Utolsó kommentek:

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.

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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?

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

kotyesz 2019.06.24. 04:44:28

Mennyire türkök a bolgárok? teljesen! ugye a bulgároknál jön be , hogy a gepidák és az avarok által a balkánra telepített szlávok miután rátelepedtek az őslakosokra , maguk is őslakók lettek megtartva a szláv nyelvet, végül a bulgárok nyelvváltása is nekik köszönhető! Miért nem történt ez meg a magyarokkal? mert az avarok tömeges szláv betelepülést nem engedtek, a medencébe és árpád türkjeinek érkezéséig összefüggően lakott a terület! hogyan beszéltek az avarok (OBOR-ok) talán ők is a türköt használták, de úgy néz ki árpád türkjei kabarjai sem voltak finnugorok! akkor hogyan jutott ide a magyar nyelv? szinte alig maradt választás! vagy mindig is (töriszempontból) itt volt , ugye a nomádok nem hajtottak végre népirtásokat, vagy ahogy a szlávokat az avarok a kárpát-medence köré telepítették, úgy a magyar köznépet a medencébe hozták magukkal (ismerős a jász-kun, kun-vlach együttmüködés?)! Kutatások szerint Samo mint félvér-herceg (talán szvatopluk is) apja ellen forduljon az avar temetőkben feltárt eltemetett szláv nőktől származhatnak!
Samo egy epizód , (nem bizánc ostroma után volt ez de-de(626)? a segéd népek fellázadtak de az avarok legyőzték később és kb. 820.-ig uralták a medencét)

Bejegyzés: Vendégposzt: A szláv népvándorlás és Samo birodalma

kotyesz 2019.06.24. 02:26:16

A magyarság összeolvadt a türk kabar stb. népekkel , (lásd a bolgár szláv népet) ,ez a magyar köznép aki sürün lakta az alföldet pusztult el a 150 éves török hódoltságban annyira, hogy nem volt képes a visszahódított országrészeket belakni, így volt lehetőség a tömeges délszláv stb. betelepülésnek. Hálásak lehetnek , hogy nem fordult szembe velük az ország , sőt még a teljes beilleszkedést sem várta el tőlük, igy lettek román, német ,szerb, szlovák vidékek az ország területén! (a felvidéki nyelvi eltérések a cseh (nyugati) szlovén, tót, horvát stb déli menekültek nyelvi öröksége!

Bejegyzés: A szlovákok eredete

kotyesz 2019.06.24. 02:14:14

"A Honfoglalás, és a magyarok letelepedése a Kárpát-medencében széttördelte a helyi szláv törzsek viszonyait, a szláv népesség nagy része beolvadt a magyarul beszélők közé. Nem mindenhol azonban, főleg azokon a helyeken, ahol a magyarok nem telepedtek meg, ilyen lehetett a Pozsony-Nyitra-Losonc-Kassa vonal környéke " -------------------- Írja cikkírónk , az utóbbi években viszont találtam új kérdéseket és válaszokat , ami meglepő ha 1400 évvel ezelőtti eseményekről van szó! pl. a kárpát-medencei szláv jelenlét , avarjaink belakták a területet a szlávokat NEM engedték idetelepedni, mégis sűrűn lakott volt , mostanában teszik fel a kérdést ,hová lettek az avarok, ha üres volt a medence? napjainkban egyre több bizonyíték van az avar túlélésre, és arra hogy a tények ismeretében jogosan feltételezhető , hogy az avarok köznépét örökölte az árpádi bevonuló nép akikkel semmiféle összecsapásról nincs tudomásunk. Nyugat-felvidéki szláv jelenlét a frank fennhatóság alatt megjelent de korántsem tömeges és az egész medencére kiterjedő, tehát hibás feltevés , hogy árpád türk és kabar hadinépe szlovákokra települt és őket kényszerítette magyarul beszélni! Szórványban persze akár szarmaták, jászok, gepidák, bárki élhetett itt de nagy tömegben avarok onogurok (ungrik) éltek a medencében, a frank és bolgár terjeszkedés is tény! Ruszin (ukrán) betelepítés történetével sem rég találkoztam miszerint , kun kenézek 300 falut vlach (oláh) népeikkel lakattak be (tatárjáráskor elpusztult), de ők a katolizálás helyett északkelet felé elhagyták az országot, nos ide engedték be a ruszinokat.

Bejegyzés: A szlovákok eredete

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

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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"


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.)

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.


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."


Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.


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”*


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.

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.”


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:


Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.


Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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).

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.”


“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'.


Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.”
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.


Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.”


Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.

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.

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.

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.
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."
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.

Bejegyzés: A románok eredete V.