Vlahos the victims of Greek nationalism
Deja User
>>a people is that of the most ancient civilization
>>of the Balkans, the Vlahos.
>>
>>Exterminated by the Bulgars, by the Serbs and Croats,
>>now they are completely wiped out by the Greeks.>
Mr. Tsapanos, the so-called Atochthonous Vlach living
in US wrote:
> Gee...........I must be dead !
Not speaking a word in Vlach means that you are dead as
Vlahos, but not dead as Greek.
Me, for exemple, I am Romanian by nationality and
Vlach as well Romanian by conscience. And those are not
just empty words you are using in your posts defining
yourself as Vlach.
I try to defend the rights of Aromanian (Vlach) people
wherever they live. Those are again not empty words
since I read electronic Aromanian newspapers, I am
practicing in Aromanian (Vlach), I try to be in
knowledge of any injustice made against that people,
and I am spreading the information about such injustices
by all available means.
Be fair, Mr. Tsapanos (or may be Ciapanos=Ciapan=Ciaban),
and just say that you are defending the
Greek nationalism that is mostly based on worthless
theories and ideas.
------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/
--
Posted from [195.22.228.131] by way of mail17.bigmailbox.com [209.132.220.48]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
George S. Tsapanos
>Mr. Tsapanos, the so-called Atochthonous Vlach living
>in US wrote:
>> Gee...........I must be dead !
>
>Not speaking a word in Vlach means that you are dead as
>Vlahos, but not dead as Greek. >
Who says so? You see the ORIGINAL VLACHS are no one else but the Ancient
Hellenes that once the Romans arived they learned their language and spoke a
mix dialect.
>Me, for exemple, I am Romanian by nationality and
>Vlach as well Romanian by conscience.>
I don't see you saying to us that you speak any of the various Vlachian
languages/dialects, do you now?
So how come you consider yourself more Vlach than me and above anything else
WHAT kind of Vlach?
>just empty words you are using in your posts defining
>yourself as Vlach.>
According to you of course.
>I try to defend the rights of Aromanian (Vlach) people
>wherever they live>
The Aromanian Vlachs are simply the HELLENIC Vlachs, what do you have to do
with them?
>. Those are again not empty words
>since I read electronic Aromanian newspapers, I am
>practicing in Aromanian (Vlach), I try to be in
>knowledge of any injustice made against that people,
>and I am spreading the information about such injustices
>by all available means.>
Do you VOTE ?
Do you have them VOTE?
THAT what counts and NOTHING else.
The Helleniv Vlachs they DO VOTE and they express their wills in a DEMOCRATIC
WAY.
>Be fair, Mr. Tsapanos (or may be Ciapanos=Ciapan=Ciaban),
>and just say that you are defending the
>Greek nationalism that is mostly based on worthless
>theories and ideas. >
Whats wrong with Greek Nationalism?
The HELLENIC VLACHS, were and are the OLDEST among other people called
as.......Vlachs, so..........whats wrong having the Hellenic Vlachs defending
Hellenic Nationalism against idiots from left and right that do not wish to go
to the poles and VOTE in a DEMOCRATIC way, but they inundate us with any kind
of LIES and PROPAGANDA?
>
Regards to all ..................L.
"Vlachs, The Autochthonous
Of the Hellenic Peninsula".
a...@erols.com
Deja User wrote:
Gigic,
How many Vlasi are there in Romania?
June R Harton
<a...@erols.com> the consumate dimwit wrote in message
news:3ACBF99B...@erols.com...
> Gigic,
> How many Vlasi are there in Romania?
Whether you like it or not, filth, the greek Vlach are Greek.
You take your filthy self and go back to your flames.
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
Deja User
> Who says so? You see the ORIGINAL VLACHS are no one else but the
> AncientHellenes that once the Romans arived they learned their
> language and spoke a mix dialect.
Just a theory which copes pretty well with the most stupid in the
world Greek Nationalism.
Before the WWII Vlachs were considered as ethnic minority. Putting some more Greek words in the Aromanian language does not change at all the Latin (that is Romanian in this part of Europe) base of the language.
> I don't see you saying to us that you speak any of the various
> Vlachian languages/dialects, do you now?
I easily understand the Aromanian (Vlach) language, which is not the
case for you. Do you see the difference?
By the way, tu zburãshti armâneshte?
> So how come you consider yourself more Vlach than me and above
> anything else WHAT kind of Vlach?
If you go through the history you could see that inhabitants of
Moldova, which is my homeland, were often called V(a)lachs. In
previous times all Vlachs were united and only other nations make
this people live in different countries.
> The Aromanian Vlachs are simply the HELLENIC Vlachs, what do you
> have to do with them?
If you know the current facts, there are 150,000 Aromanian Vlachs
living in Romania. According to your theory if you are Aromanian
Vlach living in Greece you are Greek by nationality, and if you are
Aromanian Vlach living in Romania you are Romanian by nationality.
And something else, if I follow your ideas - go and ask the people to
find out who they are. Do the same with Aromanians living in Romania.
Don't use the word "Propoganda" because I'm affraid you are becoming
parannoic by placing such word in each matter discussed.
> Whats wrong with Greek Nationalism?
Nothing wrong except it has no limits in stupidity.
May be the ancient Greeks have left something good fot the world but
surely not the modern ones.
Haristo Multu,
Gigic,
"The Non-Greek Autochthoneous
of South-Eastern Europe"
------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/
--
Posted from [195.22.228.131] by way of mail10.bigmailbox.com [209.132.220.41]
June R Harton
""Deja User"" <gi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2001040507...@mail10.bigmailbox.com...
> The really Autochthonous Vlach wrote:
> > Who says so? You see the ORIGINAL VLACHS are no one else but the
> > AncientHellenes that once the Romans arived they learned their
> > language and spoke a mix dialect.
> Just a theory which copes pretty well with the most stupid in the
> world Greek Nationalism.
No. You are refusing all the valid data presented to you numerous times.
How do you think all the latinized people appeared?!
As with the Latinized Illyrians and Thracians, there were latinized Greeks
in (the real) Upper Macedonia.
You have provided not one iota of evidence to show that that didn't occur.
Whereas we have presented various evidences that it did, and presented
historians, who are not only Greek, who say that that did happen.
Therefore you are not only incorrect but are a malicious troll.
Get lost, troll.
Marius Iacomi
The self-proclaimed "Spirit of Truth" (using June's e-mail) wrote:
> ""Deja User"" <gi...@my-deja.com> wrote [...]
>
>> The really Autochthonous Vlach wrote:
>>> Who says so? You see the ORIGINAL VLACHS are no one else but the
>>> AncientHellenes that once the Romans arived they learned their
>>> language and spoke a mix dialect.
>>
>> Just a theory which copes pretty well with the most stupid in the
>> world Greek Nationalism.
>
> No. You are refusing all the valid data presented to you numerous times.
Which data are you specifically refering to?
> How do you think all the latinized people appeared?!
The word "latinized" speaks by itself.
> As with the Latinized Illyrians and Thracians, there were latinized
> Greeks in (the real) Upper Macedonia.
It depends. Greek culture and language were strong enough to resist
and impose themselves in front of Latin domination. The shift from Latin
to Greek as official language of the Eastern Roman Empire jut took into
account the "de facto" situation at some historical moment. As you know,
most historians and linguists agreed that there was a limit between
Latin-speaking and Greek-speaking people in (Eastern) Roman Empire, the
"Jirecek line". This line (which has not to be taken as an ultimate border
between two languages and regions of cultural influence but merely as the
orientative strip of land where Latin and Greek were interfering) cuts in
two parts the FYROM; had the population from the northern part spoke only
a Greek dialect before Romans' arrival, your assertion could have been
true with some good probability.
> You have provided not one iota of evidence to show that that didn't occur.
You look for evidence of what exactly?!
As far as the so-called Greek Vlachs are concerned, the theory that they're
latinized Greeks is popular only in Greek media. There were brought on this
forum some hilarious arguments in order to prove linguistically the Greek
ancestry of the Vlachs (Aromanians); there is no point in presenting some
Greek loan words as such a proof, the structure and basic lexicon of Vlach
(Aromanian) are essentialy Latin. Loan words as well as some phonetic loans
show only that Greeks and Vlachs were in contact for a long period.
Linguistically, Vlachs (Aromanians) are speaking a Romanian dialect, this
is a well-established fact for any serious non-Greek linguist (BTW, if you
think this is not true and Aromanian is not a Romanian dialect, try to
publish your argued conviction in a serious linguistical journal, this
would be the discovery of the decade in Romance Linguistics: a new Romance
tongue). The similarities between the four Romanian dialects can be under-
stood only if the ancestors of the corresponding actual peoples lived in
close contact for a long time, at least up to the Common (Proto-)Romanian
historical moment: that is at the north of Jirecek line, i.e. with not so
much Hellenic influence. If you want some hints on the intimate connections
between Romanian dialects, just ask it.
The separation of Vlachs (Aromanians) occured somewhere between the VIII-th
and XII-th centuries. The event was clearly suggested by some guy (Katakalon
Kekaumenos) who wrote that they lived once "near the Danube and on Saos --
nowdays called Sava -- where are living Serbians now, in inaccessible or
hardly accessible places", they rebelled against Byzantine power but they
were defeated and forced to withdraw toward South, in Epyrus and Macedonia
and settle down in Greece (the rebellion occured under Constantin X Ducas,
that is XI-th century). In "Anonymi Descriptio Europae" (~1300), Vlachs are
described by a French Dominican priest as "Pastores Romanorum", chased off
from Pannonia by Hungarians. In both regions one could hardly infer a massive
Greek presence. :-)
If there is still left some doubt on the supposed Greek ancestry for Greek
Vlachs, just try to explain these common substrate words which appear in all
four Romanian dialects and they're not Latin:
Daco-Romanian Aromanian Megleno-Romanian Istro-Romanian
baci baci(u) baci batze
balega baliga baliga balega
bra^u bra~n bro~n bra~v
catun catun catun catun
cioara cioara cioara ciore
copac cupaciu cupaci copatz
gard gardu gard gard
groapa groapa groapa grope
gusha~ gushe gusha~ gushe
mare mare mari mare
mos mos mos mos
sa^mbure sa~mbure somburi sa^mbur
strunga strunga strunga strunga
shtira shturca shtirava shtirca
tzap tzap tzap tzap
vatra vatra vatra vatre
(not to speak about the other substrate words which appear in Aromanian
and only some of the other dialects).
Try also to explain the name the Vlachs usually give themselves -- Arm^n,
Arum^n, Arumun. Take into account that "Vlach" meant originally "Romance-
speaking" population and was not used by the Romance speakers themselves.
And don't forget to send the result of your investigations to a serious
scientific review if they don't agree with the above.
If you prefer to launch on this forum a debate on the linguistical and
historical facts, go ahead, but be aware of the differences between facts
and wishful thinking. Vlachs from Greece are Greek citizens and there is
no point in fearing they will eventually act against their own state; on
the other hand, their ancestry and language are not Greek but Romance and,
according to most historians and linguists, deeply related with Romanians.
Weren't we in the Balkans, there should be no problem in admitting that.
Cheers,
M.M. de M.
Dirty Harry
news:9agvos$30rg$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> Gail Schneider
> <a...@erols.com> the consumate dimwit wrote in message
> news:3ACBF99B...@erols.com...
> > Gigic,
> > How many Vlasi are there in Romania?
>
>
> Whether you like it or not, filth, the greek Vlach are Greek.
No they aren't. The Vlachs are simply that, just like the Macedonians are
simply Macedonian and nothing else.
Have a nice day.
It is time for you Grkomans to stop lying to yourselves. From the Journal
of Modern Greek Studies:
An indispensable component of the thesis concerning unbroken historical
continuity was the Hellenic character of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. In
the early years of the Kingdom of Greece (1832-1844), the boundaries of
modern Greece were conceived as identical to those of ancient Greece; the
ancient Macedonians were viewed as conquerors of [End Page 282] ancient
Greece and not as part of it.
-- See Dimaras (1985:338-339) and Dimakis (1991). The appropriation of the
legacy of ancient Macedonia by the modern Greeks belongs historically to the
second half of the nineteenth century. Politis (1993:40-42) cites fourteen
examples from the Greek literature of the 1794-1841 period in which the
ancient Macedonians are not considered to be part of the ancient Greek
world. Prominent intellectuals like Ioannis Rizos Neroulos and Adamantios
Koraes were among those who shared this viewpoint.
Marius Laza
Greek descent. If they speak another language, they must have spoken Greek
before. I can understood that they are afraid of claims by Bulgars (Macedoslavs),
Albanians (renamed Arvanites), Turks or Pomaks, who might be looking to
neighbours as mother countries (more likely in the case of Muslims), but what
threat the Aromanians can represent is quite impossible for me to understand. It
seems that they have already been assimilated at a high degree, more so than
other minorities. They seem to have played a prominent role in the war for Greek
independence. Why the Greeks insist on this nonsense that the Aromanians are
Romanized Greeks I cannot figure out.
On the contrary, they should be proud that they had a culture superior to that of
the Romans so they couldn't be Romanized. Although defeated militarily, they
defeated the Romans culturally, Hellenizing the Eastern half of the Empire. These
are the achievements of a culture of an immense prestige. That prestige isn't
enhanced by making everyone in Greece and around it a descendent of the old
Greeks, but they insist on this nonsense. They should pay more attention to the
Muslims (Turks and Pomaks), they might be a real danger to Greece, not the
Aromanians.
By the way, it seems that Romania and Greece broke off diplomatic relations in
1905 or 1906 because of the ill treatment of Aromanians by Greece. As repraisals,
Romania expelled some 5000 Greeks. Too bad.
Misu Orasel Tomberg
Marius Laza <la...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>The Greeks have this fixation that everyone living in present-day Greece
is of
>Greek descent.
Similar Romanians have this obsession of their daco-romanian
heritage. Who were the Dacians? What language did they speek?
What happened after the aurelian retreat? Did the entire
province move south of Danube according to archeological and
documentary testimonials? Or did the daco-romanians move
into the mountains north of Danube were they survived?
But than the question arises: how are the Vlahs related
to the north of Danube living "valahi/olahi", today being
known as Romanians (the earliest documents, around XVI century
name this people as rumin, and even today countries such
as Spain denominate Rumania as the country north of Danube).
>Why the Greeks insist on this nonsense that the Aromanians are
>Romanized Greeks I cannot figure out.
Maybe it is true. AS a matter of fact, pursuing the other
avenue of the origin of proto-romanians, a people born
south of Danube, in various parts, like in the Sava region,
Timoc valley, but also in Makedonia, Haemus mountains
(the biggest concentration of Vlahs was just around Tessaloniki,
their religios head was based in Ohrid) it is obvious that
Vlahs might have been a romanized greek population, or
an illyric one. It might be possible, that Vlahs are actually
the only survivors of the oldest Balkan populations.
But this is not relevant to the fact that their tongue
is a Romance language, and it closely related to Romanian.
As a matter of fact, linguists talk about proto-romanian,
the language which was spoken in the Balkans during the VI-X
century, the language spoken by another well known Vlah,
the emperor Iustinian.
M.M. de C?
gogu
news:3ACCA754...@cs.ubc.ca...
>They seem to have played a prominent role in the war for Greek
>independence.
Not a so big one as fighters (they indeed played an important role in
financing the Greek independence war, and before that, the creation of Greek
schools! Go figure why not "Vlach schools":-)). But they did played an
important role AFTER the liberation. As a matter of fact they donated their
fortunes to the newly formed Greek state and many of them are named between
the "great benefactors" of Greece. Since those days they were saying about
themselves that they were Greeks... I wonder why, since in those days
(independence war and later) nobody forced them to say what they were or
were not... What made Rigas Fereos (and many others) to identify himself as
a Greek and not a Vlach? Were those Vlachs stupid or what?
> Why the Greeks insist on this nonsense that the Aromanians are
>Romanized Greeks I cannot figure out.
You must ask the Vlachs themselves! Why they (more than 99%!) are sustaining
"sus si tare" that they are Greeks? And please don't give me the
"persecuted" crap. Today everybody is free to say whatever he wants.
> By the way, it seems that Romania and Greece broke off diplomatic
relations in
> 1905 or 1906 because of the ill treatment of Aromanians by Greece. As
repraisals,
> Romania expelled some 5000 Greeks. Too bad.
In "1905 or 1906" Vlachs were living under Ottoman rule. Their territories
were still part of the Ottoman Empire. They became Greek subjects only after
1912-1913 (Balkan wars) and later... Get your information straight.
spataru
Misu Orasel Tomberg <mi...@ora.to> wrote in message
news:3accaf79$1...@news2.mibx.net...
>
>
> M.M. de C?
ba misule, tu ai crize de identitate, mai nou, ba? sau asta e efectu
secundar al medicatziei si socurilor elecrice la care te supun infirmierii
de la balaceanca?
de ce te tot intrebi daca esti mm de c? nu esti convins ca tu esti tu? sau
te crezi fu'n napulion cu memoria stearsa da pulitzia pulitica mondiala care
are tot interesu sa nu se afle ca tu esti claudia schiffer in realitate?
spataru?
Misu Orasel Tomberg
"spataru" <spa...@acasa.com> wrote:
>
>Misu Orasel Tomberg <mi...@ora.to> wrote in message
>news:3accaf79$1...@news2.mibx.net...
>>
>>
>> M.M. de C?
>
>ba misule, tu ai crize de identitate, mai nou, ba?
>de ce te tot intrebi daca esti mm de c?
Asta este efectul tratamentului cu virgule, cratime
si alte simboluri ortografice romanesti.
Acuma pe bune, cind vezi: mm de c
care este primul tau reflex?
Nu este cumva sa pronunti: de ce?
Si atunci ca sa fiu consecvent, nu este normal
sa ma semnez: m.m. de c?
si ca sa fiu in acord cu regulile de distribuire
a semnaturii in partea jos, dreapta, la distanta 5cm de
margine, nu este firesc sa ma semnez:
M. M. de C?
PS:
vezi spatare, limbile la noi romanii sint grele, au
schepsis bai spatare, nu e ca la gretzi, aia de se nasc
de mici, hingheri, ca si Brigitte Bardot s-a speriat de ei.
Sau ca la fratzii gretzilor, bucalezii, dar aia macar stiu
sa se baseasca baaa.
Limba nu e pentru orisicine bai spatare baaaaa....
Misu Orasel Tomberg
"spataru" <spa...@acasa.com> wrote:
>
>Misu Orasel Tomberg <mi...@ora.to> wrote in message
>news:3accaf79$1...@news2.mibx.net...
>>
>>
>> M.M. de C?
>
>ba misule, tu ai crize de identitate, mai nou, ba? sau asta e efectu
>secundar al medicatziei si socurilor elecrice la care te supun
> infirmierii de la balaceanca?
Apropo de Balaceanca si de Gretzi:
Balacenii au facut timp de sapte veacuri istorie
Noua colectie "Mari familii romanesti" a Editurii
Vitruviu a fost lansata prin cartea-document intitulata "Saga
Balacenilor", o istorie a celei mai longevive familii
boieresti, scrisa de ultimul descendent al acesteia, acad.
Constantin Balaceanu-Stolnici. Familia are un trecut
ce parcurge sapte secole agitate, neprevazute si
tulburatoare, Balacenii influentand de cele mai multe
ori cotiturile istoriei neamului. Lansarea cartii, care s-a
desfasurat miercuri seara in Casa Scriitorilor, i-a
oferit autorului prilejul de a se confesa, marturisind
motivatiile acestei initiative. Cartea a fost scrisa
inca de pe vremea comunistilor, constituind un refugiu
pentru profesor. Dupa schimbarea regimului, s-a simtit
dator sa scoata la lumina "o lada cu documente"
salvate de urgia comunista si sa ofere romanilor
aceasta mostenire. Cu aceasta carte "am vrut sa subliniez,
in mare, aportul familiei, cum a fost prezenta sa
la Rovine", argumenteaza Constantin Balaceanu-Stolnici.
Apoi, autorul a dorit sa puncteze contributia familiei
la constituirea Bucurestilor, transformand mahalalele
Balacestilor (langa Biserica Sf. Dumitru) si Baratiei.
O alta contributie a fost "ideea de a face o Universitate
in limba romana" pe cand se studia numai in greaca
veche, latina si slovena. Cu aportul carturarului
Gheorghe Lazar a luat, astfel, fiinta Scoala de
la Sf. Sava "de care eu sunt mandru".
June R Harton
Whether you like it or not, filth, the Greek Vlach are Greek.
Marius Iacomi
"gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why the Greeks insist on this nonsense that the Aromanians are
>> Romanized Greeks I cannot figure out.
>
> You must ask the Vlachs themselves! Why they (more than 99%!) are
> sustaining "sus si tare" that they are Greeks? And please don't give
> me the "persecuted" crap. Today everybody is free to say whatever he
> wants.
We already discussed that issue: they claim their Greek citizenship
which is too often confused with ethnic ancestry. There are also many
Vlachs indoctrinated with official propaganda: a similar case to the
one of many Moldovans from Bessarabia claiming they're not Romanian.
