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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Medieval Transylvania

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Medieval Transylvania
    Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 03:07
Can you name us some romanian church terms with english translations?
I cam across some romanian terms like mitropolit,sihastru ,staret,schit ,egumen, iconostas but they all seem of slavic origin.
We need to make difference beetwen religious terms and  terms of church hierarchy.
Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 03:41
The identifications of 'volohi' with 'franks' is convincigly argued by M. Gyoni in Les Volochs des Annales Primitives de Kiev,Etudes Slaves at Roummains vol 1 (1948)

The view of Romanian historian Alexandru D. Xenopol,in  P.A Hiemstra,
Alexandru D. Xenopol and the Development of Romanian Historiography,New York,Garland Publishing,1987,that  the Friagovie term denote franks in the text of the chronicle is vitiated by the fact that it used to denote Genoese in the text.

I wanted to stress the way in which terms are used and not that franks
are the ancestors of whoever,and I wanted to highlite that the refered term was used with the meaning of frank.



Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 03:59
Originally posted by Raider


Anonymus simply used hostile neighbours of his own age.

Anonymus simply reflects situations from his presence into the past.
He even evented for his novel some characters like Glad,Gelou;fact highlited by the english historian. These figures apear nowhere else in other sources. He mensions Cumans people present in his time in the
area but not at the time of conquest!
He does not even mention other facts.
Relying on
Anonymus  bring us into mythologie


In his description of the Magyar conquest he shows no knowledge of the Hungarians' enemies such as Sviatopluk,Moimir and Braslov, has the Hungarians fighting with Bulgarians, but makes no mention of the
Moravians,Carinthians,Franks and Bavarians.



The Gesta of Anonymus is not a reliable historical source but a narrative written according to the fashion of the age, a legend with very little contact with actual historical facts




Contemporary sources attest to the existence in the Carpathian basin in the 9th century of Avars, Danubian Slovenes, Bavarian-Franks, Moravians, Bulgarians, and Gepidae. Of these, Anonymus mentions only the Slavs and the Bulgarians. The name of the Moravian people appears in the Gesta only as that of prince Morout. On the other hand, Anonymus mentions a series of peoples who are not attested by other sources: Romans, Czechs, Greeks, Vlachs, Cozars, and Cumans. The anachronism in mentioning Cumans is also pointed out by IR (cf. above, p. 157, footnote 1). Anonymus writes about two different kinds of Cumans: (a) ACumans@ who associated themselves with the Hungarians before the end of the 9th century and were with them when they took possession of Hungary in 896 AD. These ACumans@ were probably the Kabars, a Turk people, who are known from other sources to have joined the Hungarians in that period. (b) According to Anonymus, Cumans helped the Slavic chief Glad in the Banat in his fight against the Hungarians:


http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dunay/dunay09.htm#C




Edited by gerik
Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 04:42

And about the "pastores romanorum":


But there is an argument about one thing, that we must understand by "pastores romanorum", French "free loaders" or loafers in the region of the court, those who had immigrated at the time of Anonymus or somewhat earlier and their presence is mentioned - even in the sense of being the successors to the Roman settlements - at the time of the coming of the Hungarians.



Edited by gerik
Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 05:11
I would recommend the books of Alain Du Nay on this subject:
Du Nay, Andr The Origins of the Rumanians
Du Nay, Alain and Du Nay, Andr Transylvania - Fiction and Reality
Du Nay, Alain Hungarians and Rumanians in the Torrents of History
Du Nay, Alain Romaini si maghiari in vartejul istoriei

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 12:27

Originally posted by gerik

Can you name us some romanian church terms with english translations?
I cam across some romanian terms like mitropolit,sihastru ,staret,schit ,egumen, iconostas but they all seem of slavic origin.
We need to make difference beetwen religious terms and  terms of church hierarchy.

Terms of church hierarchy all come from slavonic, since it was the language of chruch serive in Romania since the 11th century. Romanian religious terms include:

Biserica/bazilica - church from basilica. Other latin languages use terms derived from "ekklisia" (glise, chiesa, iglesia, igreja). Germanic use terms derived from "kyrios" (lord) (kirche, church, kirkan, etc.)

Craciun, from "calatio" - Christmas, as opposed to other latin populations which use terms derived from "Natalis Domini" (Noel, Natale, Navidad);

Rusailiie, from the pagan Rosalia, as opposed to terms derived from the greek "pentikosti" (Pentecote, Pentecoste);

Sarbatoare, from "dies servatoria" - holiday

All words in the "Our Father" prayer in Romanian are from Latin, except for 3.

