History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Lockedquestion about scythian, turanian and samartian

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 02:09
I simply didn't know about such instances, and the sources you provided actually didn't prove much, until I did the research of my own.
 
About the horse archery skills. You simply should know that Scythian composite bows used in the 1-2 AD were different than Cuman composite bows used later. In other words. Getae and Scythian horse archery was different and used more inferior techinques than later Hunnic, Turk and Cuman archery.
 
I highly doubt that Wallachian archers could be ever succesful while using short composite Getae bows against more powerful Turkish and Tatar composite bows.
 
Moreover, it's known that the area of modern Romania was the place of numerous Cuman settlements. Although they soon were assimilated in Romanian population it's more than natural to assume that local Romanians learned a lot from their military experience.
 
For some reasons, you just don't want to accept this... You seem to advocate the idea that Romanians are just intact ancient Dacians who were not influenced at all by the many people with whom they came into contacts through milleniums.
 
These ideas of "racial purity" are very funny indeed.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 14-Jul-2008 at 02:14
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 05:18
"I simply didn't know about such instances, and the sources you provided actually didn't prove much, until I did the research of my own. "
 
LOL If that's what you want to say.
 
"About the horse archery skills. You simply should know that Scythian composite bows used in the 1-2 AD were different than Cuman composite bows used later. In other words. Getae and Scythian horse archery was different and used more inferior techinques than later Hunnic, Turk and Cuman archery."
 
And how do you know what composite bow the Getae used? And i'd like to know what the technique was and how it was inferior.
 
"I highly doubt that Wallachian archers could be ever succesful while using short composite Getae bows against more powerful Turkish and Tatar composite bows."
 
Maybe they got that specific bow (i await your reply from the above question) later on but it doesn't change the fact that in the 1200s and onward the Romanians beat Mongols and Turks at their own game.
 
"Moreover, it's known that the area of modern Romania was the place of numerous Cuman settlements. Although they soon were assimilated in Romanian population it's more than natural to assume that local Romanians learned a lot from their military experience."
 
Actually the Cumans didn't mix because they didn't want the Orthodox religion and in Orthodoxy you only marry within Orthodoxy especially during that time. The Cumans were small in number, a ruling class and they maintained themselves until they migrated to the south of Hungary and that is where they were assimilated and settled. I have no doubt the Romanians adopted and learned from the Cumans, but the Cumans weren't the ones that brought horse archery to the area.
 
"For some reasons, you just don't want to accept this... You seem to advocate the idea that Romanians are just intact ancient Dacians who were not influenced at all by the many people with whom they came into contacts through milleniums.
 
These ideas of "racial purity" are very funny indeed."
 
See again you are putting words in my mouth and it is annoying. I never claimed any of that. And you are the first to use "racial purity" in this thread.
 
Again knock it off. Don't put words in my mouth.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 05:49
I'm not going to give you detailed lectures about the different bows and techniques used by Scythians, Getaes and those used by Cumans.
 
You can easily find anout information on this on the inet.
 
 To put it in simple words Scythian bows are weaker and had shorter range than Cuman bows. The source provided by yourself BTW was talking about the similarity between Cuman and Wallachian armour.
 
The second point I want to make is that you should know that Orthodox Christianity was common among Cumans in pre-Pontic Steppe.
 
In the Souther Rus there was the whole region inhabbited by the Orthodox Cumans and also Orthodox Torks (Oguzs) and Berendeis (another Turkic nomadic tribe).
 
Many Pecheneg and Cuman nomades in Byzantinne and Bulgarian service likewise were Orthodox Christians. So, there were no substantial obstacles for them to melt with the local Orthodox population in Wallachia and Moldova.
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 23:42
"I'm not going to give you detailed lectures about the different bows and techniques used by Scythians, Getaes and those used by Cumans.
 
You can easily find anout information on this on the inet."
 
I didn't ask for a detailed lecture, simply some examples. But if you don't know that's fine.
 
"To put it in simple words Scythian bows are weaker and had shorter range than Cuman bows. The source provided by yourself BTW was talking about the similarity between Cuman and Wallachian armour."
 
I could be wrong but I think it talked about how the archers were similar. I don't remember anything about the armour but then again I havn't slept almost at all in the past few days. Perhaps you can show me where it said this, better yet how it is relevant. In any case even if the Scythian bow is weaker...so what?
 
