How big is the ancient Roman input in Romania?

[xripkan]

Is the Romanian people a mix of Dacians and Romans or just latinized Dacians?

[gıulıoımpa]

Dacians were killed or fled, the Roman input should be considered differently than "italic" input (which if i remember correctly is around 10%)
since the armies that settled in those territories were were mostly made of Illyrians soldiers.

Inviato dal mio SM-G389F utilizzando Tapatalk

[xripkan]

Dacians were killed or fled, the Roman input should be considered differently than "italic" input (which if i remember correctly is around 10%)
since the armies that settled in those territories were were mostly made of Illyrians soldiers.

Inviato dal mio SM-G389F utilizzando Tapatalk

I have just found that in Wikipedia:

Colonists
See also: Roman colonies and Roman citizenship
There were varying degrees of Romanization throughout Roman Dacia. The most Romanized segment was the region along the Danube, which was predominately under imperial administration, albeit in a form that was partially barbarized. The population beyond this zone, having lived with the Roman legions before their withdrawal, were substantially Romanized. The final zone, consisting of the northern portions of Maramures, Crisana, and Moldavia, stood at the edges of Roman Dacia. Although its people did not have Roman legions stationed among them, they were still nominally under the control of Rome, politically, socially, and economically. These were the areas in which resided the Carpi, often referred to as the Free Dacians.[154]

In an attempt to fill the cities, cultivate the fields, and mine the ore, a large-scale attempt at colonization took place with colonists coming in "from all over the Roman world".[155] The colonists were a heterogeneous mix:[1] of the some 3,000 names preserved in inscriptions found by the 1990s, 74% (c. 2,200) were Latin, 14% (c. 420) were Greek, 4% (c. 120) were Illyrian, 2.3% (c. 70) were Celtic, 2% (c. 60) were Thraco-Dacian, and another 2% (c. 60) were Semites from Syria.[156] Regardless of their place of origin, the settlers and colonists were a physical manifestation of Roman civilisation and imperial culture, bringing with them the most effective Romanizing mechanism: the use of Latin as the new lingua franca.[1]

Based on that I suppose that the remaining Dcians mixed with Roman settlers and other Balkan settlers and ancient Dacia transformed gradually to Romania.

[Kelmendasi]

Dacians were killed or fled, the Roman input should be considered differently than "italic" input (which if i remember correctly is around 10%)
since the armies that settled in those territories were were mostly made of Illyrians soldiers.

Inviato dal mio SM-G389F utilizzando Tapatalk
Really? Interesting, I would've thought that they were Italic troops but Illyrians do make sense.

[Leto]

Slavs took over the region a few centuries later.

[xripkan]

Slavs took over the region a few centuries later.

Yes but it was the only place which Slavic languages were not predominated.

[Kelmendasi]

Yes but it was the only place which Slavic languages were not predominated.
The Slavs did leave a large genetic and linguistic impact on the Romanians.

[gıulıoımpa]

Really? Interesting, I would've thought that they were Italic troops but Illyrians do make sense.This is how it was explained to me by a Romanian, i thought the bulk would have been italic like you before.


Inviato dal mio SM-G389F utilizzando Tapatalk

[Kelmendasi]

This is how it was explained to me by a Romanian, i thought the bulk would have been italic like you before.


Inviato dal mio SM-G389F utilizzando Tapatalk
Yh it seems that one main legion was from Dalmatia, whilst some others from Pannonia.

[Шуло]

I am shure that impact of true Romans (from Italy) is equal to 0

[Jana]

I am shure that impact of true Romans (from Italy) is equal to 0

Not true, Romania has more Roman/Italian input than any other north balkan country.

[Carpatz]

The legions settled in Dacia were indeed mostly from neighboring provinces. But I've also seen a lot of Romanians get non-noise levels of Italian on 23andme, even though 23andme claims to go only 200-300 years back. I myself get 4.7%.

[Freeroostah]

I have just found that in Wikipedia:

Colonists
See also: Roman colonies and Roman citizenship
There were varying degrees of Romanization throughout Roman Dacia. The most Romanized segment was the region along the Danube, which was predominately under imperial administration, albeit in a form that was partially barbarized. The population beyond this zone, having lived with the Roman legions before their withdrawal, were substantially Romanized. The final zone, consisting of the northern portions of Maramures, Crisana, and Moldavia, stood at the edges of Roman Dacia. Although its people did not have Roman legions stationed among them, they were still nominally under the control of Rome, politically, socially, and economically. These were the areas in which resided the Carpi, often referred to as the Free Dacians.[154]

In an attempt to fill the cities, cultivate the fields, and mine the ore, a large-scale attempt at colonization took place with colonists coming in "from all over the Roman world".[155] The colonists were a heterogeneous mix:[1] of the some 3,000 names preserved in inscriptions found by the 1990s, 74% (c. 2,200) were Latin, 14% (c. 420) were Greek, 4% (c. 120) were Illyrian, 2.3% (c. 70) were Celtic, 2% (c. 60) were Thraco-Dacian, and another 2% (c. 60) were Semites from Syria.[156] Regardless of their place of origin, the settlers and colonists were a physical manifestation of Roman civilisation and imperial culture, bringing with them the most effective Romanizing mechanism: the use of Latin as the new lingua franca.[1]

Based on that I suppose that the remaining Dcians mixed with Roman settlers and other Balkan settlers and ancient Dacia transformed gradually to Romania.

Maybe thats why Romanians are very diverse regarding their phenotypes

[Leto]

Romanians have much more Slavic blood. R1a is common there for this reason. Not to mention the huge cultural impact of Slavs.

[Pubiczar]

Romanians have much more Slavic blood. R1a is common there for this reason. Not to mention the huge cultural impact of Slavs.

But this is not a thread about, if Romanians have more Slavic or Roman blood, the question is explicitly about how big is the Roman input in Romania!
So let's stick on topic will you...

[Pubiczar]

I would say is significant.
R1b-U152 is present in Romania along with some other lines also present in Italy.
Also by my observation regarding the phenotypes of the Romanians. there are clear signs of so called Roman or Italian like input among them.

[Mens-Sarda]

Yh it seems that one main legion was from Dalmatia, whilst some others from Pannonia.

There were at least 5 legions stationed in Dacia and nearby provinces after the reign of Traianus.

The map below shows the position of every Roman legion in 125 A.D. during the reign of Hadrianus.



https://i.postimg.cc/m13Dg4Xn/Cjbbf-RG6-Wb-HTe710pulo6-Vf-kk-Fo-SVk-X-M1z26a-Bzc-A.png (https://postimg.cc/m13Dg4Xn)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Roman_Empire_125.png


Watching the map we see that two legions are stationed in southern Dacia, along the Danube. Legio IV Flavia Felix, Legio VII Claudia, while one legion is in northern Dacia, Legio XIII Gemina. While three legions are stationed at the south-eastern border of Dacia along the Danube : Legio I Italica, Legio XI Claudia, Legio V Macedonica.
We see also two fleet bases along the Danube at the border with Dacia, the Classis Pannonica and Classis Moesica.

It's worth to note that many of these legions remained stationed in those provinces for centuries becoming part of those territories. Legio IV Flavia Felix (active until the half of Vth century A.D.), Legio V Macedonica (existed until the Byzantine age in VIIth century), Legio VII Claudia (end of IVth century), Legio XIII Gemina (half of Vth century), Legio I Italica (half of Vth century), Legio XI Claudia (early Vth century).

[Carpatz]

Romanians have much more Slavic blood. R1a is common there for this reason. Not to mention the huge cultural impact of Slavs.

Considering the proximity of the northern parts of Romania to the Slavic Urheimat, I'd reckon that at least some of the Balto-Slavic-like input is pre-Slavic expansion.

[Pribislav]

Romans committed genocide against the Dacians. Some Dacians which survived mixed with Roman colonists. Roman-Dacian mixed people were widespred from Dacia by emperor Aurelian in 271. If few of them stayaed they were destroyed by Huns, Goths and Avars.
When Slavs arrived to modern Romania there was no any Latin speaking people there.
In 12th century started Vlach migration from Bulgaria towards the modern Romania. Latin speaking ancestors of Romanian were latinized south of Danube river. They arrived to Romania 800 years ago as sheperds.
Proto East-Romance language was formed in modern Bulgaria. Romanian, Meglinitic and Aromanian language were formed in Bulgaria. Ancestors of Megleno-Vlachs and Aromanians migrated from Bulgaria towards the south most likely in 9th-10th century. Latin speaking ancestors of Romanians migrated to modern Romania in few waves from 12th to 14th century. They assimilated local Slavs, Cumans and Pechenegs there and that was the base for formation of Romanian nation later.

[Carpatz]

Romans committed genocide against the Dacians. Some Dacians which survived mixed with Roman colonists. Roman-Dacian mixed people were widespred from Dacia by emperor Aurelian in 271. If few of them stayaed they were destroyed by Huns, Goths and Avars.
When Slavs arrived to modern Romania there was no any Latin speaking people there.
In 12th century started Vlach migration from Bulgaria towards the modern Romania. Latin speaking ancestors of Romanian were latinized south of Danube river. They arrived to Romania 800 years ago as sheperds.
Proto East-Romance language was formed in modern Bulgaria. Romanian, Meglinitic and Aromanian language were formed in Bulgaria. Ancestors of Megleno-Vlachs and Aromanians migrated from Bulgaria towards the south most likely in 9th-10th century. Latin speaking ancestors of Romanians migrated to modern Romania in few waves from 12th to 14th century. They assimilated local Slavs, Cumans and Pechenegs there and that was the base for formation of Romanian nation later.

May I ask for a source, friend? An actual one, not your blog please.

[Carpatz]

Interesting how a large scale 12th century migration went unrecorded in history until now when It's been discovered by expert internet historians.

[Pribislav]

May I ask for a source, friend? An actual one, not your blog please.

Vlach sheperd groups as momads were coming to Carphathians from the south since 9th century. But they were not inhabitants of Romania, they coming as sheperds to feed livestock and the returned to Bulgaria.
Vlach sheperd fluctations on the line Pindus-Rhodopes-Carpathians was huge in the middle age.

Do you have sources of existence of Latin speking people in modern Romania in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th century? Where Vlachs were hidden from 271 to 12th century in present day Romania? Why they were not recorder as inhabitants of modern Romania for this period of 900 years?

There is a tons of sources about existence of Latin speaking people before 12th century south of Danube river. From early middle age to 12th century as inhabitants of present day Romania are recorded Huns, Goths, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Cumans and Pechenegs, but not Vlachs.
There was a lot of Vlachs in Bulgaria and southern Balkans before 12th century and not in Romania. If we using the logic than conclusion is that Vlachs migrated from south to Romania since 12th century.
Have you ever heard for Bulgarian-Vlach empire? Have you ever heard for Megali Vlachia in Thessaly?

Do you think that romanization of Dacia was possible for only 160 years of Roman rule?

Areas south of Danube were 500 years under the Romans, Dacia was only 160 years under the Romans. Roman influence was much stronger south of Danube and for longer time than in Dacia.
Where was the higher chance for romanization of locals, in Bulgaria (500 years under the Romans) or in Romania (160 years under the Romans on only 1/3 of present day territory)?

[Pribislav]

One of the evidences that Latin speaking ancestors of Romanians were latinized south of Danube river and not in Dacia is similarities between Romanian and Albanians language.
In which area ancestors of Romanians and Bulgarians live together? Albanians never lived in Dacia...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8cjoJPkKg

[Mingle]

One of the evidences that Latin speaking ancestors of Romanians were latinized south of Danube river and not in Dacia is similarities between Romanian and Albanians language.
In which area ancestors of Romanians and Bulgarians live together? Albanians never lived in Dacia...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8cjoJPkKg

There's a theory that the Albanian language is descended from Thracian (as opposed to Illyrian) and that their ancestors migrated from the eastern Balkans in ancient times.

[Carpatz]

Do you have sources of existence of Latin speking people in modern Romania in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th century?

Yes. During Maurice's campaign against the Avars in 587, taken place in what is today's southern Romania, what was recorded was the first instance of proto-Romanian language:

"A beast of burden had thrown off his load, and somebody yelled to his master to reset it, saying in the language of the land: “torna, torna, fratre”. The master of the animal didn't hear the shout, but the people heard him, and believing that they are attacked by the enemy, started running, shouting loudly: “torna, torna”."

The Gesta Hungarorum and Nestor's Kievan Rus chronicle state that the dominant population of Transylvania at the time of Magyar conquest, in circa 900 AD, were Vlachs.


