romanian origins

[unmerged(15867)]

Originally posted by Vaclav Adam
Poles?) and the usually peaceful cohabitation with Germans in Czech lands.

If it would be so peacefull cohabitation then why hussite revolution was so violent?

It seems that the latter was not that easy in Poland, but frankly,

Hold your horses here YOu can still find a lot of examples of peacefull cohabitation in Poland between German and Poles - but there are also examples of the opposite. I treid to show, that while ethnicities mattered less than today, still they had some importance, especially when supported by other facts.

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.

Depends whether book was written before or after 1950s

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.

Besides one Polish historian was tryig to prove that wherever threre is tribe calaled Croats, there is tribe called Serbs nearby. He also put hypothesis that Southern Slavs originated from Western Slavs.

 

[unmerged(17991)]

Originally posted by szopen76
If it would be so peacefull cohabitation then why hussite revolution was so violent?

I put "usually" specifically to cover this period that is the only period (except for one chasing all Germans out of Bohemia right before 1066) when there was ethnic violence between Czechs and Germans in Bohemia.

I still believe, however, that hussite "revolution" was religious and cultural (see below) rather than nationalistic. But I must admit that some historians used the "religious and nationalistic" interpretation to foster Czech nationalism in the XIX century. Later on, communist historians even came with the "social and nationalistic" interpretation...

The "cultural and religious" theory presents the hussite revolt as a rather fundamentalistic reaction to the Renaissance that suddenly penetrated into Bohemia, located at HRE's cultural periphery, when Prague became the Emperor's seat with Charles IV and Vaclav IV (I). Another reason may have been economic decline resulting from the Black Death and progressive exhausting of silver mines in Jihlava and Kutna Hora.

The Hussites were not specifically anti-German (their raids were directed not only against German neighbours, but also against Hungary) and the animosity stemmed probably from the fact that the Hussites were fighting against Sigismond and Sigismond was the Emperor and his mercenary troops, as well as crusaders were mainly German.

As I said, the Hussites did not persecute Hussite Germans and most of their victimes were Catholic Czechs. (According to some sources, population in Bohemia and Moravia decreased by up to 40% between 1418 and 1438!!!)

YOu can still find a lot of examples of peacefull cohabitation in Poland between German and Poles - but there are also examples of the opposite. I treid to show, that while ethnicities mattered less than today, still they had some importance, especially when supported by other facts.

OK.

Depends whether book was written before or after 1950s

Interesting. We had a similar situation here. The anti-German stream had existed since the XIX century, but it became the only truth only after 1948.

 

[unmerged(255)]

Originally posted by NitramDatsgnos
BTW does the word "Balkan" come from "vlach" as well?

-Nitram-

Balkan is a medieval Turkish word for "mountainous." It was replaced by "daglik" during late Ottoman times.

Apologies for the belated answer to your question

 

[Besuchov]

Someone explain to me why this thread is not in the history section?

 

[unmerged(17991)]

Demetrios moved this thread here, so here it is...

 

[Jacob]

This thread does seem pretty history related, dunnit?

Please standby for thread relocation...

*relocating*

 

[unmerged(255)]

Originally posted by Jacob
This thread does seem pretty history related, dunnit?

Please standby for thread relocation...

*relocating*

Think I`m getting dizzy Where to next ?!

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by tuna
Think I`m getting dizzy Where to next ?!

Back to CK!

Well, not quite yet...

 

[Alexandru H.]

Hey, this is strange...you may just move this thread into the official announcements thread

 

[unmerged(255)]

I think the problem with this thread is that it has been exteremely civil and full of good info thus far.

What I was more or less expecting was:

1. Some random Hungarian member calling Romanians "slavic gypsies"

2. Romanian members calling Hungarians barbarian Asiatics and even worse, Catholic Turks!

3. Me, Yunus and other Turks flocking to the thread calling everyone former subjects and slaves to the Ottoman Han!

4. Greeks responding to this by calling Turks rapists and looters of ancient civilization.

5. The whole thread going down in flames as we all discuss the finer details of the European Union`s expansion eastwards

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by tuna
I think the problem with this thread is that it has been exteremely civil and full of good info thus far.

That's because in the CK forum, where it origined, we all behave nice...

 

[unmerged(255)]

Originally posted by Havard
That's because in the CK forum, where it origined, we all behave nice...

It`s all kind of foggy but I think I was quite active on CK forum once... should check it out again sometime soon

 

[Alexandru H.]

Well, it was moved because the discussion degenerated (as per usual) in small talks around other topics....

And yes, we behaved nicely....

 

[Havard]

Let's get back on topic then, before DK moves it back to OT!

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Besuchov
Someone explain to me why this thread is not in the history section?

Well, when I moved it a page back, it wasn't really about history either, but the definition of ethnicity. That's the way the thread seemed to be going, so I thought OT was the most reasonable place to put it. Now, it seems, it has wandered back to history again. One wonders where it will end up next

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Few quotes from one book i was able to grasp before going to work.