There are also reticences from them when discussing to strangers; after
all, in the Balkans ethnical issues are still a sensible subject, the
background is clearly different with respect to Western Europe.
All these reasons make me strongly doubt about your estimated 99%
of "Greeks" among Vlachs (Aromanians). Let's ask some of them (since
you read Romanian, you should enjoy the following phrases):
"Arm^n'il'i suntu urmasil'i a miletzloru di-nghiosu di Dunari tzi li
romanizara Romanil'i [Traco-Iliri, Machidhon'i, Gretzi] sh-tzi au ca
limba di muma limba latina. Numa etnica 'Arm^nu' yini di lat. ROMANUS,
sh-na u deadimu noi singuri, ca stimu ca himu faptza^ di Romani: miletzli
xeani di-a-nva^rliga n^ dz^cu 'Vlahi'." (Matilda Caragiu-Marioteanu --
Dictionar Aroman (Macedo-Vlah), 1997)
"... filologia istorica roma^na nu poate fi conceputa decat admitand
ca odata cu incheierea secolului al VII-lea limba roma^na era inchegata
definitiv si ca poporul roma^n s-a format in neintrerupta continuitate
teritoriala in sudul ca si la nordul Dunarei. [...] in prima jumatate a
secolului al V-lea incepe realmente epoca de formatiune a limbii roma^ne.
[...] E de mirare [...] cum, totusi, cu toate vicisitudinile prin cari
a trecut evolutia noastra etno-lingvistica, s-a putut mentinea acea
surprinzatoare unitate de limba intre aroma^na si dacoroma^na, mai ales
ca extinderea geografica ar fi putut favoriza in mod firesc diferentieri
dialectale cit mai pronuntate, chiar daca ar fi fost o continua si
deplina era de pace." (Tache Papahagi -- Din epoca de formatiune a limbii
roma^ne, 1954)
The essential idea is that similarities between Romanian dialects are
consistent with a historical chronology in which they evolved separately
only after the X-th century or so; at that moment, (Proto-)Romanian had
already its distinct individuality among all early Romance languages.
All linguistic facts cannot support the idea of a "Greek Vlach" tongue
evolving separately from Romanian and thus giving a different identity
to Aromanians with respect to (Daco, Megleno, Istro) Romanians. In fact,
Aromanian subdialects are spoken not only in Greece but also in Albania
and FYROM; linking this people only with a Greek ancestry because some
speakers from Greece say they're Greeks would be unjustified. And I even
didn't mention Aromanians living in Romania, some of them very popular.
Cheers,
M.M. de M.
PS - Matilda Caragiu was born in Hrupisti (Argos Orestikon) - Greece.
Pericle and Tache Papahagi are two illustrious representants of a very
well-known Vlach (Aromanian) family with roots in Greece.
George S. Tsapanos
>Just a theory which copes pretty well with the most stupid in the
>world Greek Nationalism.
>Before the WWII Vlachs were considered as ethnic minority. Putting some more
>Greek words in the Aromanian language does not change at all the Latin (that
>is Romanian in this part of Europe) base of the language. >
And whowere the ones CONSIDERING the Vlachs as an.......""ETHNIC"" minority?
The Austrians maybe ?
Or the Roumanians that wanted a piece of Makedonia based upon similarities of
dialects but not similarities of people?
Words don't make a language, its grammar and syntax do.
>I easily understand the Aromanian (Vlach) language, which is not the
>case for you. Do you see the difference?
>
>By the way, tu zburãshti armâneshte?>
And I understand Marsian, that does mean that i am a Marsian?
>If you go through the history you could see that inhabitants of
>Moldova, which is my homeland, were often called V(a)lachs. In
>previous times all Vlachs were united and only other nations make
>this people live in different countries.>
The WALLACHIANS from Moldova have NOTHING to do with the Hellenic Vlachs.
WALLACHIANS and VLACHS are different words.
WALLACHIANS were and are the inhabitants of Wallachia a state created by
MOGGOLS,RUMAN, and SLAV populations.
Vlachs were the AUTOCHTHONOUS MAKEDONIAN POPULATIONS THAT WERE LATINIZED after
the arrival of the romans in the Balkan peninsula after 150 B.C or so.
>If you know the current facts, there are 150,000 Aromanian Vlachs
>living in Romania. According to your theory if you are Aromanian
>Vlach living in Greece you are Greek by nationality, and if you are
>Aromanian Vlach living in Romania you are Romanian by nationality.
>And something else, if I follow your ideas - go and ask the people to
>find out who they are. Do the same with Aromanians living in Romania.>
If there are 150,000 AROMANIAN VLACHS in Roumania that means that there are
150,000 HELLENIC VLACHS living in Roumania, since AROMANIANS ARE ONLY THE
HELLENIC VLACHS.
Time for us to ask for ANNEXATION OF ROUMANIA based upon its ETHNIC
POPULATIONS...............
>Don't use the word "Propoganda" because I'm affraid you are becoming
>parannoic by placing such word in each matter discussed.>
There is propaganda and then there is voting.
Take your pick.
>> Whats wrong with Greek Nationalism?
>Nothing wrong except it has no limits in stupidity.
>May be the ancient Greeks have left something good fot the world but
>surely not the modern ones.>
Then I don't see why such a stupidity shouldn't make YOU happy.
After all.....if you don't like us, why do you care about how stupid we are?
>------------------------------------------------------------
>--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
>http://www.deja.com/
>
>
>
George S. Tsapanos
>But this is not relevant to the fact that their tongue
>is a Romance language, and it closely related to Romanian.
>As a matter of fact, linguists talk about proto-romanian,
>the language which was spoken in the Balkans during the VI-X
>century, the language spoken by another well known Vlah,
>the emperor Iustinian.
M.M. de C?>
Why not try to reverse the order and make it ""The Romanian language is related
to that VLACHIAN spoken in Makedonia"".
After all, the Latinization of the Balkans began from the WEST towards EAST and
not vice-versa.
It began from ILLYRIA from where via-Egnatia was beginning, and arrived in the
Danubian plains.
It was the MAKEDONIAN soldiers of the 4-5 Roman legions that transported the
language to the BARBARIAN, SLAVS,DACIANS,MOGGOLS,TATARS,RUSSIANS living on the
other side of the Danube, rather than those BARBARIANS bringing the language to
the MAKEDONIAN VLACHS.
Where and HOW such BARBARIANS could have learn such LATIN language and bring it
to the west, BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF THE ROMANS AND THEIR MAKEDONIAN LEGIONS TO
THE DANUBIAN BASIN?
George S. Tsapanos
>The essential idea is that similarities between Romanian dialects are
>consistent with a historical chronology in which they evolved separately
>only after the X-th century or so; at that moment, (Proto-)Romanian had
>already its distinct individuality among all early Romance languages.>
And what that ProtoRomanian would be?
>All linguistic facts cannot support the idea of a "Greek Vlach" tongue
>evolving separately from Romanian and thus giving a different identity
>to Aromanians with respect to (Daco, Megleno, Istro) Romanians>
You are missing the point. It wasn't the "Greek Vlach"" that evolved from
Romanian, it was the Romanian that evolved from the Greek vlach,a.k.a.
LatinoMakedonian.
>. In fact,
>Aromanian subdialects are spoken not only in Greece but also in Albania
>and FYROM; linking this people only with a Greek ancestry because some
>speakers from Greece say they're Greeks would be unjustified.>
And separating them from people farther to the East.
> And I even
>didn't mention Aromanians living in Romania, some of them very popular. >
Those would be descendants from Hellenic/Makedonian Vlachs.
The period of time that the Romans remained in the lands of today's Romania it
was VERY SHORT to have a replacement of the ORIGINAL language of the
inhanbitants.
What happened it was that between the Roman presence, the teaching of the
Makedonians, AND THE MOVEMENTS of other populations ALREADY SPEAKING THE
LATINOMAKEDONIAN IDIOM, helped in the creation of that language that EONS later
was to be baptized as.......Roumanian.
>
> Cheers,
> M.M. de M.>
Misu Orasel Tomberg
lyn...@aol.com (George S. Tsapanos) wrote:
>gigic wrote:
>>Greek words in the Aromanian language does not change at all >> the Latin
(that is Romanian in this part of Europe) base of
>> the language.
>
>And who were the ones CONSIDERING the Vlachs as an ""ETHNIC""
> minority? The Austrians maybe ?
At the very beginning the Hungarians, later on the Austrians.
There are a lot of documents which proof the south Danubian
origin of the Vlahs in Transylvania, but also in Valahia
(Wallachei was spelled by the Germans). The capital of
Valahia was Tirgoviste, a similar name you find it today in
Bulgaria, close to Makedonia.
The city of Brasov, known during the Middle Ages as
Kronstadt, or Corona (do you remember the name of the home
city of Kant? It was Kronstadt, in Prusia. DO you know the
link? It is the Prussians, actually the Teutonic Knights,
which settled the first time, in Transylvania, and founded
the city Kronstadt. Do you know from where they brought their
workforce, the soldiers? Just try to guess. Let me give
you some hints: the Teutonic Knights order was founded
in Rhodope, therefore they moved north through the Balcans.
Today, the documents kept in the archive of the city Brasov,
mentions the Bulgars, who worked for the German settlers,
and defended the fortress build by the Teutonic Knights.
This Bulgars are actually Vlachs, and even today, their
folklore reminds their south Danubian origin, being very
similar to the one in Makedonia).
>Or the Roumanians that wanted a piece of Makedonia based upon >similarities
of dialects but not similarities of people?
How can you be so ridiculous? How is it possible for Romania
to unite with some territories far away, in the Balkans?
First of all, Vlachs are almost an extinct ethnicity in the
Balkans, secondly the interest the Romanians bear for the
Vlachs is more an historical one, except the case of
Vlachs, who moved north of Danube to survive culturally.
Don't forget, Romanians are actually Vlachs, who moved
at various perioads of time north of Danube. If you look
on the map (a satellite map) you will be suprised to see
the teritory between the Carpathians, and the Haemus mountain
as being a contiguous one, a plane divided by Danube.
What it is interesting is that the Vlachs survived in the
mountains, and you find them along the mountain roads,
from Makedonia, to Transylvania, to the Tatra mountains all
over the Middle Ages.
>Words don't make a language, its grammar and syntax do.
and culture also.
Exactly, if you really understand the meaning of the above
words, take a better look, and you will be surprised,
Vlach grammar is a Romanian one, and their culture is
so similar to the north Danubian one.
>>By the way, tu zburãshti armâneshte?>
>
>And I understand Marsian, that does mean that i am a Marsian?
The point you miss, is that Romanian is so close to Vlach,
almost identical.
>The WALLACHIANS from Moldova have NOTHING to do with the Hellenic Vlachs.
>WALLACHIANS and VLACHS are different words.
Exactly, Wallachen/Wallachei is the German spelling
of Vlah. In Romanian we say: vlah/valah, but many words
keep the vlah root, e.g. Vlasia forest, etc.
>WALLACHIANS were and are the inhabitants of Wallachia a state created by
>MOGGOLS,RUMAN, and SLAV populations.
The two states you probably are referring to, are
Moldova and Valahia, both countries being founded by
the Hungarian nobility, under Hungarian souzeranity.
During the XVI-XVIII these two countries were dominated
by Greeks. As a matter of fact, the oligarhy ruling
these two countries during the XVI-XVIII centuries spoke greek.
Romanian nationalism originated in Transylvania with the
help of Vlah merchants, which moved in Hungary during the
ottoman occupation of Hungary.
Do you know the origin of the name Romania?
Romania was called the roman-greek empire, which died
by the ottoman conquest of Constantinopole.
But the spiritually it never died. Therefore, the greek
elite, emigrated, spread out spiritually Romania all over
Europe. In Eastern Europe we see this massive spread of
christian orthodox spiritual values. Why is Kosovo so important?
Because here, and also north of Danube, in Bukovina, almost
at the same time, we see the development of various
nice churches and monasteries build by the Greeks.
Romania survived, it was the Greek intellectuals which spread
it out.
As a curiosity, it was the rich Vlah merchants in Transylvania
who invented romanian nationalism, who hooked up their
nationalism with the word "Romania".
Try to explain, why Vlahs from Greek places, became
the founders of romanian nationalism, and named their
nationalism "Romania"?
>Vlachs were the AUTOCHTHONOUS MAKEDONIAN POPULATIONS THAT WERE LATINIZED
after
>the arrival of the romans in the Balkan peninsula after 150 B.C or so.
I agree with you. The logical conclusion, is that Romanians
are true and only followers of the Makedonian population,
therefore the Romanians are the beares of Alexander the Great
flag towards COSMOPOLIS.
>
>
>If there are 150,000 AROMANIAN VLACHS in Roumania that means that there
are
>150,000 HELLENIC VLACHS living in Roumania, since AROMANIANS ARE ONLY THE
>HELLENIC VLACHS.
This is a perverted logic. the 150,000 Vlahs mentioned
above, are those who moved to Romania only in the XX century.
The Romanians are all Vlahs, only they moved earlier in
present Romania, probably starting with the VIII-XIX, after
the arrival of the Bulgars, and their fights against
Constantinopolis with the help of the Cumans.
Starting with the VIII-XIX centuries there was always a trend
to move north, but always, in small numbers.
>Time for us to ask for ANNEXATION OF ROUMANIA based upon its ETHNIC
>POPULATIONS...............
It is silly to make such kind an assertion. Who would be
interested to build a bridge, to annex some territories,
where the majority is a different nationality?
>
>>> Whats wrong with Greek Nationalism?
Actually every nationalism is absurd.
M.M. de C?
Misu Orasel Tomberg
>
>>But this is not relevant to the fact that their tongue
>>is a Romance language, and it closely related to Romanian.
>>As a matter of fact, linguists talk about proto-romanian,
>>the language which was spoken in the Balkans during the VI-X
>>century, the language spoken by another well known Vlah,
>>the emperor Iustinian.
> M.M. de C?>
>
>Why not try to reverse the order and make it ""The Romanian language is
related
>to that VLACHIAN spoken in Makedonia"".
But I always said that. This is the only true assertion,
the present Romanian language is nothing else than
Vlachian transplanted north of Danube, by Vlachians who
moved north, starting probably in the VII-XIX centuries,
a process which continued all along the Middle Ages, up
to the XX century.
>After all, the Latinization of the Balkans began from the WEST towards EAST
and
>not vice-versa.
>It began from ILLYRIA from where via-Egnatia was beginning, and arrived
in the
>Danubian plains.
>It was the MAKEDONIAN soldiers of the 4-5 Roman legions that transported
the
>language to the BARBARIAN, SLAVS,DACIANS,MOGGOLS,TATARS,RUSSIANS living
on the
>other side of the Danube, rather than those BARBARIANS bringing the language
to
>the MAKEDONIAN VLACHS.
You are perfectly right.
>Where and HOW such BARBARIANS could have learn such LATIN language and bring
it
>to the west, BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF THE ROMANS AND THEIR MAKEDONIAN LEGIONS
TO
>THE DANUBIAN BASIN?
Exactly, this is what I am saying.
So, which is your point?
What do you try to proof? That the Romanians are Makedonians?
It is exactly what I am saying :)
Cheers my brother :)))
M.M. de C?
gogu
news:20010406144013...@ng-mo1.aol.com...
> If there are 150,000 AROMANIAN VLACHS in Roumania that means that there
are
> 150,000 HELLENIC VLACHS living in Roumania, since AROMANIANS ARE ONLY THE
> HELLENIC VLACHS.
> Time for us to ask for ANNEXATION OF ROUMANIA based upon its ETHNIC
> POPULATIONS...............
LOL
Are you mad or what george?:-)))
Would you like to see greece declaring bankruptcy in half a year:-)))
And what about Bulgaria being between you and them?:-)))
gogu
news:2001040617...@proxima.lpm.univ-montp2.fr...
>
> "gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Why the Greeks insist on this nonsense that the Aromanians are
> >> Romanized Greeks I cannot figure out.
> > You must ask the Vlachs themselves! Why they (more than 99%!) are
> > sustaining "sus si tare" that they are Greeks? And please don't give
> > me the "persecuted" crap. Today everybody is free to say whatever he
> > wants.
> We
??? We??? Are you using an other screen name BTW, because as far as I
remember WE never discussed this particular matter, not even in private...
But again, I could be wrong. In that case please accept my apologies and
point me to the pertinent mail.
> already discussed that issue: they claim their Greek citizenship
> which is too often confused with ethnic ancestry.
Not at all! They are claiming their "Greekness"! They say they are the first
and most "pure" Hellenes! If you want, I can give you some titles (in Greek)
and even "provoke" a declaration from their associations...
> There are also many
> Vlachs indoctrinated with official propaganda:
A highly inadequate and insulting word when it comes from an educated person
like you. Please keep it decent. I could talk about "official Romanian
propaganda", or communist propaganda (you know that communists fed that kind
of propaganda with the purpose to raise claims in the non communist Balkan
countries), etc. But as you can see, I am not using such words...
> a similar case to the
> one of many Moldovans from Bessarabia claiming they're not Romanian.
Totally different case. Basarabia WAS part of Romania! Pindus? Never!
> There are also reticences from them when discussing to strangers; after
> all, in the Balkans ethnical issues are still a sensible subject, the
> background is clearly different with respect to Western Europe.
This may be true for Romania because of its oppressing policy against
everyone who is opposing official thesis' and its ill respect on citizens'
rights, but in Greece everyone can say whatever he wants. One or two
isolated examples does not constitute a case.
> All these reasons make me strongly doubt about your estimated 99%
> of "Greeks" among Vlachs (Aromanians).
If you doubt it, why don't you come and ask them by yourself? Once you said
that you visited Greece, but you never managed to visit Vlach villages due
the luck of time. I am inviting you to do this together!
Why you and others are avoiding to discuss the fact that MANY Vlachs
were/are among the grate benefactors of the Greek state? Why they didn't
donate their big fortunes to the Romanian state instead? Why you and others
are avoiding to discuss the fact that Rigas Fereos always said that he was a
greek Vlach? And consider that in that time Greece didn't exist as a state
entity!
> Let's ask some of them (since
> you read Romanian, you should enjoy the following phrases):
Now this is going towards propaganda:-)))
You are saying: "Let's ask some of them" and you are giving me Caragiu as an
example! What an unbiased example I would dare say:-))) What if I would give
you Mertzos as an example to your "Let's ask some of them" question?...
Would you accept him? I strongly doubt it, as he is a fierce Hellenic Vlach!
And this is another think you are afraid to do: why don't you come in Greece
and meet with some Vlachs in the Pindus region? Would you democratically
accept their desire to be Greeks (as ancestry, I mean) or you will tell that
they are ignorants?
> Cheers,
> M.M. de M.
>
>
> PS - Matilda Caragiu was born in Hrupisti (Argos Orestikon) - Greece.
> Pericle and Tache Papahagi are two illustrious representants of a very
> well-known Vlach (Aromanian) family with roots in Greece.
And there are a lot (but realy A LOT) Greek Vlachs who will say to you that
they are Greeks! What does it proves? Can they make you change your mind?
And as a final matter: you can see that the Hellenic Vlachs are claiming
nothing and they are not complaining about anything. They all are well
situated in Greece, they are quite rich in general, they have no complains
at all. Then what is the purpose of all this filology about opression etc?
Why only some foreighners are conserned about Greek Vlachs when they don't
complain? Don't you realize that this attitude is making some Romanians to
look like the agitators of the Balkans? And many people to remember with
pleasure the times of communism, when all those agitators were kept behind
the Curtain? I certainly don't subscribe to that kind of thinking, but many
Europeans realy do...
PS
Please don't cut out from your replies the soc.culture.greek ng. It is
not polite... Some other posters would say it is at least "strange". I
personally don't subscribe to that, so please keep the ngs order:-)))
George S. Tsapanos
>At the very beginning the Hungarians, later on the Austrians.
>There are a lot of documents which proof the south Danubian
>origin of the Vlahs in Transylvania, but also in Valahia
>(Wallachei was spelled by the Germans). The capital of
>Valahia was Tirgoviste, a similar name you find it today in
>Bulgaria, close to Makedonia.>
You are very wrong. The word was in existence since ancient times indicating
sheep herders.
It became synonymous with the Latinized people exactly because those sheep
herders in their amjority were speaking the LatinoMakedonian idiom living in
the high mountains of the Makedonian Pindus.
The creation of Wallachia and Moldavia around the thirteen century wasn't a
creation of two states speaking the LATIN or any ROMANIZED language. The
changes of the languages of those
Carpathians,slavs,Tataromoggolians,Hungarians,Polish, and so on that were
isolated in todays Romania, and their NEW language the one called Romanian and
the baptizing of their country as Romania happened much later.
South Danubian origins of the Vlachs means EXACTLY that they were NOT ROMANIANS
from the other side of the Danube where lays today's Romania.
Those South Danubians were simply SKLAVENIAN populations from at least 25
various tribes, that they got stuck with the Vlachian language while many
others were speaking the SlavoBulgarian.
It is this Vlachian language spoken by the people in Makedonia, having VERY
LITTLE to do with those people from both sides of the Danube that cause the
Austrians to attempt to use them during the Makedonian struggle to claim
Makedonian lands.
>The city of Brasov, known during the Middle Ages as
>Kronstadt, or Corona (do you remember the name of the home
>city of Kant? It was Kronstadt, in Prusia. DO you know the
>link? It is the Prussians, actually the Teutonic Knights,
>which settled the first time, in Transylvania, and founded
>the city Kronstadt. Do you know from where they brought their
>workforce, the soldiers? Just try to guess. Let me give
>you some hints: the Teutonic Knights order was founded
>in Rhodope, therefore they moved north through the Balcans.>
One more indication that the language moved from the South towards North and
not viceversa.
>Today, the documents kept in the archive of the city Brasov,
>mentions the Bulgars, who worked for the German settlers,
>and defended the fortress build by the Teutonic Knights.
>This Bulgars are actually Vlachs, and even today, their
>folklore reminds their south Danubian origin, being very
>similar to the one in Makedonia).>
So you do agree with me regarding the origins of the Vlachs.
Not to forget that by "Bulgarians" many ment the Vlachs living in Bulgaria and
not ETHNIC Bulgarians that were Latinized since very few original Bulgarians
were existing.
Not to forget that the ASSAN family were Makedonian Vlachs, descendants of
those same Vlachs of Samuel that Basil the 2nd, not the Bulgarslayer, but
Vlachian Slayer or for the better Makedonian and Hellenic Slayer, removed from
Prespa and placed them in those Southern Danubian plains where the Crusaders
found them.
>How can you be so ridiculous? How is it possible for Romania
>to unite with some territories far away, in the Balkans?
>First of all, Vlachs are almost an extinct ethnicity in the
>Balkans, secondly the interest the Romanians bear for the
>Vlachs is more an historical one, except the case of
>Vlachs, who moved north of Danube to survive culturally.>
And yet.....that exactly what happen in the Bukurest agreement in 1913.
The Romanians asked for a recognition of a Romanian Minority in the Pindus
mountains, acting under instructions by their friends the Austrians.
As for a Vlachian ETHNICITY,there was never one, just people from various
ethnicities that learned the same language or its similar dialects under the
pressure from the Romans first and then by the same people that were speaking
the language/dialects.
The culture of the various Vlachs goes according to their original Ethnicity,
there is not common culture other than milking the sheep and making butter for
the Vlachs that remained sheperds.
>Don't forget, Romanians are actually Vlachs, who moved
>at various perioads of time north of Danube. If you look
>on the map (a satellite map) you will be suprised to see
>the teritory between the Carpathians, and the Haemus mountain
>as being a contiguous one, a plane divided by Danube.
>What it is interesting is that the Vlachs survived in the
>mountains, and you find them along the mountain roads,
>from Makedonia, to Transylvania, to the Tatra mountains all
>over the Middle Ages.>
xaxaxaxaxaxaxa
The Romanians are
DACOMYSIANS,SLAVS,TATAROMOGGOLIANS,BULGARIANS,TECTONS,FINISH,HUNNS,just to
mention few, that EXACTLY because they were not of one ETHNICITY or had one
LANGUAGE or even a name, FINALLY they decided to baptize their country Romania
after the Romans, call their language Romanian and attempt to find as many
brothers as possible in the Balkans in order to become part of a glorious
Ethnicity since there was nothing glorious on the bunch of their ORIGINAL
Ethnicities.
One of these days, as I wrote before the Romanian people will awake and they
will renounce to everything non DACOMYSIAN.
They will become the proud people from the other side of the Danube that they
always were, even if their language was an inferior one and they didn't have an
alphabet.
Any farther search into connections with Makedonian Vlachs is a futile one, it
might exist light blood connection, it might exist a similarity in the
language, but an ETHNIC IDENTITY between Makedonian Vlachs and Romanians does
not exist.
>>Words don't make a language, its grammar and syntax do.>>
>and culture also.
>Exactly, if you really understand the meaning of the above
>words, take a better look, and you will be surprised,
>Vlach grammar is a Romanian one, and their culture is
>so similar to the north Danubian one.>
The only similarity in culture is as I wrote above, the culture among that kind
of Vlachs that professionaly they remained shepherders.
As such they had the necessary communication and exchanges to claim a
similarity and maybe an identity to customs.
Once you get into the Vlachs that became merchants, the only similarity is in
their idiomatic language and money.
Myself I have family in Bukurest, family that they left Monastiri for Romania
believing that their roots were from the East rather than from the West. Big
mistake.
As for the grammar between the Aromanian language, meaning that Hellenic
Vlachian, and the Romanian language is a very different one.
We went thru this some time ago, but in case you need references I could bring
them to you.
>The point you miss, is that Romanian is so close to Vlach,
>almost identical.>
They are not almost identical, but even in case they were, it would make sense.
Here come the conquerors of an entire World, the Makedonians with the Romans.
They arrive in the Danubian plains where people of various Ethnicities live,
WITHOUT A LANGUAGE, WITHOUT AN ALPHABET, WITHOUT A NAME, WITHOUT A COUNTRY.
The Makedonians and the Romans remain in there for 250 years speaking that
language, writing that alphabet.
Those nameless tribes, are accepting the language, they accept the alphabet.
New people are added to them, new people accept the language and the alphabet
on the other site od the Danube.
Sure.......THAT language should be close to the LATINO/MAKEDONIAN.
But are the people the SAME?
Are they from one and the same ETHNICITY?
Are HELLENIC,BULGARIAN,SLAV,MONTENEGRIAN,ARVANIT Vlachs, of the SAME ETHNICITY
as the DACOMYSIAN,HUNGARIAN,WALLACHIAN,MOLDAVIAN,RUSSIAN,etc.etc. Vlachs?
I do not believe so.
>Exactly, Wallachen/Wallachei is the German spelling
>of Vlah. In Romanian we say: vlah/valah, but many words
>keep the vlah root, e.g. Vlasia forest, etc.>
Even the spelling of a Chinese Vlach might be "Vlach".
Is that Chinese Vlach of the same ETHNICITY as the Romanian Vlach?
>The two states you probably are referring to, are
>Moldova and Valahia, both countries being founded by
>the Hungarian nobility, under Hungarian souzeranity.>
Having nothing to do with the Hellenic Vlachs.
>During the XVI-XVIII these two countries were dominated
>by Greeks. As a matter of fact, the oligarhy ruling
>these two countries during the XVI-XVIII centuries spoke greek.
>Romanian nationalism originated in Transylvania with the
>help of Vlah merchants, which moved in Hungary during the
>ottoman occupation of Hungary. >
One more indication that the ORIGINAL VLACHS were those Greek ones.
The older you are the more you accumulate the more power you have.
>Do you know the origin of the name Romania?>
Simply, they got jealous of the glorious past of Rome, their language was
reminding to them, the Romans what more natural than look for glorious History
for a newborn state!
>Romania was called the roman-greek empire, which died
>by the ottoman conquest of Constantinopole.
>But the spiritually it never died. Therefore, the greek
>elite, emigrated, spread out spiritually Romania all over
.Europe. In Eastern Europe we see this massive spread of
>christian orthodox spiritual values. Why is Kosovo so important?
>Because here, and also north of Danube, in Bukovina, almost
>at the same time, we see the development of various
>nice churches and monasteries build by the Greeks.>
Now.........now.............don't mix Orthodoxy with Hellenism.
Orthodoxy almost NEVER supported Hellenism, and ESPECIALLY the Vlachs or their
language.
If the Vlachs suffered it was because of the Patriarchate, and if Romania was
under the Byzantines, it was under a certain kind of Byzantines, those
PHANARIOTES, people of ambiguous interests and political aims.
>Romania survived, it was the Greek intellectuals which spread
it out.>
And the Russian support, and..........and..........and............
>As a curiosity, it was the rich Vlah merchants in Transylvania
>who invented romanian nationalism, who hooked up their
>nationalism with the word "Romania".>
He knew the importance of long,glorious, past and history
>Try to explain, why Vlahs from Greek places, became
>the founders of romanian nationalism, and named their
>nationalism "Romania"?>
Read about Alexander the Great, about Samuel, about the Assan family, about the
Makedonian struggle, about the creation of modern day Hellas, and maybe you'll
understand the Vlachian power.
>I agree with you. The logical conclusion, is that Romanians
>are true and only followers of the Makedonian population,
>therefore the Romanians are the beares of Alexander the Great
>flag towards COSMOPOLIS.>
Some Romanians maybe, those having Makedonian blood in them. And since the real
Makedonian were Hellenes, I don't see what you people are waiting for in order
to declare an annexation with Greece.........:)))))
>This is a perverted logic. the 150,000 Vlahs mentioned
>above, are those who moved to Romania only in the XX century.
>The Romanians are all Vlahs, only they moved earlier in
>present Romania, probably starting with the VIII-XIX, after
>the arrival of the Bulgars, and their fights against
>Constantinopolis with the help of the Cumans.>
But then...........what happened to those DACOMYSIANS and the rest of the
tribes?
And what happened to the Vlachs that moved in there BEFORE the XXth century?
>Starting with the VIII-XIX centuries there was always a trend
>to move north, but always, in small numbers.>
Meaning of course that the Romanians might be Hellenic Vlachs, but the Hellenic
Vlachs can not be Romanians.
>It is silly to make such kind an assertion. Who would be
>interested to build a bridge, to annex some territories,
>where the majority is a different nationality?>
United Europe,thats who.
>Actually every nationalism is absurd.>
But you like...........identical cultures, right?
M.M. de C?
Bula 00001
>Date: 4/6/01 4:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9al9r4$kc1$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>
>
>Ο "Marius Iacomi" <iac...@nobulk.lpm.univ-montp2.fr> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
>news:2001040617...@proxima.lpm.univ-montp2.fr...
>>
>> "gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Why the Greeks insist on this nonsense that the Aromanians are
>> >> Romanized Greeks I cannot figure out.
>
>> > You must ask the Vlachs themselves! Why they (more than 99%!) are
>> > sustaining "sus si tare" that they are Greeks? And please don't give
>> > me the "persecuted" crap. Today everybody is free to say whatever he
>> > wants.
>
>> We
>
>??? We??? Are you using an other screen name BTW, because as far as I
>remember WE never discussed this particular matter, not even in private...
Baaaa.... turcu tot turc:(
WE ie pentru noi secerenii baaaa !!
Kestea cu vlahii a fost rasfutata acilishea si marili provacator (cialanger
??!) MeMedeCe iear va invalmashit mintzili.
Da ce sa ceri dala un platzintar ?! :0))
Bula 00001
>Date: 4/6/01 2:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9ajp7o$2p46$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
>
>Whether you like it or not, filth, the Greek Vlach are Greek.
>
>You take your filthy self and go back to your flames.
>
>
>
>from: Spirit of Truth
Merinos ! Merinos !!!
Bula 00001
>AROMANIANS ARE ONLY THE
>HELLENIC VLACHS.
AND AHELLENICS ARE ONLY THE ROMANIAN GREEKS :0)))
MERINOS ! MERINOS !!!!
Jorj
Misu Orasel Tomberg <mi...@MOT.a.com> wrote in message
news:3ace2072$1...@news2.mibx.net...
>
Domnu Tomberg, matale si cu Tzapanu sinteti de la acelasi spital? Intreb
pentru ca aveti acelasi mod de a derapa in slalom printre idei, fara ca sa
atingeti v'una. Daca as fi mai paranoic (de cit sint) as zice ca sinteti una
si aceiasi persoana. Dar ce conteaza semnatura! valoarea unui text umoristic
nu e data de numele cu care e semnat. Va multumesc pentru delirul
neintrerupt.
E reconfortant sa vezi ca exista si dobitoci spirituali (hazosi, am vru'sa
zic), inafara de aia plicticosi...
Si daca-mi permiti o lozinca, as urla si io: " eliberati liniile telefonice
valahe de asuprirea greco-fanariota!!!!". E cam lunga. O lozinca lunga isi
pierde forta prin lungime. D-aia lozinca nu e penis. Size matters! O'sa-l
rog pe Margica sa mi-o reformuleze. El e maistru al stilului. Smuls.
George S. Tsapanos
>Domnu Tomberg, matale si cu Tzapanu sinteti de la acelasi
spital?...............>
Do you think that I was right or wrong in my ideas?
Marius Iacomi
iacomi wrote:
>> The essential idea is that similarities between Romanian dialects are
>> consistent with a historical chronology in which they evolved separately
>> only after the X-th century or so; at that moment, (Proto-)Romanian had
>> already its distinct individuality among all early Romance languages.>
>
> And what that ProtoRomanian would be?
The linguistical evolution in Balkan Romance goes like that: Classical
Latin (Vernacular) -> Late Latin -> Proto-Romanian (a.k.a. Common Primitive
Romanian) up to VII-th century (with some approximation). This common tongue
lasted for about three centuries after which occured the separation between
Romanian dialects, that is:
___ Aromanian (a.k.a. Macedo-Romanian, Vlach)
/
/ \__ Megleno-Romanian
/
Proto-Romanian/
\
\ ___ Istro-Romanian
\/
\___ Daco-Romanian (the dialect mainly spoken in Romania)
Timings of these separations are not very precisely determined but up to
some one or two centuries, the first branching took place around the X-th
century and the second ones up to the XIV-th century. For more details you
may take a look in a good book such as "Le origini delle lingue neolatine"
written by an illustrious linguist, Carlo Tagliavini from which I quote
two significant phrases:
"Even if the differences between the four dialects are great enough to
exclude mutual understanding between not cultured persons (mainly because
of assimilated foreign elements from the vocabulary), these variants still
present many things in common due to Proto-Romanian inovations [with respect
to Latin]. These ones have their roots in the period during which Romanians
ancestors were living together in a more or less extended region, prior to
the beginning of their dispersion which brought them in distant regions,
from Macedonia to Transylvania, from the gulf of Thessaloniki up to Istria."
>> All linguistic facts cannot support the idea of a "Greek Vlach" tongue
>> evolving separately from Romanian and thus giving a different identity
>> to Aromanians with respect to (Daco, Megleno, Istro) Romanians
>
> You are missing the point. It wasn't the "Greek Vlach"" that evolved from
> Romanian, it was the Romanian that evolved from the Greek vlach,a.k.a.
> LatinoMakedonian.
I didn't miss any point, see above. "Greek Vlach" is nothing else but a
subdialect of Vlach -- i.e. Aromanian -- and thus evolved from Proto-
Romanian.
>> And I even didn't mention Aromanians living in Romania, some of them
>> very popular.
> Those would be descendants from Hellenic/Makedonian Vlachs.
According to the source I mentionned, "Macedo-Romanian or Aromanian, spoken
by Aromanians (Cutso-Vlachs or Tsintsari) widespread almost everywhere in the
Balkans (in Greece essentially in Thessalia and Epyrus in a number of about
150 000; in Albania mostly in Myzege in a number of about 65 000; in Yugo-
slavia mostly in Macedonia, around Bitolia, in a number of about 100 000 and
in Bulgaria, in many villages, in a number of about 40 000."
Aromanians from Romania are descendants of Balkan Aromanians which moved in
nowdays Romania mostly during the last two centuries.
> The period of time that the Romans remained in the lands of today's Romania
> it was VERY SHORT to have a replacement of the ORIGINAL language of the
> inhanbitants.
> What happened it was that between the Roman presence, the teaching of the
> Makedonians, AND THE MOVEMENTS of other populations ALREADY SPEAKING THE
> LATINOMAKEDONIAN IDIOM, helped in the creation of that language that EONS
> later was to be baptized as.......Roumanian.
This is for fun or you really haven't read any decent book on this issue?!
The name Romanian (DR: rum^n/rom^n; AR: arm^n, arum^n, arumin; IR : remer)
is inherited from Latin "romanus", according to all phonetical laws which
acted in Balkan Romance. Before issuing such amateurish statements, get some
serious readings from a library, they are useful. BTW, caps are to be used
with moderation on Usenet, especially when they express this kind of ideas.
:-)
Cheers,
M.M. de M.
Marius Iacomi
"gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> You must ask the Vlachs themselves! Why they (more than 99%!) are
>>> sustaining "sus si tare" that they are Greeks? And please don't give
>>> me the "persecuted" crap. Today everybody is free to say whatever he
>>> wants.
>>
>> We
>
> ??? We??? Are you using an other screen name BTW, because as far as I
> remember WE never discussed this particular matter, not even in private...
I remember having discussed this nationality/citizenship issue some time
ago, I don't recall if it was here, on rom-list or in private (I don't
think it was this latter one).
> But again, I could be wrong. In that case please accept my apologies and
> point me to the pertinent mail.
Alas! (Poor Yorick! :-))... I made some disk cleanup following a system
crash, I don't have them anymore. Well, that's not so important, I don't
depend on that messages, facts are still in place.
> Not at all! They are claiming their "Greekness"! They say they are the
> first and most "pure" Hellenes! If you want, I can give you some titles
> (in Greek) and even "provoke" a declaration from their associations...
Almost any statement claiming about one own's ethnic group as being the
"most" in something is nothing else but propaganda. This particular case
can be seen also as a self-defence reaction: they're trying to emphasize
their legitimacy on that land. There are also some Romanian dreamers who
think that Romanians = Dacians = the most ancient people of Europe. There
will be always such strange and non-scientifical claims in order to prove
some legitimacy.
>> There are also many Vlachs indoctrinated with official propaganda:
>
> A highly inadequate and insulting word when it comes from an educated
> person like you. Please keep it decent. I could talk about "official
> Romanian propaganda", or communist propaganda (you know that communists
> fed that kind of propaganda with the purpose to raise claims in the non
> communist Balkan countries), etc.
Why not?! I fully agree there was always an official Romanian propaganda
in a form or another. I hardly could find something insulting in admitting
that. On the other hand, the real specialists generally know how to select
their sources, out of some lunatics with no scientifical credibility, the
information they provide is usually accurate.
I don't know if the above mentioned commie propaganda was aimed to raise
claims in the non communist Balkan countries (i.e. Greece). What exactly
would you call propaganda for those years?!
> But as you can see, I am not using such words...
Too bad. Admitting that there will be always some amount of official ideas
to be sustained unconditionally is a good starting point in searching the
truth (if any). I am willing to admit this for Romania; I never use official
claims but decent references. Will you do the same?!
>> a similar case to the one of many Moldovans from Bessarabia claiming
>> they're not Romanian.
>
> Totally different case. Basarabia WAS part of Romania! Pindus? Never!
Not at all different! We don't speak about *citizenship* but about *ethnic
background*. Aromanians from Balkans were never subjects of any modern
Romanian state and they'll never be; this doesn't mean they're less Romanians
by language and a good part of their history: they're a branch of Romanians
which live in several Balkan states including Greece. The same helds for
Moldovans from Bessarabia which are Romanians even if some of them sustain
something else. If the fact that Bessarabia was part of Romanian state during
some decades puzzles your reasoning, why don't you think at Moldovans living
on the other side of the Dniester: their region were never part of the modern
Romanian state but this doesn't change their ethnical status, as well as if
you'll move to Bucharest you won't become a Romanian just by that.
There are also reticences from them when discussing to strangers; after
>> all, in the Balkans ethnical issues are still a sensible subject, the
>> background is clearly different with respect to Western Europe.
>
> This may be true for Romania because of its oppressing policy against
> everyone who is opposing official thesis' and its ill respect on citizens'
> rights, but in Greece everyone can say whatever he wants. One or two
> isolated examples does not constitute a case.
Well, you have to take into account also the history, to think as if you
were belonging to a minority, this leads always to surprising reactions.
Ethnical issues will be a sensible subject for many years from now on. Even
the fact you felt not so comfortable when reading the word "propaganda" is
a sign that the matter is delicate. Even the fact you rised the idea of
Pindus never belonging to Romania shows up that there could be also other
Greeks who will automatically think at territorial claims if a minority
dares to claim they're something different. I don't think that any normal-
minded Romanian would sustain such claims. Between the two World Wars,
Romanian Kingdom supported some schools for Aromanians, this is the kind
of normal things to do (unfortunately, the classes were taught not in
Aromanian but in Daco-Romanian thus not being so frequented by Vlachs,
a stupid result of the lack of interest from the part of Romanian state).
>> All these reasons make me strongly doubt about your estimated 99%
>> of "Greeks" among Vlachs (Aromanians).
>
> If you doubt it, why don't you come and ask them by yourself? Once you
> said that you visited Greece, but you never managed to visit Vlach
> villages due the luck of time. I am inviting you to do this together!
Hadn't I other things to do, I would already have done that. It's not one
of my current projects, but hey, when I'll got the time and a good sum in
my bank accout, I'll put it on my list. Up till then, I find fair enough
to believe a guy who really did that for 30 years, namely the distinguished
linguist G. Weigand: he spoke with people in all the Balkans, realising the
first serious systematical studies on Aromanian dialect (BTW, the word
"Aromanian" was imposed in scientifical papers by him).
> Why you and others are avoiding to discuss the fact that MANY Vlachs
> were/are among the grate benefactors of the Greek state?
