ROMANIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS. Why are average romanians so swarthy? [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

View Full Version : ROMANIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS. Why are average romanians so swarthy?

Pages : [1] 2

Stears

07-23-2014, 02:18 PM

Forget the dyed hair of women, concentrate only on the men (who rarely have dyed hair).

http://ziuadedolj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMAG1504.jpg http://swarm.cs.pub.ro/~laura/blog/files/CDL_2011_all.jpg http://www.swiminthedigitalworld.eu/site/wp-content/gallery/ubb/romanian_team.gif http://www.kmfap.com/upload/Image/Pictures/Ionac_2(1).jpg https://momentumeurope.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/romania5.jpg[/IMG] http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xo_jyqInhBs/TZHqv7aD5rI/AAAAAAAAASs/KqKd3Q1uE7A/s1600/romania.JPG [IMG]http://www.livingknowledge.org/livingknowledge/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PERARES_Group.jpg http://statics.erasmusu.com/originals/accommodation-students-bucharest-nearby-piata-romana-9c4a15964921fc915f668fb95bd2fc85.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Protest_15_septembrie_Pia%C8%9Ba_Universit%C4%83%C 8%9Bii_bgiu.jpg http://karpaten-meat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_3762-compress.jpg http://www.orange.ro/newsroom/images/stories/comunicate2013/oep_2013_r-19_taiat.jpg http://iasifun.ziaruldeiasi.ro/wp-content/gallery/paula-seling-usamv-iasi/paula-seling-la-usamv-iasi5.jpg http://blogunteer.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/10007373_10153919538150623_726690121_o.jpg http://www.problemelecetatii.ro/upload/images/problemele-cetatii-narcise-natura.jpg http://www.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cfa-studenti-uaic.jpg http://www.studentipracticieni.ro/documente/dida230412/dscn4.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jVNxCke5V3o/UyxZDuRSnpI/AAAAAAAAtKk/4I2Z3OAqM1E/s1600/elsa.jpg http://ushfmi.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mta17.jpg http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/O6e2XZiJLsA/maxresdefault.jpg

fenix978

07-23-2014, 02:21 PM

Another thread? :rolleyes:

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 02:22 PM

Stears,you're 37.Get a job,Start a family,lose you're virginity,go to college or even better,get a life.

Furnace

07-23-2014, 02:22 PM

Looks like the photos were taken in India, no kidding.

Vlach

07-23-2014, 02:24 PM

Looks like the photos were taken in India, no kidding.

Yeah sure...

Furnace

07-23-2014, 02:25 PM

Yeah sure...

http://ziuadedolj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMAG1504.jpg

I am not kidding.

Lily

07-23-2014, 02:26 PM

Stears,you're 37.Get a job,Start a family,lose you're virginity,go to college or even better,get a life.

Dude, it's not like he attacked you personally to say this.

Vlach

07-23-2014, 02:28 PM

http://ziuadedolj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMAG1504.jpg

I am not kidding.

They look spanish.

fenix978

07-23-2014, 02:37 PM

http://ziuadedolj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMAG1504.jpg

I am not kidding.

They look Spanish. No kidding.

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 02:39 PM

fenix978

07-23-2014, 02:42 PM

Stears

07-23-2014, 02:43 PM

They are from Dobrogea,it's the region with blackiest people.I'm surprised that they look like the spaniards.The romanians are the whitest in Moldavia,Transylvania,Banat,Bucovina,Oltenia region while Muntenia and Dobrudja are the regions with the most"blackies" or spaniard looking people See the links of the photos: Universities from Bucharest, Iaaasi Constanța Ploiesti

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 02:47 PM

lol

This guy is the funniest man on the forum.Everytime i read his posts i laugh my ass off.
Btw,you look like a slovak.

interes

07-23-2014, 02:49 PM

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 02:54 PM

Lol and now comes no2 funny man of forum: Interes. By username he could pass as manele singer or garden variety cocalar and ex prison inmate or even future prison inmate.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 03:27 PM

Dobrogea has been settled by romanians from all over the country, but more from Muntenia, since when it was annexed in 1878 it had a small romanian minority and a mixed and relatively small population. I don't know how it could be the darkest by itself, since romanians there are descended from romanians that came from other provinces.

B01AB20

07-23-2014, 03:34 PM

for your information dear balkanics...

this furnace is a mexican living in USA, he's as spanish as axios the white berber. :1127:

Stears

07-23-2014, 04:07 PM

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 04:25 PM

Bucharest, Iaaasi Constanța Ploiesti are not located in Dobrogea.

Constanta is though and I wasn't talking with you. It's Iasi, not Iaaasi, as if you sat on your dildo or something.

Rudel

07-23-2014, 04:28 PM

I find Romanians a bit darker than us on average, but nothing remarkably swarthy about them.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 04:50 PM

I find Romanians a bit darker than us on average, but nothing remarkably swarthy about them.

What about hungarians? Stears says they are as light as british and germans,while you ethnic french are mostly ''wogs'' and he says the same of slovaks, southern slavs and most other europeans compared to hungarians.

Rudel

07-23-2014, 05:13 PM

Vlach

07-23-2014, 05:22 PM

Bucharest, Iaaasi Constanța Ploiesti are not located in Dobrogea.

Constanta is in Dobrogea

Bucharest and Ploiesti are in Muntenia ( South Romania)

Iasi is in Moldova

http://romaniatourism.com/romania-maps/romania-regions-map.jpg

Amud

07-23-2014, 05:30 PM

Amud

07-23-2014, 05:35 PM

What about hungarians? Stears says they are as light as british and germans,while you ethnic french are mostly ''wogs'' and he says the same of slovaks, southern slavs and most other europeans compared to hungarians.

Hungarians are certainly not as light as the British and Germans. Have you seen the work of the Hungarian anthropologists? They even have plenty of very high-quality plates, some in color. Hungarians take their typology seriously. Most of them show elements like the Armenoid, Turanid, East Baltid/Uralid, and the Pamirid, a specialized Hungarian type which is a blend of Turanid (Mongoloid/Middle Eastern mix) with Armenoid elements.

Look at this thread on Anthroscape: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1265278/1/
You can see real Hungarian racial plates with a variety of Mongoloid and Middle East-influenced types.

These were all provided by Hungarian Anthropologists themselves, so it's unlikely that they would be cherrypicking non-white-looking people in some sort of biased way.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 05:37 PM

A lot of them look Gypsy or part-Gypsy.

They are fairly similar to the Bulgarians I saw in another recent thread. Pontids (which is a blend of European Med with Arabid), Gorids (and some which look like the Asiatic Alpines of Coon), Gracile Indids (gypsy influence), a few Dinarics, some Nordic influence here and there, those are the main things I see here.
I mostly consider these trad anthropological ''subrace'' categories as b.s. pseudo-science, but where would arabid influence come and when? Pontid is supposedly a common type in SE Europe and is just a local mediteranean variety and I've read on this forum that it is mixture of mediteranean and baltid(north europid element). Some of the individual romanians in photos really are gypsies or gypsy admixed, while other are just swarthy romanians. Hard to say all the time since gypsies are also caucasian and they tend to hide their identity and be very paranoid and aggresive about that, as gypsy is great insult as well in Romania, mostly it is really great and unbearable insult for gypsy criminals though and I know very well from experience.

Amud

07-23-2014, 05:41 PM

I mostly consider these trad anthropological ''subrace'' categories as b.s. pseudo-science, but where would arabid influence come and when? Pontid is supposedly a common type in SE Europe and is just a local mediteranean variety and I've read on this forum that it is mixture of mediteranean and baltid(north europid element). Some of the individual romanians in photos really are gypsies or gypsy admixed, while other are just swarthy romanians. Hard to say all the time since gypsies are also caucasian and they tend to hide their identity and be very paranoid and aggresive about that, as gypsy is great insult as well in Romania, mostly it is really great and unbearable insult for gypsy criminals though and I know very well from experience.

Here's what Coon has to say:

Along the northern and western shores of the Black Sea are found, among other populations, brunet Mediterraneans of a generalized type, called Pontic by the Russian anthropologists, who are usually of medium to tall stature and who seem related on the one hand to the Atlanto-Mediterraneans and on the other to the long-faced Mediterranean prototype of Asia Minor and the Caucasus. Inland from the Black Sea shores they are found sporadically in Russia, Poland, and the countries along the upper course of the Danube. They also seem to form an early population level in Serbia and Albania. Their precise archaeological history has not yet been traced, and their relationship to the Danubian invaders of central Europe at the beginning of the local Neolithic is unknown. They do not, however, conform closely to the physical type of the early Danubians as known to us by a small series of skeletal remains. Much more work needs to be done in southeastern Europe before their historical position and relationships can be established.

So I was wrong about the Arabid, it's more like a Turkish/Armenian Mediterranean type, which would probably be the Cappadocian-Mediterranean type described by some authors.

Here's the Cappadocian type of Lawrence Angel:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/q.jpg

It's a sort of Middle Eastern Mediterranean type, this one was from Greece. The Pontid is intermediate between this Middle Eastern type and the European Mediterraneans.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 05:46 PM

In hungarians some of this pontid and meditereanean, as well as dinaric types must come from the romano-illyric/paleobalkan substratum and from assimilated romanians. Don't know if celts also had such types.

RussiaPrussia

07-23-2014, 05:50 PM

Hungary should take Transylvania back from gypsies

Stears

07-23-2014, 06:02 PM

University students in bucharest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iicI5L_Yms

Stears

07-23-2014, 06:04 PM

Hungarians are certainly not as light as the British and Germans. Have you seen the work of the Hungarian anthropologists? They even have plenty of very high-quality plates, some in color. Hungarians take their typology seriously. Most of them show elements like the Armenoid, Turanid, East Baltid/Uralid, and the Pamirid, a specialized Hungarian type which is a blend of Turanid (Mongoloid/Middle Eastern mix) with Armenoid elements. Look at this thread on Anthroscape: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1265278/1/ You can see real Hungarian racial plates with a variety of Mongoloid and Middle East-influenced types. These were all provided by Hungarian Anthropologists themselves, so it's unlikely that they would be cherrypicking non-white-looking people in some sort of biased way. Anthtopologists ho taken photo about cuman minority and depicted them Hungarians?, anthropologists who were born in former cumania minority reserve area?

Stears

07-23-2014, 06:06 PM

romanian far right anti-gay protest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRrFUs87uIU

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 06:08 PM

Hungary should take Transylvania back from gypsies

Russians should take back they're country from jews and orthodoxy.All the russian billionaires are jews,they are eating you alive.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 06:09 PM

What is your point and you also have dark hair btw.

RussiaPrussia

07-23-2014, 06:15 PM

Russians should take back they're country from jews and orthodoxy.All the russian billionaires are jews,they are eating you alive.

most jewish billionaires left russia

Stears

07-23-2014, 06:16 PM

What is your point and you also have dark hair btw. Dark eyes, dark complexity low average stature. It is no wonder that you were always called as gypsy in Hungary.

Kastrioti1443

07-23-2014, 06:18 PM

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 06:19 PM

most jewish billionaires left russia

Yet they're business are still working in Russia.
Too bad the germanic dinasty of Peter the Great civilized you,otherwise we wouldn't had russians/ukrainians as neighbors.

alnortedelsur

07-23-2014, 06:24 PM

I don't think they're particularly swarthy. They are just white brunettes, on average, with a sizable minority of blondes and light brown haired people, just like many other Europeans.

I always knew this, but now, I am even more convinced than before:

Romanians are NOT lighter, on average, than Iberians, NOPE:eusa_naughty:

Amud

07-23-2014, 06:28 PM

Are you on your mind? Pontid is the eastern version of Atlantid, a tall and robust or brown hair and brown eyes ( green eyes are common too), and pontids do not even have real '' mediterranid'' features.

Depigmented Pontids are east nordids.

Did you read the material I posted from real anthropological sources?

cally

07-23-2014, 06:29 PM

Ethic Romanians are Dacians who are native to Romania and this thread proves it.

Kastrioti1443

07-23-2014, 06:30 PM

Did you read the material I posted from real anthropological sources?

Related is something else... pontids are far away from arabid, they have very straight noses.

alnortedelsur

07-23-2014, 06:30 PM

They are from Dobrogea,it's the region with blackiest people.I'm surprised that they look like the spaniards.The romanians are the whitest in Moldavia,Transylvania,Banat,Bucovina,Oltenia region while Muntenia and Dobrudja are the regions with the most"blackies" or spaniard looking people

NOPE, indeed, Spaniards are lighter, on average than people in those pictures. They must be from the darkest region of Romania, as you said. But Romanians (including all regions) are NOT lighter, on average, than Spaniards, NOPE :no:

alnortedelsur

07-23-2014, 06:33 PM

what you thinks romanians more look like spaniards or gurians?

Definitely NOT lighter than Spaniards, NOPE :nono:

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 06:34 PM

NOPE, indeed, Spaniards are lighter, on average than people in those pictures. They must be from the darkest region of Romania, as you said. But Romanians (including all regions) are NOT lighter, on average, than Spaniards, NOPE :no:

Sorry,forgot to add.Those from the dobrudja region in the pictures are Lighter than the spanish from southern iberian peninsula.
It's kinda hard to since both of these people leave in pontic/mediteraneean regions where they're skin will be tanned.
Dobrudja was for 8 centuries under ottoman empire,so it will be illogic to say that muslim admixture wasn't there.

Vlach

07-23-2014, 06:40 PM

Some guys really dont understand that Romania is a big country with 3 different Empires influences,

West Romania ( Transylvania,Banat,Crișana) - Austro Hungary influences

East Romania ( Moldova) - Russia influences

North Romania ( Bukovina and Maramures) - Austro Hungary and Russia influences

South Romania ( Oltenia,Muntenia and Dobrogea) - Ottoman influences.

interes

07-23-2014, 06:43 PM

Definitely NOT lighter than Spaniards, NOPE :nono:

I dont mean skin color

Stears

07-23-2014, 06:45 PM

Are you on your mind? Pontid is the eastern version of Atlantid, a tall and robust or brown hair and brown eyes ( green eyes are common too), and pontids do not even have real '' mediterranid'' features. Depigmented Pontids are east nordids. Brown hair is not black hair. brown eyes are not dark-brown black eyes.

Stears

07-23-2014, 06:48 PM

Wehehehe

interes

07-23-2014, 06:55 PM

Wehehehe

What is Weheheeh>? It is heheheheheh or hahahaha in Hungiran?

Xanthias

07-23-2014, 07:05 PM

Dark eyes, dark complexity low average stature. It is no wonder that you were always called as gypsy in Hungary.

are these also not hungarians ?

http://img.news.sina.com/world/p/2012/1202/U142P5029T2D533273F26DT20121203084654.jpg

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4b6af7130000000000d19c1c-1200/-16-hungary.jpg

http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqj4rmjCzZ1qjj3lpo1_1280.jpg

http://www.hatharom.com/gallery/d5c4071fd7bb4fc8527be2f0875a048c/csoportkep_eredeti_640.jpg

http://gdb.rferl.org/272F6D4A-9136-402C-B450-4F6ABD82B0EA_mw800_mh600.jpg

Stears

07-23-2014, 07:37 PM

are these also not hungarians ? http://img.news.sina.com/world/p/2012/1202/U142P5029T2D533273F26DT20121203084654.jpg http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4b6af7130000000000d19c1c-1200/-16-hungary.jpg http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqj4rmjCzZ1qjj3lpo1_1280.jpg http://www.hatharom.com/gallery/d5c4071fd7bb4fc8527be2f0875a048c/csoportkep_eredeti_640.jpg http://gdb.rferl.org/272F6D4A-9136-402C-B450-4F6ABD82B0EA_mw800_mh600.jpg Bulgarian ataka party? Or Beach in Bucharest? Next time be more canny.

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 07:39 PM

http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqj4rmjCzZ1qjj3lpo1_1280.jpg

The magyars skin pigmentation remid me of the Blacks from africa.

fenix978

07-23-2014, 07:39 PM

are these also not hungarians ?

http://gdb.rferl.org/272F6D4A-9136-402C-B450-4F6ABD82B0EA_mw800_mh600.jpg

These are Bulgarians.

Stears

07-23-2014, 07:42 PM

http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqj4rmjCzZ1qjj3lpo1_1280.jpg The magyars skin pigmentation remid me of the Blacks from africa. Bucharest beach. USe photos Hungarian wesite instead a photo about a bucharest acrticle. http://i62.tinypic.com/33yqmvc.jpg http://globall.hu/sport/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/u19_011.jpg Watch the difference.

Stears

07-23-2014, 07:43 PM

How laughable, he used a photo of a romanian beach to discredit Hungarians...

Vlach

07-23-2014, 07:52 PM

Bucharest beach. USe photos Hungarian wesite instead a photo about a bucharest acrticle. http://i62.tinypic.com/33yqmvc.jpg http://globall.hu/sport/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/u19_011.jpg Watch the difference.

Is funny that you dont post a photo with first hungarian team. Because in the first team there's are a lot of gypo boys.
And give me a argument, if the romanians are a little bit darker, where's the shame?

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 07:54 PM

How laughable, he used a photo of a romanian beach to discredit Hungarians...

Pathetic,the guy doesn't even recognize places from hungary

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 07:55 PM

Romania football team
http://static0.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/2400-0/photos/1377393054-romania-beats-belgium-21-in-football-friendly_2493210.jpg
Hungary football team
http://www.fifa.com/mm//Photo/WorldFootball/MenRanking/01/51/30/52/1513052_FULL-LND.jpg

Game:Count the whites in hungary's team

Vlach

07-23-2014, 07:56 PM

White uber arian race hungarian jobbik member:

http://i39.tinypic.com/xcnpjm.jpg

Stears

07-23-2014, 08:01 PM

Pathetic,the guy doesn't even recognize places from hungary It was a Bucharest strand with balkan pigmented people. That's why you used an image hostiong service, instead of a real internet web-page. You tried to hide the URL of the original romanian webpage.

http://feol.hu/data/cikk/155/5521/cikk_1555521/sa0804alsoorsstrandtorna601.jpg This is a Hungarian beach.

Xanthias

07-23-2014, 08:04 PM

Or Beach in Bucharest

This image was taken in Palantinus Beach Budapest - HUngaria -, hungarovsky moron :picard2: If you don't lieve in BUdapest, where do you live actually in hungaria to call everyone a peasant ?

here an other image.

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/jeffisgr8t-4170614.jpg?w=940&h=620

swarthies everwhere (exepct blond woman), dark haired, dark pigmentation (by your taste), dark eyes ...

fenix978

07-23-2014, 08:07 PM

http://globall.hu/sport/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/u19_011.jpg Watch the difference.

I've always said that Hungarians look Germanic, and this is the best picture which proves that. But, how majority of Hungarians looked like 1000 years ago?

Vlach

07-23-2014, 08:08 PM

http://aboutbudapest.net/wp-content/gallery/open-beaches-budapest/img_3799_1.jpg

Stears

07-23-2014, 08:09 PM

White uber arian race hungarian jobbik member: http://i39.tinypic.com/xcnpjm.jpg HE is not so darky as the bad options of the camera depict him, however Gábor Vona has ITalian (paternal) and Slovak maternal) ancestors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A1bor_vona

checkmate!

Stears

07-23-2014, 08:10 PM

Arcadia Beach Romania Constanca: http://sweeneyseas.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/beach-people-2.jpg Romania = gypsy land.

Xanthias

07-23-2014, 08:11 PM

These are Bulgarians.

yeah I reckon this, but the link couldn't provide anything further (and it was in hungarian) so I guessed it was hungarian, and there were quite similar other pics.

Styrian Mujo

07-23-2014, 08:14 PM

They look darker than Yugoslavs if these photos are to be trusted.

Xanthias

07-23-2014, 08:14 PM

Arcadia Beach Romania Constanca: http://sweeneyseas.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/beach-people-2.jpg Romania = gypsy land.

this picture is quite a good example of tanned romanians.

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 08:15 PM

Romania Beach
http://www.cugetliber.ro/imagini/mari/plajamamaia10-1344176632.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FcZnmCwKLmg/TcAS12k-3TI/AAAAAAAAAMo/IgTJgulOE0E/s1600/Plaja+Mamaia++1964+2.jpg

Hungary

http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqj4rmjCzZ1qjj3lpo1_1280.jpg

Remember that the magyars have the highest gypsy blood from all europe,5%

Stears

07-23-2014, 08:17 PM

http://papakms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ilha-Margarida-Palatinus-Strandf%C3%BCrd%C5%91_2954.jpg Budapest beach.

Vlach

07-23-2014, 08:19 PM

They look darker than Yugoslavs if these photos are to be trusted.

LOL, this is Stears trolling thread.

Xanthias

07-23-2014, 08:19 PM

How laughable, he used a photo of a romanian beach to discredit Hungarians...

I didn't used anything, you inferior sub-human, but next time I'll post gypsi admixed hungarians if you like so.

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 08:22 PM

Gypsy and Magyar are pleonasms
Remember,the magyars have a national saying:"Ria Ria Hungaria Cigania"which means "Hail,Hail,Hungary gypsyland"

Xanthias

07-23-2014, 08:27 PM

White uber arian race hungarian jobbik member:

jobbik should be considered as a troll party, + sustain Turanism in Hungaria. How can such a party even be considered as far-right after all what happenned ?

ProTroll

07-23-2014, 08:27 PM

http://papakms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ilha-Margarida-Palatinus-Strandf%C3%BCrd%C5%91_2954.jpg Budapest beach.

LOL,even the strands from Bucharest are whiter than those of hungary

http://www.paginademedia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Strand-Mediafax_Foto-Gabriel_Petrescu.jpg

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 08:36 PM

These are Bulgarians.

Lol one robust dude in black shirt looks amerindian-

Vlach

07-23-2014, 08:36 PM

fenix978

07-23-2014, 08:40 PM

Posting pictures of masses on beaches are ridiculous.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 08:49 PM

I've always said that Hungarians look Germanic, and this is the best picture which proves that. But, how majority of Hungarians looked like 1000 years ago?

They should look live slavs, since they have majority slavic ancestry for sure and only minor germanic admixture. Germans in middle ages and later settled mainly in towns and less in rural areas. They were not ever as numerous as magyarized natives of slavic stock. Also Stears if fool who says you can't have light eyes and dark skin, so apparently he doesn't know of old blue eyes Frank Sinatra.

pelikarski

07-23-2014, 08:49 PM

Ridiculous thread. People who are posting here are also such.

fenix978

07-23-2014, 09:06 PM

They should look live slavs, since they have majority slavic ancestry for sure and only minor germanic admixture. Germans in middle ages and later settled mainly in towns and less in rural areas. They were not ever as numerous as magyarized natives of slavic stock. Also Stears if fool who says you can't have light eyes and dark skin, so apparently he doesn't know of old blue eyes Frank Sinatra.

Actually, most Hungarian football players in that photo look more Germanic than Slavic, and also a lot of Slovenians and Czechs also have rather Germanic than Slavic look.

Zmey Gorynych

07-23-2014, 09:10 PM

http://papakms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ilha-Margarida-Palatinus-Strandf%C3%BCrd%C5%91_2954.jpg Budapest beach.
I've heard of hungarian bitches, never hungarian beaches :) Hungary has beaches !?

Lily

07-23-2014, 09:18 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htfwTyToeDI

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 09:23 PM

pelikarski

07-23-2014, 09:24 PM

Many of these photos show people in bad lighting.
Many gypsies and half gypsi types.

Unfortunately this is the future not only for Romania but for many other countries

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 09:24 PM

What is this garbage video with negro pop rap or whatever.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 09:27 PM

Many of these photos show people in bad lighting.
Many gypsies and half gypsi types.

Unfortunately this is the future not only for Romania but for many other countries
You are right, but I have to point out the perhaps intended irony of the swarthy old man in your avatar.:D

fenix978

07-23-2014, 09:34 PM

Well all of those peoples have some germanic and celtic admixture, but they are more slavic and slovenes are more illyrian and slavic. It's ridiculous to assume german majorities or close to it assimilated into slav and magyar minorities. But you also look for link between sumerian and finnish.

Take a look on these sportists from Slovenia, many of them look more Germanic than Slavic.

http://s3.postimg.org/ndqdrlymb/slovenes.jpg

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 09:53 PM

Take a look on these sportists from Slovenia, many of them look more Germanic than Slavic.

http://s3.postimg.org/ndqdrlymb/slovenes.jpg

Sportists?:D You are not american, unless you are one of those who can't find the US on the map. Do you leave there at least? If so not for long. What is your nationality? Slovenians are mix of illyro-celto-romans and slavs. They must have some germanic contribution, but maybe it's the celtic influence showing?

fenix978

07-23-2014, 09:57 PM

Sportists?:D You are not american, unless you are one of those who can't find the US on the map. Do you leave there at least? If so not for long. What is your nationality? Slovenians are mix of illyro-celto-romans and slavs. They must have some germanic contribution, but maybe it's the celtic influence showing?

Slovenes lived 1000 years under Austrian rule. Did you know that? :cool:

And a lot of Swiss Germans are also of Celtic origin.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 09:57 PM

Also slovenes and other yugoslavs and czecho-slovaks may or may not have some small genetic contribution from avars I suppose, but it probably does not show.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 10:01 PM

Slovenes lived 1000 years under Austrian rule. Did you know that? :cool: And you did not respond - do they look more Slavic or Germanic?

And a lot of Swiss Germans are also of Celtic origin.

That was my point about celtic ancestry and I believe the effect of that austrian rule was assimilation of slavs by germans and rarely the other way around. There was mass expulsion of germans from central and eastern europe after ww2.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 10:01 PM

Are you slovene?

fenix978

07-23-2014, 10:05 PM

That was my point about celtic ancestry and I believe the effect of that austrian rule was assimilation of slavs by germans and rarely the other way around. There was mass expulsion of germans from central and eastern europe after ww2.

Yes, but 1000 years ago there were some Gothic tribes in triangle between Austria, Slovenia and Italy, and these tribes have fallen under Slavic rule and later were slavicized. And that's why many Slovenes have Germanic look.

Are you slovene?

No.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 10:16 PM

Yes, the croats and slovens probably have some ostrogoth ancestry, but still much more slavic. The ostrogoths could not have been more numerous or a huge tribe and they were also present in Italy.

fenix978

07-23-2014, 10:19 PM

Yes, the croats and slovens probably have some ostrogoth ancestry, but still much more slavic. The ostrogoths could not have been more numerous or a huge tribe and they were also present in Italy.

Actually, Slevenes are quite different than Croats.

TheForeigner

07-23-2014, 10:32 PM

Allright but I assume they have more slavic ancestry, since they speak slavic language and slavs have not assimilated other populations without having strong numbers and probably always numerical superiority. Inferior culture at the time with little prestige, but great numbers. Otherwise how did romanians assimilate so many? And more so with magyars and smaller numbers of magyars as rulling class over docile conquered peasants who are ancestors of Blogen, Stears and all those blondies you keep going on about. Germans just civilized them and built their cities and eventually became magyarized, especially after their cities were swamped with stears like slavic fuck face serfs speaking that goofy exotic uralic language.

Ice

07-23-2014, 10:34 PM

They look greek.

Zmey Gorynych

07-23-2014, 10:38 PM

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?12588-Romanians Here's a thread that covers very well the romanian look

Stears

07-24-2014, 05:43 AM

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?12588-Romanians Here's a thread that covers very well the romanian look Only mass demonstrations and large daytime concert videos are good.

Stears

07-24-2014, 06:06 AM

Ethic Romanians are Dacians who are native to Romania and this thread proves it. In the reality, the late-nomadic Vlachs (romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The daco-romanian continuity myth is not generally accepted, that's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach migration from the Balkans in the 13th century..

Vlachs (medieval romanians) were the latest people who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe. (There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia Moldavia, most monks came from Serbia). Due to the lack of literacy and own history writting (chronicles) until the 15th century, the poor romanians had to built up a "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..

There are no material proofs (cemetries cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s. There are no CONTEMPORARY written documents about the existence Vlachs in the territory of later Vallachia Moldavia Transylvania before the 1200s.

WERE WERE romani-ans HIDING for 800 years ?

The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike other neo-latin languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin language, because there are not remained dacian vocabulary for the posterior. The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the roman legions and dacians remianed hostile. (Note: The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS ) This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process. There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations (serials of many strong powerfull and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans.). There are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval age etc.) about the sheprherd nomad Vlachs in Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s. However the roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlachs were often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles) There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans, the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania.

The territory of later Wallachia region belonged to the Bulgarians first, later it came under Byzantine rule. Both Moldavia and Wallachia became occupied and ruled by the Cumans. Later your principalities became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and Polish kings, than romanians became an Ottoman province until 1878.

Stears

07-24-2014, 06:23 AM

Im so unlucky to be from a little dwarf gypo nation :( http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01745/Romanian-W-soldier_1745231a.jpg http://www.meh.ro/original/2009_09/meh.ro1160.jpg http://www.ziarmm.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/femeie-militar.jpg http://www.ziarulring.ro/imagini/2013-06/62678/ro_e-crop-644x416.jpg http://nicubunu.ro/pictures/photoblog/img_8359.jpg BONUS VIDEO http://adevarul.ro/entertainment/muzica/armata-romancelor-doua-tinere-frumoase-foc-canta-live-cusur-8_534a77f20d133766a8be7138/index.html Dyed hair women. And a romanian woman with blue eyes and dyed hair, great rarity (but 90% of romanians have brown or black eyes) Now following the average romanians, the vast majority.

http://static3.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/4200-1/photos/1395462001-philippe-gustin-awards-medals-to-romanian-soldiers_4252221.jpg http://www.romania-insider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/soldiers-afghanistan-mapn.jpg http://christerhes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010-10-01-two-romanian-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan.jpg http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/11/30/93299/size0-army.mil-93299-2010-12-05-081256.jpg http://d2.static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/0906/178407/450x299_q75.jpg http://www.fototime.com/%7B1E91E5D6-4E5C-4645-948F-D446A06EC575%7D/origpict/The%20Battle%20of%20Stalingrad%20088.png [IMG]http://travelogue.travelvice.com/postfiles/2008-11-22_romanian-conscripts.jpg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzDSMDH_e7Jfa_IXD2URNUWwSu-YSmCkuTBHV3fbha5c2Opsk7Zw [IMG]http://futurearmyofficers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/20140610_0200441.jpg

Stears

07-24-2014, 06:31 AM

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u63/Lancero2/20070423134722ENLUS0099030211773360.jpghttp://www.carpathiancrosses.com/images/media/27-04-07/images/summer_shoulder.jpg [IMG]http://tb.ziareromania.ro/Ponta--in-Afganistan--Romania--prin-militarii-sai--partener-serios-pentru-NATO--Video-/af4451153536887793/240/0/1/70/Ponta--in-Afganistan--Romania--prin-militarii-sai--partener-serios-pentru-NATO--Video-.jpg http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.67971.1273636268!/image/1019577173.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/1019577173.jpg

And finally a Hungarian soldier push under a romanian. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpTYFY6tVyI/0.jpg

Ctwentysevenj

07-24-2014, 07:02 AM

Forget the dyed hair of women, concentrate only on the men (who rarely have dyed hair).

http://ziuadedolj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMAG1504.jpg http://swarm.cs.pub.ro/~laura/blog/files/CDL_2011_all.jpg http://www.swiminthedigitalworld.eu/site/wp-content/gallery/ubb/romanian_team.gif http://www.kmfap.com/upload/Image/Pictures/Ionac_2(1).jpg https://momentumeurope.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/romania5.jpg[/IMG] http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xo_jyqInhBs/TZHqv7aD5rI/AAAAAAAAASs/KqKd3Q1uE7A/s1600/romania.JPG [IMG]http://www.livingknowledge.org/livingknowledge/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PERARES_Group.jpg

http://statics.erasmusu.com/originals/accommodation-students-bucharest-nearby-piata-romana-9c4a15964921fc915f668fb95bd2fc85.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Protest_15_septembrie_Pia%C8%9Ba_Universit%C4%83%C 8%9Bii_bgiu.jpg http://karpaten-meat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_3762-compress.jpg http://www.orange.ro/newsroom/images/stories/comunicate2013/oep_2013_r-19_taiat.jpg http://iasifun.ziaruldeiasi.ro/wp-content/gallery/paula-seling-usamv-iasi/paula-seling-la-usamv-iasi5.jpg

http://blogunteer.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/10007373_10153919538150623_726690121_o.jpg http://www.problemelecetatii.ro/upload/images/problemele-cetatii-narcise-natura.jpg http://www.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cfa-studenti-uaic.jpg http://www.studentipracticieni.ro/documente/dida230412/dscn4.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jVNxCke5V3o/UyxZDuRSnpI/AAAAAAAAtKk/4I2Z3OAqM1E/s1600/elsa.jpg http://ushfmi.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mta17.jpg
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/O6e2XZiJLsA/maxresdefault.jpg

Because Romania borders Stear's Hungary, where they get their Swarthiness:cool:

Ctwentysevenj

07-24-2014, 07:08 AM

Yes, but 1000 years ago there were some Gothic tribes in triangle between Austria, Slovenia and Italy, and these tribes have fallen under Slavic rule and later were slavicized. And that's why many Slovenes have Germanic look.

Yes, I have noticed by the many pictures of Slovenian students that have been posted, that especially the female students, most have a fair complexion and have a germanic look. In the Austro-Hungarian days, the main cities in Slovenia, had majority ethnic German population.

No.

Vlach

07-24-2014, 07:41 AM

Dyed hair women. And a romanian woman with blue eyes and dyed hair, great rarity (but 90% of romanians have brown or black eyes) Now following the average romanians, the vast majority.

http://static3.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/4200-1/photos/1395462001-philippe-gustin-awards-medals-to-romanian-soldiers_4252221.jpg http://www.romania-insider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/soldiers-afghanistan-mapn.jpg http://christerhes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010-10-01-two-romanian-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan.jpg http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/11/30/93299/size0-army.mil-93299-2010-12-05-081256.jpg http://d2.static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/0906/178407/450x299_q75.jpg http://www.fototime.com/%7B1E91E5D6-4E5C-4645-948F-D446A06EC575%7D/origpict/The%20Battle%20of%20Stalingrad%20088.png [IMG]http://travelogue.travelvice.com/postfiles/2008-11-22_romanian-conscripts.jpg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzDSMDH_e7Jfa_IXD2URNUWwSu-YSmCkuTBHV3fbha5c2Opsk7Zw [IMG]http://futurearmyofficers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/20140610_0200441.jpg

90% of romanians from South Romania have black hair and brown eyes , but you are too stupid to understand this.

And anyway, are you homosexual? Who cares if this girls are dyed or not? They are fuckable. :thumb001:

Antimage

07-24-2014, 08:09 AM

the chance of those university stundents being gypsy is extremely low. in hungary for 1000 ethnic hungarians we have 1 gypsy at universities, i think it's more or less the same in romania too. So I think the swarthy and black haired students in first post are ethnic romanians, it's not rare for romanians to look like that

Vlach

07-24-2014, 08:11 AM

Antimage

07-24-2014, 08:12 AM

bimo

07-24-2014, 08:26 AM

http://ziuadedolj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMAG1504.jpg

yeah , i want be ransacked by the 4 policewoman

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 10:29 AM

Actually, Slevenes are quite different than Croats.

It's mainly slavic ancestry that makes them light. With slovens there is also more celtic than germanic ancestry probably. Same with hungarians in regard to preponderance of slavic blood at least.

fenix978

07-24-2014, 10:31 AM

It's mainly slavic ancestry that makes them light. With slovens there is also more celtic than germanic ancestry probably. Same with hungarians in regard to preponderance of slavic blood at least.

Interesting, but tell me when and where Hungarians mixed with Celts? And why Hungarians look more Germanic than Slavic...?

Dombra

07-24-2014, 10:31 AM

Romanians are Latin, that is why they are as swarthy as Iberians

Prisoner Of Ice

07-24-2014, 10:36 AM

http://ziuadedolj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMAG1504.jpg

I am not kidding.

It's like every one of them is half Indian and half middle eastern.

I had no idea any place in Europe was nearly so non-euro-like.

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 10:39 AM

Romanians are Latin, that is why they are as swarthy as Iberians

Or just even a relatively southern geography and dacians probably were quite brunet too. Anyway there is much cherry picking and in reality romanians are less swarthy on average and there is more light hair and eyes which are not rare even in south where I am from. There are definetly much more than 10% light eyes in my region.

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 10:44 AM

Interesting, but tell me when and where Hungarians mixed with Celts? And why Hungarians look more Germanic than Slavic...?

I don't know if it's true that they look more germanic and the celts lived there in ancient times and were conquered by romans and latinized together with illyrian pannonians of southern area. Later huns of course live there and after them germanic gepids and lombards and then slavs and avars. I think slavs were most numerous and aborbed the romanic remnants(of mainly celtic and illyrian stocks). Of course there were several later waves of german settler in medieval and early modern ages,but they were not assimilated for many centuries and some of them were expelled after ww2. Although I guess they did really slowly assimilate most of them. I've seen anthropologists like Coon believe slavs contributed more to their gene pool than did germanics. And other writers observed that most look most like west slavs. They also cluster genetically with west slavs and some of the south slavs like croats and slovenes.

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 10:45 AM

It's like every one of them is half Indian and half middle eastern.

I had no idea any place in Europe was nearly so non-euro-like.

That is absurd and you don't even believe it, since I know you aren't that stupid. You seem to be extremely butthurt about comments made by some romanians. Use some special cream for you inflamated asshole.

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 10:53 AM

Small series of Hungarians, taken as a whole, show fully European cranial and facial dimensions. Total face heights of less than 120 mm. are reminiscent of Ugrians as well as of modern Slavs, and are too short for either central Asiatic Turks or Dinarics. The mean bizygomatic diameter of 140 mm. precludes, furthermore, extensive Mongol or Turkish influence. A moderate leptorrhiny, with a mean nasal index of 68, is too high for Dinarics, but adequate for Neo-Danubians, Turks, or Alpines. On the whole, the metrical characters of the Magyars, as revealed by small and perhaps poorly representative samples, indicate Neo-Danubian and Alpine racial elements as the most prevalent, especially the former.

The pigment characters, judging from what has been published, are on the brunet side of medium; Over 50 per cent of eyes seem to be dark or predominantly dark, while black and dark brown hair shades reach approximately the same figure. The majority of Magyars have straight nasal profiles; a large minority of 25 per cent are concave, however, and a few of these are flattish in a manner which suggests ultimate Finnic or mongoloid derivation. Nasal convexity is not common, at least in the small series available.

According to Bartucz’s analysis, only about 15 per cent of the population of Hungary is Alpine racially, and this element is commonest in the German territories of the southern part of the kingdom. A Neo-Danubian racial type117 is the most numerous single element, which accounts for about 35 per cent of the whole, and is commonest in the northeast, over against Slovakia, and in this section it rises to 60 per cent of the population Dinarics include 20 per cent of the total and are concentrated in the south and especially the southwest, in contact with essentially Dinaric regions in Yugoslavia.

Bartucz finds about 20 per cent of the Magyars to show evidence of Asiatic Turkish blood, in the relatively non-mongoloid sense, while about 5 per cent manifest clearly recognizable mongoloid features. These Asiatic elements are not evenly distributed, but are concentrated in the purer Hungarian pastoral population, while the Turkish element is said to be especially visible in the nobility. The 5 per cent which remains after Bartucz’s partitionment must include Nordics and Norics, with the latter also forming part of the Dinaric allotment, as well as a few brunet Mediterraneans

Bartucz’s analysis, based upon long observation as well as upon unpublished materials, is more valid than deductions made from the small series of detailed measurements at our disposal. Hungary fits into the racial boundaries of the countries which surround her, without sharp transitions; at the same time she provides a refuge in central Europe for a minor central Asiatic survival. It is not accurate to say that the pre-Magyar inhabitants of Hungary have completely, or almost completely, absorbed the invaders whose speech is that of the nation, for the Ugric followers of Arpad, who came to these plains in thousands, must have been largely Neo-Danubian in race, as are many of their present-day descendants and successors. http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XII11.htm This sounds like they are largely east central european slavs racially.

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 10:54 AM

Romanians are Latin, that is why they are as swarthy as Iberians

Is that ''saint stears'' in your signature? Funny stuff.

Prisoner Of Ice

07-24-2014, 11:01 AM

That is absurd and you don't even believe it, since I know you aren't that stupid. You seem to be extremely butthurt about comments made by some romanians. Use some special cream for you inflamated asshole.

Why do you think it's absurd? They are darker than many group photos of pakistanis posted to the site, and by any turkish group photo I can remember. If these are really romanians I had no idea this existed in europe. Anyway genetics say most of south europe = half NW europe plus half west asian and middle east.

fenix978

07-24-2014, 11:06 AM

Why do you think it's absurd? They are darker than many group photos of pakistanis posted to the site, and by any turkish group photo I can remember. If these are really romanians I had no idea this existed in europe. Anyway genetics say most of south europe = half NW europe plus half west asian and middle east.

These Romanians are perfectly white, and they look more Europoid than many souther Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, Portugueses etc.

http://ziuadedolj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMAG1504.jpg

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 11:08 AM

Those people are just tanned and pakistani and turkish photos were surely cherry picked, not to mention many use whitening creams in West and South Asia and in Latin America. The West Asian genetic components exist in all europeans and are neolithic overwhelmingly.

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 11:12 AM

Prisoner Of Ice

07-24-2014, 11:12 AM

These Romanians are perfectly white,

No one in US would take them as white, but they would not take most of south europe either.

and they look more Europoid than many souther Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, Portugueses etc.

More than Italians and Portuguese? No way, dude. Sorry but I can't go with that. Some spaniards are that dark and some look that middle east pulled, but not many. User portuasas is pretty typical of a darker spaniard and he is whiter. Every one of them is dark. I have met a romanian with blonde hair before, these people don't seem have anything in common with her. Europe seems to dark up every generation.

Prisoner Of Ice

07-24-2014, 11:14 AM

MELONHEAD is just pissed because of ignorant and insulting comments by Velaxa against americans and also he is a known troll and his troll antics are discussed in several threads.http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?128531-Melonhead

No offense meant. I don't mean to insult anyone by saying what I see. I do not get ruffled by internet nonsense most of the time.

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 11:21 AM

No offense meant. I don't mean to insult anyone by saying what I see. I do not get ruffled by internet nonsense most of the time.

I guess it's best for people to ignore you. You are just american Stears clone. In America even swarthy sicilians like radio shock jock Anthony Cumia or lebanese Ralph Nader are considered white. Those people are just tanned and are much lighter otherwise. It's summer and it's from my hometown of Constanta which is on Black Sea coast and people hit the beach all summer.

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 11:39 AM

49393 49394 49395 4939549396 49397 49398 49399 49400 All these are from high school and universities in Constanta. Do they look middle eastern, gypsy or south asian in the main? I don't think so. And other romanians here should stop talking about ''blackies'' lol.

fenix978

07-24-2014, 12:18 PM

No one in US would take them as white, but they would not take most of south europe either.

More than Italians and Portuguese? No way, dude. Sorry but I can't go with that. Some spaniards are that dark and some look that middle east pulled, but not many. User portuasas is pretty typical of a darker spaniard and he is whiter. Every one of them is dark. I have met a romanian with blonde hair before, these people don't seem have anything in common with her. Europe seems to dark up every generation.

Hm... let's see.

http://anthroeurope.blogspot.com/

Italians from Sicily:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4294568190_2cc24ef182_b.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8538/8672075842_62bdfae9e9_b.jpg

Spaniards:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8501/8446585548_460b7464fb_b.jpg

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2937/14016264911_47c4c28b96_o.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7077/14016262872_333658a39b.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5297/14016263102_01d9a330d3_o.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8099/8489700950_32ae274755_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5003/5381668394_2f0538c5d9.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/5806042262_712f209313.jpg

Greeks from Crete:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5047/5302742641_7565ab7924_b.jpg

Portugueses:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4241759531_5ac3be3fce_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4926281693_5d69fef8d2_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/4294109642_931cd05b80_b.jpg

Albanians:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5176188342_6d28b1d3f1_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4352718756_034d148091_b.jpg

Zmey Gorynych

07-24-2014, 01:03 PM

Only mass demonstrations and large daytime concert videos are good.
There are plenty of group pictures in that thread. Romanians are not what you want them to be. I'm a romanian and I'm "whiter" than you nigga, as well as many other central european hungarians with western european culture. Now fuck off to the steppe, Chingachgook.

Peter Nirsch

07-24-2014, 01:15 PM

beautiful thread.

Stears

07-24-2014, 01:18 PM

There are plenty of group pictures in that thread. Romanians are not what you want them to be. I'm a romanian and I'm "whiter" than you nigga, as well as many other central european hungarians with western european culture. Now fuck off to the steppe, Chingachgook. Croatians like romanians are swarthy people. So it is just a wog cohesion against lighter pigmented people. You have never been in romania. What show the anthropology at http://anthroeurope.blogspot.com/ ( unlike TA members the editor of the site is a real anthropologist)

Romanians: (Do not look the dyed hair of some swarthy woman)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1173/5129088724_ffeefcac26.jpg

Zmey Gorynych

07-24-2014, 01:25 PM

Croatians like romanians are swarthy people. So it is just a wog cohesion against lighter pigmented people. You have never been in romania.
What do croatians have to do with anything !? I've been in Romania and I've been in Hungary. There is no european country with more asiatic looking people than Hungary. Your pigmentation doesn't differ much from that of balkanite nations (the base/great majority is dark haired and dark eyed). Deal with it.

Stears

07-24-2014, 01:29 PM

What do croatians have to do with anything !? I've been in Romania and I've been in Hungary. There is no european country with more asiatic looking people than Hungary. Your pigmentation doesn't differ much from that of balkanite nations (the base'great majority is dark haired and dark eyed). Deal with it. http://anthroeurope.blogspot.hu/search/label/Romania%20%3A%20Wallachia

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1045/5129086962_377cd9cf81.jpg http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1213/5128482211_26ed80e28c.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/5128482325_a59164ccec.jpg

Stears

07-24-2014, 01:39 PM

What do croatians have to do with anything !? I've been in Romania and I've been in Hungary. There is no european country with more asiatic looking people than Hungary. Your pigmentation doesn't differ much from that of balkanite nations (the base/great majority is dark haired and dark eyed). Deal with it.

Croatia junior Handball team:

http://croatia.org/crown/content_images/2010/waterpolo/pho_1311cro_team_himna.jpg

Hungarian team
http://hirportal.sikerado.hu/images/kep/201305/u19.jpg

Stears

07-24-2014, 01:40 PM

Just feel the difference!

Zmey Gorynych

07-24-2014, 01:43 PM

http://anthroeurope.blogspot.hu/search/label/Romania%20%3A%20Wallachia
Hum along Stears ... :fhhorse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwV7yowmvok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6JAWUJq0c

Just feel the difference!
ohhh I do :D do you !?

Colonel Frank Grimes

07-24-2014, 01:46 PM

My favorite Romanian-Canadian

http://www.pokerupdate.com/assets/Managed/NewsArticles/NegreanuDaniel.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNAlZEqdv8

fenix978

07-24-2014, 01:52 PM

Stears

07-24-2014, 01:55 PM

Hum along Stears ... :fhhorse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwV7yowmvok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6JAWUJq0c ohhh I do :D do you !? Cumans of Hungary have double identity, and they live in cuman reserve area.

Stears

07-24-2014, 01:56 PM

Are you serious? http://globall.hu/sport/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/u19_011.jpg Or this: Only two have black hair: http://kezilabda-live.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FOTO_HUN.jpg

Stears

07-24-2014, 01:58 PM

http://sport365.hu/files/upload/DSC_0018.jpg

Stears

07-24-2014, 02:01 PM

Hungarian junior waterpolohttp://gyurikaweb.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ferihegy_6.jpg

Stears

07-24-2014, 02:10 PM

FEEL THE DIFFERENCES!!!!

Romanian Radio, Children's Choir http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Corul_de_Copii_Radio_1991_-_in_foaierul_salii_Radiodifuziunii_Romane.png
Croatian Radio, Children's Choir
http://www.glas-koncila.hr/photos/velika/1314784445_5_30_photo.jpg

Hungarian Radio, Children's Choir
http://www.szeretlekmagyarorszag.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/A-Magyar-R%C3%A1di%C3%B3-Gyermekk%C3%B3rusa.jpg

Stears

07-24-2014, 02:12 PM

Croatians are lighter pigmented than romanians, but they are not lighter pigmented than Hungarians

Zmey Gorynych

07-24-2014, 02:36 PM

Let's play a game called "spot the white hungarian". Shouldn't be too difficult, after all, they're central europeans with western european culture :D

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer3/2012/11/28/4302067/AP0MTI212-Main-2012-11-27T17-13-48.327Z478011_wa.jpg
http://www.armenianow.com/sites/default/files/img/imagecache/600x400/Safarov-Hungary-protests.jpg
http://creativetimereports.org/files/2013/03/2_DSC_4004.jpg
http://www.dw.de/image/0,,15811916_303,00.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K1QehhhT3r4/TluNXT3VoJI/AAAAAAAAIoI/Cj_6o_LDr-8/s1600/garda%2B3.jpg
http://thecontrarianhungarian.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1344191262_jobbik_tuntetes_devecserben.jpg
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/12/03/3860465/AL-wide-hungarian-demonstration-20121203162536785934-620x349.jpg
http://www.b92.net/news/pics/2013/03/11/181287244513dc8508e8de536640589_v4big.jpg

Cumans of Hungary have double identity, and they live in cuman reserve area.
I got news for you buddy ... cumans are an extinct ethnic group :)

TheForeigner

07-24-2014, 02:37 PM

The romanian children photo seems photoshopped. No way can there be a large group of romanian children and all dark haired and the lighting is bad too.

