Originally Posted by
Nurzat
iImentioned RM for relevance over today's borders, while I meant Moldova as a region, its southeast, Budjak etc, which historically has always been a region populated by very different peoples that often went on to settle somewhere else, so the idea was Vlachs (Balkan Latin speakers) weren't the natives there, while Bulgars established themselves there over a longer time span. of course it's probably more about the Budjak region which is mostly south of what's RM today, in Ukraine. also, it's a bit confusing when speaking about Moldova region, whose historically relevant territories are those west of river Prut, since 99% of what is called the history of Moldova happened between Carpathians and Prut, and it can be confusing both for RM nationals who think anything Moldova refers to them and for foreigners who are unaware the core of Moldova lies in today's Romania. while I identify as Moldovan (as I do as Carpathian Rusnak as well) I don't link it to Balkan Latins exclusively and I am aware of the ethnic mix us Moldovans are, and Bulgarians are a part of our heritage, as Ruthenians/Ukrainians/Rusnaks, Russians/Lipovans, Greeks or to a lesser extent Tatars, Jews and Roma/Gypsies are as well.
just wanted to point that at the level of 19th century, by the ethnic division maps I've seen, Bulgarians were much more established by the Black Sea than Wallachians. of course, this bears little relevance today and should not worry anyone if mentioned. the main problem for RM at the moment I think is the possibility of it to disappear within the borders of Romania (which I don't welcome, as a Moldovan I wish the name continues as an independent country, even though we aren't part of it here west of the Prut, but I feel something dear to us would be lost if Moldova is out of the maps).
Bookmarks