Re: [tied] Re: The Vlach Connection

george knysh wrote:

> --- alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with you that from the testimonies we have
>> we can considerate as
>> sure the time of IX-XII century as being the time
>> they begin to spread.
>> This "spreading" is not only in the north (due their
>> location today) but
>> in south too. Is the same time (XI century) the
>> bizantins reamarque them
>> as infiltrating South of Danube (see Kekaumenos).
>
> ****GK: Why do you say "infiltrating"? Kekaumenos
> merely notes them as present, as far as I remember.***

because begining qith 976 they appear now with regularity in the
Bizantine sources. That will point to their apparition within empire. Or
is there a better explanation why before of this year they have no tbeen
mentioned at all (letting by side the episode with Blachorekinos where
the episode is not sure if we have to deal with Vlachs or not).

> *****GK: The Hungarians also attacked South before
> their defeat by Otto. *****

South, but not east; I mean here the Thisa Valey, the region where even
today are a lot of Rom. toponyms

>
> *****GK: This is where we differ. The Kyivan Chronicle
> accepts the continuity of the Vlach presence in
> Bulgaria, but denies it in Hungary, suggesting that
> they were expelled in Avar times (around 610/630). Of
> course at that point Byzantine power collapsed as far
> south as Greece, so they would not have noticed
> "infiltrators" in more northern areas other than the
> major players.*****

but they noticed it 3 centuries later?

Alex




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 04.05.2005