Do you think that romanization of Dacia was possible for only 160 years of Roman rule?
Dacia was heavily settled with already Romanized people, while the native inhabitants were assimilated. There's sources that confirm this already posted in this thread.

If you're implying that the greatest empire the world has ever seen can't assimilate some scattered defeated barbarians, how could a ragtag group of shepherds do it, and why would they immigrate north to a no-mans land of invading steppe warriors?

[Carpatz]

One of the evidences that Latin speaking ancestors of Romanians were latinized south of Danube river and not in Dacia is similarities between Romanian and Albanians language.
In which area ancestors of Romanians and Bulgarians live together? Albanians never lived in Dacia..

A dozen cognates doesn't prove much. You said that Romanians originate in Bulgaria, but when did Albanians live in Thrace? And even if they did, weren't Dacians a Thracian people?

[Pribislav]

There's a theory that the Albanian language is descended from Thracian (as opposed to Illyrian) and that their ancestors migrated from the eastern Balkans in ancient times.

According to one theory Albanians came to present day central Albania in Mati region from Bulgaria as auxiliary troops of Bulgarian tsar Simeon in late 9th or early 10th century.

I have put here few results of y dna where Albanians and Bulgarians have common ancestor 1200-1400 years ago.

[StonyArabia]

I think it was cultural and linguistic impact mostly. Romanians look a lot like Bulgarians than they do Italians

[Carpatz]

According to one theory Albanians came to present day central Albania in Mati region from Bulgaria as auxiliary troops of Bulgarian tsar Simeon in late 9th or early 10th century.

I have put here few results of y dna where Albanians and Bulgarians have common ancestor 1200-1400 years ago.

If Albanians come from Bulgaria, then they must have Thracian heritage, so wouldn't that explain the cognates between Romanian and Albanian? The language spoken in Thrace and Dacia was the same.

[StonyArabia]

There's a theory that the Albanian language is descended from Thracian (as opposed to Illyrian) and that their ancestors migrated from the eastern Balkans in ancient times.

Sounds plausible, unlike the Caucasian theory which is quite idiotic to say the least.

[Pribislav]

A dozen cognates doesn't prove much. You said that Romanians originate in Bulgaria, but when did Albanians live in Thrace? And even if they did, weren't Dacians a Thracian people?

Albanian language probably came from non-romanized Thracian tribe Bessi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessi

Besa in Albanian culture might be conection with Bessi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_(Albanian_culture)

Albanian language show more similarities with eastern Romance languages - Romanian, Aromanian and Meglenitic than with Dalmatian language.
Dalmatian language was language of romanized Illyrians and belong to Italo-Dalmatian branch of Romance languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language

Common paternal ancestor of this Bulgarian and Albanian guy lived roughly 1400 years ago https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-BY16680/

[Mingle]

According to one theory Albanians came to present day central Albania in Mati region from Bulgaria as auxiliary troops of Bulgarian tsar Simeon in late 9th or early 10th century.

I have put here few results of y dna where Albanians and Bulgarians have common ancestor 1200-1400 years ago.This seems unlikely. I don't think a small group of soldiers would been responsible for the transplantation of an entire ethnicity in such a short period of time. The Principality of Arber was founded in the 12th century so Albanians were well established there by then.

If they were of Thracian origin, then they probably would have gradually migrated to the west before the Middle Ages. But the similarities could also be explained via both Thracian & Albanian/Illyrian descending from a common Proto-Thraco-Illyrian language rather than either Albanians migrating from the east or Romanians migrating from the west/south.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Carpatz]

Albanian language probably came from non-romanized Thracian tribe Bessi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessi

Besa in Albanian culture might be conection with Bessi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_(Albanian_culture)

Albanian language show more similarities with eastern Romance languasges - Romanian, Aromanian and Meglenitic than with Dalmatian language.
Dalmatian language was language of romanized Illyrians and belong to Italo-Dalmatian branch of Romance languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language

Common paternal ancestor of this Bulgarian and Albanian guy ligved roughly 1400 years ago https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-BY16680/

I guess what you say might be true and that would explain the cognates. But one example of common y-dna isn't enough proof. There were Albanian settlers in Bulgaria during the Ottoman period.

[Pribislav]

If Albanians come from Bulgaria, then they must have Thracian heritage, so wouldn't that explain the cognates between Romanian and Albanian? The language spoken in Thrace and Dacia was the same.

Some similar or same words in Albanian and Romanian are borrowed Slavic and Turkish words, but majoriry are Latin.
Traditional (not modern) Latin words in Albanian language are mostly conected with eastern Romance languages.

There is few common words in Albanian and Romanian language of probably paleo-Balkanic origin such as Albanian Bukur, and Romanian Bucura.

https://en.wikionary.org/wiki/bukur (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bukur)

https://en.wikionary.org/wiki/bucura (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bucura)

[Pribislav]

I guess what you say might be true and that would explain the cognates. But one example of common y-dna isn't enough proof. There were Albanian settlers in Bulgaria during the Ottoman period.

Look at the matches between Albanians, Bulgarians and Romanians in one of the most important "Albanian" haplogroup https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y10789/

Albanian-Bulgarian match in J-Y82533 down https://www.yfull.com/tree/j-m241/

[Pribislav]

This seems unlikely. I don't think a small group of soldiers would been responsible for the transplantation of an entire ethnicity in such a short period of time. The Principality of Arber was founded in the 12th century so Albanians were well established there by then.

If they were of Thracian origin, then they probably would have gradually migrated to the west before the Middle Ages. But the similarities could also be explained via both Thracian & Albanian/Illyrian descending from a common Proto-Thraco-Illyrian language rather than either Albanians migrating from the east or Romanians migrating from the west/south.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

Albanians in the middle age were small ethnic group which lived on the small territory.

Demographic and territorial expansion of Albanian started under the Ottomans.
Most of Albanians were converted to Islam. They had high natality and Ottomans settled them on Serbian Christian territories such as Kosovo, Sandžak and Toplica, and to Macedonia also. Ottomans gave land to Albanian muslim colonists.

[Carpatz]

Look at the matches between Albanians, Bulgarians and Romanians in one of the most important Albanian haplogroup https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y10789/

Albanian-Bulgarian match in J-Y82533 down https://www.yfull.com/tree/j-m241/

I also see Ukraine in that same clade. Are they shiptars too? There's also plenty of J2 and R1b clades that Serbs and Bulgars share. These are all neighboring countries and It's ridiculous to assume that one or two people having y-dna in common is proof of mass population movement.

[Mens-Sarda]

One of the evidences that Latin speaking ancestors of Romanians were latinized south of Danube river and not in Dacia is similarities between Romanian and Albanians language.
In which area ancestors of Romanians and Bulgarians live together? Albanians never lived in Dacia...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8cjoJPkKg

Many of those cognates are simply common IE vocabulary or simply derived from Latin.



ara - ara = arare (Latin, Italian, Sardinian)
eshte - este = est (Latin), este, est (Sardinian)
inalte - inalt = in altus (Latin = above), in altu (Sardinian), in alto (Italian)
shpirt - spirt = spiritus (Latin), ispiritu (Sardinian), spirito (Italian)
I mete - ametit = ammattito (Italian = become crazy)
pus - put = puteus (Latin), puttu (Sardinian), pozzo (Italian)

[Crn Volk]

Serbs from Croatia are nothing more then Vlach peasants indoctrined by Serbian nationalism through the Serbian Orthodox church.

[Pribislav]

I also see Ukraine in that same clade. Are they shiptars too? There's also plenty of J2 and R1b clades that Serbs and Bulgars share. These are all neighboring countries and It's ridiculous to assume that one or two people having y-dna in common is proof of mass population movement.

Ukrainians with this branch up are not Shiptars. They are most likely slavized Vlachs.
I talking about Thrace as original homeland of proto-Vlachs and proto-Albanians. Vlachs migrated from Thrace to Romania and some of them even to Ukraine. Albanians migrated from Thrace to present day Albania.
Vlachs which stayed in Thrace were slavo-bulgarized.

Montenegrins have a mathes with Albanians in some brances of some haplogroups because few Montenegrin tribes are of Albanian origin. If we don't count Montenegrins other Serbs don't share y dna with Albanians, unlike Bulgarians. There is more logic that there is more similarities between Serbs and Albanians than between Bulgarians and Albanians because of geographic position. Regardless geography Bulgarians share quite more common paternal lines with Albanians than Serbs.

[Pribislav]

Serbs from Croatia are nothing more then Vlach peasants indoctrined by Serbian nationalism through the Serbian Orthodox church.

Fyromaniac idiot, Serbs from Croatia (Krajina) are at least paleo-Balkanic inlfuenced genetically of all Serbs.

This are resuluts of one Krajina (Lika) Serb, he is about average for Krajina Serbs.
https://i.imgur.com/a66M1h2.png
https://i.imgur.com/QurAEqu.png
https://i.imgur.com/TO77x5E.png
https://i.imgur.com/ljAxevh.png

[Pribislav]

Fyromaniac idiot, Serbs from Croatia (Krajina) are at least paleo-Balkanic inlfuenced genetically of all Serbs.

This are resuluts of one Krajina (Lika) Serb, he is about average for Krajina Serbs.
https://i.imgur.com/a66M1h2.png
https://i.imgur.com/QurAEqu.png
https://i.imgur.com/TO77x5E.png
https://i.imgur.com/ljAxevh.png

His haplogroup is I2-PH908.

[Crn Volk]

His haplogroup is I2-PH908.

Must be Orthodox Croat

[Pribislav]

Must be Orthodox Croat

Was Nikola Tesla also brainwashed Orthodox Croatian, based on his y dna? :coffee:
https://i.imgur.com/rStn9hL.jpg


Native villages of Nikola Tesla and guy up whose results I put are 20km from each other.

[Kelmendasi]

Albanian language probably came from non-romanized Thracian tribe Bessi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessi

Besa in Albanian culture might be conection with Bessi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_(Albanian_culture)

Albanian language show more similarities with eastern Romance languages - Romanian, Aromanian and Meglenitic than with Dalmatian language.
Dalmatian language was language of romanized Illyrians and belong to Italo-Dalmatian branch of Romance languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language

Common paternal ancestor of this Bulgarian and Albanian guy lived roughly 1400 years ago https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-BY16680/
Not that likely. The way the Thracian language structures things, going by the little evidence we have, is the opposite of how Albanian does. As well as other factors such as ancient Doric being the main source of Greek loans in Albanian which suggests more west Balkan origin. Plus, the Bessi were south of the Jirecek line, something people forget, whilst Proto-Albanians are believed to have come from somewhere north of it. How do you know that Bessi is linked to Albanian Besa and that it isn't a coincidence? Besa is an Albanian code of honour, do you have evidence that an ethnonym such as Bessi linked to this code? Similarities with eastern Romance is believed to come from contact with Vlachs as both Proto-Albanians and they were nomadic, so contact happened. The proto-Albanians are believed to have existed far before 1,400 years going by the works of Orel.

[Kelmendasi]

Look at the matches between Albanians, Bulgarians and Romanians in one of the most important "Albanian" haplogroup https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y10789/

Albanian-Bulgarian match in J-Y82533 down https://www.yfull.com/tree/j-m241/
The Romanian that is under R-Z2705 is likely of Albanian origin, Albanian mercenaries migrated to Romania in the middle ages. Same is possible for the Bulgarian. J-Y82533 has been found among a Bulgarian from Albania, likely to have Albanian paternal origin.

[Pribislav]

@ Kelmendasi

I know from real life example when Albanian broke Besa wich he gave.

It seems that Besa means nothing for modern Albanians.

[Kelmendasi]

I also see Ukraine in that same clade. Are they shiptars too? There's also plenty of J2 and R1b clades that Serbs and Bulgars share. These are all neighboring countries and It's ridiculous to assume that one or two people having y-dna in common is proof of mass population movement.
The Ukrainian is from Odessa, a region that has had a historical Albanian minority. They migrated there as mercenaries same as in Romania

[Kelmendasi]

@ Kelmendasi

I know from real life example when Albanian broke Besa wich he gave.

It seems that Besa means nothing for modern Albanians.
Yh right, one Albanian = every Albanian. Great logic there. Anyways, we're not living in the middle ages, we don't need to follow Besa or the Kanun as fanatically as we did then.

[Kelmendasi]

Ukrainians with this branch up are not Shiptars. They are most likely slavized Vlachs.
I talking about Thrace as original homeland of proto-Vlachs and proto-Albanians. Vlachs migrated from Thrace to Romania and some of them even to Ukraine. Albanians migrated from Thrace to present day Albania.
Vlachs which stayed in Thrace were slavo-bulgarized.

Montenegrins have a mathes with Albanians in some brances of some haplogroups because few Montenegrin tribes are of Albanian origin. If we don't count Montenegrins other Serbs don't share y dna with Albanians, unlike Bulgarians. There is more logic that there is more similarities between Serbs and Albanians than between Bulgarians and Albanians because of geographic position. Regardless geography Bulgarians share quite more common paternal lines with Albanians than Serbs.
The Ukrainians in that branch do have Albanian origin, they are from Odessa/Budjak, a region that was settled by Albanian mercenaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians_in_Ukraine. Vlachs don't necessarily have an original homeland, any group can become Vlach. Thrace being the homeland of Albanians is unlikely in terms of linguistics, archaeology and genetics. There are Serbo-Croats that match Albanians in terms of Ydna, iirc Bosnia had the closest E-V13 loci with Albania. I'm pretty sure Serbo-Montenegrins share more

[Pribislav]

The Ukrainians in that branch do have Albanian origin, they are from Odessa/Budjak, a region that was settled by Albanian mercenaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians_in_Ukraine. Vlachs don't necessarily have an original homeland, any group can become Vlach. Thrace being the homeland of Albanians is unlikely in terms of linguistics, archaeology and genetics. There are Serbo-Croats that match Albanians in terms of Ydna, iirc Bosnia had the closest E-V13 loci with Albania. I'm pretty sure Serbo-Montenegrins share more

Montenegrins and Sandžaklis share more, but not Serbs, Bosniaks and Croatians.

Listen to Fyromian user *****, E-V13 is more diverse in the eastern than in western Balkans. He is right about it.

[Kelmendasi]

This seems unlikely. I don't think a small group of soldiers would been responsible for the transplantation of an entire ethnicity in such a short period of time. The Principality of Arber was founded in the 12th century so Albanians were well established there by then.

If they were of Thracian origin, then they probably would have gradually migrated to the west before the Middle Ages. But the similarities could also be explained via both Thracian & Albanian/Illyrian descending from a common Proto-Thraco-Illyrian language rather than either Albanians migrating from the east or Romanians migrating from the west/south.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
This. It is highly unlikely that a mercenary group would have such a large genetic impact in the area or even become the dominant ethnicity in that area. For example the Bulgar Turks who were a warrior group that established themselves in Bulgaria over the Slavs, have hardly impacted the Bulgarian(Slavic) genome as well as them never really becoming the dominant ethnicity in the area, causing them to be assimilated and replaced by the Slavs. Surely the same would've happened to the Albanians. It's likely that some of our distant ancestors came from the more eastern areas of the Balkans such as Moesia, but I don't think the ethnos occurred their or that majority of our ancestry is from that area.

[Kelmendasi]

Montenegrins and Sandžaklis share more, but not Serbs, Bosniaks and Croatians.

Listen to Fyromian user *****, E-V13 is more diverse in the eastern than in western Balkans. He is right about it.
It isn't more diverse in the eastern Balkans. It is indeed very diverse in places like Macedonia and Bulgaria, but it is more so in the area between Albania, Montenegro and Serbia that is more diverse according to admins from the E-M35 project. I have seen some studies place highest diversity in Anatolia and other places in the western Balkans, but I think the admins are correct. Plus, more basal clades of V13 come from the west Balkans. As I said, I saw a study show that Bosnia had a closer Loci with Albanian V13.

[Pribislav]

It isn't more diverse in the eastern Balkans. It is indeed very diverse in places like Macedonia and Bulgaria, but it is more so in the area between Albania, Montenegro and Serbia that is more diverse according to admins from the E-M35 project. I have seen some studies place highest diversity in Anatolia and other places in the western Balkans, but I think the admins are correct. Plus, more basal clades of V13 come from the west Balkans. As I said, I saw a study show that Bosnia had a closer Loci with Albanian V13.

Muslim part of Bosnia if full of Sanžakli imigrants from the last few decades. Only in Sarajevo and around there is a 150 000 Sanžakli muslims.

Bulgaria is eastern Balkans.
Macedonia is in the middle of Balkans, but more eastern than in western if we talking only about categories east/west.

Fully western Balkan countries are Bosnia and Croatia.

[Mingle]

Vlach sheperd groups as momads were coming to Carphathians from the south since 9th century. But they were not inhabitants of Romania, they coming as sheperds to feed livestock and the returned to Bulgaria.
Vlach sheperd fluctations on the line Pindus-Rhodopes-Carpathians was huge in the middle age.

Do you have sources of existence of Latin speking people in modern Romania in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th century? Where Vlachs were hidden from 271 to 12th century in present day Romania? Why they were not recorder as inhabitants of modern Romania for this period of 900 years?

There is a tons of sources about existence of Latin speaking people before 12th century south of Danube river. From early middle age to 12th century as inhabitants of present day Romania are recorded Huns, Goths, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Cumans and Pechenegs, but not Vlachs.
There was a lot of Vlachs in Bulgaria and southern Balkans before 12th century and not in Romania. If we using the logic than conclusion is that Vlachs migrated from south to Romania since 12th century.
Have you ever heard for Bulgarian-Vlach empire? Have you ever heard for Megali Vlachia in Thessaly?

Do you think that romanization of Dacia was possible for only 160 years of Roman rule?

Areas south of Danube were 500 years under the Romans, Dacia was only 160 years under the Romans. Roman influence was much stronger south of Danube and for longer time than in Dacia.
Where was the higher chance for romanization of locals, in Bulgaria (500 years under the Romans) or in Romania (160 years under the Romans on only 1/3 of present day territory)?


It was built in the 7th century with additions made in the 13th century on the site of a 2nd-century Roman temple, with some materials from the Dacian Sarmizegetusa fortress. It has a stone tower above the naos. Inside the church there are 15th century mural paintings that show Jesus wearing Romanian traditional clothes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densu%C8%99_Church


Milliarium of Aiton is an ancient Roman milestone (milliarium) discovered in the 1758 in Aiton commune, near Cluj-Napoca, Romania.[1] Dating from 108 AD, shortly after the Roman conquest of Dacia, the milestone shows the construction of the road from Potaissa to Napoca, by demand of the Emperor Trajan. It indicates the distance of ten thousand feet (P.M.X.) to Potaissa. This is the first epigraphical attestation of the settlements of Potaissa and Napoca in Roman Dacia.

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


Glycon (Ancient Greek: Γλύκων Glýkon, gen: Γλύκωνος Glýkonos), also spelled Glykon, was an ancient snake god. Having a large and influential cult within the Roman Empire in the 2nd century

One single marble statue of Glycon snake was found in excavations done under the site of the former Pallas railway station in Constanța, Romania. The statue is 0.66 metres high and the snake dimension is 4.76 metres.[4] The Romanians commemorated this unique sculpture on a postage stamp in 1974, and on a bank note of 10.000 lei in 1994.

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


Inscriptions and sculpture in Dacia reveal a wide variety in matters of religion. Deities of the official state religion of Rome appear alongside those originating in Greece, Asia Minor, and Western Europe;[192] of these, 43.5% have Latin names.[1] The major gods of the Roman pantheon are all represented in Dacia:[192] Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Venus, Apollo, Liber, Libera, and others.[193] The Roman god Silvanus was of unusual importance, second only to Jupiter.[194] He was frequently referred to in Dacia with the titles silvester and domesticus, which were also used in Pannonia.[195]

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


Porolissum was an ancient Roman city in Dacia. Established as a military camp in 106 during Trajan's Dacian Wars, the city quickly grew through trade with the native Dacians and became the capital of the province Dacia Porolissensis in 124. The site is one of the largest and best-preserved archaeological sites in modern-day Romania. It is 8 km away from the modern city of Zalău, in Moigrad-Porolissum village, Mirsid Commune, Sălaj County.

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


The first settlements in the area can be found in the time of the Dacians, in the 1st century BC, as shown by archeological discoveries. After the Roman conquest, the Romans built the fort of Germisara in the 2nd century, however, it kept the original Dacian name. Germisara was defended by the Legio XIII Gemina.

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

The above links should be enough proof of Roman settlement in Dacia in the second century (the earliest you asked for was the fourth century).

When the Romans conquered "Dacia", they only conquered King Decebal's kingdom. Outside of his kingdom still lived Dacians such as the Costobocs in northern Transylvania or the Tyragetae in Bessarabia. The Roman province of Dacia in 106 AD was just comprised of eastern & southeastern Transylvania, Banat, and Oltenia. Most Dacians did live in the Roman province of Dacia though. The Dacians who lived in lands outside this administered province were known as "Free Dacians". Their lands took about 130 years to incorporate into Roman Dacia. So peripheral Dacian lands took 130 years to conquer. Other parts of modern day Romania were inhabited by Sarmatians btw. In total, the conquest took 160+ years.

After Dacia was conquered, it was named Dacia Felix, meaning "Dacia the Blessed". Romans from other parts of the empire were told that Dacia Felix was a rich and beautiful land with a lot of opportunities so began coming there en masse. From there on, a lot of Romans began migrating to Dacia to help develop the place into a proper Roman city. These were largely civil servants, engineers, doctors, and other specialists. But also normal citizens as well. There were also a large number of military men imported there to help defend it against the Free Dacians and other invading "barbarians". About 100 fortifications were set up. The Romans that settled in Dacia in the early second century ended up living there and starting a family. They mixed with Dacians and created a hybrid Daco-Roman people (although the Roman genetic contribution may have been minimal, their cultural contribution was immense).

Towards the mid-late third century when the Roman Empire was in trouble, Emperor Aurelian took out a lot of Romans from Dacia, but at this point, Dacia had already been Romanized to a large extent. Dacians were an illiterate people with the only references to their language being Greek sources talking about them. The Romance-speaking people mostly lived in towns whereas the villagers were mostly Dacian-speaking. Over time, the Geto-Dacians adopted the Latin language since the people speaking it were upperclassmen without any need to learn Dacian. Its like how Vlachs in Serbia learn Serbian but Serbs don't learn Aromanian. For the peasant/low class Dacians to communicate with the upper class, they had to learn Latin. I don't think that 100% of Romania's population became Latin-speaking by the time Aurelian pulled out, but the ruling aristocrats were Latin-speaking Romans and they would have finished the job after Dacia was separated from the Roman Empire. I also heard that Roman missionaries went to Dacia after the split.

By the way, the examples you gave of Thessalia and Bulgaria were from the late 12th century which isn't that much before the existence of the Principality of Wallachia. But there are references to Vlachs living in modern day Romania's borders within Gesta Hungarorum and Nestor's Primary Chronicle like Carpatz already mentioned, in addition to the references I posted in the beginning.

[Mingle]

And even if they did, weren't Dacians a Thracian people?

The language spoken in Thrace and Dacia was the same.

There were minor linguistic differences between Thracian proper and Geto-Dacian, especially in place names, but the reason that the Geto-Dacians are considered a Thracian subgroup is because the Greeks considered them as such. There's no consensus on whether they were Thracians or not. The Greeks could have just clubbed together an unrelated people because they were similar from their point of view. But I believe the general consensus is that they were a Thracian subgroup.

[Papastratosels26]

Latinized Dacians imo.

Στάλθηκε από το G3311 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Blondie]

Interesting how a large scale 12th century migration went unrecorded in history until now when It's been discovered by expert internet historians.

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.

[Blondie]

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‒ may be properly regarded as early Hungarians. 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 *****ukh 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[i]", 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: 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.

[Blondie]

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.

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.

[Blondie]

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.

[Blondie]

History 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...

Early vlachs/romanians

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Balkan1stCce.jpg

Their expansion:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Vlach-expansion.jpg

The Carpathian Basin under Attila:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-Hun.jpg

Carpathian Basin in 5. century:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-5cce.jpg

Carpathian Basin in 6. century:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-6cce.jpg

[Blondie]

Carpathian Basin in 7. century:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-7cce.jpg

Carpathian Basin in 9. century:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-9cce.jpg

In 10. century:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-10cce.jpg

In 11. century:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-11cce.jpg

In 12. century:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-12cce.jpg

In 13. century:

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-13cce.jpg

[Carpatz]

Nice copypasta Stears. If I search it on google I get some Hungarian blog. In reality, primary sources support Daco-Roman continuity. Just linking you to the first written Hungarian chronicle, The Gesta Hungarorum, negates all that rubbish.

[Blondie]

Ethnic map of Hungary in 11. century, before the mongol destruction:

https://i.imgur.com/uv10RYT.jpg

Ethnic map of Hungary, after the mongol destruction, 15. century:

https://72varmegye.eu/images/jatekok/29/monemz15w.jpg

Ethnic map of Hungary after the ottoman destruction, 17-20. century:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/c2/75/3cc275a53d16654a1ec315ec274ff8c4.jpg

[Blondie]

Nice copypasta Stears. If I search it on google I get some Hungarian blog. In reality, primary sources support Daco-Roman continuity. Just linking you to the first written Hungarian chronicle, The Gesta Hungarorum, negates all that rubbish.

I'm not stears ;)

[Token]

Probably significant, but Romans were pretty good at replacing culture and language without leaving much genetic input. The case of Romania can be compared to Iberia.

[Joso]

Probably significant, but Romans were pretty good at replacing culture and language without leaving much genetic input. The case of Romania can be compared to Iberia.

That would explain a lot

[Mens-Sarda]

Probably significant, but Romans were pretty good at replacing culture and language without leaving much genetic input. The case of Romania can be compared to Iberia.


That would explain a lot


The same thing that happened in Sardinia, we are a pre-IE people that speaks the Romance language closest to Vulgar Latin. The only clues of the original paleo-Sardinian language are the hundreds of non-IE toponyms scattered throughout the island and various non-IE words apparently related to Basque present in actual Sardinian vocabulary.

[Leto]

The same thing that happened in Sardinia, we are a pre-IE people that speaks the Romance language closest to Vulgar Latin. The only clues of the original paleo-Sardinian language are the hundreds of non-IE toponyms scattered throughout the island and various non-IE words apparently related to Basque present in actual Sardinian vocabulary.
Do you not identify as Romance?

[Mens-Sarda]

Do you not identify as Romance?

From a linguistic point of view yes, from a genetic point of view no, Sardinians are pre-IE people, we just speak a IE language because of the accidents of history.

[Pribislav]

From a linguistic point of view yes, from a genetic point of view no, Sardinians are pre-IE people, we just speak a IE language because of the accidents of history.

What about Sardinians who are R1b?

[Dick]

we just speak a IE language because of the accidents of history.

Lol :biggrin:

[Mens-Sarda]

What about Sardinians who are R1b?

Good question, I don't know. They are about 25% mostly in north eastern Sardinia where there was an immigration from Corsica after XVIth century.

[Leto]

From a linguistic point of view yes, from a genetic point of view no, Sardinians are pre-IE people, we just speak a IE language because of the accidents of history.
Well, the island has been Romance-speaking for over 2,000 years. At that time neither Romania, nor France spoke Latin.

[Mens-Sarda]

Well, the island has been Romance-speaking for over 2,000 years. At that time neither Romania, nor France spoke Latin.

It's probable that the paleo-Sardinian language continued to be spoken for centuries beside Latin, and that the language survived longer in the mountainous areas at the center of the island, these areas always remained out of Roman control, even during the Byzantine age, until early VIIIth century A.D. , we know from the notes of that epoch that the central areas of the island were still pagan in VIIth century, and many Byzantine soldiers were stationed at the center of the island and along the borders with the area named Barbaria, to protect the romanized territories.

[Seya]

Well, the island has been Romance-speaking for over 2,000 years. At that time neither Romania, nor France spoke Latin.

there was no romania two thousand years ago

[cyberlorian]

there was no romania two thousand years ago

If I am not wrong, you have scored a high percentage of Italian on ancestry. Right?

[Pribislav]

there was no romania two thousand years ago

Do you know y dna of your paternal line? I'm just curious.

[Mingle]

From a linguistic point of view yes, from a genetic point of view no, Sardinians are pre-IE people, we just speak a IE language because of the accidents of history.Do you know why Corsica and other European islands are not some huge genetic outliers like Sardinia is?

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Mens-Sarda]

Do you know why Corsica and other European islands are not some huge genetic outliers like Sardinia is?

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

I think it depends from a series of reasons. Corsica for example it's little, just 1/3 of Sardinia, its territory it's very mountainous and really sparsely populated, with only 300.000 total inhabitants vs the 1.7 millions of Sardinia (that is however one of the most underpopulated regions of Europe). Corsica is nearer to the continent than Sardinia, so reaching Corsica in ancient times was easier than reaching Sardinia. Which instead is situated in the middle of the sea; to reach Sardinia you had to be a skilled sailor, and you had to navigate through the open sea, or reach Sardinia through Corsica, but the strait that divides Sardinia and Corsica has always been one of the most dangerous passages, expecially in winter when the northwestern winds can blow through the strait at 100 or 150Kmh. Imagine a little wooden boat crossing that strait when the wind blows.

[Seya]

Do you know y dna of your paternal line? I'm just curious.

unfortunately no :/

[Impaler]

The legions settled in Dacia were indeed mostly from neighboring provinces. But I've also seen a lot of Romanians get non-noise levels of Italian on 23andme, even though 23andme claims to go only 200-300 years back. I myself get 4.7%.

I am the boss here, I score 11,4% Italian. :D

[Seya]

If I am not wrong, you have scored a high percentage of Italian on ancestry. Right?

it depends on the platform. this is the highest:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/30wmot2.jpg

[Mingle]

Have you ever heard for Bulgarian-Vlach empire? Have you ever heard for Megali Vlachia in Thessaly?

Do you think that romanization of Dacia was possible for only 160 years of Roman rule?

Areas south of Danube were 500 years under the Romans, Dacia was only 160 years under the Romans. Roman influence was much stronger south of Danube and for longer time than in Dacia.
Where was the higher chance for romanization of locals, in Bulgaria (500 years under the Romans) or in Romania (160 years under the Romans on only 1/3 of present day territory)?

I didn't give a complete reply to this part of your post. The reason Bulgaria avoided Romanization was because its state formation happened under a non-Slavic people (Turkic Bulgars) whereas that of the Romanians happened under a Romance-speaking people. Bulgaria wasn't either more Vlach influenced than Romania. The Primary Chronicle mentions Vlachs living as far as Ukraine, they were all over that place. Only northern Bulgaria became Romance-speaking at one point. Southern Bulgaria was Thracian and then Slavic, never Romance or even Greek as far as I know.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG/758px-Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG

As for the 'Bulgarian-Vlach Empire', it was called that cause it included large portions of modern day Romania (Moldova, Wallachia). It wasn't simply in reference to Vlachs living in the 2018 borders of Bulgaria.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Bulgaria-Ivan_Asen_2.png/800px-Bulgaria-Ivan_Asen_2.png

[Pribislav]

I didn't give a complete reply to this part of your post. The reason Bulgaria avoided Romanization was because its state formation happened under a non-Slavic people (Turkic Bulgars) whereas that of the Romanians happened under a Romance-speaking people. Bulgaria wasn't either more Vlach influenced than Romania. The Primary Chronicle mentions Vlachs living as far as Ukraine, they were all over that place. Only northern Bulgaria became Romance-speaking at one point. Southern Bulgaria was Thracian and then Slavic, never Romance or even Greek as far as I know.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG/758px-Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG

As for the 'Bulgarian-Vlach Empire', it was called that cause it included large portions of modern day Romania (Moldova, Wallachia). It wasn't simply in reference to Vlachs living in the 2018 borders of Bulgaria.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Bulgaria-Ivan_Asen_2.png/800px-Bulgaria-Ivan_Asen_2.png

Bulgarian had Latin speaking Vlachs in the middle age. They are slavo-bulgarized and migrated to Romania, because there is no Latin speaking people in Bulgaria today.
High concentration of Latin speaking Vlachs in the middle age was in western Bulgaria, southeastern Serbia and eastern Macedonia in area knoe as Shopluk.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Shopluk_region_map.png

Vlasina region, Vlasina river and Vlasina lake in southeastern Serbia got their names because Latin spoeaking Vlach lived there in the middle age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlasina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlasina_(river)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlasina_Lake

Some poponyms of Vlach origin exist in southeasterjn Serbia, such as microregion Burel in the border of Serbia and Bulgaria near town Dimitrovgrad.
About toponyms in Burel region in southeastern www.nbpi.org.rs/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Cvetko-Ivanov-Mikrotoponimija-Burela.pdf

Town Burrel exist in Albania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrel,_Albania

Burel in border of Serbia and Bulgaria and Burrel in Albania are one of many Vlach-Albanian conections, and one of many indication of eastern Balkanite origin of Albanians.

[Pribislav]

@ Mingle

This is link about microtoponymy of Burel region near Dimitrovgrad in the border of Serbia and Bulgaria www.nbpi.org.rs/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Cvetko-Ivanov-Mikrotoponimija-Burela.pdf

[Mingle]

Bulgarian had Latin speaking Vlachs in the middle age. They are slavo-bulgarized and migrated to Romania, because there is no Latin speaking people in Bulgaria today.
High concentration of Latin speaking Vlachs in the middle age was in western Bulgaria, southeastern Serbia and eastern Macedonia in area knoe as Shopluk.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Shopluk_region_map.png

Vlasina region, Vlasina river and Vlasina lake in southeastern Serbia got their names because Latin spoeaking Vlach lived there in the middle age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlasina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlasina_(river)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlasina_Lake

Some poponyms of Vlach origin exist in southeasterjn Serbia, such as microregion Burel in the border of Serbia and Bulgaria near town Dimitrovgrad.
About toponyms in Burel region in southeastern www.nbpi.org.rs/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/19/Cvetko-Ivanov-Mikrotoponimija-Burela.pdf (www.nbpi.org.rs/wordpresswp-content/uploads/2018/19/Cvetko-Ivanov-Mikrotoponimija-Burela.pdf)

Town Burrel exist in Albania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrel,_Albania

Burel in border of Serbia and Bulgaria and Burrel in Albania are one of many Vlach-Albanian conections, and one of many indication of eastern Balkanite origin of Albanians.

I didn't deny that Vlachs also lived in the southern part of the Balkans (i.e. south of Romania), but they also lived in Romania in abundant numbers.

Why specifically Shopluk? Does it have the highest concentration of Vlach toponyms in the southern Balkans? Romania also has tons of Latin toponyms. Maybe you missed my earlier reply but there are tons of references to Roman settlement in Romania from before Slavs even arrived to the Balkans e.g. Milliarium of Aiton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milliarium_of_Aiton).

[Kelmendasi]

@ Mingle

This is link about microtoponymy of Burel region near Dimitrovgrad in the border of Serbia and Bulgaria www.nbpi.org.rs/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Cvetko-Ivanov-Mikrotoponimija-Burela.pdf
What matters is if words look similar and have similar meanings or origins. There isn't evidence suggesting that Burrel(Albania) and Burel(Bulgaria) have the same origin or similar meanings. There are more native toponyms in the western Balkans that are linked to Albanian or could be explained with use of Albanian.

[Pribislav]

I didn't deny that Vlachs also lived in the southern part of the Balkans (i.e. south of Romania), but they also lived in Romania in abundant numbers.

Why specifically Shopluk? Does it have the highest concentration of Vlach toponyms in the southern Balkans? Romania also has tons of Latin toponyms. Maybe you missed my earlier reply but there are tons of references to Roman settlement in Romania from before Slavs even arrived to the Balkans e.g. Milliarium of Aiton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milliarium_of_Aiton).

Shopluk has higher concentration of Vlach toponyms than surrounding areas. Most of this toponyms are slavized, but behind Slavic masks there are Vlach roots.

Name of Pirot in Serbian part of Shopluk is most likely of Vlach origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirot

[Pribislav]

What matters is if words look similar and have similar meanings or origins. There isn't evidence suggesting that Burrel(Albania) and Burel(Bulgaria) have the same origin or similar meanings. There are more native toponyms in the western Balkans that are linked to Albanian or could be explained with use of Albanian.

Kme, kme, kme... eastern Balkanite imigrant and fake Illyrian.

[Kelmendasi]

Kme, kme, kme... eastern Balkanite imigrant and fake Illyrian.
I see how it is....You get proven incorrect and so you act like a kid. Even if we did come from the eastern Balkans, we are still less of immigrants into the Balkans than you lot are lol. Still, more Illyric admix than you. Burrel is a more recent name from the area, it was called Bujril and Burril earlier on

[Pribislav]

I see how it is....You get proven incorrect and so you act like a kid. Even if we did come from the eastern Balkans, we are still less of immigrants into the Balkans than you lot are lol. Still, more Illyric admix than you

Your nation is not conected with Illyrins, same as my nation (Aromanians).

