romanian origins

[Conrad]

Vaclav,

you have really got me thinking
in the best of worlds (ii) and (iii) would be the only ethnicities. They would be ethnicities that we could change easily and without much ado.

If I may redefine (i) as peoples' identification with a lingustic/cultural/religious group, it is the (i) that is problematic and that I regard as tribal, especially in combination with (ii), (iii) or both.

I agree that the combination of (i) and (ii) was not a rule in medieaval Europe, but I don't think they were irrelevant. Most countries defined themselves as Christian, and most countries had a linguistic core population (Poles in Poland, Balts in Lithania, Englishmen in England, etc.).

There was not only an ethnic divide between Germanic peoples and Slavs, Germanic peoples and Celts, and Germanic peoples and Romance peoples, but also between these peoples and Jews.

I agree entirely with you that (i) was not an issue in a homogeneous community far from other religions, languages and cultures, but as soon as people identifying with only (iii) or (ii) start experiencing that there is a minority group that sticks apart concerning (i), we have three possibilities:

1) the smaller ethnic group is poorer, then we have a certain arrogance from the richer group towards the poorer, such as between a farmer and a gypsie.

2) the smaller ethnic group is richer, then we have a certain envy, which can be channelled in pogroms.

I am neither an ethnologist nor a historian but I do research on categorization. People identify constantly with a multitude of groups in society, and they regard their own categories as more or less superior to others in diffuse ways. We have social groups, linguistic groups, age groups, professional groups, etc. There is a saying that as soon as an Englishmen opens his mouth there is another Englishman who despises him for his accent.

(i) is something that can be forgotten in a homogenous society, but as soon as there are two groups that can be divided on such terms as culture, language and religion we get polarization, and we risk having tribal behaviour.

 

[Conrad]

Duncan wrote:
_________________________________________________
If ethnicity is not a 'social construct' are you trying to tell me it's written in your DNA?
_________________________________________________

No, I am talking about a continuous identification within a population, where the defining elements are subject to a certain change, what you call redefining.

Thanks for explaining you point of view in more detail. I don't disagree with you.

 

[Demetrios]

OK, Off-Topic forum we go!

 

[Alexandru H.]

No!!!!

Oh, I hate people that end up talking about something else!

Hmm, this discussion is kinda dead, so....

...exit, stage left!

 

[unmerged(17991)]

Alexandru - I am sorry.

But these discussions about disputed points in history always end with arguments like:
X wrote in 1200 that A is true, while Y wrote in 1201 that A is definitely not true.
Later on, Z showed excellent reasons why X is right.
W, however, refuted Z's assertions because X did not work with the right sources. These right sources got lost, but only after Y had studied them.
As a result, in country C, A is generally admitted to be true, while in country D, A is generally admitted to be false. Foreign historians tend to agree with the country that they have closer ties to.

Conrad,

brilliant analysis, I agree 100%.

My definition of ethnicity was narrower, it thought only about nationalism. The argument "born as Czech, will die as Czech" was rare in medieval Europe - I hope, after all.

 

[Jacob]

I just staid up until friggin' 3:00 AM to read about medieval Romanians, Hungarians, Slavs, Vlachs, Croatia and who knows what else.

Thanks a lot guys .

Seriously... fascinating discussion .

 

[unmerged(17303)]

As a Hohenzollern Loyalist, I feel the need to side with the Romanians...

After all, the Hungarians weren't Germanized with Maria Theresa

 

[Halibutt]

Polish disease arrived!

There is a strong polish minority in northern Romania. I think that is a third option and a compromise that both sides need

(all right, all right, these are only several villages, none of them bigger than 1000 inhabitants and the people came there in XV-XVI centuries...)
Cheers

 

[Alexandru H.]

Well, I only wish this thread would have been moved to the History section! No idea how long it will resist in the OT alongside these great threads

Actually, Vaclav Adam, it was not the discussion that got us here, but other topics that interfered with the trend.... Oh well, the scope of this thread was achieved (killing time until the first sign of CK arrived)

 

[Szordrin]

Originally posted by Tamas
I would love to hear about any non-Romanian source which can show a proof for the "Romanians lived everywhere you can see" theory I often encounter.

Until that, I will not re-start the pointless debate against the fantasy books which some Romanians consider history.

Sorry if I was a bith harsh, but this is about the 200th topic on this issue, and I have yet to see an independent confirmation of Romania's claims.