"The second point I want to make is that you should know that Orthodox Christianity was common among Cumans in pre-Pontic Steppe."
 
Not really. The Cumans eventually either converted to papalism or mohadedanism. Only the Gagauz converted to Orthodoxy. The Cumans were a very small minority to begin with and the Gagauz were a minority within a minority.
 
"In the Souther Rus there was the whole region inhabbited by the Orthodox Cumans and also Orthodox Torks (Oguzs) and Berendeis (another Turkic nomadic tribe)."
 
Irrelevant to the territory of Romania.
 
"Many Pecheneg and Cuman nomades in Byzantinne and Bulgarian service likewise were Orthodox Christians. So, there were no substantial obstacles for them to melt with the local Orthodox population in Wallachia and Moldova."
 
Sources to back this up? Again most Cumans became papists while the Pechenegs were "slaughtered" by Cumans and Byzantines in battle.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 01:03
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

Ian Heath states in "Armies of the Middle Ages" that the Wallachians were very similar in arms to the Cumans.
 
You are simply not familiar enough with the history of Cumans. They were Pagans, Orthodox Christians and also very few of them were Catholics converted by the Catholic missionaries from Crimea.
 
How, you can say that Orthodox Cumans in Rus are irrelevant, while it's direct evidence about their religion?
 
It's the same as if I give you some Bulgarian source which say that Vlachs in Bulgaria are Orthodox and you say that it's irrelevant because it's not about Romanian territory? Confused
 
Only after Cumans escaped to Hungary from Mongols in the 13th century they largely started to convert to Catholicism.
 
Also Mongols brought with them a lot of eastern Kipchaks from the steppes of Modern Kazakhstan, those indeed were Muslims. But it was only in the 13th century  and it doesn't relate to the Western Kipchaks i.e. Cumans of the pre-Pontic steppe who were mostly destroyed by Mongols or escaped from them to Hungary and other Balkan countries including the territory of modern Romania.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 15-Jul-2008 at 01:04
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 01:34
Sarmat, the Cumans converted to Catolicism while in the territory of today Romania, read: Diocese of Cumania.

Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 01:49
"You are simply not familiar enough with the history of Cumans. They were Pagans, Orthodox Christians and also very few of them were Catholics converted by the Catholic missionaries from Crimea."
 
I was under the impression that arms meant weapons.
 
"How, you can say that Orthodox Cumans in Rus are irrelevant, while it's direct evidence about their religion?
 
It's the same as if I give you some Bulgarian source which say that Vlachs in Bulgaria are Orthodox and you say that it's irrelevant because it's not about Romanian territory? Confused"
 
It is irrelevant because the Cumans in Russia being Orthodox have nothing to do with the military in Romania. They're in Russia! So what does it have to do with Romania? You have a very poor understanding of very basic logic and this is at least the 2nd time i've seen this from you, even concerning the Greek/Hellenic naming. You bring totally irrelevant examples and try to assert them as relevant. So supposedly there were Orthodox Cumans in Russia. And? Are we discussing Russia or Romania?
 
"Only after Cumans escaped to Hungary from Mongols in the 13th century they largely started to convert to Catholicism.
 
Also Mongols brought with them a lot of eastern Kipchaks from the steppes of Modern Kazakhstan, those indeed were Muslims. But it was only in the 13th century  and it doesn't relate to the Western Kipchaks i.e. Cumans of the pre-Pontic steppe who were mostly destroyed by Mongols or escaped from them to Hungary and other Balkan countries including the territory of modern Romania."
 
The Cumans even if they all converted to Orthodoxy and mixed completely with Romanians were still very much so a minority as a whole. But if you read the link provided it explains the rest. The Cumans have largely left little or no influence upon the Romanians. This isn't due to me wanting to be a "purist" such notions are stupid. But what you are saying in fact just doesn't exist.
 
 
 
==========
 
So far you've failed to provide evidence that:
 
Getae and Dacians are different people.
 
Dacians/Getae got their horse archery from Scythians.
 
That their Romanized descendents stopped practicing horse archery only to adopt it later by a puny minority of Cumans.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 02:53
Poor logic...
 
