george knysh wrote:
>> (Alex)Beside the Romania and Albania.
>
> GK: I don't understand this comment Alex. Are you
> saying that Romania and Albania were part of the Slav
> homeland? If not, what do you mean?*****
Not. I just pointed out on the remarque " the slavs kept the place where
they expanded"."Officialy" it is assumed that Slavs expanded in Albania
and Romania too, Later both populations, Albanians and Romanians managed
somehow to push out/ assimilated the slavs who have been there. This is
the usual explanation.
>
> ******GK: I think you have misunderstood me here. I am
> not looking for your kind of analogies. And BTW I
> wouldn't overwork the "lower class Romanian" idea.
> Every social structure no matter how humble (in other
> peoples' eyes) has its rulers and ruled, its
> "aristocracy" if you will. I would simply not accept
> the notion that the Vlachs did not have something of
> this kind.
I won't too. Specialy as in south there are mentioned a lot of valah
aristrocracy.In fact this assumtion was thought by shcolars just on the
basis of the "sound" of the names for the respectively aristrocracy.(
for instance the Basarba was the son of Tohimir/Tihomir which is seen a
cumanic name; rememebr we disscused here about names which ende
in -mar, -mir for Slavic).
> But back to the main point. What I wished
> to suggest to you is that just as the Slavic
> "expansion" did not necessarily imply abandonment of
> areas earlier occupied, but the acquisition of new
> areas for an excess population, so might one examine
> the possibility that a similar situation existed for
> the Romanians. "Expansion" north of the Danube might
> not necessarily mean abandonment of areas earlier
> occupied. This could be checked out.*****
I meant it a bit different. In my opinion the Slavs have been looking
for land to settle. And they settled there where they could find this
land. Now this expansion as you see, it happened just one time. We
cannot speak anymore about "expansion" begining with the time where we
have records. Frankly, the expansion of the Slavs took place in the time
of V-X century, in the period of time where we know very few about
barbaricum. Which have been the exact conditions which
allowed/determined the Slavs to move West and South , this is a matter
of speculation. Fact remains fact. As soon as we have records, there was
no need anymore for any "expansion" but the situation is presented in
another light. In this manner is more safe to assume that the
"expansion" was an explanation and we have to live with until something
better will be found. As you very well pointed out, there i sno need to
leave old places when someone expand. And now we have to see soemthing
else. The demographicaly situation. Balcan is spared populated
comparative with West of Europe. Take a look, in the EEast of Europe,
beside Ukraine Romania is the biggest country and has the biggest
population. I take Moldavia too into acount here. We will speak about a
theritory which is almost so big as Germany but with t a population of
30 Mio people. Comparatively, Germany has 80 Mio. Refering to the area
they live, Bulgarians, Serbians, Romanians, they have big countries
which are underpopulated. It is not to assume they have been more people
in teh past. Thus, the "expansion" because of overpopulation becomes
questionable or fail to be factor. It remains just the factors of danger
and economy.
Alex