Illyrians and Vlachs wannabe as narative of young Montenegrin nation

[Pribislav]

Anti-Serbian Montenegrins learn in schools that they are predominantly Illyrians and Vlachs, with minor Slavic ancestry.

Attitudes of two random Montenegrins, very typical for national Montenegrins.

http://www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=78131995&postcount=1153
Translation:
Haplo researches:
Maybe for some people will be shock, but this is how things are: modern Montenegrins are mix of Illyrians, or Vlachs, who are more than 50% of genetic code of modern Montenegrin population, and influence of Praslavic roots is much less it's less than 10%, and it's even lower than Celtic and Asian Minor genetic code.

http://www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=78133763&postcount=1154
Translation:
Montenegrins are related with: Herzegovinians Serbs, Herzegovinian Croatians, Dalmatian and Lika Serbs, and Dalmatian and Lika Croatians. By physical appearance, language, and other characteristics among us and you.
Illyrians lived in all regions from Ulicj to the Lika, later they were named Morlachs or Vlachs, and later Croatians, Serbs and Montenegrins.

http://www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=78134245&postcount=1155
Translation:
The closest to Montenegrins by mentallity, lifestlye, customs, are people which have (or they had before they were absorbed by other nations) a lot of Illyrian blood. From north to the South, Morlachs and Montenegrins (mix of Illyrians and Slavs), Albanians (pure Illyrians), Epirotes (mix of Illyrians and Greeks).

[TheMaestro]

Everyone is wannabe Vlach, if you want a passing certificate, contact Sinansiensis.

[Ford]

Why are Slavs so pathetic that they want to be something else at all cost?

[Ülev]

I am Vlach!

[PaleoEuropean]

I am Vlach!

Vlach To The Future

[Pribislav]

Why are Slavs so pathetic that they want to be something else at all cost?

Interesting, national anti-Serbian Montenegrins see Serbs from Serbia (Srbijanci) as dirty Gypspies and Turkish bastards, and in the same time they see Herzegovinian and Krajina Serbs as lost brothers. They claim Herzegovinian and Krajina Serbs as own people outside of Montenegro brainwashed by Serbian propaganda in 19th century. :rotfl:

[Ford]

Interesting, national anti-Serbian Montenegrins see Serbs from Serbia (Srbijanci) as dirty Gypspies and Turkish bastards, and in the same time they see Herzegovinian and Krajina Serbs as lost brothers. They claim Herzegovinian and Krajina Serbs as own people outside of Montenegro brainwashed by Serbian propaganda in 19th century. :rotfl:

Funny because they are lost Herzegovinian Serbs and not the other way around :1127:

[Pribislav]

Funny because they are lost Herzegovinian Serbs and not the other way around :1127:

You probably heard for so called Montenegrin historian Miroslav Ćosović. He say Montenegrins are mix of Vlachs and Albanians (Vlachbanians). For Ćosović I2a is Vlach and E-V13 is Albanian marker.

Sekula Drljević claimed that Montenegrins are the closest to Albanians.

Jevrem Brković claim Red Croatian origin of Montenegrins.

[Bosniensis]

Everyone is wannabe Vlach, if you want a passing certificate, contact Sinansiensis.

I am not wannabe Vlach, neither are Montenegrins.

Onogošt Nikšić (Anderba Roman Military Outpost) is a place where ton's of Vlachs lived in 4th century A.D. and from where most of Dalmatian Vlachs had relatives.

Montenegrins aren't lying, it's just that Serbs are Russophiles who refuse to accept their Paleo-Balkan ancestry ... because "politics"

Target: Bosniensis
Distance: 1.5195% / 1.51949574 | ADC: 0.5x
88.4 South_Croat_Morlach_Cluster
10.8 Romanian_Transylvania
0.8 Austroasiatic_Ho

[TheMaestro]

I am not wannabe Vlach, neither are Montenegrins.

Onogošt Nikšić (Anderba Roman Military Outpost) is a place where ton's of Vlachs lived in 4th century A.D. and from where most of Dalmatian Vlachs had relatives.

Montenegrins aren't lying, it's just that Serbs are Russophiles who refuse to accept their Paleo-Balkan ancestry ... because "politics"

Target: Bosniensis
Distance: 1.5195% / 1.51949574 | ADC: 0.5x
88.4 South_Croat_Morlach_Cluster
10.8 Romanian_Transylvania
0.8 Austroasiatic_Ho

Can you give me Vlach passing certificate majstore?

[Terminator98]

Montenegrins are related with: Herzegovinians Serbs, Herzegovinian Croatians, Dalmatian and Lika Serbs, and Dalmatian and Lika Croatians.
Since all my ancestors are from Dinaric Alps (brdjani) I must be 100 percent Vlach :confused: :rolleyes:

[Terminator98]

Funny because they are lost Herzegovinian Serbs and not the other way around :1127:
Truth has been spoken, those ubermensch Cro magnon Montenegrins (with whom Coon was so impressed) are nothing more than Herzegovian Serbs :D

[Bosniensis]

It's not that Serbs are wannabe Vlachs, they are wannabe Eastern European Slavs.



Serb favorite anthem:


https://youtu.be/AOAtz8xWM0w

Serb after favorite anthem ended:

https://i.imgflip.com/allt4.jpg

[Pribislav]

Since all my ancestors are from Dinaric Alps (brdjani) I must be 100 percent Vlach :confused: :rolleyes:

I am full Dalmatian Serb, my ancestors are in Dalmatia since 16th and 17th century. Before Dalmatia they lived in Bosanska Krajina and Herzegovina from what I know. Dinaric, Dinaric and only Dinaric are my roots.

You and me are lost Montenegrins.:) According to Montenegrin nationalists all Dinaric people are Montenegrins or Montenegrins in denial.
One Montenegrin said to me how Knin Krajišnici are serbified Montenegrins, and Sinj Krajišnici are croatized Montenegrins, and both carry Montenegrin caps. :lol:

[vbnetkhio]

Attitudes of two random Montenegrins, very typical for national Montenegrins.


they aren't very wrong. i guess the first guy just considers r1a Slavic, and not i2a-din. and the second one forgets that all Serbs from Bosnia and Serbia are also of Montengrin origin. even southeast Serbs, they just managed to keep their old dialect.

[Dick]

It's not that Serbs are wannabe Vlachs, they are wannabe Eastern European Slavs.



Serb favorite anthem:


https://youtu.be/AOAtz8xWM0w

Serb after favorite anthem ended:

https://i.imgflip.com/allt4.jpg
You are just butt hurt because my father can pass as Russian(your own words) and yours as Wallachian

[Pribislav]

It's not that Serbs are wannabe Vlachs, they are wannabe Eastern European Slavs.



Serb favorite anthem:


https://youtu.be/AOAtz8xWM0w

Serb after favorite anthem ended:

https://i.imgflip.com/allt4.jpg

You would be perfect prophet of new Montenegrin Vlacho-Illyrian anti-Slavic narative.

[Bosniensis]

You would be perfect prophet of new Montenegrin Vlacho-Illyrian anti-Slavic narative.

I like the path they have taken, also Bosniak presidency Bakir Izetbegovic: "We are mix of Illyrians, Celts and Slavs"

It seems there won't be Green Transferzala rather Vlach Transferzala on Balkans hgahahahah

[Pribislav]

they aren't very wrong. i guess the first guy just considers r1a Slavic, and not i2a-din. and the second one forgets that all Serbs from Bosnia and Serbia are also of Montengrin origin. even southeast Serbs, they just managed to keep their old dialect.

First guy see only R1a as Slavic marker, it's very common among Montenegrins and Bosniaks.

Actually, present day Montenegro was very rare populated before Ottomans. When Ottomans came Serbs from various regions (Herzegovina, Bosnia, Raška, Kosovo, Macedonia, Skadar Krajina etc) escaped to the Montenegrin mountains where there was more freedom.
Very few tribes of Montenegro have roots in Montenegro before 15th century. Most of them settled in present day Montenegro during the 15th century.

