History and language were the most important arms with which Micu, as also Ôincai and Maior, has sought to argue for the right of the Rumanian people to a life in freedom and equality with the other nationalities of Transylvania.

The Rumanian people was formed in a prolonged process which was made possible by the colonization and Romanization of Moesia and Dacia. Two elements are found on the basis of this ethnogenesis: the autochthonous population with a ThracoBDacoBMoesic language and the Roman element, represented by the colonists of Rome, who settled in this DacoBMoesic territory during the centuries of Roman domination, and by the Romanizing influence of this domination.

The birth of the Rumanian people in the territory of its fatherland (naÕterea poporului romîn pe teritoriul patriei sale) was in the first place made possible by the continued existence of a Latin-speaking population in the entire territory between the Haemus mountains and the Northern Dacian Carpathians ALSO AFTER THE OFFICIAL ABANDONMENT OF DACIA. In fact, this continuity was ascertained, its main foci being the Romanized centres of the former province of Dacia and the valley of the lower Danube, including Dobrogea. It continued without interruption, in time and space, not only until the massive settlement of the Slavs in Dacia and in the Balkan peninsula, but also after.

During this period, the MoesoBDanubian Roman population (romanitatea moeso-danubian|) of urban, rural, and pastoral character contributed effectively to the completion of the Romanization of the territories north of the river, by unceasing intermigrations of the population from one shore to the other as well as by contacts of political character (temporary domination of the RomanoBByzantine Empire north of the Danube), of economic and cultural character (the propagation of Christianity in the Latin language) which the Empire maintained with the territories beyond the Danube.

After the end of the RomanoBByzantine domination on the southern side of the Danube (about the year 600), and as a consequence of the symbiosis of the autochthonous Romance population with the Slavs who settled in Dacia and in Moesia, the process of Rumanian ethnogenesis in a more restricted sense of the word started in the entire DacoBMoesian territory, lasting about two or three centuries (from the 7th to the 9th century). The contacts between the Romance population of Moesia and Dacia were not interrupted in these centuries either, but were preserved, though from now on the common Latin language spoken by this population started to sever itself from popular Latin when going through the first stage of the common Rumanian language (the so-called Ancient Rumanian (str|româna).

From this small area of the Balkan peninsula B it is true that it was strongly Romanized B those waves of Romance population are alleged to have started which, according to another theory, that of the linguist A. Philippide, led to the re-Romanization, from the 7th century on, of the territories north of the Danube, where at present 17 million people speak Rumanian. The probability of such a massive migration, starting from a limited area is, however, very small.

The phonetic, lexical, and grammatical changes in the DacoBMoesian Rumanian language (romanica daco-moesic|) took place in the long interval between the 7th and 9th centuries. This language was carried towards the south by the Vlachs, the ancestors of the Arumanians mentioned by Byzantine historians of the 10th century as having arrived from the Danubian regions, from the vicinity of Dacia. Thus, at this period, the formation of the Rumanian language was completed.

Die slawische Toponymie Rumäniens, besonders die im Banat, in Siebenbürgen, in Oltenien und Muntenien zeigt dieselbe südslawischen phonetischen Kennzeichen, wie auch im Wortschatz der rumänischen Sprache vorkommenden slawischen Elemente. Folglich muss die Urheimat der rumänischen Sprache nördlich des Kammes des Haemus-Gebirges und zwar bis in Gebiete, zu denen die Romanisierung vordrang, also BIS NACH DACIEN HINEIN, und bis östlich der heutigen Grenze zwischen Jugoslavien und Bulgarien gesucht werden.

Von diesen donau-moesischen Gebieten her sind im Laufe des frühen Mittelalters (etwa im 7.B9. Jahrhundert, also nach dem Eindringen der Bulgaren) romanische Schafhirten nicht nur nach Süden, Südwesten und Westen, in die Balkanhalbinsel (die Vorfahren der heutigen Arumänen, Megleno-Rumänen und, auf der Istrien-Halbinsel, der Istro-Rumänen), sondern auch nach Norden, in das gebirgige Dazien gezogen.

