![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
User:Borsoka, do you know anything about this source [1] ? 86.127.8.126 ( talk) 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
inhabitants of the Dalmatian towns as a proof of the Roman conciousness of the Vlachs). Borsoka ( talk) 01:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE. Vlachs were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period. The romanian literacy and chronicles appeared only in the 15th century.USE Google books! (The word's largest digitalized library, the largest collection of printed books) See the google book results (search the british american candian authors about medieval romanians Vlachs):
Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614
" Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja"
Robert William Seton-Watson: A history of the Roumanians: from Roman times to the completion of unity, page: 12
"The Roumanians undoubtedly preserved their nomadic habits to a very late date, as is proved by the existence of Vlach colonies in Moravia (the so-called "Little Wallachia" — long since completely Slavised)"
Mandell Creighton, Justin Winsor, Samuel Rawson Gardiner: The English Historical Review page:- 615.
"He shows that the Vlachs of the Balkan peninsula throughout the middle ages are nomads of the strictest type, ... that Vlachs began to move north of the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania "
Joan E. Durrant, Anne B. Smith Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights ( PAGE 210)
"Between the 3rd century A.D. and the 14th century A.D., Dacia was invaded successively by nomadic peoples, including the ... Romanians "
Norman Berdichevsky: 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."
Other elements in the population of Greece are the Wallachians or Vlachs, the Turks, and the Jews, but they have never ... The Wallachians are a curious nomadic race
David Bruce Macdonald - 2002 Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered ... page- 131
"These hinterland Romans evolved into highland herdsmen, who for centuries led a primitive nomadic life"
Lampe, John R, Jackson, Marvin R. Balkan Economic History, 1550 - 1950: From Imperial Borderlands to ... page - 612.
"Vlachs had first acquired their commercial connections in the course of moving their livestock seasonally back and forth between high and low ground. ... Alan J.B. Wace and M.S. Thompson, The Nomads of the Balkans (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1971)"
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"
Chambers's Encyclopedia - Volume 14. page:- 339.
"The Vlachs are usually mentioned as following nomadic or semi-nomadic lives as shepherds etc. in wild mountain ... nth century was known as 'Great Wallachia' and seems to have contained a relatively dense and settled Vlach population."
Denys Hay: Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries page: 220
"In the first half of the fourteenth century there also appeared there the two Romanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. ... or whether the Hungarians are right in their thesis that these Vlachs were recently immigrated nomadic shepherds"
Frank Moore Colby, Talcott Williams, Herbert Treadwell Wade: The New International Encyclopaedia Voluma 20. Page: 219
"Owing to their nomadic and predatory dispositions these Vlachs, as they are called by the Greek writers, were a ... the autonomous Rumanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, which grew rapidly towards south and east until the former"
Isaiah Bowman: The New World: Problems in Political Geography page - 282
"or Wallachians The Rumanians, or Wallachs (hence Wallachia), are of mixed race but of distinct speech, the Ruman, ... Home places of the nomadic Vlachs The Vlachs , Rumanian nomadism is seen in its purest form among the detached"
Norman Angell : Peace Theories And The Balkan War page: - 107.
"It had been founded by a conquering caste of non-Slavonic nomads from the trans-Danubian steppes, but these were completely ... This Bulgarian state included a large 'Vlach' element descended from those Latin-speaking provincials whom the Slavs had pushed ... had established itself in the mountains of Transylvania, and was just beginning to push down into the Wallachian and Moldavian plains"
Tibor Frank, Frank Hadler : Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe, page: 251
"Reference to Romanians in their preunification (1859) history was linked to the regional designation of Wallachia (today Oltenia and Muntenia) to the south ... This designation relates to the nomadic existence of the Balkan Vlach population."
Paul Coles : The Ottoman Impact on Europe - page: 114
" nomadic pastoralism provided a new lease of life for the Rumanian-speaking Vlachs, migratory herdsmen whose native principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had fallen under Ottoman dominion during the fifteenth century"
Wace, Alan J. B. and Maurice S. Thompson. .:
"The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Custom Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tibretrecm (
talk •
contribs)
18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
_ _ _ _ Nice propaganda.... too bad you we're banned for it :))) USE Google Books he said.... Can a moderator delete this Hungarian's hateful and racist comment 94.68.74.91 ( talk) 13:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Some hungarians, furious of their nomadic origin, see nomads in old Europe!! Eurocentral ( talk) 15:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
E. Sayous, HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21 Sayous wrote: "Les Byzantins du onzième siècle, Anne Comnène entre autres, parlent des Daces, qui ne peuvent être que des Roumains" (OUVRAGE COURONNÉ PAR L'ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE) Eurocentral ( talk) 16:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
See Wiki pages with: Kingdom of Hungary; they contains Albert Apponyi work (born 1846 !)
In this case you are not a reliable observer. Clean first your home and then look to others!
About Komnene work: see pages: Alexiad to understand the references in this case. References contains only the book and paragraph. Eurocentral ( talk) 04:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
For better vizibility: It is E. Dawes translation from 1928, p. 385 Eurocentral ( talk) 05:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
About Curta, he cited what others wrote. Sayous made an original observation. Also, a lot of Romanians wrote about Dacians/Vlachs identity in Alexiad. Eurocentral ( talk) 07:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This is why we need to keep the quote. To understand everybody that it is about the slopes of mountains and not about Panonia ! 79.112.14.99 ( talk) 09:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Finally we talk about geography. Is Panonia on the slopes of Haemus ? Is this the geography or history you learnt in your country??? Eurocentral ( talk) 10:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Take my advise: start to learn geography. Panonia is at 1000 Km at North West from Haemus!!!!!!! This is : Magyarization of geography ! Eurocentral ( talk) 10:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka (
talk)
11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, try to concentrate to the two maps: everything will be clear, and we do not need to continue this OR. Borsoka ( talk) 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Slopes of Haemus = Panonia? Stop with these oditties. Wlachs or Dacians were on the Northen slopes of Haemus. For Hungarians as in this talk page, Ana used very clear Hungarians. Search her text with key words and find that she knew about Hungarians Eurocentral ( talk) 11:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians". This is an simple interpretation too, not a clear statement. Saturnian ( talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Hungary was very small in the XIth century According to Țiplic, Trnsivania was occupied in some stages:
I.M.Țiplic, Considerații cu privire la liniile întarite de tipul prisacilor din transilvania, Acta terrae Septemcastrensis, I, pag. 147-164
I.M. Țiplic, Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages (7th -13th C.), Heidelberg-Alba Iulia, 2006, ISBN 3-929848-54-6
Eurocentral ( talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Forging the maps Borsoka tried to put Hungarians closer to Haemus. But the discussion is about what Byzantines knew about Dacians.
