From: george knysh
Message: 24596
Date: 2003-07-16
> george knysh wrote:us
>
> >>
> >> There is a problem. Why should became a "need" to
> >> mention them in the IX
> >> century then _within_ the boundaries of the
> empire?
> >>
> >> Alex
> >
> > GK: I don't understand your point , Alex.
> Please
> > clarify.
> >
>
> I just quote your sentence:
>
> (GK)As to the Vlachs, again, there was no particular
> need to mention those
> within the boundaries of the Empire Had they
> been a significant presence north of the Danube they
> would doubtless
> have received a notice.
>
> (A)Let us forget the Valahs North of Danube and let
> concentrate just of*****GK: You are doubly confused, Alex, aren't you?
> them which must have been South of Danube, but there
> was no need to
> mentionate them . I assume you think there was no
> need to mentionate
> them because they have been the usualy, stinknormaly
> citizien of the
> empire.
> However, a bit later in the IX century, they are
> mentionated. And not as
> stinknormaly citizien of empire, anonyms and with no
> need to be
> mentioned, but they are mentionated as a distinct
> entity which got a
> name. Valahs.
>
> Thus, here is the question:
>
> - why was no need to mention them in the VIII
> century within the
> boundary of the empire, but 1 century later there
> was the need to
> mention them within these boundary as a distinct
> group?
>
> Alex