the maps are a bit wrong, Dacia wasnt that big, this shown in the video is all the lands from time to time, especially from the era of the kingdom of Dacia and the sharing of the Thraco-Dacian lands, the Illyrians in the other hand never had that much lands, the map shows Illyrians ruling over Hepirus , major false, and the majority of modern Serbia, also a major false. Plus there is no certain fact or proof dedicating the Illyrians to the Albanians nor the Serbians/Kosovars, there are only theories and evidence about it, not facts nor proof. Also Greece in average had more land, including lands of the Thrace shown in the specific map of the video, as well as lands of Pontus in modern day Turkey, Cyrpus, and half of Italy, from beneath Rome, Naples, all the way down to Syracusse of Sicily. But anyway the video was fire jit.
@Macedoniaball_mapings
4 күн бұрын
Ur just hateing on Macedonia but its ok bcuz i love ur vids
@thatstorm_spectre
3 күн бұрын
Nah man, I just visited North Macedonia this summer on my way back from Greece and I'm not gonna lie, your capital was awesome! I was super dissapointed in Greece by how ugly the cities were, but Skopje was actually super clean and pretty looking. I especially loved the statues, the large one of Alexander in the centre was super cool
@Macedoniaball_mapings
3 күн бұрын
@@thatstorm_spectre glad u enjoyed it❤
@MihaiPinzariu
7 күн бұрын
good job!
@Phitend
7 күн бұрын
Good research keep it up man ! Greetings from Türkiye
@roaringjugler3
8 күн бұрын
I'm the first of my Romanian family to be born in America. I find the history of my people to be fascinating. Great job with the video!
@skenderbegthegreatiskender4667
8 күн бұрын
The republic of Kosova
@aleste34
9 күн бұрын
ai uitat de civilizatia cucuteni :)
@CJ...181
9 күн бұрын
🇬🇷🇦🇱🇷🇴🔱 we were the first here
@WANTED-BIH
9 күн бұрын
What script was the Gothic Bible translated into, which is currently in Sweden? What language is the script? many hiden info ...
@WANTED-BIH
9 күн бұрын
who were those who have Official name Stećci Medieval Tombstone Graveyards in Bosnia, about 70,000 some in Serbia, some in Montenegro and a little in Croatia... Who were your people? So they are not in Serbia or Croatia. What about the genetic code of BOSNIANS, SERBIANS AND CROATIANS? How is it that Serbians have 35% Slavonic genetics 25% Gostka while Bosnians have 40-50% Illyrian 20% Gotsje 15% Slavonic genetics ..Something they don't like..That dark age is very dark from someone who wants to make a dark and hide truth ;) What about the Bosnian church, what did they believe in and who was their teacher? Is it orthodox Christian teachings or Catholic? Why were there several wars in Bosnia by the Catholic Church? Why were Bosnians called apostates? Serbians were not called that, they were students of Cyril and Methodius, they received orthodox Christianity... What would he do with Baton, who captured Germanicus? Why didn't they execute him when they agreed on the end of the conflict, but he got a residence permit in Verona in Italy and died there... I think there is a lot that is unclear...
@NouaGovermentdacian
11 күн бұрын
pentru vechile granițe! Întoarce-te în România Mare!
@cocos748
14 күн бұрын
The widest description, keeping the correct details of each stage in the history of Romania. I liked that you were on the subject and did not add more or intentionally omit, being honest and correct with the historical data and issues from those dark times, full of uncertainties. It's the first time when, really, I see a correct and not superficial description of the history of my people, with good and bad things alike, without mystifying the historical reality. What I also liked about this historical exposition was that you did not limit yourself to a simple enumeration of some data and explained the international situation and how it influenced the subsequent decisions of the Romanian leaders; all in an engaging and not boring presentation. Maybe you could have formulated the ties between Romania and France in a slightly less drastic way and not necessarily as a kind of servitude. The relationship between the 2 countries had become "friendly" a long time ago, since the end of the Fanariote period. In any case, the presentation is a detached success compared to everything we have seen so far.🤗👍
@omaroragb
15 күн бұрын
you dont know the hell of middle east
@alexpetcu887
15 күн бұрын
Slab ... apreciez totusi. E loc de mai bine.
@ZsombiK
15 күн бұрын
Úgy monják székely
@markvedlin6128
18 күн бұрын
I am extremly sorry for what i had said that made my comment get removed. I just dont like slovenia being called "the femboy land" and i have anger issues.
