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

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Racowie

They existed in time when name of Sarmatians was universal designation for all Slavs.

So? Sarmatians were a people of Iranian stock. I don't see how they're connected to Dacians. The fact that they were influenced by Iranic-speaking people doesn't make them Slavic.

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Monolith

The fact that they were influenced by Iranic-speaking people doesn't make them Slavic.

fact? what fact?

Dacians, Tracians etc ancient ethnic formations were all kin tribes/people and all Sarmatian speaking peoples. And, Sarmatians were Proto Slavs or to say just - Slavs.

Who wrote `your` history, man?

Probably the same who wrote that Croats aren`t Slavs but Germans by origin

[heartbreaker]

Originally Posted by Racowie

as i said, Dacians were Slavs. They existed in time when name of Sarmatians was universal designation for all Slavs.

Well we know that Sarmatians from Dacia were Iranian at origins.In Dacia were 2 sarmatian tribes :Rhoxolani and Iazyges .

Other Sarmatians may were Protoslavs/Pseudoslavs at origins but under influence of Dacian - Greek - Latin religion and language become actual romanian (actually in romanian language we have today a few archaic slavonic words of unkown origin).

Dacians weren't Slavs. Dacians spoked an archaic mixed language between sanskrit and latin.

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by Monolith

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

the valachians lived, especialy in highlands. the ones who lived in plains areea, mixed with slavs. it is not easy to live in highlands, if you are not addapted to it.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Not really. I was referring to Vlachs who descended from the paleobalkanic native substrata, and were most probably not akin to Dacians.

we have different oppinions. first: all the vallachians in balkans(as i know, istro-romanian also), inherited the same life style: the highlands pastoralship: the same with the dacians. secondly, i don't know much about istro-romanians, but i know aromanians from Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM and Greece. their oppinion are they are the descendants of dacians, and they have many dacian words in their language. there are exceptions, due to assimilation policy(especialy in Greece), where are valachians who believe they are greek descendants, and there are valachians who are affraid to say they are dacians. in my oppinion, once lived the same people, south and north danube, but, the aromanians are remaints from the southern branch, when the bulk moved north. being isolated, their language evolved diferently, from isle to isle.

Originally Posted by Monolith

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

of course, were different migrators, also avars, goths,... there are evidences of examples wherethey relegated and exterminated all the citisens(including slavs). of course, in other cities they mixed with latins: but they asimilated latins. besides, they ned only latin functionaries, some undertakens,...

Originally Posted by Monolith

But how do you explain that there is indeed great lexical similarity of Romanian with French and Italian?

i admit, is not simple to explain the valach origins. maybe oftenly, i annoy myself when i have to explain things. many simple romanians don't tired themself too much, to learn well their own history. the only natural "slavicisation" was performed before 11 century, when vlachs mixed with slavs. no word from that period was replaced(besides is imposible to force a people to rennounce to a language)after that, was an artificial "slavisation" of the language, due to church, and to snobism of the elite class. there are old texts who show slavonic majority, and texts who proove an overwhelming latin majority. the ordinar peoples spoke only latin majoritar. the "slavic" words were a kind if slavicised latin words, or latinised slavic words, and were different for zone to zone. the so-called "reformation", was, in fact, an enrichment: the natural slavic words still remained, like sinonimes, and we still use it. i can show you an old valachian text, where latin words are majoritary, and the others are slavic, or ones which sound rather with germanic than slavic. the neo-rosler theory is a forced, artificial theory.

Originally Posted by heartbreaker

It seems that a daco-roman legion built a fortress in Britannia : Deva Victrix or simply Deva.

anyway, the similarity with the dacian word DEVA(city, fortress), is another amasing coincidence...

Originally Posted by Racowie

as i said, Dacians were Slavs. They existed in time when name of Sarmatians was universal designation for all Slavs.

as i know, the slavs are originated from baltic planes. the schithian tribes contributed to the bulk of many actual peoples, but were not slavs.