[Dick]

This is better than watching porn!!!!1 fap fap




https://youtu.be/4XKJwVJ3kGo

[Teutone]

It's not that Serbs are wannabe Vlachs, they are wannabe Eastern European Slavs.



Serb favorite anthem:


https://youtu.be/AOAtz8xWM0w

Serb after favorite anthem ended:

https://i.imgflip.com/allt4.jpg

Do you see yourself as Slav?

[vbnetkhio]

First guy see only R1a as Slavic marker, it's very common among Montenegrins and Bosniaks.

Actually, present day Montenegro was very rare populated before Ottomans. When Ottomans came Serbs from various regions (Herzegovina, Bosnia, Rs
aška, Kosovo, Macedonia, Skadar Krajina etc) escaped to Montenegrin mountains where they was more freedom.
Very few tribes of Montenegro have roots in Montenegro before 15th century. Most of them settled in present day Montenegro during the 15th century.

but then these Montenegrins resettled all those areas again, right.

[Bosniensis]

Due to fall of Latin Balkan world:

450.000 Vlachs were assimilated in Ukraine, From Constantinople and Region hundreds of thousands Vlachs were displaced to Russia and Greece.

also Gelonians (Blisk Ukraine) also had dozens of thousands of assimilated Hellenes (Greek God's Worshipers)

Those Vlachs in Ukraine are predominantly I2a1 (tested), also every 5th Russian is I2a1.

:)

[Bosniensis]

Do you see yourself as Slav?

All our political leaders along with Albanians, (plus now Montenegrins) declare Slavic input as "those who came to live among us".

Of course I don't. It's just our people do not care about those things, poverty and wars give you no time to think about it.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Niw6r9LB8YU

[Ujku]

Why would they even wanna be vlachs lol ??

[Pribislav]

but then these Montenegrins resettled all those areas again, right.

It's exaggeration. For example Serbs from Krajina, Bosnia and western Serbia who the most claim Montenegrin origin are more different from Montenegrins in y dna and autosomally than native Kosovo and SE Serbs (Torlakians) who don't carry legend about Montenegrin origin.
Montenegrins cluster with Torlakian and Kosovo Serbs, not with Serbs from western Serbia, Krajina and Bosnia.

[Teutone]

All our political leaders along with Albanians, (plus now Montenegrins) declare Slavic input as "those who came to live among us".

Of course I don't. It's just our people do not care about those things, poverty and wars give you no time to think about it.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Niw6r9LB8YU

Whats ur take on Albanians?

[Pribislav]

Why would they even wanna be vlachs lol ??

Because for them Slavic = Serbian for some reason (same is with Bosniaks), and they don't want to be Serbs.
Vlachs for them are native, and it's exotic and promotive in their eyes to search their ancestors in Vlachs.
Serbs from Montenegro who are same as Montenegrins (only politically divided) are not slavophobic.

[Bosniensis]

Whats ur take on Albanians?

They are mix of Greek, Italians and minor Slavs ... nice people as long as you don't insult them. Extremely warlike and brutal people in every sense.

They dislike Serbs for they are epitome of Slavism for them. One of Albanians told me "I don't trust you cause you have friends among Serbs" hahahah

Because of their tribalism they can handle 3 religions within the nation (cause they honor tribes a lot).

They are prime example of Paleo-Balkan people and mentality that applies to all of us, but mostly to them.

My best friend was Albanian Bosnian in 8yr and middle school, they love their families (like Italians but more).

[Pribislav]

Montenegrins, Bosniaks and North Macedonians are masters of talking of ancient past for themselves, and champions in negation of Slavic roots.

[Ujku]

Because for them Slavic = Serbian for some reason (same is with Bosniaks), and they don't want to be Serbs.
Vlachs for them are native, and it's exotic and promotive in their eyes to search their ancestors in Vlachs.
Serbs from Montenegro who are same as Montenegrins (only politically divided) are not slavophobic.

Vlachs were just nomadic sheperds. They couldn't fight , that's why they don't have a country of their own .

They better claim Illyrian or some other proto Balkanian link .

[Bosniensis]

Montenegrins, Bosniaks and North Macedonians are masters of talking of ancient past for themselves, and champions in negation of Slavic roots.

Everyone here knows why Serbs Cheer for Russia, let's not pretend. (hint: For the same reason why Bosniaks cheer for Turks)

I understand that, we are all small and weak, we need someone "somewhat similar" to keep us alive.

We use Turks to survive, Serbs use Russians to survive, Greeks use NATO and EU to survive.

Sad but true. But that doesn't mean we are Slavs or Turks.

[vbnetkhio]

Serbs from Krajina, Bosnia and western Serbia

the majority of their y-dna is from Montenegrin and Herzegovinian clans. autosomal dna is more difficult to track. one possibilty is the they have more ancestry from valley Montnegrins, who are more Slavic. like that woman from Nikšić who has 30% Baltic.

[Bosniensis]

Vlachs were just nomadic sheperds. They couldn't fight , that's why they don't have a country of their own .

They better claim Illyrian or some other proto Balkanian link .

FROM WIKIPEDIA (this is correct)

Early Vlachs probably lived on Croatian "Dalmatian" territory even before the 14th century, being the progeny of Romanized Illyrians and pre-Slavic Romance-speaking people. During the 14th century, Vlach settlements existed throughout much of today's Croatia, from the northern island Krk, around the Velebit and Dinara mountains, and along the southern rivers Krka and Cetina. Those Vlachs had, by the end of the 14th and 15th century, lost, if they ever spoke, their Romance language, or were at least bilingual. As they adopted Slavic language, the only characteristic "Vlach" element was their pastoralism

[vbnetkhio]

Vlachs were just nomadic sheperds. They couldn't fight , that's why they don't have a country of their own .


they have 2, Romania and Moldova. :D Vlach clans were led by voivodes(warlords), and the common Vlachs were considered soldiers, not only shepherds.
all in all, a pretty cool people to larp as.

[Pribislav]

Vlachs were just nomadic sheperds. They couldn't fight , that's why they don't have a country of their own .

They better claim Illyrian or some other proto Balkanian link .

Many Montenegrins claim they are related with Morlachs. They are not aware that Morlachs was just Venetian nick for people from Dalmatian hinterland (Serbs and Croatians). They think Morlachs were some brave mixed Romance speaking and slavized Vlachs and all were like Stojan Janković https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stojan_Janković
In reality people who were marked as Morlachs by Venetians never call themselves like that, and they have the highest I2a-Din on the world together with Herzegovinians. My ancestors were marked as Morlachs as Venetians, and I don't give a fuck for that. People who were marked as Morlachs by Venetians speak the purest Serbian language, both Serbian and Croatian standard is based on their speech.

[Bosniensis]

https://i.imgur.com/psvNWUh.gif

[Pribislav]

the majority of their y-dna is from Montenegrin and Herzegovinian clans. autosomal dna is more difficult to track. one possibilty is the they have more ancestry from valley Montnegrins, who are more Slavic. like that woman from Nikšić who has 30% Baltic.

R1a-Z280>Y2613 and R1a-Z280>YP951 among Krajina Serbs are for sure not related with Herzegovina and Montenegro, these clades are in Donji Kraji (western Bosnia) since middle age.
I2-PH908 Krajina Serb families which celebrate Stevanjdan ("Krajiški Stevanjštaci") are not related with Herzegovina, Montenegro and any other eastern/southeastern region from Krajina.

[Dick]

https://i.imgur.com/psvNWUh.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/Gt4FaBEFngjL2/giphy.gif

[vbnetkhio]

R1a-Z280>Y2613 and R1a-Z280>YP951 among Krajina Serbs are for sure not related with Herzegovina and Montenegro, these branches are in Donji Kraji (western Bosnia) since middle age.
I2-PH908 Krajina Serb families which celebrate Stevanjdan ("Krajiški Stevanjptaci") are not related with Herzegovina, Montenegro and any other southeastern region from Krajina

there is Y2613>Y2608 and Y2613>Y2608>YP6098. the first could be Croatian admixture. the second one probably comes from Montenegro imo.
YP951 and I2-PH908, ok, but Macura, Krič, Drobnjak etc. haplogroups have very high percentages in Krajina.

