Where was Dacia and who were Dacians? Relationship between old Dacia and modern Romania

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by Monolith

It became more and more latinised by whom?

by the latin speakers, who were relegated from cities, and fertile lands. they mixed with dacians, and becomed dacians.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Slavs intermixed with virtually everyone they encountered in their new lands.

they mixed with valachians, also, but not of such degree like bulgarians. bulgarian language is now very similar to russian. valachian never was.

Originally Posted by Monolith

The best possible example is the assimilation of Vlachs and their non-romanised kinsmen in the West (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina), who in turn were unrelated to Romanian Vlachs, but have lived the very same, pastoral life.

if you refere to aromanians, they were(are) related to romanians. it is another think the official theory of every country, who wished and wish them assimilated in their nation, for political reasons. the istroromanians are the best example: their language is vanished now, because the slavic(croatians, yugo) desinterest&compulsive assimilation. now, as are only few hundreds istro-romanian speakers, croatians afford themself to recognise they are a minority(but is too late). the slavs didn't mixed with valachians too much, for few reasons:1.they were, first, the conquerors(exterminators) of the latin speakers from cities, not the victims. 2. the dacian language was already latinised a little, when the latins asked for shelter-the valachian language was almost formed, and not "slavicised", when ventuals slavs asked highland. 3. in fact slavs not realy asked highlands, only latter, when valachian and slavs(especialy bulgars)splited.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Another possible clue is the fact that Romanian language was 'infested' with Slavic words, up until the 18th century, when one could have easily called it a Romance-Slavic hybrid, maybe even due the influence of the Old Church Slavonic, which was official language in the liturgy. It was only later that these words, as well as the cyrillic script, were eliminated from the Romanian language and replaced with ones from the Western Romance languages. But there are still some words (like 'dragostea', 'da', 'zmeu', 'prietenul') left to witness that it was different in the past.

beyound the trues of this speakings, is the modern variant of some balkanic states theory, to justify the compulsive assimilation of the vlachs(aromanians), or teritorial claimings. the slavic words still are in romanian language. you have examples of many slavic words replaced by the western romance? i guess not, because you just follow your country official theory(me not). it was just o process to create the literar romanian language. it is obviously, since we were vlachs, we chosed neologismus from romance consolidated languages. it were replaced even latins words. but neighter slavic or latin replaced words were not such many, that the inamical theories suggest: we still understand old texts. in fact, lets enumerate states with teritorial claimings: Hungary, Russia, Ukrain, Bulgaria. and lets enumerate the states with vlachs minorities(aromanians and romanians), who are recognised like minority or not, who are recognised to be related with romanians or not, who are in the way of assimilation, or already assimilated: Greece, FYROM, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria. something miss me?

[Tarabos]

for those readers from other zones than balkans, it is good to know that almost all the states in the areea have historical disputes between them: croatians with serbians and slovenians, serbians with romanians, croatians, albanians, bulgarians. hungarians with serbians, croatians, slovacians and romanians. romanians with hungarians, , ukraineans, russians, bulgarians...greece with turks, FYROMS, albania...and this are not all examples.

[Tarabos]

one question for Monolith: i understand you oppinion about what we are not. i don't understand your point about what we are: albanians or slavs?!!!!!

[Tarabos]

anyway, gadlen, this thread, concern, in my oppinion, a dacian migration somewhen in 4-5, or 6 century ad. the dzukian migration was performen, in my oppinion, much latter. i understand the dzukians live, also, in northern Poland. you ever heard about "gorali", in Poland? it is posible that dzukians to be a branch of goralies?

[heartbreaker]

I found a strange/weird picture with a viking :


I think he looks like a dacian . if you look at Trajan's Column you will see how dacian looked. For me this is Decebalus from romanian movie Dacii (1966) : Daciaimages

[heartbreaker]

Viking woman had roots near the Black Sea

Viking woman had roots near the Black Sea - Aftenposten.no

I found this thread on this forum. In Lithuania , Germany, Denmark and Sweden exists some "alternative" stories about a dacian-getae tribe's travel from Carpathians to northern Europe.
Another dacian tribe seems to take another route : Macedonia --> Istria --> Italy Coast-->Spain

SApolN-3Wise-Men on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[heartbreaker]

This site :
Article - The Heruls / Eruli / Heruli / Heruler

offer us a new picture about the link between dacians and Danemark.

[Tarabos]

the viking look realy like a dacian, at least from girdle to above. it is not imposible that in the 4-5 century, dacian tribes to migrated even in Scandinavia, and the vikings to adopt what seems to been a "supperior" culture, at the time.
in my oppinion, the legend of the link between dacians(geats) and goths is something in the middle: most truthful than the pesimistic oppinions, and less truthfull than the optimistic ones. the words i mentioned above look mostly like scandinavian ones, than gothic.
after my knowledges, gothic language was a combination between slavic and germanic(mostly germanic). i think dacians spoke a combination between tracian and germanic(mostly germanic). when the goths arrived in former Dacia(after 275), they were impressed about the similitudines between the names(geats&goths), and languages. So, is not hard to believe, for the ordinar goths, that the geats and goths had a common root, before(i'd believe myself, too). Later, when they wished to migrate southern, they ned fiercely a most noble "pedigree", than the gothic one, to acced to the imperial functions. And they saw in the dacian history a perfect ocassion.
But, by 275, the dacians adopted mostly the highland life-style, and goths were a steppe people. i think were performed mixtures between the two peoples, but were two tipes of mixtures: 1. the most numerous-dacians joined gothic tribes. they adopted gothic life-style, and migrated with them in Italy and Spain. 2. goths joined dacians-they adopted dacian life-style, and remained with them in dacia and balkans highlands. but the dacian tribes who migrated north, were mostly dacians.