The territory of formation of Common Rumanian was defined above (p. 321). According to Densusianu, (H.d.l.r., I, 289), this territory would have comprised Moesia, Illyria,and Dacia; PuÕcariu (Ét. de ling. roum., 112) puts the territory of formation of the Rumanian language on both shores of the Danube (Aa large territory, south and north of the Danube@, LR I, 255, Treimer (Literaturbl. f. germ. u. rom. Phil., LXII, col. 64B65) in Illyria, Dardania, and Paeonia, and Philippide (Orig. Rom., II, 385), in the Balkan peninsula.

The presence of a Romanized population (Vlachs...) in the western parts of the Balkan peninsula is normal. It does not exclude the persistence of a Romanized element north of the Danube in those regions which once were under Roman rule. The existence of a Rumanian population north of the Danube (at Dridu, Urziceni, and Bucov, PloieÕti) in the 9th and 10th centuries is, as a matter of fact, proved by archaeological excavations (Nestor, Don. archéol. 407B410).

M. Besnier, L´Empire romain, de l´avenement des Sévères au concile de Nicée, Paris, p. 243 (Histoire romaine. IV, 1): the evacuation of Dacia Ane fut pas complète ... La masse des paysans ne bougea pas ... Ainsi s´explique la persistence si tenace de la race et de la langue latines dans la contrée que Trajan avait conquise@. After the official abandonment of Dacia by Aurelian, a part of the Romanized population B with the exception of the soldiers, functionaries and a considerable part of the town-dwellers and of those who were living in the countryside B remained in their places, in the Banat (C. Patsch, Banater Sarmaten, Akad. d. Wissenschaft. in Wien, Anzeiger 1925, nr. XXVII, p. 215.) For the conditions in which this Romanized population survived in Dacia under the domination of the barbarians, until the arrival of the Slavs, cf. Daicoviciu, Transylv., p. 79 ff.

In the year 535, the diocese of the bishop of Skopje comprised the provinces Dacia Ripensis, Dacia Mediterranea, Moesia Superior, Praevalis, Macedonia Secunda and the eastern part of southern Pannonia, thus, also the provinces enumerated above (M. Friedwagner, ZRPh., LIV, 663). AWe are forced to admit that at least part of the ancient Rumanians lived south of the Danube@ (PuÕcariu, LR, I, 270).

This territory, restricted and enlarged in the course of time (in 235B238, Moesia Inferior was abandoned because of the incursions of the migrating peoples, and in 268 were Dacia and Moesia Superior abandoned; in 377, the Huns occupied Pannonia: Philippide, Orig. rom., I, 854), does not comprise the regions in which the Rumanian language was to be extended later (unde limba român| era s| se întind| mai tîrziu): eastern Transylvania, Bucovina, Moldova, Basarabia, Úara Româneasc| and Dobrogea.

We must not forget that the problem of continuity appeared for a very long time ago in the science of history and that it has a well-defined content, which we are not allowed to change according to our own wishes. This problem pertains exclusively to Roman Dacia: it was for THIS territory that the followers of Roesler denied the preservation under Roman rule of the Dacian population, for THIS territory was Daco-Roman continuity denied after 271 AD, in THIS territory were Abrought@, also by Roesler´s partisans, from the territory south of the Danube, the Rumanians in the 9thB13th centuries. The problem of continuity is thus a problem regarding Roman Dacia.

Does this mean that in Muntenia and in Moldavia no continuity of human life existed? Not at all! Muntenia and Moldavia were never left deserted, but there one cannot talk of Dacian continuity under Roman rule, only of continuity of the free Dacians. There is not and cannot be a Daco-Roman continuity after the abandonment by Aurelian because of the simple reason that between 106B 271, Muntenia and Moldavia not having been occupied by the Romans, little more than a bare beginning of Romanization can have occurred there, and the abandonment by Aurelian changed almost nothing of the situation in these territories. The Dacian population of Muntenia and Moldavia was Romanized much later.

Since he wanted to save the prestige of the Romans and at the same time not to diminish the figure of Aurelian, who is praised by the author to have restored the empire, Eutropius Aaugments@ (l|rgeÕte) the operation of evacuation of Dacia and creates in this way the illusion of a total evacuation, in the same way as he, in connection with Trajan, talked about a total colonization of Dacia. And in this way, a false tradition was created, taken up by Festus and then put into circulation.

Of course, the possibility cannot be excluded that the Byzantine authors had the autochthonous population in mind when using archaic expressions or the name of some dominating peoples, since it might be possible that the chroniclers meant, without saying it explicitly, the masses of local peoples when they wrote about those numerous Anationes@ and Agentes@ over which ( also according to the chroniclers of the age) Huns and Avars reigned.

One may also observe the progress attained by the Hunnish society thanks to the contact with the Roman civilization. The court of Attila, the dwelling place of Onegesios, the bath constructed by a prisoner from Sirmium are only some examples. We also may add the fact that there was an organized office, that several languages were spoken at the court of Attila. About this, Priscus writes: Abecause the Scythians are mixed and besides their own language, they try to speak the language of the Huns, or that of the Goths or that of the Ausoni, when some of them have to do with the Romans.@ This is not the place to once again discuss the question of the Ausoni and their language. For us, the statement by Priscus that this language was used for the understading with the Romans (osoiV autwn proV RwmaiouV epimizia kai ou radiwV tiV ellenizei th jwnh), and not with the Byzantine Greeks, is sufficient. It was thus a Romance language (o limb| romanic|), probably Latin spoken in the Romanized region of the Danube valley (the two Moesiae and Daciae, Pannonia, which together with north-Danubian Dacia and Scythia Minor, constitute the territory of the Danubian Roman population).

(2) The persecution of king Hellenos (?) would have been Acaused by the hatred against the Romans@, but it did not succeed in suppressing the Christians. In fact, Epiphanios writes (70, 15, 4): Aand even though it would appear as if all Christians had been expelled, SOME BELIEVERS REMAINED THERE.@ Such affirmations give us the right to ask whether the hatred against the Romans was directed against the Roman state or only against the Roman subjects of the Goths.

(3) Talking about the propagation of Christianity among the Goths, [Sozomenos, an historian living in the 5th century] says that it was spread among the Goths as well as among Athose who earlier were their neighbours along the shores of the Ister@, an information which deserves to be remembered. Who were earlier the neighbours of the Goths the author refers to? Sarmatians, Carps, Daco-Romans? An opportunity to meditate and an incentive to go into the problem more deeply is offered us also by the affirmation that under the influence of Christianity, Athey (the Goths) adapted themselves to a more civilized and better life@.

During their incursions into the Empire, the different Slavic tribes often brought with them as prisoners, groups of Thraco-Romanized population (populaÛie traco-romanizat|) from the territory south of the Danube. The Latin language was used north of the Danube, and in this context an important record was left by Procopios. Narrating the attempt made by the Ant [a Slavic tribe] Chilbudios to appear as if he were the general with the same name who died, Procopios shows how he was exposed by general Narses, AIN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE SPOKE LATIN and that he learned to imitate many of the habits of the Roman general Chilbudios ...@ The fact that the false Chilbudios learned the Latin language north of the Danube can only be explained by the presence there of a Romance population and by the use of the Latin language among the different groups [emphasis in the original].

...all repeated in the language of the local peoples (în limba b|ÕtinaÕilor): Atorna, tornaA, i.e., return, as if it had been the sign of peril. The words are evidently Romance. Since the author shows that they were uttered in the language of the local population of the Balkans, it is obvious that these people were Romance (este evident c| aceÕtia erau romanici).

The difficulty is to understand the exact significance of the word refugees. Are they some inhabitants of the Empire who fled to the Slavs and were used by these to deceive the Byzantine army? Or are they somehow Romans originating from the north of the Danube, because, Ain the course of time, their mode of life changed@, in the course of the symbiosis with the Slavs? [...] The problem remains open.

The lively connections between the populations of the Dacian territory and the Roman provinces situated between the Danube and the Balkan mountains were an important factor in the preservation of the north-Danubian Roman population (în menÛinerea romanit|Ûii nord-dun|rene).

...The exchange is shown to have been very active as proved by the continued circulation of Roman coins and the presence of some RomanoBByzantine products far in the territory of Dacia.

...by some periodical markets organized in the same way as in other periods, on the shore of the Danube, supervised by the garrison. Many weights were found here, one of which was used for the checking of coins of precious metal from the barbarian world. In Sucidava, imitations of RomanoBByzantine bronze coins circulated, made by the populations of Dacia.

Thus, for about 170 years, the Romans dominated, by these fortified centres distributed from BaziaÕ to GalaÛi, over an important part of the territory along the Danube.

Anonymus, the notary of King Bela III, gives us interesting information concerning the political situation of Transylvania in the first half of the 10th century. It is true that Anonymus wrote his work, AThe feats of the Hungarians@ (Gesta Hungarorum) towards the end of the 12th century, but he used other historical records from the end of the 11th century, as well as the sources he had access to as a person of high rank in the Royal Court, while the oral tradition was still alive in his period. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that Anonymus included records concerning later periods when referring to the first half of the 10th century; a custom practised by many other medieval historians. But what is in the first place to be retained from the record of Anonymus is the basis of the narrative, the essential instead of the details. In this respect, historical criticism arrived at the conclusion that the things Anonymus described deserve to be trusted, that they reflect the reality of the period to which they refer.

As also mentioned in volume I (p. 804), Anonymus described three political formations, three principalities (voivodates): one in CriÕana, led by Aprince@ (voivod) Menomorut, which comprised the territory between the rivers MureÕ and SomeÕ, with its centre in the forests of Biharea; the second in the Banat, between the MureÕ and the Danube, the leader of which was Aprince@ Glad, who probably had his seat in the fortress of Cuvin (Keve), between the TimiÕ and the Danube, and the third in Transylvania proper extending from the gate of the MeseÕ mountains to the springs of the rivers SomeÕ, led by Aprince@ Gelu, who had his centre near Cluj.

In the Banat was the principality (voivodate) of Glad, who also tried to defend his possession, concentrating his large army of equestrians and pedestrians formed by Cumans, Bulgarians, and Rumanians (Cumani et Bulgari atque Blachi). Since he was subdued, Glad fled to the fortress (castrum) of Cuvin (Keve) followed by the invaders who at first conquered this fortress and later that of OrÕova.

The attacks of the Hungarians were thereafter directed towards Transylvania proper where the principality inhabited by Rumanians and Slavs (Blasii et Sclavi) was situated, led by the Rumanian prince (quidam Blachus) Gelu. Since the Hungarian tribes were not arrested at the gate of the MeseÕ mountains, they penetrated into the pincipality of Gelu, pursuing the army of the prince until the river AlmaÕ, where a battle took place; being defeated, Gelu tried to flee to his fortress (ad castrum suum) near the SomeÕ but was killed not far from the river C|puÕ, and the Hungarians and the autochthonous population, Ashaking hands@, came to an agreement, electing Tuhutum as their leader, the leader of the Hungarian tribe.

In his story, Anonymus presents the events in such a way that the merits of the main hero of his work, prince Árpád, comes to light as much as possible. The similarity of the events which have led to the defeat of the above-mentined princes B in the way they are described by Anonymus B raises some suspicion regarding the veracity of the narrative. Even if the details of the described events were not true B these must be regarded with some reservation (for example the names of the princes, derived very probably by the historian from the existing placenames in the principalities in question), the core of the story deserves to be taken into consideration, the more so because certain descriptions have been verified by records from other sources: the existence of the successor of Glad, prince Ahtum, by the Legend of Saint Gerard, the events in Transylvania in the first years of the 10th century, by chroniclers from the 13th and 14th centuries, the occupation of the fortress of Biharea, the events concerning Gelu etc., by the latest archaeological excavations.

Thus, we may consider that the existence of some political formations, some voivodates, led by Aprinces@, i.e., voivodes, in the territory of Transylvania at the beginning of the 10th century was a reality.