Etnogeneza poporului roman

Kazmer, on 31 mai 2018 - 21:34, said:

Ce este, „prietene”, ai rămas cu prea multe traume nevindecate după Trianon?
Dacă nu știi istorie, de ce te bagi în seamă crezînd că greșelile pe care le răspîndești ar avea vreo influență?

ionelmironescu, on 31 mai 2018 - 17:51, said:

Quote

https://de.wikipedia...egriffsklÀrung)

Quote

Edited by enough1453, 31 May 2018 - 22:54.

Kazmer, on 31 mai 2018 - 21:34, said:

Putin probabil. Istoria ne arata ca mai peste tot, unde o populatie a imbratisat limba cuceritorilor, au preluat si mare parte din cultura lor. Ba mai mult, cultura cuceritorilor devine majoritara, iar cea veche ramane undeva ca un substrat.
Singura chestie ce contrazice asta si imi vine in minte e populatia franceza din canada, dar aici vorbim de un tratat in epoca moderna si cu buna stiinta s'a ales protejarea limbii si a culturii.

Apoi, sa spunem ca vlahii au plecat. De ce se intorc la 1200? Ce ii impinge pe ei afara din siguranta oferita de munti, sa treaca peste zone aflate in plina turbulenta si razboaie, in perioada cand bizantinii taie si spanzura in sudul dunarii?
Si mai mult, sa se pise impotriva vantului, ca mie o migratie de la vest catre est imi pare total impotriva oricare matrici ce exista in acea vreme. Sau si mai tarziu.
Exista o presiune ce se aplica si determina migratioa, dar este din directia opusa.
Si de ce ma rog, aleg sa se reintoarca exact de unde au plecat, cateva sute de ani mai tarziu?
Gata stiu! Mi'a picat fisa. Vlahii sunt cel de'al treispelea trib si de fapt Romania e pamantul fagaduintei. Vrei sa'ti vorbesc si de piramide si cum dacii i'au batut pe egipteni?

Kazmer, on 31 mai 2018 - 21:34, said:

Ce-ai zice domnule daca ti-as prezenta un document cu blaquii din nordul Dunarii, de pe la anul 40 AD?

- Pomponius Mela, in De Situ Orbis.  Nu-i  cunoaste pe daci  si pune getii doar in dreapta Dunarii. In stanga Dunarii, dupa Germania vine Scitia unde locuiesc popoarele scitice numite in general Belcae (Velcae), poate o alta forma de a scrie vlahi:

“Scythici populi incolunt, fere omnes etiam in unum Belcae appelati”. (De situ orbis, lib. 3 cap.5, de Scytia)

Kazmer, on 31 mai 2018 - 21:34, said:

Vorbesti mari prostii, chiar cronica voastra Gesta Hungarorum care e scrisa pe la vreo 1200 ( o alta opinie o plaseaza pe la 1100 ) dar se refera la fapte mult anterioare, cam prin anii 900, si nu numai ale ungurilor vorbeste de bataliile purtate de maghiari cu ducii sau cnejii locali. In nici un caz cativa pastori nu pot ridica armate care sa lupte cu triburile razboinice maghiare. Mai documenteaza-te inainte de a spune ineptii.

Quote

Care de fapt nu erau neaparat vlahi.

Titlul este scris și pronunțat similar în limbile est-europene:
    limba bulgară – княз (kniaz), cu femininul княгиня (cniaghinia);
    limbile rusă și ucraineană – князь, cu femininul княгиня cniaghinia;
    în limbile sârbocroată și slovenă – кнез/knez;

A fost împrumutat din limbile slave în
    limba română – jude (judecator, dux, duce). În Banat se mai folosește varianta chinez
    limba maghiară – kenéz.
Deci "cneaz" si nici "voievod" nu este un cuvint vlah ci mai degraba slavon.

enough1453, on 31 mai 2018 - 22:52, said:

Eşti penibil. Valahi in...Bavaria!  Voi ardelenii mai toţi sînteţi penibili.

codreanus, on 01 iunie 2018 - 04:47, said:

Asta e cea mai tare! Asta e cea mai tare mărturie scrisă pentru continuitate. Big like!!

arsmundis, on 01 iunie 2018 - 06:32, said:

Nu poate. El e ungur şi trebuie să combată pe români. E ungur vechi. Înaintaşii  lui au fost maghiarizaţi de mult poate de peste 200 de ani.

WestPoint, on 01 iunie 2018 - 11:28, said:

Vechea metodă, ungureeeee Îndoiala ştiinţifică: "oare erau ei români?"
Tu ce crezi; cam cînd s-au maghiarizat înaintaşii tăi?
Ce fel de nume e Doja? că maghiar nu este. E românesc. Înseamnă dojană. Vezi a dojeni.
Au mai rămas mulţi nemaghiarizaţi prin Har-Cov?

codreanus, on 01 iunie 2018 - 04:47, said:

Inde Asiae confinia, nisi urbe perpetuae nives sedent et intolerabilis rigor, Scythici populi incolunt, fere omnes etiam in unum Belcae appellati. In Asiatico litore primi Hyperborei, super Aquilonem Rhipaeosque montes, sub ipso siderum cardine jacent; ubi sol non quotidie, ut nobis, sed primum verno aequinoctio exortus, auctumnali demum occidit; et ideo sex mensibus dies, et totidem aliis nox usque continua est. Terra augusta; aprica, per se ferticilis: cultores justissimi, et diutius quam ulli mortalium, et beatius, vivunt: quippe, festo semper otio laeti, non bella novere, non jurgia; sacris operati, maxime Apollinis; quorum primitias Delon misisse, initio per virgines suas, deinde per populos, subinde tradentes ulterioribus, moremque eum diu, et donec vitio gentium temeratus est, servasse referuntur. Habitant lucos silvasque; et, ubi eos vivendi satietas magis quam taedium cepit, hilares, redimiti sertis, semet ipsi in pelagus ex certa ruper praecipites dant. Id eis funus eximium est.
Sursa: http://remacle.org/b.../livre3la.htm#V

Are şi traducere in franceză:
Les extrémités de l’Europe qui confinent à l’Asie, sont partout habitées par des peuples scythiques, presque généralement connus sous le nom de Belces, à l’exception de ces plages que des neiges éternelles et l’extrême rigueur du froid rendent tout à fait inhabitables. Les premiers peuples que l’on rencontre sur les rivages de l’Asie sont les Hyperboréens directement placés sous le pôle, au delà de l’Aquilon et des monts Riphées. Ils ne voient pas, comme nous, le soleil se lever et se coucher dans l’espace de douze heures; mais ils ont des jours de six mois, depuis l’équinoxe de printemps jusqu’à l’équinoxe d’automne, et des nuits d’égale durée, depuis l’équinoxe d’automne jusqu’à l’équinoxe de printemps. Leur pays est sacré; leur température est douce, et leur sol naturellement fertile. Religieux observateurs de la justice, ils coulent des jours plus longs et plus heureux que le reste des hommes. En effet, toujours dans la paix et dans les fêtes, ils, ignorent ce que c’est que guerre et dissension; pleins de piété envers les dieux, ils honorent surtout Apollon. On rapporte qu’autrefois ils envoyaient à Délos les prémices de leurs victimes; que, dans les premiers temps, ils confiaient à quelques jeunes vierges du pays le soin de les porter, mais qu’ensuite ils se servirent de l’entremise des peuples intermédiaires qui se les passaient de proche en proche, et qu’il en fut ainsi jusqu’au moment où l’infidélité de nations dépravées les força de renoncer à leur pieuse coutume. Ils passent leur vie dans les bois sacrés et dans les forêts, et, dès qu’ils se sentent rassasiés, plutôt que dégoûtés, de vivre, le front ceint d’une guirlande de fleurs, ils vont gaiement se précipiter dans la mer du haut d’un certain rocher c’est le genre de mort le plus distingué.

WestPoint, on 01 iunie 2018 - 11:28, said:

Nu erau neaparat vlahi? Da ce-or fi fost neaparat? In plus erau NUMITI in cronica respectiva cneji sau duci. Si erau numiti asa de maghiari care aveau proprii termeni. Parca mai stie cineva cum își spuneau vlahii? Puteau sa-i numeasca in Gesta si dreptunghiuri, ideea e ca atunci cand au venit migratorii prin zonele noastre era CINEVA care sa lupte cu ei. Si nu un singur cnezat/voievodat ori alta denumire ci minim 3 care nu erau 2-3 colibe de pastori ci erau suficient multi si bine organizati ca sa opuna rezistenta . Daca denumirea duce se trage din limbile slave cum o fi ajuns pe la francezi ori englezi?

Edited by arsmundis, 01 June 2018 - 14:58.

"duce" e neologism in romaneste

ionelmironescu, on 01 iunie 2018 - 13:18, said:

si totusi ii acuzi pe multi ca sunt urechisti...

codreanus, on 01 iunie 2018 - 04:47, said:

sau Volcae.
Ce sta la baza cuvantului german Welsch/Walchen
sau Wales/Valon/etc

adica populatia Limesului roman.

arsmundis, on 01 iunie 2018 - 06:32, said:

de fapt tu esti ala cu ineptiile.
In imperiul roman ducele era comandantul militar.
bizantinii au perpetuat acest titlul, preluat ulterior de ceilalti.