The following romanian terms are from Latin (latin in brackets) and english translation.

ajun (adjuno, are),  -eve

altar (altare), - altar

cer (coelum), ski, heaven

a crede (credo, ere),  -to beleive

crestin (chrestianus), christian

cruce (crux, is),  cross

a se cumineca (communico, are),  -to commune

a se cununa (corono, are),  - to betroth, marry 

a se nchina (inclino,are), -  to bow while praying, prostrate

a ngenunchia (ingenuculare),  - to kneel

a jura (juro, are),  - to swear

minune (mirio, are),  - miracle

nun-nanas (nunus),  (I actually don't know what this is...)

nunta (nuptia),  - wedding, nuptials

pacat (peccalum),  - sin

parinte (parens),  -father, priest

a ruga (rogo, are),  - to pray

tmpla (templum),  -temple

a toca (tocco,are),  - call for worship

snt, sfnt (sanctus) - saint

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 12:32

Originally posted by gerik


And about the "pastores romanorum":


But there is an argument about one thing, that we must understand by "pastores romanorum", French "free loaders" or loafers in the region of the court, those who had immigrated at the time of Anonymus or somewhat earlier and their presence is mentioned - even in the sense of being the successors to the Roman settlements - at the time of the coming of the Hungarians.

I don't know about that - seems kind of a far-fetched explanation. How exactly do you get Roman sheperds/pastors, from French court loafers? There was a Frank presence in Pannonia in the 9th century, but at the other end of the country, towards modern Austria, not Transylvania. Also, their presence was mostly military, with some farmers, but no sheperds. It seems to me like it's a difficult to make that confusion.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 13:19

Originally posted by gerik

I would recommend the books of Alain Du Nay on this subject:
Du Nay, Andr The Origins of the Rumanians
Du Nay, Alain and Du Nay, Andr Transylvania - Fiction and Reality
Du Nay, Alain Hungarians and Rumanians in the Torrents of History
Du Nay, Alain Romaini si maghiari in vartejul istoriei

I've looked at them, and there are some good points. However, many of the arguments used are shaky, or determined by nationalist impulses. I don't know what nationality Du Nay is, but most of his sources are Hungarian historians. He mentions one or 2 Romanians, and it is only to attack their views. 

I've read Illyes's book, which is quoted several times in du Nay. Its methodology is very biased. For example when talking about place names, many place names which have a disputed origin are assumed to be Hungarian. Many Romanian place names and geographical features are said to be of unknown origin. Also, Romanian had a strong Slavic component to it already by this time, so Slavic place names are not necessarily Slavic, but could also be Romanian. The authors quote some Hungarian court documents and point out that most names used were Hungarian. If you think about this, to this day, most settlements have 2 or 3 names. Hungarian chroniclers would have naturally used the Hungarian name. Also, the number of Dacian words is misrepresented, as is the balance between the Latin and Slavic words in Romanian.

Also, these books were on a hungarian history website. Which view do you think they will take? If you only read them, you'll be convinced of the Hungarian point of view. If you read the Romanian books, they are just as biased, but the other way; if you only read them, you'll be convinced of the Romanian point of view.

My point is that most Hungarian historians will have a biased view, but so will Romanian historians. Whereas Hungarian historians are obsessed with showing that Vlachs came to Transylvania in the 13th century, Romanian historians are obsessed with showing that there was an uninterrupted Romanian presence in the area; what is more, they also want to minimize the Slavic character of the Romanians. This leads both parties to make mistakes, generalizations and unfair assumptions.

I will reiterate my position:

1. There was a continous Romanized presence in Transylvania during the Dark Ages, from the 3rd to the 9th century. However, it didn't have a large population, and was usually ruled by foreigners: Gepids, Huns, Avars, Bulgars. By the 9th century, this population became heavily Slavicized.

2. The rest of modern Romania was never latinized enough, and since it lacked the natural defenses of Transylvania, its population was wiped out/ migrated to other areas. The Carps, a Dacian population living in the area, migrated to Pannonia. It has been speculated that they eventually ended up in Albania, and that the connections between Romanian and Albanian can be explained by Albanian being the modern descendent of Dacian. Apparently, most of these linguistic connections occur only between Romanian and Albanian and not between Aromanian (vlach) and Albanian. This would make sense, since the Aromanians do not have any Dacian connections.

