Misconceptions about the origin of Romanians - prof. dr. Visy Zsolt | egyetem tv | Tandem 

Nem véletlenül hagyták ki a “tudományos” szót a Román Akadémia nevéből. A világ összes* országában ‘scientific academy’ vagy ‘academy of sciences’ van. Kivéve romániát xD A román akadémia nem tudományos társaság, hanem egy nacionalista propaganda intézet. De ezt nem is titkolják. Rajta van a honlapjukon a misszó fül alatt. *javítás: a legtöbb normális

@@harcosmagyar8732 Francia Akadémia? Azokat majmolták. Nem igazán tudományos akadémia a Román Akadémia, ahogy a francia sem. Mindkettő elsősorban a nyelvvel foglalkozik.

Én olyanokat is láttam (erről a Popról valahogy ez ugrott be), hogy Szent István is román volt, és a román volt az első latin nyelv, belőle alakult ki a többi...

@@CsImre Ja, igazad van. Franciaországot nem néztem. De mint tudjuk Franciaország az az ország, ahol mindenki egyenlő, ezért mindenkinek franciául kell beszélnie. :-) Viszont továbbra is áll az az észrevételem, hogy azt a helyet amit egy normális országban egy tudományos akadémia foglal el, azt oláhiában a nacionalista propaganda célokra létrehozott Román Akadémia foglalja el.

Sunteti bolnavi, voi nu stiti inca, cine sunteti si de unde ati venit!

Man, sorry for you, but you made school for nothing. You should start again. If you take a romanian and you sent him to Italy he will understand everything in 2 weeks, in Spain in 1 month, 1 Portugal 2 months. If you will sent a romanian in Slovakia or Ukrain, or Russia, or Serbia, a romanian will understand ZERO. So, all your mumbo jumbo calculations and lexical demonstration are BS. You are all equal to our stupid Ion Pop Aurel. You deserve each other.

Amit itt írsz, az nagyjából egy jó nagy ökörség. Az, hogy a románok eredetileg a cirill ábécét használták, nem a román nyelv szláv rokonságát bzonyitja, hanem nagyon egyszerű oka van: a középkorban az ortodox egyház az ún. óegyházi szláv nyelvet használta, és emiatt a román írásbeliség is ezzel az ábécével alakult ki, illetve a román fejedelemségek kancelláriájának is ez volt a hivatalos nyelve, kb. úgy, mint a latin a középkori Magyarországon. A több évszázados szláv szomszédság valóban óriási hatással volt a román nyelvre, de az, hogy a mai román nyelv szókincsénekk kb. 20%-a szláv eredetű, szintén nem azt jelenti, hogy ez egy szláv nyelve lenne.

Defiletia...< Köszi . Itthon a hírközlő szervek vadidegen fajtájúak csak ők beszélnek " újmagyarúl ! " Na meg a képviselők vadidegen fajú hada ! Csak egynéhány " félmagyar fajú " van köztűk ! " Stb... = AMIÓTA A HÍRKÖZLÉS LÉTEZIK , EZEK SZINTE MIND A VILÁGHÓDITÓK EMBEREI . ŐK TANITJÁK NYELVŰNKET , TELE AZ ŐK ANYANYELVŰKKEL KEVERVE . CÁFOLJON MEG BÁRKI , ÉS EZ NEM FAJGYŰLÖLETKÉNT HANEM TÉNYKÉNT KÖZLÖM . Stb...

Amennyire én tudom egy korábbi fejtegetésből; a román nyelvnek többek közt albán alap szavai (is) vannak - tehát valóban az albán területekről vándoroltak át -, illetve azt lehet tudni, hogy a román ortodox egyház tagjai végezték el a vlach nyelv el- vagy átlatinizálását anno akkor, amint azt írod ( 18. szd vége, 19. század ) és egyben ennek megfelelően a nép "átdolgozását" az "új" nyelvre.

@@torokbalint2429 Ez a szerinted jó nagy ökörség pedig egyszerűen a valóság - nem értetted meg, amit a szlovákokkal kapcsolatban írtam! Sehol sem említettem, hogy az oláhok szlávok, ugyanúgy, ahogy azt sem, hogy a szlovákok nem szlávok, hanem latinok.Nem 20% -ot írtak a román nyelvtankönyvekben hanem 40%-ot - ami kicsit különbség! Ha tudsz szlovákul, csehül, vagy oroszul, akkor ellenőrizheted, milyen gyakorisággal fordulnak elő szláv szavak a mai "román" nyelvben.Biztos, hogy több mnit 20 százalék! A mai román nyelv egy jó keverék - Albánia területén találtam elnevezéseket, amiket ma a románok használnak - de sem nem szláv, sem nem latin eredetűek.Ha valamiről kevesett tudsz akkor ne ökörségezz, apus....

Bíztam benne, hogy az első 10 komment között már benne is lesz!😂

Románusz.

You mix the stories. But you can't write properly in your language. I won't bother myself with your statement.

😅😅😅

Az én dákóm mellett sem áll rendőr, azt is szopogathatják!

Valaki negtehetné, h. román nyelven is feliratozza?! Nagyon sokszor megosztanám, h.tanuljanak ronán testvéreink is. Igazság szerint,senki nem ismer mást, mint a kontinuitás elméletét. Csak erről tanítottak az iskolában, románt/magyart egyaránt. .Hozzájöttek a kulturális hatások, (a mai Netflix-módszerhez hadonlóan), a Sergiu Nicolaescu történelem-hamisító kalandfilmjei a román hősökről...Tökéletesen beetették a népet. Azt kell mondanom, a román"elit" fényévekkel előbb tudta, mit kell tennie, régőta munkálkodik a nép gondolatainak "helyes" irányba terelésén.... Az is egész biztos, h. a mindenkori geo-politikai érdekek sugalkatára, valamint, nyilván nem "csak" hazaszeretetből, hanem "guruló dollárokért" cserébe,..mikor mi még azt sem tudtuk, mi az a magán-bankszámla....

@@enikopataki4117 Az egészet akkor kellett volna a youtubera feltenni, ha elkésszül a feliratozás

Az-az igazság, hogy maguknak kell rájönniük, elfogadni a tényeket. (nem fogjak elfogadni, főleg nem egy magyar tudóstól) 37:30 "Van a román tudomány, es van a nemzetközi tudomány" 🤣🤣🤣🤣 - Ezen beszartam.

De en nem akarom kinevetni az egyszerű román embert, mert ha mi is azt hallottuk volna gyermekkent, hogy Szkíták, Türkök, Hunok, , Mongolok, piros segguek 😂 stb, akkor lehet, hogy mi is ilyen agymosottak lennénk.

Neked milyen szkíta kontinuitásod van ? Hun nyelven beszélsz. Vagy türkül ?

Szánalmas ez az egész "ki volt ott előbb"-özés. Mit számít ez???

Nekik számít Ők erre építenek.@@gaborbakos7058

​@@gaborbakos7058nagyon is sokat, mivel az igen csak visszavenne a románok arcából.

Igen! De jó lenne végre hallani "ennyire érthetó és világos magyarázatot" a 'szkíta-hun' mese eredet kérdésről is! Ne csak a szomszédok járdád söpörjük...

@@belagyanta7 Szerintem még annak is több alapja van, de mint a videoban is elhangzott, tudni különválasztani a bizonyítható tudományos dolgokat és a mende monda fikciókat.A románok pedig egy képzelgést, egy mesét tanítanak, teljesen komoly szinten.Mintha mi magyarok holnaptól a szkíta sumer eredetet tanítanánk az iskolákban az egyetemeken, mindenféle bizonyíték nélkül.

A nemeseknek kell megkoszoni erdely elveszteset csak a sajat erdekeikel torodtek.

James 1:6-8. Religion is not science.

Ezt a románoknak mond!!!😊😊😊@@pauldanaila1610

Csakhogy ő már tráko-géta-dák kontinuitásról beszél, mert az már több mint háromezer éves kontinuitás!

@@Arpoxais1Ateas2 A területi kérdés fontos. A balkánon mindenféle nép volt. Volt dák is trák, is dalmát , illyr stb.. valahonnan mindenki származik. a lényeg, hogy ez a kontinuitás nem a Dunától északra ment végbe, hanem attól délre. Semmiképp nem a km-bem.

@@MrFefefofo Egyetértek, csak hozzátenném amit a professzor úr is mondott, hogy a román nép akkor még nem létezett mint egységes nép és kultúra, hiszen ez a nép csak az utóbbi háromszáz évben kezdett magára ébredni, és még a mai napig is formálódik! Ezért gyártják még mindig a mítoszokat is, mert még elég gyökértelen ez a nép, ha csak kulturálisan nézzük, akár az építészetük vagy az irodalmuk is csak a 18-dik századtól létezik úgy igazából. Csakhogy sokan még a magyarok sem értik még ma sem azt, hogyan keletkeztek valójában a népek, vagy inkább mondjuk a nyelvek és kultúrák, hiszen genetikailag mind lehetünk nagyon hasonlóak, ha egészen más a nyelvünk és a hagyományaink vagy szokásaink is nagyon eltérnek egymástól?!

@@Arpoxais1Ateas2 Sokan nem tudják, de a kárpátok magashegyi régióin keresztül a wlachok még Csehországig is eljutottak. ÉS a mai lengyel-szlovák-morva hármashatár morva oldalán még 120 évvel ezelőtt a magashegyi régiókban volt pár falu ami wlachul beszélt. Szándékosan irom a wlahct mert nem estek át a nyelvújitáson. És azt sem, tudják, hogy 12 doni kozák falut ugyanőgy a wlachokból telepiette Péter cár olyan 1712 körül ami után a magyar nemesek tömegével hozták be a wlachokat Erdélybe. És a vándorló kisállattartás következtében a Wlach pásztorok a Kaukázusig jutottak. De a Dunát a X-Xi századtól lépik át. MAga az állatartás fajtája következtében törvényszerú a vándorlásuk. A gyerkőc kap 50 birkát az apjától aztán keressen magának új legelőt. Ezen álattartás következtében megtalálhatókGörögország teljes területén a magashegyi régiókban. De még a magas Tátra környékén is voltak wlachok 100 évvel ezelőtt. Mentek ezek mindenhova ahol a birkának találtak legelőt.

Igen. De ha ezt is megcáfolja valaki meg se állnak a dinoszauruszig.@@Arpoxais1Ateas2

Leforditotam a csatornamon van 😉

​@@obucaticadeistorie4790 Link...?

@@gaborszadai1992 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vN4BADDA85o.htmlsi=1qd_TSqMBZarVAwL

Mondjuk románra? :D

@@Meszlenyi Románra a leginkább🇭🇺✌🏻...

Thank you. You are an honest man. I appreciate.

Troll???@@hosuvasile3237

@@hosuvasile3237Ce vreți să ziceți? Nu prea are sens așa

Dacă nu ai în comun cu bătrânul savat decât vârsta, cum poți aprecia adevărul și corectitudinea celor spuse? Vorbesti de pomană și nu faci dcât să întărești convingerea că îi dai dreptate pentru că iți convine ce auzi. Nu ai cunostințele necesare pentru a te prounța asupra adevărului celor spuse. Nu spun că minte în cele afirmate doar că spune adevăruri parțiale, convenabile. Sunt și multe exagerări! Ha semmi közöd a tanult öreghez, csak az életkor, hogyan tudod értékelni az elmondottak igazságát és helyességét? Alamizsnáról beszélsz, és csak azt a hitet erősíted, hogy igazad van, mert tetszik, amit hallasz. Nem rendelkezik a szükséges ismeretekkel ahhoz, hogy megítélje az elmondottak igazságát. Nem azt mondom, hogy hazudik abban, amit mond, csak azt, hogy részleges, kényelmes igazságokat mond. Sok a túlzás is!

😂

Primul fiind chiar tu 🥰😘

@@soimulpacii9618 ai talpa paroasa? Ce gust avea laptele tatalui??

@@nicsevoigor3558 asta tu trebuie sa mi raspunzi

​@@nicsevoigor3558Strabunii tai ,,mulgeau,, armasarii in stepele Mongoliei..Puișor 😂😂😂

Én ezt a verziót ismertem: Romulusz és Rémusz az anya farkas csecsét szopta és a románnak csak az apjáé maradt (innen van a dákó elmélet)😊

..if you want to know about this subject, you should be looking into the English concept of this history! After all, you only want to know the history, not the "politics" of it!!

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2aHWQMPdulY.html&ab_channel=Szil%C3%A1gyiB%C3%A9laL%C3%A1szl%C3%B3ID%C5%90VONAL

@@krisztina2419 Te meg a fél világ faszát szoptad a 4-esen a soron. Jó pénzért. Láttalak.

​@@ustokos48None needs to be academic to understand that Romanian state and identity didn't existed before late 19th century for they are another Jews-Jewnanistani-SeaPeople created state-identity that had no factual basis and so has no connection to Deutsch-Dutch-Dutchian-Dacian or other identities they claim as they own.

