Illyrians and Vlachs wannabe as narative of young Montenegrin nation

[Dunai]

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

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

[ixulescu]

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

Yes, I am fully Moldavian from Romania.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bosniensis]

....

Ancient History of Romania in 7 minutes

[Tommie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://books.google.de/books?id=50V...0Romano&f=true

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meaning of rumîn:

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

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

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

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

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

Y-DNA distribution 2000 years ago




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

[WeirdLookingFellow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Daco Celtic]

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

[Voskos]

Montenegrins are Serbs there's no doubt about that.

[Serbian Eagle]

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

[Tauromachos]

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

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

[TheMaestro]

Albanian E-V13 too stronK, still in Kosovo.