[Pribislav]

there is Y2613>Y2608 and Y2613>Y2608>YP6098. the first could be Croatian admixture. the second one probably comes from Montenegro imo.
YP951 and I2-PH908, ok, but Macura, Krič, Drobnjak etc. haplogroups have very high percentages in Krajina.

I1-P109 has high % among Dalmatian Serbs, and by stereotype everyone who carry this clade as proclaimed as "Drobnjak." Bačko from Ramjane near Knin is I1-P109, but he is not related with Drobnjaks genetically confirmed. Bačko family came to the Ramljane from Pakoštane in coastal Dalmatia in late 17th century btw.
Who know what is number of I1-P109 Serbs proclaimed Drobnjaks whose ancestors never seen Durmitor.
Drobnjaks are Herzegovinian clan who became part of Montenegro in 1878, their deeper origin is from central Bosnia from where they came on Durmitor in 15th century. They originated from place Novi in central Bosnia, because of that their first name was Novljani.

[Ljubic]

I dont think anyone with PH908 is specific to any western balkan country. My matches are from every balkan country to ukraine even at y-67.

[vbnetkhio]

I1-P109 has high % among Dalmatian Serbs, and by stereotype everyone who carry this clade as proclaimed as "Drobnjak." Bačko from Ramjane near Knin is I1-P109, but he is not related with Drobnjaks genetically confirmed. Bačko family came to Ramljane from Pakoštane in coastal Dalmatia in late 17th century btw.
Who know what is number of I1-P109 Serbs proclaimed Drobnjaks whose ancestors never seen Durmitor.
Drobnjaks are Herzegovinian clan who became part of Montenegro in 1878, they deeper origin is from central Bosnia from where they came on Durmitor in 15th century. They originated from place Novi in central Bosnia, because of that their first name was Novljani.

yeah, on the Serbian dna project they can tell who fits into Drobnjaks by STR values. only those are the real Drobnjaks.
when i say Montnegrins i also mean east Herzegovinians, i'm too lazy to type both every time. and they both migrated together and settled in the same areas.

[vbnetkhio]

I dont think anyone with PH908 is specific to any western balkan country. My matches are from every balkan country to ukraine even at y-67.

did you ask the i2 project admins for a deeper prediction? they could narrow that down

[Bosniensis]

We need more nations on Balkans.

We need Dalmatian and Slavonian nation.

[Pribislav]

We need more nations on Balkans.

We need Dalmatian and Slavonian nation.

+1

:lol:

[Bosniensis]

+1

:lol:

Are u still living around Petrovac ?

It seems like we will loose about 50k people this year (exodus to eu)

What do you think?

[Pribislav]

Are u still living around Petrovac ?

It seems like we will loose about 50k people this year (exodus to eu)

What do you think?

I am in majka Srbija now.

[Bosniensis]

I am in majka Srbija now.

You are not coming back? Found job in Belgrade ?

I believe Petrovac region is empty without a soul. Sad.

[Ljubic]

did you ask the i2 project admins for a deeper prediction? they could narrow that down

Yeah, my subclade "A20333" consists either of serbs or ukrainians. I have Y-67 matches at two steps who are belarussians and bulgarians. The rest are croats and serbs and my paternal ancestor is from serbia. We need more people testing their subclades from the balkan region because to me it seems that the amount of them is sparse.

I also wanted to note again that another guy with the subclade "A20333" is from the Drobnjak family. I'd be eager to see results of other Drobnjakk Montenegrins.

[Pribislav]

You are not coming back? Found job in Belgrade ?

I believe Petrovac region is empty without a soul. Sad.

In wider area only Drvar had some life, until few years ago when young people started to left Drvar. Petrovac, Glamoč, Martin Brod, Grahovo is ruined and depopulated since war.

[Pribislav]

Montenegrin anti-Serbian identity has a roots in Montenegrin super serbism.
100-150 years ago Montenegrins recognized themselves as the purest Serbs. They wanted unification of all Serbs, and to they became elite in common Serbian powerful state and nation. In the late 19th and early 20th century in process of Serbian unification Montenegrins did not get peace of cake which think they deserve, and few decades later that complex mixed with communist propaganda created anti-Serbian Montenegrin ideology.

[Bosniensis]

Montenegrin anti-Serbian identity has a roots in Montenegrin super serbism.
100-150 years ago Montenegrins recognized themselves as the purest Serbs. They wanted unification of all Serbs, and to they became elite in common Serbian powerful state and nation. In the late 19th and early 20th century in process of Serbian unification Montenegrins did not get peace of cake which think they deserve, and few decades later that complex mixed with communist propaganda created anti-Serbian Montenegrin ideology.

from super-serbs to anti-serbs

typical balkan story hahhahaha

[dududud]

Illyrians are not supposed to be "iberian" shifted?

[Pribislav]

from super-serbs to anti-serbs

typical balkan story hahhahaha

Not all Montenegrins are anti-Serbs, but about 50% or less. 1/3 of them are still super Serbs.

In Montenegro declared Serbs are around 30%, and declared Serbian speakers are about 42%.

[Bosniensis]

Not all Montenegrins are anti-Serbs, but about 50% or less. 1/3 of them are still super Serbs.

In Montenegro declared Serbs are around 30%, and declared Serbian speakers are about 42%.

Are those montenegrins who declare as Serbs at least united in a single political party?

[Pribislav]

Are those montenegrins who declare as Serbs at least united in a single political party?

Unfortunately no. They are divided on few parties which are often in conflicts. Milo Đukanović play on Serbian strife. In the last few months happened homogenization of Serbs in Montenegro since when Milo want to stole their churches and monasteries, but still it's not sure will their parties perform united in the next election.

[Bosniensis]

Unfortunately no. They are divided on few parties which are often in conflicts. Milo Đukanović play on Serbian strife. In the last few months happened homogenization of Serbs in Montenegro since when Milo want to stole their churches and monasteries, but still it's not sure will their parties perform united in the next election.

Now when Turks control Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, I wouldn't be surprised that Montenegrin Church becomes legal one (after they steal SPC possesions)

[Pribislav]

Now when Turks control Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, I wouldn't be surprised that Montenegrin Church becomes legal one (after they steal SPC possesions)

No one Orthodox church recognized so called Montenegrin Orthodox Church until now.
So called MOC has no infrastructure, and has very low support in Orthodox population of Montenegro. Only 10-15% Orthodoxes in Montenegro are members of so called MOC. There are many descared Montenegrins even those with anti-Serbian attitudes who belong to Serbian Orthodox Church. So called MOC in basically NGO registred in police station on Cetinje.

[Bosniensis]

No one Orthodox church recognized so called Montenegrin Orthodox Church until now.
So called MOC has no infrastructure, and has very low support in Orthodox population of Montenegro. Only 10% Orthodoxes in Montenegro are members of so called MOC, there are many descared Montenegrins even those with anti-Serbian attitudes who belong to Serbian Orthodox Church. So called MOC in basically NGO registre in police station on Cetinje.

They haven't attacked SPC properties without reason, those Churches are of no value or use for Government except if they plan to give them to MOC... i.e. to strengthen MOC.

Also New Montenegrin nationalism (never seen before) is created with that goal in mind.

[Pribislav]

They haven't attacked SPC properties without reason, those Churches are of no value or use for Government except if they plan to give them to MOC... i.e. to strengthen MOC.

Also New Montenegrin nationalism (never seen before) is created with that goal in mind.

Serbian Orthodox Church is the oldest institution in Montenegro - 800 years old (much older than Montenegrin state).
Also SPC is the biggest keeper of Serbian identity in Montenegro. Until SPC exist in Montenegro Serbs can't be competely defeated, and Montenegrin nation can't be fully established.

[Pribislav]

Serbian Orthodox Church is the oldest institution in Montenegro - 800 years old (much older than Montenegrin state).
Also SPC is the biggest keeper of Serbian identity in Montenegro. Until SPC exist in Montenegro Serbs can't be competely defeated, and Montenegrin nation can't be fully established.