3. There was also a Romanized population south of the Danube and north of the Jirecek line. In the 9th century, as the First Bulgar Empire comprised both the area where this population lived, as well as the territory of Modern Romania, the bulk of the population emigrated towards the north. Its remains are the modern vlachs.

4. In the 9th and 10th century therefore, the slavicized latin population of Transylvania mixed with the immigrants from the South. Their languages were mutually intelligible as they both consisted of a latin substrate with Slavic influences. This gave rise to a somewhat different dialect in Transylvania than in Moldova or Muntenia, where the sheperd immigrants made up the great majority of the population. Also, many of the new arrivals were still continuing their traditional pastoral lifestyle -> semi-nomadic, as opposed to the old slavicized population which lived in permanent agricultural settlements. Thus, a much greater amount of settlements were founded by Magyars and Saxons, compared with their proportion in the total population, because most Romanians did not live in permanent settlements at this time, but took a while to settle down. This explains a lot of village names, and also why many geographical features had Slavic names, being taken from the settled slavicized latins.

5. While the Magyars conquered Transylvania in the 10th century, their control was only nominal for over 200 years. It took time for the Magyar settlements to advance through Transylvania, which is evidenced by the succesive waves of burnt-earth fortifications evidenced today. Also, the Saxon settlers were brought in specifically to hasten this advancement. Thus, while Magyar settlement in Western Transylvania occured right after, or at the same time with the settlement of vlach sheperds from the south, in Eastern Transylvania, the Magyars settled one or two centuries after the vlachs. I believe that this area of nominal control but no Magyar settlement is what Raider referred to as the gyepu.

6. The final major movement of population occured after the Mongol invasions, when most of the Romanian/Slav small aristocracy fled Hungarian control and established independent kingdoms in the ravaged regions of Wallachia and Moldova.



Edited by Decebal
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 13:30
Originally posted by Decebal

For instance, all church
terminology in Romanian is derived from Latin. If there had
been no continuity in a region isolated from the rest of
christianity, and Romanians had solely come from the south in
the 13th century, as some Hungarian historians claim, then the
religous terminology in Romanian would have been derived
from Greek instead.


The above argument of yours falls, because aromanians have also religious terminology of latin origin. And they do live in the balkans (in Greece,Albania etc). And there is also in romanian church terms of greek origin.

 

Latin

 

Arumanian

 

North. Rum.

 

meaning

 

altarium

 

C

 

altare

 

altar, sanctuary

 

angelus

 

C

 

nger

 

angel

 

baptizare

 

p|te u

 

boteza

 

baptize, to name

 

basilica

 

b|searec|

 

biseric|

 

church

 

*blastemare

 

blastimu

 

blestema

 

to curse, to excommunicate

 

carnem legare

 

crleag|

 

crneleag|

 

last but one week of Advent fast

 

caseum legare

 

c|leadze, c|leag|

 

clegi

 

carnival

 

commendo

 

C

 

comnda

 

to make a sacrifice (relig. sense only in Rumanian )

 

comunicare

 

C

 

a cumenica

 

to give (or receive) the Eucharist

 

crux

 

crue

 

cruce

 

cross, Crucifix

 

deus

 

C

 

zeu

 

god

 

draco

 

 

 

drac

 

devil

 

paganus

 

pngnu

 

p|gn

 

heathen

 

Paschae

 

pate

 

pate

 

Easter

 

peccatum

 

C

 

p|cat

 

sin; guilt; misfortune

 

quadragesima

 

C

 

p|resimi

 

Lent

 

sanctus

 

C

 

snt

 

saint



A number of Christian terms of Greek origin are found equally in Albanian, Bulgarian, and Rumanian; some were also borrowed by Serbo-Croatian:

 

 

Greek

 

meaning

 

Albanian

 

Rumanian

 

Bulgarian

 

agiasma

 

holy water

 

ajazm

 

agheasm|

 

agiazma, ajazma

 

acaQistoV

 

prayer for the dead

 

C

 

acatist

 

akatist

 

anajora

 

wafer, Eucharist bread

 

nafor

 

anafur|

 

nafora

 

ajorizw

 

to excommunicate, to curse

 

C

 

afurisi

 

aforesvam

 

eikona

 

icon; image, picture

 

ikon

 

icoan|

 

ikona

 

leitourgia

 

lithurgy, mass

 

(Tosc) liturgji

 

liturghie

 

liturgija

 

kalogeroV

 

monk

 

kallojr, kallogjr

 

c|lug|r

 

kaluger

 

hgoumenoV

 

prior

 

igumn, gumn

 

igumen

 

igumen

Remark: akatist, napora, kaluger, and igumen are found also in Serbo-Croatian.

