Transylvania is NOT hungarian!
No score for this post May 3 2005, 5:13 PM

Motto : "Terram autem…nullatenus concedimus nobis viventibus."
"Teritoriul…nu-l vom ceda niciodata, cita vreme vom fi in viata."
Cuvintele ducelui MENUMORUT catre invadatorii maghiari Usubuu/Osbo si Veluc/Velek, solii lui Arpad - "Gesta Hungarorum" de Anonymus, capitolul 20, pag. 18 in original

Fara indoiala ca ceea ce cred maghiarii nu este demn de crezut si tocmai de aceia sunteti singurii ce orbeste sustineti aceste aberatii neimbratisate de logica internationala. Afirmi ca nu ai citit despre "apartenenta" noastra la originea romana. Se pune in mod logic intrebarea : Ai citit vreodata o carte scrisa de un alt autor decit maghiar ? Caci daca ai fi citit, atunci cu siguranta ne-ai fi gasit prezenti in dictionare, carti de istorie, atlasuri istorice, lucrari si articole de specialitate aflate pe intreg globul si nu ai fi debitat acea afirmatie nefondata si idioata.
Sunt interzise in Ungaria cartile care scriu adevarul despre romini, asa cum este interzisa "Ungaria revizionista", 1935, de senatorul si publicistul maghiar Dr. S. Laszlo Fenyes ? Nu m-ar surprinde, deoarece voi nu stiti NIMIC REAL despre vecinii si compatriotii vostri, ROMANII. Texte imaginate de minti bolnave ca Gyorgy Takacs, Tibor Istvan Barathy, si altii si altii…nu valoreza 2 bani la scara mondiala, chiar daca ele sunt litera de lege pentru maghiarimea ignoranta, limitata la un cerc strimt de lucrari istorice de un caracter indoielnic.
Iata aici o mostra de "gindire profunda", tipic ungureasca, pe care au imbratisat-o totii ignorantii si cei usor de manipulat, maghiarii :"…stramosii poporului romin n-aveau nimic comun cu dacii si cu atit mai putin cu romanii care au invins pe acestia din urma. In Transilvania depopulata de razboaie defensive s-a infiltrat in cursul secolului XII-lea poporul de pastori al Valahiei, stramos al poporului romin de azi." - in "Dreptate pentru Ungaria", 1931, pag. 44.
Hai sa vedem ce scriu cele mai renumite si cautate compendii "internationale" - cele la care faci referire chiar tu - despre noi, despre originea noastra. Sa vedem cine are dreptate, maghiarul Pista sau rominul ?
Dau cuvintul enciclopediei "The New Encyclopedia Britannica", 1994, Editia 15, vol. 10, pag. 157, coloana 2 :"Cei mai vechi locuitori ai Romaniei ii include pe Traci, ai caror descendenti, cunoscuti ca Geti, au stabilit contacte cu coloniile grecesti ce au aparut la malul Marii Negre in secolul 7 i.C. Impreuna cu Dacii, un popor inrudit lor care traia in Muntii Carpati si Transilvania, Getii au stabilit o societate distincta in secolul 4 i.C. Romanii au subjugat pe Geto-Daci in 106 d.C. Stapinirea romana, desi scurta, a lasat mostenire puternica in limba romina, care este derivata din latina. Invaziile constante ale Gotilor au fortat pe Romani sa abandoneze Dacia la sfirsitul secolului 3 d.C., si pentru urmatoarele 8 secole, tinutul a fost invadat de Vizigoti, Huni, Avari, Slavi, Bulgari si Maghiari…In secolul 11 d.C., Transilvania a fost absorbita in Imperiul Maghiar."
"The Encyclopedia Americana", 1999, Editia Internationala, vol. 23, pag. 668-669, col. 2 si 1 :"In perioada Epocii de Fier din Europa (cca. 800-300 i.C.), Dacii, o ramura nordica a Tracilor, a aparut ca fiind cei mai vechi locuitori ai Romaniei, avind ca centru Transilvania. Conform traditiei, statul dac a fost fondat de Burebista in secolul 1 i.C…El a extins frontierele pina la Carpati, Dunarea Mijlocie, Marea Neagra si Muntii Balcani la sud de Dunare…La inceputul erei crestine, Dacii au dezvoltat o economie bazata pe o agricultura statornica, prelucrarea metalelor si faceau comert cu vecinii lor. Desi nu grecizati (helenizati), si vorbind o limba larg folosita printre Traci, Dacii erau aparent mult mai avansati din punct de vedere cultural si economic decit rudele lor Tracii si Illyrii din sud. Statul indpendent Dacia atinge apogeul sau sub regele Decebal, care desi invins de imparatul roman Domitian, 91 d.C., a fost totusi recunoscut ca rege de catre acesta. Influenta romana a patruns usor in Dacia, mai ales datorita comertului, chiar cu 2 secole inainte. Cind legiunile romane au ajuns in regiune, Dacii aveau un stat bine organizat cu centrul la Sarmizegetusa, linga Hunedoara de azi, in sud-vestul Transilvaniei. Acolo se aflau alte importante centre populate, acoperind o zona din Banat pina la Delta Dunarii. Romanii imparatului Traian au venit sa caute aurul si grinele dacilor si sa intareasca granita de nord a imperiului pe Dunare…Colonisti vorbitori de limba latina au venit in Dacia din toata intinderea Imperiului Roman. Agricultura, mineritul, mestesugurile si comertul au inflorit. Ulpia Traiana, fosta Sarmizegetusa, a devenit centrul unui cuib de forturi, campuri asezari urbane, legate intre ele cu drumuri militare. Cultura romana si crestinismul au trecut de la noii veniti la populatia nativa. Rascoale locale alaturate cu amenintarea pradalnicilor Goti, care migrau spre sud, a determinat pe imparatul Aurelian sa ordone abandonarea Daciei in 271…
Este imposibil de a determina cu certitudine stiintifica ce s-a intimplat populatiei dace dupa plecarea legiunilor romane si in timpul celor 7 secole de invazii. Pe de alta parte, populatia vorbitoare de limba romina care a aparut in ravasita fosta provincie romana dupa perioada invaziilor A FOST MAI MULT CA SIGUR DIRECT DESCENDENTA PRIMILOR DACO-ROMANI LATINIZATI. Este posibil ca DACO-ROMANII SA FI GASIT REFUGIU in Carpati in timpul invaziilor si apoi s-au intors la poalele muntilor si cimpiile Moldovei, Valahiei si Transilvaniei cind praduitorii au plecat…Dupa ce romanii au plecat si pina in secolul 10, Dacia a fost invadata de o lunga serie de praduitori si popoare migratoare din est - Gotii, Hunii, Gepizii, Avarii, Slavii, Bulgarii, Pecenegii si Cumanii. Nimeni nu a fondat importante state in Dacia, si toti au fost asimilati sau au plecat (aici amintesc proverbul ROMINESC : "Apa trece, pietrele ramin" - deci, daca nu am fi fost acolo, acest proverb nu s-ar fi nascut ! Logic !). Din cauza numarului, Slavii din secolele 6 si 7, au avut probabil un impact puternic asupra limbii OAMENILOR INDIGENI. In secolul 9, Bulgarii au introdus Crestinismul bizantin in Moldova si Valahia".
"The World Book Encyclopedia", 2003, vol. 16, pag. 416 :"Rominii sunt singurii europeni estici care isi TRASEAZA ORIGINEA SI LIMBA LOR INAPOI PINA LA ROMANI…Frumoasa CULTURA FOLCLORICA A TARANILOR ROMINI se adauga la frumusetea si farmecul tarii...Natiuni straine au controlat tara de-a lungul istoriei rominilor si AU FACUT PREA PUTIN PENTRU A-I DEZVOLTA ECONOMIA"
Acest citat este foarte bogat in informatii. Pe linga faptul ca aduce o alta marturie a originii noastre romane, el ne spune ca folclorul rominilor este rominesc si deloc imprumutat de la vecini, in speta maghiarii, asa cum afirmi tu, Kiraly bacs ! Apoi, o ultima informatie, la fel de pretioasa, care afirma ca cei care au controlat Romania in timp, deci inclusiv ungurii, NU au facut prea multe pentru a o dezvolta, asa cum afirmi tu ca voi ati facut Transilvania "bogata si frumoasa", "ca voi ati construit".
Iata un alt citat de la pag. 439 care spune ca strainii au contribuit la cultura Ungariei, asa cum este de fapt realitatea :"Azi, ungurimea include oameni de alte etnii care au adoptat limba si obiceiurile maghiare. Acesti oameni au contribuit la cultura maghiara. Celelalte grupuri etnice din Ungaria sunt Croatii, Germanii, Tiganii, Rominii, Sirbii si Slovacii." Asa cum am spus deja : VOI FURATI de la altii !! VOI SUNTETI HOTII !!
Gasesc ocazia sa introduc un alt citat din "Collier's Encyclopedia", vol. 12, pag. 364, col. 2 :"Triburile UGRICE cele mai de est s-au mutat catre sud-vest, amestecindu-se cu triburile popoarelor Turco-Bulgare din extremitatea vestica de la care au invatat arta calariei, cresterea animalelor si au adoptat sabloanele lor sociale si economice." - acum inteleg eu de ce sunteti buni la "sabloane" (vezi textul-raspuns "NOI STIM cine suntem !"). Precum se vede ati furat de la acestia ceea ce ati aratat ca stiati cind ati venit in Europa in 885 d.C. Si-mi vorbesti mie de originalitate ! HOTILOR ! Pe unde ati trecut ati furat cite ceva de la fiecare !
Revin la "The World Book Encyclopedia", 2003, vol. 16, pag. 417 :"Mai mult de 85 % dintre cetatenii Romaniei sunt Romini din antichitate. ROMINII SUNT DESCENDENTII DACILOR, ROMANILOR si triburi ca Gotii, Hunii si Slavii. Dacii traiau in teritoriul ocupat azi de Romania inca din anii 300 i.C....Ungurii formeaza cea mai larga minoritate ajungind la un nivel de 8 %."
Pag. 420 :"Mai multe orase din Transilvania s-au dezvoltat datorita bogatiei resurselor naturale." - Iata dovada ca "frumusetea si bogatia" Transilvaniei nu voi le-ati creat ci datorita acelor resurse naturale ea este bogata ! Voi ati FURAT cit ati putut de mult - vezi textul-raspuns "Ungurii - popor eminamente HOT !"
Pag. 423 :"Istoricii nu stiu exact cind a fost populata Romania in timpurile vechi. Dar o populatie numita Daci traia acolo in 300 i.C. Dacii cunosteau agricultura, mineritul, extrageau aurul si faceau comert cu vecinii. Romania s-a numit atunci Dacia.
Romanii, sub imparatul Traian, au cucerit Dacia in 106 d.C. si au transformat-o in provincie a Imperiului Roman. Soldatii romani au ocupat Dacia si coloni au fost instalati acolo. Romanii s-au casatorit cu DACII, CARE AU ADOPTAT OBICEIURI ROMANE SI LIMBA LATINA. DACIA A INCEPUT SA FIE CUNOSCUTA CA ROMANIA DATORITA OCUPATIEI SI INFLUENTEI ROMANE.
Barbari din nord si est au inceput sa invadeze Romania in timpul secolului 2. Ei au fortat pe romani sa abandoneze provincia la sfirsitul secolului 3. Aceste invazii au continuat pina in anii 1100. Printre invadatori putem aminti pe Bulgari, Goti, Huni, Maghiari, Slavi si Tatari. Aceste grupuri, mai ales Slavii, s-au casatorit cu Rominii."
