Tinto Maps #9 - 5th of July 2024 - Carpathia and the Balkans

[ibvfteh]

Ok, let's fact check your theory.

Vlach | History, Language & Culture | Britannica

Vlach, any of a group of Romance-language speakers who live south of the Danube in what are now southern Albania, northern Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, and southwestern Bulgaria. Vlach is the English-language term used to describe such an individual. The majority of Vlachs speak Aromanian,

www.britannica.com

View attachment 1217358

Regarding the 2 competing theories for the origins of Romanians. Continuity Theory vs Immigationist theory, where as you obviously consider the immigationist theory true without a hint of doubt "If we take into account that a lot of the Moldavian population will come after the start date", this, is not the position of most scholars. Who, according to Britannica, mostly believe that Romance continued to be spoken by Romanized Dacians.

Thus, already the premise for your theory is not based on what most scholar believe, but rather fringe.

This is irrelevant to our case, and you have assumed my position on that case.

This is the pinnacle of your argument strategy.
I am glad you have put it first for everyone to see.

Dacians are not connected with this at all. The last certain mention of Dacians as a group is in 336.
In your own words:

Bolokhovians were last recorded in 1257, the game starts in 1337. Long after Bolokhovians were gone.

means Dacians are long gone and will not exist after that so Romanians who should be Romanized Dacians also don't exist at all.

Whoops...
Strange isn't it?
In your own words, we have proven that Romanised Dacians vanished for 1000 years before the game started. What a surprise! And then Vlah people magically appeared.

Then what is the problem?
Your argument

if people have stopped being mentioned by one name, it doesn't mean they have stopped existing.

Same with Bolokhovians. Their name has stopped being used. But they did not die. In fact, their name has changed to just ruși in Romanian.
Example:

Scrie la létopisețul cel moldovenescu, la predoslovie, de zice că deaca au ucis acei vânători acel buor, întorcându-se înapoi, văzând locuri desfătate, au luat pre câmpi într-o parte și au nemerit la locul unde acum târgul Sucévei. Acolo aminosindu-le fum de foc și fiind locul despre apă, cu pădure mănuntă, au pogorât pre mirodeniia fumului la locul unde este acum mănăstirea Ețcanei. Acolea pre acelaș loc au găsit o priseacă cu stupi și un moșneag bătrân, de prisăcăriia stupii, de seminție au fost rus și l-au chiemat Ețco. Pre carele deaca l-au intrebat vânătorii, ce omu-i și den ce țară este, el au spus că este rus den Țara Leșască. Așijderea și pentru loc l-au intrebat, ce loc este acesta și de ce stăpân ascultă ? Ețco au zis: este un loc pustiiu și fără stăpân, de-l domnescu fierile și pasările și să tinde locul în gios, păn' în Dunăre, iar în sus păn' în Nistru, de să hotăraște cu Țara Leșască, și este loc foarte bun de hrană. Înțelegând vânătorii acest cuvânt, au sârguit la Maramorăș, de ș-au tras oamenii săi într-această parte și pre alții au îndemnat, de au descălecat întăi supt munte și s-au lățit pre Moldova în gios. Iar Iațco prisecariul, deaca au înțeles de descălecarea maramorășénilor, îndată s-au dus și el în Țara Leșască, de au dus ruși mulți și i-au descălecat pre apa Sucévei în sus și pre Sirétiu despre Botoșiani. Și așa de sârgu s-au lățit rumănii în gios și rușii în sus.

 

[bokorthedust]

Your argument strategy at the moment:
View attachment 1217445

You can diss him, but this dude was the self-titled Genius of the Carpathians, while Orbán is... well, Orbán

 

[ibvfteh]

If you want to make the case for a Slavic population in 1337, then provide evidence for a Slavic population in 1337. Bolokhovians is not evidence.

So, is Letopisețul Tarii Moldovei no longer a piece of evidence for you? Last time I checked it mentions ruși people more than enough times.

Modifications based on the toponyms map you provided.

What is the point of toponyms when 1 of them is a Dacian-Roman-Slavic mix. Notice the Slavic part, meaning the Romanians also had Slavic words.

even English has some Slavic words.

What you say is pure baseless speculation based on YOUR thoughts. Cities are not named Topor(Tопор, Axe), or Lopată(Лопата, Shovel). there is much more to it, which is used to determine the precise language, from where the word comes.

