Transilvania, fara discutii despre autonomie, independenta si separatism

Mă întreb dacă e mai mult naivitate sau wishful thinking.

Uite o hartă făcută la 1750 chiar în Ungaria, despre bazinul Carpatic la venirea maghiarilor.
Înainte de epoca naționalismului, când nu conta cine a fost primul, ci doar cine a fost mai puternic.
Bachi (volochi) apar și în Transilvania și în regiunea din SV (Banat-Oltenia).

Teoriile alternative au apărut numai când a fost nevoie de ele.
(Și cred că vor și dispare pe măsură ce nu vor mai fi utile.)

[ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/hu/9/95/Tomka_Sz%C3%A1szky_J%C3%A1nos_2.jpg - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]

Era unul pe aici care zicea că Herodot a scris că în India sînt furnici care sapă aur.
Inseamnă oare că tot ce a scris Herodot e greșit ?

E destul de obișnui pentru cronici să omită sau să greșească evenimente sau persoane, mai ales dacă nu sînt contemporane (dar nu numai).
Eu nu cred că Anonumus a trăit în sec.10, însă ce e important la el și la alți cronicari e firescul cu care vlachii sunt știuți ca vechi locuitori ai locului.
Era în memoria comună, iar Anonimus nu avea nici un interes să o ascundă.
Și dealtfel nici să o invneteze

2. the name Blaci was certainly given to Romanians in other source sand that it was used in the Latin texts before the word Olachus, which evolved from the Hungarian form Oláh.
Until the middle of the 13th century, only the forms Blacus and Blachus were used in documents.
Later, they were preserved only in the Transylvanian Saxon dialect (Bloch).


3. De ce am crede contrarul ?

Rares Bogdan, formator de opinie la Realitatea TV: La 1918, Transilvania era principat autonom si a decis unirea cu Romania.
Spusa azi, 22.06.2017.

Hunor_66, on 22 iunie 2017 - 21:56, said:

Toate regiunile Austro-Ungariei erau principate autonome asa ca poveste de suprafata, in realitate dupa 1650 si mai ales dupa 1848 s-a cam incheiat cu autonomiile, era deja Ungaria.
Daca ar fi mers planul imparatului atunci ar fi fost intr-adevar state separate in cadrul federatiei Austriei.

La Trianon s-a desfacut practic Ungaria, un stat.

Edited by Infinitty, 23 June 2017 - 08:30.

Morosanul, on 18 mai 2017 - 17:01, said:

Morosanul, on 22 mai 2017 - 17:17, said:

2 epoci diferite
Anonimul notar a trait pe la 1100 - era epoca feudala, epoca "eroica" cadn se aprecia cucerirea , "valoarea razboinica" . Nu vea nici un haz sa zici "stiti strastastrabunicu a venit aici din unranokare ca cauta niste oepe pierdute. I-a placut locul si a inceput sa munceasca .. a taiat copaci si si-a incropit o proma casa, a facut un fanar si a adunatoute fanul si uite asa si urmasii lui 200 de ani au munict de le-au sarit capacele"  ca ce fel de nobil erai daca te laudai numa cu lazuir4ea padurii si scosul radacinilor si mulsu vacii ?!
Ntz .  Valahii erau necear - am venit, le-am dat la cap, i-am belit, pe ducele lor l-am ucis in luopat dreapta si prin meritunostru cu sabia si fiul celie iape noi suntem NOBILI!
O ultima "zvacnire"  este memiriul nobilimii ungare in timpul rascolaei lu Horea "stramosii nostri i-au cucerit si i-am tinut intr-o severa servitute"
Nashpa ca amu' si ungurii erau cuceriti de austrieci. Si fata de sasi cu care austroecii se intelegeau oparesicum (un cuvant din trei) cu ungurii ... baza era nem tudom de mabele parti sau latina .
Asa ca poate , zic io (ipoteza proprie) careva de la Viena si-o fi zis "ba da cu ce or fi mai brji ungurii decat walahii? Ca prtentiile unguresti provpaca resentimente si ne silesc la campanii de pacificare adica cheltuieli inutile si exagerate!" .
E... si acu se inventeaza cestia "noi suntem mai vechi! Cand am venit noi in Erdelly erau doar ursi, zimbri , lupi , iepuri si veverite. Olahii au venit mai tarziu!!!"
De fpat toatalumeas stie ca ungurii sunt in Ardela daca  nu dinjurasic macar din cretacic. Naspa ca geologii falsifica hartile :  http://www.scientia....12/cretacic.jpg


