Who are the Romanians?

[HungAryan]

Another simple question to answer.
Or not so simple?

[Tabiti]

+ Vlachs

[HungAryan]

+ Vlachs

Vlach = Romanian.
So I ask again - who are the Romanians?
Dacians? Ancient Romans? Turks? Gypsies? Or what?

[Tabiti]

Vlach = Romanian.
So I ask again - who are the Romanians?
Dacians? Ancient Romans? Turks? Gypsies? Or what?
No, Vlachs can be found in Bulgaria, FYROM and even Greece.

[Ushtari]

Gypsies mixed with Turks

[The Lawspeaker]

A mishmash of Dacians, some Romans, Slavs, Hungarians, Vlachs and some Germanics.

All in all -- a very interesting breed of people.

[Skanderbeg Is God]

......

[Caeruleus]

No, Vlachs can be found in Bulgaria, FYROM and even Greece.

Tabiti, Vlachs are Romanians. Iudeus_Augustus may be a revisionist :) but he has done his homework. Vlachs is a blanket term that covers all the people who speak romanian or a dialect of romanian. Vlach is originally an exonym (a name given to romanians by foreigners) it is of germanic origin meaning latin people.

The vlachs that you're talking about (those from Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece and Albania) call themselves, aromanians, makidoni and vlachs but they are still part of the romanian nation.

It's interesting to see what foreigners think of your people :)

another interesting thing is that albanians are the first to throw mud basically at any other european nation (they hate serbs, romanians, greeks ...) who do you people like ? and who likes you ? :)

[morski]

It's interesting to see what foreigners think of your people :)

I think what Civis wrote:) Maybe plus some influence from the Kumans and the Pechenegs.

[Skanderbeg Is God]

another interesting thing is that albanians are the first to throw mud basically at any other european nation (they hate serbs, romanians, greeks ...) who do you people like ? and who likes you ? :)
First i posted in wrong thread so i edited post, and about who likes us , who care about that??.

[Mordid]

A mishmash of Dacians, some Romans, Slavs, Hungarians, Vlachs and some Germanics.

All in all -- a very interesting breed of people.

Agreed.

[HungAryan]

Basically, anything but Dacians, I say.
They just use it for propaganda.

[BanjaLuka]

Tabiti, Vlachs are Romanians. Iudeus_Augustus may be a revisionist :) but he has done his homework. Vlachs is a blanket term that covers all the people who speak romanian or a dialect of romanian. Vlach is originally an exonym (a name given to romanians by foreigners) it is of germanic origin meaning latin people.

The vlachs that you're talking about (those from Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece and Albania) call themselves, aromanians, makidoni and vlachs but they are still part of the romanian nation.

It's interesting to see what foreigners think of your people :)

another interesting thing is that albanians are the first to throw mud basically at any other european nation (they hate serbs, romanians, greeks ...) who do you people like ? and who likes you ? :)

It is said that those Vlachs (herders) that moved all around Balkan and even to todays Czech Republic on the West are actually mix of indigenous Thracians and Illyirans with Latin Romans but they are considered as you said to be a part of Romanian nation. In Dalmatia, Istria and Bosnia&Herzegovina and Montenegro some of them have blended in with local populations while they managed to remain as ethnic minority in Serbia close to Romania (some 40.000 of them)...

[Caeruleus]

It is said that those Vlachs (herders) that moved all around Balkan and even to todays Czech Republic on the West are actually mix of indigenous Thracians and Illyirans with Latin Romans but they are considered as you said to be a part of Romanian nation. In Dalmatia, Istria and Bosnia&Herzegovina and Montenegro some of them have blended in with local populations while they managed to remain as ethnic minority in Serbia close to Romania (some 40.000 of them)...

I do not deny the fact that balkan vlachs have an identity of their own (within the romanian nation)

[HungAryan]

Those Vlachs should be rounded up and put into their places.

[arcticwolf]

I voted Latin Dacians for the lack of more realistic choice like: Dacian, Roman, with Slavic and Germanic influence. Seeing this thread was started by Hungarian and it's about Romanians this has potential to deteriorate really fast. Both nations along with the Greeks and the Scandinavians are considered Slavic friendly. Since this is about Romanians, best to you brothers!

[Skanderbeg Is God]

I voted Latin Dacians for the lack of more realistic choice like: Dacian, Roman, with Slavic and Germanic influence. Seeing this thread was started by Hungarian and it's about Romanians this has potential to deteriorate really fast. Both nations along with the Greeks and the Scandinavians are considered Slavic friendly. Since this is about Romanians, best to you brothers!
Despite fact that Romanians are slavic friendly, what is your opinion about them ??

[arcticwolf]

Positive.

[Magister Eckhart]

Latinized Dacians form the core of the "Romanian" people, but Romania is both Wallachia and Moldavia in combination, the Vlach people forming the core of their ancestry. I would ask, "who is a Vlach?"

As for the Gypsies - no Gypsie is a Romanian; they just give Romanians a bad name. I've known many Romanians they definitely get a bad reputation because of the Gypsies - a reputation they do not deserve. Romanians are European, Gypsies are not.

[Mordid]

Even thought, they are Latinized Dacians, they look heavily Slavic influence.

[Unurautare]

Even thought, they are Latinized Dacians, they look heavily Slavic influence.

What exactly do you perceive as being "heavily slavic" about our look?

[Lithium]

Dacians + some Slavic influence

[Humanophage]

Even thought, they are Latinized Dacians, they look heavily Slavic influence.
I agree with this. Dacians with significant Slavic influence, possibly some minor Latin.

But then who are 'Dacians'?

(from Dodecad K=12 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=COCa89AJ&key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0))
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f389/Humanophage/DODECADCentral-SE.jpg

Significant Cuman admixture would have indicated much higher North and Southeast Asian elements, as in Nogays. Significant Turkish influence would have meant a higher West Asian score, but Romanians fit more or less seamlessly into the transition between Hungarians/Ukrainians and Bulgarians. They have a high East European score, which is normal for the region and which peaks in Slavs and Balts. Roman admixtures seem to be present as well, elevating the Mediterranean score beyond that of Bulgarians.

[morski]

Slavic stands for linguitic affiliation not for looks.

[Humanophage]

Slavic stands for linguitic affiliation not for looks.
It is just a convenient label for the genetic admixture that predominates among Poles, Russians, Baltic ethnicites, etc. It is prominent among all Slavs and the populations caught inbetween, like Hungarians or Romanians, meaning they intermixed with Slavs or were of a similar stock from the beginning. It seems to coincide with Slavic migrations, like R1a. The rest of the admixtures are different, which means a Pole and a Yugoslav will generally look not too similar. That doesn't cancel out the large "Slavic" (northeast European) element in the Balkan populations.

[morski]

It is just a convenient label for the genetic admixture that predominates among Poles, Russians, Baltic ethnicites, etc. It is prominent among all Slavs and the populations caught inbetween, like Hungarians or Romanians, meaning they intermixed with Slavs or were of a similar stock from the beginning. It seems to coincide with Slavic migrations, like R1a. The rest of the admixtures are different, which means a Pole and a Yugoslav will generally look not too similar. That doesn't cancel out the large "Slavic" (northeast European) element in the Balkan populations.

I understand this but it's inaccurate none the less.

[Unurautare]

Slavic stands for linguitic affiliation not for looks.

What do you think about Old Church Slavonic? Most of the Romanian "slavic affiliation" comes from that but I read yesterday the whole language was made by Greek monks for Orthodox conversion purpose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic (I believed only the Cyrillic script was) and it remained as official Church and administration language here for a long time although most people couldn't understand anything. xD
At least we share the Mărţişor with Bulgarians,but that comes from the Thracians(or Romans from Italia),not the Slavs.

[Mordid]

What exactly do you perceive as being "heavily slavic" about our look?

Not just their look, but also, their language and culture have greater Slavic influence. if you look at thread Romanians, I think it is sufficient to just look at the pictures of Romanians in that thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12588) to see obvious Slavic influences like him. ;)
http://euro2008.onlinesport.ro/uploads/images/romania/tamas.jpghttp://www.vacance-roumanie.com/romania_travel/viajes_maramures/viajes_maramures28m.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs076.snc3/14345_101613389866902_100000547257911_43076_831525 4_n.jpg and so go... I dont think you can find these look among original Balkans..

[Unurautare]

I dont think you can find these look among original Balkans..

First one is a magyarized European,at least in name, born in Romania called Tamaş,the rest are ruskies,maybe old Russian believers that immigrated to Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipovan .
Language and culture are related to church - see Old Church Slavonic,doesn't necessarily have to do with Slavs but with the fact that we're orthodox,just like Polish people(and catholic Germans) are influenced by Catholicism.

[HungAryan]

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm


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.


The Daco-Roman myth was framed mainly on the basis of Romanian language, which is classified in the Neo-Latin group. Such classification is correct; what is erroneous is the explanation given by the supporters of such theory concerning the reason by which it is a Neo-Latin tongue, and the place where it supposedly developed from Latin into modern Romanian. As most languages, it has also features that do not correspond with the general pattern shared by the other tongues of the same group, but belong to the substratum ‒namely, the language spoken by the original population before they were Romanized‒ and other characteristics adopted from external influences in different historical periods. These features and the evolution of Latin into Romanian show in a definite manner the actual origin of the language and its geographic distribution according to historical stages.
At present there are two main dialects of the Vlach language: Romanian and Aromanian, and both have also a sub-dialect: Istro-Romanian from the first one and Megleno-Romanian from the second one. Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian are still spoken in the original homeland of all Vlach peoples ‒Albania, Macedonia and Greece‒ while Istro-Romanian is represented by an exiguous number of speakers in Istria. Evidences prove that there was only one Vlach language until the 11th century c.e., when the mediaeval ancestors of present-day Romanians began to get in touch with the peoples dwelling in the lands north of the lower Danube and thus they progressively acquired loanwords from them, while Aromanian continued its development separately. Yet, both dialects are still understandable to each other.
The characteristics of modern Romanian show that this language evolved in the southwest of the Balkan region since its very origins and during the centuries of Roman domination, that there was an intensive interaction with Albanian and a close relationship with the Southern-Italian dialects during that period, and that later it developed within the Bulgarian realm until the 11th century c.e.
On the other hand, there is a complete absence of Old Germanic terms that must have been transferred into Romanian, at least in a minimum amount, during the centuries of Gothic-Gepid rule, if Romanians were actually in Transylvania as the Daco-Roman myth supporters claim. There is also not any toponym in Transylvania having Romanian etymology before the 13th century c.e., nor any originally Romanian name for that region is recorded ‒ actually, the present and historic denomination (Ardeal/Transylvania) has been taken after Hungarian (Erdély). Indeed, the Romanian term ʹArdealʹ has no meaning, but is an adaptation of the Old Magyar name Erdő-elve, that means "land beyond the forest", translated into Latin as "Transylvania". Such a name reflects the Hungarian viewpoint, as for Romanians that region should have been called "Transcarpathia", the land beyond the Carpathian Mounts! Consequently, if Romanians were already there when Hungarians arrived, why then did they adopt the Magyar name? How could have they completely forgotten the denomination by which they knew the region before the arrival of Árpád's hosts?
In order to present in a comprehensible manner the linguistic aspects of Romanian that are relevant to the origin and evolution of the language, we will consider its relationship with Albanian, with Italian dialects and with Slavic separately.

The Romanian-Albanian Connection

A good amount of the non-Latin features present in Romanian language have their correspondence in Albanian, not only concerning lexicon but also structure, phraseology and idioms. These characteristics belong to two linguistic periods: the substratum, that is the language spoken by the Vlach before their Romanization ‒which may be the same of Albanian or a similar language‒, and the subsequent close contact between both peoples throughout a long period, mainly regarding their common life-style as shepherds.
Since the controversy about the origin of Albanians is presented by two main theories, one proposing the Illyrian stem and the other the Thracian stem, the advocates of the Daco-Roman myth vehemently support the second possibility, as they cannot deny the strong links between the Vlach and the Albanian peoples in early times. It is not our task to discuss about the origin of Albanians here, and in any case it is irrelevant whether one or the other theory is the right one, because the whole complex of proofs point out in a definitive manner to the area of present-day Albania and surrounding territory as the birthplace of the early Romanians and not the eastern side of the Balkans ‒ even if the Albanians would not be autochthonous but coming from any other place, it is in the area they live today where both peoples met and not elsewhere. A further factor is that there is not any historical record attesting any hypothetic migration of Albanians from Dacia (and there is not any vestige of their presence in that land), while there are many documents proving that the Vlach people lived since the early centuries by the southern Adriatic coastland ‒even before the Roman occupation of Dacia!‒ and as a matter of fact, there are still historic Romanian communities (Aromanians) living there.
Linguistic research has determined that most of the words shared by Romanian and Albanian are not loans from one tongue to the other but have a common origin in the substratum, before than these two languages began to be distinguished from each other. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian. Another interesting fact concerns the very name of the capital city of Romania: Bucureşti, a word that is similar to the Albanian term "bukurisht", having the same meaning.
While the Vlach people were thoroughly Latinized, Albanian language has also received the influence of Latin since early times. A common territory and life-style shared by both peoples have produced the same semantic changes in both languages: a considerable number of Latin terms have undergone identical changes of meaning without parallel in any other tongue, and they cannot have happened just by chance or by any logical reason except because both peoples were living in a common environment and in the same territory.
Among the unusual features present in Romanian that are explainable by a comparison with Albanian we find also the definite article, that in Classic Latin precedes the noun but is enclitic in Romanian and follows the same patterns as in Albanian, and the personal pronoun in accusative case, that contains the suffix ~ne, exactly like in Albanian.


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...

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Balkan1stCce.jpg
http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/RomanBalkan.jpg
http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-5cce.jpg
http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-11cce.jpg
http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Vlach-expansion.jpg
http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Carpath-13cce.jpg

[Unurautare]

Hungolian propagandist troll with hungolian "facts" from hungolian sites...

[Mordid]

Slavic stands for linguitic affiliation not for looks.
So, according to you, anyone who speak Slavic language is immediately Slavic? You are ridiculous. Have you ever seen this look among Northern, Western and Southern European people?
http://www.kul.pl/gfx/500/romowicz_bartosz_1600.jpg

I dont think so. So, therefore, there's such thing as Slavic look.

[Mordid]

First one is a magyarized European,at least in name, born in Romania called Tamaş,the rest are ruskies,maybe old Russian believers that immigrated to Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipovan .
Language and culture are related to church - see Old Church Slavonic,doesn't necessarily have to do with Slavs but with the fact that we're orthodox,just like Polish people(and catholic Germans) are influenced by Catholicism.

I'm talking about look...

