Reply to [https://rdrama.net/h/mnn/post/329733/russian-natural-gas-deliveries-to-europe/7563630#context].
!schizomaxxxers Note that he says this because he's Romanian and they're not Slavs. I've had Romanians try to talk me down from this but I have a schizotheory where I suspect that actually they're some of the "Celts" recorded in the Balkans by the Greeks c. 400 BC. I mean think about.
They speak a Romance language†. Has anyone proven that the Celts in northern Italy didn't?
The Greeks never really gave a shit about about classifying languages††, that's mostly an 1800s German form of autism.
You had all these people going up and down the Danube. The Thracians, the Triballi, the Scordisci or something.
† This is the best argument I've heard against my schizo-position: I point out that that I can read Romanian almost as well as French. So surely all the Gauls must be related. It can't be that far off. But I was told that in the 1800s there was a deliberate effort to change the Romanian language to be more French, which would explain a heck of a lot. I was reading highly technical stuff about archaeology which is a billion times easier than actually having a real conversation with someone. That's exactly the kind of topic where everything is a loan word.
†† There are frustrating exceptions to this. It comes up in Herodotus, Thucydides, the Suda. 90% of the time these people don't give a shit about the language people are speaking. I mean have you ever actually read the Odyssey? Star Trek gets shit on for everyone speaking English but these guys sail all over without a universal translator and they do just fine. But there are these notable exceptions where they point out language differences. One is really fricking obvious, that the Etruscans/Tyrrhennians in Italy are from Anatolia but there's also the Pelasgians and various other groups in the southern Aegean.
!historychads Talk me from down from having controversial views before I get put in a straightjacket. I think I just pissed off both Italian and Greek nationalists, the most powerful forces in the world. Please ask the Albanian nationalists to help me. Don't worry, they already know me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Assuming you're being serious, no. It's generally agreed Romanian as a language descends from Vulgar Latin speakers. The only question is whether they descend from the presume mass of Latin speakers who stayed behind in the provinces of Dacia after Aurelian pulled out or whether they're descended from Latin speakers from Thrace and in general south of the Danube who moved north and east following the deprevations of the 6th and 7th centuries and the fall of the Huns.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I know what's generally accepted, I'm trying to throw out a schizo theory to talk about.
I just do the math in my head and find this suspect. What is so special about Dacia that the Latin language would take hold there but nowhere else nearby?
Seems to me like you're presuming a lot.
They wanted to move into Gepid territory because...?
Look, I'm just asking questions here.
Seriouspost tho: There's a huge disconnect between the modern idea of a nation and the information we have about how this stuff worked back then. I'm not (seriously) claiming I knew what was going on but if you actually put in the time to read to read the historical records, nobody else has a fricking clue either.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The answer is usually one of the mountains + a lack of Byzantine control and Greek enforcement. There are other theories e.g. the area with the most Romance speakers was where the Romance speaker fleeing from other areas continued to run to drawing in more Romance speakers but those two tend to be the most popular.
It's was safe? Lower life burden? The Gepids were better at beating back the Slavs than the Byzantines were? IDK.
I know just stating the most popular cases now for anyone who was wondering.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
One thing I don't get: Thrace doesn't have better mountains? Changing the the language there, that implies a long period of occupation. WTF is wrong with Thrace's mountains? They worked before.
Well for what it's worth you're my most popular poster and I wanted to draw out the other side because I respect your opinion.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The parts north of the Jireček Line don't I guess
The question for me would be why Dalmatia and Pannonia lost all their Latin. My guess is just deurbanisation but still.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Great. Just default to "everything is about cities" like you tards always do.
Nothing in rural areas ever mattered. It's not like this was the vast majority of the population and economic output.
Thucydides explicitly said that 90% of Athenian citizens lived outside Athens but I guess your professor didn't give you that page to read. And he probably said "poleis" all the time implying that this meant something other than a walled city.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
De-urbanisation is the most supported reason for the Anglo-Saxon elimination of Britannic Romance so that's why I think so and it makes sense. Rural areas matter but the centres of Romanisation are going to be the cities - more so in Britannia than in Dalmatia but still - your provincial magistrates, tax collectors and officers are all coming from relatively educated backgrounds with urban basis. When those people are replaced by Germanic - or in this case Slavic - replacements, especially at the mass where not only is your tax collector Slavic but his two adjutants who'll live near you are now too or not only the new Bishop but the prior of the local monastery and so on you see socio-linguistic shifts. The rural areas themselves don't have to change much only insofar as their daily lives now are entwined with a new socio-cultural milieu (Anglo-Saxon invasion, Arabisation of the middle east) or adjacent to that new milieu (Norman invasion of England). Insofar as I've looked into it I've generally placed the required "invader" population as 10% and 1% of the native pop respectively for both these scenarios.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah this definitely is about the Roman era, not prejudices of late the effete upper class in 1800s England. (I'm sure you know what the subtext is when I say "effete" and I hope you understand this is a real issue in how history was written at the time.)
Uhhhhhh... why?
England wasn't very urbanized until the 1800s. It was basically just London until the industrial revolution.
Where in the heck do you get that from? England for example, had lots of educated people who were not from urban areas. Have you ever heard of a guy called Shakespeare?
Well I'm just a Germanic replacement.
(Again I would post the "I'm a mick" scene from Youtube but for some reason it was deleted from the face of the Earth.)
They ARE the socio-cultural mileiu.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The most common Victorian theory was that the Britonics and Roman Brits and the like were wholesale slaughtered and replaced. Deurbanisation is a very modern theory - if you want me to re-explain it I can - and tbh framing Victorian Britain as wholesale captured by urban interests and such a structural worldview is kind of silly. Even something as basic as the vicious fight over the Corn Laws and their repeal shows as much.
For the rest, I honestly don't know what you're on about. We're talking about the linguistic replacement and conversion. Specifically of the Latinxte Roman colonia to the Germanics and Slavs that replaced them and the reason why some areas linguistically shifted entirely while some had unaltered vocabulary changes but no linguistic shifts while further others where left "untouched". Specifically your questions about the ethnogenesis of the Romanians - at least on a linguistic basis.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Bongs pulled out of EU because of us and here you come and tell them we're the same people
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is like in Star Trek: Deep Space 9 when your family from 70,000 light-years away is trying to invite you back into the fold. You don't have to steal cars all the time, you can be one of us again.
Seriouspost tho I love Romanians. Never had a problem with a Romanian. Every other fricking kind of person on this planet... don't get me started.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If pretending to be bongs will help lower your guard then sure we're whatever you want us to be
Thanks
We're pretty chill and easy going as people. This is how we get to steal your wallet when you're not looking 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It is neither my intention to dwell too long on my own praise, which I know would be distasteful to the reader, nor have I the purpose of censuring other historians, as Anaximenes and Theopompus1 did in the prefaces to their histories...
-- Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context