Talk:Vlachs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

}}

Contents 1 The Roma groups known as the Vlax 2 Etymology 3 "Vlachs" in western Balkans 4 Romanians in Bulgaria 5 Disputed 6 Moldavia 7 Map 8 VMORO and the map 9 Vlach distributions 10 Paeonians? 11 Distinct 12 fringe Etymology 13 False and true facts about Vlachs of Serbia 14 VMRO and the Vidin Vlachs 15 Bogdan and the Dobrujan Bulgarians, Turks and Tatars 16 New map 17 User:Theathenae's vision of Roman Greece 18 Proto-Vlach 19 Vlachs(Romanians) 20 Romaninas were not called vlachs before 20.1 Name 20.1.1 Romanian 20.1.2 Vlach 20.1.3 Daco-Romanian 20.1.4 Toponyms 20.1.5 Anthroponyms 21 Protection 22 Romanian culture 23 Template:Historomania 24 Why I deleted the Greek logo 25 Why does "Vlax" redirect to "Vlachs" ? 26 Vlachs in Bulgaria 27 Statal?

[edit] The Roma groups known as the Vlax

There is a subdivision of the Roma people from this area called the Vlax. That redirect here. What is the relationship, if any, between them and the Vlachs? Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I could add something to the article to sort out this confusion.

The Vlax are Roma (Gypsies) who speak a form of Romanian. Though found at present mostly in Bulgaria and Serbia, they may have moved there in centuries past from the territory of modern Romania.C0gnate 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Vlax dialect IS NOT a form of Romanian. It is a Romani dialect with some Romanian (and other) loans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.40.21.49 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Etymology

"The name's origin is German for foreigner, just like Wales and Walloons."

So Wales and Walloons means "foreigner" as well? In what languages? Surely not German. --Menchi 06:50, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not modern German, but in Germanic or proto-Germanic, the root of those words meant "foreigner". Adam Bishop 06:52, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Vlachs" in western Balkans

There appears to be a dispute between the pro-Romanian and pro-Serb historians with regard to the people referred to as "Vlachs" or "Morlachs" in the western Balkans. Due to the fact they were often shepherds or cattle herders in the Dinaric Alps, some claim that the name Vlach ceased to have an ethnic meaning and rather acquired the economic one. Can we have this discussion elaborated/enlightened/debunked? somewhere in the articles linked from this one? TIA. --Joy [shallot] 21:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Initially, the Vlachs were indeed Romanian shepherds that traveled toward better pastures. Some reached South-Western Ukraine, where they were assimilated and now those population speak a Rutherian dialect with many Romanian borrowings. They also reached mountains of Southern Poland and even Czechia. In most of the cases they were assimilated, but their name remained locally as Vlachs.

About Morlachs... I began a stub Morlachs and I'll try to find more information. Bogdan | Talk 17:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The name "Vlah" in Bosnia (at least eastern Bosnia) was and is often used by Muslims to refer to Serbs (the local montagnards). I believe that usage is now considered offensive or at least politically incorrect. In Dalmatia (at least Split), "Vlaj" means anybody who came to the coast from behind the mountains and I don't think it has any ethnic connotations. In Slovenia, "Lah" (noun) and "laško" (adjective) simply mean "Italian". Zocky 12:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romanians in Bulgaria

According to the latest census in Bulgaria (2001), 1,088 people identified themselves as Romanians (as opposed to 20,000 mentioned in this article), please use official data or otherwise quote your source. VMORO

Official data is however to be regarded with caution. It might reflect the reality or not, depening on the local politics regarding the minorities. On top of that, it can also be an indicator of how the respective ethnic group was treated by the majority, when comparing the current numbers with those of 50-100 years ago.

Bulgaria is not Serbia, where Romanians in the south of Danube are forced to declare themselves as Vlachs (and eventually most ended up accepting this identity), however it is also not Belgium. It is well known that the minority groups are complaining about Government's policy towards them.

However, be that 1,088 a real value, that should be very worrying for Bulgaria. According to the 1926 Bulgarian census, there were 83,746 Romanians in Bulgaria. If 80 years later 99% of the Romanians there are vanished (migrated, assimilated), that says a lot about how much they were allowed to preserve their culture and identity. As opposed to that for example, Romanians should be proud that the Hungarian minority not only preserved itself, but even increased a bit, if we compare the 1930 census to the one in 2002. Hanumana

[edit] Disputed

Muslim Greek Vlachs? Etz Haim 07:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They should have been resettled to Turkey in 1923, otherwise there were 3,500 of them in Vlachomeglen (before 1923). VMORO

There are no muslims in Meglen today and the muslims of the Greek part of Thrace don't have Vlach origin. I don't know about the Turkish part. Etz Haim 12:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think they were deported to Turkey according to the minority exchange treaty. I googled and found this. Bogdan | Talk 14:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentions the Vlachs and the need to protect minority rights on its official website, perhaps unaware of the existence of several thousand Muslim Vlachs within its own borders. [1]

