# Vlachos



## bearded

Hello everyone,
A Greek friend mentioned that the word _vlachos_, used in Modern Greek to indicate those Greeks that speak a dialect of Latin origin, in his opinion might be related to the well-known adjective _welsh/welsch_ which in the Germanic languages designates native speakers of Celtic languages (or 'romanised' and formerly Celtic languages, like French). 
Now my doubt: couldn't _vlachos_ originally indicate Greeks coming from the Rumanian region of Valachia/Valakia ?  Since Rumanian is a Romance language, it would indicate 'Latins' anyway. But since I do not know the etymology of the name Valachia, I suspect that it could originate from some ancient migrations of Gauls (Galats/Galatians?) towards South-Eastern Europe.  I am sure that you experts will find a solution to this riddle, and thank you in advance for your replies.


----------



## apmoy70

bearded man said:


> Hello everyone,
> A Greek friend mentioned that the word _vlachos_, used in Modern Greek to indicate those Greeks that speak a dialect of Latin origin, in his opinion might be related to the well-known adjective _welsh/welsch_ which in the Germanic languages designates native speakers of Celtic languages (or 'romanised' and formerly Celtic languages, like French).


 Hi bm, the established theory -at least in Greece- is that they are the descendants of either Latinised Germanic tribesmen who settled into mountainous areas of Greece (mostly the Pindus mountain chain), or Latin speaking Daco-Thraco-Illyrians pushed southwards during the Slavic invasions in the middle ages, intermarrying with native populations.
The name *«Βλάχος»* ['vlaxos] (masc. nom. sing.)/ *«Βλάχοι»* ['vlaçi] (masc. nom. pl.) has been regarded as pejorative and described the coarse, primitive, loutish rural person (similar to the name Redneck in AmE) until fairly recently. The surname *«Βλάχος»* ['vlaxos] (masc. nom. sing.) is a common one. I'll leave the possible connection between Welsh-Vlach for someone more delved into historical linguistics. 


bearded man said:


> Now my doubt: couldn't _vlachos_ originally indicate Greeks coming from the Rumanian region of Valachia/Valakia ?  Since Rumanian is a Romance language, it would indicate 'Latins' anyway. But since I do not know the etymology of the name Valachia, I suspect that it could originate from some ancient migrations of Gauls (Galats/Galatians?) towards South-Eastern Europe.  I am sure that you experts will find a solution to this riddle, and thank you in advance for your replies.


 Historically speaking, Romania tried both in the inter-war period and during WWII to promote the Romanian identity of the Vlachs in the Balkans, by establishing schools, or sponsoring "Cultural Centres for promoting Romanian Awareness". In WWII and the axis occupation, Mussolini's Italy even formed a puppet state in occupied Greece, the Principality of Pindus which lasted for a couple of years but it faded away because it lacked support of the Vlach populace in the area.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> But since I do not know the etymology of the name Valachia, I suspect that it could originate from some ancient migrations of Gauls (Galats/Galatians?) towards South-Eastern Europe.


_Vlachs _is a Slavic expression for Daco-Romanian speakers. That's what we know for sure. The most plausible explanation is that the Slavs took it from Germanic tribes who called the all Latinized people *_Walhaz_ (_Welsh_).


----------



## Perseas

apmoy70 said:


> Hi bm, the established theory -at least in Greece- is that they are the descendants of either Latinised Germanic tribesmen who settled into mountainous areas of Greece (mostly the Pindus mountain chain), or Latin speaking Daco-Thraco-Illyrians pushed southwards during the Slavic invasions in the middle ages, intermarrying with native populations.


Another theory is that "Βλάχοι" were indigenous latinised Greeks. The Romanisation of the Balkans during the Roman Empire was not only restricted in Romania.


----------



## sotos

Perseas said:


> Another theory is that "Βλάχοι" were indigenous latinised Greeks. The Romanisation of the Balkans during the Roman Empire was not only restricted in Romania.


It seems so, at least for the Vlachs of Greece. They look more or less like the other Greeks, while the Romanians tend to be more blond, like their neighbors.


----------



## jasio

Perseas said:


> Another theory is that "Βλάχοι" were indigenous latinised Greeks. The Romanisation of the Balkans during the Roman Empire was not only restricted in Romania.



But Greek language and culture were still dominating in the East, despite political attribution to Roman Empire. Even Roman elites used to be fluent in Greek for a long period of time. Indeed, existence of Romanian is a sort of a mystery. 



sotos said:


> It seems so, at least for the Vlachs of Greece. They look more or less like the other Greeks, while the Romanians tend to be more blond, like their neighbors.



Turkish people in Central Asia look more like Mongols, while Turks in Turkey look almost like Southern-Europeans, don't they? Bulgarians typically have dark hair, although light hair is more typical for Slavic language users. Genetics is not the same as culture. 



berndf said:


> _Vlachs _is a Slavic expression for Daco-Romanian speakers. That's what we know for sure.



I can't recall the source now, but I remember an interpretation that 'Vlach' (or a similar word) actually origined in Germanic languages, where it might have meant something like 'a stranger'. Hence "welsh" (referring to Celts in Britain), 'vlachs' (referring to locals, perhaps mostly those not clearly identified as 'Greeks', 'Slavs' or 'Hungarian'), and several other similar names across Europe.



berndf said:


> The most plausible explanation is that the Slavs took it from Germanic tribes who called the all Latinized people *_Walhaz_ (_Welsh_).



Were the British Welsh latinized indeed? It must have been a vary shallow latinization then.


----------



## apmoy70

jasio said:


> But Greek language and culture were still dominating in the East, despite political attribution to Roman Empire. Even Roman elites used to be fluent in Greek for a long period of time. Indeed, existence of Romanian is a sort of a mystery.


I'm sure you are aware of the Jireček Line


----------



## Perseas

jasio said:


> But Greek language and culture were still dominating in the East, despite political attribution to Roman Empire. Even Roman elites used to be fluent in Greek for a long period of time. Indeed, existence of Romanian is a sort of a mystery.


 The idiom of Latin origin that Greek Vlachs speak is not "Romanian". You don't have the right to call it so, please, as I don't have the right to call Romanian as whatever else than Romanian. I don't agree also that the existence of a Latin idiom is a mystery since Romans dominated Greece for more than 500 years and some Greeks, especially those from the rural and mountainous areas, were more susceptible to get romanised.


----------



## jasio

Perseas said:


> The idiom of Latin origin that Greek Vlachs speak is not "Romanian". You don't have the right to call it so, please, as I don't have the right to call Romanian as whatever else than Romanian. I don't agree also that the existence of a Latin idiom is a mystery since Romans dominated Greece for more than 500 years and some Greeks, especially those from the rural and mountainous areas, were more susceptible to get romanised.



I didn't state that 'Greek Vlachs' spoke Romanian. I wondered, why Romanian people spoke Romanian considering that they lived in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, which was under strong and long-lasting influence of Greek language, also because Greek was spoken not only by the native Greeks, but also as a linga franca. Not mentioning adoption of Orthodox Christianity, which was also much more closely related to the Greek culture than to the Latin culture. Apmoy70 reminded me that apparently I had overestimated the influence of the Greek culture and language. 



Perseas said:


> I don't agree also that the existence of a Latin idiom is a  mystery since Romans dominated Greece for more than 500 years and some  Greeks, especially those from the rural and mountainous areas, were more  susceptible to get romanised.



...and it was dominated by Turks also for several hundred years much more recently, so?

Anyway, I do not buy your argument, because from what I know, people in rural, mountainous or isolated areas are typically much more conservative than people in cities, just because they have limited opportunities to learn from the others/strangers. So since Romans dominated in Greece, I would rather expect that the cities would become latinised, leaving rural and mountainous areas 'greek'. If this did not happen, was perhaps because Greek language was a standard and appreciated part of Roman elites' education, very much in a sense similar to French language in 17th-19th centuries across the whole Europe, and English nowadays. What you suggest would make much more sense if modern Greeks culturally colonized (since a midst of 19th century, perhaps) areas which were not so much Greek at the time. 

Anyway, a complex history of the region, significant boundary changes throughout centuries, voluntary and non-voluntary migrations, acculturation, 19th century nationalism and an exchange of population between Greece and Turkey in my opinion make all speculations about which language is historically native to which population, and on which area, well, speculative.


