|
|
Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?
that's crazy, and obviously no one is going to just drop an entire language like that. there's one problem: the slavs weren't in romania when the vulgar latin arrived. they came like five centuries later. the place names and things just show that they became a very powerful and influential force in the region, especially as they established the dominant church in the region, so the people there adopted a lot of their names, and yes they probably did mix and assimilate with them considerably, but to say that it's an entirely slavic nation is just absurd.
besides serbia and bulgaria and other balkan slavs have somewhat more affinity to the native thracians and illyrians than they do to people like ukrainians, poles, and russians, except through language
Is there a reason for Romania being called Romania and not Slavasia apart from there already being a Slovakia and Slovenia?
well it's pretty obvious the guy above is just trying to stir things up or just messing around
anyway, if you actually read through his posts, even ravinescu isn't trying to make the case that romania is totally slavic, he's just saying that they had a large influence on it, culturally and ethnically, and that the artificial relatinization of the 19th century might not have been the best thing. overall, it's a blend of many peoples and cultural and linguistic elements that all came together over time
When talking about the Balkans many people seem to forget that they are after all largely culturally similar to the "true Slavs" (Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians), especially when compared to the rest of Europe and they are half by blood too. And the other half of blood has pretty much the same haplogroups just in different ratios. They are not called "Slavs" for no reason. A Norther Italian and a Spaniard are culturally AND ethnically closer to a Scott than is a Romanian to an Spaniard or Scott. Both the Spaniard and the Scott are ethnically and culturally Western European (regional differences notwithstanding). The largest cultural and genetic rift in Europe is between Western Europe and Eastern Europe.
Where does Romania fit here? Due to it's position, culturally, historically and ethnically Romania is in fact even closer to Eastern Europe than Bulgaria or Serbia. Most of the conflict between the "Latin" Romanians and the Slavs is not more than 150 years old and is rooted in the conflict with the Russians caused by the trial to ethnically assimilate the Romanians and by the desire of the Romanians to come closer to Western Europe and therefore closer to civilization.
The Bulgarians and the Serbs had nothing to argue against assimilation by the Russians because they were under the Turks for 500 years (while Romania was not) which meant that Russia was much more developed than the Southern Slavs.
But the Romanians were much closer in terms of economic development and arguably more politically developed: free speech and some amount of even some amount of laissez-faire were the norm in Romanian society even during the Middle Ages and later on, the Monarchy was Elective too as in medieval Poland (Romania had it's first Dynastic monarch ever in 19th century in a desire to emulate the West, until then the "monarch" would be elected by the nobles and he would hold the throne as long as he had the necessary political support). Voting based on wealth (amount of paid taxes) was also common during the history of Romania. The Russian and Romanian boyars do not hold an aristocratic title like in Western Europe, they are in fact just rich people with a lot of political power. But Russia was an Empire with an Emperor (Czar/Caesar) as head of state while the head of state in Romania was "Domn" (or "Knegin" in Russian), therefore of much lower power in internal affairs.
As a consequence the Romanians were not much impressed by Russia and the Russians. Because of this Romania felt in second part of19th century surrounded by the Russians and Russian minions. Combined with the extensive (1000 years) religious and cultural/linguistic oppression against the Romanians by the Catholoc "mongols" Hungarians plus "barbarian" Germans ("in our own land" as the Romanians say) and the refusal by the other Orthodox Churches to approve a National Orthodox Romanian Church with Romanian as Liturgic Language until 1880s (the Slavs had one since 8th Century AD) has created a desire of the Romanians to put a lot of emphasis on their own language and it's "Latin roots" at the expense of any other cultural aspect of Romania (such as the shared culture and ethnicity with the Slavs).
Small addition: The Slavs had their own Churches while the Romanians did not because a Liturgy based on Latin was seen as carrying a too high risk of defection to the Catholic side. Also the Orthodox in general have a historical aversion against Western Europe because of the numerous wars between them and the Catholics caused mostly by the eastward expansion of the Catholics. As such the other Orthodox people did not see a Romanian Orthodox church with good eyes and their approval was needed for such a Church to exist.
This didn't matter much until 19th century because any educated Romanian would be educated in Church Slavonic and written Romanian was of much lower prestige anyway. Church service was in mixed Romanian and Church Slavonic. But this suddenly started to matter a lot in the 19th century when mass education begun in Romania and Hungary and along with it Nationalist political movements.