Én már eleve nem vettem fel nála órát 😁

Valószínű látszik is rajtad!😄@@istvannemeth1026

Minek? Ezt egy bigott hívő úgy se fogja meghallgatni..... bár hozzáteszem: sajnos! Inkább más nyelveken érdemesebb volna.

ezt is..........ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oVZQIa8ofIY.html

@@attilakovacs1415 A csávó egy lelkes amatőr, és olyan következtetéseket von le pont mint a dacóromán tündérmese terjesztői, Csak ő magyar vonatkozásban. Senki számára nem volt kérdés az, hogy a km-be mindig is élrkeztek népek, és az érkezők akik maguk is kevert népességek voltak azok kisebbségben voltak az itt levő már korábban keveredett népességgel, A kérdés nem is ez, hanem hogy a nyelv hogy került ide. Nos az viszont szinte tuti, hogy Árpád magyarjaival. És mind domináns uralkodó népség, a helyi lakosság átvette.

Még inkább ángélusul 🇭🇺✌🏻...

"Van a magyar tudomány, és van a nemzetközi tudomány" szintén! Sok közös vonások vannak a magyar és román sovinisták között. "Ne a szálkát lássunk a mások szemében amikor egy gerendát hordunk a sajátunkban!" (Jézus)

@@belagyanta7 Vágom. - Itt is vannak agyhalottak, de ha jól értem, ott iskolai tananyag a történelem hamisítás. (nem Romániában élek, nem tom) (persze, hogy a nemzetközi tudomány egy külön fogalom, de elég viccesen jött ki :) )

Mi legalább a tényekre hagyatkozunk!@@belagyanta7

@@belagyanta7 gyanta barátom - ezt kár volt leírni - az a baj, hogy ide valóban akárki kifoshatja a marhaságait - sajnos....

@@defiletia8838miért? Csak neked lenne ilyen féle jogod? Esetleg a dühös fosszagu mondatain kívül, érvelni tudnál egy csöppet?

This could happen with an honest professional.

Acest lucru a fost dovedit de istoricii polonezi la o conferință internațională de istorie... Which one stupid? Just name it for everybody to know. Don't be shy.

Nálunk is. Csak mi leépitjük a magyarságot vele ők pedig felemelik saját népük tudatát

A tatárjárás után települtek be tömegesen,Kunorszagba,1242utan, emberhian, lépett fel,ex Erdélybe is ekkor kezdtek betelepedni A grófok elszaporitottak őket,minél több jobbágy porta ,annál több dezsma,ez a gazdasági alapja, tobseguve vallasuknak.Logikus kérdés,szekely földön miért nem voltak románok?Azért mert ott zömében,családi gazdaságok voltak,nem volt szükség jobagyokra.Ilyen egyszerű az erdélyi románok igaz története.

A 13. század előtti időkből nincs semmilyen adat a Dél-Erdélyben élő valchokról, de nemcsak hogy levéltári adatok nincsenek, nem léteznek helynévadatok sem vagy román eredetű földrajzi nevek! A románok annyira el lettek hülyítve ezzel a kontinuitás elmélettel, hogy az sem érdekli őket milyen eredetűek ezek a földrajzi nevek itt Erdélyben, mint például Fogaras vagy Hátszeg. Ezért is mindig nagyon fontos volt, hogy ne tudjanak magyarul, hiszen ezeket nekik elrománosított változatban tanítják már több mint száz éve, és a Făgăraş meg a Haţeg nem jelent semmit románul, ellenben ezek ősi magyar eredetű összetett nevek, amelyeknek a román változata csak eltorzított tükörfordítás! Vagy ott van például a Retyezát-hegység neve Hunyad megyében, amely valóban nem magyar eredetű név, csakhogy kevesen tudják még a magyarok közül is, hogy ennek az ősi magyar neve a Zerge-havasok volt! De Hunyad nevére is a románok azt mondják, hogy ez egy ősi román névből ered, mert ezt nekik úgy fordították át a magyarból, hogy Hunedoara. Pedig ebben a névben benne van még a Hun előtag is, de egyes magyar nyelvészek szerint eredetileg a Huny volt, csakhogy a vármegye a vár nevéről volt elnevezve, amelynek első okleveles említése alapján Hungnod volt 1265-ban és Huniad 1278-ban! Wikipédia: "A román név a Hunyadvára alak átvétele, amelyben az ómagyar β (bilabiális zöngés spiráns) vokalizálódott."

Ce vrei să afli? Dacă te înteresează adevărul, de aici poţi afla nişte date reale din istorie care în România sunt ascunse de români! Dar din păcate, acest video a fost creat doar pentru maghiari, pentru că şi maghiarii sunt destul de confuzi în legătură cu preistoria acestor meleaguri!

@@Arpoxais1Ateas2 pai daca ai idee in mare ce vorbesc acolo, spune mi si 2 in mare care sunt punctele principale

@@emanuelsadu263 Scuză-mă că răspund aşa târziu, am avut foarte multă treabă. Deci, dl. profesor Visy Zsolt spune că a studiat foarte mulţi ani documentele despre daci şi a participat la mai multe săpături arheologice unde s-au găsit aşezări dacice, dar aceste aşezări nu au avut o continuitate îndelungată nicăieri după cucerirea romanilor! Profesorul spune că există descrieri contemporane în care se arată că majoritatea dacilor au fost măcelăriţi de romani, mai ales bărbaţii, şi cei care au rămas au fost vânduţi ca sclavi. Dar nu există deloc date despre o populaţie romanizată, mai ales că în această provincie ocupată cu multe războaie, romanii au adus populaţii din toate părţile imperiului, printre care foarte puţini erau cetăţeni romani originali din Italia! Dânsul spune că mai ales după retragerea romanilor din provincia Dacia din nordul Dunării, nici elemntele dacice şi nici elemntele romane nu le mai găsim nicăieri, nici măcar în părţile neocupate de romani, ceea ce înseamnă că dacii ca populaţie cu un specific cultural în aşezări, au dispărut complet în aceşti 160 de ani, dar şi populaţia romană a plecat de aici! Oricât ar fi căutat unii istorici arheologi români, mai ales pe vremea lui Ceauşescu, adevărul e că n-au găsit nimic concret şi atunci au început să emită nişte teorii absolut nefondate! În ştiinţele istoriei trebuie să ai mai multe date concrete să dovedeşti ceva, mai ales dacă vorbim de prezenţa unei populaţii întregi pe un teritoriu! Trabuiesc surse contemporane, deci surse primordiale, care să ateste prezenţa unei populaţii, şi atunci dacă se mai găsesc şi dovezi arheologice şi eventual date toponimice din aceea perioadă, atunci putem spune că aceea popualţie a locuit acolo în acele secole! Problema e că nu există nici măcar scurte texte ale daco-românilor în limba dacă sau în latină măcar. Măcar din Evul Mediu dacă ar exista vreun text în limba dacilor sau câteva referiri la dacoromâni, dar nu există nici una, nici alta! Oricum nu crede nimeni cu cunoştinţe serioase de istorie că urmaşii dacilor ar fi decăzut atât de tare să-şi uite complet limba şi scrisul strămoşilor doar în 160 de ani! Sau că urmaşii dacilor sau a romanilor au uitat complet să construiască măcar case şi biserici din piatră! Să nu mai zic de oraşe, cetăţi, castele şi palate, sau de morminte cioplite din piatră, sau reliefuri şi statui, monumente statuare, drumuri pietruite şi apeducte! Toate acestea lipsesc cu desăvârşire, şi nici măcar cu o mie de ani mai târziu în Evul Mediu n-au construit românii astfel de monumente! Cronica lui Nestor nu dovedeşte absolut nimic despre prezenţa românilor în Transilvania, mai ales pentru că Nestor a trăit în secolul al 12-lea, şi probabil că această cronică a scris-o pe la sfârşitul vieţii lui, după anul 1110, deci cronica a fost scrisă cu peste două secole după acele evenimente din secolul al 9-lea! Exact asta e problema şi cu cronica lui Anonymus, pentru că în acele secole se născoceau multe poveşti, mai ales pentru că nu existau istorici consacraţi care să studieze datele reale din arhive pe care să le analizeze şi să le filtreze corect. Să nu mai zic că în Evul Mediu nu existau ştiinţele auxiliare ale istoriei, care sunt totalitatea științelor care studiază izvoarele documentare și elaborează metodologia cercetării acestora! Oricum o luăm, pentru a demonstra prezenţa unei populaţii pe un teritoriu, în ştiinţele istoriei ai nevoie de surse primordiale în primul rând, cel puţin două surse primordiale şi e de preferet să fie din diferite izvoare! Dar surse primordiale nu există deloc despre valahii din secolul al 9-lea, pentru că primele date despre o populaţie valahă apar doar în secolul al 10-lea şi toate îi menţionează în Balcani!

Jaaaaaj!😄😄😄@@emanuelsadu263

A nyelvrokonságnak nincs minig köze a genetikai rokonsághoz, de a magyaroknál at atheogenetikai kutatások igazolták a finnugor elmélet (l. Török Tibor előadását , a lényeg 25:20-tól kezdődik). Időközben a Magyarságutató Intézet is revideálta az álláspontját. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DE4VFK8obFs.html

Dalmát "eredetűségűk", mert oda hurcolták be őket a szláv-szolganép tengeréből az illirek . Később onnan kaptak a bolgárok birodalmuk alatt akkor használták őket szolgaként a duna alatt , majd onnan be a regátba telepitették őket . Az Illir birodalomban a római birodalomba is jutott , onnan hurcolták őket a bolgár birodalomba . Mindig satnya népként vannak számontartva a történelmi szakértők szerint , legtöbbje csak ritkán emliti meg , mert szolgáról minek irjanak történészek alapon . Szláv eredetű népek , nem tudnak vezető elméjűek lenni , szaporodás a legfőbb életvitelűk . Stb...

Neparáczkiék kutatásai szerint, a honfoglaló magyarok 30+ százaléka az N haplocsoportba tartozott (ami Finnországban és Észtországbana legdominánsabb.) A legutóbbi tanulmányukban pedig leírják, hogy a mai magyarok a manysik, szarmaták, és keleti hunok keveredéséből alakultak ki. Szóval nem, nem bukott meg a Finnugor elmélet, Fogadjátok el hogy azok vagyunk, és ezen nem tudtok változtatni.

Az újabb archeogenetikai, de a genetikai kutatások alapján nehezen cáfolható a magyarok finn-ugor eredete, csakúgy mint nyelvészeti szempontból.

@@andrasberethalmi1563 nincsenek ilyen eredmények .Én is követem az archeogenetikát.

Nekem nem annyira. Inkább latinos 'olaszos' persze szlávos keverékkel de hát fül kérdése.

@@istvanmajoros577 Már eleve a da, mint igen, ami egy alapszó, mikor az olaszban si.

Mi köze van az ókori rómaiaknak a katolikusokhoz? Semmi!!! Kort tévesztettél!

A hosszú bolgár uralom miatt ortodox vallásúak és írtak cirill betűkkel, viszont már korábban is ismerték a kereszténységet. A legkorábbi valláshoz kapcsolódó szavaik mind latin eredetűek, szemben a későbbi bolgár-szláv eredetű szavakkal.

@@sandorbumbui1211 Gondolom van 2-nel több agyselytje. 😂 (Amúgy a Romai provinciák közül, az elsők között van, a mai Albánia területe, ahonnan származnak.) - persze, hogy megtanultak Latinul, ahogy az Ibériai népek is.

​@@akosnemeth9781Они оба евреи.

​@norbertelek2334 Panonnia was a roman province. I guess you hungarian s occupied a land that is ours... we are the closest latin people to Panonnia.. You must return our land and return in your real homeland Mongolia.. Orban meetings with Putin is for your relocation to Volga river.😉

De mi sem voltunk ott előbb.

Churches were made from wood. I do not know any wood structure to live one thousand years. Do you? It was easy to burn it. Don't you think?

@@pauldanaila1610 You're right. There are no reliable sources about wooden churches. Statehood is the essence of what the Hungarian king represented. Tribal peoples existed everywhere before us, they used the land, but did not own it. When they wandered, there were no borders. Countries didn't even exist. The rule of empires existed, but not everywhere. Before us, the population density in Transylvania was minimal. Difficult neighborhood to live in. The fact that Transylvania is an ancient Romanian territory is nonsense.

@@pauldanaila1610 Tons of evidences found of nationals being in Pannonia before Hungarians invaded...Slavs, Moravians in the north, Croats on the southwest in Slavonia. One exception: no any evidence of any romance people in Transylvania. Might have been some continuity with romans to inherit the language, but surely not on the north side of the Danube.

