Regisztráció Blogot indítok
Adatok
Justice for Hungary

0 bejegyzést írt és 2 hozzászólása volt az általa látogatott blogokban.

Admin Szerkesztő Tag Vendég
Valós román őstörténet: a vándorlási elmélet.És akkor a végkifejlet. Ha a románok nem a dákok leszármazottai és nem éltek mindig a mai románia területén, akkor kik ők és honnan származnak? Két kiindulási alapunk van: az egyik a román nyelv maga, a másik pedig az írott…..
Justice for Hungary 2019.02.27 09:12:42
@Nimeni Altul:
Hello.
I found this article yesterday and saw your comments. My English is not perfect, but I try to reply to your comments, I hope you will understand it.
I only want to reflect on your thoughts about the presence of romanians in Transylvania, because I really don't care about Wallachia or Moldavia. Romanians only created this theory to prove their right to rule Transylvania, which is an ancient hungarian territory. But if your theory is right, the majority of Transylvania was Romanian when the Hungarian tribes conquered it in the 9th and 10th century. In that case, what is the explanation that hungarian language was so widespread in Transylvania, the name of the cities, towns, villages, rivers, mountains etc are originated from hungarian language and people in Transylvania have been speaking the hungarian language since 1100 years? It is a fact that hungarian tribes only included 100, 000 - 150,000 people and not all of them was hungarian speaker. And not all of them settled down in Transylvania, maybe 30, 000 - 50, 000 hungarian went there. If there were thousands and thousands of romanian speaking people (as you claim), how it was possible that hungarian language remained so widespread? For example, take a look at Bulgaria, where the originally turkish bulgarians changed their language to slavic, because the majority of Bulgaria was slavic. But hungarians didn't change their language to romanian, so I think there were NO romanians in Transylvania. They came centuries after the hungarians conquered Transylvania from Bulgaria and became the majority of Transylvania, because mongols and ottomans killed most of the hungarian people during the wars.
Justice for Hungary 2019.05.29 11:51:09
@Nimeni Altul:

Transylvania was an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary.

It is obvius that Transylvania was not a Romanian state. It was a very sparsely populated territory between the Kingdom of the East Franks and the First Bulgarian Empire, when Magyar tribes arrived in the 9th century. They found there Slavic people and Avars. Their language showed similarities with Avar language, so they did not fight with each other (maybe Székely people are the descendants of Avars). No signs of Romanian people…

Transylvania was ruled by the secondary Magyar leader (Gyula). Stephen I of Hungary conquered the territory from the Gyula in 1003. So he conquered it from an another Magyar leader, not from a Romanian leader. This is the reason why Transylvania was an autonomous region of the Kingdom of Hungary (as Voivodeship of Transylvania).

The truth is that the first Romanian settlers arrived in the 13th century (after the Mongol invasion of Hungary). Mongol hordes literally destroyed Cumania which was a nomadic state located in Wallachia and Moldavia. After this event, Romanian people settled down in Wallachia and Moldavia, even the first independent voevodes of Wallachia were Cumans (for example Basarab).

Béla IV of Hungary was the first king who invited Romanian people to settle down in the lands of Transylvania, because he decided to build fortresses on the high mountains against the Mongol hordes (Mongols were not quite effective in siege warfare). Magyars and Saxons did not want to live in the mountains, but the ancestors of Romanian people came from the Albanian and Macedonian mountains, so that “lifestyle” was very suitable for them.

They also migrated to Transylvania from Wallachia and Moldavia when the latter two were Ottoman vassal states. They became the majority in the 18th century, after the Hungarian population of Transylvania was decimated by the Ottomans. The reason is simple: most of the warriors who fought against them were ethnic Hungarians or Székelys.

The three political "nations" of the Principality of Transylvania (the Hungarians, Saxons and Székelys) enjoyed special privileges, while local legislation emphasized that the Romanians had been "admitted into the country for the public good" and they were only "tolerated for the benefit of the country". Romanians were not part of the regular army because they were not recognized as a political nation of the Principality of Transylvania. Also Romanian people lived in the mountains which were safer at the time.

I dont't care about the names of the settlements. The names of the rivers are more important and they are originates from Hungarian and Slavic languages.
Nádas-Nădaş --> Nádas means "reeds" in Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian.
Füzes-Fizeş --> Füzes means "osiery" in Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian.
Lápos–Lăpuş --> Lápos means "marshland" in Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian?
Almás–Almaş --> Almás means "apple" in Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian?
Szőcs–Suciul --> Szőcs means "skinner" in Old Hungarian. What does it mean in Romanian?
Sebes ("Fast")–Sebeş, Hagymás ("Onion")–Hăşmaş, Kormos ("Clawed")–Cormoş....

If it is an ancient Romanian territory, why they borrowed the names of the rivers from the Hungarian language? As I have said, I don't care about the settlements, because you can establish a settlement in any time and name it in your own language, but you can't establish rivers, so I think it is logical that the first settlers name them and the others simply borrow it without meaning anything in their own language.
Even the names of the 3 greatest rivers (Szamos, Maros, Olt) were borrowed from from Hungarian by the Romanians! Because the Romans called them "Samus", "Morus" and "Alutus". Then it should be Sames, Mares and Alut - according to the laws of Romanian language.