Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (4) « First ... 2 3 [4]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Transylvania History
Imperialist
Posted: September 07, 2005 12:39 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Victor @ Sep 4 2005, 06:12 PM)
The idea is if the "Free Dacians" were called so by the Romans themselves (Licens Dacorum - I believe this is the translation, but my Latin is rather poor). I seriously doubt such texts exist. That is why the "Free Dacians" were designated according to the tribes they belonged to. The term "free Dacians" is a modern creation.

Imperialist, I see you continue to avoid answering one simple request to back up your initial statement. I'm not surprised.

I think I already said earlier in the thread that the term "free dacians" could be a modern one, but that doesnt mean their quality of being "free" was a modern invention also. And I mentioned that they probably felt free because they were not under Roman occupation. Moreover, as Udar pointed out, they even continued to have military clashes with the Romans.
And as a matter of curiosity, if you say the term "free dacians" is a modern one (could very well be), it should be easy to spot its appearance. When was it invented?


PM
Top
Iamandi
Posted: September 07, 2005 12:46 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



Off topic (?) :

Densusianu is a credible source? Because i read only one book of him and is ... incredible.

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: September 08, 2005 10:01 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Guys,

In the UK we have numerous river names which are pre-Roman that the Romans adopted and used themselves. It is also generally thought that many of these also predate the peoples who the Romans conquered. How does one distinguish a Dacian river name from one the Dacians themselves adopted from earlier peoples?

Widening the question, is there enough information on the Dacian language to specify where it fits into the Indo-Eurpean language family tree? Has it any living relatives?

On an earlier thread it was mentioned that there are thought to be about 200 words of Dacian origin still in the Romanian language. Have you any examples?

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Zayets
Posted: September 08, 2005 10:12 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 363
Member No.: 504
Joined: February 15, 2005



QUOTE
In the UK we have numerous river names which are pre-Roman that the Romans adopted and used themselves. It is also generally thought that many of these also predate the peoples who the Romans conquered. How does one distinguish a Dacian river name from one the Dacians themselves adopted from earlier peoples?

Who lived here before the Dacians?And what language have they spoken?

QUOTE
Widening the question, is there enough information on the Dacian language to specify where it fits into the Indo-Eurpean language family tree? Has it any living relatives?

Well,I think is enough to say Dacian is an Indo-European language.Yes,they were shown in the thread about Romanian language origins.

QUOTE
On an earlier thread it was mentioned that there are thought to be about 200 words of Dacian origin still in the Romanian language. Have you any examples?

Dacian words?They are pretty easy to identify(manz,viezure,varza??? etc.) But the sites giving the 200-330 Dacian words have more infos about this.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: September 08, 2005 10:45 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Zayets,

Identifying the languages and identities of resident populations before written history is extremely difficult. The names of geographical features, particularly rivers, are perhaps the only linguistic traces left of some peoples. Historically we can be sure of the Dacians, but not of any of their prehistoric predecessors.

It is presumably possible that the Dacians themselves inherited the names for some geographical features, especially rivers, from earlier populations. We know that the Danube valley was the route by which agriculture entered Europe in the 7th millenium BC and copper working in the 4th millenium BC. Both were accompanied by migrations. However, we don't know if the Dacians were already resident or part of these migrations because we have no historic trace of them before the 1st millenium BC.

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Zayets
Posted: September 08, 2005 11:02 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 363
Member No.: 504
Joined: February 15, 2005



QUOTE
Identifying the languages and identities of resident populations before written history is extremely difficult. The names of geographical features, particularly rivers, are perhaps the only linguistic traces left of some peoples. Historically we can be sure of the Dacians, but not of any of their prehistoric predecessors.


That's true.Isn't it amazing that Europe as we know it today,was one of the last continents to benefit from advantages of "civilization" (I exclude America although South America was pretty much a different case).We can trace back Egyptians,Assirians,Babylonians,Chineze etc. with historical artifacts/documents.Yet Europe was pretty late in these.Is not the case of Dacians only.Who lived before the Gauls?Or Romans?Or Celts?Or Vikings?Or Greeks?(Well , for the Greeks we have much more accounts but notice thier proximity with the Asian teritories,Tiger & Euphrat the so called "craddle of civilization").There's no doubt that today Europe was/is known for her driving force into what we consider today progress,still we have less information than we have about what today we call 3rd world .Isn't that ironic?

QUOTE
It is presumably possible that the Dacians themselves inherited the names for some geographical features, especially rivers, from earlier populations. We know that the Danube valley was the route by which agriculture entered Europe in the 7th millenium BC and copper working in the 4th millenium BC. Both were accompanied by migrations. However, we don't know if the Dacians were already resident or part of these migrations because we have no historic trace of them before the 1st millenium BC.