[ http://www.scientia.ro/images/stories/articles/2012/noiembrie/12/cretacic.jpg - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ] Dupa cum se vede din aceasta harta a cretaciului  nu numa ca nu exusta Evropia ( complit putinist !) bva lipseste chiar si Erdelly!

Ma rpg erau niste insule care amu se pretinde ca ar fi Hategul - pri asta ne arata sigir ca este si un complit neatil-securist-ceausist!

Edited by Ghita_Bizonu, 23 June 2017 - 09:29.

Ma intreb daca si ungurii isi inteleg istoria in mod logic?

Toata lumea intelege si stie ce inseamna o statalitate, dar prea putina lume intelege ce inseamna un popor. asadar au sosit in mijlocul Panoniei pe la anul 800-900, apoi după cca. 3-4 secole pana pe la anul 1300 se putea face un popor pornind de la un trib pricajit, macar sa fi umplut macar Panonia?!

Eu zic ca asta miroase a fals precum e si romanizarea dacilor sau romanitatea noastra a rominilor. Totusi eu nu urmaresc sa-i exclud pe unguri de la masa istoriei si nici sa ridic la rang de realitate maghiarizarea, rominizarea, slavizarea, samd, eu pur si simplu cred ca ungurii sunt o populatie paleolitică indigena in Panonia de nord-est intre Dunăre, Tisa, Someș si Slovacia respectiv Ucraina Subcarpatica.

3-4 secole inseamna anul 1700 /1600, ori ma indoiesc ca un popor destul de mare precum ungurii au putut aparea atat de repede din neant.

Edited by Infinitty, 23 June 2017 - 11:16.

Vlah provine de la deformarea Bolgar, dupa cum roman vine de la creuzetul bizantin crestin Romania Romeia.

https://www.secretel...or-maghiarieni/

https://www.secretel...#prettyPhoto/3/

Infinitty, on 23 iunie 2017 - 11:01, said:

Binetels ca faptul ca limba romana este o limba romanica este .. ce?

oOar faptul ca limba unureasca este una uraloaltaica  ese doar o dovada ca in 3000 de ani muntii Utali au migrat spre Est

Bineinteles ca toata polologhia a inceput dinspre lingvistica spre istorie si nu invers cum ar fi fost firesc.

Se cunoaste faptul ca migratia a avut mai ales directia est-vest si sud-nord, dar lumea celtica, apoi slavo-germanica a schimbat sensul, iar o alta lege arata ca populatile cele mai vechi sunt impinse in buzunare geografice sau la periferia nordica sau nord-estica a Europei.

Ungurii sunt relicve paleolitice precum bascii, balticii, finezii sami, albanezii si samoiazii, de aceea consider ca ungurii sunt resturile acelor indigeni paleolitici, pe cand rudele lor din Urali sunt asiatici asimilati lingvistic.

Infinitty, on 23 iunie 2017 - 08:11, said:

imi place cum le aduci din condei, esti inzestrat in sensul asta.
adica, era ca la radio erevan, ar fi fost daca era, atata doar ca nu era, deci n-a fost.