Stears

07-24-2014, 02:41 PM

Let's play a game called "spot the white hungarian". Shouldn't be too difficult, after all, they're central europeans with western european culture :D http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer3/2012/11/28/4302067/AP0MTI212-Main-2012-11-27T17-13-48.327Z478011_wa.jpg http://www.armenianow.com/sites/default/files/img/imagecache/600x400/Safarov-Hungary-protests.jpg http://creativetimereports.org/files/2013/03/2_DSC_4004.jpg http://www.dw.de/image/0,,15811916_303,00.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K1QehhhT3r4/TluNXT3VoJI/AAAAAAAAIoI/Cj_6o_LDr-8/s1600/garda%2B3.jpg http://thecontrarianhungarian.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1344191262_jobbik_tuntetes_devecserben.jpg http://images.smh.com.au/2012/12/03/3860465/AL-wide-hungarian-demonstration-20121203162536785934-620x349.jpg http://www.b92.net/news/pics/2013/03/11/181287244513dc8508e8de536640589_v4big.jpg I got news for you buddy ... cumans are an extinct ethnic group :) Three photos are Hungarian Jews' protest against anti-semitism and Jobbik. (Jewish star, SAY NO photos) And there is also a gypsy protest (see the international flag of gypsy people (the wagon wheel flag) Other photos : big sunglasses and hat shako, old fat men, who had no problem with their pigmentation, their hair is grey.

Hashoeva

07-24-2014, 02:57 PM

Thats because Romanians have some Gypsy blood.

Zmey Gorynych

07-24-2014, 02:58 PM

Three photos are Hungarian Jews' protest against anti-semitism and Jobbik. (Jewish star, SAY NO photos) And there is also a gypsy protest (see the international flag of gypsy people (the wagon wheel flag) Other photos : big sunglasses and hat shako, old fat men, who had no problem with their pigmentation, their hair is grey.
Per your instructions we are to ignore those with grey hair :) Jews and gypsies huh !? They look hungarian to me. Especially those from the last photo, the only white group in Romania - the proud Szekler Hungarians (central europeans with european culture) :)

http://www.b92.net/news/pics/2013/03/11/181287244513dc8508e8de536640589_v4big.jpg

You tellin' me these aren't hungarians. Look at them flying their flags high, hearts full of patriotic feelings. These my friend are THE hungarians - white, proud and they know it and you know it :D They have no problems with pigmentation or features, it is perfect and of course, they know it :D

Stears

07-24-2014, 03:04 PM

Per your instructions we are to ignore those with grey hair :) Jews and gypsies huh !? They look hungarian to me. Especially those from the last photo, the only white group in Romania - the proud Szekler Hungarians (central europeans with european culture) :) http://www.b92.net/news/pics/2013/03/11/181287244513dc8508e8de536640589_v4big.jpg You tellin' me these aren't hungarians. Look at them flying their flags high, hearts full of patriotic feelings. these my friend are THE hungarians - white, proud and they know it and you know it :D They have no problems with pigmentation or features, it is perfect and of course, they know it :D There are only 2 dark haired people. OThers have shaved head. Yes, The Hungarians consider traditionally darky the croatian people, but we don't hate them because of darker pigmentation. Fact: We always elect unusual atypical beauty queens, who looks rather darky than real Hungarians.

Peter Nirsch

07-24-2014, 03:06 PM

:pop2: :popcorn:

ProTroll

07-24-2014, 03:08 PM

Stears

07-24-2014, 03:09 PM

There are 100,000 echte jewish people in Budapest, and around further 200,000 who were mixed half/ quarter Jews. They had many enormous protests. And you chose the photos of more Jewish protest against Jobbik and nazis.

http://alfahir.hu/sites/barikad.hu/files/2014/04/elt4.jpg http://nol.hu/data/cikk/1/35/3/7/cikk_1350307/790257.jpg http://valasz.hu/data/cikk/5/8263/cikk_58263/gyongyosi_marton_hitgyuli_tuntetes.jpg

As you can read: It was organized by Jeruzsálemért csoport. For Jerusalem group.

Zmey Gorynych

07-24-2014, 03:11 PM

There are only 2 dark haired people. OThers have shaved head. Yes, The Hungarians consider traditionally darky the croatian people, but we don't hate them because of darker pigmentation. Fact: We always elect unusual atypical beauty queens, who looks rather darky than real Hungarians.
Well the trivia is simply fascinating, thanks for sharing :) You should really see an eye doctor Stears, in all your perfection you might have some problems. Some of them have shaved heads but what do you think of their skin color, isn't it perfect !? They definitely have no problems :D

ProTroll

07-24-2014, 03:11 PM

Stears

07-24-2014, 03:21 PM

Hanukkah in budapest. The transport is closed in a whole district.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew6feuCRa9I

The left side of largest in europe.http://hotelsunshine.hu/images/nevezetessegek/zsinagoga2.jpg http://rewrite.origos.hu/s/img/i/1108/20110822nyereenyj.jpg

Stears

07-24-2014, 03:24 PM

""However, according to Hungarian anthropologist Lajos Bartucz, the Finno-Ugric contribution is estimated to 20%, while the Turanid (Alföldi) type is estimated to 25-30%, the Indo-European Dinarid type to 20%, the Alpine type to 15%, the Taurid type to 4-5%, the Nordic type to 4% and the Mediterranean type to 1%." " Sándor Juhász-Nagy, A magyar októberi forradalom története, 1918 okt. 31-1919 márc. 21, Cserépfalvi, 1945, p.10. Quote:" Where he was Born? Yes in southernest cuman area in Szegvár. He wrote about his own cuman people (alföldi type)

HE has double identity, First: cuman local, secondary (further) Hungarian

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartucz_Lajos

Stears

07-24-2014, 06:59 PM

Romanians: Waldorf private elementary school in Bucharest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUIMt9CIFIk

Stears

07-24-2014, 07:00 PM

Hungarian elementary school children

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTugNDPPn0c

Stears

07-26-2014, 04:34 PM

http://greenly.ro/greenly.ro//wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2.jpg http://www.ecs-univ.ro/UserFiles/Image/40035.6919148264P1017477_petit.jpg http://static2.libertatea.ro/typo3temp/pics/6-elevi_d160fce398.jpg http://sas.unibuc.ro/uploads_ro/images/439/DSC01212.JPG

Furnace

07-26-2014, 04:36 PM

Theme song for this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kIXY-bBClE

ProTroll

07-26-2014, 04:53 PM

Theme song for this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kIXY-bBClE

Heard that by 2050 Spain will have Sharia Law and muslim majority.

Furnace

07-26-2014, 05:20 PM

Heard that by 2050 Spain will have Sharia Law and muslim majority.

We are already crypto-muslims thanks to our moor heritage.

Antimage

07-27-2014, 05:23 AM

Once again the magyars pretend they're white

"The occurrence of the Turkic types (Turanid, Pamirian, Anterior-Asian and Oriental-Mongoloid) in the modern Hungarians is assessed to 46.2%, that of the Finno-Ugrians (Uraloid, Lapponoid and approx. 55% of the East Baltic type) to 4.6%, while the Old Slavic (approx. 45% of the East-Baltic type and each 50% of the Nordoid and Cromagnoid types) and the German (approx. each 50% of the Nordoid and the Cromagnoid types) constitute 3.2% and 0.5%, respectively.

Source: Endre Czeizel, Heide-G. Benkemann, H. Werner Goedde, Genetics of the Hungarian Population: Ethnic Aspects, Genetic Markers, Ecogenetics, and Disease Spectrum, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991, p. 95"
""However, according to Hungarian anthropologist Lajos Bartucz, the Finno-Ugric contribution is estimated to 20%, while the Turanid (Alföldi) type is estimated to 25-30%, the Indo-European Dinarid type to 20%, the Alpine type to 15%, the Taurid type to 4-5%, the Nordic type to 4% and the Mediterranean type to 1%."

" Sándor Juhász-Nagy, A magyar októberi forradalom története, 1918 okt. 31-1919 márc. 21, Cserépfalvi, 1945, p.10. Quote:"

these studies are complete bullshit made by stupid turanists. i don't understand why so many of my countryman wants foreigners believe we are non european nation. no way 20% of us are finno ugric and also we don't have 20% turanid population ,maybe 5%. There's no significant difference between hungarian phenotypes and their neighbouring countries. We look like ordinary central-eastern european people

Stears

07-27-2014, 07:33 AM

blogen

07-27-2014, 07:59 AM

these studies are complete bullshit made by stupid turanists. i don't understand why so many of my countryman wants foreigners believe we are non european nation. no way 20% of us are finno ugric and also we don't have 20% turanid population ,maybe 5%. There's no significant difference between hungarian phenotypes and their neighbouring countries. We look like ordinary central-eastern european people

In your dreams maybe, since we had 31,4% Turanid population. And we know this from the great Hungarian anthropolical survey of dr. Henkey Gyula:

sample size: over 30 thousands man and woman

the places of the samples:
http://s27.postimg.org/5a1e3ko4j/henkeysites.jpg

This was the clear scientific fact about the clear ethnic Hungarian* population from the second half of the 20th century:

Shape of the zygomatic bone:
rounded: 26,1% (clear Europid form)
forward-projecting: 67,9% (Mongoloid influence)
forward narrowed: 6% (clear Europid form)

Turanid: 31,4%
Pamirid: 12%
Dinarid: 5,8% (mostly Eastern Dinaroid or Caucasid)
Taurid: 5,3%
Eastbaltid: 4,5%
Eastern med: 4,1 (mostly Iranid, Caspian and some Pontid)
Alpinoid: 2,5%
Lapponoid: 1,7%
Mongoloid: 0,9% (Europo-Mongoloids with dominant Mongoloid character)
Gracile med: 0,8%
Nordoid: 0,4%
Cromagnoid: 0,4%
Atlanto-med: 0,1%
Uralid: 0,1%
undefinable: 30% (extremly mixed without clear character)

~4% Whites (only the natural light hair + light eye + and light skin!)
~28% swarthy Caucasoids
~67% swarthy not clear Caucasoids (few Mongoloid contribution, mosty only morphologically)
~1% swarthy not clear Mongoloids (few Caucasoid contribution, but visible not clear Mongoloid)

*without dual identity or any data from the not ethnic Hungarian ancestry. So great part of the 19th century assimilants or the very significant part of the Gypsy origin Hungarians were not part of this survey.

Any other kind of idea about the Hungarians is unscientific and dumb.

Stears

07-27-2014, 08:18 AM

templumForasticus

07-27-2014, 08:26 AM

Your circus romanian discords amuses me.

Antimage

07-27-2014, 09:14 AM

In your dreams maybe, since we had 31,4% Turanid population. And we know this from the great Hungarian anthropolical survey of dr. Henkey Gyula:

sample size: over 30 thousands man and woman

the places of the samples:
http://s27.postimg.org/5a1e3ko4j/henkeysites.jpg

This was the clear scientific fact about the clear ethnic Hungarian* population from the second half of the 20th century:

Shape of the zygomatic bone:
rounded: 26,1% (clear Europid form)
forward-projecting: 67,9% (Mongoloid influence)
forward narrowed: 6% (clear Europid form)

Turanid: 31,4%
Pamirid: 12%
Dinarid: 5,8% (mostly Eastern Dinaroid or Caucasid)
Taurid: 5,3%
Eastbaltid: 4,5%
Eastern med: 4,1 (mostly Iranid, Caspian and some Pontid)
Alpinoid: 2,5%
Lapponoid: 1,7%
Mongoloid: 0,9% (Europo-Mongoloids with dominant Mongoloid character)
Gracile med: 0,8%
Nordoid: 0,4%
Cromagnoid: 0,4%
Atlanto-med: 0,1%
Uralid: 0,1%
undefinable: 30% (extremly mixed without clear character)

~4% Whites (only the natural light hair + light eye + and light skin!)
~28% swarthy Caucasoids
~67% swarthy not clear Caucasoids (few Mongoloid contribution, mosty only morphologically)
~1% swarthy not clear Mongoloids (few Caucasoid contribution, but visible not clear Mongoloid)

*without dual identity or any data from the not ethnic Hungarian ancestry. So great part of the 19th century assimilants or the very significant part of the Gypsy origin Hungarians were not part of this survey.

Any other kind of idea about the Hungarians is unscientific and dumb.
That survey isn't representative at all
zero samples from budapest where 20% of hungairan population live? budapest peope rarely have turanid phenotype. I don't see samples from other big cities where significant amount of people live. People in big cities have less turanid phenotype than people in the countryside. Also no samples from south transdanubia where people have significant swabian ancestry? they aren't hungarian to you? That statisticis complete bullshit cuz it's biased to turanid types(They take the samples from places where turanid types are more common than in other parts of hungary. 30.000 samle size is not enough to determine the phenotype of 10 million hungarians.
this is "scientific fact" is like collecting some samples from specific parts of northern italy and claimiing avarage italians have the same same pigmentation as austzrians

blogen

07-27-2014, 09:54 AM

That survey isn't representative at all
zero samples from budapest where 20% of hungairan population live? budapest peope rarely have turanid phenotype. I don't see samples from other big cities where significant amount of people live. People in big cities have less turanid phenotype than people in the countryside. Also no samples from south transdanubia where people have significant swabian ancestry?

The population of Budapest is the essence of the Hungarian population with a significant (~10%) Jewish presence. And again: they are the clear ethnic Hungarians and not the ethnic minorities! The Swabians are not (ethnic German identity) or only partially (Hungarian-German, German-Hungarian dual identity) Hungarians.

Southeast Transdanubia was Swabian populated:
http://www.dvhh.org/images/settlement-areas-Siedlungsgebiete_magdalena-kopp-09.jpg

they aren't hungarian to you?

No, they are not clear ethnic Hungarians. And the ethnic minorities' sample of course not part of the ethnic Hungarian sample. This is the clear Swabian + mixed Hungarian-Swabian sample from the clear ethnic German and the German-Hungarian/Hungarian German dual identity peoples:

Shape of the zygomatic bone:
rounded: 64,2% (clear Europid form)
forward-projecting: 23,2% (Mongoloid influence)
forward narrowed: 12,6% (clear Europid form)

Alpinoid: 15,9%
Dinarid: 11,9% (balkanite Dinarid)
Turanoid: 5,2%
Nordoid: 5%
Eastbaltid: 4,8%
Gracile med: 4,6%
Cromagnoid: 3,4%
Pamiroid: 2,3%
Taurid: 1%
Atlanto-med: 0,6%
Eastern med: -
Lapponoid: -
Mongoloid: -
Uralid: -
undefinable: 45,4% (extremly mixed without clear character)

~8% Whites (only the natural light hair + light eye + and light skin!)
~69% swarthy Caucasoids
~23% swarthy not clear Caucasoids (few Mongoloid contribution, mosty only morphologically)

This sample is almost contrary with the Hungarian sample. But they are not clear ethnic Hungarians.

That statisticis complete bullshit cuz it's biased to turanid types(They take the samples from places where turanid types are more common than in other parts of hungary. 30.000 samle size is not enough to determine the phenotype of 10 million hungarians.

A 30,000 size sample is a dream sample in this business. For example the size of the genetic samples are few hundres person only or a continental level physical anthropology examination's size is 25-50 thousand person, for example the soviet Central Asian survery was 45,000!

this is "scientific fact" is like collecting some samples from specific parts of northern italy and claimiing avarage italians have the same same pigmentation as austzrians

Not some peoples but the representative part of complete villages from around everywhere of the Hungarian settlement area.

Stears

07-27-2014, 10:20 AM

The population of Budapest is the essence of the Hungarian population with a significant (~10%) Jewish presence. And again: they are the clear ethnic Hungarians and not the ethnic minorities! The Swabians are not (ethnic German identity) or only partially (Hungarian-German, German-Hungarian dual identity) Hungarians. Southeast Transdanubia was Swabian populated: http://www.dvhh.org/images/settlement-areas-Siedlungsgebiete_magdalena-kopp-09.jpg No, they are not clear ethnic Hungarians. And the ethnic minorities' sample of course not part of the ethnic Hungarian sample. This is the clear Swabian + mixed Hungarian-Swabian sample from the clear ethnic German and the German-Hungarian/Hungarian German dual identity peoples: Shape of the zygomatic bone: rounded: 64,2% (clear Europid form) forward-projecting: 23,2% (Mongoloid influence) forward narrowed: 12,6% (clear Europid form) Alpinoid: 15,9% Dinarid: 11,9% (balkanite Dinarid) Turanoid: 5,2% Nordoid: 5% Eastbaltid: 4,8% Gracile med: 4,6% Cromagnoid: 3,4% Pamiroid: 2,3% Taurid: 1% Atlanto-med: 0,6% Eastern med: - Lapponoid: - Mongoloid: - Uralid: - undefinable: 45,4% (extremly mixed without clear character) ~8% Whites (only the natural light hair + light eye + and light skin!) ~69% swarthy Caucasoids ~23% swarthy not clear Caucasoids (few Mongoloid contribution, mosty only morphologically) This sample is almost contrary with the Hungarian sample. But they are not clear ethnic Hungarians. A 30,000 size sample is a dream sample in this business. For example the size of the genetic samples are few hundres person only or a continental level physical anthropology examination's size is 25-50 thousand person, for example the soviet Central Asian survery was 45,000! Not some peoples but the representative part of complete villages from around everywhere of the Hungarian settlement area. High ratios of Hungarian Jews (and Budapest) are pure turanids. As I saind: Only jacis-cuman minority territory, slovak-Hungarians (nowdays with Hungarian names) and the half of the gypsy population (mixed with gypsy mediterran faces) are turanid.

Stears

07-27-2014, 10:21 AM

Stears

07-27-2014, 10:34 AM

In most part of Hungary, average people confuse the turan people with gypsies, especially turanids with black hair and eyes. This is not accidental thing, because they are weird for Hungarians. For example, we had a similar literature teacher , who was born in the former cumania reserve area, we (the children) give him the "gypsy" secret nick-name, due to his black hair and eyes and weird turanid features. Of course he was not gypsy, but we called him as "Cigó tanár úr" means: "MR. Gypsy Teacher" http://i50.tinypic.com/2q3vmsm.png

Stears

07-27-2014, 11:11 AM

Jews from Hungary (communist leaders) They have no traditional middle-eastern, but turanid features. Notice their turanid features:

http://spartacus-educational.com/2WWkun.jpg http://www.thenewsturmer.com/On%20Jews/Broomb11.jpg http://files.blogter.hu/user_files/113833/Tan%C3%A1cskorm%C3%A1ny%201919_jpg-2.jpg http://kuruc.info/galeriaN/hir/zsidokomm45.jpghttp://mek.niif.hu/04600/04627/html/image1402.jpgyoung rákosi had far eastern look.http://files.mommo.hu/pictures/000/613/613814_753deb32ec_s.jpg

Damião de Góis

07-27-2014, 01:43 PM

What show the anthropology at http://anthroeurope.blogspot.com/ ( unlike TA members the editor of the site is a real anthropologist)

lol, no he isn't. He is a forum user from southwest France. His nickname was "Heraus". He admited he picked the ugliest people he could find for his pictures... so those pictures are the result of his selection.

guyinsf

07-30-2014, 12:41 AM

People are what they are because of where their region is.
Why are swedes so blond? Who are indians so dark? Why did the chicken cross the road?

aherne

07-31-2014, 08:16 PM

It's like every one of them is half Indian and half middle eastern.

I had no idea any place in Europe was nearly so non-euro-like.

Sometimes, I'm having this impression as well:(

aherne

08-02-2014, 05:20 AM

lol, no he isn't. He is a forum user from southwest France. His nickname was "Heraus". He admited he picked the ugliest people he could find for his pictures... so those pictures are the result of his selection.

Also his classifications are ludicrous...

TheForeigner

12-15-2014, 12:17 AM

I think some of these photos have been modiffied to show Romanians much darker than they are. Crowds of Romanians would not look that dark.

Stears

12-15-2014, 11:41 AM

I think some of these photos have been modiffied to show Romanians much darker than they are. Crowds of Romanians would not look that dark. hahhaha as I said: look the stadions of large sport events, university classes , mass protests etc....

Stears

03-29-2015, 07:24 PM

Where is the swarthy dwarf romanian gypsy boy called: Marius from the Youtube?

kantez

07-16-2015, 03:57 AM

In rumania you can't know who is gypsy and who is not.

averagedude

08-07-2015, 02:44 AM

Looks like the photos were taken in India, no kidding.

India?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.YGXAovd0VTtadECDLhHHKA&pid=15.1

Lorem

09-25-2015, 09:18 PM

Lorem

09-25-2015, 09:59 PM

"In the late 9th century, the Hungarians invaded the Pannonian basin, where, according to the Gesta Hungarorum written around 1200 by the anonymous chancellor of King Bela III of Hungary, the province of Pannonia was inhabited by Slavs, Bulgars, Vlachs, and pastores Romanorum."

You're the new kid in town, get over it. All your threads are not about how white are we, how european are we or how nomadic are we... Are about your imperialist stupid nazi beliefs. Your grandparents generation started a world war and committed genocides in all directions with this type of arrogance and ignorance.

The color of your skin has nothing to do with your race if you're not living in a cave. I like the sun, I live in Bucharest, 2 hours away from sea... This summer I spent 6-7 weekends + 2 weeks of vacation on beaches. Guess what, I'm dark, I'm black, real negro because of tanning but my ass is sill brighter than your face.

Hungarian scum!

By the way, do you use lipstick?

Stears

08-19-2016, 11:28 AM

Romanian Cavalry in Budapest - Hungarian Soviet Republic

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/RomanianCavalryBudapest.png

Romanian soldiers feeding the civilian population in Hungary

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/RomanianSoldiersFeedingCiviliansInBudapest.jpg

Just saying...

You are wrong.Austria and Hungary conscripted 9 million soldiers during the war (fighting forces were 7,2 million) itself Kingdom of Hungary drafted 4 million soldiers (more than the total male population of preWW1 Romania or the total population of Serbia).The majority (75%) of the army of Hungarian kingdom was Hungarian,and the majority was German speaking in the Austrian part of the Empire.It contained more than 1,4 M. soldiers.

Don't forget, Romania Serbia were completly agricultural rural balkan countries with little populations and with non significant industrial outputs and traditionally extremely backward (Balkan style) infrastructure.

So it was not a wonder, that Romania lost the WW1 with record speed. In WW1 history, the shortest lasting frontline was the Romanian, romanians were able to wage war only for a half year, even Bucharest the capital city was captured within 4 months. Then romania call for armistice in the theatry of Bucharest. Romanian army suffered the highest casualty ratio during the history of WW1.

Serbia lost the ww1 within one and half year, their defeat led to the complete occupation of Serbia. Near the end of 1915, in a massive rescue operation involving more than 1,000 trips made by Italian, French and British steamers, 260,000 Serb soldiers and the Serbian government were transported to Corfu, where they waited for the chance of the victory of Allied Powers to reclaim their country. Serbian army couldn't return to the empty military evacuated Serbia from the Saloniki front until the end of WW1, after the A-H Monarchy dissolved.

Russian Empire economically & military collapsed and finally the revolution arrived.

After the end of the WW1, by a notion of Woodrow Wilson's pacifism, the naive liberal Hungarian PM Mihály Károlyi ordered the full disarmament of Hungarian Army.It contained more than 1,4 M. soldiers.Don't forget, the timed attack of "brave" Czechs Slovaks Romanians Serbo-french armies Romanians started their joint military operations after the Hungarian total self-disarmament.

The capture of Bucharest

http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/ww1/100/1916/images/bukarest.jpg

http://internetfigyelo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/rom_lovassag_bp1919-2.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Falkenhayn's_cavalry_entering_Bucuresti_on_Decembe r_6,_1916.jpg

RN97

08-19-2016, 12:28 PM

I'm finally back! Ily stears <3

BozgorSlayer

08-21-2016, 01:59 PM

http://i.imgur.com/61xgMdY.png
Romanian army in BUDApesta
http://i.imgur.com/TpFDZ2O.jpg
Romanian army crossing Tisa river
http://i.imgur.com/Gad0BHS.png
Romanian army entering BUDApesta
http://i.imgur.com/mU3VSOS.jpg
Romanian army in front of hungarian parliment
http://i.imgur.com/B9vyJ3u.jpg
Romanian convoy in BUDApesta
http://i.imgur.com/iliXU5y.jpg
Romanian army feeding poor,starved bozgors gypsies
http://i.imgur.com/q16jtVu.jpg
Romanian army patrolling budapesta
http://i.imgur.com/9Pbk4Gm.jpg
Postal stamp emitted by debrecen office under Romanian adminstration at the beginning of 1919.The writing says "Area under Romanian occupation"
http://i.imgur.com/BQ1nTEy.jpg
Romanian general in hungarian hotel
http://i.imgur.com/oWLtxYE.jpg
Romanian army marching victoriously in budapest square
http://i.imgur.com/7MJ4yen.jpg
Romanian generals in BUDApesta
http://i.imgur.com/DWbhhM3.jpg
Romanian army celebrating victory
http://i.imgur.com/fdTRR8z.jpg
King Ferdinand awarding medals to Romanian soldiers
http://i.imgur.com/RcccSV3.jpg
Romanian army in budapesta

BozgorSlayer

08-21-2016, 02:06 PM

Deymark321

08-21-2016, 02:56 PM

You are

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/WWI_Poster_Rumania.jpg

1.Hungarians never captured Budapest, it was the germans, who also initiated the Buftea Peace, which we will talk later.

2.Hungarians were helped by the superior soviet army.
Romania is attacked by Germany, Austria-Hungary and the backstabing Bulgarians ( we've not forgot you too, don't make mistake). We are outnumbered 4 to 1. We already lost 70% of territory when we rally all the mans and troops to the " Last Stronghold" on the Carpathians, and we defeated Germans, Hungarian bitches and bulgarians, and than took Hungary in 1 month.

3.Hungarians and romanians had almost the same number of soldiers in 1919.

4.Romania won all the 3 major wars on its front, Marasti,Marasesti,Oituz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C4%83r%C4%83%C8%99ti

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C4%83r%C4%83%C8%99e%C8%99ti

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Oituz

5.Buftea Peace was issued in Bucharest by germans.The King refused to sign it , and parliament ratified it.

6.Budapest was captured on 3rd August firstly, but the colonel had to wait for Mardarescu to enter Budapest with the army because he wanted to claim the victory.
On August 3rd 1919 4 cavalry squadrons (400 soldiers) led by colonel Rusescu arrive on the outskirts of Budapest (at the time a 1 million people city). Colonel Rusescu's detachment was on an advanced scouting mission, 1 day ahead of the Romanian army. Worried the retreating Hungarian units might decide to defend Budapest Rusescu decides to bluff the city into surrendering.
He presents the authorities in Budapest with a stern ultimatum: the Romanian artillery batteries are aimed at the city and unless he returns with the immediate unconditional surrender the bombardment would start in 60 minutes. What he doesn't tell is the "Romanian artillery batteries" are actually two light artillery pieces, completely outnumbered, outranged and outguned by what the city has in its barracks. Budapest surrenders.

7.Lets see what the mainstream view of Romania in WW1 was

Lloyd George in New York times in 1917

"The romanian soldier is the bravest from the world"

"The fought with an heroism which was never seen,alone versus 3 armies.The german soldiers were so violently attacked that they throwed their weapons and ran so they wouldnt be catched"

" On the fourth of september we gave up fighting, the Romanians fought like lions" -Gen. Siomer Commander of 178 german infantry brigade.

Hungarians are crying for nothing, romanians had it way worse in WW1, but we didnt complain, we switched the capital at Iasi and waited for the oportunity to kept fighting.

Deymark321

08-21-2016, 02:57 PM

http://i.imgur.com/iNZq08c.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/emKt5tu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bL94nUb.jpg
Romanian army feeding dirty,starved,poor hungarian(gypsy?) children

http://i.imgur.com/vCYgoXR.png
Map of Eastern Europe at the end of the 1919 war

The Central powers promised Romania ALL the land untill TISA.Hungarians are lucky they even have what they have today.

huno-avar

08-21-2016, 02:58 PM

My Turkic brothers in Orthodox faith.

Stears

08-23-2016, 05:30 AM

So why Did romania lost the WW1 within record speed?

Don't forget, Romania was completly agricultural rural balkan countries with little populations and with non significant industrial outputs and traditionally extremely backward (Balkan style) infrastructure.

So it was not a wonder, that Romania lost the WW1 with record speed. In WW1 history, the shortest lasting frontline was the Romanian, romanians were able to wage war only for a half year, even Bucharest the capital city was captured within 4 months. Then romania call for armistice in the theatry of Bucharest. Romanian army suffered the highest casualty ratio during the history of WW1.

Stears

08-23-2016, 05:30 AM

So why was romania so weak in WW1?

andrei98

08-23-2016, 09:48 AM

stears you look disguisting lmao

Zmey Gorynych

08-23-2016, 02:31 PM

BozgorSlayer

08-27-2016, 07:11 PM

There were 3 wars/battles involving hungayrians and romanians (wallachians/moldovans) only. Battle of Posada (1330) - ended in a decisive wallachian victory, hungayrians had 3 times more men yet their king had to run for his life (what a pussy!). Battle of Baia (1467) - ended in a decisive moldavian victory, again hungayrians had 2 times more men (4 times according to some sources, let's round it to a nice 3) yet their king was wounded and had to be carried on a stretcher like a pussy! Hungarian - Romanian war - ended in the collapse of the Hungarian republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Posada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War

at posada they didn't even have a hungarian king lmao
in ww1 romania got surrounded because russians didn't help at all,however the only wars that matter against hugnarians were won by romanians 1v1

Profileid

08-27-2016, 07:16 PM

Blond Romanians? Their hair is dyed.
USA has more Olympic medals than Hungary? But per capita Hungary has more.
Most Uralic speakers are chinky looking? Oh it's admixture.
Stears is nothing if not a master of moving the goalposts.

Profileid

08-27-2016, 07:17 PM

So why was romania so weak in WW1?

Why were you the bitches of Austria in WWI?

Stears

08-28-2016, 12:40 PM

There were 3 wars/battles involving hungayrians and romanians (wallachians/moldovans) only. Battle of Posada (1330) - ended in a decisive wallachian victory, hungayrians had 3 times more men yet their king had to run for his life (what a pussy!). Battle of Baia (1467) - ended in a decisive moldavian victory, again hungayrians had 2 times more men (4 times according to some sources, let's round it to a nice 3) yet their king was wounded and had to be carried on a stretcher like a pussy! Hungarian - Romanian war - ended in the collapse of the Hungarian republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Posada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War

There were 9 wars between nomadic gypsy land vallachia moldavia and Hungary. There were 4 occupation (The complete occupation of the romanian principalities) romanian "states" were vassals of Hungarian kingdom later Polish kingdom and finally the Ottoman empire. Romania represent a great history of vassalage.

Zmey Gorynych

08-28-2016, 02:07 PM

There were 9 wars between noble vallachia moldavia and Hungyspyland. There were 4 occupation (The complete occupation of the romanian principalities) romanian "states" were vassals of Hungarian kingdom later Polish kingdom and finally the Ottoman empire. Romania represent a great history of vassalage.
Steargypsy there were only 2 wars between Wallachia/Moldavia on one side and Hungary on the other side or maybe you count the killing of uprising peasants in Transylvania as hungarian victories. Both battles between wallachians/moldovans and hungarians were won decisively by the vlachs. Later in the XXth century there was the romanian-hungarian war won also by romanians. I'm not taking into consideration battles/wars in which other states or ethnicities were involved on one side or the other. That's why such battles like battle of Breadfield or battle of Selimbar or the entire WW1 campaign (most battles of which were won by romanians) don't count.

You could probably count the conflict between Hungary and the vlach ruler Litovoi as a hungarian-romanian war only. Litovoi's voievodship is a pre-statal entity though but I'll be generous and count it in ... so 4 total with 3 of those won by vlachs.

Stears

08-28-2016, 03:05 PM

Steargypsy there were only 2 wars between Wallachia/Moldavia on one side and Hungary on the other side or maybe you count the killing of uprising peasants in Transylvania as hungarian victories. Both battles between wallachians/moldovans and hungarians were won decisively by the vlachs. Later in the XXth century there was the romanian-hungarian war won also by romanians. I'm not taking into consideration battles/wars in which other states or ethnicities were involved on one side or the other. That's why such battles like battle of Breadfield or battle of Selimbar or the entire WW1 campaign (most battles of which were won by romanians) don't count.

You could probably count the conflict between Hungary and the vlach ruler Litovoi as a hungarian-romanian war only. Litovoi's voievodship is a pre-statal entity though but I'll be generous and count it in ... so 4 total with 3 of those won by vlachs.

Ok asshole, when? A little help (blogen's old answer):

Hungarian-Wallachian wars:
Hungarian victories: 1272, 1369, 1395, 1445, 1447, 1610, 1655, 1716, 1789, 1854
Wallachian victories: 1330, 1435*, 1599, 1603, 1611

Hungarian-Moldovan wars:
Hungarian victories: 1358, 1394, 1446, 1447, 1653
Moldovan victories: 1467

*Wallachian alliance with the Ottoman army
**Hungarian victory over the Romanians, but the arriving Soviets stop the Hungarian offensive and defeated the Hungarian troops

Or for example the Hungarian conquest of Bucharest:
1610 - Báthory Gábor's Transsylvanian troops
1655 - II Rákóczi György's Transsylvanian troops

And the dates are the victorious Hungarian campaigns on the area.

1358 - King II Lajos 's campaign on Moldova. Results: the voivode (Bogdan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army.
1394/95 - King Zsigmond's campaign on Moldova. Results: Results: the voivode (Stefan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army.
1446 - this was Wallachian campaign, sorry!
1447 - Hungarian intervention beside Petru III. Results: complette succes, after the royal troops beat the pretender's (Roman II) army.
1653 - II Rákóczi György's campaign on Moldova. Results: the old voivode is chased away after the Transsylvanian troops beat the Moldovan army.

SonOfWolf

09-06-2016, 01:36 PM

blogen is a clown

I see you again like to spread your fiction pseudo-history.

>Hungarian victories: 1272, 1369, 1395, 1445, 1447, 1610, 1655, 1716, 1789, 1854
>Hungarian victories: 1358, 1394, 1446, 1447, 1653

When did this happen?Link me to these battles, because I cannot find them anywhere.

You cannot use "hungarian victories" because those were transylvanian victories, back then Transylvania being semi-independent under Ottoman suzeranity :)

>1610 - Báthory Gábor's Transsylvanian troops

Never happened.In 1610 all bathory did was occupy Sibiu and on 29 december, he starts the campaign against Radu Şerban,Bathory attacks Radu Şerban of Moldova, making him go over Milcov, then Radu Şerban comes again and defeats Bathory near Brasov on 7 july 1611, bathory escaping only because of a mistake of Radu Şerban, who stopped to wait for the austriak troops, giving Bathory enough time to retreat.

>1655 - II Rákóczi György's Transsylvanian troops

Who did not enter near Bucharest, as the Battle took place near Ploiesti.

>1358 - King II Lajos 's campaign on Moldova. Results: the voivode (Bogdan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army.

I cannot find any Battle of Lajos II with Bogdan I in XV century and by early 1359 Moldova was not dependent on Hungarian kingdom.

>1394/95 - King Zsigmond's campaign on Moldova. Results: Results: the voivode (Stefan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army.

The battle of Ghindăoani was WON BY STEFAN I, who had a way smaller army, and he himself Stefan I apologised to Sigismund after defeating him, and made a vassal oath to Sigismund, but the reasons are unknown why he did this, read the letter of Sigismund to Stefan Kanisza.

https://s10.postimg.io/40f1my8nd/Untitled_4.jpg

>1447 - Hungarian intervention beside Petru III. Results: complette succes, after the royal troops beat the pretender's (Roman II) army.

Cant find anything about any hungarian intervention and Roman II was not a pretender, he ruled the Southern part of Moldova while Petru III ruled the upper part.

>1653 - II Rákóczi György's campaign on Moldova. Results: the old voivode is chased away after the Transsylvanian troops beat the Moldovan army.

False.
Firstly Matei Basarab of Wallachia was fighting with Vasile Lupu, because Lupu wanted to put his son on Wallachia throne.In 1653 Matei Basarab along with Rakoczi support tried to take down Lupu but they failed.Later , Ghoerghe Stefan backstabbed Lupu and on 25 march to 4 april muntenian and transylvanian troops enter in Moldova, take down Lupu and replace him with Gheorghe Stefan.Then Lupu asks for help from the zaporozhian cossacks,comes back and defeats at Popricani the army of Gheorghe Stefan and Ioan Ioan Kemény on 21 april-1 may,taking back the throne.Then Lupu rebeggins the campain against Wallachia where he is defetead and replaced at Finta(12k cossacks, 8k moldavians and the rest german mercenaries vs 30k mercenaries from Muntenia), and Gherghe Stefan is put again on throne.

So we see from the Battles you posted there is no hungarian winning.

Zmey Gorynych

09-06-2016, 03:24 PM

Ok asshole, when? A little help (blogen's old answer)
Cunt, I'll tell you what I told blogen back then - give me a source ! Otherwise these are simply the figment of your collective hungolian imagination, campaigns that no one has ever heard of.

SonOfWolf

09-06-2016, 03:51 PM

Cunt, I'll tell you what I told blogen back then - give me a source ! Otherwise these are simply the figment of your collective hungolian imagination, campaigns that no one has ever heard of.

Because such wars did not exist, and blogen was not the first to post the same fiction dates, I saw it on some other forum and the user got it from some pseudo-history hungarian website(A website on par with afro-centrists and even beyond them :)))

Stears

09-06-2016, 04:11 PM

I see you again like to spread your fiction pseudo-history.

>Hungarian victories: 1272, 1369, 1395, 1445, 1447, 1610, 1655, 1716, 1789, 1854
>Hungarian victories: 1358, 1394, 1446, 1447, 1653

When did this happen?Link me to these battles, because I cannot find them anywhere.

You cannot use "hungarian victories" because those were transylvanian victories, back then Transylvania being semi-independent under Ottoman suzeranity :)

>1610 - Báthory Gábor's Transsylvanian troops

Never happened.In 1610 all bathory did was occupy Sibiu and on 29 december, he starts the campaign against Radu Şerban,Bathory attacks Radu Şerban of Moldova, making him go over Milcov, then Radu Şerban comes again and defeats Bathory near Brasov on 7 july 1611, bathory escaping only because of a mistake of Radu Şerban, who stopped to wait for the austriak troops, giving Bathory enough time to retreat.

>1655 - II Rákóczi György's Transsylvanian troops

Who did not enter near Bucharest, as the Battle took place near Ploiesti.

>1358 - King II Lajos 's campaign on Moldova. Results: the voivode (Bogdan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army.

I cannot find any Battle of Lajos II with Bogdan I in XV century and by early 1359 Moldova was not dependent on Hungarian kingdom.

>1394/95 - King Zsigmond's campaign on Moldova. Results: Results: the voivode (Stefan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army.

The battle of Ghindăoani was WON BY STEFAN I, who had a way smaller army, and he himself Stefan I apologised to Sigismund after defeating him, and made a vassal oath to Sigismund, but the reasons are unknown why he did this, read the letter of Sigismund to Stefan Kanisza.

https://s10.postimg.io/40f1my8nd/Untitled_4.jpg

>1447 - Hungarian intervention beside Petru III. Results: complette succes, after the royal troops beat the pretender's (Roman II) army.

Cant find anything about any hungarian intervention and Roman II was not a pretender, he ruled the Southern part of Moldova while Petru III ruled the upper part.

>1653 - II Rákóczi György's campaign on Moldova. Results: the old voivode is chased away after the Transsylvanian troops beat the Moldovan army.

False.
Firstly Matei Basarab of Wallachia was fighting with Vasile Lupu, because Lupu wanted to put his son on Wallachia throne.In 1653 Matei Basarab along with Rakoczi support tried to take down Lupu but they failed.Later , Ghoerghe Stefan backstabbed Lupu and on 25 march to 4 april muntenian and transylvanian troops enter in Moldova, take down Lupu and replace him with Gheorghe Stefan.Then Lupu asks for help from the zaporozhian cossacks,comes back and defeats at Popricani the army of Gheorghe Stefan and Ioan Ioan Kemény on 21 april-1 may,taking back the throne.Then Lupu rebeggins the campain against Wallachia where he is defetead and replaced at Finta(12k cossacks, 8k moldavians and the rest german mercenaries vs 30k mercenaries from Muntenia), and Gherghe Stefan is put again on throne.

So we see from the Battles you posted there is no hungarian winning.

1272, we defeated your late nomadic Vlach ancestors in Northern Bulgaria (lower Danube) It was not a great task for Hungarian knights to defeat nomads like you.

In 1369 King Louis I the Great occupied the nomadic vassal state Wallachia, because vallachian nomadic prince Vladislav I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_I_of_Wallachia) didn't want to pay the annual tribute for the Hungarians.

https://books.google.com/books?id=WbVMEMgaMw4C&pg=PT53&dq=vlachs+%22Louis+the+great%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzgpLv7_rOAhXHthQKHQ1WCH8Q6AEINTAE#v=on epage&q=vlachs%20%22Louis%20the%20great%22&f=false

Wallachia was a Hungarian vassal state, which became ottoman vassal state. https://books.google.com/books?id=QjzYdCxumFcC&pg=PA389&dq=moldova+%22louis+the+great%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_1tL-8_rOAhXD0hoKHTaEA-UQ6AEISTAF#v=onepage&q=moldova%20%22louis%20the%20great%22&f=false

Even your Moldavia was founded in the name of Louis the Great of Hungary.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7DJWyg97IggC&pg=PA158&dq=%22louis+I+of+Hungary%22+Dragos&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDtrOs__rOAhWL0RoKHSKWAAMQ6AEIHDAA#v=on epage&q=%22louis%20I%20of%20Hungary%22%20Dragos&f=false

1396 Battle: https://books.google.com/books?id=1m4fbJyQ4pkC&pg=PA225&dq=1395+Wallachia+Hungary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHtsPD9PrOAhUH2hoKHSwOClwQ6AEIHDAA#v=on epage&q=1395%20Wallachia%20Hungary&f=false

Yes , György Rákóczy II was defeated you many times. https://books.google.com/books?id=7E33AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&dq=1655+R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi+wallachia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcm7Xj__rOAhWEVxoKHdAUBusQ6AEIQjAF#v=on epage&q=1655%20R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi%20wallachia&f=false

"I cannot find any Battle of Lajos II (Louis II) with Bogdan" Because there were not contemporary persons. (there were more than 100 years between them) Search Lajos or "Louis the great" or Louis I

1394/95 - King Zsigmond's campaign on Moldova. Results: Results: the voivode (Stefan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army. Yes, Moldavia became a vassal state again (Originally as I it mentioned above, Moldavia was founded as a buffer state of Hungary)

Principality of Transylvania was a Hungarian state, despite of romanian vlach immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_(1570%E2%80%931711)

It was created from Eastern Hungarian Kingdom with treaty of Speyer.

SonOfWolf

09-06-2016, 06:14 PM

1272, we defeated your late nomadic Vlach ancestors in Northern Bulgaria (lower Danube) It was not a great task for Hungarian knights to defeat nomads like you.

In 1369 King Louis I the Great occupied the nomadic vassal state Wallachia, because vallachian nomadic prince Vladislav I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_I_of_Wallachia) didn't want to pay the annual tribute for the Hungarians.

https://books.google.com/books?id=WbVMEMgaMw4C&pg=PT53&dq=vlachs+%22Louis+the+great%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzgpLv7_rOAhXHthQKHQ1WCH8Q6AEINTAE#v=on epage&q=vlachs%20%22Louis%20the%20great%22&f=false

Wallachia was a Hungarian vassal state, which became ottoman vassal state. https://books.google.com/books?id=QjzYdCxumFcC&pg=PA389&dq=moldova+%22louis+the+great%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_1tL-8_rOAhXD0hoKHTaEA-UQ6AEISTAF#v=onepage&q=moldova%20%22louis%20the%20great%22&f=false

Even your Moldavia was founded in the name of Louis the Great of Hungary.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7DJWyg97IggC&pg=PA158&dq=%22louis+I+of+Hungary%22+Dragos&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDtrOs__rOAhWL0RoKHSKWAAMQ6AEIHDAA#v=on epage&q=%22louis%20I%20of%20Hungary%22%20Dragos&f=false

1396 Battle: https://books.google.com/books?id=1m4fbJyQ4pkC&pg=PA225&dq=1395+Wallachia+Hungary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHtsPD9PrOAhUH2hoKHSwOClwQ6AEIHDAA#v=on epage&q=1395%20Wallachia%20Hungary&f=false

Yes , György Rákóczy II was defeated you many times. https://books.google.com/books?id=7E33AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&dq=1655+R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi+wallachia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcm7Xj__rOAhWEVxoKHdAUBusQ6AEIQjAF#v=on epage&q=1655%20R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi%20wallachia&f=false

"I cannot find any Battle of Lajos II (Louis II) with Bogdan" Because there were not contemporary persons. (there were more than 100 years between them) Search Lajos or "Louis the great" or Louis I

1394/95 - King Zsigmond's campaign on Moldova. Results: Results: the voivode (Stefan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army. Yes, Moldavia became a vassal state again (Originally as I it mentioned above, Moldavia was founded as a buffer state of Hungary)

Principality of Transylvania was a Hungarian state, despite of romanian vlach immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_(1570%E2%80%931711)

It was created from Eastern Hungarian Kingdom with treaty of Speyer.

Lets finish this fast :)

>1272, we defeated your late nomadic Vlach ancestors in Northern Bulgaria (lower Danube) It was not a great task for Hungarian knights to defeat nomads like you.

Then post some source plz :)

You mean the fight between Litovoi(who ruled the Litovoi voivodship, from right of Olt to Hateg country in Transylvania) and Seneslau in 1272?This fight was in Banat, not anywhere near lower Danube and it has nothing to do with hungarians, except that Seneslau voivodship was under hungarian suzeranity.The magyar kinds wanted Litovoi to participate too in the wars fough by the magyar crown, but Litovoi refused.
Here is a translation on how the byzantine chronicle of Nicephoros Biemmydes described the fight from 1272-1273 of litovoi and transylvanain voivod Nicolae Geregye(1272-1273), we see that hungarian ran like bitches.

"When the hungarians got stuck in some very narrow path,they were attacked by the vlach crowd from the forests and mountains, and so he died(the transylvanian voivod) togheter with the worthy men Petru,his vice-voivod, with Dejeu also called Vas, with Petru Ruffus,with the szeklers Petru and Ladislau, brave men and with other numerous soldiers and nobles.And after the hungarians abandoned the soldiers,they ran like hell,reaching muddy and swampy places, narrow, many of them being killed by vlachs;only some were escaped with a great deal of luck, and the body of Nicolae boivod, getting it with hard fight from the vlachs, they took him in Hungary, to bury him"
"Finally, after this sad moment, with the help of Nicolae de Gara, the lord of Macso, even the royal soldiers who passed the Danube in fortified boats and defended from the attacks of the vlachs of Litovoi voivod, who shoot arrows over them, the enemies started to run and scatter like dust;and the remainings of what was left from the soldiers entered in Severin country;"

Later Severin is under hungarian suzeranity again, and Litovoi killed(1278/79) by some magister Georgius, however they dont tell us how it happens.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In 1369 King Louis I the Great occupied the nomadic vassal state Wallachia, because vallachian nomadic prince Vladislav I didn't want to pay the annual tribute for the Hungarians.

This again, never happened, but why not post some legit source(chronicle), I cant see what "Just a Bite: A Transylvania Vampire Expert's Short History of the Undead" has to do with this.

Vladislav I was a vassal of the Bulgarian Emperor Ivan Alexander not of any hungarian king.What happened in February 1369 Vladislav I subdued Vidin and recognised Louis I of Hungary as his overlord in return for Severin, Amlaş, and Făgăraş.

>Wallachia was a Hungarian vassal state, which became ottoman vassal state.

From 1330(when Wallachia becomes independent from Hungarian Kingdom after Posada Battle) to 1417(when it becomes vassal to ottoman Empire) Wallachia was INDEPENDENT.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Even your Moldavia was founded in the name of Louis the Great of Hungary.

