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)

So he mentioned Bulgars twice? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it refers to the Bulgarians in two different ways: once as the Volga Bulgars and once as the Danube Bulgars. So, it mentions Bulgaria twice, but at the time, there were two Bulgarias, one along the Danube and another along the Volga. CriticKende (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2025 (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)

Hi @Aristeus01!

If I’m correct, the first mention of "Magna Vlachia" was in the 10th century, which is why it is included there. The Vlach Law also developed during that century, so I assume that’s the reason it appears there. CriticKende (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! It would help to find the year when it was mentioned so we can place it in the right spot. Since it seems to be a documentary mention we should likely pintpoint it down to a certain decade of the century. Aristeus01 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that’s a good idea. I’ll look into each of them to find out when they were first mentioned exactly. CriticKende (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello @Ninhursag3.

Why did you delete the referenced section and write that only a Hungarian historian thinks so, when I also cited the new Arabic book and Gustav Flügel, the German orientalist, along with his study/critical edition, as sources? Just because you dislike something, please don’t delete it. The Arabic text doesn’t say what you want it to say; this is a fact. The Arabic text mentions the Volga and Danube Bulgarias, not the Vlachs. CriticKende (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Gustav Flügel. Kitāb al-Fihrist. Herausgegeben mit Anmerkungen von Gustav Flügel, nach dessen Tode besorgt von Johannes Roediger und August Mueller. Zwei Bände. Mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1872. page 702.

original Arabic:

فاما الترك والبلغر والبلغار والبرغز والخزر واللان واجناس الصغار الاعين والمفرطى البياض فلا قلم لهم يعرف سوى البلغر والتبت فانهم يكتبون بالصينية والمنانية والخزر تكتب بالعبرانية والذي تادّى الى من امر الترك ما حدثني به ابو الحسن محمد بن الحسن ه ابن اشناس قال حدثني حمود حراره التركى المكلى وكان من التوزونية، ممن خرج عن بلده على كبر وتنفط ان ملك الترك الاعظم اذا اراد ان يكتب الى ملك من الاصاغر احضر وزيره وامر بشق نشابة ونقش الوزير عليها نقوشا يعرفها افاضل الاتراك تدل على المعاني التي يريدها الملك ويعرفها المرسل اليه وزعم ان النقش اليسير يحتمل المعاني الكثيرة وانما يفعلون ذلك عند مهادناتهم ومسالماتهم وفى اوقات حروبهم ايضا وذكر ان ذلك النشاب المكتوب عليه يحتفظون به ويفون من اجله والله اعلم

Arabic with latin letters:

Fa-ammā al-Turk wa-al-Bulghar wa-al-Bulghār wa-al-Burghaz wa-al-Khazr wa-al-Lān wa-ajnāṣ al-ṣighār al-aʿīn wa-al-mufraṭī al-bayāḍ fa-lā qalam lahum yuʿraf siwā al-Bulghar wa-al-Tibbat fa-innahum yaktubūna bi-al-Ṣīnīyah wa-al-Manāniyah wa-al-Khazr taktub bi-al-ʿIbrānīyah wa-al-ladhī tāda ilā min amr al-Turk mā ḥaddathanī bihi Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Ishnās qāla ḥaddathanī Ḥamūd Ḥarārah al-Turkī al-Maklī wa-kāna min al-Tawzūnīyah, mimman kharaja ʿan baladihi ʿalā kibar wa-tanaffuṭ anna Malik al-Turk al-aʿẓam idhā arāda an yaktub ilā malik min al-aṣāghir aḥḍara wazīrah wa-amara bi-shaqq nashābah wa-naqasha al-wazīr ʿalayhā nuqūshan yaʿrifuhā afāḍil al-Turk tadullu ʿalā al-maʿānī allatī yurīduhā al-malik wa-yaʿrifuhā al-mursal ilayhi wa-zaʿama anna al-naqsh al-yasīr yaḥtamil al-maʿānī al-kathīrah wa-innamā yafʿalūna dhālika ʿinda muhādanātihim wa-musālimātihim wa-fī awqāt ḥurūbihim aydan wa-dhakara anna dhālika al-nashāb al-maktūb ʿalayh yuḥtafaẓ bih wa-yūfā min ajlih wa-Allāh aʿlam.

English translation:

As for the Turks, Bulgars, Bulghars, Burghaz, Khazars, Alans, and the small-eyed and exceedingly white-skinned peoples, they have no known script except for the Bulgars and Tibetans, who write in Chinese and Manichean, while the Khazars write in Hebrew. What has been conveyed to me about the Turks came from what Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Ishnās told me. He said that Ḥamūd Ḥarārah, the Turkish Maklī, who was from the Tawzūnīyah tribe, and had left his homeland in old age, stated: The greatest king of the Turks, when he wishes to send a letter to a lesser king, summons his vizier and orders an arrow shaft to be split. The vizier then carves symbols upon it that are known to the elite Turks and that signify the meanings the king intends to convey and are understood by the recipient. He claimed that these simple carvings carry many meanings. They do this not only during their peace treaties and reconciliations but also in times of war. He mentioned that these inscribed arrows are carefully preserved and that their agreements are fulfilled because of them. And God knows best.

والبلغر (wa-al-Bulghar) = This word, in its shortened form, refers to the Bulgars (Bolghar), typically denoting groups living around the Black Sea region. In historical sources, it specifically refers to the Bulgars of this area, such as the Volga Bulgars.

والبلغار (wa-al-Bulghār) = This is the fuller version of the word for the Bulgars, also referring to the historical Bulgar people. It often denotes the Bulgars of the Balkan Peninsula.

So, please do not delete a historical fact just because you dislike it. The text mentions two Bulgarias: Volga Bulgaria and Danube Bulgaria. Both of them existed during this period. CriticKende (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ninhursag3

Here is Gustav Flügel's critical edition (page 702.): The text is at the top of the left-hand page. Excluding the title, on the left-hand page, the 3rd and 4th words of the first line are the ones we are discussing. You can see that both are exactly as I mentioned.

Here is also an image of the text where it is "clearer".

Here is another edition to ensure we avoid any errors. This is the 1971–1973 Tehran edition, accessible here. The link comes from the Wikipedia page titled al-Fihrist. At the bottom of the page, another Arabic version is available. You need to click on "Arabic text of the Fihrist" to view it.

In this resource, two versions are listed: the Gustav Flügel edition we have already discussed (found at the top of the table) and a second link leading to the 1971–1973 Tehran edition. I am linking that here (a link available via Wikipedia).

By clicking on "THIS ONE" and using the site’s search function, type in "Abu'l-Faraj Muhammad bin Is'hāq al-Nadim

ا بو الفرج محمد بن إسحاق النديم

الكتاب الفهرست2," and it will direct you to the relevant table and links for Kitab al-Fihrist. Clicking on the second link will display the Tehran edition (also not in Hungarian).

The disputed passage can be found on page 21. However, it is specifically the last paragraph on that page. If we exclude the title, the 3rd and 4th words of the first line (read right to left, as it is Arabic) are "wa-al-Bulghar" and "wa-al-Bulghār."

Thus, as demonstrated, the first European critical edition is by Gustav Flügel. The first critical edition from Tehran (1971–73), along with the 2019 modern Arabic edition, all consistently mention two Bulgarias. That is, the text refers not to Vlachs, but to Bulgars mentioned twice, specifically Volga Bulgaria and Danube Bulgaria.

I hope this has now clarified that this is not some kind of "Hungarian propaganda." This is the original text, as evidenced by three entirely independent critical editions. Furthermore, yes, a Hungarian researcher has also highlighted this. However, I fail to see why is it problematic that a Hungarian historian point out something. Especially when an Iranian, an Egyptian, a German, and considering the 2019 edition, another Arab historian have already done so. CriticKende (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)