The evidence is about the religion of Cumans as an ethnos. It's not sepcfically only about the Cumans who lived in Rus. It just says that some Cumans were Orthodox.
 
Moreover, Western Cumans who lived near Romania and Bulgaria were even more succumbed to the influences of the surroudning Orthodox people. On the contrary, it would be very strange if Cumans who lived surrounded by Orthodox people would be Muslims... Islam was not strong at all in the region until the conversion of Berke-khan of the Golden Horde to Islam and Ottoman invasion to Europe. Even a lot of Mongols in the 13th century were Christians themselves. So, it's you who reveal very strange patterns of lack of logical thinking.
 
It's funny, because the very wiki link that you posted talks about the Cumans who settled in Wallachia and Moldova were assimilated among the local population and influenced the local themselves.
 
And also you don't need to be a great majority to influence the people in some aspects. Have you heard for example about Uhlan cavalry? Originally they were just a small group of auxilary Tatar units in the Polish army. However, later all the European armies created similar units of cavalry even English and French. The important thing here is whether a certain military technology or innovation was effective. Then it doesn't matter that it's practised only by a "minority" since "majority" can very quickly learn all those skills as soon as it sees their practicability.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 03:06
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
So far you've failed to provide evidence that:
 
Getae and Dacians are different people.
 
LOLLOLLOL
I referred you to several Romanian historians who talk about this. Apparently their knowledge of Romanian history is much stronger than yours. They are professors publishing their articles in respected international history publications, while you so far have "published" only ridiculous nonsens on this forum.
 
I also gave you a quote from the respected encyclopedia. Also, I was never saying that Getae and Dacians are definitely different people. I just pointed that such controversy exists.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

  Dacians/Getae got their horse archery from Scythians.
 
I gave you the quotes who said that Getae were very influenced by Scythians. You perhaps should take some rest indeed...
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
That their Romanized descendents stopped practicing horse archery only to adopt it later by a puny minority of Cumans.
 
First of all, there is no any references that there were Getae who practiced any horse archery in the region after the Roman conquest in 106 AD. Most of the sources say that Getae just disappeared. Roman colonists who settled in the region were not famous for the horse archery at all. And there are no any references about the horse archery practiced in the region in 1000 years except by different nomades who were crossing it.
 
Then around the 14th century there are references to Wallachian horse archery, while we know that this regions was a place of Cuman settlements, that even the first Wallachian royal dynasty was Cuman in origin and that historians also say that Wallachian arms are similar to Cuman...
 
Anyone can easily make the conclusion himself...


Edited by Sarmat12 - 15-Jul-2008 at 03:07
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 03:53
"The evidence is about the religion of Cumans as an ethnos. It's not sepcfically only about the Cumans who lived in Rus. It just says that some Cumans were Orthodox."
 
It? What are you talking about? Provide a source.
 
"Moreover, Western Cumans who lived near Romania and Bulgaria were even more succumbed to the influences of the surroudning Orthodox people. On the contrary, it would be very strange if Cumans who lived surrounded by Orthodox people would be Muslims... Islam was not strong at all in the region until the conversion of Berke-khan of the Golden Horde to Islam and Ottoman invasion to Europe. Even a lot of Mongols in the 13th century were Christians themselves. So, it's you who reveal very strange patterns of lack of logical thinking."
 
At Milcov, years earlier, in 1227, the Cuman warlord Bortz accepted Catholic Christianity from missionary Dominican monks. Pope Gregory IX heard about the mass conversion of the Cumans, and on 1 July 1227 empowered Robert, Archbishop of Esztergom, to represent him to Cumania and in neighbouring Land of the Brodnici. Teodoric, the bishop of this new diocese, became the guardian of the Dominican Order in the Kingdom of Hungary.
 
So it talks here about a mass conversion of Cumans in the 1200s. So most western Cumans became western christians. I didn't say no Cumans at all what so ever converted to Orthodoxy, but simply they were a minor group. A minority within the minority of minorities.
 
"And also you don't need to be a great majority to influence the people in some aspects. Have you heard for example about Uhlan cavalry? Originally they were just a small group of auxilary Tatar units in the Polish army. However, later all the European armies created similar units of cavalry even English and French. The important thing here is whether a certain military technology or innovation was effective. Then it doesn't matter that it's practised only by a "minority" since "majority" can very quickly learn all those skills as soon as it sees their practicability."
 