@ThatsWeird-k9v
18 күн бұрын
Abanian is older then Latin and Other Romance Languages so no , Albanian is not made with Latin , Latin is made with Albanian . Modern studies say Albanian is more then 6 thousand years at least spoken in continuety.
@Diablonicu
19 күн бұрын
How would the Hungarians know what happened in 3rd century, when they cam in 9th century... Even they wrote about the wars with the Vlachs, when they arrived. How could you think that these lands were uninhabited for 6 centuries, and the Romanians came, only after the Hungarians came. So in their mind, the Romanians ancestors left, and didnt came back when the lands were free, they cam back only after the lands were occupied... This is just.... so wrong. It would have been impossible to resettle all the population in 3rd century, how would you convince all the population to leave they homes, and to go where? When they came, they came because they received free land and many veterans, who served in Dacia, probably remained there. Even Priscus mentioned the local population that spoke a version of Vulgar Latin, when he went to Atilla court. Anyway it would have been almost impossible the have large unpopulated arias in 9th century Europe..
@thatstorm_spectre
18 күн бұрын
True, we have a lot of mentions of Latin speakers north of the Danube like what Maurice mentions with Romans living north of the Danube but forgetting their kind and helping the slavs instead and a population refered to as Dacians living both to the north of the Danube and north of the Balkan mountains according to people like Kekaumenos and Anna Komnene, with Kekaumenos saying they're now called Vlachs. So there's plenty of evidence, but it's hard to convince people of something that they don't want to believe
@tiborpuskas4529
19 күн бұрын
great video, thanks for that. Also asking why is the few hundred years gap in between the Roman withdrawal from Provincia Dacia and the first Wlach/Moldavian state
@thatstorm_spectre
19 күн бұрын
Thanks a bunch! I'm really glad you liked the video! The reasons for the large gap between Roman withdrawal and the ceeation of the Romanian principalities are twofold. The first and largest problem is we just don't have sources talking about the area north of the Danube. Prior to the Hungarian conquest very little is known about this region. Thanks to eymological analysis we have been able to estimate the existence of certain states in the area such as Blahnița and Vlăhița în Transylvania, and of course if the Gesta Hungarorum is to be believed there were various Romanian states/states that included Romanians in Transylvania. But of course we don't know how literal the Gesta was or when these states were created or if they even existed. Otherwise we get vague mentions by people like Ananias to a "country of the Thracians" and a "land of the Dacians" north of the Danube. But whether this meant a Romanian state, group of states or just some land associated with Romanians or just the actual Dacians and Thracians of antiquity is unknown. Otherwise we've found coins mentioning a certain Sponsianus în Transylvania which could indicate that after the abandonment of Dacia, a Roman Dacian state under a military ruler was formed. But again, no sources, so we really don't know. The first small states we can confirm from historical letters which exist prior to Wallachia and Moldova are some small fiefdoms in Moldova which belonged to various lords and swore loyalty/tribute to the Mongols, Halych-Volhynia or Hungary, and the state of Ilaut in Oltenia. But these are considerably later and are only known because the region was more documented thanks to Hungary, Halych-Volhynia and just sheer luck that these letters survived the sands of time. And the second reason is that the area north of the Danube was highly contested from Rome's abandonment until the Mongolian incursions. Even in more stable areas in the Roman Empire like Hispania, the moment Roman control over them subsided they were replaced with barbarian states like the Visigoths, not states run by the local Romans. Same thing happened in Dacia, except with a smaller Roman population. This is why the Gepids and Goths took over the area initially, but we're we're replaced by other more powerful barbarians like the Huns, Avars and then Bulgarians, with the Hungarians, Cumans and Mongols showing up later as well. In an area as highly fought over as the Romanian territories it was difficult for such a small and disunited group such as the Romanians to establish their independance. In the end it wasn't even really Romanian efforts that established Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldova, as all 3 were established by the Hungarians, who thanks to already having a powerful and established kingdom were able to expand towards the Carpathians and across them to establish first Transylvania, then Wallachia and then Moldova. Once the states had already been established it was only then that Romanians could revolt and distance themselves from foreign domination like what happened with Radu Negru. So we probably owe the Hungarians a lot of thanks 😁. In summary, we don't have sources so we don't even know whether there were Romanian states north of the Danube or not. And North of the Danube was such a cluster smash of chaos that it would have been extremely difficult for the Romanians to establish their own countries among the constant threat of foreign domination from the east. Hope that helped, and feel free to ask any other questions on your mind, I'd be happy to help! 😁
@ChronosHellas
23 күн бұрын
10:14 ah yes Corfu which has almost no records of Albanian migrations, is shown on the map as fully purple. It isn’t just an oversimplification it’s out right under education.
