Hubbry Logo
Romania in the Early Middle AgesRomania in the Early Middle AgesMain
Open search
Romania in the Early Middle Ages
Community hub
Romania in the Early Middle Ages
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Romania in the Early Middle Ages
Romania in the Early Middle Ages
Romania in the Early Middle Ages
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on the
History of Romania
Coat of arms of Romania
Prehistory
Antiquity
Middle Ages (Early)
Early modern times
National Awakening
Kingdom of Romania
Socialist Republic of Romania
Post-Revolution
By topic
By historical region
flag Romania portal

The Early Middle Ages in Romania started with the withdrawal of the Roman troops and administration from Dacia province in the 270s. In the next millennium a series of peoples, most of whom only controlled two or three of the nearly ten historical regions that now form Romania, arrived. During this period, society and culture underwent fundamental changes. Town life came to an end in Dacia with the Roman withdrawal, and in Scythia Minor – the other Roman province in the territory of present-day Romania – 400 years later. Fine vessels made on fast potter's wheels disappeared and hand-made pottery became dominant from the 450s. Burial rites changed more than once from cremation to inhumation and vice versa until inhumation became dominant by the end of the 10th century.

The East Germanic Goths and Gepids, who lived in sedentary communities, were the first new arrivals. The Goths dominated Moldavia and Wallachia from the 290s, and parts of Transylvania from the 330s. Their power collapsed under attacks by the nomadic Huns in 376. The Huns controlled Eastern and Central Europe from around 400, but their empire disintegrated in 454. Thereafter the regions west of the Carpathian Mountains – Banat, Crişana, and Transylvania – and Oltenia were dominated by the Gepids. Within a century, the lands east of the mountains became important centers of the Antes and Sclavenes. Hydronyms and place names of Slavic origin also prove the one-time presence of Early Slavs in the regions west of the Carpathians.

The nomadic Avars subjugated the Gepids in 568 and dominated the Carpathian Basin up until around 800. The Bulgars also established a powerful empire in the 670s which included Dobruja and other territories along the Lower Danube. Bulgaria officially adopted the Eastern Orthodox variant of Christianity in 864. An armed conflict between Bulgaria and the nomadic Hungarians forced the latter to depart from the Pontic steppes and began the conquest of the Carpathian Basin around 895. Their invasion gave rise to the earliest reference, recorded some centuries later in the Gesta Hungarorum, to a polity ruled by a Romanian duke named Gelou. The same source also makes mention of the presence of the Székelys in Crişana around 895. The first contemporaneous references to Romanians – who used to be known as Vlachs – in the regions now forming Romania were recorded in the 12th and 13th centuries. References to Vlachs inhabiting the lands to the south of the Lower Danube abound in the same period.

Banat, Crişana, and Transylvania were integrated into the Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th century. These regions were subject to plundering raids by the nomadic Pechenegs and Cumans, who dominated the lowlands east of the mountains. Hungarian monarchs promoted the immigration of Western European settlers to Transylvania from the 1150s. The settlers' descendants, who were known as Transylvanian Saxons from the early 13th century, received collective privileges in 1224. Because of the settlement of the Saxons in their former territories, the Székelys were moved to the easternmost zones of the kingdom. The emergence of the Mongol Empire in the Eurasian Steppes in the first decades of the 13th century had lasting effects on the history of the region. The Mongols subjugated the Cumans in the 1230s and destroyed many settlements throughout the Kingdom of Hungary in 1241 and 1242, bringing the Early Middle Ages to an end.

Background

[edit]

Roman provinces and native tribes

[edit]
Main article: Romania in Antiquity
Map of Roman Dacia
Roman provinces in the regions now forming Romania in the 2nd century AD

Contacts between the Roman Empire – which developed into the largest empire in the history of Europe – [1]and the natives of the regions now forming Romania commenced in the 2nd century BC.[2] These regions were inhabited by Dacians, Bastarnae and other peoples[3] whose incursions posed a threat to the empire.[4] The Romans initially attempted to secure their frontiers by various means, including the creation of buffer zones.[4] Finally, they decided that the annexation of the lands of these fierce "barbarians" was the best measure.[5] The territory of the Getae between the river Danube and the Black Sea (modern Dobruja) was the first region to be incorporated into the empire.[6] It was attached to the Roman province of Moesia in 46 AD.[6]

The Lower Danube marked the boundary between the empire and "Barbaricum"[7] until Emperor Trajan decided to expand the frontiers over territories controlled by the Dacian Kingdom.[8] He achieved his goal through two military campaigns, the second of which ended with the annihilation of the Dacian state and the establishment of the province of Dacia in 106.[9][10] It included Oltenia and large portions of Banat, Transylvania, and Wallachia.[11] Many settlers "from all over the Roman world"[12] arrived and settled in the new province in the following decades.[13][14]

Dacia was situated over the empire's natural borders.[15] Dacia was surrounded by native tribes inhabiting the regions of Crișana, Maramureș, and Moldavia, which are now part of Romania.[13] Dacia province was plundered by neighboring tribes, including the Carpians and Sarmatians from the 230s, and by the Goths from the 250s.[16][17][18] As the frontiers were to be shortened for defensive purposes,[19] the withdrawal of the Roman legions from Dacia began in the 260s.[20] The province officially ceased to exist under Emperor Aurelian (270–275)[21] who "withdrew the Romans from the cities and countryside of Dacia".[22][23] Garrisons stationed in Drobeta and Sucidava remained on the northern bank of the river.[24]

Origin of the Romanians

[edit]
Main article: Origin of the Romanians
See also: History of Romania
Jireček Line
The "Jireček Line"

Romanians speak a language originating from the dialects of the Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line".[25] This line divided, in Roman times, the predominantly Greek-speaking southern provinces from those where Latin was the principal language of communication.[26] The emergence of Proto-Romanian from Vulgar Latin is first demonstrated by the words "torna, torna, frater" ("turn around, turn around, brother") recorded in connection with an Eastern Roman military action in 587 or 588.[27][28] The soldier shouting them "in his native tongue"[29] spoke an Eastern Romance dialect of the Balkan Mountains.[30]

Grigore Nandris writes that the Romanian vocabulary suggests that the Romanians' ancestors were "reduced to a pastoral life in the mountains and to agricultural pursuits in the foothills of their pasture lands" following the collapse of the Roman rule.[31] A great number of Romanian words of uncertain origin[32] are related to animal husbandry: baci ("chief shepherd"), balegă ("dung"), and brânză ("cheese"), for instance, belong to this group.[33] Many words related to a more settled form of animal husbandry were borrowed from Slavic, including coteţ ("poultry house"), grajd ("stable"), and stână ("fenced pasture").[34][35] Romanian has preserved Latin terms for agriculture[36] and the Latin names of certain crops, but a significant part of its agricultural lexis originates from a Slavic-speaking population.[34][37] The first group includes a ara ("to plough"), a semăna ("to sow"), a culege ("to harvest"), a secera ("to reap"), grâu ("wheat"), in ("flax"), and furcă ("pitchfork"), while a croi ("to cut out"), a plivi ("to weed"), brazdă ("furrow"), cobilă ("plow line"), coasă ("scythe"), lopată ("shovel") and many others are Slavic loanwords.[34][38]

The Romanian religious vocabulary is also divided, with a small number of basic terms preserved from Latin[36] and a significant number of borrowings from Old Church Slavonic.[39] Romanian did not preserve Latin words connected to urbanized society.[40]

The Romanians' ethnogenesis cannot be understood based exclusively on written sources, because the earliest records on their ancestors were made by 11th-century Byzantine historians.[41] When referring to the Romance-speaking population of Southeastern Europe, early medieval sources used the Vlach exonym or its cognates, which all derived from the Common Slavic term for speakers of the Latin language.[42][43] The earliest sources write of the Vlachs of the central territories of the Balkan Peninsula.[42][43]

Late Roman Age

[edit]

Scythia Minor and the limes on the Lower Danube (c. 270–c. 700)

[edit]
Map of Scythia Minor
Scythia Minor: a Late Roman province formed through the division of the former province of Lower Moesia around 293

The territory between the Lower Danube and the Black Sea remained a fully integrated part of the Roman Empire, even after the abandonment of Trajan's Dacia.[44] It was transformed into a separate province under the name of Scythia Minor[45] around 293.[46] Before 300, the Romans erected small forts at Dierna and in other places on the northern bank of the Danube in modern-day Banat.[47][48] In their wider region, Roman coins from the period—mostly of bronze—have been found.[49]

The existence of Christian communities in Scythia Minor became evident under Emperor Diocletian (284–305).[50] He and his co-emperors ordered the persecution of Christians throughout the empire, causing the death of many between 303 and 313.[50][51] Under Emperor Constantine the Great (306–337), a bridge across the Danube was constructed at Sucidava, a new fort (Constantiana Daphne) was built, and ancient roads were repaired in Oltenia.[52][53] The Lower Danube again became the empire's northern boundary in 369 at the latest, when Emperor Valens met Athanaric—the head of the Goths—in a boat in the middle of the river because the latter had taken an oath "never to set foot on Roman soil".[54][55]

The Huns destroyed Drobeta and Sucidava in the 440s, but the forts were restored under Emperor Justinian I (527–565).[56] Eastern Roman coins from the first half of the 6th century suggest a significant military presence in Oltenia—a region also characterized by the predominance of pottery with shapes of Roman tradition.[57] Although Eastern Roman emperors made annual payments to the neighboring peoples in an attempt to keep the peace in the Balkans, the Avars regularly invaded Scythia Minor from the 580s.[58] The Romans abandoned Sucidava in 596 or 597,[59] but Tomis, which was the last town in Scythia Minor to resist the invaders, only fell in 704.[60]

North of the limes (c. 270 – c. 330)

[edit]

Transylvania and northern Banat, which had belonged to Dacia province, had no direct contact with the Roman Empire from the 270s.[61] There is no evidence that they were invaded in the following decades.[62] Towns, including Apulum and Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, and the surrounding areas[62] continued to be inhabited but the urban areas diminished.[63] The existence of local Christian communities can be assumed in Porolissum, Potaissa and other settlements.[64] On the other hand, evidence – mainly pottery with "Chi-rho" (Χ-Ρ) signs and other Christian symbols – is "shadowy and poorly understood", according to archaeologists Haynes and Hanson.[65]

Urns found in late 3rd-century cemeteries at Bezid, Mediaş, and in other Transylvanian settlements had clear analogies in sites east of the Carpathians, suggesting that the Carpians were the first new arrivals in the former province from the neighboring regions.[47][66] Other Carpian groups, pressured by the Goths, also departed from their homeland and sought refuge in the Roman Empire around 300.[67] Nevertheless, "Carpo-Dacians" were listed among the peoples "mixed with the Huns"[68] as late as 379.[69][70] The Sarmatians of the Banat[47] were allies of the empire, demonstrated by a Roman invasion in 332 against the Goths, their enemies.[71][53] Sarmatians were admitted into the empire in 379, but other Sarmatian groups remained in the Tisa plains up until the 460s.[72][73]

Gutthiuda: land of the Goths (c. 290 – c. 455)

[edit]
Main article: Thervingi
See also: Gothic Christianity
Gutthiuda
Gutthiuda, the country of Thervingi

The Goths started penetrating into territories west of the river Dniester from the 230s.[74][75] Two distinct groups separated by the river, the Thervingi and the Greuthungi, quickly emerged among them.[76] The one-time province of Dacia was held by "the Taifali, Victohali, and Thervingi"[77] around 350.[19][78]

The Goths' success is marked by the expansion of the multiethnic "Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov culture".[19] Settlements of the culture appeared in Moldavia and Wallachia at the end of the 3rd century,[79] and in Transylvania after 330.[53] These lands were inhabited by a sedentary population engaged in farming and cattle-breeding.[30] Pottery, comb-making and other handicrafts flourished in the villages.[80] Wheel-made fine pottery is a typical item of the period; hand-formed cups of the local tradition were also preserved.[81][82] Plowshares similar to those made in nearby Roman provinces and Scandinavian-style brooches indicate trade contacts with these regions.[83] "Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov" villages, sometimes covering an area exceeding 20 hectares (49 acres), were not fortified[84] and consisted of two types of houses: sunken huts with walls made of wattle and daub and surface buildings with plastered timber walls.[84] Sunken huts had for centuries been typical for settlements east of the Carpathians,[85] but now they appeared in distant zones of the Pontic steppes.[86]

Gothic treasure from Pietroasele
Pieces of the Pietroasele Treasure

The multiethnic Gutthiuda was divided into smaller political units or kuni, each headed by tribal chiefs or reiks.[87] In case of emergency, the tribal chiefs' council elected a supreme leader who was known as iudex regum ("judge of kings")[88] by St Ambrose.[89] Christian prisoners of war were the first missionaries among the Goths.[90] Ulfilas, himself a descendant of a Cappadocian captive, was ordained bishop "of the Christians in the land of the Goths"[91] in 341.[90][92] Expelled from Gutthiuda during a persecution of Christians, Ulfilas settled in Moesia in 348.[93]

Gothic dominance collapsed when the Huns arrived[94] and attacked the Thervingi in 376.[95] Most of the Thervingi sought asylum in the Roman Empire,[96] and were followed by large groups of Greuthungi and Taifali.[73] All the same, significant groups of Goths stayed in the territories north of the Danube.[97] For instance, Athanaric "retired with all his men to Caucalanda"—probably to the valley of the river Olt— from where they "drove out the Sarmatians".[98][99] A hoard of Roman coins issued under Valentinian I and Valens suggests that the gates of the amphitheatre at Ulpia Traiana were blocked around the same time.[100] The Pietroasele Treasure which was hidden around 450 also implies the presence of a Gothic tribal or religious leader in the lands between the Carpathians and the Lower Danube.[101] It contains a torc bearing the inscription GUTANI O WI HAILAG, which is interpreted by Malcolm Todd as "God who protects the Goths, most holy and inviolate".[102]

Gepidia: land of the Gepids (c. 290 – c. 630)

[edit]
Main article: Gepids
Map of Gepidia
Gepidia at its largest territorial extent

The earliest reference to Gepids – an East Germanic tribe closely related to the Goths – is found in a formal speech of 291.[103][104] The anonymous author wrote that the Thervingi joined "battle with the Vandals and Gepids"[105] at that time.[106] The center of an early Gepidia, on the plains northwest of the Meseş Mountains, appears to have been located around Şimleu Silvaniei, where early 5th-century precious objects of Roman provenance have been unearthed.[107][108]

The Huns imposed their authority over the Gepids by the 420s,[108] but the latter remained united under the rule of their king named Ardaric.[109] Although he was one of the favorites of Attila, king of the Huns,[110] he initiated an uprising against the Huns when Attila died in 453.[111][112] The Gepids regained their independence[113] and "ruled as victors over the extent of all Dacia".[114][115]

Ring from the Apahida necropolis
Golden ring with crosses found at Apahida Necropolis

Three sumptuous tombs found at Apahida evidence the wealth accumulated by Gepid royals through their connections with the Eastern Roman Empire.[116][112] A golden ring with crosses found in one of the graves implies its owner's Christian faith.[117] John of Biclar refers to an Arian bishop of the Gepids which suggests that they adopted Christianity through their connection with the Arian Goths.[118]

New settlements appearing along the rivers Mureş, Someş, and Târnava reflects a period of tranquility in Gepidia until around 568.[119] The common people in Biharia, Cenad, Moreşti, and other villages lived in sunken huts covered with gabled roofs but with no hearths or ovens.[120][121] They were primarily farmers, but looms, combs, and other products evidence the existence of local workshops.[119] Trading contacts between Gepidia and faraway regions is evidenced by finds of amber beads and brooches manufactured in the Crimea, Mazovia or Scandinavia.[122]

The Avar invasion of 568 ended the independent Gepidia.[123] Written sources evidence the survival of Gepid groups within the Avar Empire.[124] For instance, Eastern Roman troops "encountered three Gepid settlements"[125] on the Tisa plains in 599 or 600.[126][124]

Hunnic Empire (c. 400 – c. 460)

[edit]
Main article: Huns
Map of the Hunnic Empire
The Hunnic Empire around 450

The Huns, a people of uncertain origin,[127] were nomadic and wandered "with the wagons"[128] in the 370s.[129] They were eminent mounted archers who imposed their authority over an increasing number of neighboring peoples.[130][131] Their first ruler whose seat was located in the Lower Danube region was Uldin, initially an important ally and later an enemy of the Eastern Roman Empire between 401 and 408.[132][133]

The Eastern Roman government paid an annual tribute to the Huns from the 420s.[134][135] Gold flowing from the empire transformed the Hun society.[136] The introduction of a centralized monarchy is evidenced in a report written by Priscus of Panium, an Eastern Roman envoy sent to the ruler of the Huns, Attila, in 448.[137] At that time, Gothic was widely spoken in the royal court since "the subjects of the Huns" spoke "besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or—as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans—Latin".[136][138]

The Huns imposed their authority on a sedentary population.[139] Priscus of Panium refers to a village where he and his retinue were supplied "with millet instead of corn" and "medos (mead) instead of wine".[138][140] Attila's sudden death in 453[141] caused a civil war among his sons.[142] The subject peoples revolted and emerged the victors at the Battle of Nedao in 454.[111][143] The remnants of the Huns withdrew to the Pontic steppes.[144] One of their groups was admitted to settle in Scythia Minor in 460.[145]

After the first migrations

[edit]

Between Huns and Avars (c. 45 – c. 565)

[edit]
Main articles: Antes people and Sclaveni
See also: Early Slavs

The last "Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov" objects once widespread in Gutthiuda – such as fine wares and weapons – are dated to the period ending around 430.[146] According to Coriolan H. Opreanu, the same period is characterized by "population shifts" which caused the abandonment of many villages and the appearance of new settlements.[147] Botoşana, Dodeşti, and other sites east of the Carpathians demonstrate the simplification of pottery forms and a decline in the use of the fast potter's wheel from the 450s.[148] Around the same time, semi-sunken huts with stone or clay ovens appeared in Moldavia and Wallachia,[149][150][151] forming ephemeral settlements with an area smaller than 5 hectares (12 acres).[152] The locals practiced an "itinerant form of agriculture", instead of manuring the soil.[152] Differences in local pottery indicate the coexistence of communities isolated from each other by marshes, forests or hills.[153] For instance, contemporary Cândeşti produced a significant quantity of wheel-made pottery, Târgşor was characterized by crushed-shard tempered vessels, and a sample of the most common "Kolochin" vessels was found in the Budureasca Valley.[154]

There are few known cemeteries from the second half of the 5th century,[155] pointing to common use of cremation without the use of urns or pits.[156] On the other hand, a huge biritual necropolis at Sărata-Monteoru produced more than 1,600 cremation burials, either in wheel-made urns or in pits without urns.[157][158] Small cemeteries with inhumation graves have been found at Nichiteni and Secuieni.[155]

Jordanes, Procopius and other 6th-century authors used the terms "Sclavenes" and "Antes" to refer to the peoples inhabiting the territory north of the Lower Danube.[159] The Antes launched their first campaign over the Lower Danube in 518.[160] After they concluded a treaty with the Eastern Roman Empire in 545, the Sclavenes started to plunder the Balkan provinces.[161] Both ethnic groups seized many prisoners of wars during their raids, but they were ready to integrate them "as free men and friends".[162][163]

The names of early 6th-century leaders of the Sclavenes or Antes are unknown.[164] This supports ancient authors' claims that both ethnic groups lived "under a democracy".[165][166] The same conclusion can be drawn from Procopius's report of the "phoney Chilbudius" – a young Antian serf who "spoke the Latin tongue"[167] – who was dispatched by his fellow tribesmen to negotiate with the Eastern Roman Empire in 545.[168]

The disappearance of bronze and gold coins from sites north of the Lower Danube demonstrates an "economic closure of the frontier" of the Eastern Roman Empire between 545 and 565.[169][170] The same period is characterized by a tendency towards cultural unification in Moldavia, Oltenia and Wallachia.[171] Handmade pots with very similar incised designs evidence the "existence of a cross-regional set of symbols shared" by either potters or consumers.[172] Pots, spindle whorls and other objects decorated with crosses or swastikas have been unearthed at Cândeşti, Lozna, and other sites.[154][173] The use of handmade clay pans for baking bread was spreading from the regions south and east of the Carpathians towards lands over the Dniester and the Lower Danube.[174]

Avar Empire (c. 565 – c. 800)

[edit]
Main article: Avar Khaganate

The Avars occupied Gepidia in 567, less than a decade after their arrival in Europe.[175][176] They were nomadic pastoralists,[177] who settled in the lowlands.[178] Stirrups found at Sânpetru German are among the earliest finds in Romania attributed to the Avars.[179] They received agricultural products from farming communities settled in their domains and neighboring peoples subjected to their authority.[180] Emperor Justin II hired, in 578, the Avars to attack the Sclavenes[181] who resumed their plundering raids against the empire around that time.[182] The names of some of the Sclavene leaders were first recorded in the following period.[183] One of them, Musocius, "was called rex in the barbarian tongue".[184][185]

Graves of males interred together with horses found at Aiud and Band prove the Avars' settlement in Transylvania in the early 7th century.[179] Their cemeteries are centered around salt mines.[186] Spurs—never found in Avar context but widely used in Western Slav territories[187]— were unearthed in Şura Mică and Medişoru Mare, suggesting the employment of non-Avar horsemen in the 8th century.[188]

Large "Late Avar" cemeteries used by several generations between c. 700 and c. 800 imply "an advanced degree of sedentization" of the entire society.[189] The Avar Empire collapsed after the Franks launched three campaigns against the westernmost Avar territories between 791 and 803.[177] Soon afterwards the Bulgars attacked the Avars from the southeast,[190] and Charlemagne settled Avar groups in Pannonia.[190]

Emergence of new powers (c. 600 – c. 895)

[edit]

The Lower Danube region experienced a period of stability after the establishment of the Avar Empire.[191] Archaeological sites in Moldavia, Oltenia and Wallachia became characterized by the growing popularity of hand-made vessels with finger impressions[192] and by a decline in detectable cemeteries.[193] Ananias of Shirak, a 7th-century Armenian geographer described the "large country of Dacia" as inhabited by Slavs who formed "twenty-five tribes".[194][195][196]

A map of the Bulgarian Empire and the Balkans in the ninth century
The Bulgarian lands across the Danube in the ninth century, after the territorial expansion under Krum, Omurtag and Presian

Villages of sunken huts with stone ovens[149] appeared in Transylvania around 600.[197][198][199] Their network was expanding along the rivers Mureş, Olt and Someş.[197][198] The so-called "Mediaş group" of cremation or mixed cemeteries emerged in this period near salt mines.[200] The Hungarian and the Romanian vocabulary of salt mining was taken from Slavic, suggesting that Slavs were employed in the mines for centuries.[201][202] Bistriţa ("swift"), Crasna ("nice" or "red"), Sibiu ("dogwood"), and many other rivers and settlements with names of Slavic origin also evidence the presence of Slavs in Transylvania.[203][204]

The Turkic-speaking Bulgars arrived in the territories west of the river Dniester around 670.[205][206][207] At the Battle of Ongal they defeated the Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Emperor Constantine IV in 680 or 681, occupied Dobruja and founded the First Bulgarian Empire.[208][209] They soon imposed their authority over some of the neighboring tribes.[210][211] The great variety in burial rites evidences the multi-ethnic character of the Bulgarian Empire.[212] Even the Bulgars were divided in this respect; some of them practiced inhumation and others cremation.[213] Initially, a sharp distinction existed between the Bulgars and their subjects, but the Slavicization of the Bulgars soon began.[214]

Opreanu writes that the "new cultural synthesis" known as the "Dridu culture" developed in the Lower Danube region around 680.[215][216] New settlements[217] and large cemeteries show that the region experienced a steady demographic rise in the 8th century.[218] The large, unfortified "Dridu" settlements were characterized by traditional semi-sunken huts, but a few houses with ground-level floors have also been unearthed in Dodeşti, Spinoasa, and other places.[219]

9th-11th-century objects from the Alba Iulia region
9th-11th-century ceramics and objects from Alba Iulia area, in display at the National Museum of the Union
Persecution of Christians in Bulgaria
Omurtag orders the persecution of Christians in his empire

"Dridu" communities produced and used gray or yellow fine pottery,[220] but hand-made vessels were still predominant.[221] Fine, gray vessels were also unearthed in the 9th-century "Blandiana A"[222] cemeteries in the area of Alba-Iulia, which constitutes a "cultural enclave" in Transylvania.[223][224] Near these cemeteries, necropolises of graves with west–east orientation form the distinct "Ciumbrud group".[225][222][226] Female dress accessories from "Ciumbrud graves" are strikingly similar to those from Christian cemeteries in Bulgaria and Moravia.[225][226] From an earlier date are the cremation cemeteries of the "Nuşfalau-Someşeni group" in northwestern Transylvania, with their 8th- and 9th-century tumuli,[197][227][228] similar to the kurgans of East Slavic territories.[199]

Contemporaneous authors rarely dwelled on early medieval Southeastern Europe.[229] For instance, the Royal Frankish Annals makes a passing reference to Abodrites living "in Dacia adjacent to the Danube near the Bulgarian border"[230] on the occasion of their envoys' arrival in Aachen in 824.[231] Bulgaria's territory increased under Krum (c. 803–814),[232][233] who took Adrianople and forced at least 10,000 of the town's inhabitants to settle north of the Lower Danube in 813.[234] The ambitions of his son Omurtag (814–831) in the regions of the rivers Dnieper and Tisa are attested by two columns erected in the memory of Bulgar military leaders who drowned in these rivers during military campaigns.[235][236] Emperor Arnulf sent envoys, in 894, to the Bulgarians to "ask that they should not sell salt to the Moravians",[237][238][239] suggesting a Bulgarian control over either the Transylvanian salt mines[237] or the roads to Moravia.[240]

In the same year, the nomadic Hungarians – who had arrived in the Lower Danube region from the steppes of Eastern Europe in 837 or 838[241][242] – became involved in a conflict between Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire on the latter's behalf.[243][244] The Bulgarians incited another nomadic tribe, the Pechenegs, to invade the Hungarians from the east, while the Bulgarians also attacked them from the south.[237] The two synchronized attacks forced the Hungarians to cross the Carpathian Mountains in search for a new homeland.[237]

Map of the Carpathian Basin
The Carpathian Basin on the eve of the "Hungarian Land-taking": a map based primarily on the narration of the Gesta Hungarorum

About 300 years later, Anonymus, the author of Gesta Hungarorum, wrote a comprehensive list of polities and peoples of the Carpathian Basin at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries.[245] He wrote about the Hungarian conquest of the territory but did not mention Simeon I of Bulgaria, Svatopluk of Moravia and the conquerors' opponents known from contemporary sources.[245] Instead, he wrote of a number of personalities unknown by other chroniclers.[245][246] In Gesta Hungarorum, Menumorut ruled over "the peoples that are called Kozár"[247] in Crişana.[245][248] Anonymus also wrote of the Székelys ("previously the peoples of King Attila")[249] living in the territory for centuries who joined the invading Hungarians.[250] Banat, according to Anonymus, was ruled by Glad who had come "from the castle of Vidin."[247][251] Glad is described to employ "Cumans, Bulgarians and Vlachs"[252] in his army.[251] Anonymous also wrote of Gelou, "a certain Vlach"[253] ruling in Transylvania, a land inhabited by "Vlachs and Slavs".[251][254] Gelou's subjects are portrayed as having "suffered many injuries from the Cumans and Pechenegs".[255][253]

Formation of new states and the last waves of migrations

[edit]

First Bulgarian Empire after conversion (864–1018)

[edit]
Main articles: First Bulgarian Empire and Christianization of Bulgaria

Boris I, the ruler of Bulgaria, converted to Orthodox Christianity in 864.[256][257] He promoted vernacular worship services, thus Old Church Slavonic was declared the language of liturgy in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 893.[258] One of the earliest examples of Cyrillic script—an alphabet strongly associated with Slavonic liturgy—was found in Mircea Vodă in Romania.[259] The Cyrillic inscription from 943 refers to a "župan Dimitrie".[260]

Traces of Bulgarian influence in the territory of modern Romania are found mostly in the area of Wallachia. For example in sites from Bucov, Căscioarele, or Mărăcinele, water pipe fragments have been found dating to the 9th or 10th century. No building in the region from the time is known to have used them and the evidence gathered points more likely at production centres destined for exporting their goods to the Bulgarian rising urban centres of Pliska and Preslav.[261]

Byzantine troops occupied large portions of Bulgaria, including modern Dobruja, under Emperor John I Tzimiskes (969–976).[262] After his death an anti-Byzantine uprising led by four brothers broke out.[263][262] One of the brothers, David, was killed by Vlachs in the present-day border region between Greece and North Macedonia.[264] In 1018, the Byzantines conquered the whole territory of the Bulgarian Empire[265] and the Archbishop of Ohrid acquired ecclesiastic jurisdiction in 1020 over the Vlachs living there.[266][267]

Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin (c.  895 – c. 1000)

[edit]
Main article: Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin
See also: Hungarian prehistory, Origin of the Székelys, and Simeon I of Bulgaria
Decoration from the Illuminated Chronicle
The Hungarian Conquest depicted in the Illuminated Chronicle

The way taken by the Hungarians across the Carpathian Mountains when they started the conquest of the Carpathian Basin varies from source to source.[268] According to Gesta Hungarorum, the Hungarians descended through the northern passes to the lowlands, bypassing Transylvania,[269][270] and only began the invasion of the regions east of the Tisa after the conquest of the western regions.[271] Gesta Hungarorum says the Vlach Gelou of Transylvania died fighting the Hungarians,[272] while his subjects chose "for themselves as lord Tétény",[273] one of the Hungarian leaders.[274] Anonymus also wrote of Menumorut's defeat, but said he preserved his rule in Crişana until his death by giving his daughter in marriage to Zolta, heir to Árpád, the head of the Hungarians.[272][270] In a contrasting account, the Illuminated Chronicle writes of Hungarians fleeing through the eastern passes of the Carpathian Mountains to Transylvania[270] where they "remained quietly" and "rested their herds"[275] for a while before moving further west.[276] The so-called "Cluj group"[222] of small inhumation cemeteries—graves with west–east orientation, often containing remains of horses—[277] appeared on both sides of the Apuseni Mountains around 900.[278] Their military character evidences that the people using them formed a "double defensive line" organized against the Pechenegs.[278] Transylvanian cemeteries of the "Cluj group" cluster around salt mines.[186]

Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus identified "the whole settlement"[279] of Hungary with the lands where the rivers Criş, Mureş, Timiş, Tisa and Toutis–possibly the Bega—ran around 950.[276] The concentration of objects of Byzantine provenance at the confluence of the Mureş and Tisa shows that this territory was a regional center of power.[280] Accordingly, the seat of Gyula, a Hungarian chieftain baptized in Constantinople around 952, most probably existed in this region.[281] On the other hand, Hungarian chronicles associate Gyula's family with Transylvania.[282] Place names from the nomadic stratum of Hungarian toponymy—those corresponding to proper names or Hungarian tribal names, including Decea, Hotoan, and Ineu—[283] also evidence that major Hungarian groups settled in Transylvania from the 950s.[284][285] An early "Bijelo Brdo" cemetery belonging to a 10th- and 11th-century archaeological culture with finds from all over the Carpathian Basin was found at Deva.[286]

Patzinakia: land of the Pechenegs (c. 895 – c. 1120)

[edit]
Main articles: Pechenegs and Blakumen
Europe in 1097

The Turkic-speaking[243] Pechenegs took the control of the territories east of the Carpathians from the Hungarians around 895.[287][288] Emperor Constantine VII wrote that two Pecheneg "provinces" or "clans" ("Kato Gyla" and "Giazichopon")[289] were located in Moldavia and Wallachia around 950.[290] The change of dominion had no major effect on the sedentary "Dridu"[291] villages in the region.[292] The settlements in Moldavia and Wallachia, most of them built on river banks or lake shores, remained unfortified.[293] Sporadic finds of horse brasses and other "nomadic" objects evidence the presence of Pechenegs in "Dridu" communities.[294] Snaffle bits with rigid mouthpieces and round stirrups—novelties of the early 10th century—were also unearthed in Moldavia and Wallachia.[295] Cemeteries of the locals show that inhumation replaced cremation by the end of the 10th century.[296]

The Eymund's saga narrates that Pechenegs (Tyrkir) with Blökumen "and a good many other nasty people"[297] were involved in the disputes for the throne of Kievan Rus' in 1019.[298] An 11th-century runic inscription on a stone from Gotland narrates that a Varangian man was murdered "on a voyage abroad" by Blakumen.[299][300][301] Both Blökumen and Blakumen may refer to Vlachs inhabiting the regions east of the Carpathians,[302] although their translation to "black men" cannot be excluded.[303] Graffiti depicting ships and dragons in Scandinavian style were found in the Basarabi Cave Complex at Murfatlar.[304]

Large groups of Pechenegs pressured from the east by the Ouzes received asylum in the Byzantine Empire in 1046 and 1047.[305] All the same, Pecheneg populations remained in the regions north of the Lower Danube even thereafter.[306] Some of them were admitted into the Kingdom of Hungary in the next decades, where they were settled in southern Transylvania and other regions.[307]

Byzantine revival and the Second Bulgarian Empire (970s – c. 1185)

[edit]
Main articles: Paristrion and Second Bulgarian Empire
A Byzantine pendant
A pendant discovered at the Byzantine fortress from Păcuiul lui Soare

Around 971, Emperor John I Tzimiskes established the theme or "district" of Paristrion in the territories occupied between the Balkan Mountains and the Lower Danube.[308][309] Naval bases were built at Capidava, Noviodunum, and Păcuiul lui Soare on the river.[310] Bulgarians and Vlachs living in the annexed territories often expressed their hostility towards imperial rule.[311] Anna Comnena relates how local Vlachs showed "the way through the passes"[312] of the Balkan Mountains to invading Cumans in 1094.[313] All the same, Vlachs served in the imperial army,[314] for instance during an imperial campaign against the Kingdom of Hungary in 1166.[315] New taxes imposed by imperial authorities caused a rebellion of Vlachs and Bulgarians in 1185,[316] which led to the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire.[317] The Vlachs' eminent status within the new state is evidenced by the writings of Robert of Clari and other western authors,[318] who refer either to the new state or to its mountainous regions as "Vlachia" until the 1250s.[318]

Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1000 – 1241)

[edit]
Main article: Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)
See also: Székely Land and Transylvanian Saxons
Map of the Kingdom of Hungary
The Kingdom of Hungary at the end of the 11th century

Stephen I, the first crowned king of Hungary whose reign began in 1000 or 1001, unified the Carpathian Basin.[319] Around 1003, he launched a campaign against "his maternal uncle, King Gyula" and occupied Transylvania.[320][321] Stephen I later turned against Ahtum, "who had been baptised in the Orthodox faith in Vidin", and conquered Banat.[322] Hartvik, Stephen I's hagiographer, wrote that the monarch "divided his territories in ten bishoprics".[323][324] In the territory of modern Romania, three Roman Catholic dioceses were established with their seats in Alba Iulia, Biharea (from the last decades of the 11th century in Oradea), and Cenad.[325]

Royal administration in the entire kingdom was based on counties organized around royal fortresses.[326] In modern Romania's territory, references to an ispán or count of Alba[327] in 1097, and to a count of Bihor in 1111 evidence the appearance of the county system.[328] The counties in Banat and Crişana remained under direct royal authority, but a great officer of the realm, the voivode, supervised the ispáns of the Transylvanian counties from the end of the 12th century.[329]

Eastward expansion of "Bijelo Brdo" villages along the Mureş continued in the 11th century.[286] Cauldrons and huts with hearths carved into the soil were the characterizing items of the period.[330] Nevertheless, semi-sunken huts with stone ovens from Sfântu Gheorghe, Şimoneşti and other villages evidence the survival of the local population.[330] The lands between the Carpathians and the Tisa were plundered by Pechenegs in the 1010s[331] and in 1068, by Ouzes in 1085,[332] and by Cumans in 1091.[333] Cluj, Dăbâca and other royal forts built of earth and timber were strengthened after the 1068 attack.[334] In these forts appeared the so-called "Citfalău cemeteries", dependent upon late 11th-century royal legislation forcing commoners to set up their graveyards around churches.[335]

The early presence of Székelys at Tileagd in Crişana, and at Gârbova, Saschiz, and Sebeş in Transylvania is attested by royal charters.[336] Székely groups from Gârbova, Saschiz, and Sebeş were moved around 1150 into the easternmost regions of Transylvania, when the monarchs granted these territories to new settlers arriving from Western Europe.[337] The Székelys were organized into "seats" instead of counties,[338] and a royal officer, the "Count of the Székelys" became the head of their community from the 1220s.[339] The Székelys provided military services to the monarchs and remained exempt of royal taxes.[340]

Cârța Abbey
Ruins of the Cistercian Abbey at Cârța

A great number of Flemish, German, and Walloon "guest settlers" arrived in Transylvania around 1150.[341] Wheel-made fine vessels with analogies in Thuringia found at Şelimbăr demonstrate the advanced technology they introduced to their new home.[342] An account of royal revenues from the 1190s shows that almost one-tenth of all royal income derived from taxes they paid.[343] In 1224, King Andrew II granted collective privileges to those inhabiting the region between Orăștie and Baraolt.[344] The Diploma Andreanum confirmed the custom of freely electing their priests and local leaders; only the right to appoint the head of their community, the "Count of Sibiu", was preserved for the monarchs.[345] The Transylvanian Saxons—as they were collectively mentioned from the early 13th century[342]—also received the right to "use the forests of the Romanians and the Pechenegs" along with these peoples.[345]

The earliest royal charter referring to Romanians in Transylvania is connected to the foundation of the Cistercian abbey at Cârța around 1202,[346] which was granted land, up to that time possessed by Romanians.[347] Another royal charter reveals that Romanians fought for Bulgaria along with Saxons, Székelys and Pechenegs under the leadership of the Count of Sibiu in 1210.[348] The Orthodox Romanians remained exempt from the tithe payable by all Catholic peasants to the Church.[349] Furthermore, they only paid a special in kind tax, the "fiftieth" on their herds.[349]

Organized settling continued with the arrival of the Teutonic Knights in Ţara Bârsei in 1211.[350] They were granted the right to freely pass through "the land of the Székelys and the land of the Vlachs" in 1222.[347] The knights tried to free themselves from the monarch's authority, thus King Andrew II expelled them from the region in 1225.[351] Thereafter, the king appointed his heir, Béla,[352] with the title of duke, to administer Transylvania.[353][354] Duke Béla occupied Oltenia and set up a new province, the Banate of Severin, in the 1230s.[353][354]

Cumania: land of the Cumans (c. 1060–1241)

[edit]
Main article: Cumans
Cuman stone statue
Cuman stone statue from the 11th century in Luhansk, Ukraine

The arrival of the Cumans in the Lower Danube region was first recorded in 1055.[355] A 17th-century version of the Turkic chronicle Oghuzname[356] relates that Qipchaq, the ancient Cuman hero, fought against the Ulak (Romanians), along with other nations.[306] Cuman groups assisted the rebelling Bulgarians and Vlachs against the Byzantines between 1186 and 1197.[357]

Dridu villages of the lowlands east of the Carpathians were abandoned between 1050 and 1080,[358] around which time new settlements appeared on higher land on both banks of the Prut.[358] A sharp decrease from 300 to 35 in the number of archaeological sites—settlements, cemeteries and coin hords—evidences a population decline which continued well into the 13th century.[359] Byzantine troops marching towards Transylvania through the territory east of the Carpathians encountered "a land entirely bereft of men"[360] in 1166.[361]

A coalition of Rus' princes and Cuman tribes suffered a sound defeat by the Mongols in the Battle of the Kalka River in 1223.[362] Shortly thereafter Boricius, a Cuman chieftain,[363] accepted baptism and the supremacy of the king of Hungary.[352] The Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania was set up in his territories in 1228.[363] A letter of 1234[352] written by Pope Gregory IX refers to a "certain people within the Cuman bishopric called Walati" (Vlachs) who even persuaded Catholic Hungarians and Germans to accept the ecclesiastic authority of Orthodox prelates.[364]

Mongol invasion (1241–1242)

[edit]
Main article: Mongol invasion of Europe
Mongol invasion
The Mongol invasion of the Kingdom of Hungary depicted in Chronica Hungarorum by Johannes de Thurocz

The Mongols, who had decided to invade Europe in 1235,[365] attacked the Cumans in 1238.[366] Masses of Cumans sought refuge in Bulgaria and Hungary.[367] The Mongols crossed the Carpathians in March 1241,[368] and soon afterwards they destroyed "the rich village of the Germans" (Rodna),[369] and took Bistrița, Cluj,[370] and Oradea.[368] Another Mongol army "proceeded by way of the Qara-Ulagh" ("Black Vlachs"),[371] and defeated their leader named "Mishlav".[368][371] They also entered Transylvania, sacked Alba Iulia, Sibiu, the abbeys at Cârța and Igriș, and Cenad.[368]

The Mongol invasion lasted for a year, and the Mongols devastated huge swathes of territory of the kingdom before their unexpected withdrawal in 1242.[372] Matthew Paris and other contemporaneous scholars considered the Mongol invasion as a "sign of apocalypse".[373][374] Whole villages were destroyed, and many were never rebuilt.[375] According to a royal charter of 1246, Alba Iulia, Harina, Gilău, Mărişelu,[376] Tășnad and Zalău were almost depopulated.[377] Another charter from 1252 evidences that Zec,[378] a village on the Olt, was totally deserted.[379]

After the devastation of the region, they [the Mongols] surrounded the great village with a combined force of some Tatars together with Russians, Cumans and their Hungarian prisoners. They sent first the Hungarian prisoners ahead and when they were all slain, the Russians, the Ishmaelites, and Cumans went into battle. The Tatars, standing behind them all at the back, laughed at their plight and ruin and killed those who retreated from the battle and subjected as many as they could to their devouring swords, so that after fighting for a week, day and night, and filling up the moat, they captured the village. Then they made the soldiers and ladies, of whom there were many, stand in a field on one side and the peasants on the other. Having robbed them of their money, clothing and other goods, they cruelly executed them with axes and swords, leaving only some of the ladies and girls alive, whom they took for their entertainment.

— Master Roger's Epistle[380]

Aftermath

[edit]
Main article: Romania in the Middle Ages
See also: Founding of Wallachia
Battle of Posada
The army of Charles Robert Anjou ambushed by Basarab's army at 1330 Posada (from the Illuminated Chronicle manuscript)

A new period of intensive settlements began in Banat, Transylvania and other regions within the Kingdom of Hungary after the withdrawal of the Mongols.[381] King Béla IV was also considering settling the Knights Hospitallers in the lands between the Carpathians and the Lower Danube.[364] His diploma of 1247 for the Knights evidences the existence of four Romanian polities in the region.[382] They were under the rule of voivodes Litovoi and Seneslau, and of knezes Farcaș and John.[382]

Internal conflicts characterized the last decades of the 13th century in the Kingdom of Hungary.[383] For instance, a feud between King Béla and his son, Stephen caused a civil war which lasted from 1261 to 1266.[384] Taking advantage of the emerging anarchy, Voivode Litovoi attempted to get rid of the Hungarian monarchs' suzerainty in the 1270s, but he fell in a battle while fighting against royal troops.[385][386] One of his successors, Basarab I of Wallachia was the first Romanian monarch whose sovereignty was internationally recognized after his victory over King Charles I of Hungary in the Battle of Posada of 1330.[386]

See also

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Heather 2006, p. xi.
  2. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 59.
  3. ^ Bolovan et al. 1997, pp. 11–13.
  4. ^ a b Opreanu 2005, pp. 59–60.
  5. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 60.
  6. ^ a b Bolovan et al. 1997, pp. 28–29.
  7. ^ Opreanu 2005, pp. 60, 67.
  8. ^ Bolovan et al. 1997, p. 24.
  9. ^ Georgescu 1991, p. 4.
  10. ^ Treptow & Popa 1996, p. 87.
  11. ^ Haynes & Hanson 2004, pp. 12, 19–21.
  12. ^ Eutropius: Breviarium (8.6.), p. 50.
  13. ^ a b Georgescu 1991, p. 6.
  14. ^ Haynes & Hanson 2004, pp. 15–16.
  15. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 102.
  16. ^ Bolovan et al. 1997, p. 42.
  17. ^ Tóth 1994, p. 52.
  18. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 44–45.
  19. ^ a b c Heather 2010, p. 112.
  20. ^ Tóth 1994, p. 54.
  21. ^ Georgescu 1991, p. 8.
  22. ^ Eutropius: Breviarium (9.15.), p. 59.
  23. ^ Tóth 1994, pp. 55–56.
  24. ^ MacKendrick 1975, p. 163.
  25. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 128.
  26. ^ Hall 1974, p. 70.
  27. ^ Georgescu 1991, p. 13.
  28. ^ Vékony 2000, pp. 206–207.
  29. ^ The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (258.10-21.), p. 381.
  30. ^ a b Opreanu 2005, p. 129.
  31. ^ Nandris 1951, p. 13.
  32. ^ Mallinson 1998, p. 413.
  33. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 228.
  34. ^ a b c Kopecký, Peter (2004–2005), "Caractéristique lexicale de l'élément slave dans le vocabulaire roumain: Confrontation historique aux sédiments lexicaux turcs et grecs [=Lexical characteristics of the Slavic elements of the Romanians language: A historical comparison with the Turkic and Greek lexical layers]" (PDF), Ianua: Revista Philologica Romanica, 5: 43–53, archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-05-05
  35. ^ Petrucci 1999, pp. 142–143.
  36. ^ a b Nandris 1951, p. 12.
  37. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 224.
  38. ^ Petrucci 1999, pp. 142–144.
  39. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, pp. 142–143.
  40. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 202.
  41. ^ Georgescu 1991, pp. 8, 13.
  42. ^ a b Georgescu 1991, p. 14.
  43. ^ a b Vékony 2000, p. 209.
  44. ^ Opreanu 2005, pp. 110–111.
  45. ^ MacKendrick 1975, pp. 55–56, 221.
  46. ^ Treadgold 1997, pp. 17–18.
  47. ^ a b c Bărbulescu 2005, p. 185.
  48. ^ Curta 2005, p. 178.
  49. ^ Ellis 1998, pp. 231–232.
  50. ^ a b Opreanu 2005, p. 115.
  51. ^ Treadgold 1997, p. 33.
  52. ^ MacKendrick 1975, pp. 165, 221.
  53. ^ a b c Wolfram 1988, p. 61.
  54. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 72, 75.
  55. ^ Ammianus Marcellinus: The Later Roman Empire (27.5.), p. 337.
  56. ^ MacKendrick 1975, pp. 165–166, 222.
  57. ^ Teodor 2005, pp. 216, 223–224.
  58. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 54–55, 64–65.
  59. ^ MacKendrick 1975, p. 166, 222.
  60. ^ MacKendrick 1975, pp. 178, 222.
  61. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, p. 181.
  62. ^ a b Haynes & Hanson 2004, p. 24.
  63. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, p. 183.
  64. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, pp. 186–187.
  65. ^ Haynes & Hanson 2004, pp. 22–24.
  66. ^ Bóna 1994, p. 65.
  67. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 56–57.
  68. ^ Zosimus (2002), The History, retrieved 18 July 2012
  69. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 166, 660.
  70. ^ Thompson 2001, p. 30.
  71. ^ Heather 2010, p. 168.
  72. ^ Heather 2006, p. 330.
  73. ^ a b Heather 2010, p. 151.
  74. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 112, 117.
  75. ^ Todd 2003, p. 142.
  76. ^ Heather 2010, p. 61.
  77. ^ Eutropius: Breviarium (8.2.), p. 48.
  78. ^ Bóna 1994, p. 67.
  79. ^ Heather & Matthews 1991, pp. 51–52.
  80. ^ Heather & Matthews 1991, pp. 64, 79.
  81. ^ Ellis 1998, p. 230.
  82. ^ Heather & Matthews 1991, pp. 65, 79.
  83. ^ Curta 2005, pp. 188–191.
  84. ^ a b Heather & Matthews 1991, p. 53.
  85. ^ Heather 2010, p. 118.
  86. ^ Heather & Matthews 1991, p. 54.
  87. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 94, 96.
  88. ^ Ambrose: On the Holy Spirit (Preface 17), retrieved 23 July 2013
  89. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 94, 416.
  90. ^ a b Todd 2003, p. 119.
  91. ^ Philostorgius: Church History (2.5.), p. 20.
  92. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 75–78.
  93. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 79–80.
  94. ^ Bóna 1994, p. 75.
  95. ^ Thompson 2001, p. 28.
  96. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 71–72.
  97. ^ Todd 2003, p. 164.
  98. ^ Wolfram 1988, p. 73.
  99. ^ Ammianus Marcellinus: The Later Roman Empire (31.4.), p. 418.
  100. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, p. 182.
  101. ^ Todd 2003, pp. 125–126.
  102. ^ Todd 2003, p. 126.
  103. ^ Wolfram 1997, pp. 57–59, 246, 401.
  104. ^ Genethliacus of Maximian Augustus, p. 76.
  105. ^ Genethliacus of Maximian Augustus, p. 100.
  106. ^ Wolfram 1997, pp. 57–59.
  107. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, pp. 190–191.
  108. ^ a b Bóna 1994, p. 77.
  109. ^ Todd 2003, p. 220.
  110. ^ Todd 2003, pp. 220, 223.
  111. ^ a b Heather 2006, p. 354.
  112. ^ a b Todd 2003, p. 223.
  113. ^ Heather 2010, p. 224.
  114. ^ Bóna 1994, p. 80.
  115. ^ The Gothic History of Jordanes (50:264), p. 126.
  116. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, p. 191.
  117. ^ Bóna 1994, p. 84.
  118. ^ Curta 2008, pp. 87, 205.
  119. ^ a b Bóna 1994, pp. 86, 89.
  120. ^ Bóna 1994, pp. 86–87.
  121. ^ Curta 2001, p. 194.
  122. ^ Curta 2001, pp. 195, 201.
  123. ^ Curta 2006, p. 63.
  124. ^ a b Todd 2003, p. 221.
  125. ^ The History of Theophylact Simocatta (viii. 3.11.), p. 213.
  126. ^ Curta 2006, p. 62.
  127. ^ Wolfram 1997, p. 123.
  128. ^ Ammianus Marcellinus: The Later Roman Empire (31.2.), p. 412.
  129. ^ Thompson 2001, pp. 47, 50.
  130. ^ Thompson 2001, pp. 30, 40–41.
  131. ^ Wolfram 1997, pp. 123–124.
  132. ^ Heather 2006, p. 196.
  133. ^ Wolfram 1997, p. 126.
  134. ^ Wolfram 1997, pp. 127–128.
  135. ^ Treadgold 1997, pp. 93–94.
  136. ^ a b Heather 2006, p. 329.
  137. ^ Heather 2006, pp. 325–329, 485.
  138. ^ a b Bury, J. B., Priscus at the court of Attila, retrieved 15 July 2012
  139. ^ Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p. 177.
  140. ^ Wolfram 1997, p. 131.
  141. ^ Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p. 143.
  142. ^ Heather 2006, pp. 353–354.
  143. ^ Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p. 144.
  144. ^ Heather 2006, p. 356.
  145. ^ Heather 2006, pp. 359–360.
  146. ^ Heather 2010, p. 200.
  147. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 119.
  148. ^ Teodor 1980, p. 19.
  149. ^ a b Curta 2001, p. 285.
  150. ^ Teodor 1980, p. 7.
  151. ^ Barford 2001, p. 48.
  152. ^ a b Curta 2006, p. 57.
  153. ^ Teodor 2005, pp. 216–222.
  154. ^ a b Teodor 2005, pp. 221–222.
  155. ^ a b Teodor 1980, p. 11.
  156. ^ Barford 2001, pp. 201, 402.
  157. ^ Teodor 2005, pp. 234–235.
  158. ^ Barford 2001, p. 202.
  159. ^ Curta 2008, p. 201.
  160. ^ Curta 2001, pp. 81, 115.
  161. ^ Curta 2001, p. 81.
  162. ^ Barford 2001, p. 58.
  163. ^ Maurice's Strategikon (11.4.4-5), p. 120.
  164. ^ Curta 2005, p. 184.
  165. ^ Curta 2005, p. 332.
  166. ^ Procopius: History of the Wars (7.14.22.), p. 269.
  167. ^ Procopius: History of the Wars (7.14.33.), p. 275.
  168. ^ Curta 2001, pp. 79–80, 331–332.
  169. ^ Curta 2005, pp. 186, 196.
  170. ^ Barford 2001, p. 52.
  171. ^ Curta 2001, p. 309.
  172. ^ Curta 2008, pp. 185, 309.
  173. ^ Curta 2008, p. 185.
  174. ^ Curta 2001, pp. 295–297, 309.
  175. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 213, 401.
  176. ^ Treadgold 1997, pp. 220–221.
  177. ^ a b Engel 2001, pp. 2–3.
  178. ^ Urbańczyk 2005, p. 144.
  179. ^ a b Bóna 1994, p. 93.
  180. ^ Curta 2006, p. 65.
  181. ^ Barford 2001, p. 57.
  182. ^ Curta 2001, p. 115.
  183. ^ Barford 2001, pp. 60–61.
  184. ^ Curta 2001, p. 101.
  185. ^ The History of Theophylact Simocatta (vi. 9.1.), p. 172.
  186. ^ a b Madgearu 2005a, pp. 103, 117.
  187. ^ Barford 2001, pp. 79, 84.
  188. ^ Madgearu 2005a, p. 106.
  189. ^ Curta 2006, p. 92.
  190. ^ a b Fine 1991, p. 78.
  191. ^ Bolovan et al. 1997, p. 52.
  192. ^ Curta 2001, p. 291.
  193. ^ Teodor 1980, pp. 63–64.
  194. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 80–81.
  195. ^ Bóna 1994, pp. 98–99.
  196. ^ The Geography of Ananias of Şirak (L1881.3.9), p. 48.
  197. ^ a b c Bărbulescu 2005, p. 197.
  198. ^ a b Bóna 1994, p. 99.
  199. ^ a b Barford 2001, p. 76.
  200. ^ Madgearu 2005a, pp. 105, 119.
  201. ^ Madgearu 2005a, p. 104.
  202. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 36.
  203. ^ Bóna 1994, p. 98.
  204. ^ Kristó 2003, pp. 37–38.
  205. ^ Fine 1991, p. 43.
  206. ^ Fiedler 2008, p. 152.
  207. ^ Treadgold 1997, pp. 165–166.
  208. ^ Curta 2006, p. 80.
  209. ^ Fiedler 2008, pp. 153–154.
  210. ^ Curta 2006, p. 81.
  211. ^ Fiedler 2008, p. 154.
  212. ^ Fine 1991, p. 68.
  213. ^ Fiedler 2008, p. 157.
  214. ^ Fine 1991, p. 69.
  215. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 50, 87.
  216. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 127.
  217. ^ Fiedler 2008, p. 200.
  218. ^ Curta 2006, p. 89.
  219. ^ Teodor 1980, pp. 60–61.
  220. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 236.
  221. ^ Teodor 1980, p. 68.
  222. ^ a b c Opreanu 2005, p. 122.
  223. ^ Fiedler 2008, p. 159.
  224. ^ Madgearu 2005b, p. 68.
  225. ^ a b Fiedler 2008, p. 161.
  226. ^ a b Madgearu 2005b, p. 134.
  227. ^ Bóna 1994, pp. 101–102.
  228. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 35.
  229. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 17–20.
  230. ^ Royal Frankish Annals (year 824), p. 116.
  231. ^ Curta 2006, p. 157.
  232. ^ Curta 2006, p. 149.
  233. ^ Fine 1991, p. 99.
  234. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 56.
  235. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 57.
  236. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 154, 156–157, 159.
  237. ^ a b c d Curta 2006, p. 178.
  238. ^ Madgearu 2005b, p. 132.
  239. ^ Annals of Fulda (year 892), p. 124.
  240. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 59.
  241. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 58, 64.
  242. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 145.
  243. ^ a b Fine 1991, p. 138.
  244. ^ Stephenson 2000, p. 39.
  245. ^ a b c d Engel 2001, p. 11.
  246. ^ Madgearu 2005b, p. 39.
  247. ^ a b Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 11.), p. 33.
  248. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 140.
  249. ^ Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 50.), p. 109.
  250. ^ Macartney 1953, p. 81.
  251. ^ a b c Sălăgean 2005, p. 141.
  252. ^ Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 44.), p. 97.
  253. ^ a b Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 24.), p. 59.
  254. ^ Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 25.), p. 61.
  255. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 142.
  256. ^ Curta 2006, p. 168.
  257. ^ Treadgold 1997, p. 452.
  258. ^ Curta 2006, p. 177.
  259. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 221–222.
  260. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 143.
  261. ^ Curta, Florin (2022). "Bulgaria beyond the Danube: Water under the bridge, or is there more in the pipeline?". In Marcu Istrate, Daniela; Mureșan, Dan Ioan; Rustoiu, Gabriel Tiberiu (eds.). Christianization in Early Medieval Transylvania. Brill. pp. 57–78. ISBN 978-90-04-51586-4.
  262. ^ a b Stephenson 2000, pp. 51–58.
  263. ^ Fine 1991, pp. 187–189.
  264. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 152.
  265. ^ Fine 1991, pp. 198–199.
  266. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 102–103.
  267. ^ Stephenson 2000, p. 75.
  268. ^ Spinei 2003, p. 55.
  269. ^ Curta 2006, p. 188.
  270. ^ a b c Sălăgean 2005, p. 146.
  271. ^ Madgearu 2005b, pp. 21–22.
  272. ^ a b Georgescu 1991, p. 15.
  273. ^ Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 27.), p. 65.
  274. ^ Madgearu 2005b, p. 92.
  275. ^ The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle (ch. 28), p. 98.
  276. ^ a b Bóna 1994, pp. 114–115.
  277. ^ Madgearu 2005b, pp. 108–109.
  278. ^ a b Kristó 2003, p. 52.
  279. ^ Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 40), p. 177.
  280. ^ Stephenson 2000, pp. 43–44.
  281. ^ Curta 2006, p. 190.
  282. ^ Kristó 2003, pp. 61–62.
  283. ^ Vistai, András János, Tekintő: Erdélyi helynévkönyv, Második kötet, I–P (""Tekintő": Book on Transylvanian Toponymy, Volume II, I–P ") (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2011, retrieved 22 July 2012
  284. ^ Bóna 1994, p. 118.
  285. ^ Kristó 2003, pp. 58–59.
  286. ^ a b Curta 2006, p. 250.
  287. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 90.
  288. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 180, 183.
  289. ^ Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 37), p. 169.
  290. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 182–183.
  291. ^ Spinei 2003, p. 120.
  292. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 185–186.
  293. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 200.
  294. ^ Curta 2006, p. 186.
  295. ^ Curta 2006, p. 184.
  296. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 186–187.
  297. ^ Eymund's Saga (ch. 8.), pp. 79–80.
  298. ^ Spinei 2003, pp. 105, 125.
  299. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 54.
  300. ^ Curta 2006, p. 303.
  301. ^ Jesch 2001, pp. 257–258.
  302. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 54–55.
  303. ^ Jesch 2001, p. 258.
  304. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 52–53.
  305. ^ Stephenson 2000, pp. 89–90.
  306. ^ a b Spinei 2009, p. 117.
  307. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 126–127.
  308. ^ Fine 1991, p. 187.
  309. ^ Stephenson 2000, p. 55.
  310. ^ Stephenson 2000, p. 57.
  311. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 121–122.
  312. ^ Anna Comnena: The Alexiad (10.3.), p. 299.
  313. ^ Vékony 2000, p. 212.
  314. ^ Vékony 2000, p. 215.
  315. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 132.
  316. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 168.
  317. ^ Treptow & Popa 1996, p. xv.
  318. ^ a b Vékony 2000, pp. 27–29.
  319. ^ Engel 2001, p. 27.
  320. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 66.
  321. ^ Sălăgean 2005, pp. 150–151.
  322. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 248–250.
  323. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 42.
  324. ^ Hartwick, Life of King Stephen of Hungary (8), p. 383.
  325. ^ Curta 2006, p. 432.
  326. ^ Engel 2001, pp. 40–41.
  327. ^ Curta 2006, p. 355.
  328. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 160.
  329. ^ Kristó 2003, pp. 97–98.
  330. ^ a b Bóna 1994, p. 169.
  331. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 99.
  332. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 100.
  333. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 250–252.
  334. ^ Bóna 1994, pp. 162–163.
  335. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 250–251, 351.
  336. ^ Engel 2001, pp. 116–117.
  337. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 162.
  338. ^ Engel 2001, p. 115.
  339. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 133.
  340. ^ Kristó 2003, pp. 136–137.
  341. ^ Curta 2006, p. 352.
  342. ^ a b Curta 2006, p. 353.
  343. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 122.
  344. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 163.
  345. ^ a b Sălăgean 2005, p. 164.
  346. ^ Curta 2006, p. 354.
  347. ^ a b Makkai 1994, p. 189.
  348. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 140.
  349. ^ a b Engel 2001, p. 119.
  350. ^ Sălăgean 2005, pp. 171–172.
  351. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 147.
  352. ^ a b c Makkai 1994, p. 193.
  353. ^ a b Engel 2001, p. 95.
  354. ^ a b Sălăgean 2005, p. 173.
  355. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 246.
  356. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 257.
  357. ^ Vásáry 2005, pp. 42–47.
  358. ^ a b Curta 2006, p. 306.
  359. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 193–194.
  360. ^ Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus by John Kinnamos (6.3.261), p. 196.
  361. ^ Curta 2006, p. 317.
  362. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 298.
  363. ^ a b Curta 2006, p. 406.
  364. ^ a b Curta 2006, p. 408.
  365. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 409.
  366. ^ Vásáry 2005, p. 64.
  367. ^ Vásáry 2005, pp. 64–65.
  368. ^ a b c d Curta 2006, p. 410.
  369. ^ Master Roger's Epistle (ch. 20), p. 167.
  370. ^ Makkai 1994, p. 195.
  371. ^ a b The Successors of Genghis Khan (ch. 1.), p. 70.
  372. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 436–442.
  373. ^ Spinei 2009, p. 447.
  374. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 413–414.
  375. ^ Curta 2006, p. 414.
  376. ^ Vistai, András János, Tekintő: Erdélyi helynévkönyv, Első kötet, A–H (""Tekintő": Book on Transylvanian Toponymy, Volume II, A–H ") (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2011, retrieved 27 July 2012
  377. ^ Kristó 2003, pp. 156–157.
  378. ^ Vistai, András János, Tekintő: Erdélyi helynévkönyv, Harmadik kötet, Q–Zs (""Tekintő": Book on Transylvanian Toponymy, Volume II, Q–Zs") (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2011, retrieved 27 July 2012
  379. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 157.
  380. ^ Master Roger's Epistle (ch. 37), p. 213.
  381. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 2003.
  382. ^ a b Spinei 2009, p. 163.
  383. ^ Sălăgean 2005, pp. 179–183.
  384. ^ Sălăgean 2005, pp. 177–178.
  385. ^ Sălăgean 2005, p. 192.
  386. ^ a b Georgescu 1991, p. 17.

Sources

[edit]

Primary sources

[edit]
  • Ammianus Marcellinus: The Later Roman Empire (AD 354–378) (Selected and translated by Walter Hamilton, With an Introduction and Notes by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill) (2004). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044406-3.
  • Anna Comnena: The Alexiad (Translated by E. R. A. Sewter) (1969). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7.
  • Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (Edited, Translated and Annotated by Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy) (2010). In: Rady, Martyn; Veszprémy, László; Bak, János M. (2010); Anonymus and Master Roger; CEU Press; ISBN 978-963-9776-95-1.
  • Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (Greek text edited by Gyula Moravcsik, English translation b Romillyi J. H. Jenkins) (1967). Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. ISBN 0-88402-021-5.
  • Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus by John Kinnamos (Translated by Charles M. Brand) (1976). Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04080-6.
  • Eymund's Saga (1989). In Vikings in Russia: Yngvar's Saga and Eymund's Saga (Translated and Introduced by Hermann Palsson and Paul Edwards). Edingburgh University Press. pp. 69–89. ISBN 0-85224-623-4.
  • Eutropius: Breviarium (Translated with an introduction and commentary by H. W. Bird) (1993). Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0-85323-208-3.
  • Genethliacus of Maximian Augustus by an Anonymous Orator (291) (Translation and Notes by Rodgers) (1994). In: In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini (Introduction, Translation, and Historical Commentary with the Latin Text of R. A. B. Mynors by C. E. V. Nixon and Barbara Saylor Rodgers) (1994); University of California Press; ISBN 0-520-08326-1.
  • Hartvic, Life of King Stephen of Hungary (Translated by Nora Berend) (2001). In: Head, Thomas (2001); Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology; Routledge; ISBN 0-415-93753-1.
  • Master Roger's Epistle to the Sorrowful Lament upon the Destruction of the Kingdom of Hungary by the Tatars (Translated and Annotated by János M. Bak and Martyn Rady) (2010). In: Rady, Martyn; Veszprémy, László; Bak, János M. (2010); Anonymus and Master Roger; CEU Press; ISBN 978-963-9776-95-1.
  • Maurice's Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy (Translated by George T. Dennis) (1984). University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-1772-1.
  • Philostorgius: Church History (Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Philip R. Amidon, S. J.) (2007). Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN 978-1-58983-215-2.
  • Procopius: History of the Wars (Books VI.16–VII.35.) (With an English Translation by H. B. Dewing) (2006). Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-99191-5.
  • Royal Frankish Annals (1972). In: Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard's Histories (Translated by Bernhard Walter Scholz with Barbara Rogers); The University of Michigan Press; ISBN 0-472-06186-0.
  • The Annals of Fulda (Ninth-Century Histories, Volume II) (Translated and annotated by Timothy Reuter) (1992). Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-3458-2.
  • The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813 (Translated with Introduction and Commentary by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex) (2006). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822568-3.
  • The Geography of Ananias of Širak (AŠXARHAC’OYC’): The Long and the Short Recensions (Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Robert H. Hewsen) (1992). Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. ISBN 3-88226-485-3.
  • The Gothic History of Jordanes (in English Version with an Introduction and a Commentary by Charles Christopher Mierow, Ph.D., Instructor in Classics in Princeton University) (2006). Evolution Publishing. ISBN 1-889758-77-9.
  • The History of Theophylact Simocatta (An English Translation with Introduction and Notes: Michael and Mary Whitby) (1986). Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-822799-X.
  • The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle: Chronica de Gestis Hungarorum (Edited by Dezső Dercsényi) (1970). Corvina, Taplinger Publishing. ISBN 0-8008-4015-1.
  • The Successors of Genghis Khan (Translated from the Persian of Rashīd Al-Dīn by John Andrew Boyle) (1971). Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-03351-6.

Secondary sources

[edit]
  • Barford, P. M. (2001). The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3977-9.
  • Bărbulescu, Mihai (2005). "From the Romans until the End of the First Millenium AD". In Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Nägler, Thomas (eds.). The History of Transylvania, Vol. I. (until 1541). Romanian Cultural Institute. pp. 137–198. ISBN 973-7784-04-9.
  • Bolovan, Ioan; Constantiniu, Florin; Michelson, Paul E.; Pop, Ioan Aurel; Popa, Cristian; Popa, Marcel; Scurtu, Ioan; Treptow, Kurt W.; Vultur, Marcela; Watts, Larry L. (1997). A History of Romania. The Center for Romanian Studies. ISBN 973-98091-0-3.
  • Bóna, István (1994). "From Dacia to Transylvania: The Period of the Great Migrations (271–895); The Hungarian–Slav Period (895–1172)". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit (eds.). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 62–177. ISBN 963-05-6703-2.
  • Curta, Florin (2001). The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Curta, Florin (2005). "Frontier Ethnogenesis in Late Antiquity: The Danube, the Tervingi, and the Slavs". In Curta, Florin (ed.). Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Brepols. pp. 173–204. ISBN 2-503-51529-0.
  • Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Curta, Florin (2008). "Before Cyril and Methodius: Christianity and Barbarians beyond the Sixth- and Seventh-Century Danube Frontier". In Curta, Florin (ed.). East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 181–219. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.
  • Ellis, L. (1998). "Terra deserta: population, politics, and the [de]colonization of Dacia". In Shennan, Stephen (ed.). Population and Demography (World Archaeology, Volume Thirty, Number Two). Routledge. pp. 220–237. ISSN 0043-8243.
  • Engel, Pál (2001). The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. I.B. Tauris Publishers. ISBN 1-86064-061-3.
  • Fiedler, Uwe (2008). "Bulgars in the Lower Danube region: A survey of the archaeological evidence and of the state of current research". In Curta, Florin; Kovalev, Roman (eds.). The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. Brill. pp. 151–236. ISBN 978-90-04-16389-8.
  • Fine, John V. A (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth century. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.
  • Georgescu, Vlad (1991). The Romanians: A History. Ohio State University Press. ISBN 0-8142-0511-9.
  • Hall, Robert A. Jr. (1974). External History of the Romance Languages. American Elsevier Publishing Company. ISBN 0-444-00136-0.
  • Haynes, I. P.; Hanson, W. S. (2004). "An introduction to Roman Dacia". In Haynes, I. P.; Hanson, W. S. (eds.). Roman Dacia: The Making of a Provincial Society (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, Number 56). Journal of Roman Archaeology, L.L.C. pp. 11–31. ISBN 1-887829-56-3.
  • Heather, Peter; Matthews, John (1991). The Goths in the Fourth Century (Translated Texts for Historians, Volume 11). Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-0-85323-426-5.
  • Heather, Peter (2006). The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515954-7.
  • Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973560-0.
  • Jesch, Judith (2001). Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-0-85115-826-6.
  • Kristó, Gyula (2003). Early Transylvania (895-1324). Lucidus Kiadó. ISBN 963-9465-12-7.
  • Macartney, C. A. (1953). The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical & Analytical Guide. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-08051-4. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
  • MacKendrick, Paul (1975). The Dacian Stones Speak. The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-1226-9.
  • Madgearu, Alexandru (2005a). "Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania". In Curta, Florin (ed.). East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 103–120. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.
  • Madgearu, Alexandru (2005b). The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum: Truth and Fiction. Romanian Cultural Institute, Center for Transylvanian Studies. ISBN 973-7784-01-4.
  • Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J. (1973). The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture (Edited by Max Knight). University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-01596-7.
  • Makkai, László (1994). "The Emergence of the Estates (1172–1526)". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit (eds.). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 178–243. ISBN 963-05-6703-2.
  • Mallinson, Graham (1998). "Rumanian". In Harris, Martin; Vincent, Nigel (eds.). The Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 391–419. ISBN 0-19-520829-3.
  • Nandris, Grigore (December 1951). "The Development and Structure of Rumanian". The Slavonic and East European Review. 30 (74). London: Modern Humanities Research Association & University College of London (School of Slavonic and East European Studies): 7–39.
  • Opreanu, Coriolan Horaţiu (2005). "The North-Danube Regions from the Roman Province of Dacia to the Emergence of the Romanian Language (2nd–8th Centuries AD)". In Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (eds.). History of Romania: Compendium. Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). pp. 59–132. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4.
  • Orel, Vladimir (1998). Albanian Etymological Dictionary. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-11024-0.
  • Petrucci, Peter R. (1999). Slavic Features in the History of Rumanian. LINCOM EUROPA. ISBN 3-89586-599-0.
  • Sălăgean, Tudor (2005). "Romanian Society in the Early Middle Ages (9th–14th Centuries AD)". In Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (eds.). History of Romania: Compendium. Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). pp. 133–207. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4.
  • Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century. Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies) and Museum of Brăila Istros Publishing House. ISBN 973-85894-5-2.
  • Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.
  • Stephenson, Paul (2000). Byzantium's Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-02756-4.
  • Teodor, Dan Gh. (1980). The East Carpathian Area of Romania in the V-XI Centuries A.D. (BAR International Series 81). B. A. R. ISBN 0-86054-090-1.
  • Teodor, Eugen S. (2005). "The Shadow of a Frontier: The Wallachian Plain during the Justinian Age". In Curta, Florin (ed.). Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Brepols. pp. 205–245. ISBN 2-503-51529-0.
  • Thompson, E. A. (2001). The Huns. Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 0-631-15899-5.
  • Todd, Malcolm (2003). The Early Germans. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-631-16397-2.
  • Tóth, Endre (1994). "The Roman Province of Dacia". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit (eds.). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 28–61. ISBN 963-05-6703-2.
  • Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2.
  • Treptow, Kurt W.; Popa, Marcel (1996). Historical Dictionary of Romania. Scarecrow Press, Inc. ISBN 0-8108-3179-1.
  • Urbańczyk, Przemysław (2005). "Early State Formation in East Central Europe". In Curta, Florin (ed.). East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 139–151. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.
  • Vásáry, István (2005). Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-83756-1.
  • Vékony, Gábor (2000). Dacians, Romans, Romanians. Matthias Corvinus Publishing. ISBN 1-882785-13-4.
  • Wolfram, Herwig (1988). History of the Goths. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06983-8.
  • Wolfram, Herwig (1997). The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. ISBN 0-520-08511-6.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Romania in the Early Middle Ages

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![Map of Roman Dacia](./assets/Roman_province_of_Dacia_(106_-_271_AD) The territory comprising modern Romania in the Early Middle Ages, roughly from the 5th to the 10th century, was a peripheral zone of Europe subjected to repeated incursions and settlements by migrating peoples following the Roman Empire's abandonment of Dacia in 271 AD, resulting in the dominance of Germanic tribes like the Gepids, steppe nomads such as the Huns and Avars, and later Slavic and Bulgar groups, with limited archaeological traces of continuous Romanized habitation amid widespread demographic upheaval. This era, part of the broader Migration Period extending into Slavic ethnogenesis, saw the Carpathian-Danubian basin serve as a conduit for transhumant warriors and herders, evidenced by burial mounds, weapon hoards, and fortified sites reflecting Gepid and Avar material cultures before the imposition of Bulgarian overlordship in the 8th-9th centuries. Archaeological findings, including shifted settlement patterns to defensible sub-Carpathian areas and the prevalence of incineration-to-inhumation transitions in graves, indicate cultural blending and insecurity rather than stable polities, challenging claims of unbroken Daco-Roman societal persistence north of the Danube. A central controversy concerns the origins of the Romanian ethnos, where the Daco-Roman continuity theory—positing survival of Latin-speaking provincials in situ despite invasions—relies heavily on linguistic affinities and selective toponymy but lacks robust support from contemporary records, which omit reference to such a group until centuries later, or from genetics revealing Balkan-wide admixture patterns consistent with southward retreats and northward re-migrations post-Avar decline. Critics, drawing on the absence of Roman-style inscriptions or urban continuity after the 4th century, argue this narrative serves modern national identity over empirical reconstruction, as successive overlords like the Avars facilitated Slavic settlement that demographically overwhelmed any residual Romanized elements.

Roman Foundations

Conquest and Organization of Dacia

The Roman conquest of Dacia was initiated by Emperor Trajan to neutralize the military threat posed by King Decebalus, whose forces had raided Moesia and fortified strategic positions with Roman aid. The First Dacian War commenced in 101 AD, with Trajan crossing the Danube via a pontoon bridge and advancing to besiege the Dacian capital Sarmizegethusa Regia; despite initial Dacian resistance, including scorched-earth tactics, Roman legions captured key strongholds, forcing Decebalus to sue for peace in 102 AD under terms that dismantled his fortifications, surrendered territories, and required hostages. Decebalus soon violated the treaty by rebuilding defenses and attempting to reclaim lost lands, prompting Trajan to launch the Second Dacian War in 105 AD with an army exceeding 150,000 troops supported by auxiliary forces and naval elements. Roman engineering feats, such as Trajan's Bridge over the Danube, facilitated a multi-pronged invasion; after prolonged sieges and battles, including the fall of Sarmizegethusa in 106 AD, Decebalus fled and committed suicide to avoid capture, as documented by Roman sources. The conquest yielded vast spoils, estimated at over 165 tons of gold and 330 tons of silver from Dacian treasuries, bolstering imperial finances. Following annexation in 106 AD, Dacia was organized as a single imperial province under a consular governor responsible for both civil and military administration, with three legions—Legio XIII Gemina, Legio IV Flavia Felix, and initially Legio V Macedonica—stationed at key forts like Apulum and Potaissa to secure the Transylvanian plateau and mineral-rich regions. Urban centers emerged, including the provincial capital Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegethusa, founded as a colonia for veterans, alongside municipia such as Apulum, emphasizing Latin settlement to exploit gold mines and agriculture. Administrative divisions occurred under Hadrian around 119 AD, splitting the province into Dacia Superior (core mining areas in the Carpathians, governed by a consular legate) and Dacia Inferior (along the Danube, under a praetorian procurator), reflecting the need to manage vast territories and integrate local Dacian elements under Roman law while prioritizing resource extraction. Further subdivisions by Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius created Dacia Porolissensis and Dacia Malvensis from Superior, enhancing local governance through conventus districts and veteran colonies to foster loyalty and economic output.

Romanization Processes and Daco-Roman Population

![Map of Roman Dacia](./assets/Roman_province_of_Dacia_(106_-_271_AD\ ) Following the Roman conquest of Dacia in 106 AD under Emperor Trajan, Romanization involved the establishment of urban centers, infrastructure development, and cultural assimilation to integrate the province into the empire's administrative and economic systems. Key processes included the founding of colonies such as Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, built by legate Terentius Scaurianus approximately 40 miles from the Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa Regia, serving as a strategic hub equidistant from legions at Apulum and Berzobis. Urbanization accelerated under Septimius Severus, granting Sarmizegetusa the title of metropolis, while epigraphic evidence from sites like Potaissa reflects Roman social structures and Latin dominance in public life. Infrastructure such as roads, mining operations, and military forts facilitated economic exploitation, particularly gold and salt, promoting the spread of Roman administrative practices and material culture. The indigenous Dacian population, estimated to have survived the conquest in significant numbers as farmers, miners, and auxiliary recruits, underwent gradual acculturation, though the elite was largely annihilated, limiting native political influence. Roman colonists, primarily Latin-speakers comprising 74-76% of settlers based on onomastic analysis of inscriptions, originated from Italy, the western provinces, and veteran discharges, with diverse groups from the eastern empire adding multicultural elements. Total provincial population estimates range from 650,000 to 1,200,000, bolstered by large-scale immigration that filled demographic gaps post-conquest devastation. Interactions between Romans and Dacians occurred mainly in peripheral rural areas, with urban centers showing minimal Dacian cultural traces, indicating a top-down imposition of Roman norms rather than mutual integration. The Daco-Roman population emerged from this fusion, characterized by the adoption of Vulgar Latin as the lingua franca, evidenced by the scarcity of Dacian names in epigraphy and the persistence of Latin in provincial records. Religious practices revealed immigrant enclaves maintaining distinct identities alongside Roman deities, suggesting incomplete assimilation in some spheres. Archaeological and epigraphic data indicate that while Romanization was pronounced in military and urban contexts, rural Dacian communities retained elements of native settlement patterns, contributing to a hybrid socio-economic fabric by the 3rd century AD. Limits to the process are apparent in the unilateral nature of Roman dominance, as depicted in monuments like the Tropaeum Traiani at Adamklissi, which emphasize conquest over reconciliation. This formed the basis for a latinized provincial society, though debates persist on the depth of native incorporation due to sparse direct evidence of Dacian perspectives.

Withdrawal of Roman Forces and Limes Reconstruction

In 271 AD, during the Crisis of the Third Century, Emperor Aurelian ordered the systematic withdrawal of Roman legions, administration, and portions of the civilian population from Dacia Traiana north of the Danube River. The primary legions affected were Legio V Macedonica, based at Potassa, and Legio XIII Gemina, stationed at Apulum, which were redeployed south of the Danube to address pressing threats elsewhere in the empire. This evacuation responded to intensified incursions by Dacian tribes like the Carpi, Germanic Goths, and Sarmatian groups, rendering the province's extended frontier unsustainable amid Rome's overstretched resources and simultaneous conflicts with the Palmyrene and Gallic breakaway states. Ancient sources, including Eutropius and the Historia Augusta, describe the move as a pragmatic consolidation rather than outright defeat, emphasizing Aurelian's focus on reunifying the core empire by shortening the defensive line along the Danube. Inscriptions and numismatic evidence, such as coins inscribed "Dacia Felix" minted at Mediolanum, corroborate the relocation of troops and the strategic reframing of the abandonment as a restorative act. While not all inhabitants were evacuated—some Romanized settlers likely remained amid the retreating forces—the official Roman presence north of the Danube ceased, marking the end of direct imperial control over the province established by Trajan in 106 AD. To compensate for the territorial loss, Aurelian reorganized the limes by establishing Dacia Aureliana, a new province south of the Danube encompassing parts of former Moesia Superior and Inferior, with administrative centers including Serdica. This involved reconstructing and fortifying the Danubian frontier, shifting earlier defenses like the Limes Transalutanus (abandoned after Carpic wars post-245 AD) to a consolidated line along the Olt River and Danube proper. Relocated legions manned newly reinforced forts, roads, and watchtowers, enhancing the barrier against barbarian crossings; archaeological findings of rebuilt castra and infrastructure in Moesia underscore this militarization. Later subdivisions under Diocletian into Dacia Ripensis (capital Ratiaria) and Dacia Mediterranea further stabilized the reconfigured limes, preserving Roman influence in the region into the 4th century.

Ethnogenesis of the Romanians

Daco-Roman Continuity Hypothesis

The Daco-Roman continuity hypothesis maintains that the Romanian people originated from the intermingling of indigenous Dacians and Roman colonists in the province of Dacia, established after Trajan's conquest in 106 AD, with this mixed population enduring in situ after Emperor Aurelian's withdrawal of legions and administration to the south of the Danube around 275 AD. Proponents contend that the Daco-Roman synthesis produced a Latin-speaking rural majority that withstood subsequent Germanic, Hunnic, and other migrations by retreating to defensible Carpathian highlands and maintaining cultural and linguistic cohesion. This view emerged in the 19th century amid Romanian national awakening, with early articulations by figures like Mihail Kogălniceanu emphasizing Roman heritage to legitimize cultural ties to antiquity, later formalized in interwar historiography by scholars such as Nicolae Iorga, who argued for demographic persistence based on inferred population densities exceeding 500,000 Roman-era inhabitants in Dacia. Linguistic arguments form the core evidence, highlighting Romanian as the sole Romance language developing east of the Danube with a core vocabulary of over 1,700 Latin-derived terms adapted to a Balkan context, including unique phonetic shifts like the passage of Latin cl to cl or ch (e.g., clavis to cheie for key). Advocates point to approximately 160 substrate words of presumed Dacian origin—pre-Latin terms integrated into proto-Romanian, such as brânză (cheese, from Dacian branzea), măgar (donkey), and vatră (hearth)—as indicating a non-Italic indigenous base fused with Vulgar Latin spoken by colonists, soldiers, and slaves from across the empire. Toponymic persistence, including Latin-derived names like Alba (from Roman Apulum) and Napoca, is cited as further proof of unbroken settlement, contrasting with the Slavic overlay south of the Jireček Line. Archaeological claims invoke continuity in material culture, such as late Roman pottery styles and rural villae rusticae in Transylvania persisting into the 4th-5th centuries, with some excavations at sites like Târgșoru Vechi revealing post-Aurelianan occupation layers attributed to Daco-Roman holdouts. Historical references, including Byzantine chronicles mentioning Blachernai or Vlachs in the Balkans by the 10th-11th centuries, are interpreted as traces of northward continuity rather than southward migration. However, these interpretations rely heavily on inferential reasoning from sparse data, as direct epigraphic or literary records of Romance speakers north of the Danube cease after 271 AD, prompting debates over whether such evidence suffices against the demographic disruptions of 4th-6th century invasions.

Immigrationist Perspectives

The immigrationist perspective asserts that the ethnogenesis of the Romanians occurred predominantly south of the Danube River, in Roman provinces such as Moesia Inferior, Scythia Minor, and Dacia Aureliana, where Latin-speaking populations underwent more sustained Romanization amid prolonged imperial presence until the 7th century AD. Proponents contend that after Emperor Aurelian's withdrawal of Roman legions and administration from Dacia Traiana in 271 AD, the territory north of the Danube experienced near-total depopulation of Romanized Dacians, followed by layered barbarian settlements—including Goths from the 3rd century, Gepids in the 5th-6th centuries, Huns around 370-450 AD, Avars from circa 568 AD, Slavs in the 6th-7th centuries, and Bulgars in the late 7th century—that obliterated any residual Latin continuity. These migrations, documented in sources like Jordanes' Getica (6th century) and Procopius' Wars (6th century), are seen as creating a linguistic and cultural vacuum north of the river, incompatible with the survival of a cohesive Daco-Roman population. Pioneered by 19th-century scholars like Robert Rösler in Romänische Studien (1871), the theory posits that proto-Romanians (termed Vlachs in Byzantine and Western records) emerged from the fusion of Roman colonists with indigenous Thracians and Illyrians south of the Danube, adopting a semi-nomadic pastoral economy that facilitated later northward movements. Rösler argued, based on linguistic analysis and toponymic evidence, that Romanian place names north of the Danube lack early Romance roots, instead reflecting Slavic or Hungarian overlays, implying immigration rather than autochthonous development. This view gained traction among Hungarian and German academics amid 19th-century disputes over Transylvania, where it challenged Romanian claims to prehistoric continuity by emphasizing the pastoral Vlachs' first documented appearances in the Balkans, such as in the 976 AD Byzantine Strategikon of Kekaumenos, and their gradual infiltration into the Carpathians and Transylvania by the 11th-12th centuries, as noted in charters like the 1100s Hungarian royal diplomas mentioning "Blac" settlers. Supporting arguments draw on archaeological sparsity north of the Danube, where post-3rd-century finds show no significant Latin inscriptions, urban continuity, or Christian basilicas until the 10th century, contrasting with denser Roman material culture south of the river persisting into the early medieval period. Linguistically, Romanian's heavy South Slavic substrate (over 170 words, including core agricultural and pastoral terms) and Balkan-specific phonetic shifts are interpreted as evidence of formation in a South Danubian milieu amid Slavic expansions from the 6th century onward, rather than isolated northern preservation. Variants in Polish historiography, advanced by Ilona Czamańska, incorporate ethnological data on Vlach transhumance patterns, portraying migrations as incremental population movements from Balkan highlands into depopulated Carpathian basins during Avar-Slavic disruptions (6th-9th centuries) and Bulgar ascendancy.

Empirical Evidence and Ongoing Debates

Archaeological investigations reveal a marked discontinuity in Romanized material culture north of the Danube after the province's abandonment around 271 AD, with no sustained evidence of urban or rural Latin settlements persisting amid subsequent Gothic, Sarmatian, Gepid, and Avar occupations. Excavations in former Dacia, such as at sites like Apulum and Sarmizegetusa Regia, yield late Roman artifacts tapering sharply by the early 4th century, followed by nomadic and Germanic horizons lacking Romance linguistic or architectural markers until the 10th–11th centuries, when rudimentary pottery and dwellings in regions like Alba Iulia emerge, potentially linked to southward-migrating groups. This absence challenges claims of unbroken Daco-Roman habitation, as barbarian layers overlay without hybrid Roman-Germanic phases indicative of stable Latin-speaking communities. Linguistic analysis supports a Balkan provenance for proto-Romanian, with the language exhibiting shared innovations with other Eastern Romance varieties (e.g., Aromanian) and a modest Daco-Thracian substrate of approximately 150–160 terms (e.g., brânză for cheese, vatră for hearth), but these features align more closely with southern Thraco-Roman contact zones than isolated northern survival. Romanian phonology and syntax, including postposed articles and case mergers, reflect prolonged Slavic overlay during 6th–9th century migrations, inconsistent with a Carpathian refuge preserving Vulgar Latin amid Germanic dominance. Critics of continuity note the scarcity of Dacian lexical attestation—only about 50 words reliably identified—undermining assertions of substantial substrate influence from Dacia proper, favoring instead a formation south of the Danube where Romanized provincials interacted with Thracian dialects. Historical records provide scant pre-10th-century attestation of Romance-speakers north of the Danube, with the earliest unambiguous references to "Blachs" or Vlachs appearing in Byzantine sources like those of Al-Muqaddasi (ca. 985 AD) for the Haemus region, and Hungarian charters documenting their presence in Transylvania only from 1222–1224 AD onward, often portraying them as transhumant pastoralists entering from the south. No contemporary Frankish, Byzantine, or Slavic annals mention Latin continuity in Dacia during the 4th–9th centuries, a silence immigrationists attribute to demographic replacement rather than mere oversight. Genetic studies, drawing on ancient DNA from 1st-millennium Balkan sites, indicate that modern Romanians derive primarily from pre-Slavic Balkan populations with limited direct Roman settler input (less than 10% Mediterranean-like ancestry), augmented by 20–40% Slavic components post-6th century, clustering closely with southern neighbors like Bulgarians and Albanians rather than isolated northern isolates. Autosomal profiles show continuity from Iron Age Thracians/Dacians in the Balkans but reveal population turnovers in the Carpathian basin, with Transylvanian samples exhibiting higher steppe and Germanic admixtures until medieval Vlach influxes. Y-chromosome haplogroups (e.g., dominant E-V13 and I-M423 of paleo-Balkan origin) support local substrate but do not pinpoint northern Dacian retention, as similar markers prevail south of the Danube. Ongoing debates hinge on interpretive frameworks: proponents of Daco-Roman continuity, predominant in Romanian academia since the 19th century, emphasize linguistic Latinity and putative mountain refugia to argue for in-situ ethnogenesis, often prioritizing national historiography over multidisciplinary gaps. Immigrationist views, advanced in international scholarship, posit proto-Romanian formation among Romanized Daco-Thracians south of the Danube (ca. 4th–10th centuries), with northward migrations filling post-Avar vacuums, better reconciling evidentiary voids in northern archaeology and records. Romanian institutional bias toward continuity—evident in state-endorsed narratives despite archaeological critiques—contrasts with causal analyses favoring demographic realism, where successive invasions likely displaced or assimilated any residual Romanized elements, rendering full northern persistence improbable without textual or artifactual corroboration. Recent genetic syntheses tilt against strict continuity, highlighting hybrid Balkan origins over Carpathian isolation, though debates persist amid politicized claims in Hungarian-Romanian historiographies.

Germanic Migrations and Dominance

Gothic Incursions and Gutthiuda

Gothic tribes, originating from regions north of the Carpathians, initiated incursions into Roman territories along the Black Sea coast around 235 AD, targeting Greek colonies and advancing toward the Danube frontier. These raids escalated into major invasions during the Crisis of the Third Century, with a significant campaign in 249–251 AD under Kniva, where Gothic forces defeated and killed Emperor Decius at the Battle of Abritus near modern Razgrad, Bulgaria, marking the first Roman emperor to perish in battle against barbarians. Another large-scale incursion occurred in 267–269 AD, involving Gothic and Herulian fleets that ravaged the Aegean and Balkans, before Emperor Claudius II decisively repelled them at the Battle of Naissus in 269 AD. The cumulative pressure from these Gothic offensives contributed to Emperor Aurelian's strategic withdrawal of Roman legions and administration from Dacia between 271 and 275 AD, abandoning the province beyond the Danube to consolidate defenses along the river limes. In the ensuing vacuum, Gothic groups, primarily the Tervingi (later known as Visigoths), established dominance over former Dacian territories, including Wallachia, Moldavia, and parts of Transylvania, while the Greuthungi (Ostrogoths) controlled areas east of the Dniester River. This Gothic hegemony manifested as the Gutthiuda, or "land of the Goths," a loosely organized realm spanning roughly from the late 3rd to mid-4th century AD, centered in the region between the Carpathians, Danube, and Black Sea. Archaeological correlates include the Chernyakhov culture (c. 200–400 AD), which featured hillforts, wheel-turned pottery, and ironworking indicative of a semi-urbanized, multiethnic society incorporating Gothic elites alongside local Daco-Sarmatian elements. Elite Gothic artifacts, such as the late 4th-century Pietroasele hoard—comprising over 20 gold items weighing approximately 20 kilograms, including a neckring inscribed with runes—underscore the wealth and artistic sophistication of Gutthiuda's rulers, likely buried in a princely tomb near modern Pietroasele, Buzău County. Under kings like Ariaric and Aoric, as recorded in later accounts, the Goths maintained tributary relations with the Roman Empire while conducting occasional raids, fostering a period of relative stability until the Hunnic incursions of 375 AD disrupted their control. Evidence of direct interaction with surviving Daco-Roman populations remains sparse, with linguistic and genetic traces of Gothic influence minimal in later Romanian ethnogenesis.

Gepid Establishments in Dacia

The Gepids, an East Germanic tribe previously subjugated by the Huns, achieved independence following their decisive victory at the Battle of Nedao in 454 AD, where King Ardaric commanded a coalition that defeated Hunnic forces led by Ellac, son of Attila. This triumph enabled the Gepids to seize control of extensive territories in the Carpathian Basin, incorporating regions of former Roman Dacia north of the Danube, notably Transylvania and adjacent areas. Their expansion into Dacia filled the power vacuum left by the Hunnic collapse, with settlements concentrated in the western and northern parts of the province rather than the eastern plains. Archaeological findings attest to Gepid establishments in Transylvania starting in the mid-5th century, including row cemeteries and fortified sites that reflect a semi-nomadic to sedentary transition. A key settlement hub emerged around the ancient Roman city of Napoca (present-day Cluj-Napoca) in the Someșul Mic Valley, where artifacts such as pottery, weapons, and fibulae bearing Germanic motifs indicate organized communities. Elite burials, exemplified by those in the Apahida necropolis near Cluj, contained lavish grave goods like gold rings, swords, and garnet-inlaid jewelry, signifying the presence of a ruling warrior class. Genetic evidence from mitochondrial DNA extracted from Transylvanian Gepid skeletal remains corroborates their Germanic heritage, revealing haplogroups prevalent in northern European populations and distinct from contemporaneous local groups. These settlements in Dacia, while integral to the broader Gepid kingdom known as Gepidia, were strategically positioned to control passes through the Carpathians and trade routes, though eastern Dacian zones like Wallachia saw minimal Gepid habitation, serving primarily as military frontiers. The Gepids maintained autonomy in these areas through alliances and conflicts with neighboring Ostrogoths and Byzantines until their kingdom's destruction by the Lombards in 567 AD.

Hunnic Conquests and Dissolution

The Huns initiated their incursions into the Carpathian Basin, encompassing the former Roman Dacia region of modern Romania, during the early 5th century AD, subjugating local Germanic groups including the Gepids who had previously established settlements there. Under leaders such as Rua (r. c. 432–434 AD) and his nephew Attila (r. 434–453 AD), the Huns imposed overlordship, compelling the Gepids and other tribes to provide tribute and military service while maintaining nomadic control rather than widespread settlement. This phase integrated the area north of the Danube into the Hunnic sphere, with the Huns leveraging the region's strategic position for campaigns against the Eastern Roman Empire, though direct Hunnic presence remained transient and overlord-like. Archaeological traces of Hunnic activity in Romania are sparse, reflecting their mobile lifestyle, but include a "princely" warrior tomb unearthed in 2023 near a motorway construction site, containing horse gear and weapons consistent with 5th-century steppe nomadic elites associated with the Huns. Genetic studies of period remains further indicate diverse steppe influences in the region, linking local populations to broader Hunnic-era migrations without evidence of mass Hunnic demographic replacement. The Huns extracted resources and auxiliaries from the area, but their rule disrupted prior Gepid dominance without establishing permanent administrative structures. Attila's sudden death in 453 AD triggered succession disputes among his sons, culminating in the Battle of Nedao in 454 AD in Pannonia, where a coalition led by Gepid king Ardaric decisively defeated Hunnic forces under Ellac, Attila's eldest son. This defeat fragmented the Hunnic Empire, ending centralized control over the Carpathian Basin and enabling the Gepids to reassert independence and reclaim territories in eastern Pannonia and Dacia. The rapid dissolution dispersed remnant Hunnic groups, with surviving elements retreating eastward or assimilating into subject populations, thus restoring Germanic tribal autonomy in the region by the mid-5th century.

Avar Supremacy and Slavic Expansions

Avar Khaganate Establishment

The Pannonian Avars, a nomadic confederation likely incorporating elements of Turkic, Iranian, and other steppe groups fleeing Göktürk dominance, entered European historical records in 558 CE through diplomatic contacts with Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, promising military service against common foes in exchange for asylum. Under Khagan Bayan I, who consolidated leadership circa 562 CE, the Avars advanced westward from the Pontic steppes, leveraging superior cavalry tactics and composite bows to subdue intervening groups. By 565 CE, they had subjugated the Kutrigurs and other Black Sea nomads, amassing a force estimated at 100,000–200,000 warriors and dependents based on contemporary Byzantine accounts of their migratory scale. In 567 CE, Bayan I allied with the Lombard king Alboin against the Gepids, whose kingdom spanned the Carpathian Basin including Dacia's eastern fringes and Transylvanian approaches; this coalition decisively crushed Gepid forces in battles near the Tisza River, annihilating their royal line and scattering remnants. With the Gepids eliminated, the Lombards vacated Pannonia for Italy in 568 CE under Avar pressure, enabling Bayan to claim the power vacuum and establish the Avar khaganate's core in the Pannonian Basin—a fertile steppe-and-riverine zone vital for pastoral nomadism. The khaganate's dual leadership structure emerged here, with Bayan as sacred khagan and his son a functional military deputy, enforcing tribute from subjugated Slavs and remnants of prior Germanic polities. Archaeological corroboration includes early Avar cauldrons, horse burials, and steppe-style grave goods dated to 568–600 CE in the Banat and western Transylvania, regions overlapping former Gepid strongholds and indicating rapid settlement by an elite warrior class. Genetic analyses of 7th-century burials further reveal an initial Avar influx from East-Central Asia, distinct from local populations, with patrilineal continuity among elites suggesting hierarchical imposition over indigenous groups in the Carpathian rimlands. This foundation phase solidified Avar hegemony through fortified ring-ditched settlements (Kringgräben) and annual raids extracting Byzantine subsidies—up to 80,000 gold solidi by 582 CE—fueling a militarized economy. In the Romanian territories, Avar control facilitated Slavic inflows as tributaries, altering demographic patterns without fully displacing pre-existing Daco-Roman or Germanic substrates.

Slavic Invasions and Balkan Settlements

The Slavic incursions into the Balkans began with raids across the Danube River in the mid-6th century, as recorded by the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea, who described groups known as Sclaveni launching attacks on Thrace and Illyricum starting around 539–550 AD, exploiting weaknesses in Byzantine defenses amid wars with Persia and internal strife. These early expeditions involved small bands numbering in the thousands, employing light infantry tactics, riverine navigation, and seasonal retreats, which inflicted significant disruption on urban centers and rural economies without immediate large-scale conquest. By the late 6th century, Slavic movements intensified in coordination with the Avar Khaganate, whose cavalry forces enabled deeper penetrations; between 582 and 602 AD, under emperors Maurice and Phocas, combined Avar-Slavic forces overran much of the Balkan interior, sacking cities like Singidunum (Belgrade) in 582 and reaching as far as the Peloponnese by 586. Permanent settlements followed these campaigns, with Slavic communities establishing agrarian villages characterized archaeologically by semi-dugout dwellings, handmade pottery with stamped decoration (e.g., the Prague-Korchak type), and iron tools, supplanting earlier Roman provincial material culture across Thrace, Moesia, and Illyricum. These migrations, estimated to involve tens of thousands of settlers, were driven by population pressures from the Pontic steppes and climatic shifts favoring southward expansion, leading to depopulation of lowland areas and forest clearance for slash-and-burn agriculture. In the former Roman province of Dacia north of the Danube, Slavic groups infiltrated the intra-Carpathian basins and Wallachian plains from the second half of the 6th century, under Avar overlordship that extended influence into the Banat and Transylvanian fringes. Archaeological evidence from sites in eastern Transylvania and the Moldavian plateau reveals early Slavic horizons, including pit-houses and cremation burials dated 580–650 AD, indicating small-scale colonization amid remnant Gepidic and local populations, though without evidence of total displacement. The 7th-century Armenian geographer Ananias of Shirak described the "large country of Dacia" as comprising twenty-five Slavic tribes, suggesting widespread but fragmented settlement by this period, likely as tributaries or allies rather than dominant overlords. These Balkan and Dacian settlements marked a shift toward Slavic linguistic and cultural dominance in the region, with limited Byzantine reconquests (e.g., under Heraclius around 620 AD) failing to reverse the demographic transformation.

Local Interactions and Avar Decline

The Avars exerted influence over peripheral regions of the Carpathian Basin, including parts of modern Romania such as Transylvania, where archaeological evidence from 7th- and 8th-century cemeteries attests to the presence of Avar warriors and mixed burial practices incorporating local elements. These findings, including grave goods blending nomadic steppe artifacts with regional pottery and tools, suggest patterns of subjugation and limited cultural exchange rather than wholesale displacement of indigenous populations, which likely included remnants of Romanized Dacians and earlier settlers. Slavic communities, initially incorporated as subjects or allies in Avar military campaigns against Byzantine territories, underwent settlement expansions into Dacian lands during the 7th century, often under Avar overlordship that involved tribute extraction and joint raiding expeditions. Historical accounts and archaeological parallels indicate that Avars leveraged Slavic manpower for incursions into the Balkans, fostering a hierarchical relationship where Slavs provided agricultural labor and warriors while adopting select Avar equestrian technologies, though overt conflict arose periodically as Slavic groups sought autonomy. This dynamic contributed to a multicultural fabric in the region, evidenced by shared settlement patterns and artifact distributions, but Avars maintained dominance through coercive control over local elites. The khaganate's decline accelerated in the late 7th century amid internal power struggles and repeated military setbacks, eroding the early multicultural cohesion as nomadic elites faced crises in maintaining tribute networks. Decisively, Frankish expeditions under Charlemagne from 791 to 796 targeted Avar strongholds in the Carpathian Basin, capturing vast treasures and fracturing the khaganate's central authority by 803, with no evidence of total depopulation but rather fragmentation into localized groups. In the Romanian territories, this power vacuum facilitated Slavic demographic consolidation and opened avenues for Bulgar incursions eastward, as the First Bulgarian Empire under Khan Krum (r. 803–814) absorbed former Avar dependencies up to the Tisa River, reshaping local hierarchies without direct attribution to indigenous resistance.

Bulgar Ascendancy and Nomadic Pressures

Formation of the First Bulgarian Empire

Following the death of Khan Kubrat around 642 AD, whose Old Great Bulgaria had been established circa 635 AD in the Pontic steppes through revolt against Avar overlordship, Khazar pressures fragmented the Bulgar confederation into disparate clans. Asparuh, Kubrat's fifth son and leader of the Dulo clan, directed his followers southwestward, reaching the Lower Danube by the 670s AD, where they occupied the Byzantine theme of Scythia Minor encompassing the Danube Delta and Dobruja regions—territories spanning modern southeastern Romania and northeastern Bulgaria. This relocation positioned the Bulgars in a strategic frontier zone amid Slavic settlements and weakened Byzantine defenses. In 680 AD, Byzantine IV mobilized an to subdue the Bulgar incursion north of the , prompting Asparuh to the river with approximately 50,000 warriors, exploiting the marshy terrains of Ongal in the delta for tactics. The resulting ended in a decisive Bulgar , with Byzantine forces heavy losses and the emperor fleeing by , which compelled negotiations. The of 681 AD granted formal Byzantine recognition of Bulgar over the lands between the and the , thereby inaugurating the as a distinct polity integrating Bulgar nomadic elites with local Slavic majorities. The empire's foundational capital was established at Pliska, north of Varna, symbolizing the shift from steppe nomadism to settled rule, though Bulgar dominance initially relied on military tribute extraction from Slavs rather than full administrative integration. This formation exerted pressure on adjacent Romanian territories north of the Danube, facilitating transient Bulgar settlements in Bessarabia during migrations, while the core state expanded southward, challenging Byzantine hegemony and influencing regional power dynamics through alliances and conflicts.

Pecheneg Infiltrations

In the late 9th century, the Pechenegs, a Turkic nomadic confederation displaced eastward by Oghuz incursions, migrated into the Pontic steppes, extending their control from the Dnieper River to the lower Danube by the early 10th century. This expansion positioned them as a disruptive force against the First Bulgarian Empire, which administered territories south of the Carpathians including the Wallachian plain, where sedentary communities engaged in agriculture and proto-urban settlement. Pecheneg-Bulgarian relations began with tactical alliances; around 895, Tsar Simeon I (r. 893–927) enlisted Pecheneg warriors to counter Magyar raids from Etelköz (the region between the Dniester and Carpathians), culminating in a victory that displaced the Magyars westward into the Pannonian Basin and indirectly facilitated Bulgarian gains against Byzantium at the Battle of Boulgarophygon in 896. However, opportunistic shifts occurred; in 917, a Pecheneg leader named John Bogas allied with Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII against Bulgaria, launching an invasion that reached the Danube but dissolved amid Byzantine internal strife, as documented in correspondence from Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos. By the mid-10th century, Pecheneg tribes like the Giazichopon maintained encampments within a day's ride of Bulgarian borders along the lower Danube, enabling systematic raids that undermined imperial authority and local stability. These infiltrations extended westward beyond the Dniester around 950, pressuring agricultural groups such as those associated with the Dridu culture—characterized by fortified settlements and pottery in the Danube-Carpathian interfluve—to abandon lowlands and relocate to upland refuges by the early 11th century. From the late 10th century, Pecheneg bands initiated cross-Carpathian forays into Transylvania, targeting the eastern approaches and contributing to the nomadic pressures that complicated Hungarian consolidation in the region following their 895–900 settlement. Archaeological traces, including nomadic burials with horse gear and arrowheads in eastern Transylvanian sites, attest to these episodic incursions, though permanent Pecheneg colonization remained limited until later alliances with Hungarian rulers in the 11th century. Such activities exacerbated the fragmentation of authority in the Carpathian-Danube zone, where Pecheneg mobility exploited Bulgarian-Byzantine conflicts to extract tribute and disrupt trade routes.

Hungarian Settlements in the Carpathians

The Magyar tribes, numbering approximately 25,000 individuals organized into seven principal clans supplemented by Kabar defectors, crossed the northeastern Carpathian passes into the Basin during 895–896 AD under the leadership of Grand Prince Árpád of the Árpád dynasty. This migration was precipitated by Pecheneg assaults from the east, which displaced the Magyars from their prior Etelköz territories between the Dnieper and Carpathians, while Bulgarian alliances facilitated the initial incursion against local Slavic and residual Avar polities. Contemporary Byzantine and Frankish annals, such as the Annals of Fulda, corroborate the timing and directional thrust of this conquest, emphasizing rapid subjugation of the Pannonian lowlands extending into Carpathian foothills. In the eastern Carpathians, encompassing proto-Transylvanian highlands, Hungarian settlement manifested initially through mobile warrior encampments, evidenced by 10th-century equestrian burials and nomadic material culture overlying Slavic substrates. Archaeological surveys reveal a transition to semi-sedentary fortified sites by the early 11th century, with characteristic Magyar artifacts including sabretache plates, archery fittings, and horse harnesses indicating elite military outposts controlling alpine passes. These establishments integrated with pre-existing agrarian communities, as dendrochronological data from hillforts like those near Alba Iulia yield construction dates post-900 AD, aligning with Árpádian consolidation amid ongoing raids into Byzantine and Frankish realms until the defeat at Lechfeld in 955 AD. Pottery assemblages, notably grooved-rim vessels and tripod cauldrons, serve as diagnostic markers of Hungarian ethnicity in Transylvanian contexts around AD 1000, distributed across lowland basins and intermontane valleys rather than exclusively nomadic steppe zones. This material footprint underscores causal adaptation to Carpathian topography, where tribal confederations imposed tribute on Slavic voivodeships, fostering hybrid economies blending pastoralism with localized cultivation. By the reign of Stephen I (c. 1000–1038 AD), these settlements evolved into administrative counties (comitatus), with royal charters documenting land grants to Magyar nobles in eastern territories, evidencing institutional embedding without wholesale depopulation of indigenous elements. Such dynamics reflect pragmatic realism in conquest, prioritizing strategic defensible positions over ethnic homogenization.

Final Migrations and Regional Consolidations

Cuman Dominions and Steppe Influences

The Cumans, a Turkic-speaking nomadic confederation often identified with the Kipchaks, expanded westward across the Eurasian steppe in the 11th century, displacing the Pechenegs and establishing dominions that encompassed the Pontic-Caspian region extending to the lower Danube by approximately 1060. This control over the open plains north of the Black Sea and in areas corresponding to modern Wallachia and southern Moldavia placed them in direct proximity to the Daco-Romanian (Vlach) populations inhabiting the Carpathian foothills and forested zones. Their tribal organization, centered on mobile warrior elites and pastoral economies, contrasted with the sedentary agro-pastoralism of local communities, fostering a pattern of intermittent conflict, tribute extraction, and limited symbiosis. Cuman military forays into the proto-Romanian territories intensified in the late 11th century, exemplified by the 1091 campaigns led by khans Boniak and Tugorkan, who traversed the Olt River valley in Wallachia and parts of Transylvania to raid Hungary, devastating settlements and compelling local defenses. These incursions, documented in Byzantine accounts such as those of Anna Komnene and Hungarian chronicles, highlighted the Cumans' tactical superiority in mounted warfare, employing composite bows and rapid maneuvers suited to steppe conditions. Archaeological traces, including kurgan mound burials with horse sacrifices and anthropomorphic stone stelae (baba) in the Bărăgan Plain and Dobruja, confirm seasonal or semi-permanent Cuman encampments in these lowland areas during the 11th–12th centuries. Steppe influences manifested in cultural and economic exchanges, with Cuman pastoralism introducing advanced horse-breeding techniques and nomadic herding practices that supplemented local economies, though direct linguistic or material assimilation remained limited due to the Cumans' initial paganism and mobility. Historian Victor Spinei notes that Romanian communities, retreating to defensible uplands, avoided wholesale displacement but paid tribute and traded livestock, preserving continuity amid nomadic pressures. By the early 12th century, some Cuman groups began integrating, evidenced by alliances against common foes like the Pechenegs, and gradual Christianization, culminating in ecclesiastical efforts such as the later Cuman bishopric, which reflected broader steppe-to-sedentary adaptations. This era of Cuman dominance shaped regional power dynamics until disrupted by the Mongol invasions of 1241.

Byzantine and Hungarian State Building

The Byzantine Empire reasserted control over the region of Dobruja, known as part of the province of Paristrion or Paradounavon, following Emperor John I Tzimiskes' campaigns against the First Bulgarian Empire in 971 AD, establishing a frontier theme along the lower Danube to counter nomadic threats and secure trade routes. This administrative unit encompassed military districts centered on fortified cities such as Durostorum (modern Silistra) and Tomis (Constanța), where strategoi oversaw tagmata troops and local thematic forces for defense against Pecheneg incursions. Archaeological evidence from sites like Pacuiul lui Soare reveals Byzantine-style fortifications and artifacts dating to the 10th-11th centuries, indicating sustained efforts to maintain imperial presence amid fluctuating control lost temporarily to Bulgar and steppe nomad pressures. Byzantine state-building emphasized linear defenses, including three major ramparts extending from the Black Sea to the Danube constructed in the 10th-11th centuries to impede mounted raids from the north, supplemented by riverine fleets and alliances with local Slavic populations. Under Basil II, following the annexation of Bulgaria in 1018, Paristrion saw reinforced garrisons and tax collection systems, though Pecheneg migrations in the 1040s-1050s repeatedly disrupted administration, leading to temporary abandonments of outlying forts. These efforts reflected a causal strategy of containment rather than deep settlement, prioritizing the Danube limes over inland penetration, with imperial authority waning by the late 11th century amid Cumans and the Second Bulgarian Empire's rise in 1185. In parallel, Hungarian state-building advanced westward into Transylvania during the Árpád dynasty's consolidation phase, with archaeological finds of 10th-century graves containing sabre-hilted swords and nomadic horse gear attesting to Magyar military presence amid prior Slavic and Avar settlements. Grand Prince Géza initiated raids into the region around 975-995, but systematic incorporation occurred under King Stephen I (r. 1000-1038), who campaigned against the semi-autonomous ruler Gyula III circa 1003, capturing him and integrating Transylvania as a frontier zone with appointed counts overseeing royal lands and border defenses. Stephen's administrative reforms extended to Transylvania through the establishment of counties (comitatus) like that of Alba, fortified with earth-and-timber strongholds to guard Carpathian passes against Pecheneg and Bulgarian threats, supported by a network of royal servientes and tithe-based revenue for sustaining garrisons. This Hungarian expansion relied on empirical settlement patterns, with toponyms and 11th-century charters documenting Magyar colonization alongside subjugated Slavs, evidenced by mixed cemeteries showing gradual Christianization via Stephen's mandatory parish system and missionary activities from 1000 onward. Transylvania functioned as a march, with military obligations enforced through the liberties granted to border warriors, fostering loyalty amid nomadic pressures, though full voivodal governance emerged later in the 12th century as the kingdom stabilized. Unlike Byzantine thematic reliance on professional soldiers, Hungarian methods emphasized tribal levies transitioning to feudal hierarchies, enabling effective control over dispersed populations without dense urban centers.

Mongol Incursion and Territorial Disruptions

The Mongol invasion of 1241–1242, directed by Batu Khan as part of the empire's western campaign, penetrated Romanian territories through Carpathian passes including Borgó and Oituz, with subunits under commanders like Kadan, Buri, and Buchek advancing into Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia to support the assault on the Hungarian Kingdom. Forces estimated at 105,000–150,000 soldiers inflicted widespread devastation, slowing their pace to approximately 20 km per day due to local resistance and terrain. In Transylvania, integrated into the Hungarian realm, the incursion resulted in the sacking of numerous settlements, mass executions, and severe depopulation, eroding the surplus population that had previously supported expansion beyond the Carpathians and prompting subsequent demographic shifts such as the settlement of German Saxons for defense and repopulation. The destruction extended to extra-Carpathian areas, where Mongol paths through valleys like the Olt disrupted established hierarchies and economic patterns. South of the Carpathians, the defeat of Hungarian forces fractured Budapest's hegemony over Wallachia and Moldavia, creating vacuums that hindered unified development but laid premises for independent politico-territorial unification of these regions by fostering local consolidations amid the chaos. This weakening of external control marked a pivotal disruption, accelerating the detachment of southern principalities from Hungarian oversight. The Mongols withdrew abruptly in March 1242 upon news of Ögedei Khan's death, averting permanent occupation but leaving enduring territorial instabilities that reshaped settlement patterns and power dynamics across the affected lands.

References

  1. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/Romania%20Study_1.pdf
  2. http://www.hunsor.se/dosszie/daco_rumanian_continuity_legend.pdf
  3. https://www.academia.edu/7353236/TRANSYLVANIA_IN_THE_EARLY_MIDDLE_AGES_7th_13th_C_
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867423011352
  5. https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/1020705/
  6. https://www.historyhit.com/trajans-wars-a-series-of-unnecessary-conquests/
  7. https://romanhistory.org/provincias/provincia-dacia
  8. https://worldhistoryedu.com/roman-province-of-dacia/
  9. https://www.academia.edu/124942754/Dacia_Superior_Notes_on_the_administrative_organization_of_the_Dacian_provinces
  10. https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/13.html
  11. https://camws.org/sites/default/files/meeting2021/abstracts/2423RomanizationDacia.pdf
  12. https://www.jaha.org.ro/index.php/JAHA/article/view/670
  13. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005.03.12/
  14. https://www1.leiza.de/transformation/romania/civitates/textengl.htm
  15. https://www.facebook.com/groups/historical.maps.from.around.the.world/posts/9354970021225596/
  16. http://arheologie-istoriaartei-cluj.ro/Articole%202017/13_EN_2017.pdf
  17. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/dacia/roman-dacia/
  18. https://romanhistory.org/provincias/provincia-dacia-aureliana
  19. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:781628/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  20. https://books.google.com/books/about/Romanian_Continuity_in_Roman_Dacia.html?id=WqcrAAAAMAAJ
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366059160_Archaeology_and_the_Challenge_of_Continuity_East-Central_Europe_during_the_Age_of_Migrations
  22. http://www.promacedonia.org/en/ei/ei_2.htm
  23. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/contest-for-priority-nineteenthcentury-place-name-etymologies-of-transylvania-at-large/0C475BC86108EE32F8422845AC79691F
  24. https://www.academia.edu/45184764/The_Romanian_ethnogenesis_in_Polish_historiography
  25. https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/12935/what-is-the-substrate-of-romanian-language
  26. https://www.academia.edu/44536822/Romanian_vocabulary_originating_in_the_Dacian_substratum_a_current_approach
  27. https://www.twcenter.net/threads/romanian-ethnogenesis-north-or-south-of-danube.707883/
  28. https://www.reddit.com/r/illustrativeDNA/comments/1f2j3wx/what_is_the_origin_of_romanians/
  29. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-Romanian-academic-archaeologists-claim-after-150-years-of-research-there-is-no-proof-for-Daco-Roman-continuity
  30. https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/22.html
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350771851_On_the_Chronology_of_the_Gothic_Invasions_under_Philippus_and_Decius_AD_248-251_-_Archaeologia_Bulgarica_V_2001_2_37-44
  32. https://biblior.net/roumania-past-and-present/evacuation-dacia-aurelian-about-274-ad-end-barbarian-rule-about-close-thir
  33. https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/10/26/gothic-migrations-the-visigothic-occupation-of-dacia/
  34. https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CH%5CCherniakhivculture.htm
  35. https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-other-artifacts/incredible-discovery-golden-pietroasele-treasure-006673
  36. https://www.medievalists.net/2018/02/collapse-hunnic-empire-jordanes-ardaric-battle-nedao/
  37. https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/33.html
  38. http://files.archaeolingua.hu/2014NY/Upload/cikk_Dobos_EN.pdf
  39. https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/35.html
  40. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/13/4/563
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9032604/
  42. https://www.livescience.com/the-huns
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-archaeology/article/role-of-drought-during-the-hunnic-incursions-into-centraleast-europe-in-the-4th-and-5th-c-ce/C036810C421F7D04C2F6985E6B548F20
  44. https://www.livescience.com/princely-tomb-hun-warrior-romania
  45. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2822%2900732-1
  46. https://www.academia.edu/35795188/Collapse_of_the_Hunnic_Empire_Jordanes_Ardaric_and_the_Battle_of_Nedao
  47. https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/groundbreaking-discovery-rewrites-the-history-of-the-hun-empire/
  48. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004382268/BP000011.xml
  49. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004382268/BP000012.pdf
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338740868_Genetic_insights_into_the_social_organisation_of_the_Avar_period_elite_in_the_7th_century_AD_Carpathian_Basin
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9042794/
  52. https://www.academia.edu/35766657/A_re_approach_of_Procopius_ethnographic_account_on_the_early_Slavs
  53. https://hal.science/hal-02902087/file/Kazanski_Archaeology-Slavic%2520Migrations_2020.pdf
  54. https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/147879.pdf
  55. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004425613/BP000004.xml
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290452446_The_earliest_slavs_in_the_intra-Carpathian_Region_of_Romania
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/early-Slavic-6-th-cent-the-first-third-or-half-of-the-7-th-cent-settlements-a-and_fig2_321245507
  58. https://www.academia.edu/50640442/Anania_Shirakatsi_and_the_Historical_Realities_of_the_7th_Century
  59. https://www.e-anthropology.com/English/Catalog/Archaeology/STM_DWL_QTiw_goIzsKs1YQOZ.aspx
  60. https://www.academia.edu/95750152/Shifting_identities_on_the_periphery_of_the_Avar_Khaganate_Settlement_pattern_and_social_transformations_in_the_Transylvanian_Basin_during_the_Avar_period
  61. https://www.academia.edu/115537867/Avars_and_Slavs
  62. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35016/chapter/298793939
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303724092_Conflict_and_coexistence_The_local_population_of_the_Carpathian_Basin_under_Avar_rule_sixth_to_seventh_century
  64. https://ri.abtk.hu/images/kutatasi_programok/Hatalom_es_kultura/hatalom_kultura.pdf
  65. https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Bulgaria
  66. https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/bulgars-0018964
  67. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004441095/BP000014.xml
  68. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004441095/BP000016.xml
  69. https://www.e-anthropology.com/English/Catalog/Archaeology/STM_DWL_wwtq_jbFApXJwIw98.aspx
  70. https://www.academia.edu/5357201/The_image_and_archaeology_of_the_Pechenegs
  71. https://historyworld.net/history/Hungary/451
  72. https://mek.oszk.hu/09100/09132/09132.pdf
  73. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/magyar-military-history
  74. https://dailynewshungary.com/the-hungarian-conquest-in-a-nutshell/
  75. https://www.medievalists.net/2014/08/magyar-raids-fact-fable/
  76. https://www.academia.edu/229524/Transylvania_around_A_D_1000
  77. https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/54.html
  78. https://www.academia.edu/10035068/THE_CUMAN_CAMPAIGNS_IN_1091
  79. https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/31234113.pdf
  80. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789047423560/Bej.9789004163898.i-492_014.pdf
  81. https://smerdaleos.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/byzantium-s-balkan-frontier-a-political-study-of-the-northern-balkans-900-1204.pdf
  82. http://history.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Rezumat-tez%25C4%2583-EN-balla.pdf
  83. https://www.academia.edu/74387996/The_Region_of_the_Danube_Delta_in_the_7th_to_10th_Century_and_the_Case_of_the_so_called_Lykostomion_Maritime_Province
  84. https://www.academia.edu/43549278/Byzantium_and_the_Steppes_in_the_10th_11th_centuries_CE_Pechenegs_Magyars_and_Kitan
  85. https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/sceranea/article/view/15547
  86. https://real-eod.mtak.hu/9581/1/696_594.pdf
  87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392669485_Early_Medieval_Hungary_Between_East_and_West
  88. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hic3.12138
  89. https://arpad.abtk.hu/images/munkatarsak/psalmus_i_1_4_fejezet.pdf
  90. https://www.academia.edu/108914324/Military_Activities_of_The_Mongol_Empire_in_Romania_1241_Mongol_Western_Campaign
  91. https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/76.html
  92. https://www.persee.fr/doc/valah_1584-1855_2010_num_12_2_1063
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.