The Dacian myth: Origin of Romanians and Vlachs.

[Fieraru]

The f... you are talking about?
Slavs were living 1500 years ago...
Macedonians are modern population.
Macedonians derive a part of their genetics from the Slavs but overwhelmingly we are native...
In fact, you Romanians are even more Slavic than us as seen by the OP's map.

Easy man, I didn't mean Slavs in the pure sense but in a wider ethno-linguistic identity kind of way. Why you get so triggered over that? Are you like Bosniensis who prefers to be as native as possible to the region? Do you guys really claim descent from Alexander's people? I have only seen such people on forums like this but in real life South Slavs did not seem to have many disputes over identity. It is interesting stuff however. I will agree that Fyrom is among the most native of the S. Slav countries, but they are also similar to Bulgaria are they not?

Also when you consider the population sizes and geographic extent of our two countries, it is not surprising that there may be more Slavic influence in some parts for us. But Romania is much bigger than any other Balkan country, and can be quite diverse (the northern part is not really even strictly Balkan but more central Europe). I personally have quite little but others may have more. There are around 26 million Romanians in the world compared to about 2.5 million Macedonians. So it would not surprise me if the number of native Balkan type Romanians is at least equal to that number in Fyrom, if not more (speaking purely numeric overall not percent). With a bigger population comes more diverse types, and we have strong regional differences too... I have seen a few Polish looking Macedonians too but sure that is certainly not the most common type. So I agree with you mostly! But I can see why Greece does not like the name chosen for the country either.

I am interested in learning more about the Aromanian presence; I have heard that it influence the local Macedonian dialect or vice-versa

What I do not agree with is a lot of the stuff in this thread. These people are trying to be provocative.

[Wrong]

...

Is your R1b clade truly of the U152 type? Then you are probably of Italo-Celtic Roman descent.

R1b-S28 (U152):

[Pribislav]

Morlachs or Vlachs from Dalmatian hinterland have very little to do with true Vlachs who spoke Romance language. Morlach was basically just a name Venetians used to call people of Dalmatian hinterlands and Lika who were mostly Serbian or Croatian.

True Vlachs of Croatia got assimilated earlier. There is small community of Vlachs in Istria but they are not native to the region.

Morlachs were not latin speaking Vlachs.
Morlachs were synonym for Slavic speaking Christians (Serbs and Croats) from the hintherland of eastern Adriatic coast.
Native Latian speakers of eastern Adriatic coast lived on the coast from Kvarner to Dubrovnik and on the islands. They slavized during the middle age. They were speakers of Dalmatian language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language
Istroromanians (Cici) have nothing to do with speakers of Dalmatians language. Istroromanian language is eastern Romance language as Aromanian and Romanian, and Dalmatian belong to branch of Italic-Dalmatian languages.
Istroromanian Vlachs originated probably from Pindus, they came to western Balkans in 14th century as sheperds and in early 16th century the settled to Istria.

Dalmatian language

[Jana]

Istroromanian Vlachs came origuinated probably from Pindus, they came to western Balkans in 14th century as sheperds and in early 16th century the settled to Istria.

No, they originate from Transylvania and their dialect is arhaic form of Romanian spoken in Erdely. They came to west Croatia in middle ages.

So they are not Aromanians from southern Balkans.

[Morlak]

Morlachs were not latin speaking Vlachs.
Morlachs were synonym for Slavic speaking Christians (Serbs and Croats) from the hintherland of eastern Adriatic coast.
Native Latian speakers of eastern Adriatic coast lived on the coast from Kvarner to Dubrovnik and on the islands. They slavized during the middle age. They were speakers of Dalmatian language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language
Istroromanians (Cici) have nothing to do with speakers of Dalmatians language. Istroromanian language is eastern Romance language as Aromanian and Romanian, and Dalmatian belong to branch of Italic-Dalmatian languages.
Istroromanian Vlachs came origuinated probably from Pindus, they came to western Balkans in 14th century as sheperds and in early 16th century the settled to Istria.

Dalmatian language

Yes I know man. That's basically what I said

[Pribislav]

Yes I know man. That's basically what I said

Some people think that Morlachs from Venetian sources from 16th to 19th century were Latin speaking people, and that is very wrong.

[Jana]

Morlachs were Slavs.

[Pribislav]

Morlachs were Slavs.

Morlachs were predominantly I2a1b and than R1a on the second places.

[Aspar]

Easy man, I didn't mean Slavs in the pure sense but in a wider ethno-linguistic identity kind of way. Why you get so triggered over that? Are you like Bosniensis who prefers to be as native as possible to the region? Do you guys really claim descent from Alexander's people? I have only seen such people on forums like this but in real life South Slavs did not seem to have many disputes over identity. It is interesting stuff however. I will agree that Fyrom is among the most native of the S. Slav countries, but they are also similar to Bulgaria are they not?

Also when you consider the population sizes and geographic extent of our two countries, it is not surprising that there may be more Slavic influence in some parts for us. But Romania is much bigger than any other Balkan country, and can be quite diverse (the northern part is not really even strictly Balkan but more central Europe). I personally have quite little but others may have more. There are around 26 million Romanians in the world compared to about 2.5 million Macedonians. So it would not surprise me if the number of native Balkan type Romanians is at least equal to that number in Fyrom, if not more (speaking purely numeric overall not percent). With a bigger population comes more diverse types, and we have strong regional differences too... I have seen a few Polish looking Macedonians too but sure that is certainly not the most common type. So I agree with you mostly! But I can see why Greece does not like the name chosen for the country either.

I am interested in learning more about the Aromanian presence; I have heard that it influence the local Macedonian dialect or vice-versa

What I do not agree with is a lot of the stuff in this thread. These people are trying to be provocative.