"Collier's Encyclopedia", SUA, 1996, vol. 20, pag. 157, col. 1 si 2. :"Istoria nationala a Romanilor incepe in secolul 2 d.C., cind legiuni romane ale imparatului Traian au fost cantonate pe teritoriul tribului trac Dacii. NATIUNEA ROMINA A FOST FORMATA PRIN UNIUNEA ROMANILOR CU POPULATIA AUTOHTONA DIN ACEST TERITORIU, ocupaind in mare acelasi teritoriu pe care il ocupa Romania de azi. Se pare ca aceasta uniune nu a fost completa atunci cind legiunile romane s-au retras la sfirsitul secolului 3 in fata invaziilor barbare. Nici una sau doar citeva institutii romane au ramas dupa retragere, desi Crestinismul, introdus de catre Romani, a inceput sa capete aderanti in secolul 2. Retragerea ROMANA A LASAT PE ROMINI, PARTIAL CRESTINATI, SA FACA FATA INVAZIILOR BARBARE.
Mileniul urmator este cel mai obscur din istoria Romaniei. In secolul 6, triburi slave s-au asezat acolo. In secolele 7 si 8, Bulgarii au ajuns acolo si s-au asezat la sud de Dunare. La sfirsitul secolului 9, invadatorii unguri au intrat in multe parti din Romania si in timpul celei de a 2-a jumatati a secolului 13 ei si-au impus suveranitatea peste Valahia si Moldova care ERAU ORGANIZATE CA PROVINCII SEMI-AUTONOME. Unii istorici sustin ca populatia originala Daco-Romana a fost distrusa in intregime in timpul invaziilor, altii sustin ca MAJORITATEA DACO-ROMANILOR AU SUPRAVIETUIT INVAZIILOR SI SUNT STRAMOSII ACTUALILOR ROMINI."
Enciclopedia italiana "Il Modulo", 1976, vol. 21, pag. 481, col. 3 scrie :"POPORUL ROMAN DESCINDE DIN TRACII CARE LOCUIAU IN ACEA REGIUNE IN TIMPUL ROMANILOR; Rominii sunt numiti si Valahi si limba lor e clasificata printre limbile romanice."
"Dictionario da Lingua Portuguesa", Portugalia, 1975, pag. 1256, col. 1 :"ROMANIA - ARIE GEOGRAFICA A POPOARELOR DE CIVILIZATIE LATINA; arie geografica a limbilor romanice. Romania, tara Rominilor (din lat. Romanu)."
"New Catholic Encyclopedia", SUA, 2003, vol. 12, pag. 329, col. 2 :"Romania isi ARE RADACINILE IN ANTICA PROVINCIE ROMANA DACIA. DESI UN POPOR LATIN, majoritatea Rominilor au adoptat sub influenta invadatorilor bulgari traditia bizantina care a evoluat mai tirziu in Biserica Ortodoxa Romina."
Dupa ce am asternut aceste citate din enciclopedii "internationale" - la crearea enciclopediilor isi unesc eforturile foarte multi specialisti din toate domeniile pentru a da nastere unei culegeri de informatii concentrate in zeci de volume, zeci de mii de pagini -, acum voi continua cu citate din diferiti autori maghiari si "internationali", in speranta ca vei cunoaste o mica parte din ADEVARUL ascuns voua, maghiarilor, de acele minti bolnave care viseaza cai mici de stepa pe pereti si ii aseaza in mintile voastre unde cam suiera vintul ca la el acasa…adica prin stepa (pusta).
Propozitia "(re)torna (torna) fratre" - formula din secolul 6, citata de cronicarul bizantin Theophanes Confessor in "Chronography" (si de Teophylactos Simokattes, un secol mai devreme) - reprezinta cel mai vechi text rominesc cunoscut; cronicarul mentioneaza aceste 3 cuvinte ca fiind spuse de un soldat , in limba sa natala - romina veche), in timpul unei campanii militare in 587 d.C. El cerea unui camarad sa-si anuleze avintul, ceea ce a fost inteles de ceilalti ca un semnal de retragere; putem remarca grija cronicarului pentru detalii si de a pastra o informatie istorica veche :"un anume animal de povara a facut sa se miste incarcatura pe care un camarad a pus-o inapoi in timp ce striga in limba parintilor sai : (romina contemporana :"Intoarce-te frate!"). Si stapinul animalului nu l-a auzit strigind, dar restul armatei da, si gindind ca inamicii vin, ei au inceput sa fuga strigind :< Torna, torna! >".
Lucrarea "Strategykon" a lui Maurikios si "Acta s. Demetrii/Faptele Sfintului Demetriu" mentioneaza existenta elementului roman la nordul Dunarii la inceputul secolului 8 precum si limba lui latina (vezi de asemenea Linn White jr. in "Tecnica e societa nel medioevo" / "Tehnica si societatea in Evul Mediu", Milano, 1967, p. 34, si "Urbicius sau Mauricius" de Alphonse Dain in "Revue des études byzantines/Revista de studii bizantine", XXVI, 1968, p. 123 -136; "Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca", de J. P. Migne, vol. 116, col. 109, 531, 1361; Priscus in "Excerpta", ed. Bonn, p. 190, 206; "Historiae" a lui Theophylactus Somocatta, II, 15, ed. Bonn, p. 99).
Printre multe documente islamice despre Europa Orientala si de sud-est, se afla "Bijuteria Istoriilor" de geograful persan Gardizi, scrisa in 1049-1053 (dupa A. Decei) sau in 1094 (dupa V. Minorsky). Gardizi, descrie realitatea etnica si politica a Europei de Est, unde mentioneaza :"o natiune din Imperiul Roman (az Rum); si ei sunt toti crestini…si ei sunt mai numerosi decit maghiarii…" (vezi V. Minorsky in "Hudud al Alam", London, 1938, Gibb Memorial Series).
O balada normanda afirma ca normanzii (danezii, stabiliti in nord-vestul Frantei) isi au originea la "mult marele fluviu Dunare…numiti Dani, care erau anticii Daci…"
Ou de Danube un flum mult grant, Unde Dunarea, un fluviu mult grandios
K'Ester claiment, cler e luisant, Care este ?, clar si luminos,
Ki le regnes vait devisant, Care domina ?…?….
A cele part torne en corant La acea parte intoarce alergind
Furent cil apele Dani, Fura deci numiti Danezi,
Ki esteient ancieis Daci… Care erau anticii Daci…
Aici vreau neaparat sa fac urmatoarea remarca : NU vorbesc latina, NU vorbesc franceza veche, NU vorbesc normanda si cu toate acestea INTELEG FOARTE MULT DIN ACEST TEXT SCRIS IN NORMANDA (veche), aceasta fiind un dialect…latin…ceea ce inseamna ca se aseamana cu ROMINA…Am scris in partea dreapta traducerea mea, repet "a mea", bazata numai pe cunostintele de limba romina si franceza.Probabilitatea de ma insela in traducere este foarte mica !
"Cronica lui Nestor" sau "Povestea vremurilor de demult", prima cronica ruseasca scrisa pe la 1000 sau 1111 d.C. povesteste cum maghiarii s-au luptat cu rominii in Pannonia.
Generalul bizantin Kekaumenos atesta in scrierile sale (cca. 1090) ca valahii existau in Transilvania inaintea sosirii maghiarilor acolo.
Istoricul maghiar Koracsonyi Janos sustine acest fapt.
Acelasi vechi Anonymus, prietenul rominilor; daca el nu ar fi scris "Gesta Hungarorum / Faptele ungurilor/Magyar Helikon", am fi avut o DOVADA SCRISA a existentei noastre mai putin ! Iata-i textul :"Caci spuneau ca acolo curg cele mai renumite izvoare de ape, Dunarea si Tisa (Tyscia - in original) si alte prea vestite ape, pline cu peste bun. Ca aceasta tara o locuiesc Sclavii, Bulgarii si BLACHII, adica PASTORII ROMANILOR. Fiindca, dupa moartea regelui Athila, pamintul Pannoniei Romanii ii ziceau ca este pasune, fiindca turmele lor pasteau in tara Pannoniei. SI CU DREPT CUVINT SE SPUNEA CA PAMINTUL PANONIEI AR FI PASUNILE ROMANILOR, FIINDCA SI ACUM ROMANII PASC PE MOSIILE UNGARIEI." - capitolul 9/Despre pacea dintre duce si ruteni/Beke a vezer es az oroszok kozott/De pace inter ducem et ruthenos, pag. 9 in original; ung. :"Mondtak ugyanis, hogy ott nagyon nevezetes forrasvizek omlenekossze : a Duna, a Tisza es pompas halakban bovelkedo egyeb nevezetes forrasok. Azt a foldet - mondtak - szlovenel (Sclavi - in original; nu stiu de ce maghiarii au tradus cuvintul "Slavi" prin "Sloveni"), bolgarok, blachok es a romaiak pasztorai lakjak. Ugyanis Attila kiraly halala utan a romaiak Pannonia foldjenlegeloknek hivtak azert, mivel a nyajaik Pannonia foldjen legeltek. Es joggal mondhattak Pannonia foldjerol, hogy az a romaiak legeloje, hiszen eppen most is a romaiak legelnek Magyarorszag javaibol."
Pag. 21 in original, capitolul 24/Despre tara Ultrasilvana/Az erdontuli fold :"…dupa ce a prins sa afle de la locuitori despre bunatatea TARII DE DINCOLO DE PADURI, unde domnia o avea un oarecare BLAC Gelou,…", ung.:"tudomast szerzett az ott lakoktol az ERDONTULI FOLD JOSAGAROL, ahol valami Gyulu nevu BLAK uralkodott."
Acesta este pasajul unde Anonymus boteaza Transilvania ca "tara de dincolo de paduri" (Terre Ultrasiluane = Tara Ultrasilvana). De la sfirsitul secolului XII s-a introdus denumirea de Transilvania in loc de Ultrasilvania.
Precum ne spune maghiarul Anonymus, NOI ERAM ACOLO !!! cind ungurii au venit sa ne FURE tara !!! VLAHII ERAU ACOLO !! OLAHII ERAU ACOLO !!…si peste NOI domnea Gelu !
Pag. 21 in original, capitolul 25/Despre prevederea lui Tuhutum/Teteny okossaga :"…si ca LOCUITORII DIN ACEA TARA SUNT…BLACHI si Sclavi…si ducele lor Geleou…", ung.:"Megpedig azert, mivel blaszok es szlovenek…a vezeruk, Gyalu,…"
Capitolul 26/Cum s-au dus in contra lui Gelu/Hogyan mentek Gyalu ellen, pag. 22 in original :"…si a plecat peste paduri, spre rasarit, in contra lui GELOU, DUCELE BLACHILOR. IAR GELOU, DUCELE ULTRASILVAN,…", ung.:"…es hatrahagyva tarsait, nekiindult az erdokon tulra kelet fele Gyalu blak vezer ellen. Jovetelet hallva pedig Gyalu,…"
Capitolul 44/Despre insula Dunarii/A Duna szigete, pag. 34 in original :"…pina ce TOTI LOCUITORII DIN ACEA PATRIE, DE LA MURES PINA LA FLUVIUL TIMIS,…Si cind au voit sa treaca peste fluviul Timis, le-a IESIT INAINTE GLAD,…", ung.:"Innen tovabbvonulva a bogei reszekre jutottak. Ott ket hetig maradtak, amig annak a hazanak osszes lakossagat a Marostol a Temes folyoig meghoditottak,…Midon at akartak kelni a Temes folyon, ellenuk jott annak a hazanak a vezere, Galad,…"
Capitolul 46/Despre portul Moger/A Magyar-rev, pag. 36 in original :"Dupa trecerea Dunarii si-au asezat tabara linga Dunare, pina la Apele Calde de Sus. Si auzind aceasta, toti Romanii care locuiau in Pannonia…", ung.:"Mikor odaat voltak, tabort utottek a Duna mellett a felhevizekig. Ennek hallatara a Pannonia foldjen lako osszes romaiak…"
Capitolul 50/Despre devastarea Pannoniei/Pannonia elpusztitasa, pag. 39 in original :"…au trimis o armata impotriva lui Menumorut, ducele din Byhor,…", ung.:"…sereget kuldte Men-Marot bihari vezer elle."
Un secol dupa Kekaumenos (cca. 1200), cronicarul bizantin Kynnamos, descrie pe rominii de la nordul Dunarii, el luind parte alaturi de comandantul imperial Leon Vatatzes intr-o campanie militara impotriva ungurilor in 1167 : "se spune ca ei sunt colonistii sositi cu mult timp in urma din Italia" (in original: "qui Italorum coloni quondam fuisse perhibentur"). Vezi de asemenea Ioannes Cinnamus in "Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum", VI, ed. Bonn, p. 260.
