Re: [tied] Oguzname [Re: Klaproth]

george knysh wrote:

> --- 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".*****

Nope. Even the slavs did not migrated until they lost their homeland due
activities of the Goths and Huns( I make the difference betwen nomads
and migrating people)

>> (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.*****

Huh? I don't know about records talking about Polovtsians roaming north
of Danube. From your clear statment one should understand there is
historical evidence about these tribes coming so far to Iron Gates. Is
there a such evidence?

>>
>>
>>> 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.****

Maybe I was not very clear. I don't know what you mean about
relationship of Hungarian Monarchy and some vlachs South of Danube. This
is what I meant.

>> 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.*****

I agree with the fact that absolutely silence concering them is the best
way to explain their presence in a place just trough a migration. I must
agree with your logic here. Starting from this point where we both
agree, I tell you the vlachs migrated indeed from North of Danube to all
the 4 cardinal points entering the Byzantine Empire. The arrising of the
Hungarian state and the activity of Hungarians was the needed menance
which explains the migration very well and fits together with the
apparition of the Valachians first time in the byzantine records. And
they have not been South of Danube (or not numerous enough for being
considerated), as you said, due the absolutely silence concerning them
in the sources.


PS
Let me tell you something: we have today year 2003. Beside the
international european events of the XX-century there has been _no war_
between South Slavs and Valachs. Neither with the Bulgarians, nor mit
Serbo-Croatians. In 1500 years if you don't mind. On the contrary, this
was a mutual help where a lot of Slavs (and even Greeks later) found a
refugee place Noth of Danube as the turkish menance showed its face in
Europe. This shows in fact that all the history of the valachs and slavs
was a friendly one. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about Hungarians.
And of course , is cannot be said about Polonian and Russian state.But
we do not need to discusee about this aspect since here we have a lot of
testimonies and there is no need for.