george knysh wrote:
>
> *****GK: I prefer to stick to recorded historical
> facts rather than to speculate independently of them.
i did not speculated independently of them. We have just the problem of
someone migrating. We do not have any records about it, we do not have
any events which will show a such necesity we have slavs and valahs
living together in south, more or less under the bizantine influence.
> But why should you assume that this northward
> migration was the result of "danger"?
A migration was allways the result of a danger. Military or economicaly.
Was it not more
> dangerous to head towards areas so close to the haunts
> of rather predatory ethna like the Polovtsians?
Are for you the Plovtsians the Polovzer? If yes they have been far away
from that theritory. Between Romania and Polovzer we have a lot of other
slavic and not slavic folks. Do I make any mistake or the Polovtsians
have been on Dnjepr,in the East of the river?
> Why
> not assume a combination of overpopulation and
> response to invitations (isn't the latter an accepted
> explanation as to the relationship between the
> Hungarian monarchy and some South of Danube Vlachs?
I am afraid I don't know what do you mean here. Can you give some more
details?
> I
> believe the Byzantines also utilized military
> detachments of Vlachs on their newly expanded northern
> borders.)*****
For a such invitation we should now. We know abotu the Byzantins
inviting Serbians, Bulgarians, Pecengs, Hungarians. Why should the
valahian the one invited without none knows about. More, the invitation
have been for coming "inside" of the Bizantin Empire but not for
outside. No one needed any invitation for Outside of the Empire:-)
Frankly, it seems that the migration theory has absolutely no real
basis, but just a paradox as basis. Presence of someone with a so-called
"latin" language in a geografical space which -coincidentaly- is the
same geografical space of the dacians, a terithory which was assumed to
be "no_man's_land" because there is no record. In fact the question
should be an another one:
Which is the very imperious inexpugnable conclusion that the presence of
the valahians in North of Danube is a result which can be explained
trough a migration only?
alex