The philologist and historian Sayous clearly wrote in HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21
"Les Byzantins du onzième siècle, Anne Comnène entre autres, parlent des Daces, qui ne peuvent être que des Roumains"
For this History, Sayous received the Prix of French Academy (OUVRAGE COURONNÉ PAR L'ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE)
Mr. Borsoka, why do you come with your "original" interpretation ? You make us to loose time with your aberations. Eurocentral ( talk) 05:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The word Slopes shows where lived the Dacians and Thraces (near mountains). In that times, majority of Hungarians lived under tents and they preffered plains.
The word Slopes shows very clear that your have an "original" interpretation. Curta and Spinei only agreed, but in connection with other topics, not with Haemus
By the way, Anna and Sayous opinions was the same as the Kekaumenos data.
Please stop your "original" interpretations. Give us quotes and not your ideas. Your ideas are from another movie.
Eurocentral ( talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral ( talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A huge stupidity is the association of Thraces with Hungarians !!! Let's find Thraces in Hungary!
Eurocentral (
talk)
06:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Note Eurocentral ( talk) 13:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC) About: Chapter 7.i. of The Alexiad (cited standard translation, page 217): "At the beginning of the spring Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,000 men, Sarmatians, Scyths and a large contingent of Dacians led by one Solomon...
But Solomon in that times just retired from the civil war. He battled against the King of Hungary at Oradea Mica and was beaten. He was supported by only Romanians and Cumans (or Pechenegs) and Ruthens. After battle he came back to Romanians for shelter (Cumans lived under tends). So in his expedition to Balkans he was supported by Romanians and not by Hungarians who were his enemies.
Read: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 (In this Chronicle shows that Solomon asked help from Romanians and Ruthens)
V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid-Thirteen Century, Brill, 2009, p.118 (Here Spinei wrote about Russian Chronicle)
And so, the other observations have same reply. You make a big confusion. Eurocentral ( talk) 13:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Only if you know Russian. Spinei only introduced and commented this chonicle in his works. Eurocentral ( talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
1 Battle of Chirales in 1068 when Solomon was king (battled against Pechenegs and Romanians) 2 Battle of Oradea Mica, in 1085 (kisvarda) where Solomon (dethroned) battled against Hungarians led by Ludovic I (Laios); he was helped by Romanians, Ruthens and Cumans (Kutesk) 3 Battle in Balkans in 1087, where Solomon (dethroned) was again helped by Romanians (Dacians) and not by Hungarians who were his enemies (Solomon was hunted by Hungarians after Oradea Mica).
Very difficult to understand. Read and read again. Especially the chonicle. As usual, the history is a surprise for you if you read only Hungarian sources. All these explain why Dacians were Romanians and not Hungarians in 1087. Eurocentral ( talk) 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
1 Battle of Chirales in 1068 when Solomon was king (Solomon battled against Pechenegs and Romanians)
2 Battle of Oradea Mica, in 1085 (kisvarda) where Solomon (dethroned) battled against Hungarians led by Vladislav I (in Transilvania they call him Laios but when translated is Ludovic); he was helped by Romanians, Ruthens and Cumans (Kutesk). Solomon promised to Kutesk all Transilvania if Vladislav will be killed. Kutesk asked Solomon to merry his daughter if Solomon wants military help.Vladislav won the battle.
3 Raid and Battle in Balkans in 1087, where Solomon (dethroned) was again helped by Romanians (Dacians) and Comans and not by Hungarians who were his enemies (Solomon was hunted by Hungarians after Oradea Mica). Tzelgu (the Coman leader of expedition) and Solomon were killed in battle.
References:
For 1: Spinei & Russian chronicle: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241
For 2: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 It States that Solomon asked help from Ruthenians and Romanians. Spinei (Moldova in Sec. XI-XIV) showed that the expedition was through Coman/Romanian lands and Ruthenia and through the Ruthenia-Hungary mountain pass. This is why battle took place in NE of Hungary.
For 2: Here we find that Solomon remained without own men:
Marek Meško,, Pecheneg Groups in the Balkans (ca. 1053-1091) according to the Byzantine Sources. In: The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them.Editors Florin Curta & Bogdan Maleon, 2013.p.195 Mesko showed: ...only Kutesk, Salomon and a few other nomads were able to escape alive. In this case results no Hungarians will be with Solomon in next raids.
For 3: Here sources missing. Hungarian historians profited (Moravcsik,G. Byzantinoturcica II, p.116) and wrote that Dacians were Hungarians. But Solomon was the enemy of Hungarians (a renegade) after the battle against Vladislav at Oradea Mica; He married a Coman women and lived between Romanians and Comans. From Comans (under Tzelgu) and Romanians, Solomon started in 1087 the campaign in Balkans. This is why Anna told Solomon and Dacians. Hungarians were enemies of Solomon (who maybe left Christianity after his marriage) at that time, considering the invasion of 1085. Also, Hungarians were attacked frequently by Comans.
I found some sources stating Romanian (Vlach) participation with Comans in Balkan raids but a final conclusion will be ready soon.
Little by little we can demonstrate that Dacians were Romanians (Vlachs) in Ana Comnena work. Eurocentral ( talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, you said: " Dawes translated the "Cral" as the "Prince of Bulgaria", but his view was not accepted by modern historians", because at that time Bulgaria did not exist, and there was no Prince of Bulgaria whose kinswomen was the wife of John II Komnenos.
Borsoka confusions:
The relatives were from the part of former cral/king; even after death, the relatives claims they belong to cral/king family. At that time (1106) of the Oath, Alexius was emperor and his wife was Irene, daughter of Andronikos Doukas and Maria of Bulgaria (family of former cral/king). John II Komnenos started as emperor after Alexios death in 1118. His wife was Hungarian and received (after passing to Roman empire) the same name as Irene, the wife of Alexius . This is your confusion.
A lot of documents from Wikipedia are based on Dawes translation. So where is your majority? Eurocentral ( talk) 14:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
At least three scholars (secondary sources) identified Daces as Romanians:
1)E. Sayous, HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21
2)Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500, University Press of America, 2010, p.58
3)Gh. Sincai, Opere, Hronica romanilor, tom 1, Bucuresti,1967, p.325-326
These works show there is a controverse in this question. This does not imply others historians are not qualified. It is a simply scientific controverse in wich 2 Hungarians (Borsoka and Fakirbakir) refuse to observe it. Eurocentral ( talk) 05:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentence that was used by nationalist historians from Hungary in order to make confusion is extracted from Alexiad: "...envoys from the Dacia from the Cral" (book XIII, Alexiad) But there are a lot of books that showed the term is for a slavonic (maybe Bulgarian) prince:
1. TS Hughes, Travels in Sicilly, Greece and Albania, University of Michigan Library, page 6. wrote: The title of Cral is a Sclavonic word signifying king.
