Difference between Romanians and Albanians

[Unurautare]

As a side note,Albanians don't even recognize the Vlahs(Romanians in the Balkans,that have been living there for hundreds of years or more) as a national minority,there you go:
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/arti...ional-minority

“In the discussion that we held I asked that the Aromanians in Albania be recognised as a national minority,” said Basescu in a joint press conference with his Albanian counterpart Bamir Topi.

Savages being savage towards white people,notice in my previous post how white people treat their minorities.

[Caeruleus]

There's any difference between romanians and albanians? I've heard they're related, if so, I must be related with albanians a little. I just hope I'm not related with Ushtari's mustache thou' joke

It all comes down to the ethnogenesis of romanians : there are 3 theories regarding the origins of romanians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_...ry_of_theories

1) The ‘theory of Daco-Romanian continuity’[7] holds that the Romanians are a synthesis of two ethnic elements, namely the Roman conquerors of ancient Dacia and the autochthonous Dacians.[8] Although, the venue of this ethnogenesis was situated on both sides of the Danube, but after the onrush of the Slavs, the center of Danubian Romanity was concentrated in today's Romania.[8]
Scholars who suggest that the Romanians descended (primarily or partly) from the Romanized population of the Roman province of Dacia Traiana (now Transylvania, Banat and Oltenia in modern Romania), base their theories on archaeological[1][8] and linguistic[9] researches; they also state that early written sources[1][8][10] support their views. Among these scholars, the followers of the ‘theory of Daco-Romanian continuity’ emphasize the role the Dacians played in the formation of the Romanian people (the Encyclopædia Britannica’, Encyclopædia Universalis's accounts expand upon this interpretation).[1][8][11]

2) The ‘immigrationist theory’[5] or the ‘theory of moving continuity’[2] (in Romanian scholarship, ‘Roesler’s theory’)[7] suggests that the Romanian language can be traced back to the idiom spoken by the inhabitants of the intensively Romanized provinces of the Roman Empire to the south of the river Danube.[2] After the collapse of the Roman limes on the Danube, they sought refugee in the mountainous regions of the Balkan Peninsula where their language was preserved.[12] The Romanians’ ancestors commenced their migration to the territory of modern Romania not earlier than the 10th–12th centuries.[2]
The followers of the ‘immigrationist theory’, based on linguistic researches and early written sources,[13] emphasize that archaeological researches do not contradict their theory.[14]
Not a single geographical name (the name of a river, a mountain, or a place) exist in Romania which could prove the plausibility of the survival of a language island, even solely in a smaller territory, from the Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Whereas whole Romania is entwined with conclusive geographical names which excludes any form of continuity there.
Schramm, Gottfried (1997), p. 105.
3) An interim theory, the ‘admigration theory’,[5] argues that two centers of the latinophones crystallized in Southeastern Europe: one in Dacia Traiana and the other in the central regions of the Balkan Peninsula.[2] But a close relationship existed between the two centers, and parts of the southern population joined (‘admigrated’ to) the northern latinophones.[2] The Romanians thus appear at one and the same time as indigenous (in Dacia Traiana), immigrants (from the south of the Danube), and conquerors (in the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia).[5]
The theory suggests that the northward migration of the Romanized population from the regions lying south of the river Danube also strengthened the presence of Romance speakers (the descendants of the Romanized population of Dacia Traiana province) in modern Romania.[2] The followers of the ‘theory of the core regions of the Romanian language’ emphasize that the population of the Romanized regions of Southeastern Europe survived the storms of the Migration Period in larger or smaller territories (e.g., in the Apuseni Mountains in Romania), and the Romanians descended from them

Albanians are a small nation and from what I've noticed they claim every ethnic group that surrounds them (north-western greeks, montenegrins, macedonians etc.) + romanians. Their argument is that romanian language and albanian language share some 150 words which are most likely from the illyrian/thracian/dacian (the indigenous population of the Balkans) substratum. It is widely accepted that albanains are the descendants of illyrians (and although this is debatable most people think that there is a certain link between ancient illyrians and modern albanians) previously it was thought that albanians were descendants of thracians but that theory was ruled-out. The big issue in this whole romanian-albanian connection is wether romanians are descendants of daco-romans (people that lived in Dacia Traiana and stayed there after the aurelian retreat) and therefore romanian ethnogenesis happended north of the Danube or romanians are descendants of romanized balkanians (thats illyrians primarily, and thracians that were assimilated by the romans) which eventualy moved north of Danube (aprox. 10-11 century) and therefore romanian ethnogenesis took place south of the Danube river. Note that the immigration theory was set by an austro-hungarian (Franz Joseph Sulzer) the purpose of this theory was to legitimate the occupation of Transilvania by the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
In my opinion there is no connection between albanians and romanians (except the fact that both nations descend form proto-europeans) they are descendants of illyrians we are descendants of dacians (northern thracians)

This stupid Ushtari claim that romanians are "long lost albanians" is bogus, the ethnogenesis of these two nations is basically simultaneous therefore romanians cant be long lost albanians. Every nation tries to prove that its them who are the earths navel (albanians are probably the best example).

Romanians are romance people with proto-european origins, they are NOT albanians or serbs or whatever the F..K cheap albanian or hungarian propaganda tells us we are.

[Volkodav]

You confusing the loyalty of albanians standing up for each other, with tribesmen menthality. Unlike ypur friends that will leave you get beat up alone, i will stick up for a friend and dy by his side.

When it comes to individualism, we define the meaning of the word, with undisputed historical facts. More so then any european country let alone the balkans.

