wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Dec 26, 2007 4:41:23 GMT -5
Serbians Serbs claiming that they decended from Samartians and Alans from Persia where in Persia they claim they from the Serboi tribe in Afghanistan. The answer is no they not since magyars decended from Samartians, Alans and plus also Jasz. Serbs have not even decend from Afghanistan as they say, but very truely they came into Balkans all the way from Russia or Armenia, so they are Russians or Armenians, Russians or Armenians of the Balkans, evidence? Serbia's flag, Serbian Language, Serbian's culture and what else? oh yes traditionally being allies with Russia.
Romanians
Romanians claim they from the ancient Daco-Roman in Dacia, they go as far as saying Roman empire was infact Romanian Empire. Another bs theory says that they are Cumanians and Tatars. Answer is wrong, there's no evidence to prove that Romanians decend from Romans or Dacians whatsoever, neither they decend from Tatars or Cumanians why?? cause Hungarians decend from Tatars and Cumanians, Cumanian state was in Hungary before they assimilate into Hungarians. Romanians also from Armenia plus India.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Dec 26, 2007 17:19:55 GMT -5
1. Modern Serbs don't descend from the Sarmatians; most of us nowadays trace our ancestry to the Illyrian (and to a lesser extent Thracian) populations before us. The proto-Serbs were indeed a Sarmatian tribe. Look up Serboi on Wikipedia and you shall see.
2. The notion that Magyars descend from Sarmatians and Alans is something I have never heard of. Do you have any sources?
3. There was never a Cuman state in Hungary, there was an Avar state.
4. Romanians are descendants of the Dacian population there. There is plenty of proof/ Where the fvck do you get that they are from India? SOURCES?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 26, 2007 20:57:21 GMT -5
[
I agree to an extent with Srbobran but I will say its most lilelly that Croatians and Serbs were from same stock their language is so similiar it must came from same area okthey may been sepereated as different tribes origininally they both probably came from Sarmatians or some Iranian tribes but this open so many questions 1) did they have prelanguage b4 Slav. 2) I have read genetically they are mostly Illyrians this means they are from stock of the indifenous peoples that inhabit that southern europe peninsula. So it seems original tribes intermixed with what may have been majority population of Illyrians. I doubt Serbs are Armenians anyway Armenians are possibly very distantly related to Greeks but also Iranian peoples and possibly also Kurds anyway Kurds are Iranian people. As for Russians and Serbs that was political alliance and they share the Orthodox faith hence some sympatico between them.
Romanians
Romanians claim they from the ancient Daco-Roman in Dacia, they go as far as saying Roman empire was infact Romanian Empire. Another bs theory says that they are Cumanians and Tatars. Answer is wrong, there's no evidence to prove that Romanians decend from Romans or Dacians whatsoever, neither they decend from Tatars or Cumanians why?? cause Hungarians decend from Tatars and Cumanians, Cumanian state was in Hungary before they assimilate into Hungarians. Romanians also from Armenia plus India.[/quote]
Romanians in my oppinion possibly had a very small amount of free Dacian stock that went in but not much as I doubt much Dacian pop survived their are many reasons to believe Romanians are were Romanised Illyrians mostly from area around modern day Macedonia and in my oppinion they probably moved north with the Bulgarians when the Bulgarians moved north of Balkans up into Southern Transylvania. Besides that Romanians did mix a lot with Slavs and yes to some degree with Turkic peoples such as Cumans and Petchenegs.
Hungarians definity assimilated Cumans,Avars,Alan/Jasz Petcheneg,Khazar/Kabar and I wouldnt be suprised if there was some truth in an alternative theory for example that has been suggested the 2nd wave of the so called Avars in the 6th/7th century were actually the first migration of the Hungarians I dont think its unlikely the Hungarians were in Karpat Medenc some time before 895/896.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Dec 26, 2007 22:19:51 GMT -5
Serbs and Croats are definitely of the same ethnic stock (even genetically). However, we were always mentioned as being separate tribes. Most Serbs (like you said) are the descendants of Illyrians who took up the Serbian name and ethnos when the proto-Serbs (Sarmatian/Slavic) ones came to the Balkans (hence Serbs being 85% Dinaric)
With regards to the Romanians, I do believe they have some Dacian blood in them, but their origins are complex.
Romania = 35% Dinaric (most common in the west), 25% East Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in the northeast), 10% Alpine, 7% Noric and 3% Nordic (most common in the west) = 30% Nordish (3% central and 27% periphery types)
Dinaric= likely Slavisized Illyrian like you said Mediterannean- like comes from the Romanized Dacian population Neo-Danubian-Slavic genetic term
Im not sure what the other markers point to regarding teh Romanian origins.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Dec 27, 2007 4:54:52 GMT -5
bravo!!!, so they not samartians anymore.
another bs propaganda by serbian xenophobic historians? illyrians are albanians and Thracians are Thracians.
i dont believe in serboi bs same as i dont believe Finno-Ugric bs, serb didnt decend from serboi, they decend from armenians and russians.
just go and look up urself and then tell me if im right.
yes there was a Cumanian state in hungary as well, look at the map and find Kunszag Kun-state or nation in hungarian.
xenophobic proof writen by a brainless Baszi-Bozuk ceasescu.
romanians are gypsies and gypsies came all the way from india, romania = romani nation, romana, romani, rroma are all gypsies not dacians or romans.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Dec 27, 2007 12:34:29 GMT -5
1. You are a brainless moron who can't comprehend basic history let alone co-ordinate his fingers to actually capitalize his letters.