Cronicarul englez Ranulphus Higden (1280-1363) in lucrarea sa "Polychronicon" (tiparita mult mai tirziu, in 1865, in Londra) la pag. 172, descriind Pannonia, releva detaliul ca locuitorii tarii au fost impinsi de catre noii veniti - ungurii (vezi de asemenea Fest Sandor in "Anonymus angol forrasai/Sursele engleze ale lui Anonymus" in "Egyetemes Philologiai Kozlony", 1935).
Despre existenta Rominilor/Romanilor in Pannonia scria si cronicarul francez Odo de Deogilo (Deuil) care-l insotea pe regele Ludovic VII in Cruciada II (1147) in "De Ludovici VII profectione in Oriente" in "Monumenta Germaniae Historica", Scriptores, XXVI, p. 60, 62. Vezi si J.P. Migne in "Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina". CLXXXV, col. 1213).
Calugarul dominican Ricardus in 1237 scria despre calatoria camaradului sau Iulian in tinuturile Tatarilor, in "Ungaria Magna": "Qui (sc. Septem duces cum populis suis) cum multa regna pertransissent et destruxissent, tandem venerunt in terram, que nunc Ungaria dicitur, tunc vero DICEBATUR PASCUA ROMANORUM" (vezi "De facto Ungariae magne a fratre Riccardo invento tempore domini Gregorii pape noni", I, 2, sau pe Heinrich Dorrie in "Drei Texte zur Geschichte der Ungarn und Mongolen. Die Missionsreisen des fr. Iulianus O.P. ins Ural-Gebiet (1234/35) und nach Russland (1237) und der Bericht des Erzbischofs Peter uber die Tartaren", in "Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen", Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1956, no. 6, p. 151).
Precum si Thomas de Spalato in 1245, apud "896 e.n. Mogyoria = Ungaria - Magyarorszag ", pag. 39, Venetia, Centrul European de Cercetari si Studii Istorice.
Cronicarul maghiar Simon din Keza scria in cronica sa "Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum/Faptele Hunilor si Ungurilor" unde el accentueaza pe originea latina a rominilor si continuitatea elemnetului roman :"Pannonie, Panfilie, Macedonie, Dalmacie et Frigie ciuitates, que crebris spoliis et obsidionibus per Hunos erant fatigate, natali solo derelicto in Apuliam per mare Adriaticum de Ethela licentia impetrata, transierunt, Blackis, qui ipsorum (Romanorum) fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia"; "Postquam autem filii Ethele in prelio Crumheld cum gente Scitica fere quasi deperissent, Pannonia extitit X annis sine rege, Sclavis tantummodo, Grecis, Teutonicis, Messianis et Ulahis remanentibus in eadem, qui uiuente Ethela populari seruicio sibi seruiebant" (vezi pe Szentpetery in "Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum", I, p. 156-157, 163).
Citate din cronica lui Simon din Keza pot fi gasite in "Chronicon pictum" (1358) unde se scrie de asemena despre romini :"....vlachis qui ipsorum coloni existere ac pastores remanentes sponte in Pannonia" - capitolul 6, "Fugat nationes" si din secolul 15 in cronicile tirzii "Chronicon Posoniense", "Chronicon Dubnicense" si "Chronicon Budense".
Alta sursa este "Descriptio Europae Orientalis/Descrierea Europei Estice" scrisa in 1308 de catre un scriitor anonim francez. Lucrarea este conceputa ca un raport catre Carol Robert de Anjou, atunci pretendent la coroana Ungariei, si Charles de Valois, ca pretendent la tronul Imperiului Bizantin. Rominii sunt descrisi ca fiind descendentii romanilor :"Notandum (est hic) quod inter machedoniam, achayam et thesalonicam est populus ualde magnus et spatiosus qui uocantur blazi, qui et olim fuerunt romanorum pastores, ac in Ungaria ubi earnt pascua romanorum propter nimiam terre uiriditatem et fertilitatem olim morabantur. Sed tandem ab ungaris inde expulsi, ad partes illas fugierunt; habundant enim caseis optimis, lacte et carnibus super omnes nationes...". Astfel el sugereaza ca descendentii romanilor au gasit refugiu in Transilvania unde au si ramas. (vezi si postfata lui O. Gorka la prima editie a "Anonymi descriptio Europae Orientalis", Krakow, 1916).
Una dintre cele mai sincere dovezi a existentei rominilor in Transilvania este cunoscuta lucrare "Nibelungenlied/Cintul Nibelungilor", o detaliata cronica a societatii medievale germane (o lucrare similara "Cintului lui Roland" sau "El Cide"), unde rominii sunt pomeniti ca un popor bine conturat, ca descendenti ai romanilor, a carei origine este personificata prin numele conducatorilor lor, Ramunc, care a sosit la nunta lui Attila cu un corp militar de 700 de luptatori : "Der herzoge Ramunc uzer Vlachen lant, / mit siben hundert mannen kom er fur si gerannt" - "Ducele Ramunc, conducatorul Valahilors, a venit imediat la ei cu 700 de oameni", (vezi si "Der Nibelunge not", XII, ed. K. Lachmann, Berlin, 1878, p. 174; Francis P. Magoun jr. cu "Geographical and Ethnic Names in the Nibelungenlied", p. 129-130; Fritz Schuster cu "Herzog Ramunc aus dem Walachenland", in "Sudost-Forschungen", XI, 1946-1952, p. 284-290).
Poggio Bracciolini (1380 - 1459) este primul umanist italian care scrie despre originea romana a rominilor in lucrarea sa "Disceptationes convivales", 1451 :"Apud superiores Sarmatas colonia est ab Traiano ut aiunt derelicta, quae nunc etiam inter tantam barbariem multa retinet latina vocabula, ab Italis, qui eo profecti sunt, notata. Oculum di****, digitum, manum, panem, multaque alia quibus apparet ab Latinis, qui coloni ibidem relicti fuerunt, manasse eamque coloniam fuisse latino sermone usam". (vezi Mariano Baffi cu "La romanita della Romania e gli umanisti italiani", in "L'Osservatore Romano", no. 256 (32633), 5 November 1967, p. 6).
Secretar apostolic si faimos umanist italian, Flavio Biondo (1392 - 1463), afirma si el originea noastra romana intr-un apel catre regii Europei la cresterea pericolului expansiunii turcesti :"…Et qui e regione Danubio item adiacent Ripenses Daci, sive Valachi, originem, quam ad decus prae se ferunt praedicantque Romanam, loquela ostendunt, quos catholice christianos Roman quotannis et Apostolorum limina invisentes, aliquando gavisi sumus ita loquentes audiri, ut, quae vulgari communique gentis suae more di****, rusticam male grammaticam redoleant latinitatem" (vezi F. Gilbert cu "Biondo, Sabellico and the beginnings of Venetian official historiography", in "Florilegium historiale").
In 1426, Rinaldo degli Albizzi, ambasadorul florentin la curtea regelui Ungariei, enumera natiunile care traiau in Europa de Est :"Locuiesc in Sclavonia (azi Slovenia) care au paminturi si orase raspindite, si mai intii : ungurii, germanii, valahii, slavii care au o limba strict latina", lat :"Lingue in Schiavonia, che hanno terre e ville di per se, et prima: Unghari, Tedeschi, Chiavi, Vallachi habent quasi Romanam linguam..." (vezi V. Makuscev cu "Monumenta historica Slavorum meridionalium vicinorumque populorum e tabulariis et bibliothecis Italicis", I/1, Warszaw, 1874, p. 530).
Papa Pius II 1458 - 1464 (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini) scria in secolul 15, in "Historia rerum ubique gestarum locorumque descriptio" :"Valachi genus Italicum sunt ("VALAHII SUNT ITALIENI"- ATENTIE ! cit de apropiate sunt cele 2 limbi, romina si latina), si daca Valahii sunt Italieni, atunci, prin analogie, Valahii sunt Romani, caci Italienii sunt descendentii Romanilor…Ai inteles sau este mult prea greu pentru tine, mai Kiraly bacs ?), quemadmodum paulopost referemus."; "Postremo Romanis armis subacti ac deleti sunt. Et coloniam Romanorum quae duces coercet eo deducta, duce quodam Flacco, a quo Flaccia nuncupata. Exin longo temporis tractu corrupto, ut sit vocabulo Valachia dicta. Et pro Flaciis Valachi appellati. Sermo adhuc genti romanus est, quamuis magna ex parte mutatus, et homini Italico uix intelligibilis".
Si in lucrarea "Commentarium rerum memorabilium", papa Pius II isi exprima aceiasi opinie :"Valachi lingua utuntur Italica, verum imperfecta, et admodum corrupta; sunt qui legiones Romanas eo missas olim censeant adversus Dacos, qui eas terras incolebant; legionibus Flaccum quendam praefuisse, a quo Flacci primum, deinde Valachi, mutatis litteris, sint apellatti; quorum posteri (ut ante relatum est) barbariores barbaris evasere"- descrierea sa despre valahi a fost inserata mai tirziu in "Cronica de la Nurnberg" de Hartmann Schedel, aparuta in 1493 in latina si in acelasi an in germana sub titlul "Buch der Chroniken".
Acelasi papa scria :"Valachi insulas Istri accolunt, inter quas Peucen apud veteris fama notam; in Thracia quoque seda habent." = "Valahii locuiesc in insulele Dunarii, in particular insula Peuce (undeva in Delta Dunarii); de asemenea si in Tracia." In secolul 15 el numea inca zona Bulgariei ca fiind TRACIA; de altfel, ea se numeste astfel si azi, fiind o provincie in Bulgaria de azi. Tot el mentiona ca regele Matei Corvin Huniade din Ungaria, era de origine Romin.
Antonius Bonifinius, secretarul regelui Ungariei Matei Corvin scria :"Valahii din Transilvania sunt descendentii directi ai legionarilor si colonistilor care s-au stabilit in Dacia la ordinele imparatului Traian; limba lor, care seamana cu italiana, o dovedeste."
Catre sfirsitul secolului 16, geograful italian Giovanni Antonio Magini exprima si el opinia ca Rominii sunt de origine latina si ca sunt descendentii vechilor colonisti chemati de imparatul Traian in Dacia lui Decebal. - "Geographiae Universae tum veteris, tum novae absolutissimum opus…",1597, Colonia.
Istoricul sas Johann Troester scria in "Das alt und neu teutsche Dacia…",1666, Nurnberg, Cartea IV, capitolul IV :"Moldova, Valahia si Transilvania nu sunt altceva decit ramasitele legiunilor romane, pe care imparatul Aurelian le-a retras, asa cum am mentionat deja…Cind Aurelian nu a mai fost capabil sa stapineasca invazia Gotilor in Dacia si a fost obligat sa-si retraga legiunile, ACEI COLONISTI ROMANI AU RAMAS SUB DOMINATIA GOTILOR; si cum ei s-au amestecat cu diferiti alti oameni, numarul a crescut incit ei au ocupat atit Valahia cit si Moldova…Oricit ar fi de umilitoare conditiile in care ROMINII sunt fortati sa traiasca in Transilvania, EI SUNT UN PROTOTIP ASEMANATOR ANTICILOR ROMANI; privindu-i atent, oricine respecta trecutul si face un studiu al faptelor se poate convinge singur de acestea.
Totul inclina sa dovedeasca ca Rominii nu pot fi altcineva decit descendentii acelora pe care Horatiu ii descrie in a 3-a carte a odelor :
Sed rusticorum mascula militum