@thatstorm_spectre
23 күн бұрын
The map itself is very rough and based on a lot of estimates. The reason I placed Corfu as majority Albanian was because of maps like this that I saw www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&sca_esv=82eac44411eff0a0&sxsrf=ADLYWIIsJBAuFEdS5oNlk8w_h_eq0o0oog:1723917595224&q=ethnic+map+of+the+balkans+1900&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3J7pRxUp2pI1mXV9fBsfh39KRvAkf_RbLmqO8b2Na6CPIr1VCrQ4GTou3YNw-y1mlrephiQ6L6B1T608OhUL0imz89GBsGs0w-wXXw6xTmE9yS3szXfClWdQFRohIMMqyGlozM0Oi7m22DYeYfsnyhnqNh9fu&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipoIq_zfyHAxWme2wGHSVvNEoQtKgLegQICRAB#vhid=3LxjqMij1NCiZM&vssid=mosaic I apologize if the map isn't correct, but it was these sorts of maps which I looked at to draw the early ethnic map of the Balkans, and of course separating Bulgarians and the rest of the Yugoslavs was also a difficult process
@S_--
24 күн бұрын
North "Makedonian" here. I'm neither a descendant of Alexander the Great, nor do I want to have any relation with him. He is Greek and I am a slav. I also am not a Bulgarian, if not genetically then by culture because I personally do not identify myself with a long gone turkic tribe that barely had a dent in a country that only helped assisting the other slavic tribes that settled in the balkans in the areas where I live. I'd rather be referred to by territory or just be called a southern slav because I refuse to enter a culture that glorifies something that isn't what I am.
@thatstorm_spectre
24 күн бұрын
Respectable take. Sorry about my pronunciation, I learned the word "Macedon" when learning about Roman history so I know the Latin pronunciation "Makedon" first, then the Romanian pronunciation "Machedon" and then the English "Masedon". I will work to fix that in the future! By the way I just visited Skopje. Your capital is absolutely gorgeous, I came on my way back to Romania from Greece and I'm proud to say your capital was a paradise compared to what I experienced in Greece at Athens, Delphi and wherever else I was. So you should be very proud of your country.
@929W
25 күн бұрын
Hungary isnt Balkan tho
@ToporovVladimir
26 күн бұрын
Noo Michel the brave short mencioned :(
@turky6834
27 күн бұрын
17:05 why tf Turkish is expelled from this map????. There are significant Turkish population in greece, bulgaria and macedonia.
@thatstorm_spectre
26 күн бұрын
The Turkish minority is no longer so large, especially in Greece following the population exchanges with Turkey after World War 1. You can see how in Bulgaria the color of Bulgarians is lighter in the east, but in general Turks are no longer such large minorities in the Balkans, having either been assimilated or forcibly removed following the Balkans Wars and First World War
@turky6834
27 күн бұрын
You forgot the part that Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans and later the Great Horde have ruled parts of the Balkans.
@thatstorm_spectre
26 күн бұрын
Yea they were all there, but none of them are ethnic groups which still exist in the Balkans today, so they weren't the topic of the video, I mention them more in the history of Romania video tho
@turky6834
27 күн бұрын
9:00 Pechenegs and Cumans and Huns are Turks.