2. You are an Arab, Hungarians are European (by both blood and location), they are Christian, and most of them are in consensus of their Finno-Urgic origins.
3. So even though in De Administrando Imperio (a 9th century Byzantine document), the Serboi are documented as settling first in Germany (Lusatian Serbia) and then moving southwards where we later founded the first Balkan Serbian state, were are not their cultural and ethnic forebears?
4. If Romanians are Gypsies than why the hell are they white? If Romanians are gypsies, then I suppose the founders of the Roman Empire were brown-skinned Indic peoples as well. Idiot.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Dec 28, 2007 0:13:48 GMT -5
serboman my friend ur just a dumb fustrated baszi-bazuk serb being from brainwashed by those dikhead xenophobic serb on their propaganda. before anything else ur wrong, i have half arab blood but still im not arab enough to be arab since i dont know any arab relatives, im originally a Zenta boy habib, yes Zenta not Senta, nothing has been sent in Zenta that's why it's not Senta. A hungarian city where many serbs try to avoid getting bashed by Hungarians. wrong, Hungarians are Turanian by blood and they are Balkans by Location, not all of them are christians, there are jews, buddhist, muslims, hindu, hare-krishna and blah blah blah, and no they are not finno-ugric bs cause they are not finnish but Turks. serboi is unbiased reality, rather say it's a myth and legend. cause they are white gypsies being intermarries with european. u see that's the whole problem with u my friend, u believe in bs, romanians did not founded roman empire, roman people has extinct, if u wanna know the reality. romanians are indo-european people which means they are gypsies cause gypsies are also part of the indo-european family.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 28, 2007 16:02:13 GMT -5
[/quote]
I think majority Romanians were Romanised Illyrians, mostt of the topography/placenames in Transylvania region which was once Dacia and supposedly the land of the Daco-Roms before the Hungarians arrived was Slavic I think there is almost no Romanian word placenames but later the placenames Romanians adopted placenames taklen from Slavic or Hungarian words meaning that they was just Romanised variants. The Romanian histiography has a lot of responses to anything that is against their Daco-Rom continuity theory but really in my oppinion I dont find many of their arguments convincing and as I said about placenames if any people inhabit a place continuosly for hundreds of years its most likely they keep their own placenames. I alo tend to believe some Romanians or proto Romanians/Vlachs were living in very southern region of Transylvania around Fogaras at the time of Hungarian arrival into North Transylvania but very few of them if any was in the north at that point as mostly Slavic peoples were encountered. I agree with you Rom histoy is complex but I think for the most part they weree Romanised Illyrians and they probably moved north with the Bulgars. Once they were in Transylvania region I tend to agree to certain point with the Romanians historian Djuvara they mixed heavily with Slavs that eventually assimilated to them maybe its possible some percentage of free Dacians or Slavicised Dacians went ino them also but I dont know how much proof there is that Dacians survived through to 9th/ 8th century and if so I imagine in very small numbers.
I dont think its a case of direct descent by origin but rather the proto Hungarians before entering Hungary had mixed with and assimilated Alan tribes this is evidenced by linguistics also. In the Hungarian Hunor-Magor origin legend which was written around 14th century the Magyars were the product of intermarriage of Scythians and Alans and their brothers the Huns were also product of Scythians and Alans. in the 12th century a group of Iranian people called Jasz possibly relations of Alans moved to Hungary and were later asimilated into Hungarian ethnogenesis.
