The current romanian narrative is that after the the roman conquest of Dacia (107-275 AD), the local dacians romanized and adopted the latin language, thus the romanian people were born.
The narrative is also about the ethnogenesis, that according to romanian historians, formed exclusively on the north side of the Danube, in Roman Dacia, in order to legitimize Romania's current territories
However, not all of the Dacian kingdom was conquered, but mostly the part that had most gold, the reason why romans wanted to conquer them in the first place
This is the main flaw people who contest the north danubian continuity point out, and suggest the roman ethnogenesis happened on the south side of the Danube instead.
What does /his/ think, is it possibly for a new ethnicity and language to be born in a span of 164 years? On the background of revolts and numerous raids from the nearby unconquered dacian tribes?
And then there's the common root words of albanian language and romanian language. This suggests that the romanian ethnogenesis happened in the same place as the albanian ethnogenesis.
Words like Cătun/Katund, Vatră/Vatër, Brad/Berdh, Mânz/Mëz, Gât/Fyt, Buză/Buzë are completely unique to the albanian language, and somehow they made their way into romanian vocabulary
The Daco-Romanian narrative is a psychological aid to explain away the sudden landgrab of Romania in the 20. century, primarily directed at Transylvanian and Moldavian Romanians.
This is because the three groups that today live in Romania had little in common historically. Language is important but not an ultimate measure to bring peoples together, look at all the disparate slavic groups infighting. or the small romance populations of the Balkans that Romanians could hardly feel related to. There was simply no historical foundation to build a common national consciousness on. Then Ceaucescu's dacian masturbation only made matters worse.
In short they had to come up with something to justify a single united Romania. It is still a state heavily ridden with inferiority complexes.
Also to anyone not oblivious to how lands switched ownership can see such historical justificatinoins worth dogshit and is really only directed at its own populace. Without the military or demographic power to back it up its just a cry.
>What does /his/ think, is it possibly for a new ethnicity and language to be born in a span of 164 years? On the background of revolts and numerous raids from the nearby unconquered dacian tribes?
Look up ethnographic maps of Poland before and after WW2.
Also this is still the Age of Migrations, Gothic tribes would sprout up everywhere. And so would 'Romans'..
In the end tho, we're the majority in 90% of Romania except that redneck mountainous shithole in the center. Who was 1st bears no significance at all at this point, especially considering how for 1000 years Romanians have been the majority in all of these major 3 regions of the country.
I agree with you on one aspect tho, and that is the fact that Romanian nationalistic history is a joke and absolute horseshit. Truth be told, we have no idea how related we are with the Dacians but we are clearly Romanche. Not ethnically, that means fuck-all, linguistically.
Yeah, we have common roots, that doesn't mean we were born together and then migrated. The migration theory is retarded because it expects anyone to believe that a huge fucking migration happened and nobody noticed. Not even the record-keeping Byzantines.
That's fucking stupid.
Iranian tribes just gave us a couple of river names (Prut) and that's about it.
The swarthyness is just general balkan/souther/mediterranean skin complexion. Usually the more north you go, the whiter people's faces are.
>Gothic tribes would sprout up everywhere. And so would 'Romans'..
What do you mean by this?
>I think Iranian tribes played a big role in Romanian ethnogenesis, probably bigger than Romans and Dacians combined. Romanians are extremely swarthy even compared to Greeks.
Except the Sarmatian tribe that settled in Dacia, Roxolani, has a name literally meaning "bright (haired) Alans" And Sarmatians in general were described as generally Slavic-like in complexion, with brown hair and blue or green eyes. Certainly not swarthy.
>Who was 1st bears no significance at all at this point
Thats my point, Romanian muh continuity wankery has no impact, its just a narrative aimed at Romanians.
>especially considering how for 1000 years Romanians have been the majority
Thats just nationalist indoctrination, you can't know exact ethnic composition from before the 1800s.
No it does not. Sardinian is related to Romanian too, does that mean Sardinians migrated? There were common origins, but no common ethnogenesis.
Continuity during the 1st millenium, while debatable, is irrelevant. What does matter is that it took the centralized Hungarian Kindom 200 years from the baptism of Stephen to the complete and utter occupation of Transylvania. There was opposition there. I could link you with a whole bunch of stuff, but bear in mind that being religiously opressed for 1000 years, Romanian came out in the 18th and 19th century as the majority population, even with the constant pour of Hungarian and Germanic colonists in the area. Romanians have been the majority in Transylvania for at least 1000 years and that is not disputable.
We got fucked. Hard(wars with mongols slaughtered half the population for example).
We fled into the mountains(some of us wound up in Czechia and Poland, for example). Cumans sorta made the principalities into a proto-state. Mountain latins with immigrant balkan faggots then culturally dominated the hogde-podge of slavs, nomads and whatever romance speaking faggots were left that had settled in the meantime in the hills and plains.
Since we were surrounded by foreginers, we could only share a link with other local latin speakers, so a sort of proto-common identity formed(church documents speak of making common councils with the romanians from Wallachia and Transylvania).
Once things started getting sorta better geopolitically, we realised it would be better to group together to preserve our identity(much to the protest of some moldovans). Connection with ancient Dacia was also used by foreign rulers, so we stuck with that.
>it took the centralized Hungarian Kindom 200 years from the baptism of Stephen to the complete and utter occupation of Transylvania. There was opposition there.
What 200 years? What opposition? Stephan's maternal grandfather and his ancestors were ruling Transylvania since the 890s. He was swiftly defeated by Stephan; The diocese of Alba Iulia was then founded in 1009. This already shows control over the core lands. Then you got the Székelys who were living in the border region since the 900s. The first German colonists arrived to Hermannstadt in 1140s. Finally, only in the 1200s are Vlachs mentionned at all.
Nothing here implies opposition, Transylvania was populated at the same rate as any forested, mountainous part.
>Romanian came out in the 18th and 19th century as the majority population
Following nearly 200 years of Ottoman wars that primarily targeted low lying areas and towns, inhabited mostly by Hungarians and Saxons, and at the same time having a constant influx of Romanians, both invited by Hungarian nobles and natural migration from the prinicpalities that stayed vassals after Karlowitz, unlike Transylvania.
But unlike you I don't go on pretending there was a certain Hungarian majority since 896, but want to point out such things as demographic history before the times of censuses are very uncertain and can only be estimated.
You mean the territory Romania lost in WW2 to Bulgaria?
to me it looks like its majorly Bulgarian, sure there are Romanians but still they are the minority
>Romanians have been the majority in Transylvania for at least 1000 years and that is not disputable.
Thats true, but Transylvania is big, it could had been cut in half like in WW2 Hitler did.
Common vocabulary doesn't point towards origins.
Any linguist knows this.
Haitian creole uses 90% French vocabulary but the GRAMMAR is Fon.
Would you place it in the Romance family?
No, actual Dobrogea. It was Bulgarian clay right until 1878. The ethnic shift in the are happened and now neither Romania nor Bulgaria can claim each other's clay.
Sardinian and Romanian are very closely related
>I don't go on pretending there was a certain Hungarian majority since 896, but want to point out such things as demographic history before the times of censuses are very uncertain and can only be estimated.
True. But the fact that both Wallachia and Moldavia were founded by princes crossing the mountains from Transylvania is the kind of proof that should clear the matters.
>Following nearly 200 years of Ottoman wars that primarily targeted low lying areas and towns, inhabited mostly by Hungarians and Saxons, and at the same time having a constant influx of Romanians, both invited by Hungarian nobles and natural migration from the prinicpalities that stayed vassals after Karlowitz, unlike Transylvania.
The "magyarisation"(or whatever the fuck it's called) was a forceful process that meant to completely annihilate Vlach identity in Transylvania. For as long as the Hungarian Crown stood, that process took place, and was far more aggressive than what the Ottomans ever managed to do, intentionally or not, in a semi-client state. Bullshit.
>cut in half
Fuck off. The Hungarian population by 1930 numbered around 1,5 million people. Almost all of the areas had a majority Romanian population, and the scarce few where Hungarians were indeed the major ethnicity were mixed and insular. Splitting the region in half because muh heritage and muh history is pure faggotry and would have eventually lead to further conflict.
I'll give you this: the border in what are now Bihor, Arad and Satu Mare counties could have been moved 10-15 km to the east and no one would have complained. As it stands, Hungarians are slowly disappearing in Romania, especially in areas where they do not make up a critical 10-20% mass that would be able to linguistically survive.
tl; dr: Why split a region with 6 million people in it for the sake of 1,5 million?
not common vocabulary, common root words. Without intense cultural interaction you cannot have such influences in a language, and it isn't the case for romanian language's history to mix with albanian historically, unless we place those two cultures in close proximity
You are truly and utterly daft. You do understand that Romanian and Albanian have common roots(Dacian/Illyrian), were both occupied by the Romans, were influenced by the Slavs and then suffered a shitload of Turkish influenced don't you?
>common root words
So not even vocabulary. Well brava, you just graduated from the "linguistics for idiots" school, level one. Fuck off.
>accuses a nation of ization through 1000years
>does itself in 100
>still believes it happened like his fairytales tells him
so which one is it marcea
romanians are better at oppressing or there was no oppressing
>does it itself
No, it's just that minorities tend to disappear eventually if there isn't enough of them or if they aren't persecuted and hence refuse to intermarry with the oppressors. We've had a Hungarian-based party in Parliament ever since we were a democracy and Romania is widely considered to be the country who treats its minorities very well. Fuck, we've had numerous Hungarian ministers.
That's not a name Balazs, you fucking moron.
>For as long as the Hungarian Crown stood, that process took place,
This is not true however. Romanians were oppressed because they were orthodox, it had nothing to do with ethnicity, magyarisation only took place after 1867, when the Astro-Hungarian Monarchy was born.
>Splitting the region in half because muh heritage and muh history is pure faggotry and would have eventually lead to further conflict.
The hypocrisy, it burns. What Romania got handed over wasn't even historical Transylvania but way more land anyway, splitting through several historical regions.
> As it stands, Hungarians are slowly disappearing in Romania
So do Romanians, by the time no Hungarians will be there there won't be any Romanians either kek.
>Why split a region with 6 million people in it for the sake of 1,5 million?
Because ethnic self-determination. The Vienna decision solution was workable, we needed some population exchanges afterwards and then both sites could have its own piece of populated by its own people. inb4 muh ancient land, no one cared when it came to Germans.
>The hypocrisy, it burns. What Romania got handed over wasn't even historical Transylvania but way more land anyway, splitting through several historical regions.
Like Banat, Bihor and Maramures where Romanians were still the majority, gotcha
>So do Romanians, by the time no Hungarians will be there there won't be any Romanians either kek.
>Because ethnic self-determination. The Vienna decision solution was workable, we needed some population exchanges afterwards and then both sites could have its own piece of populated by its own people. inb4 muh ancient land, no one cared when it came to Germans.
You didn't get one thing about what I said, but it's still funny you're the only European nation crying about muh clay after almost 80 years. You want your land back? Tough shit, either get it by force, or shut your gulashhole(no disrespect, gulash is literal 10/10 shit)
Magic n shit.
>The diocese of Alba Iulia was then founded in 1009. This already shows control over the core lands.
No, it doesn't show anything. Look at Polabian Slavs, they had bishoprics all over their lands and that meant jackshit for tens to hundreds of years.
He means that both romanians and hungarians live like shit in Romania, so birthrates are decreasing and people are emmigrating. If it makes you feel better this is mostly true to every country in the Carphatians and the Balkans, the world is shit beyond Austria.
>you're the only European nation crying about muh clay after almost 80 years
That is mostly because of communism, after 1945, when Hungary lost North-Transylvania again trianon was a tabu, and after '89-90, the old unsolved problems came out again. The ethnic conflicts in Marosvásárhely didn't help either.
I think most of this could be solved with simply giving Székelyland autonomy, so there won't be horror stories in every half a year here that "romania plans to migrate 2 million gipsies there for the lulz", and there won't be horror stories on the other side as well that "Horthy's ghost was reincarnated and Hungary plans to invade hungary with the help of Russia".
But of course that is only possible if first both Hungary and Romania works together for a better neighbourhood.
why don't you come get it back, cunts?
never the wrong thread to post some sexy machinery.
>Szekelyland being given autonomy
They are literally the most backwards region of Romania. Poor as fuck, no industry, they are leeching off the rest of the country for sustaining their shit-tier lives. It's basically Alabama, but cold as fuck.
>trianon was a tabu, and after '89-90, the old unsolved problems came out again
That's hardly an excuse for being a cunt literally 100 years after the fact and when your ethnicity barely makes 25% of the region you so desire.
As this nigga pointed out tho, even if both countries weren't both NATO and EU members, Hungary's army would not stand a chance against Romania's. Bear in mind also that nobody around likes you enough to support you in your claims, on the contrary.