Enlighten me on how Romanians came to be, Veeky Forums. To me, they're as much of an enigma as Albanians.
I can understand a predominantly Thracian heritage genetically with some Slavic admixture here and there, but here's my dilemma:
A portion of Dacia(which Romanians claim as their 'birthplace') was occupied for a relatively short amount of time, after which the natives were left on their own. The native Dacian elite was slaughtered by the Romans and the Roman administration retreated, so they had neither a priestly caste nor an aristocracy left.
To me, in such a scenario, the most logical outcome would be for the Romanized populations to be assimilated in time, not spread further amongst the 'free Dacians' as stated in Romanian historiography.
And in regards to the Slavic migrations, I presume that the Romanians formed as a result of the intermingling between predominantly Slavophone communities with Latinophone(Vlach) shepherds. Yet I can't understand why would the Slavophones be assimilated by those shepherds - they were a minority, they were less prestigious and they were less civilized(with Slavs having settled, agricultural communities, while Vlachs being nomadic).
And their whole early medieval culture seems to be a carbon copy of Orthodox Bulgarian culture. So put rather bluntly, am I safe to assume that they are 'incomplete Bulgarians' because of the weaker influence north of the Danube of the Second Bulgarian Tsardom?
Before the emergence of the material beings lived the eteral principle. In the eternity preceding material emergence it existed as necessary. Eventually this principle concentrated into a point which emenated towards increasing materiality. The outer ring eventually contained what came to be known as the Cosmos.
In this realm lives the immortal mortal who shackled us to our current material shells. Once, when considering Earth's composition, he accidently consumed a chunk of cosmic debris, he subsequently defecating on South-Eastern Europe. This chunk of feces, and the flies drawn to it, came to be known, respectively, as Romania and Romanians.
Their language is a Romance language, and I feel like they would have generated their own identity especially with their resistance against the Ottomans.
>have a last name that is Romanian in origin >illiterate Romanian peasant great grandfather who was 14 and could not speak English when he immigrated butchered it horribly when anglicizing it
Yeah, but their language is pretty much the only thing that separates them from neighboring Bulgarians until illuminism and romantic nationalism came into the scene. Hell, even their church and court language was OCS and most of their early rulers have Slavic names(with some others having either Greek names of Orthodox saints or Turanic ones like Basarab, but nothing Roman).
So it's kind of like the Magyars. The elite was Bulgarian and they would have become Bulgarians proper from king to lowest peasant if they hadn't been separated from the bulk of the Bulgarians south of the Danube.
They originated in India.
Romans finally win over Dacians which were cool guys - they basically shred the male population to small numbers and the legions that were "abandoned" in Dacia now Roman province procreate with the women.
Furthermore a new ruler gets on and decides to release all prisoners from all terotory of rome - the majority of criminals knowing about the free Dacia province where they can start a new life but still be under protection of Roman empire, still being citzens decide to go there.
.. Insert post Romanization Romanian history.
..Communism - from this point everything went to shit.
> the majority of criminals knowing about the free Dacia province where they can start a new life but still be under protection of Roman empire, still being citzens decide to go there Could you provide some more details on this 'criminal exodus'? Haven't heard of it before.
And how were they under Roman protection after the Aurelian retreat? The Roman administration and troops stationed in Dacia left.
Dude this is what I remember from text books... I'm a Romanian myself. I'm not a history geek - History is usually written by the winning side, there is hardly any way for you to have accurate details of what actually happened.
I care about the present now and our country is pretty damn fucked it started with the internet when everyone got access to occidental degeneracy.
40 years ago when someone said - I'm gay everyone laughed and him and marginalized him ... that was an obvious disease... now with the internet and information from the Occident - they start to get rights. Family is suddenly not relevant anymore, church is just a bunch of old guys telling "stories" no one is caring about it anymore.. and degeneracy, sexual deviants almost became legal.
M8, this isn't /pol/. I couldn't care less about the /pol/itics of your country, I'm only interested in the early Veeky Forumstory of Romanians.
Early history of Romanians start much later, Dacians were not technically Romanians.. just distant ancestors.
They were waging wars, done human sacrifices and so on- but at least they accepted Christianity spot on - because it was very similar with their religion and there were prophecies about God taking human form and the good news spreading around the world.
Romanians never waged any war against anyone - they just defended.
............Do you even understand what this thread is about, lad? I am asking as to HOW the Romanians came to be. Dacian+Roman=Romanian is too simplistic.
More like you're the stupid kid with shit reading comprehension and prolly even shittier historical knowledge. Why are you on Veeky Forums in the first place? Go to VICE or some shit.
>History & Humanities
All you know is to insult people? >Hurr durr you're retarded here because I've aligned few insults I've made an argument.
>Could you provide some more details on this 'criminal exodus'?
Dont bother. Its a meme. If you think about it just a little bit you find plenty of flaws in that theory.
Anything that states Romanians are descendant of Romans is memeing.
Romanians are nothing more than descendants of the thracian/dacian tribes that lived in that area plus a substantial slavic mixture.
Whatever you do OP never take what Romanians say about their origins seriously. Communism brainwashed them very good and they have an extremely fucked up view, google proto-chronism. Some real life tidbits I heard from them. >Writing was invented in romania >Romanians are the original Latins, latins migrated to italy from there >Indo europeans origins are in romania
They are also retarded enough to say paying jizya to ottoman empire is an excellent deal "at least we didn't became a province". Reminds me of the russian farmer and the mongolian joke of zizek.
ITT: bunch of Hungry and Romanian shills starting to gather up for the final war where only one tribe will survive the onslaught
That's what annoys me, tbqh. I've already had my fair share of experiences with Romanian shitposters on /pol/, but I was expecting better from Veeky Forums.
I'm actually interested in their early and medieval history, but it seems that Romanons are either wewuz retards or people that only parrot their 'official' historiography without asking themselves any questions or critically analyzing it.
Anyhow, for the other Veeky Forumstorians, could you explain to me more about the Slavic co-habitation and later on merging?
It's most likely that compact romanized communities were few and far between given that Romanian agricultural words are predominantly of Slavic origin. So how exactly did Latinophone shepherds settle amongst agrarian Slavophone communities and actually manage to assimilate them? As I've written previously, they were neither a subjugating elite(testament to the non-romanic names of their early leaders) nor a factor of civilization. They spoke bastardized vulgar Latin, while the Byzantine Empire(which the Slavs perceived as Romans) was next door; so I don't think some barbarian shepherds coming down from the mountains would've persuaded the Slavs into not only learning their tongue for co-habitation, but also adopting it in the detriment of their native Slavic tongue.
Let's be realistic; most people here are not experts in this matter. Go ask somewhere else if you really want to know.
Besides, most people here start threads wanting some shitposting and MeeM's (to have some giggles while learning something close to history).
Most people here (including me) are not interested in serious in-depth discussion, and even if we wanted to, we lack knowledge except that one guy in the board that knows everything but browses only at 3 AM in the morning.
As a Romanian i can tell you why a lot of Romanians spew the we wuz Romans shit. Its because most Romanians that post here are the STEM/ITfags type that dont really care that much about history.
Also Romanian history classes in schools focus very little on our ancient and early medieval history, which makes the official line of we wuz very easy to memorize.
About the slavic influence i can tell you that the slavs found a divided and dispersed population here and not an organized state, which made it easier for them to influence the locals.
Ultimately its only our fault as Romanians for not conducting proper research and investigation on these matters.
The time has passed now. I dont think such research would be welcomed under the new globalist trend.
Can you blame us tho? We have bigger problems to tend right now.
A gang of niggers has you cornered: give us your money or we'll cut you up and take your money anyway. Theres nothing shamefull or stupid in paying up in this situation.
Yes, but it seems to me that from a logical perspective the development of the Romanians happened in two stages.
A good chunk of the Thracians in general were romanized, both north and south of the Danube. Then when the Slavs came, most of the ones that were settled in agrarian communities got Slavicized in turn. The ones that either already had( or maybe adopted in reaction to the Slavic migrations) a shepherdic lifestyle based around seasonal transhumance maintained their Latin-derived tongue and later on settled amongst the Slavophone communities and (re)romanized them. This would also explain why Aromanians do not have a relevant Slavic influence, both them and Daco-Romanians being descendants of the proto-Romanian shepherds, but while the Daco-Romanians evolved as a result of proto-Romanian settlement amongst Slavs, the Aromanians evolved as a result of proto-Romanian settlement amongst the (Hellenic) Byzantines and the (proto-)Albanians. Hopefully that guy will stumble upon this thread, heh.
And Bulgarians? I have always wondered about them. They are supposed to be Slavs, but they look Turkics to me. Not trolling. I mean Turkics as the Hungarians and the Huns.
They are essentially a mix of Volga Bulgars and South Slavs
Dacians are Thracians for a start. Theyre basically still the same people
Thats the same with any former commie country suffering a massive identity crisis and inferiority complex though
Fuck off back to /pol/. This is a board for discussing history and the humanities. You adit you don't have an interest? so why are you here?
Your kind is what makes everyone think Romanians are a bunch of idiots.
du-te în pizda mă-tii.
Thanks for perpetuating the shit post cycle. Fuck off somewhere else.
>To me, in such a scenario, the most logical outcome would be for the Romanized populations to be assimilated in time, not spread further amongst the 'free Dacians' as stated in Romanian historiography. Yeah, but the free area was a... influence zone(can't remember the argument well, but basically, the geography made those plains cultural dispersal areas. Was from an article that debunked WE WUZ arguments, funnily enough). >And in regards to the Slavic migrations, I presume that the Romanians formed as a result of the intermingling between predominantly Slavophone communities with Latinophone(Vlach) shepherds. Yet I can't understand why would the Slavophones be assimilated by those shepherds - they were a minority, they were less prestigious and they were less civilized(with Slavs having settled, agricultural communities, while Vlachs being nomadic). It happened slowly, via cultural dispersion and some small proto-state things spread out. Just as the mixed areas of Moldova got re-latinised, with szekely help(shhh...) >And their whole early medieval culture seems to be a carbon copy of Orthodox Bulgarian culture. So put rather bluntly, am I safe to assume that they are 'incomplete Bulgarians' because of the weaker influence north of the Danube of the Second Bulgarian Tsardom? Sort of. Fun fact(also in regards to ): We were more latin before, but a couple of incidents, from Bulgarian decrees, to Alexander the Good's decision to use chirylic to counter roman-catholic proselytism slavonised some areas hard: "Teoctist of the bulgar nation, deacon of Mark of Efesus(main opponent of the abortive schism mending of Florence), in order to unroot from Moldova the seed of catholicism, and forever cull the ability of the young to read the sofisms of the latins, entrusted Alexander the Good with banishing from the country people of other faiths, and removing latin letters from all writings and books, and replacing them with slavic ones"-Descriptio Moldavie
>Romanians never waged any war against anyone - they just defended. Esti retardat
>Dacians get btfo by the Romans >Romans cull the Dacian elite and most of the male population >They mix and colonize most of Wallachia & parts of Transylvania and Moldova. >The Romans eventually retreat because of falling empire >Remaining population eventually become the Vlahs >They intermingle the natives of Moldova & Transylvania ( geographically speaking, the countries didn't exist at this point) >Migrations period starts >Slavs,goths,visigoths, and every other migratory people come through. >Lots of loan words are had but the native population still remains as dominant. >Migration period stops, slavs were the ones that chose to settle in the largest numbers. >Hungary expands into Transylvania. >Pecheng horse niggers take over the rest. >Being horse niggers they cannot into stat building so they just take tribute and leave nothing of value
I've read a theory that Slavs and Turkics were at fault. Supposedly future Rumanians came from modern Bulgaria, that is north-western heavily romanized part. When future Bulgarians invaded, they've assimilated most locals yet expelled many more to other directions. Albanians supposedly were not-romanized Thracians expelled south-west with future Aromunians to marginal hilly or mountaneous areas unsuitable for agriculture, and they were mostly herders as only herders had such a mobility. Future Vlachs were expelled north into Carpathians, lowlands still being Slavic prime estate. Muntenia was probably "Bulgarian", Moldova was a totally Russian land with Tiverians, Ulichi and other settled Slavic tribes. Cont.
cont. >There are still reports of Vlah noblemen, royalty, chieftains but no serious state building. >Mongols invade. >ohfuck.jpg >Pechengs get rekt. >Hungarians get rekt. >Everyone S-E of the Carpathians gets decimated. >Pope shits his pants. Orders the Hungarians to establish Wallachia as a voievodat to act as a buffer state against future incursions. >This will cause massive amounts of butthurt and revisionism to nationalistic retarded Romanians in the present day. (t. Romanian) >They eventually declare independence. >Vlah nobleman living in Hungarian Transylvania starts to explore what is now Moldova. >Finds that it is practically deserted after the Mongols left. >Says fuck it and decides to be king instead of swearing loyalty to the Hungarians. >Brings noblemen from Transylvania and Wallachia to colonize. >Shit we need dumbasses to work the fields. >Buy a bunch of Russian, Polish, Szekely and Wallachian peasants. >But establish Wallachian as the language of the kingdom. >This is why Moldavians have the most distinct accents and different words for stuff compared to the rest of Romania. >First records of gypsy slaves are from this period. >Afterwards the history is documented enough.
Basically Romania exists as a consequence of the Mongol invasion.
>Writing was invented in romania >Romanians are the original Latins, latins migrated to italy from there >Indo europeans origins are in romania
Romanian here, all of those are a meme and not taken very seriously. If anything Roman ancestry is still the most accepted origin.
>WE WUZ CAESARS AND SHIT
And as an addendum, keep in mind that people were a hell of a lot more decentralized than they are today. Even when I was growing up you could find a village with a word for potato and then the next village would have a different word. This shows the effect that large amounts of migration had on the population. Romanian was most likely used as a lingua franca for that region. Proper Romanian was mostly what the nobles used and it didn't really become a thing until mandatory free state education was established.
Also disregard the /pol retards. There is a growing nationalistic/fascist resurgence in Romania by idiots who believe foreigners make Romania shit and not the politicians that steal billions of euros every year. They find /pol and they eventually shit other boards. I apologize for them.
Now mountains were left to Vlachs, and lowlands to Slavs. No assimilation occured yet as both peoples lived parallel lives. Yet agricultural vocabulary came from Slavs fittingly. Slavs were a majority due to Bulgarian and Russian power. When Magyars were displaced by Pecheneg onslaught, nasty Turkic Pecheneg and later Cuman nomads came. Nasty as in preferring raid and loot to direct rulership and integration unlike Bolghars, Avars or christian Hungarians. Slavs in Moldova mostly left to Russia, some in Wallachia perhaps moved to shrinking Bulgaria. Others had to flee to the mountains to Vlach herders, unless they liked their shit being raided on weekly basis. Pechenegs and Cumans still became local aristocracy. I believe Muntenia didn'n see mass agriculture well after Golden Horde shrank in size and importance, and Moldova even later. Arable land was recolonized by Vlachs who had absorbed refugee Slavs from well before Pecheneg-Magyar boogaloo. There you go, Romance speaking people of all class in late mediaeval Rumania and Moldova.
Wasn't there a forced migration into dacia by the byzantines around the fall of the isorian dynasty?
This user provided some better info about the migration period than I did
Wait, so Romanians aren't gypsies? I thought that's why they are called that, after the Romani.
