What's your opinion about the origins of the Romanians?

Status
Archived
Joined Mar 2013
83 Posts | 0+
Black sea coast
Last edited:
My question was: Is it true that in Romanian school book is written the sentence:
“The most numerous historical monuments of Romanian culture are situated in Italy.”

Where are the Italians? It is the same, if the French historians insist, that the cradle of the French people is Italy? It is strange, is it not?

I apologize for my linguistic mistakes in my post above.

My question was not supposed to insult anyone, that`s why I am really astonished at Romanian reaction. I always thought, that the Romanians were proud to declare themselves descendants of the ancient Romans.
Now, it appears that this is not the case. What is correct, then?

For the Romanian people of today is for certain that:
1. They speak a language of Roman language group. This fact represents the supposed connection with the ancient Rome.

2. They inhabit the territory of ancient Dacians (but not only). The contemporary territory of Romania only partially coincides with the territory of ancient Dacians. And this fact represents the supposed connection with the ancient Dacians.

That`s all, folks. On the basis of these two facts some Romanian historians created the theory that today`s Romanians are Romanized Dacians, who during many centuries (between 3 c. AD till 11 c. AD – 800 years!) have lived somewhere /no one knows exactly where/ in the Mountains, and have been invisible for the rest of the world.

Is this possible? - Yes, I think it is theoretically possible.
Is this correct from scientific point of view? - I don`t know.

For me the theory, which connected the supposed core of contemporary Romanian nation - Vlah people, with ancient Rome is O. K.
The ethnic name “Vlah” and the language, are the best proofs, that such connection really existed. Yes, it is going probably about a Romanized people.

The problem is the second point - Dacian connection. Except the today`s territory of Romania, there is no any reliable evidence of such a connection.

In my opinion, the initial ethnic substance, from which the Romanian and the Bulgarian nations have evolved, is practically the same.
Probably the proportions vary, but they are the same.

1. Slavic tribes.
2. Romanized Thracians.
3. Bulgars.


I. The Bulgarian people adopted its ethnic name from Bulgars and the language from the numerous Slavic tribes.

II. The Romanian people, which has emancipated centuries later, adopted the language of isolated Romanized Thracian shepard groups, known as Vlahs; and the name (Romanians) was artificially invented in the modern times, in the Middle of 19 century, as a political act.

This political act (to rename the entire nation) had many aspects, but on the first place it was intended to underline the Roman origin of the Vlah people (It looked like, the Vlahs somehow doubted in the credibility of their Roman origin and needed thus to convince themselves :) or their French patrons at that time, that they were real Romans from Rome, the little French cousins and nothing else).
 
Joined Jan 2013
1,400 Posts | 1+
România
Last edited:
We evolve from the same people yes.

The reaction is angry because you do not point from the start what is the logic of you questions

why you say latinised thracians..i can say like hungarians about dacians..they were killed, taken slaves...no thracians were alive when bulgars came..but no they were latinised thracinas..they were assimilated long time before Dacia fight against Rome. Thracians were assimilated by Dacians,Grecs and Rome long time before year 106...and bulgars make their first state in year 670.

Bulgarian and romanian connection..or not the romanised thracians..but the dacians and latinised thracians..or just latinised thracians

Free dacians were alive in year 300. What happened with them? They were assimilated between latinised dacians&latinised people from Rome and latinised thracians..they were close that is why we don't know nothing about them after year 300.




We have, Roman blood..that is true..but is not that much. More important is that war against the dacians that started the formation of romanian.

It also true that in the past historians believed we are more romans in our blood ..but they didn't have our modern tehnic and use that for political reasons.


I know that we can have a dialog..not like others..

But in what sources you find that romanians name was invented in 19 th century? Or what thhis have to do with our origin.

Vlach name was invented for them, a nick name from slvas...or "ghiauri" from ottomans....they call them self "rumani" and we don't know when that started ...but for sure not in 19 th century. You believe for one moment that a nation could take their name from some invented idea of 19 th century? Maybe they did a mistake when they didn't call Romania..Rumenia. Is a very disputed letter...but sounds the same.