Infinitty, on 23 iunie 2017 - 08:11, said:

din nou ai inteles tu ceva-ceva, atata doar ca total si fix invers, mai exact la Trianon practic s-a infiintat Ungaria ca stat de sine statator, dupa parerea mea motiv de sarbatoare la unguri cu ocazia asta.
citez din wiskypedia, ca frumos scrie acolo:
Béla Kun, leader of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, then turned the Hungarian Red Army on the Romanian Army and attacked at the Tisza river on 20 July 1919.
After fierce fighting that lasted some five days, the Hungarian Red Army collapsed. The Royal Romanian Army marched into Budapest on 4 August 1919.
The Hungarian state was restored by the Entente powers, helping Admiral Horthy into power in November 1919.
The Treaty of Trianon was the peace agreement of 1920 to formally end World War I between most of the Allies of World War I[1] and the Kingdom of Hungary, the latter being one of the successor states to Austria-Hungary.[2][3][4][5] The treaty regulated the status of an independent Hungarian state and defined its borders.

Edited by leogoto, 23 June 2017 - 21:45.

S-a inteles ideea, practic in dualismul A-U frontierele erau clar delimitate in cazul Ungariei, mai exact Ungaria era un stat ce se dorea unitar, pe cand Austria avea mai multe regiuni autonome sa zicem.

In realitate Ungaria avea cea mai mare pondere de populatie nonungureasca fata de situatia nonaustriecilor, deoarece in Ungaria croatii, sarbii, rominii, slovacii si ucrainenii erau populatile covarsitor majoritare, pe cand in Austria era aproape paritate.

[ https://10j-history.wikispaces.com/file/view/austro-hungary.gif/100045181/austro-hungary.gif - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]

Edited by Infinitty, 24 June 2017 - 21:39.

E buna teoria asta.

Ungurii sunt indigeni paleolitici - ramane sa stabileasca Cyberula daca apartin speciei homo sapiens sapiens sau sunt neanderthalieni de-ai lui lupu2hehe

Paleolitici, adica - pana la urma - stramosii mezo/neoliticilor, deci stramosii civilizatiei locale a bronzului si fierului.

Adica, daci. Ungurii sunt daci.

Booon!

Si-mi veni badita Traian de mi ti-i sminti si mi ti-i incaleca de se mai povesteste si azi.

In secolul al IX-lea dadura iama niste turci onoguri care, la fel ca fratii lor bulgari, s-au asimilat in masa paleolitica indigena lasandu-si mostenire doar numele tribal.

Si slavii, veti intreba?

Slavii, tot asa: paleolitici indigeni.

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 ”Dacians”, 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 Dacians, who were formerly called Goths”. Of course, this population was not the same with the ancient Dacian one. The name was geographic, and it was given by the author according to its source, Orosius. The existence of a distinct ”Dacian” polity results from the explanation provided by Alfred: ”the Dacians, 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)

Quote

Fals. Anonymous nu avea cum sa cunoasca "Romanians". Eventual blachs.

According to Anonymus, "Slavs, Bulgarians, Vlachs, and the shepherds of the Romans"

∙ Jordanes wrote: "I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, 
was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. 

The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only". -  Getica, XII, 73-74. Not even Jordanes did mention any Romans or Romanized inhabitants in Dacia, but "Yazyg, 
Roxolans and Sarmatians (Alans)", namely, Hungarian ancestor tribes! 
Jordanes also identified the Dacians, that were known by Greeks as Gæta, with the Goths, by saying: "Then, when Burebistas was king of the Goths" - Getica, XI, 67. 

Burebistas was actually a king of the Dacians in 60-44 b.c.e. We cannot know how much reliable this assertion of Jordanes might be, however, it is obvious that he found a noticeable resemblance between
the Dacians and his own Germanic people so as to identify each other as the same, and not between Dacians and Romans. Therefore, we may conclude that it is quite likely that Dacians joined the Goths
and mixed with them.

Concerning this historical period, the supporters of the Daco-Roman myth consider it to be the background for the epic accounts of the Gesta Hungarorum, which are often quoted by them with the purpose of proving
that the Vlach were the inhabitants of Transylvania before Árpád conquered the land. This literary work, that belongs to the fiction genre, mentions the dukes of Bihar, Bánát and Transylvania, who are said to be
respectively a Khazar, a Slav and a Vlach.