Serbian Orthodox Church has continuity in present day Montenegro since 1219 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitanate_of_Montenegro_and_the_Littoral

[Pribislav]

Serbs are pro-Russian as whole. But roots of Serbian rusophilia is in Montenegrin super Serbs. In 18th, 19th and early 20th century Montenegrins/Serbs from Montenegro were most pro-Russian people on the world, and other Serbs later adopted rusophilia from them.
In 1905 Montenegro declared war to Japan as Russian ally, some Montenegrin volunteers fought against Japan on Russian side.

[Moje ime]

Why are Slavs so pathetic that they want to be something else at all cost?

Slavic language speaking "Vlachs".

[Pribislav]

Slavic language speaking "Vlachs".

Montenegrins and Bosniaks wannabe Illyro-Vlachs, and North Macedonians wannabe ancient Macedonians. Many Bulgarian claim Thracian origin, some of them even Turkic origin. Croatians have various theories of non-Slavic origin. Western Ukrainians wannabe Celts. Czechs and Slovenians tend to identify themselves culturally with Germans, but they don't claim they are Germanic.
Slavs/Slavic speakers often have a problem with identity, especially Balkan ones.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

Montenegrins want to be Vlachs.

Serbs want to be Russians.

Romanians want to be Romans.

The Balkans are living a perpetual identity crisis, rofl.

[Pribislav]

Montenegrins want to be Vlachs.

Serbs want to be Russians.

Romanians want to be Romans.

The Balkans are living a perpetual identity crisis, rofl.

We are mostly rusophiles, but don't wanna be Russians.

Does theory that Romanians are direct descendants of Roman colonists in Dacia still has significant support among Romanians?

[Bosniensis]

We are mostly rusophiles, but don't wanna be Russians.

Does theory that Romanians are direct descendants of Roman colonists in Dacia still has significant support among Romanians?

Romanian anthem text

Wake up, Romanian, from your sleep of death
Into which you have been sunk by the barbaric tyrants
Now, or never, make a new fate for yourself,
To which even your cruel enemies will bow.

Now or never let us give proof to the world
That in these veins a Roman blood still flows,
That in our chests we hold a name with pride,
Victorious in battles, the name of Trajan!

Romanian historians talking about Romans and Vlachs:


https://youtu.be/fqLpjOVLRtY

[Pribislav]

Romanian anthem text

Wake up, Romanian, from your sleep of death
Into which you have been sunk by the barbaric tyrants
Now, or never, make a new fate for yourself,
To which even your cruel enemies will bow.

Now or never let us give proof to the world
That in these veins a Roman blood still flows,
That in our chests we hold a name with pride,
Victorious in battles, the name of Trajan!

Romanian historians talking about Romans and Vlachs:


https://youtu.be/fqLpjOVLRtY

I suppose Romanians see Vlachs as we see our great-grandparents. Like we are related with our great-grandparents, but we are not same people.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

We are mostly rusophiles, but don't wanna be Russians.

Does theory that Romanians are direct descendants of Roman colonists in Dacia still has significant support among Romanians?

Dacian purists have come out a lot more recently, rejecting the impact of the Roman colonists. It should be noted that some of these also propose that Latin is derived from Dacian, while a very small number think Zalmoxes, the main priest-God of the Dacians, was Jesus. So don't think that these purists are a fully legitimate, respected community.

The idea that we are descendants of Roman colonists remains as the mainstream theory though. I personally accept that without Roman contact the proto-Romanians or Vlachs would not have spoken a romance language, but I do not believe that we are descendants of Romans; Romans in the literal sense, as an Italic people from the peninsula, not Romanized locals that had nothing in common with actual Italians.

[Pribislav]

Dacian purists have come out a lot more recently, rejecting the impact of the Roman colonists. It should be noted that some of these also propose that Latin is derived from Dacian, while a very small number think Zalmoxes, the main priest-God of the Dacians, was Jesus. So don't think that these purists are a fully legitimate, respected community.

The idea that we are descendants of Roman colonists remains as the mainstream theory though. I personally accept that without Roman contact the proto-Romanians or Vlachs would not have spoken a romance language, but I do not believe that we are descendants of Romans; Romans in the literal sense, as an Italic people from the peninsula, not Romanized locals that had nothing in common with actual Italians.

If Roman colonists have significant genetic influence on Vlachs or proto-Romanians than modern Romanians should have many matches in Italy in y dna, and that is not case from what I know.
There was more Roman colonists on the East Adriatic coast than in Dacia.

[Bosniensis]

I suppose Romanians see Vlachs as we see our great-grandparents. Like we are related with our great-grandparents, but we are not same people.

Of course that Roman Civilization ceased to exist, but if you stop remembering who your ancestors were you will be "without history" like Serbs who still don't know 1st - 6th century A.D. history probably because most of Serbs were Vlachs.

[Pribislav]

Of course that Roman Civilization ceased to exist, but if you stop remembering who your ancestors were you will be "without history" like Serbs who still don't know 1st - 6th century A.D. history probably because most of Serbs were Vlachs.

If Aromanians are approxy for Vlachs than Serbs don't have much Vlach blood. Aromanians are quite different from Serbs in y dna and autosomally.

[Bosniensis]

If Roman colonists have significant genetic influence on Vlachs or proto-Romanians than modern Romanians should have many matches in Italy in y dna, and that is not case from what I know.
There was more Roman colonists on the East Adriatic coast than in Dacia.

Romans are not just Italians but Greeks as well and Anatolians.

When they found Pompeii city (sunken by Vulcanic dust) they have found Gigantic fresco of Alexander the Great on floor.

You don't have to match with Italy to be Roman, you can match with Greeks, Pontic people etc..

[Bosniensis]

If Aromanians are approxy for Vlachs than Serbs don't have much Vlach blood. Aromanians are quite different from Serbs in y dna and autosomally.

Romanians are proxy for Vlachs, those Morlachs, Aromanians etc.. are just non-assimilated Romance speakers. (Morlachs being mostly slavic speakers, or ex romance speakers)

Serbs score quite well with Romanians and Bulgarians.

[Pribislav]

Romanians are proxy for Vlachs, those Morlachs, Aromanians etc.. are just non-assimilated Romance speakers. (Morlachs being mostly slavic speakers, or ex romance speakers)

Serbs score quite well with Romanians and Bulgarians.

Romanians are half Slavic or something genetically. They are bad choise for proto-Vlachs. Aromanians are quite less Slavic than Romanians. Even Aromanians have Slavic genetic input.

[Kökény]

Now or never let us give proof to the world
That in these veins a Roman blood still flows,
That in our chests we hold a name with pride,
Victorious in battles, the name of Trajan!

There's nothing wrong with that. For example, the Hungarian anthem depicts us as sons of Attila's father.

"You brought our ancestors up

Over the Carpathians' holy peaks

By You was won a beautiful homeland

For Bendeguz's sons

And wherever flow the rivers of

The Tisza and the Danube

Árpád our hero's descendants

Will root and bloom"

Bendegúz=Mundzuk

[Bosniensis]

Romanians are half Slavic or something genetically. They are bad choise for proto-Vlachs. Aromanians are quite less Slavic than Romanians. Even Aromanians have Slavic genetic input.

There is no such thing as Proto-Vlachs. That would mean people who never mixed with other nations (maybe mountain people like Albanians etc..)

Romans on Balkans lived with Huns during the times of Orestes, and people mixed extensively. Are they less Vlachs? No.

Romans mixed with Syrians, Turks, Egyptians... are they less Roman? No.

It has been decided in 8th century A.D. that Slavic language we speak today become A NEW Lingua Franca of all Western Balkan people, and everyone adopted it accordingly.

[Bosniensis]

There's nothing wrong with that. For example, the Hungarian anthem depicts us as sons of Attila's father.

"You brought our ancestors up

Over the Carpathians' holy peaks

By You was won a beautiful homeland

For Bendeguz's sons

And wherever flow the rivers of

The Tisza and the Danube

Árpád our hero's descendants

Will root and bloom"

Bendegúz=Mundzuk

Some hungarians are descended from Attila Army.