If they prov for sure that rumani name was invented in 19 th centry i will the first to say we should change our name.

We have modern tehnic , science..and we still don't see the truth.

At least i know that you just want to prov we are more slavic and latinised thrancians then dacians..and do not want to point me Bulgarians own some land in Romania because of political history like hungarians...

So is a good dialog.
 
Joined Mar 2013
83 Posts | 0+
Black sea coast
Last edited:
Vlach name was invented for them, a nick name from slvas...or "ghiauri" from ottomans....they call them self "rumani" and we don't know when that started ...but for sure not in 19 th century. You believe for one moment that a nation could take their name from some invented idea of 19 th century? Maybe they did a mistake when they didn't call Romania..Rumenia. Is a very disputed letter...but sounds the same.

The Slavic peoples used and still use the term “Vlah” meaning the person, who speaks some Latin or Roman language. But the term itself is not a Slavic invention. There are two possibilities:
1. The term Vlah is an initial Germanic word, adopted by the Slavonic peoples .

2. The second possibility – for me the more probable one, is that the term Vlah is an original word, derived from the Latinized population in the late Antiquity. So the Vlahs call themselves Vlahs and this was not a foreign word, but Vlah one.

Independently of the origin of the term Vlah – Latin or not Latin, I believe, that during the Middle Ages Vlahs (Vlaho-Romanians) called themselves “Vlahs”. And they did not know any other name for their self determination like “Romans”, “Romani”, “Rumani” or so on.

Among some Slavonic peoples the term Vlah has also a non ethnic connotation in meaning of “shepherd”.
 
Joined Jan 2013
1,400 Posts | 1+
România
Last edited:
The vlach name is a german word that slavic people used to nick name my nation, romanian nation.

One is what you believe one is how they call them self..our name could be Moldova..or Muntenia..or Carpatia..or Ardeal..or Oltenia ..this doesn't change that we were the same nation with same unique traditions, words and who were our ancestors, the dacians and latinised people, and what they did in history.

I know Perix find a good idea for this but i don't know in what topic he explain this.

We are not slavic people we are daco-romanians that assimilated slavs aand thracians were not thracians when Bulgaria form their state ..they were latinised thracians...and we never know how much Bulgarians assimilate them and how many mix with free dacians and latinised people from Rome and formed Romania..but after the number of romanians from 1930...more then 18 millions..what do you believe?

What do you believe from the science that prov our language was formed South and North of Danube.

Why do you believe that vlachs from Serbia after more than 250 years of separation from romanains land, and no romanian school and forced assmilation done by communist Serbs..speak the same language like us even today?

What do you belive about our unique traditions and words that we don't find in any other country...why did this vlach form a country in Romania and not were is Bulgaria today, or Yugoslavia..Albania..etc. Why bulgars cross the danube and didn't settle in a "empty" beautifull land?

We assimilated vlach ..we have slavic words, toponims..most of them we never know in what time we added them because we assimilated slvic people in more periods of time BUT one thing is sure..we romanains view this words romanains not slavic..we transformed them in romanain..we don't want to have nothing in commune with slavic people but accept their heritage!

We assimilate slavic people and they don't have nothing to do with our base origin. This is the single thing we have in commune..we romanians,moldovanains,vlachs,olteni, carpi, wolfs, ghiauri..this single nation what ever you like to call us assimilate slavic people not viceversa
 
Joined Jan 2013
1,400 Posts | 1+
România
A reference to the name Romanian could be contained in the Nibelungenlied: "Duke Ramunc of Walachia,/with seven hundred vassals, galloped up before her/like flying wild birds men saw them ride".[2] It is argued that "Ramunc" could represent a symbolic figure, representing Romanians.[3]

