Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In this thread I want to discuss our ancestry. There are mant debates about how much Roman or how much Dacian we really are. My opinion is that we are more Dacian.


Marius said:
Miron you are way off…We have some Roman Ancestry in us not Italian.
We are actually more Dacian than Roman. The Roman colonists invaded us, and the biggest influence was on our language. Just like the Spanish influnece on Phillinines.
Deep inside we are Dacians. Everything that is Roman in us is savage…Why? Because after the Romans left, Emperor Trajan (Traianus) left only the most undisciplined and most savage soldiers behind to settle in Dacia (Romania)….Some of these were x-thieves, some of them were naturalised Romans, some of them were slaves (yes there were many white slaves as well) which were all used in many of the crucial Roman battles.
Anyways I'm making this a long story, but these bastards mated with Dacian women and many of the fu(ked up Romanians that you see today are the product of the impact these rustic settlers had on the Dacians.
It's True!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
So, one could argue that since many of these settlers did not even have pure Roman ancestry, our ancestry of Roman is only linguistic! So, what happened to the Dacians??? They are still very much alive, but they are now called Romanian (and wrongly so) They simply changed their language over time. They did not dissapear, and no, not all Dacian women married Roman soldiers - there weren't enough of them!

Noi nu suntem Romani. Noi suntem Daci!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,790 Posts
I thought that the ratio of Romans was far greater than the Dacians therefore it is in our blood but Romans still make up most of our genes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,538 Posts
This topic doesn't belong here, it is too complicated and complex and we risk to get mad at each other for nothing.


We are Romanians, no doubt about that :) and, like any nation, our culture and our genes are made of a mix of different peoples and cultures. Let's leave it like that and avoid arguing over shadows and ghosts...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,538 Posts
By the way, there's a joke I heard listening to a tape from "Divertis".



So, the president Ion Iliescu is in USA to talk about Romania. He is giving a speech. (read it with an exagerated Romanian accent :D) "As we all know, the Dacs came from the Tracs" (He meant "the Dacians came from the Thracians") and the translator: " ratele se trag din camioane " (the ducks come from the trucks).


!!!!!!!! :howler:

(dacs=ducks= rate; tracs=trucks=camioane_

:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
Re: Re: We are not Romans. We are Dacian!

Marius said:


Noi nu suntem Romani. Noi suntem Daci!!!
you better put a 'hat' on the a in Romani, or else people will think you are saying that you are a Romi/Roma/Romani, ie Gypsy :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
lupisor lupetto said:
This topic doesn't belong here, it is too complicated and complex and we risk to get mad at each other for nothing.


We are Romanians, no doubt about that :) and, like any nation, our culture and our genes are made of a mix of different peoples and cultures. Let's leave it like that and avoid arguing over shadows and ghosts...
:) :) :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Although it is a very complicated topic i think it's very interesting!11 years or so, ago,when I was a little boy :D :D :D , I've seen a film in the cinema about "Stefan cel mare" and Dacians and Romans who fought each other but I cannot remember how the film is called.may be somebody of you can help me, or at least somebody of you know a film about Romanian history(especially when the Romans invaded Dacia).
Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
lupisor lupetto said:
This topic doesn't belong here, it is too complicated and complex and we risk to get mad at each other for nothing.


We are Romanians, no doubt about that :) and, like any nation, our culture and our genes are made of a mix of different peoples and cultures. Let's leave it like that and avoid arguing over shadows and ghosts...

Get mad at each other?? Not at all, I think the discussion was quite interesting so far...
 

·
International
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
I think some folks here are making a confusion between Romans and gypsies if you know what I mean. The customs of the Roman soldiers back then I think were "obiceiuri ale vremurilor" [customs of the times ?!!] and not something particular. It's a vicious circle, because from Marius' description you could confuse a Roman with a gypsie, seeing the behaviour of some connationals you could categorise them as gypsies and considering that gypsies are so similar to Romans according to some folks [those stupid books written by complexated historicians that say that we're Dacs and Romans are gippos - probably you've read one of them] you'll be confused whether Romanians are Romans or gypsies or whatever.

Fact is that Romanians are a mixture of Romans and Dacs no matter how bad or good they were [who gives a sh!t about percentages - it's impossible to calculate such a thing] while gippos are a totally different ethnical group that had negatively infulenced the behaviour of a small [or big] percentage of the Romanians.

