Heya! So this video is only the first half of my inițial video în the entire history of Romania, but it became too long (over 1 hour) and I had to split it in half. The modern part will hopefully be uploaded în a week or two. Thank you all so much for watching, and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

@jeishua

5 ай бұрын

Thank christ, because i was excited for the next parts, but the video ended, with no part 1 in the title. Great video and keep up the amazing quality :3

@rohandiana1789

2 ай бұрын

I am a romanian who loves history, but the one that s true. I don t even know where to begin to tell you how many mistakes you made in this video. I am curious from where you got your informations?

As a hungarian I cant write anything nice to you. (Love for romanian history and peoples from hungary, you are one of the most generous people in the world).🇭🇺❤🇷🇴

@alexandrupopa6235

2 ай бұрын

Why do you have to be sarcastic?..There is only hate and envy from hungarians toward us ..Keep your jokes on your court man

@fanmixman8831

2 ай бұрын

@@alexandrupopa6235 I'm wasn't sarcastic..................

@aidanmuttiah4095

2 ай бұрын

@@alexandrupopa6235 Its because she miswrote a common phrase in english. The right way to say it is: I can't write anything nice enough to you. It may sound like an insult but it is a compliment. maybe dont judge people for their english when it clearly isnt your first language either

@CocoSon-zj5oj

2 ай бұрын

@@fanmixman8831 Do you think the Assyro-Babylonians allow us to be friends?

@raresremetan2001

Ай бұрын

Aw much love to you back, I personally love Hungary and its people, language, food, and culture! Szertlek szomszéd! 🫶🏻🇭🇺🇷🇴

God damn, I'm impressed. This might be one of the best videos I've seen covering Romanian history. There's some nitpicking here and there about certain events or if certain people were/weren't Romanians plus some map errors but other than that well done. You've earned a new subscriber.

@thatstorm_spectre

5 ай бұрын

Thank you so much. Please feel free to tell me what I did wrong, I can always learn more! 😁

@cosimoalbaster

5 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre Honestly the main thing that I feel should've been added is that the istro-romanians probably moved to Istria from Transylvania much later probably at some point during the Ottoman occupation of Hungary. Other than that I think the rest of my nitpicks are more personal rather than anything I can cite :D

ROMANIA MENTIONED 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴💪💪💪 But jokes aside it's a very well done video, I hope you keep doing more in the future.

@cristibrad6742

Ай бұрын

there are better in english, the best are made by a welsh guy

Fantastic video man. Very entertaining and informative.

Your channel needs to explode! One of the best countryball educational channels!!!

Very good video and a great follow up from your Spain vs. Romania comparative video essay. Super excited for the more modern history that has all the juicy political nuance!

Very well put together! Keep it up man

i'm already waiting your next video mate,well done

honestly, this video was brilliant, really enjoyed watching it! However there was a fairly significant time skip between the principalities becoming vassals and the unification. Rulers such as Constantin Brancoveanu(who has a whole architectural style named after him) or Dimitrie Cantemir are historical figures worth mentioning. Also the Fanariot epoch as it was called was a very dark age for the country that can be a source for much of our corruption today ngl. During that period the thrones of the nation were literally held up for auction and every leader's goal was to find the most effective way to exploit the country and get back their money during their short reign. It's also worth mentioning how the nation was significantly orientalized. The story of the 1821 uprising is very interesting and tudor vladimirescu and his panduri are definetely worth talking about. This may be a bit nitpicky though, but I feel these 2 centuries were glossed over. Anyhow, felicitari ! ai facut un video foarte reusit, frumos si entertaining ! bafta in continuare, ai castigat un abonat nou !

@Winter-Alpha-Omega

3 ай бұрын

How was Romania orientalised?

Very impressed by the video as a Romanian, bravo. The wording especially at the beginning while important in specification, you got it right on the mark, not technically balkan but right above it; really just in the middle of where everything in the region meets. Bravo din nou, acesta este cu ușurință unul dintre cele mai bune videoclipuri ale istoriei României de pe internet și, mai de departe; cel mai bun în limba engleză! 🎉

This was very entertaining and teached me some new facts like the fact that Romanians became Cossacks! Good video and I cant wait for the 2nd video!