Yes, they should have all been deported in 1923. There are no Muslim Vlachs in Greece nowadays. VMORO

Since people seem to agree on this, I've made the appropriate changes on the text of the article. Etz Haim 21:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moldavia

Moldavia appeared on some mediaeval maps as "Wallachia something" (like "Wallachia Transalpina"), but I forgot that something. :-) Does anybody knows the name ? Bogdan | Talk 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The two maps are an example of the distribution of the Vlachs in the 19th century, clearly they were almost no Vlachs in Dobrudzha. Their distributions in Serbia and Bulgaria are, likewise, much smaller than what is represented on the map.

There's a difference between that map and these. That map showed the regions where Romanian speakers lived, not claiming that they were the majority, but only that there were Romanian communities. These show what only what the majority was. Bogdan | Talk 15:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we, on the other hand, assume that the map represents the distribution of Romanians nowadays, than there should be no Vlach "islands" in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia and Albania, and a very small such in Serbia. I furthermore object to the grouping of Aromanians and Romanians in one article, they speak different languages, may not and cannot be classified as one nation. VMORO 15:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)~

The term Vlach was used for all Eastern Latin people. I'm not classifying as one people, but as a group of peoples. There are also articles on both Romanians and another on Aromanians. Bogdan | Talk 15:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not true, the Aromanians were mostly referred as Kutzovlachs or Tzintzars VMORO 16:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)~

True. Read the 1911 Britannica article on Vlachs, if you don't believe me. Bogdan | Talk 17:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Kutzovlachs" is considered an 'offensive' by them, it means "limping Vlachs". Tzintzars comes from the way the Aromanians pronounce the word "five": 'tzintzi' (in Romanian it's 'cinci') and is used by the Slavs. Bogdan | Talk 13:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VMORO and the map

I assume that VMORO disagrees with a strip south of Danube (in Bulgaria), which used to be populated with Romanians. If you're arguing that there were no Romanians in Bulgaria, I'll tell you according to the 1926 Bulgarian census, there were 83,746 Romanians. (Note that the map shows the ethnic situation of early 20th century) Bogdan | Talk 15:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Bogdan, and according to the Romanian census in 1931, there were 360,000 Bulgarians in Romania:-))).

The comment is biased, as most of them lived in territories which are not belonging to Romania anymore. --Hanumana

Indeed. Many of them in Southern Dobrogea and Bugeac. There were also a few in Wallachia and Banat, as descendents of the Bulgarians that came during the 17th-18th century, as refugees because of the Turkish persecutions.

But I don't see what has this to do with the Vlachs. Bogdan | Talk 17:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But, that's scarcely what I am arguing about. So, can you tell me which time period the map I removed is relevant for? Cause it seems that for different regions it is relevant for different time periods (certainly the one which is most beneficial to the Romanian point of view:-)) and that is factually inaccurate and essentially POV. VMORO

I told you: early 20th century. Anyway, what part of the map you disagree with ? Bogdan | Talk 17:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the strip in Bulgaria, I also found this map: [2]. I am telling you again: in that regions there were/are Romanian communities. Nobody is claiming that they formed a majority. Your maps only show the majority ethnicity, disregarding the minorities. Bogdan | Talk 17:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The map you are quoting is ridiculous - all Greeks were resettled long ago, there have almost never been any Albanians in Bulgaria, the "Sarakatjani" are called Karakachans and are concentrated around Sliven, the distributions of the Turks are inexact, etc. etc. etc. The map is, furthermore, Romanian, which explains the wiiiiide, haha, distribution of Romanians but whatever... As I said your map shows the best possible distribution for the Romanians of all times - which is not fair. Please, modify your map and put an approximated time period.

The regions I don't agree with: half southern Dobrudja is portrayed as Romanian, the whole of northern Dobrudja is portrayed as Romanian, the region of Vidin is portrayed as Romanian + the distributions of the Aromanians are humongous.

Why: southern Dobrudja has never been inhabited with Romanians, in 1913, there were 8,000 R. out of population of 260,000. Even at the height of the Romanian colonisation at the end of the 1930s, there were 40,000 Romanians as opposed to 150,000 Bulgarians and pretty much as many Muslims (Turks, Tatars and Gypsies). There were 28,000 R. in northern Dobrudja out of population of 160,000 in 1878. And there were, indeed, some 40,000-50,000 Vlachs in the Vidin area. But nowadays - and pretty much throughout the second half of the 20th century, there have been almost no Vlachs in the Vidin region (resettled or assimilated) and no Bulgarians in northern Dobridja (resettled or assimilated). Please, choose one of the regions.

The only reason why I am breaching the subject again is that the same map has appeared in History of the Balkans - and which I am hereby removing. Let's leave ungrounded nationalism to the own-language editions of Wikipedia. VMORO 20:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)~

[edit] Vlach distributions

User:VMORO quoted official Bulgarian census figures (see below) for Vlach/Romanians that, if accurate, would make portions of the map above misleading. The density would be so low in some regions that it would become totally arbitrary in deciding which regions to color and which not to. However, it has been noted by outside sources that the Bulgarian census figures may be false. Till further looked into, we should not include the map in the article. -Alexander 007 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paeonians?

Paeonians? provide a reference for that. Historical sources indicate that they were mostly absorbed by the ancient Macedonians even before Rome conquered Macedon. After the attempted Paeonian revolt against Macedon, the Macedonians initiated a forced assimilation of the Paeonians, and also moved Thracians and other groups onto lands formerly held by Paeonians, to blot out the Paeonian people. In all likelihood, there were hardly any Paeonians left by the time the Romans came. James 007 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distinct

It also depends on how far you define 'distinct'. Would you care to detail? Total distinction (complete separateness) is not accepted by the majority of scholars, nor is it even possible, regardless of nationalist views. There is much more nationalism in your extreme separating views than in any other view. James 007 15:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand "distinct" here to mean that Vlachs are not a kind of Romanians, but rather a closely related, yet distinct people. Zocky 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but the text can be read in different ways. It has to be detailed. And actually, you mean to say "Aromanians", not "Vlachs". Vlach is synonymous with Romanian.James 007 15:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. Rumanian = Vlach does not necessarily imply that Vlach = Rumanian. Zocky is right to say that Vlachs are not a kind of Rumanians. They're not. Rumanians are a kind of Vlachs. In other words, Rumanian is a meronym, not a synonym, of Vlach. Simple logic.--Theathenae 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, you got it twisted. Vlach is an indefinite blanket term which applies equally to any of the four branches. Your personal conception is a misconception. James 007 16:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Distinct in the same way that Castilians and Catalans are distinct, or Catalans and Occitans. Similar, but definitely distinct. The Rumanians were heavily influenced by the Slavs, the Aromanians have been largely absorbed by the Greeks. They are not the same people. User:Theathenae

Okay, that's fine. Taking it further is pseudo-scientific nationalism, which you claim to be against. I am suspicious though of how much distinctness he/she intends, and also of how much distinctness may be read into it. I agree that the four modern branches have become distinct, yet they come from the same trunk---and have the same origin. And from I what see in his edits, User:Theathenae does not want to admit that they come from the same trunk---and I don't mean vulgar latin, I mean the proto-language that led from vulgar latin to the four branches. James 007 15:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believed that the Romanian propaganda beast was killed.Now I see that it has been brought back to life by the Romanian nationalist Decius.Decius,the propaganda that you and many other of your kin support was the reason for the murder of hundreds of Aromanians by the hands of Romanian agents back in 1900-1925AD,and it was the very reason for the bloody war between Aromanians and traitor Aromanians who believed you.You,the Romanian nationalists,must be ashamed for what your grandfathers did in Macedonia.--Pelasgos80 29 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)

The things you claim in that paragraph above sound like a point of view interpretation offered as history, not actual history. James 007 04:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually took the liberty to strike through Pelasgos' comment, as it is not only an interpretation, but totally untrue and an insult to the Romanians who all regard Aromanians as their brothers. He talks about Romanian "agents" murdering hundreds of Aromanians back in 1900-1925. That's nonsense as, quite the contrary, in that period Romania did more than ever for Aromanians, by trying to bring as many of them as possible in the Southern Dobrogea. That would have given them the chance preserve their culture, identity and traditions, if the territory wouldn't have been lost after WW2 (as opposed to the assimilation they're facing now, same as the Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians and the Romanians in Timok Valley). Moreover, Romania didn't have any real "secret service" back then, with "agents" sent in neighbouring countries in "assassination missions". If they had anything remotely to an Intelligence Agency, one can be sure Aromanians would have been their last concern. Hungary, Russia, any other any other internal or external threat - I think they had enough to fill their agenda (I strongly doubt Aromanians were regarded as any threat and that the Romanian "agents" had nothing better to do than conduct hundreds of "assassination" missions among their brothers in the South). I hope the others will agree with me that Pelasgos' statement above is a too brutal twist of the historical truth, which would be better off this page. Hanumana

[edit] fringe Etymology

Anonymous, I've heard of that idea before, but before you put it in the article provide recent scholarly references (non-Hungarian) that still seriously consider that option. James 007 01:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that "the word Vlach could also come from the Greek peoples word "Vlahoi" which means Shepard/Goat herder" obviously has no idea what they're talking about.--Theathenae 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius, double check the edit history, it wasn't me who added that. KissL 28 June 2005 09:28 (UTC)

Sorry, honest mistake. I'm usually more careful. James 007 28 June 2005 09:31 (UTC)

It's ok. KissL 29 June 2005 12:08 (UTC)

[edit] False and true facts about Vlachs of Serbia

• In Serbia everybody is free to declare what ever nationality he choose in census (or not to declare anything if he want). - FALSE

Romanians are an official minority only in Vojvodina, not in Serbia, where they are not even listed in the census. Proof of the political struggle of the Romanian-Vlah groups for recognition as one single minority in Yugoslavia can be found here.

• Vlachs in Timočka Krajina declare themselves in census as ethnic Vlachs and declare their language as Vlach language - TRUE

However that is not because they think they are a distinct nation with a different language from Romanians. It is because:

1. They are not given the "Romanian" option at the census

2. They don't really see a difference between Vlah and Romanian, however they want to preserve their identity as Vlahs, same as a Bavarian or Texan would want to keep theirs, sometimes even above the one of their country, without though rejecting the latter.

3. Same as the Rroma who think of themselves as "Gypsy", only because they were called as such by everybody for centuries, the Romanians in the Timok Valley were called Vlahs for hundreds of years, by whoever ruled over them (Otomans, Serbs...).

• Vlachs in Timočka Krajina do not consider themselves Romanians. They think about themselves to be a distinct nation, different from both, Serbs and Romanians - FALSE (see also above)

They think of themselves as different from Serbs, but not from Romanians.

(Well...I dont know where I got this idea from. I am from Timočka Krajina and I can guarantee you that Vlachs in that area consider themselfs being Serbs. I never meat anyone who consider himself/herself being Romanian).

Surprising reality actually, is that not the Vlahs started to not consider themselves as Romanians anymore during the 20th century (assumption I met in Romania), but it's actually the Romanians who gradually stopped considering themselves as Vlahs in the 18th and the 19th century. Wallachia (or Vlahia) was the name given to the territory between the Southern Carpathians and the Danube, with its inhabitants being called as Vlahs (see also here). That applied of course as well to the people around these geographical borders, but with the same language and culture, therefore including the Vlahs in the Timok Valley, Northern Dobrogea, Southern Moldova etc. It was mainly the emancipation following the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution, that made the majority start rejecting as pejorative a name that was given to them (much like more and more Rroma are rejecting the word Gypsy nowadays) and go back to the name that defines them as descenents of Romans in the area. However, while this emancipation took place in most of the Romanian territories, protected by the Romanian borders, it seems that it never arrived in the Timok Valley where, even now in the 21st century, the Romanians/Vlahs in the area are still refused the right to education in their own language. User:Hanumana

---

The further discussion about this can be seen here: Talk:Romanians of Serbia

---

Many Moldovans declared themselves to be Romanians, unless I'm mistaken. -Alexander 007 02:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You mistake. Here you have Moldova census results:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_MoldovaUser:PANONIAN

> The census is hardly valid in that respect (so no point quoting any numbers), for various reasons:

1. Although speaking the same language with the other Romanians, considering the history of the region, some people prefer to identify themselves more with the ethnical origin (Roman/Romanian) some with the territory (Moldova)

2. In 1918, following the Russian Revolution, Moldova (back then Bessarabia) proclaimed independece and united with Romania. This shows they still identified themselves as one nation with the other Romanians back then.

3. After reoccupying the territory in 1944, Stalin took care that the 1918 episode would never happen again. Massive deportations in Siberia and Kazakhstan, harrasment and even executions of Romanian nationalists, the so called "organized starvation" follwing the war, the numerous Russian and Ukrainian immigrants brought there, the so called Moldavian language introduced (which was nothing else than Romanian, written in Cyrillic alphabet, with some Russian words forced into the dictionary) and a brain-washing propaganda education system - all these took care of ethnically replacing one third of the population and confusing the rest about their identity.

4. The result of Stalin's experiment in Moldova, is the poorest and last Communist country in Europe, where the ruling party still controls the media, manipulating the population through it, intimidates opposition candidates, sends journalists to jail, etc. In such a country, where people are not given any reason to even trust their privacy at a census, it is no wonder that most of them prefered to identify themselves with the territory and not the language/culture, if they knew that pleases the Government. User:Hanumana

---

Well, okay, then I was mistaken. But 66% of Moldovans declared that they speak Romanian in the last census (though I may be mistaken again, I don't stay up-to-date on this stuff as much as some editors around here). -Alexander 007 22:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do not know how many Moldovans declared to speak Romanian language, but it is quite often in South-Eastern Europe that people do not declare in census the same language as their ethnicity. User:PANONIAN

Is it really? Can you give several examples (as you said "quite often")? Except for Montenegro maybe, where the separation is just political and has internal roots (not 50 years of external brain-washing propaganda), I can hardly think of other examples. ;) User:Hanumana

