Valós román őstörténet: a vándorlási elmélet.

És akkor a végkifejlet. Ha a románok nem a dákok leszármazottai és nem éltek mindig a mai románia területén, akkor kik ők és honnan származnak? Két kiindulási alapunk van: az egyik a román nyelv maga, a másik pedig az írott források. Román részről a vándorlást elsősorban azért szokás elutasítani, mert látszólag ez a két dolog ellentmond egymásnak: a román nyelv latin eredete nem vitakérdés, hanem tény, a vándorlás kiindulási pontja viszont a balkán görög nyelvű övezetébe mutat. A korábban már említett Jirecek vonal szerint ugyanis a balkánon Illíria, nyugat Moesia és Dacia voltak latin nyelvű provinciák, a többi terület nem. A 12-13. századi román migráció kiindulási pontja viszont a mai Macedónia területe.

Először fejtsük meg a latin nyelv problémáját. A korábbi, nyelvi kérdésekkel foglalkozó postban már leírtam, hogy Dacia miért nem lehetett a román nyelv kialakulásának helyszíne, ezen kívül viszont csak Illíria jön igazán szóba (Moesia vegyes nyelvű volt). Az illír leszármazás és a Macedóniából kiinduló migráció azonban csak látszólag zárja ki egymást. Ha ugyanis a 12. század előttről is megnézünk néhány bizánci forrást, akkor rögtön meglesz a kapcsolat. A korábban már hivatkozott Strategikon az egyik legfontosabb láncszem, amely az Illíria területéről délre menekülő latinokat is megemlíti, ezzel megadva a kapcsolatot a nyelv kialakulása és a vándorlás kiindulópontja között: A 6. század végi avar/szláv támadások miatt a bizánci birodalom balkáni területeiről a latin/görög népesség délre menekült, jobban védett helyekre. Ennek eredményeképpen alakult ki egy latin nyelvű tömb a mai Ohrid város környékén (Nyugat-Macedónia). Ennek a latin nyelvű tömbnek a maradványai ma is megtalálhatóak a térségben, bár eléggé asszimilálódott állapotban, őket hívják arománoknak ill. megleno románoknak. Valószínűleg a középkorban sokkal magasabb lehetett a számuk.

 

Ezen kívül több bizánci forrás is említi a vlachokat a térségben, pl. Anna Komnena Alexiadja, és komolyabb kutatómunkával valószínűleg még több forrást lehetne találni. (aki tud ilyet, sportszeletet kap). Ráadásul ha a korábban a kontinuitással kapcsolatban hivatkozott forrásokat jobban megnézzük, azok között is találunk olyat, amely alátámasztja ezt, ilyen pl. a gotlandi kő.

A 12. századi északi irányú vándorlás megint viszonylag jól dokumentálható: olyan területeken bukkannak fel vlachok, ahol korábban nem voltak: bulgáriában, szerbiában, majd a 12. század elején Magyarország déli határainál. Mindenképpen tehát egy olyan folyamatról van szó, amelynek vannak írott forrásai, nem kerül ellentmondásba a nyelvi és vallási tényekkel, mint a kontinuitási elmélet, és illeszkedik is azoknak a népeknek és országoknak a történelmébe, amelyekkel kapcsolatba kerültek, szemben a kontinuitással.

Tehát akkor mit is mondhatunk? Leginkább azt, hogy a románok valószínűsíthetően Illíria romanizált népességének a maradványai (másik részük helyben maradt, az ő leszármazottaik voltak a dalmátok), akik a 6. század végi barbár támadások miatt először délkeletre húzódtak, majd miután a 11. század elején Bizánc legyűrte Bulgáriát, ezzel újraegyesítette a balkánt, ami a térség prosperitásához vezetett, és az Ohrid környéki terület túlnépesedett, ami megindította a népességfelesleg északi irányú vándorlását. Mivel a vlachok tradícionálisan magashegységi állattenyésztők voltak, nem okozott nekik nehézséget a szerbiai hegyvidékek, ill. a nyugati balkán hegység hegyi legelőit benépesíteni, majd eljutni az al Dunáig. És ez az a pont amikor megjelentek a Dunától északra.

Nem tudom ki hogy van vele, de ha román lennék, nekem ezt a verziót elfogadni sem lenne nehéz, ez sem kevésbé "dicső", mint a kontinuitás. Igaz, vélt történelmi jogot nem lehet vele Erdélyre fabrikálni, de mint tudjuk a területszerzés sosem a bíróságon dől el.

A bejegyzés trackback címe:

https://toriblog.blog.hu/api/trackback/id/tr5338957

Kommentek:

A hozzászólások a vonatkozó jogszabályok  értelmében felhasználói tartalomnak minősülnek, értük a szolgáltatás technikai  üzemeltetője semmilyen felelősséget nem vállal, azokat nem ellenőrzi. Kifogás esetén forduljon a blog szerkesztőjéhez. Részletek a  Felhasználási feltételekben és az adatvédelmi tájékoztatóban.

Kovács L. Tibor 2008.05.22. 18:07:26

Minthogy a dédapám román volt(az ő fia azonban árván felnőve, s beolvadva a nagyváradi magyar közösségbe már magyanak tartotta magát, s még románul sem tudott), nem hiszem hogy zsigerből románellenesnek lehetne mondani. Ezzel együtt is azt gondolom a történelem hamisítás mindenhol tetten érhető az erdélyi magyar városokban. Ahol egy magyar történelmi emlékmű áll, oda egy még hatalmasabb román emlékművet, azaz "történelmi bizonyítékot" emeltek. Az új generációk pedig elhiszik, hogy az volt ott korábban, az az igazabb, s a magyaroké csak egy "másolat", vagy valami szánalmas erölködés annak bizonyítására, hogy Erdély nem a románoké. Hogy miért ragaszkodnak a dáko-román elmélethez ? Szerintem annak az az oka, hogy a dákokat, mint a rómaiakkal megküzdő, azoknak ellenálló, harcos, hősies népet jelenítik meg (önmaguknak és a nagyvilágnak), s ugye egy ilyen őstől szívesen származtatná magát bárki, hiszen a rómaiaknak ellenállni tudó nép - e logika szerint - még a rómaiaknál is erősebb, ügyesebb, agyafurtabb, hősiesebb lehetett. Ezzel szemben egy olyan romanizálódott illíriai hegyi néphez, amely az avarok elől délkeletre "futott", majd onnan rajzott észak-kelet felé vándorolt mikor "már tiszta volt északon a levegő", nos, az nem annyira vonzó tartozni, mint a rómaiakkal harcoló, versengő dicső néphez. Másrészt a valódi elmélet felvállalásával igen kellemetlenné válna az a tény, hogy Erdélyhez ősi jussuk nemigen van.

Hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2008.05.22. 21:46:20

Tibor,

Erdély hovatartozásának a kérdését én geopolitikai vagy nemzetpolitikai kérdésnek tartom, amely független a történelmi tényektől. Mivel ez jórészt politika, és nem mentes az érzelmektől, nem nagyon akarnám ezt belekeverni egy pusztán történelmi kérdéskörbe. Fontosnak tartom ugyanis, hogy Erdély hovatartozásának nincs köze ahhoz, hogy ki volt ott előbb. Kétségtelen, hogy a "ki volt ott előbb" kérdéskör mindkét fél részéről nyíltan vagy csak burkoltan a saját jogot próbálja alátámasztani, de ezt a történelmi tények oldaláról nézve nagyon káros jelenségnek tartom, ugyanis lehetetlenné tesz egy objektív vitát.
Én az illír eredetet (vagy mondjunk inkább balkáni eredetet, hiszen a román etnogenezisben nem csak az illírek vettek részt valszeg, hanem a balkán teljes latin népessége) azért egyáltalán nem gondolnám lebecsülendőnek: Jusztiniánusz császár, vagy Diocletianus császár is a balkánról származott, így pl. ők is abból a népességből származtak, akikből a románok (is) kialakultak. Szóval éppen erre is lehetne nemzeti identitást építeni. Persze ez a hajó már elúszott, a román társadalomban olyannyira benne van ez a fake eredetmítosz, hogy ha az ottani történészközösség komolyan rászánná magát és megdöntené azt, annak azért elég súlyos társadalmi hatásai is lehetnének. (Azért arrafele is sok hozzáértő tisztában van azzal, hogy az elmélet hülyeség).

Dec 2008.05.29. 22:57:39

Sziasztok!

nagyon koszi ezt a hianypotlo munkat!
A roman "ostortenetrol" Europaban mindenhol kizarolag a "dako-roman" elmeletet ismerik es persze elismerik (sajnos megdobbentoen alacsony az egyetemes tortenelmi ismeretei meg a magasan kvalifikalt europai emberkenek (is) - kizarolag a sajat orszagukrol dereng neha nekik vmi, akkor is szinte csak a 20. szazad).

A kerdesem az lenne, hogy a vlach-szal az egyes elmeletek szerint vhonnan Del-Italiabol eredezik - errol nincs vmi pontosabb info vagy forras?

koszi!

ps. ha nagy hulyeseget kerdeztem ugyis kitorlitek remelem :)

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2008.05.29. 23:53:13

Szia Dec!

Én nem mondanám, hogy elismerik. Valójában a múlt század elején ismerték el leginkább, ennek is az az oka, hogy akkor a románok elég aktívak voltak a saját maguk megismertetésében. De manapság komoly történészek egyre kevésbé fogadják el az elméletet. Német nyelvterületen pl. ott vannak az áttelepült erdélyi szász történészek (pl. Kurt Horedt), akiknek a munkái elérhetőek, és nem fogadják el a kontinuitást. Francia és angol nyelvterületen is egyre kevésbé. A tudományos köztudatban már benne van, hogy az elmélet vitatott. Ráadásul a románok között is van aki nem fogadja el. Csak ezekkel a dolgokkal kapcsolatban is az van amit mondasz, hogy nem jut el ide ennek a híre.
A vlach szál nem Dél - Itáliából származik. Tudomásom szerint a vlach szó jelentése idegen. Alkalmazták más népekre is, de végül a románokra ragadt. De ameddig Bizánc fennhatósága kiterjedt a Balkánra a kora középkorban, addig latinnak nevezék őket.

lécci 2008.05.30. 00:47:24

Szia Dec!
A vlach az ófelnémet walah=idegen szóból származik (így kelta eredetű), mely a szlávban (!) lett vlach alakú. A magyarban az oláh és az olasz szavakban él tovább. Hasonló a német=nemec, néma (azaz nyelvünket nem beszélő) elnevezéshez, vagy a spanyol ajkú 'újvilágiak' között a gringo 'megbélyegzéshez.
Egy beazonosítása az idegennek, hozzánk (a beszélőhöz) képest. Ez az etnonim.

Dec 2008.06.16. 14:04:43

Sziasztok!

koszi sracok a valaszt!

Szamomra meg egy nagy "logikai bukfenc" van a romanok torteneteben: megpedig a nyelvuk.
Hogy tudtak megorizni igy, szinte "vegytiszta" formaban a latint - osszehasonlitva pl a topbbi latin nyelvvel, a franciaval, az olasszal, a spanyollal, etc.
Kulonosen ez annak fenyeben tobb mint kulonleges, hogy nagyon eros szlav (es talan magyar) hatasnak voltak kiteve vegig a tortenelmuk soran, amit jelez az a teny is, hogy ha jol tudom, a XIX sz kozepeig cirill betukkel irtak!!

nem talaltam erre infot, nyelvesz meg plane nem vagyok, de en ugy talaltam athidalhatonak ezt a dolgot, hogy a roman nyelv relativ fejletlensege miatt (nem hasznaltak szeles korben, valoszinuleg a szlav es a magyar sokkal elterjedtebb volt, az elso irasos emlekuk is talan a 16szban jelent meg) gyakorlatilag nagyon elemi szinten letezett a nyelvuk. Majd mikor jott az o nyelvujitasok (mint a nekunk a 1820as evektol Kazincyek meg miegymas), ill. osszehoztak a dako-roman elmeletet, ekkor szinte eredeti formajaban vettek fel a regi latin nyelvet, ezzel is alatamasszak a Romai Birodalom orokosei cimet...
Eros tulzassal egyedul az igencsak szlav "da" azaz "igen" szocskat nem tudtam kiszedni a rogzult hagyomanyaikbol...

Errol nincs vmi infotok? Koszi!

csurtus · http://csurtus.blogrepublik.eu/ 2008.06.17. 08:03:12

Dec,

én sem vagyok nyelvész, de beszélek románul. A román nyelv újlatin ugyan, de azt a "vegytiszta" jelzőt nagyon erős túlzásnak tartom.

Egy tanulmányban a következő összetételt állapították meg (a különböző eredetű szavak aránya a mai beszélt román nyelvben):


1.) Latin gyökerek 71.66%:
o 30,33% "természetes latin"
o 22,12% francia
o 15,26% "mesterséges latin" - műszavak
o 3,95% olasz

2.) Szláv gyökerek 14,17%:
o 9,18% ószláv
o 2,6% bolgár
o 1,12% orosz
o 0,85% szerbhorvát
o 0,23% ukrán
o 0,19% lengyel

3.) Német: 2,47%

4.) Újgörög: 1,7%

5.) Tráko-dák gyökerek: 0,96%

6.) Magyar: 1,43%

7.) Török: 0,73%

8.) Angol: 0,07% (növekvőben)

A többi mintegy 6-7% bizonytalan eredetű

csurtus · http://csurtus.blogrepublik.eu/ 2008.06.17. 08:24:07

És bocs a szerkesztőktől, hogy kérdezés nélkül belekottyantottam, noha nem is engem szólított meg a kommentező :-)

Dec 2008.06.17. 14:05:48

Koszi Csurtus az infot!

szoval ha jol latom majdnem 50%ban latin oroksegbol all fel a roman nyelv (es ezek szerint 72%ban latin erdetu nyelvekbol) - ami azert meglehetosen impressziv egy arany!

mar csak a fo kerdes maradt: hogyan is tortenhetett ez a dolog? ez a roman nyelvujitasi tortenet kezd egyre jobban erdekelni!

csurtus · http://csurtus.blogrepublik.eu/ 2008.06.17. 16:10:45

Dec,

a román nyelv latin eredetét még a legelvakultabb románellenesek sem tudják megkérdőjelezni; más kérdés a nép eredete...

A bolgárok is szláv nyelvet beszélnek, de - tudomásom szerint - etnikailag török eredetűek. A románok dáko(tráko)román származása olyan lehet, mint a mi sumér gyökereink.

A rómaiak (pontosabban a római légiók, amelyek állománya egyáltalán nem latinokból állt) valóban állomásoztak Dáciában (és Felső-Moesiában) jó pár éven át. Keveredés biztosan volt a helyi lakossággal, de (amint az a cikkben is olvasható), ezekhez a mai románságnak vajmi kevés köze van.

Dec 2008.06.17. 21:00:03

Bocs sracok, nem az a celom hogy ezt a postot a legtobb kommentel rendelkezo postta tegyem meg! :)

Csurtus, koszi a valaszt! Az teljesen rendben van, hogy a roman a latin nyelvcsaladba tartozik, mint ahogy az altalad mutatott statisztikak (is) nagyon beszedesen mutatjak. (Mellesleg oriasi elony ez a romant beszelok szamara pl. kulfoldi latin nyelvek tanulasanal - olyan elony mint pl. az olaszoknak franciat vagy spanyolt tanulni es vice-versa).

A kerdesem elsosorban arra vonatkozott, (nem tudom, lehet hogy kizarolag csak szamomra ilyen erdekes ez a kerdes :)) hogy ilyen hosszu idon keresztul, hogyan tudta megorizni a roman nyelv ennyire erosen (erre hasznaltam a "vegytiszta" jelzot) a latin jelleget (50% termeszetes + "mesterseges" latin - Csurtus statisztikai alapjan) ilyen eros kulso hatasok mellett (pl szlav, torok befolyas, cirill betuk, stb stb) - mig pl. az olasz, spanyol, francia sokkal jobban megvaltozott ugyanennyi ido alatt es szerintem sokkal gyengebb kulso hatasok mellett (pl german). Mintha pl a magyar sokkal eroteljesebben valtozott rovidebb ido alatt, ha csak a Tihanyi Apatsag alapitolevelere gondolok ...

"Alapos" roman nyelvujitas a 19.szazadban? Eros bizanci-latin hatas? Vagy egyszeruen nincs is itt semmi kerdes, ennel tobbet egy nyelv sem valtozott az idok soran - i.e. teljesen rendben van, hogy "1800 ev utan" is 50-70%-ban az eredeti nyelvezetet orzi egy modern nyelv? Vagy lehet hogy csak a kerdest nem tudom megfogalmazni, es senki nem erti mirol hadobalok ossze-vissza :)

lécci 2008.06.18. 10:40:48

Csurtus minapi román nyelvösszetételi adatsorához kapcsolódóan: hasonló elemzéseket a magyar nyelvre is végeztek (1943-ban), s nagyjából hasonló arányok mutatkoztak (részben hasonló hatások mellett), mármint, hogy a 'hozott', eredeti nyelv milyen erősen megmaradt. (ha helytállóak ma is a vizsgálatok következtetései)

"- 88,4% finnugor (beleértve az uralit, ugort is)
- 3,4% szláv
- 2,8% latin
- 1,5% német
- 1,0% török
- 3,0% ismeretlen, vegyes"

Forrás:
forum.index.hu/Article/showArticle?t=9026538&go=26428316
Sőt, míg a románban 71,6 % a latin és 14,2 % a szláv, addig a magyarban 88,4 % a finnugor, azaz a románt erősebb szláv hatás érte, mint a magyart -persze a magyar elemzés a háború előestéjén készült- ami vagy arra mutat, hogy erősebb volt a keveredés a vándorlásuk alatt, mint nálunk a letelepedés után, vagy azt, hogy a vándorlás alatt erősebbek a hatások, mint letelepedett életmód mellett.

Dec 2008.06.18. 20:06:49

C'est clair! :) koszi mindenkinek a hozzaszolast!

Vérnűsző Barom 2008.07.10. 21:41:58

LÉrdekelne, hogy a fenébe lett román a nép,és az ország neve? Ha valahol a régmúltban felmerül a nép, akkor a vlach/blak valamilyen formája szerepel, ami úgy egyébként a bosnyákban máig egyfajta elmeállapotot kelölő szítokszó...
Románia annó a bizánci birodalom rendes neve volt a középkor folyamán, azt megelőzően pedig a még egységes római birodalomé.
Oszt egyszercsak felbukkant a nép-, és országnév a semmiből. Tudja valaki ennek okát, folyamatát?

Más. A történelem során minden esetben volt valamiféle kontinuitásra utaló próbálkozás a területszerzésben. Egyszerűen kellett a megfelelő sajtó, így a magyarok hun eredete, de még az osztrákok német-gót, illetve a magyarság finnugor eredetét firtató magyarazátai is ezt a célt szolgálták (ha a magyarok finnugor származásúak, akkor nem lehetett igaz a hun-avar-magyar kapcsolat, így tulképp jogos örökségként járt az osztrákoknak Magyarország területe, illetve a románoknak(?) Erdély, valamint szépen látható hasonló a mai szlovák törekvésekben is. Igaza meg annak van, aki nagyobb pofával nyomja.)

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2008.07.10. 22:20:20

Vérnűsző Barom

Nagyon egyszerűen. A románok latinok -> rómaiak. Saját magukat egyébként mindig rómainak tartották, és a román (=római) az önelnevezésük. Pár kommenttel feljebb szerintem volt erről szó, vagy valamelyik előző részben.

A "más"-sal kezdődő gondolatmenetedre szerintem szintén röviden utaltam valamelyik részben, de ettől függetlenül nagyon nem szeretném, ha erről itt vita kezdődne.

pat 2008.07.10. 23:14:00

oké, tegyük fel, hogy később jöttek erdélybe, mint a magyarok. de az miért van, hogy elég régóta jóval többen is vannak ott, annak ellenére, hogy többnyire magyar fennhatóság alatt volt a terület 900 évig? csak szivárogtak befelé, és nem szólt nekik senki, hogy bocs, de ez egy másik ország?

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2008.07.10. 23:29:38

Pat

Több hullámban telepítették le őket:
1) Tatárjárás után
2) 1600-as évek végén, miután a török többször alaposan feldúlta Erdélyt
3) A török kiűzése után

És nem más, mint a magyar birtokos nemesség, mert kellett nekik a munkáskéz. Román többsége egyébként valszeg a 2-3. pont környékén lett Erdélynek.

pat 2008.07.10. 23:52:35

áhá! kössz!

Vérnűsző Barom 2008.07.11. 08:13:36

Nemcsak a magyar birtokos nemesség, hanem magyar királyok is, így pl. IV. Béla a tatárjárás után, a rendesen megfogyatkozott népesség részbeni pótlására, illetve a királyi hatalmat erősítendően a nagybirtokosokkal szemben. Sok sikert nem hozott az ötlet...

A török időkben viszonylag hamar a török birodalomhoz került Havasalfőld, majd Moldva, az előbbit így évszázadokra elkerülte a nagyobb lakosságfogyással (háborús áldozat, elvándorlás, stb.) járó háborúskodás (jutott persze nekik is rendesen, de közel se annyi, mint Mo-on).

A XIX-ik században a frissen alakuló Román Királyságba már nagyjából az egész Balkánról folyt a bevándorlás, plusz az igen okos Habsburg-ploitikának köszönhetően Erdélyből is sokan áttelepültek, majd beolvadtak a dinamikusan fejlődő, klasszisokkal kevesebb terhet kivető országba.

Más...
Simán lecserélném az utóbbi párszáz év valamennyi vezető magyar politikusát románra. Valamivel aktívabban, okosabban intézték a dolgaikat. Mármint a saját érdekeik szerint...

bagyula 2008.07.11. 09:39:49

Eleg hamar megy at a kozhelyekbe a roman tortenelemrol szolo vita igy en inkabb ezt nem tennem. Vannak meg itt erdekessegek. Abban peldaul egyetertek, hogy a romanok tulajdonkeppen "romaiak", tehat a latinul beszelo nepesseg leszarmazottai kb ugy ahogy a magyarorzsagi lakosok a magyar honfoglalok leszarmazottai. Tehat nyelvben megvan a "kontinuitas" de pl genetikailag vajmi keves.Ugyanez a helyzet az u.n "romai civilizacioval" barmit is jelentsen ez. Az a paradox helyezet van, es mint roman tortenelmi erdekesseg erdemes megemliteni, hogy a roman civilizacionak sokkal kevessebb koze van a romai civilizaciohoz mint barmelyik nyugat europai nepnek (annal tobb viszont a keleti kereszteny es a szlav civilizaciohoz). Ezt persze mar emlitve volt, de akkor is erdemes kiemelni. MInt azt is, hogy a romanok a magyar "varos" szobol eredo "oras" szot hasznaljak a varosi telepulesek jelolesere mely mutatja, hogy a romanok nem haszaltak a varos szot addig amig kapcsolatba nem kerultek a magyarral. Marpedig varosok nelkul vegulis milyen civilizaciorol/neprol beszelhetunk?

pat 2008.07.11. 22:40:31

ok, akkor ott tartunk, hogy a magyar nemesség + királyok telepítették be a románokat, meg biztos mentek azok maguktól is. de az nem fér a fejembe, hogy erdély jelenlegi etnikai térképe a magyarok szempontjából miért emlékeztet még mindig a honfoglalás kori időkre: erdély közepén egy tömbben élnek. ami köré "kialakult" - a fentiek szerint - a betelepítések nyomán egy nagy román gyűrű. a magyarok maradtak egyhelyben (na jó, vannak még szórványban is persze), a románok meg ott vannak körben mindenhol, jóval többen, mint a magyarok.

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2008.07.12. 18:08:21

Pat,

Erdély jelenlegi etnikai térképe semennyire nem hasonlít a honfoglalás időszakára. A honfoglalás után a magyarok a Mezőségbe települtek, ami Erdély közepe. Ma ez a térség >80%-ban román, helyenként magyar szórványfalvakkal (ennyi maradt belőlük). A székelyföldi völgyekbe viszont a honfoglalás után közvetlenül nem települtek magyarok, csak a 13. században telepítették oda a határőr székelyeket.
A honfoglalás környékén valójában Erdély nagyon ritkán lakott volt, egyedül a Maros (és esetleg a Szamos) völgyében élt némi szláv/avar/bolgár lakosság, a sóbányákat termelték ki, ill. talán aranymosással is foglalkoztak már akkor. A hegyek viszont lényegében lakatlanok voltak. Ezeket a magyarok se telepítették be, a románok pont azért jöttek kapóra, mert hozzá voltak szokva a hegyi életmódhoz, és hajlandóak voltak áttelepülni annak ellenére, hogy nem voltak katolikusok.

eljárás tárgya 2008.07.14. 21:48:55

A "Magyar tájékoztató zsebkönyv" 1943-as kiadásában azt olvastam, hogy a XVIII-XIX. sz. folyamán a román nyelv egy - a magyaréhoz hasonló - nyelvújításon esett át, amely során gyakorlatilag egy mesterséges latinizálást hajtottak végre és ennek köszönhető a latinnal való nagyfokú hasonlóság.
Erről pár gondolat a hozzáértőktől?

Nyilván a helyükön kezelve a dolgokat (1943, irredenta törekvések stb.), tényleg érdeklődés szintjén.
Köszönöm.

tiboru · http://blogrepublik.eu 2008.07.14. 22:30:37

eljárás tárgya,

valóban volt nyelvújítás a románoknál is, de leginkább a modern kor kifejezéseit vették át a franciából (!); számtalan hétköznapi román szó van, ami egyértelműen latin és ami nem fogható a nyelvújításra (paine = panem = kenyér, apa =aqua = víz, piept = pectus = mellkas, musca = musca = légy, carne = carne = hús, és még folytathatnám).

A nyelvújítás olyan szavakat honosított meg, mint justitie = justice = igazságszolgáltatás vagy az autonomie, solidaritate, patrie, coruptie :-) és nem is folytatom, mert ezeket amúgy is mindenki érti...

Karlos79 2008.07.17. 09:59:55

Javítsatok ki ha tévedek, de románokat erdélybe a román kormány is telepített a II. vh. után. Főleg a magyar határ mellé. Elkerülendő egy második revíziót.

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2008.07.17. 17:35:08

Karlos79

Nem tévedsz. Az apropót meg az adta, hogy földosztást hajtottak végre, államosították a magyar arisztokraták földjeit, ill. az egyházét is. Egyébként hasonlóképpen változtatták meg Dobrudzsa etnikai szerkezetét is, ott pl. nem éltek románok azelőtt, hogy megszerezték volna a területet.
Viszont az etnikai viszonyok formálásában nem volt akkora nagy hatása a partiumi telepítéseknek.

Nemad 2008.07.20. 22:53:21

Fentebb kerdeztetek,hogy mennyiben mondhato "romai" eredetunek,a mai roman lakossag.Meglattasom szerint nagyon keves kapcsolatt fuzi oket az "autentikus" romaiakhoz,annal is inkabb mert a Dacia teruleten levo legiok katonai ,akik reven a dakok el romaiasodhattak volna,tobbsegeben idegen szarmazasu katonakbol allott.(szir,palmyr)A latin,mint osszetarto es kommunikalo nyelv volt jelen.Egy kis tulzassal mondhatnam, amiert Amerikaban angolul beszelnek az allampolgarok,azert meg nem mindenki angol szarmazasu.

Krystos 2008.08.07. 13:51:26

Sziasztok!
Érdemes meglesni az Origin of the Romanians szócikket ismét. Ugyanis az oláhok igencsak kibővítették, hogy bebizonyítsák, ők csak azért is dákók.
A vicc az, hogy tele van értelmetlen ill. hamis érvekkel. A kedvencem az a levezetés, melynek végén kimondja, Szent István román volt (!!!).
Persze tele van torzítással az egész, ezeket össze is írtam a szócikk vitalapjára. De nem fullad itt ki a dolog. Pl. mi köze van a románok eredetéhez az, hogy egy erdélyi fejedelem vagy földesúr azt írja, nagy tömegek menekülnek Moldovába? (ezeket és társaikat már összeírtam egy adminnak, hogy törölje ki őket, mivel nincs közük a témához vagy egyszerűen hülyeségek. Ezt azért kellet, mivel már júni vége óta szerkesztési védelem alatt áll az szócikk).

A legjobb talán az az idézett bizánci forrás, amely vlachokat említ a Richios folyó mentén.
Ez rohadt jó érv a kontinuitás mellet, mert a Richios Észak-Görögországban/Dél-Bulgáriában van xD .
Persze van bőven olyan is (főleg bizánci, de feltűnik pl. a Nesztor-kórnika is) amelyek pl.vlachokat/blakokat említ a Dunától északra és hasonlók, vagy valamiből levezet az író egy érvet.

Hát, én nem tudom ebből az eégszből mi igaz, pláne, ha egy csomó érvnek eleve nincs itt keresnivalója, vagy egyszerű hazugság.

Ezen kívül leginkább egy könyvet használnak forrásként, "A Documented Chronology of Roumanian History"-t, illetve még egy csomó ,más román könyvet/forrást. De pl. nem értem, mi értelme van 1600-1800 körüli forrásokat felhozni, melyek ahogy néztem,inkább csak feltételezgetések az antik írók művei alapján. Persze az adu-ász még mindig Anyonymus. (még így hozzátenném, hogy egy magyar srác egyszer hozzátett néhány ellenérvet, és forrásként magyar könyveket jelölt meg. Az román egyszerűen kitörölte, mondván, ilyen kényes témánál ne merjen ilyen irredentista [lol..] műveket felhozni...)

Ezek ellenére szerintem kénne egy "A románok eredete VI.", mivel vannak olyan források/érvek/állítások, melyeknek tényleg jó lenne utánajárni, gondolok itt a számos bizánci forrásra, a Nesztor-krónikára, néhány régészeti érvre stb.

sammy 2008.08.07. 18:01:44

krystos barátom, te még hiszel a wikipédiában? az angolon (és talán a németen meg a francián kívül) az összes többi maximum akkor vehető figyelembe, ha rajta kívül még legalább két másik (wikin kívüli) forrás is ugyanazt állítja

a keleteurópai wikik pedig hírhedten megbízhatatlanok, főleg, ha történelemről (saját és környezetük történelméről) van szó, és ilyen szempontból a magyar sem kivétel sajnos

rkb · http://tortenelem.blog.hu 2008.08.12. 17:31:12

A témával kapcsolatban ajánlom Lucian Boia magyar nyelven is olvasható munkáját: Történelem és mítosz a román köztudatban

Montet 2009.02.09. 10:34:16

Szerintem érdemes lenne Kristóf Gyula műveit is figyelembe venni. Ha jól tudom Ő sokat foglalkozott a témával. Sőt, ha nem halt volna meg, akkor a sportszeletért is beszállhatna, mert egy Rubiconban megjelent cikk szerint A bizánci történet írás végig dokumentálta a vlachok mozgását, sőt a vlachok a bizánciak nyomására lépték át a Dunát, és indultak Magyarország felé, mert őket akarták felhasználni a magyarok ellen.

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2009.02.20. 18:22:43

@Montet:

Gondolom Kristó Gyulára gondolsz, persze hogy érdemes lenne, de annyi mindent lenne érdemes, hogy annyi életem nincsen. :)

vizipipa 2009.02.28. 16:00:32

Volna 1-2 kérdésem.
- A közölt térképhez milyen dátumot lehet párosítani? Sajnos nincs rajta.
- Vélemény a következő könyvről: Kocsis István: Történészek a kereszten (Püski, 1994)?
- Ajánljátok-e tiszta szívvel az Erdély története / Erdély rövid története műveket?

Köszönöm ezt az 5 részt. Úgy stílusát, mint tartalmát illetően.
...kalapot emelő szmájli...

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2009.02.28. 20:05:32

@vizipipa:

- 19. sz. végi állapotot tükröz, ha jól emlékszem.
- Nem ismerem.
- Igen.

1728 2009.03.23. 06:18:55

Lenne néhány kérdésem:

-Gondolom, Hami történész vagy. Én is kutatok, csak nem történelmet. Szóval először egy technikai kérdés: nincsenek nemzetközi történész konferenciák, ahol különböző nemzetek történészei összeülnek, és eldöntik, melyik forrás jelent valamit, és melyik nem? Kiadhatnak valami konferenciakötetet, szépen listázva a megbízhatatlan forrásokat. Egyáltatlán miért kötődnek a kutatók még mindig nemzetekhez. Logikusabbnak tünne, ha az emberek régiókat kutatnának (Balkán, Közép-Európa...). Az is logikus lenne, ha a tárgyilagosság céljából direkt nem a saját országukat kutatnák.
-Úgy érzem minden prezentált elmélet nagyon nemzetállamokban gondolkodik. Nem lehet, hogy a mai román kultúra úgy általában a térségben éló szlávos latin (avagy latinos szláv) nyelvet beszélő mindenfélék leszármazottja. A nemzeti írásbeliség fejlődése különböző (de rokon) nyelveket könnyedén homogenizál (lsd. olasz). Az is lehet, hogy ilyen szlávos latinok szorványokban éltek mindenfele régóta Moldvától Albániáig. Nem kellett nekik egyszerre délnek, vagy északnak mozogniuk...
-Genetikai vizsgálat volt a dák román rokonság megállapítására? Van egyáltalán dák genetikai lelet?
-voltak még kérdéseim, de nem jutnak eszembe...

Ha véletlenül olvassátok a megjegyzést, és válaszoltok, nagyon köszönöm.

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2009.03.23. 09:12:04

@1728:

Konferenciák vannak, de a téma a magyarokon és románokon kívül igazából senkit nem érdekel.

A szórványban élő népesség beolvadt volna. Egyébként régészetileg és forrásilag is pontosan meg lehet mondani, hogy hol éltek és hol nem.

A genetikai vizsgálat ilyesmit nem tud kimutatni. A genetika nem alkalmas népek őstörténetének tisztázására, mert a genetikai állomány "terjedése" nem függ össze.

Montet 2009.03.23. 12:10:02

@hami: Üdv. Szerinted van elmozdulás abban, hogy valódi tudományos alapon a két nemzet történészei együtt tárják fel a múltat?

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2009.03.23. 12:23:06

@Montet:

A múlt feltárása nem érdeke a románoknak. Ők konstruáltak maguknak egyet, és a mai napig azt verik bele a gyerekeik fejébe. Egy gyökeres változás (mert a kontinuitás meghaladása eléggé az lenne a részükről) gyakorlatilag a román nemzeti identitást döntené romba, ennek önmagában elég érdekes történelmen kívüli következményei lehetnek. De kapásból valószínűleg nagyon nagy lenne az ellenállás, a nagy többségük nem hinné el.

Persze, tudományos körökben van mozgolódás, de néhány érdekes figurát leszámítva a kontinuitás elméletnek még senki nem ugrott neki, egyelőre még csak a középkori, kora újkori történelmük kreált, vagy belemagyarázott dolgait kérdőjelezgetik meg (ott is van bőven ilyesmi, pl. Vitéz Mihály Románia első nagy egyesítője - kár, hogy akkoriban nem léteztek még a modern nemzetek).

1728 2009.03.23. 15:44:23

@hami: Valamit nem értek:

Nem pont azt használja ki az egész elmélet, hogy nincs elég forrás. Ha, mondjuk sírok feltárásával meg lehetne mondani, hogy pontosan mikor hol éltek vlachok (vagy románok), akkor nem lenne vitának helye. Nem az a probléma, hogy források igazán csak 1000 utánról vannak? Legalábbis megbízhatóak.

1728 2009.03.23. 15:47:34

Ezt arra írtam, hogy: "Egyébként régészetileg és forrásilag is pontosan meg lehet mondani, hogy hol éltek és hol nem."

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2009.03.23. 15:48:36

@1728:

Nem, forrás igazából van elég. Itt inkább az a helyzet, hogy gombhoz varrtak kabátot.

1728 2009.03.23. 15:52:41

@hami: Ezek szerint azt mondod, hogy a vláchok vándorlása az első évezred során dokumentált? Nincs esetleg egy iromány itt a töriblogon, ami ezzel foglalkozik? Valami forrásfelsorolás? Bemondásra mégsem hiszem el...

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2009.03.23. 17:21:44

@1728:

Vannak bizánci források, a postban is fel van sorolva pár. Csak a helyzet az, hogy ehhez görögül vagy latinul kellene tudni, hogy belemélyedjen az ember. A görögöket, vagy törököket (gondolom bizánci források az említett két ország területén fordulhatnak elő nagyobb számban) nyilván nem érdekli a román őstöri, a románok nyilván nem akarnak olyan forrásukat kutatni, ami a nemzeti identitásukat romba dönti, mást meg nem érdekel a téma.

1728 2009.03.24. 01:46:02

@hami: Köszi az értelmes válaszokat. Kedves tőled, hogy hajlandó vagy laikusok (pl. én) kérdéseire válaszolni. Ha jól értem akkor nem tehetünk mást, mint hogy várunk a románokra, hogy önkritikát gyakoroljanak, merthogy Románián kívül nincs máshol elég pénz és energia, hogy tételesen megcáfolják, majd újjáépítsék az román őstörténelmet.

Személyes tapasztalatom, hogy szuper értelmes románok között is vannak akik hisznek ebben a katyvaszban. Megdöbbentő...

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2009.03.24. 07:31:18

@1728:

Miért ne lennék hajlandó, én is laikus vagyok.

Montet 2009.03.24. 13:02:49

@hami: Hú, ez érdekes. Tehát van olyan időszak, ahol hajlandók tárgyilagosak lenni. Ez megérne egy posztot, vagy nem?

gólhaj · http://kroki.blog.hu/ 2009.04.18. 21:41:11

Uraim! a poszt überf.sza. A kommentekkel együtt egy jó viszonyítási alap. Köszi mindenki!

ireg85 2009.07.03. 20:17:29

"12. század elején Magyarország déli határainál. Mindenképpen tehát egy olyan folyamatról van szó, amelynek vannak írott forrásai" - Én 13. századot tudom Fogaras vidékét, mint első megjelenésüket pásztorok formájában ( :) )(II. András alatt).
Egyébként érdemes elolvasni még a Rubicon (?. szám) egy néhány évvel ezelőtti számában lévő cikket ugyanezez kérdésben, ahol Kristó Gyula "jól megmondja" ezeknek, hogy ők bizony nem római dákók (ez az én szójátékom:) ).
A baj az, hogy mindenhol van hamis eredetkeresés: a blachoknál a rómaiak-dákok (akiket a rómaiak deportáltak egyébként), a szlovákoknál a morváék birodalma (miközben a szlovák nyelv tudomásom szerint (szintén Rubicon a Kitalált középkor c. része, ha jól emlékszem) 15. századi születésű - fiúk, lenne köze a huszitáknak a szlovák nyelv létrejöttéhez??? -
a magyaroknál a sumerok, meg a nemtudommik, de ugyanígy a franciáknál a gallok (Asterix és Obelix!:), vagy éppen az Oszmán Birodalom római eredeztetése is - elég a Rum és Rumélia neveket megnézni illetve mit is jelent az Isztambul szó? ). Remélem, ez utóbbiban nem tévedtem, ha igen, szólni, és korrigáltatik.

ireg85 2009.07.03. 20:25:36

@csurtus: 1,43% magyar. Ehhez egy vicces megjegyzést tennék:) Olvasva a Rubiconban a dák-román nyelvi eredeztetést egykoron, rájöttem, ilyen módon, ahogy ott le van vezetve, a magyar is lehetne dák eredetű nyelv (amikor a latin helységnevekre, földrajzi nevekre utalnak - gondoljunk bele, hány magyar települést tudunk felsorolni római kori néven?)

Ezekiel 25,17 2009.07.04. 17:18:54

Még valami a blakokat idéző forrásokhoz.

Egyes történészek, a blakokat egy, a mai Dél-Erdély (Küküllők) területén élt sztyeppei néptöredékként, vagy törzsként említik, talán török vagy avar rokonsággal.
Anonymus is megemlíti őket, mégpedig azzal a kitétellel, hogy Erdélyben a magyarok a blakoktól megtanulták az írást (ezt a román történelemkönyvek is kihangsúlyozzák).Sőt Gyulát is a magyarok és blakok fejedelmének említi.
A blakokat a románok automatikusan vlahoknak, tehát románoknak veszik, ami 2 dolgo miatt is ellentmondás:
- 2 különböző névről van szó: blak és vlah
- ha a blakok azaz románok tanították volna a magyarokat latin ábécére, akkor ők maguk miért írtak a 18-19. századig cirill betűkkel?
Sokkal valószínűbbnek tűnik, hogy egy valóban sztyeppe, rovásírást használó népről van szó, ami illeszkedett a magyarság hagyományaihoz, és ez magyarázza a székelyföldi rovásírás tartós fennmaradását is.

ireg85 2009.07.04. 20:22:28

Ennek az Anonymus-résznek utána fogok majd nézni az ösztöndíjam után, hely? Egyébként, ha megjegyezhetem, a régi magyar krónikák forrásait csak a jegyzetekkel érdemes olvasni, mert tele van "fordulatokkal-ferdítésekkel".
Jól emlékszem, hogy rá, Anonymusra hivatkoznak a tankönyveikben, hogy már a magyar honfoglalás előtt itt voltak?
Ciki, hogy nem tudom fejből, de 2 éve tanultam a középkort, és alapból 17-19. századi vagyok.
Egy érdekességre hívom fel a figyelmet: az ELTE-n az ún. román szakon van olyan kötelező kurzus, hogy albanológia. Hogy mi van e mögött (óra anyaga), nem tudom, de nem véletlenül nem "bizantológiát" tanulnak.

semmihazi (törölt) 2009.10.19. 14:30:32

most akkor szórakozzunk,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Huru
egy lelkes(!)román azt bizonygatta nekem, hogy milyen jól éldegéltek az régi vlachok, a dáko+romaiak, 999 évig a hegyeken és erdőkben. zavartalanul,boldogan,ősiessen,egységben,folytonosan, hogy majd egyszer...
válaszom: a dákok,az elmélete szerint, a hegyekre és erdőkbe vonultak és soha sem találkoztak a romaiakkal.
azt mondta, hogy gonosz vagyok.

Irtis 2010.01.03. 18:15:31

"majd miután a 11. század elején Bizánc legyűrte Bulgáriát, ezzel újraegyesítette a balkánt, ami a térség prosperitásához vezetett, és az Ohrid környéki terület túlnépesedett, ami megindította a népességfelesleg északi irányú vándorlását."
Itt több dolog van, ami nekem nem elég meggyőző.
1. 100 év fejlődés elég volt a túlnépesedéshez vagy ez a folyamat már a 7.sz. óta van?
2. A túlnépesedésen kívül van más oka is az északra vándorlásnak? Miért vándoroltak több 100 km-t ÉK-re a vlahok? Miért nem maradtak pl. Szerbiában? Nekem sokkal logikusabbnak tűnne, ha csak a környékre vándorolnának el a túlnépesedés miatt, ott keresnének valami lakatlan hegyi részt és nem mennének ilyen messzire.
Előre is köszönöm a válaszokat!

PS. Nagyon színvonalas a blog, szép munka!

Tamáshida · http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_SBwVB83WU&feature=related 2010.02.06. 14:16:13

Nagyon jó a cikk, mert nagyon jó az igazság. Az lehet, hogy nem kellne szégyelniük vagy letagadniuk balkáni származásukat, de a Dunától É-ra eső történelmüket annál inkább. Bismarck mondta, hogy: "A román nem nemzet, hanem egy foglalkozás, amelynek nem vasút kell, hanem ostor".

hami · http://toriblog.blog.hu 2010.02.06. 20:29:52

@Irtis:

1) valszeg zajlott egy ideje. nagyrészt hegyi pásztorokról beszélünk, akiknek nagy területekre volt szüksége a tevékenységükhöz.

2) mert a dunától északra voltak használható és üres legelők. aztán meg magyar nemesség is hívta őket erdély lakatlan peremterületeire betelepülni.

bencusiu 2010.05.09. 06:37:25

Nem tudom miert akadtok ki, ha a romanokon..
A magyarok nagy resze is meg van gyozodve arrol, hogy hun eredetu, pedig semmi kozunk sincs hozzajuk!

Cunctator140 2010.05.12. 23:57:56

Üdv népek!

Hami!

Korábban írtad, hogy akad kutatni való forrás bőven - ugye latin és görög nyelvű - ám a román értelemszerűen nem vágja maga alatt a fát azzal, hogy ezeket lapozgatja, a török és a görög pedig ugyancsak nem érdekelt a témában... Tiszta sor... Ám a magyar, nagyon is érdekelt volt/van a kérdésben. Így nehezen tudom elképzelni, hogy ne lett volna olyan vállalkozó szellemű történész, aki ne kutatta volna azokat a dokumentumokat szívesen, különösen a két világháború évei között, de akár később is.

Cunctator140 2010.05.13. 00:06:09

@bencusiu:

Én nem gondolnám, hogy a magyarok nagyrésze meggyőződéses "hunhívő".

Bár, aki a neten kutakodik ilyen témákban, annak könnyen ez lehet a benyomása...