Some traces(archelogical) had to be remained. Even the caveman left traces in the cave. But there were no sign of it. Some wooden churches were built in 14-15th century in Maramures county. We have many archelogical, linguistical written datas/sources. All the sources don"t support significant romanian population before 12-13 th century in Transylvania. Small shepherd groups might have lived earlier in southwest mountains (Muntii Retezat, Godjean)@@pauldanaila1610

Tévedsz, a magyoroknálkb. 60 százalék a szarmata genom, vagyis a hun, avar magyar.

Tévedsz, a magyarok 10% kinai, ezért volt nálunk annyi kinai piac. Nem értjük, nem olvassuk a kinait, mert baromi rég eljöttünk, de a szivünk 10%-ban azonos. :). .... a gen-etika nem téveszt.

@@szilardvitovszki7446 Biztos nem

@@rumcajsz Ja, akkor jó!

Inkább német

Oláh és olasz is eléggé hasonlít.

@@mrroyale5688 az olaszok nagyábban azok, akik egy latin nyelvet beszélnek. Példáúl a középkori Magyarországban, akiket olasznak neveztek azok vallonok voltak valóban; a mai Belgiumból jöttek letelepedni és nem Itáliából!

A helyes kiejtés: vloh és vloska, az áthúzott "l" betüt kicsit "u"-val ejtve. Semmiképen sem "oalaska". A többi stimmel.

@@sandorserdult9116 OK. Van némi igazad. De igen nehéz egy nem szokványos idegeb nyelv kiejtését írásban magyarázgatni. Aki ismeri a lengyelt vagy hallott már lengyel beszédet, az tudja miről van szó.

Lachovia = Poliaci

A válasz : nem , ők nem voltak a részesei , DE a pánhunok = médek "pannonok" és az úz palócok , jászok , a szláv = slave - szolga tengerből behordottakról van szó . NA , ezért nem fértek össze a csehekkel , a felvidéki tótok , mert más szlávok . Ugyanezért ölték egymást a horvátok és szerbek . TRIANON VISSZAŰT MINDEGYIKRE , MERT ELRABOLTÁK JOGTALANUL ÉS LEGFŐBBKÉPPEN = IGAZSÁGTALANÚL -> " SOKAT AKART A SZARKA , DE NEM BIRTA A FARKA ! " Stb...

A szlovákoknak semmi közük az.ún."Nagymorva Birodalomhoz" , de a cseheknek sem, ez már valóban hihetetlen, hogy ez a marhaság még ennyire tartja magát - sajnos Magyarországon is! - itt egy regényt kellene írnom, hogy világossá tegyem: Konstatntin (a későbbi Cirill) és Metód soha nem jártak a volt Csehszlovákia területén, talán azt sem tudták, hogy ez a terület létezik .Püspöki Nagy Péter történész már 1976 !-ban írt egy négyrészes cikket a felvidéki Irodalmi Szemlében és Nagymoráviát (semmiféle Nagy-Morva birodalom) helyesen Szerbia mai területére helyezte, Nyitrához semmi közük, ők Nitrawára, a mai (Sremska) Mitrovicára mentek, ott volt püspökség, és ott alkották meg a hlaholikát (a késöbbi cirilikát), amely aztán keletre terjedt. Nem tudom felfogni, hogyan tarthatja fenn magát ez a kitalált marhaság, egyszerűen talán Magyarországon is valakiknek érdeke, hogy ezt a blődlit fenntartsák - nincsenek magyar történészek, vagy mindenki a Sem magyar, Sem tudományos Sem akadémia uszályában van? A szerbek tudják, hogy ott volt náluk a Velika Morava, az iskolákban is tanítják, és azért meg kell nézni a térképet is - ezt a "történészek" nem szokták csinálni? Merre is mentek (az akkor beteg) Konstantin és Metod Mitrovicára? Már igazán csak ezt a három folyót említem: Južna (Déli) Morava (ezen utaztak a beteg Cirillel tutajon, vagy csónakon északra), Zapadna (Nyugati) Morava - a két folyó összefolyásából keletkezik a (véletlenül Nagy) Velika Morava!!! amely a Dunába ömlik. Ezen a folyón mentünk 2013-ben egy hídon át, amikor az egész busz ordított, mert tudták , hogy ezzel foglalkozom: "nézd meg a feliratot a hídon!" - VELIKA MORAVA (Nagy Morava). Rengeteg tényt hagytam ki, mert egyszerűen ide nem fér el!

a nagy nyitrai fejedelemség leszármazottai, amely hosszú évszázadokon át, 825-től egészen 833-ig, uralta a Kárpát-medencét, de lehet egész Európát

@@tangping379 a rómaiak mint szolgálokat húrcolták be, szláv szláv szklav..annyit tesz rabszolga..

@@tangping379 "nagy nyitrai fejedelemség"?!!! ilyesmi sohasem létezett, valamint soha nem "uralta " a Kárpátmedencét......ja, de mégis! -persze, nemcsak egész Ojrópát - de az egész világot "uralta". Sajnos, csak egy nagy hibája van a marhaságaidnak - hogy egy szó sem igaz belőle! Még e mai hibbant világban is egy orbitális blődli, amit leírtál - ha valamiről nem tudsz SEMMIT, akkor inkább kussolj! Lehet, hogy szlovák iskolákban tanultad a "történelmet"? - ott lehet a kb.180-190 éve még nem létező szlovák nemzetről olvasni több mint 1000 éves meséket!

Originea cuvântului Erdő e din proto-maghiară, ce înseamnă că are cel puțin patru mii de ani! Wikidictionary: Erdő [erdő < maghiară veche: erdő < proto-maghiară: irtó (pădure) < sumeriană: irdulu (pădure)] Dacă citeşti doar minciunile pseudo-istoricilor și speudo-lingviștilor români, nu o să afli niciodată adevărul!

Deci sânteți urmași ai sumerienilor ??!! O să citez dintr-un istoric maghiar Pal ENGEL- Regatul Sfântului Ștefan - Istoria Ungariei Medievale 895 - 1526, pag. 22 - "Îi socotesc spirite foarte puerile pe cei ce își închipuie că respectul nostru în lume va crește dacă vom povesti despre STRĂMOȘII NOȘTRI SUMERIENI, VECHI DE ȘASE MII DE ANI " ??!! - făra basme domnule Attila !! și vă rog să vă adresați politicos- aflați nu afli ! O seară bună

Nem érdemes vitázni.Szerintük mindig, mindenben nekik van igazuk. Ezért én nem vitázom velük. Mert belédköt. A kommunizmus idején bezártak, ha erről beszéltél. Most pedig támadnak. Ők a többség.@@szakaattila7899

@@user-kr2mw7pk5o Nu, toate datele din sursele istorice corelate cu datele arheologice, antropologice, arheogenetice, lingvistice, paleografice şi etnografice ne arată că nu maghiarii sunt urmaşii şumerienilor, ci o parte dintre şumerieni au provenit de aici din Bazinul Carpatic! Problema e că majoritatea românilor sunt induşi în eroare cu etnogeneza maghiarilor, fără să ştie măcar că cronicarii maghiari din Evul Mediu au scris despre etnogeneza multimilenară a maghiarilor, care începe cu Menroth - Nimród, care apare şi în Biblie ca marele vânător al Donului, şi acolo scrie că el ar fi construit turnul din Babel! După Kezai Simon şi Kalti Mark, Menroth era primul rege din lume şi care s-ar fi mutat în Mesopotamia, în Evilath cum scrie Kezai, unde s-a căsătorit cu Eneth şi a avut doi fii, Hunor şi Magor, de la care au provenit sciţii numiţi huni şi maghiari! Citez din cronica lui Kezai Simon numit "Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum": „Așa că, lăsând deoparte evenimentele care dau culoare primului nostru subiect, trebuie să ne întoarcem la uriașul Menroth, care, după ce a început confuzia limbilor, a plecat în țara Eviláth, care la vremea aceea era numită Persia, iar acolo soţia sa Eneth a nascut doi fii, anume Hunor si Magor, din care au provenit hunii şi maghiarii.” Dar de atunci arheologii şi istoricii străini au dovedit că cultura numită Jemdet Nasr a provenit de fapt din Bazinul Carpatic şi Balcanii de nord, şi se ştie bine că această cultură a pus bazele culturii şumeriene - babiloniene, numite şi cultura Ur şi Uruk din Mesopotamia! Merită să faci o încercare şi scrie aceste cuvinte în google translate, să vezi ce înseamnă aceste două cuvinte din limba maghiară: Ur - Urak. Degeaba îmi dai citate din astea, că au fost şi vor fi întotdeauna istorici care lucrează împotriva propriului popor, mai ales aceşti "istorici maghiari" care s-a dovedit că sunt plătiţi de unele forţe străine! Dar sunt şi istorici și lingviști maghiari dar şi străini, care consideră că limba numită azi maghiară, provine din limba proto-ugrică care era şi limba sciților europeni numiți de Herodot: iurkai (ιυρκαι), și mai târziu de Strabon și Ptolemeu: ourgoi (ουργοι) sau urogi (υρογι). Potrivit istoricului academician Horváth Csaba-Barnabás, acești sciți europeni vorbeau ramura ugrică a așa-numitei limbi finno-ugrice, care s-a separat de celelalte limbi finno-ugrice în urmă cu cel puțin 4 mii de ani și s-a dezvoltat aici şi la est de Bazinul Carpatic pe teritoriul Ucrainei de astăzi până la râul Volga. Întregul studiu a fost elaborat și publicat în INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS QUARTERLY, ISSN, Vol. 10. Nr. (toamnă-iarna 2019) "Reconsiderarea istoriei Originea Finnougrică şi Scitică - Una şi Aceeaşi." Dar istoricul Horváth Csaba-Barnabás și-a bazat studiul și pe ceea ce a dezvoltat faimosul arheolog lituano-american Marija Gimbutas în raport cu popoarele finno-ugrice, deoarece Gimbutas a dovedit că finno-ugricii au provenit de aici, din Europa Centrală! Iar antropologul american Grover Sanders Krantz, care a scris o carte cu titlul: "Geographical Development of the European Languages", susține că limba ugrică numită azi maghiară trebuie să fi fost prezentă în Bazinul Carpatic atunci când limbile indo-europene s-au difuzat în Europa! Teoria sa se bazează pe dezvoltarea formelor timpurii de agricultură, de care era legată răspândirea limbii proto-indo-europene. Aceste dezvoltări și instrumente agricole au fost de așa natură încât oamenii care se bazau pe ele nu au putut pătrunde în Bazinul Carpatic, drept urmare limbile indo-europene au evitat acea regiune pe măsură ce se difuzau. Iar profesorul italian în lingvistică Mario Alinei, care a studiat foarte mulţi ani textele etruscilor din „Italia Superioară”, ca parte a „teoriei sale a continuității”, s-a convins că limba etruscană era o formă arhaică a limbii proto-maghiare. Baza conexiunii este asemănarea extraordinară a numelor de magistraturi etrusce și maghiare antice și alte asemănări: tipologii, lexic și gramatică istorică. Această teorie contrazice, de asemenea, opinia conform căreia maghiarii au ajuns cu toţii în Bazinul Carpatic doar în anul 895 d.Hr. La toate astea dacă mai luăm şi datele genetice şi arheogenetice din ultimii 20 de ani, care au demonstrat că maghiarii de azi provin în mare parte de la primii agricultori europeni, ca de exemplu cercetările echipei cu 16 geneticieni americani conduse de profesoara în genetică Dr. Ornella Semino, care au ajuns la următoarea concluzie despre ADN-ul maghiarilor: "Străbunii maghiarilor de azi au trăit cu mii de ani în urmă în Europa, ei au fost printre primii coloniști care au pătruns în Europa Centrală." Dar să-ţi dau un citat din datele publicate anul trecut în ştiinţele istoriei, care sunt rezultatele arheogenetice şi din genetica populaţiei ale cercetătorilor din Institutul de Cercetare ale Ungariei: „Strămoșii maghiarilor care trăiesc astăzi sunt prezenți în mod continuu în Bazinul Carpatic de mii de ani - acest lucru a fost evidențiat de o cercetare publicată recent, care a folosit o nouă metodă pentru a examina genetica popoarelor care trăiau în regiune astăzi și în trecut. În timpul lucrărilor de cercetare, a fost creată o nouă bază de date, care conține datele a 16.000 de genomi mitocondriali ai 172 de populații antice și vii. Sistemul lor de conectare a fost cartografiat folosind inteligența artificială. Metoda a fost folosită pentru a examina fostele și actualele populații maghiare din Bazinul Carpaților și s-a constatat că majoritatea maghiarilor de astăzi provin dintr-o populație din epoca cuprului (4500 î.Hr. - 2800 î.Hr.) și epoca bronzului (2800 î.Hr. - 700 î.Hr.)." Deci se pare că limba maghiară provine dintr-o limbă pre-indo-europeană, pe care au vorbit-o şi sciţii europeni, şi atunci e foarte probabil ca şi limba dacilor să fi fost mai aproape de această limbă! Îţi dau câteva exemple pe care le poţi verifica şi cu google translate, dacă nu cunoaşteţi cumva limba maghiară, exemle în care numele unor cetăţi dacice au semnificaţie doar in limba maghiară sau proto-maghiară: Dava era un cuvânt - sufix dacic pe care le puneau întotdeauna la sfârşitul numelui, exact ca în limba maghiară vára, ca de exemplu Kaposvára, Kolozsvár, Székesfehérvár, Gyulafehérvár, Segesvár ş.a.m.d. În cele mai multe limbi indo-europene cetatea este scrisă separat şi înainte sau după nume, ca de exemplu numele cetăţii Kolozsvár în latină: Cluj Castle, italiană: Castello di Cluj, portugală: Castelo de Cluj, română: Cetatea Clujului, poloneză: Zamek w Klużu, cehă: Hrad Cluj, croată: Dvorac Cluj, slovenă: Grad Cluj, slovacă: Klužský hrad, lituaniană: Klužo pilis, franceză: Château de Cluj, engleză: Cluj Castle ş.a.m.d. Atunci oricine poate înţelege că doar în limba scitică - maghiară şi probabil scitică - dacică erau folosite la fel aceste sufixe. Câteva exemple de cetăţi care se pot explica din limba proto-maghiară: Napoca - Napodava în maghiară Naposvára - Cetatea Soarelui, Sarmisegethuza - Sármiszegetháza - Cetatea Albă de Sus, Piroboridava - Pirosborvára - Cetatea Vinului roşu, Utidava - Utivára - Cetatea Drumului, Tamasidava - Temesivár - Cetatea Îngropată expl. de azi: Temesvár - Timişoara, Zargidava - Zergevára - Cetatea Caprisei, Ziridava - Zeredavár - Cetatea de Miercuri, exemple din Evul Mediu rămase până azi: Csíkszereda - Nyárádszereda... Tot aşa se pot explica din limba scitică sau proto-maghiară şi numele râurilor amintite începând din Antichitate, pe care probabil că le cunoşteau şi dacii, ca de exemplu Isteros - Ister - Istár - Dunărea, Pathissus - Partisza, Tisia - Tisza - Tisa, Tanais - Tanyai - Don, Borysthenes - Boristene - Nipru, Hierasos - Szeret - Siret, Maris - Maros - Mureş, Alutus - Alot - Olt, Crisos - Körös - Crişul, Tamis - Temes - Timiş ş.a.m.d.