[morski]

What do you think about Old Church Slavonic? Most of the Romanian "slavic affiliation" comes from that but I read yesterday the whole language was made by Greek monks for Orthodox conversion purpose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic (I believed only the Cyrillic script was) and it remained as official Church and administration language here for a long time although most people couldn't understand anything. xD
At least we share the Mărţişor with Bulgarians,but that comes from the Thracians(or Romans from Italia),not the Slavs.

That's a tricky one and I'm not 100% sure. I believe Slavic evolved as the lingua franca in the Hun and then later the Avar empires for the mixed barbarians living from the Baltic sea to the Balkans and from Panonia to the Russian steppes. It was later codified by Sts. Cyril and Methodius based on the local Thessaloniki dialect and adopted by the First Bulgarian Empire as official state and eclesiastic language. The Slavic influence in Romanian is mostly Bulgarian, to a lesser extent Serbian and Ruthenian.

[morski]

So, according to you, anyone who speak Slavic language is immediately Slavic? You are ridiculous. Have you ever seen this look among Northern, Western and Southern European people?
http://www.kul.pl/gfx/500/romowicz_bartosz_1600.jpg

I dont think so. So, therefore, there's such thing as Slavic look.

Slav is neither ethnicity nor a race. It is exclusively a linguistic term.

[Mordid]

Slav is neither ethnicity nor a race.

Indeed, Slavic is not a race, but they have this ''look''. I would look very foreign among Western European because I have this ''Slavic'' look.

[Mordid]

It is exclusively a linguistic term.

Negro man born and raised in Slavic country and speak Slavic language, so therefore he is Slavic. Are you stupid? :dizzy:

[Humanophage]

I understand this but it's inaccurate none the less.
Any ethnicity, in this case, is inaccurate and can only denote language. 'Slav' is a meta-ethnicity, and it conforms to the same standards as e.g. 'Russian', 'Bulgarian', 'Dacian', 'Romanian', etc. North and South Russians are fairly different genetically, even if the main element is similar.

[morski]

Indeed, Slavic is not a race, but they have this ''look''. I would look very foreign among Western European because I have this ''Slavic'' look.

Ok mate, you do have this look that is often attributed to some Slavic speaking people.

[morski]

Any ethnicity, in this case, is inaccurate and can only denote language. 'Slav' is a meta-ethnicity, and it conforms to the same standards as e.g. 'Russian', 'Bulgarian', 'Dacian', 'Romanian', etc. North and South Russians are remarkably different genetically, for example, 'Russian' just accounts for their language.

That's not entirely true, beacause North and South Russians by convention consider themselves being the same ethnicity.

[morski]

Negro man born and raised in Slavic country and speak Slavic language, so therefore he is Slavic. Are you stupid? :dizzy:


If that were the case the negro would surely be a Slavic speaking person, yes. They won't be of the white race and their ethnicity would be a matter of debate, but since it is self determination that counts... :)

[Mordid]

Ok mate, you do have this look that is often attributed to some Slavic speaking people.

Being Slavic is not about meta-ethnically. If anything, it's blood! If you look Slavic, then you are Slavic, but if you aren't Slavic, you must be Dacianised Slav. Simple as that..

[morski]

Being Slavic is not about meta-ethnically. If anything, it's blood! If you look Slavic, then you are Slavic, but if you aren't Slavic, you must be Dacianised Slav. Simple as that..

That's nonsense.

[HungAryan]

Hungolian propagandist troll with hungolian "facts" from hungolian sites...

Not really.
Those who wrote that are neither Hungarians nor Vlachs.
And you are a gypsy, do you know that?

[Mordid]

If that were the case the negro would surely be a Slavic speaking person, yes. They won't be of the white race and their ethnicity would be a matter of debate, but since it is self determination that counts... :)
:rofl_002:
I'm done with you because you just dont get it. Bye bye :old

[Mordid]

That's nonsense.

You aren't real Slav like Poles and Ukrainians. :)

[HungAryan]

:rofl_002:
I'm done with you because you just dont get it. Bye bye :old

Mordid, I need your help over here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34890) instead... :D Help me to fight off those gypsy-vlach trolls...

[morski]

You aren't real Slav like Poles and Ukrainians. :)

You are 100% right about that :)

[Mordid]

http://www.novosti.rs/upload/images/2010/09%20sep/1309/sp-Kosarkasi.jpg

[Humanophage]

That's not entirely true, beacause North and South Russians by convention consider themselves being the same ethnicity.
Well, ethnicity generally implies common or similar ancestry, according to most definitions. That is what differs it from a nation, which does not necessarily require said ancestry (unless we are talking about ethnic nationalism).

They may by convention consider themselves genetically similar, but they are factually not. North Russians intermixed with Finno-Ugrics to a large degree. How do you propose to formulate this?

The purpose of the thread, I should think, is to determine the make-up of Romanians, to see what populations had an impact on them and to whom they are biologically similar. Of course, one could reword the poll into something like this:
- Element 1 (peaks in pre-Slavic Balkan population)
- Element 2 (peaks in Mediterraneans)
- Element 1 + Element 2
- Element 1 + Element 3 (peaks in South Asians)

But is that necessary?

[morski]

Well, ethnicity generally implies common or similar ancestry, according to most definitions. That is what differs it from a nation, which does not necessarily require said ancestry (unless we are talking about ethnic nationalism).

They may by convention consider themselves genetically similar, but they are factually not. North Russians intermixed with Finno-Ugrics to a large degree. How do you propose to formulate this?

The purpose of the thread, I should think, is to determine the make-up of Romanians, to see what populations had an impact on them and to whom they are biologically similar. Of course, one could reword the poll into something like this:
- Element 1 (peaks in pre-Slavic Balkan population)
- Element 2 (peaks in Mediterraneans)
- Element 1 + Element 2
- Element 1 + Element 3 (peaks in South Asians)

But is that necessary?

I agree. I stated my view on the topic of the thread already.

[Sabinae]

Not really.
Those who wrote that are neither Hungarians nor Vlachs.
And you are a gypsy, do you know that?

Why is that, Your Heighness? Is it because he is from Romanian lands?

You are using it as a slur, one too many times. Without even knowing anything about the person you speak of. May I suggest coming up with other, more intelligent remarks? :eyes

Thank you!
Pupici.
Sabi

[HungAryan]

Why is that, Your Heighness? Is it because he is from Romanian lands?

You are using it as a slur, one too many times. Without even knowing anything about the person you speak of. May I suggest coming up with other, more intelligent remarks? :eyes

Thank you!
Pupici.
Sabi

He is a vlach, who hates my people, and constantly insults it.
How am I supposed to respond to such a a barbarian?
Anyone who doesn't support Hungary's claims on Transylvania, Transcarpathia, Northern Hungary ("Slovakia") and Vojvodina is an enemy to me.
"Greater Hungary" = Hungary Proper OR United Hungary
Modern-day "Hungary" = Lesser Hungary

[Sabinae]

He is a vlach, who hates my people, and constantly insults it.
How am I supposed to respond to such a a barbarian?
Anyone who doesn't support Hungary's claims on Transylvania, Transcarpathia, Northern Hungary ("Slovakia") and Vojvodina is an enemy to me.
"Greater Hungary" = Hungary Proper OR United Hungary
Modern-day "Hungary" = Lesser Hungary

You respond with class... I believe you have that. :) Makes a whole difference from the "barbarian", doesn't it?

By the way, gypsies are basically...everywhere (includes Hungary too, where they have their own little Self Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_in_Hungary#National_Gypsy_Minority_Self-Government_.28NGMS.29))... And although, I have yet to encounter the one (outside "gypsy" people) whom would say they appreciate them greatly, it does not give you the right to use their bad name/"fame" when referring to oher people, from different countries. Which respective people are not, whatsoever, related to the aforemetioned group.
Lame...

[Skanderbeg Is God]

This thread isn't famous enough like thread: Who are Albanians!!

[Caeruleus]

Mordid is right. Romanians have been strongly influenced by slavs (linguistically and racialy; linguistically more than racially). Hell, even I look slavic (I dont look like a rusyn but I could easily pass as a serb or a croat, maybe a pole :))

There is a slavic look, there is no slavic race but there's definitely a slavic look.

Iudeus_Augustus is an idiot

In my opinion romanians are a mix of dacians (a little), latins (a lot more ), slavs (heavy influence but not decisive) ... cumans contribution to romanian ethnogenesis is insignificant.

[morski]

This thread isn't famous enough like thread: Who are Albanians!!

Not closed yet :D

[Skanderbeg Is God]

He made a big mistake by trolling us in that thread, otherwise we would help him.

[Sylvanus]

I ROFL through the choices of poll... XD But seriously the romanians are latinized balkanic+mediterranean+middle-eastern+slavic+hungarian(!)+turkic mix. They are very mixed like the hungarians, just they have other component.

Anyway the unscholarly daco-roman myth is similar to the unscientific scythe-hun origin of hungarians... Lol.

[HungAryan]

Iudeus_Augustus is an idiot


Problems? :D

http://cskamoskva.ru/UserFiles/Image/SLUXI/16._Banel_Nicolita.JPG

[Foxy]

I agree with this. Dacians with significant Slavic influence, possibly some minor Latin.

But then who are 'Dacians'?

(from Dodecad K=12 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=COCa89AJ&key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0))
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f389/Humanophage/DODECADCentral-SE.jpg



According to this they are Central Italians + Eastern European = Latins + Dacians/slavs.

Anyway I don't agree that Romanians look slavic. It depends on the person. Some of them look very mediterranean.

[HungAryan]

Anyway I don't agree that Romanians look slavic. It depends from the person. Some of them look very mediterranean.

Some of them even have Turanid admixture, like Sandra Romain.

[Foxy]

Some of them even have Turanid admixture, like Sandra Romain.

Sandra Romain to me looks slavic + alpine mediterranean, so I repeat, Latins + Dacians. :)

[Mordid]

Sandra Romain to me looks slavic + alpine mediterranean, so I repeat, Latins + Dacians. :)

No.

[HungAryan]

Sandra Romain to me looks slavic + alpine mediterranean, so I repeat, Latins + Dacians. :)

She looks like a Gypsy or Turk to me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Sandra_Romain_at_2005_AEE_Thursday_2.jpg
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgQ3mgTcDbHT1f0SZvFCHm6kxHY8dxG Mt_BhZ8oEYBKFI06Nvr37ki3eSS5A

Yucks... could she be any more uglier?

[Storm 1995]

Romanians are pure descendants of Roman colonists from Italy, who settled there during the Roman rule.

[Libertas]

Romanians are pure descendants of Roman colonists from Italy, who settled there during the Roman rule.

Another ignoramus and/or troll it seems.:eek:
The Romans brought in Gauls,Spaniards and Syrians and most of these settlers left when the Romans pulled out of Dacia in the year 272 and retreated SOUTH of the Danube.

[Unurautare]

Another ignoramus and/or troll it seems.:eek:
The Romans brought in Gauls,Spaniards and Syrians and most of these settlers left when the Romans pulled out of Dacia in the year 272 and retreated SOUTH of the Danube.

Nobility and army pulled out. Normal people remained,just like in Britain and all the other places...

[Sylvanus]

The toponyms of roman era keep up in Pannonia like the Keszthely (pronounce Kesthej - I'm tired to IPA, sorry) derivated from latin Castellum, but in Transylvania the roman toponyms are not survives. The toponyms in Transylvania mostly slavic with some hungarian name.

[Foxy]

Another ignoramus and/or troll it seems.:eek:
The Romans brought in Gauls,Spaniards and Syrians and most of these settlers left when the Romans pulled out of Dacia in the year 272 and retreated SOUTH of the Danube.

Source?

[Caeruleus]

Elek Bacsik
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T64CgXT5p-I/S4_kn887QgI/AAAAAAAAFJg/X6V67Q7QX5o/s400/o1452804.jpg

Janos Bihari
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/bestof150808_450x355.jpg

György Cziffra
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100610131130/nonciclopedia/images/3/38/Georges_Cziffra_3.jpg

Dávid Daróczi
http://www.szegedkurir.hu/images/data/data/leadpic1_977.jpg

Lívia Járóka
http://photos.eppgroup.eu/thumbnails/191/12341_450_300.jpg

Viktória Mohácsi
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/vm_0.jpg

Mónika Juhász Miczura
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/4499354.jpg

Mary Nótár
http://movie.blogter.hu/281279/user_files/77510/Notar_Mary.jpg

István Pisont
http://www.evangelikus.hu/interju/201eistennek-kell-halat-adni-az-elert-sikerekert-201d-2013-interju-pisont-istvan-futballistaval-2013-1.-resz/leadImage

what about these guys - your hungarian brothers that killed Marian Cozma :mad:
http://www.presaonline.com/upload/tidings/large/Unul_din_asasinii_lui_Cozma_a_fo.jpg

Dont get me started mogyor.

[Sylvanus]

Elek Bacsik
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T64CgXT5p-I/S4_kn887QgI/AAAAAAAAFJg/X6V67Q7QX5o/s400/o1452804.jpg

Janos Bihari
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/bestof150808_450x355.jpg

György Cziffra
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100610131130/nonciclopedia/images/3/38/Georges_Cziffra_3.jpg

Dávid Daróczi
http://www.szegedkurir.hu/images/data/data/leadpic1_977.jpg

Lívia Járóka
http://photos.eppgroup.eu/thumbnails/191/12341_450_300.jpg

Viktória Mohácsi
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/vm_0.jpg

Mónika Juhász Miczura
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/4499354.jpg

Mary Nótár
http://movie.blogter.hu/281279/user_files/77510/Notar_Mary.jpg

István Pisont
http://www.evangelikus.hu/interju/201eistennek-kell-halat-adni-az-elert-sikerekert-201d-2013-interju-pisont-istvan-futballistaval-2013-1.-resz/leadImage

what about these guys - your hungarian brothers that killed Marian Cozma :mad:
http://www.presaonline.com/upload/tidings/large/Unul_din_asasinii_lui_Cozma_a_fo.jpg

Dont get me started mogyor.

They are hungarian romanis. The south-indian influence is recognizable. That is childrenlike trolling, not more. It is very funny that the hungarians and the romanians think eachother romani, because the east-hungarian and the romanian people is very similar.

[Caeruleus]

They are hungarian romanis. The south-indian influence is recognizable. That is childrenlike trolling, not more. It is very funny that the hungarians and the romanians think eachother romani, because the east-hungarian and the romanian people is very similar.

You dont say ! :) is that a fact ? :) then can you please tell me what is this guy's ethnicity

http://stanjames.teamtalk.com/Images/222273.jpg

[Libertas]

Source?

E T Salmon "A History of the Roman World 30BC to AD 138" and Terry Jones/Alan Ereira's "Barbarians" mentions the origin of most of the new settlers brought by Rome and Eutropius mentions settlers "ex toto orbe romano" ("from all over the Roman world").