So how do you tell which is which? + The Romanized Dacians retreated in the mountains in the early dark ages, when most cities were founded, them came to those cities who were founded by someone else, some 700-500 years before 1337.

According to Romanian professor M.Ștefănescu established that words of Slavic origin in Romanian retain one of the features of how East, West, and South languages are divided. It is called Полногласие *TorT > ToroT, *TolT > ToloT, *TerT > TereT, *TelT > ToloT, TeleT, TeloT. According to her cities with such names are on the north and east sides of Moldavia and it proves that those lands were populated by ruteni (Ruthenians).
source: Ştefănescu 1921 - Şteffinescu M. ELemente ruseşti 1n toponimia romănescă //Arhiva. OrganuL Societăţii istorico-filologică din laşi. Anul XXVIII. laşi.1921. Octombrie.N2 2. P. 218-228.
examples:

Another way is the suffixes you love:
Slavic -овци has been retained in Romanian as -ăuți.

also, there is a change from G to H at the start of words.

Bukovina - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So Bukovina had both Romanians and Ruthenians.

No dates, No sources, just the phrase "was settled" without anything. It can be "was settled after the 14th century" proving my point.
And YOU of all people use this as a source?

So Bukovina had both Romanians and Ruthenians.

Rework3:

Once again:
1257 =/= 1337.

rework 4:

Here you made the biggest claim without any proof.

Please provide proof that the Moldavian population lived on the land of Berladnici in 1337. Can you?

You just erased the history of people because 1257 =/= 1337

You do not even mention them at all. Is it fun for you? Ignored everything and painted everyone Romanian

Ok, so about 75% of the names are of Romanian origin. Meaning 3/4.

There is 1 issue with this: Romanians are themselves a Dacian-Roman-Slavic mix. Plently of Romanian names are slavic. So how did the author know the 25% Slavic names are not Romanian?

1. Romanians are themselves a Dacian-Roman-Slavic mix.

The Romanians are a Dacian-Roman-Slavic mix. Meaning the Romanians also had Slavic words. So how do you tell which is which?

As I said before, not really hard there are specific ways to prove cities are of Slavic origin.

But what you are doing is just speculation Romanians are themselves a Dacian-Roman-Slavic mix doesn't prove anything at all.

2. Romanians did not create 90% of cities in Moldavia. as:

According to most scholars, who support a Romanized Dacians aka continuity theory. The Romanized Dacians retreated in the mountains in the early dark ages, when most cities were founded.

So.

They went into the mountains, and then, later, moved back to plains.

This proves ... my point that Moldavians came later (with Dragos or Bogdan)
So all of this to prove my point. funny

Yes, Brodnici and Berladnici are presumed to be Turkic populations. Point being?

Romanian speakers did not live there

Wait, I found this in the same source you mentioned:

l

The last time they were mentioned does not mean they are dead

Were Vlahs/Romanians mentioned in their lands in 1337? No

They are not mentioned because nobody cared, but this doesn't mean they vanished.

Nobody every denied that Vlachs came from Maramures in Moldavia, in fact, I said it first.

The denied part is the one where, you claim, so many Vlachs came from Maramures in Moldavia that it completely changed the makeup of the country. No source every mentions that. And it's not realistic either as too many Vlachs were needed to exist in a too small territory for that to be a real thing.

Many of those sources I mentioned had claimed the fields where Romanians came from were free and empty. Nothing states that Romanians were there already.

But wait:

Budjak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is actually one of the better claims you made. If only it had a source and was not just some unsupported claims on Wikipedia. You know it is not as powerful as you think. That is why no one quotes Wikipedia seriously and instead tries to use sources from Wikipedia to support claims

 

[ibvfteh]

so @Zeprion
Again you have only given your personal opinion rather than any serious source for your claims.

1. The Romanian population named cities using Slavic language constructions - your opinion
2. The Slavic population evaporated from their lands in 1337 - your opinion
3. The Turcic population evaporated from their lands in 1337 - your opinion
4. In every spot Romanian speakers in 1337 - your opinion

Please provide proof that in all 4 regions I outlined, Romanian speakers were the majority in 1337 or earlier with credible sources like articles, papers and books (No Wikipedia without sources for it). AND no future! 1337 =/= 15th, 16th or 17th centuries. But the 13th or 12th century will work for me. Everything before Dragos and Bogdan.

Because I have shown that after Bogdan and Dragos, the map did change significantly.