Yet another addition :) : In the 19th Century there was massive emigration from Russia to Romania, mainly people seeking higher economic and political freedom. Mihai Eminescu (the most important national poet of Romania) was born in fact Eminovich from Russian family that were political refugees and that adopted a Romanian identity.
Ravinescu, you have the nerve to go around spreading crap like that?! What's wrong with you? The events of the 19th century relatinization are known as an "awakening" for a reason: because we rediscovered some of our ancient roots. I don't blame them at all for doing what they did. They can do what they want with their language. Besides, it helped make overall communication easier as many of those new French words are also international words to an extent, with many being similar in English. It was a way of opening up to the outside and western world. I don't think their main objective was to "fool" people, as you say.
Maybe you have some points, but luckily I am from Oltenia, a.k.a. the most Roman part of Romania (the part that was directly colonized by our noble ancestors). Our accent and speech is genuine and natural, unlike Bucharest, and pure, unlike that of Moldova. In fact, my hometown of Caracal was named after the emperor Caracalla, who extended citizenship to all in the empire at the time Dacia was still a province.
Noi suntem români! Şi daci!
And Original, shut up already you little nerd, being all obsessed about genetic tests and all that. Forget that. You seem to have some serious issues with our people. Seriously, why is our history so contested and why do we have to have so much outside interference about our background? I don't get why it's so hard to accept the simplest explanations (I guess just the idea of a nation like that existing in Eastern Europe makes people uncomfortable); no, instead people have to make corrections, thinking they know better, and concoct convoluted theories. Even if you are right, it's not going to change anything; the perceptions we have today are here to stay, and people are going to believe what they feel like, aight? I don't see Romania moving any closer to the East and Russia in the future, regardless of how close you said we were in the past.
Nu inteleg de ce nu ignori imbecili ca ravinescu, original guest ,etc? Tu nu vezi ca zic numia idiotenii, nu le ma da importanta! Sunt niste frustrati, niste creaturi nefericite care au vin pe acest forum pentru ca este singurul loc unde din cand in cand, mai sunt si ei bagati in seama.
Sanatate si numai bine!
Simion
lol that east west thing is bull... you're telling me a neapolitan or sicilian italian and a dane or swede have more in common than say a german and pole or russian? and what's with people associating slavs with being somehow half asian? that's just simply not true. there are some areas where pockets of tartars, who were a nomadic central asian people, live, but that doesn't make most of them like that. if anything they are one of the closest cultures and languages to the original ancient indo-european population, which lived in the plains of southern russia and ukraine. i'm not one of them, but i do have a respect for their cultures. as for bjork, who knows she might have some eskimo ancestors or something. who cares anyway
@petey boy
You are apparently an ignorant.
A German is ethnically closer to a Spaniard because all Western Europeans were part initially of one big ethic group during the Ice Age when the people of the West took refuge in Spain where they mixed and created a Western ethnic group. This group then expanded northward and eastward after the ice retreated and gave rise to other ethnic groups such as the Brits, the French, the Germans.
There were two other major refuges during the Ice Age: the Western Balkans and South-Western Ukraine. Those people mixed and expanded mostly northward and eastward and less westward. They gave rise to ethnic groups such as the Romanians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles and in most part Russians. The Russians also had significant input (1/3) from a Central Asian refuge.
The Scandinavians are about 1/2 from the Spanish refuge coming from the West and 1/4 from the Balkan refuge and 1/4 from the Ukrainian refuge, both coming through the East.
Another genetic influx happened with the appearance of Indo European languages, agriculture and animal husbandry. The Indo-Europeans entered Europe trough the steppe in the north of Black Sea. The other agricultural people entered Europe through Greece and Italy giving about 1/2 of the Greeks and 1/3 of the Italians and the Balkans and about 1/4 in Romania, Ukraine and Belarus, 1/6 in Poland. Those agricultural people displaced the local cultures and the local languages and introduced early forms of civilization to Europe (the Europeans were hunter gatherers and mammoth hunters until then).
The reason a German is ethnically and culturally closer to a Spaniard than to an Ukrainian is because the ethnic and cultural differences between them and the Spaniards are smaller than between them and the Ukrainians.
And regarding Asian influx in Eastern Europe, yes it does exist, although certainly not half as some would claim.
Wow! I didn't know that.
So, according to this explanation:
Spain is the origin ethnically of Western Europeans, and in a lesser degree of Americans, Latino-Americans and Australians.
Ukraine, at the same time, is the origin of Eastern Europeans, and in a lesser degree of former USSR people.
