Could the Dako-Roman theory be true or just a political fabrication?
The problems of the Daco-Roman theory
In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherds of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from the southern parts of the former Moesia Superior province (Southern Serbia and Macedonia) to the present-day territory of Romania since the 13th century. However the earliest native land located on the south Balkans. Their closest linguistic relatives are the romance speaking Illyrian origin people, who still remained in the Balkan peninsula, they are known as Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians.
Their closest genetic relatives are the other south Balkanic people: Especially the Macedonians and Montenegrins according to modern autosomal and full genome admixture researches.. It clearly shows the urheimat / geographic origin of these people.
The birth of a foreign policy oriented origin theory
The irrational Daco-Roman continuity myth is nothing more than a typical "NATIVIST" (and autochonist) propaganda of the 18th century, and a fine example of the hardcore wishful thinking and wannabee-ism. Such nativist origin theory fabrication became very popular and politically extremely important during the dawn of early nationalism, especially in the case of ethnic groups, whose elite had immense terriotorial claims (towards all possible geographical directions), but their commoners had still weak identity and national cohesion that time.
Professor Bernard Wasserstein of Oxford University:
"Since the 1960s the historico-nationalist ideology - the so-called Daco-Roman theory of the origins of Romanian people - that remains central to the self-conception of Romanian nationalism to this day."
Bernard Wasserstein: Barbarism and Civilization: A History of Europe in Our Time (Oxford University Press, 2009)
Google Books Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=LTITDAAAQBAJ&pg=PR10
How did that carefully fabricated "civil religion" developed into politics and became core of national identity with the active help and support of the Romanian Orthodox Church:
A book about this "civil religion": Cyril Hovorun: Political Orthodoxies: The Unorthodoxies of the Church Coerced. Page: 57
Google Books link: https://books.google.com/books?id=CGJbDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57
Finally this "civil religion" became a compulsory curriculum in communist era Romanian schools, and due to the indoctrination of Romanian children at young age, this national credo became the central core of modern Romanian identity due to the education directives of communist Gheorghiu-Dej and later by Nicolae Ceausescu. This social process is known as indoctrination of children.
More info about this topic:
W. Kemp: Nationalism and Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: A Basic Contradiction (Springer 1999)
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=PsKHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA152
"Romanian nationalists believe, then proving the survival of the Daco-Romans is essential to confirming the legitimacy of modern Roman national identity and its claim to its perceived territory.”
(George W. White: Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in South Eastern Europe.(2000); p. 129
 |
| The indoctrination of children is the most effective when it starts as early as possible. |
This chauvinist propaganda was born and started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" in the late 18th century (A political actvisit "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening. Read about it here:
WIKIPEDIA: Transylvanian School
The main purpose of Transylvanian School was to demand extra feudal privileges for the Romanian peasant population in the Habsburg ruled Transylvania. The name of their 1791 petition to the Habsburg emperor is known as Supplex Libellus Valachorum. They dreamed about tax and duty extemption and abolition of the serf status of their Vlach peasantry, thus they demanded the status of border guards for themselves. In their imagined scenario, only the Hungarian peasants would remain the taxpayers and serfs in Transylvania.
Autosomal genetic deistances of various European populations .Romanians are SOUTH Balkanite people by their genetics.
The newest genetic researches confirm the close relationship between Romanians and (North-)Macedonians as well, the Macedonian gene pool is the closest one to the Romanian gene pool: (see the B quarter of the picture)
Source:
Further detailed info: autosomal genetic admixture maps of Europe (Dodecad project):
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml
How Daco-Roman theory evolved from Transylvanian School?
The first idea was that Romanians have "PURE Latin" ethnic origin from Latium of Central Italy, thus they are the true descendants of ancient Romans and Latins. Hence that movement was called later as the “Purists”.
Under the influence of the teachings of the Orthodox priests, this new identity began to spread among the Romanian common people from the first half of the 19th century.
With this idea, the so-called "Purists" wanted to create a highly civilized ethnic ancestry for themselves, as a kind of remedy, a strange "psychological compensation" for their marginal very long-lasting nomad culture and past. Let's don't forget that the Vlachs remained nomadic shepherds until the early modern period.
Walker F. Connor (2018): Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (PAGE: 216)
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=Zf9ZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA216
Than the rival Dacian origin idea was developed too, as a counter theory of the above mentioned Latin Purist theory.
This Dacian theory was invented to show the Romanians as the true anceint NATIVE population in the area, thus they truly deserve their "ancient" rights on that territory , like the very desired feudal privileges for Romanian peasants in Transylvania. In the modern Romanian 19th century folklore and national mythology, the Dacians are somewhat magical superhuman people, who could miraculously survive practically anything during the continous series of extreme brutal history of the area.
Finally, the Daco-Roman continuity fantasy was also developed as the fusion and compromise of the two formerly rival theories. This fusionist Daco-Roman-continuity combo could provide for the Romanians both the "autochon" feeling and also the highly civilized Latin ancestors at the same time. No wonder, the fusionist Daco-Roman combo story emerged as the most popular and appealing theory to fabricate a national past for the Romanians.
This whole fabrication of national history reminds me of the Television wish-granting shows, like the "Three Wishes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Wishes_(American_TV_series)
As it was explained above, the fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" strictly served and followed the Romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. The fusionist Daco-Roman continuity theory became the solely accepted compulsory curriculum for children in Romania since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives , this national belief/religion became the central core of modern Romanian identity.
We can say, this theory often functions like a "Romanian national/civic religion". Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the Romanian state-supported daco-Romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.
Vlachs (name for medieval & early modern Romanians in European chronicles) were the latest nation who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe.
 |
| The migration map of the Romance speaker Vlachs in medieval era. |
I. THE PROBLEMS WITH DACIANS AND the so-called "ROMANS"(???) in the theory
I/1st: Dacian survival after the Roman conquest?
There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) proofs for the survival of Dacian ethnic group after Roman withdrawal.
(Ioannes Lydus: De Magistratibus 2.28)
„Dacia and Decebalus were broken and vanquished at last. Crito reported that some 500,000 Dacians were taken prisoner, many to be sent to Rome to figure in the gladiatoral exhibitions (lusiones) that would form part of Traian’s triumph, while the systematic ethnic cleansing of the conquered territory began. The manhood of Dacia exhausted, the surviving population was expelled from the core territory and the land given over to colonists invited from nearby provinces.”