I'm glad to hear that: that's normal because they're Greek citizens not
Romanian citizens. Try not to link their citizenship with their ethnicity.
> Why they didn't donate their big fortunes to the Romanian state instead?
Because they live in the Greek state and that is their legitimate place.
It's within the Greek state that their local community lives; helping the
state they help themselves.
> Why you and others are avoiding to discuss the fact that Rigas Fereos
> always said that he was a greek Vlach? And consider that in that time
> Greece didn't exist as a state entity!
I'm very fine with that. It's undeniable that many Aromanians live in
small communities surrounded by Greeks and report themselves to the local
cultural tendency.
>> Let's ask some of them (since you read Romanian, you should enjoy the
>> following phrases):
>
> Now this is going towards propaganda:-)))
> You are saying: "Let's ask some of them" and you are giving me Caragiu
> as an example! What an unbiased example I would dare say:-)))
Why dou you consider the well-known linguist Matilda Caragiu as biased?!
Isn't her family from Greece? What about Mihail Boiagi (Moscopole 1770 -
Budapest 1843) who published in Vienna a "Romanian or Macedo-Romanian
Grammar" (1813). What about Nida Boga, born in Veles who wrote a good
ethnographical and statistical study "Romanians from Macedonia, Epyrus,
Thessalia and Albania"?! What about Nusi Tulliu, Nicolae Batzaria, George
Ceara or Marcu Beza, representative Aromanians litterates?!
> What if I would give you Mertzos as an example to your "Let's ask some of
> them" question?... Would you accept him? I strongly doubt it, as he is a
> fierce Hellenic Vlach!
Once again: if you keep telling to some people they're something else,
after some time some of them will start to sincerely believe that. Look to
Moldovans: they have a "national poet" called Eminescu, they are willing
to identify their culture with his poetry but some of them still cannot
cope with the national identity given by him at the very beginning of a
well-known poetry: "De la Nistru pan' la Tisa / Tot roma^nul plansu-mi-s'a".
"Roma^nul", not "moldoveanul". There is no cultivated Moldovan to sustain
he's not Romanian: this is a matter of fact. OK, he wants to be "Moldovan"
in order to have his own state -- but this is politics, not facts.
> And this is another think you are afraid to do: why don't you come in
> Greece and meet with some Vlachs in the Pindus region?
See above.
> Would you democratically accept their desire to be Greeks (as ancestry, I
> mean) or you will tell that they are ignorants?
Haha, so you think that ancestry has to be "democratically" established?!
Any person has the legitimate right to ignore or to deny its origins with
a certain amount of success. Does this change that person's ancestry?
> And there are a lot (but realy A LOT) Greek Vlachs who will say to you that
> they are Greeks! What does it proves?
See above. There are several possibilities: they ignore their roots, they
find suitable for a certain reason to claim they're Greeks, they understand
the question linked with their citizenship or they might not understand at
all the question.
> Can they make you change your mind?
The things to be established by popular vote are the laws or the guys elected
by the people. If Greek Vlachs want to identify themselves with Greeks, I'm
fine with that; it won't became a historical truth just by doing so.
> And as a final matter: you can see that the Hellenic Vlachs are claiming
> nothing and they are not complaining about anything. They all are well
> situated in Greece, they are quite rich in general, they have no complains
> at all. Then what is the purpose of all this filology about opression etc?
I didn't spoke about opression. In some extended sense, preventing some
people to find out more about their roots can be seen as a form of cultural
opression. Here I emphasized only academical issues about Aromanians among
which Hellenic Vlachs are nothing else but a peculiar case.
> Why only some foreighners are conserned about Greek Vlachs when they don't
> complain? Don't you realize that this attitude is making some Romanians to
> look like the agitators of the Balkans?
Should we recall here the above paragraph about sensibilities of people
from the Balkans?! :-)
Being concerned with something doesn't mean to agitate. My only fear is that
Aromanian will eventually disappear and the ethnical identity of Vlachs will
melt definitively into the pot, I think it would be pity. In order to prevent
that, a good idea would be to reopen some schools in their language, but this
depends also on their will: as said, they have the right to chose to identify
themselves with Greeks. As far as Romanian state is concerned, the authorities
couldn't care less about Romanians outside the country (this doesn't mean they
care much more about those from inside :-)). So probably nothing will happen.
So why don't accept that people may discuss about ethnic origins just as an
academical issue without any political background?! We spoke already too much
about "states" in this thread.
> Please don't cut out from your replies the soc.culture.greek ng. It is
> not polite... Some other posters would say it is at least "strange". I
> personally don't subscribe to that, so please keep the ngs order:-)))
Sorry, the original thread was on SCR I didn't notice you cross-posted your
message.
Cheers,
M.M. de M.
spataru
Jorj <resi...@pe.banca> wrote in message
news:%kEz6.12426$rk4.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Si daca-mi permiti o lozinca, as urla si io: " eliberati liniile
telefonice
> valahe de asuprirea greco-fanariota!!!!". E cam lunga. O lozinca lunga isi
> pierde forta prin lungime.
io zic ca "muie la gretzili!" este chintesenta tuturor lozincilor care
protesteaza impotriva prostiei de dimensiuni galactice ale unora din
gretzili, in special a lu gogu, oaia universului cunoscut de om.
baaaaaa, ne'am saturat de doi dolari minutu intre botosani si vaslui, vrem
pitza fara caini, vrem platzinte fara ura, pace si colaborare, sa facem din
tun tractoatre, fara arme nucleare, gogu e mandria tarii lui!
DOMNITZA
>"gogu" gola...@yahoo.com aka luci orasel a lu muti_hoaska
catre
MMMeu:>"gogu" gola...@yahoo.com
>why don't you come and ask them by yourself? Once you said
>that you visited Greece, but you never managed to visit Vlach villages due
>the luck of time.
> I am inviting you to do this together!
Concl:
1. mmm_eul este destept 'de moare' dar se plictiseste foarte ! cu toate ca'si
da seama ca 'vorbeste' cu balaceanu isi posteaza parerea cu speranta sa mai
atraga si alte broaste in 'lacul discutiei istorico_seceriste' ...
2. mmm_eul nu este, de departe, atit de destept pe cat 'se tine' si da din nou
cu 'bota'n balta secerista' sperind a N-a oara ca da'de, da'de s'or mai gasi fo
unii la 'controversa de seara ... radio santz' ... lol
3. mmm-eu e destept, s'a prins da' nu se poate tzine ... cestiunea'i arzatoare!
P/Seu: baaa lucika s_mica aschia lu_mutilica, ia sa'ti mai pun ceva paie ude pe
chieptu'ti de bozgor din schei cu iz de gretili din pind si khazar_hitit din
goshen io'te "acilea" pe attila ... pupa'l'ai mort la ildico in cort:
ATTILA THE HUN AND THE BATTLE OF CHALONS
No one represents the unbridled fury and savagery of barbarism
as much as Attila the Hun. Even in the twentieth century one
of the worst names that could be found for the Germans
was to call them Huns. Attila, as the greatest Hun leader,
is the stereotypical sacker of cities and killer of babies.
In his own day he and his Huns were known as the "Scourge of
God," and the devastation they caused in Gaul before the great
Battle of Chalons in 451 AD became a part of medieval folklore
and tradition.
The clash at Chalons was one of those rare monumental
conflicts, pitting against one another two of the towering
figures of Late Antiquity, the fierce and passionate Attila
and the noble Aetius, sometimes called "the last of the Ro-
mans." By 451 Aetius had been the foremost general in the
Roman Empire for many years, and he was also the chief polit-
ical adviser to the Emperor of the West, Valentinian III. In
the previous forty years the once great Empire had suffered
staggering setbacks, especially in the West. Aetius had done
more than anyone else to keep what remained of the Roman world
strong and prosperous.
Despite Aetius' efforts, when Attila crossed the Rhine
with the Huns in 451, he threatened a tottering relic of pow-
er. The Western Roman Empire had already been ravaged by
Visigoths, Vandals, Suebi, Alamanni, Burgundians and other
barbarian tribes. Visigoths had an independent kingdom in
Aquitaine, and Vandals occupied North Africa with a capital
at Carthage. Roman rule in many parts of Gaul and Spain was
merely nominal. Although Aetius had waged his own personal
fight against the tide of the times, he had not been able to
hold back the wave of invasions that had rolled over the West
ever since Alaric and the Visigoths had sacked the city of
Rome in 410.
One of the most fascinating features of the story of Attila
and the Huns is that the background to their potent pen-
etration of Roman Gaul and the decisive Battle of Chelons is
every bit as spellbinding as the actual combat itself. Al-
though parts of the story are nearly incredible, the evidence
for it is reasonably good--as good, at least, as evidence ever
is for the fifth century AD. It is a tale of lust for sex and
power, for money and land, and the principal actors are as
colorful as any who ever lived.
The Huns themselves were a people of mystery and terror.
Arriving on the fringes of the Roman Empire in the late fourth
century, riding their war horses out of the great steppes of
Asia, they struck fear into Germanic barbarians and Romans
alike. Some scholars believe that they had earlier moved
against the Chinese Empire but were turned away and swept to-
wards Rome instead. As they approached the Black Sea and con-
quered the Ostrogoths, they also drove the Visigoths across
the Danube into the Roman Empire and caused the crisis that
led to the astounding defeat of the Roman army under the Em-
peror Valens at Adrianople in 378 AD.
Those early Huns, using the traditional tactics of mount-
ed archers, seemed like monsters from the darkness to their
more civilized contemporaries. The Roman historian Ammianus
Marcellinus, writing at the end of the fourth century, de-
scribed their savage customs and elaborated on their military
tactics:
The nation of the Huns...surpasses all other barbarians
in wildness of life....And though [the Huns] do just bear
the likeness of men (of a very ugly pattern), they are
so little advanced in civilization that they make no use
of fire, nor any kind of relish, in the preparation of
their food, but feed upon the roots which they find in
the fields, and the half-raw flesh of any sort of animal.
I say half-raw, because they give it a kind of cooking
by placing it between their own thighs and the backs of
their horses....
When attacked, they will sometimes engage in regular
battle. Then, going into the fight in order of columns,
they fill the air with varied and discordant cries. More
often, however, they fight in no regular order of battle,
but by being extremely swift and sudden in their move-
ments, they disperse, and then rapidly come together
again in loose array, spread havoc over vast plains, and
flying over the rampart, they pillage the camp of their
enemy almost before he has become aware of their ap-
proach. It must be owned that they are the most terrible
of warriors because they fight at a distance with missile
weapons having sharpened bones admirably fastened to the
shaft. When in close combat with swords, they fight
without regard to their own safety, and while their enemy
is intent upon parrying the thrust of the swords, they
throw a net over him and so entangle his limbs that he
loses all power of walking or riding.
Obviously, when the Huns first appeared on the edges of
the Roman Empire, they made a strong impression, but after
their initial threats they settled down along the Danube, par-
ticularly in the Great Hungarian Plain, and for almost fifty
years they served the Romans as allies more often than they
attacked them as enemies. In return, the Eastern Emperor,
beginning in the 420's, paid them an annual subsidy. On the
whole, this uneasy relationship worked well although there
were times when the Huns threatened to intervene directly in
imperial affairs.
The decisive turn of events came with the accession of
Attila as King of the Huns. The new ruler was much more ag-
gressive and ambitious than his predecessors had been, and ar-
rogance sometimes made him unpredictable. There is a story
that he claimed to own the actual sword of Mars, and that other
barbarian chiefs could not look the King of the Huns directly
in the eyes without flinching. Attila was a striking figure,
and Edward Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire offered a famous description of the person-
ality and appearance of the Hun, based on an ancient account:
His features, according to the observation of a Gothic
historian, bore the stamp of his national origin...a
large head, a swarthy complexion, small, deep-seated
eyes, a flat nose, a few hairs in the place of a beard,
broad shoulders, and a short square body, of a nervous
strength, though of a disproportioned form. The haughty
step and demeanour of the king of the Huns expressed the
consciousness of his superiority above the rest of man-
kind; and he had a custom of fiercely rolling his eyes,
as if he wished to enjoy the terror which he in-
spired....He delighted in war; but, after he had ascended
the throne in a mature age, his head, rather than his
hand, achieved the conquest of the North; and the fame
of an adventurous soldier was usefully exchanged for that
of a prudent and successful general.
At the outset of his reign (sometime after 435) Attila
demanded more money, and the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II,
obligingly doubled the annual subsidy. For various reasons,
however, the new king began in the late 440's to look to the
West as the main area of opportunity for the Huns. For the
next decade and a half after his accession Attila was the most
powerful foreign potentate in the affairs of the Western Roman
Empire. His Huns had become a sedentary nation and were no
longer the horse nomads of the earlier days. The Great Hun-
garian Plain did not offer as much room as the steppes of Asia
for grazing horses, and the Huns were forced to develop an
infantry to supplement their now much smaller cavalry. As one
leading authority has recently said, "When the Huns first ap-
peared on the steppe north of the Black Sea, they were nomads
and most of them may have been mounted warriors. In Europe,
however, they could graze only a fraction of their former
horse-power, and their chiefs soon fielded armies which re-
sembled the sedentary forces of Rome." By the time of Attila
the army of the Huns had become like that of most barbarian
nations in Europe. It was, however, very large, as we shall
see, and capable of conducting siege operations, which most
other barbarian armies could not do effectively.
In any event the Hunnic invasion of Gaul was a huge un-
dertaking. The Huns had a reputation for cruelty that was not
undeserved. In the 440's one of Attila's attacks against the
East in the Balkans aimed at a city in the Danubian provinces,
Naissus (441-42). It was located about a hundred miles south
of the Danube on the Nischava River. The Huns so devastated
the place that when Roman ambassadors passed through to meet
with Attila several years later, they had to camp outside the
city on the river. The river banks were still filled with
human bones, and the stench of death was so great that no one
could enter the city. Many cities of Gaul would soon suffer
the same fate.
After securing a strong position on the Roman side of the
Danube the Huns were checked by the famous Eastern Roman
general, Aspar, as they raided Thrace (442). Then, in 447,
Attila descended into the Balkans in another great war against
the East. The Huns marched as far as Thermopylae and stopped
only when the Eastern Emperor, Thodosius II, begged for terms.
Attila accepted payment of all tribute in arrears and a new
annual tribute of 2,100 pounds of gold. The Huns were also
given considerable territory south of the Danube. One source
says of this campaign, "There was so much killing and blood-
letting that no one could number the dead. The Huns pillaged
the churches and monasteries, and slew the monks and
virgins....They so devastated Thrace that it will never rise
again and be as it was before." This strong victory in the
East left Attila free to plan the attack on the West that
culminated in the invasion of Gaul.
Another of the great barbaric chieftains of the age,
Gaiseric, King of the Vandals, played a role in the prelude
to Chalons. He urged Attila to attack the Visigoths in the
West because of the hostility between Vandals and Visigoths.
A generation earlier Gaiseric's son had married the daughter
of Theodoric I, King of the Visigoths, but in 442 the Roman
Emperor Valentinian III agreed to the betrothal of his daugh-
ter to Gaiseric's son, and the Visigothic princess was re-
turned to her people with her nose and ears inhumanly
mutilated. From that time on the enmity of Vandals and Visig-
oths was great, and when Attila did cross the Rhine, the
Visigoths joined Aetius against the Huns, but the Vandals
stayed out of the war.
Two other considerations proved especially important.
One was the death of the Eastern Emperor Theodosius II, who
fell from his horse and died in 450. His successor, Marcian
(450-7), took a hard line on barbarian encroachment in the
Balkans and refused to pay Attila the usual subsidy. The fury
of the Hun was monstrous, but he decided to take out his wrath
on the West, because it was weaker than the East,and because
one of history's most peculiar scandals gave Attila a justi-
fication for war with the Western Emperor. Honoria, Emperor
Valentinian's sister, had been discovered in 449 in an affair
with her steward. The unfortunate lover was executed, and
Honoria, who was probably pregnant, was kept in seclusion. In
a rage she smuggled a ring and a message to the King of the
Huns and asked Attila to become her champion. He treated this
as a marriage proposal and asked for half of the Western Em-
pire as her dowry. So when he crossed the Rhine, he could
claim that he merely sought by force what was his by right of
betrothal to Honoria.
After massive preparations Attila invaded the Rhine with
a large army of Huns and allied barbarian tribes. In his force
was a sizable body of Ostrogoths and other Germanic warriors,
including Burgundians and Alans who lived on the barbarian
side of the frontier. The Franks were split between pro- and
anti-Roman factions. As early as April Attila took Metz, and
fear swept through Gaul. Ancient accounts give figures that
range between 300,000 and 700,000 for the army of the Huns.
Whatever the size, it was clearly enormous for the fifth cen-
tury AD. Some of the greatest cities of Europe were sacked
and put to the torch: Rheims, Mainz, Strasbourg, Cologne,
Worms and Trier. Paris fortunately had the advantage of hav-
ing a saint in the city and was spared because of the minis-
trations of St. Genvieve.
After he secured the Rhine, Attila moved into central
Gaul and put OrlCAans under siege. Had he gained his objec-
tive, he would have been in a strong position to subdue the
Visigoths in Aquitiane, but Ae?tius had put together a formi-
dable coalition against the Hun. Working frenetically, the
Roman leader had built a powerful alliance of Visigoths, Alans
and Burgundians, uniting them with their traditional enemy,
the Romans, for the defense of Gaul. Even though all parties
to the protection of the Western Roman Empire had a common
hatred of the Huns, it was still a remarkable achievement on
Aetius' part to have drawn them into an effective military
relationship.
Attila had not expected such vigorous action on the part
of the Romans, and he was too wise to let his army be trapped
around the walls of Orleans, so he abandoned the siege, ac-
cording to one source, on June 14. This gave the Romans and
their allies the advantage in morale as the Huns withdrew into
the open country of the modern Champagne district of France.
There on the Catalaunian Plains (some believe closer to Troyes
than to Chalons) a great battle was fought, probably about
June 20. Attila seems to have been shaken by his sudden re-
versal of fortune. Uncertain of victory and in the confusion
of retreat, on the day of the battle he stayed behind his lines
in the wagon laager until afternoon. It is likely that he
planned to begin fighting late enough in the day to fall back
under darkness of night should that prove necessary. He did
finally move up his army in battle order.
On the right wing of the Hunnic army Attila stationed the
bulk of his Germanic allies. The Ostrogoths fought on the
left, and in the center Attila took position with his best
troops, the Huns. On the other side Aetius decide to put his
least reliable troops, the Alans, in the center to take what-
ever assault Attila directed towards them. The Visigoths were
placed on the Roman right, and the Romans themselves took the
left. Aetius clearly hoped to execute a double envelopment,
hitting hard against the two weak flanks of Attila's army
while fighting a defensive, holding action in the center.
When the Romans on the left were able to seize some high ground
on the flank of the Hunnic right wing during an initial skirmish,
they gained a considerable advantage.
Thus began one of the Western world's greatest and most
decisive battles. All the sources agree that it was a costly
one in human lives: cadavera vero innumera ("truly countless
bodies"), is the way one ancient author puts it. Attila
struck hard against the Alans in the Roman center. As he drove
them back the Romans on his right moved down in a sharp attack.
The forward momentum of the Huns in the center exposed their
flank to an attack by Theodoric, King of the Visigoths, and
as night fell, the Huns had taken a beating though losses on
both sides were extraordinary. Attila retreated to the safety
of his laager, and the archers of the Huns kept the Romans at
bay. Theodoric had lost his life in the battle.
In fact at this point the battle was over. Some on the
Roman side wanted Aetius to resume the fighting the next day,
but he chose not to. Perhaps he wanted to leave Attila with
his forces, though battered, still intact in order to keep the
barbarians of Gaul united behind Rome. In any event, he en-
couraged the new King of the Visigoths to hurry back to
Aquitaine to secure his accession to the throne. Attila began
his withdrawal back across the Rhine and was able to effect
it easily. Many have criticized Aatius for making things too
easy for the Huns, for not destroying their army, but it is
not necessary to introduce political considerations to ex-
plain the Roman commander's motives. Militarily he did the
right thing. The sources make it clear that the Roman alli-
ance also took heavy losses at Chalons, and Attila was merely
a wounded tiger. He continued to have considerable military
power. Although the Hun had been beaten in a bloody battle,
it was probably wise for Aetius to allow his savage foe a line
of retreat. To have driven Attila the Hun out of the Empire
was satisfaction enough. It is true that in the following
year Attila invaded Italy and caused much suffering before he
withdrew, but if he had launched a successful counterattack
in Gaul the whole course of Western history might have been
changed. Unlike most other barbarians of the age, the Huns
were not Christians, and their respect for the Graeco-Roman
Christian civilization of the Late Empire was much more lim-
ited even than that of Visigoth and Vandal.