A really excellent video for your start as a history KZreadr. I look forward to seeing you cover modern Romanian history.

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

That parts already out 😁 Although it'll probably be the last video for 3 or so weeks until I finish finals

@PartiesandPolitics

4 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre caught up with that one now and enjoyed it too! What do you plan on covering next? If you intend to stay in the niche of Romania and the wider region then histories of other national groups nearby would be very interesting as it’s quite a neglected region in terms of content. History on specific fascinating minority groups like the Transylvanian Saxons (and other Danubian Germans), Aromanians and Gypsies/Roma could be really interesting too and quite unique.

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

@@PartiesandPolitics I would certainly like to talk about more than just Romania. For now I'm definitely tired of discussing Romania lol. I'm thinking to discuss the differences between the German nations next, but talking about the regional French identities or the ethnic makeup of Russia is also a possibility. Or I might completely change my mind before I start researching lol, we'll see

Excellent video, well done!

I'm impressed by Romanian sense of self-irony. Cheers from Ukraine :)

Very enjoyable video, great job.

Love your work! so good to find a new history channel that 1: isn't AI, and 2: is long form and meme'y

Congratulations on a well-made and, obviously, well-researched video about Romanian history.

This is great stuff frate

Keep up the good work! Thanks!!

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

Hahahaha, bro, I can't tell you why, but your last name is awesome! A really rare name there! You should be proud

very good video mate. You've done your reasearch about the history of the romanian people,

Sick video !!

Can't wait for part 2

Amazing video! Please lower the background music a little bit, but still an amazing video I'm glad Romania is finally getting some recognition

@TIGRISH

4 ай бұрын

were do you live

Having watched this video entirely, nevemind the second half that is just as long, and as good, I'm seriously surprised you put an hour worth of visuals and researched information. Though for as long as this great recap was, i felt like there could've been less corners cut (franlly i dont know whether this would have intetested the non romanians, as on latter side, most of us natives, were sort of here to admire and rate the accuracy of what was retold) Nevertheless, 6k views is criminally underappreciated, hope you continue on gaining attention. Best of luck!

The quality of these videos is entirely too high for such a low subscriber count. Glad I stumbled upon the channel. Please keep educating us!

Very good job stealing 38 minutes of my time on a excellent video, romanians will be proud

Beautiful video, my only criticism is that the music is slightly too loud, I can't hear your beautiful voice, keep it up though, this channel has a good future!

@thatstorm_spectre

5 ай бұрын

Thank you! I has the same problem last time with music being too loud. I thought I'd fixed it but I'll drop it some more for the next part! 😁

Love from a Greek-Romanian!

Bravo! Continua cu istoria României!

@thatstorm_spectre great video. Can you do a video of Arabic/middle eastern countries like Syria and Lebanon? Love to see an unbiased history.

@thatstorm_spectre

11 күн бұрын

If only our Loed and Savior Dovahhatty had kept going we would have had an unbiased history of the Middle East 😭 But yea, especially Labanon I've always been a bit curious because of competing claims of origin regarding the Phoenicians and Arabs. I just have to get un burned out from the bac first (it's like mega finals for the IB)

@thataintrightisit

11 күн бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre that’d be cool! I’m actually Syrian, so I selfishly would rather see one for Syria lol although, one side is from the coast so I probably have that Phoenician blood as well (other side is closer to iraq, so I have that Mesopotamian blood as well). Although, you’d never tell by looking at me. I think that’s what’s interesting about that area, as you brought up in Romania, it was run through by many different groups, as was the Levant. Might be even worth doing one for the Levant as a whole rather than by each country, especially since they’re so new, relatively speaking. Also, Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world - that’s a cool tidbit isn’t it?

Much support from Bulgaria!

@thatstorm_spectre

2 күн бұрын

Cheers другарю, may your nation prosper evermore! 🇷🇴🤜🤛🇧🇬

@Prof-Anax

2 күн бұрын

May our nations stay together in the future 🇧🇬🤝🇷🇴

This video is so underrated

like for providing music links!