(Julian Bennett (2003): Trajan: Optimus Princeps) PAGE: 104
"Dacia was ethnically cleansed, its people enslaved, at least 50,000 of them, though possibly if there is no error in transmission of the written source, as many as 500,000; others, no doubt, were driven into the wilderness, where they perished. New settlers were introduced, and a new Roman province built, with roads, towns, pastures, salt-works and gold mines."
(Neil Faulkner (2008): Rome: Empire of the Eagles, 753 BC-AD 476) Page: 217
The annihilation of Dacians in Dacia Trajana was a well known fact in the 2th-3th-4th centuries. Here is an excerpt from the satire of Julian: the Ceasars:
“'alone, I have defeated the peoples from beyond the Danube and I have annihilated the people of the Dacians. and I have annihilated the people of the Geate /=Dacians/
There is depicted the expulsion of the survival Dacians even on the Column of Trajan. There were no native/ethnic Dacians in Dacia Trajana.
Overview: Trajan's Column (Colonna Traiana) in Rome
The expulsion of the survival Dacians is on top of the column. It is the ending scene of this “cartoon”: ‘We, the glorious Romans won with the help of our gods, Dacians are defeated, slaughtered and the survivors of them are expelled. Dacia is ours!’ This message is depicted on the column.
“a touching one of the native folk, men burdened with packages, women and children, abandoning their country in front of and beyond the mountains. They drive their cattle ahead and look back at the lost motherland, facing with dauntless pride the incoming Roman settlers”
(Lino Rossi: Trajan’s Column and the Dacian Wars 1971; p. 212)
„ His friends deterred him from trying to do the same with respect to Dacia to prevent many Roman citizens from being surrendered to the barbarians, because Trajan, after conquering Dacia, had transferred there vast numbers of people from all over the Roman world to inhabit the countryside and the cities. Dacia had, in fact, been depopulated in the lengthy war with Decebalus.”
(Eutropius, Breviarium, translated, with an introduction and commentary by H. W. Bird, Liverpool 2011, p. 50.)
I/2nd: Dacian Language?
Dacian vocabulary did not remain for the posterior, only same names of tribal leaders remained.
All we can honestly say about this so-called "Dacian language" is that it was an unknown Indo-European language. Some speculate that it is similar to the ancient Thracian languages. But the biggest problem is that we don't really know even the Thracian languages either.
Despite of this, the Romanians still claim that they spoke the descendant of the fictional so-called "Daco-Roman language", and they see it as a so-called "fact". All what we know about that languageWishful thinking does not require any proofs and rationality, in psychological sense it is enough to believe strongly in the indoctrinated credo since their lower primary school era, and all possible problems and doubts are "solved" immediatelly.
The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-Roman theory. Unlike in the case of other European Romance languages where even early written texts prove their development, like in the case of Italic languages or Hispanian languages or various Gallian (France) languages, there are no proofs for development of Dacian language into a neo-Latin Romance (Romanian) language.
There is also
no trace of influence in Romanian language from the conqueror Goths, Gepidae, Avars and Pechenegs.
I/3rd: The SHORTEST LASTING ROMAN CONQUEST in Europe.
The creation of the older province "Dacia Traiana" what was the only small territory which located in territory of modern Romania
The Dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe (106 AD. - 271 AD.) , it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and Dacians remianed very hostile. The province of "Dacia Traiana" was named after the Roman Emperor Trajan (Traianus).
It is not a big surprise that after the extreme Roman retaliations, the relationship between the two peoples was disastrous.
The Dacians revolted at least two times during the 165 years (wich is a lot compared to the other provinces) the first occured in 117 AD, wich was a bigger one and Trajan needed to come back from the East, and the second one happened in 158 AD but it was so weak because of the small number of the native population that the local military forces could quickly suppressing it.
Eutropius:
„Trajan, after he had subdued Dacia, had transplanted thither an infinite number of people from the whole Roman world, to people the country and the cities; as the land had been exhausted of inhabitants in the long war maintained by Decebalus. „
„propterea quia Traianus victa Dacia ex toto orbe Romano infinitas eo copias hominum transtulerat ad agros et urbes colendas. Dacia enim diuturno bello Decibali viris fuerat exhausta. „
Flavius Eutropius · 2019 Complete Works of Eutropius (Illustrated) PAGE: 120
The Roman presence in Dacia was characterized by frequent revolts of the local inhabitants, and the occupation did never achieve a complete control of the region since different Dacian tribes kept their independence in earthen fortifications that they built on mountain peaks, and others moved outside the imperial borders. Even Roman historians of the third century attest that the pugnacious Dacian people were hard to surrender and even women and children(!) fought against the Roman legions. These immediate antecedents of the second war explain why the Romans were intent on totally annihilating their enemy. In any case, the extermination of Barbarians who dared to attack the Imperium Romanum raised no ethical problems. This form of retaliation had already been justified by orders of Augustus (Res Gestae Divi Augusti 3), and put into practice. Another example, the philosopher emperor Marcus Aurelius wanted to exterminate the Jazyges.
Annihilation did not mean merely the death of enemy soldiers, but also the forced conscription of the vanquished and their dispatch to distant provinces, as well as slavery for others. Thus the Dacians who stood by Decebalus to the end could not have expected mercy. This helps to explain their final act, immortalized on Trajan's column: the Dacian elite committed mass suicide by poison. In the following couple of year, most of the 10,000 gladiators in the post-victory large circus games in the large cities of Roman provinces, which lasted 123 days and
during the games 10 thousand captured Dacian killed as gladiators.
(Contemporary source see: Cassius Dion, LXVIII, 15.)
Both Criton and Lucian wrote independently about the genocide in Dacia:
Criton, physician at the Emperor Trajan's court, participated in the Dacian campaign and recorded its history; drawing on his work,drawing on his work, later chroniclers said that the Romans had captured 500,000 Dacians, and that, in the end, Trajan spared the life of only forty of them.
"The Getae, a barbarian and vigorous people who rising against the Romans and humiliating them such as to compel them to pay a tribute, were later, at the time of king Decebal, destroyed by Trajan in such a way that their entire people was reduced to forty men as Kriton tells in the Getica".