Again false and you fail to bring even one chronicle.You keep posting books with no relevance, not even a refference to any contemporany document.
Lets see how Moldova was founded and its population before :)

Moldova was created way before by a population of christian root(Gardîzî 1094 and Hudud al - Alam 892) who had two primary components in origin
-old brodniks of proto-slavic origin(balkanic slavs) - Russian Chronicle (1159-1174)
-daco-moesian togheter with "infidels" of neo-latin origin, vlachs, who fleed from Transylvania, not agreeing with the magyar supremacy and growing power of catholic church.

All this population was organised in pre-statal structures.Mentions about this indigenous people we find as "(„brutenos et infideles” - brodniks and vlachs) in 1224 (Russian Chronicle (1159-1174)) at the first fight of kneaz of Kiev Msteslav with the tatars,Hypatian Codex in "Ipatiev Chronicle"(vlachs lived in X-XII century on Dnister, and Podolia) but also in 1277(when they tried to help czech king Otokar who was fighting with hungarians).These pre-statat structure were called tari(lat. terra - land) and were for ex. Vrancea, Câmpulung and Thigheci.Earlier in 1150, a chronicle mentions the city Volohovo sitauted in the "romanian country" from Haliciu.The first state on this territory appeared firstly starting with XIII century, in medieval maps as Valachia Minor, and we find out that the king Ottocar II could not receive help from rhutenians in the fight with Rudolf of Habsburgs, because they were in military conflict with the vlachs from the borders of the knezate.Of vlach voivods ruling this territory we find out even from 1307 from Ottocar of Styria chronicle.

So we find out that a vlacho-slavic population pre-existed before the formation of the state Moldova.Moldova was found firstly as a politico-miltary structure to defend the upper parts of hungarian kingdom by the vlach voivod Dragos, from Maramures at the order of Ludovic the Great.Later, the family of another voivod from Maramures, Bogdan, who was in conflict with Hungarian King who retracted his title and called him "infidel", passes the Carphatians with his family and a small army, and banished Dragos and his descendents , starts the dynasty of Musat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>1396 Battle: https://books.google.com/books?id=1m...ungary&f=false

lel you said 1395 and now you gave me a book which talk about 1396(It is because you yourself didnt read what blogen wrote and now you pated the first book you found on google with this year :)))) !)

The book of (((Zsolt Hunyadi, József Laszlovszky))) talks about of Stibor, a polish ruler from Transylvania, who helped Mircea go again at throne of Wallachia.But what he does not tell is that this idea was of Sigismund of Luxembourg,the army that fought with the wallachian-ottoman one of Vlad was in the large part that of Mircea the Elder muntenians and transylvanians of Stibor, the maghiar knights didnt really number much.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Yes , György Rákóczy II was defeated you many times. https://books.google.com/books?id=7E...lachia&f=false

And what is this proof?Some book "Well-Connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman History" you found after searching "1655 Rákóczi wallachia".

Again I do not see any source beeing refferenced in that book so there is no material for me to comment.

>"I cannot find any Battle of Lajos II (Louis II) with Bogdan" Because there were not contemporary persons. (there were more than 100 years between them) Search Lajos or "Louis the great" or Louis I

Wait, but you just told me earlier that and I quote "1358 - King II Lajos 's campaign on Moldova. Results: the voivode (Bogdan I) makes a vassal oath " :))))))))))

And neither I cannot find any battle of any Luis/Lajos with any Bogdan.

>1394/95 - King Zsigmond's campaign on Moldova. Results: Results: the voivode (Stefan I) makes a vassal oath after the royal troops beat the Moldovan army. Yes, Moldavia became a vassal state again (Originally as I it mentioned above, Moldavia was founded as a buffer state of Hungary)

True, but you previously said that the royal army of hungary defeated the moldavian one, which is false,like Sigismund writes,they were defeated by the moldavians at Ghindaoani, and the letter ends with Stefan I apologising, for some unknown reason"

-----------------------------------------------------------

>Principality of Transylvania was a Hungarian state, despite of romanian vlach immigration.
False and it writes exactly to the Wiki page YOU yourself posted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_(1570%E2%80%931711)

It was usually under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire; however, the principality often had dual vassalage (Ottoman Turkish sultans and the Habsburg Hungarian kings) in the 16th and 17th centuries.[14][15]

Very embarrasing for you.

>despite of romanian vlach immigration.

There is no recorded vlach migration in Transylvania.However I can talk days about how the vlachs were even banished from Transylvania in hundreds of thousands to Moldova and Wallachia, with actual contemporany writtings from that era, including hungarian documents :)))))

Stears

09-07-2016, 04:55 PM

Europe 1360, political map (incl. Vassal systems)
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/images/maps/decworld/1360Europe.jpg

Europe political map: 1400
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a1/5a/29/a15a2955c50e9b83663631db209e6841.jpg

http://www.edmaps.com/europe_14_century.jpg

Occupation of Vallachia by Louis the great in 1342
https://books.google.com/books?id=bWQFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT165&dq=hungarian+wallachia+vassal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwurnV0PzOAhUBiiwKHRe-AtoQ6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20wallachia%20vassal&f=false

Hungarians extended authority in Serbia, Bosnia Wallachia

In 1365 occupied Bulgaria Vidin

https://books.google.com/books?id=HT4MAQAAMAAJ&q=%22The+Hungarians+exercized+authority+in+Bosnia% 22&dq=%22The+Hungarians+exercized+authority+in+Bosnia %22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCytKNx_zOAhUGDiwKHSjXD-gQ6AEIHjAA

Bulgaria Moldavia Wallachia were vassal princedoms .

https://books.google.com/books?id=DTxu6RxdecUC&pg=PA87&dq=%22louis+the+great%22+vlachs+vassal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaytnmvfvOAhVElxoKHVJOA1EQ6AEIGjAA#v=on epage&q=%22louis%20the%20great%22%20vlachs%20vassal&f=false

prince Nicholas Alexander, vassal of Hungarian King

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=1010&tbm=bks&q=%22finally+accepted+paying+the+homage+of+vassala ge+to+the+king+of+Hungary%22&oq=%22finally+accepted+paying+the+homage+of+vassal age+to+the+king+of+Hungary%22&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.1242361.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0. ...0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.vfmz0Lx4JpQ

prince Vlad vassal of King of Hungary:
https://books.google.com/books?id=aqCrAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT5&dq=hungarian+wallachia+vassal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwurnV0PzOAhUBiiwKHRe-AtoQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20wallachia%20vassal&f=false

Wallachia was often vassal of the two great power Hungary and the Ottomans.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1j-AtkBmn78C&pg=PA290&dq=hungarian+wallachia+vassal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwurnV0PzOAhUBiiwKHRe-AtoQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20wallachia%20vassal&f=false

Dragos, the founder of Moldavia was vassal of the Hungarian king who come from Transylvania.
https://books.google.com/books?id=G7NBAAAAYAAJ&q=moldova+vassal+hungary&dq=moldova+vassal+hungary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxq-r3wf3OAhVH8ywKHZMMCfQ4PBDoAQgqMAA

prince of Moldavia vassal oaut for the Hungarian King:
https://books.google.com/books?id=EmkBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&dq=moldova+vassal+hungary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinheiIvP3OAhWBmywKHTgxDzMQ6AEIKDAA#v=on epage&q=moldova%20vassal%20hungary&f=false

Gabriel Báthory occupied Wallachia in 1611
https://books.google.com/books?id=__WmBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=hungary+%22occupation+of+wallachia%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi49Mvn5_zOAhUElCwKHW8ZDpAQ6AEIGjAA#v=on epage&q=hungary%20%22occupation%20of%20wallachia%22&f=false

Stears

09-07-2016, 04:58 PM

gypsy barking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_(1570%E2%80%931711)

The polity was a symbol of the survival of Hungarian statehood,[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_%281570%E2%80%931711% 29#cite_note-16) and it represented the Hungarian interests against Habsburg encroachments in Habsburg ruled Kingdom of Hungary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary_%281526%E2%80%931867%29).[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_%281570%E2%80%931711% 29#cite_note-17) All traditional Hungarian law remained to be followed scrupulously in the principality;[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_%281570%E2%80%931711% 29#cite_note-Hupchick-14) furthermore, the state was imbued with a preponderantly Protestant feature.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_%281570%E2%80%931711% 29#cite_note-18)

Again, Habsburg Empire did not exist, it is a dynastic name for the countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_Monarchy

The Habsburg Monarchy (German (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): Habsburgermonarchie) or Empire, occasionally also styled as the Danubian Monarchy (Donaumonarchie), is an unofficial appellation (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appellation#English) among historians for the countries and provinces that were ruled by the junior Austrian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduchy_of_Austria) branch of the House of Habsburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg) until 1780 and then by the successor branch of Habsburg-Lorraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg-Lorraine) until 1918. The Monarchy was a composite state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_state) composed of territories within and outside the Holy Roman Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire), united only in the person of the monarch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_union).

Stears

09-07-2016, 05:09 PM

VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE, the vast majority of Romanian population preserved its nomadic lifestyle and heritage until the end of 16th century. They were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period. The romanian literacy and their earliest chronicles appeared only in the early 17th century (Grigore Ureche's chronicle). USE Google books! (The word's largest digitalized library, the largest collection of printed books) See the google book results (search the british american candian authors about medieval romanians Vlachs):

https://books.google.com/books?id=bRZaCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&dq=romanians+nomad+vlach+-romani+-gypsy&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikreS0gsDLAhUsEJoKHVa7B884ChDoAQgrMAI#v =onepage&q=romanians%20nomad%20vlach%20-romani%20-gypsy&f=false

B. Fowkes (2002) : Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World -PAGE: 12

"That curious minority, the Vlachs of the Balkans, for example, were on the face of it Romanians ('Wallachians') but in fact the name was also applied to Slavs who shared the same pastoral, nomadic life as the Romanian shepherds."

https://books.google.com/books?id=_q14xoaXj1UC&pg=PA181&dq=are+held+to+be+interlopers+who+were+nomadic+she pherds+that+migrated+into+Transylvania&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2t46kkMLLAhXCkg8KHYWzDuIQ6AEIGzAA#v=on epage&q=are%20held%20to%20be%20interlopers%20who%20were% 20nomadic%20shepherds%20that%20migrated%20into%20T ransylvania&f=false

Norman Berdichevsky (2004): Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181.

"The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania."

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xoww453NVQMC&pg=PA128&dq=romanians+nomad+vlach+-romani+-gypsy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikreS0gsDLAhUsEJoKHVa7B884ChDoAQhYMAg#v =onepage&q=romanians%20nomad%20vlach%20-romani%20-gypsy&f=false

Victor Roudometof (2002): Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question - PAGE: 128

"The Vlachs are mainly pastoral nomads dispersed among the states of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Romania. Since they are Orthodox Christians, they have mostly become part of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox ..."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WDRzBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA309&dq=%22nomadic+vlachs%22+-roma+-gypsy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP2KihoMDLAhWnZpoKHc0qBrwQ6AEIKTAC#v=on epage&q=%22nomadic%20vlachs%22%20-roma%20-gypsy&f=false

Roumen Daskalov, ?Alexander Vezenkov - 2015: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies PAGE: 309

"Zlatarski adds an a priori statement that the very thought of an uprising could occur only to Bulgarian local notables or voivods, not to the nomadic Vlachs, who he says were at a low level of cultural development"

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kpEc8ltyqnUC&pg=PA408&dq=nomadic+wallachians++-romani+-gypsy+-roma&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiunZGSicDLAhUqCZoKHWckBsAQ6AEIRTAG#v=on epage&q=nomadic%20wallachians%20%20-romani%20-gypsy%20-roma&f=false

Rob Humphreys, ?Susie Lunt, ?Tim Nollen - 2002 : Rough Guide to the Czech & Slovak Republics - Page 408

"Wallachian culture As far as anybody can make out, the Wallachs or Vlachs were semi-nomadic sheep and goat farmers who settled the mountainous areas of eastern Moravia and western Slovakia in the fifteenth century."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YXwUAQAAIAAJ&q=%22wallachians+were%22+nomadic&dq=%22wallachians+were%22+nomadic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuw6y1l8DLAhWlNJoKHREED8gQ6AEILzAE

Marek Koter, ?Krystian Heffner - 1999 : Multicultural regions and cities - Page 164

"Nomadic shepherds from the Balkan Peninsula (Wallachians) were moving along the bow of the Carpathians in search of new pastures. "

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=108MAQAAMAAJ&q=%22wallachian+people%22+nomadic&dq=%22wallachian+people%22+nomadic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcoez8l8DLAhWqA5oKHcdnCLgQ6AEIHDAA

Marek S. Szczepański Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, Jan 1, 1997 - Ethnic Minorities & Ethnic Majority: Sociological Studies of Ethnic Relations in Poland -PAGE: 325
"They were just the Wallachian people (nomadic tribes from the present Romania) from who contemporary Lemks descended; it should be testified by both the elements of material culture, similarities of customs and languages"

https://books.google.com/books?id=owY4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=into+Walachia+and+continued+their+pastoral+and+ semi-nomadic+life+in+Transylvania+and+the+Carpathian+Mo untains.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8x-avo8DLAhWkdpoKHVjzArQQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=into%20Walachia%20and%20continued%20their%20past oral%20and%20semi-nomadic%20life%20in%20Transylvania%20and%20the%20C arpathian%20Mountains.&f=false

Normal J. G. Pounds - 1976 - : An Historical Geography of Europe 450 B.C.-A.D. 1330, Part 1330 -PAGE: 251

"The chief importance of the Vlachs lies, however, in the possible relationship to the Romanians. ... Ages, crossed the Danube into Walachia and continued their pastoral and semi-nomadic life in Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains."

Stears

09-07-2016, 05:10 PM

Do you have any questions you liar gypsy?

RN97

09-07-2016, 08:20 PM

Do you have any questions you liar gypsy?

Why do you look like a serial killer?

aherne

09-08-2016, 05:07 AM

Why do you look like a serial killer?

He looks absolutely demented, as are his obsessive writings. Probably in and out of nut-house...

Sali77

09-09-2016, 01:24 PM

[URL]https:/.

Europe 1360,

Your maps have no value here,neither your irrelevant proofless books you found on google store, only documents prove the political status.If you cannot provide a document where it speaks of the vassality of Wallachia to Hungarian kingdom then its over.
So when you are talking of vassality, then you have to present the document of vassality.So opening the documents of Wallachia at that era we find out that Wallachia was not under hungarian suzeranity in 1360.(Documenta Romanias Historica. B series Wallachia Volume 1 1247-1500)
In late 1359, Wallachia was ruled by Nicolae Alexandru Basarab, who will take the title of "autocrat lord"(samodirjet, own ruler) where he affirms the independence of Wallachia and opposes the expansion of maghiars, and even starts the Vlahia Mitropoly, which depended on Constantinople.
Even more, we find out from the Pict Chronicle of Vienna(written around 1350) that Wallachia suzeranity over South Carphatians is over,and the independence of the state ruled by Basarab(severin ban, oltenia,muntenia untill danube, and Basarabia)

>Occupation of Vallachia by Louis the great in 1342
>https://books.google.ro/books?id=bWQFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT165&dq=hungarian+wallachia+vassal&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20wallachia%20vassal&f=false
>Hungarians extended authority in Serbia, Bosnia Wallachia
>In 1365 occupied Bulgaria Vidin
>prince Nicholas Alexander, vassal of Hungarian King
>prince Vlad vassal of King of Hungary:

Your book has no source and neither does it refference any source or any chronicle.
And this Andrew Rawson is wrong.Vlaicu Voda was not vassal to any hungarian king, just to Bulgarian Emperor ivan Alexander(Bakalov, Istorija na Balgarija, "Dobrotica (neizv.–okolo 1385)).Only in February 1369 Vladislav I subdued Vidin and recognised Louis I of Hungary as his overlord in return for Severin, Amlas, and Fagaras.So it is not that Hungarian Kingdom conquered Wallachia.
Only true thing is that Hungarians occupied the BULGARIAN Vidin from 1365 to 1369.No relationship with vlachs.

So we find again how hungarians were getting ravaged in battle.Louis marched to the Lower Danube and ordered Nicholas Lackfi, Voivode of Transylvania, to invade Wallachia in the autumn of 1368.The voivode's army marched through the valley of the Ialomi?a River, but the Wallachians ambushed it and killed many Hungarian soldiers, including the voivode.

>https://books.google.ro/books?id=DTxu6RxdecUC&pg=PA87&dq=%22louis+the+great%22+vlachs+vassal&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22louis%20the%20great%22%20vlachs%20vassal&f=false

False.Louis did not have any direct vasality over Wallachia, only the son of Basarab, Nicolae Alexandru swore loyalty to Louis in Brasov.

And neither was Moldova a vassal.In the beginning it started as a vassal, because of the founder Dragos.But nother Romanian voivode, Bogdan, who had rebelled against Louis and plundered the estates of the Romanian landowners loyal to the king already in the 1340s, departed from Hungary and invaded Moldavia in the early 1360s.Bogdan expelled the descendants of Louis's vassal, Drago?, from the principality.Bogdan ruled Moldavia as an independent prince and started the Musat dynasty.

>Wallachia was often vassal of the two great power Hungary and the Ottomans.

From 1330(when Wallachia becomes independent from Hungarian Kingdom after Posada Battle) to 1417(when it becomes vassal to ottoman Empire) Wallachia was anINDEPENDENT state with his kings sometimes swering loyalty to foreign kings for territories.Wallachia in that period had always its own foreign policy.Vladislav I himself was crowned by the metropolite without the recognition of Louis I.

>Dragos, the founder of Moldavia was vassal of the Hungarian king who come from Transylvania.

True, it was covered above.But he was quickly dethroned by Bogdan, who made Moldavia independent after.

>prince of Moldavia vassal oaut for the Hungarian King:

Stephen Moldavia was not vassal to Hungarian Kingdom.He pledged allegiance to Mattia but when he signed the treaty in 4 april 1459 at Overchelauti , he only recognised as vassal to polish king Kazimir IV Jagello, which angered Matia, who later started multiple campaigns against Stefan, including the Baia Battle(where the chronicle of Jan Dlugosz mention around 40000 magyar knights against 12000 men of Stefan).Matia was stabbed and hit by arrows 3 times, almost being killed.The battle was the last Hungarian attempt to subdue the independent Moldavia, as previous attempts had ended in failure. The conflict ended with a bitter defeat for the Hungarians. This put an end to all Hungarian claims on Moldavia.

https://s16.postimg.io/kbkxqy71x/Mold.jpg

>Gabriel Báthory occupied Wallachia in 1611

Transylvanai Chronicle 1608-1665 - Georg Kraus (Georg Kraus, Erdélyi krónika 1608-1665)

The army of the transylvanian ruler Bathory was formed all from mercenaries supported by ottomans(a good part tatars).Radu only occupies Targoviste, and even at the 3 month period he ruled Targoviste, the sultan does not recognise him. Radu Serban on 7 july 1611 attacks and defeat Bathory at Brasov and I quote what Bathory said at the end of the battle "Fusson az ki futhat "(maybe you can translate?!).By the way, Radu Serban in 1603 defeated and killed the ruler of Transylvania Moise Szekely.

-------------------------------------------------------

Nothing of what you posted says that Principality of Transylvania was a hungarian state.
Principality of Transylvania was never a hungarian state, its was semi-independent under hungarian suzeranity.
Chronicles:Documenta Romaniae Historica, Seria C. Transilvania

From 1541, starting with John Zapolya II(put on throne by Suleiman II) to 1691 existed the Transilvanian Principality.The Transilvanian Principality was recognised by the Ottoman Empire as qvasi-independent, the turkic suzeranity being accepted by the diets from Targu Mures(26 january 1542),Turda(29 march 1543 and at 1 august 1544),also had to pay to the Ottoman Gate anually a „munus honorarium” worth 10.000 ducats.Also, it is worth mentioning that the Principality didnt include Banat(South-West of Transylvania,annexed by ottomans), and after 1660 Bihor(transformed into eyyelat, with the center at Oradea).So from 1571 to 1602 Bathory family ruled Transylvania, underottoman and austriak suzeranity.Not under any hungarian suzeranity.

Also there is a major problem with the book you posted of Karoly Kocsis.It uses a forged estimation from 1989 of another hungarian Barta.Such non-contemporany proofless estimations do not count under any circumstance for a census of 1595.Károly Kocsis & Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi are the hungarian forgers that created in 20th century, the only censuses that support hungarians.This is very pathetic.

Now lets see what you did not respond to my previous posts.I have adressed all your posts yet you didnt adress not even close, what I posted.

-The 1272 battle of Litovoi where hungarians were defeated.
-Moldavia was not founded in the name of Louis the Great of Hungary, it was formed from slavs-vlachs way before in pre-states and formed later as a buffer state at the order of Ludovic.
-Your non-existent 1396 battle that you said it existed
-i could not find any battle of any Lajos with any Bogdan, yet you said it existed, and Lajos even won
-You said that the royal army of Sigismund defeated the moldavian one, yet in the chronicle the moldavians not only won, but obliterated them.
-you did not post any record of any vlach migration

If you cannot adress this points then say you cant and dont just change the subject.

Sali77

09-09-2016, 01:25 PM

VLACHS (Romanians) WERE TH"

None of what you posted, except Coon have any relevance.Not only that they talk of the few aromanians(vlachs who were recorded to have migrated from Romania pushed by barbarians, and live mainly in Tessaly/Pind mountains) and even more important is that your cherrypicked paragraphs speak of 21th century vlachs(who are very few in number and have no country).But lets see why you cherrypicked the one from Coon.

Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614
" Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja"

Lets see the full quotes:

(Chapter XII, section 16)

"In classical times Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia formed what known as Dacia, and the Dacians were considered to be a branch of the Thracians. The Dacians included an upper class, distinguished by the practice of wearing brimless felt hats, Scythian style, and a peasantry, among whom the men went bare-headed, with their hair long, as do the older and more conservative of the present-day Rumanian peasants.

The Vlachs have always been far wanderers; many of them are shepherds, and the pastoral life has been as important to them, until modern times, as agriculture. In Macedonia and northern Greece, and in Southern Albania, Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of Arabs, and like those which one may suppose the Scythians used before them."

So Coon is actually telling us that vlachs are really similar in clothes with dacians/scythians.

"During the century and a half of Roman rule, the language of Dacia became Latin, and modern Rumanian is without doubt a descendant of that colonial speech"
"In view of the complex ethnic history of Rumania, the living Rumanians may be expected to show evidence of a multiplicity of racial origin. To native Dacian elements, which must have included a blend of indigenous Neolithic peoples with Satem-speaking Nordics, have been added whatever population the Romans brought and which did not run away, and a multitude of early Slavs whom the Vlachs absorbed. Other elements, Ugric, Tatar, and Gothic, were probably of lesser importance."

"The Vlachs, a widespread and numerous people in southeastern Europe, are the descendants of Romanized aborigines, and of other peoples whom these latter have absorbed. They have no racial homogeneity, but vary regionally according to the races long seated in the regions where they live. In the northeast, where the Moldavian plain forms a continuation of the Black Earth region of southern Russia, the Neo-Danubian type of the Black Earth region is predominant; in the southeast, where a local Atlanto-Mediterranean type is concentrated, the Vlachs tend to assume that form; west of the Carpathians, and near the crest of that range, they are Dinarics of the first rank, comparable to that other group of mountain-dwelling speakers of Neo-Latin, the Ladiner."

Rekted again by your own picked book, clown.

>VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE, the vast majority of Romanian population preserved its nomadic lifestyle and heritage until the end of 16th century.

Show me contemporany chronicles(before 16th century) of how romanians were all nomadic.

>>The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century.

Really?I can post hundreds of pages of christian artefacts.

Romanians were christianised starting with Saint Andrew mission here.Even Gerogia,Iberia and Armenia fail to explain the unique liturgical vocabulary of Romanian which could only have been acquired at the very sources of Early Christianity. Cunningly, even Edward Gibbon, as early as the 1780s, vindicates an early Christianization beyond the Left Bank of the Lower Danube.All of our episcopas sees directly related to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Early Churches built by romanians:

333 Beroes - oldest in SE Europe Piatra Frecatei (city Tulcea)
353 Callatis - Mangalia, (city Constanta)
357 Dinogetia - Gârvan (city Tulcea)
358 Troesmis - Iglita-Turcoaia, (city Tulcea)
358 Axiopolis - Hinog lânga Cernavoda (city Constanta)
358 Constantiana - Capul Dolojman
359 Noviodunum - Isaccea

361 Ulmetum - Pantelimon
364 Ibida - Slava Rusa singura din Scythia Minor cu trei altare spre rasarit
365 Isvoarele367 Niculitel

369 Densus - oldest north of lower Danube still in use today
398 Slaveni ? (city Olt)

412 Sarmizegetusa (judetul Hunedoara)
457 Porolissum - Moigrad (judetul Salaj)

435 Morisena - Cenad (monastery)
449 Sucidava - Celei (city Timis)
860 Dabâca
900 Corbii de piatra
1177 Bodrogu Vechi (Hodos) Ciala
1057 Dinogetia - Gârvan (judetul Tulcea) - reconstructed
1066 Alba Iulia (actual catholic cathedral was built upon it)
1168 Drobeta - Turnu Severin
1304 "Biserica din deal" din Ieud

Not to mention the Paleo-christian churches in 4th century Romania,all built on top of roman fort ruins,Slaveni village (county of Olt),Sucidava (today’s Celei-Corabia, county of Olt), with a series of Christian inscriptions in Greek, and in Morisena (today’s Cenad, county of Timis).

A strong proof of the old age of the Romanian Christianity is made by many words with religious meaning in the main lexical background of the Romanian language, that have been used since the 3rd-4th centuries until today.We mention the words: church (coming from basilica), faith, law, Resurrection, Ascension, Epiphany, Trinity, Father, Virgin, angel, altar, cross, prayer, temple, sin, father, pagan, to christen, to give Eucharist, to cross, to pray, a.s.o.
A few Christian feasts took over the names of some pagan feasts close to the dates of our feasts, with a stress on a new, Christian meaning (Calatio - calationem - Christmas, Florilia - Florii (Palm Sunday), Rosalia - Rusalii (Pentecost), dies conservatoria - sarbatoare (holiday). A significant detail is that 90% of the words in the “Lord’s Prayer”, as well as in the “Creed” drafted at the first two Ecumenical Synods (325 and 381) are of Latin origin (except for mistake, temptation and save in the Lord’s Prayer), which fact proves that they have been known by the Romanians’ forerunners as far back as the period of their formation as a people.
Great Christians.

Interesting read:
http://www.academia.edu/552692/The_S...2004_1-4_41-59
-Vasile Pârvan, Epigrphic Contributions at the Daco-Roman Christianity, Bucharest, Socec, 1911
-Emilian Popescu, Greek and Latin Inscriptions IV-XIIIth c AD discovered in Romania, RSR Academia Publisher, Bucharest 1976
-Grigore Tocilescu, Epigraphic and Sculptural Monuments of the Antiquities National Museum in Bucharest, 1881
-Constantin Daicoviciu, Contributions at Religious Syncretism in Sarmizegetuza, Cluj Cartea Româneasca, 1930
-Dumitru Tudor, New Romanian Inscription from Oltenia and Dobrogea, Academia Publisher Bucharest,1956
-Dumitru Tudor, Roman Oltenia, RSR Academia Publisher, Bucharest,1968
-Nicolae Gudea, From Romanian Christianity History .Archeological Proves,
-Nicolae Cojocaru,Christian Cult Traditions :from the beginnings till today. Ortodox Christianity.
-Constantin C Giurescu, Romanian History, Cugetaarea Publisher, 1943.
-Histoire des religionesII* sous la direction d`Henri-Charles Puech, Galimard, 1972
-Mihail Diaconescu,Daco-Roman Literature History, Alcor Edimpex Publisher
-Vasile Boroneant, The Archeological Researches from Chitila, Ferm Chitila in 2001previous data and stratigraphy. History and
Museography Materials, vol. XVI, Bucharest.

>No known archiutecture existed before that period.

So the over 300 archaelogical sites dont exit )))

Here's a list of all the archaeological sites in the 3 counties forming Central Transylvania (Cluj, Alba and Mures), as published by professor Linda Ellis of the San Francisco State University in the journal "World Archaeology" vol 30, 1998, the article aptly named "Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia":

40 sites in Cluj county, covering the 4th to 10th century AD
57 sites in the Alba county, covering the 4th to 13th century AD
211 sites in Mures county, covering the 5th to 10th century AD

Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/124984

Her conclusion: "The post-Roman era has demonstrated an abundant archaeological record of burial and settlement, along with a continuation in distribution of Roman objects throughout former core and peripheral areas. "

Lets post some more.There are a few hundred daco-roman sites from Aurelian Retreat to XII century, located in Transylvania.More on http://cronica.cimec.ro/ , the official romanian archaelogy website, most are translated in english and with photos.

st select some random ones, because being hundreds, this can take ages.

"Again on the Mures inferior valey , are found archaelogical objects like earthen lamps with cross sign,diverse latin icons and inscription from Felnac,Vladimirescu,Sambateni,Lipova,Bata,object used with certitute only and only by the daco-roman populations" Ziridava (revista Muzeului Judetean Arad), 1993

Some examples of daco-roman settlements of the romanised dacian populations:

Suceagu (Cluj) Early Roman (1st - 3rd cent.); Early Migrations Period (3rd - 6th cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=635

Rural unfortified settlement; Cercetari sistematice si de salvare; 1989, 1991-1992. Dwelling were dug both from surface and deep.Archaelogically, no discontinuation of population was found.A workshop for bone processing was found from IV century.The archaelogical amterial was extremly rich:ceramics,lamps,fibulae,iron objects,grinders,tuff,terra sigillata, an inscription fragment from the Roman era,gray polished ceramic(many intact plates),iron objects,bone artefacts ornamnted,spindles,sandstone,an iron fibula,pottery worked by hand of dacian origin from IV-V,rough paste ceramics.2 ovens for ceramic burning,dated based on ceramics on III-IV.

Vladiceasca (Ilfov) (end of V - start of VI)Late Migrations Period (VII - XIth cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=301

Ill just quote the V-VI period

The typology of the ceramics makes us to frame, for the moment, this complexes at the end of V and the first half of VI.Excavations from Vladiceasca releaved yet again another settlement of the romanised population in an area of Vlasiei Plain, less explored so far.

Berghin (Alba) Late Migrations Period (7th - 11th cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=59

In conclusion, this years excavations have revealed new testimonies regarding the romanisation process of the autochtonous dacians in the Roman rule in Dacia and in the process of the romanian population formation(VII-VIII)

And a very interesting and important archaelogical site :

Sighisoara Late Medieval; Prehistory;

ttp://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=7

This city area is inahbited, with minor intrerruptions, for about 4000 years, being archaelogical certified a settlement from bronze age, 2 dacian settlements from iron age,a roman fort for road guarding, a daco-roman settlement and their descendents.

They executed two sections (12.50 x 2 m, respectively, 14.50 x 2 m) in order to explore the upper north-north-east of the necropolis remained unexplored. During investigations 81 graves of cremation have been identified , which raises the number of funerary complexes uncovered so far to 610. Of these, 52 tombs belong to the Dacian population identified in the settlement of the village precincts during the Roman period (II-III century AD). The graves are oval, circular, diamond or rectangular contour and are marked by river boulders. Of the earth filling of the sepulchral holes were collected Dacian and Roman pottery fragments, pieces of coal and scrap of calcined human bones, one portion of a glass and bronze bracelets, etc.. The other 29 tombs are with cremation urns (26) or simple holes (3) featuring the prefeudal cemetery (VII-VIII century AD). Urns containing cremated remains of the defunct (whole and fragmented bones), pieces of coal and various pieces of bronze (one ear from an earring wire), iron (staples, hook, buckles with spin, nails, knife blades, etc.). and Stone (tips, blades, etc..). It is noted that 601 M is as white (126 x 78 cm) and contains a large quantity of scrap cinerary, especially charcoal and burnt earth, calcined bone chips and a few scattered pottery fragments from a vessel broken on the ritual pyre. In conclusion, this year's excavations have revealed further testimony about the process of Romanization of the indigenous Dacians during the Roman domination in Dacia and during the formation of the Romanian people (VII-VIII century AD).

The following locations show continuous Daco-Roman habitation from the 3rd to the 5th century [75]
Mines: Baia de Cris, Tincova, Ruda, Alun, Hunedoara, Baita Cib, Fizes, Cabesti, Videim, Albac, Bistrita de Sus, Vidra, Cimpeni Lupsa, Salciua, Podeni, Potaissa, Baisoara, Valea Ierii.
Monetary thesauri: Bicasi, Pilu, Carei, Copalnic, Soimuseni, Doba Mica, Simieu Silvaniei, Porolissum, Babiu, Gurani, Sintna, Arad, Pecica, Cenad, Horia, Biled, Carani, Jimbova, Checea, Unip, Faget, Debra, Deva, Huedoara, Sepes, Ungureni, Apulum, Seica Mica, Seica Mare, Sura Mare, Sibiu, Ocna Sibiului Soars, Lasiea
Daco-Roman and Roman settlements: Taga, Soporu, Band, Lechinta, Ludus, Cipau, Brateiu, Seica Mica, Biertan, Sighisoara, Sinpaul, Morada, Ineu, Pilu, Biharia, Berca, Mediesu Aurit, Apa, Dej, Rascruci, Napoca, Baciu, Sebes, Hatg, Deva, Debra, Apulum, Gura Vaii, Cazanesti, Hateg, Faroia.
Major Cities and forts: Deva, Haţeg, Hunedoara, Sighişoara, Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, Bistriţa, Bicasi.
Bridges: Apulum
The cultural elements and styles of archaeological artefacts discovered over the period of the 3rd-5th centuries show a clear material and stylistic continuity, indicating continuous habitation by the same people. The cultural character of the findings remains the same until the 6th century, with the arrival of the Slavs. [76]
Ceramic manufacturing traditions continue from the pre-Roman to the Roman era continue both in Roman Dacia and unoccupied Dacia, and these traditions continue well into the fourth and fifth centuries. [77]
Cemeteries in Roman Dacia show cremation consistently across every necropolis, a pre-Roman Dacian tradition. Materials buried with cremated people are comparable both in Roman and in Free Dacia suggesting the native population did not suffer materially due to Roman occupation. [78]
Though there is a change from cremation to inhumation in the post-Roman period inhumation was an increasingly popular concept in the 3rd century. The rich ceramic remains in these necropoli are identical in technology to pre-Roman and Roman era tombs, including the presence of Roman amphorae and wheel-made, gravel-tempered, or hand-made pots. [79]
A noteworthy aspect of third to fifth century graves is the widespread distribution (from Transylvania to the Ukrainian border) and substantial number of objects of Roman manufacture, in excellent condition, which must be indicative of an active system of exchange. [80]
Archaeological surveys of the Banat region record numerous settlements, storage pits, pottery kilns, glass furnaces, metallurgical production sites, and coins (both as hoards and found on sites) [81] which indicate a continuation of both sedentary population and maintenance of Roman military and economic interests. [82]
Circulation of Roman coins grew both in Roman and Free Dacia in the 1st and 2nd centuries, declining in the third but then rising again since the 4th century [83] The extent and increase in coin circulation even after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia and as far north as Transcarpathia is argued by some prominent archaeologists to have no other analogy in neighboring provinces, nor in any other barbarian territory [84]
Some cities show the absence of Dacian names completely from inscriptions but which show Dacian burial rituals, indicating that Dacians near urban centers were rapidly Romanized, adopting Roman names but maintaining their old traditions. [85]
Archaeological digs throughout Transylvania and Romania have discovered many clay pots dating from the IV, V, VI, and VII centuries. What makes these pots particularly interesting is that they were made using the potter's wheel, an invention which no migratory people had when the came through Romania. The only population which could have produced these pots is one which had sufficient contact with the Roman and Hellenic world to adopt this style of making pots. We know the Slavs did not adopt this style until much later because pots made without the use of the potter's wheel are also found throughout Romania during this time. [22]
The thousands of old Roman coins dating from the IV, V and VI centuries found on Romania are peculiar because they are a) made of bronze and b) show the portrait of contemporary emperors on them. The first part affirms that these coins were not valuable, meaning that they were common currency. There is no way such coins could have found their way into Romania through tribute or trade between the Romans and barbarians because the Goths, Avars, Huns, and others would only accept gold coins and items as tribute, as bronze coins had little value or use to them. The material indicates that these coins were used as a common bartering currency for low-value items (like food or iron) by a poor populace. Their number, and the diverse locations that they've been found in, indicates that this populace was large, and spread all over the country. The second aspect reflects the historical fact that there was significant communication between this proto-Romanian populace and the Roman Empire, enough to allow for the accurate re-minting of coins. Even if the coins were imported by the proto-Romanians from the Romans, it still is evidence of significant contact between the Romans and the Romanians North of the Danube. [22]
A Daco-Roman necropolis was discovered in Sibiu belonging to the local population, which had, among the objects buried with the deceased, ceramic objects of Roman cultural origin, coins from the time of Antonius Pius (138-161) and Septimius Sever (193-211) and vases made in the Dacian style. [22] [86]

During the 5th-7th centuries houses all over Romania are noted as having "vatra" ovens, being ovens made of clay and surrounded by stones. These ovens could not have belonged to the Slavs who had a different style of construction, and is noticeable in Dacian-occupied areas in Romania during the 1st-3rd century. Traditional Roman ovens were also discovered in the same area as these "vatra ovens." [87]

>The romanian literacy and their earliest chronicles appeared only in the early 17th century

Source please.What does Grigore Ureche's chronicle has to do anything with romanian literacy?

Sali77

09-09-2016, 01:27 PM

Do you have any questions you liar gypsy?

Except posting irrelevant book paragraphs you searched on google store, you never made in this thread not even one argument.Even more your whole posts are getting decimated, even using your own posts nigger.

Green

09-09-2016, 01:30 PM

Stears,you're 37.Get a job,Start a family,lose you're virginity,go to college or even better,get a life.

I think our Hungarian friend has serious mental problems.

Stears

09-10-2016, 07:37 PM

None of what you posted, except Coon have any relevance.Not only that they talk of the few aromanians(vlachs who were recorded to have migrated from Romania pushed by barbarians, and live mainly in Tessaly/Pind mountains) and even more important is that your cherrypicked paragraphs speak of 21th century vlachs(who are very few in number and have no country).But lets see why you cherrypicked the one from Coon.

Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614
" Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja"

Lets see the full quotes:

(Chapter XII, section 16)

"In classical times Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia formed what known as Dacia, and the Dacians were considered to be a branch of the Thracians. The Dacians included an upper class, distinguished by the practice of wearing brimless felt hats, Scythian style, and a peasantry, among whom the men went bare-headed, with their hair long, as do the older and more conservative of the present-day Rumanian peasants.

The Vlachs have always been far wanderers; many of them are shepherds, and the pastoral life has been as important to them, until modern times, as agriculture. In Macedonia and northern Greece, and in Southern Albania, Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of Arabs, and like those which one may suppose the Scythians used before them."

So Coon is actually telling us that vlachs are really similar in clothes with dacians/scythians.

"During the century and a half of Roman rule, the language of Dacia became Latin, and modern Rumanian is without doubt a descendant of that colonial speech"
"In view of the complex ethnic history of Rumania, the living Rumanians may be expected to show evidence of a multiplicity of racial origin. To native Dacian elements, which must have included a blend of indigenous Neolithic peoples with Satem-speaking Nordics, have been added whatever population the Romans brought and which did not run away, and a multitude of early Slavs whom the Vlachs absorbed. Other elements, Ugric, Tatar, and Gothic, were probably of lesser importance."

"The Vlachs, a widespread and numerous people in southeastern Europe, are the descendants of Romanized aborigines, and of other peoples whom these latter have absorbed. They have no racial homogeneity, but vary regionally according to the races long seated in the regions where they live. In the northeast, where the Moldavian plain forms a continuation of the Black Earth region of southern Russia, the Neo-Danubian type of the Black Earth region is predominant; in the southeast, where a local Atlanto-Mediterranean type is concentrated, the Vlachs tend to assume that form; west of the Carpathians, and near the crest of that range, they are Dinarics of the first rank, comparable to that other group of mountain-dwelling speakers of Neo-Latin, the Ladiner."

Rekted again by your own picked book, clown.

>VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE, the vast majority of Romanian population preserved its nomadic lifestyle and heritage until the end of 16th century.

Show me contemporany chronicles(before 16th century) of how romanians were all nomadic.

>>The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century.

Really?I can post hundreds of pages of christian artefacts.

Romanians were christianised starting with Saint Andrew mission here.Even Gerogia,Iberia and Armenia fail to explain the unique liturgical vocabulary of Romanian which could only have been acquired at the very sources of Early Christianity. Cunningly, even Edward Gibbon, as early as the 1780s, vindicates an early Christianization beyond the Left Bank of the Lower Danube.All of our episcopas sees directly related to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Early Churches built by romanians:

333 Beroes - oldest in SE Europe Piatra Frecatei (city Tulcea)
353 Callatis - Mangalia, (city Constanta)
357 Dinogetia - Gârvan (city Tulcea)
358 Troesmis - Iglita-Turcoaia, (city Tulcea)
358 Axiopolis - Hinog lânga Cernavoda (city Constanta)
358 Constantiana - Capul Dolojman
359 Noviodunum - Isaccea

361 Ulmetum - Pantelimon
364 Ibida - Slava Rusa singura din Scythia Minor cu trei altare spre rasarit
365 Isvoarele367 Niculitel

369 Densus - oldest north of lower Danube still in use today
398 Slaveni ? (city Olt)

412 Sarmizegetusa (judetul Hunedoara)
457 Porolissum - Moigrad (judetul Salaj)

435 Morisena - Cenad (monastery)
449 Sucidava - Celei (city Timis)
860 Dabâca
900 Corbii de piatra
1177 Bodrogu Vechi (Hodos) Ciala
1057 Dinogetia - Gârvan (judetul Tulcea) - reconstructed
1066 Alba Iulia (actual catholic cathedral was built upon it)
1168 Drobeta - Turnu Severin
1304 "Biserica din deal" din Ieud

Not to mention the Paleo-christian churches in 4th century Romania,all built on top of roman fort ruins,Slaveni village (county of Olt),Sucidava (today’s Celei-Corabia, county of Olt), with a series of Christian inscriptions in Greek, and in Morisena (today’s Cenad, county of Timis).

A strong proof of the old age of the Romanian Christianity is made by many words with religious meaning in the main lexical background of the Romanian language, that have been used since the 3rd-4th centuries until today.We mention the words: church (coming from basilica), faith, law, Resurrection, Ascension, Epiphany, Trinity, Father, Virgin, angel, altar, cross, prayer, temple, sin, father, pagan, to christen, to give Eucharist, to cross, to pray, a.s.o.
A few Christian feasts took over the names of some pagan feasts close to the dates of our feasts, with a stress on a new, Christian meaning (Calatio - calationem - Christmas, Florilia - Florii (Palm Sunday), Rosalia - Rusalii (Pentecost), dies conservatoria - sarbatoare (holiday). A significant detail is that 90% of the words in the “Lord’s Prayer”, as well as in the “Creed” drafted at the first two Ecumenical Synods (325 and 381) are of Latin origin (except for mistake, temptation and save in the Lord’s Prayer), which fact proves that they have been known by the Romanians’ forerunners as far back as the period of their formation as a people.
Great Christians.

Interesting read:
http://www.academia.edu/552692/The_S...2004_1-4_41-59
-Vasile Pârvan, Epigrphic Contributions at the Daco-Roman Christianity, Bucharest, Socec, 1911
-Emilian Popescu, Greek and Latin Inscriptions IV-XIIIth c AD discovered in Romania, RSR Academia Publisher, Bucharest 1976
-Grigore Tocilescu, Epigraphic and Sculptural Monuments of the Antiquities National Museum in Bucharest, 1881
-Constantin Daicoviciu, Contributions at Religious Syncretism in Sarmizegetuza, Cluj Cartea Româneasca, 1930
-Dumitru Tudor, New Romanian Inscription from Oltenia and Dobrogea, Academia Publisher Bucharest,1956
-Dumitru Tudor, Roman Oltenia, RSR Academia Publisher, Bucharest,1968
-Nicolae Gudea, From Romanian Christianity History .Archeological Proves,
-Nicolae Cojocaru,Christian Cult Traditions :from the beginnings till today. Ortodox Christianity.
-Constantin C Giurescu, Romanian History, Cugetaarea Publisher, 1943.
-Histoire des religionesII* sous la direction d`Henri-Charles Puech, Galimard, 1972
-Mihail Diaconescu,Daco-Roman Literature History, Alcor Edimpex Publisher
-Vasile Boroneant, The Archeological Researches from Chitila, Ferm Chitila in 2001previous data and stratigraphy. History and
Museography Materials, vol. XVI, Bucharest.

>No known archiutecture existed before that period.

So the over 300 archaelogical sites dont exit )))

Here's a list of all the archaeological sites in the 3 counties forming Central Transylvania (Cluj, Alba and Mures), as published by professor Linda Ellis of the San Francisco State University in the journal "World Archaeology" vol 30, 1998, the article aptly named "Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia":

40 sites in Cluj county, covering the 4th to 10th century AD
57 sites in the Alba county, covering the 4th to 13th century AD
211 sites in Mures county, covering the 5th to 10th century AD

Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/124984

Her conclusion: "The post-Roman era has demonstrated an abundant archaeological record of burial and settlement, along with a continuation in distribution of Roman objects throughout former core and peripheral areas. "

Lets post some more.There are a few hundred daco-roman sites from Aurelian Retreat to XII century, located in Transylvania.More on http://cronica.cimec.ro/ , the official romanian archaelogy website, most are translated in english and with photos.

st select some random ones, because being hundreds, this can take ages.

"Again on the Mures inferior valey , are found archaelogical objects like earthen lamps with cross sign,diverse latin icons and inscription from Felnac,Vladimirescu,Sambateni,Lipova,Bata,object used with certitute only and only by the daco-roman populations" Ziridava (revista Muzeului Judetean Arad), 1993

Some examples of daco-roman settlements of the romanised dacian populations:

Suceagu (Cluj) Early Roman (1st - 3rd cent.); Early Migrations Period (3rd - 6th cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=635

Rural unfortified settlement; Cercetari sistematice si de salvare; 1989, 1991-1992. Dwelling were dug both from surface and deep.Archaelogically, no discontinuation of population was found.A workshop for bone processing was found from IV century.The archaelogical amterial was extremly rich:ceramics,lamps,fibulae,iron objects,grinders,tuff,terra sigillata, an inscription fragment from the Roman era,gray polished ceramic(many intact plates),iron objects,bone artefacts ornamnted,spindles,sandstone,an iron fibula,pottery worked by hand of dacian origin from IV-V,rough paste ceramics.2 ovens for ceramic burning,dated based on ceramics on III-IV.

Vladiceasca (Ilfov) (end of V - start of VI)Late Migrations Period (VII - XIth cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=301

Ill just quote the V-VI period

The typology of the ceramics makes us to frame, for the moment, this complexes at the end of V and the first half of VI.Excavations from Vladiceasca releaved yet again another settlement of the romanised population in an area of Vlasiei Plain, less explored so far.

Berghin (Alba) Late Migrations Period (7th - 11th cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=59

In conclusion, this years excavations have revealed new testimonies regarding the romanisation process of the autochtonous dacians in the Roman rule in Dacia and in the process of the romanian population formation(VII-VIII)

And a very interesting and important archaelogical site :

Sighisoara Late Medieval; Prehistory;

ttp://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=7

This city area is inahbited, with minor intrerruptions, for about 4000 years, being archaelogical certified a settlement from bronze age, 2 dacian settlements from iron age,a roman fort for road guarding, a daco-roman settlement and their descendents.

They executed two sections (12.50 x 2 m, respectively, 14.50 x 2 m) in order to explore the upper north-north-east of the necropolis remained unexplored. During investigations 81 graves of cremation have been identified , which raises the number of funerary complexes uncovered so far to 610. Of these, 52 tombs belong to the Dacian population identified in the settlement of the village precincts during the Roman period (II-III century AD). The graves are oval, circular, diamond or rectangular contour and are marked by river boulders. Of the earth filling of the sepulchral holes were collected Dacian and Roman pottery fragments, pieces of coal and scrap of calcined human bones, one portion of a glass and bronze bracelets, etc.. The other 29 tombs are with cremation urns (26) or simple holes (3) featuring the prefeudal cemetery (VII-VIII century AD). Urns containing cremated remains of the defunct (whole and fragmented bones), pieces of coal and various pieces of bronze (one ear from an earring wire), iron (staples, hook, buckles with spin, nails, knife blades, etc.). and Stone (tips, blades, etc..). It is noted that 601 M is as white (126 x 78 cm) and contains a large quantity of scrap cinerary, especially charcoal and burnt earth, calcined bone chips and a few scattered pottery fragments from a vessel broken on the ritual pyre. In conclusion, this year's excavations have revealed further testimony about the process of Romanization of the indigenous Dacians during the Roman domination in Dacia and during the formation of the Romanian people (VII-VIII century AD).