Arpad's descended from Ugyek, and Ugyek descended from Attila.

Arpad family has been tested R1a (meaning Euroasian Steppe)

but many Hungarians aren't related to Attila

[Carpatz]

Romanians want to be Romans.

The Balkans are living a perpetual identity crisis, rofl.

Romanians are descendants of Roman citizens, whether from the Italic peninsula or not, and we have kept the Roman ethnic identity for over a millennia. LARPing as a Scythian from the steppes is something more akin to an identity crisis.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

Romanians are descendants of Roman citizens, whether from the Italic peninsula or not, and we have kept the Roman ethnic identity for over a millennia. LARPing as a Scythian from the steppes is something more akin to an identity crisis.

Romanians are descendants of local Balkan people, Celts, Slavs, Scythians and Sarmatians. The only Dacian samples we have are listed as Scythian because they were buried as Scythians. We did not keep a "Roman ethnic identity", we kept a romance language. Grigore Ureche was the first to state that we're probably from Rome because we speak a romance language. We were Muntean and Moldovan/Moldovean. Rumîn meant serf and Varlaam Motoc was the first to use the title Romanian language, in 1643. Even so, people kept saying Moldovenească and Muntenească until the 1800's.

You should be reminded that the intellectuals who created the Romanian nationality were close to calling our country Dacia and ourselves Dacians.

If I would LARP as a Scythian, I would be fully entitled to do so, because they were part of this land and clearly had peaceful relations with Dacians. Romans conquered, destroyed, colonized, stole, and then fucked off in 200 years. Why should I larp as a people that simply used this land? I don't see Algerians thinking they're French just because they speak it, and they probably have more French DNA than we do Roman.

Not to mention that our YDNA and MtDNA lineages are clearly East and SE European, we hold no relation to the Roman empire apart from language.

[Daco Celtic]

Montenegrins want to be Vlachs.

Serbs want to be Russians.

Romanians want to be Romans.

The Balkans are living a perpetual identity crisis, rofl.

As far as the Romanian association with Rome, I think that stems from the fact Romanians prefer a Latin, western influence over Slavic influence, so the desire to connect with Rome isn't surprising. Seems like Romanians are more open to western or southern European influence than most Balkan countries. I actually prefer a Dacian association since the Roman occupation was short lived and had a limited genetic impact.

[Pribislav]

——

Ovaj đetić je tvoj istomišljenik http://www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=78141035&postcount=1158

[Bosniensis]

Ovaj đetić je tvoj istomišljenik http://www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=78141035&postcount=1158

Pametan čovjek, vrlo ozbiljna teorija a ne deretićevo lupanje gluposti. Deretić svojim glupostima ismijava jednu ozbiljnu teoriju i stvara kontra efekat.

Ali džaba deretići, džaba svima sve kad će nauka i vrijeme otkriti sve.

[Mingle]

Montenegrins and Bosniaks wannabe Illyro-Vlachs, and North Macedonians wannabe ancient Macedonians. Many Bulgarian claim Thracian origin, some of them even Turkic origin. Croatians have various theories of non-Slavic origin. Western Ukrainians wannabe Celts. Czechs and Slovenians tend to identify themselves culturally with Germans, but they don't claim they are Germanic.
Slavs/Slavic speakers often have a problem with identity, especially Balkan ones.

Also, many non-Slavic groups in Eastern Europe get really offended if you mention they have a little Slavic ancestry and dislike being associated with Slavs. The reason is because Slavs in Europe are associated with backwardness/barbarism relative to other European groups.

[Mingle]

Rumîn meant serf

Source on this?


If I would LARP as a Scythian, I would be fully entitled to do so, because they were part of this land and clearly had peaceful relations with Dacians. Romans conquered, destroyed, colonized, stole, and then fucked off in 200 years. Why should I larp as a people that simply used this land? I don't see Algerians thinking they're French just because they speak it, and they probably have more French DNA than we do Roman.

I'd say Algerians calling themselves Arab is more similar to Romanians calling themselves Roman.

[Aspirin]

Source on this?


A generic name for serfs was șerb (from Latin servus, "slave", cognate with serf), but they also had some regional names: vecini in Moldavia (in today's language meaning "neighbour") and rumâni in Wallachia.



Romanian

Alternative forms:
rumân, rumîn (obsolete)

Etymology:
From a "re-Latinization" of an earlier form rumân or rumîn (although this form would have been mostly represented in Cyrillic at the time it was used), itself inherited from Latin rōmānus. The older form rumân also meant peasant, or a serf who worked the land (in feudal medieval Wallachia). In popular speech, it also has the meaning of a husband or man in general, but this is now archaic. Doublet of roman, a later borrowing.

[Bosniensis]

Romanians are descendants of Roman citizens, whether from the Italic peninsula or not, and we have kept the Roman ethnic identity for over a millennia. LARPing as a Scythian from the steppes is something more akin to an identity crisis.

A small village in Sinai (Egypt) that has been settled by Justinian who are "Guardians of St. Catharina Monastery" said: "We are Vlachs from Romania, and we are always happy to meet new people from Romania who visit us", they are there for 1500 years.

According to Pan-Slavists they are insane too.

5:00 minute


https://youtu.be/fqLpjOVLRtY

1844 A.D Vlachs Romania

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0f1d788b60b9e8bf851389a633199459

[Pribislav]

A small village in Sinai (Egypt) that has been settled by Justinian who are "Guardians of St. Catharina Monastery" said: "We are Vlachs from Romania, and we are always happy to meet new people from Romania who visit us", they are there for 1500 years.

According to Pan-Slavists they are insane too.

When you mentioned Sinai, here is something Serbian related https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbonian_Bog

According to Serbian autochtonists Serbs got name by bog (god) Serbon.

[Bosniensis]

When you mentioned Sinai, here is something Serbian related https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbonian_Bog

According to Serbian autochtonists Serbs got name by bog (god) Serbon.

Serbian autochtonists should look up to Romanian Historians. Serbian autochtonists need to take small steps first not to discuss crazy stuff like that which will never be proven anyway.

Discussions about things like that are marginalizing the work of REAL Serbian Autochtonists and Historians and are made to ridicule them.

Jovan Deretić is ridiculing Serbian history and marginalizing the work of real Serbian autochtonists.

[Pribislav]

Serbian autochtonists should look up to Romanian Historians. Serbian autochtonists need to take small steps first not to discuss crazy stuff like that which will never be proven anyway.

There is various Serbian autochtonists who different from each other.
For some Serbian ethnonym came from ancient god Serbon (who had a wife Serbona), some say Serbian ethnonym came from onomatopeia 10 000 years ago, some claim (like Milan Paroški) supreme god of ancient Serbs was Ra, for some (like Milan Vidojević) supreme god of ancient Serbs was god with fish face Dagon etc.

[Bosniensis]

There is various Serbian autochtonists who different to each other.
For some Serbian ethnonym came ancient god Serbon (who had wife Serb ona), some say Serbian ethnonym came from onomatopeia 10 000 years ago, some claim (like Milan Paroški) spreme god of ancient Serbs was Ra, for some spreme god of ancient Serbs was god with fish face Dagon etc.

It's embarrassing to talk about things like that.

Serbs are Thraco-Illyrian tribe that later got admixture from Celts and Scythians (Slavs) through migrations, who speak mixed language that got influences from all those peoples. Those who remained Latin speakers
were called Romano-Illyrian later after fall of Western Roman Empire = Vlachs who later lost language and who saved only their pastoral way of life.

Everything else is science fiction mostly.

[Pribislav]

It's embarrassing to talk about things like that.

Serbs are Thraco-Illyrian tribe that later got admixture from Celts and Scythians (Slavs) through migrations, who speak mixed language that got influences from all those peoples. Those who remained Latin speakers
were called Romano-Illyrian later after fall of Western Roman Empire = Vlachs who later lost language and who saved only their pastoral way of life.

