Who are the Romanians?

[HungAryan]

No.

[YOUTUBE]xK2FyIDsfgM[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]TxufKNwnbTY[/YOUTUBE]

[Unurautare]

Spoiler!

[YOUTUBE]xK2FyIDsfgM[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]TxufKNwnbTY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]lITBGjNEp08[/YOUTUBE]

[HungAryan]

[YOUTUBE]lITBGjNEp08[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]WWaLxFIVX1s[/YOUTUBE]

[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#Te...ach_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]

Spoiler!

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

[Unurautare]

It has zero validity if you cannot bring counterarguments

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

[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.