Proles, Sabellis docta ligonibus
Versare glebas et severae
Matris ad arbitrium recisos
Portare fustes…"
J. Thumann scria in "Untersuchungen uber die Geschichte der oestlichen europaischen Volker", Leipzig, 1774 :"Sub ocupatia romana, ei (Rominii) au adoptat limba si obiceiurile romanilor; si cind Caracalla i-a numit cetateni romani, ei au luat numele de romini.
Este imposibil sa acceptam ideea ca imparatul Aurelian a transferat toti locuitorii Daciei peste Dunare; in mod firesc, un mare numar a ramas intr-o tara asa de mare si muntoasa.
Invazia maghiarilor din 896 i-a gasit in Transilvania si in acea parte a Ungariei situate linga Dunare.
Valahii ocupau demult Valahia si Moldova."
Amedee Thierry nota :"Valahii lasau ca timpul sa-i scape de stapinii vremelnici si perpetuau in mijlocul barbarilor de toate rasele, resturile unei vechi civilizatii."
Istoricul maghiar Huszti Andras ne aduce si el o frumoasa dovada a romanitatii noastre in "O es Uj Dacia, azaz Erdelynek regi mostani allapotjarol valo Historia / Dacia antica si noua, adica istoria adevarata a situatiei Transilvaniei din vechime si de acum", Viena - Bestben, 1791, pag. 131 :"Nici o alta natiune nu are o limba care sa fie atit de aproape de limba antica a romanilor decit Valahii. Aceasta este o dovada sigura care nu poate insela, caci ei sunt in Transilvania descendentii anticilor colonisti romani."
Patriotul maghiar, baronul Wesselenyi spunea in Ansamblul General din Cluj in 1843 :"Nu trebuie sa refuzam a-i numi pe numele lor de Romini, caci EI SUNT INTR-ADEVAR DESCENDENTII ROMANILOR."
Francezul A. de Gerando, ginerele contelui ungur Teleki Emerik, senior de Szek scrie in "La Transilvanie et ses habitants", Paris, 1845 :"Valahii sunt in Transilvania cei mai vechi locuitori ai pamintului…"
Primul ministru al Austriei, contele von Fickelmont scria in 1852 :"Toti trebuie mai intii sa ne intrebam daca maghiarii au fost chemati de catre istoria lor, de numarul lor si de stadiul lor de civilizatie sa joace un rol independent, rol dorit in relatia cu Imperiul Austriac si sa ceara suprematia pe care au uzurpat-o altor natiuni, CARE INAINTEA LOR CU SECOLE AU OCUPAT ACELE VASTE TERITORII si carora ei le-au dat numele lor prin forta armelor.
E. A. Blitz nota despre autohtonia rominilor in Transilvania :"Indiferent de ce s-ar dori, este totusi cert faptul ca trebuie sa-i consideram pe valahi nu numai ca pe cei mai numerosi, dar si ca pe CEI MAI VECHI DINTRE ACTUALII LOCUITORI AI TRANSILVANIEI." - in "Handbuch der Landeskunde Siebenburgen. Eine physikalisch-statistisch-topographische Beschreibung dieses Landes", Sibiu, 1857, pag. 139-140.
Iosif al II-lea, imparatul Imperiului Habsburgic, scria despre valahi :"Acesti saraci, supusi romini, care sunt fara indoiala cei mai vechi si mai numerosi locuitori ai Transilvaniei…"
Edouard Sayons scria in volumul "L'Histoire des Hongrois/Istoria ungurilor", 1874, Paris, pag. 59 :"…abila argumentare a domnului Roesler este departe de a fi convingatoare…" - aluzie la "teoria lui Roesler" precum ca rominii au venit in Transilvania dupa maghiari.
Alt istoric maghiar, Paul Hunfalvy (care de fapt era german sau evreu maghiarizat si un anti-romin notoriu) scria in secolul 19 :"Stramosii actualilor Romini niciodata nu au incetat, inca din timpurile lui Traian, sa traiasca in vechea Dacie, adica Transilvania, Moldova si Valahia; in consecinta, locuitorii ROMINI AI ACESTOR TARI SUNT DESCENDENTII DIRECTI AI COLONISTILOR STABILITI DE TRAIAN IN DACIA." - in "Neuere Erscheinungen der rumanischen Geschichtsschreibung", Viena, 1886, pag. 9 - 10.
Julius Jung scria in "Die romanische Landschaften des romischen Reiches", Innsbruck, 1881, pag. 480-481 :"…cea mai buna solutie in problema privind originea rominilor este sa admitem CONTINUITATEA POPORULUI ROMIN IN DACIA lui Traian, la sud de ea si in peninsula balcanica."
Germanul Traugott Tamm ne ofera si opinia sa despre originea rominilor in "Uber den Ursprung der Rumanen. Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie Sud-Ost Europas", Bonn, 1891, pag. 85-86 :"ROMINII LOCUIESC SI AZI ACOLO UNDE LOCUIAU STRABUNII LOR ACUM 17 SECOLE; popoarele au venit unul dupa altul si au dominat provinciile Dunarii de Jos, - dar niciunul nu a putut distruge existenta nationala a rominilor. "Apa trece, pietrele ramin" spune un proverb rominesc."
Evreul irlandez Bram Stoker ne spune si el cartea sa "Dracula" (1897), care a cucerit lumea cu elucubratiile despre Vlad Tepes :"Acolo sunt 4 nationalitati distincte : Saxonii in sud,…VALAHII, CARE SUNT DESCENDENTII DACILOR; Maghiarii in vest, si Secuii in est si nord…care sustin ca descend din Attila si huni".
Ziaristul sovin Bekists Gustav scria in "Budapesti Hirlap" din 18 mai 1904 :"…tocmai agitatorii DACO-ROMANI si slovacii cunosc cit se poate de bine limba maghiara." - cu alte cuvinte si el considera ca ROMINII SUNT VECHII DACO-ROMANII !
In lucrarea istoricilor maghiari Patcsery Karoly si Denes Karoly intitulata "Magyarorszag tortenete", Budapesta, 1911, este alcatuita o harta care arata ducatele lui Menumorut, Gelu si Glad in teritoriile ce astazi formeaza Maramuresul, Crisana, Banatul si Transilvania.
"Nici un argument valid nu poate contrazice afirmatia ca cei care au construit tumulii funerari din Moldova datind din Epoca Pietrei, sunt aceiasi cu cei numiti de istoricii antici "Daci" sau "Geti" - Eug. Pittard in "Studiu despre indicele cefalic in Romania cu un eseu de repartitie geografica al acestui caracter", 1927, pag. 92.
Istoricul britanic R.W. Seaton-Watson scria in "A History of the Romanians / O Istorie a Rominilor", Archon Books, 1963, pag. 427 :"Rominii, este sigur s-o spunem, sunt Dacii romanizati,…".
Senatorul si publicistul maghiar Dr. S. Laszlo Fenyes, care a fost expulzat din Ungaria pentru ca a scris aceasta carte, carte care a fost (poate inca mai este) interzisa in tara "civilizatilor" maghiari, "doritori de adevar", ne spune la pag. 79 din "Ungaria revizionista" :"Ciobanii romini predominau in Carpati si nordul Ungariei inca din secolul 12; IN TRANSILVANIA EI AU CONTINUAT SA EXISTE CU SECOLE INAINTE."
In "Ardealul, pamint rominesc", pag. 144, autorul american Milton G. Lehrer scria :"In muntii impaduriti si in cetatile de pe coline au rezistat populatiile pasnice din Dacia Traiana invaziilor care s-au succedat in decursul veacurilor. Acolo s-a zamislit insasi fiinta neamului rominesc."
La pag. 250 putem citi :"…care nu se putea realiza decit prin desfiintarea nationalitatilor conlocuitoare si in special prin desfiintarea viguroasei si atit de numeroasei NATIONALITATI ROMINESTI CARE DESCINDEA DIN LEGIONARII LUI TRAIAN SI DIN DACII LUI DECEBAL."
La Congresul International de Antropologie din 1939, specialistii au ajuns la urmatoarea concluzie :"Conform compozitiei singelui lor, LOCUITORII ROMANIEI SUNT GRUPATI IN JURUL UNUI CERC ROMAN CARE ESTE PREDOMINANT IN ZONA MUNTOASA A TRANSILVANIEI, si care este bogat in elemente europene. La un anumit grad, aceste elemente indica o descendenta comuna cu alte populatii latine din Europa. Aceste elemente sunt gasite in toate tarile care au fost parte integranta din anticul Imperiu Roman."
Antropologul Hirschfeld sustine conform "indicatorului biologic" urmatoarele :"DIN PUNCT DE VEDERE AL COMPOZITIEI SINGELUI ROMINILOR, se gasesc legaturi cu natiunile germanice SI LATINE din vestul Europei de o parte, si cu Slavii de cealalta parte; ROMINII SUNT TOTAL DIFERITI DE LOCUITORII BALCANILOR."
"Burebista, care era de origine getica…" - "Romania" de Romulus Seisanu, pag. 12. Trebuie sa fac aici un comentariu deoarece ai scris intr-unul din mesajele tale ca Burebista era…Grec. Eroare ! In mod evident tu nu esti familiarizat cu popoarele antice, si nici cu stramosii maghiarilor de altfel. In antichitate, in Peninsula Balcanica traiau doar 3 mari familii de popoare : Grecii, Tracii si Illyrii. DACII si GETII (sau DACO-GETII) ERAU TRACI ! Tracii erau diferiti de Greci ! Asa cum Grecii erau diferiti de Illyri sau Illyrii de Traci. Ai inteles ? E grea istoria Europei cind nu esti european si ai venit ieri din strafundurile Asiei calare pe caluti micuti, nu-i asa ?! Pentru noi e simpla, deoarece noi traim aici de mii de ani ! Fiecare piatra ne cunoaste, fiecare riu ne sopteste pe limba noastra, iara voua…straini va sunt !
Romanistul german E. Gamillscheg afirma :"DACO-ROMANII, ADICA ROMINII, CONTINUA FARA INTRERUPERE PE VECHII COLONISTI AI IMPARATULUI TRAIAN." in "Despre originea rominilor", Bucuresti, 1940, pag. 3.
Arheologul american Paul MacKendrick scria in "The Mute Stones Speak - the Story of Archaelogy in Italy", 1979 :"Retragerea romana din 271 d.C., ordonata de Aurelian, a insemnat evacuarea administratiei si a proprietarilor de paminturi. DACII AU RAMAS. Eu fusesera deja romanizati, si romanizarea a continuat pina in ziua de azi. Dupa ce armata si administratia romane s-au retras, autohtonii au continuat sa vorbeasca latina, care sta inca la bazele limbii romine."
Maghiarul Paul Schveiger (probabil evreu) scria in "Hungarian Studies/Studii maghiare", 1989, Akademiai Kiado, Budapesta :"contactele lingvistice acopera intregul teritoriu al Transilvaniei si o importanta parte a actualului teritoriu ungar…"
Ghidul turistic "Romania si Moldova" , 2001 in Editura Lonely Planet (Australia) de autorii Nicola Williams si Kim Wildman ne spune la pag. 324-325 :"Maramures, acum parte integranta din Transilvania, imparte aceiasi istorie ca si vecinul sau de la sud; marea diferenta fiind ca Dacia maramuresana nu a fost niciodata cucerita de romani, dobindind astfel titlul de "tara Dacilor liberi".
Maramures, avind capitala la Baia-Mare, a fost documentat prima data in 1199. Ungaria si-a extins gradat stapinirea peste aceasta regiune incepind cu secolul 13.
Maramuresul a fost anexat de Transilvania la jumatatea secolului 16, apoi cedat Imperiului Austriac in 1699. Nu a fost returnat Romaniei decit in 1918."
Daca consideri ca titlurile, autorii, citatele prezentate aici nu sunt de ajuns pentru a sparge gheata ce-ti acopera mintea, atunci bibliotecile si Internetul ofera o imensitate de dovezi de acest gen. Important este sa VREI sa STII !