- Lucian of Samosata
Although these estimates may be excessive, they no doubt reflect the
nature of Dacian-Roman relations and scale of Dacian losses. Thus the
wars ended not only in the destruction of Dacia's military might but
also in a sudden drop in its population. Even fewer were left after many
Dacians fled to escape the Romans' yoke.
I [Emperor Trajan] alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly to their physical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adopted from their admired Zalmolxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so. - Julian
Dacian men were conscripted into auxiliary units and sent to Britannia or to the east. Little is known about their fate; there is nothing to indicate that any of them returned to their homeland after demobilization. In assessing Dacia's depopulation, it is important to note that the new province coincided with the centre of Decebalus' kingdom, where much of the war had been fought; it was the region that suffered the greatest loss of life, the one where Decebalus' faithful fought to the death, be it by suicide. It was mainly this region's inhabitants who were either massacred by the Romans, sold as slaves, or forced to flee beyond Rome's reach.” In such a background it is honestly very difficult to imagine a process of assimilation and Romanization of any kind. That very short & hostile circumstance in Dacia is not an ideal contingency for a real Romanization process.
Read Eutropius’s book online: http://personalpages.to.infn.it/~scompar/files/eutropius.pdf
Read Lucian’s book online: Scholia in Lucianum; adiectae sunt II tabulae phototypae : Rabe, Hugo : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Read Julian’s book online: Caesars - translation
Who was Eutropius? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutropius_(historian)
In addition to these the elite of the allegedly existed native Dacian population lacks every visible representation among the local sociopolitical and economic elite of the province, which distinguishes Dacia from all other Roman provinces.
Romanized population remained
Bosnia – 576 years temporarily
Macedonia – 576 years did not remain
Hellas and Albania – 495 years temporarily
Gallia – 465 years remained
Egypt – 425 years did not remain
Pannonia – 390 years did not remain
Serbia and Bulgaria – 381 years temporarily
Britannia – 364 years did not remain
Armenia – 305 years did not remain
1/4rd When Hellenization surpass Latinization on archeological artifacts
Unfortunately for the modern Romanians, the ancient Romans recorded many names of the urban population living in the province.This is the area where a possible romanization could take place.
This list shows the ethnic origins of the townspeople by name:
- 74% were Latin (most of them from Noricum and western Pannonia)
- 14% were Greek
- 4% were Illyrian
- 2.3% were Celtic
- ONLY 2% were Thraco-Dacian (Most of them were Thracian because of the Macedonian Legion wich one is stationed there.)
- 2% were Semites from Syria (just as many as Thracian wich can be hypothetically Dacian)
- Last decades: The Hellenization surpass Latinization:
 |
I/5th: BARBARIZATION of the Roman Army:
Despite that average Romanian people still tend to believe that they are true descendants of the "Ancient Romans/Latins" it is very far from historical reality. The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS. The population of the established small Roman towns of Dacia had also a highly multi ethnic composition.
(These are bad news for the Romanian so-called 'Purist movement', which claimed obsessively the pure ancient ethnic Latin origin of Romanians.)
I/6th. Other Provinces and the Romanization there
The successful Romanization process on territories are well known and documented, where the Roman Rule last for 500+ years, in Italy (the center of the Roman Empire), on the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and in Gallia (present-day France)
In this part we will check a few other Roman Province/Area where we can see the Romanization and we will compare them with the peripheral province: Dacia.
According to American Historian Linda Ellis Professor of the University of San Francisco:
"While it is certain that colonists in large numbers were imported from all over the empire to settle in Roman Dacia, this appears to be true for the newly created Roman towns only. The lack of epigraphic evidence for native Dacian names in the towns suggests an urban–rural split between Roman multi-ethnic urban centres and the native Dacian rural population."
Despite, that Dacia province was not a good place for the romanization process, how easy was it in other provinces where the conditions were better? (No repeated revolts, strong trading class many native inhabitants who loved the empire, and flourishing city life existed.
Things which were unknown in the peripheric Dacia province:
Much bigger Roman cities with theaters, large thermal baths and large Amphitheatres for gladiator games and sport activities are known in Britannia, Pannonia and Noricum ... etc.)
The Provinces:
- Britannia (367 years under clear latin rule. 202 years more than Dacia.)
In 43 the Romans established Britannia in the list this is the most similar to Dacia it had a revolt (Dacia more) and the people don't loved the Roman rule that much. (still not the same level as the Dacians who literally hated the Romans) But there is a HUGE difference it had city life, with many native inhabitants, where the romanisation could happen, and it has a strong trading class wich required the Latin as the Lingua Franca at the time. The British latin was very weak its only appeared in the cities and only in the southern eastern part of the province. The province experienced much less, and not that brutal barbarian invasion than Dacia, but the Latin language still disappeared shortly after the Roman withdrawal. - Noricum (roughly 450 years under clear latin rule. 285 years more than Dacia.)
The Province was established in 16 BC and it was peaceful but many Germanic attack happened in the area for a long time so the population was pretty low and the romanisation only happened in the towns wich were pretty weak. The province was poor, so the trade and the flourishing city life were really a thing so the latinization in this Province was weak and after the Empire almost immediately vanished. The case is Similar in Dacia, except the Province was much more peaceful after the Romans lost it and during the roman rule there was no revolts, so the population doesn't hate the Romans so the romanisation could happen and don't forget that the province was 285 years longer under roman rule than Dacia, its more than the whole Dacian roman rule with the revolts. - Pannonia (384 years under clear latin rule. 219 more years than Dacia.)
Pannonia was established in 20 AD and it was also a pretty poor province so the trade and flourishing city life wasn’t really a thing but at the end, the province rapidly adopted the roman culture and civilization, especially in the capital Aquincum. The main difference between Dacia and Pannonia (despite the much longer Roman rule) that the population was much much more pro Roman than in Dacia and the province was experienced way less barbarian destruction than Dacia. Again the conditions were much better than Dacia, there was a city life with bigger cities, with many native in it, there was trading between the Romans and Natives, the population liked the Romans and had three times as much time for Romanization.
So as you can see every province needed much more time to romanise even with much better conditions than Dacia, and the provinces wich don't had latin kingdoms after the roman withdrawal the latin almost immediately vanished but the Romanian “Historians,” says that in Dacia it’s happened against any odds. And wich is very important then in other provinces, in the first 150 years the population showed almost no clue of assimilation, but in Dacia wich is existed only 165 rebellious years the population fully Romanised? Seems pretty fake to me and to the international historian community.