Source:
http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dunay/dunay06.htm#K







Edited by gerik
Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 14:34
I was talking about the loafers of the hungarian court.

A text should be understood in it's context.
Anonymous writes that pastores Romanorum have fled hearing that the hungarians are coming. But the next lines he writes with anti-german feeling
writes on the pascua Romanorum : "the romans are still grazing on the goods of Hungary " 
I will explain in detail all this next time.


It is not by the chance that we left the discussion of Anonymus' Gesta Hungarorum to the end of this chapter. The Gesta talks about the people found by the Hungarians in Transylvania by the time of their settling down: they were, among others, Blacks and the "shepherds of the Romans". Historiography identified the Blacks as the ancestors of the Rumanians, and came to the conclusion that making the Rumanians appear on stage in Transylvania during rpd's conquest of Hungary is a serious anachronism. The Rumanians did not settle in Hungary before the 13th century, thus the good monk, Anonymus retroprojected the ethnic situation of his own era to the times of the rpds.

According to the notes of Roger (Rogerius) Bacon (1214-1294), "...the Blacks came from 'old Byzantium', which was located next to old Hungary and Bulgaria (i.e., Hungary and Bulgaria along the Volga). They live between Constantinople, Bulgaria and 'new Hungary'". Hungarian historians showed that the Black people had lived close to the Hungarians' Baskirian Fatherland before they got into Central and Southern Europe. While they attached themselves to the Bulgarians, they still used their own name in the 13th century. It may therefore be that Anonymus did not commit an anachronism. He probably did not talk about Rumanians, but about a people of Turk or Bulgarian origin, in ancient contact with the Hungarians; most probably on the basis of the ancient Gesta [50].

According to Kpeczi,[13] Anonymus got acquainted with the Blacks through Nestor's Russian Chronicle from the 12th century. As Nestor says; "The conquering Hungarians found Volohs (Volohi) and Slavs in the Carpathian Basin. They expelled the Volohs and subjugated the Slavs," ..."and from that time on, the land was called Hungarian (magyar; ugorszka)". Nestor meant French by the Volohs, in reality the Trans-Danubian Franks, in a wider sense every people speaking a Romance language, or those who belonged to the Holy Roman Empire.

The French crusaders met the Rumanians in the Balkans and pronounced their Greek and Slavic name as Black,even though it was spelled Blach and pronounced Vlach by the native people. The French form was used by the Hungarian chancellery, and declined as Latin words (blacus, blacci, blacorum). In the Hungarian documents written up to 1247, the French form: blak appears. The Hungarian colloquial form: "olh", came into use after that year. It probably derived from the Greek and Slavic form "vlach", through an intermediate "volach".

Anonymus placed the Rumanians in Transylvania on the basis of Nestor. His work proves therefore that in his era Rumanians did not live in northern Transylvania.

Anonymus's work does not give any data to find out what kind of people the Hungarians could have found in Tran-sylvania. Modern archeology proves the presence of Slavs. Rumanian material remains from the 10th century, distinctly separable from that of the Slavs, were not found [51].


Source:
Kosztin, A.: The Daco-Roman Legend

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/kos/kos03.htm




Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 17:34

Again, why would Anonyomous make such a blatant mistake as saying that the Vlachs were there 200 years before, when this migration supposedly happened during his own lifetime? Medieval writers may have been prone to errors, but this one would have been a real whopper: it would have appeared as a bold-face lie to anyone in his audience.

Look, you can quote the opinion of Hungarian nationalist historians all you want. I could do the same and quote Romanian nationalist historians that say the opposite. It would be the same old tired arguments that have been thrown back and forth for a hundred and fifty years.

The fact is that there is no medieval source that says that the Romanians emigrated to Transylvania in the 13th century. There are some who say that they were there already, and the Hungarian historians have concentrated on showing why they couldn't possibly be true, or in finding alternate explanations for what they seem to be saying.

Pretty much all neutral historians believe that a migration did indeed occur, but it occured anywhere from the 6th to the 10th century, and not as late as the 13th.

