Re: Djilas

--- tolgs001 <george_st@...> wrote:

> ->GK: I still have doubt as to whether actual
> >Pechenegs formed part of the Hungarian complex
> prior
> >to the destruction of the Pecheneg steppe empire by
> >Yaroslav of Kyiv in 1036. Constantine P. mentions
> >those Pech. who stayed behind with the Ghuzz Turks.
> He
> >would have mentioned Pecheneg component in
> >Pannonia/Transylvania had there been one.
>
> But he did. That's what certain historians
> interested in
> these details say. They maintain that certain data
> given
> by the emperor as to how remote were some provinces,
> namely how long it took to reach this and that
> journey
> target, confirm that the location one of the
> provinces listed
> in the text fits Transylvania.

****GK: Well we can't agree on everything, George. But
that's OK. We can agree to disagree. I did a bit of
studying on this area years ago, but don't have time
to thoroughly recheck the data. What led me to my
current belief is the improbability of the Pecheneg
Confederation reaching across the Carpathians into
Transylvania that early. The "Ugrian Mountains"
protected the Hungarian complex from their worst
steppe enemies at that time. If the Pechenegs had
reached Transylvania as one of their eight provinces,
there would have been no security for the Hungarians.
So I'll stick with my earlier conclusion: the
Pechenegs reached as far west as "Seret, Prut, and the
lower Danube". But not across the mountains, not
then.****

>
> On the other hand, there are other valuable data
> concerning
> the Petcheneks presence as auxiliary army and
> frontier
> defense forces employed by Hungary. This is beyond
> any
> doubt, and well analysed and presented especially by
> the Hungarian historiography (but also by the
> Romanian
> one as well, since Romanian historians nilly-willy
> have to
> deal with a considerable chunk of the territory of
> the
> medieval Hung. State). Traces of border Petchenek
> "garrisons"
> are scattered all along the old frontiers, but the
> Petchenek
> wanna-be realm was in Transylvania, that is not
> beyond the
> Tissa river plains (Alföld)  Pannonia being
> way in the
> western "half" of old Hungary. The actual Pannonia's
> eastern
> border is the Danube which separates it from two
> eastern
> provinces, that have to be crossed completely before
> one enters
> Transylvania. (Between Budapest and the Romanian
> border
> approx. 250 km.)

****GK: That's why I believed (and still believe) that
if the Pechenegs controlled Transylvania as part of
their fearsome confederation, there's no way they
could have been prevented from conquering the Alfold
and reaching the Danube,perhaps crossing it too into
the old Pannonia.****

>
> >However, after the disintegration of Pechenegia,
> many groups
> >continued to thrive, well into the 12th c. I
> suspect
> >that's when some were used by Hungarian monarchs as
> >border troups, and left topnyms.
>
> Yes. It seems that most or all of those who lived in
> Hungary
> stayed and got assimilated there. (Quite many, BTW,
> were
> settled in Bulgaria, in the region of Sofia, due to
> other war
> circumstances.)
>
> >A similar situation
> >evolved in Ukraine. We had Pechenegs (and
> Berendeys)
>
> Berendeys were relevant in Transylvania and Hungary
> too.
> Unfortunately, many Hungarian historians seem to not
> have
> Searched thoroughly Ukrainian-Russian-Turkic etc.
> sources
> in order to get better information on the Berendeys.
> I've
> noticed that some speculate the Berendeys to have
> been
> even remnants of the Kavars. But I've read that the
> Berendeys
> were some kind of Sabir-Cuman mixture, and their
> name
> was actually that of a certain clan.
>
> (BTW, I saw on the web some criticism of the
> historian
> S. Pletneva's details re. the "Torks". What's your
> opinion
> on her work? Is the criticism justified?)

****GK: It's been a while since I read her stuff. I
don't have my notes handy. But I'll keep this in
mind.****

>
> on the frontiers of the Galician, Kyivan, and
> Chernihiv states practically until the advent of the
> Mongols. And toponyms also. BTW, a small aside:
> before
> the advent of the Cumans,there was also what the Old
> Ukrainian chronicles call a "Tork" invasion. These
> "Torks" were likely Ghuzz (perhaps accompanied by
> those "other" Pechenegs). The most successful "late"
> Pechenegs were those who conquered the lands between
> Danube and Haemus from the Byzantines in 1049, where
> they were christianized and then amalgamated with
> Bulgars and Vlachs (the territory was called
> "Bolgarska Zemlya" by the Kyivan Chronicler of
> 1116).****
>
> Yes. But on the other hand methinks it is no wonder
> that
> one could (and still today may go on) get(ting)
> confused
> by those numerous tribes and clans, since beyond
> their
> different names, most of them spoke the same
> language
> and had the same ethnic background. Between some of
> them, the dialectal differences weren't bigger than
> between
> British and American English, and between others as
> big differences as between Czech and Slovak or betw.
> Slovak and Ukrainian. (Even today, various kind of
> Turkic people, incl. China's Uygurs and Uralic
> Tatar-
> Bashkirs can easily communicate with Crimea and
> Dobrudja Tatars and Turkey Turks and Afganistan
> Türkmens without needing the help of dilmatches
> (interpretes).
>
> George

****GK: Quite. BTW on another issue. Perhaps "David"
and "Oleg/h" can be added to the list of functional
names which became personal. I remember some biblical
lessons as a Un. student where my professor spoke of
"the david" as the sacral priest/king of Jerusalem in
the time of Abraham, suggesting that some of the
"psalms" were intended to be sung by him, rather than
all being composed by the famous later David. And the
"Helgi" sacral figure of Scandinavian myth and lore
has been much written about. The personalization
occurred on Slavic linguistic ground. I'm not sure it
was that productive in Scandinavia.****

>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