"Warna 1444" Wincenty Swoboda, Krakow 1994

pp14 (Wincenty quotes "Stare Letopisy Ceske" I guess this is medieval chronicle, right?)

"It seemed not good to be subject to German power, because great damage could resulted in the future and present times of whole Slavic language, since always it was seen and in every old chronicle it could be read that Germans are main enemies of Czech, Polish and every other Slavic language"

Seems like ethnic tensions to me. Vaclav, have time to check this in Czech? ( ;-) )

This same page, quote from Dlugosz, XV century chronicler

Poles decided "multiply obstacles to Albrecht, king of Hungary in his taking of throne of Bohemia, because taking over two neighbouring kingdoms he could even more - AS A GERMAN - damaging Polish kingdom" (Stressing mine)

And points of agreement between Poles and Czechs in 1438.

"(...) (Czechs) will help him (king Kazimierz, younger brother of Wladyslaw) to force Silesian princes to return to Polish crown (relating to our discussion about Silesia, Vaclaw )."

"Also Poles and Czechs will help each other to open road to Kilia and Kaffa, and that road shouldn't be used by any German trader; also none should accept crown or liens (? no idea how to translate this into English, that's why German term) from roman empire, and Slavic language should not go under power of German language"

Seems that they care about ethnicity.
"

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Originally posted by Vaclav Adam
Later on, communist historians even came with the "social and nationalistic" interpretation...

Well, my knowledge of hussite revolution came mainly from Maleczynska (IIRC, but i could mistake the name) who also suggested preparing social revolution in 1439 events in Poland...

The Hussites were not specifically anti-German (their raids were directed not only against German neighbours, but also against Hungary) and the animosity stemmed probably from the fact that the Hussites were fighting against Sigismond and Sigismond was the Emperor and his mercenary troops, as well as crusaders were mainly German.

But still they happily hoped Poles in 1422, motivating that Poles are their brothers and Teutons are Germans; Polish also were arguing that they should be helping Czech brothers... etc etc.

As I said, the Hussites did not persecute Hussite Germans and most of their victimes were Catholic Czechs. (According to some sources, population in Bohemia and Moravia decreased by up to 40% between 1418 and 1438!!!)

!!! Heh. You have two times in history very bad luck (in 30years war you lost how many, 50% of population?)

Interesting. We had a similar situation here. The anti-German stream had existed since the XIX century, but it became the only truth only after 1948.

Well, i just read few books and noticed that ones before 1960 are increasingly nationalistic and full of choosing facts to suit theory, while after 1960s history started to be at least partially free from politics, except of course of modern history.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Originally posted by tuna
1. Some random Hungarian member calling Romanians "slavic gypsies"
2. Romanian members calling Hungarians barbarian Asiatics and even worse, Catholic Turks!
3. Me, Yunus and other Turks flocking to the thread calling everyone former subjects and slaves to the Ottoman Han!
4. Greeks responding to this by calling Turks rapists and looters of ancient civilization.
5. The whole thread going down in flames as we all discuss the finer details of the European Union`s expansion eastwards

 

[Dibo]

AFAIR this thread was about the origin of the Romanians right?
I have some opinion on the subject, but before that, can Alexandru H. explain to me the "Vlacho-Bulgarian empire" theory once again, because I failed to grasp it?
There was some Cuman blood in the Assen dynasty, but to say they were Vlachs???

 

[unmerged(17991)]

Let's hope we don't get moved again... this hussite subthread is not really Pre-1419...

Originally posted by szopen76
!!! Heh. You have two times in history very bad luck (in 30years war you lost how many, 50% of population?)

30-year war was not that bad, we lost only about one third of population...

I will need some time to check the medieval chronicle.

The treaty between "Czechs" and Poles shows that the Hussites used "Czechs" as synonym for "Hussites," forgetting about Catholic Czechs. In fact, this treaty must have been between the king of Poland and a hussite fraction that did not want Albrecht to become king of Bohemia rather than all Czechs. (Otherwise, Silesia would have been actually ceded.) The Hussites were offering Silesia to Poland in exchange for Polish help, no doubt because Silesia never joined the Hussite revolt. Traitors, these Hussites!!!

Another interesting point is that Silesian princes clearly did not want to return under Polish rule - thank you very much for posting this excellent argument that in early XVth century, Silesian elite wanted the region to remain a part of Czech lands.

And as I have already said, I agree that "while ethnicities mattered less than today, still they had some importance, especially when supported by other facts."

I would only put the emphasis on these other facts: religion for the Hussites; Jagellonian-Habsburg rivalry over Emperor Sigismond's possessions in Central Europe for the Poles. People knew about their ethnicity and used it as a handy argument when there was a disagreement, but the origin of the disagreement was not the ethnicity itself.