So if Romanians aren't gypsies why do they look like they are straight out of India, poor and brown.
The Romani come from northern India
This is just Romani nationalist babble senpai, they're just some brown gypsies that came from India.
>Not trolling >Turkic Hungarians
I'll bite OP. I'm Byzantine studies MA and I am continually puzzled by the Romanians. By all rights, it doesn't make sense. Does a Latin culture survive centuries of migrations of Goths, Huns, Alans, Pechenegs, Cumans, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Russians and Slavs? In any other situation, the answer is no. I honestly don't know.
Go back to /pol/ Jobbik.
For everyone else: we have an extremely butthurt Hungarian minority on our teritory who constantly makes ridiculous shit up such as: >Romania was created by Hungary lololo
Romans raped Slavs raped Romans got raped by Bulgars got raped by Hungarians with some Germans getting in on the action got sodomized by Turks.
The roman occupation was extremely short and the territory they occupied was just a fraction of the country. Romnization is just a myth.
The only logical explanation is that the locals were already talking a language similar to Latin. The dacians even used latin characters long before the Roman occupation and emperor Trajan for example, on the monument dedicated to his victory in Dacia, is seen talking to some Dacian messengers without any translator.
And theres other things that support this theory. Sadly in Romania right now theres a bunch of shady individuals that are trying to rewrite the whole history and basically dragging it into mud, to the delight of big city liberal crowds. They have no arguments and no evidence they just make ridiculous shit up and the media happily swallows it.
Any kind of serious discussion is disregarded and ignored. If you somehow disagree with these people you get called a communist or a fascist by their fanbois and uni students (this moron is a living example). All the attention focuses on these morons and their irl shitposting.
good posts lad, multumesc
5 star post.
>Romania crypto-Slavic >Romania until 1800s had a Slavic language, Cyrillic alphabet >latinization of Romanian language in 1800s >romanian language borrowed from French language to transform itself from a Slavic language to a Latin language
>Romanian simply as a 're-lexified' Slavic language - i.e. one where Vlach and Turkic boyars actively began introducing Romanisms into an essentially South Slavic language, as a sociolinguistic strategem to distinguish themselves politically and ethnically from neighbouring polities in Southeastern Europe
> Southern Slavic, even though such influence has been artificially reduced in the later 19th century c.e. by the so-called "re-Latinization" of Romanian ‒ actually, it must be properly referred to as "Latinization", because it was not a return to a previous situation but the introduction of new foreign elements to reform the language.
Yes, they do. Think about the Crimean Goths. Germanics left there for a millennium, in a mountainous area wedged between Cuman steppe and Greek shore. Crimea had Russian colonists from late X century after Sviatoslav, for once. Aromunians once ruled a "Great Wallachia" area in Macedonia and Thessaly after 4th crusade for some time. Mainland Greece and Bythinia were overrun by Slavic tribes to the very Peloponnese (Morea, Slavic "Sealand", as it was called from VII to XIX centuries) so thoroughly it had to be re-Hellenized during all the late Middle Ages and early Ottoman period. Speaking of Morea, there is still Tsakonian language alive, even if for several hundred speakers, the only Doric and practically unique Greek dialect or language not derived from Attica-based Koine for the last, oh, 1500 years. Romania in a middle of Slavic Europe is a very tame and predictable "anomaly", if it is to be even considered as such.
Also, as I recall, Khazars never were present in Wallachia nor Moldova, they were based on the Caucasus and there they disappeared. It was more of Hunn-Avar-Bolghar-Magyar-Pecheneg-Cuman passing-through clay.
>a handfull of nobles can force an entire population spread over 3 different states to change their language
Their language is Latin, so it's fair to say that, with influences, it's Latin, and birthed from Roman Dacia.
I have not read something as stupid as this in a long time. There are literally dozens of historical documents from the 16th and 17th centuries in Romanian. It has changed, in vocabulary mnostly, but not much. You are retarded Balasz