Kazmer, on 31 mai 2018 - 21:34, said:

cam alambicat ce spui tu aici.
e ca si cum cineva abulic intr-un domeniu afirma arogant ca el stie.

In primul rand ca valahii la nord de Dunare pana pe la 900 nu s-au remarcat fiindca nu existau la nord de Dunare.

Iar cei de la sud de Dunare s-au remarcat din moment ce descoperirile istorice evidenteaza mai multe civilizatii ale lor in Balcani.
In plus, cand Bizantul iese la suprafata dupa sec 8,
vlahii se remarca printre elitele imperiului.

De exemplu Comnenii erau vlahi la origine.
Resedinta imparatilor imperiului Romania se afla in Blachaerne.
samd.

Edited by enough1453, 01 June 2018 - 18:11.

enough1453, on 01 iunie 2018 - 18:16, said:

Alexandru Madgearu: „The duchy ruled by Gelou was located in the basin of the Someșul Mic River. Its exact surface cannot be established, but it was not very large. Most probably, it included the present Cluj County and some parts of the neighboring counties Sălaj, Bistrița-Năsăud, and Mureș. The fortress from Șirioara was perhaps on the north-eastern limit of the duchy, if it really belonged to it. The borders of the duchy are defined by the place-names coming from the linear fortifications made of wood, earth and stone called indagines, inherited and developed by the Hungarians after the conquest. Access through these lines was possible via defended gates, called kapu (Vaskapu, Copus) in Hungarian, or, in Romanian porți. The power of the duke was exerted not only over the people, but also over the salt mines from Turda, Ocna Dejului, Cojocna, and Sic. The salt was transported by road to Pannonia, along the Someș valley and through the Meseș Gates. No residence and no church that could be ascribed to this duchy were yet found. The fortified settlement of Dăbâca was initially a refuge place that acquired the status of a residence only in the second stage.

According to Gesta Hungarorum, the duchy was peopled by Romanians and Slavs. This assertion was not repeated for the polities from Banat and Crișana. The Anonymous Notary did so because he was aware that only this duchy was ruled by a Romanian. Radu Popa remarked that only for Gelou ”we find in this source a reason for the discussion about the existence of a Romanian polity around 900”.

Which were the circumstances that made possible the emergence of this duchy? The victories of the Frankish armies over the Avars in the late 8th century opened a new era in the history of Central Europe. The qaganate was divided between the Frankish Empire and Bulgaria; new Slavic peoples and polities came into being in the peripheral regions free from Avarian control (Moravia, Croatia and Serbia). The history of the Middle Danubian basin in the 9th century will be the history of the shifting power balance between the Frankish Empire, Bulgaria, and Moravia.

The subjection of the local sedentary population of Slavic and Romance origin by the Avarian masters meant the payment of a tribute, but not only. There are some indications that a local military force appeared in 8th century Transylvania within the Avarian qaganate. The cooperation of Slavic chieftains with the Avars is attested elsewhere (especially in Slovakia). In Transylvania, two spurs dated in the 8th century (found at Șura Mică and Medișoru Mare) could testify to the existence of a military force that was not of Avarian origin (the Avars did not use spurs), but still under Avarian control. Both sites are located near salt mines (Ocna Sibiului and Praid). The end of the Avarian domination brought freedom to these small local chieftains, but for a short time, because southern Transylvania entered under another domination, the Bulgarian one.

The same Bulgarian domination was extended in the lower Tisza basin and in Banat, after the end of the Avarian qaganate. Downstream the Danube, Bulgaria occupied another region. The precise date when an area from Wallachia came under the Bulgarian domination is not known, but it certainly happened before 813, when Krum deported there thousands of prisoners taken from Adrianople and Macedonia. The Byzantine sources recorded that they were settled in the so-called ”Bulgaria beyond the Dannube”. (...) The North-Danubian territories from Wallachia and southern Moldavia were conquered for the salt resources (vital for any medieval society), but also for strategic reasons (defence against the Khazars, and later against the Hungarians and the Byzantine outpost installed at the Danube's mouths). The Byzantine sources show that this North-Danubian region was ruled by its own commanders, but their control was not very strong. The prisoners escaped quite easily in 838, beacause the Bulgarian forces were weak.

This westward expansion implies that Transylvania was also at the core of the Bulgarian interests at least since the reign of Omurtag. Bulgaria had the same reasons as the Avars to master the territory: the salt (and perhaps gold) resources. An extension of the Bulgarian control over Transylvania, a land so rich in salt, was the natural continuation of this expansionist policy. (...)