What's next? Don't tell me you agree with that aberant theory written by an Austrian whose name starts with an R which says that the Romanian nation was formed south from the Danube, on the actual territory of Bulgaria? Bullsh!t. :eek:

HAI ROMANIA!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
All I wanted to imply with my comment about 'Romani' vs 'Romanian' or Romanians, is that in Romanian the word for Romanians is Romani with the hat on the 'a' (sorry I don't have a Romanian keyboard) which is severely different from 'Romani' without the hat on the 'a'. The latter (with the accent on th 'i', phonetically Romanee) is what the Gypsies call themselves (plus Roma, or Romi, or rromi). I think this is an unfortunate coincidence of terminology because many non-eastern euros not familiar with the ethnic origins of the Gypsies (a nomadic group from India that came to Europe in the, I think, 12th -13th century, and disseminated itself throughout Europe, as far west as Wales even, with the group coming to the Romanian lands being unfortunately enslaved by Romanians for some 500 years) confuse them with Romanians because of the similarity of the terminology. Apparently in their sanskrit based gypsy language the word Rom means 'man' or 'people' hence Roma/Romi/Romani, therefore there is no similarity whatsoever to the derivation of Romania or Romanian which is derived from Roma, the city state, and the Romans from that city state. So as everyone should already know, the gypsies/Romi/Roma/Romani have nothing to do ethnically with Rome (or Roma in latin & italian), Romans, or Romanians.

As to the actual influence of Roman ethnicity or blood on the Dacians, that is something which would be hard to quantify I think, but don't most historians believe it to be quite profound? Culturally at least, it seems that the Roman legacy as reflected in our folklore and language is a profound and indelible one.
I think the accent on our Dacian heritage was mainly conceived by certain Fascist factions of our government back in the 40s to meet certian political aims and ends (the whole Iron Guard thing). I actually know quite little about this whole angle, but maybe some of you know more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,538 Posts
From my sources, Roma (Romany,Gypsy,etc.) comes from "doma" or "domba", Sanskrit for a low caste male musician (Merriam and Webster).

Plus, the Gypsy came in two ways into Europe (and Romania). They migrated by their own will or they were brought by force as slaves by the people who were heading towards Europe such as the Tartars. However, don't let the term "slave" throw you off as they were not like the African slaves. In fact, in Europe, "slaves" were the serfs. There were Romanian serfs as well, not only Gypsies.


About the Dacians, we have much more Dacian heritage (both cultural and genetic) than we thought, but it's hard to say how much because we do not have a lot of material on the Dacians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
lupisor lupetto said:
From my sources, Roma (Romany,Gypsy,etc.) comes from "doma" or "domba", Sanskrit for a low caste male musician (Merriam and Webster).
Well if that's true where do the pesky gypsies get off calling themselves Roma/Romani etc..they should call themselves Doma or Dombani or whatever. I am sure the dictionary is right, but I could swear that an interviewed gypsy on a documentary called "the plight of the gypsies" or something like that was saying that 'rom' meant man or person or something like that. Oh well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
the plot thickens: I typed "Romani" in google and there is a ton of stuff on the Gypsies. Here's a quote I got from http://www.unionromani.org/puebloin.htm
---
Doctor Donald Kenrick does not believe that the road from India that brought Rroma to the borders of the western Mediterranean was crossed by a uniform group of the Indian population which was going towards the west. Kenrick thinks that “the Indian immigrants, coming from different tribes —Sott, Sindhi—, got married, were mixed in Persia and there formed a people designated Dom o Rom. Then, a large part of them continued their travel to Europe, so that their descendants are the Rroma of today”. These men worked as soldiers and farmers, they also worked as craftsmen and artists. The hungers, the invasions of the Huns, of the Arabs or of the Mongolians, the wars and the disorders, and the hope of finding some better living conditions in other lands caused various groups of Rroma little by little to travel in pursuit of the Sun, crossing the Bosphorus and arriving in Europe.
----
so I guess the correct spelling is Rroma with two R's..interesting, well it sucks for Romanians that this apparent coincidence of terminology exists since the less informed might see the word Romani and think it means Romanian. The gypsies should stick to Rromi or Rroma at least.

