History of the Vlachs
Efthymi
From the Office of the Mayor of New York:
The below is a proclamation from the then (1990) Mayor of
New York City David N. Dinkins:
_______________________________________________________________________
Proclamation:
Whereas the Balkan Peninsula South of the Danube River is
Home to a Romance Speaking population known by several
names, including, vlachs, arumanians, macedo-romanians,
and tsintsars, the VLACHS are descended from the Romans
who conquered Macedonia in 146 B.C. and the native populations
which subsequently became romanized and whereas due to their relatively
small number and to their diffuse settlements, the vlachs did not
create a modern state of their own, early this century were divided
between Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria with significant
diaspora communities in America, Australia and Romania and whereas
the Vlach population of the Balkans has declined dramatically
from some 500,000 in 1913 to approximately 50,000 today -- as
a result of assimilation, yet NO Balkan country is taking
measures to preserve the Vlach language and culture and
whereas In April of 1990 a British Scholar, Dr Tom J. Winnifrith
who recently wrote a landmark history of the vlachs will
be visiting America to conduct research within the Vlach
communities of Bridgeport, Connecticut and The Bronx, New York,
now therefore I David N. Dinkins, Mayor of the City of New York
on the occasion of Dr. Winnifrith's arrival in New York City,
do hereby proclaim Sunday April, 8 1990 in the City of New York
as "VLACH CULTURAL PRESERVATION DAY"
_______________________________________________________________________
Efthymi
From the Providence, Rhode Island Journal (1/20/1980):
" The Ottoman Turks conquest of the Balkans during and
after the 15th century brought some stability to the region,
but the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire soon after the
1900's brought renewed ethnic struggles. The Greeks in
particular objected to ethnic Macedo-Romanian communities
within Greek territory and along the northern border of Greece.
The Macedo-Romanians of Woonsocket, Rhode Island repeat
oft-heard tales of Greek oppression in the years between
1900 and World War I.
Partly beacause of that, partly because of constant warfare
in their native land, and partly because of the over-all
trend of eastern European immigration to the New World,
Macedo-Romanians began emigrating to America soon after
the turn of the century..."
Efthymi
Jimmy Palatsoukas
In article <32F0BBCB...@lucent.com>,
You have, in my opinion, revealed your true colors. Is this the
start of a new movement... the Vlacho-FYROMian movement? Fortunately
for Vlachs and Greeks alike, the bond is so strong that statements
such as your own mean nothing... much like those of your FYROMian
friends. I personally doubt you are even a Vlach.
Seek help, if not for your sake, then for that of your loved ones...
Jimmy
>Efthymi
Efthymi
Jimmy Palatsoukas wrote:
>
> You have, in my opinion, revealed your true colors. Is this the
> start of a new movement... the Vlacho-FYROMian movement? Fortunately
> for Vlachs and Greeks alike, the bond is so strong that statements
> such as your own mean nothing... much like those of your FYROMian
> friends. I personally doubt you are even a Vlach.
>
> Seek help, if not for your sake, then for that of your loved ones...
>
The story on the Vlachs I quoted from the Providence, Rhode Island
Journal (1/20/1980) was a story done on the largest Vlach community
in America, told by the Vlach people themselves and not some
polarized textbook.
More baseles assumptions, accusations, and imaginations run
wild ... on my statement that Vlachs are a different ethnic
people and minority in Greece.
Your level of maturity really shines through ...
Buna dzua Jimmy ...
Efthymi
Jimmy Palatsoukas
hahahahahahahahahaha Great stuff... Please keep it coming :)))
Jimmy
In article <32F0BACD...@lucent.com>,
Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis])
In article <5cqs6i$2...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> ji...@ee470.ee.mcgill.ca (Jimmy Palatsoukas) writes:
>In article <32F0BBCB...@lucent.com>,
>Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>From the Providence, Rhode Island Journal (1/20/1980):
>>
>>" The Ottoman Turks conquest of the Balkans during and
>> after the 15th century brought some stability to the region,
>> but the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire soon after the
>> 1900's brought renewed ethnic struggles. The Greeks in
>> particular objected to ethnic Macedo-Romanian communities
>> within Greek territory and along the northern border of Greece.
>>
>> The Macedo-Romanians of Woonsocket, Rhode Island repeat
>> oft-heard tales of Greek oppression in the years between
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 1900 and World War I.
^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
'Oft-heard TALES' of Greek oppression between 1900 and 1914-1918! Well
described indeed! 'TALES'! And how exactly was this 'objection' of the Greeks
to so-called Macedo-Romanian communities within Greek territory (well, before
1913 no part of Macedonia was part of Greek territory, now was it?) realized
in practice?
>> Partly beacause of that, partly because of constant warfare
>> in their native land, and partly because of the over-all
>> trend of eastern European immigration to the New World,
>> Macedo-Romanians began emigrating to America soon after
>> the turn of the century..."
'Macedo-Romanians' my foot! If more than one hundred people at one time
self-identified as 'Makedorhomouvoi' in Greece the Romanian nationalist
wet-dreams of attracting the Vlakhs [(A)pwmouvoi] of Epirus, Macedonia and
Thessaly would have been met with something a bit more substantial than the
abject failure they actually faced.
>You have, in my opinion, revealed your true colors.
Has he/she ever!!!
> Is this the
>start of a new movement... the Vlacho-FYROMian movement? Fortunately
>for Vlachs and Greeks alike, the bond is so strong that statements
>such as your own mean nothing... much like those of your FYROMian
>friends. I personally doubt you are even a Vlach.
>Seek help, if not for your sake, then for that of your loved ones...
>Jimmy
>>Efthymi
Later,
"The word Greek designate[s] not any more the race, but the culture, and we now call Greeks those who participate in our education rather than those who have the same origin with us."
Isocrates, "Panegyric", 50
Stavros N. Karageorgis
E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis])
In article <32F10B24...@lucent.com> Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> writes:
>Jimmy Palatsoukas wrote:
>>
>> You have, in my opinion, revealed your true colors. Is this the
>> start of a new movement... the Vlacho-FYROMian movement? Fortunately
>> for Vlachs and Greeks alike, the bond is so strong that statements
>> such as your own mean nothing... much like those of your FYROMian
>> friends. I personally doubt you are even a Vlach.
>>
>> Seek help, if not for your sake, then for that of your loved ones...
>>
>
> The story on the Vlachs I quoted from the Providence, Rhode Island
> Journal (1/20/1980) was a story done on the largest Vlach community
> in America, told by the Vlach people themselves and not some
> polarized textbook.
Not quite. It was a newspaper STORY, on what SOME Vlakhs in the Diaspora
'repeat'. It characterizes what they claim about the treatment of Vlakhs in
Greece as 'oft-repeated tales' . . ..
> More baseles assumptions, accusations, and imaginations run
> wild ... on my statement that Vlachs are a different ethnic
> people and minority in Greece.
The Vlakhs of Greece are of distinct genetical, linguistic and cultural
(customs, mores, etc.) background compared to other citizens of Greeks, and
others who ALSO ethno-nationally identify as Greeks. They are a NUMERICAL
minority among the citizenry of Greece in the above respects. They
OVERWHELMINGLY and in PRACTICE ethno-nationally identify as Greeks. In fact,
modern Greek culture is in part Vlakh, as it is in part Arvanite, Sarakatsani,
and so on.
Now, what was it that you wanted to say about the Vlakhs of Greece?
> Your level of maturity really shines through ...
Exactly like yours does, Efthymi!
> Buna dzua Jimmy ...
>Efthymi
Kala kpasia, Efthymi! :-=>
Efthymi
Jimmy Palatsoukas wrote:
>
> hahahahahahahahahaha Great stuff... Please keep it coming :)))
>
If you or anyone doubts the authenticity of this proclamation
they can very well call the City Hall of New York City to
verify its existence.
Efthymi
Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis])
In article <854682...@strateg1.demon.co.uk> byz...@strateg1.demon.co.uk ("G. Dumitrescu") writes:
In article <854682...@strateg1.demon.co.uk> byz...@strateg1.demon.co.uk ("G. Dumitrescu") writes:
>In article <karageor.21...@ucla.edu>
> kara...@ucla.edu "Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis]" writes:
>...'Macedo-Romanians' my foot! If more than one hundred people at one time
>...self-identified as 'Makedorhomouvoi' in Greece the Romanian nationalist
>...wet-dreams of attracting the Vlakhs [(A)pwmouvoi] of Epirus, Macedonia and
>...Thessaly would have been met with something a bit more substantial than the
>...abject failure they actually faced.
>and what would be faced from the Greek nationalist paranoid bed-wetters?
Now, THAT'S a substantive reply? Do you dispute that the well-funded Romanian
nationalist effort in the late 19th and early 20th century to attract the
Vlakhs of Macedonia (the entire region) to the Rumanian national cause and
nationality FAILED MISERABLY?
>..."The word Greek designate[s] not any more the race, but the culture, and we
>now
>... call Greeks those who participate in our education rather than those who
>have
>... the same origin with us."
>...Isocrates, "Panegyric", 50
>...Stavros N. Karageorgis
>...E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
>Well that's some chauvinistic attitude there ! By that reckoning, if a lot of
>western culture is derived from the Greek, then everybody's Greek!
Where did Isocrates say 'derived from the Greek', smart guy? Reading
comprehension requires the ability to read CAREFULLY!
Is this
>where the expression "it's all Greek to me" comes from? I suppose its lucky
>I have sense of humour.
Maybe you ARE lucky you have a sense of humor, since this way you can LAUGH AT
YOURSELF instead of getting depressed at your sorry cognitive state.
>FYI, "Vlach" people in Romania often if not generally always call
>themselves "Machedoni", and of course speak the Romanian language.
So what? The probably were once (that is their ancestors) living and working
in Macedonia. What's the big deal? Why should I, or any other Greek, dispute
this , or find it hard to accept?
> I realise
>this may sound somewhat controversial to a Greek, I don't know, and hardly
>give a rats ass either way.
Oh, get lost, will ya? If you don't give a rat's ass, then don't post, asshole!
>For some reason, this issue and the Greek dispute with the FYROM don't ever
>seem to have been connected (please see the PPPS).
>
>Otherwise, it's as simple as that. I never once heard a Romanian-"Machedon"
>call themself a Greek.
Of course not. They ethno-nationally identify as ROMANIANS! GET IT, now? The
Vlakhs in Greece ethno-nationally identify as GREEKS.
> I have met lots of them, and although they may speak
>well of Greece, they consider themselves above all else, just "Vlachs", or
>rather Romanian-Machedoni.
Good for them. How many Vlakhs from Greece do you know who consider themselves
NATIONALLY 'Romanian-Machedoni'?
>--
>G. Dumitrescu
<snip>
>. Obviously also, a Vlach is not a Greek, although it
>happens that many carry Greek passports.
ALL Vlakhs of Greece carry Greek passports. And the vast majority of them
identify NATIONALLY as Greeks. The modern Greek nation has been partly
constituted by Vlakhs of Greece. Do you get it? Modern Greek culture is partly
Vlakh. Getting clearer now?
> The bottom line, since the olden
>days, is that the Vlachs have not minded living within a "Greek country", in
>fact they even welcomed it, so long as they were able to administer their own
>affairs and mostly keep to themselves. Believe it or not, this tradition is
>even true of most Vlachs today living in Romania. Hardcore Vlach communities
>are generally very insular, some even fiercely so, what with their grandparents
>with crosses tattooed on their foreheads (to prevent kidnapping by the Turks
>during the bad old days), vibrant folklore, distinctive traditions and so on.
And so?
>Now, even though it seems everyone's completely vague on historical detail,
>please do continue your interesting discussion about this document and the
>NY day of Vlach cultural preservation.
>PPS. Out of curiosity, here's a question to go off on a tangent for a moment, if
>anyone is kind enough: How many native Romanian speakers (irrespective of
>dialect) live in the FYRO-Macedonia ? How many live in Greece?
Oh, I get it. So the Vlakhs of Greece are now 'Romanian speakers' eh? Maybe
they're part of an 'oppressed Romanian minority in Greece' right?
G. Dumitrescu
...'Macedo-Romanians' my foot! If more than one hundred people at one time
...self-identified as 'Makedorhomouvoi' in Greece the Romanian nationalist
...wet-dreams of attracting the Vlakhs [(A)pwmouvoi] of Epirus, Macedonia and
...Thessaly would have been met with something a bit more substantial than the
...abject failure they actually faced.
and what would be faced from the Greek nationalist paranoid bed-wetters?
..."The word Greek designate[s] not any more the race, but the culture, and we
now
... call Greeks those who participate in our education rather than those who
have
... the same origin with us."
...Isocrates, "Panegyric", 50
...Stavros N. Karageorgis
...E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
Well that's some chauvinistic attitude there ! By that reckoning, if a lot of
western culture is derived from the Greek, then everybody's Greek! Is this
where the expression "it's all Greek to me" comes from? I suppose its lucky
I have sense of humous.
FYI, "Vlach" people in Romania often if not generally always call themselves
"Machedoni", and of course speak the Romanian language. I realise this may sound
somewhat controversial to a Greek, I don't know, and hardly give a rats ass
either way.
For some reason, this issue and the Greek dispute with the FYROM don't ever
seem to have been connected (please see the PPPS).
Otherwise, it's as simple as that. I never once heard a Romanian-"Machedon"
call themself a Greek. I have met lots of them, and although they may speak
well of Greece, they consider themselves above all else, just "Vlachs", or
rather Romanian-Machedoni.
--
G. Dumitrescu
PS. Back in the olden days, when Greeks
and Vlachs were supposedly friends, a Greek king insulted a very high-ranking
Vlach emissary. Shortly after, a large Greek army was completely massacred in
retaliation (actually, the Greeks were trying to invade the Vlach territories
too at the same time, which ended in humiliating failure). This happened
sometime during the 1st millenium. Greeks and Vlachs have lived ok together
for the most part, but it's bogus and insulting to the intelligence to say that
this relationship has been totally perfect, because obviously, this would be a
completely bogus claim. Obviously also, a Vlach is not a Greek, although it
happens that many carry Greek passports. The bottom line, since the olden
days, is that the Vlachs have not minded living within a "Greek country", in
fact they even welcomed it, so long as they were able to administer their own
affairs and mostly keep to themselves. Believe it or not, this tradition is
even true of most Vlachs today living in Romania. Hardcore Vlach communities
are generally very insular, some even fiercely so, what with their grandparents
with crosses tattooed on their foreheads (to prevent kidnapping by the Turks
during the bad old days), vibrant folklore, distinctive traditions and so on.
Efthymi
kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them
that
they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go
tell the
Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again,
good
luck.
kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
They are not ethnicities, buddy, nor do these people belong to
'minority'
ethnic groups. Their only 'ethnicity' is identical to their national
identity,
and it is Greek. BTW, you didn't respond to the part of my riposte
about the
discredited status of linguistic nationalism. The fact that two groups
of
people speak the same language does NOT automatically imply that they
have the
same ethnic or national identity and/or belong to the same ethnic group
or
nation. Countless Spanish speakers 'belong', according to their own
self-ascribed ethnic or national identity, to different ethnic groups
and
nations. And, there are thousands of NON-Spanish speaking people in Los
Angeles who are, according to their own self-ascription, to an ethnic
group
and a nation which is Spanish-speaking.
kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
The Vlakhs of Greece are of distinct genetical, linguistic and cultural
(customs, mores, etc.) background compared to other citizens of Greeks,
and
others who ALSO ethno-nationally identify as Greeks. They are a
NUMERICAL
minority among the citizenry of Greece in the above respects. They
OVERWHELMINGLY and in PRACTICE ethno-nationally identify as Greeks. In
fact,
modern Greek culture is in part Vlakh, as it is in part Arvanite,
Sarakatsani,
and so on.
kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
If you mean that there are millions of Greek citizens
who descend from non-Greek genetic stock, who speak a non-Greek
language
(solely or in addition to Greek), who are of different religious
faith/ecclesiastical affiliation then the majority of Greek citizens,
who
descent from such folks, or who identify as NON-GREEKS in an ETHNIC
sense (a
sense which you have to define, and document that is shared by the
people in
question), then you are entirely correct.
Sounds Greek to me too ...
Efthymi
Efthymi
G. Dumitrescu wrote:
>
> Well that's some chauvinistic attitude there ! By that reckoning, if a lot of
> western culture is derived from the Greek, then everybody's Greek! Is this
> where the expression "it's all Greek to me" comes from? I suppose its lucky
> I have sense of humous.
>
> FYI, "Vlach" people in Romania often if not generally always call themselves
> "Machedoni", and of course speak the Romanian language. I realise this may sound
> somewhat controversial to a Greek, I don't know, and hardly give a rats ass
> either way.
It's funny you should mention this. A friend of mine who is both
hungarian and Romanian (Transylvanain) and in fact despises the
Romanians (that's another issue in itself) has told me this
repeatedly when I've told him that my family is Vlach.
"You are not a vlach you are a mechedonian", he would exclaim.
> For some reason, this issue and the Greek dispute with the FYROM don't ever
> seem to have been connected (please see the PPPS).
>
> Otherwise, it's as simple as that. I never once heard a Romanian-"Machedon"
> call themself a Greek. I have met lots of them, and although they may speak
> well of Greece, they consider themselves above all else, just "Vlachs", or
> rather Romanian-Machedoni.
Neither will an Albanian, Bulgarian, or Former-Yugoslavian Vlach. And
that is once again because Vlachs are not ethnically Greek, they are
foremost Vlach. Now, what time and assimilation have done to many
Vlachs
is quite different for each of the modern nations they now reside in.
But to claim they are not a minority no matter what nation they may
live in, is simply absurd.
>
> PPS. Out of curiosity, here's a question to go off on a tangent for a moment, if
> anyone is kind enough: How many native Romanian speakers (irrespective of
> dialect) live in the FYRO-Macedonia ? How many live in Greece?
>
This is a rather hard task whcich because of assimilation and
nationalistic
reasons will always result a lower number than actual.
Efthymi
Efthymi
JKP wrote:
>
>
> Isn't it convenient Efthymi to delete the parts of the original message
> that do not back up what you want uninformed people to hear. I'm
> referring to the fact that my uncle went to law school in Athens in the
> 1920's ... "but I guess he was still believing what others told him,
> rather than finding out for himself.
It was not deleted. It simply was not included because I had no
comments on that portion of your post.
Sorry but I have done extensive research on this matter as it
pertains to my roots.
> You denigrate the Vlachs by
> implying that they are followers, and that is an affront to all Greeks"
I am a Vlach. Why would I denigrate my own peoples. I am simply
stating what is not known to most Vlachs. Vlachs are not Greeks.
They have been assimilated into many nations, one of them being
Greece.
If the Vlachs were not followers they would today have their own
nation.
> ... Furthermore, my uncle, that you so cunningly ridicule, was offered
Ridicule? Where did I ridicule him? Quite the contrary I
even stated that I was glad that he was not oppressed.
Or is this just something you would like to believe to
further foster your fury...
> at the time of his graduation, the post of Governor (Nomarhis) of the
> area of his birth, with the condition that he denounce Communism which
> he had accepted while in Law School. He refused to do so, even though
> it would've meant a prestigious post. He remained a communist until he
> saw the atrocities commited to his fellow townsfolk by "his fellow
> communists" during the Civil War. By the way, you do know that the
> communists at the time were backed by Tito and the other FYROMians? But
> then again, according to your reasoning, my uncle is just an ignorant
> follower who has no clue of who he is, and just listens to some
> propaganda RIGHT?
I never said anything to that degree about your Uncle but it
is amazing what your own imagination will come up with ...
> You make it sound that the Vlachs spoke the language for only a hundred
> years or so. Get real!! We're talking centuries of talking a language
> for the purposes of trade etc. And who said that the Vlachs don't have
> Greek customs? They are probably more Greek than the Pelloponessians or
> the islanders for that matter!!!!
No quite the contrary they still speak the language ...
For the purposes of trade the men spoke broken Greek as our friend
from UCLA has so kindly pointed out to us was mimicked, and mocked
by the Greeks in the character of Karagiozi.
The Vlachs are not ethnically Greek.
>
> The harrassment that existed, Efthymi, was brought on by the communists
> backed by Tito and what is now the present FYROM government in trying to
> force and intimidate the proud Vlachs into accepting the false notion of
> a "Greater Macedonia." The Vlachs always knew and still know that they
> are Greek, and they are proud to call themselves Hellenes.
The Vlachs were never Greeks. They have assimilated into the
cultures of the nations that they migrated into. If you need to
believe this as to have a secure sense of belonging that's ok,
but don't try to force upon others.
Efthymi
Efthymi
> Kostas wrote:
> >
> > To Efthymi and all interested:
> >
> > I did some poking around and I found quite afew interesting writings about
> > Rumanian history. Some went as far to say that Vlachs were a "Black People"
> > (laughable since the ones I ran in to have milky white skin) while others said
> > that they descend from the Latinized Goths(!) namely Ostrogoths and Bisigoths,
> > and are therefore a Germanic people. Bulgarian historians claim that Vlachs
> > are Latinized Illyrians, something that would serve them since they inhabited
> > the ancient Illyricum area.
I think the reference to Vlachs as a black people may be an
oversight as there is an author with the last name of Vlach
who has recently written some books on African-Americans.
> > The romantic Imagination of a Daco-Rumanian existense that you seem to support
> > Efthymi, is actually the one that "does not hold water"
> >
We could probably continue with this arguement for another 100 years,
me with my experts and you with yours, as most historians have
already
done.
However you must at some point stop and try to reason out each
theory. You must think like a vlach of a time far gone and try
to mentally experience each theory.
For me and many others the Daco-Romanian theory makes the most sense.
Nevertheless the Vlachs have a unique ethnic origin which
is not Greek.
> > I don't doubt your sincerity, I do however have concerns as to your motive.
> > What are you trying to do here? Instigate a Vlachic separatist movement?
I think the pendullum has swung too far for any sort of Vlachic
separatist movement don't you think.
> > Are you on a crusade for some "truth to come out", truth as you see it, that is?
My original comment was to tell our friend from UCLA that not every
Naousaios would seek bodily harm on an individual who told a Vlach
that he or she were not Greek but a Vlach.
Efthymi
Efthymi
Efthymi
Kostas wrote:
>
> In article <32F26311...@lucent.com>, Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, except "your" experts are Rumanian-nationalists and "mine" are
> independent historians.
Nonsense, your experts are Greek or Hungarian nationalists.
Why don't you try reading Mr. Winifreth's book or
"The Nomads of the Balkans" by Mr. Weis, two independent
English Scolars.
Or even books by other English Scolars of the 19th and 20th
centuries such as Charles Upson Clark, R.W.Seton-Watson.
> There are certain inconsistencies that make the Daco-Romanian theory
> impossible.
> - There are no traces of Rumanian speaking people in Wallachia before the
> 1300, while Arminis are known to have been in Pindos AT LEAST since the 500 AD
> - Like the unfortunate Dacian people, the Rumanophones would have perished,
> since the invadors were nomadic
No and that's because the Dacio-Romanians fled south to the
Balkan Peninsula defending themselves by taking to the mountains due
to
as you yourself state various Germanic and Asian tribes invading the
territory, and maintaining there livelihood as herdsmen. This
is well documented.
Again if you believe the nationalistic ideology put forth by
the Greeks then you will believe the latter part of your statement.
> > However you must at some point stop and try to reason out each
> > theory. You must think like a vlach of a time far gone and try
> > to mentally experience each theory.
> Even a theory that has no backup? I would find it more reasonable if you
> pleaded agnostic, but choosing a shaky (at best) theory to base your past
> national identity?!!!! Do you feel it is necessary in order to preserve the
> language, traditions, etc? I personally favor more subtle solutions than
> pumping myself up with propaganda pills. But that's me.
Quite the contrary I think you feel that you must create a
Greece contrary to historical data, that is pure and non-existant
of non-ethnic-Greek minorities that exist to this day, as
precautionary measures to diminish future inner uprisings
or territorial claims by other Balkan nations.
I am sorry my friend but the modern ordinary Greek is no Socrates,
nor would many of them know the works of Socrates.
> So let me amend that:
>
> Every* Naousaios would seek bodily harm on an individual who told a Vlach that
> he or she were not Greek but a Vlach.
> *The ones that buy in to half-baked nationalistic theories are EXCLUDED.
>
> I am sorry if I sound patronizing, but I gave your argument a fair shake and
> all I got in return was "You must think like a vlach of a time far gone and
> try to mentally experience each theory."
Nonsense I gave you many references which you chose to disreguard
because of your nationalistic tendencies - and unlike yourself
I have not the time to endlessly type in quotations from these
references.
If anyones ideas here are nationalistic they are yours and the Greeks.
I have never claimed any national alliance unlike your ties with
the Greek nation.
The best hunters are the ones who can think like the animal they
are hunting.
Buna Dzua Kwsta
Efthymi
Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis])
In article <32F21D8E...@lucent.com> Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> writes:
<snip>
>. Now, what time and assimilation have done to many
>Vlachs
> is quite different for each of the modern nations they now reside in.
> But to claim they are not a minority no matter what nation they may
> live in, is simply absurd.
Efthymi,
Can you define 'minority' for me. If you mean a NUMERICAL minority, I
whole-heartedly concur. The Vlakhs/Arhomouni of Greece are NUMERICALLY a
minority, by linguistic and 'genetic' background. In my 'neck of the woods',
to wit in the social sciences, 'minority' has a special non-numerical meaning.
For example, we consider Blacks in apartheid South Africa as a 'minority'.
They most certainly were NOT a numerical minority, yet they still were a
minority, in the social scientific sense of the word. They were 'marked' and
oppressed specifically based on those 'markers'. Their life-chances were
concretely and practically different (much worse) then those who were not so
marked. I am saying all this so that we may stop accusing each other of being
'absurd', and be able to talk to and with each other, rather than AT and PAST
each other.
>> PPS. Out of curiosity, here's a question to go off on a tangent for a moment,
>if
>> anyone is kind enough: How many native Romanian speakers (irrespective of
>> dialect) live in the FYRO-Macedonia ? How many live in Greece?
>>
> This is a rather hard task whcich because of assimilation and
>nationalistic
> reasons will always result a lower number than actual.
I don't quite follow the above. The 'actual' number is the actual number of
'native Romanian speakers'. This is empirically ascertainable.
>Efthymi
Good day,
Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis])
>kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them
>that they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go
>tell the Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks.
>Again, good luck.
What's so hard to understand in the above. People who speak a non-Greek
language/idiom, and who are of non-Greek 'genetic stock' identify, FOR
THEMSELVES, and are so IDENTIFIED BY OTHERS, as nationally Greek. Why is this
'Greek to you'?
>kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
> They are not ethnicities, buddy, nor do these people belong to
>'minority' ethnic groups. Their only 'ethnicity' is identical to their
>national identity,
Ethnic and/or national IDENTITY is a category of SELF- and OTHER- ASCRIPTION.
It is NOT an 'objective' fact which an outsider can determine by observation
of 'indices' OTHER than the people's OWN perceptions and conceptions.
> and it is Greek. BTW, you didn't respond to the part of my riposte
>about the discredited status of linguistic nationalism. The fact that two
>groups of people speak the same language does NOT automatically imply that
>they have the same ethnic or national identity and/or belong to the same
>ethnic group or nation.
Is this 'Greek to you', Efthymi? If so, how so? Do you disagree that there are
groups of people who speak the same language but who ethno-nationally identify
differently? Is this somehting 'bizzare' or 'unnatural'?
> Countless Spanish speakers 'belong', according to
>their own self-ascribed ethnic or national identity, to different ethnic
>groups and nations.
Is this 'Greek to you' as well? Do you disagree with it factually?
> And, there are thousands of NON-Spanish speaking people
>in Los Angeles who are, according to their own self-ascription, to an ethnic
>group and a nation which is Spanish-speaking.
These are young Chicanos. I have many Chicanos as my students. They don't
speak Spanish at all, or they only know a few basic words. YET, they
ethnically or 'nationally' identify as 'Mexican'. Do you have a problem with
that, Efthymi?
>kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
> The Vlakhs of Greece are of distinct genetical, linguistic and cultural
> (customs, mores, etc.) background compared to other citizens of Greeks,
>and others who ALSO ethno-nationally identify as Greeks. They are a
>NUMERICAL minority among the citizenry of Greece in the above respects. They
> OVERWHELMINGLY and in PRACTICE ethno-nationally identify as Greeks. In
>fact, modern Greek culture is in part Vlakh, as it is in part Arvanite,
>Sarakatsani, and so on.
What's 'Greek to you' in the above? How much clearer can one be? Do you
disagree with any part of it factually? Or is it that you would rather things
were different?
>kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
> If you mean that there are millions of Greek citizens
> who descend from non-Greek genetic stock, who speak a non-Greek
>language (solely or in addition to Greek), who are of different religious
> faith/ecclesiastical affiliation then the majority of Greek citizens,
>who descent from such folks, or who identify as NON-GREEKS in an ETHNIC
>sense (a sense which you have to define, and document that is shared by the
>people in question), then you are entirely correct.
So, what's the problem. There ARE millions of Greek citizens who are of
non-Greek genetic stock and linguistic background. There ARE many Greek
citizens who descend from or are people with different religious
faith/ecclesiastical affiliation then the majority of Greek citizens. There
ARE, apparently, Greek citizens who identify as NON-GREEKS in an 'ethnic
sense' (notice, who IDENTIFY as such). Which part of the above don't you
follow?
> Sounds Greek to me too ...
????
>Efthymi
Good day!
Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis])
>In article <karageor.21...@ucla.edu>
> kara...@ucla.edu "Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis]" writes:
>...Now, THAT'S a substantive reply? Do you dispute that the well-funded Romanian
>...nationalist effort in the late 19th and early 20th century to attract the
>...Vlakhs of Macedonia (the entire region) to the Rumanian national cause and
>...nationality FAILED MISERABLY?
>I know absolutely nothing about this, but it sounds like highly interesting
>historical trivia, leaving your interpretation to one side; why don't you
>document these outrageous claims for everyones benefit ?
Stay tuned. I will have to do some translating and some searching in my
library. But I WILL deliver.
>...Reading comprehension requires the ability to read CAREFULLY!
>Au contraire, it means reading between the lines.
Ok, I got it. Thanks for the clarification.
>... Is this
>...>where the expression "it's all Greek to me" comes from? I suppose its lucky
>...>I have sense of humour.
>...
>...Maybe you ARE lucky you have a sense of humor, since this way you can LAUGH
>AT
>...YOURSELF instead of getting depressed at your sorry cognitive state.
>No no no ... I said "sense of humous" .. (deep breath ... and engage your brain
>cell) .. get it now?
What's 'humous' have to do with Greeks? We don't eat nor prepare humous in
Greece.
>.snip.
>The bottom line here, is that the Vlachs are very special people in all
>of the balkan peninsula, because they live in many states, but don't actually
>have their own state.
Agreed.
> Some declare themselves to be Greeks, others Romanians,
>or maybe something else, and others still declare themselves to be nothing
>but Vlachs.
Ok, fair enough. I would, based on the above, say that some ARE Greeks, others
Romanians etc etc. This is not a matter of genes. It is a matter of national
conscience, and national validated self- and other-ascription.
>As a Romanian, I'm not so arrogant as to declare that we must "overwhelmingly"
>consider Vlachs to be Romanians, although I could easily do so at the drop of
>a hat; so why should a Greek do so, or anyone else for that matter?
What's arrogant about stating that the overwhelming majority of Vlakhs who
live or have lived in Greece themselves considered themselves, and were so
considered by others, as NATIONALLY (again, not as a matter of genes, or by
mother/vernacular language) Greek, that is modern Greek? I have not claimed
anything about Vlakhs residing or hailing from other parts of the Balkans. In
fact, if a person of Vlakh genetic and linguistic heritage claims that he is
not nationally Greek, that's plenty good enough for me. I don't foist
ethno-national identities on others. In fact, if a person of Chinese 'stock'
and linguistic background self-ascribed as a Vlakh, and other Vlakhs
'accepted' him/her as a Vlakh, then I would consider him/her as nationally a
Vlakh.
>I find it hard to believe that Efthymis posting is insincere, misguided, funded
>by the Turkish secret police, the KGB, the Scientologists, the Vatican, Iran,
>or Albanian freemasons.
None of which either I or anybody else ever claimed.
> It's not about FYROM (although in the balkan peninsula,
>this and Greek Macedonia, are a nexus of intense historical turbulence,
>bloodshed and potential instability, and sometimes it's difficult to see what's
>going to happen next), it's not about Albania, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria,
>Greece, Turkey, or North Korea; it's about the Vlachs, and THEIR culture.
What about it? I only comment on the culture of the Vlakhs of Greece. Their
culture has contributed constitutively to the culture of the modern Greek
nation. Unless a Vlakh practically demonstrated that he/she was ethnically or
nationally NOT Greek, most Greeks (by national conscience) automatically
considered them as Vlakh Greeks (Ellino-vlakhi), This was the result of the
close 'common struggles and common fate' between Patriarchist Greek
Orthodox people of Vlakh genetic and linguistic background and those of Greek,
Arvaniti (Patriarchist Greek Orthodox), and (Patriarchist Greek
Orthodox) Macedonian Slav background, who shared the same Greek national
conscience, despite their varied 'genetic stock' and linguistic/dialectal
backgrounds. Is that bad? Is it 'ethnic cleansing'? Do the French-speaking
ancestry French folks who consider Alsace-Lorrainians (of NON-French-speaking
ancestry) as fellow French commit some heinous crime?
>Vlachs are not the same as Wallachs either.
Fair enough! I never refered to them inter-changeably.
>--
>G. Dumitrescu
TTFN,
G. Dumitrescu
...Now, THAT'S a substantive reply? Do you dispute that the well-funded Romanian
...nationalist effort in the late 19th and early 20th century to attract the
...Vlakhs of Macedonia (the entire region) to the Rumanian national cause and
...nationality FAILED MISERABLY?
I know absolutely nothing about this, but it sounds like highly interesting
historical trivia, leaving your interpretation to one side; why don't you
document these outrageous claims for everyones benefit ?
...Reading comprehension requires the ability to read CAREFULLY!
Au contraire, it means reading between the lines.
... Is this
...>where the expression "it's all Greek to me" comes from? I suppose its lucky
...>I have sense of humour.
...
...Maybe you ARE lucky you have a sense of humor, since this way you can LAUGH
AT
...YOURSELF instead of getting depressed at your sorry cognitive state.
No no no ... I said "sense of humous" .. (deep breath ... and engage your brain
cell) .. get it now?
.snip.
The bottom line here, is that the Vlachs are very special people in all
of the balkan peninsula, because they live in many states, but don't actually
have their own state. Some declare themselves to be Greeks, others Romanians,
or maybe something else, and others still declare themselves to be nothing
but Vlachs.
As a Romanian, I'm not so arrogant as to declare that we must "overwhelmingly"
consider Vlachs to be Romanians, although I could easily do so at the drop of
a hat; so why should a Greek do so, or anyone else for that matter?
I find it hard to believe that Efthymis posting is insincere, misguided, funded
by the Turkish secret police, the KGB, the Scientologists, the Vatican, Iran,
or Albanian freemasons. It's not about FYROM (although in the balkan peninsula,
this and Greek Macedonia, are a nexus of intense historical turbulence,
bloodshed and potential instability, and sometimes it's difficult to see what's
going to happen next), it's not about Albania, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria,
Greece, Turkey, or North Korea; it's about the Vlachs, and THEIR culture.
Vlachs are not the same as Wallachs either.
--
G. Dumitrescu
Kostas
> We could probably continue with this arguement for another 100 years,
> me with my experts and you with yours, as most historians have
>already
> done.
Yes, except "your" experts are Rumanian-nationalists and "mine" are
independent historians.
There are certain inconsistencies that make the Daco-Romanian theory
impossible.
- There are no traces of Rumanian speaking people in Wallachia before the
1300, while Arminis are known to have been in Pindos AT LEAST since the 500 AD
- Like the unfortunate Dacian people, the Rumanophones would have perished,
since the invadors were nomadic
> However you must at some point stop and try to reason out each
> theory. You must think like a vlach of a time far gone and try
> to mentally experience each theory.
Even a theory that has no backup? I would find it more reasonable if you
pleaded agnostic, but choosing a shaky (at best) theory to base your past
national identity?!!!! Do you feel it is necessary in order to preserve the
language, traditions, etc? I personally favor more subtle solutions than
pumping myself up with propaganda pills. But that's me.
> For me and many others the Daco-Romanian theory makes the most sense.
>
> Nevertheless the Vlachs have a unique ethnic origin which
> is not Greek.
Well, you still have not responded to the question of Megleno-Rumans
Istro-Rumans being separate groups from Armini/Arumuns.
Was it an oversight, or did you choose to ignore it?
Have you thought of the possibility that after the fall of the Roman Empire,
many Latinized groups of different nationalities existed and the ones in
remote areas presrved popular Latin in a pure form?
It is well established that the Roman Empire infused many native
Languages with Latin - Spanish, French (Galatic), Portuguese,
Anglo-Germanic... Do you think the Balkans were any different?
> I think the pendullum has swung too far for any sort of Vlachic
> separatist movement don't you think.
You got that right.
>> > Are you on a crusade for some "truth to come out", truth as you see it,
> that is?
>
> My original comment was to tell our friend from UCLA that not every
> Naousaios would seek bodily harm on an individual who told a Vlach
> that he or she were not Greek but a Vlach.
So let me amend that:
Every* Naousaios would seek bodily harm on an individual who told a Vlach that
he or she were not Greek but a Vlach.
*The ones that buy in to half-baked nationalistic theories are EXCLUDED.
I am sorry if I sound patronizing, but I gave your argument a fair shake and
all I got in return was "You must think like a vlach of a time far gone and
try to mentally experience each theory."
IOW Bullsh*t
Good luck Efthymi.
Unknown
As usual the real story is not quite as simple as both sides
suggest. How many AmerIndians would take kindly to being told they
should be more loyal to Mongolia than the USA, or Black Americans more
to African nations? (In fact, most Greek Americans take offense at
being told they should be loyal to Greece. Not that they aren't
concerned or that something inside them doesn't hurt when bad things
happen there.) While I have seen people in Greece insist their
"minority" ethnicity isn't non-Greek, I've seen many from the same
families change their story when they come to the USA. But, what
happens? They attend both Albanian/Romanian churches AND Greek
churches. Why? because in the USA there is advantage to having a wider
circle of contacts. But I'd say most of them ultimately feel more
comfortable in the Greek churches. So much for their being
"oppressed"! But they like the option of making contact with their
"other" culture as well - so long as you don't take this away from
them, they prefer to be Greek. There is a tendency here in the USA to
fragment, to break off into ever-smaller groups, especially after the
social unrest of the 1960s, but this may encourage some real whacko
fringe behavior, like one guy who insisted on being called a
"Martian". The only case where this doesn't apply is when there is a
Muslim/Christian difference, but when both sides are Orthodox, there
is greater harmony.
}>kara...@ucla.edu wrote:
}> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them
}>that
}> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go
}>tell the
}> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again,
}> modern Greek culture is in part Vlakh, as it is in part Arvanite,
}>Sarakatsani,
--
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
Bach-Mozart ReaganQuayleGramm Evrytano-Kastorian Cit:MarquisWhWFinanc&Indus
vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CompuServe.Com|Dorsai.Org}, http://WWW.Dorsai.Org/~vjp2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
CLARY Olivier
>> [...] How many native Romanian speakers (irrespective of
>> dialect) live in the FYRO-Macedonia ? How many live in Greece?
>
> This is a rather hard task whcich because of assimilation and nationalistic
> reasons will always result a lower number than actual.
According to Ethnologue Database at
http://www-ala.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rap/Ethnologue/wgt.cgi/Indo-European/Romance/Eastern/
Istro-Romanian (mainly in Istria, Slovenia/Croatia): 147,055 (1971 census)
Macedo-Romanian or Arumanian/Armina (mainly in Greece, NW Salonika and around
Trikala): 50,000 in Greece (1973 Byrd)
Megleno-Romanian or Meglenitic (N of Salonika): "needs survey"
--
-- Olivier Clary mailto:cl...@meteo.fr http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1326/
Me'te'o-France/CNRM/Groupe Mode'lisation pour Assimiln. et Pre'vision, Toulouse
Aussi loin qu'est l'orient de l'occident, Il met loin de moi mes fautes --Ps103
Se nem kicsi, se nem nagy, / E'ppen hozza'm valo' vagy! (Lakodalmas -Te'ka e.)
Cours 6412
Kostas (kr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: There are certain inconsistencies that make the Daco-Romanian theory
: impossible.
: - There are no traces of Rumanian speaking people in Wallachia before the
: 1300, while Arminis are known to have been in Pindos AT LEAST since the 500 AD
Vlachs are mentioned to have fought together with the slavs the magyars
when they crossed the Carpathians around year 890.
The mention belongs to the Russian chronicler Nestor in his "History of
the early times" (my translation of the title could be not accurate)
Now, could you please tell what chronicle mentionned the vlachs around
year 500 ?
Generally "vlachs" denotes latin speaking population. That is the generic
name given to them by the slavs.
: - Like the unfortunate Dacian people, the Rumanophones would have perished,
: since the invadors were nomadic
: Even a theory that has no backup? I would find it more reasonable if you
: pleaded agnostic, but choosing a shaky (at best) theory to base your past
: national identity?!!!!
What was the nature of the population that got romanized be it dacian
moesic, panonian or illyrian is irrelevant to your debate I think.
Remember that vlach is a general denomination. As you say latin-american
could be mexican, argentinian or peruvian. What where their genetic
ancestors is a different story. May be aztecs, mexicas, incas...
: Well, you still have not responded to the question of Megleno-Rumans
: Istro-Rumans being separate groups from Armini/Arumuns.
The Megleno-Romanians the Istro-Romanians the Aromanians and the Romanians
are related. They are all descendants of the romanized populations
that appeared after the roman legions conquered the whole area.
Regards,
Cristian Alb
aarc...@mail.idt.net
Cours 6412 wrote:
>
>
> Generally "vlachs" denotes latin speaking population. That is the generic
> name given to them by the slavs.
>
> Cristian Alb
------------------
Latin or Frankish
A. Albu
Galja
It should also be noted that the kind of Romani spoken in that area also
has Vlach loan words in quantity so that there is some confusion over
who is who in a census.
Galja
Christos NUESSLI wrote:
>
> I don't know if someone responded to my etymological remark on
> soc.history.medieval of Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:14:50 +0100 but I have to
> affirm that I didn't wanted to harm someone or some group of persons.
>
> Nevertheless the question of latin/romance language north of the Danube
> is an important question. In fact why do Rumania speak a romance
> language and England a germanic one ? The roman administration
> maintained herself much longer in British Isles as is Dacia and both
> countries were occupied by populations speaking a non-latin language.
>
> I've discovered a new information : between AD 500 and 530 was
> established a small Getic (or Dace) kingdom in the nowadays
> Belgrade(Singidunum) region.
Could you provide us all with a reference for this Getic
kingdom/kraldom, whatever?
Georgios Savopulos
Efthymi (e.kia...@lucent.com) wrote:
: G. Dumitrescu wrote:
: > FYI, "Vlach" people in Romania often if not generally always call themselves
: > "Machedoni", and of course speak the Romanian language. I realise this may sound
: > somewhat controversial to a Greek, I don't know, and hardly give a rats ass
: > either way.
: It's funny you should mention this. A friend of mine who is both
: hungarian and Romanian (Transylvanain) and in fact despises the
: Romanians (that's another issue in itself) has told me this
: repeatedly when I've told him that my family is Vlach.
: "You are not a vlach you are a mechedonian", he would exclaim.
Another interesting detail here is that a good fraction of the
population of the Byzantine theme of Macedonia (at that time the
term applied to the geographic region of European Turkey and Greek
Thrace) was transfered by the Bulgarians north of the Danube. As an
estimate of the population transfered, the city of Andrianople had
about 40,000 people at the time. A (probably small) fraction of the
displaced people escaped back to Byzantine territories with the aid
of the Byzantine fleet several decades later. Given the above, I
wouldn't be surprised if the Vlachs have something to do with them.
: Efthymi
--
Georgios Savopulos
____________________________________________________________________
In this contest the blunter wits were most successful. Acquainted
with their own deficiencies and the cleverness of their antagonists,
they feared to be worsted in debate and surprised by their opponents;
and so they boldly had recourse to action while their adversaries,
arrogantly thinking that it was unnecessary to secure by action what
policy afforded, often fell victims to their want of precaution.
Thucydides: Prelude to the Peloponnesian war.
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Cours 6412 <lumi...@poincare.mathappl.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
>Kostas (kr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: There are certain inconsistencies that make the Daco-Romanian theory
>: impossible.
>: - There are no traces of Rumanian speaking people in Wallachia before the
>: 1300, while Arminis are known to have been in Pindos AT LEAST since
>: the 500 AD
>
>Vlachs are mentioned to have fought together with the slavs the magyars
>when they crossed the Carpathians around year 890.
>The mention belongs to the Russian chronicler Nestor in his "History of
>the early times" (my translation of the title could be not accurate)
>Now, could you please tell what chronicle mentionned the vlachs around
>year 500 ?
>
>name given to them by the slavs.
Well, major Byzantine historians of the 6th century mention the
Vlachs. Namely, _Prokopios_ (one the most famous chroniclogra-
phers; he wrote the history of Justinian and Theodora), _Theo-
phanis_, and _Simokatis_. Simokatis writes at one point:
"In Rhodope mountains, in 580 AD, a mule leader of a byzantine
(roman) military unit, speaking to his colleagues and soldiers,
he warned them in the vlach language telling them: "Torna,
torna, Frater"".
Till the 6th century all the population of the Roman empire inha-
biting the region between today Romania and today Greece, spoke
exclusively latin, in different dialects. After the Slav invasions
of the Balkans, which started at 517 AD, there was gradual disappe-
arance of the latin population from the agricultural lands, who
were either exterminated, or escaped in the mountainous regions
of Rodope, Adriatic and N. Macedonia. This is the general con-
sensus of the modern historians of the period.
Gregory
Cours 6412
Georgios Savopulos (gsav...@ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: : Romanians (that's another issue in itself) has told me this
: : "You are not a vlach you are a mechedonian", he would exclaim.
: Another interesting detail here is that a good fraction of the
: population of the Byzantine theme of Macedonia (at that time the
: term applied to the geographic region of European Turkey and Greek
: Thrace) was transfered by the Bulgarians north of the Danube. As an
: estimate of the population transfered, the city of Andrianople had
: about 40,000 people at the time. A (probably small) fraction of the
: displaced people escaped back to Byzantine territories with the aid
: of the Byzantine fleet several decades later. Given the above, I
: wouldn't be surprised if the Vlachs have something to do with them.
Can you provide some details ?
When did this event took place ? In what context of events ?
What are the ancient sources for this event ?
Can you mention a title and author that talks about this ?
: Georgios Savopulos
Thanks,
Cristian Alb
Cours 6412
aarc...@mail.idt.net wrote:
: Cours 6412 wrote:
: >
: >
: > Generally "vlachs" denotes latin speaking population. That is the generic
: > name given to them by the slavs.
: >
: > Cristian Alb
: ------------------
: Latin or Frankish
Franks where a germanic nation. So if you refer to frankish as
the language of the Franks it was't a latin language.
Of course if you mean french that is a different story.
Cristian Alb
Georgios Savopulos
Cours 6412 (lumi...@poincare.mathappl.polymtl.ca) wrote:
: Georgios Savopulos (gsav...@ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: : Another interesting detail here is that a good fraction of the
: : population of the Byzantine theme of Macedonia (at that time the
: : term applied to the geographic region of European Turkey and Greek
: : Thrace) was transfered by the Bulgarians north of the Danube. As an
: : estimate of the population transfered, the city of Andrianople had
: : about 40,000 people at the time. A (probably small) fraction of the
: : displaced people escaped back to Byzantine territories with the aid
: : of the Byzantine fleet several decades later. Given the above, I
: : wouldn't be surprised if the Vlachs have something to do with them.
: Can you provide some details ?
: When did this event took place ? In what context of events ?
: What are the ancient sources for this event ?
: Can you mention a title and author that talks about this ?
Sure, no problem. My reference was Warren Treadgold's "The Byzantine
Revival 780-842", Stanford University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-8047-1896-2
You can look into his bibliography for contemporary references on these
events. This transfer took place in 813 AD, briefly after the ill-fated
expedition of Nikiforos I against the Bulgars of Krum. It can be found
in page 203 of the book. As for the escape of some of the displaced, it
is mentioned in pages 290-291. It took place in 836 AD.
: Thanks,
: Cristian Alb
--
Georgios Savopulos
_______________________________________________________________________
Reckless audacity came to be considered the |
courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, | Thucydides
specious cowardice; moderation was held to be | ____________
a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all | Prelude to the
sides of a question inaptness to act on any. | Peloponnesian war.
_______________________________________________________________________
Cours 6412
Gregory Dandulakis (gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article Cours 6412 <lumi...@poincare.mathappl.polymtl.ca> wrote:
: >
: >Kostas (kr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >: There are certain inconsistencies that make the Daco-Romanian theory
: >: impossible.
: >: - There are no traces of Rumanian speaking people in Wallachia before the
: >: 1300, while Arminis are known to have been in Pindos AT LEAST since
: >: the 500 AD
: >
: >Vlachs are mentioned to have fought together with the slavs the magyars
: >when they crossed the Carpathians around year 890.
: >The mention belongs to the Russian chronicler Nestor in his "History of
: >the early times" (my translation of the title could be not accurate)
: >Now, could you please tell what chronicle mentionned the vlachs around
: >year 500 ?
: >Generally "vlachs" denotes latin speaking population. That is the generic
: >name given to them by the slavs.
: Well, major Byzantine historians of the 6th century mention the
: Vlachs. Namely, _Prokopios_ (one the most famous chroniclogra-
: phers; he wrote the history of Justinian and Theodora),
I don't think Prokopios mentioned the vlachs in his writings.
Please provide reference.
: _Theo- phanis_, and _Simokatis_. Simokatis writes at one point:
: "In Rhodope mountains, in 580 AD, a mule leader of a byzantine
: (roman) military unit, speaking to his colleagues and soldiers,
: he warned them in the vlach language telling them: "Torna,
: torna, Frater"".
I did some research and the episode you are referring to
has been related by Theophilact Simocatta (Historiae) and
Theophanus Confessor (Chronographia).
They don't mention as you imply that it was "vlach" language
but they said instead the "local language" and "mother tongue"
(Istoria Romanilor - C. Giurescu and Dinu Giurescu).
So far your claim that the latinophone populations of the Balkan
peninsula were identified as "vlachs" since the VI century is
not substantiated.
According to the same book the first sure mention of the vlachs
south of the Danube dates back to 976 and it belongs to the
chronicler Kedren.
: Till the 6th century all the population of the Roman empire inha-
: biting the region between today Romania and today Greece, spoke
: exclusively latin, in different dialects. After the Slav invasions
: of the Balkans, which started at 517 AD, there was gradual disappe-
: arance of the latin population from the agricultural lands, who
: were either exterminated, or escaped in the mountainous regions
: of Rodope, Adriatic and N. Macedonia.
I doubt "extermination" is something that takes place "gradually".
Assimilation would be a more appropiate term.
: Gregory
Cristian Alb
Cours 6412
Christos NUESSLI (nus...@bluewin.ch) wrote:
: I don't know if someone responded to my etymological remark on
: soc.history.medieval of Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:14:50 +0100 but I have to
: affirm that I didn't wanted to harm someone or some group of persons.
: Nevertheless the question of latin/romance language north of the Danube
: is an important question. In fact why do Rumania speak a romance
: language and England a germanic one ? The roman administration
: maintained herself much longer in British Isles as is Dacia and both
: countries were occupied by populations speaking a non-latin language.
I think that the duration of a culture in some area is not the
only factor for the survival of that culture.
Let's think about the amerindian cultures. They dated back thousand of
years before the arrival of the Europeans yet they almost disappeared.
Now lets suppose that the romance population in Dacia remained there
after the retreat of the Roman legions.
The difference between Dacia and Brittania or Asia Minor (the present
day Turkey was heavily romanised in the beginning) is that in Dacia
there hasn't been an invader that managed to colonise the region
by settling there. There were the Goths in the beginning which were
displaced by Huns which were displaced by Gepids and Avars.
The Slavs came in the region in great numbers (and their influence
was felt in the language) but an important number of them proceeded
south invading the Balkans. Then the Bulgars, the Magyars, the
Pecenegs and Cumans came. I think none of this populations did
managed to settle or be numerically significant in order to "colonise"
their subjects (the local people).
In Britain and Turkey the invaders came in great numbers and stayed
there.
Regards,
Cristian Alb
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Cours 6412 <lumi...@poincare.mathappl.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
>Christos NUESSLI (nus...@bluewin.ch) wrote:
...
>: Nevertheless the question of latin/romance language north of the Danube
>: is an important question. In fact why do Rumania speak a romance
>: language and England a germanic one ?
...
>I think that the duration of a culture in some area is not the
>only factor for the survival of that culture.
>Let's think about the amerindian cultures. They dated back thousand of
>years before the arrival of the Europeans yet they almost disappeared.
...
>The difference between Dacia and Brittania or Asia Minor (the present
>day Turkey was heavily romanised in the beginning) is that in Dacia
>there hasn't been an invader that managed to colonise the region
>by settling there.
...
>In Britain and Turkey the invaders came in great numbers and stayed
>there.
There is some truth to what you say, but not entirely. In fact,
there is no single conceptual hammer which will do the job.
You do need numbers of invaders, as you say, but I do not think
that you need them in great numbers, in the vast majority of the
cases. You just need them in _sufficient_ (1) numbers (2) duration,
(3) administrative strength, and (4) intellectual vigor, in order
to make a "difference". You don't need all those factors always,
just a "right" combination.
Spanish in South American is not a result of whites dominating
in _numbers_ the region. Neither English in North America is
the result of original English-speakers being great in _numbers_
either. Nor the English language is little influenced by the
Latin (as the Osmanli was not little influenced by Persian and
Arabic). The proto-Bulgarians had the adminstrative advantage,
yet the Byzantino-Slavic culture defined the Bulgarians. The
Byzantines were Romans, yet they flipped to Christian-Greek
culture. Etc, etc.
My strong belief is that the example of modern North America
and Australia is extremely exceptional historically. The clash
there was between vastly different in stage of development people.
To the opposite, both England and Turkey reflect very strongly the
usual pattern in history, that is, what happened with the South
Americans after the European invasions: Micro-local extermina-
tions, but overall global assimilation. Each case should be
investigated in detail to see which one of the alternative pat-
terns was followed, before rather simplistic generic rules of
explanation are applied.
Gregory
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Cours 6412 <lumi...@poincare.mathappl.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
>Gregory Dandulakis (gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
...
>I don't think Prokopios mentioned the vlachs in his writings.
>Please provide reference.
I cann't provide now exact original reference. I have a book
in Greek (published 1988) from where I used the excerpts, and
the book has some exact citations as footnotes, but the vast
majority are put as general bibliography in the end (in order
to avoid overburdening the main text). He clearly says all
three primary sources' authors, including Prokopios. So it
must be correct, as it was with Simokatis and Theophanis.
If you need exact reference of the book in Greek I can provide
it, but I think this will not help you with finding the original
Prokopios excerpt.
>I did some research and the episode you are referring to
>has been related by Theophilact Simocatta (Historiae) and
>Theophanus Confessor (Chronographia).
>They don't mention as you imply that it was "vlach" language
>but they said instead the "local language" and "mother tongue"
>(Istoria Romanilor - C. Giurescu and Dinu Giurescu).
>So far your claim that the latinophone populations of the Balkan
>peninsula were identified as "vlachs" since the VI century is
>not substantiated.
Indeed, the use of the term "Vlach" and "Balkanian Latinophone"
by me followed the usual pattern in historiography, similar to
having the terms Eastern Romans, Byzantines, and Medieval Greeks
interchangably. I did not mean to do a _word_ tracing, but a
_concept_ tracing. So, Prokopios' excerpt should be taken in
the same content; that is, Latinophone Balkanians of his time.
>: Till the 6th century all the population of the Roman empire inha-
>: biting the region between today Romania and today Greece, spoke
>: exclusively latin, in different dialects. After the Slav invasions
>: of the Balkans, which started at 517 AD, there was gradual disappe-
>: arance of the latin population from the agricultural lands, who
>: were either exterminated, or escaped in the mountainous regions
>: of Rodope, Adriatic and N. Macedonia.
>
>I doubt "extermination" is something that takes place "gradually".
>Assimilation would be a more appropiate term.
Why do you doubt? Weren't the North American Indians gradually
exterminated, over 400 years span? We are talking here, in the
case of Latinophones from the _agricultural_ lands of the Balkans,
with the coming of the Slavs, for a _much_ shorter period of
time. But most importantly the invading Slavic tribes were
incapable initially of applying a state-wide-type assimilation
practices. They were small exclusive clans. In the initial
raids they were only robbing, killing, burning, retreating
(like previously the Goths, etc). Later on they started
settling down, selectively, and in many cases under the
invitation of the Byzantines, to inhabite areas which other
Slavic tribes had depopulated with their raids. Then the Slavs
were gradually assimilated into the Byzantine state (with some
ups and downs, like all the constituents of the Byzantines, including
Southern Greece and Minor Asia). Any assimilation of surviving
Latinophones in the mountains, by Slavs from the agricultural
lands, came later, after the political development of the south
Slavs. This is very strongly also corroborated by the fact
that today's Vlachs are having heavily borrowed agricultural
terminology from the Slavic. Latin of course is not missing
terminology in agriculture. But Latinophones who were pushed
for a long time in the mountains easily lose the useless any-
more terms. Plus, Latins of the original Roman empire, with
full knowledge of their cultural heritage would never have had
been assimilated by a byssmally primitive culture, when compared
to theirs at the time. Neither would the Byzantine state have
promoted the assimilation of its Latinophone population into
the Slavophone population; at least not initially, before the
Slavs were put under Byzantine firmer cultural and politica
control. Therefore, assimilation of original Latinophones
from the agricultural lands by invading Slavs is neither recorded,
nor implied by any evidence, nor plaussible. Only the survived
the first slavic onslaughts mountaineer Latins, who had regres-
sed to primitive way of life, later on were partially assimilated
by the Slavs, who in the mean developed culturally and politically,
under Byzantine inducement. BTW, the Balkans is full of mountains,
if you check a map. So the original extermination of Latinophones
by invading Slavs does not imply overwhelming "genetic" superiority
of the Slavic element. It "merely" means that the economic power
(from agriculture) was passed to the Slavs, thus their later political
domination over the Latinophones.
Gregory
Kostas
In article <32F28654...@lucent.com>, Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com>
wrote:
> Nonsense, your experts are Greek or Hungarian nationalists.
>
> Why don't you try reading Mr. Winifreth's book or
> "The Nomads of the Balkans" by Mr. Weis, two independent
> English Scolars.
>
> Or even books by other English Scolars of the 19th and 20th
> centuries such as Charles Upson Clark, R.W.Seton-Watson.
In order to go in to the topic of whether Vlachs moved from the north to the
south of the other way around, we have to get past one serious issue:
Are all the Rumanian speaking groups in the Balkans the same people? If that
is the case how do you account for the time gap. Aruminis in Pindos have been
there since the 500's AD while the alledged movement of Vlachs from Wallachia
would have been 8 centuries later!!
The sources you provided make the assumption that Vlachs are one group, but
you have consistently avoided this topic by erasing all my questions with
regards to that topic.
>> - There are no traces of Rumanian speaking people in Wallachia before the
>> 1300, while Arminis are known to have been in Pindos AT LEAST since the 500
> AD
>> - Like the unfortunate Dacian people, the Rumanophones would have perished,
>> since the invadors were nomadic
>
> No and that's because the Dacio-Romanians fled south to the
> Balkan Peninsula defending themselves by taking to the mountains due
>to
> as you yourself state various Germanic and Asian tribes invading the
> territory, and maintaining there livelihood as herdsmen. This
> is well documented.
It's well documented that invasions took place, nothing more!
> Again if you believe the nationalistic ideology put forth by
> the Greeks then you will believe the latter part of your statement.
What about the FIRST part of my statement???
> Quite the contrary I think you feel that you must create a
> Greece contrary to historical data, that is pure and non-existant
> of non-ethnic-Greek minorities that exist to this day, as
> precautionary measures to diminish future inner uprisings
> or territorial claims by other Balkan nations.
First, Greece is alive and well. Whether you attribute the lack of ethnic
divisions to assimilation or whatever Greece is one of the least ethnically
divided countries in the region, Europe and the globe. Therefore, the fear if
"inner uprisings" is comical. Besides the Gypsies, and the Turkophones in
Thrace, I don't think there are other groups that identify with a non-Greek
nationality.
BTW, if this was assimilation, you must admit Greeks are geniouses. I mean if
the Skopjans are right, the Greeks managed to helenise millions of people in a
mere 75 years, and none of the subjects remembers it!
> I am sorry my friend but the modern ordinary Greek is no Socrates,
> nor would many of them know the works of Socrates.
I hope not! I'm an Aristotle fan myself. BTW, the ancient Athenians were not
fond of Socrates as well.
You are mistaken though. The vast majority of young Greeks know a great deal
about the works of Socrates since we have to study them in both Classical and
modern Greek.
> Nonsense I gave you many references which you chose to disreguard
> because of your nationalistic tendencies - and unlike yourself
> I have not the time to endlessly type in quotations from these
> references.
I think I covered the references topic in the first paragraph. Let's first
define "Vlachs" first, then we can discuss the South-North migration topic.
That is the reason for me disregarding them at the moment.
As for your reference to my free time.... spare me. It would have been enough
to say you don't have time, don't you think?
> If anyones ideas here are nationalistic they are yours and the Greeks.
>
> I have never claimed any national alliance unlike your ties with
> the Greek nation.
If you subscribe to the Daco-Rumanian theory, then by definition you allign
yourself with the Rumanian nationalists.
> The best hunters are the ones who can think like the animal they
> are hunting.
Never bite more than you can chew.
> Buna Dzua Kwsta
Regards,
Kostas R.
G. Dumitrescu
...>Vlachs are not the same as Wallachs either.
Although the similarity in the name does denote the extreme closeness. In the
final analysis, the Machedoni or Vlachs are Romanians in the largest sense of
the word - that is - ethnically speaking - despite the fact that they have
contributed excellently to more than one country and culture other than that
of Romania - namely to Greece - or carry different passports depending on where
they live.
The fact that some may have even left their original language behind in the
differing circumstances of history is no argument against this either, because
as someone else on this thread argued, language isn't always a relevant
argument.
--
G. Dumitrescu
Christos NUESSLI
I've discovered it recently in Gibbon's second vol. and the fact is
confirmed by "Grosser Historischer Weltatlas, Bayerischer Schulbuch
Verlag, München 1978" p. 54, but you are right, I have to make
furthermore researchs.
To be sincere, I hoped that someone would give me more information :-)
Christos Nüssli - Switzerland
Peter Wilkinson
In<32F478...@bluewin.ch>,
Christos NUESSLI <nus...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>I don't know if someone responded to my etymological remark on
>soc.history.medieval of Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:14:50 +0100 but I have to
>affirm that I didn't wanted to harm someone or some group of persons.
>
>Nevertheless the question of latin/romance language north of the Danube
>is an important question. In fact why do Rumania speak a romance
>language and England a germanic one ? The roman administration
>maintained herself much longer in British Isles as is Dacia and both
>countries were occupied by populations speaking a non-latin language.
>
>I've discovered a new information : between AD 500 and 530 was
>established a small Getic (or Dace) kingdom in the nowadays
>Belgrade(Singidunum) region.
Double check that the reference wasn't to:
i) a Gothic kingdom - quite possible, both on literary grounds
(scribal error) and historical ones (the Ostrogoths had definitely
been in the region for much of the 5th century, before moving on to
Italy under Theoderic - some might have stayed behind); or
ii) the late Roman Diocese of Dacia (or a successor to it), which
despite its name corresponded geographically to post-1991 Yugoslavia
(i.e. Serbia and Montenegro). Incidentally, this was not the only
late Roman province to have a rather optimistic name - compare
Germania (two provinces, both confined to the west bank of the Rhine)
or Arabia (part of modern Jordan).
Leaving that aside, though, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the
ancestors of today's Romanians were in that particular area at the
time: while the Roman occupation of Dacia proper lasted less than 200
years, that of the southern bank of the Danube lasted about 500 - and
with a very large army there for most of that time. The area is known
to have become very heavily Romanised: a whole series of emperors,
from Aurelian (about 270) through Constantine to Justinian, came from
that area, all of them with Latin as their mother tongue - even though
several came from distinctly humble backgrounds. My guess would be
that when the invasions started, some of the Latinised peasantry moved
up into the mountains as shepherds - and then spread over the Danube
into the Carpathians sometime during the next few centuries.
Peter Wilkinson
p...@pwilkinson.compulink.co.uk
Cours 6412
Kostas (kr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>In article <32F28654...@lucent.com>, Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Nonsense, your experts are Greek or Hungarian nationalists.
>>
>> Why don't you try reading Mr. Winifreth's book or
>> "The Nomads of the Balkans" by Mr. Weis, two independent
>> English Scolars.
>>
>> Or even books by other English Scolars of the 19th and 20th
>> centuries such as Charles Upson Clark, R.W.Seton-Watson.
>In order to go in to the topic of whether Vlachs moved from the north to the
>south of the other way around, we have to get past one serious issue:
>Are all the Rumanian speaking groups in the Balkans the same people?
1. I don't think that it can be said that all latinophone populations
of the Balkan speak Romanian. They all speak neo-latin languages
that are closely related.
2. What you mean by "same people" ? They are the same people in the sense
they are a mix of roman colonists and local balkan populations that got
romanised. If you imply that "same people" means that the local element
is unique (be it dacian, moesic, illyrian, panonian or greek) I don't
think it's true.
>If that
>is the case how do you account for the time gap. Aruminis in Pindos have been
>there since the 500's AD
As it was noted in a previous message "vlach" starts to be mentioned by
the 9 century.
Of course if you intend to call the latinophones as "Aruminis" they were there
long before the 500's AD. Their presence dates back to the conquest of the
region by the Romans.
> while the alledged movement of Vlachs from Wallachia
>would have been 8 centuries later!!
6+8 = 14. I don't think anybody considers that vlachs came in the Balkans
in the 14 century.
>> I have never claimed any national alliance unlike your ties with
>> the Greek nation.
>If you subscribe to the Daco-Rumanian theory, then by definition you allign
>yourself with the Rumanian nationalists.
How did you come up with that conclusion ?
What if I state that the Greeks believing there is any connection
between modern and ancient greeks are Greek nationalists ?
>Kostas R.
Cristian Alb
Cours 6412
Gregory Dandulakis (gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>In article Cours 6412 <lumi...@poincare.mathappl.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Gregory Dandulakis (gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>...
>>I did some research and the episode you are referring to
>>has been related by Theophilact Simocatta (Historiae) and
>>Theophanus Confessor (Chronographia).
>>They don't mention as you imply that it was "vlach" language
>>but they said instead the "local language" and "mother tongue"
>>(Istoria Romanilor - C. Giurescu and Dinu Giurescu).
>>So far your claim that the latinophone populations of the Balkan
>>peninsula were identified as "vlachs" since the VI century is
>>not substantiated.
>
>
>Indeed, the use of the term "Vlach" and "Balkanian Latinophone"
>by me followed the usual pattern in historiography, similar to
>having the terms Eastern Romans, Byzantines, and Medieval Greeks
>interchangably. I did not mean to do a _word_ tracing, but a
>_concept_ tracing. So, Prokopios' excerpt should be taken in
>the same content; that is, Latinophone Balkanians of his time.
ok. I was looking for the _word_ tracing.
But if you imply the "concept tracing" why do you stop to the VI
century ? Romans have been there long time before.
I guess latinophones became vlachs only after some meddling with
the slavs and when they get organised in some political or social
entities. And according to my sources this is mentioned in the late
IX century.
>>I doubt "extermination" is something that takes place "gradually".
>>Assimilation would be a more appropiate term.
>
>
>Why do you doubt? Weren't the North American Indians gradually
>exterminated, over 400 years span?
I am not an expert but I doubt that the american colonists systematically
killed all indians they encountered. From what I understood is that
a lot of them perished because of the unknown illnesses that the
europeans brought on the continent.
I don't think neither that the violent confrontations with the amerindians
(leading to genocides of entire trbes) lasted 400 years.
>We are talking here, in the
>case of Latinophones from the _agricultural_ lands of the Balkans,
>with the coming of the Slavs, for a _much_ shorter period of
>time. But most importantly the invading Slavic tribes were
>incapable initially of applying a state-wide-type assimilation
>practices.
I guess it was very rare in those times to have a
state-wide-assimilation political will.
I think in most cases it simply happened.
>They were small exclusive clans. In the initial
>raids they were only robbing, killing, burning, retreating
>(like previously the Goths, etc). Later on they started
>settling down, selectively, and in many cases under the
>invitation of the Byzantines, to inhabite areas which other
>Slavic tribes had depopulated with their raids. Then the Slavs
>were gradually assimilated into the Byzantine state (with some
>ups and downs, like all the constituents of the Byzantines, including
>Southern Greece and Minor Asia). Any assimilation of surviving
>Latinophones in the mountains, by Slavs from the agricultural
>lands, came later, after the political development of the south
>Slavs. This is very strongly also corroborated by the fact
>that today's Vlachs are having heavily borrowed agricultural
>terminology from the Slavic.
So far I don't see why slavs were bothered with "seeking and destroying"
who ever spoke something that sounded latin. They weren't anymore
a threat. Remmember that new people kept coming like the Avars and
Bulgars. So I don't think that from what you are saying can be deduced
that the latinophones from the low lands would have been "gradually
massacred".
>But Latinophones who were pushed
>for a long time in the mountains easily lose the useless any-
>more terms. Plus, Latins of the original Roman empire, with
>full knowledge of their cultural heritage would never have had
>been assimilated by a byssmally primitive culture, when compared
>to theirs at the time.
It could happen because as a defeated nation it was more difficult
to preserve their "high" cultural heritage. It is about peasants
and shepperds not about the latin intelligentsia.
>Therefore, assimilation of original Latinophones
^^^^^^^^^ ?
>from the agricultural lands by invading Slavs is neither recorded,
That is interesting, how should be the assimilation of a nation
be recorded ? By those assimilated ? By the assimilators ?
I don't have in mind any "records" about assimilations.
Remember this is a gradual process not something that happens
suddenly.
What you are looking for ? Wedding documents recording marriages
among peasants of different national backgrounds ?
>So the original extermination of Latinophones
>by invading Slavs does not imply overwhelming "genetic" superiority
>of the Slavic element. It "merely" means that the economic power
>(from agriculture) was passed to the Slavs, thus their later political
>domination over the Latinophones.
I agree. Only that this doesn't sound "extermination"
>
>Gregory
>
Regards,
Cristian Alb
Kostas
In article <5d62ee$t...@service.polymtl.ca>, lumi...@poincare.mathappl.polymtl.ca (Cours 6412) wrote:
>1. I don't think that it can be said that all latinophone populations
> of the Balkan speak Romanian. They all speak neo-latin languages
> that are closely related.
My point exactly!
>
>2. What you mean by "same people" ? They are the same people in the sense
> they are a mix of roman colonists and local balkan populations that got
> romanised. If you imply that "same people" means that the local element
> is unique (be it dacian, moesic, illyrian, panonian or greek) I don't
> think it's true.
If you followed this thread, we were debating whether Vlachs (read all
Rumanian speakers, according to Efthymi) descend from Romanised Dacians,
dubbed the Daco-Romanian existense theory. The theory supports the notion that
all Rumanian speakers migrated to the Balkans to flee Wallachia when the
nomadic tribes of Huns, Goths etc raided the Area.
I (and most reputable historians) agree with your point then that different
ethnic groups were Latinised, therefore opposite to the Daco-Romanian theory
that all Arumanian speakers are of the same national origin.
>>If that
>>is the case how do you account for the time gap. Aruminis in Pindos have been
>>there since the 500's AD
>
>As it was noted in a previous message "vlach" starts to be mentioned by
>the 9 century.
>Of course if you intend to call the latinophones as "Aruminis" they were there
>long before the 500's AD. Their presence dates back to the conquest of the
>region by the Romans.
Not all latinophones of course. The ones in question were the ones in Pindus
today. The older generation does call themselves Armini. There are other
groups of Rumanian speakers i.e. The Megleno-Rumanians and the
Istro-Rumanians. Rumanian nationalists assert that ALL these groups
including Arminis came from Wallachia, a bogus theory IMO.
>> while the alledged movement of Vlachs from Wallachia
>>would have been 8 centuries later!!
>
>6+8 = 14. I don't think anybody considers that vlachs came in the Balkans
>in the 14 century.
It's called the Daco-Rumanian existence theory.
>>> I have never claimed any national alliance unlike your ties with
>>> the Greek nation.
>>If you subscribe to the Daco-Rumanian theory, then by definition you allign
>>yourself with the Rumanian nationalists.
>How did you come up with that conclusion ?
Many historians have documented that the only reason the Daco-Rumanian theory
was developed, was to make territorial claims against Transylvania, controlled
by the Hungarians at the time.
>What if I state that the Greeks believing there is any connection
>between modern and ancient greeks are Greek nationalists ?
You are free to state whatever you want. Without proper reasoning though, it
is simply another opinion.
If you go back to the old messages, (if you can't I can forward them to you) I
believe there will be less misunderstanding, as to where I'm coming from.
Regards,
Kostas R.
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Cours 6412 <lumi...@poincare.mathappl.polymtl.ca> wrote:
...
>>Why do you doubt? Weren't the North American Indians gradually
>>exterminated, over 400 years span?
>
>I am not an expert but I doubt that the american colonists systematically
>killed all indians they encountered. From what I understood is that
>a lot of them perished because of the unknown illnesses that the
>europeans brought on the continent.
Nobody said that the European stock systematically spent their bullets
killing the natives. They systematically took control of the land and
expulsed them. Reduced resources, for people being primarily hunter
gatherers thus relying for survival on sparsely populated large terri-
tories, meant extermination by starvation. The story about diseases
does not hold water. Even if many of the natives were not immune, ne-
vertheless if there was no other political reason which forced them to
extermination through starvation, they would have had developed fast
immunity as a whole. South American natives is an example (who were
not expulsed because having being agriculturalists, as opposed to
hunter-gatherers, for millenia, they had no "serious" objection in
exchanging the previous native landowner with a new European one,
and still remain slaves/serfs).
>I don't think neither that the violent confrontations with the amerindians
>(leading to genocides of entire trbes) lasted 400 years.
In the US territories the last violent expulsions took place late 19th
century.
>>They were small exclusive clans.
...
>So far I don't see why slavs were bothered with "seeking and destroying"
>who ever spoke something that sounded latin. They weren't anymore
>a threat.
The first sentence clearly explains the process. Nobody said that
the Slavs were seeking to kill the Latins just for the fun of it.
They were after the Latins agricultural lands. When they took
possesion of these lands, the Latins were left quiet up in the
mountains. Clan-tribe initial political structure did not permit
any space for assimilation of aliens.
Gregory
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> wrote:
...
> The Vlachs were never Greeks. They have assimilated into the
> cultures of the nations that they migrated into. If you need to
> believe this as to have a secure sense of belonging that's ok,
> but don't try to force upon others.
And what were the Vlachs before they become Vlachs?
Please, don't tell us that all came from Rome, and all of them
came ultimately from Troy, according to the Roman myth of their
genesis (which myth actually the ancient Greeks created and
offered to the Romans, so they would feel good and proud of
being something), OK!:-)
And if "Vlach" means Latin-speaking, does that mean that we have
also Muslim Vlachs? Were are they? Because I know that there
were very many Muslim Vlachophones in Macedonia. Would you
like to create a state were Latin is the primary identity,
and both Christian and Muslim Latins live happily ever after?
And if that is possible today, was that possible under the
Ottomans too (where the muslims were first _rate_ (not class)
citizens)?
Get a brain, and some knowledge too. Hooliganism is good for
youngsters, but you've got to grow up.
Gregory
Efthymi
Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
>
> In article Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> wrote:
> ...
> > The Vlachs were never Greeks. They have assimilated into the
> > cultures of the nations that they migrated into. If you need to
> > believe this as to have a secure sense of belonging that's ok,
>
>
> Get a brain, and some knowledge too. Hooliganism is good for
> youngsters, but you've got to grow up.
>
> Gregory
Sir, please conduct youself in a mature and serious manner.
If you cannot discuss an issue without resorting to name
calling then I truly believe it is you that has some growing
up to do.
Efthymi
spider
Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
> Spanish in South American is not a result of whites dominating
> in _numbers_ the region. Neither English in North America is
> the result of original English-speakers being great in _numbers_
> either.
no, good rifles were just enough ...
spider
Kostas wrote:
> - There are no traces of Rumanian speaking people in Wallachia before the
> 1300
who put a stop on this guy's reality check ?
Ellhvas-SNK
In article <E53z3...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory Dandulakis) writes:
>In article Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>>Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
>...
>>> Get a brain, and some knowledge too. Hooliganism is good for
>>> youngsters, but you've got to grow up.
>...
>> Sir, please conduct youself in a mature and serious manner.
>> If you cannot discuss an issue without resorting to name
>> calling then I truly believe it is you that has some growing
>> up to do.
>Nobody forced you to respond to me, nor to try to change my bossy
>and demanding style. Wherever I see stupidities I have no reason
>to be patient and polite. You fail, that's all. Trying to repeat
>stubbornly that Rigas Ferreos was an "assimilated Vlach", when in
>fact he formulated the idea of the modern Greek nation, decades
>before a Greek state existed and under the most harsh political
>conditions, then you are an ignorant teenager hooligan.
>Gregory
Efthymi should have been frequenting anm and scg when Gregory 'welcomed' ME to
the group . . . Don't be offended, Efthymi. In fact, take Gregory's 'scolding'
as a sign that he considers you at least mildly interesting . . . :-=> Gregory
'yells and screams' (figuratively, of course) and 'condescends' people with
whom he has been corresponding or conversing for years.
BTW, these NGs are not for the faint of heart, nor for people used to
'niceties' (as I was when I first joined). This is especially true when one is
making clear and unequivocal accusatory statements against the regulars in
these groups. Coming into soc.culture.greek and alt.news.macedonia and arguing
that the Vlakhs/Arimini/KoutzoVlakhi of Greece have been brainwashed, duped,
and/or forcibly assimilated/incorporated into the body of the modern Greek
nation (an 'imagined community' like any other modern nation), implying (at
best) that they are ignorant of their own history and culture, and of their
own individual and collective interest, bandying around inflammatory phrases
like 'oppression', etc., does not strike me as the best way to elicit 'nice'
replies.
Later,
"The word Greek designate[s] not any more the race, but the culture, and we now call Greeks those who participate in our education rather than those who have the same origin with us."
Isocrates, "Panegyric", 50
Stavros N. Karageorgis
E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
Gregory Dandulakis
Galja
Ellhvas-SNK wrote:
>
> In article <E53z3...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory Dandulakis) writes:
>
> the group . . . Don't be offended, Efthymi. In fact, take Gregory's 'scolding'
> as a sign that he considers you at least mildly interesting . . . :-=> Gregory
> 'yells and screams' (figuratively, of course) and 'condescends' people with
> whom he has been corresponding or conversing for years.
>
> BTW, these NGs are not for the faint of heart, nor for people used to
> 'niceties' (as I was when I first joined). This is especially true when one is
> making clear and unequivocal accusatory statements against the regulars in
> these groups. Coming into soc.culture.greek and alt.news.macedonia and arguing
> that the Vlakhs/Arimini/KoutzoVlakhi of Greece have been brainwashed, duped,
> and/or forcibly assimilated/incorporated into the body of the modern Greek
> nation (an 'imagined community' like any other modern nation), implying (at
> best) that they are ignorant of their own history and culture, and of their
> own individual and collective interest, bandying around inflammatory phrases
> like 'oppression', etc., does not strike me as the best way to elicit 'nice'
> replies.
>
> Later,
>
> "The word Greek designate[s] not any more the race, but the culture, and we now call Greeks those who participate in our education rather than those who have the same origin with us."
> Isocrates, "Panegyric", 50
> Stavros N. Karageorgis
> E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
Is this your new netname, Stavre,
Hellenic Snicker?
You are right. These netgroups are certinly not for the faint of
heart. But it doesn't hurt to have someone nice like Efthimi remind
yuor little neohellenic club that the rest of the world enjoys good
manners.
Galina
Efthymi
Ellhvas-SNK wrote:
>
> Efthymi should have been frequenting anm and scg when Gregory 'welcomed' ME to
> the group . . . Don't be offended, Efthymi. In fact, take Gregory's 'scolding'
> as a sign that he considers you at least mildly interesting . . . :-=> Gregory
> 'yells and screams' (figuratively, of course) and 'condescends' people with
> whom he has been corresponding or conversing for years.
>
I am sorry but submitting to name calling and anarchy is in
no ones favor and should be unacceptable by all.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me nor trying
to disprove my statements in a humane manner, however sinking
to the depths of baseless name calling is simply immature and
uncalled for. People such as the likes of Mr. Dandulakis would
profit from taking a Diversity Awareness course.
Efthymi
Gregory Dandulakis
> I have no problem with people disagreeing with me nor trying
> to disprove my statements in a humane manner, however sinking
> to the depths of baseless name calling is simply immature and
> uncalled for. People such as the likes of Mr. Dandulakis would
> profit from taking a Diversity Awareness course.
When I say that you have passed your formative years outside
of Greece; in countries with cold-asses/white gloves/and sharp
knives, my intuition has not betrayed me. Now we are going to
have one more quick lesson in Political_Correctness (read cur-
rently optimized US assimilation practices) by Efthymi. Get!
Gregory
G. Dumitrescu
In article <E53A6...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU "Gregory Dandulakis" writes:
...In article Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> wrote:
......
...> The Vlachs were never Greeks. They have assimilated into the
...> cultures of the nations that they migrated into. If you need to
...> believe this as to have a secure sense of belonging that's ok,
...> but don't try to force upon others.
...
...
...And what were the Vlachs before they become Vlachs?
...
...Please, don't tell us that all came from Rome ...
Why the hell not ? One highly cogent theory is that they're descended from
the Roman colony led by Captain Tintus, so this is why many call themselves
"Tsintsari".
Why don't you lot just give it a break already? Nobody's
threatening your present sense of national cohesion (which after all
seems to be doing just fine), but just forcing you to acknowledge some past
truths regarding the far from gospel stuff you may have been taught in Greek
school. We just have to avoid making generalisations or succumbing to
propaganda, that's all.