The self-designation of Romanians as Romans is mentioned in scholarly works as early as the 16th century by mainly Italian humanists travelling in Transylvania, Moldavia and Walachia. Thus, Tranquillo Andronico writes in 1534 that Romanians (Valachi) "now call themselves Romans".[4] 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 ?").[5] Ferrante Capeci writes around 1575 that the inhabitants of those Provinces call themselves “Romanians”,[6] while Pierre Lescalopier notes in 1574 that those inhabiting Walachia, Moldavia and the most part of Transylvania say to be descendants of Romans, calling their language "romanechte" (French transcription for Romanian românește - Romanian).[7]

Other first-hand evidence about the name Romanians used to call themselves comes from authors having lived in Transylvania and/or Romanian principalities: the Transylvanian Saxon Johann Lebel confirms in 1542 that common Romanians call themselves "Romuini",[8] Orichovius (Stanislaw Orzechowski) notes as late as 1554 that "in their own language, Romanians are called Romini, after the Romans, and Walachs in Polish, after the Italians",[9] Anton Verancsics writes around 1570 that Romanians living in Transylvania, Moldavia and Walachia call themselves Romans (Romanians) [10] and Martinus Szent-Ivany cites in 1699 Romanian expressions: "Sie noi sentem Rumeni" (modern standard Romanian "Și noi suntem români") and "Noi sentem di sange Rumena" (in modern standard Romanian "Noi suntem de sânge român") [11]


Historical Romanian documents display two spelling forms of "Romanian": "român" and "rumân". For centuries, both spelling forms are interchangeably used, sometimes in the same phrase.[12]

In the 17th century the term "Romanian" also appears as Rumun (Johann Tröster), Rumuny (Paul Kovács de Lisznyai), Rumuin (Laurentius Toppeltinus), and Rumen (Johannes Lucius and Martin Szentiványi).[13]

In the Middle Ages the ethno-linguistical designation rumân/român also denoted common people. During the 17th century, as serfdom becomes a widespread institution, common people increasingly turns into bondsman. In a process of semantic differentiation in 17th-18th centuries the form rumân, presumably usual among lower classes, got merely the meaning of bondsman, while the form "român" kept an ethno-linguistic meaning.[14] After the abolition of the serfage by Prince Constantine Mavrocordato in 1746, the form "rumân" gradually disappears and the spelling definitively stabilises to the form "român", "românesc".[15]
Etymology of Romania (România) [edit]

Neacșu's Letter, the oldest surviving document written in Romanian has the oldest appearance of the word "Rumanian"

The first map of Romania (Greek: Rumunia) published in Geograficon tis Rumunias, Leipzig, 1816. Author: Dimitrie Daniil Philippide

Map of Rumania from 1855. Author: Cezar Bolliac

The earliest preserved document written in the Romanian language is a 1521 letter that notifies the mayor of Brașov about an imminent attack by the Turks. This document is also notable for having the first occurrence of "Romanian" in a Romanian text, Wallachia being called here the Romanian Land—Țeara Rumânească (Țeara < Latin Terra = land). As in the case of the ethnonym "român/rumân", Romanian documents use both forms, Țara Românească and Țara Rumânească, for the country name.

A common Romanian area embracing Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania is mentioned by the chronicler Miron Costin in the 17th century.[16]

In the first half of the 18th century the erudite prince Dimitrie Cantemir systematically used the name Țara Românească for designating all three Principalities inhabited by Romanians.[17]

The name "România" as common homeland of the Romanians is documented in the early 19th century.[18]

The etymology of "România" didn't follow the Romanian pattern of word formation for country names, which usually adds the suffix -ia to the ethnonym, like in "grec" → "Grecia", "Bulgar" → "Bulgaria", "rus → "Rusia", etc. Since it is a self-designation, the word "România" has an older history, coming from "românie" which in turn resulted as a derivation of the word "român" by adding the suffix -i.e., like in ""moș → moșie", "domn" → "domnie" or "boier" → "boierie" (lord → lordship). Initially, "românie" may indeed have meant "Romanianship", ( just like "rumânie" meant "serfdom" before disappearing) being then used in the eve of the 19th century to designate the common homeland of Romanians.