@thatstorm_spectre
26 күн бұрын
True, I mean the Huns are a little more mysterious but they were also probably Turkic, they weren't discusses in the video because it was about the origins of ethnic groups which are in the Balkans today and the Turks of Anotolia didn't come the same way the Pechenegs or the others did
@mihailmihaylov9617
Ай бұрын
Thanks for the video, greetings from Bulgaria :)
@gibsoniapa8040
Ай бұрын
Best explanation of the Balkans ever. Hands down
@mesager5438
Ай бұрын
The history of Romania does not begin with the Roman Empire - Rome, but muuuch later, which is why God wrote it in the Bible as an anagram of the word Wallachia - Genesis 2:11 and much more that, if you study, shows the continuity of the Romanians on the current territory - Romania - right from the beginning of civilization. The Romanian language does not have its origin in the Latin language, but it is certainly the other way around, if it is so then this thing spreads over all the languages spoken now in the world, not to speak of Slavic, Hungarian, Turkish influences, study anything other than what was imposed by the devils in their fight against God - search further before you ... lie by presenting false information. Dacia is a name given by those from Rome, Getia is given by the Greeks, but our name comes from the word Arimin us - Armin - Ruman - Roman and that is how we called ourselves from the beginning until now and it will remain so forever. It derives from the name of the One whom they worshiped and praised, or as it is called today - God. The territory of the country under Burebista's leadership stretched from the Baltic Sea, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Vistula River in Poland to the border with Greece. You do not specify the time when Aurelian decided, following the repeated attacks of the free Dacians, to leave the occupied territories and obviously the Getae remained in those territories, it is only clear that even today, the Hungarians came much later - 800 years later and you sink even worse into the mess by specifying some of their forgeries, very easy to combat. The word Vlach is given by the Germans, see their mythology with Wallhala. Your Celts were beaten and banished forever to the N-W continent by Burebista, after they had started behaving like savages. It is well known that most of the historical chronicles written by Jews and Greeks falsify the reality of the events as the text is read. The Bulgarians did not exist in the so-known Vlach Empire, see only the name - the place of origin of the leaders, e.g. - Asan, Romanian name. And then the Bulgarians and so many migrants, were rarefied by the Byzantine emperor Vasile II - Bulgaroctonul. If the Romanian language is a Nostratic language, then obviously the so-called Slavic alphabet is originally Romanian, see the tablets from Tartaria and the gold tablets from Sinaia. Ungaria is a Romanian name, taken from the inhabitants of Ungheni who followed them in their migration to the Pannonian plain. Buda (pesta) was founded by the Dacians, see the Dacian fortress discovered on the height of the hill that dominates the area. You have no mastery of the terms, Transylvania did not appear when you say, you regurgitate nonsense, it is not a principality, but is made up of several Voivodeships, then later one Voivodeship, as the Gesta Hungarorum and the Romanian lords you named rightly say, it was never part of Hungary, but a territory mostly inhabited by Romanians, just like Muntenia and Moldova. This is why the Hungarian kingdom brought German colonists to Transylvania, to reduce the difference between the majority of the population - Romanians and them + Germans - the Catholic influence. But God does not forgive them and the Hungarian kingdom disappears, it is abolished by the Turks, made a pashalac, and Transylvania is a separate place where many of them saved their lives. After that, Transylvania is brought together in one country with Muntenia and Moldova under the leadership of the Romanian ruler Mihai Viteazul. Hungary did not become an independent state until after the Great Union of all Romanian provinces, including Transylvania on December 1, 1918, following the Treaty of Trianon. Quite a lot has been gathered up to here, but the main thing that must be mentioned is regarding the false, bloody image about voivode Vlad Tepes made also by the descendants of the Celts, like you, and this is also part of the devils' fight against God, because Vlad was a muuuch more important man for the Christian world than you think. I hope that your sins will be forgiven for this mess of a video, in which you don't talk about the history of your country and your leaders, but against Romania and its leaders on the current territory, because that's the only way you'll find out who you're actually slandering. Anyway, Romania has and will continue to have the light of conscience to reject what your agency is trying to do in the little time it has left until the end of the Apocalypse through such falsifications of the truth about Romania.
@White_bs_
Ай бұрын
Actually Albanian language is older that latin so why is it 60% latin ( u can search it, Albanian is 6000 years old and latin only 2700..)
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
I've heard this before but it's firstly not entirely true and second not how languages work. Albanian is not 6000 years old, it's true that forms of Paleo Balkan are upwards of 6000 years old but that's not Albanian specifically, it was older languages that evolved ingo the Albanian we recognize today. Meanwhile Latin is not 2700 years old, while the Roman state was created around 2700 years ago, Latin as the language that we recognize it as was created only around the second century BC, but of course it simply evolved from earlier forms of Latin which evolved from proto Latin which evolved from proto Italic and so on and so forth, so the same argument that makes Albanian 6000 years old can be used to say Latin is 6000 years old. But even if we say Albanian is older than Latin, it doesn't alter the fact that Albanian is comprised of a lot of Latin words, and it's not because Albanian came from Latin or anything, it's because Latin was forced onto the Albanians through the domination of the Roman Empire. This linguistic domination is evident all over Europe as the Gauls, Dacians, Iberians, Etruscans and more all completely lost their native languages and took on Latin as their language with only certain words or grammatical structures living on. Meanwhile the Albanians miraculously managed to hold on the language with only certain words and grammatical structures being from Latin. It's nothing to be ashamed of that your language has Latin influence, it's evidence that you managed to hold onto your culture and language even through the Romans. Something only you, the Basques and the Welsh can say.
@filthypeasant6641
Ай бұрын
Just discovered your channel, nice video, imo modern greece = eastern roman empire both culturally and linguistically
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
Yea in hindsight I should have mentioned Greece lol, but to me it was so self explanatory that the Greeks were the modern day Eastern Romans/Byzantines that I didn't think I even needed to talk about it more than a passing mention, but people got mad I didn't talk about Greece more so... Long live Greece I guess! 🇬🇷🇬🇷
@filthypeasant6641
Ай бұрын
@thatstorm_spectre The connection between modern Greece and the Byzantine Empire (and why this connection is sometimes brushed over when examining Greek culture) would make for an interesting video in the future... just saying lol. Keep it up!
@thatstorm_spectre
29 күн бұрын
Not a bad idea, because there are actually some really important distinctions between the Byzantine and Roman Empires that I didn't get to talk about so maybe a whole video on Byzantium is in order 😉
@NMC00717
Ай бұрын
Damn that are crazy videos. Keep it up! I just subscribed you rn
@nonamezzz228
Ай бұрын
Hi from Gagauz Yeri, Komrat🐺👋🏻 World historiography forgets that the Oghuz were divided into two, giving preference to the Seljuk Turks, believing that they are the only successors of the Oghuz. Some became Seljuk Turks who went south, converted to Islam and became the ancestors of modern Turks, Azerbaijanis and Turkmens. The other part moved to Eastern Europe, chasing the Pechenegs and defeating the Khazar khaganate along with the Rus through the northern Black Sea region. In Eastern Slavic sources they are known as torki or guz. We, the Gagauzes, are their descendants, and according to popular opinion, "Gagauz" means "gök-oguz", which means heavenly(in sense sky) Gagauz and apparently means the preservation of faith in Tengri. Subsequently, the Oghuz moved to the Dobrudja region and Gagauzes there adopted Christianity and formed as a separate ethnic group. We were the overwhelming population of the Dobrudja despotate, which was ruled by turkic rulers and which appeared after the collapse of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom. I read that each of the principalities claimed to be the real successor of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, and therefore it seems to me that the Gagauzes could call themselves "haşlı..." and "eski bulgar". Nevertheless, the Gagauzes called themselves Bulgarians, and the Bulgarians were called "tukan". In Budjak, in Bessarabia, in the Russian Empire, we finally achieved national identity and switched to the ethnonym "Gagauz", which also provoked the Gagauz people who remained in the regions of Dobrudja, as well as Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (in Greece and Turkey, whose traditions are slightly different from the rest of the Gagauzes). Thus, the Gagauzes are the Balkan Turkic people, descendants of the Oghuzes, who retained faith in Tengri and later converted to Christianity (which later caused them to suffer in the Ottoman Empire along with other Christian peoples), who formed as a separate nation in the Balkans.
@alexateodor
Ай бұрын
The ruins of SARMIZEGETUSA are roman?? Wow, you ARE a total ignorant One thing you said was surely true, 👉 romans DESTROYED AS MANY DACIAN CITIES THEY COULD 👈 "the civilizer" turned the light off in Dacia Dacia was not "abandoned" by the romans, they just arrived after fighting their most heavy wars to conquer that small 14% part of Dacia. And it was The Richest Province they got, they were freaking being permanently attacked by the free dacians from the 86% of the rest of Dacia territories, wich romans never set foot on to, and in 271 the demolishers were kicked out for good "It's all in great part thanks to the romans" 🤣🤣 worse subpar classic bs video I have seen o the topic
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
I'm not sure what kind of theory you subscribe to but none of this makes sense. The Romans did not "turn off the lights" in Dacia, yes they destroyed Dacian cities but they also converted them into Roman colonies, Sarmizegetusa and Napoca (modern day Cluj-Napoca) being great examples. Both Sarmizegetusa and Napoca were Dacian cities which were converted into Roman colonies, with both being granted the title of Coloniae, the highest honor a city in the Empire could receive, signifying that the populations were thoroughly Roman. This makes Sarmisegetuza a Roman ruin in addition to a Dacian one. Again this 14% statistic is ubsurd and brought from I dont know where, because Rome occupied Transylvania, Banat, Oltenia and Dobruja only leaving Muntenia and Moldova to the free Dacians. The free Dacians were enemies of the Romans but they were more gorilla fighters than any real threat, meanwhile the Dacians in Roman Dacia were quickly Romanized through either plain old assimilation, intermarriage, legionary service or other things, all of these we have evidence for through the Roman documentation of names which immediately shows us that after 50 years over 75% of the population of the province used Roman naming conventions, the inscriptions showing Roman legionaries marrying