But back to the Dacians, I remember reading an opinion on a web site that I can't find right now, that read that Dacian was really close to Latin already, and that the Romans did not have to significantly Romanize Dacian since it was already very similar. When I have more time I'll try to find the web site again, but that is an amazingly different explanation then most accepted historical versions of the issue and I remember being extremely dubious of its validity. Has anyone else heard of this idea? In any case, since the Dacian's didn't leave much behind, the historical evidence found thus far seems to point to the Romans having made a significant impact on the Dacian populations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,538 Posts
DacoRoman said:
But back to the Dacians, I remember reading an opinion on a web site that I can't find right now, that read that Dacian was really close to Latin already, and that the Romans did not have to significantly Romanize Dacian since it was already very similar. When I have more time I'll try to find the web site again, but that is an amazingly different explanation then most accepted historical versions of the issue and I remember being extremely dubious of its validity. Has anyone else heard of this idea? In any case, since the Dacian's didn't leave much behind, the historical evidence found thus far seems to point to the Romans having made a significant impact on the Dacian populations.

Actually, this theory is quite known in Romania. There are numerous websites and books that say a variety of things. Many (the majority) go really far, they are not scientifical but pretend the readers to see them as scientifical. Some of the most far feched ideas I read on these websites are the fact that the Dacians were the first people on earth and that they travalled as far as Japan (hence, Gica Nakata's passion for the Romanian NT :D ) .


I've read a lot about the Dacians (from both far fetched and scientifical sources), so if anyone has a question about them, don't be shy!


Now, about the language thing. The fact that we speak a Romance language is a mystery that hasn't been explained so far. But, it is possible that the Dacians spoke a language close to Latin? Yes.

How?

Well, first of all it is proven that the Dacians were an Indo-European group. For those who do not not know who the Indo-Europeans were, let me make it very simple. They were a group that came into Europe (possibly from Eastern Turkey or the Asian steps) about 4000 yrs B.C.E. They spoke a language called Indo-European. With time, due to regional differences, this language broke down into a lot of family languages such as the: Italic languages (Latin, Old Venetian, etc.), Germanic languages (Gothic, Vandal,Saxon,etc.), Celtic Languages (Normandian, Gaelic,etc.), Slavic languages (Russian, Polish,etc.), Baltic Languages (Latvian, Lithuanian, old Prussian,etc.), Phygro-Thracian languages (Dacian, Thracian,etc.), Iranian languages, Indic (Gypsy, Sanskrit, Singalais,etc) and many more!

Now, we have to consider also the fact that the Latins came to Italy around 1200 BC, at the same time historians say that the Dacians established themselves in Dacia. However, the most important information is the fact that the LAtins came from the Danube regions, close to Dacia.

So, it is possible that Latins and Dacians spoke similar languages however, we do not have any proof of that (with the exception of speculations that are very logical, but that still lack proof). Something that could unveil all this mystery could be the poems written in Dacian with the Latin alphabet by Ovidius. Unluckly, these poems seem to have been lost (even if I heard someone say that they exist in the archives of the Vatican).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
Lupisor that's really fascinating. You are a wealth of information I must say. I must have come across one of the less scientific sites, because it is true the argument was one that was made more on an appeal to logic then proof (which I guess was inevitable since none really exists).

Maybe those Vatican priests can like stop conspiring with the Illuminati for like a second, and start cleaning out their gimp closets so we can have these poems found cause I'm dying of curiousity to see how Dacian was now! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
David said:
I think some folks here are making a confusion between Romans and gypsies if you know what I mean. The customs of the Roman soldiers back then I think were "obiceiuri ale vremurilor" [customs of the times ?!!] and not something particular. It's a vicious circle, because from Marius' description you could confuse a Roman with a gypsie, seeing the behaviour of some connationals you could categorise them as gypsies and considering that gypsies are so similar to Romans according to some folks [those stupid books written by complexated historicians that say that we're Dacs and Romans are gippos - probably you've read one of them] you'll be confused whether Romanians are Romans or gypsies or whatever.
Whooooaaa!!!I never correlated gypsies with Romans (Roma with Romans). That is insane!!!! I simply said that those Romans that settled in Romania weren't all pure Romans…That's all!!!



