Comparing Poland and Romania

Forget Romania. Right now, Romanians burning Romania. As if they would like to purify themselves from sickness and malformation that Romans granted them, devouring screaming Sarmatian souls of once proud and free Dacia. By the Christ and by the Svetovid, look what befall them

That's highly debatable:-) Writing a lot, but most of it wrong rather nullifies the entire purpose of writing, in ANY language!

Slavica rule

Spot this >

Romania today >



Romania in the middle ages >



Tradition is tradition

Yes, how dare the fools protest againt rampant governmental corruption. Real slavs simply accept their leaders stealing them blind (see Russians under Putin, Ukrainians pre-Maidan, Serbians... always).

As always, small-minded people don`t understand.

Its alright to protest against corruption. But, would this be enough? You know, Romanians are of Slavic (ie Sarmatian) ancestry and look at the name of their president. Its Klaus Iohannis. Look at Romanian personal names. Romanized. All are absolutely Romanized. Every trace of Slavdom is erased in them. Erased in genocide and ethnocide. Look at the name of country.

So, what Romania need is revolution. A real and true rebellion. They need more fire if wants to purify their violated reality. Simple impaling more people isn`t enough. They need crucial changes.

Your Slavic obsession is ridiculous. Maybe Serbia would be better off if it got Romanised!? There's nothing special or superior about Slavic -- just another ethnic family. I'm sure no-one in Romania is dreaming about getting re-Slavicised, neither do Bulgarians want to be re-Turkified.

Please back on topic

Poland, Serbia and all Slavs (ie Sarmatians) were happy to avoid destine of Dacia. No, not that Poles were not put to the sword but, fortunately, one can hardly compare Poland to Romania. Onslaught what was unleashed upon Sarmatians of Dacia is comparable only to the massacres in Galija, again committed by genocidal Romans, again on Sarmatians.


I merely talk facts.


one never know. Why wouldn`t they? western Europe crumbling. There is the chance now

the mind boggles..... what would infantile nationalist fantasies look like for you?

So it seems you're the second "waste o' breath" poster on PF, totally horse-blinkered and absolutely incapable of logical dialogue.

wow, a lot of experts on Romania here.
Great job on putting up the Saxon horrorstory graffiti as example for the country's entire past!

On topic:

As people have mentioned, Poland is financially much better off than Romania.
The roads are better obviously, and there is less corruption.
I'm not sure about English level, but I'd say Romanians are far more versed in foreign languages than Poles.
Most Romanians I know speak several languages pretty good.
When I was in Poland, apart from the hotel clerks, no one spoke anything but Polish.

A deciding factor for me would be healthcare, and let me just say that healthcare in Romania is horrible and outright dangerous.
Whoever can afford it, goes to Hungary for stuff.
This is also what keeps me from going back even though I'd love to (I'm Romanian).
If you're young and have great health, it shouldn't be too difficult though.

I'd choose the country which was healthier to live in overall, but that's just me.
(and all the coal burning in Poland isn't probably that great for a long lifespan, either...)

boggle, boggle. Your lack of historical knowledge leads to eye boggling. Your complete body must be boggling.

But, I will teach you.


Your logic is reversed, not mine. In your world some things are connected exclusively with Anglos or some other western Europeans. Everything may serve them, satisfy them, suit them,... politics, history, everything. See, we Serbians absolutely don`t give a sh** for your habits. See? We want that Poles give priorities to our interests, not to Anglo, not to Russian interests. Its because Polish and Serbian interest goes hand in hand.


yes. Nation was born from Roman genocide on native Slavs (ie Sarmatian) and tragedy goes on. Its very hard to abandon sense of horror, tragedy and darkness. Its deep in people there. Even when they fight for good cause, there is always that hint of disruption.

Only return to innocence, to Slavdom, may help. Only that may awash evil that Romans delivered on ancestors of modern day Romanians.

Yes, the Romans pretty much did a genocide on the Dacians, although they kept a few women around because dacians were tall, fair of complexion and blond mostly, therefor probably very attractive to Romans.

It is a misconception that Romania was ever slavic, though.
The Dacians weren't slavs. The Thracians weren't slavs. The Romans weren't slavs, either.