Illyrian sample from Montenegro from pre-Roman period is heavy EE influenced. The closest populations to him are Russians and Ukrainians. Are Albanians heavy EE influenced? I don't think so...
Illyrians were imigrants from Pontic stepe, and it's not weird similarity with Russians/Ukrainians.

[Kelmendasi]

Your nation is not conected with Illyrins, same as my nation (Aromanians).

Illyrian sample from Montenegro from pre-Roman period is heavy EE influenced. The closest populations to hzim are Russians and Ukrainians. Are Albanians heavy EE influenced? I don't think so...
Illyrians were imigrants from Pontic stepe, and it's not weird similarity with Russians/Ukrainians.
Oh stop being so cringey, you are a Serb. This attempt to troll Aromanians and Macedonians is just cringe. The Iron Age sample from Montenegro was unstable and unreliable due to lack of SNPs, the other sample from the area however was far more southern plotting, plotting with Tuscans. As well as the late Bronze Age sample from Dalmatia being heavily Neolithic admix as well as steppe. Don't forget that it is Albanians and Greeks that score the highest Balkan_IA, not you lot.

[Pribislav]

Oh stop being so cringey, you are a Serb. This attempt to troll Aromanians and Macedonians is just cringe. The Iron Age sample from Montenegro was unstable and unreliable due to lack of SNPs, the other sample from the area however was far more southern plotting, plotting with Tuscans. As well as the late Bronze Age sample from Dalmatia being heavily Neolithic admix as well as steppe. Don't forget that it is Albanians and Greeks that score the highest Balkan_IA, not you lot.

I am fyromanized Aromanian Vlach, as my cousin ***** and 1/4 of Fyromanians.

You don't have real explanation for heavy EE input in Iron age sample from Montenegro.

When ancient sample from the Balkans is heavy EE than it's unrealiable for you.
When ancient sample from the Balkans is southern ploting than it's reliable for you.
This access is double standard, you can not taking as reliable only what do you like and ignore or deny what you don't like.

[Kelmendasi]

I am fyromanized Aromanian Vlach, as my cousin ***** and 1/4 of Fyromanians.

You don't have real explanation for heavy EE input in Iron age sample from Montenegro.

When ancient sample from the Balkans is heavy EE than it's unrealiable to you.
When ancient sample from the Balkans is southermn ploting than is 100% true.
This access is double standard, you can not taking as reliable only what do you like and ignore or deny what you don't like.
Ok kid. I already explained, if you want to play around and act dumb then that's down to you. It is unreliable because even the people who plotted it said so "I wasn't confident enough to run these three ancient genomes in Principal Component Analyses (PCA) when they were first published last year. Their SNP counts were too low for comfort.". They are true because the result has come out of an actual scientific paper and the samples had enough SNPs.

[Carpatz]

@ Mingle

This is link about microtoponymy of Burel region near Dimitrovgrad in the border of Serbia and Bulgaria www.nbpi.org.rs/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Cvetko-Ivanov-Mikrotoponimija-Burela.pdf

You are a Serv, or a Sclaven, both terms related to slavery

[Pribislav]

You are a Serv, or a Sclaven, both terms related to slavery

Look at my avatar, I am Aromanian from Fyrom. Are you blind?
We are purer Vlachs than you, because you are have mixed with Slavs and you have Turkic influence. Your language came from us!

Ethonym Serb have nothing to do with slavery, neither Slav.
Ask Mingle, he could explain to you origin of this ethnonyms.

[Carpatz]

Look at my avatar, I am Aromanian from Fyrom. Are you blind?
We are purest Vlachs than you, because you are have mixed with Slavs and you have Turkic influence. Your language came from us.

Ethonym Serb have nothing to do with slavery, neither Slav.
Ask Mingle, he could explain to you origin of this ethnonyms.

Sclaven means slave in both Romanian and medieval latin, and Serv/Serb comes from the latin word Servus. All of this can't be a coincidence and trying to explain it differently is cope. You being a descendant of Romans, you shouldn't be bothered to defend those sons of slaves.

[Kelmendasi]

Sclaven means slave in both Romanian and medieval latin, and Serb/Serb comes from the latin word Servus. All of this can't be a coincidence and trying to explain it differently is cope. "Slav" is a term applied to Balkan Slavs first, before it became the word for a linguistic group. You being a descendant of Romans, you shouldn't be bothered to defend those sons of slaves.
He's a Serb from Bosnia lol. He's just trying to troll Macedonians, he enjoys calling them Slavicized Aromanians

[Carpatz]

He's a Serb from Bosnia lol. He's just trying to troll Macedonians, he enjoys calling them Slavicized Aromanians

I know. He's trying to be funny like IncelSlayer.

[Pribislav]

Sclaven means slave in both Romanian and medieval latin, and Serv/Serb comes from the latin word Servus. All of this can't be a coincidence and trying to explain it differently is cope. You being a descendant of Romans, you shouldn't be bothered to defend those sons of slaves.

Not true.

[Шуло]

Romans committed genocide against the Dacians. Some Dacians which survived mixed with Roman colonists. Roman-Dacian mixed people were widespred from Dacia by emperor Aurelian in 271. If few of them stayaed they were destroyed by Huns, Goths and Avars.
When Slavs arrived to modern Romania there was no any Latin speaking people there.
In 12th century started Vlach migration from Bulgaria towards the modern Romania. Latin speaking ancestors of Romanian were latinized south of Danube river. They arrived to Romania 800 years ago as sheperds.
Proto East-Romance language was formed in modern Bulgaria. Romanian, Meglinitic and Aromanian language were formed in Bulgaria. Ancestors of Megleno-Vlachs and Aromanians migrated from Bulgaria towards the south most likely in 9th-10th century. Latin speaking ancestors of Romanians migrated to modern Romania in few waves from 12th to 14th century. They assimilated local Slavs, Cumans and Pechenegs there and that was the base for formation of Romanian nation later.

I would consider these statements as assumptions but not as facts.

First, about Roman Dacia is doubtful. We really know very little about that time. If some Roman source reports that "all dacians were killed" thats not mean that literally all Dacs were killed. When this source reports about Dac's kingdom we dont know exact its location and its composition...But in fact it doesnt have much matter. Because there were so many preturbation in that place through 2000 years.

Second, about Vlach migration, is much more plausible for me. Although statements "there was no any Latin speaking people there"...There were no mentions about them in a few Romanian (Byzantine) sources which we have.

And we have to recognize that Roman Dacia is a mainly Transilvania, while modern Romania originated from Valahia.

[Шуло]

Albanians in the middle age were small ethnic group which lived on the small territory.

Demographic and territorial expansion of Albanian started under the Ottomans.
Most of Albanians were converted to Islam. They had high natality and Ottomans settled them on Serbian Christian territories such as Kosovo, Sandžak and Toplica, and to Macedonia also. Ottomans gave land to Albanian muslim colonists.

There were much Albanians in modern Greece and Italy. So things are not so simple. Ottomans couldnt settle them in Italy.

[Шуло]

I also see Ukraine in that same clade. Are they shiptars too? There's also plenty of J2 and R1b clades that Serbs and Bulgars share. These are all neighboring countries and It's ridiculous to assume that one or two people having y-dna in common is proof of mass population movement.

This clade from Odesskaya oblast. There many settlers from Bolgaria, Albania and Romania here.

[Шуло]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densu%C8%99_Church



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



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



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



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



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

The above links should be enough proof of Roman settlement in Dacia in the second century (the earliest you asked for was the fourth century).

When the Romans conquered "Dacia", they only conquered King Decebal's kingdom. Outside of his kingdom still lived Dacians such as the Costobocs in northern Transylvania or the Tyragetae in Bessarabia. The Roman province of Dacia in 106 AD was just comprised of eastern & southeastern Transylvania, Banat, and Oltenia. Most Dacians did live in the Roman province of Dacia though. The Dacians who lived in lands outside this administered province were known as "Free Dacians". Their lands took about 130 years to incorporate into Roman Dacia. So peripheral Dacian lands took 130 years to conquer. Other parts of modern day Romania were inhabited by Sarmatians btw. In total, the conquest took 160+ years.

After Dacia was conquered, it was named Dacia Felix, meaning "Dacia the Blessed". Romans from other parts of the empire were told that Dacia Felix was a rich and beautiful land with a lot of opportunities so began coming there en masse. From there on, a lot of Romans began migrating to Dacia to help develop the place into a proper Roman city. These were largely civil servants, engineers, doctors, and other specialists. But also normal citizens as well. There were also a large number of military men imported there to help defend it against the Free Dacians and other invading "barbarians". About 100 fortifications were set up. The Romans that settled in Dacia in the early second century ended up living there and starting a family. They mixed with Dacians and created a hybrid Daco-Roman people (although the Roman genetic contribution may have been minimal, their cultural contribution was immense).

Towards the mid-late third century when the Roman Empire was in trouble, Emperor Aurelian took out a lot of Romans from Dacia, but at this point, Dacia had already been Romanized to a large extent. Dacians were an illiterate people with the only references to their language being Greek sources talking about them. The Romance-speaking people mostly lived in towns whereas the villagers were mostly Dacian-speaking. Over time, the Geto-Dacians adopted the Latin language since the people speaking it were upperclassmen without any need to learn Dacian. Its like how Vlachs in Serbia learn Serbian but Serbs don't learn Aromanian. For the peasant/low class Dacians to communicate with the upper class, they had to learn Latin. I don't think that 100% of Romania's population became Latin-speaking by the time Aurelian pulled out, but the ruling aristocrats were Latin-speaking Romans and they would have finished the job after Dacia was separated from the Roman Empire. I also heard that Roman missionaries went to Dacia after the split.

By the way, the examples you gave of Thessalia and Bulgaria were from the late 12th century which isn't that much before the existence of the Principality of Wallachia. But there are references to Vlachs living in modern day Romania's borders within Gesta Hungarorum and Nestor's Primary Chronicle like Carpatz already mentioned, in addition to the references I posted in the beginning.

I didnt see something obviously Roman from the territory of modern Romania. Only separate stones and reconsructions. I would be grateful if you show me something more.

...You didnt post continuation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densu%C8%99_Church article.


It is considered that on the setting of the present day church, there was once a Dacian temple dedicated to Zamolxis, upon which the conquering Romans built a temple dedicated to the god Mars. After the Roman administrative withdrawal, the temple became a Christian church, and sermons were held there. Its present form dates from the beginning of the 12th century. Considering its tradition, it dates from the 4th century AD, and is considered the oldest church in Romania and South East Europe.

Its much more funny )))

[Шуло]

Ethnic map of Hungary in 11. century, before the mongol destruction:

https://i.imgur.com/uv10RYT.jpg



Looks like fairy tale. I tried to find ethnic data on local places in Hungary of XVIII century, and couldnt find. Here data of XI century. XI !!!! I cannot evan imagine - by what sources??? Toponimy??

Hungarians, i have to admit, you are much more cool in fantasy than even Romanians )))

[Шуло]

Probably significant, but Romans were pretty good at replacing culture and language without leaving much genetic input. The case of Romania can be compared to Iberia.

Sure, nothing common with Iberia. Roman prescence in Iberia was widespread and deep. Many references in literature, lots of architecture, at last many notable Romans were born in Iberia. There is nothing similar in modern Romania.

[renaissance12]

Decebalus capitulation

http://www.fotografia.iccd.beniculturali.it/images/watermark/10/97741.jpg


Decebalus and Emperor Trajan..

https://s3.pixers.pics/pixers/700/FO/56/49/41/05/700_FO56494105_5033f9d02bd72cc20d39412d4cb9f6b9.jp g

[Token]

Sure, nothing common with Iberia. Roman prescence in Iberia was widespread and deep. Many references in literature, lots of architecture, at last many notable Romans were born in Iberia. There is nothing similar in modern Romania.

I'm obviously talking about genetics here.

[Peterski]

Southern Bulgaria was Thracian and then Slavic, never Romance or even Greek as far as I know.

It was at least influenced by Greek language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jire%C4%8Dek_Line

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Bgiusca_Jirecek_Line.jpg/600px-Bgiusca_Jirecek_Line.jpg

[Mingle]

I didnt see something obviously Roman from the territory of modern Romania. Only separate stones and reconsructions. I would be grateful if you show me something more.