The name "Romania" (România) was first brought to Paris by young Romanian intellectuals in the 1840s, where it was spelled "Roumanie" in order to differentiate Romanians (fr.: Roumains) from Romans (fr.: Romains). The French spelling version (Roumanie) spread then over many countries, such as Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany.

In English, the name of the country was originally borrowed from French "Roumania" (<"Roumanie"), then evolved into "Rumania", but was eventually replaced after World War II by the name used officially: "Romania". With a few exceptions such as English and Hungarian ("Románia"), in most languages, the "u" form is still used (German and Swedish: Rumänien; Bulgarian: Румъния; Serbian: Румунија / Rumunija, Polish: Rumunia, etc.). In Portuguese, to distinguish them from the Romans, the Romanians are called romenos and their country Roménia. The e reflects the distinct quality of the Romanian â, even though it's not very simil
 
Joined Dec 2009
10,107 Posts | 48+
Romania
Independently of the origin of the term Vlah – Latin or not Latin, I believe, that during the Middle Ages Vlahs (Vlaho-Romanians) called themselves “Vlahs”. And they did not know any other name for their self determination like “Romans”, “Romani”, “Rumani” or so on.
there are different kind of trolls, after IQ criteria
 
Joined Jan 2013
1,400 Posts | 1+
România
Last edited:
I believe you know how different Romania sounds in romanian language that in English

You can believe what you want..doesn;t mean that is the truth.
If you don't know how is sounds listen this music after second 25 when he say " Don't forget you are rumen"/roman..and you will see how that letter "a" sounds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmY3eORWdI

Or this: He say "This is the romanian when is happy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5a3X4LPaV8
 
Joined Dec 2009
10,107 Posts | 48+
Romania
Google books have more than 890 results for the daco-roman myth (and they are only the English language results), instead of 100 results which was mentioned by you. According to you, the daco-romanian myth is 1000% accepted, than can you explain the case of leading western encyclopedias? Why are they mention the balkan migration theory too in their "romania" articles? Heavy & difficult questions....:lol::lol::lol:
prolific hungarian "prodigy". all are garbage
 
Joined Dec 2009
10,107 Posts | 48+
Romania
"The Dacians have nothing or very little to do with modern Romanians and their language was not related at all with Latin &#8210; there is no possible cultural or ethnic continuity between the Dacians and the Romans, and even if it was, it would be irrelevant with regards to the historic rights over Transylvania. The Vlach were not Dacians, but an Illyric people, originated in the south-western Balkans by the south-eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea &#8210; namely, the present-day Albania and Slavic Macedonia."

"in the lands north of the lower Danube we do not find any inherited Latin toponyms: not a single name of a Roman town or any other kind of settlement was preserved. The most obvious explanation of this is that the Slavs did not find Latin-speaking inhabitants when they migrated to these territories in the 6th-7th centuries."

"Historical records and archaeological finds show overwhelming evidence that by that time and until the 12th century c.e., the Vlach people, that spoke Romanian language and had Romanian culture and religious tradition, were dwelling in another place: in southern Illyria, from where the majority of them were slowly moving towards present-day Romania through a long-lasting sojourn in Bulgaria."

