TRANSILVANIA - STOLEN HISTORY. Documentary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 янв 2017
- The land of Transilvania has been hunted by the greatest powers of the world for 2000 years. This land of a rare beauty and full of resources, keeps being today the target of foreign interests. The history of Transilvania has often been forged. In this film we will unveil the hidden truth.
Screenscript, Film Directing, Lecture
DANIEL ROXIN
Transation: Lia Nenciu
superb, lumea incepe sa reactioneze, a ajuns pe tot globul acest documentar inedit..
În viitor veți face un documentar la fel de bine realizat , despre Basarabia?
Andrei Andrew Ar trebui făcut un documentar despre Românii/Vlahii din toate țările vecine.
I am glad this is in English subtitles. I enjoy listening to the language.
kat Mats
This mean you like romanian language?
Indeed I do. My grandmother arrived in US from this part of the world at the age of 12. She never lost her accent, learned to read nor write English. Transylvania would be one place I would like to visit.
So is it just a vulgar Latin form or closer to Italian?
@@sierrakobold6896 it's the closest language to latin in terms of grammar.
Me too
Foarte bine că reapare conștiința națională în rândul românilor, numai cuvinte de laudă pentru acești oameni care nu cedează în arăta adevărul despre supraviețuirea noastră în Transilvania !
An excellent first part of this documentary film. Congratulations! I shall be waiting for the second part. Thanks a lot for the english subtitles. This is a remarkable video, well done indeed! Mr. Roxin, my best wishes for you during this 2017. Greetings from Buenos Aires, Argentina.☺
Oh, shut up, sghxcy. You have the right to disagree my comment, but you don´t have a bloody clue about me to say I am a poor guy. Who the hell do you think you are? Tell Roxin he is a poor guy too. I want to see that.
please don't mind all the hate comments , I salute' you !
Petre Peteu
frs2112 hello Latin brother
Please see this:
ruclips.net/video/9tVQ-J1NOHw/видео.html
Felicitãri domnilor, sunteti minunati ! Multumim pentru acest extraordinar documentar pe care l-ati tradus în limba englezã. Super si succes în continuare !
the present and historic denomination (Ardeal/Transylvania) has been taken after Hungarian (Erdély). Indeed, the Romanian term ʹArdealʹ has no meaning, but is an adaptation of the Old Magyar name Erdő-elve, that means "land beyond the forest", translated into Latin as "Transylvania". Such a name reflects the Hungarian viewpoint, as for Romanians that region should have been called "Transcarpathia", the land beyond the Carpathian Mounts! Consequently, if Romanians were already there when Hungarians arrived, why then did they adopt the Magyar name? How could have they completely forgotten the denomination by which they knew the region before the arrival of Árpád's hosts?
The earliest known reference to Transylvania appears in a Medieval Latin document of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1075 as ultra silvam, meaning "beyond the forest" (ultra meaning "beyond" or "on the far side of" and the accusative case of sylva (sylvam) "woods, forest"). Transylvania, with an alternative Latin prepositional prefix, means "on the other side of the woods". Hungarian historians claim that the Medieval Latin form Ultrasylvania, later Transsylvania, was a direct translation from the Hungarian form Erdő-elve. That also was used as an alternative name in German überwald (13th-14th centuries) and Ukrainian Залісся (Zalissia).
Transylvania = Erdély (modern Hungarian) = Erdőelve (old Hungarian) = erdő/forest + elve/beyond
Wallachia = Havasföld (modern Hungarian (snowy land)) = Havaselve (old Hungarian) = havas/snowy + elve/beyond (Viewing from Transylvania the land beyond the snowy mountains)
Old Hungarian dictionary from 1862:
A magyar nyelv szótára - Wikipédia
ELVE | A magyar nyelv szótára
ERDÉLY | A magyar nyelv szótára
The Romanian Ardeal is derived from the Hungarian Erdély.
RDL consonant: eRDeLy/aRDeaL
The Hungarian version has a meaning, but the Romanian version has no meaning.
If you see the map you can see immediately the Carpatian Basin is an integrated area. That is why the Hungarian Kingdom established in the full Carpatian Basin because easy to defend the area because the area is surrounded by mountains. This is logically.
What the Romanians say this is illogical: this is very unlikley to be formed a state in the ancient times that cross a very big mountain in the center.
For example in WW2 Hungary had a defend line in the mountains and the Soviet army was not able to breach through the Carpatian mountains. When Romania betrayed his allies (as usual) the Soviets was able to attack Hungary from the south through the plain land.
Árpád Line - Wikipedia
I found this in the Thuróczy chronicle (1488), seems the “ew” = “ő” in modern Hungarian.
Erdewelwe = Erdőelve (modern Hungarian)
Rigomezew = Rigómező (modern Hungarian)
Felicitări pt acest monument documentar!Poate Reușești un documentar cu toată istoria Dacilor până în zilele noastre.Noi Daci,nu am ocupat niciodată teritorii abuziv,ci doar ne-am apărat,de romani,otomani,austro-ungari,iar acum suntem devorați de toate statele dezv în frunte cu Ungaria care niciodată nu au vrut să recunoască că sunt prădătorii acestui neam de peste 1000 de ani.Mulțumesc domnule Daniel Roxin,pt mine ești cel mai mare patriot!
Sunteți un adevărat patriot!EU simt că sunt un geto-dac. Felicitări pentru toate emisiunile dumneavoastră .Vă urmăresc cu mare plăcere.
va multumesc din toata inima pentru acest film
Felicitari si multumim pentru tot ceea ce faci!
Ar trebui sa avem mai multi ca si Daniel Roxin!
Am putea încerca să fim toți „Daniel Roxin”. Eu sînt „DANIEL ROXIN”! Dar nu numai declarativ, ca la Eu sînt Charlie. Am putea încerca să susținem cum putem renașterea DACIEI !
Adevarul trebuie stiut, evident, fie ca le convine unora sau altora! Adevarul este UNUL SINGUR! Felicitari pentru documentar!
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able to adapt to and to adjust best to the changing environment in which it finds itself…Romanians survived for so many years and they deserve some credit for all of their earned Freedom!!! Time to enjoy the present. Yesterday is history.
De la lume adunate si din nou la lume date...
Doar asa lumea academica isi justifica
menirea pentru care exista , sa serveasca cu
onoare, in continuare, societatea civila , plati-
toare de taxe si impozite. Va felicit pentru asemenea videoclipuri care ne lu-
mineza viata ! Sa auzim
numai de bine !
Romanii nu luptau pentru un pamant care nu-l numeau acasa.Maghiarii au fost cam prinsi la mijloc,si-au folosit metodele de exploatare a taranilor transilvaneni,dar asta nu le da dreptul de autonomie,oricat de mult ar vrea nu stiu ce istoric.Sa spui ca Transilvania e a Ungariei e ca si cum ai spune ca englezii sunt latini.
o versiune in maghiara ar fi grozava 😂😂
Stelu Pohrib ☺☺☺
ruclips.net/video/9tVQ-J1NOHw/видео.html&ab_channel=Alian%C8%9BaPentruIstorieAdevarat%C4%83
Here you go! ;) Enjoy :D
Why does the speaker sound Italian? I am an American who has just discovered by genetic testing his connection to the region. I know *some* Italian. Please help me.
Romanian is similar with Italian, as both are language originating from Latin. But they are not one and the same.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Wrong a anser! Marco Merlini, Italian archaeologist, about the Tărtăria tablets and the bones found along with them: “The bones, as well as the tablets, are very old. It is a certainty. It is our turn to think that writing began in Europe, 2.000 years before the Sumerian writing. In Romania we have a great treasure, but it does not belong only to Romania, but to the whole of Europe.”
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Ekström Par Olof: “The Rumanian language is a key-language that influenced, for the most part, all European languages”
Foarte informativ! Asa se dovedeste adevarul istoric, cu informatii clare, din surse diverse, si cu argumente logice.
Felicitari!
Traiasca Dacia Libera !
Mai degraba Dacia Felix!
István the first wasn't orthodox, he was pagan. And his cousin, Koppány was killed by István, because leading a pagan revolt. István's father, Géza practiced both paganizm and christianity. He said, that he is a powerful ruler to have 2 religions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopp%C3%A1ny István's pagan name was Vajk, what means Vajákos, sort of magician in the Hungarian language.
In that time Christianity was one. So, every christian was both catholic and orthodox
@@MrGabi1235 The split of the Orthodox/Catholic religion happened in 1054, István was crowned in 1001, so he cannot be an Orthodox. Altough they were differences between east and west.
I hope you know that in Wikipedia everyone has the right to change the article page and therefore is not a reliable sources to cite?
@@ogg5477 Not just wikipedia knows this events, that was written in books in the medieval times. For example in the Chronicum Pictum, what was written in the XIV. century.
Un sârb, despre unguri - pe scurt şi foarte clar!
Un profesor de istorie sârb din Voivodina, aflat zilele trecute la Satu Mare, a transmis redacţiei o reacţie pe marginea articolului “Afront adus românilor pe bani europeni”, apărut în numărul din 4.12.2012 al Gazetei de Nord Vest. Reproducem integral textul transmis de profesorul sârb Miodrag Stanojevic:
“Mă numesc Miodrag Stanojevic, sunt sârb din Vojvodina şi profesor de istorie în Novi Sad . Aflându-mă într-o călătorie către Ucraina, am zăbovit trei zile în urbea dvs., bucurându-mă de ospitalitatea unui vechi prieten şi a familiei sale. Menţionez că vorbesc fluent limba română deoarece am copilărit într-un sat mixt vlaho-sârbesc.
Ştiind că sunt profesor de istorie şi bun cunoscător al revizionismului unguresc, amfitrionul meu mi-a arătat articolul “Afront adus românilor pe bani europeni” apărut în ziarul Dvs. Totodată mi-a relatat câteva evenimente recente de acest gen:
- fenomenul Csibi Barna, un degenerat care îşi permite să dea foc în centrul României unei păpuşi reprezentând un erou naţional al românilor (n.r. Avram Iancu), autorităţile române ignorând acest gest.
Vă propun un exerciţiu de imaginaţie: Ce s-ar fi întâmplat dacă:
- un român ar fi dat foc la Budapesta unei păpuşi reprezentându-l pe Kosuth Lajos
- un turist german ar fi incendiat la Tel Aviv o păpuşă reprezentându-l pe David Ben Gurion (n.r. primul premier al Israelului) sau pe Golda Meir (n.r. de asemenea premier al Israelului)
- un ungur din Vojvodina ar fi incendiat la Novi Sad o păpuşă reprezentându-l pe Milos Obilic, eroul naţional al sârbilor de la Kosovopolje.
Meciul Steaua - Ujpest de acum 3 ani: la intrarea în România, suporterii unguri aflaţi în tren au afişat “Transilvania aparţine Ungariei”, iar pe stadionul Steaua din Bucureşti au afişat românii = ţigani. Acelaşi scenariu:
- ce s-ar fi întâmplat dacă Ujpest ar fi jucat la Beograd cu Partizan sau Steaua Roşie. Oare ar fi avut curajul ungurii să afişeze mesajele “sârbii = ţigani sau Vojvodina aparţine Ungariei”? Nu, nu ar fi îndrăznit, iar dacă ar fi fost atât de tâmpiţi să o facă, în aceeaşi seară ar fi cinat în Infern.
De ce îşi permit asta în România? De ce nu îşi permit acelaşi lucru în celelalte ţări unde au minorităţi maghiare şi revendicări revizioniste, adică Slovacia , Serbia , Ucraina? Simplu, pentru că ei ştiu (aşa cum au menţionat în “Traseul Legendelor Sătmărene)” că românii sunt “un popor paşnic, binevoitor şi primitiv” şi, completez eu, un popor “imbecil de tolerant”. Totodată ei ştiu că slavii (din Slovacia , Serbia , Ucraina) nu sunt aşa. Şi nu îşi permit.
Afirm cu tărie că nu există nicăieri în lumea civilizată o ţară care să acorde atâtea drepturi unei minorităţi alogene cum acordă România minorităţii maghiare. Şi totuşi nu vor fi mulţumiţi niciodată, sâcâindu-vă perpetuu (ca un ţânţar în miezul nopţii) cu aceeaşi pretenţie imbecilă: autonomie. Tupeul lor se manifestă şi prin faptul că ei consideră ca fiind similară pretenţia lor de autonomie teritorială în România cu cea a catalanilor din Spania, ignorând cu bună ştiinţă marea diferenţă: catalanii sunt băştinaşi în Spania, pe când maghiarii sunt alogeni asiatici în România.
Gazda mea mi-a spus că, pe lângă “valahi puturoşi” maghiarii vă mai numesc şi “mămăligari”. Îşi permit asta în ţara voastră. Sunt derutat şi confuz, neputând înţelege cum este posibil să nu existe în rândurile poporului român, “paşnic, binevoitor şi primitiv” un profesor de istorie altruist care să explice ungurilor ABC-ul istoriei lor efemere:
- în anul 700 sunt menţionaţi în cronicile coreene ca fiind nişte nomazi primitivi care jefuiau prin nordul Coreei şi estul Chinei
- în 896, şapte triburi maghiare şi trei triburi de turci khazari, fugărite din stepele Asiei de către pecenegi, se stabilesc în Panonia (locuită atunci de slavi, valahi, avari, germanici), în total 225.000 de nomazi sub conducerea lui Arpad. Prima lor preocupare după stabilirea în Panonia a fost jaful (logic). Incursiunile lor sângeroase s-au desfăşurat în toată Europa ajungând până în Spania, până când Otto I cel Mare i-a umilit la Lechfeld în 955.
- Ştefan cel Sfânt (997 - 1038) unifică triburile ungureşti şi îi creştinează. Totodată începe şi procesul de maghiarizare agresivă a populaţiilor din jur: germanici, valahi, slavi, acest proces fiind de fapt esenţa strategiei de supravieţuire a acestui mic popor migrator asiatic în Europa.
