Why couldn't the Slavs take Romania?

Why couldn't the Slavs take Romania?

They did.
Romania went through a large Romanization in the late 19th century where they stopped using Cyrillic and overall started larping as Slavic Italy.

My guess is that Romania simply had a higher population density than Yugoslavia and Poland due to it being a floodplain. Population replacement occurs most easily in hilly, sparsely populated areas.

>revisionist revisionist history

Slavs are never aggressors. We are good natured farm folk too good for this world.

is that why Hitler wanted to free you from it?

>they don't speak a slavic language so they must not be slavic

I guess indians are Spaniards too then.

...

Ironically Hungarians have more Slavic genes than Serbs or Bulgarians

They did, the Romanians just assimilated them. Though they did leave marks on the language including the way they pronounce things. Romanians tried to hide the slavic influence somewhat but it's still heard.
Romanians, and the south slavs are all geneticly balkan natives though. The Romanians are latinized then slavicized (somewhat) then relatinized thracians just like how the serbs are latinized thracians and ilyrians. Slavs are not a genetic thing but a language group. You litteraly cannot be slavic without speaking a slavic language.

I would assume the surrounding mountains played a part in it.

Wallachian ws part of our country for ages, literally so we could.

They decided Eastern Europe wasn't hip anymore so switched things up.

I'm pretty sure they tried to but failed to do so entirely, nowadays they import all their stuff from french to get the slavic stain out if I recall right.

I was on a business trip in Bucharest last year and can confirm. The entire city is basically Paris but poor and eastern european. People drive Renaults, buy shit in Carrefour and store their money at the Société Générale bank.

most of the slavic words removed were learned from middle ages with the domination of the slavic language in orthodox church of eastern europe

I'd say it's because the territory was most of the time contested by different hostile populations and the territory is uniform so for new populations to take monopol was very hard.

The Slavs took nothing, but filled the gap after the migration period.

>Paris but poor
Well the real Paris is a shithole too.

Romania is hardly a flood plain, you have the Carpathians smack dab in the middle of it. The Romans never permanently occupied beyond the interior of Dacia because for one the gold was there and for two it was a rugged, mountainous region and easier to defend.

culture and language are way more important than genes.

They have, but mainly in terms of culture, although the effects of Slavicization were mitigated by a large Romanization which was implemented in the 19th century.

In other words, Great Moravia lives on?

19th century German revisionism aside, they control more than half of Europe, the Geographical Pivot of History and the South Slavs haven't filled in the gap in the Balkans, but cleaved their way through a dozen of East Roman cities, fortresses and regular armies, only being brought to heel through Christianization.

Fuck out namecancer

Slavs pretty much assimilated the residents of Epidaurum and turned it into Dubrovnik.
That's a good example.

>ask a question
>go all MUH ANCESTORS THO when answered

Why is /pol/ so bad at historical discussion?

>There were no Slavs in the Avar Khanate
Will you idiots ever figure out that invading peoples don't just magically disappear the natives? Or are you dumb enough to honestly think that because the Vandals established a kingdom in North Africa the region is predominantly German?

no you dont understand muh ancestors balls melted away all the non-native people
muh ancestors lived here since god created the planet 6000 years ago

GREAT MORAVIA
R
E
A
T

M
O
R
A
V
I
A

>In other words, Great Moravia lives on?
in other words culture>race