This is an archive of past discussions about Vlachs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I agree this content is useful, because Romanian historiography like to use it. I see first it was removed by CriticKende when he restored the unreasonable removed sourced contents, (please do not forget we should present more academic views not only one perspective what is the personal taste, this is not a personal blog). I do not know it was deliberately or accidentaly, maybe it wass a mass revert, I also see that info was already in the source and you removed [2]. Secondly your own content was removed by yourself [3] probably accidentaly.
It is fine show this, just I think we can use properly the sources: you wrote "as remaining Romance speaking population in Pannonia" however Kézai himself and the Polish source does not say that the Vlachs would be a "Romance speaking population", where do you see this? Also the academic sources has many critics regarding this. For example many sources emphazise the difference between "Vlahis" in Pannonia and "Blackis" in Transylvania as Kézai wrote, but others handle both term as Vlachs.
The originally homeland of the hungarians, called Scythia, was described as a rich land full of pastures and rivers inhabited by happy nomadic people. They left their land because of a fame and found on Tisza and Danube a similar country. According to the chroniclers they met between others the Vlachs who were characterised in a pastoral context by them. They lived in the same semi nomadic way of life, as the former hungarians, however, they occurred in Transylvania only in the 12th century, when the hungarians changed their seminomadism to sedentarism. Therefore the semi nomadic way of the Valachian life was noted as their identification factor by the high-medieval chroniclers.
"We read here that several people left Pannonia after the land had been conquered by king Attila, the Vlachs, however, who had been their shepherds and husbandmen, elected to remain behind in Pannonia"
"And the last message about the Vlachs in the context of the origins of hungary, is that The only people left there [after the withdrawal of the Huns] were immigrants – Slavs, Greeks, Germans, Moravians, and Vlachs – who had been base born servants of Attila when the king was alive"
"The Vlachs for Simon Kézai and for the later chronicles from the 14th and 15th century are shepherds, active in Pannonia and in the neighbouring mountains. They discovered their own script according to the chronicler, which they gave later to the Szeklers. As we all know, the reality was different – Kézai wrote about the Szekler runs. his opinion is based maybe on the observation that the Valachian shepherds in cised mnemonic signs while counting their sheep."
"In my opinion, the Vlachs, who were characterized by the hungarian chroniclers in the context of the hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, lived in the same semi-nomadic way as former Hungarians did. The difference is that the Vlachs lived in the mountains and dealt mainly with pasture of sheep, while the hungarians from the late 9th century preferred to live in the plains. The second difference was that their settlements widespread in the whole arch of the Carpathians as the so called Valachian colonization. And the last difference, which was not obvious for the late medieval chroniclers: they appeared in Transylvania very late, probably in the 12th century, when the hungarians just created their own Central- European state. The Vlachs let recognize the hungarians their own seminomadic past, but their way of life differed so much from the 13th century Hungarians that it was noted by the chroniclers as Valachian identification factor."
Hungarian academic source 2021 [5] (you removed, indeed the page number was not correct) page 127:
"In the 1280s, Simon Kézai wrote in his chronicle that after Attila occupied Pannonia, everyone left, except "the Vlachs, who were their shepherds and serfs", they remained there, then after the defeat of Attila's sons, "only newcomer Slavs, Greeks, Germans, Moravians and Vlachs [Ulahis advenis remanentibus] remained in it"
"The Székelys, on the other hand, are the remnants of the Huns and live in the mountains together with the Romanians, whose letters they use. Kézai presumably considered the Cyrillic Romanian (Slavic language) and Runic Székely (Hungarian) script to be the same, since he could not read either of them. His hands are often quoted as proof of the Daco-Roman continuity, but those who know the reality of the time better, and who are also supporters of continuity themselves, caution against this, because it can be used to refute continuity."
page 155:
"As we have seen, the Tatar invasion of 1241 brought about a huge turn in the life of the region as a whole. During the great attack, it is assumed that the Romanian communities in Hungary resisted, although there is no source for this. On the other hand, it is due to the fact that Szeklers and Romanians - according to the Persian chronicler "black Romanians" (Kara-Ulagh) - fought together at the passes of the Carpathians. These Romanians could have been Moldavian, soldiers of the Bishop of Milko, because in the eastern parts of Transylvania no Romanian self-governing territories similar to those of Fogarasi, Hátszeg, Máramaros, Bánságy and Szörénységy were formed. However, Simon Kézai's chronicle written in the 1280s reports that the Székelys "are the remnants of the Huns, who when they learned that the Hungarians had returned to Pannonia for the second time, they would meet the returnees on the borders of Ruthenia, and by conquering Pannonia together, they won their share, but not on the Pannonian plain, but together with the Vlachs, they were given a section in the border mountains. Whence, as they say, mixed with the Vlachs, they use their letters". Those who called it a chronicle confused the Székely runic script with the Cyrillic letters used by the Romanians. As for the southern borders of Ruthenia, it is even conceivable that those certain black Romanians could have lived here, in the southern part of Galicia."OrionNimrod (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @CriticKende, [6] I think you removed the source and many useful content what Aristeus01 added, it needs just some polishing. Your added source also does not say that, but I know this info exists in other sources. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The Vlachs=Eastern Romance speaking population is part of the standard definition of the subject [1], including here in this article. One would expect that if the Polish author did not mean to say this he would have made a separate note detailing what the difference is compared to the standard meaning of the word. Since he did not we cannot go further than him and declare he meant something else.
That being said it would be better to mention next to the entry that what you said, that not all academic sources agree on Vlachs in Pannonia and Blackis in Transylvania to be the same people. If you do have a reliable source ready I would appreciate if you share it or do the edit yourself, for me this is news. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I see the lead of the article say the Vlachs are Romance speaking. But the Polish author or Kézai himself did not write that those "Blackis" would be Romance speakers. Actually we did not know about anything them in the chronicle, Kézai just list them without any deep info. If we provide a historical source I think we should follow that language. But I see you removed that part already. Btw old authors like the Byzantine Princess, Anna Komnene in the 11th century wrote that the nomads in the Balcan are commonly called Vlachs (no languages or ethnicity).
I hope you are not a "Turanist" because you like to use a Hungarian medieval chronicle, as you said I am that because I made articles regarding them :D and regarding Hungarian medieval stuffs, battles, monarchs.
This is the original Latin text whitout any break, it is strange why Kézai used a different name if they would be the same people morover only just some sentence below? Perhaps did he forgot what he wrote just previously little above? Some historians noticed this.