And before them, the Romanian population were largely in the mountains
You also provided a proof for it:

According to most scholars, who support a Romanized Dacians aka continuity theory. The Romanized Dacians retreated in the mountains in the early dark ages, when most cities were founded.

So, they were in the mountains. This means at some time they have come back, and a possible date for that comeback is the date described in Letopisețul Tarii Moldovei when Dragos came here.

Until then I have proven that in the 13th century map did look like this:

And only after Dragos and Bogdan, significant changes did occur in the area. This means it is also true for 1337

1257 =/= 1337.

even 1336 =/= 1337 and 1338 =/= 1337. This means this entire thread is useless by your standards. So, will you find sources for specifically 1337?

 

[Inzano]

Only 2 pages and I hope Moldovan war will end

 

[Makkasag]

Only 2 pages and I hope Moldovan war will end

 

[Zeprion]

Actually, that one is pretty easy. If a straight 25% of Romanian place names came from Slavic, they’d be distributed pretty evenly throughout Moldavia; the fact that there are clusters suggests that there were Slavs in those places.

Or that the Romanized Dacians retreated in the mountains in the early dark ages, when most cities were founded, then came to those cities who were founded by someone else, some 700-500 years before 1337.

During which the Jasz go missing.

I used ibvfteh's source, according to which there were only Romanian toponyms in the area.

“Sometime during the 14th century” could easily be after 1337; this also doesn’t mention colonization by Wallachia, which only gained independence in 1330 and I’m highly dubious that it colonized the Budjak coast in 7 years.
A dig through the Golden Horde wiki says that Golden Horde had no trouble raiding Thrace in 1337 (seems to me like they’d focus on Wallachian colonies instead, if those existed); it wasn’t until Jani Beg took the throne in 1342 that Golden Horde stopped pillaging the Balkans. That to me suggests that Wallachia didn’t have any control over Budjak until at least 1342, so those “Moldavian” pops shouldn’t be there.

Who said there was any colonization by Wallachia? they only conquered the land that already had Romanians in it.

"Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240s, inhabited the steppe, while Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and the port cities."

Seems to me like those “Moldavian” pops should be there regardless whether Wallachia controlled it in 1337 or later. Having no trouble raiding Thrace in 1337 doens't meant they bordered Thrace in 1337, you didn't have to border a region to raid it.

 

[ibvfteh]

I used ibvfteh's source, according to which there were only Romanian toponyms in the area.

Nomadic populations do not build cities. It is definition of being nomadic (not being settled aka having a settlement or a city). So it is irrelevant in this case.

That is why I have not used the map of cities to determine where nomads like Berladnici or Jasz lived.

 

[Zeprion]

This is irrelevant to our case, and you have assumed my position on that case.

This is the pinnacle of your argument strategy.
I am glad you have put it first for everyone to see.

I didn't assume it, you outright said it. Quote "so, I think, If we take into account that a lot of the Moldavian population will come after the start dat".

I can directly quote the post where you said that if you're interested.

This is the pinnacle of your argument strategy.
I am glad you have put it first for everyone to see.

Dacians are not connected with this at all. The last certain mention of Dacians as a group is in 336.
In your own words:

means Dacians are long gone and will not exist after that so Romanians who should be Romanized Dacians also don't exist at all.

Whoops...
Strange isn't it?
In your own words, we have proven that Romanised Dacians vanished for 1000 years before the game started. What a surprise! And then Vlah people magically appeared.

Then what is the problem?
Your argument

if people have stopped being mentioned by one name, it doesn't mean they have stopped existing.

Same with Bolokhovians. Their name has stopped being used. But they did not die. In fact, their name has changed to just ruși in Romanian.
Example:

The problem with your theory is that while the Dacians were long gone, the Vlachs appeared and everyone said "hey, these used to be the Dacians" so we have traceability. By contrast, there is no mention of a continuity for Bolokhovians, it's just your speculations that are not even based on proven sources.

