george knysh wrote:
>
> *****GK: Something "major" certainly happened North of
> the Danube: a strong stream of Romanian colonization
> from South of the Danube (with noticeable results by
> the 12th and 13th centuries), which eventually led to
> the establishment of the Wallachian and Moldavian
> states in the 14th c. The Slavs, however, did not
> disappear overnight. Their continued existence in many
> parts of these territories can be easily demonstrated
> (and this is the major difference between them and the
> Proto-Bulgars).******
If we assume the migration theory is the truth, then the colonialisation
of the North of Danube with Romanians is the result of the major changes
and not the major change. Assuming the Romanians have been in South of
Danube, they have lived many centuries with the invited serbs and with
the slavs which will become bulgarians. They have lived together even in
the time of the coming bulgars . Somewhere in this time should have
happened this major event which obliged the Romanians to colonise the
North shore of Danube. From all I know I don't see any event which
should imply a such movement.
More, if there has been a such event then it can come from two points:
- from an another folk as the Slavs or Bulgars
- from Slavs or Bulgars themselves
If this emergency occured because of another folk as the Slavs or
Bulgars, there it remains inexplicable why _just_ the romanians migrated
and not the slavs and the bulgarians. ( I think here not just to any
military intervention but to several events which will menance the life
of any comunity, regardless its ethnic appartenance). Trough this way of
view, we should exclude such hypoteticaly events and this is too in
concordance with all we know from the sources. In the period of time in
teh century VII-XII there has been no event which should arrise a
migration just for a special ethnic population ( since the Albanians,
Slavs and Bulgars remained South of Danube).
From the first hypothesis, we should understand that the menance for the
valachians came from the Slavs or Bulgars or from them both. This should
be a reason why they migrated on the North shore. If we accept this
assumption, then we have the big contradiction some time later due the
presence of valachs between slavs in the X century and of course the
vlaho-bulgarian empire of Asens. Not only there, but even the Valahs are
in Serbia too mentioned in the time of Stepfan Dushan.That means, there
have been enough valachians for calling this empire Valaho-Bulgarian.
Being so many of them, then it shoud be unsafe to assume they did
migrate and one century later they changed their minds and came back
again. The assumption that just a part of them migrated will make to see
as inexistent the event which should have determinated them to migrate.
This should my view on your hypothesis. what do you think about?