"Isti enim Zaculi Hunorum sunt residui, qui dum Hungaros in Pannoniam iterato cognouerunt remeasse, redeuntibus in Rutheniae finibus occurrerunt, insimulque Pannonia conquestata, partem in ea sunt adepti, non tamen in plano Pannonie, sed cum Blackis in montibus confinii sortem habuerunt. Unde Blackis commixti litteris ipsorum vti perhibentur. Isti quippe Zaculi in Grecia periisee Chabam putauerunt. Unde vulgus adhuc loquitur in communi: Tune redire debeas, dicunt recedenti, quando Chaba de Grecia reuertetur. Iste igitur Chaba filius Ethelae est legitimus, ex filia Honorii Imperatoris Grecorum genitus, cui Edemen et Ed filii sunt vocati. Edemen autem, cum Hungari in Pannoniam secundario sunt reuersi, cum maxima familia Patris sui et Matris introuit. Nam Mater eius de Corosminis orta erat. Ed vero in Scitia remarasit apud patrem. Ex isto enim Chaba generacio Abae est egressa. Cumi igitur Chaba adiens in Scitiam nobilitate genitricis in communi se iactaret, Hunorum nobilitas ipsum contempnebat, asserentes eum non verum esse alumpnum Regni Scithiae, sed quasi Missitalium exterae nacionis. Propter quod ex Scitia vxorem non accepit, sed traduxit de gente Corosmina.Qui, post eiectos Hunnos, Pannaniarum domini? Postquam autem filii Ethelae in praelio Crumhelt cum gente Scitica fere quasi deperissent, Pannonia exstitit X annis sine Rege, Sclavis tantummodo, Grecis, Teutonicis, Messianis et Vlahis aduenis remanentibus in eadem, qui viuente Ethela populari seruitio sibi seruiebant."
Kézai says that the Székelys used the letters of the Blackis (as you can see authors who identify the Blackis with the Vlachs say this is a mistake by Kézai). You many times write about the Latin things about the Romanian language, so I think you can accept that after the Hungarian conquest after many hundred years of the (allegedly proud) latinization of Vlachs it would be impossible that they would use a Turkic origin script Old Hungarian script which presented in Asia also: Old Turkic script. I think the Romanians never used the Old Hungarian Script (evidence for that?), also its alphabet is matching with the Hungarian language. However in another Hungarian chronicle in the same story we can read that the Székelys are using the Scythian letters. And in many other medieval sources (Malalas, Theophanes, Rubruck, Bacon...) the Blac people are Hun related and they are presented in the Caucasus in old maps: [7][8] Which means if Kézai was right that the Székely script came from the Blackis it means the Blackis are different from Vlahis as Kézai emphasized.
There is an another contradiction: First Kézai mentions that the Blackis remained in Pannonia by own will and they were the shepherds and husbandmen of the Huns (not Roman shepherds). And some chapter later Kézai writes the Vlahis are newcomers in Pannonia: et Vlahis aduenis remanentibus "and Vlach newcomers remained", the Polish source call them immigrants who were the servant of Attila: "And the last message about the Vlachs in the context of the origins of hungary, is that The only people left there [after the withdrawal of the Huns] were immigrants – Slavs, Greeks, Germans, Moravians, and Vlachs – who had been baseborn servants of Attila when the king was alive."
"Facem în schimb parte dintre aceia - poate nu foarte numeroşi care în vremea din urmă au asistat cu strîngere de inimă şi mai apoi cu indignare la subminarea şi compromiterea, prin supralicitare şi presiune exercitată de forurile politico-ideologice, a oricărei cercetări adevărate şi responsabile asupra, istoriei româneşti din jurul anului O Mie. Şi ne-au bucurat de fiecare dată opinii asemănătoare sau apropiate de ale noastre, întîlnite la autori din afara „frontului istoric românesc". De pildă, părerea profesorului Kurt Horedt, autoritate incontestabilă a arheologiei transilvănene pre-şi protoistorice şi care afirmă că triburile maghiare i-au găsit pe români în Transilvania. Ceea ce nu înseamnă acordul nostru deplin la toate părerile exprimate de autor. Sau opinia după care etnogeneza românească s-a desfăşurat pe amîndouă malurile Dunării de Jos, exprimată recent de un consacrat -chiar dacă nu unanim acceptat istoric al Transilvaniei" (refferences Makkai here)
Surely this 30 years old document is more of a background setting than a contemporary opinion. I mean, who would even think that books written post 2000 are to be judged by the same measures that Popa used to criticise pre-89 ones? Perhaps you could give an example of such person? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
As I was saying before I have no issue adding a part where we expand on the academic opinions around Vlahis/Blackis in Kezai's work. The central issue here is that we cannot make the comments within the phrase citing the Polish author since it is not in his text, and we also have to keep as much as possible to recent international sources, rather than Hungarian or Romanian translations or interpretations. Again, I see no problem mentioning the distinction a number of scholars have spotted. In fact, as a sign of goodwill, I will add this from the many available in the "Bulaqs" article. It should be noted however, in asentiment with what @Borsoka said as well on that page, that the theory of Vlachs/Bulaqs difference is not supported by contemporary sources.
Despite the attempts to argue that the differences in spelling are the result of the author speaking of different people, most available sources, out of Hungarian ones, do not make this distinction. For example, it was argued the same about Blachji/Blacus/Blasii, yet the international translation, from our favourite Martyn Rady, reads as it follows:
"When he arrived, he spoke much to his lord of the goodness of that land: that that land was washed by the best rivers, whose names and merits he listed, that in their sands they gathered gold and that the gold of that land was the best, and that they mined there salt and salt crystals [sal et saligenia], and that the inhabitants of that land were the basest of the whole world, because they were Vlachs [Blasii] and Slavs, because they had nothing else for arms than bows and arrows and because their duke, Geleou [sic], was inconstant and did not have around him good warriors who dared stand against the courage of the Hungarians, because they had suffered many injuries from the Cumans and Pechenegs [Picenatis]."
And he also notes:
"This chapter is curious in its terminology: Blasii instead of Blachi, and Picenati in place of Bisseni. For one interpretation of this, see C.A. Macartney, ‘The Attila Saga, 67 the Hun Chronicle, and T’, Studies on the Early Hungarian Historical Sources, 3/2, Budapest, 1940, pp. 212-3 (Studies on Early Hungarian and Pontic History, pp. 329- 30)"
but nevertheless uses the translation "Vlachs".
I don't remember reading anywhere else but in "Adevărul" or "adevaruldespredaci.ro" someone arguing the Old Hungarian Script was Romanian/Vlach. Still, there is no consensus, obviously, from who the Szeklers learned the script. It is not beyond possibility that Vlahs/Romanians learnt it from a Turkic population and then passed it on to Szeklers, as Keza says.
As for Turanist ideas, I'll give up on mentioning that when I'll no longer be accused of communist nationalist Daco-Roman theories :) Aristeus01 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Aristeus01, yes of course appropriate sources should be with the appropriate contents.
Yes I am aware that modern translations translate the Blackis as Vlachs while some authors point out the difference.
For example this is the Hungarian translation of Anonymus: [9] here "Blasii" translated as "blak" Gelou as "Gyalu" (search it on the page).
And here in the 3 Volume big history of Transylvania book also: [10] "Blak named Gyalu", "Blak leader Gyalu", "Blak Gyalu (Gelou)"
Btw the Hungarian stance is very easy, the are many critics about the chronicle not only this Vlach part. Like the chronicle is silent about many real events, battles, but there are many fictional characters who are no any other sources and their names based on local toponyms. There are historians who emphasize that the Blacs are not the Vlachs in the story, others who translate the Blacs as Vlachs say that the chronicles projected just his age there, like Cumans in Transylvania however the Cumans appeared only 200 years later after the events. Btw as you can see the Polish author say the same that Kézai just used the Vlach term as contemporary identification factor to remembering the nomadic life, and the script thing also strange. Btw what is your personal opinion about that script part?
Romanian Deledant, and Macartney also made a critic regarding Anonymus, they said the similar as the Hungarian mainstream view.
Well if you use national-communist hardcore materials I do not know what should I say, btw I would be very curious what is Turanist in my edits in Wiki? I think that is some kind of Turkic-commonwealth thing.
However because this is not a personal blog I have no problem to present more and of course academic views, just not a total fringe things, for example flat-earth theory as fact would be strange. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
While this article has in part become the territory of POV debates concerning the origins of the Vlachs, it suffers mainly from the fact that it has become a real mess, particularly its section entitled "Medieval usage", to such an extent that I personally no longer feel like delving into it. Now, the aim of an encyclopaedic article devoted, at least in part, to History, is not to describe it in detail, but to offer a synthesis of it. What's more, not only is Wikipedia not the place to do this, but it would be pointless to list all the references to Vlachs in medieval sources, given the sheer number of them. In my opinion, this "Medieval usage" section should simply be removed, and replaced by a "History" section that actually tells the concise history of the Vlachs as described in reliable sources. Krisitor (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No, the problem is that the whole "Medieval usage" section isn't encyclopaedic at all, it's just a bunch of references to Vlachs piled on top of each other with no logical connection. This should be replaced by a history of the Vlachs in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, possibly divided into geographical areas. Krisitor (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
This is all the mentions of the Vlachs in chronological order, there are many other wiki pages like this, and I think it's very useful to have it collected here. CriticKende (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
there are many other wiki pages like this I'm not so sure, and even if there were, it's clearly not a good way to present the history of a people. In any case, thank you for answering my proposal, which in any case has little chance of succeeding without a broad consensus. But there doesn't seem to be much interest in this subject. Krisitor (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Krisitor I think the whole article is messy with no clear definition of the topic and, as you said, information piled up rather than neatly presented. In fact the majority of the article should be removed as it is a very ambiguous, poorly defined subject of study. The information, if valuable, should be added to corresponding topic: Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and so on.
@Krisitor I see a long time ago this format was used that list Vlach things by century and in chronological order: the medieval usage section. Could you show me exactly which info do you think is not fit to the article? OrionNimrod (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Aristeus01. I don't have time to improve the article at the moment, but I'll certainly do what I can, first by adding a new section to avoid deleting sourced content. Krisitor (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The part where the historical mentions are listed is occupying most of the article, without adding much to the nature of the subject. Going back to your request perhaps it would be better to provide a concise history paragraph with emphasis on culture, which is now grossly overlooked, while the chronological list might be better moved to a separate article on its own something like: "Vlachs in Medieval documents"? Aristeus01 (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think that an article pertaining to "Vlachs in medieval sources" would make any sense on Wikipedia. AFAIK, that would be the only case of this kind of page, and I'm not convinced that this is encyclopedic at all. However, I still believe that a new, well-structured History section should be written. Currently, I'm focused on another article that I will be submitting soon, so I don't have much time to dedicate to creating the new section. Nonetheless, I've gathered many reliable sources that should help us eventually develop that section. Krisitor (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it is worth keeping this format, simply because the history of the Vlachs is under debate in its entirety, at the time it is no coincidence that this format was chosen to write the article.
Suppose I start rewriting the whole thing, how do I do it?
The very origin of the Vlachs is a matter of historical debate. Wikipedia is about credible information and the absolute majority of historians subscribe to the immigration theory, except for Romanian historians. Shall we leave out the Romanian historians then? I think not. But if we describe their opinion, then the article loses the most important thing, which is to describe the opinion of the majority of historians, and thus to give credible information.
Or should we write two completely different parts on the history of the Vlachs, one the opinion of the Romanian historians, the other the internationally accepted theory? Or what do you mean by rewriting?
I see you both Aristeus01, CriticKende extended the article on that way which is questioned here. Btw I have no problem with that format. Or perhaps keep them a separate article about all this Vlach mention list, and write a summarize from these here? Or just keep? OrionNimrod (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi everyone, I see that @Aristeus01 has deleted everything from the article that he didn't like, and he has rearranged the whole thing, and divided the sources into separate sections, e.g. Romanians, Meglanoromanians etc., although the sources that are given are 90% not about Meglanoromanians but about Romanians, what can we do?
He did all this without prior discussion, it is also important to point out that he added several sources to the Meglanoromans Morlachs etc., although the sources do not say so, he thinks so himself, it is his own research.@Aristeus01 If you are reading this please respond. CriticKende (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
But that's not what the sources say, only you think so. It's interesting that while you accuse me of that, because my sources don't literally say what I said, you do it in a big way. Just to highlight one of many, source 47 which talks specifically about the Romanians all the way through, but you put it in another section, so it's not your own research than? CriticKende (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe that to be true, but the sources you put in other names don't say that. They are not talking about the Morlacks in many cases, they are talking about the Romanians. CriticKende (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Almost any of the books you referenced are about the Romanians, not the ones you posted, simple as that, your opinion is that they are, ok, but the source says they are not! CriticKende (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I see you do not understand or you do not want to understand how the split of Common Romanian worked. I suggest more familiarity with the subject. Just because an medieval author call someone or a group Vlach does not mean Romanian(s), it could have been Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Morlach, Istro-Romanian. That goes against your identification of Romanians with Aromanians of Macedonia? Well, the language authorities of cited above say otherwise, at least from the 11th century onwards. My suggestion is to sit and think calmly about for a bit, don't take it personal. Else, I think we discussed this long enough and if Oxford and Cambridge sources do not satisfy your claim for evidence I see nothing better I can add but list this at 3rd opinion. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
References
^Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro–Romanian, Megleno–Romanian, and Arumanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–125. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.
I see you've been very active in the past day, and you've done a lot of editing, but I also noticed that you deleted the Magna Vlachia section, even though it was well sourced. May I ask why you deleted that part?
CriticKende (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to remove all of those if that is the problem, but Timaru's entry about Black Cumania needs to go as well in this case. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't want them deleted, they add to the article, I'm just saying that I don't understand why you delete my source. Just because you don't like it? CriticKende (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Because it is not a document, but a scholar's synthesis of unspecified and non-dated documents. It could as well be that the conclusion stated by the historian is based on some documents we already listed, hence a duplicate entry. The part of the article if for documents, not arguments pro/against continuity in Dacia. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Geto Dacians (Romanians) mentioned by Dlugosz
The Romanians (Geto Dacians) and the Ruthenians under the command of the Pechenegs were called in 1070 by the princes of Volânia against King Boleslav of Krakow. I. Dlugosz, Historiae Polonicae, vol. I, Leipzig, 1711, col. 265. Mestter (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
There is an older mention (1068) about an incursion of Pechenegs and Romanians/Vlachs in Transylvania, ended with the battle of Chiraleș. Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, pag. 241. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestter (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The mention of Geto Dacians in the 11th century does not means that these people were living in that century. Simply it shows that the chronicler didn't know how to name the people. There were a lot of chroniclers who named Romanians with the name of Dacians even in the 13th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.86.31 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
History Section Neutrality
The neutrality of this section has been debated and the text changed and reverted more than a few times in the last few months. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia.
Hi, yes, I will put the text here, the page number is wrongly marked. Sorry
Hungarian: "A vlachok és dákok, illetőleg bessusok azonosítására azonban mégis olvasmányai bírták. Gy. hajszálpontos érveléssel mutatja ki, hogy azt, amit a dákokról tudott, Cassius Diónak, helyesebben valamelyik folytatójának, hihetőleg Xiphilinosnak művéből vette. Dacia Traiana-t azonban összetévesztette Dacia Aureliana-val"
English: "However, his readings still allowed him to identify the Vlachs and Dacians, as well as the Bessus. Gy. shows with precise reasoning that he took what he knew about the Dacians from the works of Cassius Dio, or rather one of his successors, probably Xiphilinos. However, he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Aureliana" (page 312)
I gave two sources directly, my first source talks about Macedonia.