First, you imply that we came in 6th century, than you call my country FYROM and telling me to go easy?
Who the fuck you think you are?
You are clearly riding on the Greek bandwagon and calling my country FYROM even tho, Romania has recognized Macedonia under it's constitutional name!
And comparing me with Bosniensis the troll because I defend my country and my people from your disrespectful treatment toward us is the best part of your comical reply...
And what's that "I personally have quite little"- Are you serious?
I am talking about the people as a whole and you Romanians get more "East European" in Family Finder, MyHeritage DNA and other tests.
You can not put us in a same basket with other Slavs because of "wider ethno-linguistic identity" as you say, the same way I can not put you in a same basket with French, Spaniards, Italians, because you have nothing to do with them.
And an identity is not made entirely on the language...
You say that you are descendants of the Dacians and yet you speak a Latin language.
The ancient Dacians were not Latin speaking...
Not to mention even that in the last century, a lot of Slavic words in your language were artificially changed into new Latin derived words, but still you've got many Slavic words in your language.
Do you get my point now or your just plain dumb?

[ovidiu]

Many things were well pointed out. I agree, that a mass migration towards North of the Danube isn't attested by any historical documents, but we shouldn't rule out the fact that this area was conquered by two Eastern populations, the Bulgars in today's Wallachia, Dobrudja and Central Transylvania (the very strategic gold mines), while Pannonia and Western Transylvania down to Banat and Vojvodina by Avars. The Bulgars were too small in number to settle down the North Danubian territory, and they mostly kept outposts in an area already with already very scarce population, due to the many centuries of migrations and population exchanges. These were Slavic populations, but it is possible that Proto-Romanians already started moving into this area during this period, however the very thin archeological evidence of significant habitation, without any significant settlements tells us that that the early Medieval era has left this region hugely depopulated. We surely don't have evidence of settlements of Proto-Romanian character from this period, the archeological evidence is simply not there. The Avars on the other hand also left a huge vacuum in their formerly settled territories during the 9th century, after their defeat, as in their place the Bulgarians, Franks and Moravians only loosely managed to exercise their influence, thus leaving a Late-Avar (possibly Slavicized) and Romanized Pannonians (they were not Eastern Romance speakers, but Italo-Dalmatian). Again if we look at archeology, the 9th century compared to the previous ones is very thin in evidence for widespread habitation on the formerly Avar Khaganate.

About the Proto-Romanian migration towards the North of the Danube, we don't have any documents that specifies this exactly, however we have to keep in mind that these populations were of semi-nomadic lifestyle, constantly wandering in the trail of their animal flock, which represented their basis for livelihood. Usually such populations are known as the great silent populations of the early Medieval period, as they simply didn't carry out any significant military or political actions to get themselves noticed by the Byzantine chronicle writers, who were the only literate people in this area, known for writing down about the major events. Many other people were barely mentioned in this period, like the Proto-Albanians, Proto-Macedonians. However not coincidentally in my opinion, in the 13th century the Romanians or Vlachs start to be mentioned already quite often by Hungarian chronicle writers as being present in Southern Transylvania and later territory of Wallachia, meaning that in the prior centuries the Vlachs steadily realized the advantages provided by this largely uninhabited region, free for exercising their lifestyle, and steadily moved in. Mind that both Hungarians and Bulgarians only loosely exercised their control over the territories later to be known as Wallachia and Moldova, leaving them unpopulated, mostly because of strategic purposes, as buffer zones: the constant influx of Eastern invasions from the Pechenegs and Cumans, who even managed to integrate them into Cumania. After the fall of Cumania the local Vlachs saw the opportunity to finally organize themselves politically and together with Cuman remnants founded Wallachia. Later in the 14th century, other Vlachs, that already managed to settle into North Transylvania from the order of the Hungarian king, under Dragos have moved to East of the Carpathians to organize a defense state against the Tatar invasions, which became Moldova.

Fair enough. The problem is we simply have scant archaeological evidence and things went pretty "dark" for several centuries. So the best each side can do is to generate theories that will be inherently imperfect. We may never know the complete truth. Yes some things may well have happened during the Bulgarian Empire, and some Vlachs were even the head of the second one (supposedly).

Do they know for sure what category Pannonian Romance fell into? Going by the Rimini La Spezia line, Eastern Romance can be grouped with the southern half of Italian dialects, but that's just one way to look at it.

And it's true, a lot of these "modern" ethnicities only emerged clearly at some point in the mid- Middle Ages. Like I guess proto-Albanians as a distinct people, although they are almost certainly descended from the Illyrians. Saying proto-Macedonians in regards to the Middle Ages doesn't really make much sense though, because as far as I know there wasn't a distinct Macedonian identity as separate from Bulgaria until later, like around the 19th century, and I'm not sure if there was evidence of a direct continuity of using that name from ancient times, even if they occupied that region. They're definitely a mostly native people, regardless of shifting identities and languages. I could be wrong though but that's what I've read on it. That's a different topic though. I don't want to step on anyone's toes here in case it offends anyone. I'm not making any hard claims.

In regards to Vlachs, you also have to consider that Aromanians probably moved south from an original homeland into northern Greece. I've already discussed this in another thread, and it relates to the Jirecek line (areas south of it were not Latinized, but rather under the Greek sphere of influence). So it's highly doubtful that the original Vlach homeland was actually on the territory of modern Albania in the southwest of the peninsula, even though close interaction with Albanians, who were then probably more widespread and into the central Balkans, surely occurred. I'm thinking the area of northwestern Bulgaria and eastern Serbia, adjoining the Romanian regions of Oltenia and Banat and such, is a good place for a solid Vlach early presence, and it may have radiated out both north and south of there.