WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Ancient, Medieval and Modern History > Sources about Vlachs

Posted by: Valium April 28, 2011 07:06 am

Practically direct written sources about vlachs appear once with the Asen brothers revolt against bizantines. This is somehow abnormal, considering a series of factors:
- they were the only inheritors of romance language in balkans
- their number was rather, since later they will asimilate large parts of slavs, cumans,...
- is likely they were not an unimportant population, since they started anti-bizantine revolt.
How do you see this lack of written sources? There was a neglection of historians? The areeas vlachs lived(highlands) were considered out of the subjects, and, in consequence, vlachjs were considered unimportant and/or unknown? The sources were destrouyed in early middle age, for different interests? The sources were destroyed in latter middle age, for different interests?....

Posted by: 21 inf April 28, 2011 08:01 am

Some of the sources were surely destoyed with no interest at all but simply by wars, riots and so on. The theory of conspiracy that someone in Middle Ages destroyed deliberatelly the written sources about vlachs or romanians is a paranoic idea.

Posted by: Radub April 28, 2011 08:43 am

According to Wikipedia there are a few earlier mentions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs
See the "history" section of that article.

In my opinion, it is difficult to find mentions of Vlachs when you are looking for them as if they were and independent autonomous group that was separate from Byzantium. The historic truth is that the Vlachs (and the Romanian Principalities in general) were closely tied in with Byzantium and the Ottoman empire that followed it. So, if you research the history of Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire you will find a wealth of data about the territories that form today's Romania.

The reason why there are few mentions of events that happened 1000 years ago is simply to do with age and time and the effect they have on written documents. The further you go back in time, the scarcer is the information about anything. Unless it is carved in stone, any written stuff simply vanishes with time - paper/parchment/vellum are notoriously fragile (and even stone gets damaged with time). It is extremely unusual for any document to survive for more than 1000 years. Most of the documentary evidence that we have going back to those days are copies of copies of copies handmade by scribes. All it takes is a moment of fleeting carelessness for a page to go missing or be ignored by a scribe and there goes a chunk of history.
Most of the times, such documents existed in one single copy. If that got damaged by a fire or flood before a scribe got a chance to copy it, it was gone. It was only when the moving type was invented that it was possible for documents to be duplicated and thus increase their chances of survival increased. Even so, making multiple copies did not ensure survival. Here is an example: Everyone knows about Shakespeare. It is believed that less than 250 copies of Shakespeare's Original Folio exist today, almost 400 years later and all of them are preserved and extremely well guared. Most of them are third or fourth editions. There is only one copy of the first edition, which was printed a few years after Shakespeare's death by two of his closest associates who put it together from play and rehearsal notes (no hand-written Shakespeare playscript exists). So, it is an absolute miracle that we know any of Shakespeare's plays. He (possibly the best known man in the world) is a mystery and thick books were written trying to figure out who he was (or if he existed at all). I am not trying to veer this "off topic" - all I am trying to say is that all we know about Shakespeare is a whole lot of myth and hear'say that was passed on to us by others. Same goes about anything to do with the humanity's past.

HTH
Radu

Posted by: MRX April 28, 2011 09:47 am

There are many sources. Byzantine sources are rich in references about the Vlachs. Father Dumitru Staniloae dealt with this problem. And is not alone.

http://foaienationala.ro/biblioteca/fontes-historiae-dacoromanae-izvoarele-istoriei-romaniei-volumele-i-ii-iii-iv/.html

http://foaienationala.ro/imparatii-traco-iliri-si-straromani.html

http://foaienationala.ro/scrieri-despre-inceputurile-istoriei-romaniei.html

http://foaienationala.ro/straromanii-in-secolele-iii-iv.html

http://foaienationala.ro/romania-sau-imperiul-roman-cu-capitala-la-bizant.html

http://foaienationala.ro/teologia-istoriei-formarea-neamului-romanesc.html

http://foaienationala.ro/pr-mihai-andrei-aldea-“parintele-dumitru-staniloae-si-istoria-romanilor”.html

Posted by: MRX April 28, 2011 10:09 am

As a curiosity, here is the prayer "Our Father" in the Celtic language of Wales in the sixteenth century:

"Poerinthele nostru acela ce esti în cheri
Svintzascoese numele teu
Vie emperetzioe ta
Facoesa voe ta,cum en tzer ase şi pre poementu
Poene noastre datorii le nostre, cum şi ni se loesoem datorniczilor noştri
Si nu dutze pre noi la ispitire
Tze ne mentueste pre noi de vicleanil. Amin!"