@thatstorm_spectre

Ай бұрын

I know I always liked it when Yotubers did that, so I figures others might like it too 😁

Bravo tie, engleza ta e perfecta !

I’m bingeing Romanian history videos and I have to say there are quite a few videos… not necessarily with 3000 years in one video but you can find videos about every period….

@thatstorm_spectre

Ай бұрын

At least for me when I started out on my journey of learning history there were only I think 3 or 4 major videos about the wide view regarding the Romanians and a couple other popular ones about specific things like the Romanian revolution and Vlad III and Stefan the great Since then there's definitely more videos, but I hope I still managed to bring some fresh knowledge to the table for those interested in this little countries history 😁

@superstrongr

Ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre the more the merrier… I enjoyed your video too.

10:16 I keep coming back to this video, its very well made, but i was wondering can you please tell me the source for this? I can't find it in the Moesia wiki page nor in the Carpi one. I wanna know where does it say they imported Carpis in Moesia because I've been trying to find anything about it for hours🙏🏻

@thatstorm_spectre

Ай бұрын

For sure! The claim that Rome settled the Carpii in Moesia comes from Aurelius Victor, who wrote that all of the Carpii were moved to Moesia. Of course this is likely Hyperboly. This next one I haven't read myself but supposedly Ammianus mentions the Carpii that had been settled in the Empire twice in his works

@nih0nium24

Ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre Thanks a lot man

@nih0nium24

7 күн бұрын

​@@thatstorm_spectreHi, its me again, here's what i found... The Carpi were sent to Scythia Minor and Pannonia, both of which are pretty far from the origin place of romanians that's thought (dacia aureliana/moesia superior). I looked up the source you gave me but Aurelius Victor only says they were sent to "the same place Aurelian sent them" without saying which one, and Aurelian sent them to Pannonia. I've tried looking for mentions of Carpi in Ammianus's waitings too, and he also says they were sent to Pannonia. I couldn't find anything linking the carpis with moesia (both superior and inferior) outside the fact that they raided it... I would've loved this to be true which is why I came back to you for some direct quote or anything that maybe I didn't find

@thatstorm_spectre

6 күн бұрын

@@nih0nium24 hey man! For sure, my first source regarding the Dacians south of the Danube was the book The Lost Romans by Mircea Davidescu, on page 28 it says "About 50.000 Dacian refugees were transfered south of the Danube during Augustus reign (Strabo, 1924, VII, 3, 10) and an additional 100.000 were settled into Moesia (the northern half of Bulgaria) by Nero (Braund, 1984, pp. 136-137). A Dacian society was starting to form south of the Danube if Roman epigeaphic sources are anything to go by. The Dacians south of the Danube were thus already experiencing Romanization by the late first century AD." Then on page 47 he says "...Dacia was not just handed over to Barbarians, and Aurelian's protective policies strongly suggest he was forced to leave the colonists behind (Husar, 2002, p. 632). (Furthermore) indirect evidence for this is that Aurelian settled the Carpi south of the Danube in 272, and many other barbarian settlements followed (Watson, 1999, p. 157) making it clear that the southern provinces had not been repopulated by Roman colonists from the north." I hope this helps! Also, edit, Scythia Minor is modern day Dobrogea, and is a part of Moesia in most settings. Meanwhile I generally don't actually think the Romanians formed in Dacia Aureliana, and neither do any of my sources, I've found no substantial evidence to say the Romanian identity formed there. I'd argue the most likely place that Romanians were formed is Moesia (just south of the Danube) and Dacia Traiana, just north of the Danube. Likely the Romanians from north of the Danube spoke a more "corrupted" Romanian with more Gothic, Turkic etc influences, but in the end, the Romanian dialect south of the Danube mostly won out, probably due to them being more organized than the rural population of the former Dacia Traiana. But that's just my theory. I'm working on a massive video on the Origin of the Romanians and the Dacian connection. Although I need maybe another month before I can release it! 😁

@nih0nium24

6 күн бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre Thanks man I really appreciate it, also, most modern theory is the one about Dacia Aureliana because thats where kekaumenenos placed the homeland of vlachs and most historians believe Romanians are latinized thraco-illyrians (main inhabitants of the area), but if youre right about Moesia then this might be revolutionary, i love history and how it changes all the time... i just find it so weird why wikipedia has nothing about this stuff and only talks about the Pannonian dacians

At 36:05 , wasn't that the Banat of Craiova? Was it Hungary or Austria that snatched that? cause I don't remember it being Hungary but at the same time it was all under the Habsburgs. I was pretty certain it was the Austrians, but I don't know.

@somodizoltan

4 ай бұрын

That part is also totally off. He probably meant the Fogaras Declaration (Declaratio in Protectionem Cesareo-Regiam), in which the Principal Mihály Apafi and the assembly of Transsylvania declared that from now on they quit the vassalhood of the Ottomans and declared loyalty to the Habsburg Leopold I. Hungary "snatched" nothing, Hungary at the time had no independent foreign policy, it was a province of the Habsburg empire. Then in the Habsburg-Ottoman war (1716-1718) the empire reconquered the Temesköz (I dont know what the Romanians call it), and aimed to retake Belgrade. In the Peace of Pozarevac, the Sultan gave over Belgrade, plus "Little Wallachia" (Oltenia) to the Habsburgs. This treaty made the liberation of Hungary complete from Ottoman rule.

@sticlavoda5632

4 ай бұрын

@@somodizoltan We don't have a word for Temesköz (I found some maps subdividing larger geographical regions that do mark that section as the Timis or Banat plain), I know it's sort-of the Romanian Banat. In geography as we learn it here, that isn't a distinct plain, but apart of the Tisza plains. When we speak strictly of Romanian geography that whole region is called the Western Plain, covering the border with Hungary and Serbia. Each nation has their own particular ways of analyzing these things, different naming conventions. We split the Carpathian mountains again in a way that is sort-of strange.

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

Yea this was a bit of an error on my part. I'd always seen this portrayed with Oltenia as a part of Hungary (of course under the Habsburg domination). It took some digging for me to find the "Empire Autricien au XVIII. siecle" map, which shows that yea, it was a seperate Banat, although it also shows the Banat of Timisoara or Temesvar as seperate from Hungary too. The maps I've seen have it administered as a part of Hungary but those could've been wrong

missed a few important notes: 1. Emperor Trajan killing spree also meant sending (out of his way) a dacian legion to the damp rock of Britania and they left some marks there, mainly Wales 2. Vlad the Impaler was smeared by the saxon merchants and because they refused to pay the tariffs he went hard on them like the ottoman delegates 3. I think Baba Novac was caught by the huns and boiled in Transylvania 4. The Cuza union was not out of the blue as the Kingdom of Moldavia got scared shtless when the Russian Tzardom just felt like outright annexing half of it. This was a big deal as Walchia, Moldova and for the most time Transylvania as well were used only to client state status. So Moldova went ham on pushing the union. Basically Moldova as being less time under Ottoman influence was the center of romanian culture while Walachia was the martial power. As France was at that time pretty ousted or left from most important colonies, it focused on a beef with the Ottomans and people should know even today that France takes latinity world wide pretty serious so romanians keeping that frame in face of ridiculous adversity was probably awe inspiring to them. 5. How dare you not mention the second best friend international backer of a unified Romanian state: the USA on the frame of manifest destiny. The damp rock empire was always pissy, but in anticipation of the next part, once profit was in sight, they were major backers of developing the oil industry at least.

@thatstorm_spectre

Ай бұрын

Yea, the Dacian legions I want to touch on in a video about Dacian-Romanian continuation, but I did forget to mention it here More discussion about Vlad and the Saxons was probably warranted, I kinda didn't mention why he and they didn't get along so well I know he was boiled alive but I dont remember who it was, I doubt it was the Huns tho Honestly I didn't know this, that makes a lot of sense, especially considering how Iași looks compared to București, but that could have also been the Communist influence And yea I should've praised the Americans a bit. But maybe that'll wait till I make a video about them We'll see 😁

Loved the roman part , Ave Caesar !!!