I shall repost it in case you missed it:

Scrie la létopisețul cel moldovenescu, la predoslovie, de zice că deaca au ucis acei vânători acel buor, întorcându-se înapoi, văzând locuri desfătate, au luat pre câmpi într-o parte și au nemerit la locul unde acum târgul Sucévei. Acolo aminosindu-le fum de foc și fiind locul despre apă, cu pădure mănuntă, au pogorât pre mirodeniia fumului la locul unde este acum mănăstirea Ețcanei. Acolea pre acelaș loc au găsit o priseacă cu stupi și un moșneag bătrân, de prisăcăriia stupii, de seminție au fost rus și l-au chiemat Ețco. Pre carele deaca l-au intrebat vânătorii, ce omu-i și den ce țară este, el au spus că este rus den Țara Leșască. Așijderea și pentru loc l-au intrebat, ce loc este acesta și de ce stăpân ascultă ? Ețco au zis: este un loc pustiiu și fără stăpân, de-l domnescu fierile și pasările și să tinde locul în gios, păn' în Dunăre, iar în sus păn' în Nistru, de să hotăraște cu Țara Leșască, și este loc foarte bun de hrană. Înțelegând vânătorii acest cuvânt, au sârguit la Maramorăș, de ș-au tras oamenii săi într-această parte și pre alții au îndemnat, de au descălecat întăi supt munte și s-au lățit pre Moldova în gios. Iar Iațco prisecariul, deaca au înțeles de descălecarea maramorășénilor, îndată s-au dus și el în Țara Leșască, de au dus ruși mulți și i-au descălecat pre apa Sucévei în sus și pre Sirétiu despre Botoșiani. Și așa de sârgu s-au lățit rumănii în gios și rușii în sus.

This is talking about this:

Which was already accounted for in making this:

 

[ibvfteh]

I didn't assume it, you outright said it. Quote "so, I think, If we take into account that a lot of the Moldavian population will come after the start dat".

I can directly quote the post where you said that if you're interested.

This is the pinnacle of your argument strategy.
I am glad you have put it first for everyone to see.

Oh please enlighten how

The emergence of the Romanian population from Dacian IN TRANSYLVANIA AND WALLACHIA in 1-2 centuries AD corresponds with the Moldavian population coming to Moldova in the 14th century

You have sad:

Or that the Romanized Dacians retreated in the mountains in the early dark ages, when most cities were founded

Does it mean Romanized Dacians are still only in the mountains? Or they have moved down to plains and steppes?

 

[Makkasag]

A véce zárva van.

 

[Zeprion]

so @Zeprion
Again you have only given your personal opinion rather than any serious source for your claims.

1. The Romanian population named cities using Slavic language constructions - your opinion
2. The Slavic population evaporated from their lands in 1337 - your opinion
3. The Turcic population evaporated from their lands in 1337 - your opinion
4. In every spot Romanian speakers in 1337 - your opinion

I actually read your sources, and based on them remade the map. As you don't even read your sources and instead use them as speculations for your theories.

You are the one talking about your personal opinion rather than any serious source for your claims?

1. The Romanian population became a majority because they arrived with Bogdan from Maramures - your opinion
2. The Slavic population borders in 1337 - your opinion
3. The Turcic population borders in 1337 - your opinion
4. Only in Baia Romanian speakers in 1337 - your opinion

1. Is not only your opinion, but most scholars disagree with it.

View attachment 1217492
Please provide proof that in all 4 regions I outlined, Romanian speakers were the majority in 1337 or earlier with credible sources like articles, papers and books (No Wikipedia without sources for it). AND no future! 1337 =/= 15th, 16th or 17th centuries. But the 13th or 12th century will work for me. Everything before Dragos and Bogdan.

Because I have shown that after Bogdan and Dragos, the map did change significantly.

I laughed for 5 minutes at "because I have shown that after Bogdan and Dragos, the map did change significantly".

You did not show anything save your own speculations.

What did you exactly shown from a serious source? and what is your speculation? let's go back with your list of evidence:

1. Your whole premised based on which everything else is founded: "So, I think, If we take into account that a lot of the Moldavian population will come after the start date. I propose this (the second variant is more based on feedback from people)" - source: trust me bro.

It's like saying "So if we take into account that France invaded America in 1900, (...)". Please practice what you preach and: Please provide proof that in all 4 regions you outlined, Romanian speakers came after 1337 with credible sources like articles, papers and books (No Wikipedia without sources for it).

