Originally Posted by
Stears
In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherds of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The irrational daco-romanian continuity myth is nothing more than a "NATIVIST" state-propaganda. This chauvinist propaganda was born & started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" (A politically very active "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening & nationalism. The fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" served and followed strictly the romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. It's the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives , this national belief/religion became the central core of modern Romanian identity. Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.
Vlach (name for medieval & early modern romanians in European chronicles) was the latest nation who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe.
I. THE PROBLEMS WITH DACIANS AND the so-called "ROMANS"(???) in the theory:
I/1st: There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) proofs for the survival of Dacian ethnic group after Roman withdrawal.
I/2nd: Dacian vocabulary did not remain for the posterior, only same names of tribal leaders remained.
The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike in the case of other European neo-latin/romance languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin romance language.
I/3rd: The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for a real romanization process.
I/4th: The BARBARIZATION of the Roman Army: Despite that average Romanian people tend to believe that they are also descendants of the "Ancient Romans/Latins" it is very far from historical reality. The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS.
II. MIGRATION PERIOD PROBLEMS of the THEORY
II/1st: The migration of series of BRUTAL BARBARIAN tribes: There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Longobards, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs and later Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 9th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /romance speaking population. However there are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.
II/2nd: The complete LACK OF any LINGUISTIC INFLUENCES OF BARBARIANS of the area on Romanian language: There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans: The the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania.
III. The Vlachs Neo-Latin (Romance speaking) peopulation, and the PROBLEM of the missing 800 years in contemporary chronicles.
III/1st: There are no material proofs (cemetries or vlach cultic places) which can support the Vlach (romance speaking population) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s. There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s. WERE WERE YOU HIDING FROM THE EYES OF CHRONICLERS for more than 800 years dear "daco"-"romans"?
III/2nd: The earliest romanian chronicle was Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century(!!!), who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of medieval literacy and medieval literature and own romanian history writing/chronicles, the poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..
IV. LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS of the THEORY
IV/1st Only the BALKAN Valchs were recorded as neo-latin speakers in the Eastern European and South-Eastern European region in the contemporary Chronicles (4th-13th century). Which is not surprising, because the Roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlach neo-latin speaker nomads were very often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles)
IV/2nd: The problem of HYDRONYMS and TOPONYMS: Other interesting fact, that Romanian language borrowed the already existing Slavic, Hungarian and Saxon origin toponyms and hydronyms of Transylvania. It is a very well known and clear practice of immigrant populations.
IV/3rd: The "great Latin" medieval Romanian vlachs always fiercely resisted against the Western Latin (Catholic) Church and its Latin liturgy, they chosed the Slavic Orthodox church which used church-slavonic language istead of Latin. (It was due to the fact that old romanian language contained more slavic words than latin, because the church-slavonic liturgy was more understandable for their people.
IV/4th: Huge LINGUISTIC REFORMS of the 19th century: During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from the vocabulary of the romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full modern French expressions were adopted to replace the old ones. These new modern Western European (modern French & Italian) romance expressions and words simply did not exist in the era original ancient latin speaking populations or in the vulgar latin languages.
IV/5th: ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM in old romanian language: Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained serious ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM before the linguistic reforms. Moreover, the old Romanian language was the only language in Europe which contained Albanian substratum. This also supports the balkan migrations in the high medieval period.
The imagined "glorious past" and the opposing historical reality:
The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the brutal mongol invasions and attacks in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) Cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder prince Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
Since the 16th century the settled life slowly became dominant lifestyle among the formerly mostly nomadic-shepherd romanians. It doesn't sound a very civilized interesting and important history...
Reply With Quote
China
Brazil
Srbija
Bookmarks