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.
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.
Don't take that patronizing tone with me if you want to live.
I think we're arguing past each other. My point is that the obesession in archaeology (especially in the 1800s) and in 1900s pop history with cities is mind-numbingly r-slurred. Archaeologists like cities because you just show up to any modern city, start digging, and you'll find an ancient city underneath it. Midwits like ancient cities because it's easier to grasp than complex forces interacting in rural areas.
That stuff about Romanians, I had to do a bunch of really frustrating shit dealing with my insurance company and I've already forgotten what I said.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context