For various reasons twentieth century "scientific" historians
have minimized and even ridiculed the concept of "decisive
battles". There is a widespread belief that human events are
rarely determined on the battlefield. In the nineteenth century
Edward Creasy's book, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the
World (originally published in 1851) became a bestseller and
exercised considerable influence. (Incidentally Creasy included
the Battle of Chalons on his list.) But the early twentieth
century saw a change. Hans Delbruck totally ignored Chalons
in his monumental History of the Art of War Within the
Framework of Political History (1920-21), and one of the
foremost authorities on the Late Roman Empire, J.B. Bury, refused,
as some others have done, even to call it by its traditional name:
The Battle of Maurica [Chalons] was a battle of nations, but its
significance has been enormously exaggerated in conventional
history. It cannot in any reasonable sense be designated as one
of the critical battles of the world....The danger did not mean so
much as has been commonly assumed. If Attila had been
victorious...there is no reason to suppose that the course of
history would have been seriously altered.
To be sure, the exact location of the battle has been
disputed and is in doubt. In that general area of modern
France it has been a favorite occupation of retired colonels
to spend their weekends looking for evidence of the battle-
field. But there are many extremely important ancient battles
whose exact locations are uncertain: Plataea, Issus, Cannae,
Zama, and Pharsalus, to name but a few. Considering the pau-
city of ancient evidence uncertainty of that sort is to be
expected, and it can hardly be used as evidence that the bat-
tles were not important. As to exaggerating the danger of
Attila and the Huns, why were they less dangerous than Hanni-
bal and the Carthaginians or Alaric and the Visigoths?
It is true that the threat of the Huns to Rome had not
been entirely removed by Aetius' victory at Chalons. Though
beaten and forced to retreat across the Rhine, Attila still
had a powerful force, and he had not learned his lesson. The
next year (452) he crossed over the Alps and moved down into
Italy, launching another great invasion that terrorized the
inhabitants of the Western Roman Empire. In some ways this
second invasion of the West was even more savage than the
first. The city of Aquileia at the tip of the Adriatic was
wiped off the face of the earth. The fugitives from that piti-
ful city are supposed to have fled into the lagoons of the
Adriatic and to have founded the new city of Venice. Much of
the Po Valley--Milan, Verona, and Padua--was devastated and
depopulated. The Hun had pillaged and destroyed Northern It-
aly! Aa?tius found it much more difficult to persuade Visig-
oths and Alans to help in the defense of Italy than he had a
year earlier in organizing them to protect Gaul.
For awhile it appeared that Italy would be lost to the
invaders, but actually Attila's position was weaker than the
Romans realized, undoubtedly because of the serious losses he
had suffered the previous year at ChE?lons. There is a famous
tradition that Pope Leo I met Attila in Northern Italy at the
confluence of the Minicio and the Po and persuaded him to
leave Italy with a display of eloquence and a show of elabo-
rate sacerdotal robes. There occurred, according to legend,
one of the most famous miracles in the history of Christian-
ity--St. Peter and St. Paul appeared to Attila threatening him
with instant death if he ignored the urgings of Leo.
In an act that added immeasurably to the influence of the
fledgling papacy, an obliging Attila led his army out of It-
aly. It was probably not so much the influence of Leo as the
fact that his troops were short of supplies that motivated the
great barbarian leader. There had been a famine in Italy in
450-51, and logistical support had never been a strong point
for barbarian armies. Also a plague swept through the army
of the Huns, and the Eastern Emperor Marcian sent an army
across the Danube to strike into the heartland of the Huns'
territory. When these factors are added to the disastrous
loses the year earlier at Chalons, it is obvious why Attila
was able to see merit in the humanitarian arguments of Pope Leo.
In any event, the great Hun spared Rome and withdrew from
Italy. Twice in successive years, at Chalons and in Northern
Italy, the menace of the Huns had proved incapable of bringing
the Western Empire to its knees. Perhaps Rome's last great
service to the West was to serve as a buffer between the Asi-
atic Huns and the Germanic barbarians whose destiny was to lay
the medieval foundations of the modern, western nations. Ae-
tius had been blamed by many Italians for not having destroyed
Attila and the Huns in Gaul, but "the last of the Romans" had
contributed substantially to the ruin of the once proud bar-
barian nation. Its place in the pages of history was over.
In the next year after the retreat from Italy Attila died
an appropriately barbarian death. He took a new, young, beau-
tiful bride, a damsel named Ildico, though he already had a
coterie of wives. The wedding day was spent in heavy drinking
and partying, and the King of the Huns took his new bride to
bed that night in drunken lust. The next morning it was dis-
covered that he had died--drowned in his drunkenness in his
own nosebleed. The new bride was found quivering in fear in
the great man's bedquarters. The empire of the Huns dissi-
pated nearly as quickly as its most famous leader. In 454 the
Ostrogoths and other Germanic tribes revolted against the
Huns, and the sons of Attila, who had quarreled among them-
selves, could not deal with the crisis. In the words of Bury,
the Huns were "scattered to the winds."
Even in the last days of the Roman Empire in the West it
was still possible for the imperial general Aetius to mobilize
a major military force in defense of Gaul. During his ascen-
dancy in the 430's, 40s and early 50s Rome had lost much, par-
ticularly to the Vandals in North Africa, yet had remained
powerful enough to thwart the ambitions of Attila the Hun.
Naturally, there was jealousy and rivalry between Aetius and
his superior, the Emperor Valentinian III. The General's suc-
cess against the Huns and his effective treatment of the
Visigoths in Gaul actually helped to make him unnecessary any
longer, and in 454 Valentinian killed him personally with the
imperial sword. One of the Emperor's advisers said, "You have
cut off your right hand with your left." The next year two
of Aetius' followers killed the Emperor, and within a gener-
ation, by 476, there would no longer be a Roman Emperor in the
West. Aetius was truly "the last of the Romans."
DOMNITZA
dupa multa galagie 'la nord de Dunare' :
>The Romanians are all Vlahs, only they moved earlier in
>present Romania, probably starting with the VIII-XIX, after
>the arrival of the Bulgars, and their fights against
>Constantinopolis with the help of
concluzioneza cu sfortare:
>Actually every nationalism is absurd.
!!! KKnari din toate .... UNITI'va!!!
bai M_sindrom incearca sa postezi si din istorici romani : parvan, xenopol,
iorga ...
ai mintit , minti si vei minti ... si te complaci sa sustii 'vintul' ce bate
in pinzele 'teoriei' tale: halal mizerabil ... nascut la minis sau maglavit sau
schei sau unde ... te'a ouat ma'ta!
DOMNITZA
&&& >misu wrote
adica unul si altul si amindoi deodata
=Luci al Hoastei ... Balaceanu!
ba lucica, baa ... mai du'te ma dracului(unde o fi aia?) cu teoriile tale de
dobitoc !!!
mai schimba plaka ba, lula, ca suni a schizo acum ... inainte cind erai
branshat 'pe bipolar' erai o tzira mai ocosh ... te'ai bosorogit de tot!!!!!
Misu Orasel Tomberg
lyn...@aol.com (George S. Tsapanos) wrote:
>Now.........now.............don't mix Orthodoxy with Hellenism.
>Orthodoxy almost NEVER supported Hellenism, and ESPECIALLY the Vlachs or
their
>language.
>If the Vlachs suffered it was because of the Patriarchate, and if Romania
was
>under the Byzantines, it was under a certain kind of Byzantines, those
>PHANARIOTES, people of ambiguous interests and political aims.
Don't mix up events.
After the fall of Constantinopolis, the greek aristocracy,
the "romaioi" tried to perpetuate "Romania". Some of them
moved to the western Europe and helped those countries to
flourish their cultures through Renaissance, the others
moved into East European countries where they helped another
type of Renaissance. This kind of cultural development
is the one I am talking about. I don't talk about the
fanariots, I talk about the perioad at the end of the
XV century and the XVI century. I talk about the "romaioi"
moving north to Valahia to revitalize "Romania".
M^M^ de C?
George S. Tsapanos
> I talk about the perioad at the end of the
>XV century and the XVI century. I talk about the "romaioi"
>moving north to Valahia to revitalize "Romania".
M^M^ de C?>
Romania wasn't even existing as Romania those days.
Valahia of XV and XVI century had almost absolutely nothing to do with
"romaioi" Greeks.
Magicianul
>1. mmm_eul este destept 'de moare' dar se plictiseste foarte
Mai ales cind iti faci matale aparitia...
>cu speranta sa mai
>atraga si alte broaste in 'lacul discutiei istorico_seceriste' ...
Si ca intotdeauna, hop si tu ca musca'n...baliga lui tac'tu.
>2. mmm_eul nu este, de departe, atit de destept pe cat 'se tine'
Fa Onijo, n'ai invatat nimic!
>pupa'l'ai mort la ildico in cort:
Atita vreme cit nu trebuie sa se apropie de tine. Ti'ai reparat placa aia
dentara? Ca tare pute!
M
Magicianul
>!!! KKnari din toate .... UNITI'va!!!
Ce mai astepti? Vrei invitatie speciala? Hai sictir ucrainianca spurcata!
>ai mintit , minti si vei minti
De futut tot nu te fute, de asta sa fii sigura! Si asta'i adevarul adevarat.
> te'a ouat ma'ta!
Ce mi'ai tot freca tu.....ousoarele.....hahahahahahaha
M
Magicianul
>adica unul si altul si amindoi deodata
Cum si nu te'a futut nici unul din ei? Imputita trebuie ca esti Onijo!
>ba lucica, baa ... mai du'te ma dracului(unde o fi aia?)
In fata portii tale. Insa tu uiti ca esti batrina si te maninca ateroscleroza,
EU NU TE FUT!
> te'ai bosorogit de tot!!!!!
>
Si totusi NU TE FUT. N'ai priceput chestia asta?
M
DOMNITZA
ba Luci, nebune:
degeaba te ascunzi in spatele expresiilor brutale 'de curca ploata'(copiate a
la long, de la coana texana 'el futadore') ... 'ticurile' verbale te dau de
gol: 'rudotel, 'acilea' 'pentru ca sa', 'caci' ...
ba tembeleu obsedat, eu nu am nici'o placa dentara in gura( normal repairs in
porcelain and gold, yo idiot, are called: inlays,onlays, amalgams, resins
repais) dar tu ai numai 3 dinti ramasi si aia galbeni si subtiri, restul
PLASTIC!!!
cind ti'ai rupt incisivul central, stinga sus si mi'ai spus ca de fapt era un
post ruginit (inside) mi'am zis: noroc pe saracul bosorog, acum a scapat de
rinjetul inegal, de dracula! lololol
baaa, iti platesc cu moneda inzecita!!! lol
DOMNITZA
>Cum si nu te'a futut nici unul din ei? Imputita trebuie ca esti Onijo!
hahahha!
tu sti foarte bine, tu ce faci toaleta cu limba si la 'usa din fata si la cea
din dos' TEMBELEU!!!!!!!
TI'A RAMAS HOASKA, BAA MUMIE!!!
DOMNITZA
>From: magic...@aol.com (Magicianul)
>Insa tu uiti ca esti batrina si te maninca ateroscleroza,
>EU NU TE FUT!
ba laba trista, labar secerist si sluga a hoastelor: ti'am dat un picior in cur
de nu te'ai vazut dupa numai 3 luni - esti un bosorog cu 12 ani mai mare decit
mine, un bolnav mintal si o laba trista(redondancy needed !)
baaaaa, nimeni nu vrea sa fie linga tine, never mind futere, baaaa tembeleu de
mishu/olah/cmt/gogu/bula si alte cirtitze ce traiesc in putoarea etherului
secerist!!!!
nu te tot 'aburca' pe postament ca ti'a crapat statuia de mult, baaaa! lolol
din cind in cind, cind mi se scoala(lol), mai iti arunc cite'un ciolan, sa nu
crapi dracului de singuratate vorbindu'ti tie insusi!!!!!
salutari gloabei de muti : intreab'o cind si'a planificat ca da ortul ...
DOMNITZA
>Ce mi'ai tot freca tu.....ousoarele.....hahahahahahaha
baaa bovina, poate hoaska_ta_muti ti-ar freca ridichea ... cit priveste
'ousaorele' tu te'ai nascut fara pa dildo ambulant ...
nebun sau nu, daca vreodata ai fi avut cojones(ba bovina cind te ascunzi sub
numele gogu folosesti aceasta expresie utilizata numai in america si esti
destul de prost ca sa nu'ti dai seama ca nu esista aceasta expresie nici la
gretzili nici la 'vespasienile' latine, baa)
nu stateai ca o sula bleaga la mila hostai ba bosorog !!!!
BA WASTED ENTITY: te'ai vindut hoastelor, cacealmao, pt 3 creitari!!!!
AI TRAIT DEGEABA BAAAA!
RUSINE!
Se intelege ca Lucian
>TI'A RAMAS HOASKA, BAA MUMIE!!!
Hoaska este o doamna serioasa, ea nu viseaza prostii precum o hodoroaga
ucrainianca nespalata de 50 de ani.
Onijo, daca platesti o suta de mii de parai te las sa-mi sugi pula o ora
intreaga.
Se intelege ca Lucian
> te'ai vindut hoastelor, cacealmao, pt 3 creitari!!!!
De ce minti? Tu mi-ai platit 50 de mii de parai numai ca sa te las sa-mi sugi
pula.
In pizda tu nu te futi pentru ca ai lindicul mort si nu simti nimic, asa ca
unica placere pentru care platesti barbatii este sa le poti suge pula.
Pe Burlacu ce-l fraieresti si te plateste pentru ca se mindreste si el ca da
muie la o "doctorita".
DOMNITZA
ba boala hoastelor olandeze tu sa'l pupi in cur pe domnul Burlacu, baaa!
cind te'o prinde ala sau nevasta'sa(ce'ti punea mamaliga'n blid) iti indreapta
aia mutra ta de badog turtit, baaa!
hai ca mi'am piersut prea mult tim cu tine baaaa!
tu nu esti nici macar 'golul' din vasul lui heidegger baaa, only 'verbosity:
batut apa'n piua goala', lol :
..........
The primal calling, which bids the intimacy of the world and thing to to come,
is the authentic bidding. This bidding is the nature of speaking. Speaking
occurs in what is spoken in the poem. It is the speaking of language. Language
speaks. It speaks by bidding the bidden, thing-world and world-thing, to come
to the between of the dif-ference. What is so bidden is commanded to arrive
from out of the dif-ference into the dif-ference. Here we are thinking of the
old sense of command, which we recognize still in the phrase, "Commit thy way
unto the Lord." The bidding of language commits the bidden thus to the bidding
of the dif-ference. The dif-ference lets the thinging of the thing rest in the
worlding of the world. The dif-ference expropriates the thing into the repose
of thefourfold. Such expropriation does not diminish the thing. Only so is the
thing exalted into its own, so that it stays world. The keep in repose is to
still. The difference stills the thing, into the world.
Such stilling, however, takes place only in such a way that at the same time
the world's fourfold fulfills the bearing of the thing, in that the stilling
grants to the thing the sufficiency of staying world.
DOMNITZA
>Hoaska este o doamna serioasa
pt tine, singura care exista ... caci acea vrajitoare spurcata de 80 ani este
singura ce tolereaza un peste negru ca tine ... curatitor de geamuri in acvarii
.... hahahaha!
tu pulosul, baaa?
ia vin sa'ti vind fo 2 cojones(io am 4, lol), baaa ... sa sti si tu o data'n
viata ce'nseamna a fi OM!!!!!
Se intelege ca Lucian
>ia vin sa'ti vind fo 2 cojones(io am 4, lol), baaa ... sa sti si tu o data'n
>viata ce'nseamna a fi OM!!!!!
Ce te-ai mai dezmierda cu pula mea, nu te-ai mai satura sa sorbi din sperma mea
vitaminoasa. Stringe banul si pe urma mai discutam.
Magicianul
> eu nu am nici'o placa dentara in gura
Deci nici macar atit. Stirbo!!!!!
>dar tu ai numai 3 dinti ramasi si aia galbeni si subtiri, restul
>PLASTIC!!!
Si totusi m'ai iubit, mi'ai dat bani sa te fut, vroiai sa ma insor cu tine,
bravo tie tirfa de Chitila!
M
gogu
news:20010408094115...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
>
> ba laba trista, labar secerist si sluga a hoastelor: ti'am dat un picior
in cur
> de nu te'ai vazut dupa numai 3 luni - esti un bosorog cu 12 ani mai mare
decit
> mine, un bolnav mintal si o laba trista(redondancy needed !)
Deci hai sa calculam o leaca: tu ai vre-o 65-70 din cite aud, plus 12 de
care zici, inseamna ca omu' are vre-o 77-82 de ani! Bravo lui nene, la
virsta asta sa fie asa de omniprezent si sa poate scrie atitea mesaje pe zi,
uite si eu cind ajung in virsta lui as vrea sa pot face ce face si el:-)))
> baaaaa, nimeni nu vrea sa fie linga tine, never mind futere, baaaa
tembeleu de
> mishu/olah/cmt/gogu/bula si alte cirtitze ce traiesc in putoarea etherului
> secerist!!!!
Hehehe:-)))
Uite cine vorbeste:-)))
O vaca Ukrainianca nefututa care se milogeste la Magicianu' s-o futa:-)
Hai sictir boarfo!
gogu
> ia vin sa'ti vind fo 2 cojones(io am 4, lol),
LOL
Mutanta dracului:-)))
> baaa ... sa sti si tu o data'n
> viata ce'nseamna a fi OM!!!!!
Mutant cu 4 coi ca tine faaaa?
No, thanks:-)))
Magicianul
>tu sti foarte bine, tu ce faci toaleta cu limba si la 'usa din fata si la cea
>din dos' TEMBELEU!!!!!!!
Adica cum vroiai tu sa'mi faci mie? Hahahaha, si totusi nu te'am lasat. De aia
crapa fierea'n tine. Nu vezi in ce hal te dai in petec? N'ai nici un pic de bun
simt?
Ti'au ajuns bolile venerice la cap? Tirfa ordinara ce esti!
M
Magicianul
>ia vin sa'ti vind fo 2 cojones(io am 4, lol), baaa ... sa sti si tu o data'n
>viata ce'nseamna a fi OM!!!!!
4 dildouri? Prin cite alte orificii nespalate ti le mai bagi fa, otreapa
cartierului?
M
gogu
> >: magic...@aol.com (Magicianul)
>
> >Ce mi'ai tot freca tu.....ousoarele.....hahahahahahaha
>
> baaa bovina, poate hoaska_ta_muti ti-ar freca ridichea ... cit priveste
> 'ousaorele' tu te'ai nascut fara pa dildo ambulant ...
> nebun sau nu, daca vreodata ai fi avut cojones(ba bovina cind te ascunzi
sub
> numele gogu folosesti aceasta expresie utilizata numai in america si esti
> destul de prost ca sa nu'ti dai seama ca nu esista aceasta expresie nici
la
> gretzili nici la 'vespasienile' latine, baa)
Fa scirbo din Ukraina!
Da' ce crede pizda ta, noi n-avem pe aici televizoare si ca nu ne uitam la
filme Americanesti?
Ai observat de cite ori se foloseste aceasta expresie in filmele alea?
BOVINO ce esti!
> RUSINE!
Da fa VACO, RUSINE tie!
Hai sicir in pizda matii!
Magicianul
>ti'am dat un picior in cur
>de nu te'ai vazut dupa numai 3 luni
De aia continuai cu plinsetele, telefoanele, rugamintile, sarmale, bani,
poezii...hahahaha, fa tirfa borita, tu chiar crezi tot ce spui? Tragic!
>(redondancy needed !)
Perhaps, but bad spelling isn't!
>din cind in cind, cind mi se scoala(lol),
Dildoul, am inteles.
> intreab'o cind si'a planificat ca da ortul ...
Te'asteapta intii pe tine.
M
Magicianul
> te'ai vindut hoastelor, cacealmao, pt 3 creitari!!!!
Asa e, insa pentru tine pretul era 50K. Si ce repede l'ai platit....hahahaha
M
gogu
news:2001040717...@proxima.lpm.univ-montp2.fr...
>
> "gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> We
> >
> > ??? We??? Are you using an other screen name BTW, because as far as I
> > remember WE never discussed this particular matter, not even in
private...
> I remember having discussed this nationality/citizenship issue some time
> ago, I don't recall if it was here, on rom-list or in private (I don't
> think it was this latter one).
We have discussed some matters on Vlachs, but as far as I can remember we
never discussed the nationality/citizenship issue.
> > But again, I could be wrong. In that case please accept my apologies
and
> > point me to the pertinent mail.
>
> Alas! (Poor Yorick! :-))... I made some disk cleanup following a system
> crash, I don't have them anymore. Well, that's not so important, I don't
> depend on that messages, facts are still in place.
I keep all e-mails from certain posters and yours are among them. I did a
small research but I didn't find anything about nationality/citizenship.
> > Not at all! They are claiming their "Greekness"! They say they are the
> > first and most "pure" Hellenes! If you want, I can give you some titles
> > (in Greek) and even "provoke" a declaration from their associations...
> Almost any statement claiming about one own's ethnic group as being the
> "most" in something is nothing else but propaganda. This particular case
> can be seen also as a self-defence reaction: they're trying to emphasize
> their legitimacy on that land.
