Sources about Vlachs, Written sources about vlachs before 10 c

Yes, I found it, finally, but I've told you, I know no kirilic(barerly I could remember russian alphabet, from gymnasium)
I've found two interesting quotes(I can't help myself to post):
Lucius Florus(2-nd cnt): Dacians rest hanged on their mountains(dacii inhaerent montibus)
Benjamin of Tudela: Vlachs are nimble montaineers, coming down from the mountain to attack the greeks. No man can go up and battle against them and no king can rule over them

There are others sources. Even Runic ones, in Gotland Island, from sec IX, in one's viking tomb, it was discovered a inscription about Viking Rodof who was killed by Blakumen during his far away trip. Historians are sure that Blakumen is a word who describes the Vlahs, and this is maybe the first written source about Romanians fwho lived on eastern part of Carpathians. It is known that the way from Varegs to Greeks was on Volga, Don, Dniestr, maybe Prut rivers.

"Romanian" in the first millenium had a different meaning.
At that time, "Romania" was another name for Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire)
Radu

"Romanian" in the first millenium had a different meaning.
At that time, "Romania" was another name for Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire)
Radu

I assume that by romanians he meant rumâni

3 viking swords were discovered in Transilvania, coming from Middle Ages.

There is no difference. In the first millenium AD, Romania/Rumania or variations thereof meant Byzantium.
Radu

Those Blakumen was for sure the Vlahs. But we know that Vlah is an exonim, is a name gived by some foreigners to Romanians, so is no doubt about who's who there.

Another source i read about it was the oldest turkic chronicle (of Petcheng/Cumans), called Oguzname, who mention (for the IX century AD) a country called Ulak-meaning of Vlak/Vlachs (among ones called Urus-of Russians, or viking Rus more exactly, Magar-of maghyars etc.)

I found one article about the origin of the name Vlach. The Germanic tribes named the Romans Wallachians, and later they named the same Daco-Romanian population in Carpathians. Later Wallchians become Vlachs.

There is no difference. In the first millenium AD, Romania/Rumania or variations thereof meant Byzantium.
Radu

He said Romanians with "R" instead of "r", not Romania. or do you think vlachs didn't called themselves rumani?

This post has been edited by Valium on May 03, 2011 10:05 am

Initially wlach, vlach and other derivate names like this were atributed by german spokers to a large sort of latin roots populations. Later the name of wallachians refered only to romanians. In late antiquity and early Middle Ages existed more Romania, following of retreating roman administration from various parts of Europe, as a legacy left to the populations who didnt abandoned their homes when roman authorities retreated. There are still regions with names deriving from that Romanies, as Romagna and so on.

Yes, there were Romania in france, Italy and Spain

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/09...re-sterila.html

While being in Turkish Kurdistan many years ago, I was surprised to learn that some basic words in Kurdish language are almost identical with their equivalents in Romanian/Latin, and in the same time far away from their equivalents in neighboring Turkish language.
The only explanation I can think is that these words were inherited from the Roman Empire. The Turks arrived in the area at the end of the XIth century. The Iranians and the Assyrians are the only people in that area older than the Roman Empire.
Of course, you may add the Greeks, but they were "pacified" by the Turks in the early 1920's. I don't know what was left of them in that area.

Closer to the topic: there was an article many years ago in Magazin Istoric (The Historical Almanac) mentioning some Romanian technicians and engineers contacted by villagers while having a project in the Middle East (Syria, if I remember correctly). The villagers seemed to understand well enough the talking of the Romanians. Starting from this, the author of the article in Magazin Istoric discovered that a Byzantine emperor moved population from the Danube area to that part of Syria.

