Talk:Vlachs

Kitāb al-Fihrist

Hi @ZZARZY223 I'm wondering why you're taking out the part where I put in that it's about a Turkic people, the text makes it clear that it's about a Turkic people.

The exact quote of the text:

"Remarks about the Turks and Those Related to Them. The Turks, the Bulgars, the Blagha, the Burghaz, the Khazar, the Llan, and the types with small eyes and extreme blondness have no script, except that the Bulgarians and the Tibetans write with Chinese and Manichean, whereas the Khazars write Hebrew. My information about the Turks is what Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ashnas related to me."

The text makes it perfectly clear that this is about the Turkic peoples, and this chapter is about the Turkic peoples in the first place!

CriticKende (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that what you are claiming is not supported by a secondary source, which is needed in this case, as it is part of the rules against original research ZZARZY223 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

So, if I find an old text that mentions a name for which there are no other records, and therefore no other historians have written about it, then it doesn't matter what the text says, I can decide about it? Because this sounds quite interesting...The original text clearly states that they are Turks, but because someone wrote something completely different 1000+ years later, the original text is now invalid? CriticKende (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need a 'secondary source' if the original source itself claims this? CriticKende (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

remove the fringe "turkik people" theory since the only one who interpreted the text like this is a single hungarian historian... and everyone else knows its about vlachs 46.97.168.128 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

Yes, it really wasn’t sufficient that I provided only one source, so now I’ve added the original 1872 major German academic critical edition, which also translates it this way, as well as the latest Arabic edition (I believe it’s from 2019). I think these sources should now be sufficient.

So, it seems that only Bayard translates it as "blagha," likely mistaking the two words.

The text of the new Arabic edition:

الكلام على الترك وما جانسهم فأما الترك والبلغر والبلغار والبرغز والخزر واللان وأجناس الصغار الأعين المفرطي البياض فلا قلم لهم يعرف سوى البلغر والتبت فإنهم يكتبون بالصينية والمنانية والحزر تكتب بالعبرانية والذي تادى إلى من أمر الترك ما حدثني به أبو الحسن محمد بن الحسن بن أشناس قال حدثني حمود حرار التركي المكلي وكان من التوزونية ممن خرج عن بلده على كبر وتنفط أن ملك الترك الأعظم إذا أراد أن يكتب إلى ملك من الأصاغر وزيره وأمر بشق نشابه ونقش الوزير عليها نقوشا يعرفها أفاضل الأتراك تدل على المعاني التي يريدها الملك ويعرفها المرسل إليه وزعم أن النقش اليسير يحتمل المعاني الكثيرة وإنما يفعلون ذلك عند مهادناتهم ومسالماتهم وفي أوقات حروبهم أيضا وذكر أن ذلك النشاب المكتوب عليه يحتفظون به ويفون من أجله والله أعلم

This is the text of the new Arabic edition in English translation:

"On the Turks and Their Related Peoples

As for the Turks, the Bulghar, the Bulgar, the Burghuz, the Khazars, the Alans, and other groups with small eyes and exceedingly pale complexions, none of them are known to have a script, except for the Bulghar and the Tibetans, who write in Chinese and Manichaean scripts. The Khazars write in Hebrew. What has reached me about the affairs of the Turks is what Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ashnas narrated to me. He said that Hamoud Harrar al-Turki al-Makli, who was among the Tawzuniyya and had left his homeland as an elderly man covered in blisters, told him the following: When the great king of the Turks wants to write to one of the lesser kings, he instructs his vizier to split an arrow and engrave symbols upon it. These symbols are known to the elite among the Turks and convey the meanings the king intends, which are also understood by the recipient. He claimed that these minimal engravings could convey a great variety of meanings. They use this method during treaties, peacemaking, and even during times of war. He also mentioned that these inscribed arrows are carefully preserved and that great trust is placed in their significance. And God knows best."

Honestly, the title of the chapter is already "On the Turks and Their Related Peoples", so it was suspicious from the start that it couldn't possibly be about the Vlachs. You're right, it's better that I provided multiple sources, and this way the "fringe" Bayard translation has been clarified. CriticKende (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Torna Torna

Hi @Aristeus01, I see you've included the "torna torna" section in the article. I have two questions about it.

1. Do you think it might be more appropriate to move this to the article about the Romanian language, since it’s not directly about the Vlachs? Also, in the book, the author interprets it as a military command. (If you feel strongly about keeping it here, we can leave it, but I believe it’s not organically connected to this article. After all, this sentence is not about the Vlachs but is (most likely) an early relic of the Eastern Romance languages.)
2. My second question is whether it might be worth mentioning Theophanes the Confessor's chronicle, as he provides a slightly more detailed account of the event and includes the full phrase: "Torna, torna, fiatei."

The fiatei part is the reason several historians argue that this may not merely be a military command but a genuine statement. CriticKende (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CriticKende!

A wider description of the event is already in the language section. I think it is in line with the topic here since early Romance was the language of the Vlachs (in technical terms Eastern Romance languages is a group of dialects or languages spoken by the people called in Vlachs Medieval times - Aromanians, Istro-Romanians, Megleno-Romanians, and Romanians proper - while the common ancestor of these dialects/languages, the direct descendant of Latin in the region and the language about which the two Greek authors wrote, is called Common Romanian). Since Vlachs and Common Romanian are intrinsically connected then a mention of one is a mention of other. In other words, if the language is attested somewhere, the people are historically attested as well.

And yes, we should probably extend the with Teophanes' mention as well. If I am not mistaken the phrase he cited is "torna, torna, fratre!" not fiatei, which is Late Latin/Common Romanian for "brother". Aristeus01 (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, if you think it’s worth keeping, then let it stay.

I have the 1997 Cyril Mango and Roger Scott Oxford translation of Theophanes' Chronicle, and it states:

"Having caught the Chagan completely unprepared, with the mass of his barbarians scattered across Thrace, he marched against him at the first watch. He would have won great success from this attempt had he not missed his goal by ill luck. For when the load on one animal had slipped, a man called to the animal's master to put the load right, speaking in his native tongue, "Torna, torna, fiatei." The driver of the mule did not hear the words, but the army heard them and suspecting that the enemy were upon them, turned to flight shouting "toina, torna" in loud voices."

Here it says fiatei, but honestly, it doesn’t really matter what we write because I think the two words are the same, the fiatei version probably just a distortion introduced during transcriptions. In the scholarly literature, I always come across fratre as well. CriticKende (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for being onboard with the changes!

I believe the 1997 Cyril Mango and Roger Scott Oxford translation of Theophanes' Chronicle suffered from editing issues and the "r" in some Latin words was replaced with "i" by mistake: on same page with "torna, torna" incident we have the Roman title "magister militum per Orientem" and on the next page the title is spelled as "magistei militum pei Oiientem". Aristeus01 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You see, this is one of those rare occasions when we actually agree, so it turns out such a thing can happen. :D

Yes, you're probably right about the "i - r" thing as well. CriticKende (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Order of entries

Hi all!

I placed this flag as on a further reading some of the entries seem out of place. The section is structured around entries in chronological order and about entries such as :

During the Middle Ages, the term "Magna Vlachia" appears in Byzantine documents. This name was used for Thessaly and present-day North Macedonia.

and

The Orthodox Vlachs spread further northward along the Carpathians to the present day territory of Poland, Slovakia, and Czech Republic, and were granted autonomy under the ''Vlach law''.

it is not clear to me why they were placed where they are placed. No particular year is cited.

Raising this as POV due to it falling under WP:structure, not for the content of the entries. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)