gknysh wrote:
>*****GK: This is where we differ. The Kyivan Chronicle
>accepts the continuity of the Vlach presence in
>Bulgaria, but denies it in Hungary, suggesting that
>they were expelled in Avar times (around 610/630).
(...indeed, the problem with these utterly vague chronicles is
that they heavily mix up ancient populaces, events with
those contemporary with the authors...)
Whereas the oldest *preserved* Hung. chroniclers, i.e.,
a king Béla's notary, the anonymous "magister P.", (around
1200), and Simon of Kéza (around 1270-80) mention the
presence of the Vlachs in Transylvania, i.e. in eastern
Hungary, which is about 250-300 km East of the Danube
segment that crosses Hungary N-S through Aquincum
i.e. Buda & Pest. Both Hung. chroniclers based their
accounts on internal royal sources which are lost.
"Danube areas" relevant to Hungarian reign or influence
are those close to... Vienna, as well as those in the center
of Hungary proper (cum Aquincum/Budapest), but as
well as the regions inhabited by Croats and Serbs:
Slavonia & Serbia proper, way down to the area of
the medieval banate of Severin (Szörényi Bánság), an
area neighboring regions of these ethnic groups: Serbian,
Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian &, after the Christian
"reconquista" around 1700, German (not only Suebian).
"Danube" + "Hungarian" + "Slav/ic" are too vague in the
absence of other pieces of info to conclude something.
(I for one will post this message from a region way South
of the Danube, despite the fact that it is, at the same time,
closer to North than... Budapest and Tchernovtsy. :-))
George