2. All your other sources were only superficially looked at, given that they did not agree with you but somehow used them as source, like these:

for 2,3:

from: Суляк Сергей Георгиевич Русинская топонимика Карпато-Днестровских земель как источник сведений об этническом составе населения Молдавского княжества

for 1,2,3:
O. Drâmba
modified in concordance with data from :
Atlasul istorico-geografic, Academia Română, Bucharest 1995, ISBN 973-27-0500-0,
Grigore Antipa, Delta Dunării și Marea Neagră, Academia Română, 1939 (shoreline in the past),
G.I. Brătianu, Cercetări asupra Vicinei și Cetății-Albe, Univ. din Iași, 1935,
Florin Constantiniu et al., Istoria lumii în date, ed. Enciclopedică, București 1971,
Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages: 500-1250, Cambridge University Press 2006, ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4,
Alexandru Filipașcu, Istoria Maramureșului, Bucharest 1940, 270 p.,
Petre Gâștescu, Romulus Știucă: Delta Dunării, CD-Press 2008, ISBN 978-973-1760-98-9 Ungültige ISBN,
Dinu Giurescu, Istoria ilustrată a Românilor, Sport-Turism, Bucharest 1981, pp. 72-121,
Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor, Partea II, Vol. 2, Oameni ai pământului (before year 1000), Bucharest, 1936, 352 p. and Vol. 3, Ctitorii, Bucharest, 1937, 358 p.,
Thede Kahl, Rumänien: Raum und Bevölkerung, Geschichte und Gesichtsbilder, Kultur, Gesellschaft und Politik heute, Wirtschaft, Recht und Verfassung, Historische RegionenGheorghe Postică, Civilizația veche românească din Moldova, Știința, Chișinău 1995,
V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid-Thirteen Century, Brill 2009,
Constantin-Mircea Ștefănescu, Nouvelles contributions à l’étude de la formation et de l’évolution du delta du Danube (shoreline in the past), Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, 1981,

This map just adds other historic entities on the map before

for the big percentage of Romanians in general:

Acc. to linguists who analyzed names of Moldavian villages mentioned in documents from 14-15th centuries, about 75% of the names are of Romanian origin, and 25% are Slavic (mostly in northern and eastern parts of Principality of Moldavia). Acc. to geographer Vadzim Žučkevič, of the 151 names of rivers in Moldova and the Chernivtsi region of Ukraine, 72 are of Slavic origin, 24 are Romanian, 18 are Hungarian, and 7 are Tatar. Meanwhile, among populated areas, 57% are of Romanian origin, 29% are Slavic, and 7% are Turkic.

for 4:

And before them, the Romanian population were largely in the mountains
You also provided a proof for it:

So, they were in the mountains. This means at some time they have come back, and a possible date for that comeback is the date described in Letopisețul Tarii Moldovei when Dragos came here.

Except Letopisețul Tarii Moldovei describes them as coming from Maramures, not from the Eastern Carpathians.

As you said, please provide proof that the Romanian speakers came from the Eastern Carpathians in big enough numbers to form a majority after 1337 with credible sources like articles, papers and books (No Wikipedia without sources for it). AND no past! 1337 =/= 12th, 11th or 10th centuries. But the 14th or 15th century will work for me.

Until then I have proven that in the 13th century map did look like this:
View attachment 1217493View attachment 1217496
And only after Dragos and Bogdan, significant changes did occur in the area. This means it is also true for 1337

even 1336 =/= 1337 and 1338 =/= 1337. This means this entire thread is useless by your standards. So, will you find sources for specifically 1337?

Your faulty premise aside, I have to love how you made the split:

It's like you didn't even try to hide your bias.

I am waiting proof for your premises.

Until then I have proven that in the 13th century map did look like this:

And before Dragos and Bogdan no significant changes did occur in the area. This means it is also true for 1337.

 

[purplephoton]

"Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240s, inhabited the steppe, while Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and the port cities."

My dude, have you read your own source?

The Romanians inhabited the port cities sometime during the 14th century… oh and guess what, my sources (which are more than a Wikipedia page without its own sources) suggest that Romanians colonized the area after at the very least 1342, and most likely after 1362.

Until then I have proven that in the 13th century map did look like this:

No, you’ve proven that you can’t read.

 

[Zeprion]

Your argument strategy at the moment:
View attachment 1217445

Every Romanian argument strategy will look like Ceausescu when sitting between 5 Viktor Orban and 3 Vladimir Putin and the topic turned into something like this:

 

[Zeprion]

My dude, have you read your own source?

The Romanians inhabited the port cities sometime during the 14th century… oh and guess what, my sources (which are more than a Wikipedia page without its own sources) suggest that Romanians colonized the area after at the very least 1342, and most likely after 1362.

No, you’ve proven that you can’t read.

My dude, can you read this part:

"Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240s, inhabited the steppe, while Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and the port cities."

It's from the source.