The Hungarian history is complex. Whilst I think their is some truth to be found in Finno-Ugric theory I dont discount completely other ideas . The Finno-Ugric theory probably uses the wrong terms as the question is who exactly are we talking about I dont think their is much connection with Finns but possibly distant connection with Uralic tribes but again I believe there are things that are maybe not known enough about Uralic tribes of that period. For example not much is really known about Huns nobody knows exactly what language they spoke most say Turkic language but for all we know maybe it was Uralic or maybe Turkic-Uralic or maybe Hungarian my point is in my oppinion the Hungarian history is complex and I dont discount completly certain possibilities and the Finno-Ugric theory doesnt explain evrything its a late theory developed in more modern times. Yes Hungarians are predominantly European by blood and location but we have an eastern heritage also and their is still some eastern genetics in Hungary supposedly 25% Turanian amongst us. Its not unusual to find eastern elements in east european people for example many southern Slavs also assimilated the remnants of the Avar empire. There are Turkics ...Cumans and Petchenegs assimilated into Romanians and Poles and Ukraines had a lot of Tatar assimilation.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 30, 2007 5:22:02 GMT -5
Hungary is not in Balkans. Hungary was always historically considered to be in Central Europe. Hungary only started to be really asscociated as an East European country when it became part of the Eastern Bloc and became Communust country.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Jan 9, 2008 3:27:31 GMT -5
yes i know how much hungarians like u are denying it but still hungary is balkans, here's the list why. 1. Hungarians intermarries with Balkan people ( Serbs, Croat, Albanians, Romanians, etc etc). 2. Ottomans use to owned these region and hungary was the last balkan country inside ottoman empire. 3. Our attitude is pretty much the same as any balkan people except killing each other. 4. Too many greeks, serbs, croats, bosnians, albanians and turks moved to hungary bringing their medditeranian-balkans athmosphere with them which made hungary even more balkan than we think. 5. Gypsies are typically balkan since now we have too many gypsies there. Hungary was central europe, was eastern europe but now hungary is heading towards Balkans as many western country veiws it. But seriously it's nothing wrong with it, Balkan has a very colourful cultures. that's why we say "Balkanoskodunk" which means we Balkan playing or something like that lol. ;D ;D
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jan 9, 2008 3:34:35 GMT -5
yes i know how much hungarians like u are denying it but still hungary is balkans, here's the list why. 1. Hungarians intermarries with Balkan people ( Serbs, Croat, Albanians, Romanians, etc etc). 2. Ottomans use to owned these region and hungary was the last balkan country inside ottoman empire. 3. Our attitude is pretty much the same as any balkan people except killing each other. 4. Too many greeks, serbs, croats, bosnians, albanians and turks moved to hungary bringing their medditeranian-balkans athmosphere with them which made hungary even more balkan than we think. 5. Gypsies are typically balkan since now we have too many gypsies there. Hungary was central europe, was eastern europe but now hungary is heading towards Balkans as many western country veiws it. But seriously it's nothing wrong with it, Balkan has a very colourful cultures. that's why we say "Balkanoskodunk" which means we Balkan playing or something like that lol. ;D ;D Get a clue. You obviously need one.
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Jan 12, 2008 5:04:45 GMT -5
To end all the bullnuts that goes around here:
.... and look at all 6 parts.
WBB and Oszkar stop making hillarious claims that you can`t back up by SOURCES.
.... but WBB is amazing as always: "The answer is no they not since magyars decended from Samartians, Alans and plus also Jasz [...] cause Hungarians decend from Tatars and Cumanians"
;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 12, 2008 8:50:03 GMT -5
Diur, stop posting that video. The author is an idiot, like wbb, who can't spell for shyt.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jan 16, 2008 2:53:42 GMT -5
To end all the bullnuts that goes around here: .... and look at all 6 parts. WBB and Oszkar stop making hillarious claims that you can`t back up by SOURCES. .... but WBB is amazing as always: "The answer is no they not since magyars decended from Samartians, Alans and plus also Jasz [...] cause Hungarians decend from Tatars and Cumanians" ;D ;D ;D I did see it the first time when you posted it in Rom forum but I didntbother to post and nor did I feel convinced. I suppose we can go back and foprth with this conversation forever but I will just make some points about what the author of those videos states. he presents the idea that there couldnt be south to north migrations because current pop Romanania is near 30 mil, so its as if he is suggesting always a very large populations of Romanians in mostly Erdely where it is traditionaly proposed Daco-Rom inhabited as majority. so if we imagine such a great Rom pop in Eredely then ... 1) why they couldnt defend themselves or overcome a supposedly much much smaller contingent of Hungarians. If there was such high numbers that he suggest why were Hungarians able to make settlements throughout Transylvania without any problems and initially only using a few Hungarian clans and not the full force of Hungarian milititary capacity. In the same time eastern Hungarian clans were making settlements into Erdely a few western Hungarian clans were off ransacking western europe. So really how can such a supposed large majority population be easily overcome by only a few Hungarian clans. And another point the author of that video gives a huge list of words that according to him are supposedly Dacian, I would like to see sources that are generally accepted by the international ethnographic/linguistic/historian communities that accept there is legitimate proof all those many words he give are Dacian. From what I have read there is not much remnants of Dacian language so I tend to think he is asscociating what could be called words of unknown origin to be Dacian. Another point he seem to avoid is that the majority place names/topography of Erdely region at the arrival of Hungarians was not Romanian words bur Slavic. The later used Romanian placenames many of there were Romanian variants of Slavic and Hungarian placenames. I think its very unusaual any large population of people could inhabit a place consistantly for long periods of time and not maintain placenames in their own language but adopt the names of others. The authority of the Erdely region at arrival of Hungarians was not in any official capacity under Romanian authority but more loosely under distant Bulgarian and near Byzantine authority. Its know that Bulgarians had moved north into Erdely and were mining gold there. Even serious Romanian historian who have some belief Romanians were in Erdely at time of Hungarian arrival conclude that Erdely was not densly populated place and population was not high. How do the predecessors of 30 mill people inhabit place with only very small population. As for finds of Roman plates etc. Romans were in many places of Europe in very distant past and there are finds of Roman items all over Europe this isnt just in Romania.
|
|