Posted by: 21 inf April 28, 2011 10:45 am

QUOTE (MRX @ April 28, 2011 12:09 pm)

It is sure in Celtic language??!!! It is not a translation in old romanian language, from Celtic? Cos is extremelly well resembling with romanian language from modern period!! What is the source of this praying?

Posted by: Radub April 28, 2011 11:24 am

QUOTE (MRX @ April 28, 2011 10:09 am)

That is most definitely not Welsh.

Here is the Welsh version:
Ein Tad, yr hwn wyt yn y nefoedd,
Sancteiddiei dy Enw.
Deued dy deyrnas.
Bydd dy ewyllys ar y ddaear, megis yn y nef.
Dyno i ni heddiw ein bara beunyddiol.
A maddau i ni ein dyledion,
Fel y maddeuwn ni i'n dyledwy^r.
Ac nac arwain ni i brofedigaeth;
Eithi gwared ni rhag drwg.
Amen

Here is the Irish (Gaelic) version:
Ár n-Athair atá ar neamh,
Go naofar d'ainim,
Go dtagfadh do ríocht,
Go ndéantar do thoil ar an talamh mar a dhéantar ar neamh.
Ár n-arán laethúil tabhair dúinn inniu,
agus maith dúinn ár bhfiacha
mar a mhaithimidne dár bhféichiúna féin
Ach ná lig sinn i gcathú,
ach saor sinn ó olc,
Amen.

For curiosity's sake, here is the Aromanian version:
Ciace nostru
Ciace nostru car le şti en cer,
neca se sveta nomelu teu,
Neca venire craliestvo to. Neca fie volia ta,
cum en cer, aşa şi pre pemint.
Pera nostre saca zi de nam astez.
Odproste nam dutzan,
ca şi noi odprostim a lu nostri dutznici.
Neca nu na tu vezi en napastovanie,
neca na zbăveşte de zvaca slabe.
Amin.

HTH
Radu

Posted by: MRX April 28, 2011 11:59 am

Source is a work of Edward Chamberlayne of Odington, Gloucestershire, english historical and miscellaneous writer (1616 - 1703), author of Angliae Notitia (Magnae Britanniae Notitia), published and republished between 1661 and 1745, and probably later, and then resumed by Bogdan Petriceicu Haşdeu in 1875, Augustin Deac (History of historical truth - 2001) and Paul Lazar Tonciulescu (Ramania, paradise found - 2007).

Posted by: Valium April 28, 2011 12:02 pm

QUOTE (21 inf @ April 28, 2011 11:01 am)

The theory of conspiracy that someone in Middle Ages destroyed deliberatelly the written sources about vlachs or romanians is a paranoic idea.

I don't think is pure fantesist ideea, i think it was perfect probable. But, probably the reasons were pure pragmatic ones: land owning. Probable it was an usual practic-unfortunately vlachs didn't riposted(writtings)

Posted by: Valium April 28, 2011 12:04 pm

QUOTE (MRX @ April 28, 2011 02:59 pm)

Then was about an early romanian emigrants in walles

Posted by: 21 inf April 28, 2011 02:13 pm

QUOTE (MRX @ April 28, 2011 01:59 pm)

MRX: I wouldnt relly very much on what Paul Lazar Tonciulescu writed. He is from "Tărtăria" current. Nothing more to say about him ...

Valium: from early Middle Ages almost to modern era, romanians were reknown for "jus vallahicum": the oral transmision of the law and rights, recognised by all foreigners. So, wallachians didnt write or writed extremelly less. That's why (at least in Transylvania) romanians went so easily serfs and romanian nobility disapeared very soon (around XIVth century) when a better organised power (hungarian state) went with papers. Jus vallahicum was canceled by written papers of a overlapped power.

In XVIIIth-XIXth century, romanian peasants still called their knighting letters "scrisori pe piele de câine" showing how much value they gaved to written words.

(The Middle Age transylvanian-hungarian case is the one I know, not intented to spark hungarian-romanian discussions or controversials).

