0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,867 Given: 444 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,983 Given: 2,435 |
wow, I touched a nerve didn't I?
I noticed your sour comments in the past.
When Dacia was transformed into a Roman province, the Dacians living there became Roman citizens. This is not in dispute - it's how the Roman empire used to work. Now of course, the purpose of the Roman presence in Dacia was mainly to get the gold and salt. The moment the costs of getting that resource became larger than the benefit they left. However that didn't happen in 275 AD but in late 6th century, as all archaeological digs at Roman sites show.
Of course present day Romanians are closer to their present day neighbors, what kind of question is that?
Yes, we have a similar genetic makeup to Bulgarians and Serbs, and have some overlaps with Hungarians and Western Ukrainians. This does not contradict the fact that the main genetic contributors to the ancestry of Romanians are Latinized paleo-Balkan people (mainly Dacian, Balkan Roman and Greek mix).
And btw, we're similar to Bulgarians and Serbs because they also have about the same amount of Latinized paleo-Balkan ancestry, but they chose to adhere to a Slavic culture. A process of self-selection probably happened in early middle ages, when those who wanted to keep a Slavic culture went South of the Danube while people wanting to preserve a Latin culture went North.
Very few proto-Romanians and Romanians were actually shepherds (around 5% maybe). Medieval Romanians were mostly plowmen and weren't particularly fond of shepherds, because shepherds paid less taxes and were the richest peasants/farmers until modernization of labor. You're confusing the vlach social class with the Vlach ethnolinguistic group - something that historians also do often, not always for innocent reasons.
In regards to language, you're overstating the Slavic influence. The basic Romanian vocabulary has only 5% Slavic words, and probably had even less in the past. The basic vocabulary and grammar is remarkably close to Latin, closer to Latin than all other Romance languages with the exception of those spoken in the Italian peninsula and islands. Since this language was not learnt in school, it's obvious that the process of Latinization in Romania was deep (both in terms of duration and the amount of already Latinized population settled in Dacia).
Romans didn't leave in 275 AD, let's not repeat this nonsense over and over again.
You seem to have little knowledge of the context or you're willfully ignore it. In early medieval times the Byzantines had massive troubles keeping the eastern borders, and so they couldn't do anything in the north. In the north they barely could deal with the Bulgarians - a constant threat to them.
It is unclear what percentage of the population was Christianized before Bulgarians turned these lands into vassal duchies and spread the Liturgy in Bulgarian.
Personally I'm happy for what Bulgarians did early in our history, otherwise these days would have shit language skills and worship Orban V.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 8,217 Given: 5,754 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,178 Given: 3,230 |
Romanian identity is old and not a recent creation and it's attested in journey and political reports during the Renaissance era.
In 1532, Francesco della Valle accompanying Governor Aloisio Gritti to Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia notes that Romanians preserved the name of the Romans (Romani) and "they call themselves in their language Romanians (Romei)". He even cites the sentence "Sti Rominest ?" ("do you speak Romanian ?" for originally Romanian "Știi românește ?") Further, this author reports what he could learn from local orthodox monks, that "in the present they call themselves Romanians (Romei)"
... in Notizie intorno ai romeni nella letteratura geografica italiana del Cinquecento, in Bulletin de la Section Historique, XVI, 1929, p. 1- 90"Tout ce pays: la Wallachie, la Moldavie et la plus part de la Transylvanie, a esté peuplé des colonies romaines du temps de Trajan l'empereur… Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à-dire romain
... in Voyage fait par moy, Pierre Lescalopier l’an 1574 de Venise a Constantinople
https://books.google.de/books?id=50V...0Romano&f=true
"Valachos qui Moldaviam et Transalpinam incolunt, seipsos pro Romanorum progenie tenere; dicunt enim communi modo loquendi: Sie noi sentem Rumeni: etiam nos sumus Romani. Item: Noi sentem di sange Rumena: Nos sumus de sanguine Romano"
Martin Szentiványi in 1699 quotes the following: «Si noi sentem Rumeni» ("Și noi suntem români" – "We are Romans as well") and «Noi sentem di sange Rumena» ("Noi suntem de sânge român" – We are of Roman blood).[22] Notably, Szentiványi used Italian-based spellings to try to write the Romanian words.
Polish Humanist Stanislaus Orichovius notes as late as 1554 that "these left behind Dacians in their own language are called Romini, after the Romans, and Walachi in Polish, after the Italians".
... in I. Dlugossus, Historiae polonicae libri XII, col 1555A chronicler and mercenary from Verona, Alessandro Guagnini (1538–1614), traveled twice in Moldavia and helped Despot Voda (Ioan Iacob Heraclid) gain the throne in 1563. In his biography of the prince, "Vita despothi Principis Moldaviae", he described to the people of Moldavia:"This nation of Wallachians refer to themselves as Romana and say that they originate from exiled Romans of Italy. Their language is a mixture of Latin and Italian languages, so that an Italian can easily understand a Wallachian"
... Adolf Armbruster, Romanitatea românilor: istoria unei idei, Editia a II-a, Editura Enciclopedica, Bucure?ti, 1993, pg. 47
The geographer Anton Friedrich Büsching writes in 1754 that "the Wallachians, who are remnant and progeny of the old Roman colonies thus call themselves Romanians, which means Romans"The Croat Ante Verancic states in 1570 that "« Vlachs » from Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia say that they are « romani »" : "...Valacchi, qui se Romanos nominant..." "Gens quae ear terras (Transsylvaniam, Moldaviam et Transalpinam) nostra aetate incolit, Valacchi sunt, eaque a Romania ducit originem, tametsi nomine longe alieno"
...De situ Transsylvaniae, Moldaviae et Transaplinae, in Monumenta Hungariae Historica, Scriptores; II, Pesta, 1857, p. 120.