You cannot read it? or you can read it but cannot understand it?

 

[Makkasag]

Is not only your opinion, but most scholars disagree with it.

This is the second time you are relying on that Britannica article to say this.

The article was written by one man, Victor A. Friedman.

And although the page claims that the article was "Fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica" I am slightly hesitant to rely on it considering Mr. Friedman forgot to include his sources.

 

[purplephoton]

My dude, can you read this part:

"Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240s, inhabited the steppe, while Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and the port cities."

It's from the source.
View attachment 1217708
You cannot read it? or you can read it but cannot understand it?

Nogai Tatars settled in the 1240s. It doesn’t say when Romanians settled (hint: probably after 1362).

 

[Zeprion]

The Romanians inhabited the port cities sometime during the 14th century… oh and guess what, my sources (which are more than a Wikipedia page without its own sources) suggest that Romanians colonized the area after at the very least 1342, and most likely after 1362.

Nogai Tatars settled in the 1240s. It doesn’t say when Romanians settled (hint: probably after 1362).

I understand your confusion here. Let's help you clear it out.

Now, does this text say "The Romanians inhabited the port cities sometime during the 14th century"?
Say it with me kids: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Does this text say: "Wallachia's princes of the House of Basarab extended their authority over this territory in the 14th century?"
Say it with me kids: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS.

In fact, in the 14th century sentence it says nothing about ethnicity.
What it says about ethnicity is that in 1240s, the Tatars inhabbited the steppe, while the Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and the city ports.

You see it's a very subtle difference, some would argue it's not that hard to tell the difference but I know it must be very hard with all that Russian & Hungarian bias.

 

[ibvfteh]

1. Your whole premised based on which everything else is founded: "So, I think, If we take into account that a lot of the Moldavian population will come after the start date. I propose this (the second variant is more based on feedback from people)" - source: trust me bro.

laughed for 5 minutes at "because I have shown that after Bogdan and Dragos, the map did change significantly".

You did not show anything save your own speculations.

Says this and proceeds to ignore the story of this region on its own language

Dragos:
Bogdan:
1.

Bogdan voievodul românilor din Maramureș, adunând la el pe românii acelui district, a trecut în taină în țara Moldovei, care era supusă coroanei Ungariei, dar din cauza vecinătății tătarilor de mult timp părăsită de locuitori. Și cu toate că a fost combătut mai adeseori de oastea regelui însuși, totuși crescând marele număr al românilor locuitori în aceea țară, s-a dezvoltat ca stat.

Bogdan, voivode of the Romanians of Maramureș, gathering the Romanians of that district to himself, secretly crossed over into the land of Moldavia, which was subject to the crown of Hungary, but because of the Tartars' neighborhood had long since been deserted by its inhabitants. And although he was more often than not opposed by the king's own army, nevertheless, as the number of Romanians living in that country increased, he developed as a state.


The biographer of Louis I of Hungary, John of Küküllő recorded that "Bogdan, the voivode of the Romanians of Maramureș, gathering the Romanians from this district, secretly passed into Moldavia, which was subject to the Hungarian Crown, but had been abandoned by its inhabitants because of the vicinity of the Tatars."[22]
2.
John of Küküllő mentioned that Louis I's army often invaded Moldavia, but the "number of Vlachs inhabiting that land increased, transforming it into a country".[22]

3.
Around 1355, Bogdan of Cuhea, former Voivode of Maramureș, but now in conflict with Louis I of Hungary, crosses the mountains with other Vlachs from Maramureș and takes over Moldavia.[162]
from: Ioan Aurel Pop: Istoria României. Transilvania, Volumul I, Edit. „George Barițiu”, Cluj-Napoca, 1997, p.473

4.
Your quote
They did not just build the village for fun. I interpret that as they have moved from Maramureș and founded a new village in Moldavia which means they have migrated with someone to populate the villages.

Nearly all of that was in this thread. I hope I found everything in this compilation. But I believe there is more to dig into.

this is invalid

or 2,3:

from: Суляк Сергей Георгиевич Русинская топонимика Карпато-Днестровских земель как источник сведений об этническом составе населения Молдавского княжества

it does not follow the condition of being before Dragos and Bogdan. Moldavians moved and created cities. You said that:

Bogdan's companions founded new villages in Moldavia, naming them after their baptismal names or after the names of the villages they had left in Maramureș.

Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei say that
What it does prove: Even with this pressure many cities retained their Slavic names and the majority of the population.

for 1,2,3:
O. Drâmba
modified in concordance with data from :
Atlasul istorico-geografic, Academia Română, Bucharest 1995, ISBN 973-27-0500-0,
Grigore Antipa, Delta Dunării și Marea Neagră, Academia Română, 1939 (shoreline in the past),
G.I. Brătianu, Cercetări asupra Vicinei și Cetății-Albe, Univ. din Iași, 1935,
Florin Constantiniu et al., Istoria lumii în date, ed. Enciclopedică, București 1971,
Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages: 500-1250, Cambridge University Press 2006, ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4,
Alexandru Filipașcu, Istoria Maramureșului, Bucharest 1940, 270 p.,
Petre Gâștescu, Romulus Știucă: Delta Dunării, CD-Press 2008, ISBN 978-973-1760-98-9 Ungültige ISBN,
Dinu Giurescu, Istoria ilustrată a Românilor, Sport-Turism, Bucharest 1981, pp. 72-121,
Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor, Partea II, Vol. 2, Oameni ai pământului (before year 1000), Bucharest, 1936, 352 p. and Vol. 3, Ctitorii, Bucharest, 1937, 358 p.,
Thede Kahl, Rumänien: Raum und Bevölkerung, Geschichte und Gesichtsbilder, Kultur, Gesellschaft und Politik heute, Wirtschaft, Recht und Verfassung, Historische RegionenGheorghe Postică, Civilizația veche românească din Moldova, Știința, Chișinău 1995,
V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid-Thirteen Century, Brill 2009,
Constantin-Mircea Ștefănescu, Nouvelles contributions à l’étude de la formation et de l’évolution du delta du Danube (shoreline in the past), Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, 1981,

This map just adds other historic entities on the map before

for the big percentage of Romanians in general:

Not even an argument. Can you write? It proves my point rather than yours by having a direct area of all entities like Brodnici and Bolokhovians on the map. Also Jasz and Ceangii

Except Letopisețul Tarii Moldovei describes them as coming from Maramures, not from the Eastern Carpathians.

As you said, please provide proof that the Romanian speakers came from the Eastern Carpathians in big enough numbers to form a majority after 1337 with credible sources like articles, papers and books (No Wikipedia without sources for it). AND no past! 1337 =/= 12th, 11th or 10th centuries. But the 14th or 15th century will work for me.

So wait a minute...

Maramures is Eastern Carpatians.

But: I argue that Romanian speakers came to Moldavia. Not from where or how. Like they could be from the Eastern/Southern or any other Carpathians, it won't change anything.

And my sources are still the same at the start.

 

[ibvfteh]

I am waiting proof for your premises.

I have done my part to prove this multiple times.
you can read the answer here. Answering every question you have asked me to answer by using more than one credible source

huh okay

As I said, I treat Bolokhovian as a name for Slavic speaking population of Moldavia. Both you and Tinto can name them however you like and feel appropriate. I am open to discussions on their name. But Bolokhovians are a Slavic population. SO I treat Bolokhovians and Ruthenians as synonyms in the Moldavia region with different time dates assigned. Before 13 century Bolokhovians and after Ruthenians

sources for the map:
1.
Map of areas of toponyms in the 14-15 century (so after the establishment of the Moldavian duchy, and for me after migration)
View attachment 1216301View attachment 1216302
from: Суляк Сергей Георгиевич Русинская топонимика Карпато-Днестровских земель как источник сведений об этническом составе населения Молдавского княжества

2.
from:
Ovidiu Drimba - History of Romanian culture and civilization, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1987, vol.2, pg.404
Română:
Ovidiu Drimba - Istoria culturii şi civilizaţiei româneşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1987, vol.2, pag.404


This map shows the approximate territories of different people (Tara - Latin: terra - territory)
Bolohoveni(Bolokhovians) are shown on the Eastern side between Prut and Dniester
It also shows Românilor, the territory of the Romanian(Moldavian) population.