2 Dawes, who translated Alexiad wrote at page 357: "...envoys from the Dacia from the Cral" and added a note: "Prince of Bulgaria". Dawes simply explained what means Cral: a slavonic word
Some nationalist Hungarians, including Moravcsic, wrote some works which influenced Curta and other readers claiming Cral = Kirally. Sayous as philologist understood the meaning of Cral. It was easy to see it was a slavonic prince.
The word exist in different forms in all Eastern and Central Europe. Even in Romania there is a town named Craiova. Eurocentral ( talk) 12:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference: Anna Comnena, The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena, Translated by Elizabeth A. S. Dawes Publisher K. Paul, 1928
It is obvious, Sewter added words from his imagination. Dawes never talked about John II. You may not know, but "Alexius" was emperor and "John" was only a caesar (son of Emperor) at the time of episode. I sugest you to read the original document of Anna. Eurocentral ( talk) 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the relatives of Cral Irene were Maria of Bulgaria, granddaughter of former king Ivan Vladislav. It is obvious that the envoys from the Dacia from the Cral were a Bulgarians (as Dawes stated) and not Hungarians. Counting years became difficult for Hungarians. Eurocentral ( talk) 15:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
About rules:
In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals
books published by university presses
university-level textbooks
magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
mainstream newspapers
The rules do not mention the negation of the XIXth century works. Eurocentral ( talk) 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Budapest, "Athenaeum" was a respected publishing house
Eurocentral ( talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Historiography: origin of the theories" section of the article clearly describes the pro-continuity historians' POV of the origin of the opposite - immigrationist - theory. Is there any WP which prescribes that one statement should be repeated in an article? Borsoka ( talk) 09:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You have been reverting edits without adding any explanation. Please stop edit-warring. Borsoka ( talk) 19:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
To Borsoka: your edits are subjective. I took a phrase that you added in these pages, and I putted it on the pages about "Hungarian conquest of Carpathian..." but you erased it. That means you are a double dealer. You have "double" policy. That means you practice a dishonest activity. Eurocentral ( talk) 14:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence about the root of the debates over the Romanians' ethnogenesis, which is based on a Romanian scholar's work, was deleted: "There is "a certain disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe": the territories to the south of the Danube were subject to the Romanization process for about 800 years, while Dacia province to the north of the Danube was only for 165 years under Roman rule." I would like to understand the reason why this sentence was deleted. Borsoka ( talk) 07:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead only presents one of the two or three theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Could anybody suggest a neutral wording? Borsoka ( talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
All we have to do is to read other similar pages. Starting with irredentist opinions is not a Wiki policy. The main introduction have to contain neutral points of view. Eurocentral ( talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that the lead at present is not neutral and assumes the correctness of one point of view among several. It would be better to open with something like: "There are several theories about the origin of the Romanians." Then give a brief summary of each. I am definitely not an expert on this myself, but I don't think the origin in the Dacians is such a firmly-established consensus view as the lead asserts. Wallace McDonald ( talk) 19:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 14:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Wallace, and add that the entire lead has POV problems. The third (or other) view(s) are not described, only mentioned as vaguely existing, and described as being intermediate between the two that people have been fighting over, and that may not be accurate. One problem I'm going to fix right now is describing holders of the one view as "scholars" but holders of the opposing position as "followers". I don't have suggested wording for the bulk of the lead. Judging from comments above, it would probably be useful to have proposals from Borsoka and others about how to increase the neutrality. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no neutrality in Borsoka edits. Let's see his pages "Hungarian conquest of Carpathian..." where he showed his true face. He erased a lot of phrases including references and phrases identically with phrases from "Origins of Romanians" See Schramm reference and phrase. Eurocentral ( talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Political and ideological considerations, including the dispute between Hungary and Romania over Transylvania, have also colored these scholarly discussions.[10] This sentence was censored in the pages "The conquest of Carpathian basin" Eurocentral ( talk) 05:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Wallace as well. The lead is not at all neutral and assumes a POV; alternative theories should also be presented. "The origin of the Romanians lies in the Danube-Carpathian area in the Dacian and Roman provinces and starts in ancient times," would leave a reader wondering where the modern Vlachs of north-central Greece came from, people whose recorded presence in Greece is at least as old as the record of their linguistic siblings (see Proto-Romanian language) in modern Romania. I believe the problem is that Romanians are taught that their language roots go back in Romania to ancient times. Similarly, Vlachs are taught in Greece that their ancestors were Greeks, who mixed with local Roman legions. Those two theories work well in their own countries as part of national myths that the nations' citizens have always lived within the nations' boundaries, but these politically convenient stories have problems explaining why the two groups (Vlachs and Romanians) would share a common (post-Latin) linguistic ancestor (namely proto-Romanian). Theories that suggest a common romanized ancestor living in-between Greece and Romania (see the article's Immigrationist Theory) are also considered possible. This isn't to dismiss the Dacian theory, which has scholarly support as well, but it certainly isn't the only scholarly supported one, even if it has state support in Romania for political reasons. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 18:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 10:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Your text is full with POV. Limit your ideas to only one sentence. The proposed geographic space includes all theories. Eurocentral ( talk) 05:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral ( talk) 05:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
79.112.98.48 ( talk) 12:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
If no other comments, the geographic area will remain Roman provinces.(Is not the case of theories here) Eurocentral ( talk) 07:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral|Thehoboclown ( talk) 09:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Eurocentral, Fakirbakir, Piledhighandeep, Slovenski Volk, SMcCandlish, Thehoboclown, and Wallace McDonald:, I suggest the following wording: "There are several well-supported theories about the origin of the Romanians. It is without doubt that the Romanian language is descended from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the " Jireček Line" (a notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe) in Late Antiquity. The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube in the course of the 2nd and the 3rd centuries. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains." (1) The text emphasizes the common features of all theories (Vulgar Latin, Jireček Line, Late Antiquity). (2) The text neutrally summarizes the two major theories. Borsoka ( talk) 03:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I had to remove the following text added by User:Fakirbakir
Followers of the immigrationist theory say that the Romanians' earliest chronicles from the 16th and 17th centuries unanimously refer to their ancestors' northward migration under one "King Vladislav" of Hungary and only 18th-century Romanian scholars started emphasizing the Romanians' continuous presence in Transylvania in connection with their fights for the Romanians' political emancipation.
The same idea is already present in another section of the article:
A Romanian legend on their origin, preserved in the Moldo-Russian Chronicle from around 1505, narrates that one "King Vladislav of Hungary" invited their ancestors to his kingdom and settled them "in Maramureş between the Moreş and Tisa at a place called Crij"
Also, Fakirbakir's paragraph is quite unclear. Which are "Romanians' earliest chronicles from the 16th and 17th centuries"? There are not plenty of Romanian chronicles in that age (you can count on the fingers of one hand) and as far as I know this idea is present only in the Moldo-Russian Chronicle. Correct me if I am wrong. Vi3cu7 ( talk) 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The only source I found is the Moldo-Russian chronicle, which refers to King Vladislav, not to the King Vladislaus. User:Borsoka if you insist that this info exists in the book, please copy-paste here the relevant quotes. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.58.175.101 ( talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Borsoka you did not answer to the request of IP 158.58.175.101, namely to present the exact quotes from the provided source (Vekony 2000) that support the statement "The earliest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of the Romanians' ancestors in the reign of one "King Vladislaus" Eurocentral ( talk) 10:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 05:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
79.112.97.146 Eurocentral ( talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ( talk) 14:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I propose as geographic space: Roman provinces and Dacian provinces Eurocentral ( talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Convenient for all theories. South or North of Danube. Eurocentral ( talk) 14:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that you deny even Hungarian chronicles of Anonymus and Keza. You make history denying al chronicles favourable to continuity theory ! So Dacian and Roman provinces cover continuity and contrary theories. Eurocentral ( talk) 09:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The introduction is not balanced Onle line for continuity and 4 lines against continuity.
It is a propaganda of discontinuity ?
Eurocentral (
talk)
09:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Dacian and Roman provinces cover all theories. Even theories about Vlachs from the South of Italy. Eurocentral ( talk) 10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
other theories. In the talk area, Borsoka is helped by sockpuppets like Thehoboclown . Borsoka will be under investigation for the use of sockpuppets. Eurocentral ( talk) 11:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Specific for you. Eurocentral ( talk) 07:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Why not ?... 79.112.83.47 ( talk) 07:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 13:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
wants to add supplementary geographic space, I am here to comment. Eurocentral ( talk) 13:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
why were all sentences modified? I do not agree to this approach: to modify all sentences of the introduction. Your statement text accepted by all other commentators is not true. 2 opinions were against. Why do you lie again? We need a consensus not a temporary majority. So I propose each side to make his proposal and to compare them in order to find a true consensus. Eurocentral ( talk) 17:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
What did Schramm write? Did he use the "Vulgar Latin" expression? It may be misleading. Fakirbakir ( talk) 12:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Why are Vlachs from Greece mentioned in the first phrase? As far as I know, Aromanians and Romanians are two different peoples. Bagnume ( talk) 12:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thracians inhabited an enormous area between Aegean Sea and Western Asia Minor and Pripet marshes, Bohemia and Bug river(C. C. Giurescu, The Formation of the Romanian People (1980), p.22)
Herodotus, mentions the Dacians as "the bravest and fairest of all the Thracians". Herodotus IV.93, V.3-4, V.6 and Strabo VII.3.2 wrote that Dacians belong to Thracian family. According to Mircea Eliade, the huge number of the branches coming out of the Thracian genealogical tree would amount to approximately 200. ("The Dictionary of Religions," page. 265) Professor Dumitru Balasa drew up a chart of these and counted no less than 150 Thracian branches (see "The Country of the Sun" or "The History of Daco-Romania," Kagaion Publishing House, 1997. Descendants of Thracians are present Romanians and Aromanians. Eurocentral ( talk) 17:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
G. Cardos et all, "Paleo-mtDNA analysis and population genetic aspects of old Thracian populations from South-East of Romania"
Rom J Leg Med 12(4) 239-246 (2004) www.scribd.com/doc/326027/Paleo-mtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-South-East-of-Romania (
Article)
Eurocentral ( talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 04:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 10:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 10:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 15:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 10:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 10:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I found the book Genomul uman - Georgeta Cardoş ,Alexander Rodewald online here and the cited quote is the following:
But the book's foreword mentioned very clear this continuity in several sentences. I took the interpretation from the book's foreword (Georgeta Cardoş ,Alexander Rodewald). Eurocentral ( talk) 19:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It is necessary to be added. Eurocentral ( talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
the connection between Romanians and Thracians? Even Bulgarians have origins in Thracian population. Try to put your glasses. Eurocentral ( talk) 13:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
In order to avoid duplications, I suggest that under this title (including its three subsections) only the core of the theories (continuity theory, immigrationist theory and further theories) should be summarized, without any reference to the pros and cos. This would be a neutral approach. The development of the theories could be presented under the "Historiography" section, and thei argumentation is already presented under the "Evidence" section. Comments are welcome. Borsoka ( talk) 05:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I.A.Pop wrote "Nu exista nici o marturie istorica explicita, nici in jurul anului 600 si nici ulterior in evul mediu in legatura cu vreo miscare masiva de populatie de la sud spre nord" This is about the inexistence of migrations from South to North of Danube. Eurocentral ( talk) 04:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a side note – may I ask to put whatever belongs to the other article in that article's talk page and don't escalate it to here or wherever else?! This page is getting full with unrelated and personal (comment on content, not on contributor!) blabla that has nothing to do with this topic and makes it pretty hard to follow the related stuffs. Thanks, Thehoboclown ( talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Georgescu's statement. Russian historians in the eighties did not admit the continuity theory. Actually the Soviet historiography maintained that Romanians settled in the Carpathian Basin after the arrival of Slavs. (p. 199, Gabriel Moisa, Between Exclusion and Acceptance. The Perception of Historian Gheorghe I. Brătianu in Communist Romania, In: From Periphery to Centre.The Image of Europe at the Eastern Border of Europe, 2014) Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal points of view are not admitted. This is VANDALISM. Eurocentral ( talk) 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Both editors erased several times this phrase extracted from Georgescu's works:
Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}
The vandalization will be investigated. Eurocentral ( talk) 06:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 06:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir were accused of vandalism after erasing a phrase of a Romanian historian that they do not agree.