What's next? Don't tell me you agree with that aberant theory written by an Austrian whose name starts with an R which says that the Romanian nation was formed south from the Danube, on the actual territory of Bulgaria? Bullsh!t. :eek:
HAI ROMANIA!
No, I don't agree with that idiot either. He is intentionally using the Vlahs (Aromanians) to falslely claim that Romanians never really lived as far north as Transylvania. And we all know why an Austrian would claim that. (Austria-Hungary occupied Transylvania while millions of Romanians lived there, and stated that they actually migrated from south of Danube???what a nut!)
 

·
International
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
Hold on your horses people and forget everything you've learnt so far!

Had anyone seen Diaconescu's show on OTV?!! It is still running right now, and you might see it in replay somewhere tomorrow - just check a TV schedule.

He had invited a bunch of Romanian historians.

Get this:
Romanians are Dacs. Dacs are the ancestors of Tracs [something like a name change]. But now comes the shocking thing: the Romans are the ancestors of Tracs as well. They are a group who had just moved west. So, let me put it this way: Romanians are Tracs, therefore Romanian are the "daddies" of the Romans. Cool sh!t, eh? They even had some proofs - izvoare.

And get this: latin probably comes from the tracic language as well. They gave the word "apa" as an example. [it means water, by the way]. If you check the dictionary it says that "apa" comes from the latin "aqua". But this is not true, because there's a word in tracic, "apa", which means "water" as well!!! And so on with many words.

A guy came with some timelines on a laptop... I can't recall it correctly, but they've said that people existed on this land since a couple of tens of thousands of years ago, them being our ancestors.

Other examples included some Romans "carturari" who came in Dacia and told the people: "We came here because here are our roots".

Sarmiseghetuza might be the craddle of European civilization.

And now some interesting stuff:
"Barbecue" is a Romanian word! It was spread from the Dacs to the Egiptians, then to some pirates, from the pirates to the hispanics and so on till it reached the North Americans.

In Irish there are no less than 1800!!! Romanian words. And so on with plenty of the European civilizations, which empowers the assumption that the Carpatho-Danubiano-Ponitcal space is the craddle of European civilization.

And there were plenty of interesting facts. You should really see the show! It is very very interesting.

Now I think that the Romans are our nephews and not us their's.

Very, very interesting.

Any oppinions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,538 Posts
David said:
Hold on your horses people and forget everything you've learnt so far!

Had anyone seen Diaconescu's show on OTV?!! It is still running right now, and you might see it in replay somewhere tomorrow - just check a TV schedule.

He had invited a bunch of Romanian historians.

Get this:
Romanians are Dacs. Dacs are the ancestors of Tracs [something like a name change]. But now comes the shocking thing: the Romans are the ancestors of Tracs as well. They are a group who had just moved west. So, let me put it this way: Romanians are Tracs, therefore Romanian are the "daddies" of the Romans. Cool sh!t, eh? They even had some proofs - izvoare.

And get this: latin probably comes from the tracic language as well. They gave the word "apa" as an example. [it means water, by the way]. If you check the dictionary it says that "apa" comes from the latin "aqua". But this is not true, because there's a word in tracic, "apa", which means "water" as well!!! And so on with many words.

A guy came with some timelines on a laptop... I can't recall it correctly, but they've said that people existed on this land since a couple of tens of thousands of years ago, them being our ancestors.

Other examples included some Romans "carturari" who came in Dacia and told the people: "We came here because here are our roots".

Sarmiseghetuza might be the craddle of European civilization.

And now some interesting stuff:
"Barbecue" is a Romanian word! It was spread from the Dacs to the Egiptians, then to some pirates, from the pirates to the hispanics and so on till it reached the North Americans.

In Irish there are no less than 1800!!! Romanian words. And so on with plenty of the European civilizations, which empowers the assumption that the Carpatho-Danubiano-Ponitcal space is the craddle of European civilization.

And there were plenty of interesting facts. You should really see the show! It is very very interesting.

Now I think that the Romans are our nephews and not us their's.

Very, very interesting.

Any oppinions?






Those are speculations, they do not have real proofs or they have very weak proofs, proofs that are not even accepted internationally.

