Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

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

> 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 think that it is certainly arguable that it
was underway in verifiable fashion. It could even have
started in a small way prior to 1123, and continued
after 1160.We don't need to imagine this as something
akin to the Biblical Exodus. Perhaps a good analogy of
this northward movement is that of the earlier Slavic
southward movement. That of relatively large and
autonomous collectivities, not some centralized
process. And into areas (at first) not particularly
well controlled by any of the existing powers.******

>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> (Alex)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.

*****GK: Certainly no problem in 1185-1186.*******

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.

******GK: I think you should read some of the
Byzantine chronicles of the 11th c. to realize how big
a role the Pecheneg lords of Bulgaria played. They
ruled the land Alex. But it was "Bulgaria" not
"Pechenigia".*****

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?

******GK: A number of statements in the Kyivan
Chronicle. Beginning with the affirmation that the
"Vlachs" conquered the lands along the Danube, "where
today (=ca. 1113/1116 AD) the lands of Hungary and
Bulgaria are".[This takes place before the alleged
visit of St Andrew to the place where Kyiv later
stood, therefore by about 50 A.D.]. The next statement
is that the Bulgars arrive on the Lower Danube and
conquer the Slavs [ca. late 7th c.] But there is no
statement about them dominating the Vlachs, or chasing
them out. These stay, as a kind of "secondary
aristocracy". The next statement (s.a. 898) is about
the arrival of the Hungarians, and the "expulsion" of
the Vlachs from "Hungary" (Slavs stay). So putting it
all together, the conclusion is that there is Vlach
continuity in Bulgaria from the 1rst c., but not in
Hungary.*****

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.

******GK: Only in your dreams I'm afraid. Unless you
mean the 271 out-migration, and subsequent Carpian and
other "barbarian" migrations (which could have
included Dacian elements).*****

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?

******GK: Alex, are you being disingenuous again? You
have been repeatedly told, that the historical
documentation indicates that historically attested
Vlach comunities initially emerge south of the Danube
(clear mentions in the 10th and 11th centuries). Not
until the 12th century do we have evidence of a
significant Vlach presence north of the Danube. And
increasingly so. Now all this is totally compatible
with the notion that the Vlachs represent a Romanized
population (including elements integrated after the
demise of the Empire), which progressively expands
across the Danube, and eventually creates important
political formations there (though continuing to exist
south of the river as well). That's the brunt of the
evidence. So who's doing the wishful thinking?
(:=)))*****


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