Origin of the Romanians -- Your Opinion

This might have been better served as a poll, but whatever.

There are two major theories of where the Romanians (Vlachs) came from:

1) They are descendants of Romanized Dacians, who were Romanized while the Romans held Dacia. (that sentence didn't sound too good... :eek:)

2) They are descendants from Vlach people migrating from the south at some point in the Middle Ages, who subsequently settled in modern Romania.



Which idea do you think is true, or more likely? And why?
 
[SIZE=+1]Formation of the Romanian Nation[/SIZE]


About the fifth century B.C., when the population of the Balkan-Carpathian region consisted of various tribes belonging to the Indo-European family, the northern portion of the Balkan peninsula was conquered by the Thracians and the Illyrians. The Thracians spread north and south, and a branch of their race, the Dacians, crossed the Danube. The latter established themselves on both sides of the Carpathian ranges, in the region which now comprises the provinces of Oltenia (Romania), and Banat and Transylvania (Hungary). The Dacian Empire expanded till its boundaries touched upon those of the Roman Empire. The Roman province of Moesia (between the Danube and the Balkans) fell before its armies, and the campaign that ensued was so successful that the Dacians were able to compel Rome to an alliance.
Two expeditions undertaken against Dacia by the Emperor Trajan (98-117) released Rome from these ignominious obligations, and brought Dacia under Roman rule (A.D. 106). Before his second expedition Trajan erected a stone bridge over the Danube, the remains of which can still be seen at Turnu-Severin, a short distance below the point where the Danube enters Romanian territory. Trajan celebrated his victory by erecting at Adam Klissi (in the province of Dobrogea) the recently discovered Tropaeum Traiani, and in Rome the celebrated 'Trajan's Column', depicting in marble reliefs various episodes of the Dacian wars.
The new Roman province was limited to the regions originally inhabited by the Dacians, and a strong garrison, estimated by historians at 25,000 men, was left to guard it. Numerous colonists from all parts of the Roman Empire were brought here as settlers, and what remained of the Dacian population completely amalgamated with them. The new province quickly developed under the impulse of Roman civilization, of which numerous inscriptions and other archaeological remains are evidence. It became one of the most flourishing dependencies of the Roman Empire, and was spoken of as Dacia Felix.
About a century and a half later hordes of barbarian invaders, coming from the north and east, swept over the country. Under the strain of those incursions the Roman legions withdrew by degrees into Moesia, and in A.D. 271 Dacia was finally evacuated. But the colonists remained, retiring into the Carpathians, where they lived forgotten of history.
The most powerful of these invaders were the Goths (271-375), who, coming from the shores of the Baltic, had shortly before settled north of the Black Sea. Unaccustomed to mountain life, they did not penetrate beyond the plains between the Carpathians and the Dnjester. They had consequently but little intercourse with the Daco-Roman population, and the total absence in the Romanian language and in Romanian place-names of words of Gothic origin indicates that their stay had no influence upon country or population. Material evidence of their occupation is afforded, however, by a number of articles made of gold found in 1837 at Petroasa (Moldavia), and now in the National Museum at Bucarest.
After the Goths came the Huns (375-453), under Attila, the Avars (566-799), both of Mongolian race, and the Gepidae (453-566), of Gothic race--all savage, bloodthirsty raiders, passing and repassing over the Romanian regions, pillaging and burning everywhere. To avoid destruction the Daco-Roman population withdrew more and more into the inaccessible wooded regions of the mountains, and as a result were in no wise influenced by contact with the invaders.
But with the coming of the Slavs, who settled in the Balkan peninsula about the beginning of the seventh century, certain fundamental changes took place in the ethnical conditions prevailing on the Danube. The Romanians were separated from the Romans, following the occupation by the Slavs of the Roman provinces between the Adriatic and the Black Sea. Such part of the population as was not annihilated during the raids of the Avars was taken into captivity, or compelled to retire southwards towards modern Macedonia and northwards towards the Dacian regions.
Parts of the Romanian country became dependent upon the new state founded between the Balkans and the Danube in 679 by the Bulgarians, a people of Turanian origin, who formerly inhabited the regions north of the Black Sea between the Volga and the mouth of the Danube.
After the conversion of the Bulgarians to Christianity (864) the Slovenian language was introduced into their Church, and afterwards also into the Church of the already politically dependent Romanian provinces.[The Romanians north and south of the Danube embraced the Christian faith after its introduction into the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great (325), with Latin as religious language and their church organization under the rule of Rome. A Christian basilica, dating from that period, has been discovered by the Romanian; archaeologist, Tocilescu, at Adam Klissi (Dobrogea).] This finally severed the Daco-Romanians from the Latin world. The former remained for a long time under Slav influence, the extent of which is shown by the large number of words of Slav origin contained in the Romanian language, especially in geographical and agricultural terminology.
The coming of the Hungarians (a people of Mongolian race) about the end of the ninth century put an end to the Bulgarian domination in Dacia. While a few of the existing Romanian duchies were subdued by Stephen the Saint, the first King of Hungary (995-1038), the 'land of the Vlakhs' (Terra Blacorum), in the south-eastern part of Transylvania, enjoyed under the Hungarian kings a certain degree of national autonomy. The Hungarian chronicles speak of the Vlakhs as 'former colonists of the Romans'. The ethnological influence of the Hungarians upon the Romanian population has been practically nil. They found the Romanian nation firmly established, race and language, and the latter remained pure of Magyarisms, even in Transylvania. Indeed, it is easy to prove--and it is only what might be expected, seeing that the Romanians had attained a higher state of civilization than the Hungarian invaders--that the Hungarians were largely influenced by the Daco-Romans. They adopted Latin as their official language, they copied many of the institutions and customs of the Romanians, and recruited a large number of their nobles from among the Romanian nobility, which was already established on a feudal basis when the Hungarians arrived.
A great number of the Romanian nobles and freemen were, however, inimical to the new masters, and migrated to the regions across the mountains. This the Hungarians used as a pretext for bringing parts of Romania under their domination, and they were only prevented from further extending it by the coming of the Tartars (1241), the last people of Mongolian origin to harry these regions. The Hungarians maintained themselves, however, in the parts which they had already occupied, until the latter were united into the principality of the 'Romanian land'.
To sum up: 'The Romanians are living to-day where fifteen centuries ago their ancestors were living. The possession of the regions on the Lower Danube passed from one nation to another, but none endangered the Romanian nation as a national entity. "The water passes, the stones remain"; the hordes of the migration period, detached from their native soil, disappeared as mist before the sun. But the Roman element bent their heads while the storm passed over them, clinging to the old places until the advent of happier days, when they were able to stand up and stretch their limbs.'[Traugott Tamm, Ueber den Ursprung der Rumaenen,, Bonn, 1891.]
 
