Re: [tied] Walachians are placed far North the Danube in Nestor (10

--- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>
> >The five "Wallachian glosses" of the TBY were
> >composed by Abbot Sylvester of the Kyivan Monastery
> of
> >St. Michael, Nestor's Continuator and political
> >confidant of Kyivan ruler Volodymyr Monomakh, in
> >connection with the latter's planned Danubian
> campaign
> >in support of the Byzantine Pretender Leo in
> >1116.******
>
> Even this is true and this Sylvester is the real
> writer (I don't
> know these details: url? other Chronicle version?):
> I don't
> understand in what consist the difference if
> Sylvester wrote this at
> 1116 or Nestor wrote that things 20 years before?
> Why not to trust
> Sylvester too? Why Sylvester not to report real
> things at his turn?

*****GK: Well in some ways of course it doesn't matter
at all. The "Wallachian issue" remains the same (in
the context of the Kyivan Chronicle) whether written
up by Nestor's predecessor, by Nestor, or by
Sylvester. The Wallachian lines happen to have been
written by the latter.******

>
> (In Romania for example : parts of Grigore Ureche's
> Chronicle was
> written by Misail C�lugaru but nobody consider as
> 'false' these
> insertions..in contrary)

*****GK: Did I say that I considered everything that
Sylvester wrote to be false? I didn't raise this
problem at all. But read on.*******

>
> > GK: This is Sylvester's account of the Roman
> > Imperial expansion into the "Danubian" area, in
> the
> > period 1rst c. BC-2nd c AD. The time frame is
> given
> > by the TBY tale of the Apostle Andrew's "trip to
> Rome"
> > in the mid- 1rst c. AD, when the various Slavic
> ethna
> > displaced by the "Wallachians" are in
> place...
>
> Once again I need to tell you that Romans and
> Wallachians are
> cleary identified in Chronicle as distinct entities

*****GK: So are, for instance, "Rus'" and "Kyivans".
Which does not mean that Kyivans were not Rus'. And
the distinction between "Wallachians" and "Romans" (or
"Venetians) does not mean that Romans were not
"Wallachians" in the Chronicle's terminology. They
were. You must learn to interpret sources a little
more judiciously.******

>

so is 'to much'

> to suppose such a confusion, as you talk above, in
> other parts of the
> same Chronicle.
> Next to tell us that the Chronicles talk about
> 'Various Slavic
> ethna inside Roman Empire on Danube River????'
> refering to 'sec I BC -
> sec II AC', so in Burebista's and Cesar's or
> Decebal's and Trajan
> times?

*****GK: Sylvester's notions were clearly fanciful.
Quite wrong if you like. He believed that Slavs had
come to the "Danubian area" a long time ago, and were
conquered by the Romans (Wallachians). We know this is
ridiculous. But here what is interesting is
Sylvester's view about the "Wallachians" of his time,
their origin, their location. There is no reason to
reject that part of his text. It deals with a
contemporary situation after all.*****

>
> 'With Slavs (especially 'Leshi'=Polish) that
> retreated to Visla'
> and 'other Slavs that went to Dnepr after their
> defeat'?
>
> Seems ok for you? by interpreting the things
> like this? No Slavs
> are attested in any Roman History at that time.

*****GK: With the possible exception of Ptolemy's
"Stavani". But they are located in the Polissian
marshes or thereabouts, not on the Danube.*****

>
> So you supposed that Nestor or Sylvester
> completly lost their
> heads when they talk about Wallachians

*****GK: Only when trying to reconstruct the history
of the Danubian area in the time of the Apostles. But
their view of the Wallachians of their time as
descended from the Romans of history is perfectly
tenable. And "Vlachs" as "Italians" is an
identification already found in the Vita Methodii,
with which the Kyivan Chroniclers were quite
familiar*****

but next they

> became very
> accurate when they talk about Magyars arrival near
> Kiev (historical
> attested)

*****GK: This is their guess on the basis of the
existence of an "Ugrian hill" on the southern borders
of Kyiv. What this actually meant has not yet been
determined. The ancient Ugrian Hill was subsequently
renamed as "Askold's Tomb".*****

or about Rus etc...

>
> I don't know what happens with some Slavs and
> Hungarians
> scholars but they arrived to deny their own
> Chronicles when these
> Chronicles talk about : "Wallachians".

******GK: I don't know what you're talking about here
re "Slavs". The 5 "Wallachian glosses" (incidentally
Sylvester write a good deal more than that in the text
of the Chronicle) are all that you will find about
this ethnos in the Kyivan Chronicle, and in the
Continuation thereof (the Galician-Volynian Chronicle,
which goes up to 1292 AD)). Which just means that
apart from the 1116 episode they weren't considered
politically important by the ancestors of today's
Ukrainians. Probably because they weren't
territorially close at that time (unlike the
Hungarians, Poles, Pechenegs or
Polovtsian/Cumans)******

>
> Both "Gesta Hungarorum" and "Nestor's
> Chronicle" talks
> about "Wallachians" ....both far away from Danube in
> the Northern
> Parts of today Romania or even further...in Pannonia
> or nearby Kiev

*****GK: If you insist on making such inaccurate
statements concerning the Kyivan Chronicle then
there's no point in talking to you. Live with your
illusions. *****






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail