Migration Period
AD 300-1300

Topics covered in this section:

Introduction

After the "Third Century Crisis" in the previous timeframe (section), we enter the shadowy "migratory period." Nomads don't normally carry history books or journals with them on their travels, preferring instead to preserve their history in oral traditions. Unfortunately for present-day historians, the storytellers didn't record their tales.

For a little less than a millenium, between the 4th and the 13th century AD, a number of nomadic tribes traversed Romanian lands. The list of tribes is a long one and includes Goths and Gepids (Germanic people), Huns and Avars (from Central Asia), Slavs, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans (of Turkish origin), and Tatars (the last migratory wave of 1241).

Though many histories claim that these tribes simply passed through, this idea is somewhat questionable. It's much more likely that many of them saw a land that they liked, settled down, cohabitating with and mixing gene pools with the native population.

Because of the sheer absence of historic information available about this timeframe, no historian can claim to know precisely what happened during this period. It has, therefore, generated a goodly amount of scholarly controversy, which I'll cover first.

Scholarly Controversy

Over the years there has been a debate — occasionally a very heated debate — between Hungarian and Romanian historians concerning what actually happened after the Romans pulled out. After a centuries-long feud over the ancestors of the Romanian people, especially those who live in Transylvania, there's still no clear answer.

The main problem faced by historians on both sides of the debate is that it's virtually impossible to determine with any scientific certainty what happened to the Dacian population after the departure of the Roman legions and during the succeeding seven centuries of invasions by foreign powers.

Who were these "proto-Romanians" who inhabited the region north of the Danube? The answer to this question obviously depends on who you ask. As mentioned, it's been the subject of innumerable debates among scholars and historians. You'll see portions of this controversy several times in these web pages.

Note

For the record, I tend to favor the Romanian viewpoint. But I'll leave it up to you to choose after I present the two sides.

Hungarian View

Many scholars, particularly Hungarians, argue that the effects of Romanization in Dacia were modest because the Romans were only in the area for about 200 years. During that "short" period of time, those who hold this view argue that the Romans couldn't possibly have made a lasting impression on the Dacian peasants.

Their argument is based in part on their belief that Dacia (which was mostly present-day Transylvania) had been completely deserted by the Romans ... and also by the Dacians.

Following the total withdrawal of Romans AND Dacians, the Magyar migrated from the Asian steppes north of the Black Sea and repopulated the vacated area. Magyars are, of course, the undisputed ancestors of the Hungarian people.

The Magyar spoke a Turkic language that is unrelated to other European languages, but is related to the language of eastern Finns. The Magyar established their kingdom in ancient Pannonia, settling the plains west of Romania. By the 11th century, however, they had extended their sway into Transylvania.

They tell us that the population of Transylvania only reached significant numbers after Hungary opened its borders to foreigners.

The Romanians who now live north of the Carpathians in Transylvania, they contend, are not native to the region. Rather they were descendants of the Vlachs (or Vlahs), a Latin-speaking group of Balkan nomads. Long AFTER the Roman withdrawal in the 3rd century, the Vlachs migrated northward across the Danube in the 13th century and settled in the fertile valleys of Wallachia (southern Romania).

Note

It's entirely possible that indeed this migration of Vlachs did occur as the Hungarian scholars claim. However, it might also be true that instead of being the dominant ethnic group in Wallachia, they simply merged into an existing, native Daco-Romanian population.

Part of the Hungarian argument is based on the similarity of the words "vlach" (the people) and "wallachia" (the region). The Slavic word "vlach" is a Slavonic adaptation of a generic term that was applied during the 4th and 5th centuries by Teutonic people to all residents of Roman provinces. It's related to the Germanic word "walh," meaning "foreigner."

As we'll see, at the end of the migration period, in the 13th century Wallachia was little more than a number of small "statelets" who were dependent on the Hungarian crown.

Romanian View

Many scholars, especially Romanians, insist that a substantial Romanized population existed continuously in old Dacia. The ethnic "birth" of the Romanian people occurred partially as a result of the many Dacian peasants who remained behind after the Roman withdrawal.

Daco-Romanian peasants, they claim, may have taken up refuge in the mountainous Carpathian forests during the Roman withdrawal and throughout the subsequent invasions by migratory tribes (including the Magyar). After the invading marauders finished ravaging the region and moved on, the peasants came out of hiding and returned to the foothills and plains of Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia (the three main regions of Romania).

Nearly all present-day Romanians cling tightly, sometimes obsessively, to this belief in their Daco-Romanian origins. They excuse the lack of hard evidence because, they tell us, the area had no organized administration until around the 12th century. Furthermore, they add, the Mongols destroyed most if not all of the existing records when they plundered the area in 1241.

The customs and folklore of native Romanians reflect both Latin and Slavonic traditions, attesting to their long-term settlement in the area, though it could just as easily be attributed to other factors. They celebrate Latin festivals, but also believe in "striga," the Slavic word for "witches." The names of their months and days are definitely Latin-based, not Turkic-based.

Recent archaeology indicates a strong Roman influence during this period and adds credence to the Romanian side of the argument. Digs in Olteni, Teleorman, and Budureasa provide evidence of Romanian life during the 6th century (long after they supposedly left and before they supposedly returned). Digs in Constanţa show evidence of Romanians living there in the 10th-11th centuries.

My View

Recent archaeological discoveries (plus common sense) tends to favor the Romanian view.

The centuries-long demographics of the entire Balkan region, not just Romania, is clear. Throughout its early history, most of southeast Europe was an empty wilderness. It consisted of large areas of uncultivated land and relatively few people, especially in the lowlands. The Romanian people could have remained right where they were and never have been seen or been encountered by any of the migratory tribes sweeping through the area.

Why would the peasants choose to leave their farms or pastures and follow the foreigners to Rome? Why would some Roman soldiers, many of whom had finished their military career during the period of Roman occupation, obtained land in Dacia, and married local women, leave behind their settled life to return to the overcrowded cities of Rome?

Prior to the withdrawal of Roman troops, many of the soldiers must have heard rumors of the rampant decadence that existed in Rome and how many of the elite in Rome had confiscated land supposedly belonging to Roman soldiers. They might have asked themselves if it was worthwhile to return, only to find their land no longer belonged to them.

Besides, proving that in the far distant past Hungarians or Romanians lived on the lands that are part of present-day Romania has little bearing on who has a right to the land today. Many regions of the world have had one or more different groups living on the land than the group that lives there at the present.

If the original inhabitants had the only right to claim a land as theirs, then Hungary would have to relinquish its claim to Hungary itself to its original inhabitants, the inhabitants of ancient Pannonia — Celts, Illyrians, Dalmatians, Huns, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Avars, Slavs, and the Romans themselves. All these peoples inhabited Hungary long before the Hungarians arrived there. So if it doesn't apply to their country of Hungary, why should it apply to Transylvania?

Will Hungarians cede Hungary to Italy because the Romans were there before they were? Of course not. Such a notion would be thought ridiculous. Yet, that's exactly what the Hungarian minority expects Romania to do with Transylvania. Cede it to Hungary because they claim to have been there first.

Romanians were a majority of the population of Transylvania when Transylvania became part of Romania in 1918. To me, that means they either had more children per family than the Hungarians during these centuries ... or most of the Dacians (Romanians) never left. I believe the latter situation is more likely. The Hungarians didn't discover an empty land. They marched into a land that was already inhabited. But since the Romanians lived in rural villages instead of urban cities, the Hungarians didn't even see them.

You Choose

As I've said a dozen times, I'm not a historian. But to me it sounds like the Romanians have the stronger argument.

In my opinion 200 years is definitely a long enough time to become Romanized, especially considering the circumstances. Romanians were mostly illiterate peasants, but they had to learn Latin to communicate with the soldiers who seemed to be everywhere. They saw the Romans as an advanced civilization (and wealthy to boot) and would have wanted desperately to emulate them.

The Dacians (Romanians) would have been in favor of becoming more Roman-like ... not fighting against assimilation. Desire is an effective teacher. They wouldn't have needed as much time as a people who fought against assimilation.

Most of the landowners were former Roman soldiers who had been granted land by Rome and who also spoke Latin. Many of these retired soldiers were former Dacian citizens who had joined (or been conscripted into) the Roman army where they learned Latin (Roman soldiers were taught to read and write as part of their training).

Rome ruled with an iron fist. Anyone who didn't submit to Roman rules and ways of life were crushed under the sandals of the Roman legion.

After the Roman legions and elite left, many Romans (former soldiers and merchants) probably decided to stay. They had married into Romanian families and had their farms and herds to think about. They would have added many more years (centuries) to the effects of Romanization. Therefore, it wouldn't have been a mere two centuries, but many centuries, for the Roman influence to take hold.

History and mythology seldom favors the underdog. During later centuries, many years after the arrival of the Magyar, the Austro-Hungarian empire ruled over Transylvania. The Hungarians were the landed, the elite, the upper class; Romanians were the poor, the illiterate, the peasants, the serfs. Which class would tend to appear most often in the history books of the period?

As a side note, America is just a little more than 200 years old itself. And look at the changes that have taken place here in the past 200 years. It kinda makes you realize just how many changes can take place in a short 200 years ... or more! Especially when you're in favor of making those changes.

Pronunciation Help

To help American readers, the following pronunciation guide to Romanian words used above is provided. The sounds shown are only approximations, however.

Go Elsewhere

At this point, you have a couple of options:

Romania
Burrow
Other
Burrows