----------



## Perseas

jasio said:


> ...and it was dominated by Turks also for several hundred years much more recently, so?


So, if a people is dominated for hundreds of years by another people who speak another language, the former or part of them may gradually lose/forget  their native language under various factors. No matter if the dominant people are called Greeks, Romans, Turks etc.


----------



## jasio

Perseas said:


> So, if a people is dominated for hundreds of years by another people who speak another language, the former or part of them may gradually lose/forget  their native language under various factors. No matter if the dominant people are called Greeks, Romans, Turks etc.



You are absolutely right. 

However, in the first place this is true primarily for the people having frequent contacts with the rulers' language: aristocracy, officers, nobles, household servants, merchants, and other people who can benefit from aculturation, while isolated, rural or mountainous areas are typically the most conservative. Sheppard may know some foreign words to sale wool and cheese to foreigners, but does not have any reason to learn more or to bring foreing language home. And the mere fact that they maintained to preserve their language throughout following 1500 years of history, serves as the best evidence. Considering that Greek (κοινή) was a second important language of the Empire during most of its history, so Greek speakers did not have many reasons to learn Latin, in my humble opinion the theory just doesn't add up. 

OK, it might have happened that Vlachs were a part of a much larger Latin/Vulgar Latin/Romance speaking population, which was later hellenised (or re-hellenised if you prefer, or just squeezed to the worst lands), but since Greek language dominated in the area all of the time anyway, frankly speaking, I doubt it. If they were indeed of Greek origin, they must have been much more connected to Vlachs from the other side of the ridge rather than with other Greeks. So perhaps they were not originally Greek at all, but were a part of latinised Germanic/Dacs/Tracs/whoever population, who just migrated to the area, and was later partially hellenised? 

We observe something similar along the whole Carpatian range, where there is a whole bunch of populations speaking dialects of several languages (Polish, Carpato-Rusyn, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian) which still retain a lot of similarities among each other, they still dress in similar fassion which only partially resembles lowlands dress styles, play similar music on very alike instruments, etc. And although Polish highlanders consider themselves Polish and economically they now depend on the lowlanders (tourism, skiing, selling wood processing skills, fashion for roots music etc), I have an impression that they feel more at home when dealing with Slovak, Romanian, or even Balkan highlanders than with the Poles from lowlands. And guess what? Etnographs often refer to them as "Wołosi" ('Vlachs').


----------



## Perseas

jasio said:


> So perhaps they were not originally Greek at all, but were a part of latinised /whoever population, who just migrated to the area, and was later partially hellenised?


There is a Wikipedia article, where among other people, Greeks are also mentioned. Perhaps Greek Vlachs are descendants of those latinised Greeks. Or maybe they were a combination of some of them. In any case  we cannot, IMHO, exclude  at all the Greek element in the Vlachs.



> In 2006, Bosch _et al._ attempted to analyze whether Vlachs are the descendants of Latinised Dacians, Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks, or a combination of these. No hypothesis could be proven because of the high degree of underlying genetic similarity of all the tested Balkan groups.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs



jasio said:


> If they were indeed of Greek  origin, they must have been much more connected to Vlachs from the other  side of the ridge rather than with other Greeks.



I consider that this is an argument that they were of Greek origin. 

Apart from those:
The theory that wants the Greek Vlachs as descendants of latinised Greeks argues that in the times of the Roman Empire  Greeks worked as guards at the boundaries of the Roman Empire and as mercenaries at the Roman legions. There they learned the Roman language and they were gradually latinised. As possible origin of the Vlachs is considered the region of the Roman Via Egnatia, where even today live the most Vlach-speaking populations. Romans firstly conquered Epirus and the rest of Greece and later expanded to the north up to modern Romania. Therefore the existence of Latin-originated dialects in the Balkan peninsula started in Greece and later extended to the north.


----------



## jasio

Perseas said:


> There is a Wikipedia article, where among other people, Greeks are also mentioned. Perhaps Greek Vlachs are descendants of those latinised Greeks. Or maybe they were a combination of some of them. In any case  we cannot, IMHO, exclude  at all the Greek element in the Vlachs.



I'm not trying to *exclude at all the Greek element*. It would be totally unreasonable. What I'm saying, is that considering Vlachs "latinized Greeks" is in my opinion improper. A mixture of peoples of varying ancestory, and languages (including Greek), bound together by a common way of life and eventually more or less common language, which just happened to be a Romance dialect - yes. 



jasio said:


> If they were indeed of Greek  origin, they must have been much more  connected to Vlachs from the other  side of the ridge rather than with  other Greeks.





Perseas said:


> I consider that this is an argument that they were of Greek origin.



I consider various options. 

If they had been speaking indoeuropean etnolects somehow related to dialects which were later recognised as "Greek", but in fact they were culturalrly more related to specific highlanders' cultures further to the North, than to Spartans or Athenians, does it make them "Greek"? This is *exactly* what I call 'looking at the past through nowadays glasses'. Anyway, considering an alleged 'Greek origin' of Vlachs reminds me an old discussion about what in fact constitutes a nation or ethnicity: blood or culture? But this would be far beyond the topic of this forum. 



Perseas said:


> Apart from those:
> The theory that wants the Greek Vlachs as descendants of latinised Greeks argues that in the times of the Roman Empire  Greeks worked as guards at the boundaries of the Roman Empire and as mercenaries at the Roman legions. There they learned the Roman language and they were gradually latinised. As possible origin of the Vlachs is considered the region of the Roman Via Egnatia, where even today live the most Vlach-speaking populations. Romans firstly conquered Epirus and the rest of Greece and later expanded to the north up to modern Romania. Therefore the existence of Latin-originated dialects in the Balkan peninsula started in Greece and later extended to the north.



I see that you insist on perceiving Vlachs as latinized Greeks.  There's no evidence for this. I don't object that some Greeks might have been partially or entirely latinized. What I question is that why this process might have been limited to the poorest, peripheral, isolated cultures, so exotic to the Greeks that 'Βλάχοι' is a synonym of a shepherd and vagabond? Why they were relatively easily latinised, but later proved to be fairly immune to dozens other cultures which were dominating in the area for the time much longer than the Roman dominance? That's why for me the theory that it was originally a mixture of peoples of various origins (including some, which we could recognised as 'Greeks' - whatever it means) bound by a common style of life is much more appealing to me than a theory percieving them as just 'Greeks who happened to lose their original language'. 

In fact, I believe that in the past there might have been a more or less  continuoum of cultures and etnolects, occasionally including "bubbles"  of distinct cultures (like mountainous areas, invasions etc), which we  often attempt to match to our 19th-century based vision of more or less  unified 'nations', 'state boundaries' and 'languages'. But it's  anachronic. That's why I had written:



jasio said:


> Anyway, a complex history of the region, significant boundary changes throughout centuries, voluntary and non-voluntary migrations, acculturation, 19th century nationalism and an exchange of population between Greece and Turkey in my opinion make all speculations about which language is historically native to which population, and on which area, well, speculative.


----------



## Perseas

jasio said:


> If they had been speaking indoeuropean etnolects somehow related to dialects which were later recognised as "Greek", but in fact they were culturalrly more related to specific highlanders' cultures further to the North, than to Spartans or Athenians, does it make them "Greek"? This is *exactly* what I call 'looking at the past through nowadays glasses'.


 Did those highlanders have names? Did all of them have a cultural uniformity? Thracians only consisted of 22 major tribes and many minor among them, from what I remember. If some of them spoke Greek dialects, why is that a problem for you to classify them among the Ancient Greeks? 




jasio said:


> I see that you insist on perceiving Vlachs as latinized Greeks.


 At least for the people who lived in the modern-day Greece, yes, I favour this statement. Besides, the latinization of the Balkan pensinsula started from Greece, as I wrote in my previous post, since the Romans first conquered Greece and then moved to the North.



jasio said:


> 'Βλάχοι' is a synonym of a shepherd and vagabond?


 "Βλάχος" is also the Greek who speaks this dialect of Latin origin. 



jasio said:


> Why they were relatively easily latinised, but later proved to be fairly immune to dozens other cultures which were dominating in the area for the time much longer than the Roman dominance?


As I have already said, during the period of the Roman Empire they had offered their services for the Romans, so they should have learned Latin. After the fall of the empire they retired back to their villages.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Perseas said:


> The idiom of Latin origin that Greek Vlachs speak is not "Romanian". You don't have the right to call it so



Giving somebody rights to call anything by any name, or forbidding the rights is clearly out of the scope of this forum, and should not be attempted exercised by anyone.


----------



## Perseas

Ben Jamin said:


> Giving somebody rights to call anything by any name, or forbidding the rights is clearly out of the scope of this forum, and should not be attempted exercised by anyone.


I admit it was an unwise expression of mine. My apologies.


----------



## berndf

jasio said:


> But Greek language and culture were still dominating in the East, despite political attribution to Roman Empire. Even Roman elites used to be fluent in Greek for a long period of time. Indeed, existence of Romanian is a sort of a mystery.


Dacia never belonged to the Eastern Empire.


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> Did those highlanders have names? Did all of them have a cultural uniformity? Thracians only consisted of 22 major tribes and many minor among them, from what I remember. If some of them spoke Greek dialects, why is that a problem for you to classify them among the Ancient Greeks?
> 
> 
> At least for the people who lived in the modern-day Greece, yes, I favour this statement. Besides, the latinization of the Balkan pensinsula started from Greece, as I wrote in my previous post, since the Romans first conquered Greece and then moved to the North.
> 
> "Βλάχος" is also the Greek who speaks this dialect of Latin origin.
> 
> As I have already said, during the period of the Roman Empire they had offered their services for the Romans, so they should have learned Latin. After the fall of the empire they retired back to their villages.


I am a bit confused. What is the point you are trying to make? The points that are unquestionable are: 1) _Vlach _is a Slavic expression and 2) it was applied to Daco-Romanian speakers. Are you claiming that the Dacians were ethnically Greek?


----------



## Perseas

berndf said:


> I am a bit confused. What is the point you are trying to make? The points that are unquestionable are: 1) _Vlach _is a Slavic expression and 2) it was applied to Daco-Romanian speakers. Are you claiming that the Dacians were ethnically Greek?


No, Dacians were not Greeks. But, were all populations (who spoke this Latin-based dialect and lived in the regions of modern Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia or maybe elsewhere in the Balkans) Dacians? I believe not.


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> No, Dacians were not Greeks. But, did all populations who spoke this Latin-based dialect and lived in the regions of modern Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia or maybe elsewhere in the Balkans, were all Dacians? I believe not.


That you for the clarification.


----------



## bearded

Perseas said:


> The idiom of Latin origin that Greek Vlachs speak is not "Romanian". You don't have the right to call it so, please, as I don't have the right to call Romanian as whatever else than Romanian. I don't agree also that the existence of a Latin idiom is a mystery since Romans dominated Greece for more than 500 years and some Greeks, especially those from the rural and mountainous areas, were more susceptible to get romanised.


Hello Perseas
Maybe you are in a position to provide some details concerning the idiom/dialect spoken by the Greek Vlachs..? Since it is not Romanian, I now would be curious to know whether it has similarities with other (better known) Romance languages. If that idiom - as you say - really goes back to the ancient Roman domination over Greece, it would be interesting to learn whether it has retained any archaic remnants from its Latin origin. Thank you in advance for any element you can supply in this regard  
EDIT:  In Wikipedia several theories can be found, but they appear contradictory and not convincing..


----------



## sotos

bearded man said:


> Hello Perseas
> Maybe you are in a position to provide some details concerning the idiom/dialect spoken by the Greek Vlachs..? .... In Wikipedia several theories can be found, but they appear contradictory and not convincing..



Searching in google with the word Αρωμουνική (the official Greeek w. for the Vlach language) you will find sites like this 
http://www.glossesweb.com/2010/07/blog-post.html#.UxcrkD9_vE0  containing vocabulary and grammar of this language.
WP is not a reliable source, specially when it comes to ethnicities/languages/religions.


----------



## bearded

Hi Sotos
It is indeed a language similar to Romanian, from what I can see in that site. 
Alithinà endiafèron, kai s'efcharistò poly'.


----------

