania in 10-11th century? I dont know what gyepu is.

So who opposed them? Do you have sources about the process, wars, campaigns etc.

Coroborating the presence of Romanians attested in 13th century (or earlier, I'm not documented) with the archaeological evidences of a population with Romanian characteristics, I think that it's about the Romanians.


Also I say again that the characteristic of the Romanian people, as they appears in the first documentary mentions, doesnt seems to show them as a result of a migration. Is hard to believe that they migrated only after the Hungarian conquest.


Some would think that they migrated in a period before the year 1000 but the presence of Dacian tradition elements of culture only North of Danube (discovered archaeologicaly) attests that the romanized Dacians persisted as late as 7th century. Is hard to believe that this population was extincted and replaced by South Danube populations.
    
    
    

Edited by Menumorut - 18-Jul-2006 at 13:11

Originally posted by Decebal ...Although Peter, Asen, Kaloian et al are repeatedly referred to as Vlachs in contemporary documents, modern day Bulgarian historians have opposed this view, maintaining instead that Vlachs was a term which was used for sheperds in general, rather than an ethnicity. This is a rather tenous argument however, which finds acceptance only with nationalists.

In Greece we also have many Vlachs, especially on the Pindus mountains region. But today it is more a term, meaning shepherds of mountains in general. I'm not a nationalist, but I see it clearly, when talking to the Vlachs in Greece. And most of them don't believe they are of Romanian origin also. They say they are Greeks.

And something else I want to say. The most of the agricultural Greeks today call themselves "Vlachs". I believe this isn't for their nationality, but mostly for their living. For only few of them talks the so called Vlachic language. Most of them call "Vlachic" a Greek language of mountains shepherds. It's a Greek dialect of ineducate simple villagers.

I know few things about Greek Vlachs. Most of them don't use romanic Vlach language, though there was an attempt (after the second Balcanian war) to revive their language and culture by the Romanian state (means: sendind money and teachers). Probably the Greek Vlachs are mostly Greeks of the mountains. And I don't say that there is not ethnical Vlachs between them. But not everybody who call himself a Vlach in Greece is an ethnical Vlach. That's what I'm saying. If not, why they don't use a romanic Vlachic language, just being proud of their Vlach identity? Simply a question... If I'm proud of my ethnical identity I at least have to learn my mother language and my people culture - not for money, just for myself. That is what I believe.

Edited by andy4675 - 02-Feb-2012 at 15:36

I don't say they are called non clever. But as a street talking ("argot") the word "Vlach" mean somebody from village, not from the town. So the word Vlach means in Greek some villiger, who don't know what happens in big cities. Maybe too pure human... Yes, Vlachs don't have an alphabet of their own.

Dear Andy,
This is the point. You believe that whatever is said in Greece it is the true about vlachs.

First of all there is no word in vlachs "argot". Second, it is true that most of vlachs leaves in villages and these are the only one you can trace since the part leaving in towns has been assimilated.
Second, they are peaceful and leave their life in most simple way, dealing with the daily village works.

Originally posted by Artimaster It's good to see that everybody is fighting to take a part of what is called VLACHS'S HISTORY.   I'm 100% vlach. I've born in Albania and studied in Greece.   In this topic I've seen many things but the only thing that is not mentioned is that Vlachs were alwasy present in both Albanian and Greek history. They played a special role but they gained nothing as they asked for nothing.   Vlachs are a nation that use to live in southeastern part of Balkan and this is for sure Vlachs specak a latin language and as the time went by affected or assimilate by different languages.   There are too many things and unfortunatelly few facts.

Vlachs have had a central role in the history of Bulgaria and Romania. In medieval sources from the 8th Century forward Vlachs are groups of people that were orthodox christians and speaking Romance languages on the Balkan. A good book in English about the Vlachs is simply called The Vlachs. It is written by T. J. Winnifrith and published already in 1987. I can recommend this book. You Artimaster could find it very interesting as it deals also with the Vlachs in the area around modern day Greece.