george knysh wrote:
> ******GK: Porphyrogenitus wrote a great deal about
> peoples outside the boundaries of the Byzantine
> Empire, esp. those of the north (e.g. Pechenegs, Rus',
> Bulgars, Magyars etc.). Since he makes no mention of
> Vlachs the argument can certainly be made that there
> were no Vlachs to mention at that time north of the
> Danube. At least none that mattered as a military and
> political factor.*******
I see it in the same way. Within the Empire we have testimonies about
every John and Peter but not about Valahs. Outside of Empire, just about
people who have been organised in a certain way and played a military or
a political role. Since neither inside of Empire, nor outside of Empire
is anything about Vlahs, it should be reasonable to assume they have not
been a military and political factor to speak about, but they have been
outside of the Empire. From the linguistic point of view the penetration
of the Slavs inside Balkan was not the issue of breaking of the
so-called "Romanian-block". The south-Slavs have been just a wave who
migrated once. Some linguists tried to argue with several waves of Slavs
coming from North ( none knows where from but " from North) , migrating
trough Romania and settling again in Moesia Superior.
I am not aware of these several "waves". It seems there has been only
one. And The south Slavs have been "broken" from west-Slavs due the
arise of the Hungarian State. The second point from the linguistic point
of view is the common lexic with Albanians. Lexic which it seems is
bigger as assumed until now. And therefore it was advanced the
hypotheses, they must have been living together somewhere. This
"somewhere" could never be located since in the medieval times is no
testimony which should give any information about "the place" where they
could live together.