Posted by: Dénes April 28, 2011 05:30 pm

QUOTE (21 inf @ April 28, 2011 08:13 pm)

In XVIIIth-XIXth century, romanian peasants still called their knighting letters "scrisori pe piele de câine" showing how much value they gaved to written words.

That's a misconception, or misleading interpretation.
The scripts on dog's skin were actually very valuable (and rare), officially accepted documents. So the Rumanian ethnics in Transylvania (as everybody else) who received such pergamens had actually no real reason to belittle them.
See also here: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutyab%C5%91r [in Hungarian]

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Valium April 28, 2011 06:01 pm

QUOTE (21 inf @ April 28, 2011 05:13 pm)

[QUOTE=MRX,April 28, 2011 01:59 pm]Valium: from early Middle Ages almost to modern era, romanians were reknown for "jus vallahicum": the oral transmision of the law and rights, recognised by all foreigners....

I know this, and I really believe valachians didnt write anything...
The main question is why are not sources about them in bizantine, or western sources?
Should be a clue valachians were faraway from both? Would bizantines destroyed their own sources? We know Asen brothers were, before their revolts, rather bizantine subjects
Nevethenless, the only source, is Anonimus, an hungarian...
On the other hand, bulgarians lacked the sources on their own, so, what about vlachs?!

Posted by: 21 inf April 28, 2011 06:15 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ April 28, 2011 07:30 pm)

QUOTE (21 inf @ April 28, 2011 08:13 pm)

In XVIIIth-XIXth century, romanian peasants still called their knighting letters "scrisori pe piele de câine" showing how much value they gaved to written words.

I might be wrong, seeing as peiorative the term of scrisori pe piele de caine. I still wonder why the dog skin was so valued in the era.

Posted by: 21 inf April 28, 2011 06:28 pm

QUOTE (Valium @ April 28, 2011 08:01 pm)

[QUOTE=21 inf,April 28, 2011 05:13 pm] [QUOTE=MRX,April 28, 2011 01:59 pm]Valium: from early Middle Ages almost to modern era, romanians were reknown for "jus vallahicum": the oral transmision of the law and rights, recognised by all foreigners.... [/QUOTE]
I know this, and I really believe valachians didnt write anything...
The main question is why are not sources about them in bizantine, or western sources?
Should be a clue valachians were faraway from both? Would bizantines destroyed their own sources? We know Asen brothers were, before their revolts, rather bizantine subjects
Nevethenless, the only source, is Anonimus, an hungarian...
On the other hand, bulgarians lacked the sources on their own, so, what about vlachs?!

There are sources before Anonymus. Constantin Porfirogenetul wrote about the teritories from north of Danube. Some of them might point wallachians. I often saw that some people said that there are no sources about wallachians in a certain period: are the wallachians the only case, especially on early Middle Ages? I believe not, but we didnt compared the number of sources for other nations from the same period. Maybe if we look to others also, we'll see they also dont have many writings to remind about them.

For comparison, detractors of dacian rules of romanian language, says that only a very small number of words in romanian might be of dacian origins, the rest being greatly of slav origin. Very few romanians (or others) maybe studied that the phenomenon is the same for spanish and french language. The same little percent of iberic and celtic words are to be found in both this languages, but fewer contested the origins of spanish and french. And the french have a name of a german population, not even a celt or latin one!

All this 3 languages have a stratum, a 1st superstratum and a 2nd superstratum: stratum - dacian, iberic and celtic, a latin 1st superstratum for all 3 and a later different 2nd superstratum, which is slav for romanians and other for spanish and french.

Posted by: Radub April 28, 2011 07:00 pm

QUOTE (21 inf @ April 28, 2011 06:15 pm)

I still wonder why the dog skin was so valued in the era.

Vellum is a type of paper made from animal skin. It is durable and lasts longer than paper.
Radu

Posted by: Valium April 29, 2011 05:39 am

QUOTE

There are sources before Anonymus. Constantin Porfirogenetul wrote about the teritories from north of Danube

I know, but i think is not clear if CP mentioned about vlachs, or rather daco-latin leftovers, from which vlachs nation sprung.