II. PROBLEMS OF THE GREAT MIGRATIONS PERIOD in the theory
II/1st Roman withdrawal from old Dacia Traiana, and total silence in sources.
The creation of a new province: Dacia Aureliana for the multi-ethnic "Roman" refugees
Further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia_Aureliana
“The decade of the 220s were the last peaceful period in Dacia's history. A short period of peace followed as the Goths gathered their strength. Beginning in the mid-230s, they renewed their attacks, and over several decades they caused unprecedented destruction on large parts of the Balkan peninsula and especially in Dacia. Roman Sources are consistent regarding the Roman evacuation and surrender of Dacia due to the imperial order of Aurelian between 271-272
Eutropius recorded that Dacia was evacuated (both cities and rural areas) not only because it was no longer possible to defend it, but also because Illyria and Moesia had been devastated.
In Eutropius' representative account, 'the province of Dacia, established by Trajan on the far side of the Danube, was evacuated and abandoned by Emperor Aurelianus after the devastation of Illyria and Moesia.
"Emperor Aurelianus, on an inspection tour of
the province, had found devastation and depopulation; concluding that
the territory did not merit retention, he proceeded to have it
evacuated in good order. The remaining military units were withdrawn, and the remnants of Dacia's inhabitants were resettled
in Moesia.” -Eutropius
The Roman Empire abandoned the province Dacia Trajana and its Romanized population moved to various Southern Balkan provinces. And we know that later many other aggressive tribes, (the new lords of the territory) as Goths, Huns, Longobards Gepids etc. conquered this territory which normally resulted in the killing, enslaving and selling the conquered people in slave markets. Roman citizens clearly did not want to live under Barbarian rule, if they had another option to move to empty lands in Moesia, which was offered by the Emperor himself. Eutropius (contemporary Roman chronicle writer of the events) recorded that Dacia was evacuated in order (both cities and their rural areas)
The evacuation was ordered not only because it was no longer possible to defend the province, but also because Illyria and Moesia provinces had been devastated. At least in Illyria, war was not the sole cause of depopulation in the 250s; Zosimus records that 'a terrible epidemic of pestilence broke out in the area, such as never before witnessed:
"it surpassed the devastation wrought by the Barbarians, to the point that towns occupied and sacked by them felt fortunate to have escaped the fate of those infected by the plague." -Zosimus
Who was Zozimus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zosimus_(historian)
So: Aurelian moved all the Romans into DACIA AURELIANA (later DACIA RIPENSIS or DIOCESIS DACIAE). They were enough in number to populate the territory of the present-day Serbia and Bulgaria. (However, the newly created "province of refugees", the so-called Dacia Aurelaiana is not located in the territory of present-day Romania. Between 271/275 and 285, the new Dacia -Aureliana occupied most of what is today northwestern Bulgaria and eastern Serbia. Its capital was in Serdica (modern Sofia))
It is very interesting if we consider how many Latin speakers we know from this period in the literature about other Latin-speaking areas of the Empire. We have a huge amount of Roman sources from this period. The Roman sources speaking about a lot of territory outside the border of the Empire. But interestingly, they keep silent about the allegedly so-called "Latin-speaking" post-Roman era Dacian territory.
Let’s rethink the issue: According to the "logic" of the Romanian believers of this theory, this was the
only Latin speaking area outside of the Roman Empire. If the Latin language
speaker communities survived here, thus this had to be a very interesting area for the
Roman Empire. And it was a territory adjacent to the new border of the empire. However the Roman sources keep silent about the mere existence of the hypothetical alleged "Latin speakers" in former Dacia. Why?
II/2nd: Heureka!!! The coins, the coins! the Romanian so-called "proofs"
This is no joke, but until this day, some Romanian historians even try to prove the so-called "ethnic continuity" of ancient Romans with the simple Roman coin findings after the Roman withdrawal. (!!!) However, these can prove only living merchant connections but not linguistic or ethnic continuity. The number of these findings are very low and similar to other non-Roman territories of European continent.
Unfortunatelly for them, since the 3rd century the use of Roman coins was wide spread even on the far-away Northern European territories too, which were never conquered by the Romans. Such territories are located on the modern-day Sweden, Denmark, Poland and the Baltic states due to the long-distance trade and commercial relationships with the Roman Empire.
A book about the large ammount of Roman Coins found in Northern Europe:
Prof. Aleksander Bursche (2002): Circulation of Roman Coinage in Northern Europe in Late Antiquity
Map about the distribution of Roman coins and hoards dating before 250 AD found in northern Europe: Source: https://vividmaps.com/roman-coins-in-europe/
Roman coins were found even in Japan by archeologists:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/28/495821834/coins-from-the-roman-empire-are-found-in-ruins-of-japanese-castle
II/3rd: The migration of series of BRUTAL BARBARIAN tribes:
List of Attackers:
Immadietely after the withdraval the bordering tribes attacked the area:
- Sarmatians
- Bastarnae
- Carpi
- Quadi
- Alans
- After these attacks the Vandals come and plundered the these lands.
- After the Vandals the Gepdis and the Goths conquered the Region.
- After them another Alan attack happened with other Gothic tribes.
- After these attack the Huns come to the area and destroyed everything.
- After the Hunnic Empire fall the Goths and Gepids attacked these lands again and settled there.
- After the Gepdic Kingdom destroyed the Avars come to the area.
There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of Dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Carpi Alans, Vandals, Longobards, Carpians, Gepids, Huns, Avars, Pechenegs and later Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 11th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. Don't forget, that these "migratory" peoples, each inhabiting the territory for more time than the Romans had held it. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /Romance speaking population. However there are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Romance speaker Vlachs in the Southern parts of the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.
The famouse Jordanes Eastern Roman bureaucrat (6th century) writes a few lines about contemporary Dacia and the nations who lives there:
"I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only". - Jordanes
"I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only". - Jordanes
III. The LACK OF A MILLENIUM in written sources about the existence NEO-Romance speaker population in the territory of modern Romania/Transylvania for a MILLENIUM (1000 years) in contemporary chronicles.