The fact that today in albania we co-exist in harmony with three religions and ethiests combine, is an undisputed fact that we respect idividualism to a point where your dark ages menthality canot comprehend, where in your country and all around balkans all of you like bees will attack and label someone as a trator if he/she decides to believe in islam or ethiesm etc. So much for your bullshit idividualism.

You are animals, you'll never understand this, so lets say if I go in Albania with a t-shirt printed with a Cross and a few words in Kirilik will you support my individualism ?

This reminds me of an event long time ago, was with so "friends": two brothers who were 1/2 romenian and 1/2 russian, and nother guy who was originally from Bukovina (did not looked romenian or russian), and they jumped another guy on the street, the odds were 4 vs 1, but i took one by neck and another by elbow so it could be 1 vs 1 in fight, offcorse everybody stoped because that was strange situation, and since then i stoped my friendship with those people and told them to call me by my family name, and did not spoke to them ever since 2008 (??? i think) because a person like me should never be asociated with that kind of individuals.

Animals like that, and like you, just dont undestand that you should earn your place in society by yourself, not with the help of friends or your tribe or clan or whatever primitive way you are organised.

And when it comes to religion, for 500 years my ancestors are in a permanent conflict with muslims, so its in our genes to be disgusted by islam and your allah ways. Those who are not offendet by islam are weak individuals and disapear from the general population (weak genes, disease, etc.).

[Unurautare]

@Caeruleus: The question is not "what happened" but "what is",you just opened the door for the butthurt trolls,like Sagitta&co., to come and spit bs in this thread,like he did in all the previous threads,and tell us more about his,obviously,unbiased and vast knowledge and what his "Romanian" friends think.

[Caeruleus]

Very good pointing that out.

Another diference is when it comes to violence: Romenians (and Polish also) alwayst go 1 on 1 (even if they know they lose), while FYRoMs/Bulgarians/Turks/Albanians/Serbs/Croats alwayst act in a very savage animal way with groups attacking single individuals.
Seen it with my own eyes, more than 50 guys&girls beating one polish man, they all acted on instinct just like bees or other gregoriuos insects forgeting their historic differences and going berserkr together. They were from the groups listed above.

I wouldnt say that romanians go one on one no offence but thats just untrue (maybe some but that doesnt define us as a nation) ... if you want to find real stand up guys you better go to Chechnya (chechens are really different from other european muslims, they are courageous and will fight till the end, one on one just like you said)

[Caeruleus]

@Caeruleus: The question is not "what happened" but "what is",you just opened the door for the butthurt trolls,like Sagitta&co., to come and spit bs in this thread,like he did in all the previous threads,and tell us more about his,obviously,unbiased and vast knowledge and what his "Romanian" friends think.

I dont give a flying F..K about hungarians trolls, everybody knows their level of credibility

The fact that the immigration theory was set by an austrian from the Austro-Hungarian Empire disqualifies its reliability. PERIOD. anyway we've had this conversation with our pony-riding neighbours numerous times so nothing new over here.

[Unurautare]

I wouldnt say that romanians go one on one no offence but thats just untrue (maybe some but that doesnt define us as a nation) ... if you want to find real stand up guys you better go to Chechnya (chechens are really different from other european muslims, they are courageous and will fight till the end, one on one just like you said)

Romanians go one on one,Sovietized one. It's about honor.

[Ushtari]

This stupid Ushtari claim that romanians are "long lost albanians" is bogus, the ethnogenesis of these two nations is basically simultaneous therefore romanians cant be long lost albanians. Every nation tries to prove that its them who are the earths navel (albanians are probably the best example).

What this theory fails to account for, however, is another key aspect of the Albanian language's connection with Latin: its intimate involvement in the development of the Vlach-Romanian language. Linguists have long been aware that Albanian and Romanian have many features in common, in matters of structure, vocabulary and idiom, and that these must have arisen in two ways. First, the 'substratum' of Romanian (that is, the language spoken by the proto-Romanians before they switched to Latin) must have been similar to Albanian; and secondly, there must have been close contact between Albanians and early Romanian-speakers over a long period, involving a shared pastoral life. (Some key elements of the pastoral vocabulary in Romanian are borrowed from Albanian.) [63] The substratum elements include both structural matters, such as the positioning of the definite article as a suffix on the end of the noun, and various elements of primitive Balkan pre-Latin vocabulary, such as copil ('child' in Romanian) or kopil ('bastard child' in Albanian). [64] If the links between the two languages were only at substratum level, this might not imply any geographical proximity - it would merely show that proto-Albanian was similar to other varieties of Illyrian spoken elsewhere. But the pastoral connections do indicate that Albanians and early Romanians lived for a long time in the same (or at least overlapping) areas.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8699791/No...ans-and-Vlachs


Romanija je Albanija

[Caeruleus]

Romanians go one on one,Sovietized one. It's about honor.

Ohhh give me a break former hunagrian pony-rider, I've seen how romanians behave when everything goes tits up I'm not saying that romanians are cowards its just that they are not the ones that you would expect to come flying towards his enemies with his bare knuckles.

[Unurautare]

Ohhh give me a break former hunagrian pony-rider, I've seen how romanians behave when everything goes tits up I'm not saying that romanians are cowards its just that they are not the ones that you would expect to come flying towards his enemies with his bear knuckles.

Dude give it a rest,1st I was Russian and now I'm a ponyriding hungarian? If you can't even tell the ethnic Romanians from the non-ethnic Romanians then what's the point?
And it's not about being coward or not,it's just how the mentality is and always was. Romanians are just better,and more comfortable,alone.
You can even see it in this TV add,using Romanian stereotypes, that states it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz1ov...layer_embedded
[YOUTUBE]Zz1ovAdtET8[/YOUTUBE]