The following locations show continuous Daco-Roman habitation from the 3rd to the 5th century [75]
Mines: Baia de Cris, Tincova, Ruda, Alun, Hunedoara, Baita Cib, Fizes, Cabesti, Videim, Albac, Bistrita de Sus, Vidra, Cimpeni Lupsa, Salciua, Podeni, Potaissa, Baisoara, Valea Ierii.
Monetary thesauri: Bicasi, Pilu, Carei, Copalnic, Soimuseni, Doba Mica, Simieu Silvaniei, Porolissum, Babiu, Gurani, Sintna, Arad, Pecica, Cenad, Horia, Biled, Carani, Jimbova, Checea, Unip, Faget, Debra, Deva, Huedoara, Sepes, Ungureni, Apulum, Seica Mica, Seica Mare, Sura Mare, Sibiu, Ocna Sibiului Soars, Lasiea
Daco-Roman and Roman settlements: Taga, Soporu, Band, Lechinta, Ludus, Cipau, Brateiu, Seica Mica, Biertan, Sighisoara, Sinpaul, Morada, Ineu, Pilu, Biharia, Berca, Mediesu Aurit, Apa, Dej, Rascruci, Napoca, Baciu, Sebes, Hatg, Deva, Debra, Apulum, Gura Vaii, Cazanesti, Hateg, Faroia.
Major Cities and forts: Deva, Haţeg, Hunedoara, Sighişoara, Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, Bistriţa, Bicasi.
Bridges: Apulum
The cultural elements and styles of archaeological artefacts discovered over the period of the 3rd-5th centuries show a clear material and stylistic continuity, indicating continuous habitation by the same people. The cultural character of the findings remains the same until the 6th century, with the arrival of the Slavs. [76]
Ceramic manufacturing traditions continue from the pre-Roman to the Roman era continue both in Roman Dacia and unoccupied Dacia, and these traditions continue well into the fourth and fifth centuries. [77]
Cemeteries in Roman Dacia show cremation consistently across every necropolis, a pre-Roman Dacian tradition. Materials buried with cremated people are comparable both in Roman and in Free Dacia suggesting the native population did not suffer materially due to Roman occupation. [78]
Though there is a change from cremation to inhumation in the post-Roman period inhumation was an increasingly popular concept in the 3rd century. The rich ceramic remains in these necropoli are identical in technology to pre-Roman and Roman era tombs, including the presence of Roman amphorae and wheel-made, gravel-tempered, or hand-made pots. [79]
A noteworthy aspect of third to fifth century graves is the widespread distribution (from Transylvania to the Ukrainian border) and substantial number of objects of Roman manufacture, in excellent condition, which must be indicative of an active system of exchange. [80]
Archaeological surveys of the Banat region record numerous settlements, storage pits, pottery kilns, glass furnaces, metallurgical production sites, and coins (both as hoards and found on sites) [81] which indicate a continuation of both sedentary population and maintenance of Roman military and economic interests. [82]
Circulation of Roman coins grew both in Roman and Free Dacia in the 1st and 2nd centuries, declining in the third but then rising again since the 4th century [83] The extent and increase in coin circulation even after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia and as far north as Transcarpathia is argued by some prominent archaeologists to have no other analogy in neighboring provinces, nor in any other barbarian territory [84]
Some cities show the absence of Dacian names completely from inscriptions but which show Dacian burial rituals, indicating that Dacians near urban centers were rapidly Romanized, adopting Roman names but maintaining their old traditions. [85]
Archaeological digs throughout Transylvania and Romania have discovered many clay pots dating from the IV, V, VI, and VII centuries. What makes these pots particularly interesting is that they were made using the potter's wheel, an invention which no migratory people had when the came through Romania. The only population which could have produced these pots is one which had sufficient contact with the Roman and Hellenic world to adopt this style of making pots. We know the Slavs did not adopt this style until much later because pots made without the use of the potter's wheel are also found throughout Romania during this time. [22]
The thousands of old Roman coins dating from the IV, V and VI centuries found on Romania are peculiar because they are a) made of bronze and b) show the portrait of contemporary emperors on them. The first part affirms that these coins were not valuable, meaning that they were common currency. There is no way such coins could have found their way into Romania through tribute or trade between the Romans and barbarians because the Goths, Avars, Huns, and others would only accept gold coins and items as tribute, as bronze coins had little value or use to them. The material indicates that these coins were used as a common bartering currency for low-value items (like food or iron) by a poor populace. Their number, and the diverse locations that they've been found in, indicates that this populace was large, and spread all over the country. The second aspect reflects the historical fact that there was significant communication between this proto-Romanian populace and the Roman Empire, enough to allow for the accurate re-minting of coins. Even if the coins were imported by the proto-Romanians from the Romans, it still is evidence of significant contact between the Romans and the Romanians North of the Danube. [22]
A Daco-Roman necropolis was discovered in Sibiu belonging to the local population, which had, among the objects buried with the deceased, ceramic objects of Roman cultural origin, coins from the time of Antonius Pius (138-161) and Septimius Sever (193-211) and vases made in the Dacian style. [22] [86]

During the 5th-7th centuries houses all over Romania are noted as having "vatra" ovens, being ovens made of clay and surrounded by stones. These ovens could not have belonged to the Slavs who had a different style of construction, and is noticeable in Dacian-occupied areas in Romania during the 1st-3rd century. Traditional Roman ovens were also discovered in the same area as these "vatra ovens." [87]

>The romanian literacy and their earliest chronicles appeared only in the early 17th century

Source please.What does Grigore Ureche's chronicle has to do anything with romanian literacy?

There are no vlacj church builing before the 13th century. You consider everiything romanian, which was built in the territory of present -day romania. IT is similar szupidity, if somebody consider pannonian roman era buildings as Hungarian.

Romanians arrived to present-day romania in the 13th century, that's why they did not have even churches.

In the reality, the late-nomad Vlachs (ancestors of romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The chauvinist daco-romanian continuity myth & state propaganda (which is the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives it became the central part of Romanian national identity) Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.
Vlachs (medieval romanians) were the latest people who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of literacy and own romanian history writing (chronicles) - until the Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century - who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people - The poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..

There are no material proofs (cemetries cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s. There are no CONTEMPORARY written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia Moldavia Transylvania before the 1200s.

WERE WERE YOU HIDING for 900 years dear "daco"-romans?

The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike other neo-latin languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin language, because there are not remained dacian vocabulary for the posterior. The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the roman legions and dacians remianed hostile. (Note: The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS ) This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process. There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations (serials of many strong powerfull and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans.). After that period, the written records only mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino speaking population. There are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval age etc.) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s. However the roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlachs were often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles) There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans, the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania. Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM. During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from old romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full borrowed modern expressions (which were not belong to the original ancient latin and vulgar latin language)

The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the mongol invasion in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
Since the 16th century the settled life became dominant lifestyle among formerly mostly nomadic romanians. It doesn't sound a very important heroic and interesting history...

Stears

09-10-2016, 07:38 PM

None of what you posted, except Coon have any relevance.Not only that they talk of the few aromanians(vlachs who were recorded to have migrated from Romania pushed by barbarians, and live mainly in Tessaly/Pind mountains) and even more important is that your cherrypicked paragraphs speak of 21th century vlachs(who are very few in number and have no country).But lets see why you cherrypicked the one from Coon.

Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614
" Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja"

Lets see the full quotes:

(Chapter XII, section 16)

"In classical times Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia formed what known as Dacia, and the Dacians were considered to be a branch of the Thracians. The Dacians included an upper class, distinguished by the practice of wearing brimless felt hats, Scythian style, and a peasantry, among whom the men went bare-headed, with their hair long, as do the older and more conservative of the present-day Rumanian peasants.

The Vlachs have always been far wanderers; many of them are shepherds, and the pastoral life has been as important to them, until modern times, as agriculture. In Macedonia and northern Greece, and in Southern Albania, Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of Arabs, and like those which one may suppose the Scythians used before them."

So Coon is actually telling us that vlachs are really similar in clothes with dacians/scythians.

"During the century and a half of Roman rule, the language of Dacia became Latin, and modern Rumanian is without doubt a descendant of that colonial speech"
"In view of the complex ethnic history of Rumania, the living Rumanians may be expected to show evidence of a multiplicity of racial origin. To native Dacian elements, which must have included a blend of indigenous Neolithic peoples with Satem-speaking Nordics, have been added whatever population the Romans brought and which did not run away, and a multitude of early Slavs whom the Vlachs absorbed. Other elements, Ugric, Tatar, and Gothic, were probably of lesser importance."

"The Vlachs, a widespread and numerous people in southeastern Europe, are the descendants of Romanized aborigines, and of other peoples whom these latter have absorbed. They have no racial homogeneity, but vary regionally according to the races long seated in the regions where they live. In the northeast, where the Moldavian plain forms a continuation of the Black Earth region of southern Russia, the Neo-Danubian type of the Black Earth region is predominant; in the southeast, where a local Atlanto-Mediterranean type is concentrated, the Vlachs tend to assume that form; west of the Carpathians, and near the crest of that range, they are Dinarics of the first rank, comparable to that other group of mountain-dwelling speakers of Neo-Latin, the Ladiner."

Rekted again by your own picked book, clown.

>VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE, the vast majority of Romanian population preserved its nomadic lifestyle and heritage until the end of 16th century.

Show me contemporany chronicles(before 16th century) of how romanians were all nomadic.

>>The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century.

Really?I can post hundreds of pages of christian artefacts.

Romanians were christianised starting with Saint Andrew mission here.Even Gerogia,Iberia and Armenia fail to explain the unique liturgical vocabulary of Romanian which could only have been acquired at the very sources of Early Christianity. Cunningly, even Edward Gibbon, as early as the 1780s, vindicates an early Christianization beyond the Left Bank of the Lower Danube.All of our episcopas sees directly related to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Early Churches built by romanians:

333 Beroes - oldest in SE Europe Piatra Frecatei (city Tulcea)
353 Callatis - Mangalia, (city Constanta)
357 Dinogetia - Gârvan (city Tulcea)
358 Troesmis - Iglita-Turcoaia, (city Tulcea)
358 Axiopolis - Hinog lânga Cernavoda (city Constanta)
358 Constantiana - Capul Dolojman
359 Noviodunum - Isaccea

361 Ulmetum - Pantelimon
364 Ibida - Slava Rusa singura din Scythia Minor cu trei altare spre rasarit
365 Isvoarele367 Niculitel

369 Densus - oldest north of lower Danube still in use today
398 Slaveni ? (city Olt)

412 Sarmizegetusa (judetul Hunedoara)
457 Porolissum - Moigrad (judetul Salaj)

435 Morisena - Cenad (monastery)
449 Sucidava - Celei (city Timis)
860 Dabâca
900 Corbii de piatra
1177 Bodrogu Vechi (Hodos) Ciala
1057 Dinogetia - Gârvan (judetul Tulcea) - reconstructed
1066 Alba Iulia (actual catholic cathedral was built upon it)
1168 Drobeta - Turnu Severin
1304 "Biserica din deal" din Ieud

Not to mention the Paleo-christian churches in 4th century Romania,all built on top of roman fort ruins,Slaveni village (county of Olt),Sucidava (today’s Celei-Corabia, county of Olt), with a series of Christian inscriptions in Greek, and in Morisena (today’s Cenad, county of Timis).

A strong proof of the old age of the Romanian Christianity is made by many words with religious meaning in the main lexical background of the Romanian language, that have been used since the 3rd-4th centuries until today.We mention the words: church (coming from basilica), faith, law, Resurrection, Ascension, Epiphany, Trinity, Father, Virgin, angel, altar, cross, prayer, temple, sin, father, pagan, to christen, to give Eucharist, to cross, to pray, a.s.o.
A few Christian feasts took over the names of some pagan feasts close to the dates of our feasts, with a stress on a new, Christian meaning (Calatio - calationem - Christmas, Florilia - Florii (Palm Sunday), Rosalia - Rusalii (Pentecost), dies conservatoria - sarbatoare (holiday). A significant detail is that 90% of the words in the “Lord’s Prayer”, as well as in the “Creed” drafted at the first two Ecumenical Synods (325 and 381) are of Latin origin (except for mistake, temptation and save in the Lord’s Prayer), which fact proves that they have been known by the Romanians’ forerunners as far back as the period of their formation as a people.
Great Christians.

Interesting read:
http://www.academia.edu/552692/The_S...2004_1-4_41-59
-Vasile Pârvan, Epigrphic Contributions at the Daco-Roman Christianity, Bucharest, Socec, 1911
-Emilian Popescu, Greek and Latin Inscriptions IV-XIIIth c AD discovered in Romania, RSR Academia Publisher, Bucharest 1976
-Grigore Tocilescu, Epigraphic and Sculptural Monuments of the Antiquities National Museum in Bucharest, 1881
-Constantin Daicoviciu, Contributions at Religious Syncretism in Sarmizegetuza, Cluj Cartea Româneasca, 1930
-Dumitru Tudor, New Romanian Inscription from Oltenia and Dobrogea, Academia Publisher Bucharest,1956
-Dumitru Tudor, Roman Oltenia, RSR Academia Publisher, Bucharest,1968
-Nicolae Gudea, From Romanian Christianity History .Archeological Proves,
-Nicolae Cojocaru,Christian Cult Traditions :from the beginnings till today. Ortodox Christianity.
-Constantin C Giurescu, Romanian History, Cugetaarea Publisher, 1943.
-Histoire des religionesII* sous la direction d`Henri-Charles Puech, Galimard, 1972
-Mihail Diaconescu,Daco-Roman Literature History, Alcor Edimpex Publisher
-Vasile Boroneant, The Archeological Researches from Chitila, Ferm Chitila in 2001previous data and stratigraphy. History and
Museography Materials, vol. XVI, Bucharest.

>No known archiutecture existed before that period.

So the over 300 archaelogical sites dont exit )))

Here's a list of all the archaeological sites in the 3 counties forming Central Transylvania (Cluj, Alba and Mures), as published by professor Linda Ellis of the San Francisco State University in the journal "World Archaeology" vol 30, 1998, the article aptly named "Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia":

40 sites in Cluj county, covering the 4th to 10th century AD
57 sites in the Alba county, covering the 4th to 13th century AD
211 sites in Mures county, covering the 5th to 10th century AD

Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/124984

Her conclusion: "The post-Roman era has demonstrated an abundant archaeological record of burial and settlement, along with a continuation in distribution of Roman objects throughout former core and peripheral areas. "

Lets post some more.There are a few hundred daco-roman sites from Aurelian Retreat to XII century, located in Transylvania.More on http://cronica.cimec.ro/ , the official romanian archaelogy website, most are translated in english and with photos.

st select some random ones, because being hundreds, this can take ages.

"Again on the Mures inferior valey , are found archaelogical objects like earthen lamps with cross sign,diverse latin icons and inscription from Felnac,Vladimirescu,Sambateni,Lipova,Bata,object used with certitute only and only by the daco-roman populations" Ziridava (revista Muzeului Judetean Arad), 1993

Some examples of daco-roman settlements of the romanised dacian populations:

Suceagu (Cluj) Early Roman (1st - 3rd cent.); Early Migrations Period (3rd - 6th cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=635

Rural unfortified settlement; Cercetari sistematice si de salvare; 1989, 1991-1992. Dwelling were dug both from surface and deep.Archaelogically, no discontinuation of population was found.A workshop for bone processing was found from IV century.The archaelogical amterial was extremly rich:ceramics,lamps,fibulae,iron objects,grinders,tuff,terra sigillata, an inscription fragment from the Roman era,gray polished ceramic(many intact plates),iron objects,bone artefacts ornamnted,spindles,sandstone,an iron fibula,pottery worked by hand of dacian origin from IV-V,rough paste ceramics.2 ovens for ceramic burning,dated based on ceramics on III-IV.

Vladiceasca (Ilfov) (end of V - start of VI)Late Migrations Period (VII - XIth cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=301

Ill just quote the V-VI period

The typology of the ceramics makes us to frame, for the moment, this complexes at the end of V and the first half of VI.Excavations from Vladiceasca releaved yet again another settlement of the romanised population in an area of Vlasiei Plain, less explored so far.

Berghin (Alba) Late Migrations Period (7th - 11th cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=59

In conclusion, this years excavations have revealed new testimonies regarding the romanisation process of the autochtonous dacians in the Roman rule in Dacia and in the process of the romanian population formation(VII-VIII)

And a very interesting and important archaelogical site :

Sighisoara Late Medieval; Prehistory;

ttp://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=7

This city area is inahbited, with minor intrerruptions, for about 4000 years, being archaelogical certified a settlement from bronze age, 2 dacian settlements from iron age,a roman fort for road guarding, a daco-roman settlement and their descendents.

They executed two sections (12.50 x 2 m, respectively, 14.50 x 2 m) in order to explore the upper north-north-east of the necropolis remained unexplored. During investigations 81 graves of cremation have been identified , which raises the number of funerary complexes uncovered so far to 610. Of these, 52 tombs belong to the Dacian population identified in the settlement of the village precincts during the Roman period (II-III century AD). The graves are oval, circular, diamond or rectangular contour and are marked by river boulders. Of the earth filling of the sepulchral holes were collected Dacian and Roman pottery fragments, pieces of coal and scrap of calcined human bones, one portion of a glass and bronze bracelets, etc.. The other 29 tombs are with cremation urns (26) or simple holes (3) featuring the prefeudal cemetery (VII-VIII century AD). Urns containing cremated remains of the defunct (whole and fragmented bones), pieces of coal and various pieces of bronze (one ear from an earring wire), iron (staples, hook, buckles with spin, nails, knife blades, etc.). and Stone (tips, blades, etc..). It is noted that 601 M is as white (126 x 78 cm) and contains a large quantity of scrap cinerary, especially charcoal and burnt earth, calcined bone chips and a few scattered pottery fragments from a vessel broken on the ritual pyre. In conclusion, this year's excavations have revealed further testimony about the process of Romanization of the indigenous Dacians during the Roman domination in Dacia and during the formation of the Romanian people (VII-VIII century AD).

The following locations show continuous Daco-Roman habitation from the 3rd to the 5th century [75]
Mines: Baia de Cris, Tincova, Ruda, Alun, Hunedoara, Baita Cib, Fizes, Cabesti, Videim, Albac, Bistrita de Sus, Vidra, Cimpeni Lupsa, Salciua, Podeni, Potaissa, Baisoara, Valea Ierii.
Monetary thesauri: Bicasi, Pilu, Carei, Copalnic, Soimuseni, Doba Mica, Simieu Silvaniei, Porolissum, Babiu, Gurani, Sintna, Arad, Pecica, Cenad, Horia, Biled, Carani, Jimbova, Checea, Unip, Faget, Debra, Deva, Huedoara, Sepes, Ungureni, Apulum, Seica Mica, Seica Mare, Sura Mare, Sibiu, Ocna Sibiului Soars, Lasiea
Daco-Roman and Roman settlements: Taga, Soporu, Band, Lechinta, Ludus, Cipau, Brateiu, Seica Mica, Biertan, Sighisoara, Sinpaul, Morada, Ineu, Pilu, Biharia, Berca, Mediesu Aurit, Apa, Dej, Rascruci, Napoca, Baciu, Sebes, Hatg, Deva, Debra, Apulum, Gura Vaii, Cazanesti, Hateg, Faroia.
Major Cities and forts: Deva, Haţeg, Hunedoara, Sighişoara, Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, Bistriţa, Bicasi.
Bridges: Apulum
The cultural elements and styles of archaeological artefacts discovered over the period of the 3rd-5th centuries show a clear material and stylistic continuity, indicating continuous habitation by the same people. The cultural character of the findings remains the same until the 6th century, with the arrival of the Slavs. [76]
Ceramic manufacturing traditions continue from the pre-Roman to the Roman era continue both in Roman Dacia and unoccupied Dacia, and these traditions continue well into the fourth and fifth centuries. [77]
Cemeteries in Roman Dacia show cremation consistently across every necropolis, a pre-Roman Dacian tradition. Materials buried with cremated people are comparable both in Roman and in Free Dacia suggesting the native population did not suffer materially due to Roman occupation. [78]
Though there is a change from cremation to inhumation in the post-Roman period inhumation was an increasingly popular concept in the 3rd century. The rich ceramic remains in these necropoli are identical in technology to pre-Roman and Roman era tombs, including the presence of Roman amphorae and wheel-made, gravel-tempered, or hand-made pots. [79]
A noteworthy aspect of third to fifth century graves is the widespread distribution (from Transylvania to the Ukrainian border) and substantial number of objects of Roman manufacture, in excellent condition, which must be indicative of an active system of exchange. [80]
Archaeological surveys of the Banat region record numerous settlements, storage pits, pottery kilns, glass furnaces, metallurgical production sites, and coins (both as hoards and found on sites) [81] which indicate a continuation of both sedentary population and maintenance of Roman military and economic interests. [82]
Circulation of Roman coins grew both in Roman and Free Dacia in the 1st and 2nd centuries, declining in the third but then rising again since the 4th century [83] The extent and increase in coin circulation even after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia and as far north as Transcarpathia is argued by some prominent archaeologists to have no other analogy in neighboring provinces, nor in any other barbarian territory [84]
Some cities show the absence of Dacian names completely from inscriptions but which show Dacian burial rituals, indicating that Dacians near urban centers were rapidly Romanized, adopting Roman names but maintaining their old traditions. [85]
Archaeological digs throughout Transylvania and Romania have discovered many clay pots dating from the IV, V, VI, and VII centuries. What makes these pots particularly interesting is that they were made using the potter's wheel, an invention which no migratory people had when the came through Romania. The only population which could have produced these pots is one which had sufficient contact with the Roman and Hellenic world to adopt this style of making pots. We know the Slavs did not adopt this style until much later because pots made without the use of the potter's wheel are also found throughout Romania during this time. [22]
The thousands of old Roman coins dating from the IV, V and VI centuries found on Romania are peculiar because they are a) made of bronze and b) show the portrait of contemporary emperors on them. The first part affirms that these coins were not valuable, meaning that they were common currency. There is no way such coins could have found their way into Romania through tribute or trade between the Romans and barbarians because the Goths, Avars, Huns, and others would only accept gold coins and items as tribute, as bronze coins had little value or use to them. The material indicates that these coins were used as a common bartering currency for low-value items (like food or iron) by a poor populace. Their number, and the diverse locations that they've been found in, indicates that this populace was large, and spread all over the country. The second aspect reflects the historical fact that there was significant communication between this proto-Romanian populace and the Roman Empire, enough to allow for the accurate re-minting of coins. Even if the coins were imported by the proto-Romanians from the Romans, it still is evidence of significant contact between the Romans and the Romanians North of the Danube. [22]
A Daco-Roman necropolis was discovered in Sibiu belonging to the local population, which had, among the objects buried with the deceased, ceramic objects of Roman cultural origin, coins from the time of Antonius Pius (138-161) and Septimius Sever (193-211) and vases made in the Dacian style. [22] [86]

During the 5th-7th centuries houses all over Romania are noted as having "vatra" ovens, being ovens made of clay and surrounded by stones. These ovens could not have belonged to the Slavs who had a different style of construction, and is noticeable in Dacian-occupied areas in Romania during the 1st-3rd century. Traditional Roman ovens were also discovered in the same area as these "vatra ovens." [87]

>The romanian literacy and their earliest chronicles appeared only in the early 17th century

Source please.What does Grigore Ureche's chronicle has to do anything with romanian literacy?

There are no vlacj church builing before the 13th century. You consider everiything romanian, which was built in the territory of present -day romania. IT is similar szupidity, if somebody consider pannonian roman era buildings as Hungarian.

Romanians arrived to present-day romania in the 13th century, that's why they did not have even churches.

In the reality, the late-nomad Vlachs (ancestors of romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The chauvinist daco-romanian continuity myth & state propaganda (which is the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives it became the central part of Romanian national identity) Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.
Vlachs (medieval romanians) were the latest people who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of literacy and own romanian history writing (chronicles) - until the Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century - who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people - The poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..

There are no material proofs (cemetries cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s. There are no CONTEMPORARY written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia Moldavia Transylvania before the 1200s.

WERE WERE YOU HIDING for 900 years dear "daco"-romans?

The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike other neo-latin languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin language, because there are not remained dacian vocabulary for the posterior. The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the roman legions and dacians remianed hostile. (Note: The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, whose motherhertongue were not Latin, who came from non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS in any sense ) This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process. There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations (serials of many strong powerfull and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans.). After that period, the written records only mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino speaking population. There are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval age etc.) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s. However the roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlachs were often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles) There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans, the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania. Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM. During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from old romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full borrowed modern expressions (which were not belong to the original ancient latin and vulgar latin language)

The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the mongol invasion in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
Since the 16th century the settled life became dominant lifestyle among formerly mostly nomadic romanians. It doesn't sound a very important heroic and interesting history...

The oldest romanian vlach church buuilding: 13th century:

http://kirandulastippek.hu/images/news/article/zoom/p581-11.jpg

Stears

09-10-2016, 07:42 PM

Typical romanians, the romanian students:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uwul1rPfJ8

Stears

09-10-2016, 07:46 PM

Culturally, both islam and the semi-asian orthodox countries were traditionally west-hater civilizations. Hungary is a Central European country, and part of the Catholic-
Protestant western civilization. Hungary is not Eastern European (Orthodox = semi-asian culture) country.

MAP OF THE WESTERN WORLD:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png

What is Western Civilization?
The earliest mention of Western civilization “Occidental civilis”
After the Great Schism (The East-West Schism /formally in 1054/, between Western Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity.) Hungary determined itself as the easternmost bastion of Western civilisation (This statement was affirmed later by Pope Pius II who wrote that to Emperor Friedrich III, “Hungary is the shield of Christianity and the protector of Western civilization”)

It is not a secret in history, that countries civilizations are/were not in the same level of development.
It is well-known that Western and Central Europe, ( the so-called Western civilization) was always more developed than Orthodox Slavic or Eastern European civilization.
The cultural the societal-system and the economical civilizational (and technological) differences between Orthodox countries and Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries were similar great, as the differences between Northern America (USA Canada) and Southern- (Latino) America.

MEMENTO:
Western things which were not existed in orthodox world:

1. POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL development: Medieval appearance of parliaments (a legislative body(!), DO NOT CONFUSE with the “councils of monarchs” which existed since the beginning of human history), the estates of the realm, the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners,

2. SELF GOVERNMENT status of big royal/imperial cities, (local government systems of cities), which are the direct ancestors of modern self/local governmental systems.

3. ECONOMY: The medieval appearance of banking systems and social effects and status of urban bourgeoisie, the absolute dominance of money-economy (when the vast majority of trade based on money and the taxes customs duties were collected in money) from the 12th -13th century, instead of the former primitive bartel-based commerce (barter dominated the economies orthodox world until the 17-18th centuries.)

4. HIGHER EDUCATION: The medieval appearance of universities and the medieval appearance of secular intellectuals,

5. CULTURE: Knights, the knight-culture, chivalric code, (and the technological effects of crusades from the Holy Land,)
Music and literature: courtly love, troubadours, Gregorian chant, Ars nova, Organum, Motet, Madrigal, Canon and Ballata, Liturgical drama, Novellas,
medieval western THEATER: Mystery or cycle plays, morality and passion plays, which developed into the renaissance theater, the direct ancestor of modern theaters.
Philosophy: Scholasticism and humanist philosophy,

6. The medieval usage of Latin alphabet and medieval spread of movable type printing,

7. TECHNOLOGY: The guild system is an association of artisans or merchants, which organized the training education, and directed master's exam system for artisians. Due to the compulsory foreign studies of the artisian master's candidates, the guilds played key role in the fast spread of technologies and industrial knowledge in the medieval Western World.

8. The defence systems & fortifications: The spread of stone/brick castle defense -systems, the town-walls of western cities from the 11th century. (In the orthodox world, only the capital cities had such a walls . The countries of the Balkan region and the territory of Russian states fell under Ottoman/Mongolian rule very rapidly - with a
single decesive open-field battle - due to the lack of the networks of stone/brick castles and fortresses in these countries. The only exception was the greek inhabited Byzantine territories which were well fortified.)

9. FINEARTS and ARCHITECTURE: western architecture, sculpture paintings and fine-arts: the Romanesque style, the Gothic style and the Renaissance style.
The orthodox church buildings and „palaces(?)” were very little, they had primitive structure and poor decorations, their style were influenced by non-European arabic and persian influenced Byzantine ornamentics.

10.The renaissance & humanism , the reformation and the enlightenment did not influenced/affected the Orthodox (Eastern European) countries.

11.Before 1870, the industrialization that had developed in Western and Central Europe and the United States did not extend in any significant way to the rest of the world. In
Eastern Europe, industrialization lagged far behind, and started only in the 20th century.

12. Their infrastructural and economic development was also very very slow, and many determinant factors of modern civilization - as we called them as civilized way of life - (railways, the electrification of cities, drain & sewer systems, water pipe systems, spread of tap water and bathrooms, telecommuncations etc... spread many many decades (60-80 years) later. It is no wonder that their contribution in science technology and innovations are completely negligible in Human history by the WESTERN standards.

Stears

09-10-2016, 07:52 PM

AGAIN: ALL THIS WESTERN SCHOLARS know that romanians had late nomadic past. It is enough to open the URLS of the books.
LAte nomadic past combined with semi Asian Orthodox culture, it paved the way for the primitive culture and slow infrastructural economic and societal development and close to zero contribution in science and technology in romania

VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE, the vast majority of Romanian population preserved its nomadic lifestyle and heritage until the end of 16th century. They were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period. The romanian literacy and their earliest chronicles appeared only in the early 17th century (Grigore Ureche's chronicle). USE Google books! (The word's largest digitalized library, the largest collection of printed books) See the google book results (search the british american candian authors about medieval romanians Vlachs):

https://books.google.com/books?id=bRZaCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&dq=romanians+nomad+vlach+-romani+-gypsy&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikreS0gsDLAhUsEJoKHVa7B884ChDoAQgrMAI#v =onepage&q=romanians%20nomad%20vlach%20-romani%20-gypsy&f=false

B. Fowkes (2002) : Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World -PAGE: 12

"That curious minority, the Vlachs of the Balkans, for example, were on the face of it Romanians ('Wallachians') but in fact the name was also applied to Slavs who shared the same pastoral, nomadic life as the Romanian shepherds."

https://books.google.com/books?id=_q14xoaXj1UC&pg=PA181&dq=are+held+to+be+interlopers+who+were+nomadic+she pherds+that+migrated+into+Transylvania&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2t46kkMLLAhXCkg8KHYWzDuIQ6AEIGzAA#v=on epage&q=are%20held%20to%20be%20interlopers%20who%20were% 20nomadic%20shepherds%20that%20migrated%20into%20T ransylvania&f=false

Norman Berdichevsky (2004): Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181.

"The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania."

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xoww453NVQMC&pg=PA128&dq=romanians+nomad+vlach+-romani+-gypsy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikreS0gsDLAhUsEJoKHVa7B884ChDoAQhYMAg#v =onepage&q=romanians%20nomad%20vlach%20-romani%20-gypsy&f=false

Victor Roudometof (2002): Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question - PAGE: 128

"The Vlachs are mainly pastoral nomads dispersed among the states of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Romania. Since they are Orthodox Christians, they have mostly become part of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox ..."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WDRzBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA309&dq=%22nomadic+vlachs%22+-roma+-gypsy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP2KihoMDLAhWnZpoKHc0qBrwQ6AEIKTAC#v=on epage&q=%22nomadic%20vlachs%22%20-roma%20-gypsy&f=false

Roumen Daskalov, ?Alexander Vezenkov - 2015: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies PAGE: 309

"Zlatarski adds an a priori statement that the very thought of an uprising could occur only to Bulgarian local notables or voivods, not to the nomadic Vlachs, who he says were at a low level of cultural development"

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kpEc8ltyqnUC&pg=PA408&dq=nomadic+wallachians++-romani+-gypsy+-roma&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiunZGSicDLAhUqCZoKHWckBsAQ6AEIRTAG#v=on epage&q=nomadic%20wallachians%20%20-romani%20-gypsy%20-roma&f=false

Rob Humphreys, ?Susie Lunt, ?Tim Nollen - 2002 : Rough Guide to the Czech & Slovak Republics - Page 408

"Wallachian culture As far as anybody can make out, the Wallachs or Vlachs were semi-nomadic sheep and goat farmers who settled the mountainous areas of eastern Moravia and western Slovakia in the fifteenth century."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YXwUAQAAIAAJ&q=%22wallachians+were%22+nomadic&dq=%22wallachians+were%22+nomadic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuw6y1l8DLAhWlNJoKHREED8gQ6AEILzAE

Marek Koter, ?Krystian Heffner - 1999 : Multicultural regions and cities - Page 164

"Nomadic shepherds from the Balkan Peninsula (Wallachians) were moving along the bow of the Carpathians in search of new pastures. "

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=108MAQAAMAAJ&q=%22wallachian+people%22+nomadic&dq=%22wallachian+people%22+nomadic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcoez8l8DLAhWqA5oKHcdnCLgQ6AEIHDAA

Marek S. Szczepański Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, Jan 1, 1997 - Ethnic Minorities & Ethnic Majority: Sociological Studies of Ethnic Relations in Poland -PAGE: 325
"They were just the Wallachian people (nomadic tribes from the present Romania) from who contemporary Lemks descended; it should be testified by both the elements of material culture, similarities of customs and languages"

https://books.google.com/books?id=owY4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=into+Walachia+and+continued+their+pastoral+and+ semi-nomadic+life+in+Transylvania+and+the+Carpathian+Mo untains.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8x-avo8DLAhWkdpoKHVjzArQQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=into%20Walachia%20and%20continued%20their%20past oral%20and%20semi-nomadic%20life%20in%20Transylvania%20and%20the%20C arpathian%20Mountains.&f=false

Normal J. G. Pounds - 1976 - : An Historical Geography of Europe 450 B.C.-A.D. 1330, Part 1330 -PAGE: 251

"The chief importance of the Vlachs lies, however, in the possible relationship to the Romanians. ... Ages, crossed the Danube into Walachia and continued their pastoral and semi-nomadic life in Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains."

Stears

09-10-2016, 07:53 PM

Romanians are swarthy like the balkanite poeople, because their genes are less European. They have high ratio of negroid origin E1B1 and middle-eastern J markers:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/European_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

RN97

09-10-2016, 08:05 PM

Typical blonde Hungarian (wo) men:
http://i.imgur.com/LewZfqb.jpg
Meanwhile in Romania.....
http://i.imgur.com/QYntITa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/79NFDJe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/F1zBjDJ.jpg

Rdll12

09-11-2016, 01:03 PM

There are no vl

There

So basically this subhuman couldn't make one argument in the whole thread, I myself told him directly to post any source and stop changing subject and there he is again.So basically he couldn't answer even 1 point I made in the previous posts of mine and now when he was proven troll, he changed subject.But lets continue with your charade.

But before you answer this post you also have teh answer the 2 posts above I made that you refused to ask.

>There are no vlacj church builing before the 13th century.

There is no such thing as <insert ethnicity> churches.
All the churches I posted are of clear Byzantine latin style, meaning the builders spoke a romance language are are not barbars(invaders), the church being under the canonical authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople.The Romanians of that period lived in villages or even in groups of villages, the Romano-Byzantine strongholds along the Danube offering the only examples of urban life. Romanians were christianised starting with Saint Andrew mission here.Even Gerogia,Iberia and Armenia fail to explain the unique liturgical vocabulary of Romanian which could only have been acquired at the very sources of Early Christianity. Cunningly, even Edward Gibbon, as early as the 1780s, vindicates an early Christianization beyond the Left Bank of the Lower Danube.All of our episcopas sees directly related to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
A strong proof of the old age of the Romanian Christianity is made by many words with religious meaning in the main lexical background of the Romanian language, that have been used since the 3rd-4th centuries until today.We mention the words: church (coming from basilica), faith, law, Resurrection, Ascension, Epiphany, Trinity, Father, Virgin, angel, altar, cross, prayer, temple, sin, father, pagan, to christen, to give Eucharist, to cross, to pray, a.s.o.
A few Christian feasts took over the names of some pagan feasts close to the dates of our feasts, with a stress on a new, Christian meaning (Calatio - calationem - Christmas, Florilia - Florii (Palm Sunday), Rosalia - Rusalii (Pentecost), dies conservatoria - sarbatoare (holiday). A significant detail is that 90% of the words in the “Lord’s Prayer”, as well as in the “Creed” drafted at the first two Ecumenical Synods (325 and 381) are of Latin origin (except for mistake, temptation and save in the Lord’s Prayer), which fact proves that they have been known by the Romanians’ forerunners as far back as the period of their formation as a people.
Great Christians.

http://www.academia.edu/552692/The_Spreading_of_the_Christianity_in_the_Rural_Are as_of_Post-Roman_Dacia_4th-7th_Centuries_in_Archaevs._%C3%89tudes_dhistoire_d es_religions_8_2004_1-4_41-59
Vasile Pârvan, Epigrphic Contributions at the Daco-Roman Christianity, Bucharest, Socec, 1911
Dumitru Tudor, New Romanian Inscription from Oltenia and Dobrogea, Academia Publisher Bucharest,1956
Nicolae Gudea, From Romanian Christianity History .Archeological Proves,
Histoire des religionesII* sous la direction d`Henri-Charles Puech, Galimard, 1972

>Romanians arrived to present-day romania in the 13th century, that's why they did not have even churches.
>In the reality, the late-nomad Vlachs (ancestors of romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century

Show me a CONTEMPORANY source for this.

>Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars

Show me a source for this.

>That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.

An encyclopedia mentions everything.This is why they also mention the gepidd,gothic,roesler,greko-roman theories.But they only write about one theory, the daco-roman one, the rest are labeled under pseudo-history.
There is not one encyclopedia that writes pseudo-theories about romanians.All write only about the daco-roman continuity, which is a fact .
Lets mention the most important:Enciclopedia Britanica,New Version of E.B(Macropaedia),Encyclopedia Americana,Encyclopedia International,Chamber's Encyclopaedia,A Dictionary of Linguistics(of the most famous contemporany american Linguist Mario Pei),Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada(Spain official enciclopedia),Diccionario Enciclopedia Salvat Universal,Grand Larousse Encyclopedique,Larousse du XX siecle,Encyclopedie de la Pleiade - Le langage,Encyclopedia universalis,Bolysaia Sovetskaia Entiklopedia,Brockhaus Enzyklopaedia,Mayers Neues Lexikon,Schweizer Lexikon,Dizionario Enciclopedico italiano,Encyclopedia Europea,Grande Dizionario Enciclopedico VTET,Enciclopedia Italiana. - The Unity of Romanian In the Great Encyclopedias of the World -Vasile Tega

But lets see the encyclopedias you mention and see again how you again get rekted by your own answers:
-Britannica: https://s21.postimg.io/mtfxwdqh3/enc.jpg - Only writes about the daco-roman continuity fact.

-The Encyclopedia Americana: Volume 23, pages 767K-767L "Isolated of the Roman Occident, starting with the VII century, the romanian(daco-roman) language is the only survivor representing the latin language spoken in the Eastern Roman Empire and constitute its normal evolution.[...]The theory of continuity is generally the only one accepted in our days and says of romanian language being born in the same time both in north and south of Danube."

-Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:In volume number 27, talk about Romania, pages 283-285(edition of 1899).
"Safarik explains the origin of Romanians being a mix of goth,roman and slav, dating it from century V or VI;Miklosic - dates it in century II, when at the left shore of Danube appears the first roman colonists;Jung("„Römer und Romanen in den Donauländern”) and other scientific people consider that the roman colonists romanised the dacians, who lived there unmoved and created the Romanian nation, in the form it manifests in century XII and XIII.Roesler,says that based of Flavius testimony who says that Aurelian emperor, at the end of III century retreats its roman army and he(Roesler) says that in Moesia has to be romanian home.A comfirmation of this theory he says that in romanian language there are no visigoths or gepids influence, who were at the North of Danube.Hajdeu and Xenopol canceled Roesler theory, by saying that not all romans were retreating after Aurelian and that only roman colonists left, and that romanians are romanised dacians, a authoton population, who payed tribute to the new lords and who having roman language formed lately the roman empire.Xenopol reafirms again that in romanian history goths couldnt influence romanian language, as they never settled in Transylvania, just pillaged it."
So Brockhaus even mention how Xenopol with his ("Teoria lui Röesler. Studiu asupra staruintei românilor din Dacia Traiana" - 1884) shits directly on "Romänische Studien. Untersuchungen zur alteren Geschichte Rümäniens" and even more, all the romanian theories presented in Brockhaus are before V century.And we find again that even in 1899, the daco-roman territory was the one mainstream supported.

https://citatedespreromani.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/coperta1.jpg
https://citatedespreromani.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/2-a.jpg
https://citatedespreromani.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/2-b.jpg?w=500&h=494

-I cant find online any Larouse copy, though they only reffer to romanian as "Daco-Roumains" Larrouse (Volume 1, page 590) Larousse du XX siecle(Volume 6, page 67)

>Vlachs (medieval romanians) were the latest people who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe.

Show me a CONTEMPORANY source for this.

>There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia.

Show me a CONTEMPORANY source for this.

> Due to the lack of literacy and own romanian history writing (chronicles) - until the Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century - who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people - The poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..

Explain how is Grigore Ureche chronicle the first romanian history writting and then show me a source for how he wrote of the balkan migration of vlachs.(The chronicle of Ureche relates events from 1359 to 1594)

>There are no material proofs (cemetries cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s

I have already posted the link to over 300.So I will post them again untill they enter in your subhuman skull.

Here's a list of all the archaeological sites in the 3 counties forming Central Transylvania (Cluj, Alba and Mures), as published by professor Linda Ellis of the San Francisco State University in the journal "World Archaeology" vol 30, 1998, the article aptly named "Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia":

40 sites in Cluj county, covering the 4th to 10th century AD
57 sites in the Alba county, covering the 4th to 13th century AD
211 sites in Mures county, covering the 5th to 10th century AD

Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/124984

Her conclusion: "The post-Roman era has demonstrated an abundant archaeological record of burial and settlement, along with a continuation in distribution of Roman objects throughout former core and peripheral areas. "

Lets post some more.There are a few hundred daco-roman sites from Aurelian Retreat to XII century, located in Transylvania.More on http://cronica.cimec.ro/ , the official romanian archaelogy website, most are translated in english and with photos.

The following locations show continuous Daco-Roman habitation from the 3rd to the 5th century [75]
Mines: Baia de Cris, Tincova, Ruda, Alun, Hunedoara, Baita Cib, Fizes, Cabesti, Videim, Albac, Bistrita de Sus, Vidra, Cimpeni Lupsa, Salciua, Podeni, Potaissa, Baisoara, Valea Ierii.
Monetary thesauri: Bicasi, Pilu, Carei, Copalnic, Soimuseni, Doba Mica, Simieu Silvaniei, Porolissum, Babiu, Gurani, Sintna, Arad, Pecica, Cenad, Horia, Biled, Carani, Jimbova, Checea, Unip, Faget, Debra, Deva, Huedoara, Sepes, Ungureni, Apulum, Seica Mica, Seica Mare, Sura Mare, Sibiu, Ocna Sibiului Soars, Lasiea
Daco-Roman and Roman settlements: Taga, Soporu, Band, Lechinta, Ludus, Cipau, Brateiu, Seica Mica, Biertan, Sighisoara, Sinpaul, Morada, Ineu, Pilu, Biharia, Berca, Mediesu Aurit, Apa, Dej, Rascruci, Napoca, Baciu, Sebes, Hatg, Deva, Debra, Apulum, Gura Vaii, Cazanesti, Hateg, Faroia.
Major Cities and forts: Deva, Haţeg, Hunedoara, Sighişoara, Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, Bistriţa, Bicasi.
Bridges: Apulum
The cultural elements and styles of archaeological artefacts discovered over the period of the 3rd-5th centuries show a clear material and stylistic continuity, indicating continuous habitation by the same people. The cultural character of the findings remains the same until the 6th century, with the arrival of the Slavs. [76]
Ceramic manufacturing traditions continue from the pre-Roman to the Roman era continue both in Roman Dacia and unoccupied Dacia, and these traditions continue well into the fourth and fifth centuries. [77]
Cemeteries in Roman Dacia show cremation consistently across every necropolis, a pre-Roman Dacian tradition. Materials buried with cremated people are comparable both in Roman and in Free Dacia suggesting the native population did not suffer materially due to Roman occupation. [78]
Though there is a change from cremation to inhumation in the post-Roman period inhumation was an increasingly popular concept in the 3rd century. The rich ceramic remains in these necropoli are identical in technology to pre-Roman and Roman era tombs, including the presence of Roman amphorae and wheel-made, gravel-tempered, or hand-made pots. [79]
A noteworthy aspect of third to fifth century graves is the widespread distribution (from Transylvania to the Ukrainian border) and substantial number of objects of Roman manufacture, in excellent condition, which must be indicative of an active system of exchange. [80]
Archaeological surveys of the Banat region record numerous settlements, storage pits, pottery kilns, glass furnaces, metallurgical production sites, and coins (both as hoards and found on sites) [81] which indicate a continuation of both sedentary population and maintenance of Roman military and economic interests. [82]
Circulation of Roman coins grew both in Roman and Free Dacia in the 1st and 2nd centuries, declining in the third but then rising again since the 4th century [83] The extent and increase in coin circulation even after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia and as far north as Transcarpathia is argued by some prominent archaeologists to have no other analogy in neighboring provinces, nor in any other barbarian territory [84]
Some cities show the absence of Dacian names completely from inscriptions but which show Dacian burial rituals, indicating that Dacians near urban centers were rapidly Romanized, adopting Roman names but maintaining their old traditions. [85]
Archaeological digs throughout Transylvania and Romania have discovered many clay pots dating from the IV, V, VI, and VII centuries. What makes these pots particularly interesting is that they were made using the potter's wheel, an invention which no migratory people had when the came through Romania. The only population which could have produced these pots is one which had sufficient contact with the Roman and Hellenic world to adopt this style of making pots. We know the Slavs did not adopt this style until much later because pots made without the use of the potter's wheel are also found throughout Romania during this time. [22]
The thousands of old Roman coins dating from the IV, V and VI centuries found on Romania are peculiar because they are a) made of bronze and b) show the portrait of contemporary emperors on them. The first part affirms that these coins were not valuable, meaning that they were common currency. There is no way such coins could have found their way into Romania through tribute or trade between the Romans and barbarians because the Goths, Avars, Huns, and others would only accept gold coins and items as tribute, as bronze coins had little value or use to them. The material indicates that these coins were used as a common bartering currency for low-value items (like food or iron) by a poor populace. Their number, and the diverse locations that they've been found in, indicates that this populace was large, and spread all over the country. The second aspect reflects the historical fact that there was significant communication between this proto-Romanian populace and the Roman Empire, enough to allow for the accurate re-minting of coins. Even if the coins were imported by the proto-Romanians from the Romans, it still is evidence of significant contact between the Romans and the Romanians North of the Danube. [22]
A Daco-Roman necropolis was discovered in Sibiu belonging to the local population, which had, among the objects buried with the deceased, ceramic objects of Roman cultural origin, coins from the time of Antonius Pius (138-161) and Septimius Sever (193-211) and vases made in the Dacian style. [22] [86]

During the 5th-7th centuries houses all over Romania are noted as having "vatra" ovens, being ovens made of clay and surrounded by stones. These ovens could not have belonged to the Slavs who had a different style of construction, and is noticeable in Dacian-occupied areas in Romania during the 1st-3rd century. Traditional Roman ovens were also discovered in the same area as these "vatra ovens." [87]

---------------------------------------------------------------

Debunked pseudo-history.I will say from start that your whole text has no source, so even though I am not forced to answer your shit of a text i will, just to make fun of you more :)
The website from which you took your shit propaganda is a a fraud, where proofless fantesies were hungarians become ancient scythians-sumerian-amorites ,gypsies are jewish in origin etc

You are using a proofless debunked outdated politically made pseudo-theory based on "argumentum ex silentio" logical fallacy of Robert Roesler from "Romänische Studien. Untersuchungen zur alteren Geschichte Rümäniens".Not only this book not exists anymore(1871 in Leipzig was the first and last published) and is not supported by anyone today, except hungarian nationalists,but it was already thoroughly debunked even on that time 1888 by A.D.Xenopol "Teoria lui Röesler. Studiu asupra staruin?ei românilor din Dacia Traiana" 1884.
-There is no archaelogical evidence that former rural population shifted to the countryside to abandon the cities.
-There are no writtings or archaelogical evidence of sudden increase of population in Balkans after Aurelian retreat.
-There is no recorded writting or archaelogical proof of any migration.
-The documentation of colonization of Vlachs In Transylvania is non-existent,especially for such a large populace. Of the 217 documents pertaining to Transylvania during the reign of Ladislaus IV, none of them mention this colonization.Comparatively, we have 19 documents referring to the 25 year long colonization in Transylvania of the Teutonic Knights, an event which happened 50 years before the “Vlach colonization.” In the 13th century there is only one mention of Vlachs being settled on the domains of nobles in Transylvania, but the source does not mention whether the Vlachs came from outside of Transylvania or if they were taken from the Transylvanian foothills.At the supposed site of relocation of these colonists, that being Moesia, of which only a small upper part was renamed as Dacia. In this region, there is no recording of any drastic increase of population, something which would definitely have resulted from such an influx of refugees. When the Goths sought refuge in the Eastern Roman Empire to escape the Huns, their presence is clearly attestable in cesspits, cemeteries, and archaeological relics. The relocated Dacian colonists however, did not leave any impression at all. There is no sudden growth in cemeteries, nor in cremation urns discovered. There is no expansion of cities and towns in the 3rd century, and no new towns are created. This leads to one of two conclusions: Either the newly relocated colonists made sure to only cremate themselves and simply throw away their ashes into the wind, consume as little as possible, smash every pot they had, and be homeless for the rest of their existence; or, such a massive relocation never happened. [22]

>The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike other neo-latin languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin language, because there are not remained dacian vocabulary for the posterior.

