Re: [tied] Oguzname [Re: Klaproth]

From: george knysh
Message: 23162
Date: 2003-06-13

--- alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> george knysh wrote:
> > --- alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> >>> (GK) But why should you assume that this
> northward
> >>> migration was the result of "danger"?
> >>
> >> (AM)A migration was allways the result of a
> danger.
> >> Military or economicaly.
> >
> > GK: Nope. People frequently migrate to "seek
> a
> > better life".
>
>
> Nope. Even the slavs did not migrated until they
> lost their homeland due
> activities of the Goths and Huns( I make the
> difference betwen nomads
> and migrating people)

*****GK: Just exactly which "homeland" did the Slavs
lose "due to the activities of Goths and Huns"?*****
>
> >> (AM)Are for you the Plovtsians the Polovzer? If
> yes
> > they
> >> have been far away
> >> from that theritory. Between Romania and Polovzer
> we
> >> have a lot of other
> >> slavic and not slavic folks. Do I make any
> mistake
> >> or the Polovtsians
> >> have been on Dnjepr,in the East of the river?
> >
> > *****GK: There were various groups east and west
> of
> > the river, and they also freely roamed north of
> the
> > Danube as far as the Iron Gates area.*****
>
>
> Huh? I don't know about records talking about
> Polovtsians roaming north
> of Danube.

*****GK: Your lack of knowledge is not my problem
Alex. You really should read Byzantine and other
chronicles.******

From your clear statment one should
> understand there is
> historical evidence about these tribes coming so far
> to Iron Gates. Is
> there a such evidence?

*****GK: Of course. *****
>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Why
> >>> not assume a combination of overpopulation and
> >>> response to invitations (isn't the latter an
> >> accepted
> >>> explanation as to the relationship between the
> >>> Hungarian monarchy and some South of Danube
> >> Vlachs?
> >>
> >> I am afraid I don't know what do you mean here.
> Can
> >> you give some more
> >> details?
> >
> > GK: That's pretty standard stuff Alex. I'll
> let
> > you do your own research on the particulars.
>
> Maybe I was not very clear. I don't know what you
> mean about
> relationship of Hungarian Monarchy and some vlachs
> South of Danube. This
> is what I meant.
>
>
> >> Which is the very imperious inexpugnable
> conclusion
> >> that the presence of
> >> the valahians in North of Danube is a result
> which
> >> can be explained
> >> trough a migration only?
> >
> > GK The absolute silence concerning them in
> the
> > sources.
>
>
> I agree with the fact that absolutely silence
> concering them is the best
> way to explain their presence in a place just trough
> a migration. I must
> agree with your logic here. Starting from this point
> where we both
> agree, I tell you the vlachs migrated indeed from
> North of Danube to all
> the 4 cardinal points entering the Byzantine Empire.
> The arrising of the
> Hungarian state and the activity of Hungarians was
> the needed menance
> which explains the migration very well and fits
> together with the
> apparition of the Valachians first time in the
> byzantine records. And
> they have not been South of Danube (or not numerous
> enough for being
> considerated), as you said, due the absolutely
> silence concerning them
> in the sources.
>
>
> PS
> Let me tell you something: we have today year 2003.
> Beside the
> international european events of the XX-century
> there has been _no war_
> between South Slavs and Valachs. Neither with the
> Bulgarians, nor mit
> Serbo-Croatians. In 1500 years if you don't mind. On
> the contrary, this
> was a mutual help where a lot of Slavs (and even
> Greeks later) found a
> refugee place Noth of Danube as the turkish menance
> showed its face in
> Europe. This shows in fact that all the history of
> the valachs and slavs
> was a friendly one. Unfortunately, this cannot be
> said about Hungarians.
> And of course , is cannot be said about Polonian and
> Russian state.But
> we do not need to discusee about this aspect since
> here we have a lot of
> testimonies and there is no need for.

*****GK: Well Vlachs are initially mentioned South of
the Danube only (by contemporary sources). And only
200 years later do we have mentions of them North of
the Danube.. Incidentally perhaps you might focus on
the spread of Christianity among the Vlachs (and
Romanians) as an indicator of their history. The
"official" view is I think that the Romanians
converted to Christianity in the latter stages of the
Roman Empire. This seems quite unlikely to me. For in
that case their liturgy would have been Latin. As it
is the Vlachs (Romanians) used the Slavonic liturgy
for centuries, beginning to switch to Romanian in the
17th (and not completing the process until the 19th)
century). I understand that there are no Greek loan
words for religious or pastoral terms. All this tells
me that the ancestors of the Romanians did not live
close to centers of either Latin or Greek
Christianity. Paradoxically this rules out the
"flatlands" around the Danube. The remote mountainous
areas are better suited to a population with such a
"late" Christian start. But which ones? The historical
records settle this in favour of the South methinks.
The Pechenegs and Magyars cut off Bulgaria from its
Trandanubian possessions at about the same time that
it experienced a flowering of Slavonic religious
culture.*****


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com