If you can produce a primary source that shows that Romanians did in fact immigrate into Transylvania in the 13th century, then we'll continue the argument. Otherwise, we might as well stop here, before we dig up every piece of nationalist propaganda from both sides.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 03:38
As I showed volohy was used by the russian chronicle writers to denote
franks, but also is used to refer to franks in other texts like  a biblical account of the origin of peoples. This becomes self evident when you read the text of russian chronicle,the sequence of event is clear. Whose vassal were the slavs in pannonia, whose domination was wiped out?

The Magyar passed Kiev over the hill now called Hungarian and,on reaching the Dnieper, pitched camp. For were they were nomads like the Cumans.They came from
east and hastened across the great mountains which were called the Hungarian mountains,and began to fight the Volohy and the Slavs living there. For the Slavs had settled there first but the Volohy took over the land of the Slavs.
The Magyars subsequently drove out the Volohy and inhereted the land,settling
among the Slavs whom they subjugated.
Thenceforth the land was called Hungarian.

The anwer is clear. Franks

Let's turn to "pastores Romanorum" which occurs in the chronicle of Kezai Simon
which was composed between 1282 and 1285,the Descriptio Europe Orientalis composed by an anonymous Frenchman in 1308, so  382 and 408 years after the conquest and all reflect present  conditions of their time. They do not prove
any romanian presence in the time of the conquest.

 The "pastores Romanorum" and also the discription pastures occurs at Anonymous.
Yet what does Anonymous mean  here by "Roman" in the context of ninth century?
It is possible that he is referring to the Eastern Frankish Kingdom which exercised a tenous authority  in lower     Pannonia at the end of the century.

The interpratation of "Roman" would help to explain the phrase nam et Modo Romani pasc**tur de bonis Hungariae (for in this way too the Romans are feeding off the riches of Hungary), at the end of chapter 9 where Anonymous is reffering to the situatin during his own day.

It has been suggested that he is referring to foreign (Catholic) Knights who had been invited by succesive Hungarian Kings and had been granted large estates. Gy. Kristo is of the opinion that Anonymous had no knowledge of the Frankish kingdom and that in the context of ninth century Romans means inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire .
Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 03:46
Originally posted by Raider


The main proofs are the charters remained from this age. The number of the charters mentioning Romanians suddenly increasing in Hungary while in Serbia and Bulgria decreasing. There are For example Writen sources mention voivode Bogdan in 1334 who immigrated Hungary with so many people that the whole process needed 9 month and the archbishop of Kalocsa, the second highest ranking priest in Hungary welcomed him.


I would mention a decree of King Andr
s III from 1290 ,in the 13 century only small groupings, sporadic settlements were to be found
within the Kingdom of Hungary,as this decree shows.
The story of the vlach's extensive migration is part of the history of
later centuries,as the decrease of their number to disappearence in
Serbia.

Vkony, Gbor: Dacians-Romans-Romanians


Edited by gerik
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 05:26

1) pastores Romanorum

Litterally: shepherds of the Romans.

According to Gyula Krist this expresion reffered to the remaining avar population. The avars were defeated by Charlemagne and Pannonia was captured, but the avars remained. The avars were shepherd and they lived under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire.

2) "I'm sorry Raider, can you restate you theory? In the midst of all these discussions, I got sidetracked, and it's hard to follow exactly what your theory is."

According to Romanian sources Transylvania was captured gradually in the 9-12 th century. Hungarians usually says that whole Transylvania belonged to Hungary since the 9th century. I think I have found a solution which resolve this apparent (?) difference. Hungarians differs gyep (frontier) and hatr (border). Hatr is a line where one country nominally ends and an other country begins. Gyep is a line where public administration ends and border guards stands. In early medieval times there were a large gyepelve (area beyond the gyeps and inside the border) around Hungary. I have read that the Transylvanian gyep was expanded between the 9-12th century. I think that Romanian historians speaks about the gyep when they speak gradual conquest and Hungarian historians speak about the border."

3) Blacus in GH and volohy at Nestor

According to History of Transylvania It is proved that Anonymus knew the work of Nestor and he used his volohy as blacus, because he didn't know the difference between them.

By the way Nestor refers to Pannnonia, not Transylvania. Pannonia is modern Trans-Danubia. I think we can agree that there were no ancient Romanians in that territory. Nestor said that the Hungarians (Ugors) drived away the volohy from Pannonia. We know about the war between avars-and the Holy Roman (Frankish) Empires. It seem to me quite logical that Nestor refers to this wars.