According to world renowed linguists like J.Grimm,P.de Lagarde A.fick , W.Tomaschek(first to make a complete analisis of thracian languages), G.Meyer, F.Solmsen, P.Kretschmer, H.Hirt, D.Decev, V.Parvan, I.I.Rusu, V.Georgiev(founder of thracology institute in Bulgaria) there are 160 Romanian words of Dacian origin (representing, together with derivates, 10% of the basic Romanian vocabulary). I.Russu "Thraco-Dacian language" (The only book ever written on this topic, based on the research on most important linguists of previous era)

More books on this subject:
Gustav Weigand(world expert on balkanic languages) (1908) Linguistischer Atlas des dacorumänischen Sprachgebiets. Barth: Leipzig.
Kim Schulte, “Loanwords in Romanian”, Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2009).
Ariton Vraciu. Limba daco-geților. Timișoara: Editura Facla, 1980.
Dimiter Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprachreste, Wien 1957.
Duridanov, Ivan (1985): Die Sprache der Thraker, Neuried: Hieronymus.
Hubschmid, Johannes (1983): "Zum Substrat und zur Vorgeschichte des Rumänischen (Probleme der Balkanlinguistik)", in: Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 99, 497–511.
Mackendrick, Paul Lachlan (1975): The Dacian Stones Speak, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press.
Cihac, Alexandru (1879): Dictionnaire d'étymologie daco-romane, éléments slaves, magyars, turcs, grecs-moderne et albanais, Frankfurt: Ludolphe St-Goar.
Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu. Etymologicum Magnum Romaniae, 1887–1895.
etc

>the relations between the roman legions and dacians remianed hostile.

Show me a CONTEMPORANY source for this.There is significant archeological evidence to show that the Dacians and Getae were very receptive to foreign cultures.

>This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process.

Show me a source for this.According to the famous german historian, August Ludwig von Schlözer,Dacia was the only Roman province to have a state-sponsored colonization program.

>There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations (serials of many strong powerfull and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans.).

Lel, the old debunked Roesler theory arguments I see.
I will just post CONTEMPORANY historic records, but there exist tens of archaelogical sites of what is called FREE DACIAN too, which i can post at request.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Dacians
The Free Dacians, together with the Roman-Dacians later developed into the Romanian people of nowadays.

-Eusebius of Caesarea Historia Ecclesiae (ca. 320)
-Constantine I the Great (336) assumed the victory title of Dacicus Maximus("Grand Dacian").Since such victory-titles always indicated peoples defeated, not geographical regions, the repeated use of Dacicus Maximus implies the existence of ethnic Dacians outside the Roman province in sufficient numbers to warrant major military operations into the early 4th century.
-Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae (ca. 395)
-Eutropius Historiae Romanae Breviarium (ca. 360)
-Sextus Aurelius Victor De Caesaribus (361)
-Anonymous Historia Augusta (ca. 400)
- For the year 381, the Byzantine chronicler Zosimus records an invasion over the Danube by a barbarian coalition of Huns, Scirii and what he terms Karpodakai, or Carpo-Dacians.(Zosimus Historia Nova (ca. 500)
-Jordanes Getica (ca. 550)
-Alfred the Great's translation of the Historiae Adversus Paganos—a fifth-century work by Orosius "referred to "the Dacians, who were formerly Goths" and lived "east of the Moravians and the "Vistula country".

>There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans, the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans.

Then why not provice a source for this.Only gothic words are missing from our lexicon, which si easely explained.
The lack of Germanic elements in Romanian is due largely to the low level of interaction between the Goths and Romanians, as well as the low population of Goths living in the area. Similar absences are noted in the Basque language whom the Goths ruled for centuries. The Goths were also present South of the Danube in even greater numbers, and were even brought in by the Romans as refugees, so placing the Romanians South of the Danube does not provide an argument against a lack of Germanic words. It can be concluded from this that the adoption of Gothic elements in Romanian would have had more to do with the type of interaction between the Goths and proto-Romanians, and not with whether they lived in the same geographic region.Even more, the presence of Goths was way higher in balkans where they also stayed longer.

"Vasile Parvan discovered two documents in Transylvania dating from the IV century which mentions a Goth "king" who referred to himself as "jude" over his populace, an administrative title preserved also by the Romanian principalities in the Middle Ages. This king chose the title because it must have had some significance to the people he presided over, otherwise there would have been no point in using it as opposed to some proto-Germanic word like "Herzog." Since this title was only relevant to Romanians, it is clear that this king must have presided over the proto-Romanians. [22]"

>During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from old romanian language,

Provide source for this claim.

>Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM

Romanian never contained albanian substratum.Albanians and romanians share 72 words.Lets open "The language of thraco-dacians" of I.I.Russu(from where most of Wikipedia cites as source) the only book ever written with a full complete analysis of everything we know of thraco-dacian language spoken in the balkano-danubo-carphatia region,also the description of thracians(based on all writtings found), the phenotype of thracians etc,a book that was worked for over 20 years work.According to world renowed linguists like J.Grimm,P.de Lagarde A.fick , W.Tomaschek(first to make a complete analisis of thracian languages), G.Meyer, F.Solmsen, P.Kretschmer, H.Hirt, D.Decev, V.Parvan, I.I.Rusu, V.Georgiev and many many others along with other researchers, argues that the common words between albanian-romanian do not justify at all a albanian-romanian geographic communion, if we lived near eachother it was for a very very short time, most of the words are older in romanian,alot believed to be unknown are actually from latin and it is absolutely impossible for the words exchange to come after Vi century.

"but there are phenomens of diphthongization,Umlaut and accent in albanian,that constitute a pit between albanian and romanian"(OR, page 590)."
Yet again , albanians and romanians couldnt have lived togheter, like Al.Philippide explains:
"But the biggest difference, between albanian and romanian,is in report with the accent,and its important not only because they are different,but even more on the fact that the accent is the safest physiological phenomen,based on which you can conclude that you deal with a different articulation base."
[1]Al.Philippide, OR,II,page 596 "if we admit with somewhat probability that the phonetic similarities between albanian and romanian have their origin in a somewhat affinity of the articulation base,meaning in a ethnic affinity,then it can be admited that between the albanian and romanian people existed a geographic cohesion(coheziune)" etc.
[...]common elements in albanian and romanian can only be explained as "borrowings" before roman dominion in balkans and carphato-danubia.After it was proven that the common phonetic,morphologic and sintactic elements from romanian and albanian do not justify at all a geographic communion[...]"
"So its impossible for these words to have come in feudal epoque, because they oppose the phonologic evolution of some albanian and romanian words, in comparation to their etymologic roots.
Conclusion:
"The theory of "albanian borrowings" leads you at the pre-roman epoque of the carpatho-balkanic and danubian territories,when it is not correct to speak about albanians(shiptars) in these areas,inhabited in antiquity by illyrians at west and thraco-getae at north-east.The obligatory conclusion is that the cmmon elements from the albanian-romanian lexic, around 68 or 70 terms, are in this idioms(like also the 89/90 autochtonous romanian words not found in albanian) from a common source, the carphato-balkanic substratum.They have evolved differently in albanian and romanian, according to each language characteristics, in the feudal period."

>After the mongol invasion in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania

Source for this.Even better, show one document which says explicitly how the Romanians crossed the Carpathians into Transylvania.

>and their (turkic) cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities.

Basarab being cuman is a ex-theory of Neagu Djuvara.However his arguments were proven faulty.Basarab dynasty name comes from a faulty interpretation of a writting.In 1241, a persian chronicle will identify Litovoi(who succeded in taking the Severin from magyar suzeranity) as Bezeren Ban (hungarian Szeveren Ban, meaning lord of Severin).Basarab was an orthodox romanian,son of Tihomir who was son of Seneslau.He was redheaded and anthropologically european in paintings.

>Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings.

See the posts above I made where this is explained in detail.Posts which you refused to answer.

>In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.

Source for this please.Romania was never an Ottoman province(pashalak) , it was a vassal.The only thing Ottomans controled was the foreign policy.I see you mention the Congres of berlin yet you from sheer gelousy(hungarians never fought to be released by ottomans, they were freed by austriaks!) dont mention how romanians fought at Russo-Turkish war and were the 2nd force besides Russia.

>Since the 16th century the settled life became dominant lifestyle among formerly mostly nomadic romanians.

Show me a CONTEMPORANY source for this.

>After that period, the written records only mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino speaking population.
>There are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval age etc.) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.
>but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.

Except there are tens befoe XIII century and even more the vlachs from balkans are called either dacians or the chronicle say that they migrated from Dacia.So I will post them again untill they enter in your subhuman skull.

-The Roman-Gothic author Jordanes, who was raised in Moesia and was familiar with the ethnic character of the area, [12] wrote in the 6th century that the Romans had only moved the legions from Dacia, and not the population.
the Emperor Aurelian, calling his legions from here (evocatis exinde legionibus), settled them in Moesia and there, on the other side, he founded Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis —Jordanes [13]
-The Byzantine chronicler Priscus of Panium mentions in the year 448, the presence of a Latin-speaking populace North of the Danube.
-In 545, Procopius of Caesarea mentions[not in citation given] [19] "The trick played by an Ant from present-day Moldavia who is supposed to have passed himself off as a Byzantine General by speaking a form of Latin which he had learned in these regions."
-Emperor Constantine mentioning the Roman population living at the mouth of Danube in "De administrando imperio" VII
-An ancient letter from one Emmerich of Elwangen to Grimaldus, abbot of St. Gall, written about 860 mention Vlachs, under the name of Dacians, living north of Danube together with Germans, Sarmatians, and Alans.
-The chronicle Oguzname, the oldest Turkish chronicle in existence, mentioning a warlike expedition of the Cumans, affirms the existence of a “Country of the Vlachs” (Ulaqi) east of the Carpathians in 839, affirming that the region was well organized and with a powerful army.
-The Weltchronik of Jansen Enikel, written in Vienna in 1277, mentions Charlemagne going on a campaign in the east (around 8th century) and met with Wallachians.
-Porphyrogennelos (912-959) writing about romanian population calling them romans: "They are called romans and they have preserved this name to the present times"
-The old Russian Chronicle "Povesti vremennâh let” written around 1100-1111 mentions Valachs being North of Danube fighting with hungarians.(B.D.Grekov, Kievskaia Rusi, Moscova,1953, pag. 441)
-An entry in the so-called Suidas lexicon drawnup at some point during the second half of the tenth century, claims that Dacians were now called Pechenegs.This can only mean that the Pechenegs were ruling over the local population,dacians.
-Ibn al-Nadim wrote of vlachs,living with different eastic population "the Turks, the Bulgar,the Burghaz, the Khazar, the Llan (Alans)".
-The Byzantine writer Joannes Kinnamos writes of the Vlachs North of the Danube in 1167, saying:Leon, also known as Vatatzes, brought many soldiers from other areas, even a large number of Vlachs, about whom it is said that they are the descendants of colonists from Italy. [39]
-An armenian geographical writting(by 7th Ananias of Shirak (Shirakats’i) and copied in 9th century by Moses Khorenats’i) mentions the country Balak inhabited by 25 slavic tribes,situated North of Bulgary and neighbour with that of Sarmatians.
-Nicetas Choniates tells us that as Andronic Comnenos was heading towards the Cneazate of Hailici in 1164, but was captured by Vlachs along the way. The vlachs are clearly indicated as being North of the Danube.
-Anna Komnenos wrote in the Alexiadis of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Dacians North of the Danube. The Scythians and Sarmatians are obviously references to nomadic horsemen (Avars etc.) while the Dacians are most likely a reference to the Romanians. French historian Ed. Sayous is in agreement with this notion, and believes that the Hungarians must have encountered a large number of Latin-speaking people when they arrived in Pannonia. [Anna Komnenos, Alexiadis, VII, p. 227; Ed. Sayous, Histoire generale des Hongrois, III]
-Thomas Tuscus wrote, on the expedition of the emperor Conrad III against the Turks, in a Crusade during 1140 AD: “The troops from Provence, from France, Lotaringia and Germany went towards Constantinople through Hungary, Valahia and Pannonia.” How could there be a "Valahia" without vlahs to populate it North of the Danube?
-The Polish Chronicler Dlugosz writes in his Historia Polonica that in a battle in 1070 between the cneaz of Polotsk and Kiev, the cneaz of Polotsk had in his army “Russians, Pecennegs, and Vlahs.” [Historia Polonica, I. Dlugosz, I, p. 265]
-Snorri Sturluson, an Icelandic chronicler, mentions the that North of the Danube there was a “Blokumannland” in 1114.
-A runestone from the Njoshem cemetery in Gotland dating from the 11th century commemorates a merchant Rodfos who was traveling to Constantinople through “The land of the Vlachs” where he was killed. The geographic region in question is clearly North of the Danube. [
-The Weltchronik of 1277, referring to the ninth century, calls those Dacians for "Wallachen".
-Hypatian Codex in "Ipatiev Chronicle", vlachs lived in X-XII century on Dnister, and Podolia.
-Nestor's Chronicle, (1097-1110), relating events from 862 to 1110, mentions Wallachians attacking and subduing the Slavs north of Danube and settling among them. [25] {{Quote|For many years the Slavs lived beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Khorutanians. For when the Vlakhs (??????) attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Liakhs. (...) [40]
Coming from the east, they /the Magyars/ marched in haste over the high mountains, which are called the mountains of the Magyars, and began to fight against the Volochi (??????) and the Slavs who inhabited these countries. The Slavs had originally lived there, and the Volochi (????????) had subdued the country of the Slavs. Later, however, the Magyars drove out the Volochi (??????), subdued the Slavs, and settled in their country. Since then, that region has been called Hungary.|Primary Chronicle [40] The river Tarnava is evidence of the co-existence between the Slavs and Romanians in Translvania described by the chronicler Nestor. Tarnava derives from Slavic trunu, or nail. Since the Hungarians used a different name for the river, “Kukulo”, it would have been impossible for Romanians to use the Slavic name for the river had they arrived after the Magyars (and according to Hungarian history, with a Magyar majority in Transylvania). In such a situation the Romanian name would have been derived from Hungarian, but the fact that it is of Slavic origin attests to Slavs and Romanians living together around the river before the Magyars.
-According to Strategikon of Kekaumenos (1066), the Vlachs of Epirus and Thessalia came from north of the Danube and from along the Sava."These /Vlachs/ are, in fact, the so-called Dacians, also called Bessians. Earlier they lived in the vicinity of the Danube and Saos, a river which we now call Sava, where the Serbians live today, and /later/ withdrew to their inaccessible fortifications. (...) And these left the region: some of them were dispersed to Epirus and Macedonia, and a large number established themselves in Hellas."
-Thomas of Spalato(Thomas the Archdeacon) , paralel with Descriptio Europæ Orientalis(mention ten Vlach kings that were defeated by the Hungarians of Arpad.), paralel with Gesta Henrici,
-In the chronicle of Simon of Keza (1282 to 1290), the Vlachs of Pannonia are mentioned as a settled population after the collapse of the Hunnish imperiu, paralel with Weltchronik of Rudolph von Ems, written circa 1250, mention Vlachs living in Pannonia.
-The Nibelungenlied (“The Song of the Nibelungs”), written between 1140 and 1160, describes a passage mentioning Vlachs and their leader, Ramunc. The context of the whole song was the marriage of Attila, and many cultures, each speaking a different language. From these, we find the duke Ramunc, who, together with seven hundred of his best fighters, scare away the horses of the Huns
-The chronicler Rogerius(1201-1266) in his work "Carmen Miserabile", mentions Romanian Knezates in the region of Arad
Rudolf von Ems (1200-1254), German Poet wrote about Transylvania and about its Vlach inhabitants, who have their homes "beyond the snowy ranges"-study of the late ninth-century al-Jayhani11th-century Persian scholar Gardizi,That is the Džaihūn which is on their /the Magyars’/ left side. Beside Saqlāb /Slavs/ are a people az Rūm / from the Byzantine Empire (Rûm) [26] or of Rome [27] [28] / who are all Christians and they are called N-n-d-r, and they are more numerous than the Magyars, but they are weaker. ,who inhabited the lower Danube and the Carpathians.
-Around 1120, the Gesta Henrici written by the cleric Godefirdus von Viterbium mentioned the countries conquered by Rome including “Blachina” (Blach, being a synonym to Vlach, meant Romanian) [25]

And by the way,dont even try to come with the hugnarian bs that Gesta is unreliable when in fact Gesta is backed up by another few writtings from that era and before it, plus archaelogical & linguistical facts(The old Russian Chronicle "Povesti vremennâh let”, Hypatian Codex in "Ipatiev Chronicle",Thomas of Spalato(Thomas the Archdeacon) , paralel with Descriptio Europæ Orientalis,paralel with Gesta Henrici) and most importantly a HUNGARIAN archaelogist itself found the capital of duke Gelu at Dabaca and the capital of duke Menumorut at Bihara, in 1837, K.Hodor,and confirmed by K. Crettier the ones they speak in Gesta!!(K. Hodor - Doboka megye termeszeti es polgari ismertetese, Cluj 1837, p. 12)
"contrary to the opinion of the Hungarian archaeologist Bona, the inhabitation of the site in the IX century has been confirmed by many objects."
"The first fortress was built in the ninth century. K. Hodor, who described the ruins in 1837, considers that the fortress was founded on the place of a Dacian fortress. The fortress of the IX-X centuries was protected by ditches and streams of clay. Now, there is also built a rectangular tower and a wall that connects the eastern and western parts of the first enclosure, with a thickness of 3.2 m."

Not only Transylvania was inhabited before magyar shitskins , but also Panonia.

1) Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum:
-“Rex Athila… de terra scithica descendens cum valida manu in terram Pannonie venit, et fugatis Romanis, regnum obtinuit” (C. 1)
-“Et iure terra Pannonie Pascua Romanorum esse dicebatur, nam et modo Romani pascuntur de bonis Ungarie” (C. 9)
-“Et mortuo illo preoccupassent Romani principes terram Pannonie usque ad Danubium, ubi collocassent pastores suos” (C. 11)
2) Oto de Deogilo, French chronicler, Liber de via Sancti Sepulchri, p. 60
-“Terra hec (Ungaria) in tantum pabulosa est, ut dicantur in ea pabula Julii Caesaris extitisse.”
3) Thomas Spalatensis, Historia Salonitana, p. 549
-“Haec region dicitur antiquitus fuisse Pascua Romanorum.”
4)Richardus, De facto Ungarie Magne, p. 248
-“Ungaria dicitur, tum vero dicebatur Pascua Romanorum, quam inhabitandam pre terries ceteris elegerunt, subiectis sibi populis, qui tunc habitant ibidem.”
5) Simon de Keza, Gesta Hungarorum, IV, 32
-“Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere pastores et coloni remanentibus sponte in Pannonia” [Note: Blackis means "Romanian", derived from the word "vlach". Simon de Keza is literally saying that the Romanians stayed in Pannonia as colonists even after Attila left.]
-“Ulahis advenis remanentibus in eadem qui vivente Ethela populari servicio sibi serviebant.” [This quote literally says the Romanians (Ulahis) remained in Pannonia during the time of Attila and even afterwards]

This is further strengthened by the fact that Hungarians referred to Southern Pannonia up until the 16th century as "az Olahok" [note: Olah = Romanian in Hungarian].

So the over 300 archaelogical sites dont exit )))

Here's a list of all the archaeological sites in the 3 counties forming Central Transylvania (Cluj, Alba and Mures), as published by professor Linda Ellis of the San Francisco State University in the journal "World Archaeology" vol 30, 1998, the article aptly named "Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia":

40 sites in Cluj county, covering the 4th to 10th century AD
57 sites in the Alba county, covering the 4th to 13th century AD
211 sites in Mures county, covering the 5th to 10th century AD

Terra Deserta: population, politics and the [de]colonization of Dacia:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/124984

Her conclusion: "The post-Roman era has demonstrated an abundant archaeological record of burial and settlement, along with a continuation in distribution of Roman objects throughout former core and peripheral areas. "

Lets post some more.There are a few hundred daco-roman sites from Aurelian Retreat to XII century, located in Transylvania.More on http://cronica.cimec.ro/ , the official romanian archaelogy website, most are translated in english and with photos.

st select some random ones, because being hundreds, this can take ages.

"Again on the Mures inferior valey , are found archaelogical objects like earthen lamps with cross sign,diverse latin icons and inscription from Felnac,Vladimirescu,Sambateni,Lipova,Bata,object used with certitute only and only by the daco-roman populations" Ziridava (revista Muzeului Judetean Arad), 1993

Some examples of daco-roman settlements of the romanised dacian populations:

Suceagu (Cluj) Early Roman (1st - 3rd cent.); Early Migrations Period (3rd - 6th cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=635

Rural unfortified settlement; Cercetari sistematice si de salvare; 1989, 1991-1992. Dwelling were dug both from surface and deep.Archaelogically, no discontinuation of population was found.A workshop for bone processing was found from IV century.The archaelogical amterial was extremly rich:ceramics,lamps,fibulae,iron objects,grinders,tuff,terra sigillata, an inscription fragment from the Roman era,gray polished ceramic(many intact plates),iron objects,bone artefacts ornamnted,spindles,sandstone,an iron fibula,pottery worked by hand of dacian origin from IV-V,rough paste ceramics.2 ovens for ceramic burning,dated based on ceramics on III-IV.

Vladiceasca (Ilfov) (end of V - start of VI)Late Migrations Period (VII - XIth cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=301

Ill just quote the V-VI period

The typology of the ceramics makes us to frame, for the moment, this complexes at the end of V and the first half of VI.Excavations from Vladiceasca releaved yet again another settlement of the romanised population in an area of Vlasiei Plain, less explored so far.

Berghin (Alba) Late Migrations Period (7th - 11th cent.)

http://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=59

In conclusion, this years excavations have revealed new testimonies regarding the romanisation process of the autochtonous dacians in the Roman rule in Dacia and in the process of the romanian population formation(VII-VIII)

And a very interesting and important archaelogical site :

Sighisoara Late Medieval; Prehistory;

ttp://cronica.cimec.ro/detail.asp?k=7

This city area is inahbited, with minor intrerruptions, for about 4000 years, being archaelogical certified a settlement from bronze age, 2 dacian settlements from iron age,a roman fort for road guarding, a daco-roman settlement and their descendents.

They executed two sections (12.50 x 2 m, respectively, 14.50 x 2 m) in order to explore the upper north-north-east of the necropolis remained unexplored. During investigations 81 graves of cremation have been identified , which raises the number of funerary complexes uncovered so far to 610. Of these, 52 tombs belong to the Dacian population identified in the settlement of the village precincts during the Roman period (II-III century AD). The graves are oval, circular, diamond or rectangular contour and are marked by river boulders. Of the earth filling of the sepulchral holes were collected Dacian and Roman pottery fragments, pieces of coal and scrap of calcined human bones, one portion of a glass and bronze bracelets, etc.. The other 29 tombs are with cremation urns (26) or simple holes (3) featuring the prefeudal cemetery (VII-VIII century AD). Urns containing cremated remains of the defunct (whole and fragmented bones), pieces of coal and various pieces of bronze (one ear from an earring wire), iron (staples, hook, buckles with spin, nails, knife blades, etc.). and Stone (tips, blades, etc..). It is noted that 601 M is as white (126 x 78 cm) and contains a large quantity of scrap cinerary, especially charcoal and burnt earth, calcined bone chips and a few scattered pottery fragments from a vessel broken on the ritual pyre. In conclusion, this year's excavations have revealed further testimony about the process of Romanization of the indigenous Dacians during the Roman domination in Dacia and during the formation of the Romanian people (VII-VIII century AD).

The following locations show continuous Daco-Roman habitation from the 3rd to the 5th century [75]
Mines: Baia de Cris, Tincova, Ruda, Alun, Hunedoara, Baita Cib, Fizes, Cabesti, Videim, Albac, Bistrita de Sus, Vidra, Cimpeni Lupsa, Salciua, Podeni, Potaissa, Baisoara, Valea Ierii.
Monetary thesauri: Bicasi, Pilu, Carei, Copalnic, Soimuseni, Doba Mica, Simieu Silvaniei, Porolissum, Babiu, Gurani, Sintna, Arad, Pecica, Cenad, Horia, Biled, Carani, Jimbova, Checea, Unip, Faget, Debra, Deva, Huedoara, Sepes, Ungureni, Apulum, Seica Mica, Seica Mare, Sura Mare, Sibiu, Ocna Sibiului Soars, Lasiea
Daco-Roman and Roman settlements: Taga, Soporu, Band, Lechinta, Ludus, Cipau, Brateiu, Seica Mica, Biertan, Sighisoara, Sinpaul, Morada, Ineu, Pilu, Biharia, Berca, Mediesu Aurit, Apa, Dej, Rascruci, Napoca, Baciu, Sebes, Hatg, Deva, Debra, Apulum, Gura Vaii, Cazanesti, Hateg, Faroia.
Major Cities and forts: Deva, Haţeg, Hunedoara, Sighişoara, Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, Bistriţa, Bicasi.
Bridges: Apulum
The cultural elements and styles of archaeological artefacts discovered over the period of the 3rd-5th centuries show a clear material and stylistic continuity, indicating continuous habitation by the same people. The cultural character of the findings remains the same until the 6th century, with the arrival of the Slavs. [76]
Ceramic manufacturing traditions continue from the pre-Roman to the Roman era continue both in Roman Dacia and unoccupied Dacia, and these traditions continue well into the fourth and fifth centuries. [77]
Cemeteries in Roman Dacia show cremation consistently across every necropolis, a pre-Roman Dacian tradition. Materials buried with cremated people are comparable both in Roman and in Free Dacia suggesting the native population did not suffer materially due to Roman occupation. [78]
Though there is a change from cremation to inhumation in the post-Roman period inhumation was an increasingly popular concept in the 3rd century. The rich ceramic remains in these necropoli are identical in technology to pre-Roman and Roman era tombs, including the presence of Roman amphorae and wheel-made, gravel-tempered, or hand-made pots. [79]
A noteworthy aspect of third to fifth century graves is the widespread distribution (from Transylvania to the Ukrainian border) and substantial number of objects of Roman manufacture, in excellent condition, which must be indicative of an active system of exchange. [80]
Archaeological surveys of the Banat region record numerous settlements, storage pits, pottery kilns, glass furnaces, metallurgical production sites, and coins (both as hoards and found on sites) [81] which indicate a continuation of both sedentary population and maintenance of Roman military and economic interests. [82]
Circulation of Roman coins grew both in Roman and Free Dacia in the 1st and 2nd centuries, declining in the third but then rising again since the 4th century [83] The extent and increase in coin circulation even after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia and as far north as Transcarpathia is argued by some prominent archaeologists to have no other analogy in neighboring provinces, nor in any other barbarian territory [84]
Some cities show the absence of Dacian names completely from inscriptions but which show Dacian burial rituals, indicating that Dacians near urban centers were rapidly Romanized, adopting Roman names but maintaining their old traditions. [85]
Archaeological digs throughout Transylvania and Romania have discovered many clay pots dating from the IV, V, VI, and VII centuries. What makes these pots particularly interesting is that they were made using the potter's wheel, an invention which no migratory people had when the came through Romania. The only population which could have produced these pots is one which had sufficient contact with the Roman and Hellenic world to adopt this style of making pots. We know the Slavs did not adopt this style until much later because pots made without the use of the potter's wheel are also found throughout Romania during this time. [22]
The thousands of old Roman coins dating from the IV, V and VI centuries found on Romania are peculiar because they are a) made of bronze and b) show the portrait of contemporary emperors on them. The first part affirms that these coins were not valuable, meaning that they were common currency. There is no way such coins could have found their way into Romania through tribute or trade between the Romans and barbarians because the Goths, Avars, Huns, and others would only accept gold coins and items as tribute, as bronze coins had little value or use to them. The material indicates that these coins were used as a common bartering currency for low-value items (like food or iron) by a poor populace. Their number, and the diverse locations that they've been found in, indicates that this populace was large, and spread all over the country. The second aspect reflects the historical fact that there was significant communication between this proto-Romanian populace and the Roman Empire, enough to allow for the accurate re-minting of coins. Even if the coins were imported by the proto-Romanians from the Romans, it still is evidence of significant contact between the Romans and the Romanians North of the Danube. [22]
A Daco-Roman necropolis was discovered in Sibiu belonging to the local population, which had, among the objects buried with the deceased, ceramic objects of Roman cultural origin, coins from the time of Antonius Pius (138-161) and Septimius Sever (193-211) and vases made in the Dacian style. [22] [86]

During the 5th-7th centuries houses all over Romania are noted as having "vatra" ovens, being ovens made of clay and surrounded by stones. These ovens could not have belonged to the Slavs who had a different style of construction, and is noticeable in Dacian-occupied areas in Romania during the 1st-3rd century. Traditional Roman ovens were also discovered in the same area as these "vatra ovens." [87]

Rdll12

09-11-2016, 01:05 PM

Culturally, both islam and th

Typical romanians, t]

This have no relevance to the subject.I laughed when I say gypsies with mental&physicall handicap being passed as romanians in your video xD

>AGAIN: ALL THIS WESTERN SCHOLARS know that romanians had late nomadic past. It is enough to open the URLS of the books.

I do not understand, do you know english or are your mental capabilities so sub-par that you can't comprehend what it writes?Everyone that knows english can see that your books do not reffer to romanians at all(but to the very small romance speaking minority from balkans, who call themselvs vlachs,mostly from Greece-Fyrom) and even more you CANNOT PRESENT EVEN ONE CONTEMPORANY CHRONICLE or a BOOK that REFFERENCES A CONTEMPORANY WRITTING, thus everything you post is either irrelevant to the subject or baseless.Stop twisting the fork, if you cannot answer just say you cannot, no one will laugh about your stupid attempt.And by the way those are not western scholars,almost all are balkanite/poles, and most are translators,one is even a sociology profesor from Cyprus.Nonetheless, I cant find most of them even on google lmaoo.

But let me show you HUNGARIAN HISTORIANS/ACADEMICs.

András Huszti(XVIII century magyar chronicle writter and historian) in his "The old and New Dacia" book published at Viena in 1791 - " "The offspring of the Dacians still live even today and live where their forefathers lived, and speak in a language similar to their forefathers."

István Losontzy writes: “Transylvania, to the East of Hungary, was beforehand called Dacia... the Hungarian kings only ruled this land through Transylvanian voievods.”

Szilagyi Sandor(MOST FAMOUS modern Hungarian historian , member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, who has worked on over 73 books) “Transylvania and Hungary were never together, and were always two different countries... as Transylvania always looked to the Orient, due to the fact that the majority of the population was Orthodox Christian, while Hungary always looked Westward.”

Mihály Horváth(was a Hungarian Roman Catholic bishop, historian, and politician. He was an exponent of Hungarian nationalism with an emphasis on its historical culture).So even a nationalist hungarian shits on you. “Transylvania was populated by Romanians when the Hungarians first arrived in Pannonia. In Bihor was the dukedom of Menumorut, who had as his subjects Vlachs and Khazars, and in Banat Voievod Glad had an army composed entirely of Romanians. Erdely is led by Gelu at this time as well.”

G. Petrovay in 1911 writes “The Hungarian historical hypothesis in which the Romanians arrived in Transylvania in the 13th century does not logically patch there realities of Bereg and Maramures, because these regions had privileges which a people of pastoralists who immigrated slowly, as strangers and enemies, and were captured in battle; to send a captured enemy to guard your borders and land is complete nonsense.” (in " Szazadok, XLV -1911 , p. 607 -626 )

F. Eckhart writes in Magyaroszág története, Budapest, 1933, pg 21 “We cannot believe that the Hungarians populated the entire Hungarian kingdom. Their numbers... were too small for something like that. The territories which Hungarians occupied matched the territory of Hungary after Trianon”

Iosif Bánki (1764) writes: “so great is the number of Romanians that they easily outnumber all the other nations of Transylvania combined.”

Gábor Fábián writes in the ethnography of Arad in 1835: “The Romanians are the oldest people here, and if it is true that they are the colonists of Dacia after Trajan’s conquest, then they can be considered as the aboriginals of this comitat”

Theodor Lehoczky writes in 1890: “The regions from Northeastern Salaj were, without a doubt, inhabited by Romanians before the Magyar elements managed to penetrate into this region.”

The Hungarian writer Gyarfas E. in his work " A roman gorog katolikusok autonomiaja, Budapesta 1905" brings valuable information about the Romanians from Bihor in the first part of the eleventh century, 1000-1038 to be exact.

Martin Opitz, one of the most important German writers, lived in Transylvania between 1622 and 1623, and wrote Zlatna, oder von der Ruhe des Gemuths(1622), where he speaks about the Daco-Latin origin of the autochthonous people of Transylvania.He began work on a historical book, "Dacia Antiqua sive Comentarii Rerum Daciarum", a work that has unfortunately been lost. "Es hat das wuste Volek grantz Asien bezwungen/Die Griechen/ Thracier/ vnd Mysios verdrungen/ Auch ewer Dacien / der Romer bestes Land Von langen Jahren her / verheert vnd auBgebrand."

Romanians are swarthy like the balkanite poeople, because their genes are less European. They have high ratio of negroid origin E1B1 and middle-eastern J markers:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/European_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

So hungarians(who have like 45% R1a and even the slavic variant M458) come from Siberia since R1a is a siberian genetic marker?

Let me show you the true hungarians origins.Hungarians are the most mixed in Europe, a bunch of mixed mongrel.You have no genetic relationship with the madjars from start, you are mixed slavo-germano-romanians GENETICALLY&ANTHROPOLOGICALLY, this is why we call you bozgors.

All tests , even those from Budapest which were made under a span of 14 years(2000-2014) showed the same.Result?Politically magyarised central europeans + balkanites.On a closer look slavs + vlachs firstly, then serbs&germans and then ukraineans,austriaks, jews,turks and gypsies.

Conclusion:

Hungarians are caucasian for the same reason Bulgars and Serbia have southern European complexions instead of looking like Russians, why Turks look very European compared to Madjars and Volga Bulgars and why most englishmen are not blond and blue eyed despite the region being conqured by scandinavians three times in 500 years.
When a nomadic people usually conquer a region they manage to impose thier culture but eventually get absorbed by the native population due to their low numbers. The same thing happened with the magyars who never numbered more than 1000 families (meaning 50.000-100.000 people) in total after they left Khazaria. In fact the Hungarian academy conducted two studies on the topic. One in the 1980s, when at then request of the communist party, they sent a scientific expedition in Central Asia to find the birthplace of the hungarian language. They discovered a people called the Madjars who spoke a very similar language. They were turkic.
The second one occurred in the 1990s when the same Hungarian Academy conducted a fairly extensive genetic survey of Hungary's population. They found that most of the Hungarians living east of the Danube were genetically indistinguishable from Romanians (in North-East & East Hungary) and Serbs (South-East and south), while those living west were basically all Slovaks and Czechs with a significant Germanic influence.

The Scythian story was invented in 1987 by that raving lunatic Ilyes Elmer. The Scythians were Iranians mixed with balts and proto-slavs. They spoke a Indo-European language belonging to the Satem branch, they had no connection with the magyars or modern day hungarian language.
The Hun story is the result of standard medieval thinking. If you keep hearing tales about fearsome horse people highly skilled with the bow who called themselves
Huns and you meat a group of fearsome horse people highly skilled with the bow logic dictates that you label them Huns. The Byzantines called all nomads they ecountered Scythians because they fought like Scythians. That includes the Mongoloid Avars, the turkic Pechenegs and the turks themselves.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18373723

"Our data suggest that the Tat C allele, which is widespread in Uralic-speaking populations, was substantially present in the ancient Magyar population when they crossed the Carpathians and settled in the Carpathian Basin. Our findings provide further evidence for its virtual absence in recent Hungarian-speaking populations, with the exception of a single male in the Szekler group. This contrast, despite the relative linguistic stability, may be attributed to a combination of the Magyars being a dominant elite, whose language was accepted by the more numerous pre-existing populations (mostly Slavs and Avars), and of the effects of a number of substantial post-Magyar immigrations and incursions. The Y-chromosomal patterns of the modern Hungarians and Szeklers can for the most part be adequately explained within the European paternal genetic landscape. As with other Europeans, the Y chromosomes are characterized by early lineages derived from Paleolithic inhabitants, and by a minor impact of Neolithic and post-Neolithic migratory episodes. Consistent with previous studies, Hungarian-speaking populations are genetically closely related to their geographic neighbours. The Hungarian and Szekler groups cluster together with some other central Europeans (e.g. Czechs and Slovaks), but mainly with Balkan populations. There are two exceptions. Haplogroup P*(xM173) is almost absent in continental Europe. The presence of this haplogroup in the Szeklers may indicate a connection with Central Asian populations. Also, there is an elevated haplogroup J frequency. This may reflect Anatolian and southern Balkan contributions to the gene pools of Hungarians and Szeklers, but historical data and the comparative analyses of maternal lineages of ancient Hungarian population suggest that the earlier migrations of the Magyars may also have contributed to the presence of this lineage in the Carpathian Basin."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19170200

G. Tömöry, B. Csányi, E. Bogácsi-Szabó, T. Kalmár, A. Czibula, A. Csosz, K. Priskin, B. Mende, P. Langó, C. S. Downes, and I. Raskó. "Comparison of maternal lineage and biogeographic analyses of ancient and modern Hungarian populations." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 134:3 (November 2007): pages 354-368. Abstract:

"The Hungarian language belongs to the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic family, but Hungarian speakers have been living in Central Europe for more than 1000 years, surrounded by speakers of unrelated Indo-European languages. In order to study the continuity in maternal lineage between ancient and modern Hungarian populations, polymorphisms in the HVSI and protein coding regions of mitochondrial DNA sequences of 27 ancient samples (10th-11th centuries), 101 modern Hungarian, and 76 modern Hungarian-speaking Sekler samples from Transylvania were analyzed. The data were compared with sequences derived from 57 European and Asian populations, including Finno-Ugric populations, and statistical analyses were performed to investigate their genetic relationships. Only 2 of 27 ancient Hungarian samples are unambiguously Asian: the rest belong to one of the western Eurasian haplogroups, but some Asian affinities, and the genetic effect of populations who came into contact with ancient Hungarians during their migrations are seen. Strong differences appear when the ancient Hungarian samples are analyzed according to apparent social status, as judged by grave goods. Commoners show a predominance of mtDNA haplotypes and haplogroups (H, R, T), common in west Eurasia, while high-status individuals, presumably conquering Hungarians, show a more heterogeneous haplogroup distribution, with haplogroups (N1a, X) which are present at very low frequencies in modern worldwide populations and are absent in recent Hungarian and Sekler populations. Modern Hungarian-speaking populations seem to be specifically European.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854093

A. Z. Bíró, A. Zalán, A. Völgyi, and H. Pamjav. "A Y-chromosomal comparison of the Madjars (Kazakhstan) and the Magyars (Hungary)." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139:3 (July 2009): pages 305-310. Some of the lineages within Y-DNA haplogroup G are shared between the Madjar people of Kazakhstan and the Magyar people of Hungary. (Mirror) Abstract:

"The Madjars are a previously unstudied population from Kazakhstan who practice a form of local exogamy in which wives are brought in from neighboring tribes, but husbands are not, so the paternal lineages remain genetically isolated within the population. Their name bears a striking resemblance to the Magyars who have inhabited Hungary for over a millennium, but whose previous history is poorly understood. We have now carried out a genetic analysis of the population structure and relationships of the Madjars, and in particular have sought to test whether or not they show a genetic link with the Magyars. We concentrated on paternal lineages because of their isolation within the Madjars and sampled males representing all extant male lineages unrelated for more than eight generations (n = 45) in the Torgay area of Kazakhstan. The Madjars show evidence of extensive genetic drift, with 24/45 carrying the same 12-STR haplotype within haplogroup G. Genetic distances based on haplogroup frequencies were used to compare the Madjars with 37 other populations and showed that they were closest to the Hungarian population rather than their geographical neighbors. Although this finding could result from chance, it is striking and suggests that there could have been genetic contact between the ancestors of the Madjars and Magyars, and thus that modern Hungarians may trace their ancestry to Central Asia, instead of the Eastern Uralic region as previously thought."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18373723

Ornella Semino, Giuseppe Passarino, Lluís Quintana-Murci, Aiping Liu, Judit Béres, Andreas Czeizel, and A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti. "MtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungary: inferences from the palaeolithic, neolithic and Uralic influences on the modern Hungarian gene pool." European Journal of Human Genetics 8 (2000): pages 339-346. This particular study's Hungarian samples carried the R1a Y-DNA haplogroup at a frequency of 60 percent.

"Magyars imposed their language on Hungarians but seem not to have affected their genetic structure. To better investigate this point, we analysed some mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in a sample of the Hungarian Palóc who, for historical reasons, could have retained genetic traces of Magyars more than other groups. In addition, we examined a mixed sample from Budapest. About 100 individuals were tested for the markers defining all the European and Asian mtDNA haplogroups and about 50 individuals for some Y chromosome markers, namely the 12f2 and 49a,f/TaqI RFLPs, the YAP insertion, the microsatellites YCAIIa, YCAIIb, DYS19 and the Asian 50f2/C deletion. In the mtDNA analysis only two subjects belonged to the Asian B and M haplogroups. The Y chromosome analyses showed: that the Palóc differed from the Budapest sample by the absence of YAP+ allele and by the DYS19 allele distribution; that the proto-European 49a,f Ht 15 and the neolithic 12f2-8Kb were rather uncommon in both groups; that there is a high prevalence of the 49a,f Ht 11 and the YCAII a5-b1; and that the Asian 50f2/C deletion is absent.These results suggest that the influence of Magyars on the Hungarian gene pool has been very low through both females and males and the Hungarian language could be an example of cultural dominance. Alternative explanations are discussed. An expansion centred on YAP-; 49a,f Ht 11 is revealed by the median network based on compound haplotypes. 49a,f Ht 11 could represent either a paleolithic marker of eastern Europe which underwent expansion after the last glacial period, or a marker of the more recent spread of the Yamnaia culture from southern Ukraine."

In romanians, even the R1a is older than in hungarians, the R1a in hungarians is almost all from slavs, M458 while in romanians its pre-slavic Z280

https://s14.postimg.io/td4ptqyq9/trako_getae_illiro_dacians.jpg

More, read the 2012 Paleo-genetic study of Univeristy doctor and direct of Institute of Human Biology and Anthropology of Hamburg University Alexander Rodewald, where the romanian populations are crystal clear related with the populations that lived here in the iron and bronze era 5000 years ago.The study was based on the ont he bones from over 20 archaelogical sites from Romania(carphato-danubian-pontic basin), from 50 people(22 bronze age, 28 iron age)

https://www.scribd.com/document/222090345/GENOMUL-UMAN-Georgeta-Cardo%C5%9F-Alexander-Rodewald

lets post some more on romanians

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1542880

"We have investigated the HLA-class I and class II polymorphism in a population of 83 Romanians using conventional serology together with PCR amplification and oligonucleotide typing of HLA-class II genes. Romanians show a higher frequency of HLA-A11, B13, B18, B37, B39, B51 and DR2 than other European populations. HLA-DRB1*1501 and 1601 account for the high frequency of the serologic specificity DR2. In Romanians, HLA-DR2 is in linkage disequilibrium with HLA-B18 and HLA-Bw52 rather than with HLA-B7 as in the case in other Europeans. Unexpected HLA-DR2 haplotypes include HLA-DRB1*1502, DQA1*0102, DQB1*0601; HLA-DRB1*1602, DQA1*0102, DQB1*0502. Other unusual haplotypes include HLA-DRB1*0405, DQA1*03, DQB1*0302; HLA-DRB1*1305, DQA1*0103, DQB1*0603; and HLA-DRB1*1405, DQA1*0101, DQB1*05032. Analysis of the genetic distance between Romanians and other Europeans who have been studied serologically are consistent with the hypothesis that Romanians descend from Roman ancestors who colonized Dacia between the 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D."

Lets open the most important anthropology book

About Romanians:
"In view of the complex ethnic history of Rumania, the living Rumanians may be expected to show evidence of a multiplicity of racial origin. To native Dacian elements, which must have included a blend of indigenous Neolithic peoples with Satem-speaking Nordics, have been added whatever population the Romans brought and which did not run away, and a multitude of early Slavs whom the Vlachs absorbed. Other elements, Ugric, Tatar, and Gothic, were probably of lesser importance."
"The Vlachs, a widespread and numerous people in southeastern Europe, are the descendants of Romanized aborigines, and of other peoples whom these latter have absorbed. "

"In classical times Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia formed what known as Dacia, and the Dacians were considered to be a branch of the Thracians. The Dacians included an upper class, distinguished by the practice of wearing brimless felt hats, Scythian style, and a peasantry, among whom the men went bare-headed, with their hair long, as do the older and more conservative of the present-day Rumanian peasants.
"During the century and a half of Roman rule, the language of Dacia became Latin, and modern Rumanian is without doubt a descendant of that colonial speech"

Conclusion: romanised thraco-getae-dacians + roman collonists + slavs

About hungarians:
"The ethnic structure of Hungary is extraordinarily complex, and as yet not wholly known."
"Almost every race or sub-race in Europe, and many in Asia, have contributed to the Magyar physical amalgam, and an adequate anthropometric study of the Hungarians would be a task of great magnitude. "

Conclusion: mongrel mix with no identity

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:07 PM

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm
Myths, Hypotheses and Facts

Concerning the Origin of Peoples

The Vlach, or the Origin of Romanians
Notice: This is only a concise consideration concerning a topic that should be developed in a deeper and more complete essay. The following research has been done by neutral scholars -neither Hungarian nor Romanian-, leaving aside nationalistic conceptions and political purposes and taking account of documentary sources, historic, anthropologic and linguistic factors.
One of the major controversies regarding the complexity of the Balkan region concerns the rights over the Carpathian Basin, more specifically the land known as Transylvania, that is contended by Hungarians and Romanians. Both peoples have peculiarities that distinguish them from all their neighbours, as none of the two is culturally Slavic and by territorial continuity both together constitute a non-Slavic island that splits the Slavic realm into two separate parts. Such island is composed by two main nations which are quite different from each other, and Transylvania, the apple of discord, is in the middle of both.
Since the existing documents and historic records attest in favour of the Hungarian position, the Romanian authorities resorted to the creation of a new theory that may legitimate their rule over Transylvania, already acquired as a consequence of the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the Treaty of Trianon (1920): thus the "Daco-Roman continuity" theory was framed.
This theory is very simplistic and is based on a single historical fact whose relevance has been enormously magnified in order to create an apparent link between the past and the present: the Roman occupation of Dacia.

The Vlach People
Before exposing the main topic of this research, it is necessary to define an essential term that is applied to indicate the Romanians since they were mentioned the first time in historical records: "Vlach". This was the only name used by all mediaeval chroniclers and historians in reference to the people today known (and only since the later 18th century c.e.) as "Romanians". The primary origin of the word is Germanic and was applied to the Celtic tribes, meaning that is surviving today in the English name of Wales. Since most of the Celts were Romanized (Gaul, Celtiberians, etc.) and adopted Latin language, the term turned its meaning into "Romanic-speaking" or simply "Roman-like". Such is the case of the Walloons or toponyms like Valais or, properly, Walachia or Wallachia ‒ the land which modern Romanians call Vlahia, Valahia or "Ţara Românească", that means "Romanian country", implicitly recognizing that it is more than any other the true land of the Romanians. From the Germanic tribes this term was transferred to the Slavs that used it in specific reference to the Romanic peoples, including Italians, French and Latin-speaking Balkan tribes. The Slavs passed this word on to Hungarian ‒Olah‒ and Greek ‒βλάχοι‒. In old Slavic tongues, the term Vlah/Vlach and its variations meant "Italian", but also Roman, Romanian, or Romanic-speaker. Such meaning is still kept in Polish: Włochy/Włoch = Italy/Italian; Wołoszczyzna/Wołoch = Walachia/Romanian. In Hungarian the term Olah, meaning Walachian, is slightly modified into Olasz to indicate Italian. Also the Franks in the Balkan region were sometimes called "Blach" in the Middle Ages. In Southern Slavic tongues the term vlach had also the meaning of "shepherd", due to the fact that almost all Vlachs (Romanians) were herd-breeders.
Therefore, in this essay the name "Vlach" will be used as the proper historic name of the Romanian people and should be understood as interchangeable whenever is not specified otherwise.