ACESTIA AM FOST SI SUNTEM NOI ! NOI STIM CINE SUNTEM ! NOI AVEM ISTORIE !

by Dan(c)

Materialul l-am preluat de pe un site si mi se pare ca avand cele mai pertinente afirmatii cu surse veridice privind originea dacica a românilor din Transilvania. Din pacate o varianta in engleza nu am ci una relativ asemanatoare la urmatorul link:

http://www.geocities.com/amadgearu/notary.html

The link above may say everything about the origins of the romanians in Transylvania and the fact that it was inhabited by the Daco-Getae before and after the Hungarian Conquest.

You started your own post... So so much writing and links . I must really have upset you , truth and reality sometimes are upsetting . Whoever decides to read all this **** .....I hope they enjoy it . LOL

At least we are trying to defend our history, and ,WOW, based on your own books! Don't be so ignorants. Your books talk about US, Romanians!!!

Anti- Nazi and others you make me and Romanians look very bad with all your arguing . You must except the fact hungarians made a significant contribution in the developement of transylvania

And I really "except" it as you say it, Florian. I accept it, but do they accept us.?

At least one Roman has some sense.. Hey Nico , read your propaganda more closely ,There were no Romanians or Romania in the middle ages , only migratory Vlachs , Romania was invented only 150yrs ago . Give it a millenia and if it still exists it can compare itself to the history of Hungary .

Maybe the name of the Country would have been "invented" 150 yrs ago, but the population that inhabited it was definitely not invented.

"There were no Romanians or Romania in the middle ages"
---

Most Vlachs called them selves Ruman, or Aruman; all except the Megleno-Romanians who actually do call them selves Vlachs.

Moldavians later identified them selves as Moldavians only, yet it was known to them that they were "Ruman". Wallachians to the South usually refered to them selves as Ruman. Wallachia was called Tara Romanesca by the people who inhabited it; foreigners called it Wallachia.

So there...

And I still await your reply in that other thread named: Ungaro. :D

Wasn't the name for Erdely ... Tara Ungaresca

Yes... romanian in wallachia and moldavia called transilvania in the Dark Ages "Tara Ungureasca", because it was under Hungarian control

Yes... romanian in wallachia and moldavia called transilvania in the Dark Ages "Tara Ungureasca", because it was under Hungarian control

The Romanian name for Transilvania is Tara Codrilor,but we like to call it Transilvania because sounds better!

I am sure that "florian" is not a Romanian,he is a bozgor and I invite him to live my country!

bah nu trebuie sa inventezi un nume ca sa argumentezi prezenta romaneasca in transilvania.. ea a fost emonstrata cu dovezi mai puternice , si toata lumea stie ca Ardealul era numit tara ungureasca, mai ales dupa ce a devenit principat autonom in cadrul Imp Otoman... citeste si tu cronicarii moldoveni sa vezi...

Yes.... Transilvania is a good name , thats what MAGYAR named it , not vlachs .

Do you really have the copyright for it ? Ugaro, you're so stupid!

Read history books vlach moron , not biased vlach history though ..stupido

I've seen that link already... so you tell me ... who named it ?

The first time Transylvania is being mentioned is in Hungarian document from 11th century. It doesn't say who gave Transylvania its name but, we can assume that it was you.

It wasn't us, for sure. The real controversy lies in the origin of the name of Ardeal verses Erdely.

Erdely means beyond the forest. What does Ardeal mean? Is it or is it not a romanized but essentially magyar name??

Well, I'm not an expert on this subject, so I can't say. I'm just saying there's a controversy about the name Ardeal verses Erdely.



[quote]The names of Ardeal in Romanian and Erdély in Hungarian are believed to be linked one to another. The original source and meaning are disputed and claimed by both Romanians and Hungarians. The first form ever recorded was "Erdeuelu" in the 12th century Chronicles of Anonymus (Gesta Hungarorum), while the first Romanian form recorded was in 1432 as "Ardeliu".

The initial a/e difference between the names can be found in other words common to Romanian and Hungarian, such as agriº / egres (gooseberry).

The ending '-eal' in Romanian suggests that it was not borrowed in Romanian from Hungarian, because as we know from parallel examples, Hungarian '-ely' becomes '-ei' in Romanian (Hungarian 'Udvarhely'>Romanian 'Odorhei').

The actual meaning is yet unknown, there have been suggested several possible etymologies:

arde appears to be an Indo-European word meaning "forest" (akin to Forest of Arden, England and Belgian Ardennes Woods). However, there is also a Hungarian word erdõ, which also means "forest", but with a unknown etymology:

it could be that it was borrowed from the Indo-European (Celtic or Dacian) or derived from the Finno-Ugric word "Ered" which means to orginate or to grow. The word for "forest" could be akin to the Latin name of Transylvania.


deal means "hill" in Romanian, while arde means "to burn": it has been suggested that it could mean "the land of the burning hills" after the fires started by Romanian shepherds to warn the invaders of their presence.
ered is a known Indo-European root that meant 'high, steep'. From this root is the Latin word Arduus, meaning 'steep, towering, difficult to reach'. 'Ardeal' may also be from this root, referring to the high elevation.


Arderich, the king of the Germanic Gepids once ruled Transylvania in the 5th century and it is possible that the name of Arderich's land was passed on ever since.[/quote]

Erdely means nothing in hungarian.
Ardeal means nothing in romanian.
Transylvania means beyond the forest, but not Erdely/Ardeal.

Erdo... means forest, duhh duhh

And what does Vajdaszag mean? I'm very curious! lol

Look it up...do you know how ? Or do I have to teach you everything . LOL.

Well, well, well..The great and arrogant ignorance which easily found an abode into your soul keeps spreading the same wrong and lying thesis : “the Romanians didn’t exist before 1862”. If “Romania was invented only 150 yrs ago”, then a logical question comes up to my mind : Why did the “migratory Vlachs” chose “Romania” as a name for their new “invented” country ? Hmmmm..Did you get it ? The right answer is : just because we are Romans - Romanians for c. 1.800 years. As simple as that.
The Romanian historian Virgiliu Stefanescu-Draganesti writes in his book : ”The Roman Continuity in Roman Dacia. A Linguistic Evidence", page 43 :”No matter what, the Romanians never called themselves as Vlachs, being a word fabricated by the foreigners".
It’ll be a great surprise to you finding out that “Romania” exists long before the Hungarian invaders and destroyers of Europe arrived on our lands. So I ask you to stop your propaganda over the Internet and better grab some historical Atlases and books, leaving behind the 200-year Hungarian thesis which claims that we..didn’t exist, we just appeared from nowhere while you lived here for a “millennia”. A millennium ONLY !
You’re looking for me, well..you found me, Mr. “millennia”.
First of all I want you to know that your “millennia”-Hungary didn’t exist for as many years as you think. Of course, you are intoxicated with the Hungarian propaganda as well as the Westerners are, knowing that Hungary is spending annually 1.000.000.000 US$ to build up itself a positive image across the whole world (Why does Hungary need such a positive image into the world ? Maybe just because the Hungarians themselves did a lot to damage it during the last “millennia” ?! Hmm ? What do you think, you “millennia” man ?), and 400.000.000 US$ to denigrate Romania. It says a lot about what kind of people you are. “Good” people..oh, yeah..
As we all already know, the Hungarians arrived to Europe in 896 A.D. crossing the Carpathian Mountains into Pannonia – the land of the Pannonii (sometimes called Paeonii by the Greeks, they were an Illyrian tribe) as Nestor, the Russian chronicler wrote in “Tale of Bygone Years” or “The Russian Primary Chronicle” (“Povest’ vremennykh let”) – 1111 A.D. (compiled first time in Kiev in 1113) :”In the years 6396, 6397, 6398, 6400, 6401, 6402, 6403, 6404, 6405 and 6406 (that is 888 – 897 d.C.) the Hungarians have passed near Kyyiv (Kiev), close to the mountain which is still named Ugors Koie, and when they arrived on the shores of the river Dnepr, they set their tents, for THEY WERE NOMADS, as well as the Polovites (Kumans) until our days. Coming from east they rapidly passed the high mountains called the Mountains of the Ougris and started to fight against the Vlachs and Slavs who lived those countries..Later, the Hungarians chased away the VLACHS and took their lands and settled down on the same places with the Slavs who become their slaves. Since then that land is known as Hungary.”
Being “known as Hungary”, IT DOESN’T MEAN A HUNGARIAN STATE WAS FOUNDED at that time.
Another old chronicle mentions the same fact :”Because of the fruitfulness of the land and the great number of pastures, they (the Vlachs) lived in Hungary as the Romans’ shepherds. Later, being chased away by the Hungarians from those places,..The Vlachs country which is vast and extremely rich has been almost entirely occupied by the Prince Charles of Anjou’s army..” - “The Anonymous Chronicle” - 1308 (Manuscript Nr. 5.115 National Library, Paris, France, bearing the title of “Anonyme : Descriptio Europae orientalis. Empire de Constantinople, Albanie, Serbie, Bulgarie, Ruthenie, Pologne, Boheme. Annee MCCCVIII / Anonima”).
Once the Hungarians grabbed the autochthones (Vlachs included) lands, they started to do what they knew the best : “Climbing the mountain and seeing the beauty of Pannonia they become very happy. Leaving this place they arrived at Raba and Rabucea, and have plundered the people and the kingdoms of the Slavs and Pannonians and occupied their lands. They often did rides into the Moravian Carinthia territory where many thousands of people died from their swords; they demolished their fortresses, and took their lands.." – chapter 50 – About lay wasting Pannonia, pag. 39 in original “Gesta Hungarorum” by Anonymus.
Just a few lines later we can read :"..by the force of their arms, they got the autochthons’ earn. After they got some roots here, and after they have subjugated almost any neighbored kingdom.."
That’s the way the Hungarians started to build up a country stolen from the European autochthons whom they terrorized for about a century, from Romania to France, and from Italy to Germany. There was no question yet to think about building up a STATE in the understanding of what we know today. Their main goal was just to plunder, kill, rape and occupy new territories as Anonymus let us know in his monumental chronicle, the most important Hungarian proof of the Romanians’ presence inside the Carpathian Basin (Transylvania), the “Gesta Hungarorum” :”In that time, the Hungarians have nothing else in their mind just to occupy lands, subjugate people and to deal with warlike deeds.” – chapter 44 / About the Danube Island, pag. 35 in original.
For more then 200 years after their arrival in Europe, they lived the same life style as they did in Asia. The Hungarian Professor Ferenc (Franz) Eckhardt at the Budapestan University between the two world wars wrote in his book “La Hongrie et la Civilisation / Hungary and the Civilization” :”In the 12 century, the Hungarians still spent the summers in tents as they use to do it in their native country". Can we talk about a state, a country with borders and constant administration as regarding Hungary at that time ? Definitely NO ! Despite the fact that the Hungarians have a first king in the person of Saint Stephen I (997 – 1038; Chronicles say that his mother Sarolt used to wrote in “Moravian” letters = Cyrillic, alphabet adopted by the Romanians once with the Slavonic religious rite, and she baptized her son born in 969 IN HER OWN RITE AND LANGUAGE. His birth name was Voicu – Magyarized : Vajk (read as “Voik”), Vaik or Waic in the Latin texts, name which appears as late as the XV century in the Hungarian documents as a Romanian name “Vaik olachis" (Voicu the Vlach). Subsequently, being converted to Catholicism, he was RE-baptized as “Stephen” by the bishop Adalbert of Prague and Deodatus; see : http://talkaboutculture.com/group/soc.culture.magyar/messages/157165.html), and a territory occupied by them, known as “Hungary” by their victims. There was no question about having a country, a state and that is more clear since the Hungarian writer Kosutany Ignac states in his book "Nationality and Nationalism / Nemzetiseg es nationalsmus", Cluj, 1908, at page 18, when it comes to talk about the NATION CONCEPT :"sometime, during the 14, 15 and 16 centuries it was SO UNKNOWN that nor the most important figures of the Hungarian history, nor the Hungary’s kings were Hungarians by birth."
The Hungarian politician and historian Dr. S. Fenyes wrote in his book “Revisionist Hungary”, 1935, p. 37 : “That HUNGARY, consequently, WAS NEVER A STATE, but a sort of community with no defence, no finance, no external affairs, even no state matters, a community with no economic independence and initiative, with no state organization and no state administration; it follows that HUNGARY COULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED A STATE, and hence there is no way in which Hungary can be said to have been the bulwark of the defence of European civilization against the Turks after the year 1526; on the contrary, it was Hungary that brought the Turcks to Central Europe and helped them get established there. Neither did the “Hungarian nation” participate in the liberation of its territory from under the Ottoman yoke.”
Hey “millennia” man, did you read that “..Hungary..was never a state,..” ??? Read his book and find out more about the 1000-year Hungary ! The author was exiled from his own country by the “fair” Hungarian authorities because of the content of his book. THEY COULDN’T TAKE THE TRUTH !
But they love to claim having a country old as a “millennia”, and showing disrespect for their neighbors, the Romanians, who are living on those lands since the “Beginning of the Time”. What does it mean a “millennia” compare to the oldness of our dear continent ? Zero ! They are proud for a “millennia”-Hungary..Poor European babies !
The Prime Minister of the Austrian Empire, count von Fickelmont wrote in 1852 : “No doubt that we are ready to admire these brave people WITHOUT HISTORY who came out from Asia, WITHOUT OLD TRADITIONS, WITHOUT A COUNTRY (!!!), who have been able to conquer a territory, and to stand within, to shape a nation, to borrow from others a language (Latin – was spoken by the official administration until 1848 A.D.) and laws for their own administration, and to subjugate other developed nations much more pacifists,..They would have had our admiration if they would have been able to understand that the position which they got is temporary only, and one day they should to quit it because they are inferior to other neighboring nations.
..The Hungarians shouldn’t forget that Budapest was a pashalik capital for 150 years, and after the liberation of their territories, the civilization benefices of the Eastern Europe didn’t penetrate to the far most corners of the Empire due to the Hungarians themselves who constantly raised a huge barrier against the civilization."
Understood, Mr. “millennia” ? “..people without a country,..” did you really understand ? Did you ?!
They don’t know that the Romanian Dardu-Nicolaescu-Plopsor discovered in the village of Bugiulesti, Valcea county (southern Romania), a bone which is known as THE AUSTRALOANTROPUS OLTENIENSIS, a brachicephalic man dated with C-14 as living 1.700.000 – 1.900.000 years ago ! The occidental specialist have no interest to mention The Australoantropus Olteniensis in their works just because the younger Neanderthal man (100.000 – 35.000 years) and Cro-Magnon man (35.000 – 10.000 years) would be deposed by OUR man.
Of course, the Hungarians already subscribed to the theory that the Romanians came from the south of the Danube River after their arrival in Pannonia, but this theory CONCEIVED by the Germans Franz Joseph Sulzer in “The History of the Transalpine Dacians / Geschichte des transalpinischen Daciens”, Vienna, 1781-1782, Joseph Carol Eder in “Supplex Libellus Valachorum Transilvaniae iura tribus receptis nationibus postliminio sibi adresi postulantius. Cum notis historico-criticis”, 1791 and Johann Christian Engel in “Comment regarding the Trojan’s expeditions to the Danube and the Origin of the Vlachs / Commentatio de expeditionibus Trajani ad Danubius et origine Valachorum”, Vindobonae = Vienna, 1794, and forwarded by the Banat Swabbe Robert Roesler in “Romanian studies. Analysis about the old History of Romanians / Romanische Studien. Untersuchungen zur alteren Geschichte Rumaniens.”, Leipzig, 1871 is really easy to demolish thanks to the Hungarian chronicles first of all, and secondly by Russian and Byzantine chronicles as well. That is no strong proof for them, but “their” own recent (200 years only) theory.
No matter if the Hungarians or other “specialists” want or no, we are here since the “bones” talk about our presence on this land and YES, we are the Australoantropus Olteniensis’ descendants ! During the old and unfair times we built states which have been walked on by invaders of all kind, but we remained here as the Romanian proverb states :”The water flows, but the stones stay.”
The Hungarians don’t want to know that the Kingdom (state) of Hungary STOPPED TO EXIST (ERRASED FROM EXISTENCE) in 1526 after the battle of Mohacs (29 august 1526) when the king Laszlo II Jagellon (Polish, 1516 – 1526, died in battle) was defeated by the Ottoman sultan Soliman I the Magnificent (Turk : Suleyman I Kanuni 1520 – 1566). The city of Budapest was transformed in pashalik and a pasha moved in (1541). The unconquered part of Hungary was occupied by the Austrians who left the country after the WWI (1918) only. Between these two historical dates HUNGARY STOPPED TO EXIST ON THE WORLD MAP ! Of course, there were Hungarians living, and all Hungarians claim to be there for a “millennia”, but NOT the Romanians despite the fact that their country has been occupied by invaders without numbers in the last 2.000 years. Romania was called Dacia by the Romans, but Getae by the Greeks, Walachia by the Goths and Vlachia by the southern Slavs. Our country got the name of the stronger invader, so it is known in the history as Gothia, Gepidia, Avaria, Bulgaria, Pechenegia, Kumania and even..Hungary, the Ottoman Empire or USSR for Eastern Moldavia, according to the landlord of the time. For all that, there is no proof that there didn’t live Romanians, no matter the way their name was mentioned in documents through the history time : Pelages, Thracians, Geto-Dacians, Dacians, Romans, Daco-Romans, Wallachen, Vlachs, Vlachos, Valachs, Volochs, Vlachoi, Blachi, Blazi, Olahs, Wloch, Armân, Armùni, Rumuns, Rumins, Rumons, Rumins, Romins or today Romanians (see : http://www.raven-glass.com/vlad/romania/timeline.html).
In ”The Roman Continuity in Roman Dacia. A Linguistic Evidence", pages 42-43, the Romanian historian Virgiliu Stefanescu-Draganesti let us know :”It’s difficult now to determinate the origin of the Romanian word <Valach > because this word do not appears in the old (Romanian) texts, but can be found as a neologism which almost never has been used, even if the Romanians must have known how their neighbors used to call them.
No matter what, the ROMANIANS NEVER CALLED THEMSELVES AS VLACHS, being a word fabricated by the foreigners". How did we call ourselves ? ROMANIANS !
A very good site (http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/brezeanu2000.html) referring to “Vlachs”. Anyone can learn a lot about the word’s history.
In a Croatian letter from 1538, a certain Nicholas Jurišić was addressing to the King Ferdinand of Hapsburg as follows :"the Vlachs that we call ancient Romans / Walächen, welche bei uns allt Römer genennt sein"..so that Croatian KNEW that we are ROMANS, and we ALWAYS called ourselves “ROMANI”, then and now, despite the fact that other people called us differently. Is that clear enough, Mr. “millennia” ? It is the same thing like being called “Hungarian” instead of “Magyar” as the Hungarians call themselves since always. The Greeks never called themselves in this way, but “Hellenes (Έλληνες), excepting for the late Antiquity periode (200 – 400 A.D.) and in the Middle Ages when they refered to themselves as “Romaioi” = Romans. Why “Romaioi” ? Just because of the Roman occupation on Greece..as well in Dacia (today Romania). Is that clear enough, Mr. “millennia” ?
ROMANIA as a “trade mark” name figures since the year 580 A.D. Oh, yeah Mr. “millennia” ! Oh, yeah ! But you don’t know about that, just because at that time your ancestors were grazing the little horses on the Asian steppes. It was found a funeral stone in today Bulgaria (Bulgarians arrived at the south of the Danube in 680 A.D.) where for centuries existed a large region called ROMANIA, and the name “Romania” is clearly written on it. The name is related, of course, to the Romanized population in the whole South-Eastern Europe – Balkan Peninsula, including Greece, because it’s what WE really are ! You can see the following sites for better information :
- http://www.raremaps.com/cgi-bin/map-builder.cgi?Europe++11973, Guillaume Blaue – 1630, Walachia Servia, Bulgaria, Romania
- http://www.raremaps.com/cgi-bin/map-builder.cgi?Europe++11965, Henricus Hondius & Gerard Mercator – 1636, Walachia Servia, Bulgaria, Romania
- http://www.oldprintshop.com/cgi-bin/gallery.pl?action=detail&inventory_id=39312&itemno=1, Isaak Tirion – 1740, Europa Turchesca secondo l’ultime Offervazioni (you can spot “Romania” in the same area as before).
- , Gerard Mercator & Jan Jansson - Walachia, Servia, Bulgaria vt. Romania
As you easily can see the years of the maps are 1630, 1636 and 1740..at that time the “trade mark” Romania existed already !But the most interesting proof is that one which could be seen at https://www.carto.com/Maps/Images/7464.jpg where a great cartographer, Abraham Ortelius (1527 – 1598) made a map representing “ROMANIAE” in 1592 “quae olim Thracia dicta Vicinarvmq Regionvm, vti Bvlgariae, Walachiae, Syrfiae, etc. Descriptio. “. As it can be seen, the map clearly represents the regions of Bessarabia, Moldavia, Walachia, Thracia, Serbia, Bulgaria and the European Turkey (the word “Romania” is written right on the TOP OF THE CARTRIDGE and on Thracia area). Therefore, the cartographer Abraham Ortelius KNEW about “ROMANIA” at that time 1592, just 7 years before Michael the Brave unified the 3 Romanian Principalities into one single country (see: http://www.craiova-maxima.com/craiova_mihai.htm). In time, “Romania” became “Rumelia” as the Turkish invaders pronounce it, and is represented on maps as such.
For the first time, the name of “Romania” was used in our written texts by Daniil Philippide (c. 1770 - 1820, Greek writer naturalized Romanian) in his work " The History of ROMANIA ", edited in Greek in Leipzig , 1816 (see : http://www.romanianmusicians.ro/spotonromania.htm).
You mistakenly and acrimoniously refer to the “new” Romania since January 24 / February 5, 1862, but you do not understand that Hungary, in its actual borders, exists since 1918 only, and DIDN’T EXIST between 1526 – 1918 !
Surfing the Internet we can read tens of (Hungarian) web sites unfairly accusing the Europe for chopping the “millennia”-Hungary. Of course, it is totally wrong, since is precisely Europe which allowed the Asian Hungarians to get a beautiful country right in the middle of Europe itself. It is precisely Europe which gave a country to some people “without a country” as the Prime Minister of Austria, count von Fickelmont, stated in 1852. It is precisely Europe which offered to the Hungarians the right to be part of the civilized Europeans.
The Hungarians easily forget that the Romanian army, “only” 53 years old, entered Budapest on August 4th, 1919, and according to the war / force law which has been perpetrated by the Hungarians themselves for a “millennia” against the autochthones, Hungary should be part of Romania as a simple province and using the Romanian language as the official state language, but precisely Europe decided to build up an independent state and asked Romania to give up its territorial conquest over Hungary. It has to be mentioned that the Hungarians fought during the WWI and WWII precisely against those countries which GAVE Hungarians a country : England, France and Italy !
Mr. “millennia”, do you know that important countries in Europe as Germany, Italy have been “invented” (according to your “thinking”) AFTER Romania ? Of course, you don’t know and nobody talk about that because it is really stupid, but the Hungarians love to talk acrimoniously about the Romania’s birth date.
1 – Germany used to be no more no less than 39 autonomous states before the unification in January 18, 1871, but 300 states in 1789, and never bore the official name of “GERMANY” before 1871 (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany - there you’ll find out that today even, Germany is “made up of 16 states”; see also “The World History Westermann Great Atlas”, 1978, Braubschweig, Germany, pages 122, 124 and 128. Just to mention some STATES I would recall “County of Dieph”, “Blasien” or “Heibronn City State”). As you probably know Romania was shaped of 3 Principalities only, but not..39 or 300 !
2 – Italy used also to be a lots of states before the unification in March 17, 1861 (according to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), and never bore the official name “ITALY” before 1861 (see also the same Atlas, pages 116 and 126. Just to mention some states which are totally unknown to you I would recall “State of the Presidium”, “Republic of Lucca” or “State of the Church”). I would like to make here a short addition concerning the birth of the city of Venice : it was built up by the Italians who took refuge on that empty, wild, marshy island because of the Hungarians’ invasion..
3 – France was never known or called by this name before the Hungarian invasion in Europe for example. The Germanic tribe of the Francs conquered the territory of the Latinized Gauls in 511 A.D., and the process of “Frenchization” took hundred of years. In 896 A.D. when the Hungarians arrived in Europe and started to steel the autochthones’ lands (plundering and controlling most of France between 899 – 954 A.D.), the people living in “France” were still known as Francs, but not French. As a matter of fact, the Germans still call them..FRANCS to this very day : “Frankreich” - The Francs Empire, but also “Franzose – Franzosin – Franzosisch = Frenchman – Frenchwoman - French”.
You will also be surprised to find out that most of countries in Europe, and all over the world have been shaped after the WWII only, and the process is still continuing. What “millennia” are talking about, Mr. “millennia” ? We are HERE since the beginning of the time and you are among the last new-comers at the European table, just before the Pechenegs, Kumans and Tatars. If it was not for the Romanian King Stephen I the Saint (997 – 1038, Voicu – Waic – Vajk, known as Istvan I by the Hungarians) who became the first king of the Hungarians and FORCED them to christen, they would have been assimilated by the autochthones as happened to the other Asian invaders !
Before I will end up my comments, I would like to add a real fact that discloses the ignorance and bad-will of the Hungarians. In Hungarian, “Italy” is called “Olaszország” (or „Olasz Köztársaság”) = „The Romans Country” (see : http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaszorsz%C3%A1g). We, the Romanians, are called by our neighbors the Hungarians : Oláh, therefore „Oláhország” would be „The Romanians Country”. Where is the difference ? The letter „h” from „Oláh” has been changed by the letter „sz” from the word „Olasz” due to the Slavic influence (see : VlacH”) as an autochtone population found in Hungary and Romania by the invader Hungarians at the moment of their arrival in Europe in 896 A.D. By „involuntary” (expl.: „without conscious control” – Oxford Dictionary, 2001, p. 478) reality, the Hungarians call the Italians and the Romanians in the SAME WAY : OLASZ-OLAH, granting us the Roman descendance as the Poles do by calling the Italians „Wloski”, and “Italy” = “Wlochy” to this very day, and the Romanians are called “Wloch”. Romania was “invented” in the 2ND CENTURY A. D. Any other comment is totally useless, Mr. “millennia”.
Now, I am ending my comments with a quotation from the Hungarian Professor Laszlo Szabo Tapay (University of Budapest) :"Who else know better than the Hungarians if it would be wiser to return to their mother country where there is enough room for them It’ll be also a high probability to get a better understanding with their Asian neighbors.” - in "Pesti Naplo".

Poor, poor brainwashed Roman prost... I stoped reading after the first paragraph. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. just remember 1859 lol!!!!

C-am asa ar trebui sa arate adevarata Romanie Mare

Zumzaitul ungurului astuia e asemanator cu cel al tantarului cautator de prada, stii ca exista, stii cum sa-l elimini, dar ti-e prea lene sa te ridici ca sa-i aplici una.

In other words I'm sick and tired of reading bull**** about us Romanians. For the sake of acknowledgement and for the fluffiness of the discussion, this “Hungarian” is a ROMANIAN citizen. A frustrated white-trash that forgot that life has its way of repaying debts.

Anyway, I come from a very old Romanian family with a long family-tree. Our village was firs documented in the early 13th century as a ROMANIAN village in the county of Arad, so relatively near to the Hungarian border. Needless to say that out village is not an exception, but a small drop in a big pond, if I may say so.

Hungaro, I presume you can not explain this, but anyway I’m not expecting a pertinent answer from your side since you’re such an anti-Semite.

Conclusion: Ungaro, Du Schwarzlucher your comments are abominable and unrealistic. Bite me!

Ceea ce ma ingrozeste este doctrina aleasa pentru a-si promova obsesia pentru Transilvania: isi educa copii in convingerea sincera ca Transilvania le-ar fi fost luata. Astia , precum evreii. Si acestia au ajuns sa-si creasca copii in negarea celui pe care l-au asteptat cateva milenii, ca sa-i salveze.