Meaning of rumîn:
Inherited from Latin romanus (Roman). The sense of "serf" or "peasant" arose in what is now southern Romania as many of the common people came to be tied to the land as part of a feudal system; however, the nuance of relative social inferiority tied to the notion of romanus also seems to have appeared in some form as far back as Frankish law[1] in Western Europe after the Germanic conquests, although it may be an independent or unrelated development.
Romans are one of the cultural and ethnic ancestors of Romanians. Roman colonists in Dacia were from all over the Empire (Ex toto orbe Romano), with the massive Roman forces in area sharing the same heterogeneous origin.
Authors: A. Rodewald1, G. Cardos2, C. Tesio3;
Abstract: Our genetic study was focused on old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Ages from Romania in order to analysed their genetic variation and their genetic kinship al mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA)level with today´s Romanian populations and other modern European populations. The ancient DNA(aDNA)was extracted from skeletal remains of 50 individuals from the Bronze and Iron Age by a phenol-chloroform DNA extraction method.MtDNA HVR I and HVR II regions were amplified by PCR and sequenced by the dideoxy chain terminator method.The aDNA data were analysed in comparison with corresponding mtDNA data of modern Romanian people and other 11 European populations.The ancient mtDNA haplotypes were framed into 12 haplogroups. The most frequent mtDNA haplotype identified in the old individual sample from Romania was the CRS-like, and the most frequent haplogroup was H. Significant differences in haplogroup frequencies between the old people and modern Romanians were found. Low values of internal standard genetic diversity indices suggested reduced genetic variability within old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Age from Romania, in contrast to all modern European populations and also modern Romanians, which showed higher mitochondrial haplogroup diversity values. This fact might be the result of social and cultural local organization in small tribes, partially reproductively isolated. Concerning the genetic relationships at mitochondrial level, old human populations from Romania have shown closer genetic relationship to Turks of Thracian origin,while modern Romanians were closer to modern Bulgarian, Italian, Greek and Spanish populations.
Y-DNA distribution 2000 years ago
Romanian folklore and mythology is also full of pre-Christian and Roman influences, roots and customs.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,876 Given: 3,564 |
Lmao what sour comments, It's just funny how every Romanian that sees another Romanian not follow the narrative gets questioned on his ethnicity. It's ok, my surname doesn't end in -stein either.
Send some links over as unfortunately I cannot find anything to support a continued organized presence of Romans in post-271 Dacia.
I personally believed that the "descalecare" has settled the language in Romania - administration spoke mainly Romanian/proto-Romanian and dominated a bunch of diverse peoples that did not necessarily all speak it.
The "basic" vocabulary means nothing in the context of cultural influence. Rural Romanians used at least 30% Slavic vocabulary in their day to day routine. Downplaying the Slavic vocabulary influence only helps confuse a Romanian further. But I bet you like to word amic and use amor unironically. I won't argue the former, it didn't cover my point.
Ah yes, going against most evidence. Please show proof.
You missed the point there bud. I am perfectly aware that the Byzantine Empire was sterile post Justinian and was struggling to keep its influence. The point was that a people so close to their Roman roots and speaking a post-Latin language should have kept a stronger tie to their supposed parent empire. Yet there were the Vlachs in Northern Greece / Bulgaria / Macedonia and Barbarians. They did not come to Christianize us or to offer support as Christians, to create churches. The Bulgarians managed though.
Archaeologists have found few Christian relics post-271 and some would be attributed to Christian Goths. While true that it's impossible to say that there were no Christians there, there was clearly barely any Christian culture.
Just a 26.6% European individual
G25 "26.6% Austrian:Austria6 + 73.4% Romanian:G408" "0.0096"
EU TEST 86.9% RO + 13.1% West_&_Central_German @ 4.98
K13 56.9% Tu(ran)scan + 43.1% Ukrainian @ 4.02
Thumbs Up |
Received: 17,997 Given: 18,411 |
23andMe is the only test that shows real Vlachness and real Vlach regions
Thumbs Up |
Received: 11,047 Given: 26,801 |
Montenegrins are Serbs there's no doubt about that.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 243 Given: 120 |
Crna Gora vazda je bila i ostace Srpska! Kome se to ne svidja mars u Siptariju. Kratko al jasno.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 9,076 Given: 14,280 |
I do think Montenegrins do have both Slavic and Pre Slavic ancestry from native people of the region this also reflects
in their phenotypes and customs.
Even Serbs themselves are not entirely Slavic for that matter but share Slavic ancestry along with ancestry from Pre Slavic natives
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks