Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

george knysh wrote:

>
> ******GK: A number of statements in the Kyivan
> Chronicle. Beginning with the affirmation that the
> "Vlachs" conquered the lands along the Danube, "where
> today (=ca. 1113/1116 AD) the lands of Hungary and
> Bulgaria are".[This takes place before the alleged
> visit of St Andrew to the place where Kyiv later
> stood, therefore by about 50 A.D.]. The next statement
> is that the Bulgars arrive on the Lower Danube and
> conquer the Slavs [ca. late 7th c.] But there is no
> statement about them dominating the Vlachs, or chasing
> them out. These stay, as a kind of "secondary
> aristocracy". The next statement (s.a. 898) is about
> the arrival of the Hungarians, and the "expulsion" of
> the Vlachs from "Hungary" (Slavs stay). So putting it
> all together, the conclusion is that there is Vlach
> continuity in Bulgaria from the 1rst c., but not in
> Hungary.*****

Do you intedn to say that in the Kyivan Chronicle the Romans are seen as
valahs? Is there in this cronicle the use of the word "valah" when the
chronicar speak about Romans?
I have the passage by byself here but so far I remember in the chronic
is nothing about the 50 AD but just the short eventy before the
hungarians came. It can be it is a malformed image since I have just
this passage. This is why I ask. Does the chronicar use for Romans in
other relations as the qonquest of Panonia the word "valah"?

>
> ******GK: Alex, are you being disingenuous again? You
> have been repeatedly told, that the historical
> documentation indicates that historically attested
> Vlach comunities initially emerge south of the Danube
> (clear mentions in the 10th and 11th centuries). Not
> until the 12th century do we have evidence of a
> significant Vlach presence north of the Danube.

We do not have documents and nothing more. But one can see this way.
Which testimony do we have about the life North of Danube ( cities,
rivers ) in the Time of Gepidae, Huns, Avars? No one. Does it mean they
have not been there? Of course, they have been there. It is simply lack
information about North of Danube and that is all.On this basis cannot
be made any conclusion positive or negative.

> And
> increasingly so. Now all this is totally compatible
> with the notion that the Vlachs represent a Romanized
> population (including elements integrated after the
> demise of the Empire), which progressively expands
> across the Danube, and eventually creates important
> political formations there (though continuing to exist
> south of the river as well). That's the brunt of the
> evidence. So who's doing the wishful thinking?
> (:=)))*****

Where are the slavs? How do they exactly here in this region make a hole
and they are not more to find?
Why begining with 1330 is no mention about the slavs in the Rumanians
Principates?
How is to explain a such quick assimilation of them in 100 years if
there has been this migration?
How does it come that in the Time of Stefan the Big the chronics speak
about the Polish peasants captured by Stefan and settled in Moldavia?
Polish, not "slavs".
How does it come the chronicars speak about ukrainian cazacs have
activated in the army of moldavian rulers but no slavs?
How does it come the Bulgarian are mentionated as the Turks came, as
they refugied in Romania.
We speak already about polish, bulgarian, ukrainian, but not about the
slavs anymore. This is what seems very hard to understand. Admiting they
have been there, they dissapiered too quick and are nowhere mentionated.
More, this region is the one where no Slavic state emerged. Why? Why
should be this hole there? My answer is the one you do not addmit. I
have to hear yours:-)