Dacian women, or the records of several Roman Legions comprised of Romanized Dacians being sent to Britannia, Egypt and so on. We even know of several Roman Emperors and the only Roman Empress of the Classical Roman Empire having been Romanized Dacians, Licinius, Galerius, and Ulpia Severina being examples but not all of them. Abandoned is the correct word, the Romans were not pushed out by any stretch of the imagination. Aurelian secured his power base in the Balkans and had to use the legions he had there to reconquer the rest of the Roman Empire, including both the Palmerene and Gallic Empires, which required him to use the few legions he had, taking out all the legions from Dacia to do it, whether it was a temporary measure and he meant to return or if it was a permanent decision and he took the citizens with him is unknown but in the end he was assassinated so we will never know if he meant to retake Dacia. It's possible at this same time there was a Roman usurper who secured his power in Dacia in the absence of a Roman administration being Sponsianus, but we know pretty much nothing about him. And even after Dacia was lost it wasn't retaken by the Dacians, but instead put under Germanic occupation with the Dacians being under their domination until the Huns where we get our last mentions of the Dacians attacking the Romans. And in the end, no matter how you slice it, Romania and Spain are both Latin, or Romance countries, originating Linguistically and Culturally from the Roman Empire. So in the end yes, it is all thanks to the Romans. If you're a Dacopath, I'm sorry, you and I speak a Latin language, we are Romans, the sons of Rome and bearers of Trajans legacy. If you're a migration theorist, I'm not sure what to tell you, we've been on this land since antiquity as the Dacians and the Romans, we're not giving Transylvania "back" Either way, have a great day and be proud of your country, it's the only one we've got
@alexateodor
Ай бұрын
"within a few generations making all the Dacians entirely roman" 🤣🤣 the most stupid thing you said without thinking Only 14% of Dacia were the romans able to conquer, and soon after only 160 years they were kicked out of Dacia, so yeah... same old bs with the "Romanization of Dacia in under 160 years"
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
I'm sorry if I didn't manage to convince you with this video, I wasn't making an argument just showing history as it's accepted. I'm not sure where you got your statistic of 14%, as the Romans occupied modern day Transylvania, Oltenia and Dobruja, only leaving Moldova and Wallachia to the free Dacians, thats a lot more than 14%. 170 years is also plenty of time for Romanization as Dobruja actually shows us with it having been Romanized according to Roman sources in just shy of 100 years, with Dacians also having been the majority population there prior to Romanization. A generation was about 25 years, so the Romans held Dacia for over 7 generations, with the massive colonization, intermarriages between local Dacian women and Roman legionares, and the advantages that becoming Roman gave its no wonder Romanization worked. We know of whole Legions made entirely of Romanized Dacians which were sent to places like Egypt and Britannia (Ulpia Dacorum, Cohors I Aelia Dacorum, Cohors III Dacorum, etc), and according to the writings left in Dacia, Latin was overwhelmingly used with over 3000 Latin inscriptions discovered with Greek being in second place with 40, this along with the names recorded in the province going from very diverse and none Roman to 75% Roman Imperial names within 50 years actually makes Dacia statistically the second most Latinized province at the time, behind Italy. I'm sorry if you don't like the continuation theory, but it is the most widely accepted theory of how the Romanians came to be as things stand.
@TenczereECar
Ай бұрын
Every balkan ethnicity is incredibly mixed with all neighbouring ethnicities in order to be something special, imagine if u take all the colors and mix them into one, and there you have the balkans. And every balkan person thinks they are 100% from their own ethnicity. I could probably find a bulgarian with more serbian dna than some serbians. and I could probably find a serbian with more bulgarian dna than some bulgarians. its the idea that everyone is 100% pure from their respective ethnicity which creates justifications for "Oh but thats my land" which creates war which is why the borders in the balkans changed like 5 million times the last 1000 years, and the outcome of the many border changes is incredibly mixed populations. The balkans are arguably more mixed than white americans
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
100% true, I'm Romanian and so are my friends, but I took a DNA test and even I ended up with a bit of Serbian DNA in there. A friend of mine is a descendant of the Transylvanian Saxons and another friend of mine's grandparents were Ukrainian. Not even discussing the hoard of Romanians I know who's ancestors were Hungarians. The Balkans is a crazy place and trying to find a pure Balkaner is like trying to find a needle in a haystack of metal hair strands.
