Talk:Romania in the Dark Ages/Archive 1

and with what part are you unhapy? Greier 11:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)s
 * All of it. Not only is every sentence questionable, you are using this article to vent out bliefs that are presented as theoretical by Origin of Romanians. Your article is not only nationalist and single-sided, it is in bad taste (I'm talking about the picture). Dahn 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

bad taste is subjective. Greier

The Dark Ages in Romania began with the withdrawal of the Roman administration and ended in the 11th century, after Catholicism was brought to Hungary and the Romanian lands were once again connected to the Western world, this time not directly, but via the Hungarian Kingdom.

Well, what does the existance of Catholicism have to do with the dark ages of a nation and land with clearly eastern (byzantine) traditions, and how exactly were the Romanian lands "connected" to the western world? Was there a canion between the romanian lans and the western world that hungarians filled? And most importantly, I really think you got this one wrong: the arrival of the magyar tribes was ANOTHER PART of the dark ages. That`s what the dark ages in it`s last phases is all about. Brutal, destructive waves of asiatic barbarians. It`s theyr settling down that marked the end of the Dark Ages. Settling down wich unfortunately happened here... And now I ask: how could a tribe who by 9th century lived in tents, in the year 1000 to bring "light"? on the contrary, hungarian arrival only extended the dark ages on the Romanian lands. If we were to judge what dark ages mean by way of living of romanians, than in Transylvania the dark ages lasted until 1918. It`s on the contrary, hungarian arrival destroyed what existed. There were numerous (orthodox) monastic centers in eastern Pannonia(Descriptio Europae orientalis). How do you imagine that in such a short time, hungarians managed to create a relatively well administrated state? what were the founding stones for this? Hungarians were a minority in Hungary in the 20th century, than what do you think the stats were in the 10th century, huh???

'''Part of the territory of what is today Romania was part of Attila's Empire of 450. After the disintegration of Attila's Empire, different parts of Romania were under successive control of the Alans, Gepids, Avars, Rukhs-As, Slavs, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Uzes, and Cumans.''' Now it`s my turn: bring references! alans?!?!? not only that this is ambiguos and vague, but you repeat it: Rukhs-As... what is this??? every tribe that passed throug here held "succesive control"??? for example, bulgars were attested as migrating and settling as far as Lombardia in Italy, yet I don`t see that in the History of Italy page. But of course bulgars should be mentioned, because romanian lands were part of the First Bulgarian Empire. And isn`t that what I`ve also sayd? Take a look at the page and see what it says: "had a mixed population of Thracians, Greeks and Dacians, most of whom spoke either Greek or a Latin-derived language". Well, that what i`ve sayd too, that romanians, (maybe you didn`t know, but in this case that means the latin speaking population) were part of the Firt Bulgarian Empire. The same for Avar Empire. Slavs???? What control? Any references for that? Once a time the hole of Greece was "Sklavonia" but that doens`t mean anything. They were just a tribe that settled here, but they were absorted. Wasn`t that what I`ve sayd too?!?!?

There is little written or architectural evidence that bears witness to the presence of "proto-Romanians" in the lands north of the Danube during the millennium after Rome's withdrawal from Dacia.

That`s why is called the Dark Ages, duhhhh!!!!!! And with what exactly did were you unsatisfied with from my edit?

you are using this article to vent out bliefs that are presented as theoretical by Origin of Romanians

To vent out beliefs means to judge!!!!! WERE THE HELL CAN YOU SEE THAT~!?!??

'''Starting from early 20th century (more exactly after the union of Transylvania with Romania in 1918), other theories regarding the origin of Romanians, were proposed by historians, especially Hungarian, wich basically stated that modern Romanians were not the descendants of an indigenous Romanised population (namely Thracian plus other superstratums), but that they migrated from south of the Danube and settled in the current territory of Romania sometimes in the Middle Ages. For details about this debate, see Origin of Romanians.'''

Is any of the remarks false or subject to any personal judgements? The rule is what I sayd: Romanians were the descendants of an indigenous Romanised population (namely Thracian plus other superstratums). The exception is this they migrated from south of the Danube and settled in the current territory of Romania sometimes in the Middle Ages. This is not a debate in the real sense of the world!!!!! Maybe you got this one wrong too!!! The "Origin of Romanians" is just a weak theory (SPECULTAION!!!!!!!). Everybody can propose theories! Even hungarians... Greier

And anyway, this belongs to this page: Romanians, not in every page, like it did until I camed, when it was on Roman Dacia, Romania in the Dark Ages, Romania in the Middle Ages, Romanians, Daco-Romanian, Proto-Romanian language, History_of_the_term_Vlach, Gesta_Hungarorum, Dacian_language, Etymology of Romania, Eastern_Romance_languages, Jireček_Line, Vlachs, Aromanians, Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, Literature_of_Romania, Origin_of_Albanians, Romanian_language, Magyars, Balkan_linguistic_union, Culture_of_Romania, etc...

looks like the whole Wikipedia is based on the theories of a frustated s##t... no wonder, with people like you....


 * You have cursed me. That is indeed the way to go. I think soon you'll be waving bye-bye. Dahn 09:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Curse? That`s a curse!?!?!? hahahahahhhahaaaaaa vrei injuraturi? mai cacat arogant ce esti, de crezi mare destept, crezi ca nuami tu ai dreptate? sa ma cac pe mucii aia care`i ai in cap... ma, da de ce nu le si pula, daca deja i`ai lins in cur pe unguri? haide, ca doar aici nu e vorba de onoare sau de istorie... nici macar nu e vorba de unguri, care`s pana la urma tot oameni is... e vorba sa ai tu dreptate, nu? nu conteza ca ungurii profita de idioti cu iluzii de superioritate ca sa`si prezinte "teoriile" si "desbaterile"....tot ce conteza e ca propria imagine e mare "wikipedist" sa`ti ramana, nu?

---

I can do this for years... hjahahahahahhahaaaaaaaahahha ahhaha Greier.

like i sayd, i can do this for years... so either we come up with a solution, either... Greier.

Protected
I've protected the page in the light of the recent user's edits. Mihai -talk 11:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

---

'''Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense.'''

Vandalism is done Dahn when he keeps posting that low quality article.

Article Introduction
maybe you could find a better one, cause the present one doesn't seem right... Anonimu 12:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Greier vs.KIDB
I have a couple of comments on Greier's version:


 * Starting from early 20th century, a controversial theory

well... it was in 19th century. Roesler published his theory in 1871.


 * that modern Romanians were not the descendants of an indigenous Romanised population

AFAIK, it does not claim that. The theory goes that Romans retracted the army and population from Dacia to the south of the Danube.

Anyway, I'll try to write a fair version. bogdan 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to balance the article. You wrote this: "The traditional theory was that the Romanians lived in their current territory during all the Dark Age period" I would suggest to clarify:
 * Who, and when developed this "tarditional" theory (which, you say comes from before 1871)?
 * AFAIK, this theory was described in 1675 by Miron Costin, then developed by various scholars, like Dimitrie Cantemir (1705) and then the Transylvanian School. But the Roman/Latin origins of the Romanians were known long before that. bogdan 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the Daco-Romanian theory, or about something else?
 * Was it based on scintific evidences or it was just a belief of the Romanian people (like the old tradition of Székelys that they are the descendents of Attila the Hun)?
 * the first idea was roughly based on this idea: "Romans lived here in ancient times, we can see their ruins all over the place, we speak a language derived from Latin, therefore we must be the descendants of those people". bogdan 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it must have been a very convincing explanation indeed. If the great-grandchildren of today's Latin-American immigrants in the US follow this way of thinking they will say in 2100: Southern US used to belong to Spain 500 years ago + I speak Spanish + we are today the majority ethnic group here = This area has always been Spanish and we have always been the majority ethnic group in the region. :-) --KIDB 12:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except for one thing: where did Spanish settlesrs see ancient Spanish ruins? Listen, KIDB, I despise the rhetoric and implications of ethno-nationalism, including Romanian, but you should at least try and move beyond your obvious bias. Dahn 12:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If your only problem with this comparison is the lack of old Spanish ruins in Southern US... You may agree with the rest of what I wrote.
 * By the way, I am not too familiar with this theory, but if the Daco-Romans did stay in Transylvania without any interruption, there must have not only been ancient Roman ruins, but newer buildings from the dark ages, too. Are there any significant ruins in Transylvanian cities that can be dated back to the period between the Roman withdrawal and the Hungarian conquest?--KIDB 12:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * perhaps I may be understood this time, the 14th occasion for me to tell you that I refuse to believe in the tennets of any nationalism, and that I have decided to consider both as theories (it may interst you that your own view is usually regarded as thoretical throughout the inhabited world);