There is no trace of such characters in any contemporary document because they are completely imaginary.
On the other hand, very prominent personalities that were indeed quite engaged with the Magyar conquest like Emperor Arnulf of the Franks, Kings Svatopluk and Mojmir II of Moravia, Czar Simeon of Bulgaria or Leon VI
of Byzantium are not mentioned at all in the Gesta Hungarorum ‒ any trustworthy history treatise would not fail to mention them.

Archaeological evidences show that after the Roman evacuation the Dacians did not perform any kind of continuity, they did not dwell in the former Roman towns, which seem to have been deserted.
Constructions in stone or brick were no longer made, nor monuments or inscriptions of any kind, and even burial rites changed.
http://www.imninalu....myths-Vlach.htm

Fiecare a scris pe vremuri ce l-a taiat capul, dovezile nu aveau mare importanta.
Ceace nu se poate mintii sint insa sapaturile arheologice

Un lucru nu inteleg! Ce mai conteaza cine a fost primul in Ardeal sau ca românii provin din Albania!
Aceste lucruri devin neimportante din moment ce in Europa centrala nu exista picior de ungur pana la anul 900, apoi discutam despre construirea etosului si poporului maghiar peste cateva secole bune.

Prin urmare chiar si daca vlahii ar fi venit mai tarziu in Ardeal ei aveau de unde venii, erau deja un popor cu o istorie veche si o mare civilizatie in spate, pe cand ungurii se chinuiau sa stapaneasca Regatul maghiar prin maghiarizare si sa scoata un popor propriu pana la urma.

Deci Transilvania si zona proxima erau goale oricum la venirea vlahilor.

Lucrurile acestea sunt incredibile de aceea nu le pot crede, pur si simplu nu au niciun sens. Eu cred ca românii sunt urmasii genetici si lingvistici ai dacilor si sunt indigeni in zona carpatica, la fel slavii sunt o populatie paleolitica indigena in toata Europa centrala, apoi ungurii sunt si ei o populatie paleolitica indigena intre Dunare, Cris, Tisa si Somes, samd

Ungurii au migrat dinspre Panonia spre NE si nu invers si aceasta in vremurile antice, de fapt putem spune ca arealul lor s-a restrans in favoarea slavilor.

Nici Cordoba iberica nu era depopulata de spanioli, maurii fiind doar clasa hegemona nimic mai mult.

Quote

De unde stii, arata-mi exact sursa care spune acest lucru. Dar pornind de la premiza clasica cu anii 800 cind ocupa maghiarii Panonia, ma intreb ce era in
prea marita de tine Europa Centrala inainte de 800?

Quote

Nu serios? De unde veneu vlahii, cind si ce fel de istorie si mare civilizatie au in spate? Care?

Hai sa vedem ce istorie veche si mareata au vlahii

Quote

Deci precum vedem, inafara de pastorit, cu mici exceptii unde aveau si alte deletniciri, vlahii nu au avut nici o istorie veche si nici mareata, asa cum nu au avut nici mai tirziu dupa intemeierea Valahiei si a Moldovei.
Dar tu ai intr-o privinta dreptate si sin si eu de aceasi parere. Nu conteaza cine a venit primul pe vremurile acelea, ci cine ce a reusit sa faca. La intemeierea Valahiei si a Moldovei, Regatul Ungar deja exista si stapinea
aproape toata fosta Dacie.

Intemeierea Valahiei si a Moldovei a fost facuta pe bazele avanposturilor unguresti si de catre fosti slujitori ai regelui Ungariei.

Quote

Da, erau goale si era 90% formata numai din paduri.
La fel ca si Banatul care era un tinut pustiu si mlastinos.
Citeste istoria svabilor, care au ridicat Banatul la ce a fost pina in 1918 si ai sa te lamuresti cum stau lucrurile.
Svabii au destelenit in trei generatii Banatul. Prima generatie a murit de osteneala, a doua de boli si abia a treia a putut profita.
Sasii au construit cele mai importante orase din Ardeal.

Edited by WestPoint, 14 August 2017 - 14:04.