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 09:40

Originally posted by gerik

Originally posted by Raider


The main proofs are the charters remained from this age. The number of the charters mentioning Romanians suddenly increasing in Hungary while in Serbia and Bulgria decreasing. There are For example Writen sources mention voivode Bogdan in 1334 who immigrated Hungary with so many people that the whole process needed 9 month and the archbishop of Kalocsa, the second highest ranking priest in Hungary welcomed him.


I would mention a decree of King Andr
s III from 1290 ,in the 13 century only small groupings, sporadic settlements were to be found
within the Kingdom of Hungary,as this decree shows.
The story of the vlach's extensive migration is part of the history of
later centuries,as the decrease of their number to disappearence in
Serbia.

Vkony, Gbor: Dacians-Romans-Romanians

Voievode Bogdan immigrated from Transylvania to Moldova and not the other way around.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 09:48
Originally posted by Raider

1) pastores Romanorum

Litterally: shepherds of the Romans.

According to Gyula Krist this expresion reffered to the remaining avar population. The avars were defeated by Charlemagne and Pannonia was captured, but the avars remained. The avars were shepherd and they lived under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire.

Pannonia was not part of the Holy Roman Empire at this time, and it would be very difficult to confuse the mongoloid avars with the Romans, especially when they had been the scourge of Europe a few centuries before. And this would have been in western Pannonia, almost a thousand kilometers from Transylvania.

Originally posted by Raider

2) "I'm sorry Raider, can you restate you theory? In the midst of all these discussions, I got sidetracked, and it's hard to follow exactly what your theory is."

According to Romanian sources Transylvania was captured gradually in the 9-12 th century. Hungarians usually says that whole Transylvania belonged to Hungary since the 9th century. I think I have found a solution which resolve this apparent (?) difference. Hungarians differs gyep (frontier) and hatr (border). Hatr is a line where one country nominally ends and an other country begins. Gyep is a line where public administration ends and border guards stands. In early medieval times there were a large gyepelve (area beyond the gyeps and inside the border) around Hungary. I have read that the Transylvanian gyep was expanded between the 9-12th century. I think that Romanian historians speaks about the gyep when they speak gradual conquest and Hungarian historians speak about the border."

Yes, it is a pretty good assertion. I look at it as the Transylvanian states nominally accepting the sovereignty of the Magyars early on, and then the Magyars taking a couple of hundred years to slowly settle in the area. The used the gyepu system to protect their settlements.

Originally posted by Raider

3) Blacus in GH and volohy at Nestor

According to History of Transylvania It is proved that Anonymus knew the work of Nestor and he used his volohy as blacus, because he didn't know the difference between them.

By the way Nestor refers to Pannnonia, not Transylvania. Pannonia is modern Trans-Danubia. I think we can agree that there were no ancient Romanians in that territory. Nestor said that the Hungarians (Ugors) drived away the volohy from Pannonia. We know about the war between avars-and the Holy Roman (Frankish) Empires. It seem to me quite logical that Nestor refers to this wars.

If you read the passage above in gerik's post, Nestor says nothing about Pannonia, only that they crossed the Carpathian mountains. If you look on a map, it's still a very long way from crossing the mountains, to getting to the areas where the Franks ruled. Nestor would have mentioned something about that...

For your Franks theory to be correct, the Franks would have had to control Transylvania, which was not true. I think that this is more in line with my theory, whereby the vlahs came over in the 9th century and took over Transylvania from the local slavicized population, only to be defeated by the Hungarians. Besides, Nestor mentions Franks at other points in his chronicle and calls them just so: Franks. Why would he make the mistake of calling them Valachs? One way or another, the Valachs existed at the time and it would have been quite a mistake to confuse the sheperd populations of the Valachs with the powerful Franks who lived at least a thousand if not two thousand (in Nestor's time) kilometers away.



Edited by Decebal
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 09:55
I think I'm going to have to stop here. I have a hard time finding primary sources because I'm not in Romania and I do not have access to Romanian books. There's only a limited number of sources on the subject on the internet which are not written by Hungarians. Perhaps one of the other Romanian members will help me out here at some point in the future. 
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 15:07
Originally posted by Decebal


Besides, Nestor mentions Franks at other points in his chronicle and calls them just so: Franks.