Aștept rîspuns. Până atunci vă rog să meditați și să-mi spuneți cum ați ajuns din Mesopotamia la poalee Uralilor, mă interesează traseul !@@szakaattila7899

au venit de la mama dracului din Mongolia cu corturile. Ii fu.. pe ei grija de romani...

Conform cronicilor noastre (din secolul al XIII-lea), popoarele care trăiau la sud de Caucaz au migrat spre nord, pornind din peninsula Crimeea și răspândindu-se mai întâi în jurul Mării Azov și apoi în toată regiunea scitică. Sciții s-au răspândit din bazinul Carpaților până la cotul râului Galben (regiunea Ordos). Maghiarii descind din sciți și huni. Studiile genetice au arătat că strămoșii noștri sunt în principal sciții din Bazinul Carpatic.

@@Dimples_Mom Toate datele noi din ştiiţele istoriei ne arată clar că maghiarii de azi provin în mare parte de la populaţia indigenă din Bazinul Carpatic, care n-au plecat niciodată de aici! Iar magorii - maghiarii care au venit cu Árpád în secolul al 9-lea, au fost foarte puţini faţă de populaţia ungară şi secuiască, dar nici ei n-au venit din Urali, ci din teritoriile din nordul Mării Negre şi Caucaz! Teoria cu maghiarii din Urali a fost combătută, pentru că nu s-au găsit nici date arheologice şi nici date arheogenetice despre vreo populaţie maghiară din Urali! Istoricii o spun deja, că lingviştii din seolul al 19-lea au făcut această presupunere greşită, pentru că acolo au găsit câteva populaţii mai mici care vorbeau o limbă ugrică, dar nu maghiară! Oricum o luăm, a fost o greşeală imensă că i-au băgat într-o oală pe triburile manşi şi chanti cu maghiarii, pentru că ei sunt câteva zeci de mii, iar maghiarii erau chiar şi în secolul 19. peste 10 milioane, dar şi azi mai sunt peste 15 milioane împreună cu diapora! Cu asta vreau să spun doar că avem deja toate datele că acele triburi mici s-au mutat acolo în nord-estul Munţilor Urali din sud-vest, şi nu strămoşii maghiarilor au venit de acolo aici! Vă traduc din datele publicate de vreo doi ani în ştiinţele istoriei, care sunt rezultatele arheogenetice şi din genetica populaţiei ale cercetătorilor din Institutul de Cercetare ale Ungariei: „Strămoșii maghiarilor care trăiesc astăzi sunt prezenți în mod continuu în Bazinul Carpatic de mii de ani - acest lucru a fost evidențiat de o cercetare publicată recent, care a folosit o nouă metodă pentru a examina genetica popoarelor care trăiau în regiune astăzi și în trecut. În timpul lucrărilor de cercetare, a fost creată o nouă bază de date, care conține datele a 16.000 de genomi mitocondriali ai 172 de populații antice și vii. Sistemul lor de conectare a fost cartografiat folosind inteligența artificială. Metoda a fost folosită pentru a examina fostele și actualele populații maghiare din Bazinul Carpaților și s-a constatat că majoritatea maghiarilor de astăzi provin dintr-o populație din epoca cuprului (4500 î.Hr. - 2800 î.Hr.) și epoca bronzului (2800 î.Hr. - 700 î.Hr.)." Toate datele din sursele istorice corelate cu datele arheologice, antropologice, arheogenetice, lingvistice, paleografice şi etnografice ne arată că majoritatea maghiarilor sunt urmaşii populaţiei indigene din Bazinul Carpatic! Problema e că majoritatea românilor sunt induşi în eroare cu etnogeneza maghiarilor, fără să ştie măcar că cronicarii maghiari din Evul Mediu au scris despre etnogeneza multimilenară a maghiarilor, care începe cu Menroth - Nimród, care apare şi în Biblie ca marele vânător al Donului, şi acolo scrie că el ar fi construit turnul din Babel! După Kezai Simon şi Kalti Mark, Menroth era primul rege din lume care s-ar fi mutat în Mesopotamia, în ţara numită Evilath cum scrie Kezai, unde s-a căsătorit cu Eneth şi a avut doi fii, Hunor şi Magor, de la care au provenit sciţii numiţi huni şi maghiari! Citez din cronica lui Kezai Simon numit "Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum": „Așa că, lăsând deoparte evenimentele care dau culoare primului nostru subiect, trebuie să ne întoarcem la uriașul Menroth, care, după ce a început confuzia limbilor, a plecat în țara Eviláth, care la vremea aceea era numită Persia, iar acolo soţia sa Eneth a nascut doi fii, anume Hunor si Magor, din care au provenit hunii şi maghiarii.” Dar de atunci arheologii şi istoricii străini au dovedit că cultura numită Jemdet Nasr a provenit de fapt din Bazinul Carpatic şi Balcanii de nord, şi se ştie bine că această cultură a pus bazele culturii şumeriene - babiloniene, numite şi cultura Ur şi Uruk din Mesopotamia! Doar scrie aceste cuvinte în google translate, să vezi ce înseamnă aceste două cuvinte din limba maghiară: Ur - Urak. Dar sunt şi istorici și lingviști maghiari dar şi străini, care consideră că limba numită azi maghiară, provine din limba proto-ugrică care era şi limba sciților europeni numiți de Herodot: iurkai (ιυρκαι), și mai târziu de Strabon și Ptolemeu: ourgoi (ουργοι) sau urogi (υρογι). Potrivit istoricului academician Horváth Csaba-Barnabás, acești sciți europeni vorbeau ramura ugrică a așa-numitei limbi finno-ugrice, care s-a separat de celelalte limbi finno-ugrice în urmă cu cel puțin 4 mii de ani și s-a dezvoltat aici şi la est de Bazinul Carpatic pe teritoriul Ucrainei de astăzi până la râul Volga. Întregul studiu a fost elaborat și publicat în INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS QUARTERLY, ISSN, Vol. 10. Nr. (toamnă-iarna 2019) "Reconsiderarea istoriei Originea Finnougrică şi Scitică - Una şi Aceeaşi." Dar istoricul Horváth Csaba-Barnabás și-a bazat studiul și pe ceea ce a dezvoltat faimosul arheolog lituano-american Marija Gimbutas în raport cu popoarele finno-ugrice, deoarece Gimbutas a dovedit că finno-ugricii au provenit de aici, din Europa Centrală! Iar antropologul american Grover Sanders Krantz, care a scris o carte cu titlul: "Geographical Development of the European Languages", susține că limba ugrică numită azi maghiară trebuie să fi fost prezentă în Bazinul Carpatic atunci când limbile indo-europene s-au difuzat în Europa! Teoria sa se bazează pe dezvoltarea formelor timpurii de agricultură, de care era legată răspândirea limbii proto-indo-europene. Aceste dezvoltări și instrumente agricole au fost de așa natură încât oamenii care se bazau pe ele nu au putut pătrunde în Bazinul Carpatic, drept urmare limbile indo-europene au evitat acea regiune pe măsură ce se difuzau. Iar profesorul italian în lingvistică Mario Alinei, care a studiat foarte mulţi ani textele etruscilor din „Italia Superioară”, ca parte a „teoriei sale a continuității”, s-a convins că limba etruscană era o formă arhaică a limbii proto-maghiare. Baza conexiunii este asemănarea extraordinară a numelor de magistraturi etrusce și maghiare antice și alte asemănări: tipologii, lexic și gramatică istorică. Această teorie contrazice, de asemenea, opinia conform căreia maghiarii au ajuns cu toţii în Bazinul Carpatic doar în secolul al 9-lea! Deci se pare că limba maghiară provine dintr-o limbă pre-indo-europeană, pe care au vorbit-o şi sciţii europeni, şi atunci e foarte probabil ca şi limba dacilor să fi fost mai aproape de această limbă!

És? Ezt mindenki tudja. A lényeg, hogy amikor a magyarok elfoglalták a Kárpát-Medencét a románoknak se híre, s hamva nem volt Erdélyben.

Doar poporul (sic) care a trecut Dunarea spre miazanoapte, conform Letopisetului lui Cantacuzino, sa nu fie (singurul in lume) migrator?

Vagyis hősiesen harcolsz a római betolakodók és utódaik ellen?

You must reason with your fellow maghiar from above. He has proof that we are Slavs.

ok, de akkor átmásztak az egész bolgár birodalmon?

​1018 - 1185 között nem létezik bolgár állam. A terület a Bizánci birodalom része lett , de a gyenge a hatalmuk miatt káosz, lázadások voltak. A románok a 12. század végén érik el a Duna deltát.

Azért nem ad választ a dákok származására, mert az kínos kérdéseket vetne fel. Úgyanis a dákok a szkíta népekhez tartozik, akárcsak mint mi magyarok. Például a lengyel terület szarmata/szkíta nép/ volt, csak nyelvet és identitást cseréltek. Így már jobban érthető a lengyel-magyar barátság. Meg jegyzem külföldi források is szkíta és hun ként ismertek bennünket.

A dákok keleti lovasnép.Róvásemlékeikvannak (voltak) Erdélyben. Az oláhokmegsemmisítették minden emléküket,ami a nem szláv eredetüket bizonyították.Azóta is bizonygaájk,hogy a dákok és a rómaiak utódai.Természetesen ezt mindenki kiröhögi.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-22nEZPTKIjE.html

Mert nincs olyan.

@@Borzas1661 Honnan tudod, te szerencsétlen, hogy nincs ? Árvízkárosult patkány. Svájcban már 1300-ban demokrácia volt. Kizavarták a Habsburgokat, oszt annyi. Görény. Azért mert te patkány tudatlan vagy attól még létezhetnek dolgok.

@@gyorgybartok-csato2776 Ez elég szerény múlt. Van egy jó mondás. Aki embernek hitvány, magyarnak alkalmatlan. Leginkább ezt kell szem előt tartanunk, hogy emberségünk emelkedjen.

@@olahenci A svájciaké ? Az a szerény szerinted ? Akkor te síkhülye vagy. KB 1300 óta senki nem meri megtámadni Őket, mert eddig mindenki ellen megvédték az országukat. Nem ismered a tröténelmet, akkor ne beszélj. Még Napoleon, vagy Hitler sem merte Őket megtámadni. De Sztálin is kikerülte Őket. Jelenleg pl. olyan hadseregük van, modern és Európa egyik legerősebb hadserege. Létszámarányosan biztos. Ezt olvasdd el, ha tudsz olvasni. :) hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sv%C3%A1jc_hadereje

nincs identitás zavaruk.. nem kell valami eredetmítosstal kompenzálniuk...