Nothing in that text says anything what you added in the edit. I anxiously await to see if the second source is as good as this one. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
How can you possibly say it is good when you diverge from the source, add info from your research, and fail to provide example from the second source? Aristeus01 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The two sources say that, the first one says they are in Macedonia, the second one says that the two dacias are confused, that's what I wrote. CriticKende (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I wrote this: He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, (end of 1. part) and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia.(end of 2. part)
1: "then the Romanians were dispersed in Macedonia, Epirus and Hellas" + "he only acted in accordance with the archaizing fashion of the time, i.e. to name contemporary peoples with the names of their "ancestors""
Explanation of the second part: (Source: Századok Page:312)
2: "However, he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Aureliana, and, again as a result of his reading, placed it further west than it was, hence the reference to the Serbian territory as the ancestral homeland."
As you can see, the ones I wrote are included in my source. So I don't see where I'm breaking the rules. If I can help with anything else, feel free to write. Have a nice day :) CriticKende (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi All,
I checking the sources (fast Google translates) (I bet we could find more sources, even Romanian one)
If needed I suggest to rephrase the discussed content to follow the language of the academic sources, to avoid the original research and personal POV.
Most of the Romanians formed a typical ethno-occupational group, they were shepherds. Most of them transhumed, i.e. they grazed their flocks in the plains in the winter and in the mountains in the summer. "It is their characteristic custom - Kekaumenos wrote towards the end of the 11th century - that their flocks and families are in the high mountains and in very cool places from April to September", namely "in the mountains of Bulgaria". looking for new pastures. Everywhere in the area defined by Sofia, Skopje, Pristina, Sarajevo, Dubrovnik, place names preserve the memory of the pastoral activity of the Romanians. Their permanent residences were located in the mountains, while in the valleys the Slavic communities lived their lives in the so-called Sclavinia. To a significant extent, Romanian sheep farming ensured the supply of dairy products to the Balkans. "Vlach cheese" was also in demand in Ragusa. Although sometimes the shepherds' wives also shepherded, they mostly spun and wove; their textiles were also put on the market. In Byzantium, Romanian textiles were worn by the poorer people, which were dyed colorful even in the shepherds' lodgings.257 Two typical figures of the Balkan Romanians were the soldier voinic (valiant) and the charioteer (călător), who also lived from long-distance trade.
-------
page 98-99
Not even a decade had passed, and Kekaumenos, the grandson of the elder Nikulitzas - himself a general - wrote at length in his cited work containing his advice to the emperor that the Romanians were treacherous, untrustworthy, and breaking their word. (By the way, from the way Kekaumenos describes the relationship between Nikulitzas and the imperial leadership, it appears that the emperor and his entourage were even more treacherous and unreliable, only more sophisticated.) These Romanians, that is, "the people of the Romanians" (Βλαχου γένος) - according to Kekaumenos – originally Dacians and Bessus, who lived on the banks of the Danube and the Sava, where the Serbs are "now". They feigned loyalty to the Romans while they were constantly attacked and pillaged. Therefore, Trajan launched a war, their leader, Decebalus, was also killed, and then the Romanians were scattered in Macedonia, Epirus and Hellas.261 Kekaumenos, by the way, made the Dacians the ancestors of the Romanians because he read about the deceitfulness of the Dacians in a Roman writer, and because the Romanians were also deceitful. he held - so much so that in his opinion they should not be believed even if they take an oath - he only acted in accordance with the archaizing fashion of the time, that is to say to name contemporary peoples with the names of their "ancestors".262
In a peculiar way, the believers of both Daco-Romanian continuity and the formation of Romanianness in the Balkans forged a weapon out of it for their own theory. The source claims that the Vlachs of Hellas are the descendants of the Dacians and Bessus, who came to their place of residence after the victorious campaigns of Trajan and the defeat of King Decebal. On the other hand, however, he knows that their ancient land was south of the Danube and the Sava, in the Serblak region, so very close to the landscape where modern researchers are looking for the cradle of the Romanian people. The author of the book, Kekaumenos himself, says that what he describes, he drew not from books, but from his own experience.
-------
The equally common assumption that Nikulitzas himself was of Vlach origin does not stand either; all that we know of him, and the hateful contempt with which his kinsman and admirer, Kekaumenos, speaks of the Vlachs, speak strongly against him. There is no doubt that everything that Kekaumenos writes about the Vlach conditions of the time is based on his own or his family's direct experience and thus has a first-rate source value for the history of the Romanians. The situation is different with regard to the question of origin. Our author was not an uneducated person, although he consciously opposed the direction of the writers of his time. However, his readings still allowed him to identify the Vlachs and Dacians, as well as the Bessus. Gyóni shows with precise reasoning that he took what he knew about the Dacians from the works of Cassius Dio, or rather one of his successors, probably Xiphilinos. However, he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Aureliana, and even — also under the influence of his readings — placed it further west than it actually was; hence the mention of the Serbian territory as the homeland. The tendency to archaize — to refer to later peoples with classical names — was common in Byzantium at the time of Kekaumenos. No wonder he fell victim too. For identification he gave the two peoples, the Vlachs and the Dacians, just enough reason to - according to him - their perfectly matching nature, treachery, and political unreliability. It is a pure coincidence that with this he connected two peoples that the writers of later times, for a completely different reason, also connected with each other. According to Gy.'s impeccable argument, Kekaumenos' narrative about the origin of the Romanians is not based on popular tradition, but on semi-scientific reasoning. It has no scientific value, and cannot be used as an argument for continuity. Also against him only because the author could not even imagine that their ancestors did not come from the Balkan peninsula, as is typical of the Balkan national identity of Romania. On the other hand, the parts of the narrative that talk about the Vlach relations of the author's time are the primary sources of Romanian prehistory.
These mountain shepherd Vlachs are considered an invisible population in the following centuries, because, like the shepherds of the Balkan mountains, they do not appear in the history of events that can be traced in the sources. The first mention is a 9-11. we read it in a Byzantine source from the 19th century, Kekaumenos, who had dealings with the Vlachs in Greece (!), in connection with which he provides important details about the origin and way of life of the Vlachs. Here we quote the part that interests us word for word (translated by Mátyás Gyóni):
"After being fought by the emperor Trajan, and entirely wiped out, they were captured, and their king, the so-called Dekabalos, was killed and his head was fastened on a spear in the middle of the city of the Romans. These are the so-called Dacians and Bessi. They lived formerly near to the Danube river, and the Saos, the river which we now call the Sava, where Serbs live now, in secure and inaccessible places. Being confident in these [places], they pretended friendship and service to the earlier emperors of the Romans, and used to go out of their strongholds and plunder the lands of the Romans; as a result they were angered with them, and, as has been said, destroyed them. They left those parts, and were scattered throughout all Epirus and Macedonia, but most of them inhabited Hellas."
In the description, the elements of historical reality are assembled into a distorted origin-tradition, both chronologically and ethnically. However, the text itself is too specific to avoid the interpretation of this distorted reflection of reality. Mátyás Gyóni, with his excellent knowledge of the Byzantine sources, came to the conclusion that Kekaumenos actually arbitrarily identified the Vlachs with the Dacians in accordance with his archaizing efforts of his time, and his data on the Dacians was thoroughly misunderstood, of course he drew it from Cassius Dio's great historical work in Greek. This work was known in Byzantium, and Kekaumenos was also in contact with one of its extracts, Xiphilinos. Of course, all probability points to the fact that Kekaumenos does not, or only, reproduces his own tradition of origin of the Vlachs: his narrative contains elements that are unimaginable without knowledge of the written historical tradition. But starting on this track, we have to doubt that the use of Cassius Dio's work would have been the decisive moment in the Dacian-Vlach identification, because the part of this work left us unmutilated, in which the Dacians could have been talked about the most, viz. the period up to the middle of the first century AD; and the narrative of the next half-century in ample and faithful extracts, such as e.g. Xiphilinose also has it. Let's take the facts of Kekaumenos' description one by one and reconcile them with the written tradition of the Dacians:
- Trajan really defeated the Dacians, crushed them, Decebalus' head was really taken to Rome. But this later custom, foreign to the Romans, was not impaled on a spear
- but, according to reliable information, it was put on public view on the scalae Gemoniae;
- the identification of the Dacians and Bessus is an obvious idea based on the identity or kinship of the Dacian and Thracian languages (albeit disputed today), but only for us; it could not have come from a misunderstanding of ancient sources;
- the Dacians in the region of the Danube and the Sava, where the Serbs now live, really set foot, but this could not have come directly from Cassius Dío in relation to the Sava;
- Dacians living in fortified and inaccessible places: a well-known element, even a cliché (toposa) of the description of the Dacians, which, however, is not found in such a wording in Cassius Dio;
- they feigned friendship and surrender: it is especially valid for the period starting with the death of Caesar and Burebista, when the Dacians were discussed as potential allies of Octavian and Antony. The alliance with certain kings of the Dacians was a recurring issue even later, but we hardly find anything about it in Cassius Dío; - they plundered the Roman provinces: also topos, which can also be found in Dio;
- the Romans destroyed them. This generalization is also commonplace in the literature of the imperial period, but it contradicts the fact that:
- they left their homes and scattered in the southern parts of the Balkans: this could not be possible in any ancient tradition, if only because the Dacians were mentioned in relation to these regions as those who sometimes threatened and attacked the province of Macedonia, which was already under Roman rule . Burebista and his immediate successors could be mentioned in this regard, but Cassius Dio is less so as a source;
- and neither Cassius Dio nor any other imperial era plagiarism could serve as the basis for the chronological error.
So if Kekaumenos could rely on the increasingly blurred knowledge of his time about the imperial era, he did not only draw this knowledge from Cassius Dio. In particular, he could not get the idea that the Vlachs of Greece were descended from the Dacians, either from Cassius Dio or from another source. The question now is whether this folk identification cannot be classified among the arbitrary archaizing folk names of Byzantine literature, as Mátyás Gyóni thought? The examples listed by Gyóni convincingly show that the names of the people known from classical antiquity were used with great freedom, but not without any rules, by the Byzantine writers to name the peoples of their own time. There had to be some kind of match: such is the people living in the same place, or appearing in the same place and fighting there, the way of life (ethnography), or perhaps the match of origin, to which we can add the exchange of similar-sounding folk names for the sake of a "better" sound. So Hungarians or Serbs could be called Dacians, but e.g. the Franks, Lombards, Arabs, etc. not anymore. Kekaumenos could have called the Vlachs Dacians with such an archaizing rechristening only if these Vlachs did not live in Epirus, Macedonia and Hellas, but much further north. It may be for such reasons that the Bessus were included in the place cited in his work, since the Bessus tribe was a neighbor of the Roman province of Macedonia, but this was still not a sufficient reason for Kekaumenoe to call the Vlachs Dacians for the first time, but not the last time, in Byzantine literature ( they rightfully became "Dacians" after becoming residents of Transylvania). The identification would be completely justified if the Vlachs called Dacians did not live in Greece, but between the Danube and the Balkan mountains, or in the northern part of Serbia. This would not only be a name parallel to the identification of Serbs-Dacians, but could also be traced back to the memory of the new Dacia established by Aurelian. Although Kekaumenos did not know about this Dacia, behind the departure and dispersal of the Dacians from Dacia, the possibility of a related obscure tradition can be considered. But only if either the Vlachs themselves or Kekaumenos had recognized this tradition as valid for the Dacians of Greece, i.e. if he had also known about the Vlachs living in the northern part of the Balkans. There is no trace of this in his work, from which it follows that either the Vlachs of Greece kept the memory of their Dacian origin, or that the Vlachs generally had such an origin in the public mind, which Kekaumenos applied to the Vlachs of Greece he knew. The dispersion of the Vlachs ("Dacians") mentioned by Kekaumenos is also a historical fact because there were no stronger Latin-speaking islands in Greece (Epirus, Macedonia, Hellas) from which the Vlachs could have formed locally. These southern Vlachs must have immigrated from further north, as in another part of Kekaumenos' account, it is really about alternating winter and summer accommodation: “where are your flocks and your women? . . . In the mountains of Bulgaria."
Bulgaria, of course, refers to the Bulgarian thema of the time, the mountains of the Central Balkans, where we know good evidence of transhumance herding long before the Vlachs from the Greek and Roman reports about the Dardanian people. In the period before the Slavic immigration, the inhabitants of the Roman cities of the Central Balkans were already forced to adopt the lifestyle of transhumance shepherding (Dardán) by retreating to the mountains. A branch of Romanian ethnogenesis grew out of this lifestyle change. We have to assume the other branch on the basis of the distorted tradition preserved by Kekaumenos. For this tradition, we have to admit that after the establishment of the province of Dacia, the name "Dacus" (Dacus) no longer meant the actual Dacians, the former inhabitants of Dacia, just as "Pannon" (Pannonius) did not mean the Pannonian tribal group in the imperial era, or the "gall" (Gallus) was not simply the name of the Celts. "Dacian" was the name of the province of Dacia, "Pannon" was the province of Pannonia, and "Gall" was the name of any inhabitant of a province called Gaul. This can also make Kekaumenos' chronological error understandable to us, and what's more: his confusing narrative can also become somewhat of a source value in that we see in the migrated and scattered Dacians not the former subjects of Decebalus, but the inhabitants of the abandoned province of Dacia. This also resolves the contradiction that the destroyed Dacians later migrated and dispersed. That is: one part of Kekaumenos' description, which is not wrong in itself, refers to the free Dacians, while the second part, which is again correct in itself, refers to the fate of the inhabitants of the evacuated Dacia. The connection between the two, correct in itself, led to the chronologically absurd origin, according to which the Vlachs came from the Dacians who fled from the Romans to the Roman Empire.
As far as emigration and dispersion are concerned, the historicity of this is beyond any doubt, at most with the limitation that "scattering" obviously condenses the movements of several centuries after the age of Aurelian; this is the period when the Romanized people scattered from Dacia and the Latin-speaking inhabitants of the Central Balkans who converted to transhumance merged into a new unity in language, lifestyle and culture under the Vlach people name. The consciousness of the Dacian origin in this new ethnic group could have survived in such a way that the new Dacia on the right bank of the Danube was the heir of the evacuated Dacia not only in name but also in its inhabitants. If we only take the tens of thousands of people from whom the two legions of the former Dacia consisted of family members, and whom Aurelian settled on the banks of the Danube, in Ratiaria and Oescus, we already have every reason to assume that the evacuees retained the consciousness of their origin from Trajan's Dacia. But the same thing follows from at least two seemingly trivial data. At the end of the 4th century, the imaginative author of the Historia Augusta informs us that the anti-emperor, Regalianus, who was proclaimed in Moesia in 260, was "of Dacian descent, and even, as they say, a relative of Decebalus". It is needless to emphasize that this tale lacks any foundation. However, its starting point could only be that the author knew: the old Moesia is the same as the Dacia of his own time. After that, the royal origin is a cheap, even rather humorous continuation of the playful idea that connected the name Regalianus with the kingdom through the conjugation of rex, regis. Although the origin of Regalianus is unknown, as a high-ranking commander, possibly a governor, he was a member of the senatorial order (his wife or mother, Dryantilla, must have been of senatorial descent), and as such he could hardly have come from the province where he happened to be proclaimed emperor. But the place of the proclamation, associated with the interpretation of its name, could have led the playful imagination of the author to Decebalus, without this game falling outside the permissible range of antique derivations and ethnographic associations. We have already talked about Diocletian's son-in-law and co-emperor: Galerius was born in the new Dacia, but certainly when the original Dacia still existed. His mother, Romula, left Dacia during a flight caused by a Carp invasion and settled in Moesia. As is rightly suspected, the escape and emigration from Dacia began early. In the case of Galerius, the interesting thing is that the refugees found a new home where Aurelian later created the new Dacia. The withdrawal of the army, which was also not the work of Aurelian! it was only the culmination of the process that began sometime in the middle of the 3rd century, and of which Aurelian drew only the final consequence with the creation of the new Dacia. We know very well how the Romanized inhabitants of Dacia were made up of immigrants of mixed origin, but their collective name was "Dacus", and when they had to start a new life on the south bank of the Danube, their name "Dacian" survived only because the province in which they settled it was named Dacia. The fleeing and resettled "Dacians" were the bearers of Dacian Romanization: soldiers and their families, landowners, tenants, the urban aristocracy. Those whose basis of existence was belonging to the Empire, and for whom complete declassification would have awaited in the province left to itself, without administration or protection. However, settling in the new Dacia or another province, they did not break away from the Roman society of which they were the beneficiaries. It is likely that most of them, the tens of thousands of families of the two legions, must have settled in the new Dacia, which resulted in the concentration of Romanized elements and the survival of the Dacian self-consciousness. These Romanized Dacians would of course have met the same fate in the storms of the population migration that had begun, as if they had stayed in the old Dacia. Having lost their social position and the support of the central power, the only thing that saved them from absorption was that they could merge with the Balkan branch of the Vlachs, with which they were connected by language, lifestyle and a common alienation towards the changing ethnic environment. The amalgamation was probably already in an advanced stage when they received the collective name Vlach from the Slavic immigrants.OrionNimrod (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
here you have a link where its written how kekaumenos name vlachs dacians and bessoi(so they populate that places, dacia aureliana or dacia trajana, doesnt really matters), then he sais they migrate between the danube and sava and then they go to south. 2A0C:5A84:520F:BC00:F9FA:DC02:B70:17F9 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Magna Vlachia
"During the Middle Ages, the term "Magna Vlachia" appears in Byzantine documents, which means the ancestral homeland of the Vlachs. This name was used for Thessaly and present-day North Macedonia."
The great Vlachia, as I have searched, is not located in Macedonia, but where Romania is located today, the area of Macedonia was called Wallachia Thessaly, if I see that there are no problems and that no one shows me otherwise, I suppose I can edit that fragment of the article.
I'm sorry but how is the first paragraph from "History" allowed and even restored multiple times? Did nobody read it? Not only is it poorly written, it also looks and sounds as biased as possible, written by the least obvious agenda having Hungarian. Like, what even is this?
On the other hand, most non-Romanian historian believe that Romanians, Moldovans, Aromanians and other Eastern Romance groups originated in the southern Balkans, what is now North-Macedonia, Kosovo, and Thessaly and migrated north from there from the 11th-12th centuries onwards.
Then he links some dodgy sources to somehow "prove" that "most" non-Romanian "historian" believe that?
The funniest one of them all is "a critical and analytical guide" on Medieval Hungarian historians, from Carlile Aylmer Macartney, which was also a supporter of Hungarian interests and causes in the United Kingdom. Least possible biased "source" on the origins of Romanians.
There's absolutely no way anyone unbiased read that paragraph and genuinely thought it was a legitimately good way to "expand" the page. The fact that stuff like this gets restored and even protected is worrying to say the least. 86.122.76.212 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not "allowed", it is cultivated: Wikipedians pretend there is nothing wrong with Hungarian users writing Romanian history. When highlighted they will claim they don't know enough about the topic or that they don't care about the content only about how users interact. As if writing stuff on purpose to damage and harm ethnic sensitivities is not interaction...
Do yourself a favour and forget about this whole business. You can see already that the only outcome is protecting the article - ie silencing the protesters. Nothing else will come out of it. Wikipedia is, in this topic at least, a biased and toxic source of propaganda. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Aristeus01, I see you worry about the original researchers, but you yourself push all the time many WP:ORIGINAL (like [14] Romanian language was spoken in Pannonia (east Austria, west Hungary) 2000 years long without interruption until today, or [15][16] hundred of settlements in today west Hungary, Oberpullendorf in Austria was a Romanian settlement between 800-1400, or [17] you wanted depict the 9th century Hungarians in Hungary as 19th century 3000km far Bashkirs or with 19th century Hungarian puszta betyar outlaws with pistol and dogs)
I suppose this article is about the Vlachs in general not about the Romanian dialects, I see you made arbitrary categories to list the old descriptions of Vlachs. This stage [18] Which is your personal WP:ORIGINAL. The marked academic sources cleary speak about Vlachs in general whitout any categorization which was made by you. Morover mostly those sources mention clealry the Vlachs as Romanians and not by your categorization.
For example Kekaumenos story about the Vlachs used by both of their arguments the followers of the Daco-Roman theory and followers of the Migratory theory, and they are talking about Vlachs/Romanians in their studies and not about Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians, but you moved Kekaumenos' Vlachs in the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians section.
I also not aware that the Vlachs in the Alexiad would be Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians. Morover even in the text, the Alexiad write about general about the common usage of the "Vlach word".
Basically you arbitrary decided that the documented Vlach stories in the Balcan cannot be the Romanians, just the Romanians can be only who are mentioned around Transylvania, which is clearly condtadict the main theories of the Origin of the Romanians which described by many scholars.
You moved Vlach stories in Bulgaria (and Cuman stories) in the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians section, however the marked sources clearly talk about Vlach/Romanians. Also there were many historical Bulgarian-Vlach(Romanian) events. You moved arbitrary Cuman-Bulgarian-Vlach(Romanian) things deep in Greece under the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians section.
There are no mainstream academic scholar view or consensus to make those categorization.
"There are no mainstream academic scholar view or consensus to make those categorization." yes there are:
Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro–Romanian, Megleno–Romanian, and Arumanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–125. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.
