|
|
Post by superman on Oct 31, 2007 12:17:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Oct 31, 2007 13:07:47 GMT -5
That same link states that Romanians (region north of Danube) at least partly romanized Slavs while it also states that regions south of Danube compose of many slavized natives. Genetics and physical anthropology has already proven that both assumptions happen to be accurate.
These balkan native were previously Romanized natives themselves (with Roman identity) but were not Roman originally but rather romanized thus I do not think that the term proto-romanians is warranted (also for the reason that the term is referring to a new nation that is 200+ years old and not one that equals to old romans).
It is also accurate that newly introduced Slavic culture was vastly inferior (in term of civilization) to the older one. It was adapted because Slavs become masters of valleys and rivers and natives were forced to live in highlands. These native (Vlachs) would eventually become slavized by the coming of Turks. It was time when Slavs entered Balkans and when Byzantines were fighting wars of survival against Persians and Arabs and when Byzantines could not protect many of its balkan provinces against numerous barbarians (such as Turkic Avars and Slavs).
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator 
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Oct 31, 2007 13:17:02 GMT -5
That's right, there were no such "proto-Romanians" but Dacian ppl.
The Dacians, as said, were the northern branch of the Thracians.
|
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Oct 31, 2007 15:28:10 GMT -5
Really?
Give me some reliable objective scientific studies that confirm this and I belive you.
|
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 1, 2007 7:12:26 GMT -5
it's quite obvious for all that it might happen that bulgarians to be simply proto-romanians who speak another language.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Nov 1, 2007 12:38:20 GMT -5
Boni, who were the proto-romanians?! Do you mean they were living before Dacians (or Vlach) ppl?! Or.. are you just having fun?  |
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 1, 2007 13:50:34 GMT -5
look what I understand from proto-romanians: they were the population after romans conquered Dacians and Thracians. Vlach is an exonym. When you say Vlach you say Romanians.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Nov 1, 2007 14:30:05 GMT -5
look what I understand from proto-romanians: they were the population after romans conquered Dacians and Thracians. Vlach is an exonym. When you say Vlach you say Romanians. So, you're talking in fact about the Dacians. Those were the ppl before Romans conquered the lands of Dacia and Thrace. The term "proto-romanians" is not the corect one to use. |
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 2, 2007 12:57:57 GMT -5
Actually not, I speak about the population that was formed after romans conquered Dacia, they were proto-romanians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Nov 2, 2007 15:11:26 GMT -5
they were ex slaves from all regions of the empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 3, 2007 6:09:21 GMT -5
ex slaves + romans+ thracians = proto-romanians.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Nov 3, 2007 6:28:21 GMT -5
Actually not, I speak about the population that was formed after romans conquered Dacia, they were proto-romanians. But that population can not be called "proto-romanians"! Proto-ppl you call those who've been existing before as with the same name. You don't create proto-nations.. |
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 3, 2007 13:24:28 GMT -5
are you sure Rhezus? proto-means anterior, or "ante" so proto-romanians means the population before Romanians. It's actually what I said.
|
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 8, 2007 11:53:17 GMT -5
so all Bulgarians are proto-romanians who learned a slavic language.
|
|