Becebalbolbol dicsot csinalni,na ahhoz is tehetseg kell, vagy inkabb szorgalom,vagy butasag.

Jaj...

Decebal dák,Burebista get, kettő bandànak semmi köze egymáshoz.

@@zoltanbalint5355 It appears you do not have time to read. Here it is: The Getae (Greek: Γέται, singular Γέτης) was the name given by the Greeks and Romans to several Thracian tribes who lived in the region south of the Lower Danube. It is now known today as northern Bulgaria, and north of the Lower Danube, in Romania. They spoke the ancient Thracian language like their neighbors, the Dacians. There was also a branch of Tyragetae on the Dniester River, and two tribes of Massagetae and Thyssagetae in Scythia.

A valóság ne zavarjon meg.

Nem, de jó ha tudjuk az igazat a románok hazugságairól, hiszen már Trianonban is ezekkel a mesékkel hitegették a nyugati hatalmakat!

Egy terület mindig azé, aki BELAKJA. Lehet ingatlanokat vásárolni és átköltözni Erdélybe, úgyis már kb. 5 millió román vándorolt ki, és egyre nagyobb a munkaerőhiuány.

Erdély mindazoké, akik ott laknak. magyaroké, románoké.@@0Joska

Akkor miért nem Szármiszegetháza, úgy mint Nyíregyháza vagy Fehéregyháza? Ha ezt a dák nevet szétbontjuk, mert a legtöbb ősi magyar vár és város neve is összetett szavakból áll, akkor már nagyon is logikus lehet ennek a dák központi vár nevének a magyar értelme! A legrégebbi magyar várak neveit is legalább három szóból rakták össze az őseink, mint például Székes-fehér-vár, Gyula-fehér-vár, Nándor-fehér-vár. Kevesen tudják, hogy a mai napig vannak ilyen földrajzi nevek és helynevek a Székelységben, mint például Szárhegy vagy Szármány-hegy, és ott vannak Gyergyószárhegy és Szárhegy községek is. A szeg szavunk megint nagyon ősi lehet, a wikiszótár szerint a szeg ősmagyar eredetű szó: szög, szeg (sarok, hegy), tehát ezért is Erdélyben már nagyon régóta úgy osztották fel a falvakat, hogy felszeg és alszeg, és akkor ott van ez a szó az ősi Kalotaszeg nevében is! És akkor már csak ez a két összetett szó már elég logikusan értelmezhető úgy magyarul, hogy a szár - fehér/sárga mészkőfalakat jelölt, és a szeg - felszeget, vagyis a hegyen lévő várat jelölhette! De a magyarok nagy többsége nem tudja még azt sem, hogy a dákoknak voltak olyan váraik amelyeket mindig a dáva vagy déva utótaggal jelöltek, mint például Piroboridava, Utidava, Tamasidava, Ziridava, Zargidava, Sucidava és így tovább. A román nyelvészek szerint is a dáva várat jelentett, és akkor ez pont olyan mint a legrégebbi magyar nevekben a "vár" toldalék a nevek végén, mint például Kolozsvár, Gyulafehérvár, Nándorfehérvár, Székesfehérvár, Kaposvár és így tovább. És akkor nem lehet, hogy Proboridava az magyarul Pirosborvára lehetett, vagy az Utidáva az Utivára, Tamasidáva - Temesivára, Zargidáva - Zergevára, Sucidáva - Szűcsvára, Ziridáva - Szeredavára és így tovább, mert szinte mindegyikre adhatok középkori példákat is, mint például Csikszereda és Nyárádszereda, amelyek nevében a zirida vagy szereda a szerdai vásárra utalt?!

Ha úgy vesszük, es még mindig a fővárosokról beszélünk, amikor a románok elmennek üríteni, kimennek "buda"-ba. Ismerős a szó Buda? Románul wc-t jelent. Érdemes lenne utánajárni, hogy ki kitől kölcsönözte a szót...😜

@@BulaGyorgy Igen, csak ha te igazán magyar lennél akkor tudnád, hogy a magyaroknál is a régi hátsó véce az a kerti budi volt, amelyet a későbbi vlachok budă-nak fordítottak le és nem budának! Ebből is világosan látszik, hogy a vlachok a magyaroktól tanulták el ezt is, hiszen vannak 15 - 16-dik századi leírások ahol az erdélyi magyarokat egy fejlett társadalomnak mutatják be az itáliai olasz humanisták, ahol legtöbbször kőházaik voltak még a parasztoknak is, ellentétben a vlachokkal, akik akkor még a hegyekben laktak és nagyon rossz minőségű kunyhókban vagy sárházakban éltek, sokszor az állataikkal együtt!

@@21Sagittarius Szerinted ezeket az értelmezéseket a magyar akadémia nyelvészei elfogadják?

De igen, addig köztársaság volt, Augustus volt az első császár.

Ott nem dáko román, csak dák aranyat keresnek, egyébként az a műsor is egy baromi nagy mese, egy fikció...

Miféle tévében🇭🇺✌🏻...?

@@gaborszadai1992 history channel, egyébként Magyarországon is megy.

The two stories just don't match, because while the Jews and the Greeks preserved their culture and their languages ​​during the more than five hundred years of Roman rule, the Dacians would have adopted the Latin language in only 160 years?! This in itself is nonsense, because no people have adopted the language of another people even in modern times in such a short time, let alone in ancient times when there were no schools! But to what extent this whole Daco-Romanian continuity is based on lies, I'll just write here a few facts that can be clearly understood from the original and contemporary documents, except that the Romanian historians hope that the Romanians don't understand this anyway! The Roman administrator and historian Dio Cassius, wrot in the 2th century AD: "Dacos Scythicam quodammodo nationem suisse" - The Dacians are of Scythian descent. Or the Roman historian Vibius Sequester wrot in the 4th century AD: "Dacian Scythae Europae" - The Dacians are European Scythians. And such data have come to light in recent decades, where the ancient writers do not call the Dacians Thracians, but a Scythian people, such as Strabo, who writes in his "Geographica" that the Dacha - Dacians split into two centuries before and were founded by the Eastern Dacians Parthia together with the Madas, but the Dacians who moved to the east first lived near the Meotis, then later they founded Dacia at the Ister - Danube. So it looks very much like the Romanian historians falsified the data, because they deliberately confused the Dacians with the Getae, who are indeed described as having mixed with the Thracians. But today even Romanian archaeologists describe that the Getae lived only in the southern and northern parts of the Danube as far as Dobrugea, while the Dacians lived more in the hilly and mountainous regions around the Carpathians, because archaeologically, these two populations can be very well separated! Archaeologist Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu, whose field of expertise is mainly in this field, clearly states that the historians of Ceausescu deliberately mixed up the two peoples, because the Dacians were only mentioned around 50 BC, while Herodotus already mentions Getae four hundred years before that. A lot of data has already been discovered from foreign archives where there are countless references to these Scythian peoples, such as the Agathyrs, Dacians, Iazyges, Carps, Bastarnacs, Costobocs, Ourgois, Urogians, Magors and the Hunugors, which proves that these were tribes or peoples belonging to the same Scythian culture. The Italian researcher Michelangelo Naddeo believes that the Dacians actually came from a proto-Hungarian population and belonged to the ancient peoples living in the Carpathian basin, and there is already a lot of data about this, which of course the Romanians will never admit! But just recently there was news that an American professor deciphered the text on the pedestal of one of the sphinx statues found at Potaissa - Turda, and it can be understood in Proto-Hungarian, which archaeologists dated to the 3th century AD! If you look at the very exhaustive study, you will realize that this is very logical! Michelangelo Naddeo says in his book: "Decebalus was a proto-Hungarian!" There are Hungarian researchers who say that the first half of Decebalus' name written in Latin is still present in Hungarian in the names of several medieval settlements such as Décse, Marosdécse, but it once meant glorious, which is very fitting for the name of a king. But if we even analyze the second half of his name, we find out that Bál was the name of a god among the ancient Hungarians, just like the god of storms and war among the Sumerians and Assyrians. But this name became a dignified name in ancient times, which can be found for example in the name of Hannibal, but it also appears in the name of Bél - Béla among the medieval Hungarians, and according to this Decebalus meant a glorious dignity in the ancient Scythian-Dacian language. I will also give you some linguistic - toponymic examples, for example that only in agglutinative languages the word for fortress was written and is still written affixed to the root. Clear examples in Hungarians are Kaposvár, Kolozsvár, Székesfehérvár, Nándorfehérvár, Gyulafehérvár, Segesvár etc. In all of these you can see the affix vár after the name, which could also be vára and what it means fortress, except as in the Dacian fortresses the affix dava - deva. And then it can't be a coincidence that the old Hungarians built and named Déva - Deva Castle in the Middle Ages! Since I know Romanian very well, I also read what Romanian historians write about, for example, the ancient castle or city built on the site of Kolozsvár - Cluj, which was occupied and rebuilt by the Romans, but whose name was preserved only in Latin, such as "Napoca" or "Napocensis". About the Latin name of Napoca, a Romanian historian wrote that it is likely that the original name of the city comes from the Sumerian word - Sun - and could have meant City of the Sun or Sun Castle! I checked the WikiDictionary, it says at the origin of the word nap: "nap < Old Hungarian: nap < Proto-Hungarian: nap (sun) Similar word in another language: Sumerian: nap (sun)." So the name of the "sun", which is in the sky, was the same only among the Sumerians and the Hungarians, but there are more and more signs that the European Scythians also called the sun that way, and then it is likely that the Scythian peoples here, like the Agathyrs and the Dacians too! Some Dacian fortresses with significance only in the Hungarian language: Napoca - Naposvár - Sun Castle, Sarmisegethuza - Sármiszegetháza - Upper mountain White House, Piroboridáva - Pirosborvára - Red Wine Castle, Utidáva - Utivára - Road Castle, Sucidava - Szűcsivára - Furrier Castle, Tamasidava - Temesivár -The buried Castle, expl. Temesvár - Timisoara. Or Zargidava - Zergevára - Chamois Castle, Ziridava - Zeredavár - Wednesday Castle, expl. Csíkszereda - Nyárádszereda... Zirida or Szereda also means Wednesday in today's Hungarian language, but the Wednesday fair once existed in the Middle Ages and hence the names of the towns where the Wednesday fairs took place, which the Hungarians used a lot as place names, such as Marosvásárhely - Târgu Mureș or Kézdivásárhely - Târgu Secuiesc! This name also proves that the Scythian - Dacians spoke an agglutinating language, which was is related to the ancient Ugorian - Hungarian language!

😅Tribul de evreii khazari ..iudeizați de Khahanul Bulan! Gheșeftarii n-au nimic de-a face cu dacii!

@@szakaattila7899 „Kézdivásárhely - Târgu Secuiesc! This name also proves that the Scythian - Dacians spoke an agglutinating language, which was is related to the ancient Ugorian - Hungarian language!” Are you re-reading what you write?!?! How can you write such nonsense!?! According to you, the Dacians spoke a language thousands of km and a millennium away!!! God, your garden is big!!!

@@mishuvv The mistake is in your head, because the only typo I had was that I wanted to write these names, so I wrote about the linguistic similarities between the names of Dacian castles and the names of Hungarian castles and towns and not just about Kézdivásárhely! The other big problem in your brainwashed mind is that you didn't get the information that more than 90% of the Hungarian people are of ancient European and Carpathian basin origin, and then according to the latest research, the Hungarian language is also an ancient Carpathian basin language! All the new data from the knowledge of history show us that today's Hungarians mostly come from the native population of the Carpathian Basin that never left, and those who came with Árpád were very few, but they didn't come from the Urals either, but from the territories from the north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus! There are already thousands of proofs in the historical sciences that the Hungarians are an ancient European people, who have lived for many millennia in the Carpathian Basin! Quotes from the website of the Hungarian Research Institute: "The presence of the ancestors of today's Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin has been continuous for thousands of years" "A new database of 16,000 mitogenomes of 172 ancient and living populations has been created and investigated their connection system based on artificial intelligence method. The new algorithm recognizes all haplogroup correlations, regardless of the time of the process behind the correlation. A new methodological article has been published in the journal Molecular Genetics and Genomics by the researchers of the Archaeogenetic Research Center of the Hungarian Research Institute, the Department of Genetics of the University of Szeged, the Institute of Technical Physics and Materials Science." "The population genetics method based on artificial intelligence can use a novel approach to show the origin and kinship relationships of past and present populations from the distribution of haplogroups of maternal or paternal inheritance. The algorithm based on artificial intelligence can independently group populations with a similar distribution and then calculate the center (central vector) of the distribution. The authors showed that the central vector identifies with a good approximation the ancient populations from the mixing of which today's populations can be derived. With the method, it is not only possible to identify the sources of past mixing, but also to calculate the proportions of the mixing." "The Carpathian Basin is an unbreakable unit / Applying the method to the investigation of the former and present-day populations of the Carpathian Basin, the authors found that the vast majority of the present-day population is from a Copper Age (4500 BC-2800 BC) - Bronze Age (2800 BC-700 BC) can be traced back to a basic population, while immigration from the eastern steppe region seems to have had a smaller genetic impact on the population in the tenth-eleventh centuries." It is certain that these natives of the Carpathian Basin are not the least bit similar to the Mansi, and we are mostly descended from these inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin, which is why it is much more likely that our language also comes from them! That is why the American anthropologist Grover Sanders Krantz outlined is clear, that the language also started from here with those who were the predecessors of the Árpád Magyars people and that some of the words related to Hungarian could have reached the Mansi from them! That is why the people who came with Árpád thought that they had returned to the land of their ancestors, except that they were the descendants of those who mixed with the Asian peoples and thus also with the ancestors of the Siberian Mansis. This is the only way to best explain the linguistic kinship with the Finno-Ugric, but also with the Asian Turkic languages and ancient languages such as Dravidian, Sumerian, Etruscan, Minoan, Carian, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit! However, this also proves that the ancient Hungarian language was always the language of transmission in the last three thousand years and not the other way around, Hungarians took the words from the languages of these small peoples! That is why several researchers of the Hungarian Research Institute said that the Finno-Ugric terminology was wrong, because it should actually be called the Hungarian-Ugric-Finnish language family, but there are those who think that the Hungarian language is so unique and structurally special that it should not even be classified in any language family!

