george knysh wrote:
>>
>> There is a problem. Why should became a "need" to
>> mention them in the IX
>> century then _within_ the boundaries of the empire?
>>
>> Alex
>
> *****GK: I don't understand your point , Alex. Please
> clarify.*****
>
I just quote your sentence:
As to the Vlachs, again, there was no particular need to mention those
within the boundaries of the Empire Had they
been a significant presence north of the Danube they would doubtless
have received a notice.*****
Let us forget the Valahs North of Danube and let us concentrate just of
them which must have been South of Danube, but there was no need to
mentionate them . I assume you think there was no need to mentionate
them because they have been the usualy, stinknormaly citizien of the
empire.
However, a bit later in the IX century, they are mentionated. And not as
stinknormaly citizien of empire, anonyms and with no need to be
mentioned, but they are mentionated as a distinct entity which got a
name. Valahs.
Thus, here is the question:
- why was no need to mention them in the VIII century within the
boundary of the empire, but 1 century later there was the need to
mention them within these boundary as a distinct group?
Alex