These aren't separate stones or reconstructions. They're ancient artifacts. Its specified they're from the second century and I even bolded those parts for you. How do you get more Roman than Roman deity Glycon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycon)? If you look up Dacia Felix in Google Books, then you'll be able to find multiple references to Roman military posts and Roma settlement in Dacia. Here (https://books.google.com/books?id=1kOMSQnGm_cC&pg=PA205&dq=dacia+felix&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3kMftzNTeAhUSmeAKHesbB50Q6AEIMDAB#v=on epage&q=dacia%20felix&f=false) is one quick example. It was specifically given the name Dacia Felix to encourage Roman settlement. It doesn't make sense for Roman to fully conquer a region and then for zero Roman migrants to enter the region.

[Aspirin]

Historical Facts


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.

Where are the sources who can confirm that at that time wallachians was a vlach/cuman confederation? The only turkic group who had some contact with eastern romance speakers at that time, was the pechenegs. Intersting what here is mentioned the year 1330, when took place the Battle of Posada. Everybody knows, what most of cumans migrated in Hungary, where they was a big part of hungarian army, and later they was assimilated by hungarian majority, even one of the last Kings from Arpad dinasty was half cuman.

About Battle of Posada:



The Battle of Posada (November 9, 1330 – November 12, 1330)[3] was fought between Basarab I of Wallachia and Charles I of Hungary (also known as Charles Robert).

The small Wallachian army led by Basarab, formed of cavalry and foot archers, as well as local peasants, managed to ambush and defeat the 30,000-strong Hungarian army, in a mountainous region near the border between Oltenia and Severin.

The battle resulted in a major Wallachian victory and disaster for Charles Robert, becoming a turning point in the politics of Hungary, which had to abandon its hopes of extending the kingdom to the Black Sea. For Wallachia, the victory meant an increase in morale and the further evolution of the independent state.

Background

Some historians claim that the Cumans aided the Wallachians in the battle. Still in the Hungarian army there was a substantial Cuman-Hungarian contingent so this variant is very improbable. In 1324, Wallachia was a vassal of Hungary, and Robert referred to Basarab as "our Transalpine Voivode".

The war started with encouragement from the Voivode of Transylvania and a certain Dionisie, who later bore the title Ban of Severin. In 1330, Robert captured the long disputed Wallachian citadel of Severin and handed it to the Transylvanian Voivode.

Basarab sent envoys who asked for the hostilities to cease, and in return offered to pay 7,000 marks in silver, submit the fortress of Severin to Robert, and send his own son as hostage. According to the Viennese Illuminated Chronicle, a contemporary account, Robert said about Basarab: "He is the shepherd of my sheep, and I will take him out of his mountains, dragging him by his beard." Another account writes that Robert said that: "...he will drag the Voivode from his cottage, as would any driver his oxen or shepherd his sheep."

The King's councillors begged him to accept the offer or give a milder reply, but he refused and led his 30,000-strong army deeper into Wallachia "without proper supplies or adequate reconnaissance". Basarab was unable to stand a battle in the open field against a large army, due to the poor state of his troops, and he decided to retreat somewhere into the Transylvanian Alps.

Robert entered Curtea de Argeș, the main city of the Wallachian state. He realised that Basarab had fled into the mountains and decided to give chase.

Battle

The location of the battle is still debated among historians. One theory gives the location of the battle at Loviştea, in some mountain gorges, in the valley of Olt, Transylvania. However, Romanian historian Neagu Djuvara denies this and states that the location of the battle was somewhere at the border between Oltenia and Severin.

The Wallachian army, led by Basarab himself, probably numbered less than 10,000 men and consisted of cavalry, infantry archers, and some locally recruited peasants. When Robert saw his best knights being killed, without being able to fight back, while the escape routes were blocked by the Wallachian cavalry, he gave his royal robes and insignia to one of his captains – "who dies under a hail of arrows and stones" – and, with a few loyal subjects, made a difficult escape to Visegrád "clad in dirty civilian clothes".

Robert later recounted in detail, in a charter of December 13, 1335, how one "Nicholas, son of Radoslav", saved his life by defending him from the swords of five Wallachian warriors, giving him enough time to escape. Most of the Hungarian army – which included many nobles – was destroyed; among the casualties were the Voivode of Transylvania and the priest who accompanied the king.


The army of Charles Robert Anjou ambushed by Basarab's army at Posada from Vienna Illuminated Chronicle manuscript (1330) The Vlach (Romanian) warriors rolled down rocks over the cliff edges in a place where the Hungarian mounted knights could neither escape from them nor climb the heights to dislodge the Vlach warriors.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Battle1330.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Chronicon_Pictum_P0143_A_posadai_csata1.JPG

[Joso]

don't know

[Blondie]

"The only turkic group who had some contact with eastern romance speakers was the pechenegs. "

No, Wallachia and Moldova was a part of Cumania:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Cumania_%281200%29_eng.png/800px-Cumania_%281200%29_eng.png

"Everybody knows, what most of cumans migrated in Hungary"

No, only 40000 people:

"In 1238, after Mongol attacks on Cumania, King Béla IV of Hungary offered refuge to the remainder of the Cuman people under their leader Khan Köten, who in turn vowed to convert his 40,000 families to Christianity. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans#Settlement_on_the_Hungarian_plain

Other cumans migrated to Balkans (for example Kumanovo in Macedonia) most of them were adssimilated into the romanian and ukrainian population. The romanian king Basarab has turkic-cuman ancestry, his name is Turkic.

"even one of the last Kings from Arpad dinasty was half cuman."

What? :D The Árpád Dinasty had r1a-z93 marker which is Indo-Iranian not Turkic...

source:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-018-0609-7

The Árpád Dinasty was descedants of scythian nobles.

[ixulescu]

"The only turkic group who had some contact with eastern romance speakers was the pechenegs. "

No, Wallachia and Moldova was a part of Cumania


No they're not. There is no mention of taxes payed by Wallachia or Moldova to Cuman rulers anywhere.
Not that Cumania was ever an actual state, with rulers and a capital. It was just an wide space in present day Ukraine where Cuman tribes, and many others, lived.

Also, Basarab name being of Cuman origin is just speculation. He certainly considered himself Vlach and so did his contemporaries, including the Hungarian king. His father's name was Tihomir, and that's just a Slavic name.

Some Cumans lived among Romanians but they got absorbed quickly and never played a role in Romanian politics, unlike Cumans in Hungary, which to this day have 2 regions named after them.

[Aspirin]

No, Wallachia and Moldova was a part of Cumania

All the cumans in this region was converted to catholicism, in South Moldavia even was established The Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania from 1228 to 1241. Vlachs allways was orthodox. Still you will not find any sources to prove what these two groups (vlachs and cumans) was mixed at that time. By culture, cumans was related much more to magyars, since these both ethnicities had same roots. In Hungary, cumans migrated only in Panonia, not in the Mountains from Transylvania. Interesting, what csango people who now live in South Moldavia (Bacau county) are Romano Catholic today, and some of them had very old roots in this region, much older whan Moldavia itself. They live in the region where in the XIIIth century was Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania.


No, only 40000 people:

"In 1238, after Mongol attacks on Cumania, King Béla IV of Hungary offered refuge to the remainder of the Cuman people under their leader Khan Köten, who in turn vowed to convert his 40,000 families to Christianity. "

40.000 it's a big number for XIIIth century. In Hungary was colonized an entire Horde of Cumans. For example, Principality of Moldavia in the end of XVth century had a population of only 250.000 - 300,000 inhabitants, where people of vlach origin was only 65-70% of entire populaton, the rest was ruthenians, hungarians, saxons, and armenians.


Other cumans migrated to Balkans (for example Kumanovo in Macedonia) most of them were adssimilated into the romanian and ukrainian population. The romanian king Basarab has turkic-cuman ancestry, his name is Turkic.

The name Basarab is the only proof of so called cuman origin, because is of turkic origin. Still you will not find any sources, what the wallachian army and nobility had some cumans. Basarab never was called in hungaian sources a cuman, only a vlach. Intersting what his father had a slavic name Tochomerius (Tihomir). I find very funny what fantastic roots, want hungarian historians, to connect to Basarab origins, without any proofs.



Thocomerius, also Tihomir, was the father of Basarab, who would become the first independent voivode of Wallachia. Many Romanian historians, such as Vlad Georgescu and Marcel Popa, believe that Thocomerius was a voivode in Wallachia who succeeded Bărbat, who ruled around 1278; others, such as Tudor Sălăgean, refer to him as a local potentate whose status cannot be specified.

Thocomerius' name is only known from a diploma issued by King Charles I of Hungary on 26 November 1332. The diploma refers to "the schismatic Basarab, son of Thocomerius, our disloyal Vlach." („Basarab, filium Thocomerii, scismaticum, infidelis Olahus Nostris”).

The Hungarian László Rásonyi derives the name from a Cuman and Tatar name, Toq-tämir (‘hardened steel’),[5] and refers to a Chingisid prince, Toktomer, mentioned in the Russian annals in 1295 as abiding in the Crimea. According to István Vásáry, even if Basarab’s father bore a Turkic name, this person can by no means be identified with a Chingisid prince, because being descended from Genghis Khan was a matter of such significance that no one could, or would have wanted to conceal it.




Tihomir (Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian: Тихомир) is a South Slavic male given name which means "quiet" and "peace" (South Slavic: Tiho = quiet, mir = peace). In Russian however the word “mir” мир also means world. So in Russian language, the name means “Tiho” = quiet “mir” = peace or world) It may refer to:

Royalty and nobility
Tihomir of Belegezitai (7th century), leader of the Belegezites
Tihomir of Rascia (fl. 960), Serbian nobleman
Tihomir (Teichomir) (fl. 1040), Bulgarian military commander and rebel
Tihomir Zavidović (d. 1171), Grand Prince of Serbia ca. 1163-1171
Tihomir (Thocomerius) (fl. 1278), Wallachian nobleman



What? :D The Árpád Dinasty had r1a-z93 marker which is Indo-Iranian not Turkic...

I was referring to the King Ladislaus IV of Hungary, also known as Ladislas the Cuman.


The Árpád Dinasty was descedants of scythian nobles.

Scythians, sarmatians, huns, avars, cumans, pechenegs, all this people was of asiatic nomadic origins.

[Blondie]

"By culture, cumans was related much more to magyars, since these both ethnicities had same roots. "

No, similar culture does not mean that cumans and magyars had same roots. Learn the difference between culture and origin. Cumans and hungarians are very different ethnic group, we are Uralic they are Altaic which is not same. By that logic gypsies are more related to romanians because you are all indo europeans.

"40.000 it's a big number for XIIIth century. In Hungary was colonized an entire Horde of Cumans. "

The population of medieval Hungary was 2,5 million, the cuman "horde" was 40000 people, only 1.6% of the complete population, absolutely not significant. By the way majority of cumans had european genetic:

"The results indicate that, while still possessing a Central Asian steppe culture, the Cumanians received a large admixture of maternal genes from more westerly populations before arriving in Hungary. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596944

"The name Basarab is the only proof of so called cuman origin, because is of turkic origin. "

Moldova and Wallachia belonged to Cumania that's fact. The turkic name of Basarab proves the vlach noble class was cuman origin, because your ancestors lived under their rule.

"Scythians, sarmatians, huns, avars, cumans, pechenegs, all this people was of asiatic nomadic origins. "

No, those peoples are not same. Scythians, sarmatians were light skinned indo-europeans, indo-aryans/iranians. According to ancient greek sources they had light hair and eyes. Huns, avars were mongoloic tribes from East Asia and Cumans, Pechenegs were turks.

[ixulescu]

"The name Basarab is the only proof of so called cuman origin, because is of turkic origin. "

Moldova and Wallachia belonged to Cumania that's fact. The turkic name of Basarab proves the vlach noble class was cuman origin, because your ancestors lived under their rule.


Too bad you weren't there to tell Basarabs what's what.
They considered themselves Vlachs. Everybody else did.

The name's origin is just speculation.
Cumans never ruled anything in the Romanian principalities. There's no mention of them ruling anywhere.

[Blondie]

Too bad you weren't there to tell Basarabs what's what.
They considered themselves Vlachs. Everybody else did.

The name's origin is just speculation.
Cumans never ruled anything in the Romanian principalities. There's no mention of them ruling anywhere.

