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

[ArVass]

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:
View attachment 1217706

>extremely paranoid, specifically about a country half their size
>seems to believe that repeating unsubstantiated theories (le continuity theory) makes them true if you believe in them hard enough
>has a weird hill to die on, although apparently already dead

Yep, Ceauşecks out!


Jokes aside, up to this point I've been refraining from making ad hominem accusations because I think they are lowly, but hey, two can play that game.

 

[Zeprion]

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

Actually used the story of this region on its own language to show why you're wrong.

this is invalid

it does not follow the condition of being before Dragos and Bogdan.

lmao.

Your response is gold.

It's the same map you used as "evidence" for the Slavs.

How come it's invalid for me but when you have to use it as evidence is 100% valid?

Moldavians moved and created cities. You said that:

Nope, I didn't.

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.

What does this actually prove: you do not have any serious sources save your own speculations.

What pressure? there was no pressure. Please tell me about a serious sources talking about this pressure. As opposed to your speculations.

Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei say 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. But what pressure are you even talking about? the pressure of new villages being constructed near you by a handful of people?

Please provide proof for your speculated pressure with credible sources like articles, papers and books.

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

Yes, it proves your point rather than mine by having a light green background for the areas where the Romanians lived that you didn't respect at all when you quoted this source.

A direct area of all entities like Brodnici and Bolokhovians that didn't exist in 1337 but you still used them to "create" a 1337 map.

So wait a minute...
View attachment 1217711
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.

You argue that Romanian speakers came to Moldavia in big enough numbers to completely change the demographics of Moldavia.

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.

Otherwise it's just pure speculation on your part.

 

[kagami1999]

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

I find this pretty unlikely, Iasi itself is a Jasz toponym, and according to Dušan's code, the Jasz lordship (gospodstvo) participated in the Battle of Velbazhd in 1330 on the Bulgarian side. Seems very reasonable to presume that it still existed in 1337, given that the Moldavian state had not yet expanded into the area. Also, there were a number of villages around Iasi which contained the word Șchei (an old Romanian exonym for Bulgarians), which doesn't bode well for the idea that Romanians were the only people living near Iasi during the middle ages.

 

[Zeprion]

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

You have done your part to prove nothing of substance.
You can read why the sources in your answer do not prove your case here. The sources were credible but what the sources said & what speculations you drew from the sources are 2 completely different things.

As of right now, you haven't proven anything of substance.

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.


As I said, whether Bolokhovian is isn't a name for Slavic speaking population of Moldavia is irrelevant. Bolokhovians were last recorded in 1257, the game starts in 1337. Long after Bolokhovians were gone.

Bolokhovians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1217362

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.

To say nothing of the random borders you made for the Bolokhovians.

Bye bye Bolokhovians.

Rework1:
View attachment 1217365

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. 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.

But okay, let's stay true to the toponyms you discovered:

Rework2:
View attachment 1217367

Bukovina - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1217370

So Bukovina had both Romanians and Ruthenians.

Rework3:
View attachment 1217372

Once again:
1257 =/= 1337.

View attachment 1217374

rework 4:
View attachment 1217375


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?


In what year did they populate them?


1. Romanians are themselves a Dacian-Roman-Slavic mix.
2. Romanians did not create 90% of cities in Moldavia. as:
View attachment 1217378
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 yes, you are right that they came to those cities who were founded by someone else, except some 700-500 years before 1337.


Nothing odd about that.

The Romanians are a Dacian-Roman-Slavic mix. Meaning the Romanians also had Slavic words. 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.


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



Okay, rework 5:
View attachment 1217384

Wait, I found this in the same source you mentioned:
View attachment 1217385

Nevermind, back to rework 4, as the game starts in 1337:
View attachment 1217386

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.

But wait:

Budjak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1217388

rework6:
View attachment 1217389

Well, I guess you were close enough.

You're the one making up a theory that no historian has every spoken of before, so after you.