 * My "own view"? How do you know what my own view is? I am only asking questions about this unproven DacoR theory. I would like to understand why so many Romanians are so much convinced about it, but I don't find any serious evidence.--KIDB 15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Roeslerian one. I have to assume it is your view, since you argued in favor of it on the Talk:Transylvania page. Full answer below. Dahn 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think that picture somehow represents my views, you're amazingly wrong. Dahn 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean you I meant "many Romanians" --KIDB 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * to play along, I'm going to ask you what the hell populations occupied themselves with during the Dark Ages, and for you to point out to me who has engaged in large-scale building, especially in this area. Dahn 13:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose there was no buildings because the Roman society certainly did not survive in Transylvania during the dark ages in a way in the East Roman Empire did. What happened to the people of Dacia? Nobody knows. Did some of them survive in the mountains? Or they fled towards South during the hundreds of years of different nomadic invasios? Did they come back later on? Did they become mixed with Slavs, Turks, Gepids, Visigoths, etc? --KIDB 15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's anybody's guess. Frankly, I don't see why you have to apply definitions from a Victorian textbook, and assume that a former Goth who has learned to speak a Latin tongue would be any less proof of "continuity". I cartainly am not using collective arguments of this sort, and do not aim to prove that Romanians are "racially pure". The fact is that culture could have irradiated over an area, no matter who settled it (in fact, one would have to assume and welcome such changes, or else Ro nationalists would "go back" to being 100% Latin). There were no clear-cut borders, and a Romance-speaking identity could have proved to be determinant for a period. Frankly, I am getting tired of arguing nuancing in front of merely a different form of ethnocentrism. You see: individuals, and not "peoples", do things - and it is the sum of their diverse actions that we use as a basis for over-simplification. Btw, you seem to avoid messages on your talk page entirely. Dahn 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Where was this theory developed? Did it refer to the territory of the Romanian Lands of the 19th century, or to Transylvania, too?
 * It usually referred especially to all of them, but Transylvania had a central role, as both Wallachia and Moldavia, according to legends, were founded by Transylvanians. ("Descălecatul") More to the point, Moldavia was allegedly founded by people from Maramureş and Wallachia by people from Făgăraş. bogdan 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the Daco-Romanian theory, then my original phrase should be used ("There are two conflicting theories"). The two theories can be studied in the Origin of Romanians article. --KIDB 07:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried avoiding that, because there are more theories. The two theories are just the "extreme points". bogdan 22:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * shut the fuck up, filthy bozgor! Greier 15:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You see Bogdan, this is my greatest concern. I really have no objection to any theory about the origin of Romanians. My only problem is when some Romanians are so much convinced about their glorious Roman ancestry like Greier. These kind of people proudly consider native Hungarians to be fresh immigrants because they have been in Transylvania "only" for the last one thousand years. These kind of people feel free to call their Hungarian neighbours "bozgor" (~exiled/refugee). These are the people who are happy that Saxons and Jews have fled Romania, and would be happy to see the same happening to Hungarians. Believe me, without people like Greier, many Hungarians wouldn't feel they need a kind of autonomy to protect their cultural identity. --KIDB 12:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These kind of people proudly consider native Hungarians to be fresh immigrants because they have been in Transylvania "only" for the last one thousand years. You are a hypocrit filth! who`se the one who can`t live because Romanians camed from somewhere else, and they weren`t the first in Transilvania??? Huh, bozgor??? Who`s the one who adds the remark concerning the Origin of Romanians? Youre an example of how low the human spirit can reach... A pathetic ignorant... And don`t put words in my mouth you filthy chauvinist! I admire jews (as in jewish people, not jewish state), their culture, their spirit of unity, and the antiquity of theyr nation... It is Romanians which greatly influenced the jewish culture, music, dances, gastronomy, etc. In Romania jews are a national minority, directly represented into the Parlament (no votes required). What`s the situation in Hungary? Well, Hungary states that jews are in fact hungarians of mozaic religion... theyr not even recognised as a minority! they have no rights, no nothing... You filth!!! Of course the hungarian goverment does that, considering that 80% of the people mentioned in List of Hungarians, are in fact jews... hahahha hahhahahahaaaaaa In 1850, due to the large jewish and german element, 80% of Budapest was germanophone! hahahaha hahah!!! what happend to them? magyarised and killed!!! by whome ??? by romanians? you scum, what Hungary did to jews, doesn`t even remotely compares to what unfortunatelly happened in Romania... Saxons? They were sick of you too! In 1918, they signed the Alba Iulia petition too, just like all other people in Transilvania who escaped being infected... i meant magyarised...... By the way, the rest of 20% from the List of "Hungarians" are germans... hahahhahahha hahahah Cultural identity? What culture do you have wich "identifies" you? None!!! Off, you made my cry dork... "believe me, without people like Greier, many hungarians...". Well believe me, without diseaseas, there wouldn`t of been doctors...Greier 14:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked User:Greier for a period of 48 h due to these last comments. He behaved repeateadly in an uncivil manner and made xenopphobic and extremist nationalistic remarks. Me, as a Romanian, I also felt hurted by his comments. Mihai -talk 15:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don`t think it hurts as much as it does to me, when I see the snobism of some romanians... Greier 24.234.189.199 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aww.. that's soooo sweet. Dahn 17:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Greier, you overstepped the lines. You cannot say I'm not a Romanian nationalist, but I tell you that you are a disgrace. You must understand that Hungarians did not do their re-evaluation of the nationalistic history, as Romanians did. Therefore, you must understand that KIDB is probably well-intentioned. Maybe even ready to accept our view of the history, if correctly explained. You, on the contrary, (1) assume he is bad and (2) behave in a vulgar manner. And I remind you that the Romanian tradition is that people are understanding at least during this week. Dpotop 12:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, Paste fericit! We had Húsvét too, last week-end.
 * Thanks for considering me a poor miseducated Hungarian contaminated by our nationalistic history. I am trying hard to learn your science but without much hard evidence, it will be very difficult to convince me about your theories. --KIDB 13:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I don't believe you're miseducated, just that Hungarian mainstream history still is fundamentally nationalistic. Just as the Romanian one was back in the early 1990s. Dpotop 14:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)