The Daco-Roman Myth
The present-day Transylvania was inhabited in Roman times by the people known by Greeks as Gæta, whom Romans called Dacii, that were a Thracian people. The supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity assert that the Dacians were colonized by Romans in such a way that they adopted Latin language and became the ancestors of present-day Romanians (or even dare to say that the Dacians' language was close to Latin, which is utterly improbable). The occupation lasted about 160 years only, a period that was characterized not by an idyllic relationship between the two peoples but by violent rebellions of the Dacians against the invaders with consequent retaliation and repression. After the Romans evacuated Dacia because of the imminent Barbaric invasions, which actually happened, the hypothetical Daco-Romans were supposed to have survived for about a millennium hidden in caves and forests in Transylvania, not being noticed by the different peoples that populated the land in successive waves of immigration. Of course, there is not a single document that might prove such a theory, and from a logical viewpoint is quite unlikely that an entire people would be completely ignored by all Germanic and Eurasian settlers for such a long period.
Indeed, the Dacians have nothing or very little to do with modern Romanians and their language was not related at all with Latin ‒ there is no possible cultural or ethnic continuity between the Dacians and the Romans, and even if it was, it would be irrelevant with regards to the historic rights over Transylvania. The Vlach were not Dacians, but an Illyric people, originated in the south-western Balkans by the south-eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea ‒ namely, the present-day Albania and Slavic Macedonia.
In Roman times, the ethnic composition in the Balkans was roughly distributed as follows: Greeks in the south, Thracians in the eastern half by the Black Sea up to the Tiras River (Dniestr), Illyrians in the western half by the Adriatic Sea, and Sarmatians/Yazyg from Pannonia up to the Bosphorus, throughout all the lands of the Thracians/Dacians, with whom they coexisted. The Yazyg were direct ancestors of modern Hungarians.
There are countless proofs that utterly disavow the Daco-Roman myth. Here we intend to present some of them considering three main aspects of research: historical, religious and linguistic facts.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:08 PM

1. Historical Facts
The Roman occupation of Dacia was bloody and relatively short-lasted if compared with other areas where Latin language did not prevail ‒ like Britain or Pannonia, lands where Romans ruled for more than three and half centuries, or like Judea, from which Romans even deported almost the whole of the original population.
The Roman presence in Dacia (106-271 c.e.) was characterized by frequent revolts of the local inhabitants, and the occupation did never achieve a complete control of the region since different Dacian tribes kept their independence in earthen fortifications that they built on mountain peaks, and others moved outside the imperial borders. Roman historians attest that the pugnacious Dacian people were hard to surrender and even women and children fought the Roman legions. In such a background it is honestly very difficult to imagine a process of assimilation of any kind. Far from adopting the invaders' language, the Dacian groups that were not subjected by them would have reverted any process of Romanization (in case that there was any) as soon as the Romans fled away from the country. Romans evacuated Dacia not only because the Gothic invasions were at the gates, but also because they had no support of the native population that perhaps would have welcomed the Goths and in such conditions the Romans were unable to keep the control of the region ‒ on the contrary, if the Dacians would have been assimilated, the Romans would have dared to afford the Germanic hosts with the support of the local inhabitants. Even with favourable conditions, such an assimilation would have been impossible in such a short period, an unique event in the history of mankind. A further fact is that the Roman rule over Dacia did never concern the whole territory, but was only partial, and withdrawal from the eastern area begun several years before the definitive evacuation. Consequently, the theory that suggests a possible Daco-Roman blend is untenable in the light of the historic events.
Perhaps archaeology may give any hint? Dacians were skilled fortress-builders and Romans excelled in building towns and roads, notwithstanding, no remains of such constructions have yet been found in Transylvania except the Roman roads. The Roman population of Dacia was not so numerous and consisted mainly in soldiers with no particular interest in colonizing or spreading the Roman culture, so they did not build important towns but only garrison strongholds. Indeed, it was the imperial policy to allow the subdued peoples to keep their own culture and language; Romanization was not an overriding issue. When the Roman emperor decided to remove his legions from Dacia in 271 c.e., the Roman soldiers and settlers were transferred to the south, in present-day Bulgaria. It is very unlikely that also the Dacian inhabitants joined them in their relocation, as they had not any good reason to do so ‒ and in such case, the non-Romanized Dacians from beyond the boundary would have repopulated the land weeping away any trace of Roman culture. Historical records and archaeological finds show overwhelming evidence that by that time and until the 12th century c.e., the Vlach people, that spoke Romanian language and had Romanian culture and religious tradition, were dwelling in another place: in southern Illyria, from where the majority of them were slowly moving towards present-day Romania through a long-lasting sojourn in Bulgaria.
Archaeological evidences show that after the Roman evacuation the Dacians did not perform any kind of continuity, they did not dwell in the former Roman towns, which seem to have been deserted. Constructions in stone or brick were no longer made, nor monuments or inscriptions of any kind, and even burial rites changed. The Dacian culture was completely different from the Roman one, and no sort of continuity through assimilation is documented after the Roman retreat. Before the definitive disengagement in 271 c.e., the Roman emperor Gallienus (253-268) ordered the withdrawal from eastern Transylvania. From the archaeological finds pertaining to this period it emerges that peoples from the neighbouring lands ‒that may be independent Dacians‒ occupied the areas left by the Romans. It is obvious that the Dacian population of Muntenia and Moldavia, being outside the empire had never been Romanized ‒ as very likely not even the subjected Dacians were. It is a fact that the towns were the heart of social, cultural, political and economic life in the Roman Empire, and it was in them that any likely assimilation might have happened. In the case of Dacia, there was no Daco-Roman urban development, but only Roman. The towns that were built in Dacia by the Romans ceased to exist as soon as they abandoned the country. Even though the Roman settlements in Dacia were inhabited by a mixed population of Roman contingent coming from many different regions of the empire, those of Italian origin were not numerous and consisted mainly of government officials ‒ whose sojourn was usually limited in time and consequently they were often replaced by other colleagues. Only very few of the inhabitants from Italy were permanent residents. The majority of the Roman settlers came from different regions of the empire (about twenty provenances are mentioned), from the most remote areas in Africa, Spain, Britain, Asia Minor, etc. The supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity myth allege that since they had different origins, they had to know Latin in order to understand each other. As a matter of fact, only part of these settlers were Romanized, and many were not at all ‒ and anyway, they were not autochthonous people but foreign occupants.
Reports from eyewitnesses attest that Romans abandoned Dacia in a great hurry because of the attacks of the Goths and mainly because of the raids carried on by the Yazyg, who are said to have made thousands of Roman prisoners and caused enormous devastations. The Yazyg ‒Jász‒ The emperor, knowing that all the territories north of the Danube were lost, removed the Roman soldiers and inhabitants from Dacia to the lands by the southern shore of the river, in Moesia. Therefore, those Latin-speakers that sojourned in Dacia during the Roman occupation were foreigners, and their descendants cannot advance any claim on that country.
Of all the Balkan provinces of the empire, Dacia was the one on which the Roman rule was the shortest. Latin-derived languages did not survive after four centuries of Roman rule over Pannonia, Thrace, Illyria ‒except in some areas of the Adriatic coastland‒; how could it be preserved in Dacia, where Romans left almost no traces of themselves? In only 165 years, the only part of the native population that could have learnt the Latin language would have been people that had some important relationship with the Roman officials or wealthy traders that may have reached economic agreements with the imperial authorities. Another glaring example for comparison is Britannia, today England, on which Romans ruled for 365 years, where they left hundreds of remains, towns, roads, baths, etc. and where the Roman past is attested by a large amount of toponyms and even cultural features like the Scottish kilt. It is more than plausible that Latin was widely spoken in Britannia after more than three and a half centuries of Roman influence; notwithstanding, few years after the first Germanic invasions, no Latin-speaking people remained in the whole land of Britannia. It is true that English is of all Germanic languages the one having the largest number of words of Latin etymology, yet it is not a Romance tongue. Some common English toponyms show their origin in Roman terms like castrum, that derived into the endings ~caster/~cester/~chester of British towns (as Lancaster, Leicester, Winchester, etc.). If the Romanization of Dacia was so complete as alleged by the supporters of the Daco-Roman theory, a huge amount of archaeological finds and Latin toponyms should have remained, but there is nothing of all this. There is not even any account of any fierce fight of the supposedly Romanized Dacians against the Gothic invaders in defense of the Latin cultural values (as they had fought the Romans before). After the evacuation, Romans did not leave anything. They established the Danube as the last frontier, and built a series of fortifications along the river in order to prevent attacks from the other side. The Greek historian Procopius wrote by the middle of the 6th century c.e. about the fact that Romans renounced to any attempt of keeping any cultural influence or diffusion of their language in the lands of the Goths and other Germanic tribes, which means that a Latin-speaking people would have had possibilities of survival only within the imperial borders, that is south of the Danube.
Soon after the Romans left the country, Goths and Gepids pounced on Transylvania and ruled for a whole century, until they were defeated by the Huns in 375 c.e. The Huns built a powerful empire that lasted until 454 c.e. It is in this time that the Székely people established a permanent presence in Transylvania, as they were part of the Hun tribes that did not return back to the east. Goths and Gepids continued to live in the region and even though not any important political entity was founded, they remained the dominant population group and kept a relative control on the territory. One century later, the Avars (a people related with the Huns and Magyars) came from the east and ruled over the whole Carpathian Basin for two and a half centuries.
We have important documents written in this period, among which those of Procopius, a Greek chronicler and Jordanes, the Goth historian:
∙ Procopius wrote: "The River Ister (Danube) flows down from the mountains in the country of the Celts, who are now called Gauls; and it passes through a great extent of country which for the most part is altogether barren, though in some places it is inhabited by barbarians who live a kind of brutish life and have no dealings with other men. When it gets close to Dacia, for the first time it clearly forms the boundary between the barbarians, who hold its left bank, and the territory of the Romans, which is on the right". - Peri Ktismaton (Buildings), Book IV, 9-10. Procopius shows in an unequivocal manner that there was no Roman-like people dwelling in the lands on other side of the Danube, namely, in Dacia.
∙ Jordanes wrote: "I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only". - Getica, XII, 73-74. Not even Jordanes did mention any Romans or Romanized inhabitants in Dacia, but "Yazyg, Roxolans and Sarmatians (Alans)", namely, Hungarian ancestor tribes! Jordanes also identified the Dacians, that were known by Greeks as Gæta, with the Goths, by saying: "Then, when Burebistas was king of the Goths" - Getica, XI, 67. Burebistas was actually a king of the Dacians in 60-44 b.c.e. We cannot know how much reliable this assertion of Jordanes might be, however, it is obvious that he found a noticeable resemblance between the Dacians and his own Germanic people so as to identify each other as the same, and not between Dacians and Romans. Therefore, we may conclude that it is quite likely that Dacians joined the Goths and mixed with them.
During the Avar kingdom, in the 6th century c.e., successive waves of Slavs moved from the Russian plains to the Balkans and settled in Transylvania, leaving there some place names and the vojvoda administrative system that continued under Hungarian rule. They usually adapted the Roman toponyms to their own phonetics, nevertheless, in the lands north of the lower Danube we do not find any inherited Latin toponyms: not a single name of a Roman town or any other kind of settlement was preserved. The most obvious explanation of this is that the Slavs did not find Latin-speaking inhabitants when they migrated to these territories in the 6th-7th centuries.
In 679 c.e., Khan Asparukh of the Bulgars (another Hun-related ethnos), crossed the Danube and founded a new kingdom in present-day Bulgaria in alliance with seven Slavic tribes. The Bulgars extended their rule on both sides of the lower Danube. It was the Bulgarian kingdom that exerted its influence on Transylvania ‒that was inhabited mainly by Slavic peoples‒ until the arrival of Árpád's hosts. By the mid-9th century, Bulgarians adopted Christianity according to the Byzantine rites, the very same religion practised by the majority of Romanians, and it is indeed in Bulgaria where they acquired it. Khan Boris in 865 c.e. turned his title and name into Czar Mikhail as a sign of his conversion. Slavic (Slavonic) was established as the official liturgical language, the one inherited by the Romanian Orthodox church. When the Magyars entered the Carpathian Basin by the end of the 9th century c.e., they confronted the armies of Czar Simeon of Bulgaria, that by that time ruled over Transylvania through Slavic vassal princes. The region was predominantly populated by Slavs in that period, and not any Romanic-speaking group was present. After several battles with victories on both sides, the Bulgarians lost Transylvania that was seized by the Magyars, while Muntenia and Oltenia (both regions composing present-day Walachia) were occupied by the Besenyö (Petchenegs).
It is essential to point out that there was not a single toponym in Transylvania that might have had Latin origin when the Magyars arrived in the region. Most of the place names and river names were Slavic except some few, which were not Romance anyway.
Concerning this historical period, the supporters of the Daco-Roman myth consider it to be the background for the epic accounts of the Gesta Hungarorum, which are often quoted by them with the purpose of proving that the Vlach were the inhabitants of Transylvania before Árpád conquered the land. This literary work, that belongs to the fiction genre, mentions the dukes of Bihar, Bánát and Transylvania, who are said to be respectively a Khazar, a Slav and a Vlach. There is no trace of such characters in any contemporary document because they are completely imaginary. On the other hand, very prominent personalities that were indeed quite engaged with the Magyar conquest like Emperor Arnulf of the Franks, Kings Svatopluk and Mojmir II of Moravia, Czar Simeon of Bulgaria or Leon VI of Byzantium are not mentioned at all in the Gesta Hungarorum ‒ any trustworthy history treatise would not fail to mention them. Besides this, important battles are omitted and there are many anachronisms mainly regarding peoples that were not present in the Carpathian Basin in that period, like Cumans and Vlach. The author was an anonymous writer of the 12th century c.e. that projected the situation of his time back to three centuries earlier, and his accounts are in sharp contrast with the contemporary sources that reported the Magyar conquest as eyewitnesses. Such documents attest that the peoples involved in the events related with the Magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin were Slovenes and other Slavic tribes, Moravians, Avars, Bulgarians, Franks and Gepids, but no Romans, Vlach or Cumans. The author of Gesta Hungarorum may have been led into confusion by Slavic accounts about the fact that the Magyars seized the Danubian Basin from the Franks, that were then called (as well as Italians) "Voloch", "Vlasi" by the Slavs ‒ hence the Hungarian translation of the toponyms containing the term "frank/franc" into "olasz", and the Romany name of France, "Valshi", derived from the Slavic term.
Bulgaria was annexed to Byzantium in 1018 c.e. and remained as part of that empire for almost 170 years. It is in that time that the Vlach begin to be mentioned more often, always south of the lower Danube. In that period, the last wave of the great migration of peoples arrived in the Balkans: the Kumans, that had an intensive interaction with the Vlach. By that time the immediate neighbours across the Danube on the north shore were the Petchenegs, with whom the Kumans were traditional rivals, both peoples being of the same stock. At last, the Kumans absorbed them and the present-day Walachia came to be known as "Cumania". The Kumans were characterized by their ambiguous behaviour: while they were continuously attacking Byzantium, other Kumans were serving as mercenaries in the Byzantine army. The Kumans were on both sides or else as a third party, sometimes fighting against Bulgarians and sometimes allied with them, mainly supported by the Vlach. Also Slavic kingdoms engaged Kuman mercenaries, that frequently had to fight Kuman raiders. Many of them were also in Hungary, and became an important contingent of the Hungarian army. Their character led them to be in continuous contrast with Hungarians, and as a result they were expelled and gathered the Kuman/Vlach tribes in Bulgaria. They were later requested back in Hungary, but on their way they joined the Vlachs in the revolt that led to the independence of Walachia in 1330. Few decades later, the Kumans disappeared as an ethnic entity, being assimilated by the different nations where they inhabited and becoming an important component of the Romanian nation. Then it was the first time in history that the Vlach established themselves in territories north of the Danube.
Their arrival in Transylvania happened only in the 13th century c.e., when the Hungarian kings allowed the Vlach to settle in that land, including Vlach rulers, to protect them from the Turks that had conquered Walachia. There is still much more to say concerning the historical facts, but as it was said in the introductory note, this is only a concise consideration. So as a conclusion of this chapter, we can say that it is enough to point out that the Yazyg presence in the Carpathian Basin is contemporary with the Thracian period, and ancient toponyms and river names show overwhelming evidence of this fact, including the name of a former Romanian capital: [I]Jassy ‒ Jászvásár (Yazyg Market).
In the Middle Ages, the term Vlach was the only one known by all authors who wrote about the ancestors of the people today called Romanian. Consequently, the name Vlach is the most appropriate and historically correct; ʹVlachʹ and ʹRomanianʹ are thus interchangeable, because there is no mention of any other people with the same characteristics.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:09 PM

2. Religious Facts The supporters of the Daco-Roman myth have a quite bizarre explanation of the conversion to Christianity of the early Romanians: they assert that they became Christian around the 4th or 5th century c.e. while hidden in the caves in Transylvania! There are many inconsistencies in such theory, for example:
∙ Who passed on to them the Christian message, and how did those hypothetic missionaries find them while the rulers, warriors and settlers did not know about their existence for one thousand years? Would the conquerors neglect a potential slave working force? Could it be possible that not even one of the Goths, Gepids, Huns, Sarmatians, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Magyars or Kumans has ever found at least by chance one of the troglodytes? Nor any of the monks or whoever would have been going to the caves with the Gospel has ever been discovered?
∙ Why the alleged caves have still not been identified, and not any religious object, relic, image or inscription has been found in any cave or catacomb, neither on walls nor on gravestones, as in every other place where Christianity, either openly or secretly existed?
∙ There is not any Romanian church or writing or document of any kind in Transylvania previous to the 13th century c.e. Why did these Christians remain hidden even after Transylvania was under Christian Bulgaria since the 9th century c.e.? Why did they stay in such conditions until four centuries later?
∙ After the discovery of a Latin-speaking Christian people by the church authorities (because if they became Christians there must have been somebody who was sent as missionary that reached them), Transylvania would have been regarded as an outpost of Christendom in barbaric lands, and churches and monasteries would have been founded, mainly after the later 9th century c.e., when the Bulgarian rulers would have favoured such a promotion of Christianity within their domain. Why nothing of all this did happen? Would the Romanians still need to be hidden, while in Bulgaria they were free citizens and had the same religion?
∙ The liturgical language of the Romanian church has never been Latin, but Old Slavonic until the later 19th century c.e. Why would the proud descent of the Romans accept such a thing, when their own language was the official one of the church? How could they have adopted the liturgy of a people that theoretically arrived, being still heathen, one century after the Romanian's own conversion, and how did they get in touch with those peoples being hidden in caves?
∙ Since the earliest available records concerning the religious membership of the Romanians, it is clear that they have always belonged to the Eastern Slavic rites church, that since 1054 c.e. is separated from Rome and belongs to the Orthodox confession ‒ notice that Romanians are the only Latin-speaking people that is not traditionally Roman Catholic. In that period, the whole Transylvania was under the Hungarian crown. When the schism took place, Hungary remained with Rome and the king declared the Eastern Slavic church illegal in all the territories of the Hungarian domain. Therefore, why did the alleged Daco-Romans join the Orthodox church? And how did they manage not to be banished? Or else, who allowed them, as subjects of the Hungarian king, to follow a confession already declared illegal?
There is only one possible explanation for all these mysteries: Romanians were not in Transylvania in those times!
There are many other facts connected with the Romanian's religion that provide overwhelming proofs that their origin was in southern Illyria and not in present-day Romania. It is evident that the whole of the Romanian people must have been dwelling in the Slavic territory that after 1054 c.e. separated from Rome passing to the Orthodox confession. Transylvania belonged entirely to the Roman-Catholic area after the schism. Also the Slavic peoples that adopted Latin alphabet (Croatians, Slovenians, Czech, Slovaks, Polish) remained with Rome; these facts limit the territory in which the Romanian people developed to the southern Balkan area, namely present-day Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria, that is south of the lower Danube. Additional facts narrow such territory even more: When Byzantium annexed the kingdom of Bulgaria, the emperor assigned all the Vlach people to the archbishopric of Ochrida, that is in southern Albania, according to the original homeland of this people. Indeed, 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. These are clear evidences that show which the original land of the Romanian people was...
The supporters of the Daco-Roman myth may argue that indeed there are also Roman-Catholic Romanians, but we know with absolute certainly why and when they adopted such religion:
The first group were the Cumans, that embraced the Roman church in the 13th century c.e. in Moldavia (then called Cumania).
The second group were Romanians that, being Orthodox, were forced to accept the union with Rome in 1698 c.e. by the Habsburg monarchy that ruled over Transylvania, under strong pressure through denial of civil rights to those that refused to convert. Those were the first Romanians that joined Rome in history of religion. To conclude this chapter, which has been exposed in a very concise manner, we can say that the religious heritage of Romanians reflects their ethnic origin and mainly their geographic homeland until at least one century after the separation of European Christendom into Roman and Orthodox, division that was sharply defined by territory and that involved entire nations. The only Balkan peoples that belonged to the Orthodox church and had Old Slavonic as liturgical language instead of Latin dwelled south of the lower Danube until the later 12th century c.e.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:10 PM

3. Linguistic Facts The Daco-Roman myth was framed mainly on the basis of Romanian language, which is classified in the Neo-Latin group. Such classification is correct; what is erroneous is the explanation given by the supporters of such theory concerning the reason by which it is a Neo-Latin tongue, and the place where it supposedly developed from Latin into modern Romanian. As most languages, it has also features that do not correspond with the general pattern shared by the other tongues of the same group, but belong to the substratum ‒namely, the language spoken by the original population before they were Romanized‒ and other characteristics adopted from external influences in different historical periods. These features and the evolution of Latin into Romanian show in a definite manner the actual origin of the language and its geographic distribution according to historical stages.
At present there are two main dialects of the Vlach language: Romanian and Aromanian, and both have also a sub-dialect: Istro-Romanian from the first one and Megleno-Romanian from the second one. Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian are still spoken in the original homeland of all Vlach peoples ‒Albania, Macedonia and Greece‒ while Istro-Romanian is represented by an exiguous number of speakers in Istria. Evidences prove that there was only one Vlach language until the 11th century c.e., when the mediaeval ancestors of present-day Romanians began to get in touch with the peoples dwelling in the lands north of the lower Danube and thus they progressively acquired loanwords from them, while Aromanian continued its development separately. Yet, both dialects are still understandable to each other.
The characteristics of modern Romanian show that this language evolved in the southwest of the Balkan region since its very origins and during the centuries of Roman domination, that there was an intensive interaction with Albanian and a close relationship with the Southern-Italian dialects during that period, and that later it developed within the Bulgarian realm until the 11th century c.e.
On the other hand, there is a complete absence of Old Germanic terms that must have been transferred into Romanian, at least in a minimum amount, during the centuries of Gothic-Gepid rule, if Romanians were actually in Transylvania as the Daco-Roman myth supporters claim. There is also not any toponym in Transylvania having Romanian etymology before the 13th century c.e., nor any originally Romanian name for that region is recorded ‒ actually, the present and historic denomination (Ardeal/Transylvania) has been taken after Hungarian (Erdély). Indeed, the Romanian term ʹArdealʹ has no meaning, but is an adaptation of the Old Magyar name Erdő-elve, that means "land beyond the forest", translated into Latin as "Transylvania". Such a name reflects the Hungarian viewpoint, as for Romanians that region should have been called "Transcarpathia", the land beyond the Carpathian Mounts! Consequently, if Romanians were already there when Hungarians arrived, why then did they adopt the Magyar name? How could have they completely forgotten the denomination by which they knew the region before the arrival of Árpád's hosts?
In order to present in a comprehensible manner the linguistic aspects of Romanian that are relevant to the origin and evolution of the language, we will consider its relationship with Albanian, with Italian dialects and with Slavic separately.
The Romanian-Albanian Connection
A good amount of the non-Latin features present in Romanian language have their correspondence in Albanian, not only concerning lexicon but also structure, phraseology and idioms. These characteristics belong to two linguistic periods: the substratum, that is the language spoken by the Vlach before their Romanization ‒which may be the same of Albanian or a similar language‒, and the subsequent close contact between both peoples throughout a long period, mainly regarding their common life-style as shepherds.
Since the controversy about the origin of Albanians is presented by two main theories, one proposing the Illyrian stem and the other the Thracian stem, the advocates of the Daco-Roman myth vehemently support the second possibility, as they cannot deny the strong links between the Vlach and the Albanian peoples in early times. It is not our task to discuss about the origin of Albanians here, and in any case it is irrelevant whether one or the other theory is the right one, because the whole complex of proofs point out in a definitive manner to the area of present-day Albania and surrounding territory as the birthplace of the early Romanians and not the eastern side of the Balkans ‒ even if the Albanians would not be autochthonous but coming from any other place, it is in the area they live today where both peoples met and not elsewhere. A further factor is that there is not any historical record attesting any hypothetic migration of Albanians from Dacia (and there is not any vestige of their presence in that land), while there are many documents proving that the Vlach people lived since the early centuries by the southern Adriatic coastland ‒even before the Roman occupation of Dacia!‒ and as a matter of fact, there are still historic Romanian communities (Aromanians) living there.
Linguistic research has determined that most of the words shared by Romanian and Albanian are not loans from one tongue to the other but have a common origin in the substratum, before than these two languages began to be distinguished from each other. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian. Another interesting fact concerns the very name of the capital city of Romania: Bucureşti, a word that is similar to the Albanian term "bukurisht", having the same meaning.
While the Vlach people were thoroughly Latinized, Albanian language has also received the influence of Latin since early times. A common territory and life-style shared by both peoples have produced the same semantic changes in both languages: a considerable number of Latin terms have undergone identical changes of meaning without parallel in any other tongue, and they cannot have happened just by chance or by any logical reason except because both peoples were living in a common environment and in the same territory.
Among the unusual features present in Romanian that are explainable by a comparison with Albanian we find also the definite article, that in Classic Latin precedes the noun but is enclitic in Romanian and follows the same patterns as in Albanian, and the personal pronoun in accusative case, that contains the suffix ~ne, exactly like in Albanian.
The Romanian-Italic Relationship
If the Slavic, Hungarian and Albanian terms were removed from Romanian language, it would fully qualify as a Southern Italian dialect. There are many structural, phonetic and idiomatic aspects that are amazingly similar between Romanian and Salentine-Apulian, Neapolitan, Calabrian and other tongues of Southern Italy, and also some elements of the North-eastern Italian dialects spoken by the Adriatic coastland.
Today in Salento (the "heel" of Italy) we can hear that local people greet each other saying "ce faci?", that is exactly like in Romanian, or else in Sicily they leave each other saying "ne vedem", which is also the same expression used in Romanian; if we are in Naples perhaps we can by chance hear the phrase "sora ta" with the same literal meaning as in Romanian, or maybe that a young man would "nsura", pronounced like "însura" in Romanian and with the same meaning... These are only few examples from a long number of similar parallelisms. Such amount of expressions are not a coincidence but the result of an active interaction between the early ancestors of Romanians and Southern Italians in the period previous to the arrival of the Slavic peoples in the Balkans, that is, before the 6th century c.e. ‒ This evidence is not unknown by the Daco-Roman myth supporters, but purposely neglected.
From all the common features that regard the Italic dialects on one side and Romanian on the other, it results evident that both groups have undergone the same evolution process since the early stage, when still Classic Latin was spoken, until the arrival of the Slavs in the Balkans, for about six centuries of close contact and geographic proximity. Concerning the similarities between Salentine Apulian and Romanian, a possible link may be the ancient Messapii and Iapigii, peoples that inhabited on both sides of the Adriatic Sea, though mainly in Italy. The origin of these peoples has still not been determined with certainty; some scholars suggest that they were Illyric tribes that sailed to the opposite shore and settled in the south-eastern region of Italy, while others assign them a Mycenean origin. It is not relevant where did they come from, but it is significant the fact that many toponyms and inscriptions left by the Messapii in Italy have a correspondence on the opposite shore of the Adriatic. They probably established colonies or trade centres in Illyria or were in some way related with Illyric peoples. We discard the possibility that the Vlach were Messapii because of their quite different life-styles: the Vlach have been shepherds since old, while the Messapii were strenuous warriors. Notwithstanding, as the same language may be shared by completely different peoples and linguistics by itself alone is irrelevant to determine ethnic origins, it is however essential for establishing where a people sojourned and for how long. So, according to their common characteristics, we can assert that Vlach and Messapii have been neighbours and once they both have adopted Latin as their language, the tongues spoken by both peoples followed a similar evolution.
The Greek influence over both Southern Illyria and Southern Italy ‒called "Magna Grecia"‒ has affected Romanian as well as the Italic dialects in some aspects, like the replacement of the infinitive in composed verbal forms. It is noticeable that Italic and Southern Balkan languages, as well as Romanian, behave according to a common pattern that is exclusive of them, which consist in replacing the infinitive with conjunctive. This feature is absent in Central/Northern Italian dialects. Another phenomenon concerning the infinitive that is verified in the same way in Romanian and Italic is the elision of the Latin ending ~re; for example: cânta[re], asculta[re], dormi[re], etc.
Regarding the pronoun, the genitive used as dative was quite a rarity in Classic Latin but became the rule within a geographically continuous area during the process of transition towards the Romance languages, a case that would not have been verified in Romanian if it was spoken in a separate region. It is from Mediaeval Latin that we can explain, for instance, the use of leur, loro and lor in French, Italian and Romanian respectively (while the same pattern is not valid for the other Neo-Latin languages).
The plural of the noun in modern Italian and Romanian is formed by replacing or adding an ending vowel (~i/~e), while in all the other Romance languages consists in adding a final ~s to the singular form. When these two different patterns arose, they were sharply defined geographically, being the ending vowel the characteristic of the languages spoken from Tuscany southwards.
There are still more features, morphologic and phonetic, which Romanian shares with Southern Italian dialects, like the postposition of the possessive pronoun that is typical of Neapolitan dialect, which assumed the same structure as Romanian, or the frequent ending ~u for the male gender nouns. Romanian shares some linguistic characteristics also with Sardinian as well as with North-eastern Italian dialects and with the unfortunately extinct Dalmatian language.
It is relevant for our research to remark that there is hardly a Latin-derived word in Romanian related with administration, science, arts and crafts, and whatever belongs to normal activity of city-dwellers: this fact is another evidence against the Daco-Roman myth, because Roman occupants in Dacia were officials, legionaries and civilian settlers, not farmers or shepherds; therefore, how is it possible that Romanian language has not inherited any of these words that belonged to the essential Roman vocabulary in that period? Even non-Latin languages have at least few Latin-derived terms concerning this aspect. As a matter of fact, such words in Romanian have not a Germanic origin either, which leads us inexorably to the conclusion that Romanians were not in the Carpathian Basin during the centuries of Gothic-Gepid rule. The Romanian word for city is oraş, whose Magyar origin (város) suggests that they began to dwell in urban centres only when they got in touch with the Hungarian realm ‒ namely, when the mediaeval Romanians, then known as Vlach, were offered asylum in Transylvania by the Hungarian monarchs when the Turks seized Walachia.
Romanian language shows overwhelming evidence to have followed the whole evolution of Latin spoken in the south-western half of the Balkans, that belonged to the Eastern Roman Empire until the Slavic invasions in the 7th century c.e., period in which the ancestors of modern Romanians, namely, the Vlach, had an intensive contact with the peoples living in Southern Italy and by the Adriatic coastlands.
The Slavic Influence
Romanian language has received a relevant contribution from Southern Slavic, even though such influence has been artificially reduced in the later 19th century c.e. by the so-called "re-Latinization" of Romanian ‒ actually, it must be properly referred to as "Latinization", because it was not a return to a previous situation but the introduction of new foreign elements to reform the language. It was also within this process that the former national name was changed from Vlah to Român. The original Romanian alphabet, that was Cyrillic until 1868 c.e., was replaced by the Latin alphabet, to which some additional characters (not existing in any other Neo-Latin language) were added in order to represent the phonemic elements that previously were satisfactorily supplied by the Cyrillic characters. Through this process of Latinization, the percentage of Slavic terms in Romanian had been halved. Nevertheless, there are still many Slavic words and other linguistic features that attest the long sojourn of the Vlach/Romanians in the Slavic territories south of the lower Danube, mainly in Bulgaria.
One of the features of Slavic origin that has been widely exploited in favour of the Daco-Roman myth regards a Roman character that was adopted by Southern Slavs since they settled in the Balkans, that is Trajan, the conqueror of Dacia. Several Roman constructions in Illyria (roads, towers, gates, garrisons) were either built by that emperor or ascribed to him, toponyms that the Slavs have conserved as a standard designation of any Roman structure, under the Slavic forms Trojanj, Trojanov, Trojanski, etc. The name of the Roman emperor became legendary among Southern Slavs, a character that was transferred to their Vlach neighbours and that would have been used many centuries later by the supporters of Romanian extremist nationalism.
There was only one Vlach language until the 11th century c.e.; it is in that epoch that the earliest differences between present-day Romanian and Aromanian began to arise, as the Vlach people expanded over a vast area from the original homeland by the Adriatic Sea throughout the Bulgarian Kingdom and subsequently numerous Vlach settled in Cumania, north of the lower Danube (then re-named Walachia). Since that period, the influence of Bulgarian was stronger on the Romanian branch than on the Aromanian one. However, well documented sources attest that until the 13th century c.e., there were still Vlach people of the northern group living in Kosovo and some of their names are mentioned in an account written by Stefan Prvovenčani Nemanja, king of Serbia: what is interesting is that those names do not belong to the Aromanian branch because they contain a pattern that is exclusive of the Romanian language spoken in the north.
It is in fact when the whole Vlach people were living within the borders of the Bulgarian Kingdom that they acquired the words regarding social and politic organization (7th-8th centuries c.e.) and ecclesiastic order (9th century c.e.), as well as the first alphabet ‒Cyrillic‒. Romanian, indeed, was not a written language but only spoken until that time, being the bulk of the Vlach population transhumant shepherds and not town-dwellers. Of course, if they would have been descendants of Roman soldiers and settlers, they would have already had a written language with Latin characters... The religious vocabulary in Romanian language shows in a clear manner that the Vlach people were educated within the Bulgarian Orthodox church, a fact that would be unexplainable if Romanians would have been outside the borders of the Bulgarian realm before the schism (1054 c.e.) or immediately after, as the terminology that is properly Orthodox should have needed some years to be consolidated as different from the one of the earlier common church. This evidence implies that Romanians were closely related with Bulgaria at least until the 12th century c.e.
Among the extensive Slavic lexicon present in Romanian language, there are most of the words related with human feelings and relationship: terms like "love", "dear", "bride", "wife", "betrothal", etc. are all of Slavic origin. Many words that belong to everybody's essential vocabulary are Slavic, including every time that a Romanian says «yes»: «da». Furthermore, Slavic has heavily influenced on Romanian pronunciation and cadence, for example in the iotification of the vowel "e", that in Romanian is often pronounced "ye", which is a typical feature of Slavic languages.
The Slavic influence on Romanian was clearly exerted by Southern Slavs, namely, the branch that founded the historic kingdoms of Bulgaria and Serbia, after centuries of coexistence in the same territory. Contrary to the Daco-Roman myth, the Slavs that dwelled in Transylvania were not the Southern but the Western Slavs, to which belong Czech, Slovaks, Slovenes and Poles (and later the Slavicized Croats), and their impact in Transylvania has never been so strong as they were not the rulers of that land but subject to the Avar Ring. Furthermore, none of the Western Slavs adopted Cyrillic alphabet, and they did not join the Orthodox church but remained under the Roman Catholic one. Consequently, if the Daco-Roman myth was true, today Romanians would not be Orthodox but Roman-Catholic, they would have always had a Latin alphabet and their Slavic words would not be of Bulgarian-Serbian background but rather Slovenian-Slovak terms.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:12 PM

ConclusionHistory records and scientific research on the people and their culture, their language and their religious tradition show the truth about Romanian origins. Unfortunately, an artificial and untenable theory has been deeply embedded on that people to the detriment of truth and honesty by fanatic nationalist leaders. The knowledge of the truth will not cause their expulsion from the land where they live, on the contrary, will grant them the freedom that they have never had...

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:13 PM

Dacia;
Daco-Roman Continuity

Hungarian historians, like Benedek Jancsó, who dedicated his life to the intensive study of the theory of Daco-Roman continuity, consider that the territories of Dacia included Krassó-Szörény, Hunyad, Alsófehér and Kolozs Counties, the southern part of Szolnok-Doboka County, Torda-Aranyos and Nagyküküll_ Counties, - thus, the southwestern and central part of Transylvania. (Its influence and impact could be felt also in neighbouring areas.) According to Jancsó, it never included the Székely territories east of the Hargita Mountains and north of the Feketeügy (Râul Negru) River. Moldavia, Bukovina, Máramaros, and Szatmár, Bihar, Zaránd counties never belonged to Dacia. North and East of the above mentioned territory there were mainly uninhabited lands, not or only loosely connected to the Dacian state [13].
Dacia was attacked by the Romans for the first time in 101 A.D. Traian, crossing the Danube through the Vaskapu (the Iron Gate) of Hunyad County, marched and attacked the Dacian capital, Sarmizegetusa, with his legions. The contemporary centre of King Decebal was found near Várhely, a small village in Hunyad County. One of the Roman leaders, Lusius, crossed the Danube at Orsova and invaded Sarmizegetusa through the Volcano Pass. Decebal asked for peace.
Under the terms and conditions of the peace treaty, Decebal became vassal of the Roman emperor. Traian left a Roman garrison in Sarmizegetusa and returned to Rome with honor and glory. The leader of the garrison was Longinus, who was mentioned by us while discussing the Roman Orthodox Temple of Demsus.
Decebal, however, did not intend to honor the peace treaty. He used the time of peace to rebuild the devastated fortresses and fortifications. He also attacked the Jazygians who were allied with Traian. Decebal also welcomed to Dacia Roman deserters (there were Christians among them) and sent some of them to Rome with the commission to kill Traian. He arrested and held in captivity Longinus, Traian's personal representative. He sent his emissaries to Rome with the message that he will not let Longinus free, unless he gets back the occupied territories plus reimbursements for his military expenses. Longinus poisoned himself in captivity, and the Roman Senate declared Decebal an enemy.
Traian personally lead his legions against Decebal in 105 A.D. Sarmizegetusa was taken and occupied by the Romans. Decebal was captured while trying to escape. (According to the legends, he tried to escape to the north, and fell upon his sword at Kolozsvár.) Traian finished the full conquest of Dacia in 106 A.D. and returned to Rome.
Dacia was made a Roman province; it was named Dacia Traiana after its conqueror. According to Roman historians like Dio Cassus and Eutropius, Traian killed off the whole male population in Dacia. He replaced them with new settlers of all nationalities from the whole Roman Empire. The Roman inscriptions in Transylvania, that originated in later centuries, suggest that in addition to the new dwellers, Dacia had Dacians as well as other nationalities living in its territories.
Historical sources tell us that Dacians, living outside the province, raided several times the flourishing new provinces. Between 180 and 190 A.D. Governor Sabinianus made twelve thousand free Dacians settle down with the aim of pacifying them. These Dacians got back to their Fatherland after one hundred years of exile. This was the first time they had contact with the Roman administration, therefore the Romanization could not have taken place before this time, if ever.
The Roman armed forces stationed in Dacia were multinational [14]. Only the commanders and civil servants were from Italy. The newly settled people were not purely native Latin speakers [15]. [Compare the situation in India. After a long period of British rule, only the upper and middle classes learned the English language. The vast majority of the inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent, or any other colony for that matter, never really mastered it (translator's note)]. Writings, inscriptions, archaeological findings prove that they were urban, miner and merchant people, from Syria to Gaul, who could not speak Latin or spoke it badly [16]; on the inscriptions which were not made by the Roman authorities, names of Oriental Gods abound [17]. These people should have been Romanized before they, intermarrying with the native population, could have been the ancestors of a Neo-Latin people, (the Rumanians). Thus, there were not many native Latin speakers among the settlers. (The number of native Latin speakers radically dropped in Italy too. Therefore, Traian had to issue an order, to stop the dangerous outflow of settlers from Italy.)
Believers of the Continuity Theory are frequently referring to the Latinizing impact of the Roman legions and merchants stationed in Dacia. Participating in the Latinization of Dacia, members of the legions should have been natives from Italy. The legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from the western and other primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces.
Only two Roman legions were stationed in Dacia, approximately twelve thousand people. Compared to the alleged large population in the territory, they would not have been successful in the Latinization, even if they had been native Latins from Italy and had no other duties to perform. Only the officers were from Rome in the auxiliary troops; approximately 500-1000 people, who did not live in cities. Since they were stationed along the borders in fortified camps, which were mainly uninhabited areas, they did not have anybody to Latinize. There were only a few Romans among the merchants, therefore they could not have taken part in the Latinization.
The Roman legions had to give up Dacia in 271 A.D. due to the relentless attacks of barbarians. It was robbed and plundered by the Goths, the Sarmatians and other people allied with each other. Emperor Aurelian[1] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn0)"...Being convinced that the province with its diminished population could not be kept under control, gave it up and withdrew his troops under organized circumstances. In 271 the army's still remaining units were withdrawn and the population was transferred into Moesia" [18].
From our point of view, it is important to know that along with the withdrawal in 271, historiography commemorates two Dacias, Dacia Traiana and Dacia Aureliana. The first included part of present day Transylvania and Oltenia. The second was situated south of the Danube, bounded by the Skopje-Sofia-Ni[sinvcircumflex] triangle. We have to emphasize this, because Rumanian historians, according to their own interest, usually keep silent about Dacia Aureliana.
The giving up and evacuation of Dacia, as well as the transfer of the people was fairly well organized. Naturally, the action did not happen overnight. A significant part of the civil population had already left the province. It is possible that the evacuation was not complete, although there are no reliable data to support this assumption. The number of those who did not leave was most probably insignificant[19].
The Roman reign in Dacia lasted only about 170 years. Later, Dacia became booty of the barbarian peoples. Six hundred dark years followed in this era. It is certain, however, that Transylvania was subject to the rule of the Goths until the beginning of the 5th century. As we can see, Aurelian let them conquer Dacia in 271. Their empire, where Christianity also spread, was destroyed by the attacks of the Huns. Even the Goths became divided into two parts: Western and Eastern Goths. The Huns conquered Transylvania with their devastating attacks, but after the collapse of their empire the area became the property of the Gepids, later the Longobards.
In the second half of the 6th century Dacia was conquered by the Avars. Their empire existed until the end of the 8th century A.D. Charlemagne, outstanding member of the Carolingian dynasty, defeated them in several battles in the year of 791 and conquered their territory to the Tisza River. The invading Hungarians found a considerable number of Avars, who remained there after the collapse of their empire; they intermarried with the Hungarians. The Avars have left a large number of tombs in which rich material relics were found.
In the 6th century A.D. a new people, different from the other nationalities, started to emerge in greater and greater numbers from the north and the north-east from the Sarmata lowlands to the middle, eastern and southern part of Europe. They were the Slavs. They were peaceful settlers, who earned their living from a primitive form of agriculture. People of the Great Migration would rather have treated them with consideration than harm them. They were considered servants, and their only task was to provide plenty agricultural produce for the country. Their number increased considerably, and they encroached on even larger and larger territories. In the 5th and 6th centuries, they were present not just in the Balkan Peninsula but in Central and Eastern Europe also. To Transylvania, the Slavs started to move probably during the Avar rule in the 6th century. They have absorbed those small ethnic groups who remained there after the devastations of the Great Migration. We have sources about every single ethnic group who lived in Transylvania after the Roman withdrawal in 271. We do not know, however, what happened to the Dacians and the Celts. Accordingly, the remaining fragments of the Dacians could have blended into the people following each other during the years, the same way as the Eastern Celts vanished without a trace.
In the 9th century, only Slavic people lived in small numbers in Transylvania. The conquering Hungarians could have found only Slavs in the area. This Slavic population lived without any organized state, under the leadership of the head of the clan; gathered around earthworks which served for some sort of defense. The origin of these earthworks can hardly be viewed as Dacian. Especially those, which were dug up recently by the Rumanian historians in that part of Székely land which did not even belong to the territories of Dacia. It is probable that Southern Transylvania and several parts of the Great Plain were subject to Bulgarian rule when the Hungarians arrived. Considering the reports of the Hungarian chronicles concerning the beginning of the 11th century, it is possible that the Bulgarian reign survived until the first decade of the new millennium. It seems that the Hungarians did not have to share the political power, making an allowance for the small Bulgarian territory, with any other people. At the beginning of the 10th century only the Hungarians had political organizations in the Carpatian Basin although this organization was based on the confederation of tribes [20].
We have to stress the fact that there already were some Christians among the Roman conquerors of Dacia, as well as the settlers they transferred here. Christianity was spreading rapidly. In the middle of the 2nd century A.D., even the farthest provinces of the Roman Empire had Christian congregations [21]. Christians must have appeared in Dacia. They did not only care for their religion, but they carried on some missionary activities for the sake of spreading Christianity. There could have been some Christians among them who had been converted to Christianity directly by the apostles and became Latin Christians.
Around the 3rd century, there were several one-time Roman soldiers among the Christian martyrs [22]. This was also professed by Tertulianus Quintus Septimus Florens (152-222 A.D.), a North African Christian Church leader. According to him, Christianity penetrated into the territory along the left bank of the Danube before the Roman legions' withdrawal. This is also believed by D. Pippidi, Rumanian historian (and on the basis of his opinions by several other Romanian historians) [23].
Nicolae Stoicescu, the Rumanian historian mentioned above, stated [24], that the religious freedom of the Christians was not acknowledged at the time of the Roman withdrawal from Dacia Traiana (it was refused recognition until 313 A.D.). Thus, the withdrawal of the Roman administration made the spread of Christianity easier in the former province. This may be correct; however, the following circumstances should be considered:
- If spreading in Dacia, Christianity could not have many followers at the very beginning;
- presumably, the Dacians were not Christians. The new religion could hardly, only as an underground movement, spread before 271 due to the pursuit of the contemporary pagan Roman administration;
-the conversion and exercise of Christianity must have been considered secondary in a situation of endless attacks of the free Dacians;
- after the withdrawal of Dacia Traiana's population to the territories south of the Danube in 271, there had been so few Christians left, that they could not have remained a considerable factor in the survival and propagation of Christianity. (The Christians, considering themselves really Romanized, must have been among those who were most willing to leave the province when the Roman administration left it;)
- after the withdrawal of the legions and the population, Aurelian left Dacia to the Goths. We have very little data about their reign regarding whether Christian religion could have existed in Dacia Traiana;
- the "late Roman" culture does not have any authentic marks in Transylvania referring to an isolated, local population from the era of tetrarchy.[2] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn1) Traces of the people living here for an uncertain time can only be found in Baráthely, on the southern banks of the river Nagy-Küküll_. Therefore, there was not anyone the new religion could have spread among.
If Christianity had still existed in Dacia, what kind of cultic places would have borne witness to it? As we have already mentioned, we do not know much about the history of Transylvania for six hundred years, until the Magyar conquest of Hungary. It is probable that during the Peoples' Migration, the population living in Transylvania after the Roman withdrawal was decimated and those who survived were assimilated to other peoples.
This is proven by the destiny of the contemporary Dacian capital, Sarmizegetusa (Gr_di_te, Hungarian: Várhely). The city where the palace of the Augustanians, the forum, several baths, a temple, sanctuaries, public and private buildings were located, totally perished. In 279 A.D. it was entirely uninhabited. Its stones were carried away for building of houses and the nearby castle. Such a collapse could have happened on the whole territory of Dacia.
What is the significance of the fact that writers of the Clergy, who mentioned so much data about a Christian religious life in the territories south of the Danube, did not write anything about such things in the regions north of the river? Rumanian historians assume that people lived more undisturbed in the mountains, but how did they do it without priests, bishops and clerical organizations?
As shown above, no remains of Christian Churches or Christian cultic places were found in Dacia Traiana from the time of the Roman occupation. During the 2nd and 3rd Centuries the majority of the Dacian population - people in the villages - were still pagan.
If Christians lived in former Dacia Traiana, they could have performed the conversions of the yet non-Christian Daco-Romans and barbarians who settled there. In the early Christian communities every member could preach and the member in question could be his or her own "doctor". [25] It may be asked: why was it then necessary to send missionaries to this territory?
Stoicescu (1980, p. 149) assumes that the withdrawal of the Roman administration in 271 made the spread of Christianity more easy - there was no one who persecuted the believers of the new faith and the cult of the Roman emperor disappeared. Cultic places could have been built freely - however, there are no material remains to show that this would have been the case.
Stoicescu refers to Auxentius Durostorenis, (p. 150): "the bishop named Ulfila[3] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn21) was preaching in the Gothic and the Latin languages". Stoicescu then quotes Moga (Transilvania, 74,3, 1943, p. 15) who asked: "To whom could this bishop preach in the Latin language if not to the Romanized and Christianized Dacians?"
The answer to this question is as follows: Ulfila preached in the Latin language in the Roman Empire, south of the lower Danube. The quotation from the text written by Auxentius Durostorensis is incomplete and therefore misleadning. Reading the entire text, it appears that Ulfila preached for the Goths north of the Danube for seven years; then a persecution of Christians started and the bishop was forced, with part of his congregation, to flee to the Roman Empire - there, he preached for thirty-three years, of course, in Latin, the language of the liturgy among the Roman population (see also Du Nay & Du Nay, 1997, p. 35). Stoicescu assumes (p. 149) that the Christianization of the Daco-Romans who remained north of the Danube was partly achieved by missionaries coming from the south. He mentions, however, the opinion of P.P. Panaitescu, who believed that their aim were the conversion of barbarians, not that of the already Christian Daco-Romans. Panaitescu also asserted that their Christianity was a natural consequence of the continuity of the Empire in the 4th-6th Centuries north of the Danube [27]. Let us take some points into consideration:
- During the time of the Roman administration, between 106 and 271 A.D. - as we have already mentioned - there were only a few Christians in Dacia Traiana. Their religion could hardly spread. If Christianity did expand it was only moderately successful.
- When the Romans evacuated Dacia Traiana, the first to leave the province must have been the Christian believers among the settlers. The spread of Christianity slowed down, was forced back or even stopped.
- If the Daco-Romans, living north of the Danube were converted to Christianity by the Romans then they would live there as devoted Christians. Why didn't their own preachers convert the barbarians to Christianity? Again; who converted the Rumanians to Christianity in Dacia Traiana ? This question is not new. It was discussed by Petru Maior[4] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn22) who believed that Christianity had been brought by the colonuses, and, consequently, there was no need of missionaries, apostles etc. That is why the exact date of conversion is unclear; it is not linked to anybody's name.
This is contradicted by the fact that the official religion in Dacia Traiana was the worship of the emperor, besides the cult of Jupiter and Mars, and already in the mid-second century, the Mithras-cult became widespread,[5] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn2) which was an alien, non-Roman cult. One may add, that the territory between the Adria and the Black Sea, and the Balkan territory south of the Danube was intensively Romanized, much more than Dacia Traiana. By the 5th century Illiricum[6] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn3) and Moesia were the most advanced provinces as regards the organization of the Christian Church.
The fundamental notions of the Christian faith in the Rumanian language are of Latin origin: biseric_ < latin basilica, Dumnezeu < Domine Deus, înger < angelus, etc. Stoicescu asserts (150) that this proves that the Daco-Romans were Christianized in the period "in which the Rumanian people was formed". However, these words are not specific to Dacia Traiana but were also used by the Christians living south of the Danube.
Stoicescu (150) mentions that Dobruja remained for a longer time under Roman rule and was thus exposed to an earlier and more intense Christianization as compared to the other Rumanian provinces. He mentions that a bishopric existed in Tomis[7] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn4) (today's Constan_a) in the 4th - 6th centuries. This was by A. Ghimpu-Bol_acov called "the first metropolitan seat [mitropolie] [8] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn5) of our country" [29] Stoicescu mentions several discoveries of contemporary basilicas, inscriptions of a Christian character, tombs and crypts in this area. However, Dobruja is located south of the Danube - the point is that such remains of a Christian religious life were not found in Dacia Traiana.
Stoicescu also mentions a number of archaeological discoveries of an ancient Christian character also from the territory of former Dacia Traiana, which would prove the presence of the Christian religion there already in the 4th century. These are, for example, a gem found in Torda (Turda), an ex-voto bearing the monogram of Christ and the inscription "Ego Zenovius votum posui", found at the village Biertan (see below), - both in Transylvania ; as well as Christian cemeteries of the Ciumbrud-Blandiana B type from the 9th-10th centuries, also in Transylvania.
We do not dispute the results of archaeological research, as we do not dispute the existence of the discovered Christian tombs. We cannot accept, however, the theories put forward by Stoicescu (and others), that the Romanian people were converted to Christianity on the territory north of the Danube, including Dacia Traiana. The difference in this respect between Dobruja and the territories north of the lower Danube is striking: in Dobruja, there are remains of several Christian churches, crypts built on tombs of Christian martyrs from the 3rd century, more than 200 inscriptions of a Christian character, many of them on sarcophags from the 4th-7th centuries, etc. All these provide material proof for the statement that in Dobruja, intensive religious, Christian life - clerical organizations, monasteries and episcopacies - must have existed beginning with the 4th century.
If the ancestors of the Rumanians, who adopted Christianity already in the 3rd - 4th centuries, had lived in that period in the territory of Dacia Traiana, there should be similar material remains also there. Christian people of this time could not live, not even temporarily, without buildings and places, such as chapels, meeting-houses, temples etc., serving their worship.
However, nothing of this kind exists north of the lower Danube, as shown also by M. P_curariu, the above mentioned professor of theology. He listed six relics in his reference book (p. 29-30) but was unable to find any cultic place or any other trace of early Christian organizations in Transylvania.
The above mentioned striking difference between the territories north, respectively south of the lower Danube regarding early Christian churches etc. have been discussed by Rumanian historians. The fact that in the south, - in Dobruja and in Moesia - there were churches and episcopacies in an early period caused several historians to assume that such buildings must have existed also among the Daco-Romans living in the North. This is, however, a dangerous reasoning, writes Auner Carol, historian of the Church. This is because it can be asked: how it is possible that parallel to the strong documentation about the existence of the churches in the neighborhood territories, intensive investigations, going on for decades, could not find similar contructions in the territories north of the lower Danube?
It is well known that emperor Justinian raised the Episcopacy of his birthplace, Tauresium, to the archbishopric rank with the name Prima Justiniana. In his second documentary he listed all the episcopacies posted under this archbishopric. In this document, one castle and two fortresses located on the northern shore of the lower Danube are described, but no episcopacy, nor any cultic place, or other religious organization is mentioned north of the river. This completes the picture given by the archeological finds mentioned above.
A few remarks about the ex voto, with the inscription "Ego Zenovius votum posui" (I, Zenovius made this donation) considered by Stoicescu as one of the most significant proofs of the existence of a Daco-Roman Christian community in Southern Transylvania in the 4th century: It was found in the vicinity of Berethalom (Biertan). On the basis of the letters used and the initials, style scientists determined that it originated from the 4th century. Stoicescu (1980, p. 153):
"The fact, that the inscription is in the Latin language proves that its owner was a Daco-Roman, who talked to his contemporary companions in a language which they understood. At the same time, it is an undeniable proof of the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory, as well as a conclusive proof of the ancient age of Daco-Roman Christianity". (Stoicescu, 1980, p. 153).
As shown above, finds of such objects, in the absence of cult places etc., are not sufficient to prove the existence of Christians and even less that of a Latin-speaking population in the area in question.
The Rumanian language is of Latin origin and the religious terms show that the ancestors of the Rumanians were Christianized in an environment where Latin was the language of liturgy. This must have occurred at an early age, before the Slavic contact.
The Latin form of Christianity was first introduced by the archbishopric of Prima Justiniana, which exercised decisive influence on the life of the Latin-speaking population of the Balkans in the 5th century. However, the scattered, therefore hardly organizable population could not resist the Slav conquests in the 6th-7th centuries. The native people assimilated into the Slavonic culture, and even the shepherd people of the mountains could not keep themselves from the Slavic influence.
This was the Ancient Rumanian or Common Rumanian population. This people, who originally spoke a uniform language (român_ comun_), started to migrate in different directions after about 1000 A.D. Some of them migrated to the west, and settled down on the territory of Istria, surrounding the Monte Maggiore. They are the Istro- Rumanians. Others went to the South. Their descendants, the today's Arumanians, or Cincars, live mainly in Macedonia, while the Megleno-Rumanians settled down in Thessaloniki and its surrounding areas.
Another branch of this Ancient Rumanian population moved to the North. They crossed the Balkan Mountains and settled down in the woodlands of the Danube and its northern tributaries, such as the Arge_, the Ialomi_a and the Dâmbovi_a. These territories were very suitable for shepherd life. Consequences of the migrations are that we cannot find any Roman cultic places neither on the Istrian Peninsula nor in Macedonia or the surrounding territories of Thessaloniki.
We have to agree with Ferenc Levárdy, who wrote the following (about the Carpathian basin) [32]:
"The devastations of the migrating peoples, following one after another, wiped out almost every mark of Roman life. Only ruins demonstrate the one-time flourishing Christian life. Due to serious ordeals of the war events, we can hardly talk about any continuity of life. According to the short stories of Saint Jerome,[9] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn23) the Carpathian Basin was far and wide blackmailed, robbed, devastated by Goths, Sarmatas, Kvads, Alans, Huns, Vandals, Markomanns. Temples were ruined and the martyrs' bodies were thrown out; the whole Roman world was crumbling! Most of the time the ones who just recently arrived likely camped among the hewn stone ruins (ruin continuity)."
Naturally, there are some exceptions. During the times of Constantine the Great, an early Christian basilica was raised in Pannonia at Fenékpuszta. It even survived the times when the old Germanic peoples escaping the Huns evacuated Pannonia. The other example is the Transylvanian early Christian temple from the 4th century at Demsus, if it had been a temple at all.
Returning to the question of the migrations of the Rumanians, we can state that they brought their religion with them from the Balkans. An old Rumanian anonymous chronicle [33] tells us that the first conquest of the Vlachs happened in the 7th century from the southern part of the Danube through Oltenia under the reign of the Basarab Dynasty. (We note that the founder of this dynasty, Basarab, was born at the end of the 13th century.) The impact of the Roman Rite Archbishopric, the Prima Justiniana was completely swept away, without a mark, by the Slav invasion. The archbishopric's role was overtaken by an orthodox metropolite, subaltern of the Patriarch, who was residing in Ohrida. Therefore, when they migrated and settled down in Hungary, more specifically in Transylvania, which then was an organic part of the country, the Rumanians had been wholehearted believers of the Eastern Church for centuries.