Nekem a középiskolai tanulmányaimból is az dereng, hogy semmi sem bizonyítja a hunokkal való kapcsolatot...

fazekaasgrafika 2011.04.04. 21:16:59

Tudomásom szerint a román név és a román fejedelemségek a 18.-19. században jelennek meg először. Addig Havasalföld és Moldova földrajzi területként léteztek. Ott a 18. századig vlachok, magyarul oláhok éltek. A 11.-15. századig a vezető réteg besenyő,kun és bizánci görög leszármazott volt. Javítsatok ki, ha tévednék.

fazekaasgrafika 2011.04.05. 23:11:51

Úgy látom, az előző kommentemet a tisztelt cenzor kitörölte, újabb érvet szolgáltatva, hogy a TV-ben 40 éve semmi nem változott. Azért megismételném. A három Hunyadiról szóló műsort megnéztem, mert magam is írtam és rajzoltam róluk.
A nagy hadvezér két vesztes és egy győztes csatáját említik. Kiemelik nem létező ,,román" származását. Nándorfehérvár-Lándorfehérvár elnevezés kap fontosságot a győztes hadjáratai helyett. Dugovics Titusz nem létezett. Valaki azt írta nekem, hogy fáj a történelmi igazság. Ez a 40 évvel ezelőtti igazság. Azóta már a történelmi kutatások szekere is haladt kissé. És ha már bulvárosítanak, érdemes lett volna megemlíteni, hogy Hunyadinak volt egy hasonló János nevű testvére, ami sokkal izgalmasabb téma, mint a Nándor - Lándor magyarázat.

serenissima 2011.04.07. 19:42:07

1. Romania volt a keleti római birodalom neve ( és nem bizánci birodalom)
2. Romania volt a velenceiek által (1204)létrehozott latin birodalom neve
hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin%C3%A1polyi_Latin_Cs%C3%A1sz%C3%A1rs%C3%A1g
3. Romania régi térképeken:
www.raremaps.com/gallery/enlarge/16520
www.raremaps.com/gallery/enlarge/22851
4. és itt van ez a valami, és nem értem, hogy ez mért hiányzik a magyar történelemírásból
Roman és Vlahata legendája

(avagy: hogyan vándoroltak a románok-vlahok a balkáni hazájukból Erdélybe)
serenissima.freeblog.hu/

fazekaasgrafika 2011.04.08. 20:49:50

Ez idáig rendben volna, bár a megjelölt térképeken egy fia románia feliratot nem láttam.Persze lehet,hogy a szemem rossz. A Balkánt és Görögországot ábrázolják. Havasalföld és Moldva nincs feltüntetve. Csodálkoznék, ha Zsigmond és a Hunyadiak korában ez a terület mint római birodalom, azaz Románia néven szerepelt volna.Pláne 1453 után. Habár ha Dugovics Titusz sem létezett, akkor már ez is elképzelhető.

pecaboy 2011.07.13. 20:33:21

Üdv!
Kb. Trákiában, Bizánctól nyugatra rálelsz a Romania feliratra mindkét térképen, én pár másodperc alatt megleltem :)

sTomi 2011.08.17. 20:34:52

Tartják még magukat a románok a Rómaiak mellet a dákok, a géták, a trákok,és a roxolánok leszármazottainak is. Sőt román történelem könyvek még szabad dákokról is beszélnek akik nem kerültek római uralom alá és még dák törzs neveket is említenek a "Carpi"(kárpok),"Costoboci"(Kosztobókok)amelyek szabadon éltek a kárpátoktól keletre a Szeret, Prut, Dnyeszter, Dnyeper, Don vidékén (csak megjegyzem ezek a szabad dáknak nevezett törzsek igencsak szkíta jellegű népességnek tünnek nekem a Dnyeszter,Dnyeper,Don vidékéből kikövetkeztetve. Tehát akkor a dák egy szkíta, szarmata jellegű nép lehetett aminek köze nincs a mai románsághoz, inkább a székelységnek lehet valami történelmi köze a dákokhoz szerintem. Kérem én lehet valami köze?). Sőt még olyat is olvastam hogy a dákok csak nép nevükben különböztek a rómaiaktól kúltúrájukban és nyelvükben teljesen egyformák voltak már a dák római háborúk idején. Traiannus csak büntető hadjáratott indított ellenük mert nem szállítottak több aranyat a birodalomnak. Miket ki nem találnak.

béci79 2012.07.15. 14:47:46

@bencusiu: Kedves bencusiu,itt némi szövegértelmezési nehézség és magyarellenes frusztráció foroghat fenn részedről,a cikkek ugyanis arról szólnak hogy a dákoromán kontinuitás elmélete állami szinten és nacionalista indokból keletkezett,ezzel szöges ellentétben nálunk államilag nem propagálták a hun-avar-magyar kontinuitást,sőt.Valószínűleg arra gondolhattál hogy a csak nyelvészek által felépített finnugor doktrínával szemben lelkes amatőrök és szaktekintélyek ezrei kutatják más utakon(humánbiológia,genetika,régészet,zene,antropológia,éghajlatkutatás,írott források,stb)a magyarság etnogenezisét.
László Gyulának minden bizonnyal igaza volt. Őstörténetünk legkorábbi szakaszai című könyvében megpróbálta térbe és időbe helyezni azt a nyelvészeti állítást, hogy valaha létezett egy finnugor alapnyelv. A nyelvészek felháborodtak: egy történész miért nyelvészkedik? Gyula bácsi válasza ez volt: nem én nyelvészkedem, ők történészkednek

laci hegyaljáról 2012.07.18. 12:16:32

@Kovács L. Tibor: Dicsőség nem nagyon volt a történelmükben, még a világháborúkban sem. Sunyi támadások, sunyi békék és szerződésszegések ... ez volt a történelmi jogalap erdélyhez.
hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A1n_front_(els%C5%91_vil%C3%A1gh%C3%A1bor%C3%BA)

laci hegyaljáról 2012.07.18. 12:22:03

@Cunctator140: A képes krónika, elérhető a neten is. Ez egyértelműen erről beszél. Sőt az összes középkori krónikánk, sőt az osztrák tankönyvekben is ez van, sőt azok a buta osztrákok még az avarokat is magyarnak tekintik. Az osztrákok annyira buták, hogy a magyart még le is szkítázzák. De ha véletlenül kínai vagy indiai forrásokhoz jitsz hozzá (Aradi Éva nagy tudója és kutatója) akkor azok a buta távolkeletii népek is összemossák ezt a hun magyar rokonságot. De az is lehet, hogy nekünk hazudtak ...

laci hegyaljáról 2012.07.18. 12:26:16

@hami: Mi értelme hamis történelemre, hamis alapokra építkezni. Előbb utóbb összerogy.

laci hegyaljáról 2012.07.18. 12:33:51

„Románia az egyetlen ország, amelyet Európában senki sem vesz komolyan. Amikor az államférfiak és barátaik 1919-ben a legjobb párizsi szállodákban laktak és a szerződésen munkálkodtak, melyeknek az volt a feladata, hogy európaivá tegye a Balkánt, és amely végül Európát tette balkánivá, a románok bevetésre kész gyorsbeszélők és történelmi precedensidézők válogatott kollekcióját vonultatták fel. Ami...kor ezek már mind elmondták a magukét, és a szerződések aláírása következett, kiderült, hogy a románok megkapták minden iránybéli szomszédaiknak mindazokat a területeit, amelynek nevét román küldött valaha is kiejtette a száján. A szerződés aláírói valószínűleg ezt sem tartották nagy árnak azért, hogy megszabaduljanak a tüzes román honfiak jelenlététől. Mindenesetre most Románia kénytelen fenntartani Európa legnagyobb békehadseregét, hogy megfékezze a lázongó újrománjait, akiknek egyetlen vágyuk, hogy ne kelljen románnak lenniük.”

Ernest Hemingway, The Toronto Star Weekly, 1923. szeptember 15.[

Petrus Saxonus 2015.01.09. 10:51:30

Véleményem szerint egy "harmadik elmélet" még kézenfekvőbb, ami megmagyarázza a latin struktúra és szókincs nyelvújítás előtti dominanciáját az albán, görög, szláv hatás ellenére.

A kihalt "dalmát" (pontosabban dalmát nyelvcsoport) kevés írott forrása és egyetlen elemző leírása az utolsó beszélő alapján valóban sok közös vonást mutat a románnal, ugyanakkor ezek többsége archaikus vonások megőrzésében és nem közös együttélés során létrejött nyelvváltozásban mutatkozik meg. Ráadásul a dalmát források nagyon kevesek ahhoz, hogy biztosan kimutathassuk a kettő középkori generikus gyökerét (nem pedig a valószínűsíthető egymásra hatást).

A gótok, avarok és szlávok völgyeket végigpusztító hadjáratai után Dél-Itáliából jelentős számú pásztort telepítettek be a bizánciak Thesszáliába és Epeiruszba, az ún. "Régi Oláhországba" (Megalé Valakhía). Ez a VI-VII. század fordulóján történt.

A román nyelv olyan kontinuitást mutat a délitáliai újlatin dialektusokkal szerkezetben, amit csak tőlük, és nem egy esetlekes balkano-latin ("dalmát") népességtől kaphatott.

A "dalmát" nyelv (ami nem biztos, hogy az egyetlen balkano-latin vulágris nyelv volt) ráadásul a La Sapienzia-Rimini vonaltól északra fekvő újlatin szerkezeti vonásokkal is bír (ami persze lehet velencei behatás is), míg a román egyértelműen a fő újlatin választóvonaltól délre fekvő sajátosságokat mutat.

Ezzel nem zárható ki, hogy ez a dél-itáliai telepes népség nem szívott föl a gót, avar és szláv völgyeket kipusztító hadjáratok után reliktum balkano-latin népességet, és ezáltal nem érte őket illiro-provinciális hatás, de ez sokkal kisebb, mint a délitáliai nyelvszerkezeti kontinuitás.

A dalmát dialektusokról való soványka forrásaink a jól védhető szigetekről és városokból maradtak meg jócskán a középkorból ill. kora újkorból, s a Balkán más területein nem mutatható ki latin kontinuitás a népvándorlás után.

A román etnogenezis szempontjából így a VI-VII. századi dél-itáliai telepesek hatása volt döntő, mégha reliktum latin népességet és így azok sajátos provinciális latin sajátságait fel is szívta.

A román éppúgy ejti a szóvégi "s" és "m" hangokat, mint a dél-itáliai dialektusok, éppúgy a latin tárgyesetből képzi a főneveket, és ugyanúgy képez kettőshangzókat az "e" és "o" hangzókból. Ezenkívóül a "k" hangzót "cs"-nek ejti magas magánhangzó előtt, mint amazok. Ezek közül nem mindegyik jellemző az egyetlen bizonyíthatóan kontinuus balakno-latin nyelvre, a dalmátra.

Kb. 600-tól 973-ig (II. Baszileosz és Simeon háborújáig) nagyjából békésen éltek Megalé Valakhiába, s ekkor érte őket a legnagyobb albán (és görög) hatás. Utána telepedtek át nagyobb számba Makedóniába. Az itt esetlegesen a X. század végéig megmaradt latin népesség nyelve hatást gyakorolhatott rájuk, de a XII. századig itt szedték föl a bolgár-szláv (főképp egyházi) jegyeket.

Fontos lenne összehasonlítani ebből a szempontból az eredetileg délibb aromun és a töredékben fennmaradt eredetileg macedóniai [mengelo-rumén ("morlák")] közötti különbségeket. Ez utóbbiak nyelvi különállásának az oka az lehet, hogy ezek voltak a bolgárok által Szkopje-Nis vonal mentén lévő városokba és a Rodope területére letelepített katonáskodók, akiknek a második bolgár birodalom létrejöttében jelentős szerepük volt. Ma már természetesen az "déli" (megalé valakhiai) aromun nyelvjárások a meghatározók Albániában, Macedóniában, Bulgáriában és Szerbiában is.

Géza Fispán 2015.08.24. 13:14:16

@Kovács L. Tibor: Egyszer majd a tényeket közzétéve megismerjük, mi is vezetett Trianonhoz? Nem a trianoni palotában kezdődött, ott csak befejeződött.

Nimeni Altul 2017.07.31. 19:35:04

Part I:

Hello.
I speak no hungarian so all the information i read here was trasnlated through google translate.
I read the all 5 post plus all the comments. Some things were hard to understand because of bad google translate, but here's my reply anyway:

If I were to sum up everything, yur point is: the Romanians do not descent from Dacians, but from latin speaking shepards from south of danube who migrated northward.

before I adress this, let me first talk about some of the vocabulary you have employed and the apropos you made regarding romanians. You describe us with such words as "childish" and "emotional", and you go on to state that younger generations have been brainwashed by elders with a nationalistic agenda, and alas, you are the only people to really hold the truth. This is not a good position to start a debate, because you start with the assumption that you are right, and we are wrong, and that your only job here is to make our childish and emotional brains understand your "facts". I have also seen people here talking about self-criticism in regards to us, but i have to tell you, you need some of that too :)
If we cna make a pact on this, then I hope that we can have a mature discution on the topic.

On the claims regarding the descendancy from Dacians:
yes, youa re right, this is being taught in public schools, and most history books, but from my own experience, i can tell you that there is not that much emphasis on it, antiquity and medieval times in western europe are far more important in hisotry lessons than this. And as far as books go, you may not believe me but there are alternatives out there and they are not hard to find at all. Actualy, i already knew about the migration from the south theory, read a few books on the subject including from romanian historians. But nonetheless, the valid theory for romanians is that we descend from the dacians but mixed with romans and that's how we were created. Do i believe in this? Not really, but I don't altogether disaprove of it. You are right, the Romans did not conquered the entire territory of Dacia and only remained here present for about a century, so how come the Dacians who fought so fiercely against the Romans suddenly adopted the Roman language and made the free dacians learn it too? It is obvios to me, this theory seems higly unprobable. However, the hot question here is: what happened to the Dacians? Did they all die and left behind them a deserted land only to be repopulated by waves of migrants such as germanic, turkic and finno-ugric tribes? I will assume that this is what you believe, but I don't. How come a nation and a culture disapear like this? True, a cuture could with time suffer extreme changes or disapear completly, but what about the people? Did they all die in the wars with the Romans? I don't believe in this for a second. Were the ethnicly cleansed by the romans? I doubt it, because the romans never did such things, they only enjoyed subjugating people, not replacing them. What i think happened tot he dacians is that their core administration centers were destroyed by the romans, and so they did not have a true leadership afterwards and something to hold them as a nation and culture together, and so they most likely interbred with incoming tribes, that includes hungarians too. If you live in Transilvania, chances are very high that Burebista was your great-great...-great-grandfather, regardless of what ethnicity you have or language you speak. There are theories claiming that the Dacians already spoke some sort of Latin, and so the roman conquest meerly made some changes, but I don't really believe in this theory since there are barely any evidence to support such claims, but I do take it as a possibilty as it could explain many things.
I was surprised to find that there were romanian dialects in the rest of the balkans, but there are, and yes their main occupation is being shepards. But so were Dacians, in fact, so was most of the Balkan region in the past. Today there are greeks, slavs and romanians living in the balkans. excluding the greeks, the rest of them, despite the linguistic differences, are suprisingly similar to one another, this includes accent, cuisine, customs, music, villages etc. I believe that in the past, the dacians thrakians and illyrians most likely understood with one another and shared many similarities, hence the similarities existing of today. but what was the language those people spoke? they all say it was daco thracian and illyrian, but how can they draw such conclusion if there's absolutely nothing left from those language except a couple of words?

Nimeni Altul 2017.07.31. 20:27:12

Part II:

Then there's the fact that there's almost nothing regarding romanians or vlahs or moldavians or whatever after the fall of dacia for a few good centuries.
I understand that you guys completly disregard the Gesta Hungarorum document. Very convenient... :) Fine, let's not talk about it.
Will you at least admit that by the early 14th century in the territories known as wallachia and moldavia there lived people who spoke this romance language? If yes, let's ask ourselves why? You say that it is because of latin shepards from the balkans known as vlahs (or blak) who migrated north and outbred the cumans, the pechenegs, the avars, the alans, the goths, and the rest of the salivc, germanic tribes and even the hungarians in transilvania. This seems an unchievable feature to me, groups of shepards grow to about 20 milionn and they get their own country too, seems unlikely to me. What seems more likely however, is that all the slavic and germanic tribes in what was to become wallachia and transilvania adopted that form of latin as a second language and eventualy adopted it forever, even if groups of slavs and pechenegs, and even tatars, still preserve their languages to this very day. Why Latin? I really don't believe the vlah shepards were so numerous. I do believe they migrated north but i tihnk there were already people there speaking some sort of latin, how else could it have become the major language in the region? how many children did those shepard had? do you see the problem here? now why was latin existant in the region? I don't know, did the dacians already spoke some sort of latin? I don't know. Did roman mercenaries (who most likely spoke latin or knew latin as a second language) and roman soldiers prolifireted in the area? could be, but I know nothing for certain. the fact is, in those regions, wallachia and moldavia, there lived people at least by the early 14th century who spoke this language, called it romanian, and later formed an union on the basis of it.
now how about transilvania? as far as my understanding goes, you guys claim the dacians died out in the region, the roman colonizers left, and it was repopulated with cumans, avars, and germanic tribes, that you fought, and so finaly transilvania got into your hands. no romanian presence here until:
a) until these vlahs came and started to outbred you (this is the theory of the person who made this blog and i assume most hungarians, possibly, i'm not sure)
b) until romania got transilvania in the early 20th century and ceausescu started to enthnic cleanse you and replace you with colonizers from moldavia and south romania (wallachia).

