|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 17:37:40 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 17, 2012 17:37:40 GMT -5
Actually you are right, Wallachia was not a Bulgarian province. The lands where Wallachia was founded upon in the 14th c. were a Bulgarian province. The lands of what came to compromise Wallachia were ruled by local voivodships that were vassal to the Empire of Vlachs and Bulgarians.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 18:08:09 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 17, 2012 18:08:09 GMT -5
Actually the Romanian Duchies mentioned in 1247 were under Hungarian suzerainty and before that during the Tatars invasion of 1241, when crossing Carpathians they had to fight Romanians as well according to Rashid-al-Din.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 18:13:04 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 17, 2012 18:13:04 GMT -5
That's why both Muntenia (Wallachia) and Moldavia had to carry some heavy fights against Hungarians and not against Bulgarians to establish themselves as independent states.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 18:34:52 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 17, 2012 18:34:52 GMT -5
Right on. I was going to mention that, but figured it was pointless to take the discussion to such an advanced level. Still, we owe a little to the Bulgarians for achieving our independence. You see, if their progenitor, the Mongols, hadn't invaded Transylvania and put the neighboring lands along with Hungary under sword and fire, the Hungarians might have been strong enough to keep more, if not all of Wallachia. And who knows what would've become of the future Moldavia! They might have been able to hold all of that land, just like they were able to hold Transylvania for so long (mostly as a vassal principality, but still).
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 19, 2012 1:06:38 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 19, 2012 1:06:38 GMT -5
Ahh your history of significance starts late, that is true. However, by the time your people founded a principality, my people had founded a state which the East Romans referred to as 'Old Great Bulgaria'. In later years my predecessors established an entity that is commonly known throughout history as 'The First Bulgarian Empire'. These events occurred centuries before your principality sprung about, but none the less, the lands upon which your principality was founded were Bulgarian for centuries before.
Ahh yet again your time frames are off. And no, nobody was fighting "Romanians" as "Romanians" did not exist back then.. nor was there an identity remotely resembling the identity which you claim today until the 1800's.
Yup, time frames.. completely off. You speak of the 14th century, I speak of all things preceding it.
As for the terms Vlach and Wallachian; Anittas himself once claimed that they are not equivalent. You really need to understand the context in which a term is used. Vlach has always been used as an ethnic designation, while Wallachian has been used as a regional or political designation.. meaning, one does not necessarily be a Vlach to be Wallachian.
Similarly one does not need to be a Bulgar to be Bulgarian. However, the use of context for the terms pertaining to my people differs from the context of the terms used for your people. Bulgar and Bulgarian have been used as synonyms to refer to ethnic designation exclusively.
If we get into this even further, it is speculated that the roots of the term Vlach are traced back to the term Blachorum. There is much speculation about the association of these two terms, as I've read that there are uncertainties as to whether Vlach actually derives from Blachorum.
You speak of things with certainty, yet there's much you don't know. And so it is true, the arrogance of ignorance can be astonishing..
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 19, 2012 9:28:09 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 19, 2012 9:28:09 GMT -5
The only one ignorant here is you, since you refuse to understand the sources from the 16th century that describe the Romanian identity.
This is incorrect. Giovanni Andrea Gromo, an Italian traveler, stated that we called ourselves Romanian, in dualism to our regional identity.
It is your time frame that is off. The history of the two principalities being shortly before their foundation, in the 13th century; our presence is dated to 11th century, perhaps earlier if other sources.
And no, scholars don't disagree that Blachorum or Blakumen stands for Vlachs. Care to show us where you read that? Or did you make it up, like you make up so many other things, including that our Romanian identity was not established prior to the 18th century?
|
|
elemag
Senior Moderator
Posts: 369
|
nicetas
Feb 19, 2012 17:43:17 GMT -5
Post by elemag on Feb 19, 2012 17:43:17 GMT -5
Ok, Anittas and AofG. I got your point. One thing left to be cleared. The she-wolf...are you Romulus and Remus she is breastfeeding? And which one of you is Romulus and which one is Remus?
