It's absurd to claim that there were no Romanians in 14th century. "Vlachs" is simply the name which the Slavs, Greeks and Hungarians used for Romanians.
Your claim that the Romanians of Maramureş were not Romanians in 14th century is simply your own POV, unsupported by any sources or scholarship.
The comparison with Charlemagne is a fallacy. He was a Frank, probably speaker of their Germanic language, so he couldn't have been French. bogdan (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- No that's only your POV. All sources from the period call them Vlachs. That Vlachs is not just the name of Romanians is proved by the fact that none of the languages you quoted use it to refer to the Romanians of today. Yeah, Romanians evolved from a part of the Vlachs, but to speak of Romanians in the 14th century is simply false. Just because they are fewer Moldovans here that's no reason to bully them to push your POV (you'd never dare to call the Asens Romanians because of the strong Bulgarian community here) Xasha (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Xasha, accusations of POV-pushing are generally unhelpful. Let's take a look at what Peter Jordan has to say on p. 184 of Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Christina Bratt Paulston and Donald Peckham, shall we? (Note that none of these people are themselves Romanian.) (Emphasis mine) "Already in the thirteenth century there must have been enough Transylvanian Vlachs or Romanians to populate Moldavia and Wallachia by emigration right after their devastation by the Mongols and to give these regions a distinct Romanian character... Nobility [in Transylvania] was accessible only for Catholics; most Vlachs/Romanians, who refused conversion from Orthodoxy, became serfs".
- As you can see, the terms as used in modern scholarship are interchangeable for at least as early as the 13th century. No point in pursuing this further. Biruitorul Talk 02:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)