---

[edit] VMRO and the Vidin Vlachs

According to the 1910 census, 1843 individuals have identified themselves using the ethnic names by which Aroumanians were referred to at that time, Tsintsars and Kutzovlachs. The same census, however, reports 80 000 Romanians and a total of 96 502 people whose mother tongue was Romanian. http://www.omda.bg/engl/narod/vlasi_arumani_engl.html

So, less a century ago, out of four million people, according to the census, in Bulgaria there were 96,500 people that spoke Romanian. Most of them were in the north-west of the country, in the Vidin area. According to "România şi popoarele balcanice", by Pârvan, Papahagi and al. (1913), they lived in 91 communes, of which 45 where inhabited only by Romanians and they estimated their number to be higher than 100,000. They also claim that, based on toponyms, it can be easy seen that Romanians once lived in areas even south of Sofia (but of course, Bulgarians, too also lived up north of Bucharest, in Romania :-) bogdan | ^Talk 20:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone would soon create a new image that indicates Vlach population density, rather than just distribution, we would have less of an uproar here. -Alexander 007 22:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

According to census 2001 [3], there were 16 Romanians and 155 Vlachs in the region of Vidin whose total population stood at 130,074 people in the same year. If you are talking about this kind of density, then half of Europe should be inhabited by Romanians and Vlachs, as there are at least 0,1% Romanian emigrants everywhere in Europe. Your suggestion does not solve the problem - which is clearly Great Romanian ambitions of the author of the map. VMORO 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What map are you talking about? If you refer to any of those above, I think they are both ± 100 years old, and I doubt the author suggests the situation is similar today. Either way, be it true that there is almost no Romanian left in the area, or that there are still quite a few thousands, the conclusion would not please a Bulgarian nationalist. Should the Romanians still be there in significant numbers, Bulgaria should have the decency (as EU member) to recognize them some rights. Should the Romanians be almost gone (as opposed to ± 100,000 at the begining of the previous century), the Bulgarian Government is then responsable for their assimilation/extintion (in the same way as the Romanian Government is responsible for the drastic decrease in numbers of the Germans and Jews in their country). User:Hanumana

If the figures are really that low, then I would agree to removing the image. I would prefer an image showing density rather than distribution, in any case. -Alexander 007 22:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bogdan and the Dobrujan Bulgarians, Turks and Tatars

According to the 1911 Encyclopedia, when Romania got Northern Dobruja in 1878, the region was inhabited by "alien elements", chiefly Bulgars, Turks, Tatars and Jews. So if you want to quote sources from 1910, then you should leave nearly the whole of northern Dobruja as inhabited by non-Romanians. VMORO 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Romanians formed around at least a third of the population in Dobruja in 1910. (My great-grandfather, included :-) Maybe you can find some exact data... there was a census in 1920, but I couldn't find any results on the Internet. bogdan | ^Talk

Bogdan, as long as you're here, I'm wondering why you colored regions where the density was so low. There are Vlachs in Athens also, but we wouldn't color Athens as a Vlach region. This isn't the first map of yours that was inaccurate, as I recall another one showing distribution of ancient Balkan languages that was rather erroneous. -Alexander 007 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about, and I don't see why Athens shouldn't be coloured either, considering a large chunk of the Vlachs now live there. There is really no such thing as a "Vlach region" in the sense of an area with a majority Vlach population, and the map, although obviously Rumanianist, makes no such claim anyway. I have a far bigger problem with the Vlashi of Μογλενά having the neologistic exonym "Megleno-Romanians" heaped on them.--Theathenae 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It was never about the "majority" population. But any colored region should have a Vlach density that is higher in proportion to an adjacent region. If we want to show distributions, we would have to set a percentage per a given area, and if the percentage is negligible, we would not color a region. Such specific data may not be available, so it may not be possible for a Wikipedian to make such a map. -Alexander 007 02:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New map

I made a new map that shows the paths the Vlachs took. If you disagree with anything, please say in this talk page.

Some things might be disputable, so that's why I'll explain the reasoning here:

1. Maramureş -> Bukovina -- the legend of Dragoş following an aurochs could be at least partly true: not only that the earliest voivodes of Moldavia were from Maramureş (Dragoş, Bâc, Bogdan), but also Romanian spoken in Moldavia shares some features with the one spoken in Maramureş.
2. Bukovina -> Moldavia, Bessarabia -- Bukovina has always been the political centre of the Principality of Moldavia and it was the most populated, so we can safely assume that it was inhabited earlier than the rest of Moldavia. Romanians from Transylvania couldn't have arrived from South because they would speak a dialect closer to Muntenian.
3. Moldavia, Muntenia -> Dobruja -- this is quite clear -- in the North part of Dobruja you'd hear speaking "Moldavian", while in the south "Muntenian"
4. Istro-Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians couldn't have followed other paths, because they were shepherds and they usually followed the mountains. The same is true to the Romanians that reached Poland, Slovakia and Czechia.

