Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

--- alex_lycos <altamix@...> wrote:

> >> The Aromanians have the same Old Slavic loans but
> >> they do not have any
> >> Hungarian word into their dialect. What does it
> >> mean? They have been not
> >> in conntact with Hungarians.Puting together the
> fact
> >> that the valahs
> >> appear coincidentaly in the history once with the
> >> arise of the hungarian
> >> state,
> >
> > GK: Where do you get this? The first clearcut
> > mention of the Vlachs is in 976, south of the
> Danube,
> > and has nothing whatever to do with the
> establishment
> > of the Hungarian state.
>
> >
> > I keep my theory that there was an
> >> admigration of Romanians from
> >> North to South of Danube from West of actual
> >> Transilvania due the
> >> Hungarian power
> >
> > GK: I don't know what you're talking
> about.
>
> The Hungarian arrived in 898

*****GK: More probably in successive waves between 895
and 905, but that's minor.******

and they concentrated

> first on the west.
> After the big war against Germans where they have
> been knocked out by
> Otto the Big, they reorientated and gone east.
> Coincidentaly the war of
> Lechfelde (Augsburg) took place in 955 and in the
> next 20 years the
> Hungarians reorganised their State and made the
> alliance with the German
> house.After this they begunn the incursion in the
> east. It matches from
> time here exactly with the first appearance of the
> Valahs within the
> Byzantine Empire.

*****GK: There is some support for an "expulsion"
theory in the Old Ukrainian Chronicle. The major
problem, however, is that we are only told that this
"expulsion" [dated 898, not <955-976> was from some
territory of the Hungarian state as it existed in the
early 12th century: hence not necessarily from
Transylvania (BTW there is no archaeological data
confirming such a mass exodus), but possibly from
Pannonia (which brings us to the point made by George
Stana concerning confusions between Avar and Hungarian
history). What we may deduce from the Chronicle of
Kyiv is that ca. 1113/1116 there were practically no
Vlachs in the Hungarian state. And there is more. We
do not read of any "expulsion" of Vlachs by Bulgarians
from the Lower Danube area. So in the eyes of the
Kyivan chronicler, the ancient "imperial" Vlachs (=Old
Romans) survived there quite nicely. Again, however,
the only secure conclusion to draw here is that in
1113/1116, while there were no Vlachs in Hungary,
there were very many in Bulgaria (i.e. in the
Pecheneg-dominated East Bulgaria, not reconquered by
the Byzantines until ca. 1123).*******

>
>
> >
> > If we count on the fact that the
> >> first Bulgarian Empire
> >> was alone "bulgarian" that will mean the valahs
> have
> >> been not very
> >> numerous south of Danube
> >
>
> I speak here about the role of the valahians within
> the Bulgarian
> Empire. In the first Bulgarian Empire the valahs
> have played no role,
> they are not mentioned as existing.

*****GK: I wouldn't rely very much on this assumption.
In the first place, the early Bulgarian state was
named after and dominated by the Proto-Bulgars
(non-Slav, non-Vlach). Even after the adoption of
Slavic as a liturgical and state language (but without
eliminating Greek altogether) in the late 9th c. it is
these Slavonized Proto-Bulgars who were the primary
(though no longer exclusively so) force in the state.
The fact that the Vlachs were not specially mentioned
implies nothing. Just as the fact that the Old
Ukrainian chronicle calls the Pecheneg-dominated
Bulgaria simply "Bulgaria" does not mean that Pecheneg
lords were insignificant or non-existent within it. We
have the witness of this Chronicle about the
continuation of Vlach settlements in Bulgaria for a
long time, in fact from Roman times.*******

In

> the second Empire,they became important thus the
> name of the second
> Bulgarian Empire which was The Vlaho-Bulgarian
> Empire. In my opinion,
> the valahs could play a role in the second Bulgar
> Empire because they
> have been numerous enough this time. This number is
> to explain trough
> the
> admigration from the old dwelling place they left
> because the Hungarian
> conquest after 970. The facts fits together.

******GK: None of this is convincing Alex. As
mentioned, there were very many Vlachs in Bulgaria
prior to 955. Numbers didn't matter. There were even
more Slavs, but they didn't play a dominant role in
the First Bulgarian state.******


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com