QUOTE

I often saw that some people said that there are no sources about wallachians in a certain period: are the wallachians the only case, especially on early Middle Ages? I believe not, but we didnt compared the number of sources for other nations from the same period. Maybe if we look to others also, we'll see they also dont have many writings to remind about them

Sure, but when is about Bizantine Empire, the poorness of sources is suspicious.
The first mention of the bizantines was Anna Comnena, and Benjamin of Tudela, with his "No man can go up and battle against them and no king can rule over them".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wallachia
Probably in the time of Anna Comnena, they appeared in large number in Northern Greece-since then being much norther.
And after Asens revolt, probably a great split between vlachs was produced, forming the future romanians and aromanians. Neverthenless, in 12 cnt, vlachs were still in large number in Thessaly, since the army of John I Doukas, was formed mainly of vlachs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I_Doukas

Posted by: 21 inf April 29, 2011 06:32 am

A probabile split of vlachs from south and north of Danube, after Assan revolt, is just a hypothesis with no proof. Anyway, even if it existed, it is imposible that from that point on the formation of future romanians and aromanians started. By that time, the process of romanian formation was already started for many centuries. It is apreciated that the process of formation of what will be future romanians started sometime around VIIth ot VIIIth century, when the slav tribes arrived north of Danube. Assans are living 3 or 4 centuries after this moment. The fact that after the Assan revolt, a part of vlach population from south of Danube might migrate north of Danube or farther south of Balkans, it is posible, but almost sure cannot be linked with romanian and aromanian genesis.

Even the language of nowadays aromanians show that their language developed diferent than romanian, showing an earlier split, having archaic features that are not present in romanian language (for this, search the phenomenon of "rotacism").

Posted by: Valium April 29, 2011 08:02 am

QUOTE (21 inf @ April 29, 2011 09:32 am)

I didn't say they were all south Danube- in fact I believe the majority was faraway from Bizantines, that meaning north danube either. Anyway, i think they lived in highlands, from Tatra to pindus, while lowlands were populated by slavs, pechenegs, avars...The Asens revolt, and consequential split of vlachs, signified the beggining of substantial settlement of the vlachs in lowlands, mixing, relegating, asimilating slavs, cumans, pechenegs...
regarding the difference between romanian and aromanian, I'm not quite sure the differences are such big for almost a thousand years of isolation: as I know, the english from 15-16 cnt hardly could be understand by today english. On the other hand, partial groups of romanians could had different features from others: moldavians use even today "bini-ghini", "mari", "zbura=vorbi"(tendence to transform P in C, or B in G, etc)..., exactly like aromanians.

Posted by: Radub April 29, 2011 08:43 am

QUOTE (Valium @ April 29, 2011 08:02 am)

regarding the difference between romanian and aromanian, I'm not quite sure the differences are such big for almost a thousand years of isolation: as I know, the english from 15-16 cnt hardly could be understand by today english.

Medieval Romanian is the same - in fact is extremely similar to Aromanian. Try this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49321826/Miron-Costin-Letopisetul-Tarii-Moldovei

Modern Romanian was finally standardised when Cuza initiated his education reform.
Here is some interesting reading http://altmarius.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3496555%3ABlogPost%3A59075&commentId=3496555%3AComment%3A59087&xg_source=activity

HTH
Radu

Posted by: Valium April 29, 2011 09:12 am

I could understand Letopisetul tarii moldovei, even the phrases are archaic-is right you have to read it slowly, and carefully

Posted by: Radub April 29, 2011 09:42 am

QUOTE (Valium @ April 29, 2011 09:12 am)

I could understand Letopisetul tarii moldovei, even the phrases are archaic-is right you have to read it slowly, and carefully

I serioulsy doubt that you read all 2oo+ pages

Read more, go deeper. You will go across entire paragraphs where you will have no idea what is being said. Of course you can deduce the gist of it, but you have to admit that the language used is not al all like modern Romanian. You will not be able to buy a loaf of bread using that kind of language.

But even so, what you are reading there is a version of the text in Latin alphabet. Try to read the original in Cyrillic. (Google it, there are photos on the net).

Old Romanian is almost a completely different language. Try to go to Stefan cel Mare's grave and try to read what is carved into his grave stone. Go to any old church and try to read the text carved. Are you in Bucharest? Go to Biserica Stavropoleos and try to read the many inscriptions there. You will get a good glimpse of the language spoken in the heart of Bucharest in medieval times.