Guys, do you really think the Romanians have a universal family tree?

Ethnogenesis is a complex and messy process, and it is mostly defined through language and culture - traits that can be acquired. That is why the Hungarians - self-proclaimed descendants of a Central Asian horse nomad nation - look much like the Czechs, Slovaks and Germans. The Romanians obviously speak a Romance language. Therefore, there is a Roman substratum somewhere. Beyond that, they most likely are the product of 19th century ethnic nationalism.
 
Guys, do you really think the Romanians have a universal family tree?

Ethnogenesis is a complex and messy process, and it is mostly defined through language and culture - traits that can be acquired. That is why the Hungarians - self-proclaimed descendants of a Central Asian horse nomad nation - look much like the Czechs, Slovaks and Germans. The Romanians obviously speak a Romance language. Therefore, there is a Roman substratum somewhere. Beyond that, they most likely are the product of 19th century ethnic nationalism.

That's not really the point though. There were Dacian people in Romania before the Romanians, so at some point there would have to be a shift to Romanian-speaking people. I was asking whether you thought it came from the settlement of Romans there, or from a later migration. There was most likely a Dacian language pre-Romanian, so I guess you could say the question is also when you thought the Romanian language was introduced.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
I think the Romans there were kidnapped and then held offworld for centuries by aliens. This explains why their language is so close to Latin and all the werewolves and vampires to boot. :p
 
From my understanding, the Hungarians are not so much a people of "Mongolian Race" but Finno-Ugrians, meaning that they, or at least their language, originate from what is now Finland or just east of there?