[d3cimat3d]

Romanians are 1/2 neolithic farmers of the Cucuteni-Tryptillian culture (Anatolians) + 1/2 various Indo-Europeans, mostly Slavs + some others.

[Caeruleus]

The toponyms of roman era keep up in Pannonia like the Keszthely (pronounce Kesthej - I'm tired to IPA, sorry) derivated from latin Castellum, but in Transylvania the roman toponyms are not survives. The toponyms in Transylvania mostly slavic with some hungarian name.

What about DEVA, SIBIU, ALBA-IULIA, CLUJ-NAPOCA, TARGU-MURES hell even the name of the whole region TRANSYLVANIA ... fuck off troll

[Sylvanus]

You dont say ! :) is that a fact ? :) then can you please tell me what is this guy's ethnicity

http://stanjames.teamtalk.com/Images/222273.jpg

Don't you correspond me with Iudeus Augustus and other turbo-hungarian idiots. I do not correspond neither you with the Genious of the Carpathians.

[Sylvanus]

What about DEVA, SIBIU, ALBA-IULIA, CLUJ-NAPOCA, TARGU-MURES hell even the name of the whole region TRANSYLVANIA ... fuck off troll

For example Alba-Iulia come from the hungarian Gyulafehérvár. In the middle ages the latin Iulius name was identical with the hungarian Gyula personal name by turkic root. The Cluj came from the german Clausenburg, it came from the slavic Kluzh personal name. The Napoca did not keep up since the antiquity.

You are smelting the romanian nationalist idiotism like the Iudeus and similars the hungarian unscholalry bullsh*t. I hope if the hungarian and romanian put off these nationalist myths and they will be good friends. Otherwise Transylvania will be not romanian or hungarian, but it will be Somalia/India.

Please, the next time sine ira et studio.

[Caeruleus]

For example Alba-Iulia come from the hungarian Gyulafehérvár. In the middle ages the latin Iulius name was identical with the hungarian Gyula personal name by turkic root. The Cluj came from the german Clausenburg, it came from the slavic Kluzh personal name. The Napoca did not keep up since the antiquity.

You are smelting the romanian nationalist idiotism like the Iudeus and similars the hungarian unscholalry bullsh*t. I hope if the hungarian and romanian put off these nationalist myths and they will be good friends. Otherwise Transylvania will be not romanian or hungarian, but it will be Somalia/India.

Please, the next time sine ira et studio.

For Christ's sake :) Cluj comes from Castrum Clus meaning closed fortress ... well if the romanian Alba Iulia is closer to the hungarian Gyulafehérvár than to latin Alba Iulia thats ok with me :)

and you're telling me not to correspond you with Judeus !? you are a troll just like he is (slightly more subtil and therefore more dangerous but still a troll)... dont play the innocent boy with me forest man :)

[HungAryan]

and you're telling me not to correspond you with Judeus !? you are a troll just like he is

The Romanians are NOT Dacians.
Get over with it.
Transylvania is Hungary. Historically, before the 19th century, Hungarians were the majority in Transylvania.
The Vlachs (Romanians) entered Transylvania in the 15th century, as they were fleeing from the Turks. While the Hungarians were fighting against the Turks in the 16th and 17th century, the Vlachs were herding goats.
The Hungarian-Turkish Wars caused the decline of Hungarian population, and the rise of the Vlach population in Transylvania.

The Kingdom of Hungary was basically destroyed by immigration.
The same shit is going on in all over Europe today, except that it's not Hungary with Slavic and Vlach immigrants, but Europe with non-European immigrants.
Learn from history.

[Foxy]

I copy from a PDF document speaking about the integration of Romanians in Italy.

Osservo che la Romania si caratterizza per la relativa varietà dei gruppi etnici che convivono sul territorio e
che sono costituiti dall’etnia latina, assolutamente prevalente con un 89,5% del totale e dalle minoranze,
tutt’altro che irrilevanti, dei magiari (6,6% del totale), dei Rom (2,5%) e degli altri gruppi minori tra i quali i
tedeschi, i russi, i turchi.

"I observe that Romania is characterized by the relative variety of ethnic groups living in its territory and that are constituted by the Latin ethnicity, absolutely prevailing with an 89,5% of the total and by rilevant minorances: Magyars (6,6%), Romas (2,5%) and other groups among whom Germans, Russians and Turks.

[Caeruleus]

The Romanians are NOT Dacians.
Get over with it. .

you probably want to say "get over it" cause "get over with it" is a totally different thing :) learn a little english my dear asian friend :laugh2:

all I can say is that your wild imagination is getting the better of you :loco:

and one last thing ... :icon_yell:TRIANON, TRIANON,TRIANON :laugh:

[HungAryan]

you probably want to say "get over it" cause "get over with it" is a totally different thing :) learn a little english my dear asian friend :laugh2:

all I can say is that your wild imagination is getting the better of you :loco:

and one last thing ... :icon_yell:TRIANON, TRIANON,TRIANON :laugh:

I have only one thing to say then...


ET5Pvire-qk

Szép kincses Kolozsvár, Mátyás büszkesége,
Nem lehet, nem, soha! Oláhország éke!
Nem teremhet Bánát a rácnak kenyeret!
Magyar szél fog fúni a Kárpátok felett!

Ha eljő az idő - a sírok nyílnak fel,
Ha eljő az idő - a magyar talpra kel,
Ha eljő az idő - erős lesz a karunk,
Várjatok, Testvérek, ott leszünk, nem adunk!

Majd nemes haraggal rohanunk előre,
Vérkeresztet festünk majd a határkőre
És mindent letiprunk! - Az lesz a viadal!! -
Szembeszállunk mi a poklok kapuival!

Bömbölve rohanunk majd, mint a tengerár,
Egy csepp vérig küzdünk s áll a magyar határ
Teljes egészében, mint nem is oly régen
És csillagunk ismét tündöklik az égen.

A lobogónk lobog, villámlik a kardunk,
Fut a gaz előlünk - hisz magyarok vagyunk!
Felhatol az égig haragos szózatunk:
Hazánkat akarjuk! vagy érte meghalunk.

Nem lész kisebb Hazánk, nem, egy arasszal sem,
Úgy fogsz tündökölni, mint régen, fényesen!
Magyar rónán, hegyen egy kiáltás zúg át:
Nem engedjük soha! soha Árpád honát!

____________________________________________

Beautiful, treasured Kolozsvár, King Mathias's pride,
Can not be, can never be Wallachia's token!
Banat shall not grow bread for the Serb!
Hungarian winds will blow above the Carpathians!

When the time comes - the graves will open up,
When the time comes - the Hungarian will stand up
When the time comes - our hand will be strong,
Wait Brothers, we'll be there, we won't give!

We will go forward with noble wrath,
We will paint blood crosses on the milestones
And we will crush everything! - That will be the fightl!! -
We will face the Gates of Hell!

We will go forward screaming, like the flooding sea,
We will fight until the last drop of blood
for the Hungarian to stand united, like not so long ago
And our star will light again on the sky.

Our banner is flying, our sword is lightning,
The scum are running away from us - because we're Hungarians!
Our wrathful voice will scream up the skies:
We want our homeland! or we will die for it.

Our homeland won't be smaller, no, not even by an inch,
You (Hunary) will shine again, like long ago, brightly!
Through Hungarian hills and mountains a loud voice is hard:
We will NEVER let go of Árpád (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d)'s homeland!

[Libertas]

I copy from a PDF document speaking about the integration of Romanians in Italy.

Osservo che la Romania si caratterizza per la relativa varietà dei gruppi etnici che convivono sul territorio e
che sono costituiti dall’etnia latina, assolutamente prevalente con un 89,5% del totale e dalle minoranze,
tutt’altro che irrilevanti, dei magiari (6,6% del totale), dei Rom (2,5%) e degli altri gruppi minori tra i quali i
tedeschi, i russi, i turchi.

"I observe that Romania is characterized by the relative variety of ethnic groups living in its territory and that are constituted by the Latin ethnicity, absolutely prevailing with an 89,5% of the total and by rilevant minorances: Magyars (6,6%), Romas (2,5%) and other groups among whom Germans, Russians and Turks.

There is no "Latin ethnicity" outside part of central Italy.

[Ushtari]

Mixture of assimilated illyrians/Dacians/Thracian and Romans.

[Caeruleus]

Mixture of assimilated illyrians/Dacians/Thracian and Romans.

dont forget the slavs :)

[Ushtari]

dont forget the slavs :)
Yes those to, but i thought you dont want to be associated with Untermensch people.

[Caeruleus]

Yes those to, but i thought you dont want to be associated with Untermensch people.

I like untermensch :) ubermensch is overrated, BIG TIME :)

[Mordid]

dont forget the slavs :)


Yes those to, but i thought you dont want to be associated with Untermensch people.

Just imagine, if Slavs didn't invade Balkans, then Balkans would look very swarthy ubermensch Illyrians like Albanians.

[HungAryan]

Just imagine, if Slavs didn't invade Balkans, then Balkans would look very swarthy ubermensch Illyrians like Albanians.

Albanians aren't even Illyrians.
They came from the Caucasus Mountains during the Early Middle Ages.

[Foxy]

EDIT

[alzo zero]

There is no "Latin ethnicity" outside part of central Italy.
No, but I presume that Latin blood is not confined to that geographic area only. Veterans got land in the colonies, including in the Po Valley, and at least some of them had to be of Latin and Italic ethnicity I think.

[Vereni]

Mainly romanized Dacians + some Slavs and Bulgars.

[Siberyak]

I for one am tired of many people saying that Romanians are gypysies. One of my best friends is from Barlad Romania and he looks like an eastern European. He could even pass as Polish.

[turbogirl]

I won't vote, because not even one thing here it's correct,all the peoples in this area are mixed. But I must say one thing I know,romanians enslaved gypsies untill 1850's and from what I see they don't mix with them not even today,same for hungarians. My opinion!

[Unurautare]

I won't vote, because not even one thing here it's correct,all the peoples in this area are mixed. But I must say one thing I know,romanians enslaved gypsies untill 1850's and from what I see they don't mix with them not even today,same for hungarians. My opinion!

:coffee: During the 1848 revolt(s) the Romanians abolished slavery but we were forced to reintroduce it because of the "Great Powers". So it's more like forced by the greater powers to impose slavery on them until they decided slavery was "of bads"(*I'm purposefully butchering the English language) and we freed ourselves completely from Ottoman influence(one of the 1st things we did when we became "independent" was to abolish slavery...again - so gypos here are free to their own devices for ~200 years).
I frankly can't imagine gypos being useful as slaves,can you?


PS Neither gypos(especially them because most follow "tradition" and marry their kids to other gypos) or Romanians mix with other people in general.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Most posts are very erroneous on this thread, but I also have read some mentioning of the truth of the origins of Romanians. The best answer for this question is: we don't know. Yes, it is the most scientifically correct answer, since no theory suggested can be proven 100% because of the overwhelming lack of early documents and archeological finding about the formation of the Romanian people. Of course in such cases we can reconstruct the ethnic-genesis of Romanians by the elimination game. I studied much about this particular theme, how did Romanians appeared, and my conclusions are as follow:

1. They most probably formed in the Balkans, as the descendants of Latinized Illyrians and Thracians, but also of all those ethnicities the Romans brought in South-East Europe and adopted the Latin language (these include many Middle Easterners). After the arrival of the Slavs, of these Latin speaking people some mixed with each other, and kept their Latin language, others assimilated into the Slavs. These Latin remnants were heavily influenced by Slavic language, culture, explaining why Romanian has so many words of Slav origin, and why Romanians have similar customs, folklore as the Slavs. But it should be mentioned, these Latin people (we may call them Vlachs), the ancestors of Romanians weren't Italic Latins, but populations assimilated into Latin language. These Vlachs also contrary to real Latin people payed allegiance to Constantinople and not to Rome, because in Medieval times the Byzantine Empire controlled the religion of all South-East Europe (except Croatians).

2. The Vlachs never had their own territory, their own state in the Balkans, but were servants of the Slavs, Byzantines, and Bulgarians (who later became Slavs themselves) and wandered from place to place, as any people who gained their living from sheep herding, thus being almost impossible to trace their location by the passing of the centuries. This is why we can at best estimate these things in the history of their formation. Before 11th-12th century there is hardly any archeological evidence, and no documents that Latin speaking people (Vlachs) lived North of the Danube. They most probably fled north of the Danube after the turn of the second millennium, because these lands were scarcely populated, were ideal for sheep herding, and they could escape their statuses as servants to the states existing in the Balkans. Here they lived in Cumania, and quite fast they outnumbered the local Cuman population, converted them to Orthodoxism, and basically Wallachia was created by the intermarriage of Cumans and Vlachs (the first leader of Wallachia was the Cuman Basarab). The Vlachs also were welcomed to Transylvania by the Hungarian king in the 12th century, to populate the vast unpopulated lands, which was the result of the Mongol invasion of Hungary, which wiped out in estimate one half of Hungary's population.

3. The Vlachs basically had two states in the Medieval period, Wallachia and Moldova, which had several wars against one another, but after the Ottoman Empire occupied them they adopted their culture, manners, mentality in many parts, and the born of Romanian national identity happened actually inside the Carpathians (Transylvania), where they managed to develop an intellectual class (Scoala Ardeleana), and these intellectuals ventured outside the Carpathians to teach fellow Vlachs of the Romanian identity, and the creation of an united Romanian state.

In conclusion, even if all theories cannot be proven 100%, I believe that the official theory about the origins of Romanians should suffer a massive revision, since most evidence (even the few that exist) directs to a different point of their origin.

[Unurautare]

Most posts are very erroneous on this thread, but I also have read some mentioning of the truth of the origins of Romanians. The best answer for this question is: we don't know. Yes, it is the most scientifically correct answer, since no theory suggested can be proven 100% because of the overwhelming lack of early documents and archeological finding about the formation of the Romanian people. Of course in such cases we can reconstruct the ethnic-genesis of Romanians by the elimination game. I studied much about this particular theme, how did Romanians appeared, and my conclusions are as follow:

1. They most probably formed in the Balkans, as the descendants of Latinized Illyrians and Thracians, but also of all those ethnicities the Romans brought in South-East Europe and adopted the Latin language (these include many Middle Easterners). After the arrival of the Slavs, of these Latin speaking people some mixed with each other, and kept their Latin language, others assimilated into the Slavs. These Latin remnants were heavily influenced by Slavic language, culture, explaining why Romanian has so many words of Slav origin, and why Romanians have similar customs, folklore as the Slavs. But it should be mentioned, these Latin people (we may call them Vlachs), the ancestors of Romanians weren't Italic Latins, but populations assimilated into Latin language. These Vlachs also contrary to real Latin people payed allegiance to Constantinople and not to Rome, because in Medieval times the Byzantine Empire controlled the religion of all South-East Europe (except Croatians).