I'm sure Cumanic influences were present but you still have yet to prove that the Romanians have the horse archer tactic from the Cumans.
 
"
LOLLOLLOL
I referred you to several Romanian historians who talk about this. Apparently their knowledge of Romanian history is much stronger than yours. They are professors publishing their articles in respected international history publications, while you so far have "published" only ridiculous nonsens on this forum."
 
I'm only expressing the opinion of the majority of those who study the subject. Perhaps they're only publishing non sense as well?
 
"I also gave you a quote from the respected encyclopedia. Also, I was never saying that Getae and Dacians are definitely different people. I just pointed that such controversy exists."
 
You did but when I asked what their origin of having such opinion was you didn't give an answer. I know there is a controversy, there is also a controversy that the earth is flat and they lied about landing on the moon. So what?
 
"I gave you the quotes who said that Getae were very influenced by Scythians. You perhaps should take some rest indeed..."
 
Show me again.
 
"First of all, there is no any references that there were Getae who practiced any horse archery in the region after the Roman conquest in 106 AD. Most of the sources say that Getae just disappeared. "
 
Really? Which source says they just disappeared? Most sources? So there should be several. I hope you can provide some.
 
"Roman colonists who settled in the region were not famous for the horse archery at all. And there are no any references about the horse archery practiced in the region in 1000 years except by different nomades who were crossing it."
 
No the Romans were not famous for horse archery. And there are few refrences of any sort in the region because of the circumstance. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.
 
"Then around the 14th century there are references to Wallachian horse archery, while we know that this regions was a place of Cuman settlements, that even the first Wallachian royal dynasty was Cuman in origin and that historians also say that Wallachian arms are similar to Cuman..."
 
The conclusion was drawn because the Cumans were in close to the Vlachs(Romanians) there. The difference in the ability of the horse archer or at least military is evident in how they dealt with the Khans in the 1200s and onward as well as the Turks who were else a steppe people.
 
"Anyone can easily make the conclusion himself..."
 
It helps if you don't make a conclusion before everything is discussed.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 04:41
What is discussed?
 
Can you specifically show that there are instances of very special Getae-Dacian horse archery culture which survived 1000 years intact and then was substantially different with the neighboring Turkic nomadic archery culture in the Middle Ages?
 
Can you show this? Can you show how specifically it can be concluded that it's indeed a very specific Getae-Dacian horse back archery while the experts point that it's very similar to the Cuman one?
 
Why do you want to prove that so much?  Or it would made Wallachian achievements less valid if they just used Cuman tactics? So far, you didn't give any source which points at some kind of uniqueness of Wallachian horse back archery. I would be very glad if you for example would give some source which says: "Wallachian archery culture is very unique. The use of Getae bow and special tactics and training methods put it in a different category compare to the neighboring steppe archery."  Why don't you give me such a source or at list a hint on such information if such exists. Instead you gave me a reference to the similarity with Cuman arms.
 
You know, there was for example English longbow archery which couldn't be confused with any else. There are different kinds of bows, Hungarian, Hunnish, Turkish bow, Scythian bow etc.
 
Why should I believe you when you didn't point at something very specific which would say: "Look, here is Wallachian horseback archery and it's different from Cuman, don't confuse it with the typical steppe nomadic archery."
 
I just have a feeling that you simply don't want to recognize that it just could be the influence of the contemporary Steppe people...
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 15:45
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

What is discussed?
 
Can you specifically show that there are instances of very special Getae-Dacian horse archery culture which survived 1000 years intact and then was substantially different with the neighboring Turkic nomadic archery culture in the Middle Ages?
 
Can you show this? Can you show how specifically it can be concluded that it's indeed a very specific Getae-Dacian horse back archery while the experts point that it's very similar to the Cuman one?
 
Why do you want to prove that so much?  Or it would made Wallachian achievements less valid if they just used Cuman tactics? So far, you didn't give any source which points at some kind of uniqueness of Wallachian horse back archery. I would be very glad if you for example would give some source which says: "Wallachian archery culture is very unique. The use of Getae bow and special tactics and training methods put it in a different category compare to the neighboring steppe archery."  Why don't you give me such a source or at list a hint on such information if such exists. Instead you gave me a reference to the similarity with Cuman arms.
 