Definitely Dacians took/inherited names/words from what was supposed to be once their predecessors.But who were they?There are traces back to the neolithic age/bronze age in Romania. But I don't think everyone agrees what for language these people used.Museums in Romania hold a lot of such artifacts.And no, there's not so many writen ones,if you wonder.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
petru
Posted: September 13, 2005 09:29 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 117
Member No.: 149
Joined: November 27, 2003



I heard "Gesta Hungarorum" mention some clashes in Transylvania at their arrival. Most of the Hungarian point of view comes from a description of the Aurelian withdrawal, in which it was said that so many people left that the land remained "deserted". This is probably is just a composition style, but they are interpreted ad literam. It is hard to believe. There are no written documents that they left, but there are no documents they stayed. The fact that the romanian language is so different from what is around us, could imply some conclusions that Hungarians don't like. However if you have a mass of people on the move you would expect some traces. We will probably not know the answer for some time. I don't think the ADN is too reliable.
PM
Top
Redrake
Posted: September 15, 2005 06:29 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 671
Joined: September 14, 2005



QUOTE (petru @ Sep 13 2005, 09:29 PM)
I heard "Gesta Hungarorum" mention some clashes in Transylvania at their arrival. Most of the Hungarian point of view comes from a description of the Aurelian withdrawal, in which it was said that so many people left that the land remained "deserted". This is probably is just a composition style, but they are interpreted ad literam. It is hard to believe. There are no written documents that they left, but there are no documents they stayed. The fact that the romanian language is so different from what is around us, could imply some conclusions that Hungarians don't like. However if you have a mass of people on the move you would expect some traces. We will probably not know the answer for some time. I don't think the ADN is too reliable.

That line about Dacia being evacuated completely was inserted there by the roman historians because they didn't want to show emperor Aurelian as an emperor who abandoned one of the roman provinces. It would not have been apropriate for a roman emperor to look like he abandoned roman citizens, so they invented the withdrawal idea and to cover this up, Aurelian established south of the Danube 2 new provinces, Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea. The withdrawal from Dacia was made in less than a year. Is impossible to even consider that all the population could have been moved. Only the administration and the armies were most likely withdrawn, although roman armies (and later on byzantines) still kept control of several castres north of Danube.

As for genetics, that's not a viable argument. There is not pure romanian as there is no pure hungarian.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Valium
Posted: April 22, 2011 06:51 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 3047
Joined: April 13, 2011



QUOTE (Benoit Douville @ August 11, 2005 03:33 am)
Also another question, is true that all the important river in Transylvania don't have Romanian names?

As I know, The more important rivers origin(Mures, Olt, Somes) suggest an unknown, antic origins(posible avar, gepid, roman, dacian, even older), and the majority of the others slavic origins. The cvasi-hungarian origins, sustained by hungarian lingvist, is also speculative.
As the romanian language itself has an important range of slavic origins, we couldn't say the slavic origin of the names is not romanian. The vlachs from 19 cnt, were not the same with the vlachs in 9-10 cnt. In 9-10 cnt, at the magyars arrival, probably vlachs lived at highlands, while slavs and pecenegs lived in lowlands. hard to say who were majoritars: slavs, pechenegs, or vlachs. but, probably the number slavs+pechenegs surpassed vlachs. Anyway, as the first desired teritories by magyars were lowlands, they started to banish the slavs and pechenegs. The remaints of tehm were asimilated by both slavs and magyars.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Valium
Posted: April 22, 2011 07:07 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 3047
Joined: April 13, 2011



QUOTE (Dan Po @ September 04, 2005 06:17 pm)
the ancient town Tsierna >>> and the river Tsierna , also certified with inscriptions) was called by slavians as Cerna >>. black, muddy.

The one who saw Cerna river, could wonder why today is a cristal-clear river. Anyway, i think is a slavic name. probaly the name has nothing to to with mud, but with reflection of the dark clouds in it. Cerna is a quite big mountain river today, and posible it was much bigger in the past.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Valium
Posted: April 22, 2011 07:22 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 3047
Joined: April 13, 2011



QUOTE (petru @ September 14, 2005 12:29 am)
Most of the Hungarian point of view comes from a description of the Aurelian withdrawal, in which it was said that so many people left that the land remained "deserted". This is probably is just a composition style, but they are interpreted ad literam. It is hard to believe.

It is not hard to believe, is imposible
PMEmail Poster
Top
Valium
Posted: April 22, 2011 07:30 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 3047
Joined: April 13, 2011



QUOTE (Redrake @ September 15, 2005 09:29 pm)
As for genetics, that's not a viable argument. There is not pure romanian as there is no pure hungarian.

It depends very much how is interpreted, how the sample are prelevated...
Anyway, is absolutely true, the genetics could be irelevant. There are few examples of today european nations, which sources suggest an asian origins, but now they look completely as europeans. Asimilation, repopulation, invasions...could have a decisive effect in an millenia, without changing the cultural traits dicisivelly.
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (4) « First ... 2 3 [4]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0493 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]