2. The Vlachs never had their own territory, their own state in the Balkans, but were servants of the Slavs, Byzantines, and Bulgarians (who later became Slavs themselves) and wandered from place to place, as any people who gained their living from sheep herding, thus being almost impossible to trace their location by the passing of the centuries. This is why we can at best estimate these things in the history of their formation. Before 11th-12th century there is hardly any archeological evidence, and no documents that Latin speaking people (Vlachs) lived North of the Danube. They most probably fled north of the Danube after the turn of the second millennium, because these lands were scarcely populated, were ideal for sheep herding, and they could escape their statuses as servants to the states existing in the Balkans. Here they lived in Cumania, and quite fast they outnumbered the local Cuman population, converted them to Orthodoxism, and basically Wallachia was created by the intermarriage of Cumans and Vlachs (the first leader of Wallachia was the Cuman Basarab). The Vlachs also were welcomed to Transylvania by the Hungarian king in the 12th century, to populate the vast unpopulated lands, which was the result of the Mongol invasion of Hungary, which wiped out in estimate one half of Hungary's population.

3. The Vlachs basically had two states in the Medieval period, Wallachia and Moldova, which had several wars against one another, but after the Ottoman Empire occupied them they adopted their culture, manners, mentality in many parts, and the born of Romanian national identity happened actually inside the Carpathians, where they managed to develop an intellectual class (Scoala Ardeleana), and these intellectuals ventured outside the Carpathians to teach fellow Vlachs of the Romanian identity, and the creation of an united Romanian state.

In conclusion, even if all theories cannot be proven 100%, I believe that the official theory about the origins of Romanians should suffer a massive revision, since most evidence (even the few that exist) directs to a different point of their origin.


There is nothing wrong with the "thraco-roman" ethnogenesis,you even wrote yourself that we have a thracian substratum. Hungarian authors are mainly the ones trying to deny it because of their greed over wanting Transylvania(as if Pannonia - another latin land - isn't enough) saying Romanians come from other parts,which,besides being bs, is kinda ironic considering Hungarians were amongst the last people to migrate to Europe.
There were also plenty of "Vlah" states in the Balkans and elsewhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlah#Territories_with_Vlach_population

[HungAryan]

There is nothing wrong with the "thraco-roman" ethnogenesis,you even wrote yourself that we have a thracian substratum. Hungarian authors are mainly the ones trying to deny it because of their greed over wanting Transylvania(as if Pannonia - another latin land - isn't enough) saying Romanians come from other parts,which,besides being bs,

Since when is Pannonia Latin? :rotfl:
Transylvania had a Hungarian majority between 895 and 1600. After 1526, there was a wave of Vlach (Romanian) immigration into Transylvania which continued until about 1780.
In 1490, Greater Hungary's population was 4 million, and 90% of them were Hungarians.
n 1700, Greater Hungary's population was only 3 million, and only 45% of them were Hungarians.
Pretty much explains everything.


is kinda ironic considering Hungarians were amongst the last people to migrate to Europe


Bullshit.


-O_Cr7LDqq4
ZT5sXbKilQ4
igDBPnuoLss

[Unurautare]

Since when is Pannonia Latin? :rotfl:
Transylvania had a Hungarian majority between 895 and 1600. After 1526, there was a wave of Vlach (Romanian) immigration into Transylvania which continued until about 1780.
In 1490, Greater Hungary's population was 4 million, and 90% of them were Hungarians.
n 1700, Greater Hungary's population was only 3 million, and only 45% of them were Hungarians.
Pretty much explains everything.



Bullshit.


-O_Cr7LDqq4
ZT5sXbKilQ4
igDBPnuoLss

No. :coffee:

[HungAryan]

No. :coffee:


xK2FyIDsfgM
TxufKNwnbTY

[Unurautare]

xK2FyIDsfgM
TxufKNwnbTY

lITBGjNEp08

[HungAryan]

lITBGjNEp08


WWaLxFIVX1s

[Sagitta Hungarica]

There is nothing wrong with the "thraco-roman" ethnogenesis,you even wrote yourself that we have a thracian substratum. Hungarian authors are mainly the ones trying to deny it because of their greed over wanting Transylvania(as if Pannonia - another latin land - isn't enough) saying Romanians come from other parts,which,besides being bs, is kinda ironic considering Hungarians were amongst the last people to migrate to Europe.
There were also plenty of "Vlah" states in the Balkans and elsewhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlah#Territories_with_Vlach_population

The Thracians lived in the Balkans, while Romanians claim that they are the descendants of the Dacians, who live north of the Danube. I don't agree that Romanians are the descendants of Dacians, since this population disappeared in the antiquity. There is no Latin continuity North of the Danube (parts of today's Western Wallachia, Banat, Southern and Central Transylvania) after the Romans withdraw. Even the fact that Dacians were Thracians is quite unsure. Based on many reading from various authors, I tend to believe they were more likely a Scythian tribe.

Some of those so called Vlach-states in the Balkans listed there were nothing more but regions with autonomous status, and belonged to the already existing empires and kingdoms of that period in the Balkans (eg. Byzantine Empire, Bulgaria). Usually only Romanian historians view them as real states, but this is nothing, when the same historians agree that most Romanians lived North of the Danube, while there is no archeological evidence of this massive presence in this aria prior to the turn of the second millennium.

[d3cimat3d]

The Thracians lived in the Balkans, while Romanians claim that they are the descendants of the Dacians, who live north of the Danube. I don't agree that Romanians are the descendants of Dacians, since this population disappeared in the antiquity. There is no Latin continuity North of the Danube (parts of today's Western Wallachia, Banat, Southern and Central Transylvania) after the Romans withdraw. Even the fact that Dacians were Thracians is quite unsure. Based on many reading from various authors, I tend to believe they were more likely a Scythian tribe.

Some of those so called Vlach-states in the Balkans listed there were nothing more but regions with autonomous status, and belonged to the already existing empires and kingdoms of that period in the Balkans (eg. Byzantine Empire, Bulgaria). Usually only Romanian historians view them as real states, but this is nothing, when the same historians agree that most Romanians lived North of the Danube, while there is no archeological evidence of this massive presence in this aria prior to the turn of the second millennium.

Dacians, Thracians & Illyrians were all just kurganized Neolithic farmers (Anatolians). Modern Albanians are the best surviving example of them.

[Unurautare]

The Thracians lived in the Balkans, while Romanians claim that they are the descendants of the Dacians, who live north of the Danube. I don't agree that Romanians are the descendants of Dacians, since this population disappeared in the antiquity. There is no Latin continuity North of the Danube (parts of today's Western Wallachia, Banat, Southern and Central Transylvania) after the Romans withdraw. Even the fact that Dacians were Thracians is quite unsure. Based on many reading from various authors, I tend to believe they were more likely a Scythian tribe.

Some of those so called Vlach-states in the Balkans listed there were nothing more but regions with autonomous status, and belonged to the already existing empires and kingdoms of that period in the Balkans (eg. Byzantine Empire, Bulgaria). Usually only Romanian historians view them as real states, but this is nothing, when the same historians agree that most Romanians lived North of the Danube, while there is no archeological evidence of this massive presence in this aria prior to the turn of the second millennium.

Try not to get offended but I don't think you know any other history than the Hungarian history that was taught to you in school,and maybe some stuff you've read from Hungarian internet sources.When viewing your posts it's like I'm reading what a nigger from Congo thinks of downtown Bucuresti and telling me how things really are there.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Try not to get offended but I don't think you know any other history than the Hungarian history that was taught to you in school,and maybe some stuff you've read from Hungarian internet sources.When viewing your posts it's like I'm reading what a nigger from Congo thinks of downtown Bucuresti and telling me how things really are there.

It has zero validity if you cannot bring counterarguments :tongue

[Unurautare]

It has zero validity if you cannot bring counterarguments :tongue

I don't even read your big posts,just skip-read at best because your opinion on Romanians is totally irrelevant. :P

[turbogirl]

Just wonder, since you both have no idea what your peoples are and where they came from, S.H. please, no sumerian stuff pall, please again, why all the hate?! "We were here first!","No way, we are natives", "No, you're mongols", "And you're gypsies and balkan people", "But we're first", "No we are"... ! Your both nations are so mixed, that you both guys can be related.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Just wonder, since you both have no idea what your peoples are and where they came from, S.H. please, no sumerian stuff pall, please again, why all the hate?! "We were here first!","No way, we are natives", "No, you're mongols", "And you're gypsies and balkan people", "But we're first", "No we are"... ! Your both nations are so mixed, that you both guys can be related.

OK, so now you are provoking. Shame on you missy.

[turbogirl]

OK, so now you are provoking. Shame on you missy.

Shame on you dear! In what way I provoke anybody? I just said what everybody see, except some! Only cos I'm a female and I don't have 50, make's me some stupid kid or worst? And I'm not your missy by the way!

[d3cimat3d]

S.H. please, no sumerian stuff pall, please again

When I hear that theory about the Sumerian origin of Magyars I think aliens helping build the pyramids sounds more plausible.

[Unurautare]

When I hear that theory about the Sumerian origin of Magyars I think aliens helping build the pyramids sounds more plausible.

When I read that Jesus was a turanic-magyar according to the officials of Hungary during the 1940s,the propaganda going back to XIXth century "Romantic nationalism", it made my day. :coffee:
Hungarians should have been movie directors,Hollywood jews would have a lot to fear from these people's imagination.

[The Alchemist]

Strange people :D :D

[Ushtari]

They are gypsies, shouldn't that be obvious in the name?

[Matilda]

They are gypsies, shouldn't that be obvious in the name?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975

[Daos]

Go shag a goat, Mushtari! And Jewdeus (Arcos/Harcos) can do the same with a mare.

[Ushtari]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975
I wouldn't want to live in a world with Roma-nians either.

[Lábaru]

Why the Romanians who come to Spain do not look the same that Landa and sabinae? :( anyway, the Romanians non-Gypsies (mostly in Romania are not Gypsies) seem to me slavoids, Slavs + something.

[Unurautare]

Why the Romanians who come to Spain do not look the same that Landa and sabinae? :(

Because most the high-quality Romanian citizens,that emigrate, don't emigrate to Spain,even so I heard of some emigrants to Spain even running for mayor and winning(?).
Most of the good looking and/or very smart ones would go either to the USA,Germany or Sweden. So the majority of what you have in Italy and Spain are the manual workers type,but I've also heard that some doctors emigrated to Spain,you probably know the situation better if something.


the Romanians non-Gypsies (mostly in Romania are not Gypsies) seem to me slavoids, Slavs + something.

The Spaniards non-Black Berbers (mostly in Spain are not niggers) seem to be arabic, arabs + something.

[HungAryan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Westernparadigm_blue_eye_color_map.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Hair-color-map_by_Peter_Frost.PNG/609px-Hair-color-map_by_Peter_Frost.PNG


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Trollface.svg/200px-Trollface.svg.png

[Daos]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Westernparadigm_blue_eye_color_map.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Hair-color-map_by_Peter_Frost.PNG/609px-Hair-color-map_by_Peter_Frost.PNG


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17191&stc=1&d=1320763328

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Trollface.svg/200px-Trollface.svg.png

[HungAryan]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17191&stc=1&d=1320763328

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Trollface.svg/200px-Trollface.svg.png


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/image.php?u=935&dateline=1263732837

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Trollface.svg/200px-Trollface.svg.png

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Because most the high-quality Romanian citizens,that emigrate, don't emigrate to Spain,even so I heard of some emigrants to Spain even running for mayor and winning(?).
Most of the good looking and/or very smart ones would go either to the USA,Germany or Sweden. So the majority of what you have in Italy and Spain are the manual workers type,but I've also heard that some doctors emigrated to Spain,you probably know the situation better if something.



The Spaniards non-Black Berbers (mostly in Spain are not niggers) seem to be arabic, arabs + something.

This is by far the most preposterous thing you written so far (among many). So only smart Romanians also happen to be physically beautiful, while the "Untermensch" stupid Romanians are also ugly. How in God's name you came up with such a theory? Beauty and ugliness doesn't come with how smart you are. It is as variable and unpredictable as anything variable and unpredictable can be. You only try to create a charming myth (the smart and beautiful Romanians, which you'll find only in America, Western and Northern Europe), by which you dissociate yourself of fellow Romanians (who are more ugly, stupid and they go to Southern Europe, as if it would be a lesser prestigious place than America, Western and Northern Europe).

[Caeruleus]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17191&stc=1&d=1320763328

A dark nordicist :) What a total retard !!! :thumb001: keep up the good work mogyor :laugh2:

[HungAryan]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17191&stc=1&d=1320763328

A dark nordicist :) What a total retard !!! :thumb001: keep up the good work mogyor :laugh2:

1. I'm not a nordicist.
2. I'm a Magyar, not Mogyor. Or did you mean "Mogyoró" (nut) ? Nope, I'm not a nut either.
3. A retard is someone with an IQ lover than 75. My IQ however is 122. :D
4. What makes me dark? :D

[Sagitta Hungarica]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17191&stc=1&d=1320763328

A dark nordicist :) What a total retard !!! :thumb001: keep up the good work mogyor :laugh2:

Why do you keep insulting Magyars, calling us mogyor? Have you seen Magyar users calling Romanians with other names? Are you this frustrated and hateful towards us?

[Caeruleus]

Why do you keep insulting Magyars, calling us mogyor? Have you seen Magyar users calling Romanians with other names? Are you this frustrated and hateful towards us?

Yep, your buddy boy Jewdeus Augustus likes to call romanians gypsies.

@ Judeus you are dark because you have chesnut hair and from what i can tell brown eyes, you dont have to be a negro in order to be considered a dark persone :) dark = swarthy.

[Unurautare]

This is by far the most preposterous thing you written so far (among many). So only smart Romanians also happen to be physically beautiful, while the "Untermensch" stupid Romanians are also ugly. How in God's name you came up with such a theory? Beauty and ugliness doesn't come with how smart you are. It is as variable and unpredictable as anything variable and unpredictable can be. You only try to create a charming myth (the smart and beautiful Romanians, which you'll find only in America, Western and Northern Europe), by which you dissociate yourself of fellow Romanians (who are more ugly, stupid and they go to Southern Europe, as if it would be a lesser prestigious place than America, Western and Northern Europe).

I said before,GO CHECK OUT YOUR EYES! I haven't said only the smart ones are beautiful,I said smart and/OR beautiful looking(the ones that go into modeling and stuff like that,not the average joe good looking).
One can have a more intelligent conversation with a domestic animal then with you and Judeus.

One example,with picture,of what I was talking about:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1659221/ Sebastian Stan,Romanian actor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Stan

Maybe go have passionate love with Judeus and leave this thread,I'm sick of you fagyars,that pretend to know it all, derailing it.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

I said before,GO CHECK OUT YOUR EYES! I haven't said only the smart ones are beautiful,I said smart and/OR beautiful looking(the ones that go into modeling and stuff like that,not the average joe good looking).
One can have a more intelligent conversation with a domestic animal then with you and Judeus.