"The Cumans were fierce and formidable nomadic warriors of the Eurasian steppe who exerted an enduring impact on the medieval Balkans.[10]:116[11] They were numerous, culturally sophisticated, and militarily powerful.[12]:13
Many eventually settled to the west of the Black Sea, influencing the politics of Kievan Rus', the Galicia–Volhynia Principality, the Golden Horde Khanate, the Second Bulgarian Empire, Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Hungary, Moldavia, the Kingdom of Georgia, the Byzantine Empire, the Empire of Nicaea, the Latin Empire and Wallachia, with Cuman immigrants being integrated into each country's elite.[8]:281 The Cumans also had a pre-eminent role in the Fourth Crusade and in the creation of the Second Bulgarian Empire.[7][13]:50"

By the way majority of cumans were blonde:

"However, in Turkic languages qu, qun, qūn, quman or qoman means "pale, sallow, cream coloured", "pale yellow", or "yellowish grey".[14]:51[15] In East Slavic languages and Polish, they are known as the Polovtsy, derived from the Slavic root *polvъ "pale; light yellow; blonde".[17][18]:43 Polovtsy or Polovec is often said to be derived from the Old East Slavic polovŭ (половъ) "yellow; pale" by the Russians – all meaning "blond".[18] The old Ukrainian word polovtsy (Пóловці), derived from polovo "straw" – means "blond, pale yellow". The western Cumans, or Polovtsy, were also called Sorochinetses by the Rus', – apparently derived from the Turkic sary chechle "yellow-haired". In Germanic languages, the Cumans were called Folban, Vallani or Valwe – all derivations of old Germanic words for "pale".[4]:106 In the German account by Adam of Bremen, and in Matthaios of Edessa, the Cumans were referred to as the "Blond Ones".[17]

According to modern genetic results and their name the Cumans were not really ethnic turks but turkicized eastern europeans (iranic and slavic peoples).

Wallachia and Moldova was a part of Cumania, another map:

http://donauschwaben-usa.org/Hungar14.jpg

[ixulescu]

"The Cumans were fierce and formidable nomadic warriors of the Eurasian steppe who exerted an enduring impact on the medieval Balkans.[10]:116[11] They were numerous, culturally sophisticated, and militarily powerful.[12]:13
Many eventually settled to the west of the Black Sea, influencing the politics of Kievan Rus', the Galicia–Volhynia Principality, the Golden Horde Khanate, the Second Bulgarian Empire, Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Hungary, Moldavia, the Kingdom of Georgia, the Byzantine Empire, the Empire of Nicaea, the Latin Empire and Wallachia, with Cuman immigrants being integrated into each country's elite.[8]:281 The Cumans also had a pre-eminent role in the Fourth Crusade and in the creation of the Second Bulgarian Empire.[7][13]:50"

So where is this quote saying that Cumans ruled Wallachia or Moldova? Do you understand what ruling means?
Otherwise, yes they were present, but never mentioned in Romanian chronicles to have a role in anything.

Also, very importantly, Cumans were Catholic. This disqualified them automatically from being rulers over Romanians.
It would be interesting to find out whether Csangos have Cuman ancestry.

[Nurzat]

So where is this quote saying that Cumans ruled Wallachia or Moldova? Do you understand what ruling means?
Otherwise, yes they were present, but never mentioned in Romanian chronicles to have a role in anything.

Also, very importantly, Cumans were Catholic. This disqualified them automatically from being rulers over Romanians.
It would be interesting to find out whether Csangos have Cuman ancestry.

Cumans had the absolutely first administrative division in future Moldovan territory in history in the region between the southern Moldovan Carpathians and Siret river, in what is now Vrancea county and southern Bacău county: Cumania

also, the first constructed churches in Moldovan territory were Catholic the same so nothing disqualified anyone - the local population was heavily pagan until the eve of the Moldovan medieval state, central Moldova was inhabited by Catholic Csangos, in northwestern Moldova (where the state was founded) there were Catholic Germans and Catholic Moroshan rulers... it was all politics to choose Orthodox faith later on, to separate themselves from Catholic Hungary

[ixulescu]

Cumans had the absolutely first administrative division in future Moldovan territory in history in the region between the southern Moldovan Carpathians and Siret river, in what is now Vrancea county and southern Bacău county: Cumania

also, the first constructed churches in Moldovan territory were Catholic the same so nothing disqualified anyone - the local population was heavily pagan until the eve of the Moldovan medieval state, central Moldova was inhabited by Catholic Csangos, in northwestern Moldova (where the state was founded) there were Catholic Germans and Catholic Moroshan rulers... it was all politics to choose Orthodox faith later on, to separate themselves from Catholic Hungary

That's not what happened.
Hungary tried to create a Catholic diocese in Southern Moldova on the basis of the Cuman population, and convert the majority population which was Vlach and Orthodox. The site of this church, if it was ever built, was not found (more likely, only a temporary chapel was constructed).
In the meanwhile, Mongols came, and most of the Cuman population left Moldova.

Moldovan chronicles mention that when Dragos came to settle Moldova 100 years later he found Vlachs and no Tatars.
Now, it's not clear if he referred to Cumans when he was talking about Tatars.

[Aspirin]

No, similar culture does not mean that cumans and magyars had same roots. Learn the difference between culture and origin. Cumans and hungarians are very different ethnic group, we are Uralic they are Altaic which is not same. By that logic gypsies are more related to romanians because you are all indo europeans.

All this people were nomadic in the beginning. Magyars came into Europe with many tribes of turkic origins, that just shows that the different roots (ethnically, linguistically) never was a problem.


Moldova and Wallachia belonged to Cumania that's fact. The turkic name of Basarab proves the vlach noble class was cuman origin, because your ancestors lived under their rule.

None of vlach noblemen was cuman. If you not have any sources, then this are just worthless words. About interaction of cumans with hungarian nobility, are plenty of sources, it's not even hard to find them. Vlachs always was people of mountains, not steppe nomadic people, absolutely different people, even the states (first Wallachia, then Moldavia) started to extend from the mountains to the plains. And Moldavia is totally different history from Wallachia. Here none of the noblemen had turkic names or origins.


No, those peoples are not same. Scythians, sarmatians were light skinned indo-europeans, indo-aryans/iranians. According to ancient greek sources they had light hair and eyes. Huns, avars were mongoloic tribes from East Asia and Cumans, Pechenegs were turks.

Okay. And what is the relation of scythians and sarmatians to hungarians? Blond hair and blue eyes is not a sign of whiteness. Many finno-ugric people in Ural Mountains who have blond hair and blue eyes, have and mongoloid features.


Catholic Moroshan rulers

None of the first moldavian rulers was Catholic. One tried to change his faith, but after the protest of orthodox majority, he converted back to Orthodoxy.

[Leto]

I'm sorry for butting in, 'cause I don't have much to say, just caught sight of this passage:

Blond hair and blue eyes is not a sign of whiteness. Many finno-ugric people in Ural Mountains who have blond hair and blue eyes, have and mongoloid features.
It is though. Those people you mentioned are predominantly European/West Eurasian, hence they may be blonde with light eyes. Full Asians and Native Americans don't have such traits.

[Aspirin]

I'm sorry for butting in, 'cause I don't have much to say, just caught sight of this passage:

It is though. Those people you mentioned are predominantly European/West Eurasian, hence they may be blonde with light eyes. Full Asians and Native Americans don't have such traits.

Such individuals are not very rare in that area:
https://media.nazaccent.ru/files/2e/95/2e95c86137be11d4d74b59c9c1e9c099.JPG
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ec/60/c0/ec60c0ab45ea4ca3f9da1badcd8ad7a9.jpg
http://2goroda.ru/sites/default/files/p1310825.jpg
http://uraltradicia.ru/uploadedFiles/images/IMG_8452-2.jpg
http://ugranow.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_6449.jpg
https://cdn4.img.ria.ru/images/95515/56/955155659.jpg
http://www.xn-----6kccbwybdaa5d6a1a8df1e.xn--p1ai/image/130856/hantyi-.jpeg
https://ugra-news.ru/upload/iblock/ae6/ae6e7fe728d2a223dc339ebf4abf49e5.jpg
https://img11.postila.ru/data/15/24/94/ea/152494ea339cdab507f1ca6d6d229750884f1801ea9edc2797 d0d302c958a129.jpg
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6843/42670583.8f/0_f9b76_f8a3eb1a_orig.jpg

[Blondie]

"All this people were nomadic in the beginning. Magyars came into Europe with many tribes of turkic origins, that just shows that the different roots (ethnically, linguistically) never was a problem."

Magyars have always lived in Europe (Volga region), but no problem:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Migration_of_the_Hungarians_%282016%29.jpg

"None of vlach noblemen was cuman. If you not have any sources, then this are just worthless words. About interaction of cumans with hungarian nobility, are plenty of sources, it's not even hard to find them. Vlachs always was people of mountains, not steppe nomadic people, absolutely different people"

I have source, for example Basarab has turkic name, the complete romanian ruler dynasty has turkic origins:

"The dynasty was named after Basarab I, who gained the independence of Wallachia from the Kingdom of Hungary.


Coat of arms of the House of Draculesti
The name is likely of Cuman or Pecheneg Turkic[1][2][3][4] origin and most likely meant "father ruler". Basar was the present participle of the verb "to rule", derivatives attested in both old and modern Kypchak languages. The Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga believed the second part of the name, -aba ("father"), to be an honorary title, as recognizable in many Cuman names, such as Terteroba, Arslanapa, and Ursoba.

Basarab's father Thocomerius also bore an allegedly Cuman name, identified as Toq-tämir, a rather common Cuman and Tatar name in the 13th century. The Russian chronicles around 1295 refer to a Toktomer, a prince of the Mongol Empire present in Crimea."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Basarab

"Okay. And what is the relation of scythians and sarmatians to hungarians? Blond hair and blue eyes is not a sign of whiteness. Many finno-ugric people in Ural Mountains who have blond hair and blue eyes, have and mongoloid features."

Ancestors of hungarians and scythians originated from same culture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

"During the 4th millennium BC, the Uralic-speaking peoples who were living in the central and southern regions of the Urals split up. Some dispersed towards the west and northwest and came into contact with Iranian speakers who were spreading northwards.[37] From at least 2000 BC onwards, the Ugrian speakers became distinguished from the rest of the Uralic community, of which the ancestors of the Magyars, being located farther south, were the most numerous. Judging by evidence from burial mounds and settlement sites, they interacted with the Indo-Iranian Andronovo culture.[38]"

The hungarian noble class has r1a-z93 indo-aryan (iranic, scythian) genetic, the old hungarian males had also r1a-z93 and t1a haplogroups which is very closely linked to other iranic aryan nomads.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33446

The old hungarian mythology is strongly connected to iranic Zoroastrianism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_mythology

By the way Moldova and Wallachia have lived under foreign occupation (cuman, mongol, ottoman) in the most of history between 12-19 century. Funny how you think romanians have no any turkic influence.... :D

Look at the genetic maps, romanians have 15-20% west asian admixture, this number is only 5-10% in Hungary. Romanian have much more genetic influence from the Steppe than hungarians. This is the result of Turkic rule and intermixing:

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/West-Asian-admixture.gif

[Carpatz]

ok at the genetic maps, romanians have 15-20% west asian admixture, this number is only 5-10% in Hungary. Romanian have much more genetic influence from the Steppe than hungarians. This is the result of Turkic rule and intermixing:


That's a Caucasian neolithic farmer related component that predates Turkics in Anatolia and the Balkans. If we go by your logic that West Asian = Turkic, then Italians would be more Turkic than the original Turks from Siberia.

[Blondie]

That's a Caucasian neolithic farmer related component that predates Turkics in Anatolia and the Balkans. If we go by your logic that West Asian = Turkic, then Italians would be more Turkic than the original Turks from Siberia.

I have never said that west asian = turkic :D But turks had a lot west asian admixture. The romanian WE imput came from ottomans, cumans, the italian came from the colonist greeks and phoenicians.

[Carpatz]

I have never said that west asian = turkic :D But turks had a lot west asian admixture. The romanian WE imput came from ottomans, cumans, the italian came from the colonist greeks and phoenicians.

West Asian farmers have been in Europe since 7000 BCE. That you have no knowledge of this shows that you have no business discussing anthropology. Lurk more.

[Blondie]

West Asian farmers have been in Europe since 7000 BCE. That you have no knowledge of this shows that you have no business discussing anthropology. Lurk more.