Recent research has shown that modern day Romanian is (apart from a very few loan words from slavic and turk languages) probably very close to ancient thracian and that Latin was in fact derived from Thracian, not the other way around.

Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but saying Romania was a slavic country is just not correct and contrary to everything historic and anthropologic research has revealed.

that's what crow does, he goes contrary to everything history and anthropology has revealed.


But modern Romanian has a kind of Balkan structure (avoidance of infinitives, future tense derived from the verb 'want', post-posed articles, co-flation of dative and genetive...

Is Thracian supposed to be where Balkan structure comes from?

People, you are wrong. Simple, wrong. Historical evidences exactly confirms that Thracians and Sarmatians were kin, one and same people. At the same time, historical records also says that Dacians were Sarmatians. Even medieval Serbia was known as Serbia (Sarmatia) and Raska/Racia (Th-racia). See, both names- Sarmatian/Thracian is foreign given form to native original names. Please, let us not distort Slavic (ie Sarmatian) history. Ist even insulting.

Then, historical evidences confirms that once all Slavs were known as Sarmatian. Therefore, today`s Romanians are Slavic in their origin. Not only then, actually.

I guess it depends on how you define slavs then.
Fact is, Slavs are regarded as a tribe different from Illyrians, Thracians, and Celts.
The distinction was made due to their culture, and language.
Whether or not they genetically resemble each other, I have no idea.

You could as well say Celts are slavic in origin by that logic?

It would be very interesting to know though, if they happened to excavate some old thracian kings or celtic royalty for example, and compared them to each other.

Appearance-wise, modern slavs are closer to dacian looks than the Romanians themselves I guess.

Lots of people mistake Romanians as well as Albanians, even Hungarians, for Slavs:-)

But we don`t understand each other. They aren`t Slavs. What is this about is of their origin. About fundamental population in those countries back in some point of past. Then comes the crucial change (in those cases, foreign invasion) in their circumstances and populations there ended their existence as Slavs and turned to belong to other civilization.

So, when one say that they are of Slavic origin he just state simple fact. What are those ethoses today is other matter. If they feel they aren`t Slavs, they aren`t. If they feel Slavic, they are. Simple.

Why is this important? Because of scientific truth as it is. That is very important, for all the human kind. Then, same way as existence of new nations can`t be denied, nobody has right to negate Slavic history because it suits to some political elite or interests that tend to impose inferiority complex on Slavs minimizing their contribution to global human history. See, history of each Slavic ethos belong to all Slavs. As people Slavs were formed within one civilization. After all, truth about our past, protects our future.

what does it matter? All those groups are indigenous European population.

Fine. Nobody deny that. Just some people deny Slavic past. With that, they deny rights of Slavs.

to do..... what precisely?

To have right on their history.

But, why you focusing only on that aspect of facts. Where is necessity for scientific truth? You don`t believe in that? You believe in progress founded on lies?

It would be much easier to have EU strong if people are let to know their own history. Founded on lies, EU didn`t have a chance. Because when you have lie, it means that you have evil intent. In case of EU that meant, assimilation of Slavs and progress of some others.

Wherever we look we always comes to a genesis of a problem. So, one can`t compare Poles to Romanians. Poles are in continuity with their ancestors. Romanians are in discontinuity. Try to explain this and you would be distracted by people who think that they need a lie. And they need lie just to stay normal, not to go crazy if face their delusions.

In the meanwhile, EU ist kaputt. No, it can`t survive on a omnipotent and omnipresent lie. With Brussels as Capital? Never

Regards from Serbia

The Eu will still be there Crow. Germany will be fine to run it with neighbours to assist. Looking forward to it.

Yesterday it was EU, today, as you wrote it is Eu. Tomorrow would be eu, until finally one day, it end its erroneous existence and that way cease suffering of all who aren`t western Europeans.

Then, Poland would still be Poland with nice truth about its history and Romania would be Romania, with lies about its history. But, one day we all may unite in Intermarium, eventually, hopefully, if God loves us all.

Who cares how i write it crow. Totally irrelevant. Eee you will be fine as well.

Things change. Slavs have more profitable option then it is EU. EU offering disaster to Slavs. Extinction, assimilation. No, EU isn`t for Slavs. In Intermarium I believe.

Intermarium would be better even for Romania and many others, too.

The romanian economy is growing very fast, closing the gap to Hungary and Poland in terms of GDP per capita. I wouldn't be surprised if it overtook Hungary in the next 4-5 years.

You are correct that infrastructure is behind in Romania, but you over-estimate the overall economic retardation of that country. It has very strong IT and energy sectors as well as fast growing industrial production.

Dogs haven't been a problem in Bucharest since late 2015 (they rounded them up), so horror stories about "dirt poor Romania" are more a product of the very bad press which Romania had in the past then a proper reflection of reality.

Romanians are unlikely to agree with Orban or with PiS, though they may be interested in the intermarium idea as a platform for economic and military cooperation within the EU and NATO. There is much less euro-skepticism in Romania than in Hungary or Poland.

The claims above that Romanians speak worse English than Poles are strange, my experience has been the opposite. There are many more romanians who speak reasonable english as a percentage of the population than is the case in Poland.

Can you tell us something about the language of the Dacians? To which language group did it belong?


I don't know about the Albanians, but the Hungarians assimilated a lot of Slavic people after they arrived in Central Europe - these were the Hungarians who brought the Great Moravia state to collapse. Archeologist Przemysław Urbańczyk says political refugees from Great Moravia laid the foundations for the Polanian state of Mieszko I around Gniezno/Poznań which state later came to be known as Poland. By the way, did you know that Ibrahim ibn Yaqub (אברהם בן יעקב), a Jewish traveller from Tortosa (in today's Spain) who visited Prague in 965/966 observed that the Czechs had dark hair as opposite to the inhabitants of the Polanian state who - according to him - were blond.


Truly, this is the funniest comment I've ever read on the PF!

In last 10 years on the Net I sow that many sources consider Dacians to be Thracians. Other sources telling of Dacians as of Sarmatians. Others telling that Sarmatians and Thracians were one and same ethos and shared language, while also we have sources that explain how both- Sarmatians and Thracians were Proto Slavs or old Slavs.

Having all that in mind, language of old Dacians was somewhat between languages of old Slavic linguistic variation of what is now Ukraine, Serbia and Bulgaria.

Also, I wouldn`t ignore possibility of influence of old Polani on Dacian linguistic heritage, considering that Serbians believe how entire Panonian basin got name under the Polish linguistic influence in time immemorial, when Polani warlords dominated in the region (Pan > Panonia > `Land of Masters`). See, in their epic poetry Serbians have songs dedicated to Polish warlords who travel from /citation/ ``travel from frozen land (Northern lands) to ... what is now Georgia``. Song is very old, from pre-Christian era. Unfortunately, later authors changed ancient name for Georgia and Turkey, while ancient naming of Poles remained, while newer was attached to make things clear.

There is a fragment from old Serbian epic poem where Poles are mentioned under their Polish name but also under their first original ancient designation- Lechs, on Serbian- `Leđani` (Ledjani) with literal meaning people from the ice (led = ice), people from the ice land, from frozen land, referring on people from the North (kin/brotherly tribes from North, from the Serbian Southern/climaticaly warmer perspective). Also Lithuania was considered to be land of Leđan`s (for old Serbs Lithuania = Lech!). Among Serbians, gusle players, were often bearers of verbal tradition.

ANCIENT SERBIAN EPIC POEM ABOUT POLISH WARLORD WHO TRAVEL TO GEORGIA


Translation from Serbian (my attempt):


As we can note on old maps, once, Georgia belonged to Sarmatia Asiatica. Historical chronicles remembered live and strong mutual connections between Sarmatia Europae and Sarmatia Asiatica, even tribal alliances. This poem possible represent insight in one event from that time.

Only good God knows in which conditions and circumstances this old Serbian poem was born. In any case, I believe, in time when Slavs were free and aware of their great land, before era of slavery occurred.

Back to the topic please.. Comparing Poland and Romania

Actually the general consensus is that the Lech derives from Lęda, an old Polish word meaning something like 'field' (just as the modern name is related to 'pole' with the same meaning). The modern reflex of lęda is ląd (land, in some contexts).

Lithuanian Lenkije and Hungarian Lengyel preserve the nasal element never present in the word for ice (AFAIK)