Re: [tied] Oguzname [Re: Klaproth]

--- alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> >(GK) But why should you assume that this northward
> > migration was the result of "danger"?
>
> (AM)A migration was allways the result of a danger.
> Military or economicaly.

*****GK: Nope. People frequently migrate to "seek a
better life".*****

>
> Was it not more
> > dangerous to head towards areas so close to the
> haunts
> > of rather predatory ethna like the Polovtsians?
>
> (AM)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?

*****GK: There were various groups east and west of
the river, and they also freely roamed north of the
Danube as far as the Iron Gates area.*****

>
>
> > 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?

*****GK: That's pretty standard stuff Alex. I'll let
you do your own research on the particulars.****

>
> > 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:-)

*****GK: That's not the point. Vlachs were certainly
within the borders of the Byzantine Empire, and were
frequently conscripted into the B. army. Including its
Danube watch.******

>
> 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?

******GK The absolute silence concerning them in the
sources.*****


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com