It results that the Bulgarian domination was not extended to the region ascribed by Gesta Hungarorum to the Romanian ruler Gelou. It was remarked that Gelou ”has no master and no relation with somebody else, and he did not come from elsewhere”. This results from Gesta Hungarorum, c. 24-27, and there is no reason to doubt this conclusion, which is corroborated by what we know about the limits of the territory dominated by Bulgaria. As we pointed out in chapter III.1, the Anonymous Notary said that Gelou was a dominus (dominium tenebat). This can be interpreted as sovereignity over the people and territory. (Only Arpad is also referred to as dominus.) The author of Gesta Hungarorum wished to give thus some legitimacy to Tuhutum, considered by him the rightful successor of Gelou. The title dominus was used for sovereign rulers, but we cannot assume that it also reflected the medieval Romanian institution (domn, derived from Lat. dominus), although it is possible that Gelou was indeed called domn by his subjects. Under these circumstances , the assertion that Gelou had no good fighters could mean that his vassals abandoned him, and that the army remained only with the common peasants, less equipped with weapons.

The analysis of the data recorded by Gesta Hungarorum in comparison to other sources and with archaeological finds allowed us to prove that a Romanian and Slavic polity emerged in the region of the Someșul Mic valley, around Cluj, sometimes in the 9th century. Its birth and development were made possible by the salt traffic. This free territory was perhaps inhabited by what Alfred the Great called ”D a c i a n s”, in his geographical description written in 890: ”east of the country of Carinthia, beyond the wilderness is Bulgaria, and east of it is Greece; and east of Moravia is the Vistula country, and east of it are the D a c i a n s, who were formerly called Goths”. Of course, this population was not the same with the ancient D a c i a n one. The name was geographic, and it was given by the author according to its source, Orosius. The existence of a distinct ”D a c i a n” polity results from the explanation provided by Alfred: ”the D a c i a n s, who were formerly Goths”. For the early medieval authors, such ethnic labels reflect the rule over a territory and not the population itself. (...)

The Anonymous Notary stated that the population of the duchy ruled by Gelou consisted of Romanians and Slavs. There is no reason to doubt this. (...)”

(Alexandru Madgearu, The Romanians in the Anonoymous Gesta Hungarorum: Truth and fiction, translated from the Romanian by the author, Romanian Cultural Institute, Center for Transylvanian Studies, Cluj-Napoca, 2005)

arsmundis, on 01 iunie 2018 - 14:57, said:

Dace estei un pic atent, deci daca....vei observa ca eu m-am referit la "cneaz" nu la duce.
Nu, nu era specific romanesc, ci slav

[ https://i.gyazo.com/0cbb3799d2f4e622f08d3544439e0b79.png - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]

enough1453, on 01 iunie 2018 - 18:16, said:

Raspuns aiurea. Reciteste postul meu, nu m-am referit deloc la originea titlului de duce.

WestPoint, on 01 iunie 2018 - 12:28, said:
Care de fapt nu erau neaparat vlahi.
Titlul este scris și pronunțat similar în limbile est-europene:
limba bulgară – княз (kniaz), cu femininul княгиня (cniaghinia);
limbile rusă și ucraineană – князь, cu femininul княгиня cniaghinia;
în limbile sârbocroată și slovenă – кнез/knez;
A fost împrumutat din limbile slave în
limba română – jude (judecator, dux, duce). În Banat se mai folosește varianta chinez
limba maghiară – kenéz.
Deci "cneaz" si nici "voievod" nu este un cuvint vlah ci mai degraba slavon.

Iochanan, on 01 iunie 2018 - 19:38, said:

In Gesta se vorbeste de vlahi, nicidecum de "romanians"

Totodata, cum vezi, multe frectii, pe un subiect scris la 300 de ani dupa evenimente.
Si ar fi vorba doar de teritoriul ala micut, de langa Somes.

arsmundis, on 01 iunie 2018 - 20:38, said:

iti plac dulceturile turcesti?
vad ca le gusti.

WestPoint, on 01 iunie 2018 - 20:30, said:

Ai dreptate am gresit eu privitor la  titlul de duce.

enough1453, on 01 iunie 2018 - 20:40, said:

Nu gust dulceturi de nici un fel daca iti plac indiferent de origine esti invitatul meu la toata portia.

enough1453, on 01 iunie 2018 - 20:40, said:

Nu contează, mata ai spus că nu erau valahi la nordul Dunării până la 900 după Hristos, cronicile și istoricii (exceptându-i pe negaționiști) spun exact invers.