Recent research leads me to mention that around the turn of the
century, there were as many as 114 Romanian schools spread far and wide across
the Balkan peninsula. This was certainly not the "ambitions of Romanian
expansionism" (perhaps regrettably) but the willful efforts of Machedon Romanian
scholars in Vienna and Budapest. The latter, i.e. people such as Apostol
Margarit, contributed significantly towards the founding of the modern Romanian
state, then wanted the Romanian state to do something for these people, and
successfully lobbied the Romanian govt. in this respect.
Things which hasn't even been mentioned yet:
1) Vlachs were recognised, as were the Bulgarians, as a separate nation, by
the the time of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
2) They agitated for their own autonomous church, but the Greek Patriarch of
Constantinople opposed this intensely, with all kinds of heavy tactics, such
as excommunication of priests which insisted on using the Romanian language,
and charging them with the heinous, terrible, and un-orthodox (:) :) charge of
"ethno-phily" ( ... "Love for Nation" ... BTW Romanian Orthodox priests have
actually been murdered for this type of reasoning by Russian govt. sponsored
terrorists in east Moldova during this very decade, but I digress), organising
anti-Romanian language demonstrations, etc.
3) At the end of the 1st Balkan war, right after the official end of the
Ottomans, the Vlachs pressured the London peace conference for their
incorporation into Albania, as they considered the Albanians friendler
toward their autonomy demands, but because the Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgars
also offered autonomy, they were refused. Subsequently, nobody respected
their autonomy, and during the inter-war years, thousands migrated the
world over, not only to Romania (which many do consider "the mother country").
4) In 1919-1920 (?), community leaders even had a movement for the independent
Aroman Republic of Pindus and Zagora, as well as cultural and religious
autonomy for Thessaly and the other places where they predominate, but the
Versailles conference refused this.
5) Following the joyous peace at the end of WW2, ethnic
politics took a back seat to ideological politics, & in Romania, (as in Greece,
but there it was the other side, etc.) basic civil war and psychopathic
butchery, theft and poverty caused by the communists eroded any Vlach autonomy
movements pretty heavily *.
Anyway, there's a few things for everyone to think about or discuss.
One thing is for sure, wherever these proud people have lived, they have
contributed excellently to their society, usually far beyond what you would
expect for their relative proportions or number in the aforementioned society;
contributions in all walks of life, politics / nation or state-building not
the least of which come to mind.
--
G. Dumitrescu
* See the Sighetul Marmatiei "Memorial to the Victims of Communism" archives
for info on the predominantly Vlach Resistance in the Babadag Mountains. This
group, many originally from Pindus, but resettled from the Cadrilater, were
among the most renowned anti-soviet & anti-communist fighters in the Romanian
countryside, led by the legendary Gogu Puiu (whose very name struck dreaded
fear into the hearts of communists long after a glorious death in battle -
almost supernatural was the power of the man), the Fudulea bros., Ghoerghe
Pulpa. More on "Sighetul Marmatiei" later.
Ellhvas-SNK
In article <855169...@strateg1.demon.co.uk> byz...@strateg1.demon.co.uk ("G. Dumitrescu") writes:
<snip>
>Why don't you lot just give it a break already? Nobody's
^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
>threatening your present sense of national cohesion (which after all
>seems to be doing just fine), but just forcing you to acknowledge some past
>truths regarding the far from gospel stuff you may have been taught in Greek
>school. We just have to avoid making generalisations or succumbing to
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>propaganda, that's all.
I would suggest that you practice what you preach and quit refering to us as
'your lot' or 'you lot' or whatever! We are not a pack of wild animals, nor
are we members of an association. We are, each one of us, individual persons,
and we express our own individual opinions.
>Recent research leads me to mention that around the turn of the
>century, there were as many as 114 Romanian schools spread far and wide across
>the Balkan peninsula. This was certainly not the "ambitions of Romanian
>expansionism" (perhaps regrettably) but the willful efforts of Machedon Romanian
>scholars in Vienna and Budapest. The latter, i.e. people such as Apostol
>Margarit, contributed significantly towards the founding of the modern Romanian
>state, then wanted the Romanian state to do something for these people, and
>successfully lobbied the Romanian govt. in this respect.
If I were you, I would completely drop the 'educational institutions' line. It
is a pure loser of an argument. If you did some COMPARATIVE research on the
relative numbers of schools and especially school attendance (and it has been
done by bona fide scholars, without the slightest tinge of nationalism, or
philio-pietism) in say the villayets which comprised geographical Macedonia
you would find that the Romanian schools (in terms of numbers and attendance)
were a patent failure, especially in terms of 'return to the monetary units
expended'/per school/per attending student. If you don't believe me I would be
happy to provide you with verifiable statistics, and a full bibliography.
>Things which hasn't even been mentioned yet:
>1) Vlachs were recognised, as were the Bulgarians, as a separate nation, by
>the the time of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
As a NATION? Care to substantiate this unique argument?
>2) They agitated for their own autonomous church
Who's they? All of them? You have GOT to be joking. Was there some sort of
plenipotentiary speaking/acting for ALL of them? Nope. Better do some more
'research' dear friend.
> but the Greek Patriarch of
>Constantinople opposed this intensely, with all kinds of heavy tactics, such
>as excommunication of priests which insisted on using the Romanian language,
>and charging them with the heinous, terrible, and un-orthodox (:) :) charge of
>"ethno-phily" ( ... "Love for Nation" ... BTW Romanian Orthodox priests have
>actually been murdered for this type of reasoning by Russian govt. sponsored
>terrorists in east Moldova during this very decade, but I digress)
You certainly do. And at a crucial point in your argumentation, a point at
which one would expect you to provide some documentation for the specific
accusations you are hurling, and not about what Russian religious and
political authorities did in Moldova.
> organising
>anti-Romanian language demonstrations, etc.
And who participated in those demonstrations, who wrote all those letters to
the Ecumenical Patriarchate (I have copies of them)? Was it maybe
Vlakhs/Arimini/Koutzo-Vlakhs THEMSELVES?
>3) At the end of the 1st Balkan war, right after the official end of the
>Ottomans, the Vlachs pressured the London peace conference for their
>incorporation into Albania, as they considered the Albanians friendler
>toward their autonomy demands, but because the Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgars
>also offered autonomy, they were refused.
I love it when you DON"T generalize and believe in propaganda . . . is the
above an example of your enlightened scholarly practices? 'THE Vlachs' did all
of the above? Gee, really? What cohesion? SOME Vlakhs did the above, and it
was very easy to know WHO they were, and who was 'buttering their bread' eh?
>Subsequently, nobody respected
>their autonomy, and during the inter-war years, thousands migrated the
>world over, not only to Romania (which many do consider "the mother country").
'Many'? How 'many'? Give us a percentage, a ball-park figure, dear friend. How
'many' of the Vlakhs in the territory that is today Greece considered or
consider Romania to be 'the mother country'? Hmmm
>4) In 1919-1920 (?), community leaders even had a movement for the independent
>Aroman Republic of Pindus and Zagora, as well as cultural and religious
>autonomy for Thessaly and the other places where they predominate, but the
>Versailles conference refused this.
How many 'community leaders'? During the Italian occupation, there were SOME
Vlakhs who joined the 'Legion' as well. So what? Please, for once, DON"T
generalize.
>5) Following the joyous peace at the end of WW2, ethnic
>politics took a back seat to ideological politics, & in Romania, (as in Greece,
>but there it was the other side, etc.) basic civil war and psychopathic
>butchery, theft and poverty caused by the communists eroded any Vlach autonomy
>movements pretty heavily *.
This does not apply to Greece.
>Anyway, there's a few things for everyone to think about or discuss.
I did.
>One thing is for sure, wherever these proud people have lived, they have
>contributed excellently to their society, usually far beyond what you would
>expect for their relative proportions or number in the aforementioned society;
>contributions in all walks of life, politics / nation or state-building not
>the least of which come to mind.
Precisely. For the nth time, Vlakhs/Arimini have contributed constitutively to
the development, establishment and reproduction of both the modern Greek
nation, and the modern Greek nation-state.
>-- >G. Dumitrescu
>* See the Sighetul Marmatiei "Memorial to the Victims of Communism" archives
>for info on the predominantly Vlach Resistance in the Babadag Mountains. This
>group, many originally from Pindus, but resettled from the Cadrilater, were
>among the most renowned anti-soviet & anti-communist fighters in the Romanian
>countryside, led by the legendary Gogu Puiu (whose very name struck dreaded
>fear into the hearts of communists long after a glorious death in battle -
>almost supernatural was the power of the man), the Fudulea bros., Ghoerghe
>Pulpa. More on "Sighetul Marmatiei" later.
Efthymi
Sir I see your account is from the University of Virginia
if I am not mistaken, which is in the same "country with
cold-asses/white gloves/and sharp knives", as you state,
that I now reside in. It is generally considered good
practice not to bite the hand that feeds you.
Efthymi
Galja
Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
>
> In article Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> wrote:
> ...
> > I have no problem with people disagreeing with me nor trying
> > to disprove my statements in a humane manner, however sinking
> > to the depths of baseless name calling is simply immature and
> > uncalled for. People such as the likes of Mr. Dandulakis would
> > profit from taking a Diversity Awareness course.
>
> When I say that you have passed your formative years outside
> of Greece; in countries with cold-asses/white gloves/and sharp
> knives, my intuition has not betrayed me. Now we are going to
> have one more quick lesson in Political_Correctness (read cur-
> rently optimized US assimilation practices) by Efthymi. Get!
>
> Gregory
COLD ASSES, WHITE GLOVE AND SHARP KNIVES - hahahahahahaha
Weeellll, actually, down here in Virginia we gave up the white gloves to
above the elbows with all those tedious buttons, and we now wear jeans
that keep our little excellent asses quite warm, thank you very much,
but we still serve the table with separate steak knives and some of us
do have our special hunting knives adn riding crops. hahahahaha
Likel you could talk political correctness.
Or diversity training.
Or or or or hahahahahaha
Gregory Dandulakis
In article G. Dumitrescu <byz...@strateg1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU "Gregory Dandulakis" writes:
...
>...And what were the Vlachs before they become Vlachs?
>...
>...Please, don't tell us that all came from Rome ...
>
>Why the hell not ? One highly cogent theory is that they're descended from
>the Roman colony led by Captain Tintus, so this is why many call themselves
>"Tsintsari".
Get a grip, would you? Presenting national mythologies/nostalgias as
historical realities to the net is not very efficient.
What is next? That Italians, French, Spaniards, Latino Americans, etc
current latinophones are all descendents of the Romans? Which Romans?
Those who were 70% slaves imported from everywhere in the Mediterranean
world, or Roman citizens like Saint Paul/Saul (a Greek-speaking Jew and
Roman official citizen)?
What happened to the Balkanians (Thracians, Peonians, etc) who the Romans
spent two centuries to subdue? Disappeared? The answer is more than
obvious. People of cultural status much lower than that of the Romans at
the time of Roman conquest were heavily latinized; people of higher
cultural status, and those included all the Hellenistic lands (Middle
East) remained culturally untouched.
Gregory
Gregory Dandulakis
In article G. Dumitrescu <byz...@strateg1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>Recent research leads me to mention that around the turn of the
>century, there were as many as 114 Romanian schools spread far and
>wide across
>the Balkan peninsula. This was certainly not the "ambitions of Romanian
>expansionism" (perhaps regrettably) but the willful efforts of Machedon
>Romanian
>scholars in Vienna and Budapest. The latter, i.e. people such as Apostol
>Margarit, contributed significantly towards the founding of the modern
>Romanian
>state, then wanted the Romanian state to do something for these people, and
>successfully lobbied the Romanian govt. in this respect.
So? And one third of the N. American British colonists in the lands
which were to become known eventually as US, during the war which led
to the creation of the US remained actively loyal to the British state.
They paid their loyalty by being cleansed/expelled in Canada after the
creation of the US. Does that "prove" that those 70% staying in the
US were "regrettably" assimilated in the US British? Get a grip!
It is questionably that 1% of the Ottoman Vlachophones residing in
what is today Greece sided politically with anything else than the
Greek nationa cause. Not one third; not even 1%. So, what is to
say about the _bulk_ of the Vlachs? That they were Romanians?
Get a grip! If something can be said about the _collectivity_
of the Vlachs, exceptions neglected, is that they were solidly
Greeks in national orientation.
>Things which hasn't even been mentioned yet:
>
>1) Vlachs were recognised, as were the Bulgarians, as a separate nation, by
>the the time of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
So? And the British when they were to toss the Indian and Indochinese
pensinsula machinated a hell of different cultural "identities" in
order to slow down their (British) eventaul withdrawl and retreat.
No doubt, Sultan was playing that game exceptionally well.
>2) They agitated for their own autonomous church, but the Greek Patriarch of
>Constantinople opposed this intensely, with all kinds of heavy tactics, such
>as excommunication of priests which insisted on using the Romanian language,
>and charging them with the heinous, terrible, and un-orthodox (:) :)
>charge of
>"ethno-phily" ( ... "Love for Nation" ... BTW Romanian Orthodox priests have
>actually been murdered for this type of reasoning by Russian govt. sponsored
>terrorists in east Moldova during this very decade, but I digress),
>organising
>anti-Romanian language demonstrations, etc.
You are stupid and ingorant, aren't you? The Ecumenical Patriarchate
_actively_ campaigned against the creation of the Greek state too.
A year before Rigas was executed (in 1977), the Patriarchate had
published a whole "litany" stating that any movement against the
Sultan was "satanic plots against God's will". After the creation
of the Greek state, it took decades before the Patriarchate recognized
the church of modern Greece.
>3) At the end of the 1st Balkan war, right after the official end of the
>Ottomans, the Vlachs pressured the London peace conference for their
^^^^^^^^^^
>incorporation into Albania, as they considered the Albanians friendler
>toward their autonomy demands, but because the Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgars
>also offered autonomy, they were refused. Subsequently, nobody respected
>their autonomy, and during the inter-war years, thousands migrated the
>world over, not only to Romania (which many do consider "the mother
>country").
Get the hell down the definitive article "the" from the Vlachs in your
diatribe. At the most you should substitue it with the word "a tiny
fraction of non-mainstream Vlachs".
>4) In 1919-1920 (?), community leaders even had a movement for the independent
>Aroman Republic of Pindus and Zagora, as well as cultural and religious
>autonomy for Thessaly and the other places where they predominate, but the
>Versailles conference refused this.
You should see what other things the Versailles, and subsequent
treaties, did to Greece. They left one in five people being uprooted,
peniless refugees.
>5) Following the joyous peace at the end of WW2, ethnic
>politics took a back seat to ideological politics, & in Romania, (as in
>Greece,
>but there it was the other side, etc.) basic civil war and psychopathic
>butchery, theft and poverty caused by the communists eroded any Vlach
>autonomy
>movements pretty heavily *.
You should see what happened to Greece. Greece and Turkey became allies
against the Commies...!:-)
>Anyway, there's a few things for everyone to think about or discuss.
>
>One thing is for sure, wherever these proud people have lived, they have
>contributed excellently to their society, usually far beyond what you would
>expect for their relative proportions or number in the aforementioned society;
>contributions in all walks of life, politics / nation or state-building not
>the least of which come to mind.
>
>--
>G. Dumitrescu
Sure. These proud people, as well all their compatriots, that is Greeks
have done exactly that. Including Romania, Egypt, and all of "their
East".
And keep in mind, you don't judge historical realities by the wet
dreams of some extremists. Only if you are an hagiographer of a
propaganda nucleus do that.
Gregory
PS: If you only knew... I have several times stated here that if it
was not for the Albanophone, primarily, and the Vlachophone, se-
condarily, Ottoman Orthodox of the Balkans, the modern Greek state
wouldn't have existed. The Vlachs were the primary ideologues,
and the Albanians were the primary military leaders. Both offe-
red heavily financially. The most educated, rich and influential
Grecophone Orthodox remained almost till the last minute firmly
supporters of the Ottomans. To them, _Greekness_ was hijacked
by a bunch of unrelated radicals in order to further their poli-
tical/economic goals. While with the collapse of the Ottoman
empire would come the collapse of the universal nature and appeal
that the Greekness had had for more than two milenia in the
near and middle East. They were most probably correct. Greece
as state is only a self-preserving western protectorate. I
know that the vast majority of Greek nationals would think that
this is immense historical revisionism, but so is their constantly
"evolving" historiographies (who, from deadly ancient-lovers of
the original Bavarian-kingdom (that is Greece of the 1830s),
turned into deadly Byzantino-lovers of the Balkan wars, to
become deadly democrato-nationalisto-lovers of the post-civil
war (1946-49) era, to become now deadly "internationalists-cosmo-
politanists of EU type... All these "magical" tranformations being
imported from the naval patrons). And politics keeps evolving...
G. Dumitrescu
In article <karageor.21...@ucla.edu>
kara...@ucla.edu "Ellhvas-SNK" writes:
...In article <855169...@strateg1.demon.co.uk> byz...@strateg1.demon.co.uk
... ("G. Dumitrescu") writes:
...<snip>
...>Recent research leads me to mention that around the turn of the
...>century, there were as many as 114 Romanian schools spread far and wide
across
...
...>the Balkan peninsula. This was certainly not the "ambitions of Romanian
...>expansionism" (perhaps regrettably) but the willful efforts of Machedon
... Romanian
...>scholars in Vienna and Budapest. The latter, i.e. people such as Apostol
...>Margarit, contributed significantly towards the founding of the modern
Romanian...>state, then wanted the Romanian state to do something for these
people, and
...>successfully lobbied the Romanian govt. in this respect.
...
...If I were you, I would completely drop the 'educational institutions' line.
It
...is a pure loser of an argument.
Hello?! Are you implying that the Romanian govt. had ambitions to annex
the entire Balkan peninsula on the basis of some Romanian speakers being
scattered
all over the place? How historically paranoid can you be ? Is it ok with you if
some people wanted to maintain the language of their ancestors, or are you
some kind of cultural fascist ?
Re-read my posting properly, with your eyes open: it was MACEDONIAN VLACH
SCHOLARS and CHURCHMEN who started this movement. In this respect, your
"Romanian expansionism" implication/argument simply has no legs.
...If you did some COMPARATIVE research on the
...relative numbers of schools and especially school attendance (and it has
been
...done by bona fide scholars, without the slightest tinge of nationalism, or
...philio-pietism) in say the villayets which comprised geographical Macedonia
...you would find that the Romanian schools (in terms of numbers and attendance
)
...were a patent failure, especially in terms of 'return to the monetary units
...expended'/per school/per attending student. If you don't believe me I would
be
...happy to provide you with verifiable statistics, and a full bibliography.
I'm prepared to believe you, given accurate data to this effect, but reasons
for this phenomenon will certainly vary, according to local circumstance. One
of the reasons, as I may have stated earlier, was to do with dialectical
difficulties, Vlach or Aroman dialect being sometimes almost incompatible with
more mainstream Daco-Romanian. It was the latter which was taught, perhaps
mistakenly, but as it happened, this wasn't so useful in daily life in
Macedonia, even among Vlachs, the local dialect being too corrupted by foreign
words. Greek, Slav, etc. The effort was lacking at a grassroots level, the
effort to raise the Vlach language to the status of a literary language.
...>Things which hasn't even been mentioned yet:
...
...>1) Vlachs were recognised, as were the Bulgarians, as a separate nation, by
...>the the time of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
...
...As a NATION? Care to substantiate this unique argument?
Yes: in 1905, they were recognised at an international level as such, due to
their earlier recognition by the Porte as such. That this didn't amount to a
whole lot later is neither here nor there, but for the sake of argument, that
is the incontrovertible historical record.
...>2) They agitated for their own autonomous church
...
...Who's they? All of them? You have GOT to be joking. Was there some sort of
...plenipotentiary speaking/acting for ALL of them? Nope. Better do some more
...'research' dear friend.
OK, fair enough, maybe it wasn't all that many.
...> but I digress)
...
...You certainly do. And at a crucial point in your argumentation, a point at
...which one would expect you to provide some documentation for the specific
...accusations you are hurling, and not about what Russian religious and
...political authorities did in transnistria (aka homicidal terrorists).
Again, it was Apostol Margarit and people like this, eg. the Macedonian Romanian
Evangheliu Zappa, which were the main driving force behind the ecumenical
movement, as well as the language movement.
...> organising
...>anti-Romanian language demonstrations, etc.
...
...And who participated in those demonstrations, who wrote all those letters to
...the Ecumenical Patriarchate (I have copies of them)? Was it maybe
...Vlakhs/Arimini/Koutzo-Vlakhs THEMSELVES?
Fair enough, there were many Vlachs on the Greek side of the fence, freely and
of their own will, but by no means all of them.
...>3) At the end of the 1st Balkan war, right after the official end of the
...>Ottomans, the Vlachs pressured the London peace conference for their
...>incorporation into Albania, as they considered the Albanians friendler
...>toward their autonomy demands, but because the Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgars
...>also offered autonomy, they were refused.
...
...I love it when you DON"T generalize and believe in propaganda . . . is the
...above an example of your enlightened scholarly practices? 'THE Vlachs' did
all
...of the above? Gee, really? What cohesion? SOME Vlakhs did the above, and it
...was very easy to know WHO they were, and who was 'buttering their bread' eh?