It's basic knowledge of the subject by now. If a particular entry is not ok I am willing to discuss, but claiming parts like the almost 12th century Kekaumenos entry as speaking of Romanians is between OR and fringe. The language authorities are quite clear on the separation of dialects of Common Romanian.
As a clear sign this is not arbitrary I left 8th and 9th century entries as they were. Any proof the people in Transylvania were Aromanians by the way? No? Then what are we talking about is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
"The marked sourced clearly talk about Vlachs/Romanians" no they do not "clearly" say that - do you or the other history enthusiast even know the difference between Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians, and Romanians? On what grounds are we having this conversation? That there are some historians claiming exactly what? Because if the claim is that Vlachs in 13th century Macedonia are Romanians that is fringe, and I don't care if it is coming from a Immigrationist theorist or a nationalist trying to claim all Vlachs south of Danube are Romanians. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
So you think based only 1 source, which is a language dialect source (and I do not know what is there) you have right to overwrite all other scholar opinions?
Do that source say that Kekaumenos write about Megleno-Romanians? Do that source say Alexiad write about Megleno-Romanians? Do that source say the Bulgarian-Cuman-Vlachs are about the Megleno-Romanians? The marked sources mention simple Vlachs or many of them talk about Romanians, so it is incorrect that you overrides those sources = WP:ORIGINALOrionNimrod (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
"I don't care if it is coming from a Immigrationist theorist or a nationalist trying to claim all Vlachs south of Danube are Romanians"
So you admit you does not care with academic sources if those are not your personal POV (btw I did not talk about any 13th century specific one).
Do that source say that Kekaumenos write about Megleno-Romanians? Do that source say Alexiad write about Megleno-Romanians? Do that source say the Bulgarian-Cuman-Vlachs are about the Megleno-Romanians?
If not what are you talking about? = only your personal POV
It would be no debate if leaving categorization, they are all Vlach things. Max you can mention if some certain sources say "this is Aromanian".
Other example, the academic source clearly talk about Romanians but you moved this entry under the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians which is your personal POV that the academic source talk about not the Romanians.
Article:
"In 1094, the Cuman army crossing the mountains of southern Bulgaria was led through the mountains by the Vlachs."
"The Romanians sometimes appear as loyal subjects capable of war, and sometimes as hostile elements. In 1095, for example, a certain Poudilosz (Budilă), a prominent Romanian, warned the emperor that the Cumans had crossed the Danube and to prepare for an attack, then Romanians also led the Cumans through the passes of the Balkan Mountains. In 1099, the passing crusaders were pinched. In 1105, the monks of Mount Athos were tempted by Romanian women selling milk and wool products dressed as men."[19]page98 OrionNimrod (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod I already gave you 3 sources that explicitly say that Aromanians and Romanians are not in the same location past the 10th-11th century. I'm not going to verify if each source added here specifies that just to appease you. As I said before if there is a particular entry you have doubts about I am willing to discuss, else the categorization is perfectly in line with research on the topic. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
"I'm not going to verify if each source added here specifies that just to appease you"
So you admit you push your personal POV.
If the sources clearly talk about Romanians, it is incorrect to add them as Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians.
I ask again: Do your source say that Kekaumenos write about Megleno-Romanians? Do your source say Alexiad write about Megleno-Romanians? Do your source say the Bulgarian-Cuman-Vlachs are about the Megleno-Romanians?OrionNimrod (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
You are pushing POV and fringe by using sources that claim Romanians lived in Macedonia/Greece in the 13th century were Aromanians are documented. Again, the language authorities are clear about that: Aromanians and Romanians did not live in the same location beyond 10th century. Not my fault that your source is WP:Deprecated. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Well I did not claim anything, (please do not put words in my mouth, I did not say Romanians lived in Greece in 13th century) I just would like to restore the article what it was before which cannot be fringe :) the article about the Vlachs in general, why would be fringe leaving arbitrary categorization what is your POV idea which was not used many years long since the article exists?
Actually you use just your own POV theories to make arbitrary categorizations overriding the language of the marked sources. Many sources does not talk about Aromanians or Megleno Romanians but cleary about Romanians despite you move them under the Megleno Romanians section.
Did Byzantine sources called Hungarians Magyars? Should we move the entries from them about Hungarians to the history of the Turks or Turkic people? Aristeus01 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I see you keep talking about off topic instead of the subject. We are using modern academic works by modern historians not 1000 years old works (max for quoation and reference if modern sources are refering to that). Only those sources should put under Megleno Romanians chapter which clearly talk about Megleno Romanians in the marked source. Everything else is your original research WP:ORIGINAL You also miss to answer to my questions (as usual), finally could you answer those? OrionNimrod (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I see you keep adding pointless replies and making baseless accusations, and so far have not brought RS to dismiss my sources. The sources talk about Vlachs which is an umbrella term for Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Romanians, and Istro-Romanians as well as other groups, each individualized by language and geographic distribution as described in the sources I cited. Are you asking to remove Megleno-Romanians from the chapter header? Because I really do not understand what your are exactly saying. So far all seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DRAMA. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes Vlach is a general term, but you think you can arbitrary organize all entries in the article about Vlachs by your personal WP:ORIGINAL POV which are contradict the sourced academic contents. Even you admited that you do not want to make it correct which show us the bad faith purpose: "I'm not going to verify if each source added here specifies that just to appease you"
I ask this question already many times:
Do your source say that Kekaumenos write about Megleno-Romanians? Do your source say Alexiad write about Megleno-Romanians? Do your source say the Bulgarian-Cuman-Vlachs are about the Megleno-Romanians?
You did not answer, because the answer is NO. Which means it would be incorrect to add Kekaumenos, Alexias, Bulgarian-Valch-Cuman stories under Megleno-Romanians. It should be under the general Vlach category as it was before your POV edit many years long.
Falsifying the sources also part of your personal POV:
In the article, you put these entries under the Megleno-Romanians:
"In 1020, the Archdiocese of Ohrid was founded, which was responsible for "the spiritual care of all the Vlachs".
"In 1094, the Cuman army crossing the mountains of southern Bulgaria was led through the mountains by the Vlachs."
"In 1099, crusading armies were attacked by Vlachs, in the mountains along the road from Braničevo to Niš."
"In 1020, he subordinated all Romanians in Bulgaria to the archbishop of Ohrid."
page 98
"The Romanians sometimes appear as loyal subjects capable of war, and sometimes as hostile elements. In 1095, for example, a certain Poudilosz (Budilă), a prominent Romanian, warned the emperor that the Cumans had crossed the Danube and to prepare for an attack, then Romanians also led the Cumans through the passes of the Balkan Mountains. In 1099, the passing crusaders were pinched. In 1105, the monks of Mount Athos were tempted by Romanian women selling milk and wool products dressed as men."
The source clearly talk about Romanians and not about Megleno-Romanians, it is a pure source falsification that you move a sourced entries under the wrong category. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
"Did Byzantine sources called Hungarians Magyars? Should we move the entries from them about Hungarians to the history of the Turks or Turkic people?"
No, because the two are not the same, indeed Byzantine sources often referred to the Hungarians as "Turks", but the books written by historians that are marked as sources clearly state that they are Hungarians, not Turks, so the source marked on Wikipedia is talking about Hungarians, and not about the Turks!