I still have one thing that I'm not sure of:

• Does anyone knows whether Romanian of Făgăraş/Muntenia is closer to the language spoken in Ţara Moţilor or the one in Banat ?

The map is extrmely simplistic and is confusing: some arrows show original migration, some show recolonization...

A complete map would have at least 40 different regions (such as this map), but it would be much harder to follow.

As for original migration/recolonization -- in many cases it's very hard to tell which it was. bogdan | ^Talk

[edit] User:Theathenae's vision of Roman Greece

I have seen such claims in various websites, but I don't recall any reputable scholars or linguists cited, and the idea itself, given the Jirecek line and what is known of Roman Greece and Byzantine Greece, is very unlikely. Removing the stuff. If somebody reintroduces it with suitable references, then fine, accomodations will be made. Otherwise, they will be reverted. Alexander 007 07:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bring your references, you lugnut. Don't mass revert to your horrible version. It's bad reading. My reference, for one, is the Jirecek Line. Your reference is non-existent. Alexander 007 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your idea that the Vlachs have no Greek ancestry is preposterous and can only be laughed at. You may believe that they are nothing but ethnically pure Rumanians, but you are wrong. That they have mixed with their Greek-speaking neighbours over the centuries is so obvious that it hardly warrants a mention.--Theathenae 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Theathenae, your above comment is disappointing, and I don't know why I expected something more. The article is speaking of the core of the ethnicity. Greeks, like Slavs, are a later adstratum, sure thing. Alexander 007 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Who's talking about Aromanians being "ethnically pure Romanians/Rumanians"? Can you link such an edit by me in Vlachs? Alexander 007 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Aromanians are also known as Arumanians; and there are 17th century Romanian documents that use the spelling Român, not Rumân for Romanian, so only a very lame anti-Romanian would insist on Rumanian. Alexander 007 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What an absurd request. Theathenae has never produced a source. BTW you may want to look at what Britannica has to say on the issue: [4] and [5] :-))) Rex^(talk) 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone seen Theathenae's latest edit yet. He says that the Vlachs are a group of peoples and not a people. Britannica though says: Vlachs also called Romanian , or Ruman member of a European people constituting the major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova, as well as smaller groups located throughout the Balkan Peninsula, south and west of the Danube River. Care to comment Theathenae; maybe give us your sources *lol* Rex^(talk) 16:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: whatever edits Bonaparte may make should not be confused with my edits or my intentions. Regarding Theathenae, it is good to see that we have made progress; but any mass reverts and inclusion of unsourced info is not negotiable. His latest edits are at least getting more reasonable. Alexander 007 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The reversions of my edits are motivated by nothing more than User:REX's personal vendetta against me and the other Greek editors. The current version is simply bad English: "several modern Latin people"? How many? 10? 20? 100,000,000? If one actually reads the article, one realises we are referring to the various Vlach peoples here, namely the Rumanians, Aromanians, etc. As for reverting my links to the relevant articles on the Slavs, Greeks, Albanians and Cumans, what can I say? I am thoroughly amused at the impact I must've had on the young Albanian's delicate psychology.--Theathenae 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm usually diametrically-opposed to Theathenae's views on Eastern Romance peoples-related issues, it is true that the Vlachs are not an ethic group or people, but rather a metagrouping, or a category of different ethnic groups. In this way, "Vlach peoples" is similar in usage to "Baltic peoples" or "Finnic peoples", referring to a group of ethnicities not one ethnicity. Ronline ✉ 08:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Except when discussing the situation in the period of Proto-Romanian. Alexander 007 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Vlach

If we are to accept User:Alexander 007's theory of a "Proto-Romanian" language from which all modern Vlach languages evolved, should the correct terminology not be Proto-Vlach instead? Vlach is the only term which covers all groups whose ancestors purportedly spoke the hypothetical tongue in question; Rumanian does not.--Theathenae 11:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for crediting the theory to me; however, I have no idea what gave you the conception that I originated the idea, unless you think I'm at least 100 years old. The name used to refer to this proto-language will be the name that is most common in specialized English usage/general English usage. No tricky tactics like linking redirects, because Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) specifies that in all cases a direct link is preferred. Alexander 007 11:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, a 100-year-old would probably not pounce so quickly at my every move and waking sound. But you would agree with me that the term is rather misleading, would you not?--Theathenae 11:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It can be. But in Wikipedia, whatever is ascertained as the most common (or in a few cases, the term preferred by specialists in English, yet not the most common) term is used. In other words, if by some chance "Proto-Vlach language" was the preferred/most common term, then that's where the article will be and where the links will direct to. Alexander 007 11:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

leyteria sth dafnh bokota

---

[edit] Vlachs(Romanians)