The second version (b, the one with ceausescu) seems extremly unlikely to me? why? first, there are many misconceptions regarding communism in romania, it was far far from what is in north korea. also, ceausescu was a communist, not a nazi, he did not care for ethnicity, he was against burgeois class and boyars and nobility etc. In fact, i even saw a movie called Capcana Mercenarilor (the mercenaries trap) in which an austrian lord massacrates a romanian village in transilvania as retaliation for losing ww1, but it is a hungarian who risks his life and gets shot in an attempt to alert the authorities, dieing as a hero, so you really cannot complain. and if you believe that transilvania was colonised during this times, let me ask you this: why are their customs over there different from the rest of us? I'm a moldavian, i can very easily spot differences between me and bucharest people, and the transilvanian romanians are very different, in terms of their accent, culture, cuisine, music, house making etc how could this all happen in less than a century? it is obvios to me, romanians lived there for far long than ceausescu times.

I don't believe in the theory a), because it seems unlikely that these shepard vlahs will breed so succesfuly. Plus, our sources, your sources, plus 3rd party sources say that many of the nobles of the times came from diverse ethnic backgrounds, so basicaly what this prooves to me is that transilvania was a huge melting pot. But i do believe however that romance speaking people were majoritary, since i can't explain the vast majority of romanian speaking people in transilvania today.

Nimeni Altul 2017.07.31. 20:49:43

The final thing that i want to add, is that dacians don't exist anymore, their culture is gone and everything. However, I don't believe that they died out completly, as I stated above, all people living in the geographical are once occupied by dcians DO descent from dacians. Also, i believe that there are customs of today whou could very likely come from those people, just like haloween for the english speaking people is a christian celebration that once used to be a celtic custom, we have many of this kind of celebrations here, our haloween equivalent is st andrew, the one who is presumed to have christianised the daco-romanians, but most people especialy on country side don't give a crap about that, for them it is the night when ghouls vampires and werewolves roam the night, and you can see similar traditions in all the balkans and even slavic neighbours. the Martisor celebration we have on the 1st of Mars exists in Bulgary too, though they atribuate it too a different origin.
If you are to look at traditional cloathing, to me it is very similar to what dacians are depicting using, sure with variations, but very similar.

And the final word that i want to say here: you claim that you are doing this simply because you love history, while romanians can't have a true look on it because we have a bias and a nationalistic agenda. bear in mind that the same principles apply to you. bear in mind that people in the past killed eachother and commited atthrocities on both sides, and they hold grudges, and apparently still hold grudges to this very day.
it is time i think to live this dark moments behind. you as hungarians don't fall under the indo-european category but i do consider you as europeans, as most of the people do, and a true european alliance (not the one that is currently controlled by bruxelles and other forces) is for the benefit of all of us. I'm always open for debates, and new perspectives, but i'm not at all keen to debate with people who think they know in advance what the truth is, or even worse, talk to people who only want to troll or insult.
I saw a few such commentaries around here, and i chose to not address them, and i completly understand that many romanians do the same thing, it's enough to scroll down the youtube comment section on something regarding transilvania to see both sides in a shameful display of backwards rageing.
... but i guess now you can't say we don't have things in common :))

Anyway, I enjoyed reading all the 5 parts, even if it was hard to understand it at times.

Justice for Hungary 2019.02.27. 09:12:42

@Nimeni Altul:
Hello.
I found this article yesterday and saw your comments. My English is not perfect, but I try to reply to your comments, I hope you will understand it.
I only want to reflect on your thoughts about the presence of romanians in Transylvania, because I really don't care about Wallachia or Moldavia. Romanians only created this theory to prove their right to rule Transylvania, which is an ancient hungarian territory. But if your theory is right, the majority of Transylvania was Romanian when the Hungarian tribes conquered it in the 9th and 10th century. In that case, what is the explanation that hungarian language was so widespread in Transylvania, the name of the cities, towns, villages, rivers, mountains etc are originated from hungarian language and people in Transylvania have been speaking the hungarian language since 1100 years? It is a fact that hungarian tribes only included 100, 000 - 150,000 people and not all of them was hungarian speaker. And not all of them settled down in Transylvania, maybe 30, 000 - 50, 000 hungarian went there. If there were thousands and thousands of romanian speaking people (as you claim), how it was possible that hungarian language remained so widespread? For example, take a look at Bulgaria, where the originally turkish bulgarians changed their language to slavic, because the majority of Bulgaria was slavic. But hungarians didn't change their language to romanian, so I think there were NO romanians in Transylvania. They came centuries after the hungarians conquered Transylvania from Bulgaria and became the majority of Transylvania, because mongols and ottomans killed most of the hungarian people during the wars.

Nimeni Altul 2019.03.09. 23:43:14

@Justice for Hungary:

Hello.

-First of all, don't confuse ethnicity with language. Many people wrongfuly do so. For example: romanians speak a latin language, but we are not latins like italians or spanish who are meditarenean, we are balkanic like the bulgarians or the greeks. The celts were a grouping of tribes originating from the alps, and they eventualy spread out throughout europe and they culturaly dominated the western europe and they had people speaking celtish even in the iberian peninsula. However, most scholars agree that all these people who spoke celtish, weren't all of the same ethnicity or the same roots if you will, as with the original alpine celtish people. Scottish and Irish people speak english, but they are not anglo-saxon. The Kazakhs speak russian, but they are not russian not even slavic/european. Mexican speak spanish, but they are not spanish.
-So when you say that people in transylvania spoke hungarian, to me that doesn't necesarily mean those people were magyars.
How do you justify that they spoke magyar in the region? Because you say toponymes in the region originate from magyar. I think you mainly refer to the romanian "ardeal" which comes from "erdely", because i don't know any other toponyme in romanian that comes from magyar. Please enlighten me if you can.
But let's assume what you say is true, that wouldn't mean you are the ancestral rightful owners of the region, it would mean at least that the magyars were the ruling elite at that time. For example, the french conquered the english in the 11th century, and they brought with them french words into the english vocabulary, into administration, and even toponymes. That doesn't mean the english are french and that doesn't mean England belongs to France.
-And the last thing i want to say about toponymes, do you speak romanian? do you know what are the romanian toponymes and if they descend from hungarian? I speak romanian, and while yes, a couple of county names from transylvania do sound funny, or they do sound like they might have hungarian origin, the majority of the names are romanian, especialy villages which are overwhelmingly romanian.
And by the way, there are romanian toponymes in ukraine, bulgaria, serbia, greece and yes, even Hungary (Mestecănești). Not to mention, many of the toponymes that were in transylvania during your rule applied only to the magyar elite, and they were simply translated into hungarian, even the word erdely is a conveniant toponyme chosen because the region was know in latin as "terra ultra silvum", or in german as "überwald".

The numbers you bring up are really in the detriment of your arguments. I don't know how many magyars settled down in central europe, but I hope you realize 30k-50000 is a really small number, the size of a very large army. If your numbers are correct, to me this goes to show that the magyars were just a ruling warrior elite. Yes, the magyars of transylvania kept their language, however the vast majority of magyars from romania are bilingual, even in the most ethno-nationalistic enclave. And it seems that even in the past some of you certainly knew how to speak it. Miklos Barabas studied in bucharest and he often painted romanians. Even your great Matyas Corvin was part romanian, he was cousin to Stephen the Great and Vlad the Impaler. BOTH hungarian and romanian have words borrowed from one another, a couple hundreds or so, which goes to show the languages mutualy influenced eachother.

How can you say the magyars died in transylvania during the wars with the ottomans and the mongols? :)) If that were to be true, then you can no longer have any claim on the land since you were long time gone. But that isn't true, first because "nations" don't go to war, armies go to war, so only people fighting the wars die, which represent a very small number of the population they die for. Plus, ottomans, like nearly all conquerers, they didn't genocide people, they subjugated people, otherwise the balkans would have been turkish.

We do have a lot in common with bulgarians, but we are not the same people and neither do we come from bulgary. This theory of yours goes against the albanian theory that your peers put forward. I think you say this because the 2nd bulgarian empire was known as the vlaho-bulgarian empire. But you are aware that it extended in what is now modern day bulgaria, romania, and even beyond?

you say "romanians created this theory". I have to be honest, i will never understand how you all knowing-all kind of people can be so certain in your beliefs. You are more dogmatic than religious people. How can you be sure YOU are not the one who's been wrong and indoctrinated? How can you say "this is fact", bring me some evidence, or at least make some logical arguments which are not based on fallacies.

With best regards, i await for your reply.

Justice for Hungary 2019.05.29. 11:51:09

@Nimeni Altul:

Transylvania was an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary.

It is obvius that Transylvania was not a Romanian state. It was a very sparsely populated territory between the Kingdom of the East Franks and the First Bulgarian Empire, when Magyar tribes arrived in the 9th century. They found there Slavic people and Avars. Their language showed similarities with Avar language, so they did not fight with each other (maybe Székely people are the descendants of Avars). No signs of Romanian people…

Transylvania was ruled by the secondary Magyar leader (Gyula). Stephen I of Hungary conquered the territory from the Gyula in 1003. So he conquered it from an another Magyar leader, not from a Romanian leader. This is the reason why Transylvania was an autonomous region of the Kingdom of Hungary (as Voivodeship of Transylvania).

The truth is that the first Romanian settlers arrived in the 13th century (after the Mongol invasion of Hungary). Mongol hordes literally destroyed Cumania which was a nomadic state located in Wallachia and Moldavia. After this event, Romanian people settled down in Wallachia and Moldavia, even the first independent voevodes of Wallachia were Cumans (for example Basarab).

Béla IV of Hungary was the first king who invited Romanian people to settle down in the lands of Transylvania, because he decided to build fortresses on the high mountains against the Mongol hordes (Mongols were not quite effective in siege warfare). Magyars and Saxons did not want to live in the mountains, but the ancestors of Romanian people came from the Albanian and Macedonian mountains, so that “lifestyle” was very suitable for them.

They also migrated to Transylvania from Wallachia and Moldavia when the latter two were Ottoman vassal states. They became the majority in the 18th century, after the Hungarian population of Transylvania was decimated by the Ottomans. The reason is simple: most of the warriors who fought against them were ethnic Hungarians or Székelys.

The three political "nations" of the Principality of Transylvania (the Hungarians, Saxons and Székelys) enjoyed special privileges, while local legislation emphasized that the Romanians had been "admitted into the country for the public good" and they were only "tolerated for the benefit of the country". Romanians were not part of the regular army because they were not recognized as a political nation of the Principality of Transylvania. Also Romanian people lived in the mountains which were safer at the time.

I dont't care about the names of the settlements. The names of the rivers are more important and they are originates from Hungarian and Slavic languages.
Nádas-Nădaş --> Nádas means "reeds" in Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian.
Füzes-Fizeş --> Füzes means "osiery" in Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian.
Lápos–Lăpuş --> Lápos means "marshland" in Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian?
Almás–Almaş --> Almás means "apple" in Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian?
Szőcs–Suciul --> Szőcs means "skinner" in Old Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian?
Sebes ("Fast")–Sebeş, Hagymás ("Onion")–Hăşmaş, Kormos ("Clawed")–Cormoş....

If it is an ancient Romanian territory, why they borrowed the names of the rivers from the Hungarian language? As I have said, I don't care about the settlements, because you can establish a settlement in any time and name it in your own language, but you can't establish rivers, so I think it is logical that the first settlers name them and the others simply borrow it without meaning anything in their own language.
Even the names of the 3 greatest rivers (Szamos, Maros, Olt) were borrowed from from Hungarian by the Romanians! Because the Romans called them "Samus", "Morus" and "Alutus". Then it should be Sames, Mares and Alut - according to the laws of Romanian language.

Nimeni Altul 2019.06.05. 20:27:26

@Justice for Hungary: I have a feeling you are either ignoring my points on purpose or you don't really understand them.
you ignored everything i said about ethnicity. you only adressed the toponymes issue. the leader of a population, or the noble class of a population doesn't always represent the entire population. mongols ruled over russians, if you look at a 13th century map, it will say ''mongol empire'', that doesn't mean russians were mongols. same goes with cumans, pechenegs, allans, and if you want to go to ancient examples, same goes to scythians, persians, and if you want to go to prehistoric times, the indo-european populations which culturaly dominated vast territories from europe, to central and south asia. we talk about indo-europeans, and people imagine the prototype of caucasians, but in fact, the original indo-europeans were just a small tribe in the russian ukranian steps that managed to spread their culture, and i imagine conquer a lot as well, eventualy homogenizing languagues over two continents and over multiple ethnic groups. my point is that a language or a culture doesn't stay inside an ethnic group and only inside that group, passing down from father to son, staying with the tribe forever. we used to think this way because of the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, but as you can see from the examples i gave you above, there are many many exceptions. did the vandals who establish their kingdom in north africa, were they still scandinavian? where they even white? do you honestly believe these migratory germanic tribes left their homes with wives and children, with their spiritual leaders etc? they most likely intermixed with local populations, which usualy results in either they adopt the local culture, or they impose their rule by forcing religion, forcing their language, forcing their law, cloathing etc. If vandals established a kingdom in north africa that means the kingdom was ruled by vandals, not that it was made exclusively of vandals. you are in the same position as the vandals.

the magyars were a migratory tribe that came with the great migrations of people. in many cases, these migrations were simply horsemen that made good warriors and enjoyed sacking constantinopole. sometimes they were small in numbers but organised, like the cumans and the bulgars, sometimes they were numerous but disorganised, like the slavs and some germanic tribes. the more i look into it, the more it seems the magyars were small in numbers, but organised, which is no suprise to me since they had close ties to cumans and since they were once part of the kazar kaghanat. these magyars settled down in panonia, establishing a ruling elite that would fail to expand west, so instead they went east. you incorporated many people amongst you, mainly south germanic and west slavs. hence why you people are central europeans not only geographicaly but by blood aswell, having close ties to chzechs, austrians, slovaks, poles... even romanians :)) but you dont have any from the original magyars from the far east, which were most likely asian or eurasian like the komi people.

on the ''magyars were killed by ottomans'' theory of yours. how did you come to this conclusion, who told you that? why did you ignore my first reply on this issue? if you believe in this you are realy naive. not to mention! i debated with another hungarians who told me that we weren't in transyvania, because we were invited by the magyar kings to defend against the ottomans. i see conflicts of opinion here...

we can't talk about ''ancient'' territory, because the ethno-genesis of the romanian people takes place during the classical period after the conquest of the dacians and the romanization of the balkan peninunsula. romanians speak a latin language that started its development during these times, and it was the common language of use by the conquered people. rome retreated and eventualy fell altogether, but the memory still lived on in the byzantium empire, which, fun fact, used to be called romania, and its citizens romans, and this is where we took our identity as citizens of the byzantin empire. the slavs came and they brought with them cultural habits, tools, vocabulary. they intermixed with the 'vlachs', the proto-romanians, north of danube they were subject to latinization, while south of danube slavs prevailed. from this admixture, romanians bulgarians and serbs came to be. yes its true, this ethnogenesis doesnt take place in transylvania, or it wasnt the epicentre to be more correct, but i doubt when you say ''no trace of romanians'', even your oldest historical source talks about the shepherds of the romans. and what i seriosly doubt, above all, is that we were majority only from 18th century.

''according to the laws of Romanian language.'' apparently you are so enlightened in this matter, you even bothered to learn romanian synthax, word conception and grammar rules. impressive.
but no, that's not how romanian works.

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 00:13:11

@Nimeni Altul: Hi, you asked good and important questions. I try to answer these questions in the coming days...

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 00:59:34

@Nimeni Altul: Let's start with Anonymus and with Gesta Hungarorum.
Important facts that you have to know about the Gesta:

We do not know when exactly this Gesta was written (also the name of the author is unknown, thus we use the word “Anonymus” instead), but most scholars think, it was created in the 13th century. The Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian basin happened in the 9th century. Thus this is not a contemporary work, was created 300–400 years later.
1) The genre of this work is gesta, that is similar to a modern novel, and the main goal was not the true recording of the events but creating an amusing story using some historical events as a framework. Thus a lot of hostile tribes and leaders were created to point out the military skills and the well-remembered glory of the winning rulers. (The Hungarian ones in this case.) If somebody wanted to record the events properly, wrote a historia and not a gesta.
2) Modern historians analyzed the non-Hungarian personal names used by Anonymus. And the personal names that are known from contemporary sources (Byzantian and Western chronicles etc). These were names of different (Bulgarian, Slavic, German or Byzantine) rulers, bishops, etc. in this region. They realized, that Anonymus practically did not use any of these known names. The only plausible conclusion is that Anonymus did not know these ancient names 300–400 years later and therefore he created some names to have figures in his novel.
3)The same happened to the known 8 Hungarian tribal names (Megyer, Nyék, Tarján, Kér, Jenő, Keszi, Kürt, Gyarmat) that we exactly know from Byzantine sources and Hungarian toponyms. Anonymus did not use them, he even did not know the ancient Hungarian tribal names centuries later. How can we think that he knew the names of other tribes of the Carpathian basin?
4) Because of the previous facts, the historians think, the gesta cannot be used as a reliable source especially not as a reliable contemporary source for personal names and tribal names of the Carpathian basin in the 9th century. Of course, Gesta cannot be a final proof for a possible Dacian - Vlach continuity because a big black hole would remain between 271 and 895 even if we believe all words of Gesta (which would be so absurd than believe all words of Star Wars).
5) Even if we noted and understood the above points, we can analyze the tribal names and personal names used by Anonymus from curiosity. Let see the results:
6) Gesta does not know anything about Dacians in the Carpathian basin.
7) Gesta does not know anything about Latin speakers in the Carpathian basin. (Anonymus wrote his work in Latin of course and some Latin-speaking population in the Carpathian basin would be interesting without any doubts.)
8) Gesta does not know anything about Romanians in the Carpathian basin.
9) Gesta does not know anything about Vlachs (Romance-speaking population of the Balkan Peninsula who migrated later northward) in the Carpathian basin.
10) Gesta uses the word “Blac” as a tribal name in NW-Transylvania. (He wrote literally: “dux Blacorum” = a Blac principality.) Because other Hungarian sources in the 13th century used this tribal name for a tribe which gave alphabet to Szeklers (eastern Hungarian ethnicity), and the Szekler alphabet is clearly related to ancient Turkic alphabet, thus scholars think, that this tribe was the Turkic tribe “Bulak, Bulaq”. They migrated into the Carpathian basin in the Hunnic, Avar, Bulgarian or Hungarian period. If we study the Szekler alphabet, it is obvious that this alphabet has nothing to do with the Cyrillic alphabet which was used by Vlachs (and later by Romanians) until the 19th century. It does not work that we accept a Hungarian quasi-novel from the 13tht century as a source, but we did not accept the Hungarian chronicles of this era. It does not work that we believe the existence of the Blac tribe in the Carpathian basin based on a quasi-novel, but we do not accept the only relevant information about them based on a chronicle, namely that they gave their alphabet to Szeklers. Of course, the similarity between Blac and Vlach caused a lot of problems, and later some sources mixed the terms after Blacs were assimilated by Hungarians and everybody forgot the origin of this word.
11) The first Hungarian chronicle (not the Gesta) was written by Kézai Simon, and this work uses the word Blac as well, but uses the word Vlah as well. Thus it is clear, that the mediaval Hungarian authors distinguished these 2 ethnicities.

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 01:02:51

Anonymus part II:

12) The area that was described as the home of the Blac tribe (actually only a very small area) was studied later, but scholars did not find toponyms that would be adopted by Hungarians from Latin or Romanian language in the medieval era before the arrival of Vlachs in the 13h century. Thus, even if this Blac tribe existed in this region, they probably did not speak a Romance language. And this small area would be not enough to explain the later Romanian population.
"Le kell szögeznünk, hogy Anonymus egyedül Erdélyben, annak is északnyugati sarkában beszél blak–vlach és szláv „ducatus”-ról, Gladnak a Duna–Tisza–Maros határolta tartományáról csak annyit mond, hogy Glad „Büdinből (Vidinből) jött”, és a „kunok segítségével” foglalta el azt, tehát nem autochton fejedelem, hanem a magyar honfoglaláshoz közeli időben délről, Anonymus korában bulgár földről jött külső hódító, akinek nem saját, hanem bulgárokkal és kunokkal együtt segédhada „blak”. „Blak” lakosságot Anonymus szerint és alapján ezen a területen nem lehet keresni.
...
Anonymus szövegéből tehát csak Erdély északnyugati sarkában lehet autochton „blak” népességre következtetni, és csak ugyanott „blak” politikai vezetőre. Márpedig éppen ez az az erdélyi terület, a Szamos és mellékvizeinek környéke, ahol egyetlen román eredetű nagyobb folyónevet sem ismerünk, s ahol egyetlen falunevet sem vettek át 1400 előtt magyarok a román nyelvből. Sőt, éppen az 1400 előtt említett falvak román nevei megszakadt magyar település utáni román településekre utalnak,
...
A fent említett falvak mind a magyar településterület északi határát képező Nagy-Szamos mellett feküsznek, a Kis-Szamos vidékén a 13. század második feléig, tehát amíg az ott oly gyakori puszta nominativusban álló nevekből képzett magyar helynevek keletkeztek, melyeket a románok a magyarból vettek át, románoknak semmi helynévi nyoma nincs. Ezek a toponímiai tények igazolják, hogy Anonymus a Szamos-vidéki „blak”-okat a balkáni bulgár–vlach királyság vele egykorú népeiből vélte Erdélybe helyezhetőnek, ami természetesen – nála egyébként gyakori – anakronizmus volt.
mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/137.html#143
13) Other Hungarian sources from the 13th century used the word Olah or Vlah for Vlach (Proto-Romanian).
"As far as is known, the first derogation from the exclusive royal right to invite Romanian settlers was conceded by King Ladislas IV (1272–1290); his reign was bedeviled by constant civil strife, and he was probably hoping to win the support of a hostile Church when he allowed the canon (káptalan) of Gyulafehérvár to settle sixty Romanian families on the latter's estates at Enyed and Fülesd. Loránd, the voivode of Transylvania, may have been referring to these people when, in 1294, having invested a castle, he allowed the defenders free passage from Várad through the mountains to the Maros, and made reference to Romanians living on Church property (Olachi ecclesiae) beyond the Belényes region."
mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/77.html
Or the famous "Ius vlachorum" that was evolved in the 13th century (Yes, there are no earlier traces.)
14) Even if Anonymus wanted to use the word “Blac” for (Proto-)Romanians instead of the normal Vlach (which is very unlikely becasue of the above facts), this can be explained easily: he already knew the Romanian population in his era (13th century) and because they did not know the ancient circumstances of the 9th century, he used the current ones.
15) The personal names that were used by Anonymus for local leaders do not show any similarities with known Latin or Romanian names of the ancient or medieval era. They are rather similar to Turkic names.
16) But the most probable version is that Anonymus simply took known geographical names of his era and he transformed these names into personal names to be able to use personal names in his roman. Thus from the Gyalui havasok (mountains in NW Transylvania) or the village name “Gyalu”, he created the fictional name “Gyalu” for a Blac leader. Probably the same happened in other cases as well. From the village name Zalánkemén he created Zalán as a Bulgar leader etc.
Gesta spoke about the “shepherds of Romans” as well. At that time, the term “Romans” were used for the Holy Roman Empire in Hungarian sources, and we really know that the western parts of the Carpathian basin were vassal territories of the Holy Roman Empire (era of Anonymus) / Frankish Empire (era of the conquest) in the 9th century, but this has nothing to do with Vlachs and Romanians. (Some Russian chronicles take this part over describing the fled of Frankish rulers.)
17) I know that some Romanian historian say Anonymus described "3 Romanian" princes in his work, but if you study the text, you can realize, that 1 leader (Glad) was descended from Bulgaria (Vidin), another (Men-Marot) led his Kozar people, and alone Gyalu is described as "Blak". But not Vlach. Marot means Moravian in the mediaval Hungary.

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 01:28:38

Anonymus part III:

From other sources we exactly now that the conqering Hungarian tribes had to find some ethnicities in the Carpathian basin:
1) Slavs (Moravian was their common name at that time)
2) Avars (Yes, they did not disappear completly, we can find them in western sources and archeology found them as well. They lost their wealth and ruling position, but one part of them survived the collapse of the Avar Khaganate.)
3) Bulgars (Practically, whole presen-day Romania was part of the Bulgarian Empire.)

The (Hungarian) archeology found exactly these non-Hungarian groups in the Carpathian basin. And no other group. This is important.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMMldAPdMEM
But Anonymus did not mention these important ethnicities in this form, that is strange again. And it is against his credibility.

But it is possible, that Anonymus has some corrupted pieces of information about these ethnicites, and he used these names in case of these 3 mysterious princes. (There are no other sources about these princes.)
a) Glad in South represented the Bulgarians. (He wrote that he came from a Bulgarian town.)
b) Gyalu, the Blak represented a tribe of the non-assimilated Avars. (Archeology proved, that more waves arrived in the Carpathian basin in the Avar era, they were rather a tribal confoderation, not a unifed ethnicity.)
c) Men Marot represented the Moravians. Again: marot meant Moravian in the Middle Ages in Hungary. Men was probably a corrupted form of an adjective, meaning major/minor/malenkij etc.

As summary, we can conlcude that Anonmyus is a very-very weak argument for the Daco-Romanian theory.

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 01:50:24

Anonymus part IV:

An interesting example, how Anonymus treated the names of ethnicities in his novel: he wrote that Hungarians are Hungarians, because the stayed in Ungvár for a while. I think, there is no single person on the Earth today who would believe this explanation.

But you can think, that all of these arguments are weak, and you believe that these Blacks were Daco-Romanianas. My only qestion is: what happened to them after the Hungarian conqest? Because it is clear that the described Bulgars, Slavs of Tranysylvania etc were assimilated. Why this part was not assimilated? And how they preserved their Orthodox faith? Why die they adopt Cyrillic alphabet? Why they did not call Transylvania as "Dacia"? Why they use a Hungarian name for this region? So let's move to general questions about Daco-Romanian theory.

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 01:53:01

Roman-Dacian relations:

Let's start from the beginning: Romans and Dacians were deadly enemies, and Romans destroyed the Dacian kingdom and exterminated the Dacians in the conquered area. More details:
“Trajan occupied the territory after a century and a half of animosity that culminated in two wars. The protracted struggle, the reverses suffered, Decebalus' arrogance all made the Romans hate Dacians.

The actions of the Dacian king after the first war only sharpened this hatred. Decebalus broke his oath by failing to respect the terms of peace. He enticed and captured a high-ranking officer of the occupation army, attempted — unsuccessfully — to make the Roman change sides, then 'had the presumption to demand territories reaching to the Istros, as well as compensation for the costs of the war, in exchange for Longinus [his hostage]'. The officer solved Trajan's dilemma by committing suicide. Decebalus thereupon tried to have the Emperor murdered at his headquarters in Moesia.

These actions only served to infuriate the Romans, who foreseeably would show no mercy for the Dacians. The wars and broken pledges would colour the Romans' image of Dacians for centuries to come.

These immediate antecedents of the second war explain why the Romans were intent on totally annihilating their enemy. In any case, the extermination of Barbarians who dared to attack the Imperium Romanum raised no ethical problems. This form of retaliation had already been justified by Augustus (Res Gestae Divi Augusti 3), and put into practice. Subsequently, Marcus Aurelius wanted to exterminate the Jazyges.

Annihilation did not mean merely the death of enemy soldier, but also the forced conscription of the vanquished and their dispatch to distant provinces, as well as slavery for others. Thus the Dacians who stood by Decebalus to the end could not have expected mercy. This helps to explain their final act, immortalized on Trajan's column: the Dacian elite committed mass suicide by poison. Most of the 10,000 gladiators in the post-victory circus games, which lasted for 123 days, must have been captured Dacians. Criton, physician at the Emperor's court, participated in the Dacian campaign and recorded its history; drawing on his work, later chroniclers said that the Romans had captured 500,000 Dacians, and that, in the end, Trajan spared the life of only forty of them.

Although these estimates may be excessive, they no doubt reflect the nature of Daco-Roman relations and scale of Dacian losses. Thus the wars ended not only in the destruction of Dacia's military might but also in a sudden drop in its population. Even fewer were left after many Dacians fled to escape the Romans' yoke.

Dacian men were conscripted into auxiliary units and sent to Britannia or to the east. Little is known about their fate; there is nothing to indicate that any of them returned to their homeland after demobilization. In assessing Dacia's depopulation, it is important to note that the new province coincided with the centre of Decebalus' kingdom, where much of the war had been fought; it was the region that suffered the greatest loss of life, the one where Decebalus' faithful fought to the death, be it by suicide. It was mainly this region's inhabitants who were either massacred by the Romans, sold as slaves, or forced to flee beyond Rome's reach.”

mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/18.html

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 01:55:55

2. After that, they settled veterans in the province Dacia from different parts of the empire. Based on the names and other sources, they did not have to do too much with the indigenous Dacian population:

“Epigraphs and other archaeological finds provide some clues to the process of resettlement 'ex toto orbe Romano', in Eutropius' phrase. The first group to be settled, at Sarmizegethusa, consisted of veterans of the legions, who were Roman citizens. Of those whose names indicate Italian origins, some had served with the legions in the Rhineland, western Pannonia, or Moesia. On the basis of the geographical incidence of personal names, it can be concluded that a significant proportion of the settlers came from western Pannonia and Noricum

The other large group of Middle Danubian settlers came from Dalmatia; as numerous epigraphs attest,

Many of Dacia's new inhabitants originated in the eastern provinces or the southern Balkans, where Greek was spoken; their ethnic units had been transferred from Asia Minor or Syria. The province's mountainous terrain was difficult to defend, and Romans liked to use specialized troops, such as Palmyrian archers, three units of whom were stationed in western Dacia. The province played host to other Syrian troops as well

Some three thousand Dacian residents have been identified by name. Estimates based on the ethnic derivation of names indicate that around 2,200 were Roman, 420 were Balkan or eastern Greek, 120 were Illyrian, 70 were Celtic, 60 were Thraco-Dacian, and another 60 were Semites from Syria; there are also German, Asian, and African names among them.”
mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/18.html
3. There are traces of minor indigenous population, but these were not Romanized:

“native Dacians did not participate in town life. One explanation is that most Dacians were shepherds and lived in the mountains, thus excluding themselves from Romanization. There is no evidence that, decades after the conquest, native Dacians might have been recruited into local military units, as was done in other provinces. There are no references to Dacian cults or a Dacian deity on religious memorials, nor any indication that the Dacians might have worshipped a local deity who, due to interpretatio Romana, bore a Roman name. And, apparently, no native Dacians partook of the creation of epigraphs, which was an intrinsic part of Roman culture and daily life.

The province existed for 165 years, too short a time for cultural assimilation. In Pannonia, much like in the other provinces, the material culture of the native population showed little sign of Romanization in the first 160 years of Roman rule

In sum, there is nothing to demonstrate that the indigenous Dacians who stayed behind after the conquest had become Romanized. The influence of Roman technology and culture cannot be detected even in pottery, which would have been the lowest level of Romanization. For the agrarian Dacians, there was no need to adopt new techniques; their tools had been developed centuries earlier and remained in general use. That the native Dacians failed to adopt Latin as their mother tongue — the highest level of Romanization — is not simply a conclusion drawn from the lack of contrary evidence; the fact is that Dacia's historical and social development did not make such a transformation possible.

mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/18.html

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 01:59:12

@Nimeni Altul:
4. What happened one and a half centuries later? The Roman Empire abandoned the province Dacia and its Romanized population moved to Balkan provinces. Roman citizens clearly did not want to live under Barbarian rule, if they had another option. Eutropius (contemporary Roman chronicle writer) recorded that Dacia was evacuated (both cities and rural areas) not only because it was no longer possible to defend it, but also because Illyria and Moesia had been devastated. At least in Illyria, war was not the sole cause of depopulation in the 250s; Zosimus records that 'a terrible epidemic of pestilence broke out in the town, such as never before witnessed: it surpassed the devastation wrought by the Barbarians, to the point that towns occupied and sacked by them felt fortunate to have escaped the fate of those infected by the plague.'

“The decade of the 220s were the last peaceful period in Dacia's history. A short period of peace followed as the Goths gathered their strength. Beginning in the mid-230s, they renewed their attacks, and over several decades they caused unprecedented destruction on the Balkan peninsula and in Dacia. Together with their allies, the Goths confronted the empire and, {1-117.} with land and sea forces, besieged the provinces in the Balkans and Asia Minor.

Aurelianus, on an inspection tour of the province, had found devastation and depopulation; concluding that the territory did not merit retention, he proceeded to have it evacuated in good order. The remaining military units were withdrawn in 271–72, and the remnants of Dacia's inhabitants were resettled in Moesia.”

mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/19.html

“Sources are consistent regarding the evacuation and surrender of Dacia. In Eutropius' representative account, 'the province of Dacia, established by Trajan on the far side of the Danube, was evacuated and abandoned by Aurelianus after the devastation of Illyria and Moesia. The Romans were resettled from the towns and land of Dacia to the middle of Moesia, which he renamed Dacia. It separates the two Moesiae, and after standing on the left of the Danube, it now stands on the right'.

mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/20.html

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 02:00:16

@Nimeni Altul: 5. After that there is no reliable evidence of a major remaining Latin speaking population in this area, we can not name any single prince, warlord, mayor, priest, scientist, scholar, artist, chronicle writer, merchant or warrior. (We can assume some very minor population after the withdrawal, but these were no long-living communities.) It is very interesting if we consider how many Latin speakers we know from this period in other Latin-speaking areas. We have a huge amount of Roman sources from this period. But they keep silent about the allegedly Latin-speaking post-Roman Dacia. Let’s rethink the issue: this was the only Latin speaking area outside of the Roman Empire if the language survived here, thus this had to be a very interesting area for the Roman Empire. And it was a territory adjacent to the empire. But they did not record anything interesting re this topic. Archeology shows as well, that there was a drastic drop in the time of withdrawal, the ancient level of population was achieved next time in the medieval times when these territories were parts of the Hungarian Kingdom. A special group of archeological findings cannot be identified that would prove Romanian presence between the withdrawal and the 13th century. Do not forget, we are speaking about 1000 years!

If we study the territories which were linguistically Latinized in Europe (present-day French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc areas), we can realize, that the Roman Empire needed 400–500 years to achieve this. And a lot of different areas, although were ruled for so many years (England, Wales, Flandern, Austria, Pannonia, etc) they were not Latinized or they were unable to keep the language. And if we study some mountain populations of the empire (Basque and Albanian speakers), even 1000–2000 years was not enough for Latinization. Thus, it would be extremely strange, that the indigenous population of this mountainous area that was ruled for only approx 160 years would be able to adapt and keep the Latin/Romance language especially if we know from contemporary sources, that the population of this province was resettled. And we know that later many other aggressive tribes (Goths, Huns, Gepids, Avars, Slaves) conquered this territory which normally resulted in the killing, enslaving, selling or fleeing of the population of the conquered territory.

The ancient cities of Dacia were already depopulated when Hungarians arrived. Their names did not prevail in the Medieval Hungarian kingdom. But a lot of other toponyms in Transylvania that are currently used in Romanian show Hungarian or Slavic origin. Even the traditional Romanian name of Transylvania is Ardeal, and that is coming from the Hungarian Erdély (erdő = forest in Hungarian). The Romanian did not call this territory “Dacia”. The Romanian did not call themselves “Dacians”. Nobody called them this way. Dacians = Romanians is only a modern myth. Despite the lot of Germanic tribes who ruled this area for centuries (Goths, Gepids), the Germanic loanwords are missing from the modern Romanian language.

Even the earliest Romanian chronicles (by Grigore Ureche) explained that Romanians came from the Latinized parts of Balkan (“Rum” as he called this area).

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 02:03:24

If summarize the events, we can see that

Romans owned only a minority part of the present-day Romanian-speaking areas. There is no Romance-speaking territory in Europe, that was not part of the Roman Empire. Thus Dacia cannot be the source of the Romanian-speaking population, later immigration had to happen.
The inhabitants of the ancient Dacia used probably many languages not only Latin.
The Roman Empire kept this territory for a relatively short period (approx 160 years) compared to other Latinized territories.
We know from contemporary sources, that the population of this province moved to southern provinces when Romans abandoned this territory.
We know that later a lot of diverse aggressive tribes conquered this territory, which made a peaceful continuation of the ancient Latin culture and language nearly impossible in his region.
There are no reliable historical sources between 271 and 1200 that would prove the existence of the Latin-speaking population in Transylvania.
Other linguistic proofs (the name of Romanians, the name of Transylvania, toponyms, missing loanwords etc) show that the Daco-Romanian continuity was impossible.
The first written Romanian sources stood for the Balkan origin as well.
If we summarise these facts, it is very unlikely, that the recent Romanian-speaking area can be traced back to the ancient province of Dacia and its population. Provincia Dacia did not even cover the majority of the present-day Romanian speaking areas. It means that a later migration had to happen anyway. Only the source of this migration is the question.

What is the more probable story then?

The northern parts of the Balkanic peninsula (present-day North Bulgaria, South Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro) were basically Latin speaking areas in the Roman Empire. Until Slavs arrived. They partially depopulated and linguistically assimilated the majority of these areas. But a smaller proportion of the Latin-speakers preserved the language, these were the Vlachs. A lot of different sources reported the presence of Romance-speaking Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula after the Slavs arrived. (eg When the Hungarian king III Béla attacked Sofia in the 12th century, the city was defended mainly by Vlachs.) However, there is no reliable source of Romance-speaking population in Transylvania. And the areas of later Wallachia and Moldova were named as Cumania in the 11th-13th century (Southern parts the area were controlled sometimes by Bulgars as well.)

Although some Romance-speaking Vlach population was probably already present in Cumania as a result of a migration from Balkan peninsula, their proportion and the date of their arrival is unclear. But the territory was not called Dacia, Romania or Wallachia (after Vlachs) at that time, and it is meaningful.

The Romanians diverged from the western Romance-speaking areas not only geographically but culturally as well:

They used the Cyrillic alphabet until the 19th century. (The Hungarian kingdom who controlled the territory of the ancient Dacia adopted the Latin alphabet in the 11th century. All other Romance-speaking people used the Latin alphabet as well.)
Romanians are Orthodox Christians. (The ethnicities of the Hungarian kingdoms were converted to the Catholic faith in the 11th century. All other Romance-speaking people were Catholics as well.)
These facts show that the cradle of the modern Romanians cannot be Transylvania (the territories of the ancient Dacia) but must be somewhere in the Byzantine sphere. That is supported by the similarities between the Romanian and Albanian vocabulary as well. (The number of such cognates was even higher before the modern Romanian language imported a lot of French words to demonstrate this “noble” relationship.) We can speak about a Balkan Sprachbund, and this shows that Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian and Romanian speakers lived in one territory, namely on the Balkan peninsula (and not in present-day Romania). Hungarian is not part of this Sprachbund. The most probable version is that the common grammar derives from the ancient Traco-Geta languages that were spoken on Balkan peninsula before the Roman conquest.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 02:07:16

The true origin of the modern Romanian is the Romanized population of Balkan peninsula (Vlachs), and they moved northward later. They arrived in Transylvania in the 13th century. From contemporary sources we know, when and why they moved. The first waves had 3 main reasons:

The Byzantine emperor wanted to tax the Vlach population which resulted in an uprising in 1185. The fighting lasted quite long, but finally, the Vlachs (and other rebels) lost the war, and a lot of Vlachs fled from the Byzantine empire at the beginning of the 13th century. There was no systematic Orthodox taxation in Hungary at that time, and the Romanians did not have to pay Catholic taxes because they were not Catholics. Thus, Hungary was a tax haven for the Romanians. (At least in the beginning.)
The Mongols attacked Hungary in 1241–1242 and depopulated many areas especially in the eastern part of the country. The Hungarian king, IV Béla gave the task for one of his courtiers to hire Vlach people for resettling the depopulated areas of Transylvania. We also know his name: Lőrinc vajda. His ancestors continued the task.
We also know that the Hungarian king, László asked for help against the repeated attacks of Mongols from the Byzantine emperor in the second half of the 13th century, and he sent their remaining Vlachs. And they stayed there, in Transylvania, because they found depopulated areas and low taxation there.
More details:

“As far as is known, the first derogation from the exclusive royal right to invite Romanian settlers was conceded by King Ladislas IV (1272–1290); his reign was bedeviled by constant civil strife, and he was probably hoping to win the support of a hostile Church when he allowed the canon (káptalan) of Gyulafehérvár to settle sixty Romanian families on the latter's estates at Enyed and Fülesd. Loránd, the voivode of Transylvania, may have been referring to these people when, in 1294, having invested a castle, he allowed the defenders free passage from Várad through the mountains to the Maros, and made reference to Romanians living on Church property (Olachi ecclesiae) beyond the Belényes region.”

mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/77.html

It is important to know that contemporary Hungarian written sources described all other well-known populations in the Carpathian basin (eg indigenous Slavs, Petcheneg, and Western European immigrants, etc) but keep silent about early Vlachs before the 13th century. Giving territories and rights was impossible without a proper royal administration. And the appropriate documents of the Hungarian kingdom survived the centuries.

Later new waves arrived, they fled from the Ottomans. (Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek immigrants arrived in Hungary as well at that time for the same reason.)

To protect the eastern boundaries, the Hungarian kings decided to create vassal states in the area of former Cumania, thus the principalities of Wallachia and Moldova were established in the 13–14th century and Romanian-speaker inhabitants were sent from Transylvania to build the first Romanian states. These were not independent kingdoms, but vassal principalities. (The Romanian kingdom was founded in the 19th century.) Later these principalities became de facto independent from the Hungarian kingdom. But these Romanian-speaking small states became a natural shelter for any Romance-speaking population who wanted to leave the Balkan peninsula in the next centuries because of the Ottoman conquests and repeated recruiting of Janissaries. (A small proportion remained there, these are the Aromuns.) And the fertile soil allowed a drastic improvement of the population. This is the territory, where Romanians partially finished their nomadic lifestyle (earlier they were basically shepherds) and started to cultivate the land on a large scale.

Recent genetic studies found out that the gene pool of the modern Romanians are very similar to the Macedoians. (And also not far from Albanians and Greeks.) This supports the Balkan origin as well. More detail:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 02:14:53

You can see that the Romanian symbol (Rmn in the right-bottom part) is very close to Macedonian (Mc), Montenegrin (Mnt), Serbian (Se) and Bulgarian (Bul) samples. But the French (Fr), Spanish (Spa), and Italian (Ita) samples are very far left from this group. No big surprise: Latin did not spread with Latin migrants but rather with the assimilation of non-Latins speakers of the Roman Empire. The indigenous people of Italy, France, and Iberian peninsula do not have too much to do with the population of Romania.

But if you want to have a full picture, you can study all the details of these three quarters. It says the following:

If you study the paternal lines (quarter B), you can see, that Romanian is closest to Macedonian, but there is a specific Balkan group containing Romanian, Macedonian, Albanian and Greek samples. This is exactly the same as the members of Balkan Sprachbund.

Paternal line (Y DNA) is connected with culture and languages many times. We can conclude, that these people spoke a common language in ancient time (probably Thracian) in Balkan peninsula, but some parts of this group were assimilated by different conquerors at different times:

First Greeks arrived, who assimilated the southern part, these are now Greeks.
Then the Roman Empire arrived, these assimilated one part, these are the forerunners of present-day Romanians.
Then came the big Slav invasion, which Slavicized vast areas of Balkan (Macedonian-speaking people are one part of this group)
And one small part preserved the old language, these are the modern Albanians. Their tribal name “tosk” may preserve the ancient self-designation “Thrac”.
Please realize the Romanian gene pool is much closer to Macedonian one as to Bulgarian one, this is very meaningful. The Urhaimat of modern Romanians must be closer to Macedonia than to the Danube. Proto-Romanians moved north from this region, arrived in present-day Romania in the 12th–14th century.

It is very common, that the mobility of the maternal line (mt DNA) is much inferior compared to paternal lines. (Y DNA) We can see this in quarter C as well. If we study this picture we can see that the Romanian sample is very close to the Hungarian sample. (And also to Bulgarian one). What are the reasons:

A lot of maternal lines arrived in SE-Europe from the Middle East in the period when agriculture spread, and despite many changes in culture and language in the last several thousand years, the woman stayed here and served the newcomers and they gave birth to children irrespective of the culture and language of the male conquerors.
Romanian sample may contain ethnic Hungarians
Romanian sample definitely contains a lot of assimilated Hungarians who were assimilated in Transylvania and Moldova in the last centuries. (csángó Hungarians in Moldova etc) Religious data and family names are clear signs of this procedure, but there are many other studies about this event.
it was impossible to maintain a big Orthodox community in Catholic Hungary in the 11th-12th century, the whole population was converted to Catholicism. Including the northern Slavs (Proto-Slovakians), despite the fact that they were visited and baptized by Orthodox missionaries (Cyrill and Method) in the 9th century.

The first archbishopric of the Vlachs (Proto-Romanians) was in the vicinity of their homeland, in Ohrid, in present-day North Macedonia. This was the territory of the Byzantine Empire and of course, this was an Orthodox archbishopric. This archbishopric was also “ the bishopric of the Vlachs” and this was valid for many centuries.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishopric_of_Ohrid

At that time, there was no wide-spread Orthodox religion in what is Romania today, this territory was inhabited by Catholic Hungarians (in Hungarian kingdom) and pagan Cumans (in Cumania - the territories that became later Wallachia and Moldova)

More details about this topic here:

*“There is not any Romanian church or writing or document of any kind in Transylvania previous to the 13th century”*

*“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. Until the later 19th century c.e., as the liturgical language was Old Slavonic, most of the priests and clergymen in Romania were Bulgarian or Serbian”*

www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

One part of the Vlachs moved north arriving in Transylvania in the 13th century and the Hungarian King IV László allowed them to follow their orthodox faith, he was not a fervent Catholic (frankly speaking, had had problems with the Catholic church sometimes). More details here:

The Orthodox institutions (churches) were formed in the second half of the 13 century in the eastern part of Hungary reflecting the arrival of Vlachs.

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 08:42:13

You have to know about the institution kenézség. In medieval Hungary, there was a special position, its name was:”kenéz”. This a mixture of a modern entrepreneur, judge and nobleman. The king gave him an empty area (mostly unused mountainous land in eastern Hungary owned by the king) to this kenéz, and he gave him the task: recruit immigrants abroad and populate this area. These newcomers were mainly Vlachs (Proto-Romanians) in Hungary. This institution triggered a huge population flow from Balkan peninsula to Hungary in the 13rd-14th century and resulted in a Romanian majority in some areas.

hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken%C3%A9z_(tiszts%C3%A9g)

OK, but you can think, that even if history, lingustic, archeology and genetic can not deliver reliable proofs for (Proto-)Romanians in Transylvania, perhaps big (Proto-)Romanian population lived in Oltenia, Muntenia and Moldva. But there are historical proofs that debunk this statement. Let's start with Muntenia and Moldova:

When Mongols arrived and destroyed Cumania in the 13th century, a major part of its population went to Hungary. They got territories in the Hungarian plain. Their ethnicity was: Kun (Cumanic) and Jász (~Osetian~Jazyg). No Dacian, Latin, Romanian or Vlach ethnicity was registered in this population flow. Thus, we have to assume, that “Plain-Romanians” (who did not settle in the mountains of Hungaria) settled first in Oltenia, that is pretty logical: closest to Ohrid region, and defended by a tolerant Christian kingdom. Most of the Hungarian kings were really tolerant against other Christians, only Anjou Lajos was a fervent Catholic. But also in his time immigration of the Orthodox Vlachs continued.

But Oltenia was not much better before Béla founded the Szörényi bánság there:

"The Knights received the "Land of Severin" (Terra de Zeurino),[4] along with the nearby mountains, from Béla IV of Hungary.[1][5] The king had described the same region as a "deserted and depopulated" land in a letter to Pope Gregory IX on 7 June 1238."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banate_of_Severin

Blogger Géza 2019.06.12. 09:22:14

About the number or present-day Romanian speakers:

If you compare the population densitiy in this region, studying Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, you can see that these are pretty similar to Romanaia. Romania is not a special region. If you estabilish a state, you have a given technology of the era, the population will grow quickly until it reaches its normal level. Mongols were destroyed by Christian kingdoms (incl Hungary), thus present-day Moldova, Muntenia and Oltenia becama safe territories, allowing to have a normal population level. Please study, how Slavs colonized half of Europe. And do not forget: Romanians had a continous population flow from Balkan. We have sources that confirm that even in the 18th century Vlach people moved to present-day Romania.

What happened to Dacians? The answer is the same for many questions:
What happened to Huns?
What happened to Gepids?
What happened to Jazygs?
What happened to Sarmatas?
and so on.
Many ethnicity disapperaed in history, especially in this region. Dacians were killed/sold/assmilated by Goths and Huns mainly. They were unable to defend their territory, thus, they were conquered. And many conquered ethnicity disappeared. Dacians are not exceptions.
Do not forget, that Transsylvania was really densely populated after Roman Empire abandodned it. The skyrocketing of the population happened after the 13th century in whole present-day Romania. (After stabil states were created.)

But a more important question: what happened to the Romanized population of the Balan peninsula, who spore a Romance language? You have to answer this question as well.

Please realise that Romanian never called themselves Dacian, Transylvania was Ardeal for them (a Hungarian name) and not Dacia, and they called them Romanians, and it meant in the mediaval times: We came from Romania = Byzantine empire.

“its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum), or Romania (Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as "Romans"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

And they chosen the Old Slavonic as their religious language, a very strange decision, if you believe, that (Proto-)Romanians lived in Hungary, and Hungarians chosen Latin as church language. Even Slavs (proto-Slovakians) chosed Latin, and not Slavic. This decision is absolutely not compatible with the supposed location of the (Proto-)Romanians in the Hungarian kingdom (Transylvania.)

Nimeni Altul 2019.06.20. 15:41:03

@Blogger Géza: just finished reading this from work, will get to you with a reply soon, most likely during this weekend

Nimeni Altul 2019.06.26. 15:53:50

@Blogger Géza: On your comments regarding gesta hungarorum, I was already aware that this is not a hisotrical chronology. In romania, the gesta hungarorum is never thought or even discussed in schools, people stumble upon it either during bar talks, or navigating the obscure corner of the internet, or some dusty library.There is indeed a gap in romanian history in regards to late classical antiquity and early dark ages, which I believe is due to these petty disputes that seem to never end, so mainstream sources are rather scarce in information, but that doesn't mean there are no mentions, no sources at all, and most importantly, if you reach for sources of information other than school and your parents, you are bound to find something. The reason i brought up gesta hungarorum, is because it often is quoted as a source in regards to the origin of magyars by magyars themselves, but when it comes to that part that romanians often quote as source of romanian presence in transylvania, then the same people say that part is a fairy tale, or a joke. All i can say about this document is why is it reliable when it comes to magyars presence in transilvania but not romanians? And by that I want to say that there is a magyar bias and a predispotion to say we only arrived in transilvania durin the middle ages.
Otherwise i followed you when you said blachs are not the same as vlachs, but i am not convinced.
On part III regarding anonymous you said:
''The (Hungarian) archeology found exactly these non-Hungarian groups in the Carpathian basin. And no other group. This is important.''
slavs represent a linguistic group of which bulgarians also belong, not an ethnic group. bulgarians and serbians of today for example, are as slavic (as in eastern european as people often believe) as romanians are latins (as in mediteranean, as people often think). The fact is however, that romanians, serbians and bulgarians have much much more in common between themselves than they have with people from their own language group respectivaly. Just compare traditional clothing, music, pastoral life, tools, you will see most are the same. Vlachs in those times most likely had bulgarian as a second language, so what makes you think the soures you quoted simply don't confuse vlachs with bulgarians and other slavs? not to mention, the mix between southern slavs and vlachs gave birth to most of the nations in the balcans today.
Yes, I agree, the gesta hungarorum is not a compeling source in regards to daco-roman continuity, but after all you said about it, what makes a compeling historical at all?

On the daco-roman relations, you lost me. I don't belive for a second the romans could exterminate an entire group of people so numerous as the daco-thracians. The only instance i personaly know of, is the punic wars, where the romans won against carthage and according to sources they cultivated the land so no trace can be left of that city, but i think this display of hatred was possible because carthage was a city like rome, destroying it was like stabbing someone through the heart. not even the supposed killings of one million gauls and the enslavement of another million could exterminate the gauls, how come it happened to the dacians? yes, dacians were concsripted in the roman army and sent away, enslaved, many were killed, but it's hard to believe all these could lead to anihiliation as you put it. I very often find this point of view coming from magyars, but i think the true reason why this argument is so popular amongst magyars, is because it suits you politicaly, as it gives you a justification to say, 'there were barely any people when we arrived here so transilvania is rightfuly ours'.

Yes, the romanains, or vlachs if you want, did not call themselves dacians. they called themselves 'rumân', and they saw themselves as romans, just like the greeks, who also called themselves romans, however they didn't even speak latin. They saw themselves as such because they were part of the byzantin empire, also known as eastern roman empire, also known as romania by the people inhabiting the empire in those times. That's why they didn't call themselves dacians. were they of pure dacian stock? no. the dacians died in that, they, as a distinctive tribe, with distinctive language and religion, disappeared. you argued that they disapeared completly, but i don't think this is possible, their bloodline is surely present in all balcanic people, this is why serbians, bulgarians and romanains are so close to eachother even by blood, and to a lesser extent, to albanians, macedonians and greeks, altohugh those last three are closer amongst themselves than they are to romanians, unlike what you said.
''Even the earliest Romanian chronicles (by Grigore Ureche) explained that Romanians came from the Latinized parts of Balkan (“Rum” as he called this area).'' not quite correct, rum refers to rome, not latinized parts of the balkans.

Nimeni Altul 2019.06.26. 18:15:31

@Blogger Géza: hmmm, don't know why, but i can't post my second reply, maybe because i included link?

Nimeni Altul 2019.06.26. 18:20:05

@Blogger Géza: one more thing about the vlachs, I am quite convinced vlachs are the result of the latinization of the daco-thracians. if you are to look for example at the traditional costumes of serbians, bulgarians and romanians, you will see they are very similar to dacian clothing for example as depicted on trajan's column and other statues:

(here i had links to images to compare traditonal clothing from serbia, bulgaria and romania to dacian ones, but i tried posting this reply multiple times and nothing happens, so i had to remove the links, but mainly it was about the hat, the white tunic cought with a belt in the middle, and sheepskin coat, and the 'opincă' or 'opanak' shoe)

there are more things that are presumed to come from daco-thracian, such as pastoral life, certain pre-christian traditions, distincitve bagpipes and pan flutes, sunwheel dances and rituals, and more, all of which can be found only in the balkans.
So, as far as I am concered, there is a continuity, but yes, you are correct, dacian is not the same as romanians, but they are our ancestors and the ancestors of most balcanic people, and further back in time they most likely shared the same roots as the greeks.

In regards to religion, orthodoxy, cyrillic and old church slavonic. the bulgarians formed twice an empire, and they become christians during the first one, thus spreading orthodox christianity and old church slavonic, just like the franks spread catholicism and latin in the west. It's that simple. the vlach population, be it north or south of danube, probably more so in the south, more than likely knew how to speak bulgarian. the nobility and the clergy especialy knew how to speak it, and on top of that they weren't even vlach, our early rulers were either bulgarian or cumanic.

You say, the fact that the map said cumania, or pecheneg, or second bulgarian empire, is very telling, by which i think you mean to say the vlach presence was insignificant in what was then wallachia and moldova, and so no romanians could be in transilvania.
Here's the thing, the map and the sources say plenty of thing, now you have the ostrogoths, now you have the avars, now you have the huns, now you have the pechenegs, now you have the bulghars, now you have the magyars, how is this all possible? well, simply because local autocthnous population did not matter, but the people in charge. so when the chronichlers recorded history, they didn't care who worked the lands, who fished in the ponds, who shepherd the sheep, they only cared who were the rulers of those lands what was their kingdom name. centuries later, people wrongfuly take the conclusion the entire kingdom must have had the same ethnicty as the rulers, but that's not true. the rus' gave birth to russian identity, but russians are not scandinavian. the franks gave birth to french identity, but the french are not germanic. the romans and the normans shaped english identity, but the english are not latin. spanish shaped and created mexican identity, but mexicans are not hispanic.

the reason why i believe vlachs did form a majority in wallachia and moldova, and true, maybe at that time not a majority, but definetly a presence, putting besides any confusions that could have been made between bulgars or other slavs, is because i find it hard to people populations shifts in such large areas can happen like that. now you have the cumans, and then boom, vlachs. the cumans were a ruling warrior elite, just like the franks, the normans, who eventualy got absorbed by the people they ruled over. Another thing, it's hard for me to understand, even nowadays eastern romance speakers can be found all over the balkanms, and even from hungary to northern and eastern ukraine, how can some shepherds in the macedonian mountains lead to that? if the romance populations kept coming from the south, why are they still so representitive to this day in countries like greece and serbia? were we that numerous south of danube? If we were to be conquerors, like you, i would've understand how the language spread, but these were mere illiterate shepherds so insignificant, historical sources barely talk about, i'm surprised romanian didn't disapear altogether like dalmatian.

all those groups you mentioned did not disapear, their culture disparead, their language is dead, but they are still around, surely, maybe mixed more or less with other people, but pretty much unchanged. i gave you the mexican example, those people are mixed with europeans, and they were killed, died in famine and disease, but you can clearly see they are still around.

Nimeni Altul 2019.06.26. 19:24:22

@Blogger Géza: Overall, i would say there are things we agree upon, the tihngs we don't see eye to eye is population shifts, identity, ethnic makeup and changes. This is i believe because of old misconception that are now changing day by day. I did asked myself, what happened to all these ancient peoples? why does an area change a kingdom so fast? well, after i learned about the conquest of latin america, after i read about the celts, about the franks and the making of europe, i started to realise some things about language and ethnicty. language and culture can migrate, it can replace autochtonous religion, language culture, but replacing a group of people with another, especialy over a large territory, is far more difficult. we think of the celts as those funny people who dress in kilts or green and sing on bagpipes, but the original celts lived in the alpine mountains of austria, and genetic tests showed the people of wales for example are pretty much unchaged since the early settlers in britain. the celts even had representatives in the iberian peninsula and even turkey. turkish has representatives in asian, semitic, and even european populations. All this taught me, you have to be careful when dealing with questions of ethnicity, culture and language. you gave me some examples on how basque, albanian and other managed to survive, how this language couldn't change or it didn't had enough time, as if there are written dogmatic rules on how language works, but let me tell you, even if an expert in languages would be brought on, i'd still be skeptical, because these questiones seem to have no clear answer and even scholars debate amongst themselves, what do we, simple people know?

some things i forgot to include in my last replies: I do know we are called romanians because of the roman empire, and it's true, the mainstream romanian population isn't aware of it, but can you blame them when even in those times people saw themselves as romans?
i think what is bothering here, is that when romanians united in the 19th century and made a sudden shift towards modernization lots of information came in and lots of it was misinterprated. does nationalism stretches reality? yes it does, but romania is not the sole place where this phenomena happens, and even the occident starts to question its own history, such as, was richard the lionheart french?

Overall, i would say that a large part of balcanic folklore, and i refer here mostly to romanians, bulgarians and serbians, does come from the daco-thracians. it's hard for me to see where do these balcanic peculiarities come from, be it lingusitic, music, clothing etc. So like i said, from this point of view, there is a continuity, not to mention i honestly do not believe at all these ancient people died off, they are the people who contributed the most to the genetic makeshift and the phenotype of balcanic people, so from this point of view also, there is a continuity. In regards to language, we do speak a latin language, and roman settlers were present not only in dacia, but present in the balkans for a very long time as well. some people think that daco-thracian was a language similar to greek, which was somewhat similar to latin, making the ''romanization'' process easier. now, whatever the truth, the conquered daco-thracians did have to speak latin, not only with the administration, but also with people who came in, most notably the slavs, they probably spoke latin to understand eachother, which facilitated the spread of latin, and i imagine places like the market, latin was probably the only language in use. the mix between these peoples gave birth to the new balcanic populations, those who spoke latin as mother tongue gave birth to vlachs, or proto-romanians, and those who spoke slavic gave birth to bulgarians and serbians. And i imagine also there had to be bilingual places, especialy south of danube. But when i think of the ethnogenesis of romanians, serbs and bulgarians, this is what i think of.
Does this ethnogenesis take place in transilvania? no. But like i said in my other replies, i sincerily doubt there was really no presence there, and i find it likely vlachs to be confused with bulgarians or other south slavs, since we had similar clothing, similar tools and weapons, same nobility (jupan, boyar, knyaz, voievode), and same religion and church language. we even had people in panonia, ukraine, poland, and czehia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Wallachia
i find it hard to believe these people could go into those territories from a land where their presence was supposedly barely significant. As far as moldova and wallachia goes, those had to have a romance speaking majority, the theory of the population booms we had is very stretched to be honest, if we were so virile and vigurous people, we should have taken over europe by now.
this is why i believe romanians existed in transilvania.