More lies, ignorance and misinformation. First of all Romanians are mentioned in works from the 6th century (The Miracles of St. Demetrius).
From The Miracles of Saint Demetrius, Book II, V: (written ca. 680 AD)
As you know, lovers of Christ, we have related in part, in what has proceeded, about the Sklavenes, the one called Chatzon, and also the Avars; that having ravaged virtually all Illyricum and its provinces, I mean the two Pannonias, [b]the two Dacias[/b], Dardania, Mysia, Praevalin, Rhodope, and also Thrace and the regions along the walls of Byzantium, and having taken the rest of the cities and towns, they lead the people to a place near the Danube in the direction of Pannonia whose metropolis had been formerly the aforementioned Sirmium. [b]It was there, as it is said, that the aforementioned Chagan settled all the people he had captured to be henceforth his subjects. There they intermarried with Bulgars, Avars, and other peoples, had children with them, [i]children whom they brought up according to the traditions of the Romans[/i][/b], and so through orthodoxy and the holy and life-giving baptism the race of the Christians increased and became numerous as had that of the Hebrews in Egypt under the Pharaoh. And as each related to the other concerning the residence of their ancestors, they fired in each other’s heart to desire to return.https://www.jassa.org/?p=11361>The Miracles are particularly valuable as a historical source. (Wikipedia)
So, gypsy, mind explaining to me how [b]Romans[/b] were captured from [b]the TWO Dacias[/b] in the 600s, and then continued their traditions and way of life to the extent that they wanted to return their homelands? I await your response.
Second, Romanians were also mentioned in chronicles pertaining to events in the 9th century, namely the Russian Primary Chronicle. Pic related. These works were based on earlier works that are now lost. I'm also going to mention your own Anonymus because it makes you so buttmand.
Chroniclers of the time were largely interested in political factions and events, not irrelevant smallfolk. They talk about the dominant elites (Petchenegs, Avars, Cumans, Bulgars, Franks, etc.), not the ruled classes. They are of no importance to them since they aren't the game-changers.
Finns weren't mentioned at all until the Swedes started colonizing them, that means Finns must not have existed. Great argument.
There's a lot of archaeological evidence to go by, old Roman sites being fortified or moved, which you conveniently ignore. We know when the slavs came in the Carpathian basin because they did not even have the potter's wheel or metal knives.
There are no works documenting any kind of migration you speak of. There are plenty of medieval writers that however attest that Romanians are the old inhabitants of Dacia (I posted some earlier >>27128
, you ignored). Not only do linguistic studies prove you wrong (Romanian and Balkan languages aren't related (except for Istro and Aromanian)) but modern Genetic studies do as well - Romanians have more affinity with Bulgarians (Thracians) than they do with Serbs, Albanians, etc. where you would supposedly place them.
Explain also the origin of place names referring to Vlachs (Vlașca, Codrul Vlăsiei) in Romania if they weren't there. Explain the survival of ancient river names.
It's hilarious to me the hypocrisy of a migratory minority people trying to turn things around and make the others the migrants.
The theory of Daco-Roman continuity is the academically accepted consensus and the politically invented Roeslerian migrationist theory had already been BTFO in the 19th century, no matter how much you seethe about it.
Also, you haven't answered me earlier: how do Hungarian extremists explain how what are according them a bunch of shepherds that wandered from the Balkan mountains became the most numerous people in Transylvania despite being excluded from the Unio Trio Nationum, being religiously persecuted and impoverished (having their lands confiscated)?