Rdll12

09-11-2016, 02:15 PM

ttp://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm
Myths, Hypotheses and Facts

again.Your pseudo-history website has no SOURCES AVAILABLE.It is a propaganda website, easely to be seen on the fact that Hungarians become ancient sumerians there, gypsies have jewish origin etc.

So since you have no actual SOURCES in what you posted then everything you posted will be cancelled.

Now back to where you were you have to answer the 4 posts above where I directly responsed to your posts.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:15 PM

Árpád's Conquest of Hungary;
Conversion to Christianity
Around 830 A.D, a large group of Hungarians appeared in the territories next to the Black Sea between the Don and the Dnester, in Levedia. They lived there until 889 A.D. The Hungarians giving way to the pressure coming from the East, moved to Etelköz, which would be located in today's Moldavia and Bessarabia (the Republic of Moldavia).
The Hungarians get in close contact with Byzantium already in Etelköz (Atelkuzu). They were allied forces during the Bulgarian-Byzantinian Wars, in 894. The Byzantines got to know the Hungarians better, and they managed to receive more detailed information about them. Hungarian links strengthened with the Byzantines. The Byzantine world exerted a significant cultural influence upon the Hungarians. This is proved by the fact that in the contemporary tombs, also Byzantine impact can be found among Sassanide, Arab, Norman and other influences. In the tombs from the 10th century we can often observe objects of Byzantine origin or showing Byzantine characteristics. The findings are often accompanied by money of the Byzantine Emperors. Several objects with Greek inscriptions were found in the tombs. The best example is the silver-button of Piliny [34].
During the two decades after the Hungarians settled down, Hungarians remained faithful to the Byzantine Empire. They also knew that one of the main conditions of the new state's maintenance was Byzantine goodwill and recognition. This point of view was also reasonable, because they sought Byzantine aid to neutralize the German influence. The new Hungarian land belonged to the Byzantine range of influence, even though earlier it had been an organic part of the Holy Roman Empire. That is to say, the knowledge of Roman unity was still alive in Byzantium. The West-Roman Empire's territories occupied by the barbarians were always considered by the emperor's court as belonging to the Byzantine Empire. The lands of Hungary, even after the Hungarians settled down there, were viewed as belonging to the Byzantine zone of interest. The Hungarians also faced these facts. They did not oppose Greek-Catholicism (the Eastern Orthodox Church) neither during the years of settling down nor later.
On the territories of their new homeland, Hungarians found only one people in considerable number, the Slavs. They are not to be mistaken with the Slovaks. In the first half of the 10th century, the Carpathian Basin was not inhabited by the Slovaks but by the Slavs, who lived everywhere on the boundaries between the plains and mountains.
The Hungarian - Slav contact did not take place in the interior of the country. The two peoples met on the confines of the mountainous district, such as the south-western part of Transdanubia; the slopes of the Mecsek, Mátra and Bükk Mountains; the territories along the Tisza and Szamos, the Kraszna Valley and in Transylvania in the area of Gyulafehérvár. The lands lying between this area and the natural boundaries were considered of little value from the Hungarian economical point of view, and served defensive purposes because they were largely uninhabited [35].
The conquering Hungarians settled most densely in Transdanubia. Large parts of the area east of the Tisza river and Transylvania remained uninhabited for a while, since people were afraid of the attacks of their eastern neighbours. Transylvanian findings of the contemporary equestrian tombs prove that "...Central Transylvania: the middle and lower reaches of the Szamos and Maros; and the lower reaches of the two Küküll_s were occupied by the Hungarians. No other contemporary equestrian tombs were found outside of this region, which fact is serious enough to presume that no other territories were occupied at that time" [36].
The subjugated Slavs - as was the case also with the Slavs of the Elba-Odera territories, who were assimilated to the surrounding German population, - were after two or three centuries totally assimilated into the Hungarians. Many Slavic words became part of the Hungarian language by this time; words used in state and church organization, trades, and more advanced agricultural methods [37].
Only the Avars, who are mentioned by the sources before Árpád's conquest of Hungary, left significant marks on the area, along with the Slavs. Charlemagne (724-814) ordered their transfer, by their own request to the area between Szombathely and Deutsch-Altenburg (Carnuntum) in 804. The sources still mention them in the decades before the arrival of the Hungarians.
The Hungarians' ancestors were pagans. Christianity was introduced to them by Byzantine missionaries before their state founding (38). They found direct contact with Christianity in their new homeland by the way of the conquered Slavs and the captives taken during the frequent military campaigns in the West. According to Gyula Pauler, "... the pastors of the conquered managed to find the easiest way to the ears of the conquerors. The memento of these apostles was not kept by historiography but by the language. Words pertaining to the Christian religion, such as Christian, pagan, baptism, confirmation, bishop, priest, monk, saint, angel, and altar, were borrowed from the language of the Slavs (the Slovens). None of them is of German origin [39]. According to Ferenc Levárdy, the Hungarians found some ruins of the old Roman buildings at the time of their conquest of Hungary. They even found temples and priests in Pannonia and in the Szerémség [40]. Archaeological material left by the Hungarians show some Christian influence. The Christian cross appears on a few objects. Almost one dozen tombs, mainly children's burial places were found, with engraved bronze and silver crosses and necklaces. It is a fact that several Hungarian aristocrats, acting from political consideration, converted to Christianity already in the 10th century. According to Ioannes Skylitses, Byzantine historian "Bulcsú ostensibly was baptized into the Christian religion, Constantinus became his godfather, and he was honored by Patrician rank and a lot of money before returning to his homeland. In 952 Gyula, another reigning Prince of the Hungarians, went to the emperor's city, received baptism, and enjoyed the same distinctions. He returned with a pious monk, named Hierotheos, who was by Theofylaktos ordained bishop of Turkia (Hungary). He drove many people out of the barbarian straying to Christianity." Consequently the first Transylvanian bishop started his work in the 10th century and used Greek-Christian rites [41].
The Magyars took the Greek-Christian religion and used its rites. By the time of the Hungarian defeat at Augsburg (Lech Field) in 955, a Greek-Christian bishop was functioning in Hungary. The leaders, commanders and part of the nation were formally baptized.
The alliance between Constantine Porfyrogenithos (903-959) and the Hungarians was made stronger by annual taxes and "gifts" paid by the emperor. The emperor however got so much hostile and disdainful information about the Hungarians - the news of the sorrowful defeat of Bulcsú's army - that he ended the paying of such "gift-taxes". Instead, Olga, the Russian Great reigning Princess put in a claim for the "gift-taxes", after her baptism. Constantine thus managed to acquire Russia for the Greek-Christian Church. Hungary, however, turned from it. Byzantium lost its military alliance against Bulgaria, as well as the influence of the Greek-Christian Church in Hungary.
The Byzantine-Hungarian relationship became so hostile, that Taksony (son of Zoltán, Hungarian leader; 947-972) asked for a bishop from Rome to continue the spread of Christianity. Liuprand, Secretary of the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto I., said: "The Pope ordained a bishop for Hungary in the winter of 961-962." A Hungarian envoy of Bulgarian origin, by the name of Salk, was sent to Rome. The Pope sent Zacheus with a bulla to Hungary to be bishop there. The delegation, however, was captured in Capua by the followers of Otto. This action was supposed to accomplish the conversion of the Hungarians into the Christian organization by Otto's own bishop. The Hungarian great reigning princes were ready to build up the Christian Church's organization in the 950's and 960's. It was no fault of theirs that the attempt turned out to be unsuccessful [42].
The trend towards Christianity also meant political change. It was expressed by the mission, consisting of twelve Hungarian representatives, who in 973 A.D. were sent to emperor Otto, in Quedlingburg. The Emperor was there accepting the salutations of small populations who belonged to the German Empire's range of interest. By this way, the hostilities between the Hungarians and the German royal court ended. Bruno, the missionary bishop baptized Géza and his son Vajk, who received the name Stephen after the first martyr and patron saint of the church of Passau. However, the new religion did not take root in Géza. According to a later born legend, he considered himself rich enough to serve two gods at the same time.
Until the glory of the battles lasted, the Hungarians did not care much about the conquered territories. It is well known, that a part of the Hungarian army was badly defeated at Augsburg (Bavaria) in 955. Undoubtedly, that great misfortune forced those tribes of the nation, who led their raids on the West during the earlier decades, as well as in 955, to discontinue the attacks. For those who regularly raided the South, the defeat at Augsburg did not bring change. Only the severe defeat at Arcadiupolis in 970-971, ended the marauding on the South.
The intelligent and experienced voivod Gyula, who married Sarolta, Géza's daughter, was Géza's good advisor. With his great influence on the reigning prince, he suceeded in convincing him that there were two tasks to be solved involving the nations' future destiny: Peace must be ensured between Hungary and Germany, and a way must be found for Christianity to capture the soul of the nation.
The first converter's name was Wolfgang. He was followed by Piligrim, who sent a letter to Pope Benedict VII. around 974, in which he informed the Pope that the priests and monks had already converted five thousand Hungarians to Christianity. There was peace between pagans and Christians. Almost the whole nation was willing to embrace the Holy Faith [43].
Géza often had to resort to force to ensure the spread of Christianity. The consequence was discontent and open revolt in some parts of the country. He tried to compromize, and appeased the diehards by also offering sacrifices to the traditional gods. After the marriage of his son, he died with the knowledge that in addition to the homeland, he acquired for his nation strong ties to Europe by the adoption of Christianity.
The work of conversion was led by Archbishop Astrik.[10] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn6) There is only one source about the conversion and the organization of the new Church: the biography of Szent Gellért (Saint Gerardus). This source mentions that the first converters were Benedictine monks.
The first truly Christian King, Szent István (Stephen I, 997- 1038), wanted to tie Hungary to the Roman-Catholic Church along with the Western Roman-German cultural community, even though he had the opportunity to choose between the Roman and the Byzantine Churches. He helped to secure the Western type Roman-Catholic Christianity for his nation, but he did not make it unique. The former Bishop Gellért of Marosvár (today Csanád, Rum. Cenad) could admit Greek-Christian communities to his diocese. The king made possible the exercise of Greek rites and ceremonies in the Greek language. He provided rich donations to the Greek convents (basilicas) in the Veszprém Valley. Consequently, the Greek-Christian Church continued to live in Hungary undisturbed also after the millennium. It is also an important fact, that king Stephen, being an ally of the Byzantine Emperor while occupying Ohrida, did not bother to take expensive presents for him. Instead he took the relics of the martyr Saint George, much revered by the adherents of the Greek Christian Faith.
King Stephen, following in his fathers footsteps, "...who tyrannized over his own people, but was merciful and generous to the foreigners, especially the Christians", took the view that, "The guests and newcomers are yielding such a large profit, that they deservedly can stand on the sixth place on the honour roll of the king, since the unilingual country with one custom is weak and fallible." As a consequence, he ordered his son, Imre, to benevolently support and cherish the newcomers, "therefore they preferred to stay at his court, rather than living somewhere else" [44].
King Stephen "Often consoled the serfs of the temples, the monks, and priests with alms and donations. All of his available income was spent on pilgrims, widows and orphans. He often made donations through his envoys to the monasteries of provinces abroad" [45].
At the beginning of the 11th century, the Byzantine Emperor, Basilios II. attacked and subdued the Bulgarian kingdom. King Stephen forged an alliance with him for reasons pertaining to both internal and foreign affairs. His troops - as we know from the information of Fundatio Sancti Albani Namucensis - were fighting alongside the Byzantine troops, in the battles against the Bulgarians in 1004. After the conquest of Bulgaria in 1018, the borders of the Byzantine Empire reached the lines of the Danube and the Sava rivers and coincided with the southern borders of Hungary. This direct vicinity required that the good relationship between the two countries should not deteriorate with discrimination against the Eastern Christian Church. The Byzantine influence had to be counted in the state affairs also. It is enough to mention that the double cross of the Hungarian coat of arms is of Byzantine origin.
In the light of these historical facts, Stoicescu's theory about the adaptation of the Slavonic language by the Church of the Rumanians living in Transylvania before the Hungarians settled there, cannot be accepted. Stoicescu argues that "this important religious reform could not have been accomplished under the sceptre of Saint Stephen's Apostlic Crown."
The period is the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Slavic liturgy spread, penetrating also into Russia (46). As we have shown above, King Stephen and his predecessors did not just tolerate, but farsightedly supported the newcomers, thus also the representatives of the Greek-Christian Church and their cultic places. King Stephen was occupied with the conversion of the pagan Hungarians, and had no reasons to persecute his already Christian subjects.
There are also Rumanian authors who contradict Stoicescu in this matter. Petru Maior was of the opinion that Stephen the Saint did not fight or hinder the Rumanians' religion in Transylvania - on the contrary, they even had some privileges given by the first king of the Hungarians. In a footnote to Maior's text, Manole Neagoe remarks: "The two Churches were separated in 1059, it is therefore logical that the Rumanians were not oppressed due to their religious belief by Stephen I." (P. Maior: Istoria pentru începutul romînilor în Dachia; critical edition by Florea Fugariu, Bucarest, 1970, vol. I, p. 192) [47].
Stoicescu asserts, referring to P.P. Panaitescu, that Stephen the Saint wanted to spread Christianity because of national interests. This theory could not have been appropriate, even though he would have been reigning during the time when the civil nation's ideas occurred along with feudal and national motives. Saint Stephen's wisdom is a historical fact. He could have been wise; he could not, however, have gone ahead of his time.
Might Stoicescu not have known that there was no antagonism between different nations, nor intolerance of people because of their language at that time? After the Hungarians entered the Carpathian Basin, its ethnic picture changed: "The ethnic picture of the Carpathian basin became extraordinarily colorful, where the Finno-Ugric, Turk, Iranian, and Slavic peoples were living next to each other, on varying levels of the historical evolution" [48].
According to the law of Stephen the Saint, groups of ten villages were obliged to build a temple. If the conquering Hungarians had found temples or churches, King Stephen would not have been forced to order the "ten villages - one temple" law. The issuing of such order proves beyond all question that in Transylvania, even the pagan cultic places could have survived only in small numbers. If they had survived, Stephen would have made them - if only temporarily - Christian temples.
Moreover, if Stephen had been such a king as Stoicescu says, referring to P.P. Panaitescu, he would have used "Rumanian temples" by force for his recently converted people. However, there are no legends nor chronicles about such actions. We do not have any data either that the Hungarian state or clerical leadership, accepting the Western Church's liturgy, forced it on another, non-Hungarian people, for example on the Rumanians. In this case the resistance would have reached such a high level that it would not have passed unnoticed, without a trace in history.
The Hungarian relationship with Byzantium did not slacken until the end of the 11th century, when the Serb principality and Bulgaria, again independent, got wedged in between Hungary and Byzantium. On the other hand, Byzantium declined after the reign of the Komnenoses,[11] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn7) and in 1204, it fell to the Western conquerors. In 1261, the Palailogoses[12] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn8) restored the Greek Empire, but it could only be a shade of the Byzantine Empire. Regarding the friendly relations between Hungary and Byzantium up to the end of the 11th century, the Hungarians had a political interest in supporting the Transylvanian Greek-Catholic (Orthodox) Rumanians - or in any case, not oppressing them - if they had existed there. We do not have any data or references about this question, nor about such a population.
It is a very important historical fact that the Greek and Latin Churches were not divided until 1054. That is why we have stated above that the orthodox religion in Hungary was not exposed to persecution neither by the state politics nor by another Church. There was nothing to prevent the allegedly "native" Transylvanian Rumanians from building their own cultic places or having their own clerical organizations.
King Stephen got his crown from Sylvester II. (999- 1003). As an independent, ordained Hungarian king, he rightly founded episcopacies, abbacies and the archbishopric of Esztergom. Unfortunately, the contemporary church documents did not survive. It can only be suspected, that the first Hungarian archbishopric's deed of foundation was dated in Ravenna in 1001. According to György Gy_rffy "The foundation-stone of the Hungarian Church organization was laid in April of 1001" [49]. From our point of view the foundation of the bishopric of Gyulafehérvár is particularly important. As György Gy_rffy says, it was founded in 1009. The Transylvanian Bishop got hold of the territories of Kraszna and Szatmár counties, in addition to the "Seven castles, namely Siebenbürgen" counties: Hunyad, Fehér, Küküll_, Torda, Kolozs, Doboka, and Dés. There is no mention, however, of any existing Greek-Christian Rumanian Church, episcopacy or bishop.
It is not by the chance that we left the discussion of Anonymus' Gesta Hungarorum to the end of this chapter. The Gesta talks about the people found by the Hungarians in Transylvania by the time of their settling down: they were, among others, Blacks and the "shepherds of the Romans". Historiography identified the Blacks as the ancestors of the Rumanians, and came to the conclusion that making the Rumanians appear on stage in Transylvania during Árpád's conquest of Hungary is a serious anachronism. The Rumanians did not settle in Hungary before the 13th century, thus the good monk, Anonymus retroprojected the ethnic situation of his own era to the times of the Árpáds.
According to the notes of Roger (Rogerius) Bacon (1214-1294), "...the Blacks came from 'old Byzantium', which was located next to old Hungary and Bulgaria (i.e., Hungary and Bulgaria along the Volga). They live between Constantinople, Bulgaria and 'new Hungary'". Hungarian historians showed that the Black people had lived close to the Hungarians' Baskirian Fatherland before they got into Central and Southern Europe. While they attached themselves to the Bulgarians, they still used their own name in the 13th century. It may therefore be that Anonymus did not commit an anachronism. He probably did not talk about Rumanians, but about a people of Turk or Bulgarian origin, in ancient contact with the Hungarians; most probably on the basis of the ancient Gesta [50].
According to Köpeczi,[13] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn9) Anonymus got acquainted with the Blacks through Nestor's Russian Chronicle from the 12th century. As Nestor says; "The conquering Hungarians found Volohs (Volohi) and Slavs in the Carpathian Basin. They expelled the Volohs and subjugated the Slavs," ..."and from that time on, the land was called Hungarian (magyar; ugorszka)". Nestor meant French by the Volohs, in reality the Trans-Danubian Franks, in a wider sense every people speaking a Romance language, or those who belonged to the Holy Roman Empire.
The French crusaders met the Rumanians in the Balkans and pronounced their Greek and Slavic name as Black,even though it was spelled Blach and pronounced Vlach by the native people. The French form was used by the Hungarian chancellery, and declined as Latin words (blacus, blacci, blacorum). In the Hungarian documents written up to 1247, the French form: blak appears. The Hungarian colloquial form: "oláh", came into use after that year. It probably derived from the Greek and Slavic form "vlach", through an intermediate "volach".
Anonymus placed the Rumanians in Transylvania on the basis of Nestor. His work proves therefore that in his era Rumanians did not live in northern Transylvania.
Anonymus's work does not give any data to find out what kind of people the Hungarians could have found in Tran-sylvania. Modern archeology proves the presence of Slavs. Rumanian material remains from the 10th century, distinctly separable from that of the Slavs, were not found [51].

Rdll12

09-11-2016, 02:17 PM

[h=3][B]Árpád's Conquest of Hungary;
Conversion to Christianity

Irelevant to our subject.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:17 PM

Transylvania from the
Árpád's Conquest of Hungary
until the Mongol Invasion of the Country
The Church played a very important role in the life of Transylvania before the devastation of the Mongol invasion in 1241-42. We already mentioned that Saint Stephen founded an episcopacy in Gyulafehérvár. It is a very important circumstance, that there were some congregations on the Transylvanian Diocese's Territory, which did not belong to the Bishop's clerical sphere of influence and authority. These congregations belonged to the abbacy of Kolozsmonostor, the abbacy of Kerc, founded by King Béla III. (1172-1196) and to the provostship of Szeben. For a certain period the churches of Barcaság belonged to the Moldavian Catholic bishopric, located in the city of Milcov. These were not Greek-Catholic churches.
Maria Holban deals in detail with the argument [52] which took shape between the Transylvanian Bishop and the Provost of Szeben, who was supposed to fulfill the provostship's position, which recently had become unoccupied. At this time, the Teutonic Knights migrated to South Transylvania and occupied the territories of Barcaság in Brassó County under the leadership of Salza Herman.
The Transylvanian Bishop considered the provostship's foundation in Szeben as a transgression against his sphere of authority. His power would have been further damaged by the wish of the King, who was willing to make the provostship of Szeben an episcopacy and subordinate it to the authority of Kalocsa's Archbishopric. The provostship of Szeben would have gotten hold of all the Saxon dwellers, including those who had belonged to the Transylvanian episcopacy before.
The Transylvanian Bishop immediately sent an envoy to the Pope to protest against the plan. Finally, the Pope refused the foundation of the new episcopacy. The Transylvanian Bishop's sphere of authority was in every way exposed to danger by the immigration of the knights. At this time such an argument with the Rumanians did not take place. Also this fact suggests - among other things - that Vlachs did not live at that time in Transylvania.
Before discussing the question of the settlement of Vlachs in Transylvania, we have to mention briefly the reports about this population in the Balkans. There, written sources record Vlachs (the ancestors of present day Rumanians) since 976 A.D. They are described as nomad or transhumant shepherds, and as conscripted soldiers in the Byzantine Army. They were the ones who led the Cumanians, breaking into Byzantine territories through the passes of the Balkan Mountains in 1094.
At the end of the 12th century, several Serb documents (deeds of gift) mention the shepherd Rumanians, who lived in the mountainous district between the Drina and Morava rivers (see, for example, Du Nay, 1996, pp. 26-39).
It is not possible to state the exact period of time when the first Vlachs shepherds came to Transylvania. Small numbers might have come in the 11th century, but the first document which mentions this people there refers to 1208. The absence of cultic places, as well as the testimony of the geographical names and the place-names indicates that before the end of the 13th century, Transylvania had no significant Rumanian population.
According to a document dated 1223, the land of the Rumanians living along the Olt was donated to the Abbacy of Kerc in 1208 by Andrew II. In the donated territories, there are no Rumanian geographical or place-names, and besides Olt and Kerc (of unknown origin), three names appear in the document: Egerpatak, Nagybükk and Árpás (palus Eguerpatak, fagus Nogebik, rivulus Arpas) - all Hungarian, which were later borrowed by the Rumanians. Thus, this area was not "owned by the Vlachs from ancient times", but was originally inhabited by Hungarians.
A contemporary document named Andreanum (1224), which determined the privileges of the Saxons, gave them the right to use the forests of the Rumanians and Petchenegs. Here the king has taken the Rumanian and Petcheneg ownership into consideration.
In 1231 Salza Hermann, who had been just ousted from Barcaság, stayed in Rome, where he mentioned that Rumanians had their own land, as well as the Székelys, and their own customs authorities, which were independent from that of the Barcaság.
In his writings about his victory over the Hungarian King, Czech King Ottokar II. mentioned the Hungarian King's "inhuman men": Hungarians, Cumanians, Slavs, Székelys, Vlachs (Rumanians), and Petchenegs.
On the basis of contemporary and later documents, we can presume the existence of a "Blakland", located in the highlands behind present day Fogaras and Szászváros. This Rumanian-defended frontier region was organized into an administrative unit presumably around 1200.
The protection of the Southern Border Region was devolved primarily on the fortress of Hátszeg and its district. We are informed about the area's Rumanian population since the so called "frieze lands" were given to a noble by King Stephen the Minor in 1263. The donation did not include the lands of the kenez-es Dr_gan and Kretoch.[14] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn24) The king thus recognized the possessory rights of the presumably Rumanian kenez-es over some of the territories in question.
The tradition of building temples and monasteries practized by kings and aristocrats was learned by the clans forming smaller branches and families in the 11th-12th centuries [53]. In Transylvania, the Kácsics clan built the monastery of Harina after the Mongol devastation of Hungary, in the middle of the 13th century. The monastery with three aisles and two steeples is related to the family temples of the Transdanubian area (twin-windowed towers).
The building of sacred places for the clans begun. These cloisters and churches gave shelter to monks swarming out of the larger monasteries. At the beginning, the number of monks could have been around twelve, later it was reduced to three or four. We have no information about such temples or monasteries of Rumanian clans in Transylvania.
In the 12th and 13th centuries, the permanent private property was born in the wake of the noble clans forging ahead. It developed the particular type of family or clan owned churches that represented their strength. There is no report about such a church built by a Rumanian landowner.
In the first decades of the 13th century, right before the Mongol invasion, Transylvania was well developed politically, socially, and clerically. Rumanians, however, were not present in this development since we do not have any relics or data referring to their church organizations or congregations.
In the year 1087, the pagan Cumanian people settled down in Wallachia, south of Transylvania. The new neighbors broke into Hungary, two times through the Eastern, and once through the Southern Carpathians. They were defeated and driven out of Hungary on every occasion by Szent László (King Saint Ladislas, 1077-1095). He met the Cumanians at Kerlés (Cserhalom) in 1071, at Bökény (Szabolcs county) in 1081 and in Pogányró on the riverbanks of the Temes in 1091. After a century of peace, the Cumanians attacked the country again. They ravaged, robbed, and burned the Barcaság.
The Pope, as well as all other Popes, had the important task of converting the pagan people, like the Cumanians, to Christianity. Members of the first Dominican Cumanian Mission were killed by the Cumanians. The second mission, however, proved to be successful. They convinced Bors Membrok, leader of the Cumanians to adopt the Christian religion. Membrok sent his own son to Esztergom with the Dominicans. He asked the Hungarian Primate to come to Cumania and convert the population to Christianity. He also asked for a consecrated Bishop for his people. The Hungarian Primate reported the Cumanian request to the Pope and asked for permission to carry it out. The Pope named the Primate to his legate and invested him with full power to complete the necessary tasks. The Primate, accompanied by the Bishops of Veszprém, Pécs, and Transylvania as well as Prince Béla with a small group of people, departed to the lands of the Cumanians. He baptized the Cumanian people in the city of Milkov, between Wallachia and Moldavia. He consecrated Teodorik as the first Bishop of the Cumanians, and the Bishop of Milkov in 1227. We have three documents to prove this in the Secret Archives of the Vatican. The first letter went to the leader of the Hungarian Dominicans, the second document to the Primate of Esztergom, the third to Prince Béla, son of Andrew II., who was later crowned Béla IV. (1235-1270) [54].
Official documents prove also that the Cumanian Bishop became a member of the Hungarian Episcopal staff and that he attended several episcopal assemblies. (Finally the episcopacy of Milkov was annexed nominally to the diocese of Esztergom by Tamás Bakócz [1442-1521], Archishop of Esztergom.) If an Orthodox Rumanian episcopacy had been functioning in Transylvania, the contemporary documents would have mentioned it, even though the Rumanian Bishop would not have been a member of the episcopal staff. But if such documentary did not commemorate it, the crown office should have mentioned Rumanian episcopacies or other smaller clerical organizations. If they had existed, the Hungarian kings would have tried them to convert to Catholicism and would have turned their attention to Wallachia, Moldavia, and the Balkans, only after they had suceeded in Hungary.
Forty thousand Cumanian families asked for and received permission to immigrate to Hungary in 1238. They settled down between the Danube and the Tisza. They and the people of the Teutonic Knights who remained there survived the devastations caused by the Mongols in 1241. Their religious life was, however, endangered by the quickly spreading of the Bogumil heterodoxy.[15] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn10) As a countermeasure, the Pope fulfilled the Hungarian King's wish and founded the second Catholic episcopacy at Szörénytornya in 1246. The life of the episcopacy can be traced until 1416. Some of their bishops are known by name. When a new episcopacy was founded, groups of Hungarians settled down on the territories of former Cumania. The territories left empty after those forty thousand resettled Cumanians were colonized by the Megleno- and Arumanians, coming from the Balkans. A small number of them reached Transylvania [55]. They, however, did not live in the territory of Cumania with the Cumanians because we do not have any traces of their clerical organizations.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:18 PM

Transylvania during the Mongol Invasion
According to János Túróczi,[16] (http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/kos/kos12.htm#fn11) in 1241 the Tatars (Tartars or Mongols) of Genhis Khan marched into Hungary with four armies, 500,000 armed men [56]. The main body of their army marched through the Verecke Pass to the Tisza Valley. The other three armies attacked from Transylvania. While the Tatars retreated from the Great Plain and the Maros Valley, they devastated Transylvania to a very large degree. They destroyed everything that had got in their way. The Partium and Transylvania suffered the biggest losses and most casualties.
In his memorandum, Carmen Miserabile (Miserable Song) Rogerius, of Italian origin, the Dean of Várad, wrote that when he had escaped from Tatar captivity, and had been travelling through Transylvania, he was hardly able to find a man there; he did not see anything but "heaps of ruins" in Nagyenyed, Torda and Gyulafehérvár. "On the Eve of the Tatar invasion the Hungarian armies were fighting on the Balkans serving the interest of the Hungarian aristocracy and the Papacy. The Papacy, however, did not recruit Western forces against the Tatars in 1240-1242... The struggle against the Mongols was strongly hindered, since the German feudal nobles, serving their own interests in Northern and Eastern Europe, in agreement with the Papal State, led their troops against the divided Russians" [57].
Without any allies and also separated from each other, Hungary and Poland were attacked by the Mongols, who, after breaking the Russian resistance, turned with full force against the two countries.
King Béla IV. (1235-1270) tried to organize the defense of the country, but failed. The King's desperate efforts were seen with malicious joy by the nobles who felt offended due to the strengthening of the King's power. They put their soldiers at the king's disposal with considerable delay and reluctance. The murder of Kötöny, Cumanian leader, turned the Cumanians away from Béla IV., even though the responsibility did not rest with the King. The King could not mobilize an army of satisfactory numbers, until the very last moment, when the Mongols had already broken into the country, and the danger had become overwhelming.
The army of King Béla IV. could not resist the Mongols, whose horsmen swarmed all over the Tisza area. The Tatars and the Hungarian cavalry fought on the battlefield of Muhi, near the Sajó stream in April 11th, 1241. The battle ended with the total destruction of the Hungarian Army. The King escaped with extreme difficulties. His death would have meant the final destruction of Hungary.
After the battle of Muhi the country was in complete ruins. The number of slaughtered people could be counted in ten-thousands. Most of those who survived were hiding in the deep forests and marshes and were waiting for the day of salvation.
Fortunately, the Mongol Chief Khan, Ogotaj died unexpectedly. Since Batu Khan, the Commander in Chief of the Mongol army, now in Hungary, wanted to be present and take part in the power struggle, following the death of the chief khan, hastily withdrew from the country and returned to Mongolia.
At the end of May 1242, there were no Mongols left in Hungary. The work of reconstruction could start.
King Béla's first task was the reorganization of the country's defenses. He realized that the Mongols had not been able to capture the Hungarian fortresses. He organized a castle system on the border zone, and urged his nobles to build more fortified castles. He founded a new capital at Buda with a splendid royal palace and churches on the Castle Hill (part of modern Budapest).
After the Mongol withdrawal, King Béla immediately started to re-build the country, building new fortified castles of stone also (in Transylvania: Dés, Kolozsvár).
The King sent Vajda (Voivod) L_rinc to Transylvania "...to gather his people, and arrange everything, by using his authority, that he finds useful to his country". L_rinc tried his very best to fulfill his duty. He transfered ploughmen and soldiers to the depopulated areas from the territories that suffered less. He also encouraged people from abroad to settle in the devastated territory.
In his letter to the King, the Transylvanian Bishop Gallus, wrote that in the year of 1246 it was hard to find people in Gyulafehérvár and the city's surrounding areas. He asked the King to take the people, who lived or were willing to live on the episcopal properties out of the authority of the voivods and county sheriffs. He, the Bishop of Transylvania, would have been in this case their only master. The King fulfilled his wish.
The Mongol invasion decimated the population, therefore foreigners had to be hired to do the reconstruction. What kind of nationality did they have? Where did they come from? The new dwellers, who were brought to the episcopal and unoccupied royal properties, migrated with their flocks from the Balkans. They were Vlachs, ancestors of today's Rumanians [58]. Most of them ran away from the political discords and battles going on in the Balkan Peninsula. They were led by Bulgarian and Serb kenez-es.
During the times of Charles the Anjou (Charles I.) (1307-1342), especially in 1335, they were also invited to Transylvania. In 1370 some of their nobles moved, because of political unrest, from Bulgaria, as well as from the western areas of Wallachia, to Transylvania [59].
The Szamos and Maros valleys were Transylvania's main military routes during the Mongol invasions. These valleys were inhabited by Hungarians. Every enemy, marching through the area, ravaged mainly this people. The Saxons found shelter in their forts and fortified towns, while many Székelys were hiding in the forests. The farming people of the undefended villages always became easy prey of the enemy. That is why they could not and did not grow sufficiently in number. That is why they later were forced to welcome foreign settlers.
King Béla, "the second state founder" settled the Johannite (Maltan) Order of Knights between the Lower Danube and the Olt, which teritory also had been devastated by the Mongols. Their presence, from the year 1247, meant defense for the territory.
The Christian churches, devastated earlier by pagan insurgents, were replaced by new ones. Saint Stephen's orders were reissued by Saint Ladislas I. He ordered that the burned out or devastated churches had to be rebuilt by the congregations. "The churches which were ruined because of their old age must be reconstructed by the bishop." These churches were rebuilt by the time of the Mongol attack (1241). It was hard to find a village without a temple. The churches, however, were mostly robbed, burned and destroyed by the Tatars. The cathedrals of Gyulafehérvár and Nagyvárad had to be rebuilt. The village churches also had to be rebuilt from their ruins. Again, we have no information about the reconstruction of any Greek-Catholic (Orthodox) church in this period in Transylvania. There weren't any.
After the Mongol attacks fortified stone and brick churches were built that could have been used for defensive purposes. Their construction was regulated - under the king's inspiration - by the propriety relations. "Every proprietary recognized the mental and material advantages of the patronage's right." The number of parishes in the 13th century exceeded that of the 11th century. We do not know about Rumanian parishes and church building proprietaries. Thus, in the Hungary of the 13th and 14th centuries, particularly in Transylvania, Hungarian churches made earlier of wood and mud were reconstructed because they were completely destroyed by the Tatars. The reason was not that assumed by Radu Popa, Rumanian historian [60]. The brick and stone churches mentioned by him are newer. They are churches re-built after the Tatar devastations. If there were some Rumanian churches made out of bricks or stones after the Tatar attack in Transylvania, it would mean that they were built in that period, - they could not have been built before the Tatar invasion.

Rdll12

09-11-2016, 02:19 PM

[h=3][B]Transylvania from the
Árpád's Conquest of Hungary
until the Mongol Invasion of the Country

Irelevant to our subject.Unless you answer the previous posts, then you cannot change subject.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:24 PM

VI
Transylvania between the Mongol Invasion
and the
Beginning of the Turkish Menace
Transylvania recovered substantially during the two decades following the Mongol invasion. Its internal order was peaceful. Its situation changed after 1260, when Béla IV. gave it to his son, István. Transylvania suffered on account of the almost endless discord between father and son. Béla IV. died in 1270, and his son ascended the throne as Stephen V. Stephen ruled only two years, 1270 - 1272. In spite of his short ruling period, he did not forget about Transylvania. He rewarded the Székelys of Kézd for their bravery against the Tatars. They were settled on a depopulated area of Torda County, the surroundings of Torockó.
After his death, he was succeeded to the throne by his son, who was called Kun László (Ladislas IV, "the Cumanian"; 1272-1290). Under his reigning period, life in Transylvania was characterized by disorder and anarchy. The royal rule and laws were replaced by the law of the club and despotism.
The cathedral of Gyulafehérvár was attacked and burned down by the Saxons in February 21, 1277. Kun László beat the invading Cumanians at Hódmez_vásárhely in 1282. The defeated Cumanians fled to the Nogaj Tatars. While beating a hasty retreat, they devastated Transylvania.
They returned in 1285. The Cumanians got as far as Pest. They were beaten by the Royal Army again. As a repeat performance, escaping from the king's troops they withdrew with large booty across Transylvania. On their way out they found time to destroy Beszterce and Kolozsvár. At the fortress of Torockó they were caught and badly beaten by the Székelys. The Székelys also destroyed another group, before they could have left Transylvania.
The Cumanian raids did not end despite their defeat by the Székelys. The Pope proclaimed a Crusade against the Cumanians. The decisive battles of the war between the Crusaders and the Cumanians were fought in Transylvania. The anarchy and chaos did not end until the death of Ladislas IV. in 1290.
Ladislas IV's successor, Andrew III. (1290-1301) travelled across Transylvania in 1291. He convoked the Parliament along with the Transylvanian estates at Gyulafehérvár. In a document he reinforced the nobles, the clergy, and the Saxons in their rights.
Andrew published another notable document, in which he mentions the Vlachs along with the nobles, Székelys and Saxons. Several Rumanian historians came to the false conclusion that the Vlachs possessed equal rights with the Hungarians, Székelys and Saxons and were considered an emancipated nation during the House of Árpád's reign, and they participated in the political and constitutional life of Transylvania as well.
The historical facts, however, show that the participating Rumanians in the assemblies were witnesses rather than legislators. They were supposed to testify to whether it was the truth or not, that the properties of Fogaras and Szombathely really belonged to master Ugrin. The assembly in question was not legislative but judicial. In the next year Vlachs were not invited to the Parliament where Transylvanian nobles, Székelys, Saxons, and indeed the Cumanians participated.
The document of Andrew III. dated 1293, casts light upon why the Rumanians were not invited to the Hungarian nor to the Transylvanian Parliaments. "Being forced by the regime's interest, with the agreement of the magnates, we order that all the Vlachs, residing on anybody's property, should be driven back to our royal property named Székes. Exempted are those sixty households, who were authorized to settle down by Ladislas IV, in Fülesd and Én_d, on the properties of the chapter of Gyulafehérvár."
This document shows - without the slightest doubt - that only the king and persons authorized by the king could give the immigrating Rumanians permission to settle down. At this time only the churches and bishops were allowed to colonize. The landowners did not have the right to harbor Rumanian immigrants yet.
On the basis of the above mentioned documents, it may be stated that the Rumanians were very small in number under the House of Árpád's reign. Also because of this fact, they could not be equal to the other three nations of Transylvania, the Hungarians, the Székelys and the Saxons. As we have already mentioned in Chapter 4., Megleno-rumanians and Arumanians came from the Balkans and occupied the area from which those 40,000 Cumanian families were settled in Hungary; they then spread over the entire Cumania.
The recently settled people were Greek-Catholic (Orthodox) with Slavonic liturgy. King Charles Robert founded the voivodship of Ungro-Vlachia in 1324, based on the Cumanians, Germans and resettled Hungarians in addition to the immigrated Vlachs. The name of Ungro-Vlachia changed later to Muntenia, in Hungarian: Havaselve (Havasalföld). The first voivod of the voivodship was Basarab, who was already in 1324 "Wallachia's only great voivod and ruler".
Louis the Great (1342-1382) organized the feudal voivodship by the name of Kara Bogdania, the later Moldavia. It was located on the northern territories of Cumania, between the eastern slopes of the Carpathian mountains and the right bank of the Prut River. By the request of Louis the Great, the Pope founded the third Catholic episcopacy at Curtea de Arge_, in Wallachia, in 1382.
According to the order of January 29, 1322 by King Charles Robert, the abbacy of Kerc 29 was placed under the protection of the king due to the "attacks of the evil".
Maria Holban dealt in detail with the argument, which had taken shape between the Transylvani Bishop and the provost of Szeben. The provost was supposed to fill the provostship's recently vacated position. On pages 262 - 263, Holban explained in detail that the abbacy of Kerc had not been endangered by the peasants nor by the actions of the Rumanian Greek-Catholics. The Transylvanian Archbishop sent an encyclical letter on November 14, 1343, in which he encouraged the people to hand back the abbacy's stolen properties and other goods, and advised them not to interfere in this abbacy's affairs (situated on the farthest border of the Hungarian kingdom). Not even from this letter one may conclude that the Rumanians rioted against the abbacy.
Maria Holban also demonstrated that the abbacy of Kolozsmonostor had been attacked by Rumanian and Hungarian peasants from the neighboring estate, not by those who had been living on the abbacy's property. Why were only the Hungarian Catholic abbacies the targets of riots and peasant revolts? Why were only the abbacies of Kerc and Kolozsmonostor attacked? Why didn't the peasants turn against Rumanian churches, monasteries or abbacies?
Another very important question can be asked. Why did Maria Holban write about the Rumanian-Hungarian, Transylvanian-Rumanian-Hungarian connections of the 13th-14th centuries? Why did she not write about connections, for example, in the 10th-11th or the 11th-12th centuries? This would be more relevant in the efforts to prove the Dacian-Roman Continuity Theory.
On the basis of the 1332 and 1337 Papal Tithe Collector's list, in his work mentioned above, Péter Pál Domokos (p.60) showed the religious composition of the people living in Transylvania on the territory of the Transylvanian Bishopric. By that time, the reign of the Árpád's had just ended with the rise of the Anjou rule. According to these data, 310,000 Hungarian Székelys, 21,000 Saxons and 18,000 Rumanians lived in Transylvania [61]. The low number of Vlachs suggests that they could not have been present among the conquered or surrendered people in the time of Árpád's conquest of Hungary, and could scarcely have any cultic places or church organizations. Even if they had been present, their number would have been insignificant. With the knowledge of these data we have to dispute the statement of the Rumanian historian Radu Popa. He said that during the 11th and 12th centuries "...headquarters, fortified courts, chapels and small monasteries, serving as spiritual centres [62] had been built by Roman Kenez families" in Máramaros, Fogaras, Bihar, Bánság and Hátszeg (Hunyad county). The statement's indefensibility was also felt by the author, who added: "...these wooden buildings were rebuilt as stone and brick buildings during the 13th-14th centuries."
As regards Máramaros, any such building is excluded by the fact that the Rumanians did not immigrate there until the last quarter of the 13th century. The old Russian chronicles tell us that Ladislas IV. the "Cumanian", being afraid of another Mongol invasion, asked for help from Rome and Constantinople in 1284-85. After evaluating his request, a large army was sent to him by Constantinople from the Ibar region, (in present day Serbia). These Vlachs, fighting together with the Hungarians, defeated the Mongols in the upper Tisza valley. Since they did not want to return to their homeland, the king settled them in Máramaros.
We know from a document dated 1335, that Mikola's son, voivod Bogdan settled with his Rumanians in Máramaros as frontier guards against the Mongols. They emigrated from here to Moldavia in 1348; moving slowly towards the south, they met the Rumanians living in Wallachia.
Beginning with the early 15th century, they occupied the territories which later (after 1859) were called Rumania (the United Principalities) and became a politically distinct nation. That is the reason why the Rumanian cultic places appeared 2-3 centuries later than the Hungarians'. Radu Popa's statements would probably be true, if he had referred to the Ibar Region in Serbia. It may be enough to refer to Romulus Dianu's work, in which he said that the monastery in Peri (Körtvélyes) had been built in 1391, at the end of the 14th century, and was a donation of voivod Drago_ [63]. In the same writing of Romulus Dianu, the author mentions that the Transylvanian Greek-Catholics (Orthodox) were considered schismatics - heretics - by the "Papal Princes". "The Bishops of Buda forbade the Rumanians the building of churches in the towns. This sentence of 1279 had a binding force of law until 1848" [64]. It is our duty to stop here, and enlighten Dianu's superficial reasoning and baseless assertions.
It can be determined that Buda did not have any bishops, not even one. Philip of Fermon, Papal legate convoked a council in the Castle of Buda in September, 1279. Dianu might have been referring to this event. The council's primary goal was the correction of the life and morals of the Polish-Hungarian churchmen and laymen, "...in order to protect the Catholic faith and clerical freedom" [65].
Dianu sarcastically condemned the "Papal Princes" and the "Bishops of Buda". The plain truth is that Philip was Bishop of Fermont, therefore he did not live in Hungary, nor was he a Hungarian. He was neither "Papal Prince" nor "Bishop of Buda". The council's verdict "...dealt mainly with the third estate, its tasks and the observance of the church services." Paragraph No. 126. deals really with the schismatical priests and the authorization of the houses of prayer and chapel buildings they wanted to erect, but not in the form as presented by Dianu. He wrote that "the Bishop of Buda had forbidden the Rumanians to build churches in the cities." Such a resolution was not passed by the council. The resolution did not say a word about the Rumanians. It simply ordered that a schismatical priest should not be allowed to "deliver divine service" in the Catholic Church, and that the schismatics could only build their temples with the authorization of the diocesan bishop. There is no word of Rumanians, cities or prohibition of church buildings. The resolution disposed of the building of houses of prayer and of chapels, not churches. According to Dianu, the resolution had binding force of law until 1848. If this had been true, "schismatical" Rumanian churches could not have been built - for example - in Kolozsvár in 1797, in Marosvásárhely in 1811-1814, etc.