HTH
Radu

Posted by: Valium April 29, 2011 10:08 am

QUOTE (Radub @ April 29, 2011 12:42 pm)

QUOTE (Valium @ April 29, 2011 09:12 am)

I could understand Letopisetul tarii moldovei, even the phrases are archaic-is right you have to read it slowly, and carefully

I serioulsy doubt that you read all 2oo+ pages

I am from Pitesti. Piece of cake:you could give me an example in kirilic, and bellow replacing kirilic with latin characters-i don't know kirilic

Posted by: Radub April 29, 2011 10:25 am

QUOTE (Valium @ April 29, 2011 10:08 am)

I am from Pitesti. Piece of cake:you could give me an example in kirilic, and bellow replacing kirilic with latin characters-i don't know kirilic

But you see... I have nothing to "prove" to you. This is not a whim (moft ;-) ) of my own. You can do your own research and find on your own old Romanian texts and try to read them for yourself. You do not need my help or guidance. You must find for yourself whether old Romanian is the same as modern Romanian. A visit to your local history museum is a good start.
Radu

Posted by: Valium April 29, 2011 10:42 am

QUOTE (Radub @ April 29, 2011 01:25 pm)

QUOTE (Valium @ April 29, 2011 10:08 am)

I am from Pitesti. Piece of cake:you could give me an example in kirilic, and bellow replacing kirilic with latin characters-i don't know kirilic

In fact I red some: practically there were pure slavonic, or a mixture of romanian and slavonic, due to the fact the author didn't know well slavonic, and improvised with romanian, or he wished to "enrich", to "literilize" the romanian with slavonic words(It was been told to me, of course). So, what's your point? To make me find romanian was more slavonic that I knew? Why don't you make your point public, here, so everybody could see?

Posted by: Radub April 29, 2011 11:08 am

QUOTE (Valium @ April 29, 2011 10:42 am)

So, what's your point? To make me find romanian was more slavonic that I knew? Why don't you make your point public, here, so everybody could see?

I made my point in public. Here it is again: "Go and try to read old Romanian texts and see for yourself whether it is the same as current Romanian".

You stated in an earlier post that a current English speaker would not be able to read middle English. You stated that the situation is completely opposite when it comes to Romanian, i.e. that any current Romanian speaker must be able to read old Romanian. So, go and find an old original Romanian text and try to read it.

Radu

Posted by: Valium April 29, 2011 11:17 am

QUOTE (Radub @ April 29, 2011 02:08 pm)

QUOTE (Valium @ April 29, 2011 10:42 am)

So, what's your point? To make me find romanian was more slavonic that I knew? Why don't you make your point public, here, so everybody could see?

Radu

I understand this:

<i]i pa(k) dau štire do(m)nïetale za lukru(l) tu®čilo® kum amĭ auzi(t) èu kŭ ĩpŭratu(l) au èši(t) de(n) sofïę ši aimi(n)trě nue ši sěu du(s) ĩ su(s) pre dunŭre i pa(k) sŭ štïi do(m)nïjata kŭ au veni(t) u(n) ω(m) de la nikopoe de mïe mě(u) spu(s) kŭ au vŭzu(t) ku ωkïi loi kŭ au treku(t) čěle korabïi če štïi ši do(m)nïjata prè dunŭre ĩ su(s) i pak sŭ štïi kŭ bagŭ den tote ωrašele kŭte [50] de ωmi(n) sŭ ę fïe ĩn ažuto® ĩ korabïi i pak sŭ štïi kumu sěu prinsŭ nešte me(š)šte® de(n) c[a]ri gra(d) ku(m) vorĭ trěče ačěle korabïi la loku(l) čela (st)rimtu(l) če šttïi ši do(m)nïjata i pa(k) spui do(m)nïetale de lukru(l) lu mahame(t) be(g) ku(m)u amĭ auzit de boęri če sŭntĭ medžïja(š) ši de dženere mïu negre kumu ęu da(t) ĩpŭratu(l) slobozïe lu mahame(t) beg pre iu iωi va fi voę pren cěra rumŭněskŭ jarŭ èlĭ sŭ trěkŭ i pa(k) sŭ štïi do(m)nïjata kŭ are frikŭ mare ši bŭsŭrab de ače(l) lotru de mahame(t) be(g) ma(i) vŭrto(s) de do(m)nïele vo(s)tre i pa(k) spui do(m)nïetale ka ma(i) marele mïu de če amĭ ĩcele(s) šïeu eu spui do(m)nïetale jarŭ do(m)nïjata ešti ĩceleptĭ ši ačěste kuvi(n)te sŭ cïi do(m)nïjata la tine sŭ nu štïe umi(n) mulci ši do(m)nïele vo(s)tre sŭ vŭ pŭzici ku(m) štici ma(i) bine i b[og]ĭ te ve(s)[e]li(t) amï(n)ŭ[/i]