Az archeogenetika meg tudja mondani egy genetikai elem vándorlását térben és időben. Nem tudja megmondani, hogy az adott személy, adott helyen és időben milyen nyelven beszélt és melyik néphez tartozónak vallotta magát.

@@laszlokovacs7693 Értem mit mondassz , de dédapa , nagyapa , apa , fiú , unoka kapcsolódások kimutatásánál nem kell ész hozzá hogy nagy valószínüséggel egy nyelvet beszéltek .

@@vtamaslaszlo1175 Nem, ez hibás következtetés. Saját példám: Dédnagyapám tót volt, kétnyelvű imakönyvet használt, hogy be tudjon kapcsolódni a magyar misébe, dédnagyanyám magyar, nagyapám pedig már tisztán magyar identitással rendelkezett.

Biológia: Egy fajt alkotnak azok az egyedek, amelyek közös életképes utódot tudnak létrehozni. A románok, magyarok, németek, zsidók, arabok, ...stb. egy fajba tartoznak. Homo Sapiens.

Azért itt a Kárpát-medencében az évszázadok során, avarok, magyarok, déli és északi szlávok, germánok (svábok főleg), kunok, jászok, románok és még kitudja mennyi minden.... És ma már elkezdődött a cigányokkal való keveredés is, egyre több a vegyes pár.

Ki kell, hogy ábrándítsalak: a magyar is sok, egyébként nem rokon nép keveréke, de ez a magyarnál és más népeknél sem probléma. Már a honfoglalók sem voltak "fajrokonok" bármit is jelentsen ez. Különben nem kellett volna vérszerződést kötniük. Azóta pedig több mint tíz nép olvadt be a mai magyarságba.

@@laszlokovacs7693 Mi az hogy fajrokon?

@@laszlokovacs7693 a legtobb európai gént mi hordjuk utánunk a lengyelek, bolgárok, horvatok, ennyit a honfoglalás mitoszarol amit az osztrákok találták ki

Kovesi , Nagh stb

Minden Baál hitű nép az volt, hunok punok stb a dákoknál is a decebál azaz a Dákbál , Hani bál is tulképp hunibál ...Balaton, Bálványos ,Balassa, Balogh, és sorolhatnám a Baál hitű ősök helyeit S ránkhagyott neveit.

?

that quote was said by Otto von Bismarck complimenting the enduramce of the Romanian nation to survive despite the empires that surrounded it wanting to disolve it. meaning that it really takes an effort to keep to your identity. anyway, no, we don't come from Illyria or Thrace. we are native to Dacia. and you yourself don't look that much as Uralic, you look more like my cousin.

@@porphyry17 😃😃😃😃😃oh, agan vlach folk tale😃😃😃😃😃

A Blaknak semmi köze a Vlach-hoz! Ezt csak egyetlenegy(!!) régi az ún. "honfoglalás"-nál több száz évvel későbbi térképen találták. Egyetlenegy téves feliratból (ami egészen mást jelenthet) azt levonni, hogy a vlachok Erdély területén voltak? Na talán már csak nem?! A magyarok saját magukról képesek a legrosszabbat is elhinni - ezért állunk ma így!

a vlah helyesen váláh, az áláh szóból ered, mert iszlámok voltak legalábbis a magyarok úgy vették hogy ezek áláhnépe

@@mihalybajusz2913 Oau! So far, I learned from your comments that Romanians are Slavs, Iranians, Albanians. You must choose one of them.

@@mihalybajusz2913 You have the timing wrong. Otoman brought islam in Europe. How come they conquered Valahia and Moldova? From all Magyar "science" I learned that Romanians are Russians, Cehs, Slovak, Bulgars, Albanian, Iranian, Turks. O man, my head is spining. I do not know what I am.

​​@@mihalybajusz2913 Germán kifejezés, jelentése: "latinul beszélõ / latin kultulúrájú idegen". Lásd: vlach, olasz, Welsh, Wallis (francia svájci kanton) stb.

Nekünk, magyaroknak viszont nem az a feladatunk, hogy éljük világunkat, hanem az, hogy szellemileg és lelkileg másokat magunk fölé emeljünk.

@@olahenci Szerencsétlen hülye. Majdnem minden Nobel díjasunk Zsidó származású. hogy csak egyet mondjak. Sportot, ipart is a zsidók csinálták meg ebben az országban. Te akarod magadat szellemileg mások fölé emelni, mikor síkhülye vagy ?

@@olahenci Anyádnak mi volt a feladata a soron ?

😂😂😂

Ur-anus?

Lehet hogy a buziságát igy fejeszték ki ‽ 🤣

TryBozgor.

​@@pauldanaila1610Try să pronunți sutele de toponime din Valachia(Țara Românească) în limba română. Nu o să reuşeşti deoarece ele sunt de origine slavă sau cumană. Nicidecum de origine dacă, vlachă sau română. Deci teoria continuității daco-române este doar o poveste de prost gust. Vatra vlachilor este Illyria, westul peninsulei balcanice.

Ezek a szavak minden európai nyelvben megtalálhatók, és latin eredetűek.

Kontinuitás=folyamatosság

This is not for convenience, serious historians can only say such things on the basis of pure real sources and historical evidence, and I guarantee that we have all the data for this, including some that the professor has not heard of yet! We Hungarians would be the proudest if we were really dealing with a people like the people who created the Roman Empire, such as the Latins, Sabines, Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians or even the Dacians, all of whom were highly educated and from whom we could learn a lot culturally. , but alas, the Romanians are nowhere near like that! Noi, maghiarii, am fi cei mai mândrii dacă am avea de-a face cu adevărat cu un popor precum cei care au creat Imperiul Roman, precum latinii, sabinii, etruscii, grecii, macedonenii sau chiar dacii, de la care noi am putea învăța multe din punct de vedere cultural, dar, voi românii nu sunteţi nici pe departe comparabili cu aceste culturi!

What an open minded person you are! How polite. How well educated! How much do you know about Romanian civilization! You behave, as always, with an arrogant superiority. You want to learn from the Etruscan , Sabine, Romans, Greeks civilization? What language do you use to read the information? You are so limited and impossible to overcome your stereotypes. You, hungarians will never change that's why you are so loved in the region. That's why you again sell European civilization and values to the Russians. (No matter who, if gives you any hope to recover your fucking out of date Austria Hungary empire) Till then, you relate to your greatest cultural discoveries : Goulash (a Turkish dish) and csardas! You have all the reasons in the world to be proud of those! You are indoctrinated for centuries with the idea of your superiority, exactly the same method like the palestinians! For you, even God speaks hungarian! You live a kind of Kalman operetta :haj masik Peter Haj masik Pal! A barometer esore all!@@szakaattila7899

@@hosuvasile3237 Eşti total pe lângă! Eu trăiesc aici în Transilvania unde au trăit şi străbunii mei de multe secole sau poate milenii, şi am învăţat patru ani isoria artelor, unde limba latină era obligatorie, şi fără să vreau trebuia să învăţ şi toate prostiile şi minciunile dictate de statul român începând din anii '70. Deci în comparaţie cu voi care nu cunoaşteţi nici măcar limba şi nici cultura maghiară, eu măcar am termenul de comparaţie!