So, Spain and Ukraine are the most important countries in Europe during Ice Age time.
weird... i don't really follow those studies, but all i can say is i can't really see romanians being put exclusively into the same category as russians, poles, and ukrainians... anyone with eyes can see the differences. a lot of poles say that they usually distinguish them from their own people. if anything maybe they seem more similar to other balkan people. who knows, you could be right; it's just that my personal experiences have conflicted with these tests. i've constantly been mistaken for being italian, greek, spanish, and occasionally french when traveling, even in their own countries sometimes, with tourists or even their own people asking me questions in their languages, but never for a russian lol. hell strangely enough, i've even gotten irish once, somehow. and no, btw, i'm not gypsy for the record
what about greece? i can't really see them being eastern european just because of geography- and southern italy too, since i hear many have come from there.
in the end though, does it really matter all that much: we're still all human, i assume
@pete
I have not claimed that Romania can be put in the same category as the Russians, Poles or Ukrainians. I have said that Romania has closer ethnic and cultural connections to Eastern Europe than the Balkans.
Regarding genetics, the Romanians have 20% R1a (from Ukraine refuge) in southern Romania and 30% in northern Romania. In comparison Ukraine and Belarus have about 50% while Bulgaria has 15% and Serbia 8%. The Romanians also also have a reduced share of Balkan haplogroups and more western R1b.
The Romanians are roughly halfway between the Balkan and the Ukrainian people and the Balkan people themselves are somewhere between the Greeks and the Ukrainians. It is true that there are not that many light haired adults but most Romanian kids tend to have brown hair and many do have light hair color. Check this page with school pictures of Romanian kids (and 3-4 Gypsies but ignore those):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pfpap/sets/72157613090167788/detail/
Regarding historical connections, it's too much to write about. Romanian history revolves around Eastern Europe and less around the Balkans. The Hungarians, the Germans, the Poles, the Tatars, the Mongols, the Nogays, the Russians,the dozens of smaller Central Asian tribes that invaded or settled here etc. Also we should mention the 400 years of Gothic Rule after the Roman Administration retreated from the province of Dacia. The Goths lived in Romania for that long that they were considered the same as the Gets (ancestors of Romanians) by the less informed medieval scholars, The Goths picked up a lot of Latin culture (from the south of Danube as the Romanians weren't much Latinised beyond language) and most probably by the time they decided to invade the Roman Empire they did in part ethnically originate from the same stock as the Romanians due to mixage.
Those are the people which have touched Romanian history. Also when speaking of ancient History it should be mentioned that Romania was part of an old culture called Cucuteni(Romanian)/Trypillian(Ukrainian)/Tripolie(Russian) which is considered the oldest Eastern European culture. Also the Slavic ethnogenesis area INCLUDES northern Romania (that's it, parts of the ancestors of the Romanians participated in the formation of the Slavs). And when the Slavs came to southern Danube, many of them came from Romania or from within 200-300 Km away from Romania.
On the other hand, Balkan history is about Ancient Greece, Roman Empire (a small part of today's Romania was part of it for a short time), the Byzantine Empire (never part of it). When the Slavs came to the Balkans they linguistically and culturally assimilated the local Greeks and (fewer) Romans. Also Romania was not part of the Ottoman Empire, but tribute was paid unlike the Balkan people. This is one of the reasons the Romanians did not felt much liberated by the Russians, there simply weren't turks in the country to be liberated from. Moreover roughly half of what is today Romania was part of a Central European state for the last 1000 years and the Romanian Principalities of Wallachia/Hungro-Wlachia and Moldova/Russo-Wlachia were too initially part of Hungary from 12th until 14th and 15th century until they declared and fought for independence from Hungary (for political, taxation and religious reasons) Between Gothic rule and Hungarian rule the Romanians were ruled by Central Asians as much of the rest of Eastern Europe. This is one of the largest causes why the Romanian states were formed so late in history.
Culture is also influenced by geography and climate. Only the northern part of Bulgaria and Serbia have a climate similar to Romania, the rest of the Balkans is pretty much Mediterranean. This makes for a very different material culture and customs.
Addition: Many people think that only the Moldavians are closer to Eastern Europe but people forget that most Moldavians live in Romania rather than in Moldavia. Also the historical Moldavia was the most populous of the Romanian states which means that a Romanian is statistically more likely to be a Moldavian than a Wallachian or Transylvanian and the Moldavian accent that many people call "slavic sounding" is the most common Romanian accent. And the Transylvanian accent is rather slavic sounding too (but with Hungarian accent influences).
|