But you see... I have nothing to "prove" to you. This is not a whim (moft ;-) ) of my own. You can do your own research and find on your own old Romanian texts and try to read them for yourself. You do not need my help or guidance. You must find for yourself whether old Romanian is the same as modern Romanian. A visit to your local history museum is a good start.
Radu

Sorry for being about 1,5 yrs late to join this discussion/topic. But I just had to comment what you wrote regarding reading old Romanian respectively 'modern Romanian.
Of course it will be some struggle in trying to read 'old Romanian' with some fluency. But this is the same fact you will encounter when reading any language, when reading an old document.
How easy do you think it is for a French person of today to read a French document 4-600 yrs old? Or reading an old English document from the 11-12th century, or an Italian, Spanish or German document - not to mention a Document written in 13th century Swedish?
EVERY language changes with the passing of time, and every new generation will find it more and more difficult to understand what the forefathers of us all once wrote.
Romanian medieval documents are sometimes even more confusing in trying to read and understand (unless you're an historian, specialising in medieval Romanian and used to interpret this kind of documents) - The documents are to maybe 95-98% written in Romanian, using the Church-Slavonic alphabet, with dates and years written, using the Byzantine calendar - it's like trying to read a document, using three different dictionaries.

regards / Balacius

"Romanian" in the first millenium had a different meaning.
At that time, "Romania" was another name for Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire)
Radu

I assume that by romanians he meant rumâni

Again, forgive me for being 1.5 yrs late, but would like to provide a comment to this post.

The name "Romania" used in the first millennium, was used by the Byzantines themselves for their 'empire'. Thus, they called themselves 'Romanians'.
The western European nations, on the other hand, called the Byzantines 'Greeks', and 'The Greek empire'.

The name "Byzantium", or "The Byzantine Empire" wasn't being commonly used for describing the empire on the Bosporus until some 50-100 yrs after the fall of Constantinople in April 1453. The name "Byzantium" was minted by a German historian at the time (unfortunately I can't remember his name right now, but if anyone's interested I will find it somewhere among my materials).

The word "rumâni" could, of course, have the meaning 'Romanian' (in the modern sense), BUT it could also be the name for a 'Byzantine subject/citizen. That would probably depend on WHEN the word was written down (pre-1453, or post-1453)

When referring to the "Eastern Roman Empire", one usually refers to the period ca 300 A.D. (from the time of emperor Diocletianus, up to ca 500-550). Later on one usually refers to the "Roman Empire", the "Greek-Roman Empire" or the "Greek Empire".

There are some historians that have come up with the theory that the word "Vlach" came from the Germans, who in their turn got it from the British isles. It was used to separate those indigenous peoples of the conquered Roman territories who, after the Roman withdrawal continued to speak Latin instead of their native tongue. It (the word "Vlach") started to be used in nowadays Wales, and spread over to the continent, mainly eastward towards Germania, but also south to France and Spain. But the word seems to have taken hold in Germany where it slowly 'wandered' down south, through nowadays Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria. The word grew in strength as their neighbours (the proto-Romanians or Dacians) where obviously speaking a Latin based language. The denomination for this people became, naturally, Vlachs, an invective especially favoured by the Magyars and Bulgarians at the time. Think I have seen at least 20-30 different spellings of the word/meaning of "Vlach".

The curious thing, on the other hand, is when you read the "Alexiad" by Anna Comnena. There she writes about the Vlachs as a menace that is very hard to be controlled, and that they are mountain dwellers. But other times she doesn't mention the Vlachs, instead she mentions the Dacians (?!). But, she doesn't simply mix them up, when writing about them, she makes on several occasions clear distinctions between them and the Vlachs.
In Dudo of St.Quentin's "Gesta Normannorum", chapters 1-5 - he is writing about "Rollo the Dacian" and his origins. He's clearly using the word 'Dacia', 'Dacian' - NOT 'Vlach' - Why? He continues to describe the geographical location of Dacia, the Carpathians that forms a natural castle wall, the neighbouring peoples, etc, etc.

Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, and great-grand father of William the conqueror died ca. 930 A.D., and Dudo of St.Quentin was commissioned ny Rollo's son to write the "Gesta Normannorum" sometime 930-940 A.D., i.e. some 35-50 yrs after the Magyars arrival to Pannonia. In ca 1148 A.D. Anna Comnena wrote the "Alexiad" (ca 220 yrs later) - now we hear of the Vlach, but also about the Dacians as well.
Sorry for this small deviation, but the subject is really captivating - what really happened to the Dacians?

regards / Balacius