Origin of the Romanians -- Your Opinion

Wozza

Calgacus said:
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....
Click to expand...


I suppose it is just a matter of degree, and if you live an isolated existence in the hills then passing invaders might rather wash over you.
In many ways it is surprising how unimportant Romania is all round in the middle ages, considering that it is such good wheat growing land.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Well, at that point, the local language would presumably have been associated with the religion, which would have given it sufficient prestige to survive whether much was being written or not.

Historically speaking, it is extremely rare for the language of a group of roving marauders to trump that of the settled population unless other factors exist (the settled population is nearly wiped out by disease, famine, or war, in which case you wouldn't have the kind of continuity you need to preserve things like toponyms, or the two languages are transparently related. Note, for example, that the Aramaeans were able to spread from their native Syria into Mesopotamia, and their language replaced related languages like Akkadian, Hebrew, and Phoenician, but that Greek was never able to replace Aramaic as the language of the Orient - only Arabic (which is also related to Aramaic) was able to do so. Likewise, Latin's earliest successes were in Celtic lands, at a time when the two languages were at so early a stage in their separate development there was even talk of an "Italo-Celtic" subfamily, but the unrelated Basques, and the much more distantly related Germans, Slavs, and Greeks held out.

This is all discussed in Ostler's popular Empires of the Word. The one potential counter example is Roman Britain, where Latin lingered on long after the fall of the empire in the west, but was replaced by a Germanic language. There are many reasons for this, all discussed by Ostler, but it seems to be a combination of all the factors I mentioned above.

Dacia seems to have served as a Roman penal colony, a kind of Australia in the Balkans, and there's no telling how many criminals, rabblerousers, and religious fanatics were dumped there. But it is safe to say that there was a significant Latin-speaking population there before the Romans left. For the reasons outlined above, I find it unlikely that this population could have been wiped out or assimilated by marauding bands of pagan Slavs or Hungarians, and doubly unlikely that a band of migrating Vlachs could have taken it back from whomever was strong enough to dislodge them in the first place. After all, note that the Neo-Latin speaking Normans were unable to impose their language upon the population of Britain, even though they certainly had a profound impact upon the lexicon of English, as the Slavs did in Romania.
 

Abdul Hadi Pasha

Banned
Wozza said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because Dacia was sparsely populated and uncivilized and the area below the Danube was in the Hellenic cultural sphere. The Romans settled Dacia fairly heavily in comparison to existing population, so they weren't just an imperial overlay over a large subject population.
 

panosmaniac

Analytical Engine said:
Didn't they live in present-day Bulgaria before moving up into Romania later on, after the Pechengs (or whoever) left? :confused:

Before that... :confused::confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...
No they did not.They were byzantine tribes,that means a rich of greek(hellenic)-bulgarian tribes,who they were immigrated to present Romania after Byzantium fall(1453).There they joined with romanized tribes.They were dealing with commerce and a part of them returned again to the south.:cool:
 

Wozza

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Because Dacia was sparsely populated and uncivilized and the area below the Danube was in the Hellenic cultural sphere. The Romans settled Dacia fairly heavily in comparison to existing population, so they weren't just an imperial overlay over a large subject population.
Click to expand...

Well, they weren't anywhere by the time the Empire fell, Europe was "Romanised."
 

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

Banned
The Dacians and the early Romanians were a mountain people, there's not much reason why those migrating tribes would either force them out or have much influence over them. The real question is why there's so little Dacian linguistic influence in modern Romanian - then again, we don't actually know much about the Dacian language.
 

TemporalRenegade

The origin of the Romanians, like every European nation, is difficult to trace.