Everything else is science fiction mostly.

Illyrian was name invented by Romans for all tribes living in western Balkan. There was no any people in history who call themselves Illyrians.
Similar story is with Thracians.

What are you think about etimology of Milan Paroški?
He say many important Serbian words have ra, like kraj, raj, mrak, brak, zrak, zora, mora, miran etc, and ra is refers of ancient Serbian supreme god Ra.

[ixulescu]

If I would LARP as a Scythian, I would be fully entitled to do so, because they were part of this land and clearly had peaceful relations with Dacians. Romans conquered, destroyed, colonized, stole, and then fucked off in 200 years. Why should I larp as a people that simply used this land? I don't see Algerians thinking they're French just because they speak it, and they probably have more French DNA than we do Roman.


Nobody asks you to larp anyone. Proto-Romanians felt Roman because they were descendants of Roman citizens. They were Roman politically, culturally and linguistically. The Roman empire was multi-ethnic, and so their actual genetic lineage was irrelevant to their claim.

Are you fully Romanian or mixed?

[Bosniensis]

Illyrian was name invented by Romans for all tribes living in western Balkan. There was no any people in history who call themselves Illyrians.
Similar story is with Thracians.

.

I don't want to comment that Ra thing, makes no sense.



Of course there were Illyrians.

In Roman Empire populace was mostly divided into "Illiterate Stock Herders and Farmers, Soldiers, Citizens"

Those stock herders were composed of Tribes and nobody in Cities like (Virminacium, Singidunum) cared how they call themselves even if they were FAR more numerous than city dwellers.

Those who lived in cities and who could understand Latin or Greek were mostly the only important part of 2nd century Serbia, and they were calling villagers = Illyrians. Villagers basically had no identity, they had tribes (bratstva) etc...

but entire administration, chronologists, religious institutions, military barracks, market places... were all in cities, and those "illyrians" could come and trade when they were allowed to do so.

Cities were used as Police Station to control a large masses of Tribal people on Balkans.

That's why after the FALL of Roman Empire, and after Tribal people Organized themselves.. they could not understand their origin and history, cause they were not the rulers, they were ruled by Latin Romanized Illyrians.

That's why average modern Serb can't comprehend the fact that Latin Civilization was part of Serbian history, cause modern Serbs derive from Tribal illiterate villagers.

[Pribislav]

I don't want to comment that Ra thing, makes no sense.



Of course there were Illyrians.

In Roman Empire populace was mostly divided into "Illiterate Stock Herders and Farmers, Soldiers, Citizens"

Those stock herders were composed of Tribes and nobody in Cities like (Virminacium, Singidunum) cared how they call themselves even if they were FAR more numerous than city dwellers.

Those who lived in cities and who could understand Latin or Greek were mostly the only important part of 2nd century Serbia, and they were calling villagers = Illyrians. Villagers basically had no identity, they had tribes (bratstva) etc...

but entire administration, chronologists, religious institutions, military barracks, market places... were all in cities, and those "illyrians" could come and trade when they were allowed to do so.

Cities were used as Police Station to control a large masses of Tribal people on Balkans.

That's why after the FALL of Roman Empire, and after Tribal people Organized themselves.. they could not understand their origin and history, cause they were not the rulers, they were ruled by Latin Romanized Illyrians.

That's why average modern Serb can't comprehend the fact that Latin Civilization was part of Serbian history, cause modern Serbs derive from Tribal illiterate villagers.

If you have a time machine and go somewhere in western Balkan 2500 or 3000 years in the past and ask locals are they Illyrians by ethnicity they would say that they never heard for that term.

[Bosniensis]

If you have time machine and go somewhere in western Balkan 2500 or 3000 years in the past and ask locals are they Illyrians by ethnicity they would say that they never heard for that term.

90% would tell you "We are of that Tribe from Dalmatia near that mountain or river"

But barely 20% people in 200 A.D. Western Balkans were considered Roman Citizens who had knowledge of regional borders etc..

Tribal People had no idea what's border, what's region, what's state, what's law. They were only aware of their fathers, mothers and ancestors and that was their only identification.

Romans basically invented state management, regions, vassalisation and many other things completely unknown to tribals.

[Pribislav]

90% would tell you "We are of that Tribe from Dalmatia near that mountain or river"

But barely 20% people in 200 A.D. Western Balkans were considered Roman Citizens who had knowledge of regional borders etc..

Tribal People had no idea what's border, what's region, what's state, what's law. They were only aware of their fathers, mothers and ancestors and that was their only identification.

Romans basically invented state management, regions, vassalisation and many other things completely unknown to tribals.

Maybe.

Point is that colective Illyrian identity never existed in region which is marked as populated with "Illyrians" by modern historians.
In deeper past people identify themselves with own villages or smaller regions (few surrounding villages), not with something wider.
Problem is in fact that we watch old past 2000 or 3000 years ago with modern glasses from 19th century.

[Bosniensis]

Maybe.

Point is that colective Illyrian identity never existed in region which is marked as populated with "Illyrians" by modern historians.
In deeper past people identify themselves with own villages or smaller regions (few surrounding villages), not with something wider.
Problem is in fact that we watch old past 2000 or 3000 years ago with modern glasses from 19th century.

True.

People don't understand that Roman Cities in Serbia were not a cities as we see it today, for Romans did not understand the concept of State as we know today.

For Romans there was only 1 city = Rome, a hellenic City-State that ruled the World. (like Sparta, Troy, Athens etc..) Virminacium and Singidunum were considered a Roman extraterritorial city-forts for maintaining "Roman order"
supplied with enough soldiers to extort tax and goods for Rome.

All things and goods from all provinces were extorted for Rome.

Roman Empire was tyrannical hellenic city-empire, that absorbed other lesser european cultures into "roman citizens" as long as one was willing to become one. (culture, clothing, language, religion etc..)

Modern brain can't comprehend those things.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

Nobody asks you to larp anyone. Proto-Romanians felt Roman because they were descendants of Roman citizens. They were Roman politically, culturally and linguistically. The Roman empire was multi-ethnic, and so their actual genetic lineage was irrelevant to their claim.

Are you fully Romanian or mixed?

LMAO why is it that when a Romanian won't take in the general bullshit that is the standard narrative of Romanian history, they must be asked if they're mixed.

Yes, I am fully Moldavian from Romania.

Romanians were, and are not, descendants of Roman citizens. Not in the kind of citizens that should actually make us feel Roman and not just "educated locals". We were never Roman politically or culturally apart from the 200 years of occupation which had only one purpose: get that gold. Don't give me that bullshit that we celebrate Floriile, we have nothing in common with Romans, but plenty with our neighbours, Serbs, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Hungarians. Romanians should stop feeling special and accept that they're Balkan people. The Germans raped Romans and got raped by Romans for hundreds of years then LARPed with the Holy Roman Empire because they wanted the same glory and ideals. They actually tried to copy the Romans.

We, on the other hand, took care of our sheep in the mountains and spoke broken Latin with Slavic words (which gets pushed further and further back, instead of accepting that the estimated percentages did not account for the vastly more Slavic vocabulary of the peasants. Still Latin, but more Slavic than estimated).

This land (and not even all of it) was Roman for 200 years. Once we came out as a people on the map, 1100 years later, we were indistinguishable from our Slavic neighbours in terms of political structure and culture. We only came up as Roman because we spoke, and still do, a language that was clearly with a different root than our neighbours.

Why did the Byzantines not try to absorb these lands when they still could, since we were so Roman? Why did they not just claim us as their subjects and therefore, Romans, to fight with them? The Byzantines took Dobrogea and made no further incursion in these lands filled with "Romans".

Why did we need Bulgarians to actually bring Christianity in here? There was no continuity, Christianity died in the 4th century and then came back, Jesus Bogomilov, Bulgarian boogaloo. We then helped them out and then the Bulgarians actually claimed this land as their own in a Bulgarian Empire, something that the Byzantines never bothered to do. Why, if we were of their own kind?

Byzantines spoke Greek but for a land filled with gold and a population that should be theoretically positive to welcome them, they really tried nothing, not even Justinian.