It is very interesting to see that you have a reply which you consider being
correct about some problems which can not be resolved but asking the people
themselves! To your above statement a "nationalist" greek could say to you
"they (Vlachs) are doing that, just because it is true"!!! And you can not
say anything, because neither him nor you can prove your statements! That's
why I prefer not to interpret that kind of statements or try to "explain"
them with my logic. Who knows what is in someone's mind?
> There are also some Romanian dreamers who
> think that Romanians = Dacians = the most ancient people of Europe.
Well, this is totally different! There are many unbiased SCIENTIFIC sources
to prove them wrong. But interpreting what a people would have in mind when
he said this or the other thing?... Hmm, definitely not the same thing my
dear friend.
> There
> will be always such strange and non-scientifical claims in order to prove
> some legitimacy.
I agree.
> >> There are also many Vlachs indoctrinated with official propaganda:
> >
> > A highly inadequate and insulting word when it comes from an educated
> > person like you. Please keep it decent. I could talk about "official
> > Romanian propaganda", or communist propaganda (you know that communists
> > fed that kind of propaganda with the purpose to raise claims in the non
> > communist Balkan countries), etc.
> Why not?! I fully agree there was always an official Romanian propaganda
> in a form or another.
Thank you:-)
> I hardly could find something insulting in admitting
> that. On the other hand, the real specialists generally know how to select
> their sources, out of some lunatics with no scientifical credibility, the
> information they provide is usually accurate.
This is a general ng so there are people without specific knowledge. I am
one of them. So you must "lower" to the general level or not to discuss at
all! And generally speaking, is not polite to say to someone that he is
adhering to something you call propaganda! Most probably he will send you to
hell and the whole discussion will degrade to an exchange of insults! See
how Mishu degraded: first he tried polite (back in 199-2000), then when he
saw that he is contested by all Romanians in this ng he became aggressive
and insulting! Now he is on fool's role:-)
> I don't know if the above mentioned commie propaganda was aimed to raise
> claims in the non communist Balkan countries (i.e. Greece).
It is well established and confessed by many communist leaders. Could I
remind you the creation by Tito for the FIRST time in history a "republic"
bearing the name "Macedonia" and the same "ethnicity"? Was that naive or
what?...
> What exactly
> would you call propaganda for those years?!
Simple. The creation of problems where they virtually don't exist, just to
have a pretext to invade/occupy a part of that country. An excuse to raise
claims sooner or later, or just simply "just in case"... This is also
established after the fall of the iron curtain. Aren't you aware of that?
Why communist countries always supported the liberation movements? What was
the reason of the Cuban presence in Africa? To serve Russian interests, of
course! Would you really say because of ideological reasons? Come on!
> > But as you can see, I am not using such words...
>
> Too bad. Admitting that there will be always some amount of official
ideas
> to be sustained unconditionally is a good starting point in searching the
> truth (if any).
And make a civilized exchange of ideas to end in the worst of manners... You
know what am I talking about.
> I am willing to admit this for Romania; I never use official
> claims but decent references. Will you do the same?!
I always said that there is a certain amount of exaggerate ideas in Greece,
too. Who can deny that? See the ID case, the visit of the Pope case, etc.
But certainly not in such degree like in Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Albania,
etc. What do you think, "nationalists" are a "copyright" of Romania
alone?:-))) We have our extremists, too.
> >> a similar case to the one of many Moldovans from Bessarabia claiming
> >> they're not Romanian.
> >
> > Totally different case. Basarabia WAS part of Romania! Pindus? Never!
> Not at all different!
Yes, it is a different one!
> We don't speak about *citizenship* but about *ethnic
> background*. Aromanians from Balkans were never subjects of any modern
> Romanian state and they'll never be;
Of course and that's thanks to Bulgaria:-)
> this doesn't mean they're less Romanians
> by language and a good part of their history: they're a branch of
Romanians
> which live in several Balkan states including Greece.
There are people that will not agree with you. And the majority of the Greek
Vlachs. So?
> The same helds for
> Moldovans from Bessarabia which are Romanians even if some of them sustain
> something else.
There is no base for such an absurd statement. They are Romanians, their
country was part of a Romanian participate, so what is their bases for such
a ridiculous claim?
> If the fact that Bessarabia was part of Romanian state during
> some decades puzzles your reasoning, why don't you think at Moldovans
living
> on the other side of the Dniester: their region were never part of the
modern
> Romanian state but this doesn't change their ethnical status, as well as
if
> you'll move to Bucharest you won't become a Romanian just by that.
But they were ALWAYS part of Romanian sphere of influence!
> There are also reticences from them when discussing to strangers; after
> >> all, in the Balkans ethnical issues are still a sensible subject, the
> >> background is clearly different with respect to Western Europe.
> >
> > This may be true for Romania because of its oppressing policy against
> > everyone who is opposing official thesis' and its ill respect on
citizens'
> > rights, but in Greece everyone can say whatever he wants. One or two
> > isolated examples does not constitute a case.
> Well, you have to take into account also the history, to think as if you
> were belonging to a minority, this leads always to surprising reactions.
Maybe in the past. But no way in our days.
> Ethnical issues will be a sensible subject for many years from now on.
In Romania maybe. Greece is part of the free world since 1945. In the years
of the cold war it is true that some ugly incidents happened. And I am
strongly condemning them. But the same thing did happen with some minorities
in Bulgaria, Romania, USSR, etc. Today Greece is part of EU and such
behavior is not tolerated. Some idiot fanatics can not and must not be taken
as the average citizen. Today in Greece you can say that you are Turk,
Albanian, Marsian or whatever you want and nobody can do something against
you. Don't forget that more that 97% of the laws are the same with those
that EU "dictates"... But please note that one thing is to declare yourself
whatever you want and another thing is to make propaganda and/or
proselytism, which is forbidden by the law... In ALL countries of Europe...
> Even
> the fact you felt not so comfortable when reading the word "propaganda" is
> a sign that the matter is delicate.
You got it wrong! I felt uncomfortable for you! Because you gave me in that
moment the right to said to you "go to hell" and that's certainly not what I
wanted to do! When you are going to a friend's house, you are not saying
that his wife is fat or a whore (!) even if this is true! Better not go if
you can not keep your mouth shut:-) So I had two options: to send you ...
there, and stop talking with/to you! I thought it was better to make you a
remark...
> Even the fact you rised the idea of
> Pindus never belonging to Romania shows up that there could be also other
> Greeks who will automatically think at territorial claims if a minority
> dares to claim they're something different.
And they have good reasons to do that!
> I don't think that any normal-
> minded Romanian would sustain such claims.
You are wrong! If I could tell you some ideas (pretentzii) of some OFFICIAL
Romanians, you would be very surprised... But unfortunately, I can't...
> Between the two World Wars,
> Romanian Kingdom supported some schools for Aromanians, this is the kind
> of normal things to do (unfortunately, the classes were taught not in
> Aromanian but in Daco-Romanian thus not being so frequented by Vlachs,
> a stupid result of the lack of interest from the part of Romanian state).
Hehehe:-))) And only that fact is showing that Romanians wanted to rise
territorial claims! They also wanted to use Vlachs for such claims and they
never really cared about them! If that was not true, why didn't they teach
them THEIR own language but Romanian? One could say that Romanians wanted to
ASSIMILATE the Vlachs!!! Taking in consideration the behavior you are
describing above, could you say that such a deduction is impossible? Not at
all!!!
> >> All these reasons make me strongly doubt about your estimated 99%
> >> of "Greeks" among Vlachs (Aromanians).
> >
> > If you doubt it, why don't you come and ask them by yourself? Once you
> > said that you visited Greece, but you never managed to visit Vlach
> > villages due the luck of time. I am inviting you to do this together!
> Hadn't I other things to do, I would already have done that.
Please do. Then and ONLY then you will have a REAL picture of the whole
situation and not only second hand information by biased greek or romanian
historians! I've already done it and I can assure you that you will have a
surprise.
> It's not one
> of my current projects, but hey, when I'll got the time and a good sum in
> my bank accout, I'll put it on my list.
Please don't consider this as an insult, but if you decide it I am willing
to support all the expenses.
> Up till then, I find fair enough
> to believe a guy who really did that for 30 years, namely the
distinguished
> linguist G. Weigand: he spoke with people in all the Balkans, realising
the
> first serious systematical studies on Aromanian dialect (BTW, the word
> "Aromanian" was imposed in scientifical papers by him).
In that kind of situations I generally don't believe nothing but my eyes.
There are other "guys" who could support the opposite, or even some nasty
things about Romania. Could you believe them, too? I personally can not.
> > Why you and others are avoiding to discuss the fact that MANY Vlachs
> > were/are among the grate benefactors of the Greek state?
> I'm glad to hear that: that's normal because they're Greek citizens not
> Romanian citizens. Try not to link their citizenship with their ethnicity.
Invalid argument!
There are many wealthy Greeks living in America, Germany, etc, they are
American, German, etc citizens but they usually help Greece and not their
respective countries! Why not the country of their citizenship?...
And keep in mind that Vlachs helped the liberation struggle of Greece, MUCH
BEFORE the instauration of any Greek state, thus no Greek citizenship
occurred in those times!
> > Why they didn't donate their big fortunes to the Romanian state instead?
> Because they live in the Greek state and that is their legitimate place.
> It's within the Greek state that their local community lives; helping the
> state they help themselves.
Not a hundred per cent convincing argument! As I said before, many Greeks
living in USA and with no relatives in Greece, are leaving their fortunes to
the Greek state and to USA! Same with some wealthy Romanians...
> > Why you and others are avoiding to discuss the fact that Rigas Fereos
> > always said that he was a greek Vlach? And consider that in that time
> > Greece didn't exist as a state entity!
>
> I'm very fine with that. It's undeniable that many Aromanians live in
> small communities surrounded by Greeks and report themselves to the local
> cultural tendency.
Are we talking about Rigas here, or about an uneducated vlach??? Come on!
Rigas was a brilliant educated person, he preached the unity of Balkans
(!!!) in one state (!!!) despite of ETHNICITY, but he always referred to
himself as a GREEK! Again, in those times the notion of citizenship was not
existing...
> >> Let's ask some of them (since you read Romanian, you should enjoy the
> >> following phrases):
> >
> > Now this is going towards propaganda:-)))
> > You are saying: "Let's ask some of them" and you are giving me Caragiu
> > as an example! What an unbiased example I would dare say:-)))
> Why dou you consider the well-known linguist Matilda Caragiu as biased?!
> Isn't her family from Greece?
And that makes her an unbiased person? Come on!!! But she lived (quite) all
her life in Romania:-))) But I suppose that does not make her a biased
person towards the official Romanian thesis, isn't it?:-)))
> What about Mihail Boiagi (Moscopole 1770 -
> Budapest 1843) who published in Vienna a "Romanian or Macedo-Romanian
> Grammar" (1813). What about Nida Boga, born in Veles who wrote a good
> ethnographical and statistical study "Romanians from Macedonia, Epyrus,
> Thessalia and Albania"?! What about Nusi Tulliu, Nicolae Batzaria, George
> Ceara or Marcu Beza, representative Aromanians litterates?!
Same as above!
> > What if I would give you Mertzos as an example to your "Let's ask some
of
> > them" question?... Would you accept him? I strongly doubt it, as he is a
> > fierce Hellenic Vlach!
> Once again: if you keep telling to some people they're something else,
> after some time some of them will start to sincerely believe that.
1) You have no respect for the Vlachs:-))) Are they idiots, or what? During
all those millenniums, they kept their language. They kept their customs.
They kept their way of life. They kept their faith. But you are saying that
they didn't keep their national conscience!!! Sorry, but I can't buy that!
2) Turks kept telling to Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc for about 400
years that they are not what they believed to be, they tried to eradicate
the national conscience of them, but still after 400 years they remained
Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc! Why Vlachs should be an exception?
> Look to
> Moldovans: they have a "national poet" called Eminescu, they are willing
> to identify their culture with his poetry but some of them still cannot
> cope with the national identity given by him at the very beginning of a
> well-known poetry: "De la Nistru pan' la Tisa / Tot roma^nul
plansu-mi-s'a".
> "Roma^nul", not "moldoveanul".
You said it! "Some of them" but not ALL of them or the MAJORITY! Why with
Vlachs must be different?
> There is no cultivated Moldovan to sustain
> he's not Romanian: this is a matter of fact.
Correct!
> OK, he wants to be "Moldovan"
> in order to have his own state -- but this is politics, not facts.
Who can deny that?
> > Would you democratically accept their desire to be Greeks (as ancestry,
I
> > mean) or you will tell that they are ignorants?
> Haha, so you think that ancestry has to be "democratically" established?!
Not at all!
But in your line of logic, who are you (some Romanians, not you personally)
to come and say people what they really are? Let them define themselves as
they want! Isn't still valid the principle of self-determination?
> Any person has the legitimate right to ignore or to deny its origins with
> a certain amount of success. Does this change that person's ancestry?
Not at all! But it gives them the right to say to all bad faith
"protectors", "please, go to hell" and leave us alone! I suppose you can
agree on that!
> > And there are a lot (but realy A LOT) Greek Vlachs who will say to you
that
> > they are Greeks! What does it proves?
>
> See above. There are several possibilities: they ignore their roots, they
> find suitable for a certain reason to claim they're Greeks, they
understand
> the question linked with their citizenship or they might not understand at
> all the question.
You see above: there are ALMOST the same number of possibilities to present
to you arguments that support the opposite! You are guessing, so you can not
talk about FACTS!
Funny thing that you never choose an explanation to support Greek thesis but
you are always picking one that serves the official Romanian thesis:-))) Is
this kind of discussion scientific? Trying to "explain" what those poor
people have in mind? Come on!
> > Can they make you change your mind?
>
> The things to be established by popular vote are the laws or the guys
elected
> by the people. If Greek Vlachs want to identify themselves with Greeks,
I'm
> fine with that; it won't became a historical truth just by doing so.
Of course! But can you tell me if the WHOLE international historian
community agrees on the Romanity or Hellenity of the Vlachs? Of course not!
So you can not say "it won't became a historical truth" because in that case
YOUR historical truth is not the same as the one of some other people.
> > And as a final matter: you can see that the Hellenic Vlachs are claiming
> > nothing and they are not complaining about anything. They all are well
> > situated in Greece, they are quite rich in general, they have no
complains
> > at all. Then what is the purpose of all this filology about opression
etc?
> I didn't spoke about opression.
I was talking in general. But again, some strange guys like Mishu-Pishu did
it...
> In some extended sense, preventing some
> people to find out more about their roots can be seen as a form of
cultural
> opression.
Have you proofs to sustain such a claim?
As I've told you many times before, Greece unlike Romania is a democratic
state where EVERYONE can find what he wants! His roots included:-)
> Here I emphasized only academical issues about Aromanians among
> which Hellenic Vlachs are nothing else but a peculiar case.
That's what you say. I could reply that the extinction of the numerous Greek
community in Romania is a peculiar case... Can you understand why such kind
of problems can start interminable discussions and accusations? Today we are
happy to live in a better (?) world, our countries have peace, let's forget
the problems which poisoned our people some centuries ago... Or, have a look
at Cosovo:-)
> > Why only some foreighners are conserned about Greek Vlachs when they
don't
> > complain? Don't you realize that this attitude is making some Romanians
to
> > look like the agitators of the Balkans?
> Should we recall here the above paragraph about sensibilities of people
> from the Balkans?! :-)
Please explain.
> Being concerned with something doesn't mean to agitate.
:-))) How can you be so naive my dear friend? You say that you are a
historian, or at least that's what I understood. Didn't the 20th century
history of the Balkans teach you something?:-)))
> My only fear is that
> Aromanian will eventually disappear and the ethnical identity of Vlachs
will
> melt definitively into the pot, I think it would be pity.
Not at all. Vlachs -at least in Greece- they have museums, popular museums
about village life, Vlach theatre, Vlach associations, MANY books about them
and their history, so it is not possible for those people to extinct. At
least in Greece... I wonder if in Romania the Vlachs have their museums,
associations, etc:-) But again, hey, they are Romanians like us, what
different culture are we talking about:-)))
> In order to prevent
> that, a good idea would be to reopen some schools in their language, but
this
> depends also on their will: as said, they have the right to chose to
identify
> themselves with Greeks.
Thank you for according them that right:-)
> As far as Romanian state is concerned, the authorities
> couldn't care less about Romanians outside the country (this doesn't mean
they
> care much more about those from inside :-)).
Hahaha:-)))
> So probably nothing will happen.
> So why don't accept that people may discuss about ethnic origins just as
an
> academical issue without any political background?! We spoke already too
much
> about "states" in this thread.
First of all, I accept people to talk about anything they want.
Secondly and I am sorry about that, I will call you "naive" if you think
that there is not a political background behind EVERYTHING! Just ask
yourself if those "great fighters" on scr are doing that with or without any
political background...
> > Please don't cut out from your replies the soc.culture.greek ng. It is
> > not polite... Some other posters would say it is at least "strange". I
> > personally don't subscribe to that, so please keep the ngs order:-)))
>
> Sorry, the original thread was on SCR I didn't notice you cross-posted
your
> message.
:-) I said that I don't believe you did it for a specific reason:-)
> Cheers,
> M.M. de M.
PS
As you can see the behavior of Mishu and other idiots (Domnitza, etc)
with his/their disgusting postings is making Romanians to look in a certain
(bad) way. I am not willing to more participate to such a discussion. If you
really want to continue that, please do it in private.
regards
gogu
> >Subject: Re: Greek Vlach are Greek
>
> >"gogu" gola...@yahoo.com aka luci orasel a lu muti_hoaska
DUMBNITZA catre Daciaidioata, aka una si aceeasi persoana= o vaca idioata.
>
> catre
>
> MMMeu:>"gogu" gola...@yahoo.com
>
>
> >why don't you come and ask them by yourself? Once you said
> >that you visited Greece, but you never managed to visit Vlach villages
due
> >the luck of time.
>
> > I am inviting you to do this together!
>
>
>
> Concl:
>
> 1. mmm_eul este destept 'de moare' dar se plictiseste foarte ! cu toate
ca'si
> da seama ca 'vorbeste' cu balaceanu isi posteaza parerea cu speranta sa
mai
> atraga si alte broaste in 'lacul discutiei istorico_seceriste' ...
>
> 2. mmm_eul nu este, de departe, atit de destept pe cat 'se tine' si da din
nou
> cu 'bota'n balta secerista' sperind a N-a oara ca da'de, da'de s'or mai
gasi fo
> unii la 'controversa de seara ... radio santz' ... lol
>
> 3. mmm-eu e destept, s'a prins da' nu se poate tzine ... cestiunea'i
arzatoare!
>
>
> P/Seu: baaa lucika s_mica aschia lu_mutilica, ia sa'ti mai pun ceva paie
ude pe
> chieptu'ti de bozgor din schei cu iz de gretili din pind si khazar_hitit
din
> goshen io'te "acilea" pe attila ... pupa'l'ai mort la ildico in cort:
Vaca bolnava!
Esti un cacat rashcetat!
Daca zici ca eu sint Mishu, de ce nu accepti sa ne intilnim in Romania cind
vrei matala, asa ca intzelegi si tu (o proasta) ca eu nu-s ala?
Ti-e frica sa nu-ti se ruineze fantezia?
Deh, faptul ramine ca esti o LASHA care moare de frica sa nu se prinda ca
tot ceea ce crede ea e de fapt o creatie a mintii ei bolnave...
Trista fintza..
> ATTILA THE HUN AND THE BATTLE OF CHALONS
>
>
>
>
> No one represents the unbridled fury and savagery of barbarism
> as much as Attila the Hun. Even in the twentieth century one
> of the worst names that could be found for the Germans
> was to call them Huns. Attila, as the greatest Hun leader,
> is the stereotypical sacker of cities and killer of babies.
> In his own day he and his Huns were known as the "Scourge of
> God," and the devastation they caused in Gaul before the great
> Battle of Chalons in 451 AD became a part of medieval folklore
> and tradition.
> The clash at Chalons was one of those rare monumental
> conflicts, pitting against one another two of the towering
> figures of Late Antiquity, the fierce and passionate Attila
> and the noble Aetius, sometimes called "the last of the Ro-
> mans." By 451 Aetius had been the foremost general in the
> Roman Empire for many years, and he was also the chief polit-
> ical adviser to the Emperor of the West, Valentinian III. In
> the previous forty years the once great Empire had suffered
> staggering setbacks, especially in the West. Aetius had done
> more than anyone else to keep what remained of the Roman world
> strong and prosperous.
> Despite Aetius' efforts, when Attila crossed the Rhine
> with the Huns in 451, he threatened a tottering relic of pow-
> er. The Western Roman Empire had already been ravaged by
> Visigoths, Vandals, Suebi, Alamanni, Burgundians and other
> barbarian tribes. Visigoths had an independent kingdom in
> Aquitaine, and Vandals occupied North Africa with a capital
> at Carthage. Roman rule in many parts of Gaul and Spain was
> merely nominal. Although Aetius had waged his own personal
> fight against the tide of the times, he had not been able to
> hold back the wave of invasions that had rolled over the West
> ever since Alaric and the Visigoths had sacked the city of
> Rome in 410.