View attachment 1216303

and jointly with it 2.1.

from:
O. Drâmba
modified in concordance with data from :
Atlasul istorico-geografic, Academia Română, Bucharest 1995, ISBN 973-27-0500-0,
Grigore Antipa, Delta Dunării și Marea Neagră, Academia Română, 1939 (shoreline in the past),
G.I. Brătianu, Cercetări asupra Vicinei și Cetății-Albe, Univ. din Iași, 1935,
Florin Constantiniu et al., Istoria lumii în date, ed. Enciclopedică, București 1971,
Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages: 500-1250, Cambridge University Press 2006, ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4,
Alexandru Filipașcu, Istoria Maramureșului, Bucharest 1940, 270 p.,
Petre Gâștescu, Romulus Știucă: Delta Dunării, CD-Press 2008, ISBN 978-973-1760-98-9 Ungültige ISBN,
Dinu Giurescu, Istoria ilustrată a Românilor, Sport-Turism, Bucharest 1981, pp. 72-121,
Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor, Partea II, Vol. 2, Oameni ai pământului (before year 1000), Bucharest, 1936, 352 p. and Vol. 3, Ctitorii, Bucharest, 1937, 358 p.,
Thede Kahl, Rumänien: Raum und Bevölkerung, Geschichte und Gesichtsbilder, Kultur, Gesellschaft und Politik heute, Wirtschaft, Recht und Verfassung, Historische RegionenGheorghe Postică, Civilizația veche românească din Moldova, Știința, Chișinău 1995,
V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid-Thirteen Century, Brill 2009,
Constantin-Mircea Ștefănescu, Nouvelles contributions à l’étude de la formation et de l’évolution du delta du Danube (shoreline in the past), Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, 1981,

This map just adds other historic entities on the map before

View attachment 1216304

3.

4.


5.
View attachment 1216568View attachment 1216570
A lot of cities in this region were listed in the List of Russian Cities, Far and Near(14th century). That means that there were a lot of people that could communicate in a Slavic language. Here is the map showing all the mentions. As you can see Bulgarian cities are included but Wallachians are not! Wich means that it wasn’t based on religion.

source: List of Russian Cities, Far and Near (the 14th–15th century)

6.
View attachment 1216567
Toponyms of Slavic origin in Romania acc. to Emil Petrovici

The map shows big cities with Slavic names


1.
Map of areas of toponims in 14-15 century (so after establishment of Moldavian duchy, and for me after migration)
View attachment 1216301View attachment 1216302
from: Суляк Сергей Георгиевич Русинская топонимика Карпато-Днестровских земель как источник сведений об этническом составе населения Молдавского княжества

has no mention of moldavian or slavic villages near Budjak

2.
quote from Romanian Wikipedia showing Brodnici and Berladnici are presumed to be Turkic populations. I don't think I need to add here



3.
Areas of Brodnici and Berladnici - A presumed Turkic population.

This map shows the approximate territories of different people (Tara - Latin: terra - territory)
Tara Berladnicilor and Tara Brodniclor are shown near the Siret and Prut rivers

View attachment 1216977
also from O. Drâmba

4.
Before those lands were controlled by the Cumman people - Kipchak or to be specific in current cultural divisions of EU5 Crimean
View attachment 1216307



Not only Bogdan or only Dragos. I apologise if I was misleading. It was a process and both did that

Dragos:

Bogdan:
1.
The biographer of Louis I of Hungary, John of Küküllő recorded that "Bogdan, the voivode of the Romanians of Maramureș, gathering the Romanians from this district, secretly passed into Moldavia, which was subject to the Hungarian Crown, but had been abandoned by its inhabitants because of the vicinity of the Tatars."[22]

2.
John of Küküllő mentioned that Louis I's army often invaded Moldavia, but the "number of Vlachs inhabiting that land increased, transforming it into a country".[22]

3.
Around 1355, Bogdan of Cuhea, former Voivode of Maramureș, but now in conflict with Louis I of Hungary, crosses the mountains with other Vlachs from Maramureș and takes over Moldavia.[162]
from: Ioan Aurel Pop: Istoria României. Transilvania, Volumul I, Edit. „George Barițiu”, Cluj-Napoca, 1997, p.473

4.
Your quote

They did not just build the village for fun. I interpret that as they have moved from Maramureș and founded a new village in Moldavia which means they have migrated with someone to populate the villages.


Nearly all of that was in this thread. I hope I found everything in this compilation. But I believe there is more to dig into.

Only after you

Please provide proof that in all 4 regions I outlined, Romanian speakers were the majority in 1337 or earlier with credible sources like articles, papers and books (No Wikipedia without sources for it). AND no future! 1337 =/= 15th, 16th or 17th centuries. But the 13th or 12th century will work for me. Everything before Dragos and Bogdan.

Give me sources that Romanin speakers were the majority in 1337 or earlier