We were therefore never the lost people of Rome, not even of Constantinopole, just savages that went through the same ethnogenesis as our fellow Serbs and Bulgarians here, only that we only half-assed the "Speak Slavic now" memo.

[Dunai]

Also, many non-Slavic groups in Eastern Europe get really offended if you mention they have a little Slavic ancestry and dislike being associated with Slavs. The reason is because Slavs in Europe are associated with backwardness/barbarism relative to other European groups.

With Hungarians I don't see this as drastic, since even if Slavic ancestry is not seen as cool as German, but many Hungarians tend to admit without much shame if they had some Slav down in their family tree.

[ixulescu]

LMAO why is it that when a Romanian won't take in the general bullshit that is the standard narrative of Romanian history, they must be asked if they're mixed.

Yes, I am fully Moldavian from Romania.

wow, I touched a nerve didn't I?
I noticed your sour comments in the past.



Romanians were, and are not, descendants of Roman citizens. Not in the kind of citizens that should actually make us feel Roman and not just "educated locals". We were never Roman politically or culturally apart from the 200 years of occupation which had only one purpose: get that gold.

When Dacia was transformed into a Roman province, the Dacians living there became Roman citizens. This is not in dispute - it's how the Roman empire used to work. Now of course, the purpose of the Roman presence in Dacia was mainly to get the gold and salt. The moment the costs of getting that resource became larger than the benefit they left. However that didn't happen in 275 AD but in late 6th century, as all archaeological digs at Roman sites show.




Don't give me that bullshit that we celebrate Floriile, we have nothing in common with Romans, but plenty with our neighbours, Serbs, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Hungarians. Romanians should stop feeling special and accept that they're Balkan people. The Germans raped Romans and got raped by Romans for hundreds of years then LARPed with the Holy Roman Empire because they wanted the same glory and ideals. They actually tried to copy the Romans.

Of course present day Romanians are closer to their present day neighbors, what kind of question is that?
Yes, we have a similar genetic makeup to Bulgarians and Serbs, and have some overlaps with Hungarians and Western Ukrainians. This does not contradict the fact that the main genetic contributors to the ancestry of Romanians are Latinized paleo-Balkan people (mainly Dacian, Balkan Roman and Greek mix).

And btw, we're similar to Bulgarians and Serbs because they also have about the same amount of Latinized paleo-Balkan ancestry, but they chose to adhere to a Slavic culture. A process of self-selection probably happened in early middle ages, when those who wanted to keep a Slavic culture went South of the Danube while people wanting to preserve a Latin culture went North.




We, on the other hand, took care of our sheep in the mountains and spoke broken Latin with Slavic words (which gets pushed further and further back, instead of accepting that the estimated percentages did not account for the vastly more Slavic vocabulary of the peasants. Still Latin, but more Slavic than estimated).

Very few proto-Romanians and Romanians were actually shepherds (around 5% maybe). Medieval Romanians were mostly plowmen and weren't particularly fond of shepherds, because shepherds paid less taxes and were the richest peasants/farmers until modernization of labor. You're confusing the vlach social class with the Vlach ethnolinguistic group - something that historians also do often, not always for innocent reasons.

In regards to language, you're overstating the Slavic influence. The basic Romanian vocabulary has only 5% Slavic words, and probably had even less in the past. The basic vocabulary and grammar is remarkably close to Latin, closer to Latin than all other Romance languages with the exception of those spoken in the Italian peninsula and islands. Since this language was not learnt in school, it's obvious that the process of Latinization in Romania was deep (both in terms of duration and the amount of already Latinized population settled in Dacia).




This land (and not even all of it) was Roman for 200 years. Once we came out as a people on the map, 1100 years later, we were indistinguishable from our Slavic neighbours in terms of political structure and culture. We only came up as Roman because we spoke, and still do, a language that was clearly with a different root than our neighbours.

Romans didn't leave in 275 AD, let's not repeat this nonsense over and over again.




Why did the Byzantines not try to absorb these lands when they still could, since we were so Roman? Why did they not just claim us as their subjects and therefore, Romans, to fight with them? The Byzantines took Dobrogea and made no further incursion in these lands filled with "Romans".

You seem to have little knowledge of the context or you're willfully ignore it. In early medieval times the Byzantines had massive troubles keeping the eastern borders, and so they couldn't do anything in the north. In the north they barely could deal with the Bulgarians - a constant threat to them.




Why did we need Bulgarians to actually bring Christianity in here? There was no continuity, Christianity died in the 4th century and then came back, Jesus Bogomilov, Bulgarian boogaloo. We then helped them out and then the Bulgarians actually claimed this land as their own in a Bulgarian Empire, something that the Byzantines never bothered to do. Why, if we were of their own kind?

Byzantines spoke Greek but for a land filled with gold and a population that should be theoretically positive to welcome them, they really tried nothing, not even Justinian.


It is unclear what percentage of the population was Christianized before Bulgarians turned these lands into vassal duchies and spread the Liturgy in Bulgarian.
Personally I'm happy for what Bulgarians did early in our history, otherwise these days would have shit language skills and worship Orban V.

[Bosniensis]

....

Ancient History of Romania in 7 minutes


https://youtu.be/fqLpjOVLRtY

[Tommie]

We did not keep a "Roman ethnic identity", we kept a romance language. Grigore Ureche was the first to state that we're probably from Rome because we speak a romance language. We were Muntean and Moldovan/Moldovean. Rumîn meant serf and Varlaam Motoc was the first to use the title Romanian language, in 1643. Even so, people kept saying Moldoveneasca and Munteneasca until the 1800's.



Romanian identity is old and not a recent creation and it's attested in journey and political reports during the Renaissance era.




In 1532, Francesco della Valle accompanying Governor Aloisio Gritti to Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia notes that Romanians preserved the name of the Romans (Romani) and "they call themselves in their language Romanians (Romei)". He even cites the sentence "Sti Rominest ?" ("do you speak Romanian ?" for originally Romanian "Știi românește ?") Further, this author reports what he could learn from local orthodox monks, that "in the present they call themselves Romanians (Romei)"

... in Notizie intorno ai romeni nella letteratura geografica italiana del Cinquecento, in Bulletin de la Section Historique, XVI, 1929, p. 1- 90


"Tout ce pays: la Wallachie, la Moldavie et la plus part de la Transylvanie, a esté peuplé des colonies romaines du temps de Trajan l'empereur… Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à-dire romain

... in Voyage fait par moy, Pierre Lescalopier l’an 1574 de Venise a Constantinople



https://i.imgur.com/YHR8tnI.png
https://books.google.de/books?id=50VBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=Dissertatio+Paralipomenica+Rerum+Memorabilium+H ungariae+sanguine+Romano&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmtb-fu5rUAhUKbhQKHQOVDCQQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Dissertatio%20Paralipomenica%20Rerum%20Memorabil ium%20Hungariae%20sanguine%20Romano&f=true

"Valachos qui Moldaviam et Transalpinam incolunt, seipsos pro Romanorum progenie tenere; dicunt enim communi modo loquendi: Sie noi sentem Rumeni: etiam nos sumus Romani. Item: Noi sentem di sange Rumena: Nos sumus de sanguine Romano"

Martin Szentiványi in 1699 quotes the following: «Si noi sentem Rumeni» ("Și noi suntem români" – "We are Romans as well") and «Noi sentem di sange Rumena» ("Noi suntem de sânge român" – We are of Roman blood).[22] Notably, Szentiványi used Italian-based spellings to try to write the Romanian words.


https://i.imgur.com/WrxVbxD.png

Polish Humanist Stanislaus Orichovius notes as late as 1554 that "these left behind Dacians in their own language are called Romini, after the Romans, and Walachi in Polish, after the Italians".