Ha! There YOU go again, with the blatant propaganda.
...>Subsequently, nobody respected
...>their autonomy, and during the inter-war years, thousands migrated the
...>world over, not only to Romania (which many do consider "the mother country
"). ...
...'Many'? How 'many'? Give us a percentage, a ball-park figure, dear friend.
How
...'many' of the Vlakhs in the territory that is today Greece considered or
...consider Romania to be 'the mother country'? Hmmm
Fair enough, but once again, it's not the numbers that count, it's the record
of non-unanimity in geo-national orientation.
...>4) In 1919-1920 (?), community leaders even had a movement for the
independent
...>Aroman Republic of Pindus and Zagora, as well as cultural and religious
...>autonomy for Thessaly and the other places where they predominate, but the
...>Versailles conference refused this.
...
...How many 'community leaders'?
No details on numbers and proportions are handy at present, but I will look
this up in the archives.
...During the Italian occupation, there were SOME
...Vlakhs who joined the 'Legion' as well.
Funnily enough, many Vlachs were also renowned members of the infamous Romanian
fascist terrorist movement, the 'Legion'. That just goes to show what I was
saying though, wherever they put their mind to it to contribute, they do so
in spades, good causes and bad.
...So what?
What do you mean "so what"?
...Please, for once, DON'T generalize.
Why is this "generalising"? These are solid facts, admittedly without
too much elaboration on detail.
About the number of community leaders, there are no details handy at present,
but I will look this up in the archives.
.snip.
...>Anyway, there's a few things for everyone to think about or discuss.
...
...I did.
Good - I believe we may have beaten this subject almost to death.
...>One thing is for sure, wherever these proud people have lived, they have
...>contributed excellently to their society, usually far beyond what you would
...>expect for their relative proportions or number in the aforementioned
society;
...>contributions in all walks of life, politics / nation or state-building not
...>the least of which come to mind.
...
...Precisely. For the nth time, Vlakhs/Arimini have contributed constitutively
to
...the development, establishment and reproduction of both the modern Greek
...nation, and the modern Greek nation-state.
not to mention to that of the modern Romanian nation, and the modern Romanian
nation-state.
--
G. Dumitrescu
Gregory Dandulakis
A couple of addenda/corrections:
In article Gregory Dandulakis <gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
...
>So? And the British when they were to toss the Indian and Indochinese
>pensinsula machinated a hell of different cultural "identities" in
>order to slow down their (British) eventaul withdrawl and retreat.
>No doubt, Sultan was playing that game exceptionally well.
The game of "divide and rule".
>A year before Rigas was executed (in 1977), the Patriarchate had
^^^^
Make this 1797.
> red heavily financially. The most educated, rich and influential
> Grecophone Orthodox remained almost till the last minute firmly
> supporters of the Ottomans.
Of course, they wanted a "revamped and modernized Ottoman state".
Characteritically, a couple of the first Ottoman embassadors to
the newly created Greek state, in the second of the 19th century
were, as a matter of fact, Ottoman Grecophone Orthodox high offi-
cials, like Mousouro and Karatheodori Pashas. And they were
staunch supporters of the Ottoman state interests.
Gregory
Filippos Santas
>the Roman colony led by Captain Tintus, so this is why many call themselves
>"Tsintsari".
Muslims come from Abraham too :-)
Filippos
George
Could somebody please fwd me the original message with the subject
"History of the Vlachs?"
Thank you!
----
George Calinescu
mailto: grc...@slin.aubg.bg
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Ellhvas-SNK <kara...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>In article Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> writes:
...
>> Nonsense the word "Blakas" implies stupid in the normal meaning
>> of the word whereas the word "Vlahos" (which also means male Vlachs)
>> denotes a meaning of stupidity or backwardnesss, naiveness to
>> modernization due to isolation from modern society (such was the
>> life of the vlach shepards). You yourself stated this in the
>> beginning of your post and then tried to unsuccesfully prove
>> it otherwise.
>
>Well, above you explain the onomatopoiea!
It doesn't need much talk. The guy is a hooligan.
He himself made the standard connection for me:
"Name calling might be good in Crete, but not here".
It is more than obvious that he himself makes use, in order to
put down people, linguistic cliches based on origin. Well, only
insecure newbbies would cry loudly about these kind of things.
There are very many examples of this nature in both modern and
ancient Greece. Few are:
"Vlachos" has the connotation of "Villager".
"Pontios" means also "Totally Naive".
"Peloponnesian" means also "Sneak, Untrustworthy".
"Patrinos" means also "Son of a Whore".
"Cretan" means also "Brutish".
[Needless to say that in the ancient times the word
"Cretan" was used with the connotation of "Pathological Liar";
it is legendary the saying by an ancient Cretan of "All
Cretans are liars"; this self-referential/contradictory
statement (it is simultaneously true and false by definition)
became the stepping stone upon which Goedel in the 1930s
made the most spectacular discoveries in fundamental theory
of logic since the time of Aristotle; so much for the deroga-
tory terms, and more particularly about the Cretans!:-)
At any rate, I am a Veneto-Cretan, so I have backup
identities!:-))
Gregory
Gregory Dandulakis
>ancient Greece. Few are:
>
>
>"Vlachos" has the connotation of "Villager".
>"Pontios" means also "Totally Naive".
>"Peloponnesian" means also "Sneak, Untrustworthy".
>"Patrinos" means also "Son of a Whore".
>"Cretan" means also "Brutish".
Bzzzt! I forgot a couple widespread ones.
"Arvanitis" means also "Stubborn like a Mule".
"Islander" (from small islands) means also "Foolishly Goodhearted".
"Maniatis" means also "Vindictive".
"Kalamatianos" means also "Gay".
And if we start with the foreign cases, then we will fill up
volumes!:-)
Gregory
Galja
Gregory,
Love ti! Go ahead, start wih the foreign ones. Then we will all have a
handy arsenal for determining when we are each being called "names".
Nikos Sarantakos
Galja <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
>>
>> Bzzzt! I forgot a couple widespread ones.
>>
>> "Arvanitis" means also "Stubborn like a Mule".
>> "Islander" (from small islands) means also "Foolishly Goodhearted".
>> "Maniatis" means also "Vindictive".
>> "Kalamatianos" means also "Gay".
>>
>> And if we start with the foreign cases, then we will fill up
>> volumes!:-)
>>
>> Gregory
>Gregory,
>Love ti! Go ahead, start wih the foreign ones. Then we will all have a
>handy arsenal for determining when we are each being called "names".
Since the thread touched upon one of my pet subjects, I recommend the
book by Jonathon Green "Words apart. The language of prejudice" (publ.
Kyle Cathie Ltd.) ISBN 1-85626-216-2, which deals with national
stereotypes in various languages. While not exactly accurate with
Greek and other exotic languages, still it contains a lot of
information.
BTW, if any nonGreek is reading this one, I would like to receive any
proverbs, abuses, stereotypes, phrases etc. of their native language
concerning Greeks and Greece.
N. Sarantakos
sar...@innet.lu
Efthymi
Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
>
> It doesn't need much talk. The guy is a hooligan.
> He himself made the standard connection for me:
> "Name calling might be good in Crete, but not here".
>
> It is more than obvious that he himself makes use, in order to
> put down people, linguistic cliches based on origin. Well, only
> insecure newbbies would cry loudly about these kind of things.
>
More baseless accusations, you know absolutely nothing about
me. When will you ever learn not to make baseless assumptions
about people you don't know.
I am only trying to uphold a respectable level of discussion
in this newsgroup, something you have proven to be incapable
of.
> There are very many examples of this nature in both modern and
> ancient Greece. Few are:
>
> "Vlachos" has the connotation of "Villager".
> "Pontios" means also "Totally Naive".
> "Peloponnesian" means also "Sneak, Untrustworthy".
> "Patrinos" means also "Son of a Whore".
> "Cretan" means also "Brutish".
Nonsense, none of the examples you give above is used
as a comon adjective except "vlachos". The rest of the
examples you give are mere stereotypes.
This terminates my dealings with you until you are
able to respect others and show some restraining of
the tongue.
Efthymi
Nikos Sarantakos
Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
>> There are very many examples of this nature in both modern and
>> ancient Greece. Few are:
>>
>> "Vlachos" has the connotation of "Villager".
>> "Pontios" means also "Totally Naive".
>> "Peloponnesian" means also "Sneak, Untrustworthy".
>> "Patrinos" means also "Son of a Whore".
>> "Cretan" means also "Brutish".
> Nonsense, none of the examples you give above is used
> as a comon adjective except "vlachos". The rest of the
> examples you give are mere stereotypes.
Yes, Efthymi is right: with the possible exception of Pontios, the
other three are *not* used as a common adjective.
However, there are some ethnic names used as common adjectives:
Guftos
Tsigganos
Ebraios
Arbaniths
in that order of frequency.
Nikos S.
Lux.
Christos NUESSLI
I think that it started with someone who wanted to know if Transylvania
was part of Valachia at the time of Vlad, the mediatic guy :-)
Christos
CH
Alexander Varias
spider (m...@there.net) wrote:
: Kostas wrote:
No, I guess 100 or so AD is not before 1300 AD for some of the brighter
souls amoung us.
Alexander Varias
Of inerest the discussion is the word 'Vlach' itself.
It is not specific to Eastern Europe only.
In the case of the Balkan region, the surrounding Slavic people probably
borrowed the word from German. It essentially means Latin (Romanized). In fact
check Webster's and you'll find that the word 'Welsh' (as in Wales), was
applied to the Romanized tribes that germanic invaders found living in
Britain centuries after the decline of Rome. 'Welsh' from germanic 'valah'
meaning 'latin'. If believe there is reference stating that 'welsch' is
German for 'italian'.
Kostas
Alexander,
Your post, and that of spider's are infantile at best. Even if we assume that
your self proclaimed brightness, supercedes mine, your patronizing is uncalled
for. Second, if you are serious about discussing the issue take a look at the
following paragraph.
"There is much argument about the priority of the Rumanians in
Transylvania. Rumanians claim that they are the descendants of the
Romanized Dacians of the emperor Trajan's day, who have lived
uninterruptedly in Transylvania since Roman times. Many
historians point out, however, that according to all available
evidence, the Romans completely evacuated their Dacian
settlements, and that from the third century to the twelfth, during
the course of nearly a thousand years, not a single trace of the
Dacians may be found in Transylvania - even if the Rumanians were
their descendants. On the other hand there are chronological data
concerning the Rumanians' gradual immigration into Transylvania from the
twelfth century onward. (*9).
Many historians assert, that Rumanians migrated from the southern Balkans to
Trnsylvania around the 12th century. It is a respected theory while the
Daco-Rumanian theory that places Rumanian speakers in Transylvania is largely
considered flawed.
Regards,
Kostas R.
Galja
Dear Kostas,
Interesting post. Would you consider writing on the issue of whether
the Valchs and Macedonians share the same roots? Also Efthimi if you
are reading this.
Galja
Kostas
>Dear Kostas,
>
>Interesting post. Would you consider writing on the issue of whether
>the Valchs and Macedonians share the same roots? Also Efthimi if you
>are reading this.
>
>Galja
Dear Galja,
My position is that the Greek Rumanophones are latinised Greeks, whether they
are Epirotans, Thessalians, Macedonians, Cretans, or other regional Greek
people.
Regards,
Kostas R.
Efthymi
What happened to the theory of The Roman Imperial Guards
stationed in the Pindos Mountains that were left behind?
I hold to the theory that they are the latinized colonies
of Dacia that migrated south due to barbaric invasions,
and have over time been dispersed and assimilated into
the various Balkan countries that were carved under their
feet.
TODAY their nationalistic tendencies are aligned with the
modern nations they have found themselves living in - to
do otherwise, as it has been proven, is non-sensical.
Aghhhh to be a Macedonian (the earth under my childish footsteps) -
the thought is quite glamorous ...
Just as was the thought of being a Greek in the latter part
of the 19th century ...
Efthymi
Me
Kostas wrote:
>
> In article <E5CxoD.2H...@torfree.net>, bm...@torfree.net (Alexander Varias) wrote:
>
> >spider (m...@there.net) wrote:
> >: Kostas wrote:
> >
> >: > - There are no traces of Rumanian speaking people in Wallachia before the
> >: > 1300
> >
What about the "Song of the Nibelungs"? It has been written during the
8th century, and if you will read it carefully you'll see that
Krimhilda's wedding was honored by the Polish, Hungarian, Czech and
"Wallachian" guests, "on their quick horses". It was like a Comecom
meeting, where Bulgarians were not even mentionned, as for Greeks, no
way!! But attention: Wallachian, not Vlachs!! In the 8th century!
Later on, the Turks have said "With a Wallachian (Moldavian) horse and a
Persan youth you can conquer an empire" So the Wallachian horses were
indeed well known for their quality during all the Middle Ages!
And this is maybe one of the most important proofs the formation of the
generic word Wallachian (not Vlachian!): the intercallation of "a"
between two consonants was the specific way the Hungarian language has
processed foreign words, well known and well documented by Hungarian
linguists. The early interraction between the Hungarian and the Romanian
language is impressive, even though , for partisan reasons, not all the
specialists will agree about the extent. But there are some examples
where no doubt can be, in good faith, raised.
And some of these are the following:
1. The word for "son" in Romanian, was, is and it will be "fiu". It
comes from the Latin word "filius" and according to a specific
romanian linguistic trend, it has lost the intermediate "l". Neither
the middle age Latin, nor the Italian nor the French language have this
trend, which is specifically Romanian. And , surprise: the Hungarian
language has borrowed this word from...not from the French, Italian,
Latin language, not from some unknown Asian languages, but, we have to
admit,....sorry for that...from the only language the were in contact
with during that early time, when the Hungarian language was still in
its formative years: from the Romanian (Wallachian) language.
A basic word in Hungarian is "FIU",exactly like in Romanian, and it
means "BOY". Important to say that the only alternative to this
explanation is that Hungarians spoke Latin when they came from Asia (a
Latin brand processed according to Romanian rules), which is obviously
nonsense.
Even more interesting is the fact that we also know HOW they borrowed
this word. In the old Hungarian texts we can find informations about how
they conquered small pricipalities in Transylvania, where local nobles'
sons have had names such as Dragffy, Banffy and so on. The meaning was
"the son of Drag, Ban (Ban was also a Romanian name, now the name of the
national currency, then a nobility name). Like Robertson,
Williamson,Gundarson, Mendelsohn in Germanic cultures, the Hungarians
have created a typical Germanic way of making names, by assembling
Romanian words in Transylvania, after they have assimilated local
nobles, all of them speaking the language where the word "son" was
pronounced "fiu" (Guess which language!). A well known process. Nothing
else can be a valid explanation for these facts, 'cause "fiu" is
Romanian and there are plenty of Hungarian names structured according to
this rule. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the creator of The Systems Theory is
one of them. Have you ever heard about his name? I doubt it.
As for many other words, with no other possible explanations, note: from
Craciun, they created Karacsony (interconsonantic "a" added), from
Crestin, Kereszteny (interconsonantic "e" added, and so on.
If a basic word, like "boy" entered a language like the Hungarian, that
was possible only in the formative years. In ancient greek, "kouros"
couldn't have been replaced by anything else after the language was
formed!
>
> Many historians assert, that Rumanians migrated from the southern Balkans to
> Trnsylvania around the 12th century. It is a respected theory while the
> Daco-Rumanian theory that places Rumanian speakers in Transylvania is largely
> considered flawed.
>
> Regards,
> Kostas R.
Yes, by ignorant people ,or by people with special interests.
It was never documented a Hungarian influence on the Greek language, or
a Greek influence on the Hungarian language, during the formative years.
Don't you think, after all, that if Greece is actually a Wallachian
country, a few million Romanians may try to take back their "native"
land, the land of their "origins", as you are saying. After all they
will have the right to do it, as Jews are doing right now with
Palestine, if your nonsense will be considered "true". Saying
nonsensical things is not even in your interest, in this case!
And, after all , there is absolutely nothing common, but nothing at all,
between the Ancient Greece and today's big-bellied, fat and ignorant
persons you can see everyday in modern Athens. Just compare, in good
faith, the Ancient Greek Statues you can see in greek museums with the
people you'll see everyday on the streets, in any modern greek city.
Do they have anything in common?
Sorry about telling the truth.
Tony (Me)
Me
Kostas wrote:
>
> In article <32FF74...@erols.com>, sp...@erols.com wrote:
>
> >Dear Kostas,
> >
> >Interesting post. Would you consider writing on the issue of whether
> >the Valchs and Macedonians share the same roots? Also Efthimi if you
> >are reading this.
> >
> >Galja
>
> Dear Galja,
> My position is that the Greek Rumanophones are latinised Greeks, whether they
> are Epirotans, Thessalians, Macedonians, Cretans, or other regional Greek
> people.
>
> Regards,
> Kostas R.
Interestingly enough, according to you, everybody in this world seems to
be Greek (maybe except the Greeks themselves, 'cause most of their
grandma's and grandpa's were actually chased for real from Turkey -
Asia.(and you know that very well).
The common description of the modern nationalisms consists in the fact
that some people, regardless of the evidence, pretend to be qualified to
judge and establish everybody's present-day values and beliefs: the
Serbian nationalists think that Croatians and Bosnians do not have any
right to a proper identity because their "Serbian" ancestors have done a
"wrong choice" by embracing other religions instead of the "real one",
therefore they are still Serbians and thy need to be teached a
lesson.(and they have teached them the lesson, the Big One).
Greek nationalists want to convince everybody that the Vlach minority
in Greece is still Greek, or at least their ancestors were, but they 've
done the "wrong choice " by choosing to speak a (latin based) Romanian
dialect. So the church and the State teached them that they have no
access to Heaven without learning the Greek language or becoming Greek,
'cause the Evaghelia was written in Greek by God's Greek-speaking
people. And even Romanians are Greek after all, no matter the evidence:
the Greek language was never spoken in Dacia, but in totally different
countries, like Egipt or Syria (why not speaking about the "Greek
origin" of the Arabs? Or maybe this is too dangerous. After all it was
true that the main language in those countries was actually Greek, about
2000years ago.)
There are Romanian nationalists who pretend that all the time today's
Romania was inhabited only by Romanians, while some of the most ancient
and beautiful chalk churches in Dobrogea contain Viking Runes, and
while one of the oldest mentions in eastern Europe about Jewish
synagogues refers to Cetatea Alba, around 1300AD (now Belgorod
Dnestrovschi,name translated from Romanian by Russian, previously on
Romanian soil).
"Orthodoxistic" nationalists in Romania pretend that the greek-catholics
from Transylvania have made the wrong choice, by accepting to become
Catholics. They pretend that the "Orthodoxistic" church is the only
National Church,regardless of the crucial historic contribution on the
Greek -catholic culture (see Scoala Ardeleana).
There are Bulgarian nationalists who pretend that the Turkish speaking
moslem minority in Bulgaria are Bulgarians, whose ancestors made the
wrong choice. And so on ad infinitum. Nationalists know everything every
time better than the people they want to control.
The only way to avoid the nationalistic trend our Greek counterpart has
so brilliantly demonstrated on the Soc Culture Romanian is to be open to
all the facts, and not only to those that may seem in your interest for
a minute or two. How to explain the very rich epigraphic material
discovered in Romania? If all the Latin -speaking population was
evacuated from Dacia, how the heck can you find in the 5th and 6th
century Latin inscriptions in Transylvania, like "Ego Zenobius votum
posui"? Nobody has contested the date!
If they came from Greece, how come the Transylvanian local sub-dialects
are much richer in Latin words -and much closer to the Latin-than the
southern language ? I know for sure , for I was born there; we were used
to say "farina", like in Latin, and not "faina" like in the South. And
many other Latin words. Or maybe the further you are "emigrating" from
the Roman Empire, the better you 'll speak Latin. Does it make any
sense?
What about the interraction with the neighboring languages, DURING THEIR
FORMATIVE YEARS and the total lack of interaction with the Greek
language, (which is claimed to be the origin?).
The only interractin with the Greek language in very late, when Greek
merchands came to "Heaven", as Nicu Gane has described the codded
expression "to go to the Romanian Principalities to take grains and
honey".
I will quote the word "ticalos", as being one of the few words that
comes from the Greek language. Its origin is Ti Kalos, and I do not want
to discuss about it for obvious reasons.
So talking about History means much more than "talking" propaganda,
unfortunately enough, our Greek friends have a different oppinion. Their
motto is:
BECOME A HISTORIAN! CHANGE THE HISTORY!
Respectfully,
Tony (me)
Kostas
>> Dear Galja,
>> My position is that the Greek Rumanophones are latinised Greeks,
>> whether they are Epirotans, Thessalians, Macedonians, Cretans,
>> or other regional Greek
>> people.
> What happened to the theory of The Roman Imperial Guards
> stationed in the Pindos Mountains that were left behind?