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.

Please provide proof for the Maramures Chinese factory of Romanians theory. As the numbers you theorize don't add up.

Until then, this is the closest we have to something based on credible sources:

 

[Zeprion]

I find this pretty unlikely, Iasi itself is a Jasz toponym, and according to Dušan's code, the Jasz lordship (gospodstvo) participated in the Battle of Velbazhd in 1330 on the Bulgarian side. Seems very reasonable to presume that it still existed in 1337, given that the Moldavian state had not yet expanded into the area. Also, there were a number of villages around Iasi which contained the word Șchei (an old Romanian exonym for Bulgarians), which doesn't bode well for the idea that Romanians were the only people living near Iasi during the middle ages.

ibvfteh selectively used that map to prove Slavic majority in Northern Moldavia. So I used that map as well.

 

[Makkasag]

This is the second time

Third

 

[ibvfteh]

Your response is gold.

It's the same map you used as "evidence" for the Slavs.

How come it's invalid for me but when you have to use it as evidence is 100% valid?

Because after the migration, Slavic toponyms have not been changed. They remained Slavic in origin

While places with nomadic populations do not have settlements. Thus villages will have Moldavian names after the migration.

I have asked you to prove their existence before Dragos and Bogdan explicitly to contradict with my argument.

Yes, it proves your point rather than mine by having a light green background for the areas where the Romanians lived that you didn't respect at all when you quoted this source.

A direct area of all entities like Brodnici and Bolokhovians that didn't exist in 1337 but you still used them to "create" a 1337 map.

A light green background doesn't mean Romanian. By this standard everyone in Transylvania is Romanian and Germans and Hungarians there do not exist.

 

[Makkasag]

everyone in Transylvania is Romanian and Germans and Hungarians there do not exist

Problem?

 

[Zeprion]

>extremely paranoid, specifically about a country half their size

You guys wrote in Hungarian and Russian in this topic. Is it paranoia to say that someone who speaks in Hungarian is likely Hungarian?

>seems to believe that repeating unsubstantiated theories (le continuity theory) makes them true if you believe in them hard enough

"unsubstantiated theories"

Most scholars who are not nationally affiliated assume the second "unsubstantiated theory". There, fixed it.

>has a weird hill to die on, although apparently already dead

Numerically overwhelmed, yes. But hey, looks like Hungarian and Russian nationalism is strong and kicking.

Yep, Ceauşecks out!

Jokes aside, up to this point I've been refraining from making ad hominem accusations because I think they are lowly, but hey, two can play that game.

> Only Hungarians and Russians currently on this topic other than me.
> Rather nationalistic usernames.
> Thinks Britannica is a bad source when disagrees with them.
> Their speculations are not even regarded as speculations by them but rather pure fact.
> Uses sources as evidence selectively, only the part that would make them look good, and even then what source says and what they speculate is 2 different things.

I mean, just turn back to page 98:

Based on this text, which is not that complicated. Someone from team HU concluded that "The Romanians inhabited the port cities sometime during the 14th century".

Because to him "Wallachia's princes of the House of Basarab extended their authority over this territory in the 14th century" must somehow (by speculation) translate to "The Romanians inhabited the port cities sometime during the 14th century".
This is not some very subtle difference, it's right there on the face and it's very easy to tell the difference.

Yep, Putin - Orban team checks out.

 

[Makkasag]

Third

Fourth

 

[Zeprion]

Because after the migration, Slavic toponyms have not been changed. They remained Slavic in origin

While places with nomadic populations do not have settlements. Thus villages will have Moldavian names after the migration.

I have asked you to prove their existence before Dragos and Bogdan explicitly to contradict with my argument.

Is this big migration with us in the room?

You seem to be avoiding to provide credible sources as evidence for this big migration for 3 pages now. But somehow expect us to believe in your migration?

The new villages will have Moldavian names. The old villages will keep their names.