Of course, is not an easy lecture, but the oral message could be better

Posted by: Radub April 29, 2011 11:50 am

Can you read this?

user posted image

This is possibly one of the most important Romanian documents. According to you, a current speaker of Romanian should have no problems reading it.
Radu

Posted by: Valium April 29, 2011 11:55 am

QUOTE (Radub @ April 29, 2011 02:50 pm)

Can you read this?

user posted image

This is possibly one of the most important Romanian documents. According to you, a current speaker of Romanian should have no problems reading it.
Radu

Thanks! It is exactly what I've asked for

Posted by: Radub April 29, 2011 03:26 pm

And here is the explanation

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrisoarea_lui_Neac%C8%99u

Radu

Posted by: Valium April 29, 2011 04:46 pm

Yes, I found it, finally, but I've told you, I know no kirilic(barerly I could remember russian alphabet, from gymnasium)
I've found two interesting quotes(I can't help myself to post):
Lucius Florus(2-nd cnt): Dacians rest hanged on their mountains(dacii inhaerent montibus)
Benjamin of Tudela: Vlachs are nimble montaineers, coming down from the mountain to attack the greeks. No man can go up and battle against them and no king can rule over them

Posted by: contras May 01, 2011 06:05 pm

There are others sources. Even Runic ones, in Gotland Island, from sec IX, in one's viking tomb, it was discovered a inscription about Viking Rodof who was killed by Blakumen during his far away trip. Historians are sure that Blakumen is a word who describes the Vlahs, and this is maybe the first written source about Romanians fwho lived on eastern part of Carpathians. It is known that the way from Varegs to Greeks was on Volga, Don, Dniestr, maybe Prut rivers.

Posted by: Radub May 02, 2011 08:32 am

QUOTE (contras @ May 01, 2011 06:05 pm)

Historians are sure that Blakumen is a word who describes the Vlahs, and this is maybe the first written source about Romanians fwho lived on eastern part of Carpathians.

"Romanian" in the first millenium had a different meaning.
At that time, "Romania" was another name for Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire)
Radu

Posted by: Valium May 02, 2011 09:09 am

QUOTE (Radub @ May 02, 2011 11:32 am)

QUOTE (contras @ May 01, 2011 06:05 pm)

Historians are sure that Blakumen is a word who describes the Vlahs, and this is maybe the first written source about Romanians fwho lived on eastern part of Carpathians.

"Romanian" in the first millenium had a different meaning.
At that time, "Romania" was another name for Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire)
Radu

I assume that by romanians he meant rumâni

Posted by: 21 inf May 02, 2011 09:26 am

3 viking swords were discovered in Transilvania, coming from Middle Ages.

Posted by: Radub May 02, 2011 10:05 am

QUOTE (Valium @ May 02, 2011 09:09 am)

I assume that by romanians he meant rumâni

There is no difference. In the first millenium AD, Romania/Rumania or variations thereof meant Byzantium.
Radu

Posted by: udar May 03, 2011 08:15 am

Those Blakumen was for sure the Vlahs. But we know that Vlah is an exonim, is a name gived by some foreigners to Romanians, so is no doubt about who's who there.

Another source i read about it was the oldest turkic chronicle (of Petcheng/Cumans), called Oguzname, who mention (for the IX century AD) a country called Ulak-meaning of Vlak/Vlachs (among ones called Urus-of Russians, or viking Rus more exactly, Magar-of maghyars etc.)

Posted by: contras May 03, 2011 09:48 am

QUOTE

But we know that Vlah is an exonim, is a name gived by some foreigners to Romanians, so is no doubt about who's who there.