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 19, 2012 17:48:25 GMT -5
Post by croatchessmaster on Feb 19, 2012 17:48:25 GMT -5
I am glad Bulgaria deported all their gypsies to Romania, this is where they belong. This is also why they are called Roma, the original Romanians.
You Anittas, are just a bi-product of a Gypsy and a Bulgar.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 19, 2012 17:51:48 GMT -5
Post by croatchessmaster on Feb 19, 2012 17:51:48 GMT -5
Anittas you are not alone, the Albanians are in the same position.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 19, 2012 18:43:17 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 19, 2012 18:43:17 GMT -5
Ok, Anittas and AofG. I got your point. One thing left to be cleared. The she-wolf...are you Romulus and Remus she is breastfeeding? And which one of you is Romulus and which one is Remus? Don't mock your ancestors.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 1:35:57 GMT -5
Post by terroreign on Feb 20, 2012 1:35:57 GMT -5
I am glad Bulgaria deported all their gypsies to Romania, this is where they belong. This is also why they are called Roma, the original Romanians. You Anittas, are just a bi-product of*gypsy and a Bulgar. please, sir, do not insult the Romanians, for you only insult yourself. albanians though, are part-gypsy, there i give you credit where credit is due.
|
|
elemag
Senior Moderator
Posts: 369
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 7:05:09 GMT -5
Post by elemag on Feb 20, 2012 7:05:09 GMT -5
I never mock my ancestors. I was referring to yours. Why do you accept this as a mocking, btw? I admitted you and Arse of Goat are the very first Romans. What else do you expect me to say? That you are Cain and Abel? I can't go that far back in history...
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 9:58:42 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 20, 2012 9:58:42 GMT -5
Please stop mocking your Roman ancestors by employing sarcasm.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 10:30:21 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 20, 2012 10:30:21 GMT -5
I never mock my ancestors. I was referring to yours. Why do you accept this as a mocking, btw? I admitted you and Arse of Goat are the very first Romans. What else do you expect me to say? That you are Cain and Abel? I can't go that far back in history... hahaha, but they can... sometimes in certain Romanian members I see the "macedonian" bug - with Cleopatra, Alex, Philiph and all the others that had little to do (if any) with them
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 10:33:30 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 20, 2012 10:33:30 GMT -5
I never mock my ancestors. I was referring to yours. Why do you accept this as a mocking, btw? I admitted you and Arse of Goat are the very first Romans. What else do you expect me to say? That you are Cain and Abel? I can't go that far back in history... hahaha, but they can... sometimes in certain Romanian members I see the "macedonian" bug - with Cleopatra, Alex, Philiph and all the others that had little to do (if any) with them WTF you talking about, Mongol? All of the natives in the Balkan peninsula are related, even if we're distant cousins. Now STFU!
|
|
elemag
Senior Moderator
Posts: 369
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 12:37:18 GMT -5
Post by elemag on Feb 20, 2012 12:37:18 GMT -5
You read that in Romanian sources? Sure they provide tons of information how Dacians attended Thracian and Greek weddings or funerals and how quickly the invitations or messages were delivered long before Romans established the road network in the Balkans. Amazing locals. Can you also provide us with some info on their dating methods?
As for the Mongol stuff, let me remind you that Romania is the only territory that wasn't missed by a single tribe you refer to as Mongols. Not a single one, all of them passed through your today's lands. Some established states as well. Were they such men of steal to ignore the beauty of local Vlah women?