You know, there was for example English longbow archery which couldn't be confused with any else. There are different kinds of bows, Hungarian, Hunnish, Turkish bow, Scythian bow etc.
 
Why should I believe you when you didn't point at something very specific which would say: "Look, here is Wallachian horseback archery and it's different from Cuman, don't confuse it with the typical steppe nomadic archery."
 
I just have a feeling that you simply don't want to recognize that it just could be the influence of the contemporary Steppe people...
 

The Roman poet Ovid who lived amongst the Dacians/Getae said that they were horse archers and dipped their arrows in snake poison.

 
How was their horse archery different? Well do you know of ANY other horse archers that have a spear, shoot as they feign retreat, dismount, continue to shoot and then charge the cavalry with a spear?
 
I already told you why they said it was "Cumanic" because the Cumans were mostly horse archers and they were the ones that were close to discribe them to. You still failed to provide any differences in horse archery style, simply stating that you don't have time for a long detailed lecture.
 
Why do i want to prove it so much? Well it isn't "so much" as it is ignorant not to speak the truth if you can. I showed how "Wallachian" horse archery is unique and different. Again I don't doubt we used Cumanic tactics as well (if there is such a thing, please show me) but that doesn't make our achievements any lesser. We defeated the Mongols that were chasing them in the 1200s (according to the French chronicle of the time you ignorantly scoff at).
 
Again I don't have a problem recognizing an influence of steppe people. When they tried to influence us, we influenced them right back across the river be it the Danube or Nistru.
 
I personally just think you have an almost fanatic "fanboyism" of the steppe people, whomever they may be which make you blind to some facts or notions. Like the French chronicle you so quickly scoff at.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 16:31
Some clarification would be helpful. You said:
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
Romanized Dacians ARE Romanians...
 
and you also said:
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

I never said Romanians called themselves Dacians in the 13th century. What I said was that the Romanians descended of the Dacians and both used horse archery.
 
 
you went on with:
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
Dacians delt with Huns but I guess by then they'd be "Romanized Dacians." Then later the Mongols and Turks.
 
Since you attested that the Dacians dealt with:
 
Assyrians, Huns, Magyars, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Dacians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and a slew of other tribes and peoples all through northern and central asia.
 
I asked you t at one time:
 
Carpathian could you share some timelines in which 'Dacians' battled the host of nations you listed above?
 
Your response:
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

Skirmishes in the BC years 300-100. Of course they fought Huns when they came through their lands though they were known as "Ausonians" at that time by the Byzantines. Then when the Mongols came, they defeated Batu Khan in the 1200s.

"The world was filled with joy when the king from the land of Vlahs defeated the Mongols." Filip Mousket

Then of course the Turks in the medieval ages all the way through the 1800s. Mircea, Vlad, Stefan and Mihai beat them pretty soundly.
 
 
 
So in your own words the Dacians fought (dealt with) Schythians, Huns, Mongols, Turks...etc. You failed to mention that they fought the Romans though! Isn't that an important omision since the Romanians descended from them?
 
Somehow I missed the switch from Dacians to simply Romanians? When did this occur, especially since later day Romanian ethnic composition mixed to the point of not soley being Dacian? One would be prudent to not 'only' call them Romanized Dacians, which is still many centuries and ethnicities apart from Romanians.
 
They mixed with:  Romanic peoples from former Roman provinces south of the Danube in the Balkans according to the (The Rösler Theory). - Wiki.
 
Also Slavs, Huns, Goths, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Cumans, Pechenegs, Mongols, Turks and Saxons either raided and/or lived in present day Romania. Thus making up part of the Romanian ethnicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Romania
 
 
In summary, and in order to remove confusion, it would make more sense to say that the present day Romanians evolved from elements of Thracians, Dacians, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Central Asians, Slavs and Saxons and not just Dacians. Romanians, and by your attestation, ceased to be called Dacian by the 13'th century.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Seko - 15-Jul-2008 at 17:05
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 23:30
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

I personally just think you have an almost fanatic "fanboyism" of the steppe people, whomever they may be which make you blind to some facts or notions. Like the French chronicle you so quickly scoff at.
 