​@@hosuvasile3237 Eu văd în fiecare zi aici de aproape ce se întâmplă cu românii îndoctrinaţi la maxim cu poveştile absurde despre geto-daci şi daco-romani, care n-au existat niciodată în realitate! Adevărul e foarte deranjant când vezi că o mare naţiune şi-a lăsat amprentele culturale peste tot în Transilvania, Banat, Crişana şi Maramureş, unde aceste teritorii n-au fost niciodată româneşti înainte de secolul al 20-lea, cum v-au minţit istorii ceauşişti! De aceea de vreo o sută de ani în România se falsifică încintinuu şi fără nicio jenă istoria Transilvaniei şi a Ungariei, ca să nu cumva să aflaţi adevărul, pentru că atunci se va năruii toată mitologia continuităţii daco-romane! Dar hai să vedem datele reale din istorie, cu ce vă lăudaţi voi românii în comparaţie cu ce avem noi maghiarii? Nu aveţi documente româneşti originale din aceea perioadă, dar nu există nici măcar o scurtă menţiune despre valahi sau rumuni din secolele 9 sau al 10-lea! Dar nu aveţi până în secolul 16 nici măcar documente în română cu litere chirilice, să nu mai zic de documente în limba latină, cum au maghiarii multe documente scrise în latină dar şi maghiară, începând din secolul al 11-lea! Chiar crezi că urmaşii dacilor sau a romanilor ar fi decăzut atât de tare să-şi uite complet limba şi scrisul?! Sau nu ştii nici că românii au trecut de la alfabetul chirilic la scrisul cu litere latine doar în secolul al 19-lea şi doar la insistenţa preoţilor greco-catolici din Transilvania, care au fost motivaţi de diferenţele culturale enorme dintre maghiari şi români?! Sau poţi să crezi că urmaşii dacilor sau a romanilor ar fi uitat complet să construiască case şi biserici din piatră în tot Evul Mediu, chiar şi până în Epoca Modernă?! În toate descrierile, marea majoritate a ţăranilor români au trăit în case de chirpici chiar şi la începutul secolului al 20-lea, iar majoritatea bisericilor ortodoxe erau construite din lemn! Să nu mai zic de cetăţi şi palate, de morminte sculptate din piatră, de reliefuri şi statui, sau de drumuri pietruite şi apeducte, că sunteţi la ani lumină de toate astea! Maghiarii au construit cetăţi, palate, case şi biserici din piatră şi cărămidă începând din secolul al 10-lea, şi nu cu ajutorul bavarezilor şi a saşilor cum ziceţi voi, că saşii de exemplu au fost aduşi doar începând din secolul al 12-lea în Regatul Ungariei, în Transilvania! Dar unde sunt textele originale ale dacoromânilor? Măcar din Evul Mediu dacă ar exista vreun text în limba dacă sau daco-română, dar nu există nicăieri aşa ceva! Nu aveţi nici documente româneşti (măcar cu litere chirilice) originale de dinainte de secolul al 14-lea, nici măcar în latina medievală nu aveţi documente, cum au maghiarii în latină şi maghiară începând deja din secolul al 11-lea! Primul document în limba română e scrisoarea lui Neacşu din 1521, iar primul document cu un text foarte bine înţeles în limba maghiară e din anul 1055! Dar s-au descifrat mai multe texte în limba maghiară din secolele 7 - 8 -lea, de pe vremea avarilor, scrise cu alfabetul runic maghiar numit deja oficial alfabetul runic din Baziunul Carpatic! Primele cărţi în maghiară sunt din secolul al 14-lea şi primul codex cu un text în maghiară e din anul 1320 din care înţelegem chiar şi azi textul, iar prima carte cu textul în română e din 1561. Dar primele cărţi în limba română s-au tipărit doar în secolul 18-lea, când maghiarii aveau deja mii de cărţi tipărite în limba maghiară! S-au descoperit peste 30 de codexuri din Evul Mediu în limba maghiară, şi se ştie de existenţa a cel puţin 300 de codexuri, care au fost prădate de otomani! Câte codexuri există în limba română?! După toate datele reale pe care le avem, lingviştii specialişti în toponimie sunt de acord că nu există nume de aşezări sau nume geografice de origine valahă - română dinainte de secolul al 13-lea în Regatul Ungariei, ce cuprindea tot Bazinul Carpatic! Eu ştiu sigur că nu există nici în Valahia şi nici în Moldova! Concluzia istoricilor şi lingviştilor consacraţi e că o populaţie mai numeroasă care s-a stabilit măcar un secol pe undeva, trebuia să lase urme de denumiri de așezări, de râuri, pârâuri, lacuri, munți și văi pe undeva! Foarte puţine popoare au dat nume de localități și nume geografice atât de logice, cu o semnificaţie bine înţeleasă, cum au făcut sciţii, dacii, ugorii, secuii, sabirii şi magorii - maghiarii. Încă un lucru cu care românii prostiţi cu propaganda antimaghiară nu ştiu, că a doua constituţie din lume după cea din Anglia, a fost dată cu 802 de ani în urmă de regele Ungariei Endre al II-lea în anul 1222, în care apar primele legi democratice din Europa medievală, ca de exemplu că regele poate fi înlăturat de la putere dacă nu respectă drepturile şi autonomiile comitatelor şi oraşelor! Astfel de legi n-au existat nicăieri în Europa până în Epoca Modernă! Când a fost elaborat prima constituţie românească din România? Prima constituţie românească e din 30 iunie 1866! Să mai zic de primul "Regat Apostolic" din Europa şi din toată lumea, înfiinţat în anul 1000 şi regele maghiar Sfântul Ştefan care a fost uns ca „Rege apostolic” de capul bisericii catolice? Nu a existat niciodată un alt regat apostolic în toată lumea asta, doar regatul Ungariei! Ştii cumva câţi sfinţi au dat maghiarii şi Árpádienii bisericii catolie, care unii dintre ei au fost preluaţi şi de bizantini, de biserica Ortodoxă a Greciei? Sunt 21 de sfiinţi maghiari în total dintre care vreo 10 sunt consideraţi şi sfinţii bisericii Ortodoxe a Greciei! Majoritatea românilor sunt induşi în eroare cu etnogeneza maghiarilor, fără să ştie măcar că cronicarii maghiari din Evul Mediu au scris despre etnogeneza multimilenară a magorilor-maghiarilor, care începe cu Nemrot - Nimrod, care a fost primul rege din lume şi care a avut doi fii, Hunor şi Magor, de la care au provenit sciţii numiţi huni şi maghiari! Dar despre aceştia au scris şi cronicarii străini, şi istoricii sunt de acord că această mitologie e mult mai străveche ca mitologia popoarelor europene în general. Deosebirea între mitologia cu "Romulus şi Remus" şi "mitologia cu "Hunor şi Magor" e uriaşă, nu doar în timp şi spaţiu, dar şi ca etnogeneză culturală, pentru că Hunor şi Magor au trăit întotdeauna în frăţie, şi au căutat pacea între popoare, ei nu s-au războit niciodată unul cu altul, dar nici popoarele lor nu au fost niciodată în conflict! Despre Magor au scris şi autorii din Antichitate, dar apare şi în Biblie ca Magog. Titus Flavius Iosepphus a scris în secolul I d.Hr. că de la Magog provin toţi magorienii, care sunt cu toţii sciţi! Iar Iordanes a scris în secolul al 6-lea în cartea Getica, că "hunugorii care sunt numiţi şi sabiri, au locuit în Scythia, în Dacia şi apoi iar Scythia." Iordanes descrie în capitopul 28 că goţii ajung în Scythia, iar în cartea 29 scrie că Iosepphus aminteşte de Magog cu poporul lui ce aparţine sciţilor şi care vorbeşte limba sciţilor! În capitolul 33 aminteşte că gepizii au ajuns în Scythia de vest, şi descrie că aici sunt două mari fluvii, "Danuvius et Tisia"- Dunărea şi Tisa! Vibius Sequester a scris că dacii sunt sciţii europeni: „Daci Scythae Europae.” Iar Isidor of Seville scris despre geţi la fel: „Getae quasi Scythae sunt nuncupati." Procopius a scris la fel despre masageţi şi huni: „Massagetas, sive ut iam vocant Hunnos, Atillam, Massagetarum, Scytharumque exercitu armatum adversus Aetium processisse…" Anonymus a scris clar că ungurii provin din Sciţia: „Gens itaque Hungarorum fortissima at bellorum laboribus potentissima, ut superius diximus, de gente Scythica,… " Iar Coccius Sabellicus a scris la fel despre unguri: „Nemini dubium sit Unnos, sive Ungaros Schytas esse." Desercius: „Să descriem pentru urmaşi despre modul de viaţă a sciţilor. Numai cei străini nu ştiu că maghiarii ca urmaşi ai stiţilor, sunt foarte talentaţi.” Istoricul arheolog Vékony Gábor, care mai era şi lingvist expert în runele ungaro-secuieşti, scrie că a descifrat majoritatea textelor runice din perioada avară secolele 6 - 8 şi toate sunt în limba maghiară veche, dar le pot înţelege şi maghiarii de azi! De atunci s-au descifrat şi alte texte runice în maghiară, iar cercetătorii sunt de acord că pe vremea avarilor au trăit aici şi unguri, care au vorbit limba numită azi maghiară! Iar renumitul istoric arheolog László Gyula, care a descoperit foarte multe cimitire ale maghiarilor şi în Transilvania, datate din secolele 9 - 10. după mai mult de 50 de ani de cercetări a ajuns la următoarea concluzie: „Nu încape nicio îndoială că cei care au descălecat în anii 890, maghiarii lui Árpád au găsit în Bazinul Carpatic o populaţie majoritar ungară." „Această populaţie numită de istorici onogură - ungară, era de 10 - 20 de ori mai numeroasă ca maghiarii descălecători."

Da ce te crezi superior sau ce?

Ángélusra inkább, mert az oláhok általába' tudnak ángélusul🇭🇺✌🏻...

@@gaborszadai1992 A fordítással nem csak az oláhokra gondolok. Rájuk úgysem hat de arra jó hogy bosszantsuk őket és hisztizzenek….

@@saschaveres5920 Azért mondtam, hogy inkább ángélusul kéne feliratozni 🇭🇺✌🏻...

@@gaborszadai1992 Ez sem segít…de több a semminél…a kevés igazi tudós tudja mindenek a helyét…a nyugati átlag ember és nem csak…még azt sem tudja és sincs tisztában hogy hol él és honnan jött és merre tart… De a túlzások is megvannak minden oldalon…mindenki több akar lenni mint ami és minél senkibb annál nagyképűbb és több akar lenni mint ami és ez érvényes főleg azokra is akik kiválasztottnak tartják magukat és sokan pályáznak erre a titulusra de ilyen nem létezik csak a nevelés féligazságokra építve egy hazugságot amit vallási szintre emelik ami a fundamentalizmus forrása…

​@@saschaveres5920A kommentelő oláhok tudnak ángélusul🇭🇺✌🏻...

Azért érdekel sok magyart, mert a "Dákó-román kontinualitás" elméletére hivatkozva formáltak történelmi jogot a románok a magyarokkal szemben Erdély és a Magyar Királyság többi Románia által elszakított részére. Mi magyarok tudjuk az igazságot rólatok románokról, mert a Magyar Királyság akkor már létezett, amikor megjelentetek itt és rengeteg középkori feljegyzés maradt meg a románok Erdélybe településéről. A magyar történettudomány egyáltalán nem azt állítja, hogy k.sz. 271 után elnéptelenedett teljesen Erdély és utána egészen a magyarok bejöveteléig nem élt ott senki. Ez is csak egy a rengeteg magyarokkal szembeni rosszindulatú román hazugság közül. K. sz. 271 után a gótok foglalták el a területet, akiket a hunok hódítottak meg és telepedtek le Erdélyben, majd őket a gepidák követték, akik a Gepida Királyságot hozták létre a területen. Őket az Avarok követték, kiket a Frank Birodalom győzött le, majd Erdély lakói a bolgár-szláv népek lettek, akiket a honfoglaló magyarok legyőztek és behódolásra késztettek. Gyakran szerettek hivatkozni Anonymousra, aki ezeket a Bolgár-szlávokat hívja Blakoknak, (a Kárpátoktól délre beszél külön a Valachokrólk is.) És itt leírja, hogy Gelu és leszármazottjai midőn legyőzettek a magyaroknak esküt tettek, hogy leszármazottjaik örökké a szolgáik lesznek. (Erről szerettek elfeledkezni...)

​@@napkalamona pointing out that there were latins here between 275 to 1200 it is not "malicious propaganda against Hungarians". telling a native nation that they are "an evil, lazy, inherently thief and false nation that came from some mountain in Illyria to steal holy Hungarian land" is, however, quite st00pid and has a hateful intent.

A Szépművészeti Múzeum Román Csarnoka szóhasználatban nincs semmi zavartkeltő. Román stílusnak vagy romanikának nevezzük az európai országok 11. és 12. századi műalkotásainak együttesét. A Román Csarnok pontosan ezzel foglalkozik. A román kor az ezredforduló környékén kezdődött és a francia gótika elterjedéséig, a 13. század elejéig tartott. A romanikát megelőző időszakot preromán kornak nevezik. A román stílus nem azonos a romániai stílusjegyekkel! A kifejezést a 19. századi művészettörténészek találták ki, különösen a kor építészetének megjelölésére, amely megőrizte az ókori római építészeti stílus számos alapvető jellemzőjét. Angliában a stílust normannak (nem roman-nak!) nevezik és első példája itt az I. Vilmos által emeltetett Westminsteri apátság volt, amelyet aztán egy gótikus stílusú épület váltott fel. A középkori művészetre használt "román" megjelölést először Charles de Gerville (1769-1853) francia tudós használta, 1818-ban. A római stílus, azaz „Le style roman” elnevezést a 19. század első felében Arcisse de Caumont történész népszerűsítette Franciaországban, és majd mások is, mint például Victor Hugo. A magyar művészettörténet a kifejezés tükörfordításával, román (tehát római, nem romániai román) stílus néven örökítette át. Az elnevezés arra utal, hogy az új iskolák Róma ókori művészetéből merítettek, másrészt Nyugat-Európa román nyelveinek kialakulásával való rokonságáról is árulkodik. (WIKI)

​@@monikahartill1922. Nagyon szépen összefoglaltad. Sokan nem értik mit is jent a román kor aminek semmi köze a románok hoz.

Bocs, de minden angolul beszélő tudja, hogy a "roman" és a "romanian" nem ugyanaz a kifejezés. Ahogy a "roma" sem. Te miért nem tudod?

@@agus504 For God sake, I thought that only Romanians become stupid. I am glad to discover Magyars have their stupid too. Please read again the text and your answer.

Ezzel elválasztották a déli szlávokat az oroszoktól. Ez ám a nyelvmérnökség!

Csak az álmaidban. Soha nem beszéltünk szláv nyelvet. Könnyen megérthetjük Neacșu levelét 1521-ből

what serious, credible source can a librarian be?!?!?!? Ha..ha...ha...!!!!!!

@@mishuvv az hogy a könyvtárban minden irott forrást kikeresett! Ne feledjük hogy Bukarestben a központi könyvtárban van!Te mikor jártál könyvtárban ????

@@attinagy5221 Una este sa fii istoric si altceva sa citesti carti istorice!!! Sunt carti si...carti!! Nu-mi du grija! Cu mare siguranta am citit mai multe rafturi de biblioteca decat tine. Adevarat, NU l-am citit pe "istoricul" Lucian Boia care a fost premiat de Victor Orban!!! Acest fapt ii descaalifica pe amandoi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............................

But everything was just the other way around, because almost nothing of what you have learned so far is true, since according to the real data, 90% of the history of Transylvanian Romanians is fiction, mainly the fantasy of the Ceausist propaganda historians! On the contrary, the truth is that the high mountains shepherd Vlachs living in wild conditions did not have much contact with the Hungarians and Szeklers until the 18th century, when there are data that many tens of thousands fled from the Phanariot rulers oppression and great poverty from the two Romanian principalities to Transylvania, when the ethnic proportions changed in the second half of the century! There is all the information about when the first Vlach settlers arrived in Transylvania to the ancient Hungarian lands of Fogaras - Făgăraş and Hátszeg - Haţeg, and later to Bánság - Banat and Máramaros - Maramureş, where the Hungarian villages were destroyed in many places especially after the Cuman and Mongol invasions! More than 99% of Romanians do not even know that these were all ancient Hungarian names, which every Hungarian still understands today, and whose Romanian mirror translation means nothing in Romanian, and Transylvania, Banat, Partium and Maramureş are full of such names! But even so, there is a lot of evidence that the Vlachs moved closer to the high mountains and kept a lot of sheep there, the cheese of which was sold in the Hungarian and Saxon villages and towns.There is a Hungarian historian who wrote a serious study about these, because he looked into the archival data of the time, for example among the Serbs or the Greeks, but he also researched the archival data of the Hungarian kingdom and Austria and all the data of the Orthodox Church! But the Romanian historians do not tell these things, most of whom are still under the influence of the Ceauşist Ioan Aurel-Pop, who was found to have extensive network connections with the Romanian secret services to this day, precisely because, I believe, the Romanian historians tell a lot of lies and they do not tell the real data so that the Romanians don't find out about the lies of the continuity theory! The other big lie is about the origin of the Hungarians, where the Romanians like to quote only those fictions invented by the enemies of the Hungarians about the ethnogeney of the Hungarian people and suspiciously keep silent on the data that speak of the millennial origin of over 90% of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin! I am quoting only a few lines from the website of the Hungarian Research Institute: "The presence of the ancestors of today's Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin has been continuous for thousands of years" "A new database of 16,000 mitogenomes of 172 ancient and living populations has been created and investigated their connection system based on artificial intelligence method. The new algorithm recognizes all haplogroup correlations, regardless of the time of the process behind the correlation. A new methodological article has been published in the journal Molecular Genetics and Genomics by the researchers of the Archaeogenetic Research Center of the Hungarian Research Institute, the Department of Genetics of the University of Szeged, the Institute of Technical Physics and Materials Science." "The Carpathian Basin is an unbreakable unit / Applying the method to the investigation of the former and present-day populations of the Carpathian Basin, the authors found that the vast majority of the present-day Hungarian population is from a Copper Age (4500 BC-2800 BC) - Bronze Age (2800 BC-700 BC) can be traced back to a basic population, while immigration from the eastern steppe region seems to have had a smaller genetic impact on the population in the tenth-eleventh centuries." And if now you're going to say that they weren't even Hungarians, then I'll give you dozens of authentic and clear data that prove that they were the real Hungarians, who spoke the ancient Hungarian language!