Basescu said vlachs are romanians! Băsescu le spune vlahilor că sunt români de Rompres [Pagina/basescu-le-spune-vlahilor-ca-sunt-romani_182126.html]

http://www.adevarulonline.ro/2006-04-20/Prima%Pagina/basescu-le-spune-vlahilor-ca-sunt-romani_182126.html

Preşedintele Traian Băsescu le-a reamintit românilor de la Vârşeţ că Vlahia nu mai există, ci există doar România care îi poate ajuta. Traian Băsescu s-a declarat nemulţumit că românii sunt divizaţi în două mari organizaţii şi îşi spun unii vlahi, iar alţii români-vlahi, subliniind că, divizaţi, ei nu mai pot reprezenta o forţă cu care să se poată negocia. --Andrei George 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. If you want to be heard, please speak English. `'mikka (t) 17:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me try...President T. Basescu told one more time to romanians from Vârşeţ that "Vlahia doesn't exit eny more, it exists only Romania that can help them. T. Basescu declared himself unsatisfied that romanians are divided in 2 big organizations, that one call themselves vlachs, others romanians-vlachs, underlying that divided, they can't represent a force with which one can negotiate." --Andrei George 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. Basilescu's opinion is interesting, but it contradists to our article. The introduction is the summary of wikipedia article. For example, I am not sure that it is correct to confuse historical usage of the terms "vlachs" and "romanians". `'mikka (t) 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is partly true. --Andrei George 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But is also true that romanians were called vlachs before. So, where is the contradiction to have from the first line something like: Vlachs are romanians, if they really are? --Andrei George 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Basilescu may be right (or not) when speaking about modern vlachs. But this would be wrong to say this about old times. Vlachs were known before the self-recognition of the Romanian ethnicity. Saying simply "vlachs are romanians" would be misleading. Romaninas were not called vlachs before. For example, moldovans are also romanians. `'mikka (t) 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't know history. And his name is not Basilescu but Basescu. --Andrei George 18:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that Moldovans are not Romanians? `'mikka (t) 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrei, president Băsescu is talking about the Vlachs of Serbia, who speak Romanian (as opposed to Aromanian), not about all Vlachs. Vlachs is a blanket term for Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians. 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romaninas were not called vlachs before

Hmm....Let me give you some sources...--Andrei George 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

From wikipedia:

[edit] Name

In English they are usually called Romanians or Rumanians except in some historical texts, where they are called Vlachs.

[edit] Romanian

The name "Romanian" is derived from Latin "Romanus". Under regular phonetical changes that are typical to the Romanian languages, the name was transformed in "rumân" (ru'mɨn). An older form of "român" was still in use in some regions. During the National awakening of Romania of early 19th century, the latter form was preferred, in order to emphasise the link with ancient Rome.

[edit] Vlach

The name of "Vlachs" is an exonym that was used by Slavs to refer to all Romanized natives of the Balkans. It holds its origin from ancient Germanic - being a cognate to "Welsh" and "Walloon" -, and perhaps even further back in time, from the Roman name Volcae, which was originally a Celtic tribe. From the Slavs, it was passed on to other peoples, such as the Hungarians (Olah) and Greeks (Vlachoi). (see: Etymology of Vlach) Vlach was also used for all Orthodox Christians. Wallachia, a region in Romania, takes its name from the same source.

Nowadays, the term Vlach is more often used to refer to the Romanized populations of the Balkans who do not speak the Romanian language but rather the Aromanian language and other Romance languages such as Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian. Aromanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian are the closest related languages to the Romanian language.

[edit] Daco-Romanian

To distinguish Romanians from the other Romanic peoples of the Balkans (Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians), the term Daco-Romanian is sometimes used to refer to those who speak the standard Romanian language and live in the territory of ancient Dacia (today comprising mostly Romania and Moldova), although some Daco-Romanians can be found in Serbia (which was part of ancient Moesia).

[edit] Toponyms

In the Middle Ages, Romanian shepherds migrated with their flocks in search of better pastures and reached Southern Poland, Croatia, Greece, and Eastern Thrace. This explains the number of place names derived from "Vlach" in the Balkans and beyond.

[edit] Anthroponyms

These are family names that have been derived from either Vlach or Romanian. Most of these names have been given when a Romanian settled in a non-Romanian region.