"It was in the 11th century c.e. that the Vlach language split into the present-day Romanian and Aromanian. The first group crossed the Danube and settled in Cumania, then re-named Walachia after them. The earliest records of their presence in Transylvania do not precede the 13th century c.e, when Romanians were offered asylum by the Hungarian Kingdom after the Turks seized Walachia."
While the romanian "orthodoxes" stay sticked close to the continuity in the nowdays Romania, you seems to jump-up after many centuries of balkan history, just to make-up the theory convenient to you. After Aurelian retreat, by Galerius time, the dacians(latin speakers or not, pure-blooded or not) seems to penetrate almost all the power branches, at least in the balkan part of the empire. Galerius himself claimed dacian ancestry, also Gaia, Licinius, or generals like Regalianus and Aureolus. Few provinces, prefecture or diocese were called Dacia, more than 100 years after Aurelian retreat. Free dacians and Carpians(northern dacians) continued to attack and to settle within the empire even after Constantine ascending. Constantine himself brough a tribute to dacians, building in Rome itself, an arch guarded by four handsome dacian men. These are our ancestors...
 
Joined Jan 2013
1,400 Posts | 1+
România
Last edited:
I waiting copan..after i point you when rumâni was first mentioned..by historical data..

Perix just now i wonder ..there is just one small evidence that dacians call them self "rumâni"?

There is a very big difference between român and "rumân"//i just wonder if this word is even related to Rome...and that a big mistake was done..and România is more Rumânia

I just wonder how people in past said..Român or rumân...better to say how it sounds for them..with u or â
 
Joined Dec 2009
10,107 Posts | 48+
Romania
I waiting copan..after i point you when rumâni was first mentioned..by historical data..

Perix just now i wonder ..there is just one small evidence that dacians call them self "rumâni"?

There is a very big difference between român and "rumân"//i just wonder if this word is even related to Rome...and that a big mistake was done..and România is more Rumânia

I just wonder how people in past said..Român or rumân...better to say how it sounds for them..with u or â
Different zones of Romania use these two terms differently. As I know, in the past, the term "rumân" was used in Oltenia, Banat, and large part of romanian plain. The rest of the country used mainly "român", except the center of Romania(northern Muntenia included), where were used both terms, buth with different meanings: "român" for ethnicity, and "rumân" for "christian", "common people", or, far middle age, for "serf". Finally, both terms come from the same root: I fail to see "the big difference"
 
Joined Apr 2012
13,180 Posts | 885+
Romania
Last edited:
There is a very big difference between român and "rumân"//i just wonder if this word is even related to Rome...and that a big mistake was done..and România is more Rumânia

I just wonder how people in past said..Român or rumân...better to say how it sounds for them..with u or â

You should never have doubts "rumân" being related to "romanus" my friend, considering the laws of phonetic evolution from Latin to Romanian, the inherited form of "romanus" couldn't have been other than "rumân".
 
Joined Apr 2012
13,180 Posts | 885+
Romania
Different zones of Romania use these two terms differently. As I know, in the past, the term "rumân" was used in Oltenia, Banat, and large part of romanian plain. The rest of the country used mainly "român", except the center of Romania(northern Muntenia included), where were used both terms, buth with different meanings: "român" for ethnicity, and "rumân" for "christian", "common people", or, far middle age, for "serf". Finally, both terms come from the same root: I fail to see "the big difference"

"Român" is rather a modified form to make it more similar with "Roman", "rumân" was almost certainly the original form everywhere.
 
Joined Apr 2012
13,180 Posts | 885+
Romania
Last edited:
Independently of the origin of the term Vlah &#8211; Latin or not Latin, I believe, that during the Middle Ages Vlahs (Vlaho-Romanians) called themselves &#8220;Vlahs&#8221;. And they did not know any other name for their self determination like &#8220;Romans&#8221;, &#8220;Romani&#8221;, &#8220;Rumani&#8221; or so on.

And the Aromanians how called themselves, "avlachs" :)?
 
Joined Apr 2012
13,180 Posts | 885+
Romania
II. The Romanian people, which has emancipated centuries later, adopted the language of isolated Romanized Thracian shepard groups, known as Vlahs; and the name (Romanians) was artificially invented in the modern times, in the Middle of 19 century, as a political act.

This political act (to rename the entire nation) had many aspects, but on the first place it was intended to underline the Roman origin of the Vlah people (It looked like, the Vlahs somehow doubted in the credibility of their Roman origin and needed thus to convince themselves :) or their French patrons at that time, that they were real Romans from Rome, the little French cousins and nothing else).