Personalităţile proeminente ale istoriei lor nu au fost unguri: Matei Corvin, Petofi Sandor (Petrovici Alexandar - sârb, părinţii lui nu cunoşteau limba maghiară), Kosuth Lajos - slovac, precum şi majoritatea regilor Ungariei. În 1910 un istoric maghiar recunoaşte că doar 10% din unguri sunt urmaşii celor şapte triburi maghiare stabilite în Europa în 896, restul fiind populaţii maghiarizate de-a lungul timpului (valahi, germanici, slavi). De fapt cum ar putea un ungur blond din zilele noastre să fie urmaşul cetelor mongoloide venite în Europa în secolul IX?
Ceea ce trebuie accentuat este faptul că începând de la Ştefan cel Sfânt şi până la dispariţia regatului ungar în 1526, Transilvania nu a făcut parte niciodată din regatul ungar, fiind întotdeauna voievodat autonom.
- Înfrângerea de la Mohacs din 1526 în faţa turcilor şi cucerirea capitalei Buda în 1541 are ca urmare dispariţia de pe harta Europei a regatului ungar. Partea occidentală a Ungariei este anexată de Imperiul Habsburgic, iar restul, inclusiv Buda, devine paşalâc turcesc. Transilvania rămâne principat independent sub suzeranitate otomană.
- După respingerea asediului otoman asupra Vienei (1683), Imperiul Habsburgic ocupă teritoriul fostului regat ungar şi Transilvania, anexiuni recunoscute prin tratatul de la Karlowitz (1699).
- În 1849 Kosuth Lajos proclamă Ungaria stat independent, dar intervenţia habsburgică şi ţaristă înăbuşă această pretenţie.
- În urma pactului dualist din 1867, Ungaria devine regat în cadrul imperiului Habsburgic (numit din acel moment imperiul Austro-Ungar), având constituţie proprie şi o oarecare autonomie.
- În 1918, în urma înfrângerii din primul război mondial, imperiul Austro-Ungar se destramă, Ungaria devine stat independent iar Transilvania alege să se unească cu România.
Trebuie să subliniez imbecilitatea revizioniştilor unguri. Cum pot susţine că Transilvania a aparţinut Ungariei 1000 de ani, când regatul Ungariei a dispărut din 1541 până în 1867, perioadă în care a fost paşalâc sau provincie habsburgică, în timp ce Transilvania a fost voievodat autonom de la Ştefan cel Sfânt (997 - 1038) până în 1699 când devine provincie austriacă (ca şi Ungaria de altfel). Deci Transilvania şi-a pierdut independenţa în 1699 şi a aparţinut până în 1918 Imperiului Habsburgic, nicidecum Ungariei (care din 1526 până în 1867 nu a existat).
- În 1940, în urma Dictatului de la Viena, o parte a Transilvaniei este cedată (pentru prima dată în istorie) Ungariei. Până în 1944, când revine României, ce fac ungurii în Transilvania? Ce ştiu mai bine: ucid valahi şi evrei, consideraţi rase inferioare. Gena lor asiatică i-a ajutat pe unguri să devină cei mai zeloşi executanţi ai teoriilor rasiale naziste, golind practic Transilvania de evrei. În perioada 1940 - 1944, timp în care Transilvania a aparţinut Ungariei, populaţia evreiască de aici a scăzut cu 90%, marea majoritate fiind trimisă de către autorităţile maghiare către lagărele de exterminare naziste. La fel s-au purtat şi în Serbia odată cu invadarea alături de germani a Iugoslaviei în 1941.
În încheiere, ca să sintetizez relaţia dintre băştinaşii valahi şi alogenii unguri, îmi îngădui un scenariu: un ungur pribeag bate la uşa unui valah. Acesta, ospitalier, îl primeşte în casă. Îi întinde masa, oferindu-i ce are mai bun în cămară. Ungurul, în timp ce se ospătează, pune ochii pe nevasta valahului (frumoasă, bineînţeles) considerând că ar fi normal ca după ospăţ valahul să îi ofere şi un desert, adică nevasta. Indignat de faptul că după ce s-a săturat, valahul nu-i oferă şi nevasta, ungurul îi trage o palmă zdravănă valahului şi încă una. Înainte ca mămăligarul să se dezmeticească, ungurul fuge pe uliţă strigând din toţi rărunchii: săriţi oameni buni, că mă omoară valahul, sunt o victimă. Aşa că, valahi, fiţi înţelegători şi daţi-le şi nevasta, dar vă avertizez că nu le va ajunge. Următoarea lor dorinţă va fi casa voastră.”
PRELUAT DE AICI.
Alte detalii privind intențiile Ungariei de fărâmițare a României găsiți în categoria RUPEREA ROMÂNIEI
Dumnezeu să vă binecuvânteze pt descoperirea adevărului istoric al istoriei noastre
Romania are dreptul sa stapaneasca toate teritoriile majoritar romanesti nici mai mult nici mai putin. Transilvania fiind majoritar romaneaca nu poate apartine decat Romaniei.
3dfx Voodoo ROMAnia a fost ghicita, nu a existat in trecut, uitate pe hartile cel putin de la ani 400 pana aztazi si gasesti adevarul. Ce interesant ca i.e. sa folosit abecedarul runico secuiesc, cu care si scrisul etruschilor se poate citi, si inca acuma se intelege in limba maghiara ce au scris atuncia. ROMAnii au folosit abecedarul cirilic inca in ani 1600, si limba liturgica a fost greca. Noi avem a limba foarte bogata, cu mai mult de 30 milioane de cuvinte pe care le am furat, mai sa fim seriosi. E noroc ca mai sunt istorici normali, care nu vor se se faca de rasul lumii.
ruclips.net/video/FDxNm3VFMtYi/видео.html
Gabriel Vaideanu atat sti despre istoria, sau cunosti numai istoria ghicita de Ceausescu?
Gabriel Vaideanu asta e tot ce sti despre istorie? - si noi suntem prosti? - mai vezi de treaba ta.
Gabriel Vaideanu si etruschi au fost maghiarizati i.e.cu cativa mi de ani?- pentruca si ei au vorbit limba maghiara. Citeste numai ce scrie etruscologul Mario Alinei docent in istorie. Citeste ce scrie Michelangelo Naddeo, si astia sunt oameni de stiinta din italia, cu cei care voi vreti sa fiti in rudenie, numai italini nu vor rudenia ROMAnilor. :D
Gabriel Vaideanu e cea mai veche limba pe pamant limba maghiara. Atunci si etruschi au fost straini in Europa?- pentruca si ei de aici dintre carpati sau dus pe teritoriul italiei, unde au stabilit Roma. Ce interesant ca au vorbit limba maghiara si nu limba voastra, oare cum sa putut intampla? Dute si invata primadata, ca sa nu mori prost!
As a hungarian,I have never heard of this empty land theory.I dont think anyone in Hungary thinks that there were no people in this area before(ofc only above a certain level of intelligence)
Sounds like a bunch of gibberish to me
Of corse you never heard of this because youre nations is the first civilization in the history even Jesus was hungarian from Hungary from Transilvania land of Hungary
We learnt about it in school.
🐎💩 in a nutshell.
@@marcelmarcel2111 I can tell you more: Watch some Jásdi Kiss Imre videos and you will realise that even the Egyptian hieroglyphs can be readable/understandable only! with Hungarian language. We have the reason to think that our origin is important. But it is true that the government lied us more than we can imagine. The point is, we can find the truth if we search it at the right places. For example the truth is our anchestors (Nimród, Attila, etc) were great leaders, and every folks respected them, but not because of fear. It was because they had all properties that needed to be a good ruler. The lies began from Saint (hypocrite) István. We studied that he was the saviour. But who needs saviour if we are the most respected kingdom in the area? Taking up the religion was our death. But they don't teach this in school to us.
Weird. I have heard many hungarians present this theory as valid
Poti sa faci si o versiune in italiana a filmului? 😀
sunt curios, de ce ai vrea si o versiune in ita, daca ai deja in eng...?
Screeach Pentru ca multi italieni nu vorbesc bine engleza...romana nici pe atat!😂
Pacat.....Obișnuiam "Sa nu plecam capul niciodata , lupi fiind"
@min.6:45
Ţăranul care apare in mijlocul imaginii ţinându-şi mîna la chimir, este nimeni altul decît extraordinarul nostru Badea Cârţan, ţaranul luminat din Cârţişoara Sibiului, care toată viaţa, a făcut tot ce i-a stat în putinţă, pentru a aduce în Transilvania (ce făcea parte pe-atunci din Imperiul Austro-Ungar), cărţi scrise în limba română, pentru ca românii din Transilvania să îşi cunoască adevărata lor origine. Gheorghe Cârţan...Unul dintre cele mai frumoase şi mai măreţe personaje din istoria României!
Daniel Roxin,bravo!Este un documentar monument care întareste originea neamului românesc.Aici,sa-i cinstim chiar pe istoricii maghiari.E valabil si pentru urmasii lor?
sghxcy Ja,whole...Danke shön.
when u disprove somthing u do it with facts m8 ...
Not more than a guy who claims something yet he cannot prove it. That's for sure!
Cand va aparea a doua parte?
felicitari pt.acest documentar...va rog domnule daniel sa realizati un documentar si despre preluarea ortodoxie de catre daci si tot ce a urmat dupa si cum a influentat ortodoxia(dreapata credinta) istoria si pe mari conducatori.multi romani nu cunosc cu adevarat ce este ortodoxia.multumesc...
Rusine ca mai sta statuia lui Mathias Rex in centru Clujului
Să punem in locul ei una mare cu Burebista sau Decebal pe cal mare să se vadă din hungaria să vadă hunii cum stă treaba, că oricum o fost pământul lor până dincolo de Tisa și căcații asiatici au ras tot acolo între timp.
Da aia cu Avram Iancu de se vede și din buda lor tulai domne faina-i.
Abram iancu era om adevarat nu ca fricosul ăla de matei corvin
sa ai multa sanatate
Why would you use yellow English subtitles? It's hard- almost imposible to read them on the screen , frustrating since I really wanted to watch it ..just go with white subtitles, they work everywhere else ..
cuz it's budget tech from the 90s...
Bravo de o mie de ori, domnule Roxin!Vă sunt recunoscător!
Să nu vă opriți!
9:57 - Love Doboka! I read about this. Romanian archaeologists went to Doboka to find the "ancient dacian-roman" capital, and the the earliest finds were denars from the time of Saint Stephen of Hungary :D :D :D :D :D
Doboka is your mom... literally translated everything from Romanian phonetically you d*mb huns. That's Dabaca and it was Gelou's citadel long before you invaded those lands.
Transilvania....
Provincie bogată... râvnită de toți...
Inamicii românilor...
The Hungarians lived near the Urals until the beginning of our era, then they went on a long journey.
The search for the new land
After crossing the Urals, the Hungarians lived for several centuries near the Volga River. They fell under the rule of the Huns, then the Khazars, but there is not a word about them in the chronicles; only archaeologists have found some traces of them.
During the Great Migration, the Hungarians were pressured by the nomadic peoples of Asia, as a result they decided to migrate westward in search of safety.
The Hungarians reached the Black Sea area, coming into contact with the Bulgarians and the Byzantines. Called to support by the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI, the Hungarians crossed the Danube in 895 and attacked the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, but ended up being defeated.
Taking advantage of this circumstance, other migratory peoples attacked the Hungarian settlements. Lacking defense, the Hungarians take refuge in the Dniester valley, then cross the Carpathians, reaching the Middle Tisza Valley and the Pannonian Plain.
That is what you believe but it is not true. But thanks for your valuable input!
It is amusing and sad that even after you have stolen our land and history, you still feel the need to kick us and spit on us and spread lies about our origins.
There are many like you who will not rest until every last Hungarian is expelled from Romania.
Apare si in spaniola?
A big hug from Hungary. History connects us. 🇭🇺❤🇷🇴
i love ppls like you
Yh the only thing that connects us nothing else
Love from Romania,brother!😍🤗
@@andreea7372 , even the blood connect us! They are not at all huns but scytians, i think, a geto-pelasgian tribe like us romanians! Spread love!🤗
♥️
foarte interesant,contuinua sa postezi te sustin
+Daniel Roxin, titlul ar trebui sa fie Transylvania, nu Transilvania, din moment ce documentarul a fost facut pentru audienta de limba engleza. Felicitari.
????
hey,noi,in romana,spunem fiecarui oras,loc,dupa numele lui din tara respectiva.e Transilvania👆
A fost facut pentru Romani,ulterior sa facut si subtitrare
Țara Ardealului este denumirea corectă. Transilvania (" țara de dincolo de pădurea" se referă la pădurile din Munți Apuseni cei mai josi munti din Carpați ) este denumirea dată de oponenții românilor. Ardeal de la " ar" a ara și " deal" . "No ce faci Ioane? Ioti ar dealu ista." Asa s-a ajuns la denumirea " Ardeal " . Deoarece Ardealul este plin cu dealuri cu teren arabil ( fără pădure). Aceste denumiri indica clar cine este primul în Ardeal. Explicația ca Ardeal vine din " erdo " pădure în limba cailor este o minciună propagandistă.
thank you, daniel, for all your work in uncovering true history.
Did you check these informations or you just believe everything what you see??
@@Andy-zh1fo Did you?
@@claudiu8426 I did.
@@Andy-zh1fo And what is your conclusion? :)
@@claudiu8426 the whole video is a lie.
Pe viitor, va rog sa vorbiti cu mai multa mandrie si demnitate.