• Oláh (37,147 Hungarians have this name)
• Vlach
• Vlahuta
• Vlasa
• Vlašic
• Vlasceanu
• Vlachopoulos

[edit] Protection

Hi, I've protected the article due to a lame edit war. I may have protected the the wrong version, if I have, please let me know! Seriously though guys, sort it out on the talk page. Feel free to apply to get this page unprotected at any point. - FrancisTyers 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

You certainly did not protected wrong version. The problem with this revert war is that User:Andrei George want to impose some kind of censorship here and not to alow to readers of Wikipedia to read that Moldovans and Vlachs declared to speak Moldovan and Vlach language in census. So, here is my question: is this censorship and deletion of useful information in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia? I do not think that it is. PANONIAN (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

PANONIAN are romanians from Serbia the right to say that they are romanians or not? Do they have the right to their own Church? No, they don't have the right. You don't allow them not even a Church to have it. You impose them that they are Vlachs and they are not romanians. You impose them to say that Vlachs language is not Romanian language. That's all about it. At least half of them (Vlachs from Serbia) recognize that they speak romanian and they are romanians. --Andrei George 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Andrei, of course that Romanians in Serbia have right to say that they are Romanians. According to 2002 census, there were 34,576 people in Serbia who declared that they are Romanians. They also have their church, here is the picture of Romanian church in village Ečka:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ecska2.jpg

As for Vlachs in Serbia, they did not declared themselves as Romanians but as Vlachs, they did not declared Romanian language but Vlach, and they are mostly believers of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It is what they choosen, nobody forced them to anything. If you want, you can declare Borg or Klingon nationality in Serbia because you have right to declare anything. However, only larger ethnic groups are listed separatelly in the census results while smaller are listed all together in the "others" category. Second thing, all ethnic groups which are listed separatelly are recognized as separate ethnic groups by the state of Serbia. For example, there are people who declared themselves as Roma (Роми) and those who declared themselves as Gypsyes (Цигани), but they all are listed as Roma because name Gypsy (Циган) is considered to be only another name for Roma (Ром). On the contrary, Vlachs and Romanians are listed separatelly because it is considered that they are two separate ethnic groups. And it is like that because leaders of the Vlach community asked to be recognized as separate ethnic group, and state only respected the wish of its Vlach minority. You have today also some Vlachs who want to be recognized as Romanians, but you also have those who want to be recognized as Vlachs. State cannot violate human rights of its citizens who want to be recognized as Vlachs. Only those Vlachs who want to be recognized as Romanians will be recognized as Romanians, but not those who want to be recognized as Vlachs. As for the numbers how many Vlachs consider themselves Romanians, I can give you an example from 2002 census from the Bor municipality where much of the Vlach population live; according to the census in this municipality were 39,989 serbs, 10,064 Vlachs and 107 Romanians. Not a half certainly. :) PANONIAN (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Protection removed: edit war was caused by permbanned socks. `'mikka (t) 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian culture

Romanian culture remained virtually uninfluenced by occupating people such as Hungarians and Slavs and developed itself to what it is today.

That's completely false. Romanian culture was influenced by both the Slavs (mainly South Slavs) and (to a lesser degree) by the Hungarians. Denying that is silly. bogdan 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Historomania

Everything does not revolve around Romania. There are different POVs out there Greier, you must understand that. If we want to be neutral we cannot take one side. —Khoikhoi 16:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, there are more Aromanians in Greece and Albania than in Romania. See what happened when I added those templates [6]. --Telex 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, well after all, Romania is the best. ;) —Khoikhoi 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I deleted the Greek logo

The botched-up logo jumps directly from the Byzantine so-called "Greece" to the Ottoman Greece and is a monument of incompetence in itself. It has no place in wikipedia. Shall I remind you that most of what is today's Greece was occupied and ruled by the Franks and Venetians in 1204. When the Turks finally occupied Athens in the 15th centurty this city was ruled NOT by the Byzantines but by the Franks (in fact the Florentine family of Acciauoli and before that was for many decades in the hands of the Catalans see link). Let alone the Cyclades, Dodecanesse, Euboea, Sporades, Crete, Ionian etc. etc. islands that were taken by the Ottomans NOT from the Byzantines but from the Franks, Venetian or Genoesse (as it was the case of Chios). This flawed logo does not mention these centuries of Frankish rule over Greece probably out of a false sense of patriotism. Let's not fake the history when editing for wikipedia for a start. Did I make myself understood? Apostolos Margaritis 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It links to the article Roman and Byzantine Greece which has a section on (you guessed it) "Normans and Franks", which is where the issues you raised are described. I'm afraid this is how Greek history is broken up (including by non-Greek sources). If you OTOH think you know better, why don't you edit the template to make it more accurate - after all, I prefer fix attempts over whiny complaints. --Tēlex 09:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, there is no good reason for the presence of the history series templates here, not being even history articles; and awnsering to a violation of WP:POINT by creating more and more templates, is not the solution.--Aldux 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Apostolos brings up the interesting issue of how the period of Latin Rule in Greece is so easily ignored. --Xenophonos 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does "Vlax" redirect to "Vlachs" ?

If I understand well, Vlax is a Romani/Gypsy dialect. Why does is redirect here? Dpotop 10:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vlachs in Bulgaria

Can anyone give me sources? --PaxEquilibrium 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statal?

Is statal a word really? I can understand what's intended: municipal/municipality, but regarding states. But is the word statal correctly formed? Rursus 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)