I have fanatic "fanboism" for historical fact and authenticity. And I can say that your desperate attempts to refer to this fake account of the defeat of Mongols of Batu-khan by Vlachs again and again lack any logical explanation.
 
Again, I simply don't understand how you want to be taken seriously by citing incorrect and simply anti-factual "accounts."
 
You also need to understand that Steppe people are not just bloody cruel barbarians who only wanted to rule and conquer brave Romanians. Interaction between different peope can't only be made via the way of sword and violence.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 03:54
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Some clarification would be helpful. You said:
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
Romanized Dacians ARE Romanians...
 
and you also said:
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

I never said Romanians called themselves Dacians in the 13th century. What I said was that the Romanians descended of the Dacians and both used horse archery.
 
 
you went on with:
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
Dacians delt with Huns but I guess by then they'd be "Romanized Dacians." Then later the Mongols and Turks.
 
Since you attested that the Dacians dealt with:
 
Assyrians, Huns, Magyars, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Dacians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and a slew of other tribes and peoples all through northern and central asia.
 
I asked you t at one time:
 
Carpathian could you share some timelines in which 'Dacians' battled the host of nations you listed above?
 
Your response:
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

Skirmishes in the BC years 300-100. Of course they fought Huns when they came through their lands though they were known as "Ausonians" at that time by the Byzantines. Then when the Mongols came, they defeated Batu Khan in the 1200s.

"The world was filled with joy when the king from the land of Vlahs defeated the Mongols." Filip Mousket

Then of course the Turks in the medieval ages all the way through the 1800s. Mircea, Vlad, Stefan and Mihai beat them pretty soundly.
 
 
 
So in your own words the Dacians fought (dealt with) Schythians, Huns, Mongols, Turks...etc. You failed to mention that they fought the Romans though! Isn't that an important omision since the Romanians descended from them?
 
Somehow I missed the switch from Dacians to simply Romanians? When did this occur, especially since later day Romanian ethnic composition mixed to the point of not soley being Dacian? One would be prudent to not 'only' call them Romanized Dacians, which is still many centuries and ethnicities apart from Romanians.
 
They mixed with:  Romanic peoples from former Roman provinces south of the Danube in the Balkans according to the (The Rösler Theory). - Wiki.
 
Also Slavs, Huns, Goths, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Cumans, Pechenegs, Mongols, Turks and Saxons either raided and/or lived in present day Romania. Thus making up part of the Romanian ethnicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Romania
 
 
In summary, and in order to remove confusion, it would make more sense to say that the present day Romanians evolved from elements of Thracians, Dacians, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Central Asians, Slavs and Saxons and not just Dacians. Romanians, and by your attestation, ceased to be called Dacian by the 13'th century.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Actually I never said they dealt with Assyrians and Japanese and Koreans and all of that. I simply listed people who used horse archery.
 
I failed to mention that they fought the Romans because we were discussing Dacian/steppe people interaction so it would be irrelevant to mention the Romans.
 
I did not say the Romanians were solely Dacian. But they are mostly Dacian, then Roman and perhaps some slavic mixture. Those are the three biggest compositions of the people. Please do not bring in the rossler non sense theory here. It states that Romanians are actually Albanian shepherds and we all migrated from Albania. This is a propagandist theory made by the Austrians to quell nationalism in Romania in the 1800s.
 
The other migrants you mentioned were in few numbers and left little or no cultural or genetic influence on the mostly Daco-Roman + minor slavic elements of the people.
 
I didn't deny that they ceased to be called Dacian by the 13th century. They adopted the name and kept it of Roman which we still use today. But that is irrelevant because we weren't discussing etymology, but the horse archer tactics of the Getae/Dacians (two names for the same people).
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 04:00
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

I personally just think you have an almost fanatic "fanboyism" of the steppe people, whomever they may be which make you blind to some facts or notions. Like the French chronicle you so quickly scoff at.
 
I have fanatic "fanboism" for historical fact and authenticity. And I can say that your desperate attempts to refer to this fake account of the defeat of Mongols of Batu-khan by Vlachs again and again lack any logical explanation.
 