You seem to believe that the Romanian speakers came from the Eastern Carpathians in big enough numbers to form a majority after 1337. Which no credible source says.

I have asked you to prove their existence of this because that is the premise based on which all your theories stand. If this is false, everything else you said based on this is false.

A light green background doesn't mean Romanian. By this standard everyone in Transylvania is Romanian and Germans and Hungarians there do not exist.

Light Green -> Romanians
Yellow -> Kingdom of Hungary, rather than "Hungarians"
Pink -> Byzantine Empire, rather than "Byzantines"
etc.

 

[ArVass]

You guys spoke in Hungarian and Russian in this topic. Is it paranoia to say that someone who speaks in Hungarian is likely Hungarian?

"unsubstantiated theories"
View attachment 1217744
Most scholars who are not nationally affiliated assume the second "unsubstantiated theory". There, fixed it.

(For which theory there still is no convincing evidence, despite two hundred years of conscious effort to prove it; it just happens that many of those who have not actually looked into the topic ever default to the Romanian opinion, which I can understand but it still doesn't make it stand on a stronger foundation)

Numerically overwhelmed, yes. But hey, looks like Hungarian and Russian nationalism is strong and kicking.

> Only Hungarians and Russians currently on this topic other than me.
> Rather nationalistic usernames.

Purplephoton is not Hungarian or Russian and does not speak or read either languages. Idk if ibvfteh or Inzano are Russian or not but I fail to see how their usernames are nationalistic.
The only actual Hungarians in this conversation are Makkasag and myself, neither of us actually arguing about the exact ethnic setup of Moldavia, I actually wouldn't even have entered this conversation if you weren't starting some sort of hypocritical paranoia-fueled victim-complex whatever when you realized other people have different sources and conclusions than you.
Neither of our usernames are nationalistic either.

> Thinks Britannica is a bad source when disagrees with them.

Britannica is just an encyclopedia written by people who may or may not be right. I love how you frame this as sort of hypocrisy, like if they were using Britannica against your claims one second but then denying it when you use it yourself, which did not happen.

> Their speculations are not even regarded as speculations by them but rather pure fact.
> Uses sources as evidence selectively, only the part that would make them look good, and even then what source says and what they speculate is 2 different things.

I wonder who else does this in this thread, Zeprion.

 

[Inzano]

Moldova should have is own Tinto Maps thread.

 

[bokorthedust]

A véce zárva van.

Ave Caesar vavan!

 

[ibvfteh]

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 we start with the continuity theory.

The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube

So this happened while Dacia was a part of Roman Empire (territory encompassing modern Transylvania and Wallachia) and later after that

But then:

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

This says that Romanian population have not been in Moldavia in the Dark Ages. They have been in the mountains and Moldavia is on the flat side (there is a region near the mountains, where I believe Romanians did live).

Who lived there instead? Tivertsi and Ulici for example

Tivertsi and Ulichs are briefly mentioned in early Ruthenian manuscripts, 863 being the earliest reference, and 944 being the latest. The Primary Chronicle from the Laurentian Codex (the oldest copy) mentions that they lived by the Dniester and Danube down to the sea (evidently, the Black Sea).

…улучи и тиверцы седяху бо по Днестру, присѣдяху къ Дунаеви; бе множьство ихъ, сѣдяху по Днестру оли до моря, и суть гради их и до сегодне

The Hypatian Codex (later re-copy) replaces the Dniester with the Dnieper. Igor's expeditions in 944, the latter year being the last reference to Tivertsi in early East Slavic manuscripts.
So the lands in our question were the edges of their habitat at worst.

Then Cumans subjugated them.

What do we have after Tivertsi? Bolokhovians. Not many sources for them, as unfortunately, they did not write anything, and no one wrote about them alot. Same Slavic language but they are called differently. We have spoken about them a lot.