III/1st:
Where did these neo-latino/ Romance speaker population hide so astonishingly long from the eyes of the chroniclers and church/state administrations of sorroundig countries? How is it possible, that nobody realized / mentioned this Latin-speaking
communities for approx 1000 years adjacent to the Byzantine Empire?
This was not somewhere in Sahara, in the jungle of Congo, or in the Siberian tundra…However
various Germanic tribes, Slavs, Cumans, Jassic people and dozens of all
other ethnic groups were well recorded in the area by the chroniclers
of sorrounding states and in their documents before the 13th century.
There
are no legends of saints, no martyrs, no envoys on the counsils, , no
rulers, no international relationships, not even the commercial contracts of merchants mentioned them. Absolute NOTHING about Romance speaker population from that region!
When they spoke about that area, none of them noticed any Romans or so-called "Latin-speaking Christians" living north to the Danube. Eutropius, Procopius, Jordanes, Ananias of Shirak, Sozomen, Pseudo-Maurice, Auxentius, Philostorgius, Socrates, Theodoret, E. Constantine VII never mentioned Romans or Latin-speaking Christians living north to the Danube. How on earth could it happen?
III/2nd: There are no material proofs (cemetries or Vlach cultic places) which can support the Vlach (Romance speaking population) existence in present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s. There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the 13th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/Romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s.
III/3rd: The earliest Romanian chronicle was Cantacuzinesc chronicle in the 17th century(!), who provided detailed data about the balkan migration of his Vlach people between 1290 to 1690. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of medieval literacy and medieval literature and own Romanian history writing/chronicles, so the Romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (aka. fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc.
Link of the Cantacuzinesc chronicle: https://gawrylyta.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/letopisetul-cantacuzinesc.pdf
III/4th: MENTION OF VLACHS (Romance speakers) before and after the 13th century, and their relatively QUICK TERRITORIAL SHIFT (migration) in the mirror of written sources:
Vlach original homeland ( Urheimat ) was the former Moesia province
Before the 13th century Vlach people were very frequently mentioned in the history of Bulgaria (as one of its chief component of their realm!) but we do not have sources of settled neo- latino Romance speakers in present-day territory of Romania. However after the 13th century the mention of Vlachs became a huge rarity on Bulgarian and Serbian territories in the contemporary written sources. But what happened with the Vlachs of Bulgaria and Serbia that their mention became increasingly rare after the 13th century? There are numerous Serbian documents, dating from the end of the 12th century, mention Romanian shepherds in the mountainous region between the Drina and Morava rivers. Although, in modern times, Romanians no longer lived there, nor in the mountains of western Bulgaria, both regions have numerous toponyms attesting to their presence in the early Middle Ages.
How interesting and suprising(!) , Finally since the 13th century a lot of records suddenly appeared about the existence o Vlachs in the territory of modern Romania.... It clearly shows for the posterior the migration of that Vlach Romance speaker nomad population to the North.
Interesting that many Byzantine document called the area wich is today North-Macedonia Magna Vlachia. Medieval scholars often refer to regions as Magna/Greater wich are original homeland of a specific nation, so the name Magna Vlachia means the homeland of the Vlachs.
The first document wich mentions the Romance speaker Vlachs mentioned them near the Rynchos river in wich is in Macedonia, or Magna Vlachia.
The first secure mention of the Vlachs wrote in 976 in Western Macedonia, the text announces that David, one ofthe four comitapoles who led the uprising against Byzantium, was killed by Vlachs in a place between Prespa and Kostur. This is the region wich were called Magna Vlachia by many Byzantine scholars.
The Rus' Primary Chronicle (Nestor's Chronicle) clearly writes down that the Romanians migrated north.
„ Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. *(...) The Volokhi attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence... The Magyars passed by Kiev over the hill now called Hungarian and on arriving at the Dnieper, they pitched camp. They were nomads like the Polovians. Coming out of the east, they struggled across the Great Mountains and began to fight against the neighboring Volokhi and Slavs. For the Slavs had settled there first, but the Volokhi had seized the territory of the Slavs. The Magyars subsequently expelled the Volokhi, took their land and settled among the Slavs, whom they reduced to submission. From that time the territory was called Hungarian. The Magyars made war upon the Greeks, and seized the Thracian and Macedonian territory as far as Salonika.”
- Nestor's Chronicle
Important to mention one thing about the chronicle, because many Romanian history fabricater use this against the Hungarians, the Chronicle talks exactly about the territory wich became later Wallachia and it is not Pannonia or Transylvania.
It’s obvious that this text places the Romanians (Vlachs) in Lower Danube, not in Transylvania, since it states that:
ergo, the text must have been created after the siege of Thessaloniki in 968, so the
“the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie”
but at the end:
“The Magyars made war upon the Greeks, and seized the Thracian and Macedonian territory as far as Salonika.”
perfectly describes that this is the Lower Danube, since the border of Hungary and Bulgaria at the time when this could have been prepared had to be Wallachia.
This text is very important because it’s clearly writes down that the Vlachs migrated there from the south.
Very
important to mention, that the Vlach popuation was mentioned in many medieval
Hungarian documents as “newcommers” or Latin "hospes" (means host) terms, why would they call the alleged "native "
population of Trasnylvania as newcommers host population? Let's don't forget: The Latin adventis and the more frequent hospes terms were used for German Bavarian / Saxon or Italian or Cuman migrant settlers in medieval Hungarian Latin language documents and literature..
Also the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum (around 1282–1285), wich is the first Hungarian document that mentions the Romanians stated this :
“et Ulahis advenis” = “and Vlach newcomers”
“advenis” = “newcomer” / “outsider” / “foreigner” / “stranger” in Latin
As the Romanians migrated north and they adopted their language in Magna
Vlachia where they also adopted their HUGE Albanian linguistic influence.
Niketas Choniates Byzantine historian: (c. 1155 – 1217))
wrote these things about the Moesian origin of Vlach ancestors of Rumanians in his Annales:
„Because
of niggardiness, he (Isaakios) escaped notice as he gleaned other
cities which were joined together around Anchialos, provoking the
barbarians who lived in the vicinity of Mount Haimos, formerly called Mysians and now named Vlachs, to declare war against him and the Romans (Byzantines).”