[heartbreaker]

Lithuania's language have similarity with Sanskrit ( but romanian language have too).
Let see an example :

“Dievas davė dantis; Dievas duos duonos” (Lithuanian)
“Devas adadāt datas; Devas dāt (or dadāt) dhānās” (Sanskrit)
“Deus dedit dentes; Deus dabit panem” (Latin)
(“God gave the teeth; God will give bread”).

Marija Gimbutas — The Balts — Chapter 4

In Romania we have even a cite named Deva (like in Sanskrit) , a spiritual/religious center for dacians and all antiq dacian cites have suffix -dava (Sucidava, Buridava, Argedava) and dava/deva means God. Now I think is something rotten in Danemark ...and Lithuania.

[Tarabos]

does anyone have any information about the roman XXIV legion, dragon seal?

[heartbreaker]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

does anyone have any information about the roman XXIV legion, dragon seal?

You refer about draco standard ? Here i found some informations :

The draco, the Late Roman military standard

and:

Legion XXIV - Imperial Standards


About Legend of Arthur , a few scholars think that he was a sarmatian knight serving for Rome.
Now we know that dacian was mixed with sarmatians. So was Arthur a dacian ?

These are Sarmatians :

[Tarabos]

yes, but, in fact i hopped someone would have informations about roman legions in Britania, doned by dacians

[heartbreaker]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

yes, but, in fact i hopped someone would have informations about roman legions in Britania, doned by dacians

If you are romanian you can read this :
Daca esti roman uite aici ceva legat de asta :

Daci in Britania?: ZIUA

[Tarabos]

thank you very much: so, i'm the not the lonely wolf! i don't write in romanian, because, i think, is against the rules.

[Tarabos]

i wonder why romanian historians not wrote about(or not too much)! along with many other informations, concerning not only the britain.

[heartbreaker]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

i wonder why romanian historians not wrote about(or not too much)! along with many other informations, concerning not only the britain.

In fact they wrote but their books are hard to find.I am also interested about dacian history and i found alternative sources on internet , public library , etc

[Tarabos]

well, on internet i found something, also, but not much. can you tell me something about books, authors?

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

by the latin speakers, who were relegated from cities, and fertile lands. they mixed with dacians, and becomed dacians.

All right then. I was a bit confused when you said that latins were either killed or displaced, so it sounded almost impossible to me that such marginal and almost obliterated group had succeeded in romanising such major number of native Dacians, even in the long term.

they mixed with valachians, also, but not of such degree like bulgarians. bulgarian language is now very similar to russian. valachian never was.

I've only said that it's complete nonsense that Slavs chose particularly Bulgars to intermix with, without ever mentioning the linguistic affinity.

if you refere to aromanians, they were(are) related to romanians. it is another think the official theory of every country, who wished and wish them assimilated in their nation, for political reasons.

Not really. I was referring to Vlachs who descended from the paleobalkanic native substrata, and were most probably not akin to Dacians. Anyway, there are no Aromanians in Croatia, because they inhabit more southern regions of the Balkans. My country has no official theory on the Romanian ethnogenesis, at least not that I know of, so I'm just drawing my own conclusions. Furthermore, I enjoy discussing this issue with a native speaker.

the istroromanians are the best example: their language is vanished now, because the slavic(croatians, yugo) desinterest&compulsive assimilation. now, as are only few hundreds istro-romanian speakers, croatians afford themself to recognise they are a minority(but is too late).

As you've said it yourself, the Istro-Romanian language has not vanished, but is endangered. The Istro-Romanians are derived from the same paleobalkanic ethnic substrate (they were mostly Delmatoi IMO) as the rest of Vlachs who assimilated into Croatian ethnic corpus much earlier, and are thus unrelated to Romanians. You are, however, correct about the former regime and its treatment of all what was romance. They were obsessed by the Slavdom in general. There was a pastoral people of Dalmatia and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who spoke the dialect called 'Murlaška besida' or 'Morlachian speech' (Morlachs were Istro-Romanian predecessors). The dialect itself was a Slavic-Romance hybrid, but its speakers were slavicised during the Yugoslavian period.

the slavs didn't mixed with valachians too much, for few reasons:1.they were, first, the conquerors(exterminators) of the latin speakers from cities, not the victims.

If they were conquerors, the probability is that they did mix with the latin speakers, to some degree.

beyound the trues of this speakings, is the modern variant of some balkanic states theory, to justify the compulsive assimilation of the vlachs(aromanians), or teritorial claimings. the slavic words still are in romanian language. you have examples of many slavic words replaced by the western romance? i guess not, because you just follow your country official theory(me not). it was just o process to create the literar romanian language. it is obviously, since we were vlachs, we chosed neologismus from romance consolidated languages. it were replaced even latins words. but neighter slavic or latin replaced words were not such many, that the inamical theories suggest: we still understand old texts. in fact, lets enumerate states with teritorial claimings: Hungary, Russia, Ukrain, Bulgaria. and lets enumerate the states with vlachs minorities(aromanians and romanians), who are recognised like minority or not, who are recognised to be related with romanians or not, who are in the way of assimilation, or already assimilated: Greece, FYROM, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria. something miss me?

But how do you explain that there is indeed great lexical similarity of Romanian with French and Italian? The linguistic ties were severed centuries ago, so it's practically impossible that the current state is natural. It would surely imply that number of words replaced during the Romanian language reform was much higher than just 'not so many', especially when one is aware that the predecessor language of the contemporary Romanian was cut off from the rest of Romance world relatively early, enabling the Vulgar Latin to evolve into a different direction. It didn't make sense to me that you've decided to replace your own words by foreign ones, in order to create your literary standard.

Originally Posted by Tarabos