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 13:48:18 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 20, 2012 13:48:18 GMT -5
all of them passed through your today's lands. Some established states as well. You're right, they passed through, they didn't stayed though, the Mongoloids preferred to settle on the lands of today Bulgaria and Hungary. Germans moved into W Europe. Some stayed too much and were exterminated, like it was the case with the Gepids. Gypsy camps are not states.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 15:13:01 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 20, 2012 15:13:01 GMT -5
You read that in Romanian sources? Sure they provide tons of information how Dacians attended Thracian and Greek weddings or funerals and how quickly the invitations or messages were delivered long before Romans established the road network in the Balkans. Amazing locals. Can you also provide us with some info on their dating methods? As for the Mongol stuff, let me remind you that Romania is the only territory that wasn't missed by a single tribe you refer to as Mongols. Not a single one, all of them passed through your today's lands. Some established states as well. Were they such men of steal to ignore the beauty of local Vlah women? No, not in Romanian books. The Dacians were a Thracian people. The Thracians were distant relatives to the Mycenaean, thus a big part of the Greek world. The Thracians and the Mycenaean had split up shortly after their invasion from Asia Minor. Then you have the Illyrians who would intermix with their neighbors. There's nothing peculiar about this. The same goes for every region and group of people. For instance, the Scandinavians (north Germanics) are distant relatives to the Germans and the Dutch, the latter being mixed with Gauls. Bulgarians are distant relatives to the modern Turks, Mongols, Tatars, Huns, and whatever else is out there. There is no shame in any of that!
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 15:53:59 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 20, 2012 15:53:59 GMT -5
Uhh there's some truth to what you've posted, but as I've already mentioned, it is clear that you knowledge on these matters is very limited.
Some historians conclude that the ancient writers have used the terms 'Bulgars' and 'Huns' to refer to the same people. This, as most of these topics, is something that requires greater detail as the 'Huns' were not a homogeneous ethnic group but rather a federation of tribes having various different ethnic origins.
It is a fact that the main striking forces of Attila's Huns have been Bulgar tribes, and Attila himself may have actually been an ancestor of Kan Kubrat of Old Great Bulgaria.
It is also known that the ancient Bulgar language may in fact have been the same as the Hun language, or viceversa. It has also been recorded that the ancient Hun language was unlike any other. Historians often have a difficult time putting this language into a group, be it Turkic, Irannic, or whatever else. Some historians have concluded that it may have been unique on its own. Others conclude that it was a Turkic language, mainly due to the use of Turkic style military titles and some personal names.. however, it seems there were many Irannic elements in it, among others that are deemed 'unique'. It must also be taken into consideration that many of these tribes, and all Bulgar tribes, were subjugated by the Gok Turk Empire for a few centuries, which is where many of Turkic influences have entered the language and culture.
As for your use of the term 'Mongols', these are some very outdated theories that were based on the unearthing of a warrior's grave that was originally thought to have been a Bulgar.. however, it was later discovered that it was actually a Mongol. These theories have been overturned many decades ago. With regards to genetic Asiatic/Mongol influences in Bulgarians today, these are more accurately traced back to the Mongol invasions of Europe.. and coincidentally, Asiatic influences can be found all over the Balkans.
Your use of the term 'Turk' is inaccurate. Given the context of your claims, it would be more appropriate to use the term 'Turkic'. None the less, the term 'Bulgar' pre-dates the term 'Turk/Turkic' by several centuries. And the Bulgars have never been referred to as Turkic by East Roman scholars, while at the same time the Magyars have been mentioned as Turkic.. meaning, the East Romans were fully capable of making the distinction.
Your use of the term 'Tatar' is also inaccurate. 'Tatar' is a term that was originally used to label all peoples that were subjugated by the Mongols, much like the term 'Barbarian' has been used to label all non-Romans or non-Christians.
Point is, you sound like an emotionally charged dimwit who gets flustered simply by the fact that there are a variety of people on this forum that can easily point out your intellectual shortcomings; challenging your perceived notions of "superiority".
My suggestion to you is to actually learn about the things you write. For the time being, you remain a semi-literate retard who suffers from delusions of grandeur.. but alas, most things you post reveal how dumb you actually are.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 20, 2012 20:37:38 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 20, 2012 20:37:38 GMT -5
Retard, I know about the term Turkic, but I meant Turk, which is why I specifically wrote "modern Turks". I also know about the Huns constituting different people (as was the case with the Scythians). As for this claim of yours, that 'Tatar' is a term that was originally used to label all peoples that were subjugated by the Mongols, much like the term 'Barbarian' has been used to label all non-Romans or non-Christians", this is utter ignorance on your part. I suggest that you look more into the history of your kindship before you expect foreigners to do that.
So it seems you can't even get your own history right. You god damn monster!
|
|