Niketas depict the Vlachs as barbarian savages, who attack settled agricutural people:
„Such
was the destruction wreaked then by the Cumans and Vlachs in their
attacks, the likes of which ear hath not heard, nor eye seen, neither
have entered into the heart of any man. Cities that were formerly very
great and celebrated, towns of ten thousand inhabitants, fields well
worth looking at, beautifully planted meadows, blooming gardens bearing
goodly fruit and watered by ever-flowing streams, high-roofed dwellings
decorated with diverse colors admired as superb works of art, the
manifold delights of bathhouses, vines laden with fruit, wheat-covered
fields, and countless other things which the seasons put forth and which
adorn civilized life and make the earth a delightful and much
wished-for place, crowned with pleasures of every kind-all these were
reft of humanity, made habitable only for hedgehogs and wild beasts.”
REFERENCE: Harry J. Magoulias (1984) O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniatēs -PAGE: 347
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niketas_Choniates
The 13th century Dutch traveller Rubruquis (William of Rubruck) wrote this about the Geographical situation of Vlachia:
„From
the opening (of the sea) of Tanais /=Don/ to the west as far as the
Danube all is theirs (i.e., the Tartars'), even beyond the Danube
towards Constantinople, Blakia [=Wallachia], which is the land of Assan
[= Asên, the ruling dynasty of Bulgaria], and minor Bulgaria as far as
Sclavonia, all pay them tribute; and besides the regular tribute, they
have taken in the past few years from each house one axe and all the
iron which they found unwrought.”
Thus we know that in the middle of the 13th century Blakia aka Vlachia was known as territory wich can be found SOUTH to the Danube towards Constaninople according to the contemporary eyewitness Rubruquis.
Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc, the earliest Romanian Chroinicle mentioned the migration of Vlachs to modern territory of Romania:
Istoria Țării Românești de când au descălecat pravoslavnicii creștini (1290–1690)
„But first let's talk about the Rumâns, who broke away from the Romans (=Byzantines) and migrated north. So they moved towards the waters of the Danube, crossing at Turnu Severin; some to Hungary to the waters of the Olt, to the waters of the Maros, to the waters of the Tisza, reaching as far as Máramaros. And those who crossed at Turnu Severin reached the foot of the mountains at the Olt water. Some went down along the Danube and thus filled the whole place with themselves and came to the border of Necopoi."
IV. LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS of the THEORY
IV/1st: ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM in the old Romanian language:
Romanian
vocabulary has zero linguistic heritage from the above mentioned old
Germanic conquerors, and the zero loanwords from the nearby Western and
Eastern Salvic languages, however the Romanian Language has a clear
heritage from the very opposite direction, from the south Balkan
territory: the Albanian language. Let's don't forget, that the old
Romanian language also contained serious ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM before the
linguistic reforms of the 19th century. Moreover, the old Romanian
language was the ONLY language of Europe which contained Albanian
substratum! (Interesting isn't it?) This also clearly supports their
Balkan migrations in the high medieval period. Even today live
“Aromanian” minority who call themselves “Rrãmãn or Armãn in Albania.The
grammatical logic of Romanian language is eerily similar to that of
Albanian grammar. The two language share an amazing amount of phonological, morphological
and syntactical features. How is it possible that the two nation's language share
this many common features if they were "always" 700 kilometers away. (The
same distance as Florance-Vienna or Prague-Brussels!)
Read about Albanian substratum in Romanian language here:
https://www.docdroid.net/mkzuxhc/common-lexic-in-romanian-and-albanian-s-pdf
According to Willem Vermeer the professor of the University of Leiden and the professor of the Balkanic Languages:
"The Tosk dialect of Albanian, spoken in Southern Albania, in particular, is held to have experienced developments parallel to early Romanian."
According to John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. American historian and linguist professor of Balkan and Byzantine history at the University of Michigan and has written several books on the subject.
"There are several hundred words in Romanian that are cognate only with Albanian cognates."
According to Noel Malcolm, British historian and linguist argues the Albanian–Romanian homeland was in the Kosovo region or in the Ancient Illyrian region of Dardania where both Romanian and Albanian speakers appear during the medieval period. Malcolm states that the Vlach (Romanian) and Aromanian languages originated in the Kosovo region and surrounding areas from Romanized Illyrians and Thracians. And was a contact zone between the Albanian and Romanian languages.
Michiel Arnoud Cor de Vaan,
Dutch linguists and historian, the ex-professor of the Cambridge University says the same, that the Romanian urheimat (linguistic homeland) must be somewhere near modern Kosovo or North-Macedonia. (Which the Byzantines called Magna Vlachia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vlachia
Eric Pratt Hamp,
American linguist professor refers to an "Albanian substratum" in Romanian, arguing its early formation was shaped by language shift from Albanian to Romance.
John Van Antwerp Fine Jr.
American professor of Balkan and Byzantine history argues that the critical area of Albanian–Romanian contact was the valley of the river Great Morava in what is now eastern Serbia, before the Slavic invasions.
IV/2nd: LACK OF ANCIENT GERMANIC SUBSTRATUM in Romanian language:
How it is possible that old Romanian language did not adopt / borrowed any (ZERO!!!) ancient Germanic vocabulary, when present-day territory of Romania was inhabited by Goths, Carpians, Gepids Longobards for many centuries? AGAIN: These Germanic tribes inhabited and ruled the territory for 2X times longer time than the Romans had held it!
Even all eastern Slavic languages have loanwords/borrowings from Germanic (Old Norse) languages from the era of Varagian rule. If these Germanic languages did not have any influence on the old Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania. (Because in the reality, the Vlachs were still lived on the Southern parts of the Balkan peninsula)
IV/3rd: ONLY SOUTHERN SLAVIC ORIGIN SUBSTRATUM in old Romanian language.
Despite the
geographical position of modern Romania, the old Romanian language and
modern Romanian language contain only Southern Slavic origin Slavic
loanwords, the lack of Western Slavic and Eastern Slavic loanwords are
clearly shows and pointed towards the original Balkan homeland of the
Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians.
IV/4th Rich documentation of Romance speaker Vlachs, but only on the Balkans
"Romanization" of local language of Dacia?
Vlachs of the mountains of the Balkan peninsula were recorded as the only Romance speakers in the Eastern European and South-Eastern European region in the contemporary (6th-13th century) written sources. This is not surprising. Remember: All other Romance languages of Europe developed only in regions which had been under direct Roman rule for more than 500 years, and nothing suggests that Romanian language could be a strange "exception".
Unlike the 160 years short-term Roman presence on the territory of modern Romania, the direct Roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula. A lot of different areas, although were ruled for so many centuries by the Romans (England, Wales, Flandern, Austria, Pannonia, etc) they were not Latinized or they were unable to keep the Latin/Romance language.
Remember the high contrast: Only 160 years Roman rule in the hostile Dacia VERSUS
the well established long 500+ years Roman rule on the Balkan
peninsula, where Romance speakers (Vlachs) were frequently mentioned between the 9-13th centuries.
IV/5th: The problem of HYDRONYMS and TOPONYMS:
Other interesting fact, that Romanian language simply borrowed the already existing Slavic, Hungarian and Saxon origin toponyms and hydronyms of Transylvania. It is a very well known and clear practice of immigrant populations. Even Austria and Western Hungary had more real Latin (Roman) origin toponyms and hydronyms than modern Romania. However Serbia and Bulgaria has a lot of ancient Vlach origin topnyms from the early medieval period.
IV/6th The problem of CITY names:
The big problem concerning the Romanian continuity is not that maybe these cities were used after the Romans retreated by some people whos national identitfication we do not know, but the question: if the Romanians are the descendants of the Romans and the Dacians, WHY THEY FORGOT THE Dacian AND ROMAN NAMES of those cities? THAT IS THE HUGE QUESTION! If they lived there for centuries without interruption, why they completely forgot ALL the ancient names of those cities???? Is that normal? Is that normal, that the Romanians took, and use the Hungarian names of those cities (Cluj - from Kolozsvár, instead of Napoca, Turda from Torda, instead of Potaissa, Alba Iulia from Gyulafehérvár instead of Apulum, Orsova from the slavic name Orsova instead of Dierna). If the Romanians remained there as the descendants of the Romans and Dacians, why did they completely forgot the place names which their forefathers gave to those cities? It is interesting that for example the Germans did not forgot the name of the Roman city Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium, naming the city today Köln, the Germanic English did not forgot the name of the ancient Roman city of Londonium (and there are hundreds and hundreds of other similar examples in Europe!!!), but the proud “descendants of the Romans and Dacians” forgot ALL the names of the Dacian and Roman towns, which they claim to be "built by themselves"…
IV/7th: Huge LINGUISTIC REFORMS of the 19th century:
READ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-latinization_of_Romanian
https://ciccre.uvt.ro/pt-pt/qvaestiones-romanicae/articole/relatinizarea-limbii-romane-conceptia-lui-ion-budai-deleanu
Prior to the rise of nationalism , the old Romanian language had many Slavic Turkish, Greek, Hungarian loanwords, grammatical constructs, concepts making it not always so distinct from its neighboring lan- guages as it is today.
During the creation of Romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south Slavic, Albanian, Hungarian and Turkish origin loanwords were purged from the vocabulary of the Romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-Latin / Romance words, French and Italian neologisms and even full modern French expressions were adopted to replace the old ones. These new modern Western European (modern French & Italian) Romance expressions and words simply did not exist in the era original ancient Latin speaking populations or in the vulgar Latin languages.
A good book about the nationalist pressure on Romanian linguists to purge the Slavic, Turkic, Hungarian and Greek origin loandwords substratums, idioms, concepts and grammatical constructs in the 19th century:
George W. White: Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe - PAGE: 119
Google Books link: https://books.google.com/books?id=-7TgkO8utHIC&pg=PA119
V: Religious problems
Pagan era:
What is more important: there is no information about the mixing of Dacian religion with the Roman religion. This is a very unique strange phenomenon in the history of the Roman Empire. Dacia Trajana is full of Roman and other religious material, but the Dacian one is totally absent in the religious history of the Roman Empire. Interesting. How is that possible?
This very curious unique phenomenon may refer to the forcible removal of the ever-rebellious Dacians from the province, which is supported by the above mentioned ancient Roman written sources about the fate of Dacians.
The Romanian Religion
V/1st: Gothic Arianism
I already mentioned above that Christianity was present during the later years of Dacia Trajana province.
More than a hundred archeological sites prove the existence of Christianity in modern day Romania between the 2nd- 4th centuries, in Transylvania and in later Wallachia as well.
However when the Goths arrived to the area we can found only Arian - Chrisian graves and Crosses. Arianism became a Germanic Christian religion in Europe. However after they left the area, suddenly the Christian findings are over till the 10th-century, wich is strange because it has never happened in history that a nation or a bigger population re-adopt their pagan faith after their Christianization. Therefore we can assume a complete ethnic exchange, because there are only Germanic, Slavic and Turkic religious finding in the area between the 4th – 10th centuries.
V/2nd: Even the Byzantine documents did not know about the existence of Christianity after the Goths left the former Dacia Trajana.
Let's see what the Byzantines write about the Christians in modern day Romania, after all this area was in their immediate neighbourhood,
and they always write very detailed documents about Christian
communities even about the ones wich were eve thousands of kilometres away
from their border. NOTHING again there is NOT A SINGLE MENTION
about these Romanian Christians in the area. The Byzantines
even collected and documented information about the Nestorians in the far away Central Asia but somehow they don’t have a single
script / info about the mere existence of the alleged Christians who were also "Orthodox" (accordig to modern Romanian claims) , thus they had to be
under their own Byzantine ecclesiastical leadership/control in this region...
The Bulgarian empire also founded his own autocephalous church in 870, and Transylvania and later Wallachian territories were part of their realm, but somehow when they organised the Bulgarian church they didn’t extended the church organisation to the Transylvanian or later Wallachian territories. But why, if there were a huge number of alleged "Romanian Christians", why aren’t they cared about them? The answer is simple, there was not a single Romanian/Vlach in these lands in this time, that’s why they didn’t extended their Church organisation to those lands, because there were only pagan Turkic people and Slavs on those lands.
The archeology can’t help the Romanians either because once again there is NOT A SINGLE grave or cross or church or engraving or church document or anything wich proves any Christian in this are between the 7th-10th centuries.
And if there was a huge number of Christians in Transylvania and Dacia till the 4th century and after nothing there is just only one explanation, a total ethnic change in the region, wich means that the Dacians, and the claimed Roman Latin(!) settlers who left (There wasn’t any Roman settler who left in Transylvania nor any Latinized Dacians.) after the withdrawal are extinct and the storms of History destroyed them.
It is also important to point out that not a single Byzantine document indicates that missionaries arrived in the territory of today's Transylvania until 1000 AD, when Kingdom of Hungary made Catholic Christianity the state religion in the region.
But the FACT is that the Romanians are Orthodox Christians, and if there wasn't any Byzantine missionary works on those lands where they hypothetically lived, than they needed to adopt their faith somewhere else. So the religion is also proving that the Romanians migrated there and they are not the descendants of the alleged Dacians (who could survive anything).
German missionary priest, Bruno of Querfurt
around 1004 visited the Banat region and he stated that this land is the land of the Black Hungarians. Some years later he went to the region to-be Wallachia and Moldova converting many Pechenegs. He didn’t mention any Romance speaking Christians living there.
V/3rd Fierce resistance against the Latin Church and liturgy
VI. Strange Cultural Devolvation
The Vlachs of Wallachia and Moldavia (ancestors of modern Romanians) were the LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP in Europe, the vast majority of Romanian population preserved its nomadic lifestyle and nomad "cultural" heritage until the end of 16th century.
As
I mentioned before the Dacians had dirt fortresses and cities, and agricultural villages, but the
Vlach ancestors of Romanians were recorded as the last nomads of Europe in medieval and early modern era sources! There is not a single European nation wich switched to nomadic lifestyle when they had a long settled agricultural civilization and tradition before!
Again something isn’t right with the officially state-propagated history of Romania… interesting.
Heiko Pleines, Sabine Fischer (2009): Crises and Conflicts in Post-socialist Societies, The Role of Ethnic, Political and Social Identities - PAGE: 65
"Vlachs were nomadic shepherds ( Romanians ) who were part of another barbaric tribe and did not exhibit any signs of Roman civilisation or culture."
B. Fowkes (2002) : Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World -PAGE: 12
"That curious minority, the Vlachs of the Balkans, for example, were on the face of it Romanians ('Wallachians') but in fact the name was also applied to Slavs who shared the same pastoral, nomadic life as the Romanian shepherds."
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=bRZaCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12
Norman Berdichevsky (2004): Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181.
"The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania."
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=_q14xoaXj1UC&pg=PA181
Victor Roudometof (2002): Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question - PAGE: 128
"The Vlachs are mainly pastoral nomads dispersed among the states of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Romania. Since they are Orthodox Christians, they have mostly become part of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox ..."
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=Xoww453NVQMC&pg=PA128
Roumen Daskalov, ?Alexander Vezenkov - 2015: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies PAGE: 309
"Zlatarski adds an a priori statement that the very thought of an uprising could occur only to Bulgarian local notables or voivods, not to the nomadic Vlachs, who he says were at a low level of cultural development"
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=WDRzBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA309
Rob Humphreys, Susie Lunt, Tim Nollen - 2002 : Rough Guide to the Czech & Slovak Republics - Page 408
"Wallachian culture As far as anybody can make out, the Wallachs or Vlachs were semi-nomadic sheep and goat farmers who settled the mountainous areas of eastern Moravia and western Slovakia in the fifteenth century."
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=kpEc8ltyqnUC&pg=PA408
Marek Koter, Krystian Heffner - 1999 : Multicultural regions and cities - Page 164
"Nomadic shepherds from the Balkan Peninsula (Wallachians) were moving along the bow of the Carpathians in search of new pastures. "
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=YXwUAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Nomadic+shepherds+from+the+Balkan+Peninsula%22
Marek S. Szczepañski Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Œl¹skiego, Jan 1, 1997 - Ethnic Minorities & Ethnic Majority: Sociological Studies of Ethnic Relations in Poland -PAGE: 32
"They were just the Wallachian people (nomadic tribes from the present Romania) from who contemporary Lemks descended; it should be testified by both the elements of material culture, similarities of customs and languages"
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=108MAQAAMAAJ&q=%22They+were+just+the+Wallachian+people%22
Normal J. G. Pounds - 1976 - : An Historical Geography of Europe 450 B.C.-A.D. 1330, -PAGE: 251
"The chief importance of the Vlachs lies, however, in the possible relationship to the Romanians. ... Ages, crossed the Danube into Walachia and continued their pastoral and semi-nomadic life in Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains"
Jane Perry Clark Carey, Andrew Galbraith Carey : The Web of Modern Greek Politics - page 73
"shepherds and nomadic herdsmen, wandering through the Balkans and the north of Greece. On their early migrations they gave the Vlach name to various districts, including the province of Wallachia in present-day Romania"
Google Books LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=Rbzly8S0mxcC&q=%22shepherds+and+nomadic+herdsmen,+wandering+through+the+Balkans+and+the+north+of+Greece%22
However the most interesting is the personal experiences of the 11th century Byzantine chronicler (author of the famous Strategicon) regarding to the lifestyle of Vlachs. Nomad Vlachs climbing down from the mountains, regularly attacked and plundered the vilages of the civilised/settled population in the area.
"at the time the most despised people, of the lowest morality,” who spread throughout the Balkans and “plundered and harassed the peaceful population."
| Roumen Daskalov, Alexander Vezenkov : (BRILL, 2015) Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies PAGE: 309 |
Google Books Link : https://books.google.com/books?id=WDRzBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA309
About chronicler Kekaumenos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kekaumenos
NATIONAL NARCISSISM
The imagined "glorious past" and the opposing historical reality:The territory of modern Southern Romania belonged to the Bulgaria first. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the devastating brutal mongol invasions and attacks in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (Romanians) started to migrate towards modern Romania, and their (turkic) Cuman overlords (like the Wallachian state-founder prince Basarab) established their first Vlach Romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal states of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, Romania became an Ottoman vassal province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
Since the late 16th century the settled agricultural life slowly became dominant lifestyle among the formerly mostly sheep and goat herder nomad Romanians.
" The Roman presence in Dacia was characterized by frequent revolts of the local inhabitants,"
ReplyDeleteCould You show some source about these revolts?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletethere is no evidence of dacians being massacred by the romans. But there is evidence of colonists from the Roman Empire arriving in Dacia. Also dacian names, traditions and geographical names were all kept the same, wih minor influences. So that means the population was not destroyed but were colonized and continued the old traditions, which contradicts this theory 110%
ReplyDelete