@rudolfohisena5701
Ай бұрын
Macedonian and Bulgarian is one of the same.
@masterblaster848
Ай бұрын
Alb being descendents of Illirian is a myth!
@rudolfohisena5701
Ай бұрын
No Albanians do not derive from Illyrians, they come from the Moon.
@Illyri-l6v
Ай бұрын
In the 10th century we were known as illyrians by the Romans and Vatican city I dont pull information out of my arse
@zmajooov
Ай бұрын
0:26 mabe in their wet dream lololol
@adriennnagy7982
Ай бұрын
It's a good video but there's some corrections: 1)Dacians are not the ancestors of nowday romanians. THAT's just romanian propaganda. 2)Originally Huns and Magyars are brother-nations. Ménrót was Hunor's and Magor's ancestor. Hunor later founded the Hun Empire. Magors tribe later went back to the Carpaths from Magna Hungaria or Etelköz. They were the Magyars. And in the Hun Empire there were a lot of Magyars. So the "Honfoglalás" as called in Hungarian were the second conquest of the carpathians.
@justinianthegreat1444
Ай бұрын
The ottomans claiming to be heirs of the Empire of the Romans is similar to chimpanzees claiming succession from Humans.
@debasishgoswami9896
20 күн бұрын
Exactly 😂🤣
@Albanian_ADN
Ай бұрын
Balkans , the place with the best history in the worlds
@evanc.5919
Ай бұрын
Your statement on Russian cultural points is nonsense. If the Byzantines are literally Rome (and they literally are, you say this multiple times), then the Russians taking direct inspiration from them would grant them cultural Roman points. Administration and religion and culture were so directly mirrored off of Eastern Rome, so the fact that you give other countries points for just giving nods to Rome in their national anthem but not to Russia is insane. Your standard on them taking inspiration from a version of Rome which pop-historians don’t consider “Roman” and thus not being Roman enough makes no sense. That’s like judging Eastern Rome off of the standard or the pre-republic Roman kingdom period. Just because they don’t have much in common with that specific iteration of Rome doesn’t make them any less Roman.
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
The issue is that everyone is claiming lineage to the Roman Empire of the Classical Era, if Russia wants to claim lineage to the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire of the Medieval Era that would be a different discussion, just like how the entire outcome would have been different had we been talking about successors to the Roman Kingdom and Roman Republic. Just because you have cultural overlap with one era of a nation doesn't mean that you necessarily have claim to other eras of that nation which had a different culture. Russia claims to be a third Rome, not a second Byzantium.
@jbstarkiller4626
Ай бұрын
3:54 not a very good argument. There’s no rule saying that they half to coronate their rulers the same way.
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
No not at all, it's just that it's a common argument that I hear that the Pope coronating Charlemagne is a continuation of the way by which Roman Emperors were chosen which isn't the case. I still think the HRE has a decent claim to the heirs of Rome, the Papal Coronation actually playing into their favour as it gave the HRE the position of Universal Empire of Christianity the same way Rome was.
@jbstarkiller4626
Ай бұрын
@@thatstorm_spectre Don’t you take that tone with me young man!😡
@debasishgoswami9896
20 күн бұрын
@@jbstarkiller4626 womp womp
@ill-albanoi
Ай бұрын
just wanted to say latin language is 2.500 yrs old whilst albanian is 9000 yrs old i mean its clear that latin language is influenced by illyric
@elenilepouri7253
Ай бұрын
Illyrian language wasnt a written language - there is nothing in written evidence by Illyrians Everything we knows is according ancient Greek authors bcs Greeks named this region Illyria and people Illyrians Half planet based on Greek writing system and alphabet: Latin Cyrillic
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
This is the same response I've already provided: I've heard this before but it's firstly not entirely true and second not how languages work. Albanian is not 9000 years old, it's true that forms of Paleo Balkan are upwards of 6000 years old but that's not Albanian specifically, it was older languages that evolved ingo the Albanian we recognize today. Meanwhile Latin is not 2700 years old, while the Roman state was created around 2700 years ago, Latin as the language that we recognize it as was created only around the second century BC, but of course it simply evolved from earlier forms of Latin which evolved from proto Latin which evolved from proto Italic and so on and so forth, so the same argument that makes Albanian 6000 years old can be used to say Latin is 6000 years old. But even if we say Albanian is older than Latin, it doesn't alter the fact that Albanian is comprised of a lot of Latin words, and it's not because Albanian came from Latin or anything, it's because Latin was forced onto the Albanians through the domination of the Roman Empire. This linguistic domination is evident all over Europe as the Gauls, Dacians, Iberians, Etruscans and more all completely lost their native languages and took on Latin as their language with only certain words or grammatical structures living on. Meanwhile the Albanians miraculously managed to hold on the language with only certain words and grammatical structures being from Latin. It's nothing to be ashamed of that your language has Latin influence, it's evidence that you managed to hold onto your culture and language even through the Romans. Something only you, the Basques and the Welsh can say.