I reapeat myself.
Friagovie is used to denote Genoese in the text,and not franks.
Originally posted by Raider


By the way Nestor refers to Pannnonia, not Transylvania.

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 12:43

I noticed as a personal observation that there are historical characters in Gesta Hungarorum. For instance, Ahtum/Ohtum is one duke who seems to have actually reigned relatively same territory as Anonymous' character Glad, and Ohtum gets also a mention in GH as a descendent of Glad. This duke is also mentioned in Legenda St. Gerardi (XIth century) where his conflict with Hungarian kingdom is pictured. Were all characters of Anonymous be born out of fiction and be misplaced (as some historians and forum users claimed), how this one gets a historical confirmation, and one of a relative accuracy? 

One argument about misplacement is a quick resolution over various anachronisms. If are there indeed anachronisms and are not our dismissive and erroneous judgements. An example: GH mentions "picenati" (which seem to point to Pechenegs) alongside with Cumans. Those who believe GH is rather a fiction, claimed this is an anachronism invoking the "piccinaci" mentioned by the sources of the First crusade. Probably few of them know (and I didn't know that until I've read a study written by Al. Madgearu) of the Chronicle of Regino of Prum which says that Magyars were chased away from Scythia by "pecinaci". I can't prove that Anonymous Notary used this material, but certainly the typical criticism that this possible ethnonym is an anachronism cannot be issued.

What am I trying to say? That a closer analysis and a wider perspective upon the medieval sources may show that GH is not a fantasy work, and though some of you may not like it, he may had used sources (XIth century sources, maybe even Xth century sources) to picture the stories of GH.

I also want to reply to one of the earlier interpretations:

The anwer is clear. Franks

Let's turn to "pastores Romanorum" which occurs in the chronicle of Kezai Simon
which was composed between 1282 and 1285,the Descriptio Europe Orientalis composed by an anonymous Frenchman in 1308, so  382 and 408 years after the conquest and all reflect present  conditions of their time. They do not prove
any romanian presence in the time of the conquest.

 The "pastores Romanorum" and also the discription pastures occurs at Anonymous.
Yet what does Anonymous mean  here by "Roman" in the context of ninth century?
It is possible that he is referring to the Eastern Frankish Kingdom which exercised a tenous authority  in lower     Pannonia at the end of the century.

Actually DEO explicitely says that Magyars defeated 10 Vlach (Blazi, Pannoni) kings before they settled in Pannonia and that these Vlachs run south after defeat. DEO also explains in two places that Blazi and Pannoni were "pastores romanorum" (I don't have the text near me, so I just used your syntagm). Keza is also very clear: after Attila's death, Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia. Keza also says Zaculi (Szekelys) and Blacki (Vlachs) lived together in the highlands.

So these "pastores" were prior to any Frankish presence and moreover, they existed in territories (like Carpathian mountains) where the Frankish influence was quasi-null.

It has been suggested that he is referring to foreign (Catholic) Knights who had been invited by succesive Hungarian Kings and had been granted large estates. Gy. Kristo is of the opinion that Anonymous had no knowledge of the Frankish kingdom and that in the context of ninth century Romans means inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire .
Wishful thinking. There are plenty of testimonies (check Liutprand of Cremona reply to Byzantine court - 10th century) that the Latin sources from those ages knew who were Romans and who were not. Was there any intellectual tradition in 12-14th century Hungary to consider Franks as Romans? Bring the evidence if so.

Back to Top
RomiosArktos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote RomiosArktos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 14:58
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Actually DEO explicitely says that Magyars defeated 10 Vlach (Blazi, Pannoni) kings before they settled in Pannonia and that these Vlachs run south after defeat. DEO also explains in two places that Blazi and Pannoni were "pastores romanorum" (I don't have the text near me, so I just used your syntagm). Keza is also very clear: after Attila's death, Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia. Keza also says Zaculi (Szekelys) and Blacki (Vlachs) lived together in the highlands.

 Where did these vlachs go after their defeat from the Magyars.Did they settle in what is now Serbia?


Originally posted by Chilbudios


Wishful thinking. There are plenty of testimonies (check Liutprand of Cremona reply to Byzantine court - 10th century) that the Latin sources from those ages knew who were Romans and who were not. Was there any intellectual tradition in 12-14th century Hungary to consider Franks as Romans? Bring the evidence if so.


Usually in the medieval sources the Romans were the Byzantine Greeks and not the Francs.



Edited by RomiosArktos
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

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 1.031 seconds.