What was ethnic breakdown of Transylvania in the 1400s and before? Were Romanians always majority?

[ixulescu]

Many of the Hungarian toponomy in Transylvania is with Slavic correspondence, also those of ancient origin, meaning they found Slavs living there at and after the Conquest. Romanian and German toponomy of Slavic origin in Transylvania is on the other hand often from Hungarian correspondence, meaning they took the Hungarian version of the original Slavic names.

This is simply not true. Most Romanian toponymy is just Romanian, a few village names have Slavic origin, and a few cities have names derived from Hungarian. Slavic origin toponymy in Transylvania is actually less frequent than in Wallachia or Moldova, for the simple reason that Wallachia or Moldova had a written culture in Old Slavonic (while Transylvania did not).

Top 10 largest rivers in Romania have names derived from their original Latin/Roman era names. This could only have happened if a Latin speaking population existed throughout the ages in the area to preserve the names.

[ixulescu]

These villages represent the modern romanian landscapes, it has nothing to do with medieval age, and we are talking about medieval toponimy.

Hungarians did not chart the Romanian areas, they presented them as "forests". That's middle ages for you.

[ixulescu]

I don't know about the existence of 'Uralo-Altaic' language family. To my knowledge the consensus of mainstream linguists is these two language families are not related.
So it seems hungarian is just uralic (which is an arguably more european language family than indo-european)

Hungarians aren't 'Ural-Altaics' by ancestry either. Hungarians on avarage have no more Siberian and/or East Asian dna than Romanians do.

That's not what the comment was about.

Blondie's point was that Romanians are not natives but invaders because they're somehow Latin. So Dr. Maul's retort was appropriate, since Romanians are not much more Latin than Hungarians are Uralics.

Besides, Romanians are far better linked to paleo-Balkanites than Hungarians to paleo-Pannonites. In fact Hungarians are better linked to paleo-Balkanites than paleo-Pannonites, but far less so than Romanians.

[Universe]

That's not what the comment was about.

Blondie's point was that Romanians are not natives but invaders because they're somehow Latin. So Dr. Maul's retort was appropriate, since Romanians are not much more Latin than Hungarians are Uralics.

Besides, Romanians are far better linked to paleo-Balkanites than Hungarians to paleo-Pannonites.

If he's incorrect, why shouldn't I correct him? Ural-altaic family is not a thing according to most modern linguists. Even the existence of altaic family is being questioned nowdays, because Turkish, Mongolic and Korean have too little in common.

In fact Hungarians are better linked to paleo-Balkanites than paleo-Pannonites, but far less so than Romanians.

How do you know that?

[ixulescu]

If he's incorrect, why shouldn't I correct him? Ural-altaic family is not a thing according to most modern linguists. Even the existence of altaic family is being questioned nowdays, because Turkish, Mongolic and Korean have too little in common.

Because it wasn't pertinent to the argument.

How do you know that?

Pannonians were a Celtic/paleo-Balkanite mix. How much Celtic do Hungarians get?

[Universe]

Because it wasn't pertinent to the argument.

Hm maybe. I still don't see why I shouldn't have corrected him.

Pannonians were a Celtic/paleo-Balkanite mix.

In what proportions?

How much Celtic do Hungarians get?

Idk, probably not much. I don't think there was ever a significant keltic population in this part of Europe, because no ethnicity who live in the region score it in any significant amount. Everyone in central-eastern europe can be modeled as a mixture of proto-slavs, paleo balkanites and germans. As far as I understood there isn't any keltic dna here.

[Universe]

Hungary is genetically more northern european than Romania, but Romania is also much more southern than other countries in the region that lie on the same lattitude.
So if we judge nativeness by dna, maybe Romanians should move a little more south?
Btw, the supposed Italian ancestry of Romanians don't show here, they just seem southern balkanites.

Eurogenes k13:

Target: Romania_average Distance: 0.6387% / 0.63867376 | ADC: 0.5x
43.6	Montenegrin
29.6	Moldova_South
19.4	Serb_Serbia_South&East
3.8	Turk_Razgrad
3.6	Moldova_average

Dodecad k12b

Target: Romanian
Distance: 0.2710% / 0.27100173 | ADC: 0.25x
67.8	Macedonian
14.2	Montenegrin
12.8	MD_South
4.2	Pomak
0.6	Tuva
0.4	Mari

[Jana]

Pannonians were a Celtic/paleo-Balkanite mix. How much Celtic do Hungarians get?

My Hungarian friend result:

Target: Blanka
Distance: 1.8671% / 1.86712495

50.8 Slavic
41.4 Celtic
7.8 Jewish

Universe scores it too, so...

[Jana]

--

[Universe]

My Hungarian friend result:

Target: Blanka
Distance: 1.8671% / 1.86712495

50.8 Slavic
41.4 Celtic
7.8 Jewish

Universe scores it too, so...

Avarage hungarian result is different. Btw I scored 16% jewish or something on the same calculator, which is impossible.