To ignore all the material was posted here by me or by others is an act of thorough disrespect. If you think you have some points, do read before all that was discussed here on the subject (e.g. what was replied to KGB). If you still think that you have some points after you read, do address my answers (and others') instead of repeating again the same "things".
 
Joined Mar 2013
83 Posts | 0+
Black sea coast
And the Aromanians how called themselves, "avlachs" :)?
B-Vlachs!:)
The name "Aromanian" is a late exonym, used by modern scientists.

The different isolated brunches (tribes) of this nomadic people call themselves:Pindeanji, Gramushtianji, Muzachirenji, Farshirotsi, Moscopoleanji.

It is well known that the official name of the residents of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) was ROMEI, ROMEION. They spoke Greek, not Latin.
Imagine, if the Eastern Roman Empire survived, what a joke could we have today!
Bulgaria surrounded by two &#8220;Romanians&#8221; &#8211; one to the South and an other one to the North!!!

It is complicated, isn`t it?

Several years ago I attended an exposition of old original European geographical maps &#8211; 15 &#8211; 16 c. AD. I couldn`t forget how astonished were our Romanian friends, when they discovered that the only place of these maps, where the name &#8220;Romania&#8221; was written, was situated to the south of the Balkan Mountains&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;
 
Joined Apr 2012
13,180 Posts | 885+
Romania
Last edited:
B-Vlachs!:)
The name "Aromanian" is a late exonym, used by modern scientists.

The different isolated brunches (tribes) of this nomadic people call themselves:Pindeanji, Gramushtianji, Muzachirenji, Farshirotsi, Moscopoleanji.

It is well known that the official name of the residents of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) was ROMEI, ROMEION. They spoke Greek, not Latin.
Imagine, if the Eastern Roman Empire survived, what a joke could we have today!
Bulgaria surrounded by two &#8220;Romanians&#8221; &#8211; one to the South and an other one to the North!!!

It is complicated, isn`t it?

Several years ago I attended an exposition of old original European geographical maps &#8211; 15 &#8211; 16 c. AD. I couldn`t forget how astonished were our Romanian friends, when they discovered that the only place of these maps, where the name &#8220;Romania&#8221; was written, was situated to the south of the Balkan Mountains&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians]Aromanians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
You don't know too much about Aromanians, they call themselves Pindeanji, Gramushtianji etc. only to distinguish between their various groups. I didn't refer to "Aromanian" when I talked about their endonym, look in the article to see about which endonym I was talking.
Re: your Romanian friends being astonished, either you are a liar, or they didn't know too much about the history of Romanians. How is Wallachia called in the (supposedly) first Romanian-language preserved text?
 
Joined Jan 2013
1,400 Posts | 1+
România
"Român" is rather a modified form to make it more similar with "Roman", "rumân" was almost certainly the original form everywhere.
So if you change our name to Rumânia would be correct and we will resolve many problems..
 
Joined Jan 2013
1,400 Posts | 1+
România
Copan...i don't remember for you to say why you believed that we take this name "rumân" in 19 th century..you jump from a subject to other..i don't understand you...

Ficino and Perix..i am not so bright to understand what copan wants to point.. Will you please light me but without offending him.

I am just curios what hungarians and bulgariasn learn at school about us..exactly what they wright her?
 
Joined Apr 2012
13,180 Posts | 885+
Romania
Copan...i don't remember for you to say why you believed that we take this name "rumân" in 19 th century..you jump from a subject to other..i don't understand you...

Ficino and Perix..i am not so bright to understand what copan wants to point.. Will you please light me but without offending him.

I am just curios what hungarians and bulgariasn learn at school about us..exactly what they wright her?

That the Romanian language and national identity were made-up during the XIXth century by France and others in order to serve their interest in the Balkans.
 
Status
Archived

Trending History Discussions

Top