One example,with picture,of what I was talking about:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1659221/ Sebastian Stan,Romanian actor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Stan

Maybe go have passionate love with Judeus and leave this thread,I'm sick of you fagyars,that pretend to know it all, derailing it.

The insults towards Magyars keep on growing and no moderator seems to bother :rolleyes:

[Unurautare]

The insults towards Magyars keep on growing and no moderator seems to bother :rolleyes:

Why should he bother with 2 fagyar trolls that should have been banned already by now? :coffee: Go get Judeus and cry in each others arms.

You descendants of Arpad shouldn't even be allowed on an European preservation site in the 1st place. Especially after so many official brothership festivities with turks(I gave links on those before.),Mr. Attila.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_%28name%29


Attila is a popular name for boys in both Hungary and Turkey. Another version of Attila in Hungary is Etele,[1] the female equivalent of which is Etelka. Other versions of Attila used in Turkey are Atilla and Atila because consonant repetitions like "tt" in "Attila" are actually very seldom and difficult to pronounce in modern Turkish language.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Why should he bother with 2 fagyar trolls that should have been banned already by now? :coffee: Go get Judeus and cry in each others arms.

You descendants of Arpad shouldn't even be allowed on an European preservation site in the 1st place. Especially after so many official brothership festivities with turks(I gave links on those before.),Mr. Attila.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_%28name%29

I am glad I personally know intelligent, friendly Romanians, because if I would judge you whole people on the opinions of some of the self-named Romanian nationalists I encountered on forums I would have the lowest opinion on the intelligence level of your kind. Almost nothing worthy I read so far from most of you guys, it's like you people post only for the counter, not giving a damn on making sense or not.

[Unurautare]

As I said,farm animals are more worthy to have a conversation with than with Sagitta Hungarica and Judeus.

[HungAryan]

@ Judeus you are dark because you have chesnut hair and from what i can tell brown eyes, you dont have to be a negro in order to be considered a dark persone :) dark = swarthy.

Brown eyes?
Nope, I've got green eyes. Dark green.


As I said,farm animals are more worthy to have a conversation with than with Sagitta Hungarica and Judeus.

I bet so... :rolleyes:

[Caeruleus]

Brown eyes?
Nope, I've got green eyes. Dark green.

Ok, whatever ... you still dont look like Thor or Odin.

@ Judeus and Sagitta : Since you guys are so sensitive why dont you stop posting in romanian threads !? seems like an elegant way of avoiding insults :lightbul: dont you think ?

[HungAryan]

@ Judeus and Sagitta : Since you guys are so sensitive why dont you stop posting in romanian threads !? seems like an elegant way of avoiding insults :lightbul: dont you think ?

Romanian threads?
I opened this thread myself. So what are you talking about?

[Unurautare]

Romanian threads?
I opened this thread myself. So what are you talking about?

It doesn't matter that you made it,if you're trolling it and adding tags like "Romanians are gypsies",besides the many idiotic options added on purpose that contain "gypsies".

[Caeruleus]

Romanian threads?
I opened this thread myself. So what are you talking about?

Its still a thread about romanians, now is it not ? so in order to avoid any further conflicts stop posting, starting any discussions that may be related to romanians and/or Romania.

[HungAryan]

It doesn't matter that you made it,if you're trolling it and adding tags like "Romanians are gypsies",besides the many idiotic options added on purpose that contain "gypsies".

If others troll, I must troll too.

[Unurautare]

If others troll, I must troll too.

Cut the crap! You ever saw a Romanian here making a thread about hungarians and putting gypsies at options? Stupid kid.

[HungAryan]

Cut the crap! You ever saw a Romanian here making a thread about hungarians and putting gypsies at options? Stupid kid.

What?
If you troll us, we can't troll you? :rolleyes::D
You and Caeruleus constantly spread lies about the history of Transylvania and Romanians.

[safrax]

Dacians mixed with Latin Romans and Slavs!

[Unurautare]

What?
If you troll us, we can't troll you? :rolleyes::D
You and Caeruleus constantly spread lies about the history of Transylvania and Romanians.

Kid stop doing drugs and/or playing dumb! You have plenty to tell to your priest when you go at the confession,you lying little prick. :coffee: Any talk about Transylvania was done AFTER this thread was made. Even your signature is a troll itself.
Again show me where I or Caeruleus made a thread about hungarians and then started spamming it saying hungarians are gypsies?! Just stfu already.

[HungAryan]

Dacians mixed with Latin Romans and Slavs!

And Mongols and Turkics (Pechengs and Kipchaks/Cumans)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Khazarfall1.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Premongol-Kipchak.png

The map shows the territory of Pechengs and Kipchaks before the Mongol invasion.

[HungAryan]

Even your signature is a troll itself.

Showing your true colours, aren't you?
Your anti-Hungarian sentiment cannot be denied anymore.

[Unurautare]

And Mongols and Turkics (Pechengs and Kipchaks/Cumans)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Khazarfall1.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Premongol-Kipchak.png

The map shows the territory of Pechengs and Kipchaks before the Mongol invasion.

We didn't mix with them,and they weren't settled people. The Tatars and other turkics are just fine and dandy living as (small)minorities here,besides,most pechenegs/cumans moved to Hungary.

[Unurautare]

Showing your true colours, aren't you?
Your anti-Hungarian sentiment cannot be denied anymore.

You being the hungarian. :coffee:

[HungAryan]

You being the hungarian. :coffee:

If claiming back what rightfully belongs to my country is trolling, we are all trolls :rolleyes:

[Unurautare]

If claiming back what rightfully belongs to my country is trolling, we are all trolls :rolleyes:

Ahaha,you're a typical balkanic maniac with "Greater -" dreams. Ask Arpad where he came from and claim that land. ;)

[Onychodus]

If claiming back what rightfully belongs to my country is trolling, we are all trolls :rolleyes:

is Croatia Hungarian?

[HungAryan]

Ahaha,you're a typical balkanic maniac with "Greater -" dreams. Ask Arpad where he came from and claim that land. ;)

The Magyars originated in the Carpathian Basin, in the Neolithic times.
During the Bronze Age at about 2000 BC, the Indo-European colonization of Europe forced the Magyars to migrate to the East (North-East precisely), to the Ural mountains.
However, at about 200 AD, the Magyars started moving South-West again. Finally, we came back to our homeland, the Carpathian Basin in 895 AD.


So, we were here first before your Dacians :thumb001:

[Unurautare]

The Magyars originated in the Carpathian Basin, in the Neolithic times.
During the Bronze Age at about 2000 BC, the Indo-European colonization of Europe forced the Magyars to migrate to the East (North-East precisely), to the Ural mountains.
However, at about 200 AD, the Magyars started moving South-West again. Finally, we came back to our homeland, the Carpathian Basin in 895 AD.


So, we were here first before your Dacians :thumb001:

No.

[HungAryan]

is Croatia Hungarian?

Nope.

[HungAryan]

No.

Want to bet?


kOHiC7MNkHs
ut1sDas1dL4
SBir90Rbfok

[Flintlocke]

I'll end this conflict:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-5vc_0jWeviM/S_YDG4KPLmI/AAAAAAAAAHk/WNZ8HlZZGfc/s800/0065Alina800x600.jpg

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u16/ecuador365/Alina%20Vacarius%201/alina_vacariu_08.jpg

This is who Romanians are, happy now? Shut up and go home .:cool:

[Unurautare]

Want to bet?


kOHiC7MNkHs
ut1sDas1dL4
SBir90Rbfok

Keep dreaming while watching stupid youtube videos,speaking of I'm going to bed.
Remember there will be a day for the liberation of Pannonia also,so be ready when we'll come to 'visit' Aquincum,it won't be like in 1919 next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Romance


The Romanized population of Pannonia (for which the historian Theodore Mommsen calculated a population of about 200,000 around the 4th century) survived Barbarian invasions (by the Huns, Goths, Avars and others)

[HungAryan]

Keep dreaming while watching stupid youtube videos,speaking of I'm going to bed.
Remember there will be a day for the liberation of Pannonia also,so be ready when we'll come to 'visit' Aquincum,it won't be like in 1919 next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Romance

Keep on dreaming, Romanized Shiptar.
Your original homeland is in Albania.


http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Balkan1stCce.jpg
http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Vlach-expansion.jpg

[Mordid]

No.
Yes.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

is Croatia Hungarian?

There is tight collaboration between Croat and Hungarian nationalists. Thompson even had an enthusiastic concert in Hungary last year. Croatia is Croatian, but if they ever wish to reunite under the Holy Crown of St. Stephen we welcome them with open arms.

[Caeruleus]

The Magyars originated in the Carpathian Basin, in the Neolithic times.
During the Bronze Age at about 2000 BC, the Indo-European colonization of Europe forced the Magyars to migrate to the East (North-East precisely), to the Ural mountains.
However, at about 200 AD, the Magyars started moving South-West again. Finally, we came back to our homeland, the Carpathian Basin in 895 AD.


So, we were here first before your Dacians :thumb001:

what a load of bolloks :) man you should work on SF movies ... you're GOOD, you really are :thumb001:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u16/ecuador365/Alina%20Vacarius%201/alina_vacariu_08.jpg

Alina Vacariu ... fuck yeah or fuck her :D I think the latter sounds better :D

[Sagitta Hungarica]

what a load of bolloks :) man you should work on SF movies ... you're GOOD, you really are :thumb001:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u16/ecuador365/Alina%20Vacarius%201/alina_vacariu_08.jpg

Alina Vacariu ... fuck yeah or fuck her :D I think the latter sounds better :D

There are dozens of books, detailing this theory with many convincing proofs. I am not very sure that it is 100% correct, since it is an almost impossible task to give clear verdicts about periods so far back in time, but there is definitely truth in it.

[Onychodus]

Nope.

why your map includes it
http://www.eurominority.eu/documents/cartes/carte-hongrie.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/thumb/1/17/Velika_Madjarska_(pre_1918).PNG/300px-Velika_Madjarska_(pre_1918).PNG

[Flintlocke]

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u16/ecuador365/Alina%20Vacarius%201/alina_vacariu_08.jpg

Alina Vacariu ... fuck yeah or fuck her :D I think the latter sounds better :D

:) We have a boobs thread but those hips are deadly sexy!

[d3cimat3d]

And Mongols and Turkics (Pechengs and Kipchaks/Cumans)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Khazarfall1.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Premongol-Kipchak.png

The map shows the territory of Pechengs and Kipchaks before the Mongol invasion.

Funny how you being the one with the non-Indo-European tongue here, you use the Cumans, Pechenegs & other slant eyed ancient people as a way to poke fun of other people. You even took it as far to say Huns & Magyars were pure Caucasoids, and we know that isn't true because we have skulls of the ruling elites of these Turkic people and they had flat Asiatic faces. A Hungarian who denies his Turanian roots is not a real Hungarian.

[Daos]

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u16/ecuador365/Alina%20Vacarius%201/alina_vacariu_08.jpg

Alina Vacariu ... fuck yeah or fuck her :D I think the latter sounds better :D

Ah, yes... What better way of expressing appreciation of our women than by talking about them like whores?:rolleyes:

[Caeruleus]

Ah, yes... What better way of expressing appreciation of our women than by talking about them like whores?:rolleyes:

Banuiesc ca tu stai si te uiti la dansele ca la icoana :rolleyes: give me a fucking break ... in loc sa te lamentezi de atitudinea mea fata de femei mai bine ai invata sa fii un bun roman (adica sa nu te declari fanul jugului moghioresc, ca vezi tu e mai bine sa te futa un ungur decat un turc) :)

Futomodele in virtutea meseriei lor nu sunt cheie de biserica asa ca atitudinea mea (usor deplasata poate) are un oarecare fundament logic. Dealu-i deal si valea-i vale, curva-i curva pina moare. Cheers.

[Unurautare]

Banuiesc cu tu stai si te uiti la dansele ca la icoana :rolleyes: give me a fucking break ... in loc sa te lamentezi de atitudinea mea fata de femei mai bine ai invata sa fii un bun roman (adica sa nu te declari fanul jugului moghioresc, ca vezi tu e mai bine sa te futa un ungur decat un turc) :)

Futomodele in virtutea meseriei lor nu sunt cheie de biserica asa ca atitudinea mea (usor deplasata poate) are un oarecare fundament logic. Dealu-i deal si valea-i vale, curva-i curva pina moare. Cheers.

Ambii aveti dreptate,dar nici cu "fuck her" totusi. Daca nu ne respectam femeile si pe noi(indiferent de etnie,desi o exceptie parazitica este evidenta) nu o sa o faca nimeni pentru noi.

[Caeruleus]

Ambii aveti dreptate,dar nici cu "fuck her" totusi. Daca nu ne respectam femeile si pe noi(indiferent de etnie,desi o exceptie parazitica este evidenta) nu o sa o faca nimeni pentru noi.

OK what about letting her fuck me !? :D does that sound more respectful ? :)

[Unurautare]

OK what about letting her fuck me !? :D does that sound more respectful ? :)

It's a start. :D

[turbogirl]

OK what about letting her fuck me !? :D does that sound more respectful ? :)

Very nice, you both talk very nice with each other :p and you @Caeruleus talk soooooo "sweet" about women :mad:

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Funny how you being the one with the non-Indo-European tongue here, you use the Cumans, Pechenegs & other slant eyed ancient people as a way to poke fun of other people. You even took it as far to say Huns & Magyars were pure Caucasoids, and we know that isn't true because we have skulls of the ruling elites of these Turkic people and they had flat Asiatic faces. A Hungarian who denies his Turanian roots is not a real Hungarian.

Turanian is an artificial term, only modern Turks want to include Hungarians in this category, no Hungarian early document mentions this word, or a supposed Turanian origin (unfortunately there are some Hungarian nationalists today who are seduced by the Turkish "tongue licks"). A true Magyar could never claim to be something they never had any knowledge about. However early Magyar chronicles speak of Scythian and Hun origin. This is a much more credible scientific direction to follow than the pseudo-Turanian origin theory.

May I ask you what nationality are you, and where are you from? Your description (wannabe Szekler :confused:) is very odd.

[Unurautare]

Turanian is an artificial term, only modern Turks want to include Hungarians in this category, no Hungarian early document mentions this word, or a supposed Turanian origin (unfortunately there are some Hungarian nationalists today who are seduced by the Turkish "tongue licks"). A true Magyar could never claim to be something they never had any knowledge about. However early Magyar chronicles speak of Scythian and Hun origin. This is a much more credible scientific direction to follow than the pseudo-Turanian origin theory.

May I ask you what nationality are you, and where are you from? Your description is (wannabe Szekler :confused:) very odd.

