Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

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

> george knysh wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Do you intedn to say that in the Kyivan Chronicle
> the Romans are seen as
> valahs? Is there in this cronicle the use of the
> word "valah" when the
> chronicar speak about Romans?

*****GK: To be absolutely precise, the Chronicler does
distinguish "Romans" and "Vlachs". Apparently, the
"Romans" are the inhabitants of the city of Rome, and
the "Vlachs" are the inhabitants of Italy ("the Vlach
Land") but not all of it since the "Venetians" are
listed separately.******

> I have the passage by byself here but so far I
> remember in the chronic
> is nothing about the 50 AD

******GK: The Chronicle is undated prior to 852 AD.
But there is an attempt to present facts in
chronological sequence (even if no early dates are
given). Ca. 50 AD, since the "Vlach" conquest of the
Danube is mentioned just prior to St Andrew's putative
trip to Chersones and northward.******

but just the short eventy

> before the
> hungarians came. It can be it is a malformed image
> since I have just
> this passage. This is why I ask. Does the chronicar
> use for Romans in
> other relations as the qonquest of Panonia the word
> "valah"?

******GK: It is the "Vlachs", not the "Romans" who
conquer these Danubian lands in the Chronicle.******

> >
> > 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.
>
> We do not have documents and nothing more. But one
> can see this way.
> Which testimony do we have about the life North of
> Danube ( cities,
> rivers ) in the Time of Gepidae, Huns, Avars? No
> one. Does it mean they
> have not been there? Of course, they have been
> there. It is simply lack
> information about North of Danube and that is all.On
> this basis cannot
> be made any conclusion positive or negative.

*****GK: As a matter of fact we do have quite a bit of
information about "life north of the Danube", even if
it is in snippets. So your contention is
incorrect.****

>
> >(GK) 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?
> > (:=)))*****
>
> Where are the slavs? How do they exactly here in
> this region make a hole
> and they are not more to find?

*****GK: Define "this region". I don't wish to debate
in a vacuum. I believe there is a great deal of
toponymic evidence attesting to a historical Slavic
presence.*****

> Why begining with 1330 is no mention about the slavs
> in the Rumanians
> Principates?

*****GK: Probably for the same reason the Vlachs are
not mentioned in the Bulgarian state of the 7-10 cs.
Politically insignificant.*****

> How is to explain a such quick assimilation of them
> in 100 years if
> there has been this migration?

*****GK: Assimilation in what areas exactly?****

> How does it come that in the Time of Stefan the Big
> the chronics speak
> about the Polish peasants captured by Stefan and
> settled in Moldavia?
> Polish, not "slavs".

******GK: Probably because no "Slavic" peasants were
captured by Stefan the Great to be settled in
Moldavia.(:=)))***

> How does it come the chronicars speak about
> ukrainian cazacs have
> activated in the army of moldavian rulers but no
> slavs?

*****GK: As usual I'm having trouble understanding
your point.*****

> How does it come the Bulgarian are mentionated as
> the Turks came, as
> they refugied in Romania.
> We speak already about polish, bulgarian, ukrainian,
> but not about the
> slavs anymore. This is what seems very hard to
> understand. Admiting they
> have been there, they dissapiered too quick and are
> nowhere mentionated.

*****GK: Well the "Danubian Slavs" are certainly
mentioned as present throughout the territory of the
Hungarian state, and this at a time when there were no
Vlachs there (up to 1113/1116). The territory of
(northern) Bukovyna was part and parcel of the
Galician state until the 14th c. Plenty of
Slavic-speakers, no recorded Vlachs. The official
language of Moldavia and Wallachia was not Romanian
but Slavic in the early years of these principalities.
In Moldavia (more precisely) it was the Galician
recension of Early Ukrainian. I can cite you reams of
materials written in that language in Moldova, for
Moldovans. Who were these rulers speaking to?
Romanians exclusively? (:=))******

> More, this region is the one where no Slavic state
> emerged. Why?

*****GK: Again I don't understand what you're trying
to get at. Be more precise.****

Why

> should be this hole there? My answer is the one you
> do not addmit. I
> have to hear yours:-)

*****GK: As far as Moldavia is concerned (and it
depends what you mean by "state") there certainly were
minor Slavic organizations there, ruled by "reguli" in
the time of the Sclavenes (6th c.) After the grand
movement across the Danube the Slavic population was
relatively sparse, and came under the domination of
various steppe peoples (Avars, Bulgars, Onogurs,
Pechenegs, Cumans, Tatars). But there was a period
(2nd half of the 12th c.) when the Galician state
briefly ruled the area. And a period of Hungarian
overlordship. Then came the well-organized Romanians
(Moldavians).******


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