And, Romanians are not mentioned to live somewhere between Prut and Dniestr rivers at that time.
Blokumen? Blokumanland / Blökumanland / Blakumanland / Romania - land south of the lower Danube.

Bolokhovians are Slavic, Birladnici are Turcic

So the question is, when did Romanians move away from the mountains and into the plains? As they in fact did it someday to become a majority of the region. You do not need a lot of people to change the map of lands, not highly populated, to begin with.

Here so you can find the answer. I highlighted the important parts that specifically mention the migration of the people.

Dragos:

Ce cu voia sfinții sale, îndemnându-să o samă de ficiori de domni den domniile ce au fost pre acéle vremi la Râm și cu oamenii lor den Maramurăș, viind preste munții ungurești și preste munții țărâi Moldovei, vânându heri sălbatece păn' au ieșit la apa ce-i dzice Moldoa, gonind un dzimbru, carele l-au și dobânditu la un sat ce să chiamă Buorenii, pre aceia apă. Ș-au pus acei ape numele Moldova, pre numele unii țânci ce s-au înecatu într-acea apă, ce o au chemat pre țâncă Molda și pre numele ei să dzice acmu și țărâi Moldova, păn' astădzi. Ieșindu la loc frumos și deșchis, socotindu cu toții că-i loc bun de hrană și plăcându-le tuturor, s-au întorsu înapoi iarăși în Maramurăș ș-au scos oamenii lor toți într-această țară.
...
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.


What with the will of his saint, urging a number of sons of lords from the lordships that were before those times in Râm and with their men from Maramurăs, coming to the Hungarian mountains and to the mountains of Moldavia, hunting wild game until they came out to the water that Moldoa says to him, chasing a deer, which they acquired in a village, what to call it Buorenii, for that water. Those waters gave themselves the name Moldova, after the name of some ants who drowned in that water, who called it Molda ants, and because of her name they say acmu and lands of Moldova, until today. Going out to a beautiful and open place, all of them considering it a good place for food and pleasing to all, they returned back again to Maramurăs and removed all their people to this country.
...

It is written in the Moldavian letopisect, in the predoslovie, that when those hunters killed that buor, turning back, seeing the delightful places, they took the fields to one side and went to the place where now the fair of Sucévei. There they were aminosinduindule smoke of fire and being the place about water, with forest mănuntă, they pogorât pre mirodeniia smoke at the place where is now the monastery of Ețcanei. Near the same place they found a hive with beehives and an old man, from the beehives, from the tribe they were Russian and called him Ețco. When the hunters asked him, what kind of a man he was and what country he was from, he said that he was a Russian from the Land of Lesch. Then they asked him about the place, what place is this, and what lord does he obey? And they said, 'It is a desolate place without a lord, a place where iron and birds rule, and the place stretches down to the Danube and up to the Dniester, where it borders on the land of the land of the Lezsaks, and is a very good place to eat. And when the hunters understood this word, they went diligently to Maramorăș, so that they drew his men to that side, and urged others, and they dismounted first under the mountains and went to Moldavia in the mountains. As soon as Iacchus the Prisecari, when they heard of the dismounting of the Maramorans, they immediately went to the land of the Leasca, and brought many Russians and dismounted them upstream by the Sucéva and Sirétiu about the Botoșiani. And so the Rumanians and the Russians were so diligently spread out.

Click to expand...

this says that he with his people came from the mountains to the empty fields

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]

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.

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

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.

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.


In the end, I believe I have reiterated again how Romanians migrated to the fields from the mountains. They have not lived there since the Dark Ages, instead Slavic people lived there. Some day Romanians should have migrated to the Moldavian fields, and everything says that it should have been around the times of Dragos and Bogdan. I have not found any sources saying that they migrated earlier to the lands in question. This is why I have asked you for this with a specific date being before 1337. So we can add them to the map accordingly.

Now I politely ask you to do the same to prove Romanians did populate the region before 1337. So I repeat my question:

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.

 

[Makkasag]

How about we nuke it?