English (Anglo-Saxon + Bryton)
1. Celtic (Brytons)
2. Germanic (Anglos & Saxons, Vikings)
3. Italic (Romans)

Scotts
1. Celtic (Gaelic, Caldelonian)
2. Pict (also Celtic?)
3. Germanic (traces of Norwegian and Anglo-Saxon)

Spaniards
1. Italians
2. Basques (pre-IE Iberians)
3. Arabs and Moors
4. Celtiberians
5. Goths

French (Celtic-Germanic-Italic)
1. Gauls
2. Germanic peoples- Franks, Goths, Burgundians
3. Italians (Romans)
4. Bretons
5. Basques

Germans (Teutonic-Slavic-Celtic)
1. West Germanic peoples- Teutons, Franks, Alemans, Saxons, Jutes, etc.
2. Western Slavs- Wends, Germanized Poles and Sorbs
3. Celts- Gaulish, Helvetic, and Bohemians
4. Balts (Prussi)

Italians
1. Italic (originators of Latin language)
2. Hellenic peoples (chiefly in Sicily and Southern Italy)
3. Germanic (mostly Lombard, Northern Italy)
4. Etruscan (traces of probable Etruscan ancestry localized in Tuscany)
5. Arab

Norwegians, Swedes, Icelanders
1. North Germanic (i.e. Nordic peoples or Vikings)
2. Saami (Lappish)

Danes
Germanic (mostly Scandinavians and Jutes)

Russians (Nordic-Slavic w/ Asiatic admixture)
1. East Slavs
2. Varangians (Rus, originally of Swedish origin)
3. various Asiatic peoples- Uralic, Turkic, and Mongol peoples
4. Balts
5. Sarmatians

Ukrainians (similar to Russians but probably with more "steppe Aryan"-Scythian, Sarmatian, Cimmerian admixture)

Greeks (modern)
1. Hellenes (ancient/classical)
2. Turkic (Turkomen from Central Asia)
3. Iranian (largely via Turks)
4. Illyric (Arvanites, related to Albanians)

Turkish
1. Hellenes (Turkicized Anatolian Greeks, especially in coastal regions)
2. Iranians (Afghans, Persians, Tadzhiks, west Iranians/Medes/Kurds)
3. remnant of pre-Hellenic Anatolians (Hittites, Luwians, Lydians, Lycians, Phrygians; chiefly inland regions of peninsula)
4. Turkomen (Central Asian)
5. Armenoid admixture mostly in the East
6. Celts (Galatians, mainly in central area)
7. Slavs

Romanians
1. Daces
2. Italics
3. Thracians
4. Slavs
5. Goths

Hungarians
1. Slavs
2. Germanic (Teutonic and Gothic)
3. Magyars
4. Huns (?)

Czechs & Slovaks
1. Western Slavs
2. Germanic (Teutonic and Gothic)
3. Magyars
4. Celtic (Bohi, from whom the name Bohemia is derived)

Slovenes, Croats
mostly Southern Slavs and Italians

Serbs, Bosniacs, Montenegrins
mostly Southern Slavs and Illyrians

Bulgarians, Skopjans
1. Southern Slavs
2. Turkic- Turkomen, Bulgars, Avars, Cumans
3. Thraces
4. Illyrians

Albanians
1. Illyrians
2. Turks

Poles
100% Polish (I won't even suggest that Poles might have any Germanic admixture for fear that the ghost of HurganPL or Molobo comes back and kills me!)

The ancestral components are numered in order from largest component to the smallest. As you can see everybody is racially mixed! I am probably wrong about some of them but I base the estimates on my understanding of European history and my reading of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Note that in some countries (Italy, Turkey, France, Germany, Russia) the mixture is far less homogenous than that in smaller countries (England, Scotland, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia). Also, I probably underestimated Hellenic and Phoenician admixture in the Mediterranean.

So to answer the original post, we can never pinpoint the origin of Romanians, but I would say they have a dual origin (Italo-Dacian) with significant Slavic admixture. The English (Brytonic-Anglo-Saxon) and French (Franko-Italo-Gaulish) have triparite origins.
 

Perix

My oppinion

Brief TL
- 106-150: dacian people split in two parts: daco-romans(dacians + roman colonists), and V-dacians(conservative dacians, V from vlach, refering to life-style, not linguistic). First category live in cities and lowlands, the last was forced to adopt highland herdery life-style, latter encountered to vlachs)
- 150-250: daco-roman population increase, but V-dacian population not neccessarely decrease, because of migration of free dacians, tempted by specific products commerce with daco-romans. V-dacians become, somehow, trouble for romans. Even many becomed daco-romans, Carpathian mountains become a kind of over-inflated baloon, because of the over-population. After few revolts, finally V-dacians(part of them) were granted to settle in South-danube highlands, remained low-populated because of intense urbanisation. Here they encountered thraco-illirian highlanders, but V-dacians outnumber them, and asimilate them.
- 250-300: goths invade in waves. daco-romans retreat south-Danube, but a significant part take refuge in V-dacians terittory. V-dacians asimilate them, and this is the first step of the latinisation of the language. V-dacians live pretty undisturbed by goths at north-Danube, but the over-population re-appear. So, part of them migrate south-Danube either, increasing the population and occupied teritorry of V-dacians here. The daco-romans live only south-danube, were they form new provinces called Dacia where are majoritars. Here they asimilate the thraco-iliro remaints. Daco-romans play a significant role in the Empire, giving personalities as Galerius, Licinius, Daia, Regalianus.
- 300-350: in north Danube, goths are replaced by gepids, but V-dacians remain pretty undisturbed, in their not-desired highlands. Some of them migrate to low-lands and mix with gepids, and gothic remaints. Constantine grant them as roman citizens, and try to re-establish a bridge-head at north-Danube, but this will not last long, so, they were re-absorbed in V-dacians population at north-danube. In south-Danube, daco-romans begin to be asimilated by the thraco-illiro latin speakers populations. V-dacians population here increase in tinny steps, due to daco-romans migartions in their teritorry.
- 350-600: dark-age of north-balkans begins. The inter-mixtures become intense, and pretty randomlly. Daco-romans dissapear pretty fast, absorbed by Thraco-illirian latin speakers, and by V-dacians. In few decades after, a new proccess begin: the latin-speakers themselves, step by step, begin to be absorbed by gepid, slav, avar invaders. The refugee ones are asimilated by V-dacians. In the teritories of the V-dacians at south-Danube, begin to appear the over-population problem. Part of them split from V-dacians, and form albanian nation. Part of them migrate north-danube, increasing the number of V-dacians there, and mentaining the ethno-linguistic homogenity between south and north Danube V-dacians. Here, in north-Danube, was a relative long period of gepid rule stability. But finally gepids from low-lands are relegated by avars, and part of them are absorbed by V-dacians. Over-population re-appear, and part of them join to south-Danube V-dacians. Arround 600, V-dacians language is a pretty latinised one.
- 600-700: Latin speakers dissapear, because of slavs and bulgarians relegation&asimilation. The relegated ones are asimilated by south-Danube V-dacians, and Vlachs nation appear. The life-style is completely V-dacian, but latin speakers succed to cvasi-latinise the language and to impose the name of the new nation(rumân, român). Over-population appear, and part of them migrate in north Danube V-dacians teritorry. Not long, at north Danube, avars share the faith of gepids in front of slavo-bulgar invasion. Part of them are asimilated by Vlachs-over population appear, along with part migration in south Danube Vlach teritory. The north Danube Vlachs concentrate especially in Transylvanian highlands and demi-lowlands. Part of them settle in south Panonia.
- 700-1000: The south Danube highlands become to be claimed by the increasing slavo-bulgarian populations. A huge portion of south-Danube Vlachs was forced to migrate in Moesia and north-Danube. At north-danube, highlands were full inhabited already by Vlachs, so the south-danube Vlachs migrants, step by step, relegate&asimilate the slavic, cuman and pecheneg populations from lowlands. In middle and south balkans, only isolated islands of Vlachs remained, who begin to corrupe the name rumân, român, in arumân, armân.
-1000-1200: Finally, all the vlachs from Moesia migrate north-danube, relagating&asimilating the slavs, bulgarians, cumans and pechenegs remaints. Only in bulgarian and Serbian Timoc, a majority vlach(românească) population remained.
 
Last edited:
Cuāuhtemōc

Cuāuhtemōc

Banned
I say the Romanians originate from a combination of what remained of the old Romance-speaking population that lived in post-Roman Dacia and the various Romance-speaking groups that lived in the Balkans that for some reason had migrated north. You have to realize that most of the Dacians were enslaved and deported, leaving the province relatively empty for Roman colonization.
 