This is a huge topic and i want to read it all before speaking my piece, but i'll make some observations on the way!

This is about the "I will not re-start the pointless debate against the fantasy books which some Romanians consider history."!

Just wanted to point out that some romanians actualy is 99.99% of romanians! More later.

 

[Alexandru H.]

Where were you, Szordrin? I managed to pull a pretty big thread on the topic most of the mods freak about!

But it's dead now, so don't worry

 

[Szordrin]

Originally posted by Gergo
Well, let's see the critical parts of your quote, Alexandru:

Do you think, that Romanians were indigenous people in Transylvania? I hope, you don't. I would not (re)start the debate concerning the false theory of the daco-roman continuity...

Economic, religious pressure? - I don't think so. It was the own interest of the feudal lords to have more serfs... (all the more so since Transylvania was a thinly populated region during the Middle Ages)

The theory of daco-roman continuity...by saying it's false you can end the debate here, it's pointless to continue. Sure, why would the people abandon a relatively safe area, very rich and with natural boundries? And then how come old roman cities like Apulum and Napoca "suddenly" came back to life? Were there ghost cities waiting for new inhabitants?

 

[Szordrin]

I was...not here, and for a long time ! Imagine my shock, i still have to read most of it! Dead or not dead!

Actually, Transilvania is also a romanian word.

 

[Szordrin]

Originally posted by Conrad
Let's say that we compare Transylvania to Alsatia. Both have been disputed territories.

We could argue indefinitaly about who was in Alsatia first. The French or the Germans. When Alsatia was conquered by the French it had been settled by Germans for at least one thousand years. However, a Frenchman could say that the Romans were in Alsatia first, the Gauls, etc. etc. Until the Germans wrenched the land from its rightful owners.

This discussion is however no longer an issue like that of Transylvania. Most people in Alsatia carry on with their lives speaking either German or French and working in either Germany or France thanks to the European Union.

I sincerely hope that one day both Hungary and Rumania (and Moldova), as well as Croatia and Serbia, can be part of the European Union.

Then we can let the discussion of whom came first to Transylvania, be an ordinary academic question where there are as usual no simple answers, and let the nationalistic feelings rest.

It is obvious that this discussion is permeated with base feelings of which tribe is the rightful owner of a piece of territory, and what makes one tribe unique in comparison to another.

We are more civilised than that, aren't we?

The interesting thing is that in the daily reality the romanian-hungarian living toghether problem doesn't really exists in Transilvania. Sure, there are clashes from time to time, but those are minor ones, and always happen in areas where extremists (of one side or the other) dwell to power ! The situation isn't perfect, but sure it's not like some peole would want us to believe.

There were always political implications and gains by winning this debate, on both sides, and you can't expect it to end real soon. But is it a problem "in the field" so to speak? Hardly so!

I feel there were lots of good arguments on both sides, but there's a lot more to this before it could end in a satisfactory way for all. What strikes me as odd is the fact that the great majority of western people know so little about the region, but at the same time demand hard facts from a third party! Guys, the sad thing is that for diferent reasons (and much can be debated here), we (as in eastern lands) were not important for the rest of Europe, so perhaps it's understandable that there are so few so called "reliable" informations about the history of these lands.

Oh, and one more thing: In light of these scarce sources of information, how many of the existing western sources are reliable, and not influenced by other published facts?

 

[Halibutt]

Originally posted by Szordrin
(...)Actually, Transilvania is also a romanian word.

No, it's not. It's simply latin (trans+silva meaning on-the-other-side+forest).
Yeah, I know that at times there is little difference, but AFAIK the name was used long before the Romanian language gained any importance (sadly it took you quite long..).

Originally posted by Vaclav AdamMy definition of ethnicity was narrower, it thought only about nationalism. The argument "born as Czech, will die as Czech" was rare in medieval Europe - I hope, after all.

Good to see you here, Vaclave. It's been ages...
When it comes to the nations... back in those times there were even much fewer language differences. A Pole and a czech could speak absolutely freely, just like a Czech from prague and a guy from Ostrava can communicate nowadays. Of course, this probably cannot be said about the Hungarian-Romanian relations, but still.
Cheers

 

[Szordrin]

Originally posted by Halibutt
No, it's not. It's simply latin (trans+silva meaning on-the-other-side+forest).
Yeah, I know that at times there is little difference, but AFAIK the name was used long before the Romanian language gained any importance (sadly it took you quite long..).
Good to see you here, Vaclave. It's been ages...
When it comes to the nations... back in those times there were even much fewer language differences. A Pole and a czech could speak absolutely freely, just like a Czech from prague and a guy from Ostrava can communicate nowadays. Of course, this probably cannot be said about the Hungarian-Romanian relations, but still.
Cheers

Of course it's latin, but there are perhaps thousands of romanian words which are identical with the latin counterpats, fonetical acurate or not. A more corect aproach would be to say it's also romanian. The romanian language, why not quite the same as that of today in term of speaking rules, did appear long before it's written version, and was the same across the land, heaving less diferences than let say french at the same time, although the area was a bit smaller here!

 

[NitramDatsgnos]

"It's simply latin (trans+silva meaning on-the-other-side+forest)."

From whose side of the forest did it get the name?

If the answer is "both", that would certainly explain centuries of disagreement on historical facts.

Thank you for some really interesting reading here...

BTW does the word "Balkan" come from "vlach" as well?

-Nitram-

 

[Demetrios]

The area "Beyond the forest" for Transylvania is from the viewpoint of Hungary - that's a fairly well agreed upon fact. Remember, Latin was the official language of Hungary right up until the 19th century.

 

[unmerged(19211)]

i thought transylvania was the roman viewpoint since northern serbia is called 'šumadija' which in latin is sylvania

just an idea...

as for orthodox willingly fighting for the ottoman... not in a million years...

balkan comes from the mountain balkan in bulgaria and the term was invented in early 19.ct. and encompass all ottoman holdings in europe, therefore, balkan encompasses: bosnia, serbia, most of montenegro, macedonia, albania, romania, bulgaria, and the istanbul region,

today the balkans are everything south from the line Istria-Sava-Danube

 

[unmerged(17991)]

Halibutt,

Glad to hear from you again. How are you?
Indeed, my arguments regarding little importance of nationality stem from the absence of language barrier between Czechs and Poles (BTW, do you know, did other Western Slavs, especially the Wends, use the same "Western Slavic" language as Czechs and Poles?) and the usually peaceful cohabitation with Germans in Czech lands.

It seems that the latter was not that easy in Poland, but frankly, I have some doubts that Polish historians may be a little selective and may prefer to look for examples proving the eternal tensions between German and Slavic people rather than examples of good neighborhood.

I do not intend to offend anybody, but Polish national consciousness is known to be one of the highest in Europe nowadays and I suspect that this is the consequence of how history has been taught in Polish schools.


Foolish,

Actually, the little difference between medieval Czech and Polish made me think about an argument relating to the Croat/Serbian discussion. I did not post it here because this thread is about Romanian origin, but once we went off-topic, I hope I can afford such digression.

I understand from your posts that while Croats have an Iranian heritage, Serbs do not have any and that medieval Croatian and Serbian were more distant than the modern languages.

As I have previously explained, I believe that if Croats had Iranians ancestors, these Iranian ancestors must have merged with the Slavs even before Croats came to Croatia because Slavic tribes in other places of Central and Eastern Europe had the same name. I also believe that as a result of this merger, the Iranian ancestors must have been entirely slavicized because the other tribes called Croats were entirely Slavic.

My point is that since both Croats and Serbs were Slavic when they came to Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia, the difference between their original languages must have been very small in 1066 - if any.

First, there is an obvious parallel with Western Slavic languages that were not differentiated in 1066.

Second, when St. Cyril and Methodus prepared for their mission to Great Moravia in 863, they created the Old Slavic language based on a Slavic dialect spoken in the surroundings of Thessalonica. This language was then easily understandable in Moravia. Therefore, if in 863, the difference between the Slavic language spoken near to Thessalonica and the language spoken in Moravia was small, or inexistent, I do not believe that in 1066, there may have been any substantial difference between Croatian and Serbian that are geographically so much closer.

V.A.


P.S.: I do not dispute that the difference then first increased - which is a natural process, similar to what happened to Czech and Polish, further reinforced by political and religious differences between Croats and Serbs - and subsequently decreased because of political reasons (panslavist theories) and later political unity of Croatia and Serbia - which also happened to two Western Slavic languages, Czech and Slovak.)