@Illyri-l6v
Ай бұрын
@@thatstorm_spectre No I think Albanian is around 8500 yrs old
@Illyri-l6v
Ай бұрын
@@thatstorm_spectre en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#:~:text=Albanian%20is%20an%20Indo%2DEuropean,European%20migrations%20in%20the%20region. Older than Greek Egyptian and Sanskrit it's either 8000 or 9000 years.
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
@@Illyri-l6v yeaaaa that article says absolutely nothing to back that up. Albanian as the language we recognize it today is about 1000 years old, in it's earlier Illyrian form before the Roman Empire maybe 3000 years, about the same as Latin, from then on you're getting into a Language which is less and less Albanian, as the article calls it Proto Albanian and before that Pre-Proto Albanian, but these wordings are pretty ubsurd. This would be like calling Italo-Celtic languages prior to the Celtic Itallic split Pre-Proto Romanian because Romanian is a Romance language which devolved from the Italo-Celtic languages so why not call it all Romanian? Then Romanian must be 9000 years old. You see how this logic doesn't make sense? Albanian is a very unique language, the only one of its Indo European branch which has survived and only 1 of 2 Paleo Balkan languages to live to the modern day along with Greek. For that you have much to be proud of. But older than Sanskrit or Egyptian Albanian is not.
@CiorneaAlina
Ай бұрын
Romanian nați logo!!?!?
@user-gv1wu2mv4m
Ай бұрын
Bunch of simplifications and prejudice. Lack of knowing history. There are a lot of missing parts. I hate how youtube guys make jokes about balkan prejudice but are very full of them. And how they discuss history and try to explain but fail to read any source. KZitem is not a source for historical facts. If someone on youtube claims that something happened, you are not allowed to spread it as a truth. You have to check it.
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
I'm only human so Im sure I made mistakes somewhere, let me know what I got wrong and I'll course correct in the future. When it comes to hatred in the Balkans, I'm from here so I know first hand what real hatred looks like, the jokes made here I tried to make towards everyone and not with the goal of offending anyone. So I'm sorry if I did offend you, I just wanted to poke fun at our little chaotic corner of Europe.
@Mrachnitedoktrini
Ай бұрын
Lol. As a Bulgarian I have literally 0 difficulty understanding the so called Macedonian language. That needs to tell you something.
@elenilepouri7253
Ай бұрын
There is no " Makedonian" language The " N Mk" speaking language is a bulgarian dialect - thats why
@uncommon_name9337
Ай бұрын
The Larping is so bad even the Chinese are laying claim to the Roman legacy.
@oliveranikolich5317
Ай бұрын
Can’t we have references?
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
I mean it depends on what you want references for, this video was a super light overview of Balkan history, so I didn't think it necessary to link sources as I wasn't claiming anything crazy. But if you want to know why I said anything I said I'd be happy to tell you. 😁
@oliveranikolich5317
Ай бұрын
@@thatstorm_spectre it’s not that deep on my side either. At this point I don’t even remember the context. Sorry 🤷🏽♀️
@oliveranikolich5317
Ай бұрын
@@thatstorm_spectre I realised that occasionally I do troll people….if that’s what it means to drop a comment without elaborating. It wasn’t intentional trolling just I must’ve been pissed off with something not even related to your content and simply reacted without thinking. Although as a person that has never recovered from losing my country occasionally I do lose my cool and act immaturely. Well, thank you for showing integrity….now I will have to go back and try to find what was it that triggered me…duh. Where are you from if you don’t mind me asking?
@thatstorm_spectre
Ай бұрын
@@oliveranikolich5317 Not a problem, Im always happy to talk to people about Balkan history! I'm Romanian, born in the province of Banat, in the historic region of Transylvania. But forgive me for asking, what do you mean you lost your country?
Пікірлер