Desigur istoria nu o putem schimba, dar in prezent romanii pot fi mindri ca au ramas acelasi popor bland si mare la suflet. Acesta a fost motivul atractiv pentru Imperiul Roman, Imperiul Otoman si mai ales hunilor infometati. Lucrurile s-au schimbat iar Romania incepe sa primeasca Respectul meritat de la intreaga europa. Traiasca Dacia!!!
DNA Studies of Romanians
this is a DNA study published in many peer-reviewed specialty journals about a year ago, covering mainly Early-Neolithic (approx 8,000 years ago) and Middle-Neolithic (approx 6,000 years ago), with DNA samples from all 3 major regions of Romania: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460020/pdf/pone.0128810.pdf
Excerpts/Notes: p.6 “Gumelniţa and Boian are two related cultures, having the same area, same type of settlements, economy and burials, being only different in their chronology. Most archeologists believe that these two cultures represent a continuum [28, 34]. The samples from the Iclod site belong to the Zau culture (who is contemporary with both Boian and Gumelniţa). Therefore, we decided to analyse the samples belonging to Boian, Gumelniţa and Zau cultures together: for the sake of simplicity we will call them M_NEO during the population genetic analysis. In addition, no statistically significant differences were found between these sites, supporting the decision to analyse them together.” Note: the sites are from SE Romania AND Transylvania (Iclod; see map on p.4) and the paragraph above shows that there was one common culture and ethnicity occupying those lands at that time (6,000 years ago!), and now the question is- are present-day Romanians related to those people?
p.11 “Interestingly, the genetic analysis of a relatively large number of samples of Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures in Romania (n = 41) (M_NEO) identified a close genetic proximity between this Neolithic group and the Eastern and Central extant European populations. This was shown in the multivariate analysis, where M_NEO and modern populations from Romania are VERY CLOSE, in contrast with Middle Neolithic and modern populations from Central Europe (Figs 2 and 3).” Note: I capped “very close” because if you look at those graphs (the yellow diamonds in Figs 2 and 3) you’ll see that we (modern-day Romanians) are closer to our ancestors (from 6,000 years ago!) than we are to any other modern European population (except Moldovans, of course). That’s just incredible!! So all that alleged mixing of the people didn’t really happen too much in Romania. I guess it was only the ruling classes (the 1%!) that mixed but not so much the common folk.
there are other interesting finds in that study, one showing a genetic shift between Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic in Europe. it’s inconclusive but there was probably a different people living there 8,000 years ago and then something happened- an asteroid, the flood? same with the samples from the other periods, some were excluded because of the small sample size (p.8). the most recent samples, from Late-Bronze (L_BA) “showed a closer genetic similarity with the Bronze Age population from Ukraine than to any other ancient population from Romania” and (p.12) “On the other hand, the unusual mtDNA haplogroup distribution [(H (37.5%), U (25%), HV (25%), W (12.5%)], described in the L_BA_Romania group and the genetic distance to the modern Romania population (Fig 3), suggest that the contribution of L_BA_Romania to the present-day Romanians was relatively limited. Nevertheless, studies on more individuals are necessary to draw definitive conclusions. Also, the impact of the early Bronze Age migrations on the modern South-East Europeans cannot be assessed in our study, due to the low number of samples.” Note: it’s true that the L_BA sample does not show much of a relation to modern-day Romanians (nor any other modern European population, as you can see in Fig 2; for two groups to be close genetically they need to be close to each other in both Fig2 and Fig3) but the sample was small and it could’ve come from some “tourists” of that time, for all we know. I mean, if someone in the future digs up the remains of Los Angeles and they happen to sample DNA from some skeletons in "Korea Town”, should they come to the conclusion that the entire population of Los Angeles was Korean? Obviously not.
anyway, there’s another DNA study from Late Bronze in Romania here: www.academia.edu/453597/Ancient_DNA_study_on_human_fossil_found_Costişa_Romania_dating_from_de_Bronze_Age
Excerpt: p.65 “The point mutations found in the mtDNA sequences presented above were also found in various patterns, in corresponding mtDNA sequences of other old individuals from different archaeological sitesfrom Romania, dating from the Bronze Age (Sultana-Malu Roşu) and Iron Age (Satu Nou-Valea lui Voicu, Jurilovca, Babadag and Enisala-Palanca). That showed the closed genetic kinship along the maternal lineage between the three old individuals from Costişa and some individuals found in other archeological sites dated from the Bronze and Iron Age. We also should note that the point mutations analyzed above are also found in Romanian modern population (our unpublished data), suggesting that some old individuals from the human populations living on the Romanian land in the Bronze and Iron Age, could participate to a certain extent in the foundation of the Romanian genetic pool"
Conclusion: clear, indisputable continuity of the same people and culture, on the same land, over more than 6,000 years. we are, without a doubt, the oldest indigenous people and the oldest (surviving) culture in Europe. all these studies came out relatively recently, so it may take a while before they re-write the history books but eventually they’ll have to. these are the HARD facts, anything else is lies, anecdotal "history", Hungarian propaganda, or Sorosist disinformation.
only I haplogroup is indigenous in Europe, so your continuity coresponds with this culture/people. just like everyone's in europe. simple as that.
@tiami you need to read the whole study/research, done by a reputable team of specialists from different countries, it goes into detail about the findings. if you're not an expert then pick up some books or take some classes to help you understand. if you're an expert then feel free to challenge the study and publish a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. then post it here for all to know. thank you.
@sghxcy I'm not an expert but I'm not a novice either. in any case, that's why I posted links to the actual articles and I pulled salient quotes directly out of the articles, with pages referenced accordingly. and my notes are marked as such, so as to let the intelligent reader discern.
bottom line is nothing changes the conclusion of the study, which is "shown in the multivariate analysis, where M_NEO and modern populations from Romania are VERY CLOSE, in contrast with Middle Neolithic and modern populations from Central Europe (Figs 2 and 3).”
this is now a FACT not a theory. you can build theories around that FACT and try to figure out, historically, what and how it happened, but you can't deny it.
Yeah sure, keep making up your romanian idiotic lies. "Oldes, indigenous people and oldest surviving culture". Lol, oldest culture, wtf are oyu talking about? I mean our country alone is at least 800 years older than you, why are you making up such stupid lies? You guys are nobodies, in the West they call you the "Toilet of Europe". When Hungarians arrived in the region, the Dacians fled to the South of the Danube and only returned later after they mixed with the tribes there, which means we were indeed first in Europe. This is supported by ALL international historians and even romanian professors, like Lucian Boia. You wanted the hard facts, here they are. It would help you to accept these if you wouldn't read the propaganda history books written by Elena Ceaucescu.
This whole movie is nothing but romanian nationalistic propaganda, just another attempt to falsify history because you can't bear with your inferiority complex that you're inhabiting territory that belongs to someone else by right. No wonder that this shit only has 9000 views, though it doesn't even deserve ten.
@konsulminibus There's a term for what you're going through: cognitive dissonance. Feel free to go through some of the comments here (and on the Romanian-only version of the film) and you'll find answers to all your "issues", though it may take time for you to process.
de ce nu subtitrați cu verde sau roșu; pentru un ne-român este extrem de dificil să urmărească subtitrarea
The yellow subtitles blend to often with the background
Oh yes, thank you sir!
Please English voice will help greatly. Difficult to keep up with subtitles
oh please. can you get any more lazy? I'm deaf and I use captions in several languages. just do some work for pete's sake don't expect everyone else to give you everything in the mouth like a baby
"Cu noi e dreptul și dreptatea
Cu noi e cauza cea bună
Cu noi e bunul dumnezeu"M Viteazu înainte de bătălia de la Selimbar
ruclips.net/video/RpcCdWO6vGo/видео.html&ab_channel=TheSlavRankings
Chineză,ceva?? :)) Săracu' om.. 😀
Foarte frumos ca unor oameni chiar le pasa de romania
Sadly, even though it is 4 years later, I cannot watch and learn, because the English captions are not visible on most of the documentary. Should you do another one please do not use yellow on yellow for sub titles. Thank you.
👍🇨🇦✌️
It is a burnt subtitle, cannot changed. But this is my problem as well.
ruclips.net/video/RpcCdWO6vGo/видео.html&ab_channel=TheSlavRankings
The Regestrum Varadiense (Váradi regestrum) contains the official records of trials conducted between 1205 and 1238 of the diocese of Nagyvárad in its area of jurisdiction covering the whole of Eastern Hungary, of which approx. 600 place names and approx. 2,500 personal names were collected. None of the lists contain any names that are of Dutch/Romanian origin. What is the explanation for this?
An English journalist makes a report with an old Hungarian man:
- I would like you to tell me about your life.
- I was born in the Kingdom of Hungary and studied there, then I started working in Romania. Later I got married in Ukraine and now I am retired in Slovakia, but unfortunately my children rarely visit me because they don't live in this country.
- You had a very busy life, that you were able to travel so much.
- Ah, I didn't even move out of my hometown, only the borders of the country often changed around me according to the interests of power.
Sadly Romania had to be the front line in the scourge of islam and many men and boys were killed or kidnapped.
No. They weren't.
It's funny that every nation who was confronting the ottoman turks states that they were the true defenders of Europe (Hungarians, Romanians, Serbs, Poles and even the Austrians..) and try to appear as a martyr. Let's just say that every country in eastern/south eastern Europe took part in it... But oops, there was no such thing as a Romanian state at that time..:) I would say Wallachia, which was constantly switched sides between the ottoman turks and the Kingdom of Hungary depending on which one was stronger and depending on its current interest. But that's normal for a state that trapped between two stronger ones.
Yea if Romanian was even a nation during the times of the Ottoman conflict I would agree with these false and fictional tales here but sadly Romania was nowhere near existence at those times in the mid 16 Century So how about all the creators of this malarke that love to add their fictional opinions on this subject that they open up a history book and learn to read it .
@@maogu1999 you're a moron bud.
@@alxb2474 Walachia and Moldavia had constantly fought against the ottomans whenever we had the chance and at some points the Hungarian helped and supported us and we fought together however they also betrayed us.
Transilvania pământ românesc 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴
💩
What is the reason why the name of no river or larger stream in Transylvania is of Romanian origin?
Nice.
Just one question: where are the orthodox christian daco-romanian cemeteries and churches in Transylvania from the first millenium? Show me some if you can! ;-)
So you say there were no daco-roman inhabitants in Transylvania? Ever?
@@V.D.22 There are no archeological findings connected to "daco-romanians". Absolute nothing. All the migrating people have rich archeologial material except for the aboriginals. It is very interesting, isn't it?
By the way, did you know that the first orthodox church in Transylvania was built by magyars? Around 950 in Gyulafehérvár-Alba Iulia for the missionaries sent from Byzantine (Hierotheos and al). This is a very strong evidence, that there were no orthodox christians in Transylvania.
My another question is linked to this:
1000 YEARS AGO WHY WE NEEDED MISSIONARIES FROM BYZANTINE TO SPREAD ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY IF TRANSYLVANIA WAS FULL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN INHABITANTS?
@@viragerdei1601 Dacians and Getae were a very important nation in antiquity and had a very big country (today's Romania and Hungary). After the Romans left the province Dacia Romana during the emperor Aurelian, the Daco-Romans (or Dacians if you want) couldn't just disappear from these lands. We still have words of Dacian origin today. That says a lot.
Dacians weren't even the first here in Transylvania....we have Cucuteni-Tripolie poeple that inhabited these lands between 5200-3200 BC.
Yes, the oldest Romanian church was found in Alba Iulia and was built in the time of Gyula, but why did the Magyars built Orthodox churches when Magyars were (and are) catholic? I would think that the church was built by Romanians and maybe Gyula said "ok peasants, we let you have your orthodox faith and build your church,. We tolerate you." ...because Romanian peasants were always considered inferior by Magyars.
We needed missionaries from Byzantine empire because these lands were inhabited by the descendants of Dacians (mixed with some romans, and other migratory people), but they were pagans, or at least not Christians. This means there were people living here, not empty land. You don't send missionaries in empty lands.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the magyars in Romania, I have no hatred for them (like other romanian nationalists have), only respect, because they are reliable people. I have magyar friends and business partners, but we cannot say Dacians left their huge country and Magyars found it empty when they came from Pannonia to Transilvania. Magyars conquered them, took their lands, ruled over them, but hey, history is history. Today we live in peace and drink wine and beer together.
@@V.D.22 I’m really glad, to meet you. With such a sober guy.
I answer to your statements:
1. After the roman withdrawal, there were no left romans in Dacia. This what wrote the contemporary eyewitness Eutropius:
(Aurelian) The province of Dacia, which Trajan had formed beyond the Danube, he gave up, despairing, after all Illyricum and Moesia had been depopulated, of being able to retain it. The Roman citizens, removed from the towns and lands of Dacia, he settled in the interior of Moesia, calling that Dacia which now divides the two Moesiae, and which is on the right hand of the Danube as it runs to the sea, whereas Dacia was previously on the left.
(Provinciam Daciam, quam Traianus ultra Danubium fecerat, intermisit, vastato omni Illyrico et Moesia, desperans eam posse retinere, abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Daciae in media Moesia collocavit appellavitque eam Daciam, quae nunc duas Moesias dividit et est in dextra Danubio in mare fluenti, cum antea fuerit in laeva.)
2. Correct. It was not the Dacian the first in Transylvania.
3. The Carpathian Basin was always an important missionary field for greek monks. Just think of St. Cyrillus and Methodus. They were sent to the slavs around 860. So was our Hierotheus sent to magyars after Gyula the prince of Transylvania was baptized in Byzantium in 953. After this event many orthodox churches were founded in Hungary (includig Pannonia, too!) The orthodox missionaries were here first, before the roman catholic ones. It was king I. Stephen, who commited himself to latin rite christianity instead of greek rite one. He ordered to confiscate and convert orthodox churches into roman catholic churches.