Again, I simply don't understand how you want to be taken seriously by citing incorrect and simply anti-factual "accounts."
 
You also need to understand that Steppe people are not just bloody cruel barbarians who only wanted to rule and conquer brave Romanians. Interaction between different peope can't only be made via the way of sword and violence.
 
How do you know it was a fake account? Prove it is. How can you claim it is anti-factual or incorrect? I just think you don't like it because it shatters this notion of Mongol invincibility in europe.
 
Not just bloody cruel barbarians but a lot of the time, that was pretty much it. The more notable exception is probably the Cumans and we got along with them well. But again I wait your answer on the different horse archer tactics. I already showed you how "Vlach" horse tactics were unique. You've failed to give ANY example and avoided most of my previous post.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 04:35
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
How do you know it was a fake account? Prove it is. How can you claim it is anti-factual or incorrect? I just think you don't like it because it shatters this notion of Mongol invincibility in europe.
 
Because it contradicts everything that is known about the Mongol invasion in Europe in the 13th century. No source mentions this at all.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 Not just bloody cruel barbarians but a lot of the time, that was pretty much it.
 
This is simply false. And just reveals you bias and fake cultural chauvenism towards the steppe people.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

  The more notable exception is probably the Cumans and we got along with them well.
 
LOL Finally you recognize this...
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 But again I wait your answer on the different horse archer tactics.
 
What do you mean? It's you who is supposed to explain why Wallachian archery was so different. I already explained to you that Getae bows were weaker and smaller than Cuman bows. Cuman bows were easier to use and had a longer rage.
 
Also there are different kind of bows like Hungarian, Mongolian, Turkish (identical to Cuman bow) bow etc. The major difference between Cuman and Getae bow was that the former was stronger, Getae bow was archaic and outdated. Cuman style bows appear in Europe with Hunns. You can read more basic introduction here.
 
 
.....He identifies a Steppe Tradition of Scythian bows with working tips, which lasted, in Europe, until the arrival of the Huns, and a Near East or Levantine tradition with siyahs, possibly introduced by the Parni as siyahs are found in Sassanid but not Achaemenid contexts. They have also been described from the Arabian peninsula. [13]
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

  I already showed you how "Vlach" horse tactics were unique. You've failed to give ANY example and avoided most of my previous post.
 
What????
 
You gave examples ot typical steppe "Tatar" tactics. I didn't see any uniqueness here. Or may be use of poison in arrowse was unique? Likewise it has been a typical "steppe trick" from Scythians to Tatars...
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 04:43
"Because it contradicts everything that is known about the Mongol invasion in Europe in the 13th century. No source mentions this at all."
 
No sources except this one. Sorry just because you don't like parts of history doesn't mean you can make them vanish.
 
"This is simply false. And just reveals you bias and fake cultural chauvenism towards the steppe people."

Well the Mongols and Turks kind of did try to enslave us. So would you call that civility?
 
"LOL Finally you recognize this..."
 
I never denied this. I denied that the Vlachs got horse archery from the Cumans.
 
"What do you mean? It's you who is supposed to explain why Wallachian archery was so different. I already explained to you that Getae bows were weaker and smaller than Cuman bows. Cuman bows were easier to use and had a longer rage.
 
Also there are different kind of bows like Hungarian, Mongolian, Turkish (identical to Cuman bow) bow etc. The major difference between Cuman and Getae bow was that the former was stronger, Getae bow was archaic and outdated. Cuman style bows appear in Europe with Hunns. You can read more basic introduction here."
 
I already gave you the example of a different tactic. There was a chronicle detaling just that.
 
I asked about the DIFFERENCE IN TACTICS, not hardware.
 
"What????
 
You gave examples ot typical steppe "Tatar" tactics. I didn't see any uniqueness here. Or may be use of poison in arrowse was unique? Likewise it has been a typical "steppe trick" from Scythians to Tatars..."
 
Tatars would shoot while running away, then dismount, shoot the horse and charge heavy knights with spears? Can you show an example of a chronicle detaling the Tatars using this?
 
Ah using poison on arrows was also invented by the Scythians lol. I'm sure they went and taught the Aztecs about it too? You're an ethno centrist if you have such notions.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 05:05
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
No sources except this one. Sorry just because you don't like parts of history doesn't mean you can make them vanish.
 