Eurocentral (
talk)
06:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The content of censored phrase: Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}
Eurocentral ( talk) 06:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Fakibakir Georgescu was a dissident and lived in West Europe. Your knowledge of history is full of misinterpretations. Eurocentral ( talk) 07:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka and Fakirbakir were accused of vandalism and an investigation started. They act together making impossible any impartial edit. Their personal points of view and original research are a motive to censor Romanian historians. Eurocentral ( talk) 09:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Censored text:
Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
"Gottfried Schramm, Herbert J. Izzo and other scholars who support the immigrationist theory"
Why are Gottfried Schramm and Herbert J. Izzo to be nominated here? There are tens of major and minor historians that adopt the thory,It is not OK to choose only them, we should not nominate anyone and have a general statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbist ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
User:Borsoka, do you know anything about this source [1] ? 86.127.8.126 ( talk) 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
inhabitants of the Dalmatian towns as a proof of the Roman conciousness of the Vlachs). Borsoka ( talk) 01:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE. Vlachs were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period. The romanian literacy and chronicles appeared only in the 15th century.USE Google books! (The word's largest digitalized library, the largest collection of printed books) See the google book results (search the british american candian authors about medieval romanians Vlachs):
Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614
" Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja"
Robert William Seton-Watson: A history of the Roumanians: from Roman times to the completion of unity, page: 12
"The Roumanians undoubtedly preserved their nomadic habits to a very late date, as is proved by the existence of Vlach colonies in Moravia (the so-called "Little Wallachia" — long since completely Slavised)"
Mandell Creighton, Justin Winsor, Samuel Rawson Gardiner: The English Historical Review page:- 615.
"He shows that the Vlachs of the Balkan peninsula throughout the middle ages are nomads of the strictest type, ... that Vlachs began to move north of the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania "
Joan E. Durrant, Anne B. Smith Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights ( PAGE 210)
"Between the 3rd century A.D. and the 14th century A.D., Dacia was invaded successively by nomadic peoples, including the ... Romanians "
Norman Berdichevsky: 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."
Other elements in the population of Greece are the Wallachians or Vlachs, the Turks, and the Jews, but they have never ... The Wallachians are a curious nomadic race
David Bruce Macdonald - 2002 Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered ... page- 131
"These hinterland Romans evolved into highland herdsmen, who for centuries led a primitive nomadic life"
Lampe, John R, Jackson, Marvin R. Balkan Economic History, 1550 - 1950: From Imperial Borderlands to ... page - 612.
"Vlachs had first acquired their commercial connections in the course of moving their livestock seasonally back and forth between high and low ground. ... Alan J.B. Wace and M.S. Thompson, The Nomads of the Balkans (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1971)"
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"
Chambers's Encyclopedia - Volume 14. page:- 339.
"The Vlachs are usually mentioned as following nomadic or semi-nomadic lives as shepherds etc. in wild mountain ... nth century was known as 'Great Wallachia' and seems to have contained a relatively dense and settled Vlach population."
Denys Hay: Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries page: 220
"In the first half of the fourteenth century there also appeared there the two Romanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. ... or whether the Hungarians are right in their thesis that these Vlachs were recently immigrated nomadic shepherds"
Frank Moore Colby, Talcott Williams, Herbert Treadwell Wade: The New International Encyclopaedia Voluma 20. Page: 219
"Owing to their nomadic and predatory dispositions these Vlachs, as they are called by the Greek writers, were a ... the autonomous Rumanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, which grew rapidly towards south and east until the former"
Isaiah Bowman: The New World: Problems in Political Geography page - 282
"or Wallachians The Rumanians, or Wallachs (hence Wallachia), are of mixed race but of distinct speech, the Ruman, ... Home places of the nomadic Vlachs The Vlachs , Rumanian nomadism is seen in its purest form among the detached"
Norman Angell : Peace Theories And The Balkan War page: - 107.
"It had been founded by a conquering caste of non-Slavonic nomads from the trans-Danubian steppes, but these were completely ... This Bulgarian state included a large 'Vlach' element descended from those Latin-speaking provincials whom the Slavs had pushed ... had established itself in the mountains of Transylvania, and was just beginning to push down into the Wallachian and Moldavian plains"
Tibor Frank, Frank Hadler : Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe, page: 251
"Reference to Romanians in their preunification (1859) history was linked to the regional designation of Wallachia (today Oltenia and Muntenia) to the south ... This designation relates to the nomadic existence of the Balkan Vlach population."
Paul Coles : The Ottoman Impact on Europe - page: 114
" nomadic pastoralism provided a new lease of life for the Rumanian-speaking Vlachs, migratory herdsmen whose native principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had fallen under Ottoman dominion during the fifteenth century"
Wace, Alan J. B. and Maurice S. Thompson. .:
"The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Custom Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tibretrecm (
talk •
contribs)
18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
_ _ _ _ Nice propaganda.... too bad you we're banned for it :))) USE Google Books he said.... Can a moderator delete this Hungarian's hateful and racist comment 94.68.74.91 ( talk) 13:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Some hungarians, furious of their nomadic origin, see nomads in old Europe!! Eurocentral ( talk) 15:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
E. Sayous, HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21 Sayous wrote: "Les Byzantins du onzième siècle, Anne Comnène entre autres, parlent des Daces, qui ne peuvent être que des Roumains" (OUVRAGE COURONNÉ PAR L'ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE) Eurocentral ( talk) 16:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
See Wiki pages with: Kingdom of Hungary; they contains Albert Apponyi work (born 1846 !)
In this case you are not a reliable observer. Clean first your home and then look to others!
About Komnene work: see pages: Alexiad to understand the references in this case. References contains only the book and paragraph. Eurocentral ( talk) 04:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
For better vizibility: It is E. Dawes translation from 1928, p. 385 Eurocentral ( talk) 05:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
About Curta, he cited what others wrote. Sayous made an original observation. Also, a lot of Romanians wrote about Dacians/Vlachs identity in Alexiad. Eurocentral ( talk) 07:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This is why we need to keep the quote. To understand everybody that it is about the slopes of mountains and not about Panonia ! 79.112.14.99 ( talk) 09:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Finally we talk about geography. Is Panonia on the slopes of Haemus ? Is this the geography or history you learnt in your country??? Eurocentral ( talk) 10:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Take my advise: start to learn geography. Panonia is at 1000 Km at North West from Haemus!!!!!!! This is : Magyarization of geography ! Eurocentral ( talk) 10:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka (
talk)
11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, try to concentrate to the two maps: everything will be clear, and we do not need to continue this OR. Borsoka ( talk) 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Slopes of Haemus = Panonia? Stop with these oditties. Wlachs or Dacians were on the Northen slopes of Haemus. For Hungarians as in this talk page, Ana used very clear Hungarians. Search her text with key words and find that she knew about Hungarians Eurocentral ( talk) 11:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians". This is an simple interpretation too, not a clear statement. Saturnian ( talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Hungary was very small in the XIth century According to Țiplic, Trnsivania was occupied in some stages:
I.M.Țiplic, Considerații cu privire la liniile întarite de tipul prisacilor din transilvania, Acta terrae Septemcastrensis, I, pag. 147-164
I.M. Țiplic, Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages (7th -13th C.), Heidelberg-Alba Iulia, 2006, ISBN 3-929848-54-6
Eurocentral ( talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Forging the maps Borsoka tried to put Hungarians closer to Haemus. But the discussion is about what Byzantines knew about Dacians.
The philologist and historian Sayous clearly wrote in HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21
"Les Byzantins du onzième siècle, Anne Comnène entre autres, parlent des Daces, qui ne peuvent être que des Roumains"
For this History, Sayous received the Prix of French Academy (OUVRAGE COURONNÉ PAR L'ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE)
Mr. Borsoka, why do you come with your "original" interpretation ? You make us to loose time with your aberations. Eurocentral ( talk) 05:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The word Slopes shows where lived the Dacians and Thraces (near mountains). In that times, majority of Hungarians lived under tents and they preffered plains.
The word Slopes shows very clear that your have an "original" interpretation. Curta and Spinei only agreed, but in connection with other topics, not with Haemus
By the way, Anna and Sayous opinions was the same as the Kekaumenos data.
Please stop your "original" interpretations. Give us quotes and not your ideas. Your ideas are from another movie.
Eurocentral ( talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral ( talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A huge stupidity is the association of Thraces with Hungarians !!! Let's find Thraces in Hungary!
Eurocentral (
talk)
06:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Note Eurocentral ( talk) 13:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC) About: Chapter 7.i. of The Alexiad (cited standard translation, page 217): "At the beginning of the spring Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,000 men, Sarmatians, Scyths and a large contingent of Dacians led by one Solomon...
But Solomon in that times just retired from the civil war. He battled against the King of Hungary at Oradea Mica and was beaten. He was supported by only Romanians and Cumans (or Pechenegs) and Ruthens. After battle he came back to Romanians for shelter (Cumans lived under tends). So in his expedition to Balkans he was supported by Romanians and not by Hungarians who were his enemies.
Read: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 (In this Chronicle shows that Solomon asked help from Romanians and Ruthens)
V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid-Thirteen Century, Brill, 2009, p.118 (Here Spinei wrote about Russian Chronicle)
And so, the other observations have same reply. You make a big confusion. Eurocentral ( talk) 13:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Only if you know Russian. Spinei only introduced and commented this chonicle in his works. Eurocentral ( talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
1 Battle of Chirales in 1068 when Solomon was king (battled against Pechenegs and Romanians) 2 Battle of Oradea Mica, in 1085 (kisvarda) where Solomon (dethroned) battled against Hungarians led by Ludovic I (Laios); he was helped by Romanians, Ruthens and Cumans (Kutesk) 3 Battle in Balkans in 1087, where Solomon (dethroned) was again helped by Romanians (Dacians) and not by Hungarians who were his enemies (Solomon was hunted by Hungarians after Oradea Mica).
Very difficult to understand. Read and read again. Especially the chonicle. As usual, the history is a surprise for you if you read only Hungarian sources. All these explain why Dacians were Romanians and not Hungarians in 1087. Eurocentral ( talk) 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
1 Battle of Chirales in 1068 when Solomon was king (Solomon battled against Pechenegs and Romanians)
2 Battle of Oradea Mica, in 1085 (kisvarda) where Solomon (dethroned) battled against Hungarians led by Vladislav I (in Transilvania they call him Laios but when translated is Ludovic); he was helped by Romanians, Ruthens and Cumans (Kutesk). Solomon promised to Kutesk all Transilvania if Vladislav will be killed. Kutesk asked Solomon to merry his daughter if Solomon wants military help.Vladislav won the battle.
3 Raid and Battle in Balkans in 1087, where Solomon (dethroned) was again helped by Romanians (Dacians) and Comans and not by Hungarians who were his enemies (Solomon was hunted by Hungarians after Oradea Mica). Tzelgu (the Coman leader of expedition) and Solomon were killed in battle.
References:
For 1: Spinei & Russian chronicle: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241
For 2: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 It States that Solomon asked help from Ruthenians and Romanians. Spinei (Moldova in Sec. XI-XIV) showed that the expedition was through Coman/Romanian lands and Ruthenia and through the Ruthenia-Hungary mountain pass. This is why battle took place in NE of Hungary.
For 2: Here we find that Solomon remained without own men:
Marek Meško,, Pecheneg Groups in the Balkans (ca. 1053-1091) according to the Byzantine Sources. In: The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them.Editors Florin Curta & Bogdan Maleon, 2013.p.195 Mesko showed: ...only Kutesk, Salomon and a few other nomads were able to escape alive. In this case results no Hungarians will be with Solomon in next raids.
For 3: Here sources missing. Hungarian historians profited (Moravcsik,G. Byzantinoturcica II, p.116) and wrote that Dacians were Hungarians. But Solomon was the enemy of Hungarians (a renegade) after the battle against Vladislav at Oradea Mica; He married a Coman women and lived between Romanians and Comans. From Comans (under Tzelgu) and Romanians, Solomon started in 1087 the campaign in Balkans. This is why Anna told Solomon and Dacians. Hungarians were enemies of Solomon (who maybe left Christianity after his marriage) at that time, considering the invasion of 1085. Also, Hungarians were attacked frequently by Comans.
I found some sources stating Romanian (Vlach) participation with Comans in Balkan raids but a final conclusion will be ready soon.
Little by little we can demonstrate that Dacians were Romanians (Vlachs) in Ana Comnena work. Eurocentral ( talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, you said: " Dawes translated the "Cral" as the "Prince of Bulgaria", but his view was not accepted by modern historians", because at that time Bulgaria did not exist, and there was no Prince of Bulgaria whose kinswomen was the wife of John II Komnenos.
Borsoka confusions:
The relatives were from the part of former cral/king; even after death, the relatives claims they belong to cral/king family. At that time (1106) of the Oath, Alexius was emperor and his wife was Irene, daughter of Andronikos Doukas and Maria of Bulgaria (family of former cral/king). John II Komnenos started as emperor after Alexios death in 1118. His wife was Hungarian and received (after passing to Roman empire) the same name as Irene, the wife of Alexius . This is your confusion.
A lot of documents from Wikipedia are based on Dawes translation. So where is your majority? Eurocentral ( talk) 14:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
At least three scholars (secondary sources) identified Daces as Romanians:
1)E. Sayous, HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21
2)Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500, University Press of America, 2010, p.58
3)Gh. Sincai, Opere, Hronica romanilor, tom 1, Bucuresti,1967, p.325-326
These works show there is a controverse in this question. This does not imply others historians are not qualified. It is a simply scientific controverse in wich 2 Hungarians (Borsoka and Fakirbakir) refuse to observe it. Eurocentral ( talk) 05:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentence that was used by nationalist historians from Hungary in order to make confusion is extracted from Alexiad: "...envoys from the Dacia from the Cral" (book XIII, Alexiad) But there are a lot of books that showed the term is for a slavonic (maybe Bulgarian) prince:
1. TS Hughes, Travels in Sicilly, Greece and Albania, University of Michigan Library, page 6. wrote: The title of Cral is a Sclavonic word signifying king.
2 Dawes, who translated Alexiad wrote at page 357: "...envoys from the Dacia from the Cral" and added a note: "Prince of Bulgaria". Dawes simply explained what means Cral: a slavonic word
Some nationalist Hungarians, including Moravcsic, wrote some works which influenced Curta and other readers claiming Cral = Kirally. Sayous as philologist understood the meaning of Cral. It was easy to see it was a slavonic prince.
The word exist in different forms in all Eastern and Central Europe. Even in Romania there is a town named Craiova. Eurocentral ( talk) 12:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference: Anna Comnena, The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena, Translated by Elizabeth A. S. Dawes Publisher K. Paul, 1928
It is obvious, Sewter added words from his imagination. Dawes never talked about John II. You may not know, but "Alexius" was emperor and "John" was only a caesar (son of Emperor) at the time of episode. I sugest you to read the original document of Anna. Eurocentral ( talk) 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the relatives of Cral Irene were Maria of Bulgaria, granddaughter of former king Ivan Vladislav. It is obvious that the envoys from the Dacia from the Cral were a Bulgarians (as Dawes stated) and not Hungarians. Counting years became difficult for Hungarians. Eurocentral ( talk) 15:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
About rules:
In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals
books published by university presses
university-level textbooks
magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
mainstream newspapers
The rules do not mention the negation of the XIXth century works. Eurocentral ( talk) 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Budapest, "Athenaeum" was a respected publishing house
Eurocentral ( talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Historiography: origin of the theories" section of the article clearly describes the pro-continuity historians' POV of the origin of the opposite - immigrationist - theory. Is there any WP which prescribes that one statement should be repeated in an article? Borsoka ( talk) 09:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You have been reverting edits without adding any explanation. Please stop edit-warring. Borsoka ( talk) 19:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
To Borsoka: your edits are subjective. I took a phrase that you added in these pages, and I putted it on the pages about "Hungarian conquest of Carpathian..." but you erased it. That means you are a double dealer. You have "double" policy. That means you practice a dishonest activity. Eurocentral ( talk) 14:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence about the root of the debates over the Romanians' ethnogenesis, which is based on a Romanian scholar's work, was deleted: "There is "a certain disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe": the territories to the south of the Danube were subject to the Romanization process for about 800 years, while Dacia province to the north of the Danube was only for 165 years under Roman rule." I would like to understand the reason why this sentence was deleted. Borsoka ( talk) 07:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead only presents one of the two or three theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Could anybody suggest a neutral wording? Borsoka ( talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
All we have to do is to read other similar pages. Starting with irredentist opinions is not a Wiki policy. The main introduction have to contain neutral points of view. Eurocentral ( talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that the lead at present is not neutral and assumes the correctness of one point of view among several. It would be better to open with something like: "There are several theories about the origin of the Romanians." Then give a brief summary of each. I am definitely not an expert on this myself, but I don't think the origin in the Dacians is such a firmly-established consensus view as the lead asserts. Wallace McDonald ( talk) 19:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 14:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Wallace, and add that the entire lead has POV problems. The third (or other) view(s) are not described, only mentioned as vaguely existing, and described as being intermediate between the two that people have been fighting over, and that may not be accurate. One problem I'm going to fix right now is describing holders of the one view as "scholars" but holders of the opposing position as "followers". I don't have suggested wording for the bulk of the lead. Judging from comments above, it would probably be useful to have proposals from Borsoka and others about how to increase the neutrality. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no neutrality in Borsoka edits. Let's see his pages "Hungarian conquest of Carpathian..." where he showed his true face. He erased a lot of phrases including references and phrases identically with phrases from "Origins of Romanians" See Schramm reference and phrase. Eurocentral ( talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Political and ideological considerations, including the dispute between Hungary and Romania over Transylvania, have also colored these scholarly discussions.[10] This sentence was censored in the pages "The conquest of Carpathian basin" Eurocentral ( talk) 05:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Wallace as well. The lead is not at all neutral and assumes a POV; alternative theories should also be presented. "The origin of the Romanians lies in the Danube-Carpathian area in the Dacian and Roman provinces and starts in ancient times," would leave a reader wondering where the modern Vlachs of north-central Greece came from, people whose recorded presence in Greece is at least as old as the record of their linguistic siblings (see Proto-Romanian language) in modern Romania. I believe the problem is that Romanians are taught that their language roots go back in Romania to ancient times. Similarly, Vlachs are taught in Greece that their ancestors were Greeks, who mixed with local Roman legions. Those two theories work well in their own countries as part of national myths that the nations' citizens have always lived within the nations' boundaries, but these politically convenient stories have problems explaining why the two groups (Vlachs and Romanians) would share a common (post-Latin) linguistic ancestor (namely proto-Romanian). Theories that suggest a common romanized ancestor living in-between Greece and Romania (see the article's Immigrationist Theory) are also considered possible. This isn't to dismiss the Dacian theory, which has scholarly support as well, but it certainly isn't the only scholarly supported one, even if it has state support in Romania for political reasons. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 18:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 10:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Your text is full with POV. Limit your ideas to only one sentence. The proposed geographic space includes all theories. Eurocentral ( talk) 05:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral ( talk) 05:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
79.112.98.48 ( talk) 12:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
If no other comments, the geographic area will remain Roman provinces.(Is not the case of theories here) Eurocentral ( talk) 07:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral|Thehoboclown ( talk) 09:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Eurocentral, Fakirbakir, Piledhighandeep, Slovenski Volk, SMcCandlish, Thehoboclown, and Wallace McDonald:, I suggest the following wording: "There are several well-supported theories about the origin of the Romanians. It is without doubt that the Romanian language is descended from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the " Jireček Line" (a notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe) in Late Antiquity. The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube in the course of the 2nd and the 3rd centuries. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains." (1) The text emphasizes the common features of all theories (Vulgar Latin, Jireček Line, Late Antiquity). (2) The text neutrally summarizes the two major theories. Borsoka ( talk) 03:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I had to remove the following text added by User:Fakirbakir
Followers of the immigrationist theory say that the Romanians' earliest chronicles from the 16th and 17th centuries unanimously refer to their ancestors' northward migration under one "King Vladislav" of Hungary and only 18th-century Romanian scholars started emphasizing the Romanians' continuous presence in Transylvania in connection with their fights for the Romanians' political emancipation.
The same idea is already present in another section of the article:
A Romanian legend on their origin, preserved in the Moldo-Russian Chronicle from around 1505, narrates that one "King Vladislav of Hungary" invited their ancestors to his kingdom and settled them "in Maramureş between the Moreş and Tisa at a place called Crij"
Also, Fakirbakir's paragraph is quite unclear. Which are "Romanians' earliest chronicles from the 16th and 17th centuries"? There are not plenty of Romanian chronicles in that age (you can count on the fingers of one hand) and as far as I know this idea is present only in the Moldo-Russian Chronicle. Correct me if I am wrong. Vi3cu7 ( talk) 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The only source I found is the Moldo-Russian chronicle, which refers to King Vladislav, not to the King Vladislaus. User:Borsoka if you insist that this info exists in the book, please copy-paste here the relevant quotes. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.58.175.101 ( talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Borsoka you did not answer to the request of IP 158.58.175.101, namely to present the exact quotes from the provided source (Vekony 2000) that support the statement "The earliest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of the Romanians' ancestors in the reign of one "King Vladislaus" Eurocentral ( talk) 10:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 05:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
79.112.97.146 Eurocentral ( talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ( talk) 14:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I propose as geographic space: Roman provinces and Dacian provinces Eurocentral ( talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Convenient for all theories. South or North of Danube. Eurocentral ( talk) 14:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that you deny even Hungarian chronicles of Anonymus and Keza. You make history denying al chronicles favourable to continuity theory ! So Dacian and Roman provinces cover continuity and contrary theories. Eurocentral ( talk) 09:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The introduction is not balanced Onle line for continuity and 4 lines against continuity.
It is a propaganda of discontinuity ?
Eurocentral (
talk)
09:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Dacian and Roman provinces cover all theories. Even theories about Vlachs from the South of Italy. Eurocentral ( talk) 10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
other theories. In the talk area, Borsoka is helped by sockpuppets like Thehoboclown . Borsoka will be under investigation for the use of sockpuppets. Eurocentral ( talk) 11:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Specific for you. Eurocentral ( talk) 07:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Why not ?... 79.112.83.47 ( talk) 07:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 13:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
wants to add supplementary geographic space, I am here to comment. Eurocentral ( talk) 13:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
why were all sentences modified? I do not agree to this approach: to modify all sentences of the introduction. Your statement text accepted by all other commentators is not true. 2 opinions were against. Why do you lie again? We need a consensus not a temporary majority. So I propose each side to make his proposal and to compare them in order to find a true consensus. Eurocentral ( talk) 17:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
What did Schramm write? Did he use the "Vulgar Latin" expression? It may be misleading. Fakirbakir ( talk) 12:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Why are Vlachs from Greece mentioned in the first phrase? As far as I know, Aromanians and Romanians are two different peoples. Bagnume ( talk) 12:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thracians inhabited an enormous area between Aegean Sea and Western Asia Minor and Pripet marshes, Bohemia and Bug river(C. C. Giurescu, The Formation of the Romanian People (1980), p.22)
Herodotus, mentions the Dacians as "the bravest and fairest of all the Thracians". Herodotus IV.93, V.3-4, V.6 and Strabo VII.3.2 wrote that Dacians belong to Thracian family. According to Mircea Eliade, the huge number of the branches coming out of the Thracian genealogical tree would amount to approximately 200. ("The Dictionary of Religions," page. 265) Professor Dumitru Balasa drew up a chart of these and counted no less than 150 Thracian branches (see "The Country of the Sun" or "The History of Daco-Romania," Kagaion Publishing House, 1997. Descendants of Thracians are present Romanians and Aromanians. Eurocentral ( talk) 17:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
G. Cardos et all, "Paleo-mtDNA analysis and population genetic aspects of old Thracian populations from South-East of Romania"
Rom J Leg Med 12(4) 239-246 (2004) www.scribd.com/doc/326027/Paleo-mtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-South-East-of-Romania (
Article)
Eurocentral ( talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 04:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 10:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 10:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 15:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 10:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 10:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I found the book Genomul uman - Georgeta Cardoş ,Alexander Rodewald online here and the cited quote is the following:
But the book's foreword mentioned very clear this continuity in several sentences. I took the interpretation from the book's foreword (Georgeta Cardoş ,Alexander Rodewald). Eurocentral ( talk) 19:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It is necessary to be added. Eurocentral ( talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
the connection between Romanians and Thracians? Even Bulgarians have origins in Thracian population. Try to put your glasses. Eurocentral ( talk) 13:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
In order to avoid duplications, I suggest that under this title (including its three subsections) only the core of the theories (continuity theory, immigrationist theory and further theories) should be summarized, without any reference to the pros and cos. This would be a neutral approach. The development of the theories could be presented under the "Historiography" section, and thei argumentation is already presented under the "Evidence" section. Comments are welcome. Borsoka ( talk) 05:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I.A.Pop wrote "Nu exista nici o marturie istorica explicita, nici in jurul anului 600 si nici ulterior in evul mediu in legatura cu vreo miscare masiva de populatie de la sud spre nord" This is about the inexistence of migrations from South to North of Danube. Eurocentral ( talk) 04:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a side note – may I ask to put whatever belongs to the other article in that article's talk page and don't escalate it to here or wherever else?! This page is getting full with unrelated and personal (comment on content, not on contributor!) blabla that has nothing to do with this topic and makes it pretty hard to follow the related stuffs. Thanks, Thehoboclown ( talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Georgescu's statement. Russian historians in the eighties did not admit the continuity theory. Actually the Soviet historiography maintained that Romanians settled in the Carpathian Basin after the arrival of Slavs. (p. 199, Gabriel Moisa, Between Exclusion and Acceptance. The Perception of Historian Gheorghe I. Brătianu in Communist Romania, In: From Periphery to Centre.The Image of Europe at the Eastern Border of Europe, 2014) Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal points of view are not admitted. This is VANDALISM. Eurocentral ( talk) 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Both editors erased several times this phrase extracted from Georgescu's works:
Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}
The vandalization will be investigated. Eurocentral ( talk) 06:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral ( talk) 06:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir were accused of vandalism after erasing a phrase of a Romanian historian that they do not agree.
Eurocentral (
talk)
06:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The content of censored phrase: Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}
Eurocentral ( talk) 06:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Fakibakir Georgescu was a dissident and lived in West Europe. Your knowledge of history is full of misinterpretations. Eurocentral ( talk) 07:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka and Fakirbakir were accused of vandalism and an investigation started. They act together making impossible any impartial edit. Their personal points of view and original research are a motive to censor Romanian historians. Eurocentral ( talk) 09:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Censored text:
Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}
Eurocentral ( talk) 09:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
"Gottfried Schramm, Herbert J. Izzo and other scholars who support the immigrationist theory"
Why are Gottfried Schramm and Herbert J. Izzo to be nominated here? There are tens of major and minor historians that adopt the thory,It is not OK to choose only them, we should not nominate anyone and have a general statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbist ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)