There's no doubt that the land of the actual Romania was one of the cradles of the European civilization because of the Danube. As we know from history, civilizations tended to mass themselves close to rivers do to a variety of reasons. We have the Nile in Egypt, the Tigris and Euphrates in ancient Mesopotamia, we have the Tiber in the Italian peninsula, the Po in Northern Italy, the Danube in the actual Romania, etc.

We have the material culture of many Pre-Indo-European civilizations in Romania. In fact, some of the most ancient if not the most ancient European civilizations are found in the Carpatho-Danubian areas such as the Cucuteni.

All these things are true, but the person who said that the Dacians lived in Romania already 10.000 years ago must be somene with a big imagination or someone who did not study his history well. As a matter of fact, the Dacians were an Indo-European group and, since the Indo-European group entered Europe around 4000 BCE (it was believed they came in Europe around 6000 BC, but now historians have pulled the time to 4000-45000 BCE), the Dacians could not be present there 10.000 years ago.



Moreover, David meant that the Dacians were the descendents (not ancestors) of the Thracians (in fact, the Dacians were a Thracian tribe). However, we cannot say that the Latins (the most correct word since at that time Rome did not exist) came from the Thracians. All we know about the Latins is that they were an Indo-European tribe that came in the Italian peninsula between 2000 and 1200 BCE from the Danube. From this to say that the Latins were the descendants of the Thracians is a long way. In fact, why not say that the Latins were the descendants of the Illyrians, or of the Myceneans (one of the first waves of Greek settlers from Asia Minor of Indo-European origins), or of the Germans, or of Slavs (it might sound funny, but the Slavs or the Indo-European group that developed into the Slavs passed also through Southern Europe)?

We cannot say for certain that the Latins came from the Thracians, but we can say that they were all Indo-European groups that developed into different branches. Hence, the similitudes between the Thracian, Latin, Illyrian, Celtic, Baltic, Sanskrit,etc. languages.


Now, about the Romanian language. There is a big mistake that has been made and that is currently being made when analyzing the roots of the language spoken in Romania. The mistake is that Romanian comes from either Latin or Slav. This is a huge mistake because these linguists/historians ignore the fact that the Dacians spoke an Indo-European language, which ressembled to other Indo-European languages. The word "apa" is a very good examble. In fact, in Romanian dictionaries it says it comes from the Latin word "aqua" but we know also that the Thracian word for water is "apa". Therefore, it is much more plausible to think that "apa" (water in Romanian) comes from a similar Dacian or Thracian word rather than its Latin counterpart. Our language has developped itself in a lot of different situations over a long period of time. Slavic influence is only minor if we think about the fact that past Romanian linguist thought that the Romanian words that do not ressemble to Latin must be Slavic! Another mistake is to say that a word is Slavic only because it is present in Russian (or another Slavic language). But, these linguists ingore the fact that Russian borrowed a lot of words from other languages. A perfect example is the word "sfant" (holy, saint) in Romanian, which it is said that comes from "sfintu" in Slavic. But, the Latin word for saint is "sanctum".


Words can be tricky, unluckly, die to the poor and rare scientifical studies on the Dacians, the actual historians (or wanna-be historians :) ) use words to say to prove all kind of theories and we cannot rely only on words...





However, the subject concerning our lineage is very...complex. What is "Romanian" ? Who is a Romanian? What do we base our focus? Do we take in consideration DNA,genetics? Do we take in consideration history? And if we take in consideration history, what chunk of history do we take in consideration? In fact, if we say that we rely solely on history, we might simply say that our ancestors came from Africa (as the most accepted thepry implies) and save ourselves a lot of time and headaches. ( :) ) Do we take in consideration culture? Do we take in consideration ethnicity? Do we use as reference the biggest/most important ethnic group to represent or do we take in consideration all the other ethnic groups? We we look at ourselves from a heterogeneous or homogeneous perspective?

As you may see, the subject in question is something extremely complex. It is a question that has been and is being constantly asked not only by us, but by almost any group or nation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
Fascinating topic indeed! How about this tangent though, since our land was originally named Dacia, why has this name not been incorporated in the name of our nation, and why, in fact, has the emphasis been put totally on the Roman part with 'Romania". Was it a political decision, or a populist one? Shouldn't our country be DacoRomania, or another variation of that? And why was it that it was more in vogue at one point in history to spell Romania as 'Rumania'? Was it just a simple matter of translation?
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top