What you’re writing is such nonsense! It’s brilliant how Romanians keep looking back to ancient times and trying to prove they were there first. Ha ha ha. The Dacia province ceased to exist in 271, and it’s only around 1200 that sources mention the Vlachs for the first time in the area of Transylvania. It’s quite something that these heroic Dacians did nothing for 1000 years. Maybe they hid like moles. It’s also odd in the argument that Romanians were the majority, completely forgetting the fact that there was indeed a certain medieval period that had a significant impact on the Kingdom of Hungary. The 1241-42 Mongol invasion. The Mongols devastated vast territories. Rogerius witnessed this as the Bishop of Nagyvárad and describes that after the Mongol devastation, he traveled for days in Transylvania without meeting a soul. Then came the Ottoman conquest in the 16th century, which also greatly reduced the population, especially in the Partium region. In 1657, Rákóczi György led an unsuccessful campaign against Poland. Because of this voluntary campaign, the Ottoman sultan punished Transylvania, and Tartar troops ravaged through. Add to this the few plague epidemics in history. We Hungarians learn about these in school, but I guess they never heard about such things in Romania. All these, which I listed, significantly reduced the population of the Kingdom of Hungary. If Romanians had been the majority in Transylvania, wouldn’t they have suffered considerable losses of blood? This is never mentioned! It’s always just Burebista, Hunyadi, Mihai Viteazul, and such. You have no idea about the history of that era, and almost always, you only bring up ancient stories. And the joke is that you haven’t even heard of our language relatives in Europe. We have language relatives: Finns and Estonians. You’d better not have written that comment. You failed miserably!

@@agfd5322 According to the latest research, the Hungarian language was the most ancient of all distantly related languages, regardless of whether Finno-Ugric or Turkic languages ​​are taken as the basis, because it turned out that the original inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin spoke an ancient version of the Hungarian language already when Árpád's Magyars arrived, which could also be the language of the European Scythians here! And then the picture comes together completely, if you understand these data, since archaeogenetics mostly confirms this, but also research on the history of place names! And then it is no coincidence that many people wrote this already in the Middle Ages, as for example Abraham Ortelius wrote in the 16th century: "The inhabitants of Hungary speak the Scythian language..." Or Albertus Krantzius: „Vandalia, sive historia Vandalorum jerq origine,..." - „Ungar vero gens Scythica, cuius nulla..." Petrus Ranzanus: „..., alterum in Pannonias Scytharum, qui Hungari apellati sunt,..." Hyeronimus Balbus: „Inclyta, quae Scythicis gens prodiit Hungara terris, Nil nili sanguinei Martis amabit opus, Clara quidem bello, partisque decora Triumphis,…" Andronicus Tranquillus Parthenius: „A postremis Scytharum Hungaris Pannonia inferior intra,…" Pomponius Sabinus: „Prope glacialis Oceani oras habitant silvestres homines Ugari, sive Ugri. Scythae quidem sunt, eta ceteris mortalibus remoti, apud eos neque aurum, neque argentum cognoscitur, neque aes;" Annales Monasterii Cremifanensis In Austria Superiore: „Hungarorum arma prima audita. Ea gens origine Scythica, Hunnorum soboles,…" Now the point is that these ancestors lived here in the Carpathian basin at least four to five thousand years ago, which means that they could not have been ancestors of either Vlachs - Slavs or Germans! Mainly not because the official international consensus also says that the Germanic peoples only came into contact with the Carpathian basin one or two hundred years after Christ, before that they lived much further north, and they moved here in larger numbers only after the Huns! The situation is similar with the Slavs, because even two thousand years ago, these ancient Slavic groups were located in the territory of today's Belarus and Northern Ukraine, which, according to official historical research, only moved south during the time of the Avars, and there are mainly Slavic historians who it is said that some of these Slavic groups also penetrated the Carpathian basin at that time, but this is also very doubtful, because it seems that the Balkan Slavs are from the 6th-7th centuries, they bypassed the Carpathians and thus reached the Balkan Peninsula, but in the time of the Avars, in the Carpathian basin, you can't really find any traces of them! But we have all the data that most of the Ancient inhabitants of Carpathian Basin spoke the predecessor of the Hungarian language, and they even developed a special script that was later called the Hungarian-Szekler runic script! That's why the experts called this writing the Carpathian basin runic writing, because the punctuation marks match in more than 90%, but such a match was not found anywhere in the East! According to the researchers, it is clear that no matter how much immigration and mixing there was in the Carpathian basin over the millennia, the farming basic population was always in the majority, because otherwise this language would not have survived in the sea of Indo-European languages! Historian, archaeologist, linguist Vékony Gábor, who was an expert in Szekler-Hungarian runic writing, deciphered several such runic texts from the Carpathian Basin Avar period, from the 6th to the 8th centuries, and wrote that they were all in Hungarian, which means that the Hungarians already lived in the Carpathian Basin under the Avars! Or Historian and classical philologist Dr. Fehér Bence, who deciphered several such runic texts from the Carpathian Basin, in Hungarian, writes that it is certain that Hungarian-speaking peoples lived in the Carpathian Basin during the Avar period as well, and probably even before that. But this Szekler-Hungarian runic script here in the Carpathian Basin already has much older Kimmerian and Scythian parallels, so it should be added that here in the Carpathian Basin much older short scripts matching the features of the Szekler runic script were found, such as the writing marks found on discs and clay tablets associated with the Tordos - Vinca culture. And then it becomes increasingly clear that the ancient population of the Carpathian Basin, which also created this script, could have spoken an ancient version of the Hungarian language, since today's Szekler - Hungarian runic script can only really be applied to the Hungarian language, so not to other mainly Indo-European languages applicable!

be trolling somewhere else, little vlach:)

unde reclami? La Daicoviciu, sau la Ceausescu?

@@TheBoralt La persoana care este „vinovată” de existența ta prin zonă...

it is not fake, your whole history falsyfication is fake

But still, let me give you clear data from the Middle Ages, which are indisputable and which prove that what the Hungarian historians say is much more likely than what is learned from Ceausist and anti-Hungarian historians! According to all the data we have, linguists specializing in toponyms agree that there are no settlement names or geographical names of Wallachian - Romanian origin before the 13th century in the Kingdom of Hungary, which included the entire Carpathian Basin! There are lists with names and before 13th century there were only Szekler Germans and Hungarians! The conclusion of established historians and linguists is that a larger population that settled somewhere for at least a century had to leave traces of the names of settlements, rivers - streams - mountains and valleys somewhere! Very few peoples have given names of localities and geographical names as logical, with meaning, as the Szeklers and Hungarians did. The Regestrum Varadense of the Hungarian Kingdom (the Oradean register) contains about 711 names of localities and about 2500 names of people, registered between the years 1205 and 1238. Unfortunately, none of these personal names or settlement names are of Romanian origin, but most of them are very understandable Hungarian names, even when written in Latin! How to explain the fact that the Romanians, who are supposed to have Dacian and Roman ancestors, did not build any city in Transylvania, but neither in Banat or Crişana? What's more, the Romanian word oraş - city comes from the ancient Hungarian word varas - város, which has been used by Hungarians for over 1000 years! Likewise, in the history of Transylvania, from all the medieval archives at the end of the 13th century, we find only 3 names of localities out of 511 that had Romanian origins! Is it still not quite clear to you that Romanians began to settle in Transylvania only in the 13th century? What is the reason why no river or stream in Transylvania - Banat - Crișana - Maramureș has names with Romanian origins? Pope Gregory IX sent a letter to Béla, Prince of Transylvania (later King Béla IV.) asking him "in the name of God" to grant asylum to "those poor Vlach refugees" who wished to escape the harsh rule of the Cumans.The asylum was granted, and the first three groups of Vlach immigrants entered Transylvania from the South, and were settled, under their own chieftans, in the Fogaras, Hunyad and Bánság districts, on specially designated mountain-pastures called in the royal documents as "Silva Vlachorum", Forest of the Vlachs. The Romanians don't even know that these are all ancient Hungarian names, from words with an ancient Hungarian meaning, which the Vlachs only adopted in a mirror translation, but they mean nothing in Romanian! That's why Romanian historians and politicians don't want Romanians to learn Hungarian, because then more and more people would find out about these lies about Romanian continuity! These Vlach immigrants, who received asylum within the Hungarian Kingdom, and others who followed later, became the ancestors of the Transylvanian Romanians. Officially they were called Vlachs, from which the Hungarian name Oláh and the German name Wallach derived, in contradistinction to the Rumelians and later Rumanians who did not enter the Western culture-circle but stayed East and South of the Carpathians under Byzantine and later Slavic influence" finally evolving at the end of the nineteenth century into Rumania. After the Mongols left, the king returned in 1242, and began to rebuild the devastated country. Several districts, especially on the Great Hungarian Plain, were left without population, making it possible for Serbians, Vlachs and Slovaks to seep into some of these empty lands, and establish a few scattered settlements. In 1247 new Vlach refugees gained permission to enter the Hátszeg and the Máramaros districts in Transylvania. In 1253 Guillaume Rubruquis" French envoy to Bulgaria described the empire of Michael Asen as "reaching from the Danube river to Konstantinopol, including Vlachia in lhe lower Balkan Mountains." Vlachia therefore still existed at that time on the Balcan, under Bulgarian domination, while those Vlachs who tried to move Northward by crossing the Danube, fell under the rule of the Cumans. In 1290. three Hungarian landowners in the Transylvanian districts of Hunyad and Fehér received permission from King András III to bring in some Vlach laborers "from South of the mountains." 1291. The Assembly of Gyulafehérvár recognized the Transylvanian Vlachs as a "nation"" with rights equal to other member nations under the Holy Crown! In 1358. Márk, an royal archivist wrote in his chronicles concerning Transylvania: "lt is the richest part of the Hungarian Kingdom" where "Hungarian and Saxon (German) cities bloom with industry and commerce, while the fertile lands of Hungarian farmers produce good wine, fat cattle, and plenty of grain for bread. High upon the mountains Vlach herdsmen tend to their sheep, and bring down good tasting cheese to the market-places." History should be respected as it was. The Kingdom of Hungary, in Latin Regnum Hungariae, was established in the year 1000 and existed until 1541, which included all the territories of the Carpathian Basin, such as Banat - Crișana - Maramureș - Transylvania, if we only talk about the territories which belong to Romania today! And after the Ottoman invasion, the royal court and part of the Hungarian nobility moved to the Eastern part of the kingdom with the sultan's consent and established the Principality of Transylvania, which also included parts of Crisana and Maramureș! This principality was multi-ethnic, but was always organized and ruled by the Hungarian nobility, with predominantly Hungarian and Saxon towns and villages. So, it was and is considered part of the history of the Hungarians and the Hungarian Kingdom for over 1000 years! These territories were also later considered part of the Hungarian Kingdom during the time of the Habsburgs, because most of them were also crowned as kings of Hungary with the Holy Crown of Hungary, with all the territories belonging to the old kingdom! All these data are constantly falsified, or at best are kept secret in Romania, so that Romanians feel at home in the northwest of the Carpathians! Unfortunately, this is where the whole problem of the Romanian-Hungarian conflict begins, with the disregard of the real history of the Hungarian people, that the results of these forgeries and omissions are increasingly visible, that there are more and more people who believed the lies and then they doubt the truth before their eyes!

​@@Arpoxais1Ateas2 Yes, it was part of Hungarian Kingdom for a long time, but it wasn't before and it's not now. It was also part of Roman Empire, should we give it to the Italians ?