In your case, however, this is not the case, on the one hand, in most cases, the original source does not mention Megleno-Romanians at all, nor does the book written by the historian cited here as a source mention them! So neither the original nor the modern book talks about Megleno-Romanians! That is all your individual opinion and research!
Also, I'd like to point out that you didn't make a single mention in the talk page that you're going to reorder the whole article in this way!
What you did, without any discussion, was to take the whole thing and reorganise it according to your own opinion, ignoring the many sources cited in the article.
Let's look at an example:
You put this part in the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians section: "In 1013, a Byzantine document mentions the settlement of "Kimbalongu" in the mountains near Ohrid, which was a Vlach settlement."
The text says:
Hungarian: "Az első vlak nevű helység »Kimbalongu« (Campus longus), egy hosszú szurdékon az achridai hegyek közt, legelőször 1013-ban emlittetik meg."
English: "The first settlement with a Vlach name, "Kimbalongu" (Campus longus), on a long gorge in the Achrida mountains, is first mentioned in 1013."
Another important thing to mention is the subtitle of the book! Which reads: "Insights into Romanian historiography"
So the book clearly states that it is about the Romanians and nothing else! Also, it is important to note that the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians are not even mentioned in the book! Yet you, for your own opinion, thought to put it in this section, contrary to the source. And this is not the only case, because you did it with 99% of the sources! This is WP:ORIGINAL!CriticKende (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian are Vlachs! It is in the beginning of the article, a full section dedicated to explaining this. Why are you asking me to explain it again? It is not my personal opinion, the article clearly states it. That a source or two from Hungary (wrongfully) mingle the two it is not mainstream. It can at best be added as minor view. Here is The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages:
"The Aromanians – or Macedo-Romanians or ‘Vlachs’ – live in small communities scattered over much of the Balkan Peninsula, especially southern Albania, central and northern Greece and south-western Macedonia." Aristeus01 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
"Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian are Vlachs!" Yes nobody debate this. Despite you claimed that it is fringe to restore that the Vlachs are Vlachs in general :) as it was many years long before your POV edit.
The marked Hungarian source clearly talk about the Romanians and not about Megleno-Romanians regarding that Vlach contents, but you deliberately overrides the academic sources.
"That a source or two from Hungary (wrongfully) mingle the two it is not mainstream." That is exactly your personal POV and original research that you think that a modern academic Hungarian source is not enough good for you, because it does not match with the Daco-Roman theory what you are following, this is not true that the Hungarian theory is not a mainstream. That Hungarian historians universally maintain the Romanian immigration from the Balkan, so the Hungarian source talk about Romanians not about Megleno-Romanians in those mentioned contents. We all know the origin of Romanians is a debated topic, there are 2 mainstream theories, there are the followers of the Daco-Roman theory (mainstream in Romania) and followers of the immigration theory (100% mainstream in Hungary + and mainstream in Croatia, Poland, Austria, Germany, etc and I know many historians form USA, UK, etc). Which means you are deliberately overrides the mainstream Hungarian scholar view with your view which is a bad faith edit and source falsification. You started the debate that you think, you have right to arrange the Vlach things based on exclusively the Daco-Roman theory even falsifying the sources of the other theory.
I also think it is wrong that you want override the academic sources by broad language categorization and language speculations (many "probably") what was 1000 years ago, that you think one source above all, morover that source does not mention exactly those things at all what are in the Hungarian sources, which means it is your personal POV and speculation again, breaking this rule also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material
I always show concrete text from sources, you just link big long books, and do not show concrete texts, really hard to know and check what are you talking about.
This situation remember me when you removed Hungarian academic sources from Hungarian related topics, he stated that all Hungarian national library are not reliable and he basically suggested that Hungarian sources for their own Hungarian history is not allowed:
I did not find any that contradict the Hungarian sources, and anyway the Hungarian sources clearly claim things which cannot overwriteable with other source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material it says if we have reliable source A, B, C, then you have no right to say only reliable source C is the ultimate truth (which would be your POV) and you ignore reliable source A, B.
In contrast, Eastern Balkan Romance developed into “Proto-Romanian,” due to the influence of the sub- and superstrate of the eastern varieties of South Slavic, also termed “Balkan Slavic,”8 which developed into the Bulgarian–Macedonian language continuum. In the 10th century, Proto-Romanian divided into (common) Daco-Romanian and south-Danubian Aromanian, whereas the other south-Danubian varieties, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian, separated only later on from common Romanian, perhaps in the 12th or 13th century.
There are three basic hypotheses for the formation of Romanian (and the Romanian people): the autochthony thesis (Proto-Romanian developed in left-Danube Dacia only), the discontinuation thesis (all Latin-speaking people left Dacia), and the “as-well-as” thesis, with Proto-Romanian developing on both sides of the Danube.
Many "perhaps" and 13th century, I remember we talked about 11th century contents about the Vlachs. Checking that source I do not see any Transylvanian things, your source claims the Romanians developed in the Balkan as Hungarian view claim. Even that source mention as lists the basic hypotheses, among the autochthony Daco-Roman view, the Hungarian view also lsited as mainstream and you said that is not mainstream :D It is also interesting that all Hungarian historians held in a whole country it is enough "not mainstream" for you.
Becoming a people is a multidimensional process, like all nations the Romanians also mixed with many people during history and nobody know the exact language what they spoke in a certain old time and location to make an arbitrary categorization by personal POV if we have a source like this: "Vlachs did thing in 1095" and if that academic source does not claim they were Megleno-Romanians. Perhaps it was an umbrella term for many kind of Vlach groups like the Alexiad mention all Vlachs as common name as umbrella term but you arbitrary decided they can be only Megleno-Romanians in the Alexiad.
You admitted that the academic Hungarian source is "wrong and not good for you" that is why you overwrote it with your POV WP:ORIGINAL and defending it with edit war. This is interesting that you keen to report users as WP:ORIGINAL but you have no problem when you yourself do the same to push many WP:ORIGINAl like this topic and I listed others in the beginning of this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Consistent_breaking_of_NOR_rule
This is also interesting that you reported me as edit war however you did much more edit wars in the article than I did ever and you started that edit war period https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1175808383. It means you are keen to report users who has different views than you in the hope to disappear them, I remember when you was blocked earlier when you reported an another user you said "Wikipedia is a bad place that you need live in fear of the reports" but actually I see you are the only who are reporting everybody else.
I know everybody will be automatically labeled as "Hungarian nationalist" who do not accept every single Romanian nationalist propaganda or every single anti-Hungarian Romanian propaganda, like "Burgenland in Austria was an ancient Romanian land" Talk:Vlachs/Archive 2#Fringe map :D:D:D OrionNimrod (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aristeus01, first I was not aware that was a comedy TV show. But I bet ancient Dacians kings did not know that they were Romanians. However this event tells a lot how strong the Dacopathy in the post national communist Romania. In 1980, the national-communist Romanian government already celebrated the 2050th anniversary of the “founding of the unitary and centralised state of Romania” in North Korea style. The Romanian national-communist dictator, Ceausescu also identified himself with Burebista the ancient Dacian king :) https://imgpile.com/images/xv6IHh.pngOrionNimrod (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod just like today some not very in touch with reality people parade their 0,0001 percent Avar ancestry and claim indigeneity in the land. Should we delete them as well? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
![[7]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Orontius-Finaeus-Map-fragment-1531.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Blaci.png){kind=link}
