From: george knysh
Message: 23162
Date: 2003-06-13
> george knysh wrote:*****GK: Just exactly which "homeland" did the Slavs
> > --- 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)
>*****GK: Your lack of knowledge is not my problem
> >> (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.
> understand there is*****GK: Of course. *****
> historical evidence about these tribes coming so far
> to Iron Gates. Is
> there a such evidence?
>*****GK: Well Vlachs are initially mentioned South of
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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.