Rdll12

09-11-2016, 02:28 PM

I give you until tomorrow at 12 to first answer the previous 4 posts you did not answer, before changing the subject.
Then you have untill Wednesday to provide CONTEMPORNY NON-POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SOURCES(archaelogical,written,linguistical,anthrop ological,genetical) for the shitposts damage control you made on pages 23-24

the 4 posts are:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134315-ROMANIAN-UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS-Why-are-average-romanians-so-swarthy&p=3907191&viewfull=1#post3907191

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134315-ROMANIAN-UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS-Why-are-average-romanians-so-swarthy&p=3907200&viewfull=1#post3907200

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134315-ROMANIAN-UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS-Why-are-average-romanians-so-swarthy&p=3902310&viewfull=1#post3902310

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134315-ROMANIAN-UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS-Why-are-average-romanians-so-swarthy&p=3902311&viewfull=1#post3902311

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:31 PM

The comparison of construction dates of the Hungarian and Rumanian cultic places presents important evidence against the Theory of Continuity.
Let us review the construction dates of the cultic places (churches) in the Transylvanian cities:
(Rumanian place-names in brackets.)

Place:

Hungarian:

Rumanian:

Arad (Arad)

1139

1865

Beszterce (Bistri_a)

1288

19th century

Bethlen (Beclean)

15th century

19th century

Bonchida (Bon_ida)

13th century

18th century

Brassó (Bra_ov)*

1223

1495

Fogaras (F_g_ra_)

16th century

17th century

Fugyivásárhely (O_orheiu)

13th century

18th century

Gyulafehérvár (Alba-Iulia)

11th century

1600-1601

Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca)

12th century

1796-1797

Lugos (Lugoj)

15th century

1759

Marosvásárhely

14th century

1750

(Târgu-Mure_)

Nagyenyed (Aiud)

14th century

20th century

Nagyszeben (Sibiu)

14th century

17th century

Nagyvárad (Oradea)

1093

1784

Piskolt (Pi_colt)

14th century

1869

Temesvár (Timi_oara)

1323

1936

T_vis (Teiu_)

13th century

17th century

Vizakna (Ocna Sibiului)*

13th century

16th century

Note: the churchs marked with * were built by Moldavian or Wallachian voivods on their feudal lands in Transylvania.
Several Other Hungarian Church Constructions:

Place:

Built in:

Alvinc (Vin_u de Jos)

13th century

Aranyosgerend (Luncani)

1290

Árapatak (Araci)

14th century

Boroskrakkó (Cric_u)

13th century

Bögöz (Mugeni)

13th century

Csíkménaság (Arm__eni)

13th century

Érmihályfalva (Valea lui Mihai)

1284

Gelence (Ghelin_a)

1245

Gernyeszeg (Gorne_ti)

13th century

Kerc (Câr_a)

1202

Kisdisznód (Cisn_doara)

12th century

Kistorony (Turni_or)

13th century

Kolozsmonostor (M_n__tur)

1059-1063

Magyarvista (Vi_tea)

13th century

Marosnagylak (No_lac)

1298

Nagycs_r (_ura Mare)

13th century

Nagydisznód (Cisn_die)

13th century

Réty (Reci)

11th century

Székelyszáldobos (Dobo_eni)

13th century

Torda (Turda)

12th century

Vadász (Vân_tori)

13th century

Other Rumanian Church Constructions in Transylvania

Place Name

Built in:

Alsolugas (Luga_u de Jos)

18th century

Bánlaka (Banlaca)

1700

Demsus (Densu_)

13th century

Füzesmikola (Nicula)

1700

Kristyor (Cri_tior)

1404

Lesznek (Lesnic)

14th century

Lippa (Lipova)

14th century

Nagylupsa (Lup_a)

1421

Oravicabánya (Oravi_a)

1872

Pártos (Parto_)

14th century

Ribica (Ribi_a)

1417

Szelistye (S_li_te)

18th century

Sztrigyszentgy_rgy (Streisânghergiu)

1313

Zeykfalva (Streiu)

13th century

It cannot be uninteresting when the Rumanian churches of Wallachia and Moldavia were built.
WALLACHIA

Place Name

Cultic Place

Built in

Buz_u

episcopal church

1500

C_ciulata

Cozia-monastery

1388

Câmpulung Muscel Negru Voda

monastery

14th century

Curtea de Arge_

ruler's church

14th century

Horezu

Varatec monastery

17th century

Pite_ti

ruler's church

17th century

Râmnicul S_rat

monastery-church

1691

Snagov

Snagov monastery

14th century

Tismana

monastery

14th century

Târgovi_te

ruler's church

15th century

MOLDAVIA

Place Name

Cultic Place

Built in

Arbore

church

16th century

Bac_u

church

15th century

Cotnari

church (ruins)

15th century

Dolhe_tii Mari

church

1450

Gala_i

fortified church

15th century

Putna

monastery

1466-1470

R_d_u_i (Bukovina)

church

14th century

Siret

church

1384

Sucevi_a

church

1584

Vaslui

church

1490

Vân_tor Neam_

monastery

1375

Vorone_

monastery-church

1488

On the basis of these data, it can be concluded that the Hungarian Christian churches (monasteries, abbacies) appeared at the beginning of the 11th century in Transylvania. The first church of the Rumanian population - the one in Demsus - was built towards the end of the 13th century, almost three hundred years after the first Hungarian churches.
The oldest Wallachian and Moldavian Christian churches (monasteries) were built in the second half of the 14th century. Numerous structures, however, did not follow the first church buildings until the second half of the 15th, and later centuries. This leads to the conclusion that the Vlachs, infiltrating Transylvania at the end of the 12th century and at the beginning of the 13th century, lived under better, more advanced conditions than those of their brothers living on the northern shore of the Danube. This is also in accordance with the fact that the Vlachs founded their states several centuries later than the neighboring peoples.
* * *
Referring the history of the Transylvanian Christian cultic places, we have only pointed out the circumstances that are enough to prove the untenability of the Theory of Continuity. We do not desire to praise nor to disparage anyone or anything. We only want to state and prove that those, who consider Hungarians to be late new-comers, have proclaimed war upon the historical facts. Our work proves that the Hungarians made Transylvania theirs on their own. They fused the people they found there with themselves. We bear out that Saint Stephen was an outstanding ruler. According to the opinion of his times, as well as judged by present day standards, he was a European authority and an apostle of Christianity, which has been embodying progressive conceptions. He was the first European ruler canonized by the Roman-Catholic Church.
The Theory of Dacian-Roman Continuity is untenable and baseless, among other things, because it ignores the basic and decisive question of Christian cultic places in the 10th-12th centuries.
Using the construction dates of the Christian cultic places, the existence, or the lack of them, we wanted to prove the falsehood of such doctrines. These doctrines, born of political considerations, show a totally misconceived idea of the ethnic picture of the Carpathian Basin in the first half of the 10th century. "...they revise the Carpathian basin's political and ethnical relationships in the 10th century by false data and basic errors." The romantic legend of the Dacian-Roman-Rumanian Continuity serves only political purposes without any scientifically acceptable proof.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:32 PM

Churches of the Árpádian Age
in East-Hungary
Assembled by János Gyurkó
The following documentation was written independently from Árpád Kosztin's work; it nevertheless supports his statements.
The following Appendix contains the list of the Hungarian Medieval (10th-13th Century) Churches located in the territories annexed by Rumania in 1920. We do not know any early Christian (Roman or Germanic) cultic places from the era before the Árpád's conquest of Hungary, because these places vanished without leaving a trace behind, in the storms of the Great Migrations.
The conversion of Hungarians to Christianity started right in Transylvania in the 10th Century. The first bishop of Hungary, Hierotheos - who had been brought to Transylvania from Constantinople by Gyula, - was working there. The Greek-Orthodox Catholicism did not take root in Hungary. The orthodox Church lost most of its Hungarian followers by the end of the 13th Century.
Géza, the ruling prince called Western missionaries to the country in 972. The conversion work widened under the rule of his son, Saint Stephen. The first Hungarian king ordered "...every ten village to build a church..." (decem ville ecclesiam edificent)
Most of the churches, being built after the enactment of the law, were made out of wood or other not durable material, and long since disappeared. This explains the low number of the relics from the 10th-11th centuries. Not only the village churches of lesser importance, but also several well-known, important buildings were made of perishable materials. The Benedictine Abbacy of Szentjobb (Sâniob), where Saint Stephen's right hand was protected from 1083 until the 15th Century, was still a wood building in the 11th century.
At the end of the Árpádian Age in Hungary, excluding Croatia and Slavonia, there were 10,000 - 11, 000 villages. Two thirds of them had a church. It is the peculiarity of the era in question, that sculpture and painting did not yet exist independently from architecture. That is why the whole spatial art can be discovered by studying the historic sacred buildings. The border areas of Hungary are very important in the history of art. Under the Turkish rule, the relics of the Medieval culture almost totally vanished in Central Hungary, but the remnants of historical centres can still be found in upper Northern Hungary (presently in Slovakia), Transylvania, and in the western border zone where the scale of devastation was much smaller. The territories detached from Hungary happen to be the richest in ancient buildings, ruins and relics. Since the loss of the territories in the Trianon Peace Treaty in 1920, Hungarian medieval research has been struggling with outrageous artificial obstacles.
Hungarian historians are often forced to discover the truth behind the unscientific phantasmagorias of the neighboring countries' historians, since they usually do not have the opportunity of local excavations. The best example was the Jesus Chapel at Székelyudvarhely. M. Beldie, Rumanian historian, found a coin of Ferdinand I beside a basement wall. On the basis of this find, she stated in a paper that the building originated from the 16th Century. The chapel was a small temple in Gyárosfalva, a village that no longer exists. In the 16th Century this settlement was already in its declining period, and the tax list of 1567 found only two(!) households capable of paying tax. It is unimaginable that such a weak, disintegrating community would have undertaken temple building. Moreover, such quatrefoil plan chapels are known from the 12th-13th centuries, - that in Székely-udvarhely would be the only one from the 16th century.
In the following list only those relics are listed, from which there is some kind of positive material (we can call it physical), architectual data. Churches mentioned only in documents or contemporary written sources, are left out of the catalogue, because they would have enlarged the size of the book without providing significant data for the history of architecture. Like any other collection, this cannot be complete and perfect either. Since a large part of the subject matter was attained from the literature, it should be augmented with local research.
The examination of the village churches often bring surprising results. The fact that a building that originated from the 19th century contains Medieval parts comes to light only at the time when the covering plaster is removed. This is probably true also in the case of those Transylvanian churches which are considered to have been built in modern times. Systematical protection of monuments and historical architectural excavations have not existed in Rumania since 1977. New findings and observations, being discovered during renovation of local churches, do not get published in the technical journals. The number of discovered or identified Medieval Transylvanian churches would significantly grow if systematic research could be carried out.
Papal tithe collectors rambled all over Hungary between 1332 and 1337. They collected taxes to provide enough money to restart the Crusades to the Holy Land. From their surviving accounts, it can be concluded that they found approximately 1,000 parishes in Eastern Hungary. This high number indicates that the Eastern part of the country was rebuilt during the couple of decades following the Tatar attacks. Rumanian historiography has misinterpreted also these data. In his work titled Ce este Transilvania?(What is Transylvania?) - in the Hungarian translation Mit jelent Erdély? (1984), Stefan Pascu, academician, wrote on the basis of the Papal tithe collector's list, that in the 13th century two thirds of Eastern-Hungary's population had already been Rumanian.
The author accepted that the places, listed by the tithe collectors with Roman-Catholic parishes, had been populated mainly by Hungarians and Germans. He assumed, however, that only Rumanian Orthodox population lived in every other village. The basis of this distorsion was that Pascu did not pay attention to the outparishes, being on the lowest level of the Church organization which did not have a priest. The organization on the lowest level of the Church was the same as today. Thus, almost every parish had one or two out-parishes belonging to it, where, in many cases, also a church existed. At the end of the Árpádian Age (1301), approx-imately 2,000 churches existed on the territories in question. Since the devastations caused by the Turks in central Hungary were much more severe than those in Transylvania, the ratio of the surviving and known relics should be higher in Transylvania than in other parts of the country - so far it is, however, even lower.
Witnesses of the Hungarian history in Transylvania remain silent. A lot of them can be silenced forever. Academician Pascu's primitive confabulation can be disproved by simple counting the listed relics in the Appendix.
70% of the early churches in the observed territories are Hungarian, while 28% German and 2% are Rumanian artworks. Several relics of the Hungarian population survived from the conversion period (for example Csanád.) The German immigration started in the middle of the 12th century, while Rumanians did not immigrate to Transylvania until the beginning of the 13th century, as proven also by our documentation. No Orthodox Rumanian Church built before the 13th century exists - and never existed - on the territory of today's Rumania.
Daco-Roman-Rumanian Continuity, the "two-thousand -year-old dream" vanishes in the daylight of undeniable facts.
CHURCHES OF FORMER EASTERN HUNGARY

Hungarian name

Rumanian name

Built in

Abafája

Apalina

13th century

Abrudbánya

Abrud

13th century

Ákos

Aca_

13th century

Albis

Albi_

13th century

Alcina

Al_ina

12th century

Algyógy

Geoagiu de Jos

13th century

Almakerék

Malicrav

13th century

Alvinc

Vin_u de Jos

13th century

Aranyosgerend

Luncani

13th century

Aranyospolyán

Poiana

13-15th

Árkos*

Arcu_

13th century

Asszonyfalva

Axente Sever

13-15th

Baca*

Ba_a

12-13th

Bádok

B_de_ti

13th century

Bálványosváralja

Ungura_

13th century

Bályok

Balc

13th century

Bánffyhunyad

Huedin

13th century

Bányabükk

Vâlcele

13th century

Barcarozsnyó-Vár

Râ_nov

12th century

Barcaszentpéter *

Sîmpetru

13th century

Belényesszentmiklós

Sânnicolau

13th century

Beszterce

Bistri_a

13th century

Bibarcfalva

Bibor_eni

13th century

Bihar

Biharia

13th century

Bihardiószeg

Diosig

12th century

Bodonkút

Vechea

12th century

Bögöz

Mugeni

13-14th

Bokajalfalu

B_c_in_i

13th century

Bonchida

Bon_ida

13-18th

Borbánd

B_r_bant

13th century

(*): demolished

Hungarian name

Rumanian name

Built in:

Borosjen_

Ineu

12th century

Boroskrakkó

Cric_u

13th century

Botháza

Boteni

13th century

Brassó-Cenk

Bra_ov-Tâmpa

12th century

Brassó-Szt. Bertalan

Bra_ov

13th century

Brulya

Bruiu

13th century

Cege

_aga

13th century

Csernáton-Szentkert

Cernat

12-13th century

Csicsókeresztúr

Criste_tii

13-15th century

Csíkdelne

Delni_a

13-15th century

Csíkrákos

Racu

13th century

Csíkszentdomokos

Sândominic

13th century

Csíkszentkirály

Sâncr_inei

13th century

Csíkszereda-SomlyóMiercurea Ciuc

13th century

Csomak_rös

Chiuru_

13th century

Csomaköz

Ciume_ti

13th century

Dálnok

Dalnic

13-16th

Dés-Óvár

Dej

13th century

Déva*

Deva

13th century

Doborka

Dobârca

13th century

Dolmány

Daia

13th century

Domokos

D_m_cu_eni

13th century

Egeres

Aghire_u

13th century

Egres

Igri_

12th century

Egrest_

Agri_teu

13th century

Érábrány

Abram

13th century

Erd_f_le-Dobópuszta

Filia

13th century

Erked

Archita

13-14th

Feketehalom

Codlea

13-16th

Felek

Avrig

13th century

Felmér

Felmer

13th century

Fels_boldogfalva

Feliceni

13th century

Fels_tök

Tiocul de Sus

13th century

Firtosváralja-Vár

Firto_u

13th century

Földvár

Feldioara

13-14th

Fugyivásárhely

O_orhei

13th century

Garat

Dacia

13th century

Gelence

Ghelin_a

13-15th

Gidófalva

Ghidfal_u

14th century

Gogánváralja

Goganvarolea

13-15th

Guraszáda

Gurasada

13th century

Gyergyószentmiklós

Gheorgheni

13th

Gyergyóalfalu

Joseni

13-18th

Gyulafehérvár

Alba Iulia

11th century

Gyulafehérvár

Alba Iulia

11-13th

(*): demolished

Hungarian name

Rumanian name

Built in

Hajó

Haieu

13th century

Halmágy

Halmeag

13th century

Harcó

H_r__u

13th century

Harina

Herina

13th century

Hegyközszentimre

Sântimreu

12th century

Hegyközújlak

Uileacu de Munte

13-18th

Holcmány

Hosman

13-18th

Höltövény

Halchiu

13-19th

Homoród

Homorod

11-18th

Homorodalmás

Mere_ti

13th century

Homoróddaróc

Drau_eni

13th century

Homoródjánosfalva

Ione_ti

13-14th

Homorodszentmárton*

Martini_

13th

Ikafalva

Icafal_u

13th century

Jára-Alsójára

Iara

13th century

Kaca

Ca_a

13-15th

Kajántó

Chinteni

13th century

Kakasfalva

Hamba

13-16th

Kalotadámos

Domo_u

13-14th

Kaplony

C_pleni

12-19th

Káposztásszentmiklós

Nicole_ti

13th

Karacsonyfalva

Cr_ciunel

13th century

Kecsed

Aluni_

13-15th

Kerc

Câr_a

13th century

Keresztényfalva

Cristian

13-15th

Kereszténysziget

Cristian

13th century

Ketesd

Teti_u

13-15th

Kézdiszentlélek-Perk_

Sânzieni

13th century

Kide

Chidea

13th century

Kiscs_r

_ura Mica

13-15th

Kisdisznód

Cisn_dioara

13th century

Kisenyed

Sângatin

13th century

Kiskászon

Casinu Mic

13th century

Kispeleske*

Peli_or

13th century

Kispetri

Petrincel

13th century

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:34 PM

Hungarian name

Rumanian name

Built in

Kisprázsmár

Toarcla

13th century

Kistorony

Turni_or

13th century

Kökös

Chichis

13-16th

Kolozs*

Cojocna

13th century

Kolozspata

Pata

13th century

Kolozsvár-Centrum

Cluj-Napoca

11-13th

Kolozsvár-Monostor

Cluj-Napoca

11-13th

Kolozsvár-Óvár

Cluj-Napoca

13-15th

Komlód

Comlod

13th century

Köröskisjen_

Ineu

13th century

Köröstárkány

Tarcaia

13th century

Kozárvár

Cuzdrioara

13th century

Krasznacégény

Teghea

13th century

Krasznarecse

Recea

13-15th

Küküll_vár

Cetatea de Balt_

12-13th

Kürpöd

Chirpar

13th century

Leses

Dealu Frumos

13th century

Magyarborzás

Bozie_

13-15th

Magyarderzse

Dârja

13th century

Magyarfenes

Vlaha

13th century

Magyargyer_monostor

M_n_stireni

13th century

Magyarkapus

C_pu_u Mare

13th century

Magyarkiskapus

C_pu_u Mic

13-16th

Magyarlapád

Lopadea Nou_

13-15th

Magyarpéterfalva

Petrisat

13th century

Magyarrégen

Reghin-Sat

13th century

Magyarsárd

_ardu

13th century

Magyarszentpál

Sânpaul

13th century

Magyarvalkó

V_leni

13-17th

Magyarvista

Vi_tea

13th century

Magyarzsombor

Zimbor

13th century

Maksa*

Moac_a

13th century

Malomfalva

More_ti

12th century

Malomvíz-Kolcvár

Râu de Mori

13th century

(*): demolished

Hungarian name

Rumanian name

Built in

Nagyvárad-Vár

Oradea

11th century

Néma

Nima

13th century

Nyárádszentanna

Sântana Nirajului

13-14th

Nyárádszentimre

Eremieni

13-17th

Nyárádszentlászló

Sânvasii

13-14th

Nyárádszentmárton

Mitre_ti

13th century

Nyomát

Maiad

12-13th

Oklánd

Ocland

13-16th

Oltszakadát

S_c_date

13th century

_raljaboldogfalva

Sântamaria Orlea

13-14th

Ördöng_sfüzes

Fize_u Gherlii

13th century

Oroszfája

Orosfaia

12-13th

_scsanád

Cenad

10th century

_scsanád*

Cenad

13th century

Öthalom

Vladimirescu

12th century

Ottomány

Otomani

13-14th

Páncélcseh

Panticeu

13th century

Pankota

Pâncota

12th century

Páva

Pava

13th century

Pelbárthida

P_rhida

12-14th

Pele

Becheni

13-19th

Péterfalva

Petre_ti

13th century

Petres

Petri_

13th century

Pókakeresztur

P_cureni

13-14th

Prázsmár

Prejmer

13th century

Pusztaszentmárton

Martine_ti

13th century

Radna-Óradna

Rodna

13th century

Réty

Reci

11-13th

Roszcs_r

Rusciori

13th century

Rugonfalva

Rug_ne_ti

13-15th

Sajószentandrás

_ieu-Sfântu

12-13th

Sajóudvarhely

_ieu-Odorhei

13th century

Sálya

_oala

12th century

Sárvár

_aula

13th century

Segesvár-Kolostor

Sighi_oara

13-15th

Segesvár-Várhegy

Sighi_oara

13-15th

(*): demolished

Hungarian name

Rumanian name

Built in

Sellenberg

_elimb_r

13th century

Sepsikilyén

Chilieni

13-18th

Sepsik_röspatak

Valea Cri_ului

13-17th

Sepsibeseny_

Be_ineu (P_dureni)

13-16th

Siter

_i_tirea

12-13th

Somlyóújlak

Uileace _imleului

13th century

Sövényfalva

Corne_ti

13-15th

Szamoscikó

_ic_u

13th century

Szamosfalva

Some_eni

13-15th

Szamosújvárnémeti

Mintiu Gherlei

13-14th

Szarvaskend

Corne_ti

13th century

Szászfehéregyháza

Viscri

12-13th

Szászhermány

H_rman

13-14th

Szászkeresztúr*

Cri_

13th century

Szászkézd

Saschiz

13-15th

Szásznyíres

Nire_

13th century

Szászorbó

Gârbova

13th century

Szászpián

Pianu de Jos

13-17th

Szászsáros

_aro_ pe Târnava

12th century

Szászsebes

Sebe_

12-15th

Szászszentlászló

Laslea

13th century

Szászújfalu

Nou

13th century

Szászveresmart

Rotbav

13th century

Szászvolkány

Vulcan

13-19th

Százhalom

Movile

13-16th

Szebenrécse

Reciu

13th century

Szék

Sic

13th century

Székelyderzs

Dârjiu

13-16th

Székelykeresztúr

Cristuru Secuiesc

13-15th

Székelyszáldobos

Dobo_eni

13th century

Székelyszentmiklós

Nicoleni

13-15th

Székelyudvarhely

Odorheiu Secuiesc

13th century

Székelyudvarhely-Vár Odorheiu

Secuiesc

13th century

Székelyvaja

Valenii

13-17th

Szentágota

Agnita

13-15th

(*): demolished

Hungarian name
Rumanian name

Built in

M_n_stirea

Szentbenedek

12th century

Szenterzsébet

Gusteri_a

12-13th

Szentjob

Sâniob

11-15th

Szentlélek

Bisericani

13-15th

Szerdahely

Miercurea Sibiului

13-15th

Szilágyborzás

Bozie_

13-18th

Szind

S_ndule_ti

13th century

Sztrigyszentgy_rgy

Streisângeorgiu

13th century

Tamáshida

T_masda

13th century

Tompaháza

R_de_ti

13th century

Torda-Ótorda

Turda

13-15th

Tóti

T_uteu

13-17th

Tövis

Teiu_

13th century

Türe

Turea

13-17th

Ugra

Ungra

13th century

Újváros

Noi_tat

13-19th

Váralmás

Alma_u

12th century

Várfalva

Moldovene_ti

13-17th

Várhegy

Chinari

13th century

Vérd

V_rd

13-14th

Veresmart

Ro_ia

13th century

Vessz_d

Veseud

13th century

Vidombák

Ghimbav

13th century

Vízakna

Ocna Sibiului

13-15th

Vurpód

Vurp_r

13th century

Zabola

Z_bala

13-15th

Zalán

Z_lan

13-14th

Zeikfalva

Strei

13th century

Zsuk-Alsózsuk

Jucu de Jos

13th century

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:34 PM

VIII
Transylvanian Fiefs of Vlach (Rumanian) Voivods;
Rumanian Cultic Places
In the 13th-16th centuries, the voivods of neighboring Wallachia (Havaselve) and Moldavia were vassals of the Hungarian king, sometimes also of the Transylvanian vajda, with shorter or longer interruptions. (Transylvania, before it developed into a Principality, was governed by Hungarian royal clerks, vajda-s [voivods]). In the Feudal System the lord gave an estate to his vassal who enjoyed the benefits of it as long as he fulfilled the obligations of the relationship. The feudal lord was counting on the vassal's services in peace, as well as in wartime. The vassal was obliged to give military service in addition to the mandatory hospitality and taxes, paid mainly in agricultural products and animals.
We have to survey the contemporary history of Wallachia and Moldavia to get more information about the allegiance between the Vlach voivods and the Hungarian kings.
The Mongol invasion in 1241 basically changed the political conditions in south eastern Europe. The Tatars entrenched themselves in the western and north-western coastal districts of the Black Sea, in the former principality of Kiev, in Moldavia, and in the eastern territories of the second Bulgarian Empire. They swept away the Cumanians, and destroyed most of Hungary. After they settled down in the territories mentioned, they kept raiding their neighbors, Hungarians and Vlachs alike [68].
Béla IV. tried to keep the Mongols far from the borders of Hungary. In Transylvania, he reorganized the Székely borderguard units. He built strong fortresses, and made efforts to strengthen the southern borders. In Szörény, the power of the bán (warden of the southern approaches of Hungary) proved to be weak in keeping the Tatars away. That is why the king donated the Banate of Szörény,20 with its neighboring territories, to the Johannite Order of Knights, and considered the whole of Wallachia to be his fief. The papacy agreed with the Hungarian king's southern expansion. With the Hungarian expansion, the Pope cherished the hope of further Roman-Catholic gains.
The Turk menace, however, approached. The Turks secured a firm foothold on the Balkan Peninsula, and also endangered the security of Wallachia. The voivods of Wallachia built up family ties and friendly relationships with the Bulgarian and Serb rulers. The Turk expansion could have been stopped only by the South Eastern European people's collaboration. The Papacy and the Hungarian foreign policy - influenced by religious considerations - supporting it, were obstacles of such unity.
Louis the Great's Romanizing foreign policy on the Balkans, with the unquestionable intention towards the political influence behind it, brought only sham results. With his campaigns he only weakened the people of the Balkans and made it easier for the Turks to expand towards the yet free Balkan states, as well as towards Hungary.
Greek-Orthodoxism successfully resisted the Hungarian Romanization. In 1359 the first Greek-Orthodox arch-bishopry was founded in Wallachia. The Greek Kritopulos Hiakintos was named the head of this, and he called himself the archbishop of Ungro-Vlachia, i.e. of Wallachia. The foundation of the first Wallachian archbishopric was soon followed by the establishment of the Greek-Orthodox episcopacy of Szörény. Orthodox monastery buildings were constructed. Abbay Nicodim, who immigrated from Serbia to Wallachia, founded the monastery of Vodi_a and later the famous monastery of Tismana.
In the 13th century, the northern part of the other Vlach province, Moldavia developed as part of the principality of Kiev. Later it belonged to the sphere of the principality of Galicia. The Mongols subjugated most of the Russians. Moldavia was also under Mongol dominance, from where the Tatars often broke into and robbed throughout the Transylvanian cities.
In 1345, Louis the Great, whose reign made possible the country's military strengthening, cleaned Moldavia of the Mongols. When the Tatars were ousted, the King organized a military border zone for the defense of Transylvania. The center of the new frontier zone was Baia. Drago_, the voivod of Máramaros, who participated in the fighting, was placed at the head of it. He was the first voivod of Moldavia under the federal authority of the Hungarian King. Moldavia lived under such authority until 1359, when voivod Bogdan came into power. Bogdan ousted voivod Balk, vassal of the Hungarian King and founded the first independent Vlach principality.
The territory of Moldavia became in this period well defined. The international trade played a very important role in its strengthening. The Hungarian King as well as the Polish King was interested in the security of such trade. The tax income and material interest, related to such commerce, made understandable the ambitions of the Hungarian and Polish kings toward the feudal reign of Moldavia.
Since Poland could enforce its influence because of its geographical location, those in power in Moldavia soon recognized the suzerainity rights of the Polish king. The rulers of Moldavia protected themselves with the well tested methods of Wallachia against the Romanizing ambitions of the Polish kings. They, like the Wallachian rulers, organized the Greek-Orthodox Church. The first monastery was built with the financial assistance of the ruler Peter Mu_at (1375-1391) in Neam_. The construction was carried out by the monks of the Serbian Archbishop, Nicodim, who had already established the basis of the cloistered life in Wallachia. [69]
In both voivodships, the Vlach leadership helped with the organization of the Greek-Orthodox Church against the spread of Catholicism, and the political influence of the Hungarian and Polish kings, for the defense of their country's independence. They spared neither their monetary nor political assistance. In exchange and recognition, the Church rendered strong assistance against the discordant feudal aspirations and popular movements.
The kenezships and voivodships were united by Basarab, who was already in 1324 "the only voivod and ruler of all Wallachia". He also occupied the Banate of Szörény. He came into conflict with King Robert Charles, who had been the suzerain of his and had supported his wars against the Mongols. The king started a military campaign against Basarab, but was badly beaten in 1330, near the village of Posada. Even though the castle of Sz_rény remained in Hungarian hands, Basarab's victory ensured the Wallachian independence.
A couple of years later, Basarab could not do anything but join the Hungarian king again, due to the looming Mongol danger. After the death of King Robert Charles, the feudal relationship was restored with the kings' successor, Louis the Great.
During the times of Basarab's grandson, Vladislav, the Hungarian-Wallachian relationship further improved. The king gave the castle of Sz_rény to Vladislav and donated the estates of Transylvanian Fogaras and Omlás. Vladislav recognized the Hungarian king as his suzerain. At the cost of feudal relationship, the Wallachian reigning prince, even as vassal of the king, gained a foothold into the Eastern part of Hungarian Transylvania with his household; nobles, serfs and slaves.
The development of both principalities was markedly hindered by the Turk advancement and conquests. Almost immediately after the establishment of the states, the fight against the Turk conquests begun.
After their victorious battle of Rigómez_ (Kosovo-polje) in 1389, the Turks meant the most immediate danger to Wallachia, whose voivod was Mircea cel B_trân (Old Mircea). In 1394, a large Turkish army begun to conquer Wallachia under the leadership of Sultan Bajazid. Mircea could not defeat the Turks, but repulsed them in the famous battle of Rovine. Mircea withdrew and escaped to Transylvania, where he formed an alliance with Zsigmond of Luxembourg (1368-1437, Hungarian king from 1387) in Brassó to push back the Turks. Under the terms of the treaty, Mircea recognized Zsigmond and the Hungarian kings in general, as his suzerain.
In the meantime, the Turks annexed Wallachia and enthroned a pro-Turk voivod. Zsigmond, fulfilling the conditions of the treaty, hastened to the help of Mircea. They together defeated the pro-Turk voivod in 1395. Mircea regained his throne.
King Zsigmond gathered an army of crusaders in 1396. He tried to oust the Turks from the Balkan Peninsula, but was badly defeated at Nikápoly34. Mircea pulled back his troops north of the Danube and prepared himself to fend off the Turk attack. He was successful. He defeated the Turks two times, in 1397 and 1400.
The Turks occupied two fortresses of Mircea, the fortress of Turnu M_gurele and Giurgiu along the Danube in 1416. In spite of the new Turkish pressure, due to other pressing problems, King Zsigmond neglected his previous alliance. He used all his forces to carry out his Western plans. Mircea made a pledge to pay yearly taxes to the Turks - the independence of Wallachia ended. Turkish raids occurred more frequently along the Hungarian borders. The Turks put their hands on Fort Galambóc in 1428, and Fort Szendr_ in 1439.
The Turks now menaced also the other Vlach voivodship, Moldavia. Alexandru cel Bun (Alexander the Good, 1400-1432), and Petru Aron (1451-1457) voivods were fighting the Turks with alternating luck. Finally, voivod Aron declared Moldavia a country under the authority of the Turks. Moldavia too became the feudal principality of the Turks.
Voivod _tefan cel Mare (Stephen the Great, 1457-1505) did not resign himself to the situation. In one and a half decade, he made Moldavia one of the most important states of southeastern Europe. In his foreign policy, he aimed to ensure Hungarian and Polish help against the Turks [70]. He defeated the Turkish army with Hungarian and Polish assistance in 1475 at Vaslui, but was defeated in 1476 near R_zboieni. After his loss he marched to the north behind the line of strong Moldavian castles. Facing the united Rumanian-Hungarian army, the Sultan retreated. He even had to give up Wallachia.
Eight years later a war broke out between the Hungarian king, Mathias (1458 - 1490) and the German emperor. Mathias was forced to conclude a peace treaty with the Turks, who profiting from the occasion, immediately annexed the two big trade centers of Moldavia, the cities of Chilia and Cetatea Alb_.
Voivod Stephen was still able to destroy two Turkish armies in 1485 and 1486, but he could not achieve more significant results. The forces of Moldavia were not enough to resist the military might of the strengthened Turkish Empire. The ruling prince made efforts to establish an anti-Turk coalition. He started negotiations with king Mathias. Mathias gave him two Transylvanian forts, Csicsó and Küküll_vár, flee to in case he was defeated in a battle. Thus another Rumanian ruler, with all his household, nobles, serfs and slaves, won a foothold in the eastern part of Transylvania.
King Mathias died in 1490. The country was in decay. In spite of the Hungarian help, voivod Stephen recognized the Polish king as his feudal lord.
During the times of Stephen's descendants the Turkish pressure increased. There were twenty-six transfers of sovereignty in the principality during a hundred-year period. There were only two extraordinary persons among the rulers. Petru Rare_ (1527-1538), ally of János Szapolyai and Ioan Vod_ cel Viteaz (voivod John the Gallant), who ruled between 1572 and 1574. John liberated Br_ila in Wallachia. The Sultan, being afraid of an uprising of the Christians living south of the Danube against the Turkish rule, sent 100.000 armed men to Moldavia. After courageous fights, Voivod John was forced to capitulate. Despite the treaty, the Turks massacred the prisoners of war and killed the reigning prince. We have already have pointed out that Louis the Great donated the properties of Fogaras and Omlás to Vladislav, Wallachian Voivod. Fogaras and Sebesvár were owned by Mircea cel B_trân. On the basis of the treaty with king Mathias, the owner of Csicsóvár and Küküll_vár was Stephen the Great. Later, his successor, Petru Rare_, inherited his possessions.
The Hungarian king János I. (1526-1540) donated the entire Beszterce area with the Radna Valley to Petru Rare_, in addition to the forts of Csicsóvár and Küküll_vár. The voivod founded an Orthodox Episcopacy on his fief at Rév. The Bishops came from Moldavia, and governed this Church between 1523 and 1561. - The Rumanian Orthodox Church of Barcarozsnyó (Rum. Râ_nov) was built with the help of the Wallachian ruler in the 14th century. Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Gallant, 1593-1601) restored it.
The construction of a stone church began in Brassó in 1495, with the help of Vlad C_lug_rul, Wallachian Voivod. This church was between 1519 and 1521 enlarged with the assistance of Neagoe Basarab. Aron Vod_, Moldavian ruler, decorated its walls with frescos in 1594. The building, erected in the courtyard of the church, included the old Rumanian School. The school building replaced an older wooden structure, and was built in 1597 with the monetary help of Aron Vod_. The teaching was in Slavonic (the language of the Romanian Orthodox Church) before 1559, then it was changed to Rumanian. The building of Rumanian churches and monasteries continued in Transylvania with the help and financial assistance of the voivodes of the two Rumanian lands.
Finally, we have to remember that István Báthory (1533-1586), Transylvanian ruler, founded the Orthodox Episcopacy of Gyulafehérvár. According to a decree of the Parliament, the bishop was elected by the Rumanian priests and approved by the ruler. The bishop asked - after having received the approval of the voivod - the Wallachian Orthodox bishop of Târgovi_te35 to consecrate him. The Rumanian Orthodox Bishop of Gyulafehérvár named himself, after 1577, the Archbishop of Transylvania. Every Rumanian Orthodox priest in Transylvania was placed under his authority.
In the light of these historical facts, it may be stated that the Carpathians did not make out an obstacle between the Rumanians living in Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania. The present day community of Rumanian historians tries to forge an argument for the theory of Vlach continuity in Transylvania from the fact that Rumanian voivods, who were in a difficult situation because of the Tatar and later the Turkish attacks, were helped by the Hungarian kings. This help included most of the time granting of temporary possession of land, in exchange for their services to the Hungarian Kingdom, and safe heaven in times of defeats and temporary setbacks. Rumanian historiography does not shrink back to degrade the two Rumanian states' voivods' well documented vassal relationship with the Transylvanian vajda-s and the Hungarian kings, to the level of "political orientation" and "wider trade relationships".
It would be enough to mention only one example to refute this concept. Voivod Mircea cel B_trân stayed in the Transylvanian city of Brassó as a refugee on March 7, 1395. He wanted to make an arrangement with his superior, the Hungarian King, Zsigmond of Luxembourg, against the Turks. He had a place to which to flee, because the Wallachian voivods have had access to the fiefs of Fogaras and Omlás for more than hundred years. In return of the use of the estates, the voivods, as vassals, had to fulfil several services to their masters. There is no other way to understand this relationship. It is possible that in retrospect, and by using todays' standards, these centuries of Hungarian-Vlach relationship made out a painful period in the history of the Rumanian people, but it cannot constitute the basis or cause for deliberate falsification of history.
Radu Popa refers to excavations in Transylvania carried out in 1964-65 (p. 7.). He states that - although the written sources do not mention Rumanian semi-autonomous kenezships and voivodships until the 13th, and especially the 14th centuries - in Máramaros, Fogaras, Bihar, Bánság and Hátszeg, a feudal Rumanian society had existed. According to Mr. Popa, the objects, discovered in the excavations gave evidence of Rumanian court chapels, and small monasteries from the 11th and 12th Centuries. The construction were supported by the Rumanian kenez families' money. In the 13th-14th centuries they were reconstructed by stone and brick like everywhere else in Europe.
Popa, however, did not give any evidence of the existence of these church centres in the 11th-12th centuries. He could not prove that such buildings had been financed by the Rumanian kenez families. He did not have any data about the names of the leaders of the church centres. He was unable to name a single place where these supposedly chapel or monastery ruins could have been found, even though he was referring to official documents. If person- and place names did not occur in those official documents - then what would they contain?
Popa's assumptions serve only one goal: to slip the origin of the cultic places built in Transylvania during the 13th and 14th centuries to the 11th-12th centuries, from which period there are no relics of Rumanian origin. He passes over the fiefs and the senior-vassal relationship between the Hungarian kings, Transylvanian vajda-s (later princes), and the Wallachian and Moldavian voivods. However, these well documented historical facts - not the allegged Dacian-Rumanian Continuity - have contributed to the ease with which the Wallachian, Moldavian and Transylvanian Rumanians were able to pass the Carpathian Mountains.

Rdll12

09-11-2016, 02:37 PM

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:55 PM

The more you spam your shitposts the more you will have to provice sources, the more you will have to work.

I give you until tomorrow at 12 to first answer the previous 4 posts you did not answer, before changing the subject.
Then you have untill Wednesday to provide CONTEMPORNY NON-POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SOURCES(archaelogical,written,linguistical,anthrop ological,genetical) for the shitposts damage control you made on pages 23-24 and now page 25.For EACH SENTENCE source.
the first 4 posts you did not answer before changing subject:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134315-ROMANIAN-UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS-Why-are-average-romanians-so-swarthy&p=3907191&viewfull=1#post3907191

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134315-ROMANIAN-UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS-Why-are-average-romanians-so-swarthy&p=3907200&viewfull=1#post3907200

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134315-ROMANIAN-UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS-Why-are-average-romanians-so-swarthy&p=3902310&viewfull=1#post3902310

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134315-ROMANIAN-UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS-Why-are-average-romanians-so-swarthy&p=3902311&viewfull=1#post3902311

Of course scholars, who did not support your fantastic nationalistic daco-gypsy-romanian continuty theories are all wrong, or pseudo scientific....

Until this day, the world is waiting for a single contemporary (4th century to 11th century) proofs for the survival of dacians after the withdrawal of multi-ethnic roman legions.
Until this day, the world is waiting for a single basic vocabulary of dacian language... (There aren't)
Until this day, the world is waiting for a single proof for the development of dacian language into a neo-latino language.... there aren't proof for that.
Until this day, the world is waiting for borrowed words from the proven historic populations of the area Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, türkic Pechenegs and turkic Cumans etc.... (we can found only ottoman era loanwords in rumanian)
Until this day, the world is waiting for a single contemporary (4th century to 11th century) written records for neo-latin speaking population in the area...
Until this day, the world is waiting for a single remained ruins for vlach churches in the area. The simple claiming of all church buildings of earlier centuries as romanians or vlachs is similar ridiculous stupidity , like to claiming the roman era pannonia and dark age era church buildings of Former Pannonia (modern Hungary) as "Hungarian buildings" before the Hungarian conquest.

Until this day, there are not any written or material proofs for the existence of vlach population in the region before the 13th century.

Stears

09-11-2016, 02:58 PM

Since all medieval sources were studied and republished countless times since the 1800s by the historians, I doubt that you can found any new info, which can prove your claims.

Rdll12

09-11-2016, 02:58 PM

Of course scholars, who did not support your fantastic nationalistic daco-gypsy-romanian continuty theories are all wrong, or pseudo scientific....

Until this day, the world is waiting for a single contemporary (4th century to 11th century) proofs for the survival of dacians after the withdrawal of multi-ethnic roman legions.
Until this day, the world is waiting for a single basic vocabulary of dacian language... (There aren't)
Until this day, the world is waiting for a single proof for the development of dacian language into a neo-latino language.... there aren't proof for that.
Until this day, the world is waiting for borrowed words from the proven historic populations of the area Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, türkic Pechenegs and turkic Cumans etc.... (we can found only ottoman era loanwords in romanian)
Until this day, the world is waiting for a single contemporary (4th century to 11th century) written records for neo-latin speaking population in the area...
Until this day, the world is waiting for a single remained ruins for vlach churches in the area. The simple claiming of all church buildings of earlier centuries as romanians or vlachs is similar ridiculous stupidity , like to claiming the roman era pannonia and dark age era church buildings of Former Pannonia (Hungary) as Hungarian buildings before the Hungarian conquest.

Until this day, there are not any written or material proofs for the existence of vlachs before the 13th century.

Now you also have to provide source for this accusations.

Provide sources for each of your accusations but first you ned to provide source for your previous shitposts from page 23-24-25 not before answering the 4 posts from the original subject, that you refused to answer.

Your time is ticking, so I wouldn't waste time.

>
Since all medieval sources were studied and republished countless times since the 1800s by the historians, I doubt that you can found any new info, which can prove your claims.

1.The bruden of proof is on you.
2.Now I also need source for how since 1800 the sources were changed.

Stears

09-11-2016, 03:18 PM

Now you also have to provide source for this accusations.

Provide sources for each of your accusations but first you ned to provide source for your previous shitposts from page 23-24-25 not before answering the 4 posts from the original subject, that you refused to answer.

Your time is ticking, so I wouldn't waste time.

>

1.The bruden of proof is on you.
2.Now I also need source for how since 1800 the sources were changed.

You must provide contemporary written or material proofs for the existence of vlach settlements before the 1200 in the area. Since it was not successful for the romanian academic historians until this day... I doubt that you can do it.