Are you seriously telling me the romanians have no turkic influence in 700 years turkic invasion? :D Don't make me laught.... :D The romanian west asian admixture is not 7000 years old.... :bounce:

[Blondie]

By the way cultural similarity, romanians (vlachs) were also nomads:

"As national states appeared in the area of the former Ottoman Empire, new state borders were developed that divided the summer and winter habitats of many of the pastoral groups. During the Middle Ages, many Vlachs were shepherds who drove their flocks through the mountains of Central and Eastern Europe. Vlach shepherds may be found as far north as southern Poland (Podhale) and the eastern Czech Republic (Moravia) by following the Carpathians, the Dinaric Alps in the west, the Pindus Mountains in the south, and the Caucasus Mountains in the east.[56]
The medieval Vlachs have elevated decorated funerary monuments in Herzegovina (Radimlja, Boljuni, Blidinje, etc) and surrounding countries. The Vlach origin of tombstones was attested by Bogumil Hrabak (1956) and Marian Wenzel (1962)[57] and by the archeological and anthropological researches of skeleton remains from the graves under stećci[58]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

[Carpatz]

Are you seriously telling me the romanians have no turkic influence in 700 years turkic invasion? :D Don't make me laught.... :D The romanian west asian admixture is not 7000 years old.... :bounce:

Turkic influence or not, it would be mainly manifested through Mongoloid admixture, not through a Caucasian component found all over Europe.

[Wrong]

I have never said that west asian = turkic :D But turks had a lot west asian admixture. The romanian WE imput came from ottomans, cumans, the italian came from the colonist greeks and phoenicians.
Wrong. This is Finno-Ugric coping-mechanism.

Turkics were mongs, end of story. Hell, even the Huns when unmixed, were described as chinks back in the Roman era.


Amen.

[Blondie]

Turkic influence or not, it would be mainly manifested through Mongoloid admixture, not through a Caucasian component found all over Europe.

Mongoloid admixture is 1-2,5% in Romania and 0,5-1% in Hungary:

https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-Asian-admixture.gif

[Pribislav]

Mongoloid admixture is 1-2,5% in Romania and 0,5-1% in Hungary:

https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-Asian-admixture.gif

Stears is 3% mongoloid.

[Blondie]

Wrong. This is Finno-Ugric coping-mechanism.

Turkics were mongs, end of story. Hell, even the Huns when unmixed, were described as chinks back in the Roman era.


Amen.

Turks and mongols are not same ethnic group. Mongols were mongoloid, turks were europo-mongoloid mixed. And lot of european huns were caucasoid:

https://historum.com/threads/facial-reconstruction-of-huns-in-europe.46405/

[Carpatz]

Stears is 3% mongoloid.

He gets that much because he's half Szekely. His mother, who is from Transdanubia, would probably get none because the Magyars from that region are assimilated Germans and West Slavs. Turkic heritage in Magyars exists only in Szekelys, and to a lesser extent, those from the Alfold plain.

[Blondie]

He gets that much because he's half Szekely. His mother, who is from Transdanubia, would probably get none because the Magyars from that region are assimilated Germans and West Slavs. Turkic heritage in Magyars exists only in Szekelys, and to a lesser extent, those from the Alfold plain.

Székelys have hun ancestry not turkic and huns were mongoloic not turkic. And there is no turkic admixture in Alföld....

[Carpatz]

Székelys have hun ancestry not turkic and huns were mongoloic not turkic. And there is no turkic admixture in Alföld....

Magyars aren't directly related to Huns. By the time Magyars arrived in the Carpathian Basin, the Huns have long ceased to be an entity. Magyars were a conglomeration of many different tribes of different origins. The leading tribe of which Arpad was part of was in all likelyhood Turkic, as his y-dna was found to be a Turkic/Iranic clade of R1a, which is seldomly found in Finno-Ugrics.

[Pribislav]

He gets that much because he's half Szekely. His mother, who is from Transdanubia, would probably get none because the Magyars from that region are assimilated Germans and West Slavs. Turkic heritage in Magyars exists only in Szekelys, and to a lesser extent, those from the Alfold plain.

Turkic influence exist in Kunszag (Cumania) in southern Hungary and among some Vojvodinian Hungarians. Probably also in eastern Hungary.

I have seen Turkic influence in some Hungarians from Vojvodina. Part of Vojvodinian Hungarians are Szekely settlers from 19th century, mostly in Banat. For example village Skorenovac near Kovin in Serbian Banat is pure Szekely village https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skorenovac

Hungarian politician from Vojvodina Istvan Pasztor is Turkic influenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/István_Pásztor_(politician)
http://www.nshronika.rs/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/pastorIstvan02_RH.jpg

[Blondie]

So:

1. Huns or Xiongnu were mongoloic ethnic group in Mongolia. Later they migrated to Europe in 3-4. century.
2. Oghur turks ( bulgars, khazars) migrated to Europe in 5-6. century after the huns, later the huns were assimilated into Oghur Turkic, Uralic, Iranic and Germanic tribes.
3. Székelys have lived in Transylvania before the hungarian conquest, they arrived here with Huns. The father of Székelys called Csaba was a hun warlord. So if Stears has székely ancestor then he has distant mongoloic ancestry. ironic :D

[Blondie]

Magyars aren't directly related to Huns. By the time Magyars arrived in the Carpathian Basin, the Huns have long ceased to be an entity. Magyars were a conglomeration of many different tribes of different origins. The leading tribe of which Arpad was part of was in all likelyhood Turkic, as his y-dna was found to be a Turkic/Iranic clade of R1a, which is seldomly found in Finno-Ugrics.

Old magyars was a part of the Hunnic tribal confederation, but yes they have never been ethnic huns, only székelys. The r1a haplogroup is indo-european (slavic, iranic) marker not turkic...

[Blondie]

Turkic influence exist in Kunszag (Cumania) in southern Hungary and among some Vojvodinian Hungarians. Probably also in eastern Hungary.

I have seen Turkic influence in some Hungarians from Vojvodina. Part of Vojvodinian Hungarians are Szekely settlers from 19th century, mostly in Banat. For example village Skorenovac near Kovin in Serbian Banat is pure Szekely village https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skorenovac

Hungarian politician from Vojvodina Istvan Pasztor is Turkic influenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/István_Pásztor_(politician)
http://www.nshronika.rs/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/pastorIstvan02_RH.jpg

The problem with that there is no turkic or asian genetic influence in Hungary, only 0-1% which is not relevant. You can find a little bit eastern looking peoples in Romania and Serbia too.

[Blondie]

The problem with that there is no turkic or asian genetic influence in Hungary, only 0-1% which is not relevant. You can find a little bit eastern looking peoples in Romania and Serbia too and all over in Europe.

[Carpatz]

Old magyars was a part of the Hunnic tribal confederation, but yes they have never been ethnic huns, only székelys. The r1a haplogroup is indo-european (slavic, iranic) marker not turkic...

Arpad's y-dna was the Asian clade of R1a, R1a-z93, which is not found in Europeans. It is among the most common haplogroups in Turkics.


Székelys have lived in Transylvania before the hungarian conquest, they arrived here with Huns. The father of Székelys called Csaba was a hun warlord. So if Stears has székely ancestor then he has distant mongoloic ancestry.
lmfao

[Pribislav]

The problem with that there is no turkic or asian genetic influence in Hungary, only 0-1% which is not relevant. You can find a little bit eastern looking peoples in Romania and Serbia too.

According to one research blood type B in Serbia is most common in eastern Serbia (not dominant, but more often than in other parts of Serbia). Blood type B is most common among mongoloid people.
Singificant part of population of eastern Serbia are Vlachs and their number is quite larger than officially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs_of_Serbia
Vlachs came to eastern Serbia from modern Romania in period 1718-1737.

[Blondie]

You can find eastern looking peoples in the whole Europe:

Susan Cebic serbian handball player:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Suzana_%C4%86ebi%C4%87.JPG/250px-Suzana_%C4%86ebi%C4%87.JPG

Basescu romanian ex president:

https://www.maszol.ro/uploads/files/userfiles/images/belfold/Traian_Basescu_EVZ_maszol_meret.png

Lee van Cleef dutch actor:

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/PRIAAOSwN81WEiWi/s-l300.jpg

Björk icelandic singer:

https://media.pitchfork.com/photos/5bdcaff320229e683194cf91/2:1/w_790/Bjork%203.png

Heidrich german politican:

https://image.stern.de/7470104/uncropped-940-1454/ce0a794b02064c73c255bcc5aa8253da/yj/henker-prag.jpg

So are they all descedants of Turks? Of cource not... This is very simple if you have no asian genetic than there is no asian or turkic admixture in the country.

[Blondie]

Arpad's y-dna was the Asian clade of R1a, R1a-z93, which is not found in Europeans. It is among the most common haplogroups in Turkics.


lmfao

No the r1a marker is indo-european marker the r1a-z93 branch is iranic, and we know the ancient iranic peoples (aryans) were all light haired caucasoids. Turks just mixed with them that's why they have lot of r1a iranic marker, that's all. by the way there is much more turkic admixture in Romania than in Hungary it is fact. So what are you trying to prove?

[Carpatz]

According to one research blood type B in Serbia is most common in eastern Serbia (not dominant, but more often than in other parts of Serbia). Blood type B is most common among mongoloid people.
Singificant part of population of eastern Serbia are Vlachs and their number is quite larger than officially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs_of_Serbia
Vlachs came to eastern Serbia from modern Romania in period 1718-1737.

Are you serious bro :picard2:? Croatia and Poland have a higher percentage of blood type B than both Romania and Serbia. Are they Vlach too :picard2:?

[Carpatz]

double post

[Pribislav]

You can find eastern looking peoples in the whole Europe:

Susan Cebic serbian handball player:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Suzana_%C4%86ebi%C4%87.JPG/250px-Suzana_%C4%86ebi%C4%87.JPG

Nothing mongoloid about her. She is uber Nordid.
http://img2.rtve.es/css/rtve.deportes/rtve.deportes.jjoo2012/i/atletas/2/9/1075092.jpg

[Blondie]

No she has a little bit asian traits:

http://i1.wp.com/blog.elitevolley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Screen-Shot-2014-09-17-at-11.20.42-AM.png?fit=615%2C613

Nermina Džaferagić:

https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1431172534p6/42911032.jpg

[Pribislav]

Are you serious bro :picard2:? Croatia and Poland have a higher percentage of blood type B than both Romania and Serbia. Are they Vlach too :picard2:?

I don't claim that Vlachs are mongoloids. I just noticed that blood type B iun Serbia is most common in region with significant Vlach population.

Blood type B in Serbia is most common in Majdanpek municipality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majdanpek
Most of population in Majdanpek and around is of Vlach origin. They belong to Bufani branch of Vlachs and originated from Oltenia.

[ixulescu]

I have never said that west asian = turkic :D But turks had a lot west asian admixture. The romanian WE imput came from ottomans, cumans, the italian came from the colonist greeks and phoenicians.

Romanians do have some turkic influence, just like Hungarians have both turkic and uralid. This is nothing unusual in this part of Europe.

But one thing you can be sure of. That influence does not come from the Ottomans.
In general, the law was very harsh on Muslims. Basically, if caught in the Romanian principalities, Muslims were enslaved.
Only the Ottoman Muslims had the right of transiting the land and trading, but could not own land or houses, to prevent settling.

These laws relaxed a bit after 1700, but Islam remained prohibited until 1878, when Romania became fully independent from the Ottomans.

[ixulescu]

By the way cultural similarity, romanians (vlachs) were also nomads:

"As national states appeared in the area of the former Ottoman Empire, new state borders were developed that divided the summer and winter habitats of many of the pastoral groups. During the Middle Ages, many Vlachs were shepherds who drove their flocks through the mountains of Central and Eastern Europe. Vlach shepherds may be found as far north as southern Poland (Podhale) and the eastern Czech Republic (Moravia) by following the Carpathians, the Dinaric Alps in the west, the Pindus Mountains in the south, and the Caucasus Mountains in the east.[56]
The medieval Vlachs have elevated decorated funerary monuments in Herzegovina (Radimlja, Boljuni, Blidinje, etc) and surrounding countries. The Vlach origin of tombstones was attested by Bogumil Hrabak (1956) and Marian Wenzel (1962)[57] and by the archeological and anthropological researches of skeleton remains from the graves under stećci[58]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

Saying that Vlachs were nomads is as dumb as saying that airplane pilots are nomads. This shows complete lack of understanding of how Vlach shepherding worked. Vlach shepherd families had a home at the base of the mountain and only the men involved in shepherding would climb the mountain with the herds in the summer. There's nothing nomadic about this, the family of the shepherd never moved.

Also thinking that Romanians were mostly shepherds is just as dumb. There were at most 10,000 Romanian shepherd families in Medieval times, in all of Moldova, Wallachia and Transylvania. This is a tiny fraction of the overall Romanian population. Also until 1700s, shepherds were by far the richest peasants. It would have been nice to have more rich Romanian shepherds, but economically, there wasn't a market to sustain more shepherds. Most Romanians were ploughmen, and have been that since the Dacians.

[Joso]

:D