4. There lived no daco-romanians in Transylvania. No pagans and no christians. The so called „daco-romanians” lived south to the Danube, in the former Dacia Aureliana. At that time there lived slavs and turanic people here. The toponymes prove it. There are no daco-romanian toponymes here. Only slav, turanic (avar, pecheng etc), later magyar and from the 12th-13th century begins the romanians settling down. From these centuries start to appear on the documents romanian toponymes.
The greek missionaries came to convert magyars after prince Gyula was baptized. He brought them with himself for this puprpose from Byzantium. It is obvious and undeniable :-)
5. I also appreciate romanians. I tell you the truth. I go regularly into Romania because of work. Basically I have positive experinces with them. And I agree with You: History is History. But unfortunately, there are a lot of chauvinist idiots who don't think so.
6. Noone claims that Carpathian Basin was empty at the magyar conquest. The only question is this: how many magyars and how many other people lived here after Árpád’s conquest. The correct answer is this: Noone knows it. There are clues, that Árpád’s magyars were few, but there are also clues, that they were many. It is still a big enigma.
P.S. It is written in one of your chronicles the immigration of rumâns into "Țara Ungurească" from the south. In the beginning of 1700's your historians still remembered from where rumâns came.
Best Regards!
@@viragerdei1601 very interesting. I will surely verify these sources. For the moment I am trying to find the size of the Dacian population before and during the roman conquest. If it was big, it is difficult to believe they all left south fo the Danube after the roman retreat, but if it was little, they migh have left. But then again, how did our 80%latin language survive?
Viva Romania. VIVA TRIANON
Eastern Hungarians became Christian and wanted to follow the Eastern Church. Greco Catholics exist since the 1700, by Habsburgic order. It's easier for people to blame others for their shortcomings, especially blind nationalists love to do so. My Hungarian grandmother was Greco Catholic and was put to be Catholic in 1930! Christianity was a must, especially Catholic faith. Transilvanian School, the cradle of Romanian nationalism was made by Hungarian nobility. I totally agree that ignoring the existence of Romanians is absolutely BS. Romanian nationalists ignore the fact, that everyone was under the yolk of the same nobility. Of course doing the worst doesn't make ot right and these people love to justify it. Romanians never had to be soldiers, everyone else was obligated. Secuis consider themselves Hungarians, it's impossible for these folks to grasp that, as it pops their bubble. Romanians in Hungary feel fine, they have special status and don't want to move. Can you say that about my beloved Romania? Everyone lives abroad, due to the mentality presented here.The fact is the PEOPLE living there usually spoke each other's languages and traded together, got married, had children.Stories, recipes anything. Habsburgs made a sport of dividing and conquering them. It works well to this day. Imagine of we all would work/ trade together, we might leave misery behind. I challenge you to tell appart anyone living there just by looking at them! We're all here, nothing will change that, younger generations say of you keep having sex with an old woman, it might please you, but it bares you no child.
Nu prea se vede subtitrarea; rugăm remediere de către profesionist!👍
Eu stau in Transilvania
Si eu la fel... Dar tot nu imi plac unguri 🤪🤪
how many romanian king stay in transilvania?
soltesz tamas your english doesnt qualify you for the answer
Câți regi unguri a avut Ungaria? 😂
Majoritatea au fost străini.
How many magyar kings Hungary had?
@@AGC2021 there was soo many, Corvin, Hunyadi, Attila and soo much more. Transylvania only have three Romania kings : Ferdinand, Michal, Carol.
@@milandobai1123 "Corvin, Hunyadi..." LOL😂😂😂
First of all, Corvin and Hunyadi is the same family😁
And the founder of this family was Romanian from Tara Romaneasca (Valahia for foreigners, we never called ot this way).
- Iancu de Hunedoara's migrated into Transylvania from Wallachia (a region almost homogenously Romanian). This is shown quite clearly by the Medieval writer Thuroczy who said "Quod ad genus tuum attinet, te ab ipsis vetustissimis Valachorum [note: Valach or Vlach meant Romanian, hence Wallachia] principibus originem ducere, patre natus Stephano Olacho [Olah is the Hungarian way of saying Vlach], viro praestanti, cujus etiam aliqui tua familia Daciae Transalpinae [the Romanians were called "Dacians" by many Medieval writers, like Chalcondyles. Transalpinae refers to Wallachia, as it was often called "Wallachia Transalpina"], quae nunc Valachorum patria est, principes fuerint." He also continues later "inter quos Valachi gentiles tui minime postremos habent..."
-His father's name was Voicu (often written Wojk in documents) and his brother's name was Radu (written Radol), both are still very popular names in Romania.
-Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II) wrote "the Hungarians being occupied in the wars with the Turks under the leadership of Hunyadi, remained more as winners than as losers. This man was a Dacian (today we call them Valahi) and not of noble birth, but well learned in weapons, and was the first to show the Hungarians that the Turks could be defeated."
-The German-born king of Hungary Sigismund of Luxemburg actually calls John a Romanian directly saying in one of his documents "Ioannes Olak, filius quondam Woyk de Huniade."
-Antonius Bonifinius writes "natus a valacho patre, matre uero graeca natus." Hunyadi of course wasn't Greek, so we can conclude that Bonifinius is saying his mother was an Orthodox Christian (therefore "Greek" in the eyes of Latin Christians/Catholics).
-One Italian correspondance says he wasn't Hungarian but rather Romanian, "il qual non era Ungaro nobile, ma Vallaco, non di troppo gentil parentella."
John father, Voicu, took the surname Hunyadi when the king Sigismund of Luxembourg 1409 donated him the Hunedoara castle. Hunyadi was inducted into the Hungarian nobility of Transylvania (since as of 1366 the Romanian nobility of Transylvania was liquidated and expropriated) it does not mean he was denationalized. He maintained very strong relations with the Romanian cnezial families of Transylvania, many of whom he made into nobles himself for the valor they displayed in the wars against the Turks.
So much for "Corvin and Hunyadi" being hungarians. I presume your king Nicolaus Olahus was also hungarian, right?😂
Attila wasn't hungarian either. He was hun, coming from Asia, much earlier then the related cousins, the magyars...
What is the explanation for the fact that neither the name of Transylvania from the Dacians (if it existed at all) nor the Roman name of the province (Provincia Dacia) remained in the language of the Romanians? Why was it necessary for the ancestors of the Romanians to borrow the Old Hungarian name Erdei, which is still called Ardeal with some sound distortion?
Denumirea Ardeal vine din limba germană.
De unde au venit maghiarii în Panonia ?!
Sorry, I am missing something... So who was the Romanian king in Transylvania in A. D. 900 when the HUngarians came here? And what battles the Romanian army fought against Hungarian army in the 10th century in Transylvaniai? Name of the city and date would be great to know. Thanks for help Romanian friends.
IS THIS A JOKE, Romania don`t have a king only 500 years later to the Hungarians conquest.
2. Romania never had a war 1v1 against Hungary because romania wasn`t a state.
Hungary 895 Romania 1330, 1345
see the difference
maybe you should read a book. "romania" was not a state under that name back then, HOWEVER, there were people called VLACHS with leaders such as Gelou and Menumorut, and they WERE fought by hungarians. the Vlachs are for a fact the descendants of romanians. The big mistake of the vlachs is that they didn't bother to build landmarks that last many centuries, which would prove their presence. they were peaceful peasants who worked the land and didn't have energy left to build fancy landmarks the way the romans did.
Domnu "primu-n Ardeal"!
Construiește autostrăzi, eventual bagă și niște cultură-n oameni,după care din partea mea poți fii primul pe pământ!!!
1. Assuming that the Romanians were permanent residents of the land that is now called Transylvania, and from where the Roman colonists and legions arrived in AD. They were removed around 270, and considering that the peoples who followed the Romans there: the Goths, Huns, Gepids, Avars, Bulgarians were all swept away in the tide of migration, while - according to the followers of the Daco-Romanian theory - the early Romanians remained "living in caves" in the same place, would it be good to know exactly in which caves they survived the six centuries full of wars until the Hungarian conquest without being noticed?
And where are the relevant archaeological evidences: sleeping cabins, potsherds and other household items, rubbish heaps and other finds that testify to the permanent life of the "Daco-Roman" masses in such caves? (P.I. no one has found such finds yet).
unde ii storia lui gorea de la goreni . stefan cel mare si ailalti eroi
Noi romanii apreciem maghiarii, voi sunteti minoritatea noastra, faceti treaba buna in Transilavinia, nu o porcaiti, noi tinem la voi desi voi credeti altfel. Nu va mai certati pt trecut, mai bine sa fim prieteni. 💖
Zice hotul victimei ? ruclips.net/video/RpcCdWO6vGo/видео.html&ab_channel=TheSlavRankings
Hi guys! I'm studying history, and I'm interesting for the origin of the romanians. I read a lot of about you. But I still don't understand a few things. I will write them into points. Can you explain them?
1. The romanian-albanian language connection. A good amount of the non-Latin features present in Romanian language have their correspondence in Albanian, not only concerning lexicon but also structure, phraseology and idioms. These characteristics belong to two linguistic periods: the substratum, that is the language spoken by the Vlach before their Romanization ‒which may be the same of Albanian or a similar language‒, and the subsequent close contact between both peoples throughout a long period, mainly regarding their common life-style as shepherds. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian. Another interesting fact concerns the very name of the capital city of Romania: Bucureşti, a word that is similar to the Albanian term "bukurisht", having the same meaning. If the romanians homeland is Dacia, the two language was completely separated from each-other.
2. The most similar language to the romanian, was the dalmatian. Dalmatia was the roman province, Illyria, homeland of the Illyrians, a latin-speaker nation. Maybe the romanians are illyrians?
3. How is possible, half of Dacia was under roman rules only for 165 years, and they fully adopted the latin language, and they survived 1000 years, but In pannonia, where the romans rules for 450 years, the peoples don't adopt the latin language. How could the dacians adopt the latin language after 165 years of roman rules, when half of the dacians never lived under roman rules?
4. The romanian sacred language is the old-slavic language. If they always been in Dacia, how is this possible? Dacia never been under slavic rules.
5. The territory of Romania was under germenic rules for 300 years, and under turkic rules for 800 years. How is possible, the lack of the germanic and turkic origin words? You lived under roman rules only for 150 years, and you forget your own dacian language, and fully adopt the latin language, but don't adopt anything from the germanic and turkic tribes after 300, and 800 years?
6. Why no proven dacian words in the romanian language? Number of PROVEN dacian words in the romanian language under 1%.
7. Why does the romanians used the cyrillic alphabet to 1860? In romania never been slavic influance. From who they learned that?
8. Romanians are orthodox. It means, when they are adopt the christianity, they lived under byzantine or slavic rules. Today's romanias territory never been under byzantine or slavic rules. So why are you orthodox? Where did you adopted?
9. In transylvania, the orthodox temples, are always at the border of the towns, never in the centre. Always the hungarian catholic churches in the center of the town. If the orthodox romanians was there first, orthodox temples must be in the centre, and the hungarian catholic churces on the side of the town. Why not the orthodox temples in the centre of the towns?
10. Moldavian chronicles mention, the founding of moldva. The chronicles says, Moldavians are came from Maramures, at 1350, under the leading of Dragos. So there aren't been there before 1350. Who been there before 1350? The cumans?
11. The fist wooden-temples in that area, is from 1377. No romanian/moldavian architecture in Moldva before 1350.
12. Wallachian chronicles mention, you are arrived in the 13th century. (Romanian chronicles written in the 17th century narrate that a herțeg or duke of Făgăraș and Almaș, named Radu Negru (‘Radu the Black’) or Negru Vodă (‘The Black Voivode’) was the first voivode of Wallachia. These texts state that Radu Negru, together with some colonists ("Romanians, Catholics and Saxons") arrived from the region of Făgăraş in Transylvania. The first documentary evidence for a terra Blacorum (‘land of the Vlachs’) on the territory later called Făgăraș is an early 13th-century property register which mentions the order of King Andrew II of Hungary that estates previously in Vlach hands be transferred to the Cistercian abbey at Cârța. Radu Negru and his followers crossed the Carpathians to Muntenia and founded Wallachia with its capitals in Câmpulung and Curtea de Argeș. The chronicles narrate these events under the year 1290 or 1292. So where you been before the 13th century?
13. No romanian architecture In romania before the 13th century. The oldest romanian building is the Densus church (13th century) If you always lived there, where is your architecture before the 13th century?
14. In the 13th century, chronicles record 511 village names. Only 3 have romanian origin name. The others are hungarians. If you always lived there, before the hungarians, why only 3 villages have romanian name, and the rest 508 hungarian?
15. A runestone from the Njoshem cemetery in Gotland dating from the 11th century commemorates a merchant Rodfos who was traveling to Constantinople through “The land of the Vlachs” where he was killed. In this time, the trade route from scandinavia to Constantinople, went through on Kiew, or Belgrade. If he went throught on Kiev, he coudn't meet with vlachs. If he went throught on Belgrade, vlachs was at the south from the danube.
16. Why many international historians speaks about the romanians, like a balkanic shepherd nomadic nation, who's ancestors was the latinised Illyrians from Illyria (today albania), and later they migrated into north. First into the romanian plains, then into Moldva, and Transylvania.
Please help, explain these questions. I would like to write my dissertation about the romanians origin, and about the daco-roman theory, but at the moment I can't because these facts are deny the daco-roman theory.
1. The correlation between Romanian and Albanian has been much debated, and used mostly by Hungarians to prove some sort of connection between us and them (the one they would like to think it is). The percentage of words similar in both meaning and construction between Albanian and Romania is small (0.3%), and the chances of us living together with them once upon a time are the same as the percentage mentioned. I for one find it more plausible for the Albanians and the Aromanians (a group confirmed by Kekaumenos in Strategikon to have migrated southwards into Thessalia, Epirus and Macedonia around the 8th century) to cause this language connection. Aromanian is a proto-Romanian language more connected with traditional Romanian.
2. Highly debated as well. Illyrians were a branch of Thracian people as well, so in this regard there may be a connection. However their language got romanized as much as ours and now it is extinct, with little tangible proof to ascertain a similarity between it and Romanian.
3. Romanization happened due to the Roman colonization that took place during the reign of Trajan and Hadrian. Unlike Panonia, which was a border province administered by the Senate, Dacia was administered directly by the Emperor, meaning that it was an Imperial province, the highest status among the 3 types of provinces in the Roman Empire (Govern orates, senatorial provinces and imperial provinces). Assimilation happened in the sense that the Roman colonists brought here gradually replaced and assimilated the remnants of the conquered Dacians. The number of years that a nation ruled another nation does not matter. Hungarians ruled Romanian for 1000 years, yet they could only assimilate a small amount of Romanians (mostly the Transylvanian noble families). What you need to look is what that nation in that region.
The Goths/Gepids simply did not have the level of civilization to assimilate others, as fact they disappeared as soon as other, more powerful and more superior people conquered/settled upon them. The Goths that lived and established a kingdom in Dacia after the Roman retreat only stood there for 50 years, before being pushed by Huns into the Byzantine Empire disappearing completely from history. Gepids vanished completely after the Avar conquest as well. These tribal nations were not interested in assimilating others. Their role was to conquer, pillage, but not to govern/administer.
How could Dacian adopt the Roman language? Romans imposed their way of life and civilization in all aspects, in art, in culture, in language, in religion, in pretty much everything. The Dacians, brave as they were, they weren't as developed as a civilization compared to the Romans, as the Romans were not as developed as a civilization in contrast with the Greeks. You can only assimilate and impose your culture and language upon those who are not on your level.
4. Our sacred-language is not slavic. The only thing we borrowed from slavs are idioms and their writing system (cyrillic). But our language was always latin based. An offshoot of the vulgar latin dialect. Don't know from where you've heard that our sacred-language is slavic but this is clearly erroneous. We have slavic influences in our language, but our language is not slavic. More closer to Italian than Russian, any day.
5. Part of the answer is at point 3. As for Turkish influence, there is a degree of influence related to words in regards to architecture and cuisine. But unlike other nations, the Turks never ruled the Romanian Principalities directly. The Romanian Principalities maintain for a long time a considerable degree of autonomy, which dwindled with time to the point when the Sultan was naming the Vojevode from the famous Greek neighborhood of Fanar. But due to a medieval covenant made with the Romanian Vojevodes, the Turks could not build mosques, could not settle turks/arabs here and they could not preach their religion on these lands. That is why little Turkish influence can be found in Romanian. Most of it you can find in Dobrudja, who was an area ruled directly by the Turks for more than 400 years and in southern parts of Wallachia.
6. Because nobody knows how Dacian language was written, spelled or read. What we have today considered as Dacian words are words with unknown origin, not similar with any other language.
7. That is a consequence of our Church being an offshoot of the Bulgarian church, who imposed cyrillic writing in ecclesiastic processions. And a consequence of the decision made by several vojevode's during certain periods of time. What we know from Dimitrie Cantemir, is that up until the 15th century Moldova and Wallachia used the latin script, before adopting the cyrillic script.
8. Romanians are Orthodox, but when we became Orthodox it is a matter of debate. Orthodoxy exists more specifically since the great schism in 1054. Some historians establish that Eastern Christianity came here not from the Byzantines, but from the Bulgarians that were converted first and then spread it as far as Russia. However, it is assumed that Romanians did adopt Orthodoxy before Bulgarians spread it north of the Danube, thing usually proven by the remains of old churches. The main reason why we are Orthodox and not Catholic is because of our geographic location, closer to Constantinople than Rome. Religion is geography most of the time.
9. That is because of the status of Orthodoxy during the time of Hungarian/Austrian domination. For a long time Romanians were banned to live in the cities, but they were allowed to live in the outskirts, thus they could build their churches there. Also, for a long time we could not build churches made of stone due to a Hungarian edict in the 13th century. It was a clever move, realizing that building churches made out of stone would perpetuate and strengthen our culture and civilization in this region. Wood built churches are nice and dandy, but they usually don't last long, being more prone to natural disasters or fires. The oldest ones are from the 17th century.
10. It is not specified if there had been no Romanians in Moldova. In fact, they were mentioned in Moldova in earlier centuries, as part of small states. Varangians for example mentioned Romanians as dwellers in Moldova during their raids towards the Byzantine Empire. Dragos is not considered the founding father of Moldova, but the one who started the process with building the fortress at Baia. The process was completed by Bogdan, another vojevode from Maramures, who united the many small Moldavian states into a single entity.
11. I advise you to check and read about the architecture of the bolohoveni, a group of Romanians from Moldova. It is considered that they built the oldest church in Moldova was built by them in 9th century.
12. You make a big confusion. Radu Negru is considered as founding father of Wallachia, but he did not brought Romanians with him there, as in for the first time. Romanians were attested as living in Wallachia centuries earlier with the kingdoms of Seneslau, Litovoi, Ioan and Farcas. Litovoi even entered in conflict with the Hungarians. You make some huge logic holes there. When Wallachia and Moldova were founded, that does not equal with the time when Romanians arrived in those locations. It is like saying Germany was founded in 1871 when Germans arrived in Germany. That is bullshit. What happened is that some small Romanian states were unified under a single banner, under a single leader. Until then, we had small states that were battling one another for control.
13. The Densus church, as the modern one was rebuilt in the 13th century, but it was originally built in the 7th century. Also, Romanian constructions were wood based, as we have not been city dwellers, but village dwellers.
14. Having Hungarian village names does not mean ONLY Hungarians lived there. Papal censuses made in the 14th century establish that about 2/3 of the villages and towns have Orthodox churches, meaning that a strong Romanian Orthodox community lived there during those times.
15. Wrong, the route that the stone mentions, where the Varangians took was not among Belgrade, but among the river Dniester. It is mentioned that Rodfos was stopping by for supply in Aspron (Cetatea Alba), Sulina and Conopa. Then further along the way to Constanta and Varna. These are cities at the Black Sea. The Varangian path towards Constantinople was not through Belgrade, but through Kyiv and along the river Dniester.
16. Probably because they are misinformed, or because a certain nation seeks to obtain political support by denying the very roots that they themselves supported centuries ago, when we were not being uncomfortable. How do you explain the fact that there is no written evidence for any vlach migration for more than 6 centuries after the period of time they claim it happened?
17. Ardeal does not come from Erdely, and this is proven by linguists. Erdely, if it would've been adapted to Romanian it would've become Ardei (which is an actual word in Romanian, but with a different meaning). For example, Udvarhely in Romanian become Odorhei. Erdely, as proven by linguists is a corruption of the old latin word of Ardeunna Silva, which was the name of this region given by Trajan in his De Bello Dacicum. Hungarians words are adopted into Romanian phonetically. Meaning, by sound. Ardeal has meaning in Romanian. Ard is an archaic term for the word 'over', and deal means 'hill'. While we no longer use 'ard', we do use 'deal' in our every day speech.
18. Hungarians did take from our language. I would recommend checking "The history of Magyar words from Romanian origin", or "Amaghyar szokeszlet Roman elemeinek tortenete" of Bakos Ferenc, professor at University from Budapest, study from 1982, published by Academy publisher in Budapest, it mentions over 2000 Romanian words.
Harald Haarman, German savant: “The oldest writing in the world is that of Tărtăria - Romania. The Danubian Civilization is the first great civilization in history, preceding by thousands of years the Sumerian civilization.”
Thickee Alex te-a rupt pe genunchi ... pune mâna pe carte domnule !
The illyrians(albanians) use to say "Vllahu eshte vlla" wich means "the wallach(today romanian) is a brother"... The nation living in Europe towsend of years ago were the pelasgians(arians), peasants, most of them farming their land. Later, from north of Black Sea here came the getes(getae) - good warriors, and with the time they learned to live together. This way was born the geto-pelasgian nation. This nation is also called thracians(thrake in old greek means "nordic" - north of Greece). And even the greeks were an geto-pelasgian tribe who left their homeland after the illyrians, stoled geto-pelasgian culture and gods. Why romanian is similar with latin languages, albanian, slavic languages and even with northern languages? Simple, as Miceal Ledwith said, not romanian is a latin language, but latin cames from where romanian came. European nations, Southern Afrika, Persia(massa-getes) and few groups of people in India have some roots, the geto-pelasgian. Even hungarians are a geto-pelasgian tribe, look at them, they're not looking at all as asiatic people and Otto the Great of Germany killed most of the huns yet. We have to learn we are all brothers and stop fighting each other. Even Herodotus said the getes are the biggest nation after the indians and could be undefeatable but their problem is they fight each other. Peace all over the world! 🤗😍
dude, have you ever seen the two languages? the connection is MINUSCULE! close to nothing. Romanian and Albanian are nowhere close. ugh, now we have people who don't have a clue about either language claiming bizzare connections where there are none.
The settlement history of Transylvania shows that at the end of the 13th century, only 3 out of 511 village names were of Romanian origin. Maybe the Romanians started immigrating to Transylvania only in the 13th century?
According to the analysis of the Romanian linguist Alexandra de Cihac who lived in the 19th century (Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue roumainé), the vocabulary of the Romanian language then had the following composition:
45.7% Slavic, 31.4% Latin, 8.4% Turkish, 7.0% Greek, 6.0% Hungarian, 0.6% Albanian, and some of unknown origin, but none of Dacian origin. Where are the Dacian leftovers?
Is hard what happen to Romania...they still part of you country...Moldova,Bucovina...and they try take transilvania .
Transylvania should be independent!
adimo no
Gunoiule de trădător. În țeapă cu tine.
When the man at the start of the movie started talking about objectivism, that history shouldn't be manipulated, I thought I was watching quality work here. But to my disappointment, when the historian said that the hungarians probably didn't have transilvania until 1250 it came to my conclusion that it is false information. I'm not trying to assert any hostilities to anyone here. Just be vary that hungarians already extended their dominance over transilvania in the year 1000. Be vary of false info and if you are really interested, make your own research without anyone's bias.
the present and historic denomination (Ardeal/Transylvania) has been taken after Hungarian (Erdély). Indeed, the Romanian term ʹArdealʹ has no meaning, but is an adaptation of the Old Magyar name Erdő-elve, that means "land beyond the forest", translated into Latin as "Transylvania". Such a name reflects the Hungarian viewpoint, as for Romanians that region should have been called "Transcarpathia", the land beyond the Carpathian Mounts! Consequently, if Romanians were already there when Hungarians arrived, why then did they adopt the Magyar name? How could have they completely forgotten the denomination by which they knew the region before the arrival of Árpád's hosts?
The earliest known reference to Transylvania appears in a Medieval Latin document of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1075 as ultra silvam, meaning "beyond the forest" (ultra meaning "beyond" or "on the far side of" and the accusative case of sylva (sylvam) "woods, forest"). Transylvania, with an alternative Latin prepositional prefix, means "on the other side of the woods". Hungarian historians claim that the Medieval Latin form Ultrasylvania, later Transsylvania, was a direct translation from the Hungarian form Erdő-elve. That also was used as an alternative name in German überwald (13th-14th centuries) and Ukrainian Залісся (Zalissia).
Transylvania = Erdély (modern Hungarian) = Erdőelve (old Hungarian) = erdő/forest + elve/beyond
Wallachia = Havasföld (modern Hungarian (snowy land)) = Havaselve (old Hungarian) = havas/snowy + elve/beyond (Viewing from Transylvania the land beyond the snowy mountains)
Old Hungarian dictionary from 1862:
A magyar nyelv szótára - Wikipédia
ELVE | A magyar nyelv szótára
ERDÉLY | A magyar nyelv szótára
The Romanian Ardeal is derived from the Hungarian Erdély.
RDL consonant: eRDeLy/aRDeaL
The Hungarian version has a meaning, but the Romanian version has no meaning.
If you see the map you can see immediately the Carpatian Basin is an integrated area. That is why the Hungarian Kingdom established in the full Carpatian Basin because easy to defend the area because the area is surrounded by mountains. This is logically.
What the Romanians say this is illogical: this is very unlikley to be formed a state in the ancient times that cross a very big mountain in the center.
For example in WW2 Hungary had a defend line in the mountains and the Soviet army was not able to breach through the Carpatian mountains. When Romania betrayed his allies (as usual) the Soviets was able to attack Hungary from the south through the plain land.
Árpád Line - Wikipedia
I found this in the Thuróczy chronicle (1488), seems the “ew” = “ő” in modern Hungarian.
Erdewelwe = Erdőelve (modern Hungarian)
Rigomezew = Rigómező (modern Hungarian)
Unfortunately, horrible subtitles... Wrong colour and size, the background won't make the font readable in most of the docu. 😢
🇷🇴♥️
270 Hungarians disliked this video :DD
ruclips.net/video/iV1nt4hu_B4/видео.html
When the Sachsens were driven out and the Romanische took over ....the land became a cesspit .the vines dried ...the goats ate everything ...without the sachsen it became a 3rd world country
ADEVARUL CUI?????? FIECARE SPUNE SI SUSTINE ADEVARUL CARE SERVESTE INTERESUL NATIONAL A UN UI SAU ALTEIA?!!
Nu a existat niciodată un " regat maghiar " a existat doar Regatul Ungariei regat apostolic multietnic.
Thank you for this movie. It was the best comedy what I ever seen. Should have a new title.. The dream of the eastern European gypsies...😅
I think you Hungarians should learn something from us, we actually have a histroy and you don't
@@GabrielaLtc actually there are more Hungarians gipsies in Hungary than are in România
De ce dominorii nostri din trecut n au nume de familie?
Din câte ştiu până acum vreo 200 de ani nu prea existau nume de familie cel putin la noi, nici acte de naştere, stare civilă şamd.
Astea sunt lucruri lumeşti.
For those who think that the gestas are true they are plainly wrong
A gesta hungarorum nagyjából rendben lehet, csak, abban nincsenek Vlachok, hanem Vlahkok vannak, hasonlitani hasonlit, de bulgárokat jelöl...
There is no indication that the entirety of Gesta is false, as Denis Deletant greatly expressed. There are some anachronistic accounts in it, there are events confirmed in other sources and there are some that are not. Those that are not confirmed in other sources are not false by default. This is one of the main logical fallacies done by you, Hungarians. While the 3 rulers mentioned in the Gesta are not confirmed in other sources, the presence of Romanians is confirmed in other sources, such as Kekaumenos's Strategikon or Nestor's Primary Chronicle, both written 1-2 centuries before Gesta. There is also the very detailed 14th century document Descriptio Europae Orientalis, written by a French monk.
A gesztában szó sincs románokról. Anonymus azt mondja, hogy itt szlávok, bolgárok, blachok, és a rómaiak pásztorai éltek.
As a hungarian I would like to explain some of these things,which I heard in this video. Of course, I wont respond to the whole video.
First of all,which is a common conflict between us. I admit dacian people were in Transilvanya first,while Szeklers settled down there in the late 900s. I admit szeklers were mixing with romanians and taking some stuffs from their culture and language.
But your fact, that hungarian language is affacted by romanian, is a huge-huge bullshit. :D The words, what the professor was talking about are LATIN origin words,not romanian. Such as school, in romanian: "scoala" and in hungarian : iskola. Our language borrowed words from other nations, mostly from slavs and turkish people. But we have some words, which were taken from german and latin,but they are way more less. Your fact is just a lie, misunderstanding. The words,which were showed in that vocabulary, I dont even know the 90% of them, so maybe they are just used in Szekler dialect.
The last thing, "magyarization". A romanian professor was talking about this, until the 19. century, magyarization never existed. In the medival era, everyone was equal, which was important if you are loyal to the king, or not. Hungarian and romanian people had the same rights. After the 19 century,when nationalism became stronger in Hungary (because of Habsburgs), than a magyarization processed had started. (By the way the romanian nationalism started than as well, while before there was no romania. There were Transilvanya, Moldva and Wallachia, which were different "kingdoms, with different rulers and with different interests)
And the last thing, I dont really understand the romanian hate towards us,and why you fake some phase of the history. Because in school, we dont learn anything to hate romanians/Romania. We have a kinda negative opinion,because you betrayed us many times in WW1 and WW2,but we dont say specificly that romania or its people is cruel or bad,however you learn this about us. What I could hear in this video : 10% truth, 40% total bullshit, 50% hate towards us.
I respect the normal romanian people, but it is like a mandatory for you,to hate us.
There is Hungarian literature on this matter, that Hungarian language contains words of Romanian origin.
The first mention of this was done by Samuel Gyarmathi in 1816, in his work "Vocabularium". He does not mention specifically the number of words in Hungarian of Romanian origin, but he does say they exist. Then there was Szinney Jozsef who mentioned 340 Hungarian words of Romanian origin.
Geza Bledy in his work, "Influence of romanian language over magyar language-lexicography study" recorded almost 600 Romanian words in the Magyar language. But the most important and the most complete study is "The history of maghyar words from romanian origin", or "Amaghyar szokeszlet Roman elemeinek tortenete" of Bakos Ferenc, professor at University from Budapest, study from 1982, published by Academy publisher in Budapesta, it mentions over 2000 Romanian words.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Maybe, it just a study. Because it is 100% percent we dont use those words. What I have seen in the video, the words from that vocabulary, about 90% I haven't even heard in my life. So maybe they are just really old words or they are used among the Szeklers. For example I know the word, "monostor", but again, it is latin because in english it is monastery (or english language has got romanian words as well?). And trust me, if we borrow words from another culture,we dont hide them. Like we have slavic words, such as : medve, szerda ( in szerbian: Sreda), csütörtök,szombat (in serbian : Sobota), macska etc... We have turkish ones as well, such as : sapka,sárga,balta,bicska,bika,búza, etc...
They are commonly used words and we learn about them in school. But I havent heard in my life that we have romanian words. About the professor who you wrote, he was born in Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca), so again he is a Szekler.
@@szakacsdavid456 You did borrow words from us. That is an uncontested fact. Whether they are still in use or not matters less. We don't use much of the Slavic words we used in the 18th century for example either. That doesn't mean we did not borrow them. You can't hide words of Slavic origin since they compromise a much bigger chunk of the modern Hungarian language. A Szekler is still a Hungarian. I am aware that they speak a different dialect, but it is still a dialect of Hungarian which Hungarians can understand. You don't really need an interpreter if you speak with a Szekler. Not even with a Csango that speaks Hungarian.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth you just dont want to understand what I tried to tell you,thats why I finish my conversation with you,because it is useless. As I wrote,these are not romanian,they are latin words such as monastery ,school ,canape, chauffeur etc. In Szekler dialect,there are several words which I cannot understand,because they borrowed them from romanian,but in standard hungarian we dont know those words. It is another thing,that most of the Szeklers usually speak standard hungarian and not theit dialect. Who said I hide slavic words? I clearly mentioned words with slavic origin. :D But if you are so confident, please show me hungarian words with romanian origin. I am really curios. Or is it just another lie? Interesting I am searching on the internet about this and I can find nothing, lol.
@@szakacsdavid456 They are Romanian, at least according to your own researchers. I have given you only Hungarian researchers just to prove that I am not biased. The number of Latin words in Hungarians is much bigger than a measly 2300+ words that researchers have given as Hungarian words borrowed from Romanian. Whether these words are spoken in Hungary proper, or in Hungarian speaking areas outside of Hungary proper that is irrelevant. There are unique words in Romanian, borrowed from other people, that are only spoken in select areas and are virtually unknown in other areas. That doesn't mean we did not borrow them. I did not say you hide Slavic words. I say that even if you try to do so, it is impossible since Slavic words make up a much higher % of your lexicon. A lot of place names, geographical areas, city names, rivers, lakes have Slavic names.
Read the book I have given you. You have there 2300+ words. The book is available in your language. You have the name of the author, the name of the book, the year when it was released. All that you need to do, if you want to know the truth that is, is to read.
Dear Daniel,
If you make an educational videos about history, please make sure that you have more research regards to the subjects of the videos.
If you mention Transylvania in your video please do not forget to add the historical facts as well.
Transylvania was part of the Hungarian Kingdom from (1000 - 1571) than became the Principality of Transylvania (1571-1711) - was a semi-independent state, ruled by Hungarian princes.
Interesting fact : All medieval castles what you can see in Transylvania today were build during these time period.
Another interesting fact: In the medieval coat of arms of Transylvania you can see only three nations's symbols - Hungarian-Saxon and Szekely. No Romanians!
Principality of Transylvania (1711-1867) - realm of the Hungarian Crown and since 1804 an Austrian crownland ruled by the Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine monarchs of the Habsburg Monarchy.
Austro-Hungarian Empire (1864 - 1920)
There are 1 million Hungarian leaving in today's Transylvania.
Szekely Land!
Also, and this is very important too - daco-roman continuity is an theory only NOT a fact. There are many other theory regards to the origin of the modern Romanians. The World History Association dose not recognize the Daco-Roman continuity.
I hope these information will be helpful.
I wish you a great success for the future.
All the best from Hungary.
Huszti András: “The descendants of Geto-Dacians live today, where their parents lived, they speak the language that their parents used to speak long ago.”
Dionysius Periegetes (138 A.D.): “The following will be about the biggest land, that spreads from Asia Minor to Iberia and from Northern Africa to Scandia, the great land of Dacians.”
👏👍❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Vreau sa spun ca ar trebui dați afară iar alte NAȚIONALITATi din tara ăsta nu zic nimic iar ei numai vorbesc
the present and historic denomination (Ardeal/Transylvania) has been taken after Hungarian (Erdély). Indeed, the Romanian term ʹArdealʹ has no meaning, but is an adaptation of the Old Magyar name Erdő-elve, that means "land beyond the forest", translated into Latin as "Transylvania". Such a name reflects the Hungarian viewpoint, as for Romanians that region should have been called "Transcarpathia", the land beyond the Carpathian Mounts! Consequently, if Romanians were already there when Hungarians arrived, why then did they adopt the Magyar name? How could have they completely forgotten the denomination by which they knew the region before the arrival of Árpád's hosts?
The earliest known reference to Transylvania appears in a Medieval Latin document of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1075 as ultra silvam, meaning "beyond the forest" (ultra meaning "beyond" or "on the far side of" and the accusative case of sylva (sylvam) "woods, forest"). Transylvania, with an alternative Latin prepositional prefix, means "on the other side of the woods". Hungarian historians claim that the Medieval Latin form Ultrasylvania, later Transsylvania, was a direct translation from the Hungarian form Erdő-elve. That also was used as an alternative name in German überwald (13th-14th centuries) and Ukrainian Залісся (Zalissia).
Transylvania = Erdély (modern Hungarian) = Erdőelve (old Hungarian) = erdő/forest + elve/beyond
Wallachia = Havasföld (modern Hungarian (snowy land)) = Havaselve (old Hungarian) = havas/snowy + elve/beyond (Viewing from Transylvania the land beyond the snowy mountains)
Old Hungarian dictionary from 1862:
A magyar nyelv szótára - Wikipédia
ELVE | A magyar nyelv szótára
ERDÉLY | A magyar nyelv szótára
The Romanian Ardeal is derived from the Hungarian Erdély.
RDL consonant: eRDeLy/aRDeaL
The Hungarian version has a meaning, but the Romanian version has no meaning.
If you see the map you can see immediately the Carpatian Basin is an integrated area. That is why the Hungarian Kingdom established in the full Carpatian Basin because easy to defend the area because the area is surrounded by mountains. This is logically.
What the Romanians say this is illogical: this is very unlikley to be formed a state in the ancient times that cross a very big mountain in the center.
For example in WW2 Hungary had a defend line in the mountains and the Soviet army was not able to breach through the Carpatian mountains. When Romania betrayed his allies (as usual) the Soviets was able to attack Hungary from the south through the plain land.
Árpád Line - Wikipedia
I found this in the Thuróczy chronicle (1488), seems the “ew” = “ő” in modern Hungarian.
Erdewelwe = Erdőelve (modern Hungarian)
Rigomezew = Rigómező (modern Hungarian)
@@InAeternumRomaMater little bit forced, but it can be right if we concentrate only on the word.
But don't forget that by the Daco-Roman myth before the Hungarians the Romans or Romanized Dacians lived.
And unfortunately this Romans didn't called Transylvania as Ardeal and not even Transylvania, but they called Dacia provincia.
It means that the new coming Hungarians should learn the old name and in present time the Hungarians should call Transylvania as Dacia or Dácsia in phonetic.
And in this situation you would tell me that Dácsia has no meaning in Hungarian language
@@InAeternumRomaMater you are mistaken because under all Hungarian videos there are very much Romanian hater comments, maybe not you but many your brothers come and say go back to Mongolia, go back to Ural, bozgors, we come and take Budapest like in 1919 etc.
Otherwise we Hungarians don't came to put hateful comments under Romanian videos, but just how I did, we just simply say the truth what you can't learn in Romanian schools.
@@InAeternumRomaMater And yes you don't come to say Dácsia has no meaning in Hungarian because we don't call it like that. And not we are who took land from other country and legalised by history falsification
@@InAeternumRomaMater the Hungarians didn't come from anywhere. We are the descendants of the Huns and the Scythians so of course in the Volga region too lived the variants of proto-Hungarians. But even in Central Asia, Pontic steppe, and the Carpathian Basin too was inhabited by the ancestors of the Hungarians.
Pannons +Hurrians +Scythians +Sarmatians +Sabirs + Subartuans +Yazigs +Carpians +Roxolans +Dacians = BASE OF THE HUNGARIANS ETHOGENESIS
Scythians +Sarmatians +Altaic people (ancestors of the Mongols and the Turks) + Alans +Goths
= ATTILA'S HUNS
Base of Hungarians +Attila's Huns = SZEKELYS
Szekelys +Bulaqs +Avars +Hephtalithe Huns +Onogours
= PRE-HUNGARIANS (in the Carpathian Basin in the 7th 8th century)
Pre-Hungarians +Arpad's Magyars +Kabars +Cumans =
HUNGARIAN NATION
As you can see the Hungarians evolved in the Carpathian Basin since the beginning.
@@InAeternumRomaMater In Hungary it was 2,8 million Romanians in 1920, is seems the Hungarians did not deny the existence and the right of the Romanians in Transylvania. The irredentist and aggressor Romania attacked Hungary in 1916, 1919 to grab huge Hungarian lands until the Tisza river, and it was not a problem for the Romanians to demand and occupy full Hungarian populated regions. Since Romania is who deny the existence of the Hungarians in Transylvania and suppress the Hungarians on their ancient homeland
David Szabo
· Jun 24
Why do Hungarians care about the historical origin of the Romanians?