... in I. Dlugossus, Historiae polonicae libri XII, col 1555


A chronicler and mercenary from Verona, Alessandro Guagnini (1538–1614), traveled twice in Moldavia and helped Despot Voda (Ioan Iacob Heraclid) gain the throne in 1563. In his biography of the prince, "Vita despothi Principis Moldaviae", he described to the people of Moldavia:"This nation of Wallachians refer to themselves as Romana and say that they originate from exiled Romans of Italy. Their language is a mixture of Latin and Italian languages, so that an Italian can easily understand a Wallachian"

... Adolf Armbruster, Romanitatea românilor: istoria unei idei, Editia a II-a, Editura Enciclopedica, Bucure?ti, 1993, pg. 47


https://i.imgur.com/HTQqGWz.png

The geographer Anton Friedrich Büsching writes in 1754 that "the Wallachians, who are remnant and progeny of the old Roman colonies thus call themselves Romanians, which means Romans"


The Croat Ante Verancic states in 1570 that "« Vlachs » from Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia say that they are « romani »" : "...Valacchi, qui se Romanos nominant..." "Gens quae ear terras (Transsylvaniam, Moldaviam et Transalpinam) nostra aetate incolit, Valacchi sunt, eaque a Romania ducit originem, tametsi nomine longe alieno"

...De situ Transsylvaniae, Moldaviae et Transaplinae, in Monumenta Hungariae Historica, Scriptores; II, Pesta, 1857, p. 120.




Meaning of rumîn:


Inherited from Latin romanus (Roman). The sense of "serf" or "peasant" arose in what is now southern Romania as many of the common people came to be tied to the land as part of a feudal system; however, the nuance of relative social inferiority tied to the notion of romanus also seems to have appeared in some form as far back as Frankish law[1] in Western Europe after the Germanic conquests, although it may be an independent or unrelated development.





Not to mention that our YDNA and MtDNA lineages are clearly East and SE European, we hold no relation to the Roman empire apart from language.



Romans are one of the cultural and ethnic ancestors of Romanians. Roman colonists in Dacia were from all over the Empire (Ex toto orbe Romano), with the massive Roman forces in area sharing the same heterogeneous origin.



Authors: A. Rodewald1, G. Cardos2, C. Tesio3;

Abstract: Our genetic study was focused on old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Ages from Romania in order to analysed their genetic variation and their genetic kinship al mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA)level with today´s Romanian populations and other modern European populations. The ancient DNA(aDNA)was extracted from skeletal remains of 50 individuals from the Bronze and Iron Age by a phenol-chloroform DNA extraction method.MtDNA HVR I and HVR II regions were amplified by PCR and sequenced by the dideoxy chain terminator method.The aDNA data were analysed in comparison with corresponding mtDNA data of modern Romanian people and other 11 European populations.The ancient mtDNA haplotypes were framed into 12 haplogroups. The most frequent mtDNA haplotype identified in the old individual sample from Romania was the CRS-like, and the most frequent haplogroup was H. Significant differences in haplogroup frequencies between the old people and modern Romanians were found. Low values of internal standard genetic diversity indices suggested reduced genetic variability within old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Age from Romania, in contrast to all modern European populations and also modern Romanians, which showed higher mitochondrial haplogroup diversity values. This fact might be the result of social and cultural local organization in small tribes, partially reproductively isolated. Concerning the genetic relationships at mitochondrial level, old human populations from Romania have shown closer genetic relationship to Turks of Thracian origin,while modern Romanians were closer to modern Bulgarian, Italian, Greek and Spanish populations.


Y-DNA distribution 2000 years ago

https://i.imgur.com/0HWtdg6.jpg


Romanian folklore and mythology is also full of pre-Christian and Roman influences, roots and customs.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

wow, I touched a nerve didn't I?
I noticed your sour comments in the past.

Lmao what sour comments, It's just funny how every Romanian that sees another Romanian not follow the narrative gets questioned on his ethnicity. It's ok, my surname doesn't end in -stein either.


When Dacia was transformed into a Roman province, the Dacians living there became Roman citizens. This is not in dispute - it's how the Roman empire used to work. Now of course, the purpose of the Roman presence in Dacia was mainly to get the gold and salt. The moment the costs of getting that resource became larger than the benefit they left. However that didn't happen in 275 AD but in late 6th century, as all archaeological digs at Roman sites show.

Send some links over as unfortunately I cannot find anything to support a continued organized presence of Romans in post-271 Dacia.


Of course present day Romanians are closer to their present day neighbors, what kind of question is that?
Yes, we have a similar genetic makeup to Bulgarians and Serbs, and have some overlaps with Hungarians and Western Ukrainians. This does not contradict the fact that the main genetic contributors to the ancestry of Romanians are Latinized paleo-Balkan people (mainly Dacian, Balkan Roman and Greek mix).

And btw, we're similar to Bulgarians and Serbs because they also have about the same amount of Latinized paleo-Balkan ancestry, but they chose to adhere to a Slavic culture. A process of self-selection probably happened in early middle ages, when those who wanted to keep a Slavic culture went South of the Danube while people wanting to preserve a Latin culture went North.

I personally believed that the "descalecare" has settled the language in Romania - administration spoke mainly Romanian/proto-Romanian and dominated a bunch of diverse peoples that did not necessarily all speak it.





Very few proto-Romanians and Romanians were actually shepherds (around 5% maybe). Medieval Romanians were mostly plowmen and weren't particularly fond of shepherds, because shepherds paid less taxes and were the richest peasants/farmers until modernization of labor. You're confusing the vlach social class with the Vlach ethnolinguistic group - something that historians also do often, not always for innocent reasons.

In regards to language, you're overstating the Slavic influence. The basic Romanian vocabulary has only 5% Slavic words, and probably had even less in the past. The basic vocabulary and grammar is remarkably close to Latin, closer to Latin than all other Romance languages with the exception of those spoken in the Italian peninsula and islands. Since this language was not learnt in school, it's obvious that the process of Latinization in Romania was deep (both in terms of duration and the amount of already Latinized population settled in Dacia).

The "basic" vocabulary means nothing in the context of cultural influence. Rural Romanians used at least 30% Slavic vocabulary in their day to day routine. Downplaying the Slavic vocabulary influence only helps confuse a Romanian further. But I bet you like to word amic and use amor unironically. I won't argue the former, it didn't cover my point.



Romans didn't leave in 275 AD, let's not repeat this nonsense over and over again.

Ah yes, going against most evidence. Please show proof.



You seem to have little knowledge of the context or you're willfully ignore it. In early medieval times the Byzantines had massive troubles keeping the eastern borders, and so they couldn't do anything in the north. In the north they barely could deal with the Bulgarians - a constant threat to them.

You missed the point there bud. I am perfectly aware that the Byzantine Empire was sterile post Justinian and was struggling to keep its influence. The point was that a people so close to their Roman roots and speaking a post-Latin language should have kept a stronger tie to their supposed parent empire. Yet there were the Vlachs in Northern Greece / Bulgaria / Macedonia and Barbarians. They did not come to Christianize us or to offer support as Christians, to create churches. The Bulgarians managed though.



It is unclear what percentage of the population was Christianized before Bulgarians turned these lands into vassal duchies and spread the Liturgy in Bulgarian.
Personally I'm happy for what Bulgarians did early in our history, otherwise these days would have shit language skills and worship Orban V.

Archaeologists have found few Christian relics post-271 and some would be attributed to Christian Goths. While true that it's impossible to say that there were no Christians there, there was clearly barely any Christian culture.

[Daco Celtic]

23andMe is the only test that shows real Vlachness and real Vlach regions

https://i.imgur.com/uZ6vpcm.jpg

[Voskos]

Montenegrins are Serbs there's no doubt about that.

[Serbian Eagle]

Crna Gora vazda je bila i ostace Srpska! Kome se to ne svidja mars u Siptariju. Kratko al jasno.

[Tauromachos]

I do think Montenegrins do have both Slavic and Pre Slavic ancestry from native people of the region this also reflects
in their phenotypes and customs.

Even Serbs themselves are not entirely Slavic for that matter but share Slavic ancestry along with ancestry from Pre Slavic natives

[TheMaestro]

https://i.imgur.com/0HWtdg6.jpg




Albanian E-V13 too stronK, still in Kosovo.