> One of the most fascinating features of the story of Attila
> and the Huns is that the background to their potent pen-
> etration of Roman Gaul and the decisive Battle of Chelons is
> every bit as spellbinding as the actual combat itself. Al-
> though parts of the story are nearly incredible, the evidence
> for it is reasonably good--as good, at least, as evidence ever
> is for the fifth century AD. It is a tale of lust for sex and
> power, for money and land, and the principal actors are as
> colorful as any who ever lived.
> The Huns themselves were a people of mystery and terror.
> Arriving on the fringes of the Roman Empire in the late fourth
> century, riding their war horses out of the great steppes of
> Asia, they struck fear into Germanic barbarians and Romans
> alike. Some scholars believe that they had earlier moved
> against the Chinese Empire but were turned away and swept to-
> wards Rome instead. As they approached the Black Sea and con-
> quered the Ostrogoths, they also drove the Visigoths across
> the Danube into the Roman Empire and caused the crisis that
> led to the astounding defeat of the Roman army under the Em-
> peror Valens at Adrianople in 378 AD.
> Those early Huns, using the traditional tactics of mount-
> ed archers, seemed like monsters from the darkness to their
> more civilized contemporaries. The Roman historian Ammianus
> Marcellinus, writing at the end of the fourth century, de-
> scribed their savage customs and elaborated on their military
> tactics:
>
> The nation of the Huns...surpasses all other barbarians
> in wildness of life....And though [the Huns] do just bear
> the likeness of men (of a very ugly pattern), they are
> so little advanced in civilization that they make no use
> of fire, nor any kind of relish, in the preparation of
> their food, but feed upon the roots which they find in
> the fields, and the half-raw flesh of any sort of animal.
> I say half-raw, because they give it a kind of cooking
> by placing it between their own thighs and the backs of
> their horses....
> When attacked, they will sometimes engage in regular
> battle. Then, going into the fight in order of columns,
> they fill the air with varied and discordant cries. More
> often, however, they fight in no regular order of battle,
> but by being extremely swift and sudden in their move-
> ments, they disperse, and then rapidly come together
> again in loose array, spread havoc over vast plains, and
> flying over the rampart, they pillage the camp of their
> enemy almost before he has become aware of their ap-
> proach. It must be owned that they are the most terrible
> of warriors because they fight at a distance with missile
> weapons having sharpened bones admirably fastened to the
> shaft. When in close combat with swords, they fight
> without regard to their own safety, and while their enemy
> is intent upon parrying the thrust of the swords, they
> throw a net over him and so entangle his limbs that he
> loses all power of walking or riding.
>
> Obviously, when the Huns first appeared on the edges of
> the Roman Empire, they made a strong impression, but after
> their initial threats they settled down along the Danube, par-
> ticularly in the Great Hungarian Plain, and for almost fifty
> years they served the Romans as allies more often than they
> attacked them as enemies. In return, the Eastern Emperor,
> beginning in the 420's, paid them an annual subsidy. On the
> whole, this uneasy relationship worked well although there
> were times when the Huns threatened to intervene directly in
> imperial affairs.
> The decisive turn of events came with the accession of
> Attila as King of the Huns. The new ruler was much more ag-
> gressive and ambitious than his predecessors had been, and ar-
> rogance sometimes made him unpredictable. There is a story
> that he claimed to own the actual sword of Mars, and that other
> barbarian chiefs could not look the King of the Huns directly
> in the eyes without flinching. Attila was a striking figure,
> and Edward Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of
> the Roman Empire offered a famous description of the person-
> ality and appearance of the Hun, based on an ancient account:
>
> His features, according to the observation of a Gothic
> historian, bore the stamp of his national origin...a
> large head, a swarthy complexion, small, deep-seated
> eyes, a flat nose, a few hairs in the place of a beard,
> broad shoulders, and a short square body, of a nervous
> strength, though of a disproportioned form. The haughty
> step and demeanour of the king of the Huns expressed the
> consciousness of his superiority above the rest of man-
> kind; and he had a custom of fiercely rolling his eyes,
> as if he wished to enjoy the terror which he in-
> spired....He delighted in war; but, after he had ascended
> the throne in a mature age, his head, rather than his
> hand, achieved the conquest of the North; and the fame
> of an adventurous soldier was usefully exchanged for that
> of a prudent and successful general.
>
> At the outset of his reign (sometime after 435) Attila
> demanded more money, and the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II,
> obligingly doubled the annual subsidy. For various reasons,
> however, the new king began in the late 440's to look to the
> West as the main area of opportunity for the Huns. For the
> next decade and a half after his accession Attila was the most
> powerful foreign potentate in the affairs of the Western Roman
> Empire. His Huns had become a sedentary nation and were no
> longer the horse nomads of the earlier days. The Great Hun-
> garian Plain did not offer as much room as the steppes of Asia
> for grazing horses, and the Huns were forced to develop an
> infantry to supplement their now much smaller cavalry. As one
> leading authority has recently said, "When the Huns first ap-
> peared on the steppe north of the Black Sea, they were nomads
> and most of them may have been mounted warriors. In Europe,
> however, they could graze only a fraction of their former
> horse-power, and their chiefs soon fielded armies which re-
> sembled the sedentary forces of Rome." By the time of Attila
> the army of the Huns had become like that of most barbarian
> nations in Europe. It was, however, very large, as we shall
> see, and capable of conducting siege operations, which most
> other barbarian armies could not do effectively.
> In any event the Hunnic invasion of Gaul was a huge un-
> dertaking. The Huns had a reputation for cruelty that was not
> undeserved. In the 440's one of Attila's attacks against the
> East in the Balkans aimed at a city in the Danubian provinces,
> Naissus (441-42). It was located about a hundred miles south
> of the Danube on the Nischava River. The Huns so devastated
> the place that when Roman ambassadors passed through to meet
> with Attila several years later, they had to camp outside the
> city on the river. The river banks were still filled with
> human bones, and the stench of death was so great that no one
> could enter the city. Many cities of Gaul would soon suffer
> the same fate.
> After securing a strong position on the Roman side of the
> Danube the Huns were checked by the famous Eastern Roman
> general, Aspar, as they raided Thrace (442). Then, in 447,
> Attila descended into the Balkans in another great war against
> the East. The Huns marched as far as Thermopylae and stopped
> only when the Eastern Emperor, Thodosius II, begged for terms.
> Attila accepted payment of all tribute in arrears and a new
> annual tribute of 2,100 pounds of gold. The Huns were also
> given considerable territory south of the Danube. One source
> says of this campaign, "There was so much killing and blood-
> letting that no one could number the dead. The Huns pillaged
> the churches and monasteries, and slew the monks and
> virgins....They so devastated Thrace that it will never rise
> again and be as it was before." This strong victory in the
> East left Attila free to plan the attack on the West that
> culminated in the invasion of Gaul.
> Another of the great barbaric chieftains of the age,
> Gaiseric, King of the Vandals, played a role in the prelude
> to Chalons. He urged Attila to attack the Visigoths in the
> West because of the hostility between Vandals and Visigoths.
> A generation earlier Gaiseric's son had married the daughter
> of Theodoric I, King of the Visigoths, but in 442 the Roman
> Emperor Valentinian III agreed to the betrothal of his daugh-
> ter to Gaiseric's son, and the Visigothic princess was re-
> turned to her people with her nose and ears inhumanly
> mutilated. From that time on the enmity of Vandals and Visig-
> oths was great, and when Attila did cross the Rhine, the
> Visigoths joined Aetius against the Huns, but the Vandals
> stayed out of the war.
> Two other considerations proved especially important.
> One was the death of the Eastern Emperor Theodosius II, who
> fell from his horse and died in 450. His successor, Marcian
> (450-7), took a hard line on barbarian encroachment in the
> Balkans and refused to pay Attila the usual subsidy. The fury
> of the Hun was monstrous, but he decided to take out his wrath
> on the West, because it was weaker than the East,and because
> one of history's most peculiar scandals gave Attila a justi-
> fication for war with the Western Emperor. Honoria, Emperor
> Valentinian's sister, had been discovered in 449 in an affair
> with her steward. The unfortunate lover was executed, and
> Honoria, who was probably pregnant, was kept in seclusion. In
> a rage she smuggled a ring and a message to the King of the
> Huns and asked Attila to become her champion. He treated this
> as a marriage proposal and asked for half of the Western Em-
> pire as her dowry. So when he crossed the Rhine, he could
> claim that he merely sought by force what was his by right of
> betrothal to Honoria.
> After massive preparations Attila invaded the Rhine with
> a large army of Huns and allied barbarian tribes. In his force
> was a sizable body of Ostrogoths and other Germanic warriors,
> including Burgundians and Alans who lived on the barbarian
> side of the frontier. The Franks were split between pro- and
> anti-Roman factions. As early as April Attila took Metz, and
> fear swept through Gaul. Ancient accounts give figures that
> range between 300,000 and 700,000 for the army of the Huns.
> Whatever the size, it was clearly enormous for the fifth cen-
> tury AD. Some of the greatest cities of Europe were sacked
> and put to the torch: Rheims, Mainz, Strasbourg, Cologne,
> Worms and Trier. Paris fortunately had the advantage of hav-
> ing a saint in the city and was spared because of the minis-
> trations of St. Genvieve.
> After he secured the Rhine, Attila moved into central
> Gaul and put OrlCAans under siege. Had he gained his objec-
> tive, he would have been in a strong position to subdue the
> Visigoths in Aquitiane, but Ae?tius had put together a formi-
> dable coalition against the Hun. Working frenetically, the
> Roman leader had built a powerful alliance of Visigoths, Alans
> and Burgundians, uniting them with their traditional enemy,
> the Romans, for the defense of Gaul. Even though all parties
> to the protection of the Western Roman Empire had a common
> hatred of the Huns, it was still a remarkable achievement on
> Aetius' part to have drawn them into an effective military
> relationship.
> Attila had not expected such vigorous action on the part
> of the Romans, and he was too wise to let his army be trapped
> around the walls of Orleans, so he abandoned the siege, ac-
> cording to one source, on June 14. This gave the Romans and
> their allies the advantage in morale as the Huns withdrew into
> the open country of the modern Champagne district of France.
> There on the Catalaunian Plains (some believe closer to Troyes
> than to Chalons) a great battle was fought, probably about
> June 20. Attila seems to have been shaken by his sudden re-
> versal of fortune. Uncertain of victory and in the confusion
> of retreat, on the day of the battle he stayed behind his lines
> in the wagon laager until afternoon. It is likely that he
> planned to begin fighting late enough in the day to fall back
> under darkness of night should that prove necessary. He did
> finally move up his army in battle order.
> On the right wing of the Hunnic army Attila stationed the
> bulk of his Germanic allies. The Ostrogoths fought on the
> left, and in the center Attila took position with his best
> troops, the Huns. On the other side Aetius decide to put his
> least reliable troops, the Alans, in the center to take what-
> ever assault Attila directed towards them. The Visigoths were
> placed on the Roman right, and the Romans themselves took the
> left. Aetius clearly hoped to execute a double envelopment,
> hitting hard against the two weak flanks of Attila's army
> while fighting a defensive, holding action in the center.
> When the Romans on the left were able to seize some high ground
> on the flank of the Hunnic right wing during an initial skirmish,
> they gained a considerable advantage.
> Thus began one of the Western world's greatest and most
> decisive battles. All the sources agree that it was a costly
> one in human lives: cadavera vero innumera ("truly countless
> bodies"), is the way one ancient author puts it. Attila
> struck hard against the Alans in the Roman center. As he drove
> them back the Romans on his right moved down in a sharp attack.
> The forward momentum of the Huns in the center exposed their
> flank to an attack by Theodoric, King of the Visigoths, and
> as night fell, the Huns had taken a beating though losses on
> both sides were extraordinary. Attila retreated to the safety
> of his laager, and the archers of the Huns kept the Romans at
> bay. Theodoric had lost his life in the battle.
> In fact at this point the battle was over. Some on the
> Roman side wanted Aetius to resume the fighting the next day,
> but he chose not to. Perhaps he wanted to leave Attila with
> his forces, though battered, still intact in order to keep the
> barbarians of Gaul united behind Rome. In any event, he en-
> couraged the new King of the Visigoths to hurry back to
> Aquitaine to secure his accession to the throne. Attila began
> his withdrawal back across the Rhine and was able to effect
> it easily. Many have criticized Aatius for making things too
> easy for the Huns, for not destroying their army, but it is
> not necessary to introduce political considerations to ex-
> plain the Roman commander's motives. Militarily he did the
> right thing. The sources make it clear that the Roman alli-
> ance also took heavy losses at Chalons, and Attila was merely
> a wounded tiger. He continued to have considerable military
> power. Although the Hun had been beaten in a bloody battle,
> it was probably wise for Aetius to allow his savage foe a line
> of retreat. To have driven Attila the Hun out of the Empire
> was satisfaction enough. It is true that in the following
> year Attila invaded Italy and caused much suffering before he
> withdrew, but if he had launched a successful counterattack
> in Gaul the whole course of Western history might have been
> changed. Unlike most other barbarians of the age, the Huns
> were not Christians, and their respect for the Graeco-Roman
> Christian civilization of the Late Empire was much more lim-
> ited even than that of Visigoth and Vandal.
> For various reasons twentieth century "scientific" historians
> have minimized and even ridiculed the concept of "decisive
> battles". There is a widespread belief that human events are
> rarely determined on the battlefield. In the nineteenth century
> Edward Creasy's book, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the
> World (originally published in 1851) became a bestseller and
> exercised considerable influence. (Incidentally Creasy included
> the Battle of Chalons on his list.) But the early twentieth
> century saw a change. Hans Delbruck totally ignored Chalons
> in his monumental History of the Art of War Within the
> Framework of Political History (1920-21), and one of the
> foremost authorities on the Late Roman Empire, J.B. Bury, refused,
> as some others have done, even to call it by its traditional name:
>
> The Battle of Maurica [Chalons] was a battle of nations, but its
> significance has been enormously exaggerated in conventional
> history. It cannot in any reasonable sense be designated as one
> of the critical battles of the world....The danger did not mean so
> much as has been commonly assumed. If Attila had been
> victorious...there is no reason to suppose that the course of
> history would have been seriously altered.
>
> To be sure, the exact location of the battle has been
> disputed and is in doubt. In that general area of modern
> France it has been a favorite occupation of retired colonels
> to spend their weekends looking for evidence of the battle-
> field. But there are many extremely important ancient battles
> whose exact locations are uncertain: Plataea, Issus, Cannae,
> Zama, and Pharsalus, to name but a few. Considering the pau-
> city of ancient evidence uncertainty of that sort is to be
> expected, and it can hardly be used as evidence that the bat-
> tles were not important. As to exaggerating the danger of
> Attila and the Huns, why were they less dangerous than Hanni-
> bal and the Carthaginians or Alaric and the Visigoths?
> It is true that the threat of the Huns to Rome had not
> been entirely removed by Aetius' victory at Chalons. Though
> beaten and forced to retreat across the Rhine, Attila still
> had a powerful force, and he had not learned his lesson. The
> next year (452) he crossed over the Alps and moved down into
> Italy, launching another great invasion that terrorized the
> inhabitants of the Western Roman Empire. In some ways this
> second invasion of the West was even more savage than the
> first. The city of Aquileia at the tip of the Adriatic was
> wiped off the face of the earth. The fugitives from that piti-
> ful city are supposed to have fled into the lagoons of the
> Adriatic and to have founded the new city of Venice. Much of
> the Po Valley--Milan, Verona, and Padua--was devastated and
> depopulated. The Hun had pillaged and destroyed Northern It-
> aly! Aa?tius found it much more difficult to persuade Visig-
> oths and Alans to help in the defense of Italy than he had a
> year earlier in organizing them to protect Gaul.
> For awhile it appeared that Italy would be lost to the
> invaders, but actually Attila's position was weaker than the
> Romans realized, undoubtedly because of the serious losses he
> had suffered the previous year at ChE?lons. There is a famous
> tradition that Pope Leo I met Attila in Northern Italy at the
> confluence of the Minicio and the Po and persuaded him to
> leave Italy with a display of eloquence and a show of elabo-
> rate sacerdotal robes. There occurred, according to legend,
> one of the most famous miracles in the history of Christian-
> ity--St. Peter and St. Paul appeared to Attila threatening him
> with instant death if he ignored the urgings of Leo.
> In an act that added immeasurably to the influence of the
> fledgling papacy, an obliging Attila led his army out of It-
> aly. It was probably not so much the influence of Leo as the
> fact that his troops were short of supplies that motivated the
> great barbarian leader. There had been a famine in Italy in
> 450-51, and logistical support had never been a strong point
> for barbarian armies. Also a plague swept through the army
> of the Huns, and the Eastern Emperor Marcian sent an army
> across the Danube to strike into the heartland of the Huns'
> territory. When these factors are added to the disastrous
> loses the year earlier at Chalons, it is obvious why Attila
> was able to see merit in the humanitarian arguments of Pope Leo.
> In any event, the great Hun spared Rome and withdrew from
> Italy. Twice in successive years, at Chalons and in Northern
> Italy, the menace of the Huns had proved incapable of bringing
> the Western Empire to its knees. Perhaps Rome's last great
> service to the West was to serve as a buffer between the Asi-
> atic Huns and the Germanic barbarians whose destiny was to lay
> the medieval foundations of the modern, western nations. Ae-
> tius had been blamed by many Italians for not having destroyed
> Attila and the Huns in Gaul, but "the last of the Romans" had
> contributed substantially to the ruin of the once proud bar-
> barian nation. Its place in the pages of history was over.
> In the next year after the retreat from Italy Attila died
> an appropriately barbarian death. He took a new, young, beau-
> tiful bride, a damsel named Ildico, though he already had a
> coterie of wives. The wedding day was spent in heavy drinking
> and partying, and the King of the Huns took his new bride to
> bed that night in drunken lust. The next morning it was dis-
> covered that he had died--drowned in his drunkenness in his
> own nosebleed. The new bride was found quivering in fear in
> the great man's bedquarters. The empire of the Huns dissi-
> pated nearly as quickly as its most famous leader. In 454 the
> Ostrogoths and other Germanic tribes revolted against the
> Huns, and the sons of Attila, who had quarreled among them-
> selves, could not deal with the crisis. In the words of Bury,
> the Huns were "scattered to the winds."
> Even in the last days of the Roman Empire in the West it
> was still possible for the imperial general Aetius to mobilize
> a major military force in defense of Gaul. During his ascen-
> dancy in the 430's, 40s and early 50s Rome had lost much, par-
> ticularly to the Vandals in North Africa, yet had remained
> powerful enough to thwart the ambitions of Attila the Hun.
> Naturally, there was jealousy and rivalry between Aetius and
> his superior, the Emperor Valentinian III. The General's suc-
> cess against the Huns and his effective treatment of the
> Visigoths in Gaul actually helped to make him unnecessary any
> longer, and in 454 Valentinian killed him personally with the
> imperial sword. One of the Emperor's advisers said, "You have
> cut off your right hand with your left." The next year two
> of Aetius' followers killed the Emperor, and within a gener-
> ation, by 476, there would no longer be a Roman Emperor in the
> West. Aetius was truly "the last of the Romans."
>
>
gogu
news:20010407104451...@ng-mo1.aol.com...
> Resident wrote:
>
> >Domnu Tomberg, matale si cu Tzapanu sinteti de la acelasi
> spital?...............>
> Do you think that I was right or wrong in my ideas?
He is not capable of thinking george:-)
He is just another uneducated baboon who knows only to clean toilets:-)
Fuck him! As far as I know, he likes it:-)))
Mircea
> The linguistical evolution in Balkan Romance goes like that: Classical
>Latin (Vernacular) -> Late Latin -> Proto-Romanian (a.k.a. Common Primitive
>Romanian) up to VII-th century (with some approximation). This common tongue
>lasted for about three centuries after which occured the separation between
>Romanian dialects
[...]
> Timings of these separations are not very precisely determined but up to
>some one or two centuries, the first branching took place around the X-th
>century and the second ones up to the XIV-th century. For more details you
>may take a look in a good book such as "Le origini delle lingue neolatine"
>written by an illustrious linguist, Carlo Tagliavini
Tagliavini's book (1st ed. 1959) might be a tad outdated, and I'm not
sure it's impact on the advancement of historical Romance linguistics,
in general, or the evolution of Romanian language, in particular, was
noticeable, despite the often quotations you use on this forum. But
since you seem so fond of Tagliavini, would you please comment, time
permitting of course, on the following quotations from the same book:
"Philological arguments indicate that ancient Romanian developed on
the southern shore of the Danube. To this conclusion leads us the
study of facts such as the concordances with Albanian which cannot
exclusively be ascribed to a common substratum but must have developed
during a period of symbiosis; the Bulgarian character (and only to a
lesser degree, Serbian) of the old Slavic elements of Romanian (all
the northern Slavic elements, for instance, Ruthenian, are more
recent), the absence of Old Germanic elements ..."