The Romans did enlist locals for the armed associasion. Therefore the
population was latinised. Where do you see the conflict?
Regards,
Kostas R.
danu...@antispam.halcyon.com
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:56:04 -0800, Me <ant...@tdl.com> wrote:
>
>What about the "Song of the Nibelungs"? It has been written during the
>8th century, and if you will read it carefully you'll see that
>Krimhilda's wedding was honored by the Polish, Hungarian, Czech and
>"Wallachian" guests, "on their quick horses". It was like a Comecom
>meeting, where Bulgarians were not even mentionned, as for Greeks, no
>way!! But attention: Wallachian, not Vlachs!! In the 8th century!
Did the song also say that the Wallachians came from Transylvania or
Dacia?
>And this is maybe one of the most important proofs the formation of the
>generic word Wallachian (not Vlachian!): the intercallation of "a"
>between two consonants was the specific way the Hungarian language has
>processed foreign words, well known and well documented by Hungarian
>linguists.
I hate to blow your bubble, but the Hungarian name for Wlachs used to be
"Olah", the "O" substituting for "W". Same for Italians: "Olasz".
Because to Hungarians "Wl" is hard to pronounce, they rather replaced
the "W" with an "O", than inserting that extra "a" between them as you
claim.
>1. The word for "son" in Romanian, was, is and it will be "fiu". It
>comes from the Latin word "filius" and according to a specific
>romanian linguistic trend, it has lost the intermediate "l". Neither
>the middle age Latin, nor the Italian nor the French language have this
>trend, which is specifically Romanian. And , surprise: the Hungarian
>language has borrowed this word from...not from the French, Italian,
>Latin language, not from some unknown Asian languages, but, we have to
>admit,....sorry for that...from the only language the were in contact
>with during that early time, when the Hungarian language was still in
>its formative years: from the Romanian (Wallachian) language.
Next thing you're going to explain that the Romanian word for
Transylvania "Ardeal" also is the source of the Hungarian name:
"Erdely". I am also quite confident that the Hungarian word for "son"
only coincidently is similar to the Latin "filius" because I can't
imagine how "fiu" could derive from it. Besides, words such as that tend
to be very ancient in every language and belong to its core. I doubt
Hungarians didn't have a name for such a basic concept before they met
some Latin people.
>
>sons have had names such as Dragffy, Banffy and so on. The meaning was
>"the son of Drag, Ban (Ban was also a Romanian name, now the name of the
>national currency, then a nobility name).
Ban is also a Croatian name. Did they borrow it from Wlachs, too?
Anyway, what's your basis of making the apriory assumption that those
word borrowings were always in the direction you suggest? What if they
were the other way around?
>Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the creator of The Systems Theory is
>one of them. Have you ever heard about his name? I doubt it.
Wait a minute! What was Bertalanffy (that's a Hungarian name, BTW)
proving: the origin of the "-ffy" suffix as meaning "son of", or that
it was picked from Romanians?
>
>As for many other words, with no other possible explanations, note: from
>Craciun, they created Karacsony (interconsonantic "a" added), from
>Crestin, Kereszteny (interconsonantic "e" added, and so on.
What if the Romanians took the name from Hungarians?
Joe
(and that's me!)
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Nikos Sarantakos <sar...@innet.lu> wrote:
...
>> Nonsense, none of the examples you give above is used
>> as a comon adjective except "vlachos". The rest of the
>> examples you give are mere stereotypes.
>
>Yes, Efthymi is right: with the possible exception of Pontios, the
>other three are *not* used as a common adjective.
>
>However, there are some ethnic names used as common adjectives:
>Guftos
>Tsigganos
>Ebraios
>Arbaniths
>in that order of frequency.
First and foremost, what the grammatical distinction between an
adjective and a stereotype has to do with the "moral weight" which
the aforementioned individual tried to give? Is it now a stereo-
type acceptable, based on cold-asses' code-of-human-contact? This
would have been big news to me. Obviously, adjective or stereo-
type does not change the type of argument, the stereotypical one,
that he tried to use against me, while he was crying baby loudly
about the negative meaning of the word "vlachos". He simply tried
to shift the argument from the substance to the grammatical form,
and thus go in all kinds of irrelevant and tangestial subjects.
Sarantakos is excused since he is a philologist, so his antennas
are sensitive to linguistic arguments. The "moralist" Efthymi, on
what grounds did he avoid the substance? Obviously on sophistic
and/or stupidity grounds.
As far as the new subject matter that it was raised, indeed "vlachos"
is used as an _universal_ adjective, along with the word "pontios"
(no reservetion whatsoever; unless you haven't heard the massive use
of the word "pontios" in every walk of life). As far as "arvanitis",
I am not aware of its use as a _universal_ adjective. On the other
hand, all the mentioned stereotypes are used as _restricted_ adje-
ctives (in connection with special words/concepts). E.g., "kala-
matiano fig", which designates derogatorily (not much; and with
strong dose of well-meant humor) "gay", has a universal use, not
being restricted as a stereotype for people from Kalamata only (in
fact, not used in that sense, as a stereotype, ever). Similarly,
expressions as "maniatiko", for designating a "vindictive person"
immaterially of his place origin. The same for "arvanitiko head".
Etc, ad nauseum. In fact, I doubt very much that there is any
real stereotyping in Greece, in the sense that you see in the
lands of cold-asses. Someone is indeed "assumed innocent before
proven guilty", in the Greek _social_ matrix (and not only in the
_judicial_ sphere). And this includes the gypsies, despite their
ultimate anti-comformism (being an ever half-assimilable nomads
group).
Gregory
Liviu Iordache
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:23:32 -0800, Me <ant...@tdl.com> wrote:
>How to explain the very rich epigraphic material
>discovered in Romania?
Since the **very rich** epigraphic material recovered from post-Dacia
Traiana contains **only two** Latin inscriptions, and you have already
mentioned one, there is not too much to explain.
>If all the Latin -speaking population was
>evacuated from Dacia, how the heck can you find in the 5th and 6th
>century Latin inscriptions in Transylvania, like "Ego Zenobius votum
>posui"?
There is a very simple explanation: imports from the Roman world. The
objects bearing these two inscriptions (QVARTINE VIVAS is the other
one) and were single finds, not belonging to any tomb or dwelling
place. Similar findings, from the same epoch, were discovered in
southeastern Sweden and Gotland (swords with Latin inscriptions),
north of the lake Malaren in Sweden (the Apollo Grannus vase, bearing
the inscription APOLLONI GRANNO DONUM AMMILIVS CONSTANS PRAEF TEMPLI
IPSIVS VSLLM), or in Norway, east of Mjosen (another bronze vessel
with Latin inscription). Therefore, none of these findings are proof
for the existence of a Latin-speaking population.
>Nobody has contested the date!
The age of these objects is irrelevant. The Roman civilization
affected all Europe, and Roman products were carried even among
populations living outside of the Empire's frontiers. But now that you
mentioned it, the Transylvanian findings were dated as 4th century,
not 5th or 6th.
>
>If they came from Greece,
Wherever in the Balkans Greek and Latin tongues competed against each
other, Greek won. Therefore, the Vlach cradle cannot be so far south
of the Jirecek line.
>how come the Transylvanian local sub-dialects
>are much richer in Latin words -and much closer to the Latin-than the
>southern language?
Do you have any statistics to back up this statement?
>I know for sure , for I was born there;
Any other arguments?
>we were used to say "farina", like in Latin, and not "faina" like in the South.
And here are other relevant examples provided by the Romanian linguist
Emil Lozovan:
Muntenia Transylvania
face............fata....................obraz (see Old Slavic obrazu)
liver.............ficat...................mai (Hungarian maj)
I sigh..........suspin................oftez
insane........nebun................bol^nd (Hungarian bolond)
Should one conclude from here that the Muntenian sub-dialect is closer
to Latin than the Transylvanian one?
>So talking about History means much more than "talking" propaganda,
Nice thoughts!
Regards,
Liviu Iordache
Liviu Iordache
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:56:04 -0800, Me <ant...@tdl.com> wrote:
>What about the "Song of the Nibelungs"?
Yeah, what about "Das Niebelungenlied?"
>It has been written during the 8th century,
The epic of the Niebelungs was created around 1200 when the two older
versions of the epic, which were written also in Austria around 1160,
were combined. Neither 1200, nor 1160 means exactly 8th century, but
maybe Der Niebelungennot (The Passion of the Niebelungen) is not the
same epic as your "Song of the Nibelungs."
>and if you will read it carefully you'll see that
>Krimhilda's wedding was honored by the Polish, Hungarian, Czech and
>"Wallachian" guests, "on their quick horses".
Darn! Professor P.P.Panaitescu, who probably read it carefully enough,
found something about "the Duke Ramunc from the land of the Vlachs
along with seven hundred men who came like birds in flight and wild
Pecheneg archers," but not a word about "their quick horses." However,
one should be aware that in Old High Germanic "like birds in flight"
sounds very close to "on their quick horses."
> But attention: Wallachian, not Vlachs!! In the 8th century!
The ethnicon is quoted in title of a paper published by Adolf
Armbruster in Revue Roumaine d'Historire (XII,1, 83-101, 1973):
Nochmals 'Herzoge Ramunc Uzer Vlachen Lant'. After all, it is not 8th
century but 12th, and Vlachen, not Wallachian.
>Later on, the Turks have said "With a Wallachian (Moldavian) horse and a
>Persan youth you can conquer an empire" So the Wallachian horses were
>indeed well known for their quality during all the Middle Ages!
Not horses, birds!!!
>And this is maybe one of the most important proofs the formation of the
>generic word Wallachian (not Vlachian!): the intercallation of "a"
>between two consonants was the specific way the Hungarian language has
>processed foreign words, well known and well documented by Hungarian
>linguists.
Youbetcha! But my guess is that most linguists are learning about this
well documented stuff just now.
Regards,
Liviu Iordache
Liviu Iordache
On Mon, 10 Feb 97 22:30:58 GMT, kr...@ix.netcom.com (Kostas) wrote:
>My position is that the Greek Rumanophones are latinised Greeks, whether they
>are Epirotans, Thessalians, Macedonians, Cretans, or other regional Greek
>people.
Dear Kostas,
Your position is at odds with the existing documentary evidence. The
"Descriptio Europae Orientalis," the work of an anonymous Frenchman
from the year 1308, notes that in Thessaly there were:
"Vlachs who were once the shepherds of the Roman and who formerly
settled in Hungary, where the pastures of the Romans were, on account
of the exceeding lushness and fertility of the land. But they were
eventually driven out of the area and fled to these parts." [Anonymi
Descriptio Europae Orientalis, ed. O. Gorka, Cracow, 1916, p.23]
Regards,
Liviu Iordache
Kostas
In article <3300B134...@lucent.com>, Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com>
wrote:
Efthymi,
while you provided sources on the concept of "Vlachs" under the assumption
that they are a singular ethnic group, you have provided none to back that
assumption
The Ethnologue database
http://www-ala.doc.ic.ac.uk:80/~rap/Ethnologue/eth.cgi/Greece/RUP
calls Arumanian "Structurally a distinct language from Rumanian (F. Agard)."
>Kostas wrote:
>> Your above paragraph only suggests that you have a long way to go before you
>> begin understanding the history of the Balkans and the Middle East. It speaks
>> for itself, so no comment from me.
>>
>
> Nonesense, it is quite accurate.
>
>
>> Latin, not Arumanian! The Romans were there, remember?
>>
>
> Romanina, Arumanian, Vlach, Machedonian, are all latin originating
> dialects.
>
>
>> First, both areas were parts of the Roman Empire. Don't you think Romans
>> latinised more than one places?
>>
>
> And why is it after almost 2000 years the Vlachs continue to speak
>Vlach
> and yet the Greeks who were also under the Roman rule continue to
>speak
> Greek ? Becasue they are ethnically different that's why.
>
>
>> I did not include Romanians in my post, someone else must have added it to
>> the header. I was only refering to the Greek group that speaks Arumanian.
> Your
>> points seem to focus on the Romanian; I personally have no beef with
>> Romanians, and I don't feel the Greek Arumanophones are related to them.
>
> They most certainly are.
Pardon me, if I don't take your word for it:
The following paragraph may explain the confusion between Vlachs and Armini:
"In the Xth Century one of the largest portions of these degenerated "Romans"
were living in the Pindos mountains, in Thessalia. (Between Epirus and
Macedonia). They were called by linguists as "Megleno- Rumuns". Another
significant group, the so-called "Arumuny" (Arumuns) were already in the
Balkan Mountains, populating the valleys from the Central Balkans to the Black
Sea. The third, and a considerably large group, the "Istro-Rumuns", still
populated the Adriatic Coast, (Dalmatia, and W. Macedonia), areas, which
belonged to the old Roman Empire centuries ago.
(Origin of Rumanians - Endre Haraszti (1992)
Liviu Iordache
On Tue, 11 Feb 97 17:48:09 GMT, kr...@ix.netcom.com (Kostas) wrote:
>First, let's clear something up: The Greek speakers of Arumanian speak a
>separate language, latinate of course, but distinct from other Rumanian groups
>like Megleno-Rumani, and Istro-Rumani. Linguists seem to agree on that.
The generally accepted viewpoint among Romance linguists is that
Romanian language (s.l.) has two branches: a northern one, that
includes the Romanian (s.s.) and Istro-Romanian dialects, and a
southern one, that includes the Arumanian and Meglenites dialects.
These are different dialects of the same language, but not different
languages. Moreover, as far as the linguists are able to reconstruct,
these dialects were initially all part of the same language, called
"common Romanian." How much common Romanian lasted, the answer differs
from author to author: 6th to 7th century (Densusianu), 7th to 9th
century (Weigand), ends in 6th century (Philippide), 6th to 8th
century (Siadbei), 7th to 10th century (Rosetti).
>Also the Arumanian speaking group in Greece has been documented to exist there
>during from the 1st century AD.
You mean there is a document that mentioned **Arumanians** in the 1st
century AD?
>term Vlach is a generic term that is applied to all groups that speak any
>Rumanian dialect, while there are many reasons to believe that those groups
>are not related.
Well, if they spoke a common language up to the 6th or 10th century,
and only after that dialects started to differentiate, don't you agree
that they must have been somehow initially related?
Kekaumenos, the Byzantine general and historian of the 11th century,
stated clearly that the Vlachs of Hellas came form near the confluence
of the Sava and Danube rivers. How do you explain his testimony?
Regards,
Liviu Iordache
Kostas
In article <3300a60e...@news.cc.uic.edu>, lio...@icarus.cc.uic.edu
Thanks for your post Liviu.
I have not seen any evidence suggesting that generic name "Vlachs" which
includes at least four linguistic groups, are of the same national origin.
According to the Ethnologue database Arumanian is:
"Structurally a distinct language from Rumanian (F. Agard)."
According to (Origin of Rumanians - Endre Haraszti (1992)
"In the Xth Century one of the largest portions of these degenerated "Romans"
were living in the Pindos mountains, in Thessalia. (Between Epirus and
Macedonia). They were called by linguists as "Megleno- Rumuns". Another
significant group, the so-called "Arumuny" (Arumuns) were already in the
Balkan Mountains, populating the valleys from the Central Balkans to the Black
Sea. The third, and a considerably large group, the "Istro-Rumuns", still
populated the Adriatic Coast, (Dalmatia, and W. Macedonia), areas, which
belonged to the old Roman Empire centuries ago. "
While others have presented references regarding "Vlachs", to my recollection,
nobody has succesfully discounted the posibility that all these latinate
speaking groups may be of different ethnic makeup.
The romans did latinise populations after all.
So, what I am questioning is: How do you prove that the Arumuns/Arminis that
people in Greece call Vlachs, have the same roots as the Wallachians,
regardless even of the Daco-Rumanian theory? Just because they speak a
latinate language, it does not mean they share common ancestry, especially
when one considers the ROMAN EMPIRE.
This issue has been avoided by the Daco-Rumanian bunch.
There are many accounts on the "Vlach" origins issue, and at the very least,
I'm not prepared to trivialise it.
Regards,
Kostas
Nikos Sarantakos
gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory Dandulakis) wrote:
>In article Nikos Sarantakos <sar...@innet.lu> wrote:
>...
>>> Nonsense, none of the examples you give above is used
>>> as a comon adjective except "vlachos". The rest of the
>>> examples you give are mere stereotypes.
>>
>>Yes, Efthymi is right: with the possible exception of Pontios, the
>>other three are *not* used as a common adjective.
>>
>>However, there are some ethnic names used as common adjectives:
>>Guftos
>>Tsigganos
>>Ebraios
>>Arbaniths
>>in that order of frequency.
I just stated that E. was right as far as the use of those five words
was concerned. I myself gave other examples, perhaps better chosen.
Obviously, while it is interesting to study such stereotypes, it is
futile or idiotic to draw any moralistic conclusions. Stereotypes are
used by any people in the wotld, first and foremost against their
neighbours.
>As far as the new subject matter that it was raised, indeed "vlachos"
>is used as an _universal_ adjective, along with the word "pontios"
>(no reservetion whatsoever; unless you haven't heard the massive use
>of the word "pontios" in every walk of life).
My reservation about "Pontios" was temporal one, i.e. it started to
achieve universality some 15+ years ago, while Vlachos is mush older,
I hope you agree.
As far as "arvanitis",
>I am not aware of its use as a _universal_ adjective.
Yes, Arvanitis is not so common. However, see proverbs as "God is not
an Arvanite" and others in the Politis' collection. We may say that it
was universal but has begun to lose that status.
On the other
>hand, all the mentioned stereotypes are used as _restricted_ adje-
>ctives (in connection with special words/concepts). E.g., "kala-
>matiano fig", which designates derogatorily (not much; and with
>strong dose of well-meant humor) "gay", has a universal use, not
>being restricted as a stereotype for people from Kalamata only (in
>fact, not used in that sense, as a stereotype, ever). Similarly,
>expressions as "maniatiko", for designating a "vindictive person"
>immaterially of his place origin. The same for "arvanitiko head".
>Etc, ad nauseum. In fact, I doubt very much that there is any
>real stereotyping in Greece, in the sense that you see in the
>lands of cold-asses. Someone is indeed "assumed innocent before
>proven guilty", in the Greek _social_ matrix (and not only in the
>_judicial_ sphere). And this includes the gypsies, despite their
>ultimate anti-comformism (being an ever half-assimilable nomads
>group).
While I agree more or less, I have some reserves. For instance, what
about Jews?
>Gregory
Nikos
Kostas
>The generally accepted viewpoint among Romance linguists is that
>Romanian language (s.l.) has two branches: a northern one, that
>includes the Romanian (s.s.) and Istro-Romanian dialects, and a
>southern one, that includes the Arumanian and Meglenites dialects.
>These are different dialects of the same language, but not different
>languages. Moreover, as far as the linguists are able to reconstruct,
>these dialects were initially all part of the same language, called
>"common Romanian." How much common Romanian lasted, the answer differs
>from author to author: 6th to 7th century (Densusianu), 7th to 9th
>century (Weigand), ends in 6th century (Philippide), 6th to 8th
>century (Siadbei), 7th to 10th century (Rosetti).
Well, the data is isufficient, according to my sources to positively conclude
that there was one language, or they all are direct derivatives of Latin.
Since the Roman empire spanned thoughout the areas, it is very likely that
more than one ethnic group was Latinized.
>
>>Also the Arumanian speaking group in Greece has been documented to exist there
>
>>during from the 1st century AD.
>
>You mean there is a document that mentioned **Arumanians** in the 1st
>century AD?
There are roman installations in Pindus that the locals call Imperatori. And
yes there are documents that mention Latin speaking people.
>
>>term Vlach is a generic term that is applied to all groups that speak any
>>Rumanian dialect, while there are many reasons to believe that those groups
>>are not related.
>
>Well, if they spoke a common language up to the 6th or 10th century,
>and only after that dialects started to differentiate, don't you agree
>that they must have been somehow initially related?
The common language a form of Latin. Seems reasonable since all the areas
concerned were under Roman rule. The language Romanian of course.
Now, is it possible that only the Dacians were "Latinised"? It makes no sense
whatsoever.
So to answer your question, since the data is insufficient, the people maybe
related linguistically, but not ethnically, when you consider the Roman Empire
latinised many ethnic groups.
>
>Kekaumenos, the Byzantine general and historian of the 11th century,
>stated clearly that the Vlachs of Hellas came form near the confluence
>of the Sava and Danube rivers. How do you explain his testimony?
"Vlach" some say is from the latin a latin derivative to mean folk. Others say
the Slavs used it as a generic term to describe any latinate speaking
population. Almost all agree that the term was established around the 9th
Century. So, it depends on who he means by Vlachs.
Regards,
Kostas R.
Christos NUESSLI
Re paidia...! Miliste de isixa...! Mas kitaļ o kosmos kai tha ginoume
apo 18 xoria !
Dorin M. Petre
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:12:05 GMT, lio...@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Liviu
Iordache) wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 97 22:30:58 GMT, kr...@ix.netcom.com (Kostas) wrote:
>
>>My position is that the Greek Rumanophones are latinised Greeks, whether they
>>are Epirotans, Thessalians, Macedonians, Cretans, or other regional Greek
>>people.
>
>Dear Kostas,
Hai, ma, Liviule, om serios esti tu sa te bagi in discutii din astia
cu liceeni amatoristi? Ia zi, te fac o tabla pa netache?
Dorin
Me
> Liviu Iordache
Sorry but I lost your previous messages referring to my observations.
I can only give you some of the answers you have asked for.
1. Yes , I have many examples of Latin words used in Transyvania, and
virtually unknown in Wallachia (Muntenia).And I mean basic words. I
wasn't interested to "make a list" , but I can give you some examples:
- The word "pacurar", which comes from pecor,pecoris is extensively used
in Transylvania for the guy who takes care of the flock (sheep). When I
used this word in Wallachia, nobody has understood what I'm saying. They
are using instead the turkish word "cioban".
If you are curious to know the Aromanian word, it's "picurarlu".
So you have a sequence North -Balcans- South which is
Latin-Turkish-Latin, but a different pronounciation in Transylvania and
Vlach regions. And it is a really basic word, unlike your examples.
_ The measurement unit for the land surface (again a basic word) is
pogon in Muntenia (Wallachia) and iugar in Transylvania (iugar=latin
word). When I asked some peasants in Transylvania "cate pogoane ai?"
their answer was "what does it mean pogon?". I do not know how is it in
the Vlach region.
-In some parts of Transylvania,(which a really diverse region, even by
Romanian standards) the wording "carul mamei" (carus,cara, carum=Latin)
is still being used instead of "dragul mamei" for a todler. Do you know
where?
-The reflexive verb "a se abjura de" is being used in many places near
Cluj. I used a Latin dictinary to check the meaning, 'cause the
Romanian dictionary I had at that time wasn't good enough. It comes from
latin, too. It cannot be found in Muntenia at all, at least not in the
countryside.
-The word "ai" is totally unknown in Wallachia, where the word
"usturoi"is being used. It is the same plant, the Latin name being
"Alium Sativum". Alium became "ai" in Transylvania, and it is of
exlusive use in many parts there. Not usturoi!!.
I have many more fundamental examples, but I won't spend my time with
them.
I saw your examples and you can compare their relative importance
yourself. The fact that Transylvania is more "Latin" is obvious anyway.
No wonder, 'cause Muntenia wasn't part of the Roman Empire, except for
Oltenia. And here you can also find amazing things. The use of
"perfectul simplu" is commom to both Oltenia and the Apuseni Mountains,
but uncommom for other regions.
2. The Encyclopedia I have says that the fist variants of the Nibelungen
Lied were created in the 8th century and the last ones in the 12th
century. Even in this case, the 12th century comes first, before the
year 1300AD. You c an argue with the German authors about the date and
wording.
3. You haven't even mentionned the early interraction between the
Romanian and Hungarian languages. Do you really think that the word
"fiu" in Romanian,"hiliu" or "hiu" in Aromanian comes from Asia, like
Mr. Danubius? Or that it is irrelevant?
I happen to think that this word comes from Latin. Actually I have in
front of me a linguistic study about the Romance languages which
specifies that the evolution was different in the periphereal regions
like Spain and Romania (fiu and hijos) than in the central regions. They
are making a theory about why ..
The fact that there are basic words which are common to both the
Romanian and the Hungarian language in crucial for understanding who was
whose neighbour. The penetration of basic words in Hungarian could have
only one interpretation: it was an interraction between them during that
time (the formation period).
As for the fact that you don't know that the Hungarian languagage has
this trend... to soften consonantic words by introducing "a" or "E" or
even"o"...what shoud I say ...I am sorry for you. It is really not my
invention the fact that Franz (in German) becomes Ferenc (in Hungarian),
BY INTRODUCING THE INTERCONSONANTIC "e" IN ORDER TO SOFTEN THE
PRONOUNCIATION.
.
You may argue about the fact the other examples I gave, like
craciun-karacsony, (from Dies Creationis) about Christmas, or
keresztenyi-crestin for Christian. You can see that the Hungarian words
are much closer to the Romanian pronounciation than to the Latin one.
And that they have introduced eiter "e" or "a" or ""O" between those
consonants . They are saying, as Danubius wrote ,Olah instead of Vlach
and Olasz instead of italian.(see also their perception of similarity).
4. If you are discarding all the epigraphic material as being irrelevant
for some reasons, you have do do it consistently. In Italy, Latium was
only a small part of the region, so the Latin epigraphic material should
also be disregarded in the rest of the Peninsula. You may be right to
do it, but then concentrate on linguistic arguments insted. Yeah,
Trimalchio wasn't really a Latin - speaking person after all.
These were some of my arguments. There are some more: the Byzantine
scholars you are quoting may have known perfectly what happened in their
area, but nothing about those ignored and illiterate people in the
Carpathian Mountains. Sometimes the language tells you much more about
History than the written documents: like by comparig the name Teleorman
win Muntenia with Deli Orman in Dobrogea. The difference between Coumans
and Turks.
I stii have to add something: you really have to know Tranyslania before
quoting foreign studies. My advice: try to double-check what I said
about the local wording.I was myself astonished about the fact that I
found clearly more Latin words there than in other regions.
regards,
Tony
2.
-
Ellhvas-SNK
In article <5dqfcq$f...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> kr...@ix.netcom.com (Kostas) writes:
<snip>
>In article <3300B134...@lucent.com>, Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com>
>wrote:
>Efthymi,
>while you provided sources on the concept of "Vlachs" under the assumption
>that they are a singular ethnic group, you have provided none to back that
>assumption
>The Ethnologue database
>http://www-ala.doc.ic.ac.uk:80/~rap/Ethnologue/eth.cgi/Greece/RUP
>calls Arumanian "Structurally a distinct language from Rumanian (F. Agard)."
Efthymi's agenda is becoming clearer. Later on he unequivocally and
'authoritatively' asserts that the Arumuni/Arimini/Vlakhoi/Koutzovlakhoi of
Greece are part of a single Romanian nation (in the objectivist, genealogical,
sense). Furthermore, HE is the one who started cross-posting this thread,
originally dealing with the Vlakhs of Greece and Ottoman Macedonian
territories that were incorporated to Greece post-1913, to
soc.culture.rumanian. He is intent on asserting that the Vlakhs of Greece are
'ethnically distinct'. I have already stated that IF one follows an
objectivist stance, and ignores the self-perception of the people in question
with respect to their ethno-national identity, any group of people who speak a
language distinct from that of the surrounding majority, and who has practiced
some relatively high degree of endogamy, and has 'cornered' a particular
'occupation' to the extent that in popular consciousness and speech whoever
practices that occupation is considered and called an 'X', and every 'X' is
assumed to be practicing that occupation, can be labelled an 'ethnic group'.
But these 'labels' and 'classifications' are ONLY analytically useful, and
have no impact on the actual people and THEIR own self-conception, unless THEY
become THEIR own self-conceptions and prime 'anchors' in their orientation to
social action.
<snip>
>> Andwhy is it after almost 2000 years the Vlachs continue to speak
>> Vlach and yet the Greeks who were also under the Roman rule continue to
>>speak Greek ? Becasue they are ethnically different that's why.
>>> I did not include Romanians in my post, someone else must have added it to
>>> the header. I was only refering to the Greek group that speaks Arumanian.
>>> Your
>>> points seem to focus on the Romanian; I personally have no beef with
>>> Romanians, and I don't feel the Greek Arumanophones are related to them.
>> They most certainly are.
Well, here it is. This IS the real beef, for Efthymi. To convince an
international audience that people, who HE says overwhelmingly consider
themselves nationally Greek, are actually Romanian. And when I alleged that he
was following in the steps of 19th century Romanian nationalists he said that
I was 'assuming too much' about him. Alas, I was proven right ex post facto.
>Pardon me, if I don't take your word for it:
>The following paragraph may explain the confusion between Vlachs and Armini:
>"In the Xth Century one of the largest portions of these degenerated "Romans"
>were living in the Pindos mountains, in Thessalia. (Between Epirus and
>Macedonia). They were called by linguists as "Megleno- Rumuns". Another
>significant group, the so-called "Arumuny" (Arumuns) were already in the
>Balkan Mountains, populating the valleys from the Central Balkans to the Black
>Sea. The third, and a considerably large group, the "Istro-Rumuns", still
>populated the Adriatic Coast, (Dalmatia, and W. Macedonia), areas, which
>belonged to the old Roman Empire centuries ago.
>(Origin of Rumanians - Endre Haraszti (1992)
All the best,
"The word Greek designate[s] not any more the race, but the culture, and we now call Greeks those who participate in our education rather than those who have the same origin with us."
Isocrates, "Panegyric", 50
Stavros N. Karageorgis
E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
danu...@antispam.halcyon.com
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:36:15 -0800, Me <ant...@tdl.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry to say , but The Song of the Nibelungs hs been written in German,
>not in Hungarian.
Who said otherwise? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
I was asking you if the song also mentioned where those Walachians were
from? I did that because most of your effort seems to be here to prove
the Daco-Roman Continuity theory.
>The H ungarian language has added indeed the O before L (they are saying
>Olah, but in all the cermanic texts the Wallch form is used(not Vlach)
Then why did you write this:
>And this is maybe one of the most important proofs the formation of the
>generic word Wallachian (not Vlachian!): the intercallation of "a"
>between two consonants was the specific way the Hungarian language has
>processed foreign words, well known and well documented by Hungarian
>linguists.
>As for the latin - the Romanian word Fiu, (filius) you can indeed think
>that the Hungarian population came to Europe from a Latin - speaking
>Area in Asia. You can, but it is absurd.
Again ... who said what you are claiming? Here is what I wrote:
>I am also quite confident that the Hungarian word for "son"
>only coincidently is similar to the Latin "filius" because I can't
>imagine how "fiu" could derive from it. Besides, words such as that tend
>to be very ancient in every language and belong to its core. I doubt
>Hungarians didn't have a name for such a basic concept before they met
>some Latin people.
Then you continuing with your total misreading of my post:
>So the Hungarians have taught the local population in Transylvania,
>whatever their origin, Latin? This is what you are saying?
I said or implied nothing of the sort. Read again what I wrote.
>I will repeat: Hungarians have a non-indo-European language.
Not that anybody doubted it ...
>The word FIU comes from Latin,(FILIUS)n and it is specific only for the
>Romanian language. Not for the medieval Latin, Not for French, Not for
>Italian.
The Hungarian word for daughter is "lany". Does that come from Latin,
too? If the "fiu" does, why not the "lany"? As I said, I don't think
the Hungarian word fiu's etymology has anything to do with the Latin
"filius". The similarity is only superficial.
>Does it make any sense to you to say that a latin-speaking population
>neede to be teached Latin by migrants who happen to speak a non-Latin,
>even non indo-European language?
Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
You already make the assumption about the Daco-Roman Continuity as a
fact instead of just a theory and thus also assume that where there are
any words similar in Hungarian and Romanian, the borrowing was from
Romanian. Do you also mean that the Hungarian word "Erdely" was
borrowed from the Romanian word "Ardeal" then?
Joe Pannon
Liviu Iordache
On Tue, 11 Feb 97 20:19:52 GMT, kr...@ix.netcom.com (Kostas) wrote:
>Thanks for your post Liviu.
>I have not seen any evidence suggesting that generic name "Vlachs" which
>includes at least four linguistic groups, are of the same national origin.
>According to the Ethnologue database Arumanian is:
>
>"Structurally a distinct language from Rumanian (F. Agard)."
Your quote form the Ethnologue, which BTW is anything but the ultimate
reference, is incomplete. It should read:
"Structurally a distinct language from Rumanian (F. Agard). It split
from the other 3 Rumanian languages between 500 and 1000 A.D. 'Armini'
refers to the people. Rapid assimilation to Greek culture; children
attend Greek schools."
So even your Ethnologue agrees that the four languages (dialects more
exactly) have a common origin, and that Arumanians, or at least their
language, split from the common trunk to be assimilated to the Greek
culture.
>According to (Origin of Rumanians - Endre Haraszti (1992)
Endre Haraszti is neither a historian nor a linguist. His "Origin of
Rumanians" merely qualifies as propaganda. However, his central idea
is that present-day Romanians have their roots in the southern parts
of the Balkans, and that Arumanians and Meglenites are leftovers form
the original cradle. Haraszti, therefore, argued for and not against a
common origin of all these populations. A relevant quote illustrating
Haraszti's image is his note 35, at the same page from where your
excerpt came:
http://web.ucs.ubc.ca:80/szeitz/books/haraszti1/iii.html
"*35: Megleno-Rumuns, Arumuns and Istro-Rumuns; - these expressions
are clearly showing the fact that the Vlachs were actually peoples who
were left by Roman colonizers in these areas. These names are also
showing the fact that these fragments were the main starting points of
a later unified people, which called itself: Rumania. "
>
>While others have presented references regarding "Vlachs", to my recollection,
>nobody has succesfully discounted the posibility that all these latinate
>speaking groups may be of different ethnic makeup.
Let's see: they have a common pre-Latin substrate (whether Illyrian or
Thracian) in which the proportion of Greek words is insignificant,
they call themselves using very similar ethnicons derived from the
Latin "romanus," and they spoke the same Romance language until
sometime between the 6th and 10th century. Why should they have a
different ethnic makeup?
Moreover, crystal clear historical documents recorded the fact that
the Vlachs of Greece are allochtonous. I stress this because, not like
the linguistic arguments, documentary records represent direct
evidence.
Regards,
Liviu Iordache
Carsten Läkamp
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:12:03 GMT, lio...@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Liviu
Iordache) wrote:
>>and if you will read it carefully you'll see that
>>Krimhilda's wedding was honored by the Polish, Hungarian, Czech and
>>"Wallachian" guests, "on their quick horses".
>
>found something about "the Duke Ramunc from the land of the Vlachs
>along with seven hundred men who came like birds in flight and wild
>Pecheneg archers," but not a word about "their quick horses." However,
>one should be aware that in Old High Germanic "like birds in flight"
>sounds very close to "on their quick horses."
>
This last sentence is real nonsense. "Walachen" are cited twice (in my
edition: H. de Boer after K. Bartsch):
verse 1339:
den Poelan unt den Walachen sach man swinde gan
ir ross die vil guoten, [...]
verse 1343:
Der herzoge Ramune uzer Walachen Lant
mit siben hundert mannen kom er fuer sie gerant.
sam vliegende vogele sah man si varn.
The second one is the one you translated, the first one speaks of the
*good horses* of the Poles and "Walachen".
>> But attention: Wallachian, not Vlachs!! In the 8th century!
>
>The ethnicon is quoted in title of a paper published by Adolf
>Armbruster in Revue Roumaine d'Historire (XII,1, 83-101, 1973):
>Nochmals 'Herzoge Ramunc Uzer Vlachen Lant'. After all, it is not 8th
>century but 12th, and Vlachen, not Wallachian.
>
The notes in my edition give the following "translation" for
"Walachen": Waelsche (it is a German edition !) undefined foreign,
mostly Romanic peoples.
I believe both writings could be used in different manuscripts. It
sometimes refers to Romanic peoples (standard German W(a)elsch or
Alsatian "Walsch"), sometimes to Celtic ones (French: "Gallois,
Gaulois", Englisch "Welsh", ...) and has so many different writings...
I cannot imagine that anyone could conlude either way with this !
Carsten Läkamp
Strasbourg, Alsace, France, EU
e-mail: CLae...@aol.com / lak...@inforoute.cgs.fr
Carsten Läkamp
On Tue, 11 Feb 97 19:51:14 GMT, kr...@ix.netcom.com (Kostas) wrote:
>In article <3300B134...@lucent.com>, Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com>
>wrote:
>Efthymi,
>while you provided sources on the concept of "Vlachs" under the assumption
>that they are a singular ethnic group, you have provided none to back that
>assumption
>The Ethnologue database
>http://www-ala.doc.ic.ac.uk:80/~rap/Ethnologue/eth.cgi/Greece/RUP
>calls Arumanian "Structurally a distinct language from Rumanian (F. Agard)."
>
I am not saying this is wrong, but I know from another example that
the Ethnologue Database does contain entries that can only be
described as rubbish. To be used very carefully !
Zoltan Gagyi-Palffy
In article <330140...@tdl.com>,
Me <ant...@tdl.com> writes:
> You may argue about the fact the other examples I gave, like
> craciun-karacsony, (from Dies Creationis) about Christmas, or
> keresztenyi-crestin for Christian. You can see that the Hungarian words
> are much closer to the Romanian pronounciation than to the Latin one.
I do not have much interest in this debate whatsoever, but this claim
of yours is just hilarious! You should substantiate your argument
going a step further, and claiming that "kereszt" (the root of
"kereszteny") comes from its Romanian counterpart "cruce". But then,
of course, your pseudotheory would be in trouble. And that becouse
"crestin" and "cruce" in Romanian are not related at all.
Btw., why do you think that latin elements in Hungarian would
indicate borrowing from Romanian? It is all well known that the
official language of the royal court and the church was latin
centuries long...
> Tony
All the best,
Zoli
P.s: Reply only to soc.culture.romanian
--
"Nu se poate sa iti propui sa construiesti societatea autentic
democratica cu cei care au lucrat de zor la cladirea societatii
autentic comuniste".
Gavril Dejeu (ministru de interne)
Liviu Iordache
>>However,
>>one should be aware that in Old High Germanic "like birds in flight"
>>sounds very close to "on their quick horses."
>>
>
>This last sentence is real nonsense.
It is, isn't it? I should have added a smiley ;-)
>>The ethnicon is quoted in title of a paper published by Adolf
>>Armbruster in Revue Roumaine d'Historire (XII,1, 83-101, 1973):
>>Nochmals 'Herzoge Ramunc Uzer Vlachen Lant'. After all, it is not 8th
>>century but 12th, and Vlachen, not Wallachian.
>>
>The notes in my edition
Your text follows the spelling used in the original manuscript?
>give the following "translation" for
>"Walachen": Waelsche (it is a German edition !) undefined foreign,
>mostly Romanic peoples. I believe both writings could be used in different manuscripts. It
>sometimes refers to Romanic peoples (standard German W(a)elsch or
>Alsatian "Walsch"), sometimes to Celtic ones (French: "Gallois,
>Gaulois", Englisch "Welsh", ...) and has so many different writings...
> I cannot imagine that anyone could conlude either way with this !
What do you think about the Pechenegs being mentioned immediately next
to the people of Duke Ramunc?
Regards,
Liviu Iordache
Liviu Iordache
On Tue, 11 Feb 97 21:52:59 GMT, kr...@ix.netcom.com (Kostas) wrote:
>> Moreover, as far as the linguists are able to reconstruct,
>>these dialects were initially all part of the same language, called
>>"common Romanian." How much common Romanian lasted, the answer differs
>>from author to author: 6th to 7th century (Densusianu), 7th to 9th
>>century (Weigand), ends in 6th century (Philippide), 6th to 8th
>>century (Siadbei), 7th to 10th century (Rosetti).
>Well, the data is isufficient, according to my sources to positively conclude
>that there was one language,
The only source you mentioned until now was the Ethnologue, which
clearly states that there was once a common language, and that
Arumanian split from it sometime between 500 and 1000 AD.
>Since the Roman empire spanned thoughout the areas, it is very likely that
>more than one ethnic group was Latinized.
Do your sources comment on the fact that Arumanian and Romanian have a
a common pre-Latin substrate?
>>>Also the Arumanian speaking group in Greece has been documented to exist there
>>>during from the 1st century AD.
>>
>>You mean there is a document that mentioned **Arumanians** in the 1st
>>century AD?
>There are roman installations in Pindus that the locals call Imperatori. And
>yes there are documents that mention Latin speaking people.
And what makes you think they were the ancestors of present-day
Arumanians?
>The common language a form of Latin. Seems reasonable since all the areas
>concerned were under Roman rule. The language Romanian of course.
>Now, is it possible that only the Dacians were "Latinised"? It makes no sense
>whatsoever.
Of course the possibility of Romanization existed for other ethnic
groups too, although I would not include the Dacians among these
groups. However, Romanization along the Via Egnatia seems even a
weaker possibility than the Romanization of Dacia Traiana.
>>Kekaumenos, the Byzantine general and historian of the 11th century,
>>stated clearly that the Vlachs of Hellas came form near the confluence
>>of the Sava and Danube rivers. How do you explain his testimony?
>"Vlach" some say is from the latin a latin derivative to mean folk. Others say
>the Slavs used it as a generic term to describe any latinate speaking
>population. Almost all agree that the term was established around the 9th
>Century. So, it depends on who he means by Vlachs.
Beyond any doubt Kekaumenos was referring to the 11th century, Romance
-speking, Vlach population of Thessaly.
Regards,
Liviu Iordache