It doesn't matter what I like or not. It's simply fake.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
Well the Mongols and Turks kind of did try to enslave us. So would you call that civility?
 
This is not civility. But Wallachs treated them in the same manner very often. So, can you decide who was more civil? Leave it to the God...
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 Tatars would shoot while running away, then dismount, shoot the horse and charge heavy knights with spears? Can you show an example of a chronicle detaling the Tatars using this?
 
Just one example. From the most publically available source...
 
 
The Mongols had much success in the battle by feigning their retreat. After the European knights detached from the main body of allied forces in pursuit of the fleeing Mongols, the invaders were able to separate the knights from the European infantry and defeat them one by one. Knights with heavy armor first had their horses shot out from under them, and were then slain by the lances of the Mongol heavy cavalry.
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
Ah using poison on arrows was also invented by the Scythians lol. I'm sure they went and taught the Aztecs about it too? You're an ethno centrist if you have such notions.
 
Hmmm... But what I said is just that it wasn't a unique innovation of of Getae archery. That's it.
 
 
Herodotus, a Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E. describes the Scythians archers of the Black Sea as employing poison-tipped arrows. According to Herodotus, Scythians used the decomposed bodies of several venomous adders indigenous to their region, mixed human blood and dung into sealed vessels and buried this mixture until it was sufficiently putrefied. This poison would certainly contain the bacteria of gangrene and tetanus (Clostridium perfringins and Clostridium tetani) while the venom would attack red blood cells, nervous system and could even induce respiratory paralysis. A Scythian archer had a range of over 1,600 feet and could launch about twenty arrows per minute.1
 
And now I'm just asking you. Whose account is older Herodotus' or Ovidius' ? Well, the conclusion is obvious again...
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 14:09
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
Actually I never said they dealt with Assyrians and Japanese and Koreans and all of that. I simply listed people who used horse archery.
 
 
After Sarmat12 asked you who the Daicans dealt with:
 
I also didn't get what you meant by other nomades which Dacians dealt with? There were no others in the region except Scytho-Sarmatians at that time.
 
You answered with:
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
 
Assyrians, Huns, Magyars, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Dacians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and a slew of other tribes and peoples all through northern and central asia.
 
 
"Greeks and Romans for example were incapable of it neither did Celts, Germans, Thracians and etc..."
 
Greeks didn't need it. Romans did in fact adopt it. Celts and Germans didn't really need it for the most part but for the rest they just didn't use it. Thracians did use it, the Dacian part of them anyway.
 
I guess you'd have to prove somehow that the Dacians used horse archery due to the steppe people since it isn't impossible they invented it by themselves. In any case it looks pretty bad for the Scythians to be beaten by their own tactic.
 
Dacians delt with Huns but I guess by then they'd be "Romanized Dacians." Then later the Mongols and Turks.
 
 
That ^ was in response to a question about the usage of steppe horse archery.
 
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
 
I failed to mention that they fought the Romans because we were discussing Dacian/steppe people interaction so it would be irrelevant to mention the Romans.
 
 
I will accept that. However to make your understanding very clear it would make sense to include all influences in Dacian culture, especially Roman.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
I did not say the Romanians were solely Dacian. But they are mostly Dacian, then Roman and perhaps some slavic mixture. Those are the three biggest compositions of the people. Please do not bring in the rossler non sense theory here. It states that Romanians are actually Albanian shepherds and we all migrated from Albania. This is a propagandist theory made by the Austrians to quell nationalism in Romania in the 1800s.
 
 
All hyoperbole and nationalistic intent to shape history. After you tend to highlight a Dacian influence you equivocally diminish any other influence in Romanians. You stretch the timeline to an era where Romanians are not known to be Dacians!
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
The other migrants you mentioned were in few numbers and left little or no cultural or genetic influence on the mostly Daco-Roman + minor slavic elements of the people.
 
I didn't deny that they ceased to be called Dacian by the 13th century. They adopted the name and kept it of Roman which we still use today. But that is irrelevant because we weren't discussing etymology, but the horse archer tactics of the Getae/Dacians (two names for the same people).
 
 
Yes, back to the horseback archery. I find this interesteing and may even have a comment about that in the near future!. Go on.
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.