Enjoyed the nineteenth century text, though. There's something charmingly quaint about Victorian historical prose, even if it is in translation.:D
 

ninebucks

Banned
That's not really the point though. There were Dacian people in Romania before the Romanians, so at some point there would have to be a shift to Romanian-speaking people. I was asking whether you thought it came from the settlement of Romans there, or from a later migration. There was most likely a Dacian language pre-Romanian, so I guess you could say the question is also when you thought the Romanian language was introduced.

I don't see why only one explanation is needed. The Romanian people are a product of their history, their entire history, including the ancient Dacians, the Roman settlement, the Great Migrations, European Imperialism and 19th Century Nationalism. To say that their origin is limited to just one of these experiences is reductionist, and to say any of these are more important than the others is revisionist.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I don't see why only one explanation is needed. The Romanian people are a product of their history, their entire history, including the ancient Dacians, the Roman settlement, the Great Migrations, European Imperialism and 19th Century Nationalism. To say that their origin is limited to just one of these experiences is reductionist, and to say any of these are more important than the others is revisionist.

It's more a question of the origin of the Romanian language.
 

Hapsburg

Banned
There are two major theories of where the Romanians (Vlachs) came from:

1) They are descendants of Romanized Dacians, who were Romanized while the Romans held Dacia. (that sentence didn't sound too good... :eek:)

2) They are descendants from Vlach people migrating from the south at some point in the Middle Ages, who subsequently settled in modern Romania.

Which idea do you think is true, or more likely? And why?
I think the modern Romanian nation is a good mix between the two and a constant native ethnicity. Much how the modern French are a genetic mix between Romanised Gauls and the invading Franks, or how the Britons of today are a mix between Romanised Brythonic Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Franco-Normans, and a native, pre-Celtic group.

As someone else said, ethnogenesis is a messy business, and it's not so cut-and-dry as some might want to think it is. Often, modern ethnicities are mixes between past ethnic groups that are, on their own, extinct, but the genes persist due to the ethnic intermarriage.
 
Okay, well I suppose we can shift the discussion to Romanian language then, because although that also probably is somewhat of a result of composite, it had to come from somewhere originally.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Frankly, I find the migration theories unconvincing both from a linguistic standpoint and a logical standpoint. If the Latin-speaking population of Dacia had been displaced by Slavs, Hungarians, or some other group, you would expect fewer toponyms of Latin origin and more from these other groups, as you find in regions where they prevailed. Also, languages displace one another either by sheer dint of numbers or by prestige; if some other group had completely displaced or assimilated the Latins by dint of numbers, how can we be expected to believe that a migrant band of Vlachs subsequently assimilated that group? Vlach wasn't what you'd call a prestigious language in the Balkans, north or south of the Danube, and there simply aren't historical sources attesting to some massive Volkswanderung of Vlachs from the south to the north of sufficient size to displace and/or assimilate a hypothetical allophone population.

From what I gather, Romanian is a fairly conservative Romance language (at least, its morphology is conservative; the phonology is something else), which is consistent with its isolated position on the periphery of the Roman empire. It is not consistent with population movements and lots of contact with substrate, superstrate, and adstratal populations. There could have certainly been social reasons for the maintenance of their language despite these other population movements through the area - the fact that they were Christians in a sea of pagan Slavs, Germans, and Hungarians might be one.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Have a read about the Balkan Sprachbund....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund
Yeah, that's probably the most famous example of a Sprachbund. But I ask you, applying Occam's Razor, what scenario is most likely?

An ethnolinguistic group is known from historical sources to have occupied a region in the past and currently occupies that region today.

  • It has been there all along.
  • It was expelled by a group of invaders, but subsequently a closely related ethnolinguistic group migrated into the same territory and expelled these same invaders, without leaving any trace in the historical sources, place names, or contemporary language that couldn't be explained by substrate influence predating both groups or areal features like the Balkan Sprachbund.
It's obvious, at least to me, which one is more logical.
 
Frankly, I find the migration theories unconvincing both from a linguistic standpoint and a logical standpoint. If the Latin-speaking population of Dacia had been displaced by Slavs, Hungarians, or some other group, you would expect fewer toponyms of Latin origin and more from these other groups, as you find in regions where they prevailed. Also, languages displace one another either by sheer dint of numbers or by prestige; if some other group had completely displaced or assimilated the Latins by dint of numbers, how can we be expected to believe that a migrant band of Vlachs subsequently assimilated that group? Vlach wasn't what you'd call a prestigious language in the Balkans, north or south of the Danube, and there simply aren't historical sources attesting to some massive Volkswanderung of Vlachs from the south to the north of sufficient size to displace and/or assimilate a hypothetical allophone population.

From what I gather, Romanian is a fairly conservative Romance language (at least, its morphology is conservative; the phonology is something else), which is consistent with its isolated position on the periphery of the Roman empire. It is not consistent with population movements and lots of contact with substrate, superstrate, and adstratal populations. There could have certainly been social reasons for the maintenance of their language despite these other population movements through the area - the fact that they were Christians in a sea of pagan Slavs, Germans, and Hungarians might be one.

The problem is that Dacia was the first area that the Romans left, and their occupation was relatively short. So why, other than a few remote areas that fell much later or indeed where the population beat off the invaders (West Britain, the Basque Country), is it there that the language survives?
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
The problem is that Dacia was the first area that the Romans left, and their occupation was relatively short. So why, other than a few remote areas that fell much later or indeed where the population beat off the invaders (West Britain, the Basque Country), is it there that the language survives?
I don't see that so much as a problem. Certainly Ovid describes Dacia as something of a wasteland, and I don't get the impression that it was ever very densely populated. It's a bit isolated from the rest of the Roman world, which is why they left early, but once they were ensconsed there I see no reason why they would necessarily disappear, apart from some sort of catastrophe (like a plague or some kind of invasion by superior numbers). And a hundred and sixty five years is a long time - the same period of time would bring you from the settling of Jamestown in the New World right up to the American revolution.

Note also that the Frankish conquest of what is today France and Belgium did not manage to dislodge the Latin language from its place of prestige, even from the areas that were furthest from Rome.
 
The problem is that Dacia was the first area that the Romans left, and their occupation was relatively short. So why, other than a few remote areas that fell much later or indeed where the population beat off the invaders (West Britain, the Basque Country), is it there that the language survives?

I don't know too much about Romania, but applying my knowledge of Romano-Britain, perhaps the Dacian region remained under strong Roman influence due to trading links etc, and use of the Latin language, Roman names etc became a clear status symbol? In the north British kingdoms, rulers adopted Latinised names, and probably spoke a Latin-Celtic dialect - even the Northumbrians used Roman standards as royal symbols. No reason, I think, why the same could not have happened in Dacia.
 
I don't know too much about Romania, but applying my knowledge of Romano-Britain, perhaps the Dacian region remained under strong Roman influence due to trading links etc, and use of the Latin language, Roman names etc became a clear status symbol? In the north British kingdoms, rulers adopted Latinised names, and probably spoke a Latin-Celtic dialect - even the Northumbrians used Roman standards as royal symbols. No reason, I think, why the same could not have happened in Dacia.

The problem is that these links must have seriously dissolved by the late sixth century.
After that heaven knows how many waves of invaders came through the country, before "Romania" emerged six hundred plus years later so why is there such linguistic continuity relative to the rest of Roman Eastern Europe? Particularly when they were writing practically nothing.
 
The problem is that these links must have seriously dissolved by the late sixth century.
After that heaven knows how many waves of invaders came through the country, before "Romania" emerged six hundred plus years later so why is there such linguistic continuity relative to the rest of Roman Eastern Europe? Particularly when they were writing practically nothing.

No idea. My only thought is that it might be again to do with status. If for whatever reason, the language is associated with high-status individuals and education, then it will have an automatic advantage. I don't know why the subsequent invaders/migrators didn't impose their own language rather than adopting the local one. Probably the same reason the Franks, Lombards, Ostrogoths and Visigoths all adopted local languages....
 
Top