Originally Posted by heartbreaker

Dacians weren't Slavs. Dacians spoked an archaic mixed language between sanskrit and latin.

the fact that dacians spoke a latin dialect is a very popular ideea between romanians, due to paralel literature, but i don't agree. in fact, i retain myself from any links before 4-5 century bc. in my oppinion, dacians were tracians, in 4 century bc, and in first century ad they remained tracians culturaly, but lor of germanic in blood and language.

[qmsq]

Romanians are more like macedonians- they history is written now and you know that they are the greatest.Romanians is a big combine of nations called later romanians in the building of Balkanian nations in 19 century

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by qmsq

Romanians are more like macedonians- they history is written now and you know that they are the greatest.Romanians is a big combine of nations called later romanians in the building of Balkanian nations in 19 century

brilliant! take it easy, you are hungry already!

[Tarabos]

you have my agreement that many romanians are ill-founded overconfidents. i don't know if it is just a coincidence, not an herritage from italians, or simply the effect of the comunists policy....

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

as i know, the slavs are originated from baltic planes. the schithian tribes contributed to the bulk of many actual peoples, but were not slavs.

Italian scientist Mario Alinei proved impossible that Slavs expanded from the North, considering that climatology does not support such a scenario (you needed warm climate for sustain agriculture which supported Slavic demographic boom; old chronicles, point on fact that Slavs were most numerous ethos in Europe even in deep past). It is also confirmed that knowladge of agriculture in Europe was introduced and distributed from within and arround Danubian cultural area and that Proto Slavs/Slavs were bearers of it. This complete scenario is also supported by linguistics and genetic foundings. Opened scientific questions on that are matter of, to say- technical details.

so, Slavs originates from Balkan, which was first European soil free from ice, after Ice Age was finished. From there Slavs expanded. First, it was Bulgaria and Macedonia, then Western Balkan (today`s Serbia) and Romania, etc, etc.


Scithians, being kin ethos to Sarmatians (in fact- branch of Sarmatians) were also Proto Slavs. In history, they were remembered as nomadic ethnic formation as even their Slavic tribal name suggests. Scythians = skitnice, skitači (read `č` as `ch`), skitati... meaning (in translation from Slavic [particulary Serbian Latin in this case] languages to English) > vagabonds, vagabonding

Originally Posted by Tarabos

anyway, the similarity with the dacian word DEVA(city, fortress), is another amasing coincidence...

you didn`t note similarity between words `Tracians` and `Dacians`, on Slavic/Serbian - Tračani, Dačani?

You would found in Britannica that modern linguistics established direct connection between name of Sarmatians and Serbian name. Possible, Lusatian and Balkan Serbs preserved original form of once universal name of all Slavs - name of Sarmatians. It seams that Slavs used to had three universal names for themselves in different times (or even in the same time). One was based on SRB/SABRAT (based on word `brat` meaning brother and reffer on community `brotherhood` and even reffer on way of life `POSARBITSYA`- Ukrainian word = to collect (food for example), name is obviously from time before agriculture was developed, primordial name), one on RAS (based on racial charcheristics of Slavs; Rasi, Rujni = red, pink people/Whites) and latest on SLAV (based on common lingustics and consider that those who are Slavs are able to speak (slove = talk) among themselves).

You know how old chronicles used to call Serbians? They called them - Tribali.

Then, old chronicles also designated Serbs as Račani (`č` = ch), Raščani, Rašani (`š`= sch), Rasciani, Raci, Ratzi, Ratzanory, Racowie, all by anology with central Serbian town and region Ras- center of Serbian statehood.

[Tarabos]

i know every people have many variants and legends about their origins. neverthenless, is well known that in baltic-scandinavic areeas, 2000 years ago, was much warmer than now, due to other trajectory of the gulf stream. in fact, some suggest that only because the trajectory of the gulf stream changed, and the climate coldened, the great migrations begun.

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

i know every people have many variants and legends about their origins. neverthenless, is well known that in baltic-scandinavic areeas, 2000 years ago, was much warmer than now, due to other trajectory of the gulf stream. in fact, some suggest that only because the trajectory of the gulf stream changed, and the climate coldened, the great migrations begun.

i can agree that climatoligy maybe didn`t say its last but, in case of Slavic expansion (and existance of Slavs as native population on vast territory!) we have confirmation from archeology, linguistics and genetics, too. I would say, pretty strong evidences.

see this to get picture...

Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis by Mario Alinei
http://www.continuitas.com/interdisciplinary.pdf

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Racowie

fact? what fact?

The fact that they came in contact with the Iranic-speaking people(s).

Dacians, Tracians etc ancient ethnic formations were all kin tribes/people and all Sarmatian speaking peoples. And, Sarmatians were Proto Slavs or to say just - Slavs.

No, they weren't. The group that you're referring to is just a linguistic one, and way older than any meta-ethnic group. Language does not equal ethnicity nor meta-ethnicity. If a group spoke a satemized form of Indo-European, it doesn't mean they were Slavs. Following your analogy, all paleo-balkanic languages were just an archaic form of Slavic. You could as well go to that lenght to say that all Indo-European speaking peoples are Slavic, and that is preposterous.

Who wrote `your` history, man?

You're flattering me. I have no history of my own, for I am just an objective observer.

Probably the same who wrote that Croats aren`t Slavs but Germans by origin

If I recall correctly, it was not Germans who were in question, but Goths. In 'Historia Salonitana', it was Thomas the Archdeacon who equalised Croats with Goths, saying that they came under a leader reffered to as 'Totila'. What I personally believe is that Goths were considered as relatively peaceful people, compared to the rest of Germanics who were barbarians, so Thomas just drew paralleles with them and Slavic Croats who had mostly peacefully assimilated the romanised and non-romanized paleo-balkanic natives.

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Following your analogy, all paleo-balkanic languages were just an archaic form of Slavic. You could as well go to that lenght to say that all Indo-European speaking peoples are Slavic, and that is preposterous.

imagine scandal if all paleo-balkanic languages were Slavic or to say Proto Slavic

or What if Slavic and other European ethoses derived from Proto Slavs and not from Indo-Europeans? Ha, ha, ha

I telling to you man, it would be great scandal, if that could be truth. Many profits from fabricated bias that Slavs were/are newcamers to Europe and many developed their `ideologies` on that.

[heartbreaker]

About lithuanian legend of dacians-geate tribe travel to northern Europe i found this study : Dacian and Thracian as Southern Baltoidic - Harvey E. Mayer

It seems that lithuanians preservs like romanians and albanians thracian and dacian words .I must say that legend of that dacian tribe is is possible to be true.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Racowie

I telling to you man, it would be great scandal, if that could be truth. Many profits from fabricated bias that Slavs were/are newcamers to Europe and many developed their `ideologies` on that.

I don't think that Slavs were newcomers to Europe, but so far I've seen no evidence which would suggest that they didn't spread from their original homeland, which was located somewhere in Eastern Europe.

[Prenia]

Originally Posted by heartbreaker

Dacians weren't Slavs. Dacians spoked an archaic mixed language between sanskrit and latin.

Dacians spoked more likely close to albanian language, if you read ancient greek historian Strabon he say Dacians and Illyrians speak same language (diffirent from Greek and Latin) and have same culture.

Romanians are descendants of Dacians, they have rich ethnography that belong only to Balcan's.

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by Racowie

... in case of Slavic expansion (and existance of Slavs as native population on vast territory!) we have confirmation from archeology, linguistics and genetics, too. I would say, pretty strong evidences.

i can bring to you another few theories about slavs(anyway, what you shown to me was not specific about slavs). but is not the subject. what links you find between the words i posted above, and slavic?