Cuāuhtemōc

Cuāuhtemōc

Banned
Perix said:
this is absolutely absurd
Click to expand...

The Romans did enslave and deport most of the Dacian population in the lands they conquered. Then they sent it colonists from different parts of the Empire to settle the newly conquered land. It's not that hard to figure it out.
 

Perix

references about dacians after 106

http://www.roman-emperors.org/galerius.htm
Aurelius Victor, 39, 43, and Eutropius, IX, 24: Diocletian defeated carps(free dacians), in 296, colonising part of them in the Empire.
Aurelian received the title Dacicus Maximus, defeating them(free dacians-inscriptions revealed in Salona, Calatis and Orleans)
Eutropius, IX, 25, 2- Galerius defeated carps 6 times
As I know, Commodus faced few dacians revolts...
so on
I don't deny large portions of fertile lands were expelled from dacians for great latifundiars, ventually few tens thousands of colonists. But ventual persecutions of dacians lasted maximum 10 years. Romans were practical, and ned men-power for its economy
 

Perix

Sa'id Mohammed said:
....the various Romance-speaking groups that lived in the Balkans.....
Click to expand...
:confused: which various romance-speaking groups?
Sa'id Mohammed said:
.... that for some reason had migrated north.
Click to expand...
 There were not mass migrations after around 650-700, when the last latin speakers cities dissapeared. Huge parts of them were asimilated by slavs and bulgarians, other adopted vlachs life-style. Citizens of civilised cities, couldn't adopt forever shepperd highlanders life-style. After the danger of extermination would dissapeared, they would migrate toward cities, and lowlands, were would been asimilated by barbarians. Is likele they were asimilated by highlanders first
 

Perix

Wozza said:
I suppose it is just a matter of degree, and if you live an isolated existence in the hills then passing invaders might rather wash over you.
Click to expand...
In Romania, 1/3 of the relief is mountaineous and sub-mountaineous(high, innaccesible hills). This kind of terrain provide almost no interest for any kind of agriculture. Till 17-18 century, it provided no economichal interest at all, for any medieval latifundiar, since the mild hills and plain provided enough forests for timber. Anyway, even hard accessible, these high hills provide plenty of meadows, where legumes as onion, garlic, kale...even cereals as barley, oat, or hemp...grow pretty well. Very nutritious grass provide food for large herds of sheeps and cows. Vlachs were adapted to live in these highlands, and till 10-11 cnt, they didn't lived in lowlands only sparselly. A very important part of them, continued to live till 19 century. I think I don't exagerate if I say that about 1/5 of romanians still live in these highlands nowdays.
Maybe we have no sources about nowdays Romania, but look what happened with vlachs in the very organised Bizantine Empire in the 11-13 centuries:
Benjamin of Tudela: "No man can go up and battle against them and no king can rule over them"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wallachia
or in Habsborg Empire, in 16-17 century:
http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/texasczech/Valachs/Who are the Valachs.htm
Why should we believe the barbaric goths, avars, bulgarians, slavs, cumans were more capable than bizantine and habsburgs?! As long as Romanian mountains are much more inaccessible than Pindus or moravian carphatians?
 

cimon

rcduggan said:
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?
Click to expand...

None of the two is correct.
1) Dacians were not Romanised since Romans were in Romania 124 years(not enough for Romanisation-Romans remain for more than 500 years in Spain but Spanish didn't become Romans ditto for the British,but the Dacians became...Romanised in 124 years? and please take int account that the Administration did not consist from more than 50 Roman citizens and the legions were not exactly Roman),and not throughout Romania,but in certain parts of Muntenia.
Moldova had noting to do with Romans,and Romania is not their name since it is the name of European Byzantine areas as it is also shown in the Vatican diplomatic correspondence with the Franks of Peloponnese adressing them as lords of Romania.
2)Vlachs were well defined and live(still) in Greece Albania Yugoslavia and south western Romania.Romanians therefore don't come from Vlachs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top