Talk:Daco-Roman

That's just a hypotetical subject

In not one historical script the name "dako-roman" do not appear anywhere and there are no single archaeological findings from the 3rd to the 7th century on the existence of such a population. It's a creation of the xenophobian and chauvinistic historiography. After the roman occupation in 109 there were many revolts (see the historical scripts) against the occupants, from the Dacians (settled in the vest of the Danubian plain an the inner of the Carpathian mountains) and from the not occupied Gets (settled in the est of the Danubian plain), because they not accept nor the roman occupation and nor the roman culture. On the other hand there were many attacks from outside the empire, form barbaric people, like Goths, Alans, Carpi, Bastarns and other. In these condition the emperor Aurelian ordered in 274 a.c. the retreat of the roman army, administration and civilians out of of the cities an from the countryland. That's telling to as Eutropius and others:

Eutropius L. IX, c. 15, text from 363 a.c.

Provinciam Daciam intermisit vastato, omni Illyrico et Moesia,

desperans eam posse retineri,

abductosque ex urbibus et agris Daciae in media Moaesia

collocavit eam Daciam, que nunc duas Moesias dividit

et est in dextra Danubio in mare fluenti, cum antea fuerit in laeva.

The province of Dakia in meantime devastated, as did Illyria and Moesia,

in a desperate position to keep them still,

one has led away the Dacians from the cities and from the country to Central-Moesia,

put her Dakia, which was now divided into two Moesias,

to the right of the Danube, where they flow into the sea, as before they were on the left.

The Romanization of any population in the Nord of Danube never take place, anytime. This is just only a nationalistic myth. The Romanization of modern Romanians took place in the south of the Danube, where settled they ancestors in the roman estic empire, the meanwhile slavized before romanized Thracians. At the beginning of the 8th century, with the beginning of the Greekization in the Byzantine empire, they crossed the Danube back to the north. A larger migration took place with the expansion over the Danube of the Bulgarian-Vlachian empire in the 13th century, under the leadership of the brothers Peter and Ioanes Asen. (see the scripts of Acropolites, Pachymeres, Eurtropius) an contemporary sources

The last irrefutable proof of this fact, is a new science branch so called "Genetical Genealogy", developed together from English, German, Russian and other scientists on the University of Oxford from London. Compliant with these findings, the Romanians to day are to 1/4 Slavic (the Slavic invasion starting from the 5th century over the Eastern Europe and the Balkan peninsula) and to 1/4 Anatolian (the Thracians are immigrated from Anatolia (Mysia)), see neolitic migration Maps in this Project) and just only to 1/6 Romans. The surprising findings of this study is, that the Austrians are no longer Germans, the Hungarians do not have asiatic roots and the Moldavians of Romania do not are Romanians. See "The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe".

There were already many Principates on the Greek peninsula with this name already centuries before the Principate of Wallachia on the Danube, in the area of ​​Thessaly around Larissa (Megaloblachia, Great Wallachia) and in Dalmatia (Small Wallachia) and others. (see Georgios Akropolites (1217-1283), in his "Chronikos") The name of "vlah" is originated in this region from 7th century.

Each continuity theory (each country has its own), only source of nationalist hatred, is thus rendered ad absurdum, forever. And that's good so for ever. 2A02:8071:2984:6200:B894:1A7E:14E6:804C (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References

OR

In order to avoid OR I would also try to find reliable sources to substantiate all the claims stated in the article. However, I think the best method of creating or contributing to an article is using reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources cited in the article, yet there is room for improvement on some sections.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What was the term used by Densusianu?

Based on the same source, the article Thraco-Roman stated for years that Densusianu used the term Thraco-Roman? What did he use in fact? Borsoka (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find Thraco-Roman in his book, but I don't have all of it. I removed the statement that he coined the term Daco-Roman, because, per Boia, he didn't. He did spoke extensively about Daco-Romanian however! --Codrin.B (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Leo I the Thracian

Although the cited source states that Leo was "a Dacian by origin", but the note to this sentence adds that he "was born in Thrace but also said to be from the province of Dacia in the Diocese of Moesia." (Stephen Williams; Gerard Friell: The Rome that Did Not Fall: The survival in the East in the fifth century; Routledge; ISBN 0-415-15403-0, page 170 and note 4 on page 261). Therefore, the source refers to his birth in Dacia Aureliana and not to his ethnic Dacian origin. Borsoka (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement came from the Leo I the Thracian article itself. You may want to start a discussion there. I will dig deeper on this item. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The scope of the article

What is the scope of the article? Is it Dacia Trajana (to the north of the Danube), Dacia Aureliana (to the south of the Danube which was only set up after Dacia Trajana was officially abandoned in the 270s and was named after the first province), or the Diocese of Dacia (encompassing Dacia Aureliana and a number of other provinces to the south of the Danube) established around 300? Is there a reliable source that uses the term "Daco-Roman" when refers to Dacia Aureliana or to the Diocese of Dacia? Borsoka (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well you hit it on the spot and this mess of "moving" the province of Roman Dacia south of Danube, along with some of the Daco-Roman population makes it complicated to define. On top of it, the linguists see Moesia and Scythia Minor, where Moesi and Getae lived, as part of a close linguistic group (all of them used the term dava for fortresses/towns, unlike the Thracian para south of the Balkans). The Moesi and Getae in Dobruja were conquered and Romanized before the Dacians, but what was the resulting culture? Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman or a mix? Another problem, the borders of ancient Dacia, Thrace and Moesia were never clearly defined. They become "defined" only once some of these territories become Roman provinces. To add pain to injury, some scholars see Getae as Thracians and some being the same as Dacians. And there is a modern trend to no longer see the Dacians as northern-Thracians, but rather distinct. If you can help clarify this mess in a concise lead, I would appreciate it. But if you bank on the mess to attack the article, then we have a problem and what you do becomes nonconstructive obstructionism. You decide. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So, I my understanding correct there is no reliable source using the term in the wider context. Borsoka (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Who said that? Which one is the "narrow context"?! --Codrin.B (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the point in creating an article which contradicts WP:NOR? I suggest that reliable sources should be first collected in order to avoid wasting our time by creating an article which cannot be preserved, because it is only an original syntesis of assumptions, of unreferenced statements, of declarations based purely on primary sources and of material copied from other WP articles. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Codrinb has asked for input from members of the Classical Greece & Rome Project. My comment here will be similar to the one I've just made at Thraco-Roman. My suggestion would be to merge Daco-Roman into Roman Dacia, an article superior to this one in development and quality. I'm wary of efforts to define the "Daco-Roman" label in terms of ethnicity or in relation to "Thraco-". It seems to me best to use it in reference to the culture of the geographically defined Roman province(s) of Dacia. If it remains an independent article, per WP:TITLEFORMAT it should not be adjectival in form, but should be renamed Daco-Roman culture (now a redirect). Roman provincial borders don't always correspond with "natural" ethnic divisions; Strabo remarks (13.4.12) that before the Romans came along, it was hard to distinguish Phrygian, Carian, Lydian and Mysian in central Asia Minor—not directly relevant here, but the point is that these labels become Roman ways of organizing peoples under their rule. As Clifford Ando has observed in his overview "The Administration of the Provinces," in A Companion to the Roman Empire (Blackwell, 2010), the creation of provinces in some cases disrupted preexisting social identities, and permitted the new identification as "Romans" (p. 183). So in terms of establishing scope, you're on much more solid ground if you look at cultural life within the definable Roman province(s) called Dacia, an administrative territory in which people lived as part of an urban center or a particular tribal unit, rather than in abstract "ethnic" terms in the modern sense. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. I think merging this article with Roman Dacia is the best solution for the time being in order to avoid the creation of an article with text copied from other articles. Borsoka (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Cynowolfe. As per my answer at Talk:Thraco-Roman, I would rather go with Daco-Roman culture, keep it separate, short and to the point. The users who get here usually looking for the definition of Daco-Roman, not for Roman Dacia province. The two concepts are related but distinct. Don't forget that we have Gallo-Roman and Roman Gaul; Romano-British culture and Roman Britain, and there, no one has an issue with keeping them separate. Note that the articles on the provinces tend to be rather large and cover many points, not just the resulting mixed cultures. I don't see the terms Daco and Thraco as having to do with ethnic separation, but rather to have a clear, specific definitions for both terms, which are not synonyms by any means. They have different histories, different usage patterns in the scholar's work. Of course the cultures of Roman Dacia, Moesia and Thracia were multi-ethnic. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank for your above remarks. I can also accept the above approach. I agree that this article could significantly be improved based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Some questions and suggestions

(1) I understand that copying text from an other WP article is the easiest method to contribute to WP (in this case the text beginning with the words "The pressing need to deal with the Palmyrene Empire" was copied without any change from Roman Dacia#Last decades of Dacia Traiana (235–271/275)), but what value is added to our community in this way? Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(2) All the same, I love the Dark Ages when whole monastic communities were braindeadly copying books written by others. Therefore I can really appreciate the above method of contribution for a transitory period. Even so, if we use this early medieval method, we should also properly copy the references. For instance, most of the references (for instance "MacKendrick 2000") are rather mystic for the time being. Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed. It is work in progress. You are invited to HELP CONSTRUCTIVELY! --Codrin.B (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I continue to assist contructively. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What is an article

Of course, the article could be developed based on reliable sources. However, an article with text either copied from other articles or containing unsourced statements is not an article, but a trick (for further details, I refer to the article's edit history). For the time being, I think that the best solution to refer to the relevant part of "Roman Dacia" which looks like an article. Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Never ending attempts to remove sourced content and concepts

The never ending attempts to remove sourced content and concepts, to merge without following the right procedure, and just to push POVs have to stop. I have been forced to report all of unacceptable behavior. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, I think you are wrong. The text was removed because it was copied from an other article (for further details I refer to the edit history of the article). In this case, linking this article to the article from which this article's text was copied is the best solution. I think if we provide second-hand or third-hand material to other WP users, we do not respect their time. Borsoka (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A merger proposal

Since no independent article has been developed for several months, this article for the time being is to be merged into Roman Dacia. I am sure that in some hours the proposal will agains be opposed. However, I think WP:Bold is to be applied here, since there is no point in maintaining an article without independent text. Borsoka (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you to repsect the standard procedure, in order yo avoid furthe discussions Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing_a_merger 79.117.212.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you support a merge, you have to start a thread on Talk:Roman Dacia: Discuss the merger: Discuss the merger proposal on the destination article's talk page Transerd (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, I strongly oppose it per the discussions and points above and at Talk:Thraco-Roman, which I will repeat once you properly follow the merge proposal procedures. Second, per the indications above you have to READ and FOLLOW the rules at Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing_a_merger.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ulpia Severina

The cited source (Aurelian and the Third Century) states that she "came from Dacia or elsewhere in the Danubian region, where the nomen Ulpia was reasonably common due to the influence of Trajan (Ulpius Traianus)" (page 113). Therefore, she might or might have not been Daco-Roman. Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Speculations and WP:OR.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you suggest that the reference to Ulpia Severian should be deleted? Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)