 

[Zeprion]

(For which theory there still is no convincing evidence, despite two hundred years of conscious effort to prove it; it just happens that many of those who have not actually looked into the topic ever default to the Romanian opinion, which I can understand but it still doesn't make it stand on a stronger foundation) Purplephoton is not Hungarian or Russian and does not speak or read either languages. Idk if ibvfteh or Inzano are Russian or not but I fail to see how their usernames are nationalistic. The only actual Hungarians in this conversation are Makkasag and myself, neither of us actually arguing about the exact ethnic setup of Moldavia, I actually wouldn't even have entered this conversation if you weren't starting some sort of hypocritical paranoia-fueled victim-complex whatever when you realized other people have different sources and conclusions than you. Neither of our usernames are nationalistic either. Britannica is just an encyclopedia written by people who may or may not be right. I love how you frame this as sort of hypocrisy, like if they were using Britannica against your claims one second but then denying it when you use it yourself, which did not happen. I wonder who else does this in this thread, Zeprion.

The exact same applies to the immigrationist theory. Therefore, why we only have theories, not facts. But as Britannica said, most scholars who are not nationally affiliated assume the continuity theory to be true. There is a difference between scholars and regular people who have not actually looked into the topic. I like to read non-Hungarian and non-Romanian historians exactly for this reason, and Jean W. Sedlar, Martyn Rady, George W. White and Dennis Deletant agree with the continuity theory.

By contrats, ibvfteh's whole theory began with "If we take into account that a lot of the Moldavian population will come after the start date. I propose this", essentially, the premise for his map is "if we take into account that the immigrationist theory is true" which (a) is a theory for which there still is no convincing evidence and (b) is not even the most mainstream theory among scholars, that would be the continuity theory.

You can see why I would disagree with a map whose very premise is "if we take this theory which is not the most believed by scholars as a fact".

And then for 3 pages I kept asking him again and again to show evidence for that premise. Evidence that his premise happened & evidence that such a big migration from Maramures would be logically possible. Because, according to his theory (that no source ever mentions, he offered source of toponyms that I responded to, which led to those "were are the Jassy?" questions when I used his soruces the same way he did), the reason Moldavia was overwhelmingly populated by Romanians it was that after Bogdan all those Romanians came from Maramures. As a source says some of Bogdan's people came to Moldavia and build villages.

He takes that some of Bogdan's people came to Moldavia and build villages, as enough of Bogdan's people came to Moldavia and build villages all over Moldavia so that in a few years Moldavia became overwhelmingly Romanian which it previously wasn't. Which is something that (a) the source does not say, it's just his speculation. (b) is logically a big stretch, given how many Romanians would need to exist in Maramures to not only become the majority in all of Moldavia but stay the majority in Maramures too.

According to ibvfteh's theory, the Romanians living in the red area (Maramures) were enough to make the blue areas Romanian majorities.

I kept asking him for 3 pages what source mentions this & how is this logically possible, what number of Romanians would have to live in the red area to populate and become the ethnic majority in all the blue areas within a decade? and whether he can provide a credible source for this.

 

[Makkasag]

Fourth

Fifth

 

[ibvfteh]

The exact same applies to the immigrationist theory. Therefore, why we only have theories, not facts. But as Britannica said, most scholars who are not nationally affiliated assume the continuity theory to be true. There is a difference between scholars and regular people who have not actually looked into the topic. I like to read non-Hungarian and non-Romanian historians exactly for this reason, and Jean W. Sedlar, Martyn Rady, George W. White and Dennis Deletant agree with the continuity theory.

Well, I agree with the continuity theory.

The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube

And I also agree with

that the Romanized Dacians retreated in the mountains in the early dark ages

which happens after continuity theory, because Dark Ages (5th–10th centuries) came after Roman Empire (The fall of Rome was completed in 476)

 

[Makkasag]

PAGE 100 BABY

WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO