Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

george knysh wrote:

>
> *****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).*******

In 1160 are mentioned already the Valahs North of Danube in the campany
of Manuel Comnenus as he elibertaed a vlahian leader which was
imprisoned by Cumans ( I speak about Sotas ).. Do you think that in
these 50 years has took place the migration from South to North ?

>
> *****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.*******

This is right and a health point of view. But we do not have to forget
that the Assanian got help from North of Danube, from Valahs and from
Cumans.The Pecengs have been as the Cummans insignifiant since they
dissapiered as population being assimilated by Slavs, Rumanians,
Hungarians later.The lords -in my opinion- play no big role. They are
strong a time, they go somewhere else, became exterminated by others,
became assimilated. Which is the witness of this Cronicle about the
continuation of Vlach settlements in Bulgaria from Roman times? I ask it
because Prophyrogenetus does not speak about any valahs in his work ,
just about the Romans of the Dalmatian region.

>
> 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.******

convincing what? that there was no admigration from North? If not
convincing, there are more convincing points for an migration North to
South as one South to North. A migration South to North has no basis,
less the wish it should have been. Which are for you points which show
or let to see a migration from South to North?