Inedit - Ungurii au pretins că sunt urmașii Dacilor, în urmă cu câteva sute de ani

[@romulusbejgu883]

Istoria nu trebuie sa fie o carte în care oamenii au reușit sa ascunda adevărul, după cum le au fost interesele, prin cuvinte. Apreciez și va mulțumesc pentru eforturile dumneavoastră care imi demonstrează ca nu peste tot ce se arunca pământ rămâne uitat!

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

Bim spus

[@livialivia]

Indiferent de ce zic ungurii, de fapt ei recunosc prezența DACILOR în DACIA. MULȚUMIM pentru prezentarea acestor ADEVĂRURI!

[@cristikes5477]

Nici nu avem nevoie de recunoașterea lor!

[@R3alGobLin]

@@cristikes5477 CE CREZI GETODACHAE ERAU SCITII ARYENII NEAM CU MAGHIARII INCA DIN STEPPE

[@danamunteanu3866]

Si pe teritoriul actual al Ungariei au fost daci, dar au stationat și regiuni romane.Deoarece dacii au dispărut din Ungaria e de presupus că ungurii au și ceva sange dacic.

[@petrurares8300]

La venirea ungurilor din Etelkoz, teritoriul din zona Tisei se numea Dacia !

[@terezatimbus935]

FELICITĂRI FOARTE ADEVĂRAT....DACIA A FOST FOARTE EXTINSĂ...

[@alexrobert4031]

Informațiile acestea vor rămâne în istorie domnule Daniel . Munca dv va fi apreciată din păcate doar atunci când adevărul va ieși la iveală . Știți dv vorba românească , minciuna are picioare scurte, iar ulciorul nu merge de multe ori la apa . Într-o bună zi tehnologia va avansa și se vom cunoaște locația începutului civilizației in Europa.

[@andreivlad3518]

Nu trebuie decat sa scoatem la lumina cetatile.

[@vioreloprica758]

Toate acestea ar trebuii SA se studieze la scoala si atinci dar afla adevarul

[@jenelcaramalau4694]

...FELICITARI STIMATI DOMNI...MUNCA DV.CA ISTORICI ESTE FOARTE GREA INTERESANTA SI UTILA NEAMULUI NOSTRU...!!!

[@ionfloarea7855]

Foarte bine bine explicata! Felicitari Domnule Daniel.

[@suciumaria1057]

Adevărul istoric oricare ar fi trebuie spus pt generațiile viitoare poate vom învăța ceva și vom devenii mai înțelepți și mai împăcați cu destinul nostru pe acest pământ.

[@naru3443]

The Hungarian propagandists are unhappy with both of the two oldest Hungarian chronicles, “Gesta Hungarorum” by Anonymus (published sometime between 1200 and 1230) and “Gesta Hunorum et Hungarorum” by Simon of Keza (published sometime between 1282-1285) because they both mention that Romanians lived in Pannonia and in Transylvania before the arrival of the Hungarians. However, the main problem as far as the propagandists are concerned is not what they think it is. They believe the main problem is that the Romanians are mentioned there before the Hungarians. The main problem actually is the date at which each of the two chronicles were published. The propagandists and the trolls claim the Romanians only arrived in Pannonia and Transylvania in the 13th century, after the Mongolians had massacred the population there in 1241. Allegedly the kings of Hungary wanted to repopulate their realm so they invited the Romanians to move from the Balkans and Wallachia and to settle in Transylvania. But if “Gesta Hungarorum” of Anonymus was written between 1200 and 1230, 11 years before the Mongolian invasion, that means the Romanians were not yet present in the kingdom of Hungary. If the Romanian arrival after 1241 would have been true, how on Earth could have Anonymous claimed the Hungarians conquered the territory from them without becoming instantly the laughing stock of his contemporaries?!? Likewise, if the Romanians’ arrival in Transylvania after 1241 would have been true, then how come Simon of Keza would not have become instantly the laughing stock of his contemporaries, for writing in 1282 that the Romanians lived in Pannonia and in Transylvania before the Hungarians?!? So like I have said, the main problem of the Hungarian is not that their oldest chronicles confirm the Romanians are the original inhabitants of both the current territory of Hungary and of Transylvania, but the dates at which those chronicles were published.

[@mariadespina80]

Se poate citi aici : Cronica notarului Anonymus. Faptele ungurilor. Traducere , Paul Lazar Tonciulescu

[@andrasbalint7938]