Bullshitting Hungarian is bullshitting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Turanism


Hungarian Turanism (Hungarian: Turanizmus) is a Hungarian nationalist ideology which stresses the alleged origins of the Hungarian people in the steppes of Central Asia ("Turan") and the affinity of the Hungarians with Asian peoples such as the Turks. The idea of the necessity of "Turanian brotherhood/collaboration" was borrowed from the "Slavic brotherhood/collaboration" idea of Panslavism.[1] It gained wide currency on the Hungarian political right in the years between the two world wars and became an element in Hungarian fascist ideology.


The leader of the Hungarian fascist Arrow Cross Party, Ferenc Szálasi, believed in the existence of a "Turanian-Hungarian" race (which included Jesus Christ). :thumb001:

http://w.kuruc.org/galeriaN/egyeb/zspark1.jpg

http://www.barikad.hu/sites/barikad.hu/files/2011/08/demirkoyi%20kopjafa_0.JPG

http://erdely.ma/uploaded/images/6532394_nagy.jpg

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Bullshitting Hugarian is bullshitting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Turanism



:thumb001:

http://w.kuruc.org/galeriaN/egyeb/zspark1.jpg

http://www.barikad.hu/sites/barikad.hu/files/2011/08/demirkoyi%20kopjafa_0.JPG

http://erdely.ma/uploaded/images/6532394_nagy.jpg

The Arrow Cross Party didn't invented the term, but borrowed it. This term, was first used by various, obviously none-Hungarian scholars, and Turanism, as an ideology is exclusively a Turkish invention:


Max Müller classified the Turanian language family into different sub-branches. The Northern or Ural–Altaic division branch comprised Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, Samoyedic, and Finnic. The Southern branch consisted of Dravidian languages like Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, and other Dravidian languages. The languages of the Caucasus were classified as the scattered languages of the Turanian family. Müller also began to muse whether Chinese belonged to the Northern branch or Southern branch.



Combined with physical anthropology, the concept of the Turanian mentality has a clear racist potential. Thus, in 1838, the scholar J.W. Clackson described the Turanid or Turanian race in the following words:
The Turanian is the impersonation of material power. He is the merely muscular man at his maximum of collective development.


According to Iranian nationalist poet Mohammad Taghi Bahar, the name Turan derives from the Avestan "Tau-Raodan", which means "Further on the River", where the "River" is to be considered Amu Darya. Bahar also mentions the word Turk is from Middle Persian "Turuk," which means "Warrior" or "Horseman".


Polish philosopher Feliks Koneczny claimed that there is a distinctive Turanian civilization, encompassing both Turkic and some Slavic peoples, such as Russians. This civilization's hallmark is militarism, anti-intellectualism and an absolute obedience to the ruler. Koneczny saw this civilization as inherently inferior to Latin (Western European) civilization.


In the declining days of the Ottoman Empire, the word Turanian was adopted by some Turkish nationalists to express a pan-Turkic ideology, also called Turanism. Presently, Turanism forms an important aspect of the ideology of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), whose members are also known as Grey Wolves.


Traditional history cites its early origins amongst Ottoman officers and intelligentsia studying and residing in 1870s Imperial Germany. The fact that many Ottoman Turkish officials were becoming aware of their sense of "Turkishness" is beyond doubt of course, and the role of subsequent nationalists, such as Ziya Gökalp is fully established historically.

[Unurautare]

You can't blame the Turks for trying,or Hungarians for accepting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_%28name%29


Attila is a popular name for boys in both Hungary and Turkey. Another version of Attila in Hungary is Etele,[1] the female equivalent of which is Etelka. Other versions of Attila used in Turkey are Atilla and Atila because consonant repetitions like "tt" in "Attila" are actually very seldom and difficult to pronounce in modern Turkish language.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

You can't blame the Turks for trying,or Hungarians for accepting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_%28name%29

Don't generalize. Only a small minority in Hungary accepts this theory, most didn't even heard about it, as my relatives for example, who don't even know what Turan means.

[Unurautare]

Don't generalize. Only a small minority in Hungary accepts this theory, most didn't even heard about it, as my relatives for example, who don't even know what Turan means.

It seems/seemed to be wide spread,there was even a Hungarian tank design called Turan. -_-

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Turan+tank&pbx=1&oq=Turan+tank&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1277l2729l0l2994l10l7l0l0l0l0l628l2055l2-1.2.1.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=eb7dd580f7d51820&biw=1440&bih=597

[Sagitta Hungarica]

It seems/seemed to be wide spread,there was even a Hungarian tank design called Turan. -_-

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Turan+tank&pbx=1&oq=Turan+tank&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1277l2729l0l2994l10l7l0l0l0l0l628l2055l2-1.2.1.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=eb7dd580f7d51820&biw=1440&bih=597

Can you support your claim with data? "Seems" doesn't equal with "it is".

[Unurautare]

Can you support your claim with data? "Seems" doesn't equal with "it is".

Besides everything I posted so far is evidence enough,including the pictures, but fine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Hungary#Hungary_and_Central_A sia



A number of Hungarian anthropologists and linguists have long had an interest in the Turkic peoples, fueled by the eastern origin of the Hungarians' ancestors.[2] The Hungarian ethnomusicologist Bence Szabolcsi explained this motivation as follows: "Hungarians are the outermost branch leaning this way from age-old tree of the great Asian musical culture rooted in the souls of a variety of peoples living from China through Central Asia to the Black Sea"


After the dissolution of the USSR, this scholarly and cultural interest naturally led to Hungary's establishment of relations with the newly independent Central Asian states, in particular Kazakhstan. The Hungarian scholar Tibor Tot concluded, based on cultural and DNA evidence, that a certain subgroup of Kazakhs in Kostanay Province (known as the Madjars[4] or Turgay Magyars[5]) is the one Central Asian community with the closest genetic relation to the Hungarians. The news was enthusiastically met in official and diplomatic circles, and to celebrate this connection some events were held, including a Kazakh-Hungarian festival named "Meeting Across Centuries" (Russian: Встреча через века) that took place in 2007.

[Midori]

I think they're mostly Dacians + Latin Romans and a little bit of Slavic.

[HungAryan]

The Daco-Romanian theory is fake.
Ancient Roman records say that the Romans killed all the male Dacians.
Thus, it's impossible to Romanize a people just in 100 years. Not all of Dacia was under Roman control. And no, the free Dacians did not speak Latin.

The Vlachs originated in modern-day Albania.

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Balkan1stCce.jpg
http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Vlach-expansion.jpg

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Besides everything I posted so far is evidence enough,including the pictures, but fine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Hungary#Hungary_and_Central_A sia

I asked you data sustaining that most Hungarians consider themselves Turanians, or have pro-Turanian leanings. So far nothing. Please present me statistics, opinion polls, anything that proves your point. As I said, most Hungarians didn't even heard of such theories, and its following is rather small. You can't generalize.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

The Daco-Romanian theory is fake.
Ancient Roman records say that the Romans killed all the male Dacians.
Thus, it's impossible to Romanize a people just in 100 years. Not all of Dacia was under Roman control. And no, the free Dacians did not speak Latin.

The Vlachs originated in modern-day Albania.

http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Balkan1stCce.jpg
http://www.imninalu.net/Myths_files/Vlach-expansion.jpg

For some reason people still choose to believe disproved theories. Maybe it's more comfortable for them, it helps the status-quo.

[Ianus]

Dacian substratum with Roman, Slavic and some Germanic provision.

[Zaycev]

Thracian (Dacian) people with a small slavic and roman influence

[Lemon Kush]

Dacians

[blogen]

The ancient core: Latinized Thracians, Celts and Illyrians with original Latin settlers and maybe a very few component of resettled Latin "Dacians" (not necessary Dacian origins, mostly the descendants of the Roman settlers!) from Moesia

The Balkan ethnogenezis: ancient core + South Slavs and proto-Albanians = Vlachs

northeastern Vlach wandering

Regat (Regatul):
present Wallachians: Vlachs + few Eastern Slavs, Cumans, Magyars, Tatars, small Ottoman component (Turks, Greeks, etc.)
present Moldovans: Vlachs + lot of Eastern Slavs and Csángó Magyars + few Cumans, Tatars, Poles

present Transsylvanians (except the Regatian settlers): Vlachs + few Eastern Slavs, Magyars and Saxons

[UnRoman]

A mishmash of Dacians, some Romans, Slavs, Hungarians, Vlachs and some Germanics.

All in all -- a very interesting breed of people.

1 romanian = vlah olah vlaki....etc
2 origins of us are the dacians carps gets etc..... herodot say **them speak same leng but use dif names for coll himselfs** ...well
today on EU all the blood is mixup ....we have like u say and 1 who u miss, its some sirian blood.
bulagarians are more trachians then bulgars the serbs and bosniacs ...idc what adn say abouth HUN.
This made us the fathers of central eastern mid south europeans ?...hell not.. this tells us we have same ruths.When the vatican elitist dogma will luse the power on EU we will have peace.
my self i have on my family far i know turks, tartaro-slavs and romanian ( far i know).
**not important who u are, the really important thing is what u do with this**:thumbs up

[Varda]

One group of Vlachs from Kosovo settled to Maramures in 1280s. They were called both Vlachs and Serbs in the same time it seems.

[ioas12]

One group of Vlachs from Kosovo settled to Maramures in 1280s. They were called both Vlachs and Serbs in the same time it seems.

Where they vlachs or serbs ? It's kinda weird to call them both

[Victor]

Where they vlachs or serbs ? It's kinda weird to call them both

Part of Serbs which settled in modern Central Ukraine (New Serbia in Russian Empire back in 18 century) also had this kind of dual naming. Not all Serbs but part of them.

[ioas12]

Part of Serbs which settled in modern Central Ukraine (New Serbia in Russian Empire back in 18 century) also had this kind of dual naming. Not all Serbs but part of them.

I know but this is the 13 century back then the name vlach was used for the ethnic group. The term vlach that used for anyone who was shepherd came later

[DamCz]

Oldest inhabitants of Kosovo and Dardania are Albanians and there is enough evidence to show a continuity. Placenames
such as Naissus -> Nish, Astibos -> Shtip, Ulpiana -> Lipjan , Scupi -> Shkup follow Albanian sound changes and
you'll find good chunk of Albanian toponyms around these towns since the medieval period. Prizren too, the Llap region
in North-East Kosovo too. In the town of Novo Brdo Albanians were mentioned too in the medieval period.
Vlachs probably originated somewhere close to Albanians in this area. My guess would be the Nish area in what was ancient
Dardania. The name Dardania is explained from the Albanian word 'Dardhe/Darda'

[DamCz]

The Serbs are some tribe that invaded it in 12th-13th century, they are so desperate to try and connect themselves
with the ancient inhabitants of this territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Albanians,_1877%E2%80%931878



Toponyms such as Arbanaška River, Arbanashko Hill, Arbanashka Mountain, Arnautski Potok, Arbanasce, Arbanashka Petrila, Arbanashka Brenica, Arbanas, Gjinofc Kulla, Marash, Gjinofc, Gjaka/Đjake, Kastrat, Arbanaška etc. shows an Albanian presence in the Toplica and Southern Morava regions (located north-east of contemporary Kosovo) and in the Preševo Valley since the late Middle Ages.[22][23][24][25] Albanians in the region were Orthodox Christians, were in contact with Slavic populations and as such many also bore Orthodox Slavic names such as in the village Arbanas, the name of the inhabitants were: Stojan, Dajin, Dane Stojan, Mati Marko, Andrija Marko, Dimsha Marko, Luka Gjurko, Nikolla Luka, Pjetri Dimja, Stojan Pjetri, Gjura Marko, Lazar Stepa, Gjura Pejash etc.[26]



Dardania was one of the least Romanized regions in the Balkans, it was later invaded by different tribes Romans, Bulgars, Serbs... some of the native population probably moved into the mountains of Albania while some stayed, before later returning back.

[Varda]

Where they vlachs or serbs ? It's kinda weird to call them both

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195699#msg195699
But when ancestors of these dukes with own people, arrived to Maramures? Old Russian chronicles tell that king Laszlo asked help from Rome and Constantinople 1284-1285 because he was afraid of Tatar invasion. Significant help came from Ibar area in present day Serbia. These Romanians (Vlachs) from Ibar area, together with Hungarians defeated Tatars in the upper valley of Tisa, since they did not want to return in their homeland king settled them in Maramures.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195700#msg195700
There is reliable sources except old 'Russian chronicle.' It is more likely they arrived by command of Stefan Milutin. In that time Hungarian king Laszlo IV gave to Dragutin (Milutin's brother) Mačva with Belgrade and regions Soli and Usora in present day northern Bosnia and he ruled these regions independently and called himself Syrmian king. In the same time crisis caused by Tatars in Bulgarian increased... If Serbs or Vlachs were comming from Ibar area to Zakarpatya, to fight for Hungarians, they must have been sent by Serbia not by Byzantine.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195686#msg195686

In late 13th century entire Ibar river was in Serbia, it was in
Serbia for centuries before that. Chrysobull of Serbian king Milutin from early 14th century refers at Vlach katuns in present day northern Kosovo (river Ibar is there) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen_Chrysobull

[ioas12]

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195699#msg195699
But when ancestors of these dukes with own people, arrived to Maramures? Old Russian chronicles tell that king Laszlo asked help from Rome and Constantinople 1284-1285 because he was afraid of Tatar invasion. Significant help came from Ibar area in present day Serbia. These Romanians (Vlachs) from Ibar area, together with Hungarians defeated Tatars in the upper valley of Tisa, since they did not want to return in their homeland king settled them in Maramures.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195700#msg195700
There is reliable sources except old 'Russian chronicle.' It is more likely they arrived by command of Stefan Milutin. In that time Hungarian king Laszlo IV gave to Dragutin (Milutin's brother) Mačva with Belgrade and regions Soli and Usora in present day northern Bosnia and he ruled these regions Independent and called himself Syrmian king. In the same time crisis caused by Tatars in Bulgarian increased... If Serbs or Vlachs were comming from Ibar area to Zakarpatya, to fight for Hungarians, they must have been sent by Serbia not by Byzantine.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195686#msg195686

In late 13th century entire Ibar river was in Serbia, it was in
Serbia for centuries before that. Chrysobull of Serbian king Milutin from early 14th century refers at Vlach katuns in present day northern Kosovo (river Ibar is there) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen_Chrysobull

So what are you trying to say with this ? That vlachs are serbs or something like that ?