"Without denying the possibility of rests of Roman population north of
the Danube, the majority of foreign linguists now consider that the
territory of formation of the Romanian language must have been
approximately in historical Serbia."
Regards,
Mircea
Mircea
> The separation of Vlachs (Aromanians) occured somewhere between the VIII-th
>and XII-th centuries. The event was clearly suggested by some guy (Katakalon
>Kekaumenos) who wrote that they lived once "near the Danube and on Saos --
>nowdays called Sava -- where are living Serbians now, in inaccessible or
>hardly accessible places", they rebelled against Byzantine power but they
>were defeated and forced to withdraw toward South, in Epyrus and Macedonia
>and settle down in Greece (the rebellion occured under Constantin X Ducas,
>that is XI-th century).
Let's just say that when it came to Vlachs Kekaumenos had a personal
agenda, and that alone should make us take his words with a grain of
salt. He also claimed that them Vlachs living once in Serbia were
descendants of the Dacians that had battled Trajan's legions. So, if
we take Kekaumenos on his word, it would mean that Eutropius was right
on the money when claiming the total abandonment of Dacia.
>In "Anonymi Descriptio Europae" (~1300), Vlachs are
>described by a French Dominican priest as "Pastores Romanorum", chased off
>from Pannonia by Hungarians. In both regions one could hardly infer a massive
>Greek presence. :-)
Marius, you made a goulash out of two sources:
Ricardus, who was quoting in 1237 a Gesta Ungarorum Christianorum, was
a Dominican monk. And yes, he indeed referred to " ... the land which
is now called Hungary, but at that time was known as the pastures of
the Romans [pascua Romanorum]."
Descriptio Europae Orientalis was the work of an anonymous Frenchmen--
no idea if he was a priest or not, and if he was to which order he
belonged-- who indeed stated that the Vlachs of Thessaly were "...
Vlachs who were once the shepherds of the Romans [Romanorum pastores]
and who formerly settled in Hungary, where the pastures of the Romans
[pascua Romanorum] were [...]. But they were eventually driven out of
the area and fled to these parts."
Regards,
Mircea
DOMNITZA
>Fa scirbo din Ukraina!
>Da' ce crede pizda ta
gindeste mult mai bine decit creierul tau lisencephalic si crede fara sa
cerceteze ca esti dobitocul Luci_ce_ lu_ hoaska_ii_da_muci ...catar batran si
fara minte!!!!
gretzili? baaa curca plouata! lol
DOMNITZA
>Daca zici ca eu sint Mishu, de ce nu accepti sa ne intilnim in Romania cind
>vrei matala, asa ca intzelegi si tu (o proasta) ca eu nu-s ala?
BA LUCIAN AL HOASTEI, BAAA PIRLITACHIS TIMPIT ... INDRUGA'I VRUTE SI NEVRUTE
MARELUI DOMN MEMEUDEMEU CA ALA POATE TE VA CREDE SAU DIN PLICTISEALA SE VA
PREFACE CA TE CREDE ... SI VA CONTINUA SA DEZBATA TEORIA "FREDONATUL
CRIVATULUI LA TIMP DE IARNA IN CIMPIA MONGOLA" ....
BA CAPRA JIGARITA SI PLINA DE BUBE'N CREIERUL ALA DE MASLINA!!!
HAHAHA!
ESTI MAI PUTIN DECIT SPORII DIN BASINA CALULUI(prostovane, este o ciuperca,
n'are nimic de'a face cu papadia,lula!!!)
Magicianul
> crede fara sa
>cerceteze ca esti dobitocul Luci
Te'ai lamurit acuma Gogule? Intelegi de ce ea nu s'ar intilni cu tine? Pentru
ca asta ar insemna ca ar fi capabila sa diferentieze intre realitate si
halucinatii. Ori la nivelul avansat la care i'au ajuns bolile, la care mai
adaugi o priza de prostie incurabila, si nisti hormoni de mult dusi cu
pluta...oh well, you get the picture, right?
In definitiv tu chiar vrei sa nu mai scapi de ea? Nu'ti dai seama ce ahtiata
este ea dupa o pula? Indiferent daca este vie, de animal, de plastic, ce mai, o
pula sa fie!
Asta si jidanca? Fii serios bade, pentru asta i'ar trebui putina stofa, nu vezi
ca asta e otreapa societatii?
Hai noroc!
M
Magicianul
>prostovane, este o ciuperca,
>n'are nimic de'a face cu papadia,lula!!!)
Inca una? Pai eu credeam ca tu le aveai pe toate, faaaaaaaaaa tirfa plouata ce
esti.
M
George S. Tsapanos
>Let's just say that when it came to Vlachs Kekaumenos had a personal
>agenda, and that alone should make us take his words with a grain of
>salt. He also claimed that them Vlachs living once in Serbia were
>descendants of the Dacians that had battled Trajan's legions.>
Kekaymenos' Vlachs, weren't Vlachs because of their Latin-speaking idiom.
They were SHEEPHERDERS Vlachs and they are the ones that arrived all the way to
Peloponnisos since the reigning of the "OLD" Emperos of Byzantium.
DOMNITZA
ma tirfa masculina(isi bag pe git termenul ce'ti place asa de mult) te las din
nou, pt o buna perioada, sa te scalzi in zoaia ce'o creezi pe secere ... no'mo'
dialog cu o jigodie ca tine!
cale batuta in rotirea infinita din apartamentul hoastei unde centrul este
EA_basina_mutti!!!
DOMNITZA
>Te'ai lamurit acuma Gogule?
BA EXTENSIE DE VIERME(ceea ce tu numesti sula'ti) IARA'TI VORBESTI TIE INSUSI?
gogu=magul
sulii=bula=jorj=cmt=roliverbasina=mishu=si95%toatecelelaltesnuri/scr!
laba TRISTA!!!!
gogu
Vaca Ukrainianca bilbie prostii ca e sub influentza drogurilor...
Taaaaaaaaaaaaci fa din gura, nu vezi ca iar te faci de ris?
Dar lasa ca-i mai bine, cum pula mea in curul tau o sa mai ridem si noi?
Asa ca da-i mai departe cu timpeniile vaco!
Esti caraghioasa!
Ο "DOMNITZA" <domn...@aol.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:20010409005239...@ng-mm1.aol.com...
gogu
> gindeste mult mai bine decit creierul tau lisencephalic si crede fara sa
> cerceteze ca esti dobitocul Luci_ce_ lu_ hoaska_ii_da_muci ...catar batran
si
> fara minte!!!!
Ce zici faaaaaaaaa, ca nu se intelege?
Vorbesti in dodii cind esti sub influentza cocainei si nu te mai inteleg.
> gretzili? baaa curca plouata! lol
CURVA UKRAINIANCA???????
Baaaaaaaaaa vaca sterpa!
LOL
gogu
news:20010409072940...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> domnitza wrote:
>
> > crede fara sa
> >cerceteze ca esti dobitocul Luci
> Te'ai lamurit acuma Gogule?
De mult, dar imi place sa-i trag una peste ceafa de cite ori scoate
capatzina ei din ghena de gunoi:-)
> Intelegi de ce ea nu s'ar intilni cu tine? Pentru
> ca asta ar insemna ca ar fi capabila sa diferentieze intre realitate si
> halucinatii.
Chiar crezi? Chiar daca s-ar intilni cu mine, e in stare sa zica ca tot
Orashel sint si ca port o masca ca sa ma ascund:-))) Boala ei e grea!
> Ori la nivelul avansat la care i'au ajuns bolile, la care mai
> adaugi o priza de prostie incurabila, si nisti hormoni de mult dusi cu
> pluta...oh well, you get the picture, right?
Of couirse! Dar zici ca are multe boli? O fi si blenoragica vaca asta di
Ukraina te pomenesti! Si cum pula mea in gura ei a scapat si n-a fost arsa
de la autoritatile competente? Mister...
> In definitiv tu chiar vrei sa nu mai scapi de ea?
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:-)))
E si ea o solutie ca sa ma relaxez de la munca:-))) Japonezii il scuipa pe
bossul lor (o fotiografie) , eu ma cac in gura ei! Ce, n-am voie? Doar tu
bre Maguli? No ghini:-(
> Nu'ti dai seama ce ahtiata
> este ea dupa o pula?
Of course! Dar asa cum a ajuns o hoasca si la virsta ei de 70 de ani, cine o
mai fute fara o suta de mii de parai?:-)
> Indiferent daca este vie, de animal, de plastic, ce mai, o
> pula sa fie!
Asa mi-au zis si alti!
> Asta si jidanca? Fii serios bade, pentru asta i'ar trebui putina stofa, nu
vezi
> ca asta e otreapa societatii?
Zici tu? Hai sa te cred pt moment...
> Hai noroc!
Ciao.
> M
gogu
Adica va sa zica ca boala ta a avansat si a atins nivele periculoase:-)))
Taci boarfi tatii, taci si dormi cu camasutza ta de fortza:-)
> laba TRISTA!!!!
Bula 00001
>Date: 4/9/01 7:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010409073817...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
Pai daiea sio fi ridicat poalili-n cap sa raspindeasca patogenii :)))
Bula 00001
>Date: 4/9/01 12:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010409005239...@ng-mm1.aol.com>
>
>>From: "gogu" gola...@yahoo.com
>HAHAHA!
>
>ESTI MAI PUTIN DECIT SPORII DIN BASINA CALULUI(prostovane, este o ciuperca,
>n'are nimic de'a face cu papadia,lula!!!)
>
Ai pierdut firu si te iei dajeaba da betu Gogulea ca Io zisei papadie cu gindu
la bashina porcului. Ciuperca ie pula calului . Crez ca la aiea te gindeai ...
:0))
June R Harton
"Marius Iacomi" <iac...@nobulk.lpm.univ-montp2.fr> wrote
> > And there are a lot (but realy A LOT) Greek Vlachs who will say to you
that
> > they are Greeks! What does it proves?
> See above. There are several possibilities: they ignore their roots, they
> find suitable for a certain reason to claim they're Greeks, they
understand
> the question linked with their citizenship or they might not understand at
> all the question.
Is that right? Would you care to substantiate your fabulous claims above
that the Greek Vlach cannot be Greeks who became Vlachian speaking
in Roman times?
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
Magicianul
> te las din
>nou, pt o buna perioada, sa te scalzi in zoaia ce'o creezi pe secere ...
>no'mo'
>dialog cu o jigodie ca tine!
Hai ca nu te cred. Nu esti tu capabila sa traiesti o zi fara sa te tii de
fundul meu, desi iti tot spun: EU NU TE FUT!
M
Magicianul
>Pai daiea sio fi ridicat poalili-n cap sa raspindeasca patogenii :)))
Nu era nevoie, cirpele pe care le poarta sint bine imbibate cu tot felul de
boli. Hai ca'mi vine sa borasc numai cind ma gindesc!
M
CMT
Primata asta clonata cind ia in mina un dildou
de plastic si pina cind s-ar introduce in vagauna numita
de ea pizda, se descompune si plasticul, bateriile primesc
scurgeri de electrolit, cele de litiu se explodeaza.:-))
Pai ce credeti de ce ie atit de infoametat, numa coada de
matura din lemn de akacien reziste de doua ori.:-)
cmt
gogu <gola...@yahoo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
9atdb3$3hm$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
CMT
DOMNITZA <domn...@aol.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
20010409085037...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
Faaa, scroafa spurcata din seminta lui Onan.
De scirba nici cu manusi nu te-as atinge, numa cu furca
de gunoi din grajd. Ce ai cu mine fa?????
Mai bine meri si trateaza te la un veterinar, ca de atita
supt ai facut pietre de pisat in creier. Mai duten pizda
matii sifilitico.
CMT
gogu
LOL
? "CMT" <320088...@T-Online.de> ?????? ??? ??????
news:9aulrj$375$03$2...@news.t-online.com...
DOMNITZA
= cmt = magic =cornel = roliver=mishu=jorj=bula ==== ...
acelasi nebun plictisit de moarte ce'ti taraie viata pe scr scriind in general
timpenii/grosolanii/'explozii de ura' si rar cite ceva interesat(din pacate si
in acele putine cazuri pina la urma o sfecleste ba cu o exagerare, ba cu o
minciuna ba cu vorba multa si goala !!!)
keep on, though, the herd needs you as its jester/clown ...a 'filler' for empty
days!
thank you!
Jorj
Poate-ti trage unguru alta copita ca atunci cind prins de nationalismele
tale grecesti te-ai impiedicat de separatismu hunului si te-a injurat
metodic si temeinic.
gogu <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9avhri$1q1$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
Jorj
DOMNITZA <domn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010410192127...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
Misto ecuatie. Numa ca vezi matale nu se verifica.
Magicianul
>keep on, though, the herd needs you as its jester/clown
But they sure as hell don't need YOU. Still not giving me up, huh? I'm
beginning to believe that you enjoy being shit on. It sure beats the smell
coming out of your filthy mouth!
M
Se intelege ca Lucian
>Hai ca nu te cred. Nu esti tu capabila sa traiesti o zi fara sa te tii de
>fundul meu, desi iti tot spun: EU NU TE FUT!
BAAAAAA MAGICIANULE BAAAAAA MOASA SE MULTUMESTE DACA TE PISI PE EA BAAAAAA CA
SI CIND SUGE PULA BLEAGA A LU BURLACU TOT CU PISAT SE ALEGE BAAAAA CA BURLACU
NARE IN COAIE SPERMA CI PISAT BAAAAA CA DAIA NEVASTASA SE FUTE CU ALTII
BAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onijo, daca platesti o suta de mii de parai te las sa-mi sugi pula o ora
intreaga.
Ashkiutza
>> >"gogu" gola...@yahoo.com
>>
>> = cmt = magic =cornel = roliver=mishu=jorj=bula ==== ...
>
>Misto ecuatie. Numa ca vezi matale nu se verifica
Ba se verifica! =/
CMT
Esti numa o laba trista, o voce din ceata. Ca sa ai parte
de putina caldura omeneasca esti in stare sa sugi pula
oricui...........:-(
cmt
Jorj <resi...@pe.banca> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
LMOA6.17439$IJ1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
gogu
news:LMOA6.17439$IJ1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Pupa-l in cur, grecotei, nu-ti rinji fasolea!
Pupatul in cur este specialitatea ta jegosule! Dar numai injuratul ti-a
ramas: ultimi la toate, doar de gura mare sinteti capabili. Chiar azi
Iliatza prietenul tau a zis ca i-e frica de o rascoala... De Paste mincati
ciini. Etc, etc. Uite in ce hal ati adus tzara voi nazistii... Rusinea lumii
civilizate.
> Poate-ti trage unguru alta copita ca atunci cind prins de nationalismele
> tale grecesti
Vorbeste un nazist de nationalisme! LOL Chiar nu-ti dai seama ca devii
caraghios? Nu vezi ca tu esti doar o fosila al trecutului, un african jegos,
un maimutoi idiot? Casa ta e in foc si tu te dai destept si mare! Vai de
capul tau idiotule, vai de capul tau...
> te-ai impiedicat de separatismu hunului si te-a injurat
> metodic si temeinic.
1) "unghuru" m-a injurat fara nici un motiv si sper ca pina acum si-a dat
seama ca a gresit... Daca nu, treba lui.
2) Romani de speta ta fac lumea sa dea mai mult credit "unghurilor" si sa se
alinieze cu ei in potriva Romanilior, in caz in care... Subumani ca tine fac
lumea sa tinda sa dea dreptate la acuzatiile "unghurilor" in potriva
"natzionalistilor" ca tine... Prin comportamentul tau de cacat numai
prieteni faci Romaniei... Fapt care ma face sa cred ca nici nu esti Roman,
ci un agent (h)alogen care tocmai asta vrea: discreditarea Romaniei prin un
mascarici extremist ca tine... Si trebuie sa recunosc ca faci buna treaba
idiotule.
Pina sa intelegi ca si Unghurii care traiesc in Romania sint oameni ca voi
si ca ei au drept la tratament egal, voi veti fi rusinea Europei. Ieri a
fost prima zi cind s-a aplicat trecerea libera a Bulgarilor pe teritoriul
Shengen. Te ai intrebat oare de ce Romania nu face parte inca?... Din cauza
criminalilor ca tine bai sujeta proasta! Dar cum am zis, faci o treaba buna,
dai mai departe!
Fiinta trista ce esti...
Jorj
CMT <320088...@T-Online.de> wrote in message
news:9b12it$jsr$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Ba ghiuri, ai vrea sa pari mistocar dar esti prea prost.
> Esti numa o laba trista, o voce din ceata. Ca sa ai parte
> de putina caldura omeneasca esti in stare sa sugi pula
> oricui...........:-(
> cmt
Esti un Gogu maghiar.
gogu
> Esti un Gogu maghiar.
Si tu un BOU Olah!
Bula 00001
>Date: 4/10/01 9:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MMOA6.17440$IJ1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Vezi coane Jurjule ca pentru bula adica mine na mai gasit iegal deshi ancercat
da fo 4atru ori ! si asta numai si numai pentru amintirili dala iegzitu
shap'shpe :0))
gogu
Ieri nu-i ziceai lu' Magic ca din momentul ala dispari ca te ai plictisit?
Ce pula mea in gura ta, nu te poti tine de cuvint nici o data?
Vazui ca pt un moment dat te ai oprit sa postezi ca Dumbnitza si ai inceput
sa postezi ca Daciapulamoarta, am zis si eu "uite bre fata, e parolista, a
zis ca dispare pt o vremea ca Dumbnitza si iaca ca a inceput sa scrie ca
DL"!
Da' de unde!
Mincinoasa ai fost toata viata, mincinoasa ai ramas!
Ptiu, spurcaciune mincinoasa de o Ukrainianka!
Ο "DOMNITZA" <domn...@aol.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:20010410192127...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
CMT
Nu poate fii, Olahi sint destepti, bine educati, provin
din Transilvania.:-)
Poate un bitang al vreunui transilvanean care a facut
serviciul militar prin regat, sau baiatul lui mos pula.
Bou?
Dupa nume poate, la boi sa dedea nume scurte, avind
in vedere capacitate de memorare mica.:-)
cmt
gogu <gola...@yahoo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
9b2sr1$laa$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
CMT
>
Cacatul lui jorj taiat...........
> 1) "unghuru" m-a injurat fara nici un motiv si sper ca pina acum si-a dat
> seama ca a gresit... Daca nu, treba lui.
Mai reciteste postingul acela!
Arata o singura injuratura, pe urma mai vorbim!
Pina atunci sarbatori fericite de pasti.
CMT
gogu
>
> gogu <gola...@yahoo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 9b2omr$j6b$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
> >
> Cacatul lui jorj taiat...........
>
> > 1) "unghuru" m-a injurat fara nici un motiv si sper ca pina acum si-a
dat
> > seama ca a gresit... Daca nu, treba lui.
> Mai reciteste postingul acela!
> Arata o singura injuratura, pe urma mai vorbim!
L-am recitit de foarte multe ori. Nu vreau sa deschid subiectul ala din nou
si mai ales pe aici, dar nici o data n-ai demonstrat ce am zis ca nu era
corect sau bine... Cit despre injurii, ma rog, nu intotdeauna un "futu-te in
cur" e o inuratura, poate fi si alte expresii care jignesc. Dar ma rog, cum
am zis, nu aici e loc de discutat asemenea probleme...
> Pina atunci sarbatori fericite de pasti.
> CMT
La fel si tie.
gogu
> Olah?
> Nu poate fii, Olahi sint destepti, bine educati, provin
> din Transilvania.:-)
> Poate un bitang al vreunui transilvanean care a facut
> serviciul militar prin regat, sau baiatul lui mos pula.
> Bou?
> Dupa nume poate, la boi sa dedea nume scurte, avind
> in vedere capacitate de memorare mica.:-)
> cmt
Da, acuma ca citesc ceea ce scrii, cred ca ai dreptate.
BOU a fost sujeta aia, BOU a si ramas.
Scuzele Olahilor; mai bine ii sta "brincinar":-)
Jorj
CMT <320088...@T-Online.de> wrote in message
> Olah?
> Nu poate fii, Olahi sint destepti, bine educati, provin
> din Transilvania.:-)
> Poate un bitang al vreunui transilvanean care a facut
> serviciul militar prin regat, sau baiatul lui mos pula.
> Bou?
> Dupa nume poate, la boi sa dedea nume scurte, avind
> in vedere capacitate de memorare mica.:-)
Bozgoretii uita repede si de buna seama numele scurt e o alegere inteleapta.
Ma intreb tac'tu isi amintea oare cum te cheama sau umblai pin grajd cu
placuta (bilingva, desigur) cu numele...
Jorj
CMT <320088...@T-Online.de> wrote in message
>
> gogu <gola...@yahoo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 9b2omr$j6b$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
> >
> Cacatul lui jorj taiat...........
Bozgore, il portionezi sa-ti ajunga? Taie-l in paispe! Iti ajunge doua
saptamini. Nu stiu de ce esti asa panicat; mai sus ne indemnai sa dam la
pompe sa-ti umplem gamela. Nu-ti face griji!
Cornel
--
Corneliu
"gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com>