I found one article about the origin of the name Vlach. The Germanic tribes named the Romans Wallachians, and later they named the same Daco-Romanian population in Carpathians. Later Wallchians become Vlachs.

Posted by: Valium May 03, 2011 10:04 am

QUOTE (Radub @ May 02, 2011 01:05 pm)

QUOTE (Valium @ May 02, 2011 09:09 am)

I assume that by romanians he meant rumâni

There is no difference. In the first millenium AD, Romania/Rumania or variations thereof meant Byzantium.
Radu

He said Romanians with "R" instead of "r", not Romania. or do you think vlachs didn't called themselves rumani?

Posted by: 21 inf May 03, 2011 10:54 am

Initially wlach, vlach and other derivate names like this were atributed by german spokers to a large sort of latin roots populations. Later the name of wallachians refered only to romanians. In late antiquity and early Middle Ages existed more Romania, following of retreating roman administration from various parts of Europe, as a legacy left to the populations who didnt abandoned their homes when roman authorities retreated. There are still regions with names deriving from that Romanies, as Romagna and so on.

Posted by: Valium May 03, 2011 10:58 am

QUOTE (21 inf @ May 03, 2011 01:54 pm)

In late antiquity and early Middle Ages existed more Romania, following of retreating roman administration from various parts of Europe, as a legacy left to the populations who didnt abandoned their homes when roman authorities retreated.

Yes, there were Romania in france, Italy and Spain

Posted by: contras September 05, 2011 08:49 pm

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/09/romani-sau-valahi-o-dezbatere-sterila.html

Posted by: Florin September 06, 2011 04:45 am

While being in Turkish Kurdistan many years ago, I was surprised to learn that some basic words in Kurdish language are almost identical with their equivalents in Romanian/Latin, and in the same time far away from their equivalents in neighboring Turkish language.
The only explanation I can think is that these words were inherited from the Roman Empire. The Turks arrived in the area at the end of the XIth century. The Iranians and the Assyrians are the only people in that area older than the Roman Empire.
Of course, you may add the Greeks, but they were "pacified" by the Turks in the early 1920's. I don't know what was left of them in that area.

Closer to the topic: there was an article many years ago in Magazin Istoric (The Historical Almanac) mentioning some Romanian technicians and engineers contacted by villagers while having a project in the Middle East (Syria, if I remember correctly). The villagers seemed to understand well enough the talking of the Romanians. Starting from this, the author of the article in Magazin Istoric discovered that a Byzantine emperor moved population from the Danube area to that part of Syria.

Posted by: Balacius November 14, 2012 04:03 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ April 29, 2011 11:25 am)

QUOTE (Valium @ April 29, 2011 10:08 am)

I am from Pitesti. Piece of cake:you could give me an example in kirilic, and bellow replacing kirilic with latin characters-i don't know kirilic

Sorry for being about 1,5 yrs late to join this discussion/topic. But I just had to comment what you wrote regarding reading old Romanian respectively 'modern Romanian.
Of course it will be some struggle in trying to read 'old Romanian' with some fluency. But this is the same fact you will encounter when reading any language, when reading an old document.
How easy do you think it is for a French person of today to read a French document 4-600 yrs old? Or reading an old English document from the 11-12th century, or an Italian, Spanish or German document - not to mention a Document written in 13th century Swedish?
EVERY language changes with the passing of time, and every new generation will find it more and more difficult to understand what the forefathers of us all once wrote.
Romanian medieval documents are sometimes even more confusing in trying to read and understand (unless you're an historian, specialising in medieval Romanian and used to interpret this kind of documents) - The documents are to maybe 95-98% written in Romanian, using the Church-Slavonic alphabet, with dates and years written, using the Byzantine calendar - it's like trying to read a document, using three different dictionaries.

regards / Balacius

Posted by: Balacius November 14, 2012 05:13 pm

QUOTE (Valium @ May 02, 2011 10:09 am)

QUOTE (Radub @ May 02, 2011 11:32 am)

QUOTE (contras @ May 01, 2011 06:05 pm)

Historians are sure that Blakumen is a word who describes the Vlahs, and this is maybe the first written source about Romanians fwho lived on eastern part of Carpathians.

"Romanian" in the first millenium had a different meaning.
At that time, "Romania" was another name for Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire)
Radu

I assume that by romanians he meant rumâni

Again, forgive me for being 1.5 yrs late, but would like to provide a comment to this post.

The name "Romania" used in the first millennium, was used by the Byzantines themselves for their 'empire'. Thus, they called themselves 'Romanians'.
The western European nations, on the other hand, called the Byzantines 'Greeks', and 'The Greek empire'.

The name "Byzantium", or "The Byzantine Empire" wasn't being commonly used for describing the empire on the Bosporus until some 50-100 yrs after the fall of Constantinople in April 1453. The name "Byzantium" was minted by a German historian at the time (unfortunately I can't remember his name right now, but if anyone's interested I will find it somewhere among my materials).

The word "rumâni" could, of course, have the meaning 'Romanian' (in the modern sense), BUT it could also be the name for a 'Byzantine subject/citizen. That would probably depend on WHEN the word was written down (pre-1453, or post-1453)

When referring to the "Eastern Roman Empire", one usually refers to the period ca 300 A.D. (from the time of emperor Diocletianus, up to ca 500-550). Later on one usually refers to the "Roman Empire", the "Greek-Roman Empire" or the "Greek Empire".

There are some historians that have come up with the theory that the word "Vlach" came from the Germans, who in their turn got it from the British isles. It was used to separate those indigenous peoples of the conquered Roman territories who, after the Roman withdrawal continued to speak Latin instead of their native tongue. It (the word "Vlach") started to be used in nowadays Wales, and spread over to the continent, mainly eastward towards Germania, but also south to France and Spain. But the word seems to have taken hold in Germany where it slowly 'wandered' down south, through nowadays Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria. The word grew in strength as their neighbours (the proto-Romanians or Dacians) where obviously speaking a Latin based language. The denomination for this people became, naturally, Vlachs, an invective especially favoured by the Magyars and Bulgarians at the time. Think I have seen at least 20-30 different spellings of the word/meaning of "Vlach".

The curious thing, on the other hand, is when you read the "Alexiad" by Anna Comnena. There she writes about the Vlachs as a menace that is very hard to be controlled, and that they are mountain dwellers. But other times she doesn't mention the Vlachs, instead she mentions the Dacians (?!). But, she doesn't simply mix them up, when writing about them, she makes on several occasions clear distinctions between them and the Vlachs.
In Dudo of St.Quentin's "Gesta Normannorum", chapters 1-5 - he is writing about "Rollo the Dacian" and his origins. He's clearly using the word 'Dacia', 'Dacian' - NOT 'Vlach' - Why? He continues to describe the geographical location of Dacia, the Carpathians that forms a natural castle wall, the neighbouring peoples, etc, etc.

Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, and great-grand father of William the conqueror died ca. 930 A.D., and Dudo of St.Quentin was commissioned ny Rollo's son to write the "Gesta Normannorum" sometime 930-940 A.D., i.e. some 35-50 yrs after the Magyars arrival to Pannonia. In ca 1148 A.D. Anna Comnena wrote the "Alexiad" (ca 220 yrs later) - now we hear of the Vlach, but also about the Dacians as well.
Sorry for this small deviation, but the subject is really captivating - what really happened to the Dacians?

regards / Balacius

Posted by: Radub November 14, 2012 09:20 pm

QUOTE (Balacius @ November 14, 2012 04:03 pm)

Of course it will be some struggle in trying to read 'old Romanian' with some fluency. But this is the same fact you will encounter when reading any language, when reading an old document.

And that was my point exactly. It was Valium who said that modern Romanian was identical to old Romanian.
Radu

Posted by: contras November 14, 2012 10:37 pm

About Vlachs and their wars

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/?p=9

Posted by: contras June 21, 2013 08:21 pm

Again, about Vlachs and their early history in Middle Age:

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/istoria-necunoscuta/istoria-uitata/2013/02/arta-militara-romaneasca-i-evul-mediu-timpuriu/

Posted by: contras September 25, 2013 08:01 pm

About Vlachs in Eastern Roman Empire:

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/istoria-necunoscuta/istoria-furata/2013/09/arta-militara-romaneasca-iv-revolte-antibizantine/

Posted by: contras October 01, 2013 09:05 pm

Also about Vlachs:

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/istoria-necunoscuta/istoria-uitata/2013/06/arta-militara-romaneasca-iii-secolele-xi-xii/