[Varda]

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195699#msg195699
But when ancestors of these dukes with own people, arrived to Maramures? Old Russian chronicles tell that king Laszlo asked help from Rome and Constantinople 1284-1285 because he was afraid of Tatar invasion. Significant help came from Ibar area in present day Serbia. These Romanians (Vlachs) from Ibar area, together with Hungarians defeated Tatars in the upper valley of Tisa, since they did not want to return in their homeland king settled them in Maramures.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195700#msg195700
There is reliable sources except old 'Russian chronicle.' It is more likely they arrived by command of Stefan Milutin. In that time Hungarian king Laszlo IV gave to Dragutin (Milutin's brother) Mačva with Belgrade and regions Soli and Usora in present day northern Bosnia and he ruled these regions Independent and called himself Syrmian king. In the same time crisis caused by Tatars in Bulgarian increased... If Serbs or Vlachs were comming from Ibar area to Zakarpatya, to fight for Hungarians, they must have been sent by Serbia not by Byzantine.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195686#msg195686

In late 13th century entire Ibar river was in Serbia, it was in
Serbia for centuries before that. Chrysobull of Serbian king Milutin from early 14th century refers at Vlach katuns in present day northern Kosovo (river Ibar is there) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen_Chrysobull

Reason for discusion which i posted is match in Y DNA between one Rusyn from Maramures and several Serbs (some are from Kosovo) inside of R1b-Z2103-BY611-Z2705.

Vlachs of Ibar/northern Kosovo from Milutin's chrysobull in that time were probably bilingual. Their names in chrysobull are predominantly Slavic, but there is some Vlach/Romanian like. In late 13th and early 14th century it seems they were semi slavized.

[ioas12]

Reason for discusion which i posted is match in Y DNA between Rusyn from Maramures and several Serbs (some are from Kosovo) in side of R1b-Z2103-BY611-Z2705.

Vlachs of Ibar/northern Kosovo from Milutin's chrysobull in that time were probably bilingual. There names in chrysobull are predominantly Slavic, but there is some Vlach/Romanian like. In late 13th and early 14th century it seems they were semi slavized.

Well I didn't really find slavic names for vlachs that strange for example the vlachs leaders mentioned in 1247 , litovoi and seneslau. Also other leaders with slavic names vlad, radu and dragos for example

[Varda]

This Albo troll DamCz use different profile every 15 days. His propaganda how Albos live in countinuity in Kosovo for thoudands of years is fantasy. Dardanians were romanized during the Roman period, and medieval Vlachs of Kosovo most likely were their descendants. Kosovo Vlachs mixed with Slavic Serbs in the middle age and present day Kosovo Serbs are partly their descendants, even some Romanians probably are more connected with medieval Kosovo Vlachs than Albos. Kosovo Serbs have higher E-V13 than Serbian average and their branches are not connected with Albanian.

[Varda]

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195686#msg195686

I forgot to translate that.

Here is more literature that confirms the arrival of the Vlachs in Maramures, who were practically Serbs by identity, with Serbian names. In addition it is stated their origin from Kosovo. Right ar the root BY199059 under asterisk are Janićijević from Kosovo, Veličković from Bojnik which is not far, and this from Maramures. Later started migrations towards the Stari Vlah and further west (in those downstream branches there is the most tested).

[ioas12]

I forgot to translate that.

Here is more literature that confirms the arrival of the Vlachs in Maramures, who were practically Serbs by identity, with Serbian names. In addition it is stated their origin from Kosovo. Right ar the root BY199059 under asterisk are Janićijević from Kosovo, Veličković from Bojnik which is not far, and this from Maramures. Later started migrations towards the Stari Vlah and further west (in those downstream branches there is the most tested).

That article that you shared says that all vlachs in translyiana are serbs lol. Also the Bulgarians claim that the vlachs were Bulgarian too

[Varda]

That article that you shared says that all vlachs in translyiana are serbs lol

It is about of group of Vlachs which settled to Maramures from northern Kosovo in the late 13th century, not about all Maramures Vlachs and especially not about all Transylvania Vlachs. Northern Kosovo was part of Serbia for centuries before 13th century and it was normal that Vlachs of that area after the centuries in Serbia were semi serbified/slavized. Imagine that part of present day Vlachs of eastern Serbia move to Romania. They carry Serbian names of forms of surnames because their ancestors adopted that in 19th century, and they are bilingual. They would use their native language instead of Serbian if they move to Romania because it is very similar to Romanian.

[Varda]

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195699#msg195699
But when ancestors of these dukes with own people, arrived to Maramures? Old Russian chronicles tell that king Laszlo asked help from Rome and Constantinople 1284-1285 because he was afraid of Tatar invasion. Significant help came from Ibar area in present day Serbia. These Romanians (Vlachs) from Ibar area, together with Hungarians defeated Tatars in the upper valley of Tisa, since they did not want to return in their homeland king settled them in Maramures.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195700#msg195700
There is reliable sources except old 'Russian chronicle.' It is more likely they arrived by command of Stefan Milutin. In that time Hungarian king Laszlo IV gave to Dragutin (Milutin's brother) Mačva with Belgrade and regions Soli and Usora in present day northern Bosnia and he ruled these regions independently and called himself Syrmian king. In the same time crisis caused by Tatars in Bulgarian increased... If Serbs or Vlachs were comming from Ibar area to Zakarpatya, to fight for Hungarians, they must have been sent by Serbia not by Byzantine.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195686#msg195686

In late 13th century entire Ibar river was in Serbia, it was in
Serbia for centuries before that. Chrysobull of Serbian king Milutin from early 14th century refers at Vlach katuns in present day northern Kosovo (river Ibar is there) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen_Chrysobull

Names of some members of the vlach katuns from chrysobull of king Milutin: Dragoš, Dragomir, Radota, Bunislav, Kalana, Kondre, Rad, Bratan, Bukor, Vlad, Šleman, Balin, Radomir, Ljuben, Negul, Prvoš, Baldovin, Stanimir, Milan, Bogdan, Prodan, Rajul, Pribislav, Rade, Velimir, Bratula, Smoljan, Šarban, Pribac, Nikola, Zoran, Buniša, Vojihna, Dragoman, Brajen, Bogoš, Gostimir, Ljuboje, Ševelj, Dabiživ, Inoslav, Hlap, Mile, Rajan, Dejilo, Kalota, Aukar, Milša, Vitan, Boroje, Stefan, Marko, Obrad, Srdan, Hrvatin, Draško, Milislav, Dmitar, Vojin..

I marked Vlach sounding ones.
Rajul and Bratula have Slavic root, but typical Vlach suffix UL.
Kalota is similar as Kaloka duke of tribe Kriči from 13th century (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriči). In 13th century Kriči were Romance speaking Vlach tribe, they live near Durmitor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durmitor). Durmitor have meaning in East Romance. Kriči are slavized/serbified in 15th century, probably proces of their serbification/slavization started in 14th century. Shiptar trolls wrote at Wiki that Kriči were Albo tribe. :picard1:

[Varda]

In my previous post among Kosovo Vlachs from early 14th century is name Ševelj. In Split exist Croatian family Ševeljević, it seems that family for centuries live in Split with urban life (most of present day Splitians are descendants of recent or relatively recent settlers from Dalmatian villages). It's possible they have some Romance origin, it's not uncommon among urban coastal Dalmatians.

[OrdinaryWorld]

In my previous post among Kosovo Vlachs from early 14th century is name Ševelj. In Split exist Croatian family Ševeljević, it seems that family for centuries live in Split with urban life (most of present day Splitians are descendants of recent or relatively recent settlers from Dalmatian villages). It's possible they have some Romance origin, it's not uncommon among urban coastal Dalmatians.


Ti si pravi Vlah, znas? Priznajes li to?

[OrdinaryWorld]

This Albo troll DamCz use different profile every 15 days. His propaganda how Albos live in countinuity in Kosovo for thoudands of years is fantasy. Dardanians were romanized during the Roman period, and medieval Vlachs of Kosovo most likely were their descendants. Kosovo Vlachs mixed with Slavic Serbs in the middle age and present day Kosovo Serbs are partly their descendants, even some Romanians probably are more connected with medieval Kosovo Vlachs than Albos. Kosovo Serbs have higher E-V13 than Serbian average and their branches are not connected with Albanian.


Pa to upravo i potvrdjuje da smo mi Srbi Vlasi. Sam si priznao da si Vlah, zar ne? :)

[Sarmale]

This is a complicated question to be honest, and none of the provided choices are fully accurate.

Romanians are a highly diverse population from what I've noticed. They may be among the most ethnically mixed peoples in Europe, especially for their relatively small population size. I'm from a Romanian family but lived away from the country most of my life, and I was surprised to see so many types when I finally went for a long tour of the country and its different regions.

Then I did a lot of in depth research over the past few years on the history and ethnogenesis.

First of all, people need to stop fixating on this "Dacian" thing. There's really no proof that there is direct descent from them, and we hardly know anything about them, either linguistically or genetically. The only reason Dacian is the thing that is highlighted in history books and retold by countless Romanians to foreigners is because they happened to be the people there, in the geographic location of modern Romania, for the relatively brief period that the Roman Empire conquered the area. So they just make the assumption that it had to be them that was Latinized, and that the words in common with Albanian must be some lost Dacian "substratum" but again this is an assumption.

Realistically, Romanians (at least the core portion that provided the language) probably have more to do with the Romanized Thracians and Illyrians from the central Balkans than the actual literal Dacians, although they may have been cousin peoples anyway, and Getae were an intermediate of sorts. Some of the population of Roman Dacia may have retreated south in the late 3rd century and blended with them anyway, and later some of these proto-Vlachs split and some moved back north over the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania during the Middle Ages, probably during the Bulgarian Empire, as we only have records of them from later. Here they absorbed the people there, Slavs who by that point had migrated south into former Dacia and probably also absorbed remnants of earlier free Dacians/Carpi and some East Germanics like Goths and Gepids, maybe a few Scytho-Sarmatians, as well as some nomadic Turkic people from the east. Some of the other proto-Vlachs went further south to Macedonia and Greece and became the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. The inherited Latin vocabulary is distinct from other Romance varieties, meaning they were together for a long time before splitting, and interestingly, we share some of the same early Slavic borrowings with them, and the languages developed in similar ways. As for contribution of actual Romans, that was probably small and got even further diluted over the centuries, so it's not too significant. Hard to really say. But there is clearly some kind of important southern/Balkan/Mediterranean component in Romanians, among others.

It's strange that the poll didn't include Slavs at all as they are clearly an important component in the makeup of the Romanian population, visible both genetically and anthropologically. Some regions have higher amounts than others, and it isn't always distributed evenly. Generally I think the northern areas and northeast especially, plus Moldova, are higher in this component, but you can find it everywhere to some extent. Several Slavic archaeological cultures have been noted in the Middle Ages when there were no records of local Romance speakers, and Slavic vocabulary, especially in certain domains, has certainly influenced the language (not to mention some personal names like our most famous ruler, Vlad). That said, most of the Slavic elements tend to be more akin to South Slavs in particular, and not as much the northern groups.

The Vlach/Balkan type is found around the country in different measures too, probably higher in places like Oltenia/Muntenia, some parts of Transylvania.

Maybe a little input from Germanic sources and older Celtic people in the western areas is to be noted as well.

There is also, I think, some contribution from Central Asian Turkic people like Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars, Avars, Huns, etc. and maybe Magyars too. I wouldn't put it on par with the other components, as it's only like maybe 5%, but it's definitely a thing in varying degrees. I have seen some Romanians that coincidentally vaguely look a bit like a lighter, old world version of some Latin American Hispanics (like "mestizo" or "castizo"), and I wonder if this is what happens when you blend Siberian or Turkic Turanid with Balkan/Black Sea Mediterranean variants, since Native Americans ultimately came from North Asia and then blended with Spanish.

I don't think there's much Anatolian Turkish contribution since the Ottomans didn't directly occupy. And gypsies, well it depends: I don't think we can speak of them being a component of Romanian ethnogenesis as they have been a people who have been apart for the most part for the five or six centuries they've been there. Only recently has there been some mixing, but not enough to say "Romanians in general are partly gypsy/Roma".

I was actually kind of surprised by what I saw when I actually went there. My family happens to be more southern and western looking, I guess (lot of people guess we are French or Northern Italian), so based on that and given our language I expected more of them to look like us, sort of Central Euro and Mediterranean blends. But there were a surprising amount of more stereotypically "East Euro" type people and unusual faces (at least that I wasn't as used to living in America). Some of them stand out in a way that not many other Euros do.

It's also strange how you have people who look so different from each other all being the same ethnicity, and people not noticing these differences much, since maybe they are used to it. I mean you have some very southern European looking people that look Greek or Italian and then some Central Euro types that could be Austrian, Balkan types, and very East Euro/Slav types that look Ukrainian or Russian, originally coming from very different places, all kind of meeting together. You wouldn't think some of them are even the same folk. I think it's clear that they are a blend of whatever populations were in place before the Romanian language spread to its speakers.

[ioas12]

This is a complicated question to be honest, and none of the provided choices are fully accurate.

Romanians are a highly diverse population from what I've noticed. They may be among the most ethnically mixed peoples in Europe, especially for their relatively small population size. I'm from a Romanian family but lived away from the country most of my life, and I was surprised to see so many types when I finally went for a long tour of the country and its different regions.

Then I did a lot of in depth research over the past few years on the history and ethnogenesis.

First of all, people need to stop fixating on this "Dacian" thing. There's really no proof that there is direct descent from them, and we hardly know anything about them, either linguistically or genetically. The only reason Dacian is the thing that is highlighted in history books and retold by countless Romanians to foreigners is because they happened to be the people there, in the geographic location of modern Romania, for the relatively brief period that the Roman Empire conquered the area. So they just make the assumption that it had to be them that was Latinized, and that the words in common with Albanian must be some lost Dacian "substratum" but again this is an assumption.

Realistically, Romanians (at least the core portion that provided the language) probably have more to do with the Romanized Thracians and Illyrians from the central Balkans than the actual literal Dacians, although they may have been cousin peoples anyway, and Getae were an intermediate of sorts. Some of the population of Roman Dacia may have retreated south in the late 3rd century and blended with them anyway, and later some of these proto-Vlachs split and some moved back north over the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania during the Middle Ages, probably during the Bulgarian Empire, as we only have records of them from later. Here they absorbed the people there, Slavs who by that point had migrated south into former Dacia and probably also absorbed remnants of earlier free Dacians/Carpi and some East Germanics like Goths and Gepids, maybe a few Scytho-Sarmatians, as well as some nomadic Turkic people from the east. Some of the other proto-Vlachs went further south to Macedonia and Greece and became the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. The inherited Latin vocabulary is distinct from other Romance varieties, meaning they were together for a long time before splitting, and interestingly, we share some of the same early Slavic borrowings with them, and the languages developed in similar ways. As for contribution of actual Romans, that was probably small and got even further diluted over the centuries, so it's not too significant. Hard to really say. But there is clearly some kind of important southern/Balkan/Mediterranean component in Romanians, among others.