For hungarians it is not unusual that other people used to live in carpathian basin before hungarian tribes. All the historians hungarian and romanian think the hungarian tribes arrived the end of 9th century and some other population had lived here.The question is who were they. You are convinced that romanians lived the area of pannonia and transylvania too in that time. We hungarians have studied anonimus-s gesta hungarorum and its claim about etnic relations of IX CENTURY does not fit with other sources. ANONYMUS did not name any contemporary non hungarians persons who must have been presence when hungarian tribes arrived to carpathian basin so many person in gesta hungarorum could be fictitious person. it is a reason of difficulties what is true and what is false in Anonymus chronicle, for example he mentioned cumans near the carpatian range although they were very far from there. He borrewed the names of military leader from the name of villages and cities from 13th century and took back to IX. century so my opinion is that his chronicle not suit to determine itself exactly what ethnic relation was in 895-96 but we have to study other sources as linguistic, archeological, genetical and architecturial factors. unfortunately both historians pick up those elements from gesta what support his own theories and neglect what do not. let see the other sources what talk for us lingistic. hungarian language is an uralic language with many slavic and turkish loanwords but the first mention of hungarians was about 840-50 in steppe of southeast Europe so their move was very fast to carpathian basin that is why they could not loan many words from slavs and turks on the steppe but they could meet them the carpathian basin where slavs and turks used to live. The first hungarian documents the foundation letter of monastery of Tihany strenghten this we found especially slavs and turkish people in carpathian basin but the former AVAR kaganat used to be was the multiethnic nomad empire which extend area of Tara romanaesca till 630 years after retreat it and his teritories were only in carpathian basin. The avars and onogurs used to live in the lowland and slavs lived the edge of this area. besides them german and romanized population used to live too in southwest pannonia. the latters could got in there by avars settlement actions which concerned the area of former moesia and descendants of romanized people from former roman provice of Pannonia. Gepids and longobards belong to german speaking population 6-9th century. the problem is hungarian language did not contain german and roman loanwords so they could not live in great numbers when hungarians arrived here. I think they were assimilated to avars, onogurs and slavs by 9th century.. the same situation was in area of transylvania. let see some example. hungarian could meet the descendants of avars and slavs in transylvania, the name of tarnava went to your language from slavs and went ours from turkish language. this is küküllő and germans borrowed from us. bistrita is the typical slav origin word and hungarians saxons and romanians loaned slavs and its means quick in hungarian sebes. Karánsebes and Szászsebes preserved the memories of its hungarian origin not slav and romanians. Our problems with your theories based on mostly this type of lingiustic datas. There is not any bigger rivers the area of transylvania which are romanian origin only the small mountains rivers but them is not mentioned in the early middle age documents. let see the name of river Somes. The first mentioning was Samus IN THE PERIOD OF ROMAN EMPIRE. HUNGARIAN DOCUMENTS MENTIONS ZOMUS AND ROMANIANS CALLED SOMES SO YOUR LANGUAGE DID NOT PRESERVE THE FORMER ROMAN FORM but borrowed it from hungarians. this datas do not your theories that significant romanian population lived in Transylvania when hungarian tribes arrived and later began to settle there at the begining of X th century. archeologoistic. We have no aware of any important romanian cemetery from 9-12 century. the archeologist searched in the area of Cluj-napoca and turned out hungarian layer followed the former roman layer not any romanian. we know gepid, gots avars slavic find but not romanian. genetic. the genetic research has gone for twenty years and it is turned out the romanians data showed many balcanian elements so rather support your balkanian origin. The number of hungarians not so high than supposed earlier so our etnogenesis was going on in carpathian basin and assimilated former population especially turks and slavs which coincide with the above mentioned lingiustic factors. slovaks polish and ukranian population are close to hungarians now which means two things. we are not mostly descendants of Arpads but that of former population and although slavic population used to live before arriving of hungarian tribes but most of them immigritated later especially of polish and ukranian. the hungarians settled on former turkish population at the center of carpathian basin and two population became one nation relatively short time owing to foreign slav neighboroughment and their common nomadic past, culture and characters. We do not know romanian church and archelogical monuments before 13th century. IT IS WARNING SIGN, NO SIGNIFICANT ORTODOX POPULATION IN TRANSYLVANIA BEFORE TATAR INVASION but contains many bulgarian slav word in your language for example duh which means spirit. bulgars whose cemateary is well-known of the middle mures valley, they took the christianity 865 not in transylvania, 30 years before the arriving of hungarians so it is most probably your religion ortodox lead to balkan peninsul.a Otherwise the first hungarians in transylvania had not asked christian pope from empire of Bizantine in order to take up the christianity if big ortodox population would have been presence of transylvania becuse they did not need it THESE SOURCES CONTRADICTS THE PRESENCE OF SIGNIFICANT ROMANIAN POPULATION OF TRANSYLVANIA BUT SPORADIC PROTOROMAN POPULATION MIGHT LIVE IN THE AREA OF BANATIAN MOUNTAINS GODJAN EVEN RETEZAT BUT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND OF COURSE IN 13TH CENTURY WAS PRESENCE THE SOUTHERN PART OF TRANSYLVANIA. THE ROMANIANS WERE THE SHEPHERD ACCORDING TO HUNGARIAN DOCUMENTS AND HUNGARIANS ONLY LOANS SUCH WORDS FROM ROMANIAN LANGUAGE. THESE ANY DATAS DO NOT SUPPORT ANONYMUS CHRONICLE SO HUNGARIANS DO NOT ACCEPT CONTINOUS PRESENCE OF LATIN SPEAKING POPULATION IN TRANSYLVANIA BUT IT IS VERY LIKELY THE RETREATING LATIN SPEAKING POPULATION CONTRIBUTED THE BORN OF ROMANIAN POPULATION IN MOESIA SO THE DACO-ROMAN CONTINUITY CONTAINS REAL ELEMENTS BUT NOT IN WAY THAT YOU CLAIMED BECAUSE THE PLACE OF YOUR NATIONS COULD BE in the BALKAN PENINSULA BUT IT IS NOT SURE THAT MIGHT HAVE GONE ON WITHOUT FORMER LATIN SPEAKIN POPULATION IN DACIA WHICH LEFT THE TERITORY THANKS TO AURELIANUS DECISION IN 271, WHICH CONCERNED MOSTLY THE POPULATION OF CITIES FOR EXAMPLE NAPOCA, POTAISSA AND APULUM WHO THE PROMOTERS OF LATINIZATION STRENGHTENED THIS PROCESS IN BALKAN PENINSULA LATER. IN TRANSYLVANIA REMAINED A LESS ROMANIZED POPULATION FOR EXAMPLE DACIANS WHO GRADUALLY ASSIMILATED TO GOTHS GEPIDS, SLAVS AND AVARS SO HUNGARIANS COULD NOT MEET THEM. this is my personal opinion.

[@mariadespina80]

@@andrasbalint7938 The study of paleogenetics carried out in Germany in 2012, by Prof. univ. Dr. Alexander Rodewald, director of the Institute of Human Biology and Anthropology at the University of Hamburg, and Dr. Georgeta Cardoş, biologist, geneticist, attest to new information on the origin of the Romanian people. The two researched for several years the bone remains of people who lived 3,000-5,000 years ago in Romania, remains obtained from several dozen archaeological sites, which they compared with the genetic situation of the current population in Romania and the current populations. European. to the conclusions of this study, the current population of Romania is clearly related to the populations that lived in Romania during the Bronze and Iron Ages, ie 2,500 - 5,000 years ago, which highlights the continuity of this people, despite all the vicissitudes of history. . Before discussing the other amazing conclusions of the study, which overturns the theory of the Romanization of Dacia and the Roman descent of the Romanian people,it is good to observe what paleogenetics is and what this research, carried out in Germany, entailed. Paleogenetics is a "window" to the past of mankind. Being a field of study of ancient and degraded DNA, Paleogenetics can bring important information about the origin and evolution of man and the human genome, the migrations of human populations, the kinship relations between ancient and current human populations. This science can tell us, among other things, who our real ancestors are. And our real ancestors are not the Romans, but the Thracians-Geto-Dacians. In the autumn of 2001, following a discussion between Prof. univ. dr. Călin Tesio, dean of the Faculty of Biology (University of Bucharest), and Prof. univ. Dr. Alexander Rodewald, was born the idea of ​​conducting a study of paleogenetics that aimed to determine the origin of the Romanian people. Such an approach involved the genetic comparison of some bone remains that belonged to the ancient populations that lived on the Romanian territory with the current genetic situation of the population of this country, in order to verify the degree of kinship. The project was joined by anthropologists Andrei Soficaru and Nicolae Miriţoiu from the Francisc Rainer Institute of Anthropology of the Romanian Academy, who provided most of the bone material studied. Another amount of bone material was made available for study by Dr. Alexandra Comşa from the former Institute of Tracology of the Romanian Academy. In total, the study had bone material from over 20 sites in Romania (Carpathian-Danubian-Pontic basin), from a number of 50 individuals who belonged to ancient populations (22 from the Bronze Age, 28 from the Iron Age). . Regarding the blood samples from the current population of Romania, they were obtained thanks to the support of Prof. Dr. Emilia Iancu,Director of the Museum of Man from Ploieşti and of the Museums of Natural Sciences from the Prahova Region and of Mrs. Dr. Dorina Bănică, from the Marius Nasta Institute and the Bucharest Physiology Clinic. The research, which lasted for several years (2003-2006), was funded mainly from the directorate of the Institute of Human Biology and Anthropology of the University of Hamburg, Germany, thanks to the support of Prof. univ. Dr. Alexander Rodewald, director of the institution, by DAAD - Germany and through the Socrates-Erasmus Program of the European Union. The actual research work was carried out by Dr. Georgeta Cardoş, being difficult and long-lasting, and the safety conditions of the genetic samples were so strict to prevent contamination that even the laboratory cleaning was performed exclusively by Mrs. Dr. Georgeta Cardoş. The conclusions of the study proved, in the end, disturbing for the Romanian space because they overturn the main thesis of the history of Romania, that of the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people. - There is a clear genetic kinship between the current population of Romania and the populations that lived on the territory of this country 2,500 - 5,000 years ago, which shows an indisputable continuity of the Romanian people in these lands. Even if there are genetic traces that belonged to the various migratory populations that passed through here, the basic genetic background proves the continuity and connection with the old populations; - The current population of Romania is genetically related especially to the populations of Greece and Bulgaria, which developed in a space once inhabited by Thracians, with which they mixed, and only to a small extent with the Italian population; - It turned out that some Italians, especially those in the north, are also genetically related to the ancient populations that lived in the Carpathian Arc 2,500 to 5,000 years ago. So the bottom line is that we are not descendants of Rome, but some Italians are descendants of our Thracians. It may seem an apparent contradiction: if we are the descendants of the Thracian-Geto-Dacians, and some of the Italians also have Thracian roots, why today Romanians and Italians are so little genetically related? The explanation seems to be as simple as possible: when the Thracian Aeneas (considered by the Roman historian Titus Livius, the founder of Rome) arrived in the Italian peninsula, other tribes with Thracian roots lived here - Venetians and Etruscans, the latter giving the first kings and the alphabet the new kingdom, the future Imperial Rome. In addition to the populations with Thracian roots, there also lived in the Italian peninsula, populations that belonged to other ethnic families - the Sabines and the Samnites. Over time, these populations have mixed with each other. Then, Imperial Rome pursued an aggressive policy of mixing populations within the Empire. Thus, if we refer only to the capital Rome, we find that it had an important number of ethnic neighborhoods - the Greek neighborhood, Jewish, Hispanic, etc. And, for almost 1,400 years, between 476, the year of the fall of Rome and 1861,the year of the unification of Italy, Italy did not exist as a nation state, this period being marked by a series of invasions and population displacements. So, the history of the Italian peninsula is marked by three essential stages in which the populations with Thracian roots mixed with the others, significantly diluting their ethnic contribution in this space. Looking from this perspective, any apparent contradiction disappears, because we can understand why, today, although some Italians, especially those in the north, are still genetically related to the populations that lived in the Carpathian area 2,500 - 5,000 years ago, the populations Romania and Italy, as a whole, are very little genetically related. In conclusion, the results of paleogenetic studies are strengthened by historical sources and the final message is that we are not descendants of Rome, but some Italians are descendants of the Thracians! Thus, three conclusions of this paleogenetic study remain, conclusions that support the preservation of Romania's territorial integrity, in favor of restoring the historical truth and restoring the dignity of the Romanian people: According to the results of the paleogenetics study, the Romanian people are the successor of the populations of 2,500 - 5,000 years ago and the legal inhabitants of these lands. The fact that this research confirms the historical evidence that tells us that the Romanization of Dacia was not possible and did not occur, that we are an older people, continuators of the Thracian-Dacian "immortals", is a reason for greater national pride than to be the result of an ethnogenesis formed as a result of an alleged union of Dacian women with a multiethnic mixture of settlers and soldiers of the Roman Empire. The confirmation of the historical sources that say that the Romans also had Thracian roots, only increases our respect for our true roots, the Thracian-Geto-Dacian ones.

[@mariadespina80]

@@andrasbalint7938 The official history of Hungary claims that the Hungarians are the descendants of the Hungarian tribes who migrated to Pannonia 1000 years ago. Other historians disagree and claim that the Hungarians are a Hungarianized European population forced by a political elite in charge of the area. One of these historians, Paul Lendvai, writes in his book The Hungarians that during the reign of Emperor Joseph II-1765-1790, the "Hungarians" made up only a third of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary, while the rest, almost 70% of the population of the Kingdom were Slavs (Serbs, Slovaks), Romanians, Germans or Gypsies. Unfortunately, Hungarians receive an unrealistic and xenophobic education and are led to believe that the Kingdom of Hungary was inhabited only by them, when in reality the "Hungarians" were only a minority, reached the majority by forced Hungarianization of other ethnic groups in the Kingdom of Hungary. If we look at genetics, we will see that in fact in Hungary the "Hungarians" had an insignificant impact on the genetics of the local population, and that in fact most Hungarians are either Slavs, or Romanians, Germans or Gypsies. The fact that the Hungarians ARE NOT THE DESCENDANTS OF THE HUNGARIANS, proves that their territorial claims on Romania, Slovakia, Serbia are not supported by genetics either, all historical arguments invoked by Hungarian politicians being FALSE .

[@andrasbalint7938]

@@mariadespina80 We have no doubt about the continous presence of population of Transylvania and balkan peninsula and we can find the ancestor of romanians among of them because the genetic research in last twenty years support it. we do not exactly in what language they spoke. Romanians according to genetic research belong to the oldest populations of Europe. As for Hungarians our language belong to the oldest languages in the Eurasia and our ancestors mostly not the descedant of Arpad's but the population that used to live before hungarians in 9th century. The population of 11-12 th century mostly was descendants of former population from the era of Avar Chaganat. The problem is we do not know exactly what happened the dark 10th century in a Carpathian basin. this is sure Hungarian tribes whose number is max 20-30% of total population found here slavs and the descendant of Avars and onogurs and small number of other ethnic groups for example bulgars and gepids. by the end of XI.th century the name of settlements became predominantly hungarians in the center of carpathian basin so the assimilation of former population could be fast and we can not determine the reason of it. Resettlement of former population in the 10 th century of conquering hungarian tribes may be the possible answer and the organization of hungarian tribes backed the turkish modell of the steppe where hungarian tribes alliances developed 9th century, and some turkish groups joined the hungarians. As I mentioned the part of former population (avars and onogurs) spoke in turkish language as well and the Avar Chaganat was also a nomad state and its organization must have been similar to hungarian's ones for example the resettlement of population which was probably concerned of population of area of former Moesia and current area of Tara Romanaesca among of them could be proto-romanians who got in Pannonia but its assimilation of turkish language people might have finished when the hungarian tribes arrived to Carpathian Basin. After the nomad military action which lasted some decades either Avars or Hungarians changed their lifes and turnet to farm cultivation instead of nomad pastoral life. King Stephen the 1st was the foundation of feudal hungarian state and continued the convert hungarians and other pagans to christianity. The roman catholic religion gradually became the majorities. and was going on the spreading of power of the hungarian state including of the edge of carpathian basin so in transylvania. The hungarians whose number was more than the end of 9th century owing to fast assimilation of avars and onogurs settled in the center of /Transylvania (Campia Transylvaniei). We know a massive immigrants wawe was going on from the sorrunding areas. Many slavs moved in the center of carpathian basin and its assimilation their sporadic location and of course slavs were the majority at the edge of carpathian basin(the northern mountains, Slavónai in the south and some slavs used to live in Transylvania too but the numbers of latters was not high. Some nomadic population moved in the Carpathian basin (pechengs, volgaian bulgars) This is the main backround the result of genetic research what you mentioned your answer and there is no much difference between ourpoint of view. The differences between us were in the detail, My opinion is the former population in Carpathian basin changed their language many times and the ancestor of romanian population who belonged to thracian changed his languages less often once or twice. One of them can be bound you were romanized in the Dacia and Balkan Peninsula. But Aurelianus withdrew the adninistration and the most latinized pőeople left the area and who remained, few of them who preserve the vulgar latin and the free dacians were more (not the whole Transylvania was under roman controll) The few remained romanized population assimilated to goths gepids avars slavs and it is most probably the same happened the case of surviving dacians because its numbers is not high compared to goths gepids who stayed in transylvania 1-200 years, and the avarsand slavs too after that, so the continuity of populations were there but changed their languages many times. this is the summary as I see it. I react your other writing within some days.

[@serbanbogdan8087]

Felicitari domnule Roxin, pentru documentarele pe care le realizati!

[@mariaana4883]

Interesant si util pentru istoria noastra va multumesc frumos

[@alinaioanatoba9624]

Ei își neagă originea lor!!!! N-ai ce le face!!!

[@stefan-kl8iy]

....PAI SI CAII LOR ERAU MAI INTELIGENTI CA EI !

[@stefan-kl8iy]

LA NOI ESTE DACI,SI OTTY BACSY DAC, CALUTZ DE ATTILA DACA, VOI RUMUNY SOSESTE DUPE NOI CUME DACIA 1300 DESPRE MONGOL ! NU SUPERA KEDVES RUMUN !

[@marimunteanu8751]

💻.."Bună seara DONILOR, mult respect pt.material, !📖👍⭐🙏⭐🇹🇩

[@bobyro2767]

😆 mâine poimâine spun că Burebiata era frate cu atila. Nu ai ce să le ceri că nu au dar trebuie să-și vadă de treaba lor că ei nu aparțin acestui teritoriu.

[@mariasaghin7394]

Multum.ptr. tot ce faceti, doamne ajuta!

[@laurameda1121]

Buna ziua,ca de obicei ,ati reusit sa ne umpleti inimile de bucurie si mandrie.multumim,cu respect din UK

[@nonnavalerianonna9919]

Mulțumim Dule Daniel Roxin ptr.pretioasele informații ce ni le dați.

[@Petrika.]

Сu părere de rău, România cedează Europei tot mai multe tradiții care sunt sfinte. Limba Română chiar în țară este înlocuită cu engleza ,a trădătorilor Uniuneii Europeană....

[@iulianmunteanu9392]

precum în Republica Moldova tot mai mult se proliferează limba rusă - basarabenii tot mai mare dor au pentru limba rusă, defavorizându-și limba natală, maternă

[@nuperaa6617]

Ești un ipocrit, uită-te la tine mai întâi. Nu te-ai săturat de Rusia?

[@gabriel1321]

Daca vii in Romania ai sa vezi ca se vorbeste romana nu rusa :sau engleza :)). Vorba baietilor de aici moldovenii vorbesc rusa nu romana. Nici eu nu sunt de acord cu UE dar nici cu Rusia noi trebuie sa fim noi, avem o civilizatie de mii de ani Dacii dar unii cedeaza pare rau pentru voi.

[@dinufishingtravel]

@@iulianmunteanu9392 Asa eate...si se mai si lauda cu Stefan Cel mare, domnitor al Moldovei....de acolo incepe istoria Moldovei daca ii intrebi...dar eu am intrebat foarte multi moldoveni de dincolo de Prut daca acest mare domnitor Stefan Cel Mare era vorbitor de limba rusa asa cum se vorbeste in rep Moldova in momentul actual....au ramas blocati 🤪

[@mihaelamaruseac8597]

Țara noastră, România este Grădina Maicii Domnului a fost și va fi ocrotită veșnic!💐 Toți care au dușmănit-o în chinurile veșnice rămân!

[@andriano22]

Multumim

[@nicolassanto29]

❤💛💙 Suntem Daci

[@wolfhordes3841]

AAAAAAAAAA VLAHAIA

[@mariaifrim7233]

Multumesc cu respect! Felicitari d- nilor!

[@aurelpetrisorbicu806]

NOI SUNTEM ROMANI NOI SUNTEM ROMANI NOI SUNTEM AICI DE VECI STAPANI

[@eduardavram5030]

Pe ce esti stăpîn pe sărăcia din țară sau poate ești angajat la STAT , așa mai merge ...

[@aurelpetrisorbicu806]

@@eduardavram5030 am zis NOI adică eu tu unu altu .......la noi e sărăcie????cum rea România acum 25 de ani? Daca tăceai filozof rămâneai

[@costealucia5357]

Cum sa fie urmasii Dacilor daca au aterizat din Asia in Europa dupa 200 AD?:))))) Greu cu capsorul lor....

[@ionutnistor8119]

Poate ai vrut să scri după sec.IX-XI... AD...atunci au ajuns în zona asta...din zona Altai...a Asiei....

[@iulianmunteanu9392]

care 200! Hunii au venit prin anii 500, iar maghiarii nici cu ei nu au nimic - le-au sugerat austriecii că ar fi, chipurile, urmași ai hunilor. Dar ungurii s-au pleoștit pe aici, veniți din ținutul Iugra, prin munții Urali de nord-mijloc, Federația Rusă, cam 1 mie de ani - cu atât mai puțin au cu dacii, dacă nici cu hunii nu au nimic. Maghiarii au origini ugro-finlandeze, deci nimic comun cu populațiile indo-europene, la care fac parte dacii; chiar și paleogenetica o demonstrează - sunt absolut străini Europei, în genere, și în particular zonei carpatice de Nord și câmpiei Panonice

[@giannigheorghiu9447]

Maghiary sau huni sunt acelasi popor ... deaceea se numeste si tara lor Hungary... au fost un popor nomad ce isi schimbau tabara exact dupa ce prapadeau un tinut prin crime furt si parjolit ... oameni fara capataii ... tinutu ungariei era tinutul daciei pe care lau luat prin ocupatia sa la 1000 de ani de la ridicarea imperiului dacic ... deci unguri nu au istorie ca neam... decat una scurta de cateva sute de ani un popor nomad nu are ce istorie sa aibe ca ei nu au avut un loc al lor sau plimbat cu carutele de colo colo...

[@costealucia5357]

@@giannigheorghiu9447 Si ti se pare ca nu stiu istorie, sau cum?:)) Au o istorie ''intensa'' in Asia, praduia, furau si violau tot ce prindeau, citeste ce spun cei din Corea despre ei.

[@costealucia5357]

@@iulianmunteanu9392 Nici o legatura cu hunii?:) Pai si cum crezi ca au dobandit pamantul de sub picioare? Ori confund eu , ori tu, eu zic ca hunii au atact Imperiul Roman , au venit in Europa si au devastat tot . Ai vazut cum aratau stramosii lor inainte sa se ''imprerecheze'' cu triburile Europene?Categoric nu au nici o legatura cu triburile indigene ale Europei.

[@mariakappes3611]

Saşii nu au origine dacică ci thoediscă = deutsch. Ei vorbesc un dialekt german vechi din luxemburg unde se mai vorbeste astfel.

[@mariakappes3611]

Astfel ei au vorbit şi inainte de a se fi stabiliti in transilvania.

[@stefan-kl8iy]

DA JOIANIS STIE ? SARACA SULA !

[@raulcengher7735]

Un episod despre originalitatea căciulii getice sau trace. Am văzut că unii zic ca e frigiana iar la un român care are un canal cu denumirea de istorie arhitecturala spune că a fost luată de la persi și că cei trei magi sunt regi persi și nu geți .

[@mariadespina80]

Inca din epoca bronzului, in intregul est al Europei, in Anatolia, Persia si stepele nord pontice si central asiatice s-a raspandit purtarea unor modele de caciuli conice de lana sau piele cu varful ascutit, deseori intors catre fata. Practic, dintre popoarele antice doar grecii, celtii, iberii si etruscii/romanii nu au adoptat purtarea acestor caciuli. In rest, germanicii, neamurile central si est europene, balcanice si apoi in tot Orientul Mijlociu si nordul Marii Negre pana dupa Marea Caspica pot fi identificate variatiuni ale fesului cu varf ascutit. Probabil ca acest model de caciula a fost raspandit de unele din popoarele indo-europene, la inceputul epocii bronzului, fiind eficiente in zonele cu vant si clima aspra (stepa sau montana). Cele mai timpurii imagini ale acestor caciuli le avem de la poparele nomade : triburile scitice dar si alte neamuri de razboinici calare, traitoare prin muntii si stepele dintre Marea Neagra si Caspica.. Scitii sunt un termen generic pentru triburile de nomazi calare , ce traiau de la frontierele Europei pana inspre Mtii Altai. Pentru popoarele anatoliene, precum lycienii, frigienii, bythinienii, troienii, cilicienii, lycaonii si altii, dar si pentru tracii din Balcani, boneta cu varf moale si intoarsa in fata era atat de caracteristica, incat grecii i-au reprezentat intodeauna pe acestia purtand-o. De altfel in iconografia greaca, erau reprezentati ca purtand boneta frigiana, reprezentantii tuturor popoarelor ne-grecesti, cu care acestia aveau contact..

[@raulcengher7735]

@@mariadespina80 sciții nu sunt iranieni

[@mariadespina80]

@@raulcengher7735 Stiu . Ei sunt getii care au populat zone intinse si din Asia. Asta afirma si Carolus Lundius in cartea sa Zamolxe primus getarum legislator. Acolo el arata numele diferite cu care in decursul istoriei au fost cunoscuti primordialii geti . Unii autori ii numeau sciti . Getii au primit multe nume.. printre care si Goti . Lundius scrie clar ca Gotii sunt anticii Geti .

[@raulcengher7735]

@@mariadespina80 adevărat că goții sunt geți dar unii de gelozie i-au l-au pe geți că fiind germani pt că nu le convenea realitatea. Cel mai bine este sa afli de unde le vine denumirea (de exemplu: numele de geți) și dacă are de aface cu un nume de rege atunci trebuie verificata originea etnică a respectivului rege ca să știm de ce neam aparține respectivul popor.

[@mariadespina80]

@@raulcengher7735 Da . Popoarele bogate din Europa fara radacini in vechime au scris o istorie falsa despre originea lor. Dar exista multe documente ale istoricilor din diverse epoci care afirma ca Gotii sunt anticii Geti. Dar nu sunt luate in seama din motive politice .

[@veronicagheorghe7762]

Având în vedere ca sunt mai demni și au un conducător vrednic ...asa o fi ? !

[@vetutaveta8639]

Asta ,da!Au un B Orban care i a ridicat .Nu s a supus Regulamentelor ,Deciziilor ,Directivelor UE .DC a constatat ca nu e bn pt UNGARIA LUI ,nu a executat SI CE BN A FC .

[@victoracatrinei8509]

Ce frumos flutura tricolorul in Ardeal

[@elenagassner7998]

MULTUMIM !

[@emildinu242]

List of Dacian and Thracian cohorts in Britannia: ULPIA SECUNDA PANNONIA DACORUM etc.

[@tancwot6023]

Daniel, nu pot sa iti accesez pagina de internet, imi apare cont blocat... Vezi pe unde postezi sa stim si noi. Succes

[@zoltanszabadai2553]

În decurs de 100 de ani imnul României a fost schimbat (mai ales textul) de aproximativ 7 ori, tocmai pentru a fi pe placul asupritorilor actuali. Să ne amintim de unele versuri din imnurile noastre de altădată: “. . . poporul sovietic eliberator . . . ” sau “… leninismul ne e far şi tărie si avânt / nor urmăm cu credinţă partidul neînfrînt . . .” - DEZGUSTĂTOR !. Să nu ne mirăm atunci că îl preaslăvim pe împăratul Traian. Interesant: în imnul Ungariei nu s-a schimbat nici măcar o virgulă în decurs de 125 de ani, cu toate că în istoria lor şi ungurii au avut parte de personaje nedorite.

[@petrurares8300]

Ce te privește pe tine imnul României ?! Românii pot să își schimbe imnul național de câte ori este necesar sau după bunul lor plac ! Nu trebuie să dăm nici un fel de explicație nimănui ! Ascultă tu imnul maghiarilor liniștit și lasă-ne pe noi !

[@bogdanalistar1858]

Tovarășe ,,Rareș", nu fi chiar apucat.. Zoltan, deși are nume maghiar, totuși pare a vorbi din perspectiva unui român, pare a se indentifica cu poporul român.. Doar își dă și el cu părerea, bună sau rea.. Salutare tuturor!

[@stefan-kl8iy]

DREPTATE MULT ZOLI ! IMN VOASTRA NU SCHIMBAT PENTRU CHE CHINTAT DELA CAL ! SERAC HUNGURIA !

[@petrurares8300]

@@bogdanalistar1858 Nu sunt "tovarășul "nimănui și apoi imnul românilor îi privește doar pe români !

[@nyikolajjevgenyevicsleonid4293]

Dacă aratăm pe un om, indiferent ca i ungur sau roman, de unde cunoşti stramosii lui?

[@loredanamitrea5308]

🤦‍♀️

[@transilvania5811]

👍👍👍

[@ratiuem6751]

Felicitari Roxin

[@alexandruparaschiv5656]

Multumesc Daniel si Prof Popescu acest blog am avut o discutie fost John Tower Secetar of Defence US ca tinar sa reascult ce spuneti

[@alexandruparaschiv5656]

Multumesc si va doresc succes.

[@GALAXYRO307]

♥️💛💙

[@daa2893]

Asta chiar este de ras!

[@stefanpaul842]

Poate vor sa zica ca Dacii se trag din Atila care s-a ingropat la Sarmisegetuza inaintea lui Zamolxis ! 🤣🤣🥰👹☠

[@wolfhordes3841]

GETODAACIIA ERAAU SCITII GETII,ERAU FRAAATII HUNILOR SA MASAGEETILOAR

[@stefan-kl8iy]

EXACT ! S-A INGROPAT DE VIU,GELOS PE HARMASARUL LUI,CA ERA MAI DOTAT !

[@adrianmarina3278]

O parte din Ungaria este Daci

[@vasilelucian5261]

inca mai pretind !

[@florinprisecaru4809]

Mai nou am vazut ca acum, ungurii se considera mai vechi decat dacii. Un lingivist italian le da apa la moara, si afirma ca scitii ar fi de fapt urmasii maghiarilor sau invers nu mai retin. Si o da cu runele acelea Oricum am vazut o pledoarie ridicola in care localitatile cu nume dacice, de fapt ar fi preluate din as zisa limba proto maghiara. Sincer ma astept sa aud ca Adam si Eva au fost unguri. PS nu mai retin, dar cica ungurii au fost invitati in cadrul tarilor vorbitoare de limba latina. SIncer eu sunt uimit.

[@emiliotodica2758]

👍👍👍istoria adevarata👍❤️🙏toate au fost furate deca tre🖤🖤🖤evrei 🖤🖤🖤rasa🖤🖤🖤criminala🖤🖤🖤Washington DS🖤🖤🖤Deep state🖤🖤🖤vor Fi distrusi👍👍👍❤️

[@silvionovacek6814]

Ha-Ha ! Nu Ești Singurul Care Ști Asta ! Distruși ? De Cînd ? Când Și Cum ??!

[@beluflorin2193]

Cred că "hun-gurii" au plantație de canabis prin Câmpia Panoniei.

[@stefan-kl8iy]

ACOLO SI OILE SUNT DROGATE FLORINE !

[@andreigocan120]

Ce armă invincibilă aveau Dacii noștri kzbin.info/www/bejne/f17IiGyua6iYj68

[@theObserverD69]

mersi frumos pt. link. impresionant. multi au spus ca ar fi cea mai buna arma din acest show

[@stefan-kl8iy]

AVEAU PE DRACU SA-I IA......SA NE IA SI PE NOI ODATA CU EI !

[@alni7812]

Bravo! 👏👏👏

[@sorinbarsan4869]

Ungaria vopseste ce poate 😂😂😂să -i iubim dacă ne respectă si iubesc 😂😂😂

[@ion.4052]

Ungurii pot sa plece inapoi la Ural, de unde au plecat,mai bine de o mie de ani... Ungurii nu au nimic comun cu DACII... si punct...

[@sorinbarsan4869]

@@ion.4052 Să vină Chinezii !?ce zici 😂😂😂 Nu pleacă nimeni 🍸🙏

[@stefan-kl8iy]

.....II IUBIM........DA-N GURA !

[@nik5823]

трансилванија је србија 🇷🇸❤️🇷🇴 :)

[@filipdanielhga9536]

Oare când le vine mintea la cap, îi credeam oameni serioși..

[@ruslanmesina6652]

Ungurii veniți dela Munți Ural din stepele tătărești din Altay acuma e Kazakhstan.

[@danbarton7731]

Aveau si dreptate din moment ce Scoala Ardeleana a promovat si inca promoveaza ca romanii sunt urmasii romanilor. Cineva trebuia sa fie si urmasii dacilor, iar in Ardeal cum nu mai erau decat nemti, unguri si secui, iaca cum ungurii au tras paiul cel lung. Daca esti prost si te dezici de propia istorie ti-o fura altul, asa cum si bulgarii mai nou sustin ca sunt urmasii tracilor, iar sarbii urmasii culturii Lepenski Vir.

[@Atentie.spre.Neatentie]

Unguar era numele lor. Cnezatul românesc Ung a fost cucerit de Arpad care l-a omorat pe cneaz si i-a luat fata de sotie. Deci numele de Ungaria vinde de la Ung si nu de la hun. Altfel ar fi trebuit sa se numeasca Hunia. Ungro-Vlahia era un tinut de romani.

[@stefan-kl8iy]

MAI BINE OMORA FATA SI-L LUA PE CNEAZ DE NEVASTA,SI-ACUM ERAM SOGORI CU HUNGURII !

[@Galaxy-gs3nx]

🇹🇩

[@nistor2006petru]

Majoritatea sunt urmasi ai dacilor. Se pot distinge dupa fizionomie.

[@radulazar5485]

Si sarbii si croatii au aceasi pretentie!😁

[@C.D.Cristian]

Anonymous ala e gruparea anonymous de azi

[@mariadespina80]

Eate notarul anonim al regelui Ungariei Bela. Cel care a scris cronica ungurilor.

[@maringliga2913]

Și ști ca ,,Dacia,, este o civilizație .În plus sa dormit ce e aia Dacia și vikingii au fost creștinat de daci și io știu ,am văzut încă înscrisuri ,,de nu bagă pe foc jupânii,,

[@danduchannel8001]

Sunt atatea vizualizari , incat coincid cu anul fondarii Ungariei 896

[@lucicahriniuc3257]

Credeți ce vreți, nu vă întreb, va spun, pentru că eu sunt aceea care trebuie să fie, și să nu ziceți că am știut și nu v-am spus. Stimați oameni, nu ignorați Biblia, fiți atenți când citiți Biblia. La Ezechel, spune TATĂL meu DUMNEZEU, " apoi ți-ai luat fiii și fiicele și i-ai jertfit lor ( satanilor / acel zeu al soarelui era Satan , care era simbolizat prin diverse statui, și icoane la care se închinau , chiar și împăratul Solomon , îl părăsește pe DUMNEZEU , și se închină la statuia zeului soare, din Egipt ) Deci ,iată rădăcina acestei vii istorii. Și acest Santan, din epoci vechi, are Biblia satanică la biblioteca din Suedia. Și-a făcut preoți în cultul său pe care i-am trimis să răspândească cultul lor satanic. Motiv pentru care prin pângărirea statului geto-dac, acest popor geto-dac,a căzut în blestem cum spune TATĂL meu DUMNEZEU la Deuteronom, Leviticul, Exodul. Eu îmi fac datoria va spun. Mulțumesc.

[@lianatautan5745]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@getbeget-_-]

RoExit .

[@stefan-kl8iy]

PUNEM ALIFIE , RoIntrat !

[@wolfhordes3841]

SI VAALAAHIACINE SINT CU TRAJAAN