This is an example fake map that was used in communist Romania: Romania in the 9-13th century. This map is from a Romanian book from 1984 regarding the history of Transylvania. According to the “very trustworthy” Romanians this map is “real history”, where we can see Romania, an “unknown great power”…
Read more
Transylvania and other regions which got Romania in 1920 from Hungary, On that land the Hungarians founded the state, that land were ran and made up under the Hungarian crown, protected by Hungarian soldiers, almost all the culture, history, cities were built by Hungarians and Saxons, not by the Romanians. For example English, Germans remembered the Latin names of the former cities (London, Vienna, Cologne…) but the Romanians who are allegedly the “super ancestors” of Dacians and Romans, they forget the Dacian and Roman city names in Transylvania so almost all Romanian settlement name which was part of Hungary came from the Hungarian name. Even the Romanian word “oras” (city) came from the Hungarian word “varos” (city)
It will be soon published, there is 6000, 4000 years old samples in the Carpathian basin with genetic match with today Hungarians, because every previous people mixed with newcomers and every people left their genetic impact. And eveybody has 1000 grandfathers from many places, it also means today’s Hungarians are living there a long time ago. In Hungary the archeogenetic science is very advanced, we have the most modern machines and recently Hungarians increased by 10% the database of the full archeogenetic old samples of the world. Of course these studies published on international authentic scientic journals, and the result are checked by other international scientist in other labs in USA, Germany… Also Hungary is determined the genetic profile of the Hunyadi family because we want rebury King Matthias, the bones was scattered during the Ottoman-Habsburg occupation.
According to the recent modern DNA studies, the old Hungarians were a less homogeneous group than the today's Hungarians in the conquering Hungarian period. The blood oath was a Scythian tradition that was used by the Hungarian chieftains and many tribes together became a new nation by this custom. It means the old authors did not make mistake when they named the old Hungarians in various names, because the old Hungarians were a confederation in which were Scythian, Hun, Avar, Turkic… tribes too. According to the genetic studies we can also see there is no Finno-Ugric connection, but we can also see the old Hungarians were mostly Europids like today's Hungarians. The old Hungarians also mixed with the local Avars who survived the Frank and the Bulgarian occupation. They also mixed with Slavs and later many Germans were invited and settled in Hungary during the centuries. Many of today's Hungarians have also some Celtic genetics, which means all previous people who lived in the territory of the Carpathian Basin got an impact on today’s Hungarian genetics, so the ancestors of today’s Hungarians are living a long time ago in the Carpathian Basin.
I think you know well the Romanians keen to say the Hungarians were Mongols :):):)
According to modern genetic studies, the vast majority of old Hungarians were Europids. Even a lot of Hungarian conquerors had blue eyes, light brown, red and blonde hair:
This is not the first publication about the topic but this is the recent: May 2022, archeogenetic study about the old Hungarians, the Hun-Scythian connection is proved by recent genetic science:
www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1
All old medieval Hungarian chronicles say: Hungarians = Huns and Scythians, Attila is King of the Huns and King of Hungary, Székelys (Hungarian subgroup in Transylvania) = the remnant of Huns, the Hungarian royal dynasty is the direct descendant of King Attila.
The contemporary Byzantine sources say: Avars = Turks, Avars = Scythians, Hungarians = Turks, Hungarians = Scythians, King Attila = Scythian (Priscus), King Attila = Avar (Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus), Hungarians = Sabirs (Hun tribe).
The contemporary other foreign sources say: Huns = Avars = Hungarians, King Attila = Scythian, Huns = Scythians, Huns = Avars, Avars = Hungarians, Hungarians = Scythians, Hungarians = Bashkirs.
Hungarians have a lot of written sources regarding the Hun Scythian connection while we have not much source about the “allegeldy always majority Vlachs (Romanians)” in the territory of the Carpathian basin for example between 700-1200, this is a big difference!
Some examples among many:
David Szabo
· Jun 1
What are the proofs for the Hunno-Scythian origin of the Hungarians?
Some old sources among many: Leo VI The Wise Emperor of Byzantium (886-912) described the Hungarians this way (Book: The Taktika of Leo VI): “The Scythian nations are one, so to speak, in their manner of life and their organization; they have a multitude of rulers, and they have done nothing of value,…
Read more
The Romanian culture evolved also highly Transylvania because Hungarian rulers supported it. I bet Romanians did not learn these things, just about the “super cruel 1000 years Hungarian suppress” :)
David Szabo
· Feb 21
The first Romanian Bible was translated and printed in 1648 in Transylvania at the expense of the Hungarian Prince György Rákóczi. Why was Romanian culture developed in Transylvania than Wallachia? Why do Romanians are talking about suppression?
I see many Romanians say every day that the Romanians were "enslaved" (?) and suppressed in the Kingdom of Hungary. In 1920 the Romanian population was 2.8 million in the Hungarian Kingdom after “allegedly 1000 years super cruel Hungarian suppress” as the Romanians say every day. How possible that t…
Read more
Upvote
Reply
David Szabo
· 26m
I think here is much more Romanian users than Hungarian users, and I see the Romanian users want to know every Hungarian things better (even which things is not related at all to Romanians), the origin of Hungarians, the history of Hungarians, (and we can see almost all answer is malicious), they sa…
Read more
Upvote
Reply
Becks
· Sat
How do you know that it is not you who are brainwashed manipulated? Especially when you claim that a “theory (myth) is fake". This is a Hungarian non-sense mentality because you don't understand the meaning of the words. A “theory" or a “myth" stands until proven otherwise. If you didn't know it, Hu…
Read more
Upvote
·
1
Reply
Musatics Janos
Please read the posts from David Szabo in Quora. 100% proven statements with sources dna results links etc. Otherwise President Orbán doesn't care the origin of the Romanians unfortunately he doesn't care even the origin of the Hungarians. So you are again mistaken but okay no problem
David Szabo
· Sat
Rather I see the Romanian Daco-Romanian propagandists add desperately Hungarian words to that “Dacian” list
David Szabo
· 1y
Why did the Romanian "adămană/ademani" word list "possible" Dacian origin if this word is a clear Hungarian word? Check the link I explained.
I asked this question because I see “adămană/ademeni” word is in this list: List of Romanian words of “possible” Dacian origin Sorin Paliga, Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian, Bucharest: Editura Evenimentul, 2006. List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin - W…
Read more
Upvote
·
1
Reply
False - The grandfather of Saint Stephen was probably Zombor or Gyula a Hungarian born chief who indeed got the orthodox religion but it has nothing to do with romanians. His daughter was Sarolt the mother of Saint Stephen. And the name "Vajk, Voyk" or in the disgusting romanian language "Voicu" is a Turkic and not a romanian name. Therefore, the house of Hunyadi/Corvinus - since John Hunyadi's father was Voyk which is probably of Turkic - Cuman or Tatar origin - just a reminder, the House of Basarab was of Cuman and Mongolian origin. The Romanian nobility was mostly from Turkic origin. His mother was Erzsébet Morzsinai, a Hungarian noblewoman. The first orthodox churches in Transylvania appears in the 13th century, but in low number. The oldest churches in Transylvania are roman catholic.
Apropos de biharia ... Pai la cultura a fost ministru un ungur ce ne mira
SEIBENBURGEN
As a Hungarian, I have never heard about the famous "Empty Land Theory" (mentioned at 3:52) until now so I googled it up, but that is something that is related to South Africa www.sahistory.org.za/article/empty-land-myth
AGAIN, The Empty Land Theory in terms of Hungary is a complete ballony, exists only inside "The Empty Heads" (pun intended) of the authors of this so called documentary. :D
From above - konsulminibus6 months ago
trismosin solis But why are you so fucking stupid? Nobody caress about your idiotic genetic continuit, you can shove it up your ass, it's totally irrelevant. TRANSYLVANIA WAS EMPTY LAND WHEN WE CAME IN.
Now you've heard it.
I have heard this theory quite a lot of times
Ahahaha... there is another hungarian theory , first appeared after 17th or...18th century , so very late. It says that all romanians were actually shepherds from Albania... and all romanian territory of today was EMPTY ... so even Wallachia and Moldova area... hahah. So these Romanian shepherds came from Albania area after hungarians were already in Transylvania, and... guess what, they became much more than the hungarians, as it is today . How could this happen you ask ? well let me solve this puzzle for you, and this is my own personal input : So obviously for every 1 sheep, there were at least 10 shepherds... AHAHA.
What you will be amazed about however how many fanatics from Hungary bring this theory as an argument, its truly amazing, what makes it even more laughable is that there exists no document of ancient of medieval times in history to talk about a Vlach/blach migration.
Sadly mistakes have been made in the past and it seems from the direction and propaganda around Budapest, no lessons have been learned. And ill end with this, we dont want to be enemies, never did, I have had plenty of ethnic hungarian friends and nobody is trying to steal from them tradition or language... problem is the fanatic propaganda, coming from other sources, makes me not worried , rather pity-full .
Forgive me, but 99.99% of the Romanians were really shepherds when they moved to the eastern part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century, and it was still 2-300 years old., then they switched to agriculture.
*Now I'm not kidding:* We invented a tax, that was its name: Juhötvened (juh=sheep+ötvened=fiftieth) The essence of the tax: After every fifty shep had to pay tax.(13th-16th century tax)
The arrival of the Transylvanian Romanians is well documented and believe that by the early 18th century Transylvania was not an orthodox majority
"and all romanian territory of today was EMPTY ... so even Wallachia and Moldova area... hahah."
We never said that. Before the Romans (Vlachs), the Kuns lived there.
And yes, we were in the majority.
Transylvania in 1495(yellow color: means romanians):
comment-cdn.9gag.com/image?ref=9gag.com#img-comment-fun.9cache.com/media/avOZ7nE/aJxW4rWl_700w_0.jpg
"and... guess what, they became much more than the hungarians, as it is today . How could this happen you ask "
Population of the Hungarian Kingdom
In 1710 it was still 50-55%.3 million people, 1.5 million were Hungarians
The result of Maria Theresa's policy. =>
1710-1790
Hungarians: 1.5 million => 3.2 million + 113 % x 2,13
Any other ethnic: 1.5 million => 5.3 million + 253 % x 3,53
search for them on the Internet:
-150 years Ottoman invasion
-Rákóczi's War of Independence
- The last Tatar invasion was in 1717 (Many Hungarians died and Romanians had to be replaced)
-Maria Theresa's policy.
See page 103 for a table (the historical territory of Transylvania, without Banat and Partium):
www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/kiadv/Ethnic_geography.pdf
"we dont want to be enemies, never did, I have had plenty of ethnic hungarian friends and nobody is trying to steal from them tradition or language..."
There is no coincidence the three points, so you don't think so seriously.
Your people now destroy graves in the Szeklerland.
Do not let the rest of the Hungarians rest in the grave.
"Sadly mistakes have been made in the past and it seems from the direction and propaganda around Budapest, no lessons have been learned."
The largest propaganda nation is vlach.
200 years ago he renamed himself Romanian, dropped the Cyril writing and switched to Latin, later "discovered" that descendants of the Roman Empire.
You're the result of the Romanian propaganda policy.
Long ago you were shepherds. Now you are the perfect sheeps.
You didn't ask. You don't know your own history.
Hungarians already lived in Transylvania when your ancestors were grazing on the territory of the Kingdom of Serbia. (Today's Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Dako-roman theory is a bad joke.
Romans disappeared for more than 900 years and suddenly appeared in Transylvania in the 13th century?
And they call themselves vlach, why not Roman or Trak or Dacia? Bad joke.
watch this video, it has a lot of cleverness: ruclips.net/video/iV1nt4hu_B4/видео.html
@@peterivan9187 any proofs for your theory?...
@@AGC2021
What exactly do you want me to prove?
@@peterivan9187 you know what... Roessler's theory...
@@peterivan9187 I think you completely MISSED my point there mate.... My argument was not that Romanians didnt grow animals, they did that. And being a shepherd unlike some hungarians act today... is a very noble occupation from the most ancient of times. But again you miss the point... you dont need 100 Shepherds for a flock of sheep...
Imagine the Germans or the French or the Russians claiming that they had a land stolen from them... because a very long time ago, Shepherds invaded their lands, and logically you would ask yourself well... how many shepherds do you need for 100 sheep ? And how did they become more in numbers than the NATIVE local population ?
That is an absolutely DESPERATE theory... that has no medieval document to back it of course... because its just too ridiculous to be real. It was made up by a employee of a Hungarian king after 17th or 18th century...during the same times that they were already trying to make everyone speak hungarian and convert everyone to Catholicism... get it ?
Do you mean Transylvania?
Okay, I watched 14 mins. Because this video can be as big lie as the many others, there's no reason to watch along with such a f*cked yellow English subtitle. People! At least because it is about Hungarian history as well as Romanian, you should have honoured the Hungarian viewers with decent Hungarian subtitles.
Anyway not that is the important thing, what kings were originated from possibly Romanian area and may some of the Hungarian people have Romanian bloodline. The important is what is in the hearts. But I don't think nationality and country borders mean anything more than culture and traditions. We could be one big nation without borders and regulate our cities in smaller groups that can be suitable for the people who are living exactly there (agricultural land, forests, traditions, industry, wildlife, capabilities, skills of people...) and not the central laws rule on everybody.
If the Romanians are the oldest inhabitants of Transylvania, then can I ask, what is the ancient Romanian name of Transylvania? Transylvania? Ardeal?
Transylvania is not, because Transylvania is a direct translation from the Hungarian ERDELY to Latin "Transylvania" (land beyond the forest).
"Transylvania" as a name did not existed before the 10th century, Hungarian noblemen had to translate ERDELY to then official language LATIN so they can write it in official scripts and letters (first “Ultrasylvania” in 1075 and subsequently Transsilvania was used in Latin medieval Hungarian and European documents from 1100 onwards).
Latin was the official language of Europe in the middle ages.
Ardeal is not, because Ardeal is a Romanian pronunciation of Hungarian ERDELY, which means, "land beyond the forest".
ERDELY (Hungarian name) = Ardeal (Romanian pronunciation of Ardeal is extremely close to the original Hungarian name of Erdely)
In 1918-19 the Romanian officials knew that as well, and when they occupied the territory in question for the first time, they quickly changed from that "old Hungarian name" (Erdely = Ardeal) to Transylvania (less "Hungarian sounding" name).
But they did not realise that the meaning of Transylvania presents a Hungarian point of view: “land beyond the forest” (looking from the Hungarian Plain towards Transylvania) .... and each time when someone says Transylvania, they actually representing the Hungarian point of view of the land, that is a “land beyond the forest” ...:))))
Let’s face it, an indigenous people (in this case Romanians) would not call their own country a “land beyond the forest”, more like “land in the forest” (because they live in it not by it). Unless they are not indigenous, but immigrants to the area in question, and in this case as we all know it, immigrant always copy and translate the indigenous names of an area to they own native language, which does not make any sense from they point of view (see Transylvania = “land beyond the forest”).
So, Romanians must be immigrants here because we call Transylvania "the land beyond the forest", but Hungarians can't be since they also call this land "the land beyond the forest" (you said it yourself when you mentioned Ardeal being derived from Erdely, thing which is false and any linguist that knows a dime of Hungarian and Romanian knows it). LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Forget about the fact that this land has been called as such since the time of Trajan, when in his "De Bello Dacicum", he labeled this land "Ardeunna Silva". But wth, Romanians are immigrants. Just that all documents mention us as natives... LOL
Etymology : From the latin preposition ''Across the forest'' Transilvania = trans (across)+silva (forest)!!!
Names or not huns admit they are not descendents of dacians.Dacia was here before the year 400 Or whenever Huns came from Asia.On the other hand we know we are the descendents of dacians and romans a combination that also happened before the year 400.They can always take it back but the lack of passion for something they know doesn t belong to them says it all.
John To It's Haar-Deal, meaning beyond the forests, which in fact is Dacian word. Erdely is your borrow from old Romanian/Dacian language.
Nice romanian propaganda 👏
@gaby fake history? Are you talking about your Dacian theory?😂😂🤣
how is it propaganda when it gave u exact sources from books written by historians, kings, etc
Maghiarizarea forțată să întîmplare in tot spatiu fostului regat al Ungariei,același lucru sa inimplat și cu slovaci ,sarbi ,ucraineni ,ruteni ,și astea sunt false ,eu zic sa va asumati și să trecem mai departe
hungarians-a nation from the beginning hostile to the Romanians whom they found settled not only in Transylvania, but also in the historical Parthium, when they invaded Europe uncalled by any of the peoples that then populated the Old Continent, the Hungarians were much time a true enigma of history.
Their ancient language and customs, as well as their peculiar nature, have for centuries made historians wonder who these people really were, and especially where they came from. Recent thorough research and studies have revealed not only the typically Asian origin of the first Hungarian tribes arriving in Europe, but also another series of details, unexpected for many, related to the true ancient history of the Hungarians, along with the current genetic component of these people. This is what often happens when history is not ostentatiously-irredentist, and the realities of the facts cannot be hidden even under a "historical millennium".
Let's go over the facts a little.
Some nomads through human history
The non-acceptance of historical truth is a phenomenon that still haunts the official historiography, even, of many peoples whose historians and politicians deeply want a much more glorious, original and authentic past than the one assumed by historians who are only in the service of the truth. The case of the Hungarians is as characteristic as possible for such a situation. It is very difficult to find another nation that works so diligently to shape and even change its own history in places. Especially when ancient history is at stake.
Gesta Hungarorum: "Reggelre kelve hajnal előtt Tétény két részre osztotta seregét. Az egyik részt kissé felfelé küldte, hogy a folyón átkelve majd Gyalú katonáinak a meglepetésére avatkozzék bele a harcba. Ez így is történt. Mégpedig, mivel átkelésük könnyen ment, mindkét csapat egyszerre bocsátkozott harcba. Heves küzdelem kerekedett; azonban Gyalú vezér katonái maradtak alul, s közülük sokan elestek, sokan pedig fogságba jutottak. Mikor vezérük, Gyalú látta ezt, hogy életét megmentse, kevesedmagával futásnak eredt. De miközben a Szamos folyó mellett fekvő vára felé sietve menekült, Tétény vitézei merészen futtatva nyomába szegődtek, és a Kapus-patak mellett megölték. Mikor a föld lakosai látták uruk halálát, önként békejobbot nyújtottak, és urukká választották Tétényt, Horka apját. A helyen, melyet Esküllőnek mondanak, esküvel erősítették meg hűségüket. S attól a naptól kezdve hívták azt a helyet Esküllőnek azért, mert ott esküdtek. Tétény pedig onnantól fogva békével és szerencsével birtokolta ezt a földet, ivadéka meg egészen Szent István király idejéig tartotta meg....."
In short, that means, hungarian Tétény (Tuhutum) won the battle, and killed Gyalú (Gelau) by the Kapus-brook. As the inhabitants/peasants of the lands saw the death of Gyalú (Gelau), they went to Tétény (Tuhutum) to dedicated their loyalty to him, that event was on a place, called from that point "Esküllő" (based on hungarian world "eskü"=oath), where they declared and confirmed their loyalty to Tétény (Tuhutum) by oath. From that point Tétény (Tuhutum) ruled the "Over the Forest" (Erdély in latin direct translation = Transylvania) territory in peace and wealth.
So the Gesta Hungarorum does not naming the inhabitants/peasants of Transylvania "Blach", it only named Gyalú (Gelau), as a former ruler, and called he "Blach".
The statement: the population of Transylvania was romanian at that time, is just the same mistake, as to say i.e. when Hungarian ruler was in Transylvania, than the population must be hungarian....
The ruler nothing to do with the inhabitants that time. The sequency was more like nobels/peasants on the bacis rule that who has the right to wear an armament. (i.e sword)....
It mentions the presence of Vlachs in the armies of Menumorut and Glad. It mentions Gelou being a vlach himself and that the overall army of his was overwhelmingly of Vlach origin. Armies in that period were not made up of mercenaries (with very few exceptions, such as the Byzantine Empire who had the financial power to recruit foreigners in their military - The Varangian Guard being one example), but were made of levies from peasants. This means that Vlachs inhabited Transylvania by the time of the Hungarian conquest.
The idea that the ruler had nothing to do with the inhabitants is simply a myth. Generally speaking Romanian boyars and nobles elected leaders from their own people, based on the Lex Valachorum, which was allowed to exist even in the early period of the Hungarian Kingdom.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth see, all you wrote has nothing to do with reality...but anyway, you can live in you fantasies if you more like that...but the facts remains facts apart from that......so enjoy your dreams and fantasies which are nothing to do with archeological or historical evidences, cause they are just lies imtependently how many of you are believer, and how often you repeat them......again: no, there is no evidence to prove your statements above..
you can write them for million times, they just remain unproven fantasies....
@@zoltanvass9492 It has to do with reality, since that is what your chronicles say. Denying history means denying reality. Not only that, but this is also confirmed in other documents such as Nestor's Primary Chronicle. Archaeological and historical evidence have long been in accordance with the Romanian continuity. But yes, continue to lie and distort facts. Again, there is no evidence to prove your statements above. I have given you sources, including from modern historians. Educate yourself. Stop listening to politicians. They lie. You can speak lies many times, but you can never make them become truths. You will only believe that they are truths. Reality will always contradict you.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Fact: Daco-roman theory in the scientific world is just an unproven theory.
These are the pros:
1.Linguistiques are agree that the Romanian language descends from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Balkanian Roman provinces, in the closest relationship with Dalmatian language (which is died/not excist for today).
2. Agreed on, that back in the ancient time there was a "language line/limit" , so called "Jireček Line" , (a proposed notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe).
3. Some Romanian linguistiques identified ~300 pcs of word, which according to them could be derived from Dacian languages.
These are the Contras:
1.Dacia was ruled by Roma (Roman Empire) only for 150 years. That is unlikely that the original population could be fully Romanised such short period of time, since there is a lot of example where people preserved their languages even at longer period of time at Roman supremacy. Moreover parts of Dacians wasn't under Roman supremacy, and some Dacian tribes still existed even later, when goths came to this area, according to the sources from that time.
2. It is very hard to find any Dacian word, because we know nothing about Dacian language, as that is not a single Dacian text/description in the written sources to examine that.
Outside of couple of places names, persons names, and c.a. 50pcs of plant names (by Pseudo-Apuleius who was likely derived from Africa) there is no Dacian language memorial left.
The majority of the listed "likely Dacian" words is just a guess, based on more the practice that every unknown origined word is considered as possible Dacian.
3. The theory contradicts to the loanwords which can be found in the Romanian language.
4. In the Romaninan languages you can find German origined words only in extremly low quantity, however German tribes lived in and ruled Dacia for about 300years long period of time.
5. The lack of Turkic loanwords is also conspicuous (even the existings words are more likely from the Cumans), however according to the theory the Daco-romans lived together with the Turkic speaking Huns and Avars for a long period of time. In contrast, there is a lot of common word with the Albanian language, which fact more confirms the so called "Immigrationist theory".
6. The Romans evacuated/emptied Dacia province in A.D. 270, due the Goths attacks. Therefore the province was ruled and inhabited by Goths from that point in time. The Goths were pushed out from this area by Huns, and the Gepids (a Hun allies tribe) settled in Dacia. Gepids inhabited and ruled till the Avars arrived (after A.D. 567).
7. A common agreed/accepted fact in the contemporary Roman sources the total extermination of the Dacian population and its replacement by settlers who loyal to Rome. For example in "Scholia in Lucianum", which refers to Criton of Heraclea, who participated the campaigns of Trajan, so he eyewitnessed the extermination of the Dacians.
So that is in a nutshell.
But I can tell you, there is a more favorable, more accepted, more scientific based theory, the earlier mentioned "Immigrationist theory" regarding Romanian origin and settlement.
I know it is maybe hard to accept that the political will more involves "ideological training" for a nation, and tend to cherrypicking from scientific result to present them according their needs, but that is not how it is working in the scientific world. There are scientific/universal methods to present a result and consider a theory.
Regarding the daco-roman theory now you can see the pros and contras.
So stay tuned, don't get tired, it is always a pleasure to inform and educate somebody.
@@zoltanvass9492 3. Historiography (written sources)
See also: Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians
3. 1. 4th-10th centuries sources
In the 4th century, the Historia Augusta mentions that
On seeing that Illyricum was devastated and Moesia was in a ruinous state, he abandoned the province of Trans-Danubian Dacia, which had been formed by Trajan, and led away both soldiers and provincials, giving up hope that it could be retained. The people whom he moved out from it he established in Moesia, and gave to this district, which now divides the two provinces of Moesia, the name of Dacia.
-Historia Augusta [11]
The Roman-Gothic author Jordanes, who was raised in Moesia and was familiar with the ethnic character of the area, [12] wrote in the 6th century that the Romans had only moved the legions from Dacia, and not the population.
the Emperor Aurelian, calling his legions from here (evocatis exinde legionibus), settled them in Moesia and there, on the other side, he founded Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis -Jordanes [13]
Excavations continued at the bi-rithual cemetery in Berghin at the point "The Pear", Judet Alba. www.cimec.ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detaliu.asp?k=59
They executed two sections (12.50 x 2 m, respectively, 14.50 x 2 m) in order to explore the upper north-north-east of the necropolis remained unexplored. During investigations 81 graves of cremation have been identified , which raises the number of funerary complexes uncovered so far to 610. Of these, 52 tombs belong to the Dacian population identified in the settlement of the village precincts during the Roman period (II-III century AD). The graves are oval, circular, diamond or rectangular contour and are marked by river boulders. Of the earth filling of the sepulchral holes were collected Dacian and Roman pottery fragments, pieces of coal and scrap of calcined human bones, one portion of a glass and bronze bracelets, etc.. The other 29 tombs are with cremation urns (26) or simple holes (3) featuring the prefeudal cemetery (VII-VIII century AD). Urns containing cremated remains of the defunct (whole and fragmented bones), pieces of coal and various pieces of bronze (one ear from an earring wire), iron (staples, hook, buckles with spin, nails, knife blades, etc.). and Stone (tips, blades, etc..). It is noted that 601 M is as white (126 x 78 cm) and contains a large quantity of scrap cinerary, especially charcoal and burnt earth, calcined bone chips and a few scattered pottery fragments from a vessel broken on the ritual pyre. In conclusion, this year's excavations have revealed further testimony about the process of Romanization of the indigenous Dacians during the Roman domination in Dacia and during the formation of the Romanian people (VII-VIII century AD).
An anonymous author who pronounces an encomium in the honour of Caesar Constantine (emperor between 337-361) speaks of restored Dacia (Dacia restito) eulogizing him for the victory obtained against Goths and Taifals in 332 [14]
The Byzantine chronicler Priscus of Panium mentions in the year 448, the presence of a Latin-speaking populace North of the Danube. The populace was called by him "Ausoni". [15] It should be noted that this was at a time before Slavic migration, so the exonym “Vlach” was not applied to this populace. [16]
For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or - as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans - Ausoni [17]
(...) a barbarian who sat beside me and knew Ausoni (...)
-Priscus of Panium [18]
In 545, Procopius of Caesarea mentions[not in citation given] [19] "The trick played by an Ant from present-day Moldavia who is supposed to have passed himself off as a Byzantine General by speaking a form of Latin which he had learned in these regions."
At the Nicaean Synod in 787, the following person is signaled on the 73rd seat: “Ursus Avaritianensium ecclesiae episcopus.” [20] The name of the episcope of the Avaritians (i.e. people ruled by the Avars), being Ursus, is of Romanic origin. [21]
An ancient letter from one Emmerich of Elwangen to Grimaldus, abbot of St. Gall, written about 860 mention Vlachs, under the name of Dacians, living north of Danube together with Germans, Sarmatians, and Alans.
The chronicle Oguzname, the oldest Turkish chronicle in existence, mentioning a warlike expedition of the Cumans, affirms the existence of a “Country of the Vlachs” (Ulaqi) east of the Carpathians in 839[dubious - discuss], affirming that the region was well organized and with a powerful army. [23]
A ninth-century Armenian geography[clarification needed] mentions the country "Balak". [24]