It's strange that the poll didn't include Slavs at all as they are clearly an important component in the makeup of the Romanian population, visible both genetically and anthropologically. Some regions have higher amounts than others, and it isn't always distributed evenly. Generally I think the northern areas and northeast especially, plus Moldova, are higher in this component, but you can find it everywhere to some extent. Several Slavic archaeological cultures have been noted in the Middle Ages when there were no records of local Romance speakers, and Slavic vocabulary, especially in certain domains, has certainly influenced the language (not to mention some personal names like our most famous ruler, Vlad). That said, most of the Slavic elements tend to be more akin to South Slavs in particular, and not as much the northern groups.

The Vlach/Balkan type is found around the country in different measures too, probably higher in places like Oltenia/Muntenia, some parts of Transylvania.

Maybe a little input from Germanic sources and older Celtic people in the western areas is to be noted as well.

There is also, I think, some contribution from Central Asian Turkic people like Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars, Avars, Huns, etc. and maybe Magyars too. I wouldn't put it on par with the other components, as it's only like maybe 5%, but it's definitely a thing in varying degrees. I have seen some Romanians that coincidentally vaguely look a bit like a lighter, old world version of some Latin American Hispanics (like "mestizo" or "castizo"), and I wonder if this is what happens when you blend Siberian or Turkic Turanid with Balkan/Black Sea Mediterranean variants, since Native Americans ultimately came from North Asia and then blended with Spanish.

I don't think there's much Anatolian Turkish contribution since the Ottomans didn't directly occupy. And gypsies, well it depends: I don't think we can speak of them being a component of Romanian ethnogenesis as they have been a people who have been apart for the most part for the five or six centuries they've been there. Only recently has there been some mixing, but not enough to say "Romanians in general are partly gypsy/Roma".

I was actually kind of surprised by what I saw when I actually went there. My family happens to be more southern and western looking, I guess (lot of people guess we are French or Northern Italian), so based on that and given our language I expected more of them to look like us, sort of Central Euro and Mediterranean blends. But there were a surprising amount of more stereotypically "East Euro" type people and unusual faces (at least that I wasn't as used to living in America). Some of them stand out in a way that not many other Euros do.

It's also strange how you have people who look so different from each other all being the same ethnicity, and people not noticing these differences much, since maybe they are used to it. I mean you have some very southern European looking people that look Greek or Italian and then some Central Euro types that could be Austrian, Balkan types, and very East Euro/Slav types that look Ukrainian or Russian, originally coming from very different places, all kind of meeting together. You wouldn't think some of them are even the same folk. I think it's clear that they are a blend of whatever populations were in place before the Romanian language spread to its speakers.
Romanians are not most ethnically diverse population. Romanians are Balkan plus slavic that plot with Bulgarians, serbs, Croats and Bosnians. Edit oops forget montnegrins

[ioas12]

This is a complicated question to be honest, and none of the provided choices are fully accurate.

Romanians are a highly diverse population from what I've noticed. They may be among the most ethnically mixed peoples in Europe, especially for their relatively small population size. I'm from a Romanian family but lived away from the country most of my life, and I was surprised to see so many types when I finally went for a long tour of the country and its different regions.

Then I did a lot of in depth research over the past few years on the history and ethnogenesis.

First of all, people need to stop fixating on this "Dacian" thing. There's really no proof that there is direct descent from them, and we hardly know anything about them, either linguistically or genetically. The only reason Dacian is the thing that is highlighted in history books and retold by countless Romanians to foreigners is because they happened to be the people there, in the geographic location of modern Romania, for the relatively brief period that the Roman Empire conquered the area. So they just make the assumption that it had to be them that was Latinized, and that the words in common with Albanian must be some lost Dacian "substratum" but again this is an assumption.

Realistically, Romanians (at least the core portion that provided the language) probably have more to do with the Romanized Thracians and Illyrians from the central Balkans than the actual literal Dacians, although they may have been cousin peoples anyway, and Getae were an intermediate of sorts. Some of the population of Roman Dacia may have retreated south in the late 3rd century and blended with them anyway, and later some of these proto-Vlachs split and some moved back north over the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania during the Middle Ages, probably during the Bulgarian Empire, as we only have records of them from later. Here they absorbed the people there, Slavs who by that point had migrated south into former Dacia and probably also absorbed remnants of earlier free Dacians/Carpi and some East Germanics like Goths and Gepids, maybe a few Scytho-Sarmatians, as well as some nomadic Turkic people from the east. Some of the other proto-Vlachs went further south to Macedonia and Greece and became the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. The inherited Latin vocabulary is distinct from other Romance varieties, meaning they were together for a long time before splitting, and interestingly, we share some of the same early Slavic borrowings with them, and the languages developed in similar ways. As for contribution of actual Romans, that was probably small and got even further diluted over the centuries, so it's not too significant. Hard to really say. But there is clearly some kind of important southern/Balkan/Mediterranean component in Romanians, among others.

It's strange that the poll didn't include Slavs at all as they are clearly an important component in the makeup of the Romanian population, visible both genetically and anthropologically. Some regions have higher amounts than others, and it isn't always distributed evenly. Generally I think the northern areas and northeast especially, plus Moldova, are higher in this component, but you can find it everywhere to some extent. Several Slavic archaeological cultures have been noted in the Middle Ages when there were no records of local Romance speakers, and Slavic vocabulary, especially in certain domains, has certainly influenced the language (not to mention some personal names like our most famous ruler, Vlad). That said, most of the Slavic elements tend to be more akin to South Slavs in particular, and not as much the northern groups.

The Vlach/Balkan type is found around the country in different measures too, probably higher in places like Oltenia/Muntenia, some parts of Transylvania.

Maybe a little input from Germanic sources and older Celtic people in the western areas is to be noted as well.

There is also, I think, some contribution from Central Asian Turkic people like Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars, Avars, Huns, etc. and maybe Magyars too. I wouldn't put it on par with the other components, as it's only like maybe 5%, but it's definitely a thing in varying degrees. I have seen some Romanians that coincidentally vaguely look a bit like a lighter, old world version of some Latin American Hispanics (like "mestizo" or "castizo"), and I wonder if this is what happens when you blend Siberian or Turkic Turanid with Balkan/Black Sea Mediterranean variants, since Native Americans ultimately came from North Asia and then blended with Spanish.

I don't think there's much Anatolian Turkish contribution since the Ottomans didn't directly occupy. And gypsies, well it depends: I don't think we can speak of them being a component of Romanian ethnogenesis as they have been a people who have been apart for the most part for the five or six centuries they've been there. Only recently has there been some mixing, but not enough to say "Romanians in general are partly gypsy/Roma".

I was actually kind of surprised by what I saw when I actually went there. My family happens to be more southern and western looking, I guess (lot of people guess we are French or Northern Italian), so based on that and given our language I expected more of them to look like us, sort of Central Euro and Mediterranean blends. But there were a surprising amount of more stereotypically "East Euro" type people and unusual faces (at least that I wasn't as used to living in America). Some of them stand out in a way that not many other Euros do.

It's also strange how you have people who look so different from each other all being the same ethnicity, and people not noticing these differences much, since maybe they are used to it. I mean you have some very southern European looking people that look Greek or Italian and then some Central Euro types that could be Austrian, Balkan types, and very East Euro/Slav types that look Ukrainian or Russian, originally coming from very different places, all kind of meeting together. You wouldn't think some of them are even the same folk. I think it's clear that they are a blend of whatever populations were in place before the Romanian language spread to its speakers.

New post but for middle ages part did you mean early middle ages? Vlachs were mentioned in 13 century for the first time

[Sarmale]

Yes I meant Early Middle Ages. But for the majority of the Middle Ages, they weren't really noted there (say arbitrarily around 450 or 500 until some point in the late 1100s early 1200s). I'm not saying it's impossible there were pockets of Romance speakers in very isolated mountain villages that survived in direct continuation that no chronicler bothered to write about, but they were not significant and I think there was also input from other Vlachs a little to the south across the river and maybe a blend of these populations.

What I don't get is why Hungarians try to always paint Vlachs in a negative light as if they are some lowly foreign people from thousands of miles away that ended up there and don't belong. They are quite native to the region overall, way more than the elite stratum of Uralic Magyars were who came from west Siberia.

Anyway when I say mixed, the majority of the population is not that mixed, but on the fringes you have some of it. And I didn't mean necessarily mixed with non-European (though there is a bit of that, and I think it's a tad higher than a lot of other countries from what I've seen), just different European groups and phenotypes that are represented in the population, which makes sense given all the people that stopped through over the land's history. I wouldn't call them the most homogenous group.

Even Coon had noted that there were several very different anthropological types scattered throughout the country, somewhat based on region, although that is changing because of increased mobility in the modern era. Like Transylvania and the west were high in Dinarids "of the highest rank", sometimes blended with local Alpine types to make Carpathids, Wallachia had predominantly Pontid Meds and Alpines with some Dinarid, and throughout the country to varying degrees, but especially Moldova, you had Neo-Danubians represented.

[ioas12]

Yes I meant Early Middle Ages. But for the majority of the Middle Ages, they weren't really noted there (say arbitrarily around 450 or 500 until some point in the late 1100s early 1200s). I'm not saying it's impossible there were pockets of Romance speakers in very isolated mountain villages that survived in direct continuation that no chronicler bothered to write about, but they were not significant and I think there was also input from other Vlachs a little to the south across the river and maybe a blend of these populations.

Anyway when I say mixed, the majority of the population is not that mixed, but on the fringes you have some of it. And I didn't mean necessarily mixed with non-European (though there is a bit of that, and I think it's a tad higher than a lot of other countries from what I've seen), just different European groups and phenotypes that are represented in the population, which makes sense given all the people that stopped through over the land's history. I wouldn't call them the most homogenous group.

Even Coon had noted that there were several very different anthropological types scattered throughout the country, somewhat based on region, although that is changing because of increased mobility in the modern era. Like Transylvania and the west were high in Dinarids "of the highest rank", sometimes blended with local Alpine types to make Carpathids, Wallachia had predominantly Pontid Meds and Alpines with some Dinarid, and throughout the country to varying degrees, but especially Moldova, you had Neo-Danubians represented.I am from Moldova well bukovina to be exact and neo danubian is not the most common phenotype and not in even in the top 5 most common phenotypes

[Sarmale]

Really? I find that extremely difficult to believe. Bukovina is one of the most Slavic influenced regions of Romanians anywhere.

Maybe it's a terminology issue, but Neo-Danubian is a common type throughout the eastern half of Europe, even found as far as Austria, basically the local older types mixed with Slavs that arrived from NE Europe (which in some cases carried assimilated and very diluted Uralic stocks or were high in EHG). In other schemes you instead have things like Gorid (East Alpine) or Balto-Alpine and things like that.

[ioas12]

Really? I find that extremely difficult to believe. Bukovina is one of the most Slavic influenced regions of Romanians anywhere.

Maybe it's a terminology issue, but Neo-Danubian is a common type throughout the eastern half of Europe, basically the local older types mixed with Slavs that arrived from NE Europe (which in some cases carried assimilated Uralic ppl). In other schemes you instead have things like Gorid (East Alpine) or Balto-Alpine and things like that.
Yeah it's one of most most slavic influenced regions in Romania but not as Slavic as you think we are still Balkan ( Palo balkan plus slavic) for example on most dna calculators I get 57 percent slavic and I am pretty typical for my region.

[Sarmale]

Fair enough. Like I said, we can have a lot of variety. Heck, some of us can even look like pseudo-Irish or Welsh.

Anyway, it would be cool if more people actually got tested and we had better insights into the population as a whole. From what I hear, there are still relatively low numbers.

[ioas12]

Fair enough. Like I said, we can have a lot of variety. Heck, some of us can even look like pseudo-Irish or Welsh.

Anyway, it would be cool if more people actually got tested and we had better insights into the population as a whole. From what I hear, there are still relatively low numbers.

I mean we have a decentish Numbers of romanians tested but you right More is always better

[Varda]

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195699#msg195699
But when ancestors of these dukes with own people, arrived to Maramures? Old Russian chronicles tell that king Laszlo asked help from Rome and Constantinople 1284-1285 because he was afraid of Tatar invasion. Significant help came from Ibar area in present day Serbia. These Romanians (Vlachs) from Ibar area, together with Hungarians defeated Tatars in the upper valley of Tisa, since they did not want to return in their homeland king settled them in Maramures.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195700#msg195700
There is reliable sources except old 'Russian chronicle.' It is more likely they arrived by command of Stefan Milutin. In that time Hungarian king Laszlo IV gave to Dragutin (Milutin's brother) Mačva with Belgrade and regions Soli and Usora in present day northern Bosnia and he ruled these regions independently and called himself Syrmian king. In the same time crisis caused by Tatars in Bulgarian increased... If Serbs or Vlachs were comming from Ibar area to Zakarpatya, to fight for Hungarians, they must have been sent by Serbia not by Byzantine.

https://forum.poreklo.rs/index.php?topic=1854.msg195686#msg195686

In late 13th century entire Ibar river was in Serbia, it was in
Serbia for centuries before that. Chrysobull of Serbian king Milutin from early 14th century refers at Vlach katuns in present day northern Kosovo (river Ibar is there) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen_Chrysobull

This map is interesting in the context of origin of Maramures Romanians and Moldovans from Serbia/Kosovo.

127374

[Sarmale]

Yeah, I'm not sure why they have them taking a separate route north than the rest of Romanians. There are some ideas that the southwest areas like Oltenia, and near Banat, were populated by Vlachs earlier than other areas and it was a gradual series of migrations.

While I believe in some kind of ad-migration (with some remnants of Romance speakers lingering in isolated, unattested villages being added to by more significant migration from the south), I do wonder about how some of the ethnogenesis actually happened afterward.

Particularly when it came to assimilation and absorption of the leftover Cumans:

- Why would those nomadic Turkic people who were once politically dominant in Wallachia as some of the earlier ruling elite decide to start speaking the language of these new Vlach arrivals? The Cumans would have been a proud steppe warrior horse people while the Vlachs were mostly a simpler shepherd people, so what was the appeal or draw there? Simply the larger population number relative to their dwindling numbers? I suppose they were always a minority among a larger European majority of some kind, but I wonder how these things actually happen. I would guess in a gradual fashion. I wonder if there were influential Vlach local chieftains.

- and why do we have very few words of known Turkic (non Ottoman Turkish) origin left in the language? I've done some pretty in-depth linguistic research and there really isn't much there at all.

- in the same vein, why would some of the Slavic speaking populations north of the Danube switch to the Vlach Eastern Romance language over time as they became assimilated into their population (admittedly they did leave a much stronger linguistic mark on the language)?

- I would guess the handful of Turkic derived words were already part of Slavic dialects in the region so were transmitted via that?

- We also don't have much in the way of ancient Gothic (East Germanic) linguistic influences. One would think they would have at least left some remnant on the various layers of populations that occupied Dacia over the centuries

[ioas12]

Deleted