You are so cool man, awesome video!

cool video dude :D music a bit too loud tho

I think that someone would make a looooot of subscribers in near future 😁

Great documentary about Dacians

12:24 is very bazat

I will have to make a correction. It is most probable, on account of linguistic aspects I implore you research yourself (Wikipedia should have you covered with the history of Christianity in Romania), that Romanians were Christians since Saint Andrew, and infarct it was only Orthodoxy that the Bulgarians spread. As such you also have the fact that the Romanian language was not utilized by the Bulgarians in Christianizing the Romanians. All converts quite typically are spoken to in their own language, but in the case of the Romanians, that was not what had happened. It looks like the Vlachs were quite easily persuaded to enter the church of the Bulgarians on account of their already pre-existing Christian faith, which also was the means by which the two ethnic groups mixed and influenced one-another (you have a lot of Slavic groups, not simply Bulgarians, which take greatly from the Romanians, such as the Gorals, the Hutsuls, etc). You have quite a few Proto-Romanian saints such as Dionysius Exiguus and the other Scythian monks beside him, and even Emperor Justinian who was said to have been at the very least from that same sort-of region from which you have "Torna, Torna, Fratre" and otherwise what's hypothesized to be the Aromanian homeland. To that extent he was probably a Daco-Roman / Thraco-Roman (since if you look at the Moesi, they were closer to the Dacians) of peasant origin, and spoke that sort of Latinic dialect. So all this before the Slavs had raided them. It is most probable that the Romanians had a folk-religion, without ecclesiastical institution, like the Alpine peoples which were theoretically Christian, but highly mystical, "heretical" and largely paganistic by orthodox Catholic standards. You can research that but, in essence, Highlanders such as the Romanians seem to have preserved Christianity in that sense. You should read about the dualistic cosmogony of the Romanians with the mythological "Fârtat" and "Nefârtat" divinities. Now their legend seems to resemble that of Perun and Veles of the Slavs, but the apparent Christian overlay to it's pagan root was characteristic of faith among the early Romanians, who most certainly believed in Christ and so on, moreso than the Slavs. The lack of proper ecclesiastical institution before the Slavs is on account of Christianity spreading among the people prior to the Edict of Milan, not trough a significant effort of hierarchical dissemination. Christianity spread from the grassroots up. Check the several artifacts attesting this among the Daco-Romans such as the Biertan Donarium (and as stated prior, also the linguistic artifacts, like the name for God and Church [Dumnezeu - Biserică] which come from Latin, are quite uniquely Christian, and differ from their counterparts. As such they must have come from the developing Vulgar Latin prior to the Aurelian retreat). I doubt that they would have lost Christianity and adopted some Pagan faith foreign to them prior to a re-conversion process taken up by the Slavs of all people. Otherwise, how come the linguistic anomaly?

1:44 ah the man that killed tarky tark super bus

you are so underrated lol

Actually there's also old "Intoarna'te", in all parts of the country.

Romania have a old and very nice history ❤❤❤

Great video, assembled piece by piece completing this complex puzzle 🧩

Drop the reading list va rog

Well, there's obvious mistakes in the video, and the part that I see as the biggest mistake is the level of Dacopathy that is deeply ingrained in the minds of my Romanian brother's and sister's. But at all the Dacian parts, the only mistake I could see outside of Dacopathy is that you said Dacian's were formerly called Vlach's as well, which is not true. As the exonym Vlach was exclusively used for Roman's and Celt's, and later for Romance-speakers. Then we go to the Vlachian Empire, which unfortunately you talked more about the Romanian principalities compared to our only and great Empire that existed from 1185-1396. However, the Empire was Vlach Empire and not Bulgarian, nor an union between Vlach's and Bulgarian's. The Asan Dynasty, which was a Vlach dynasty and the one's who founded the Empire used the idea of succession of the old Bulgarian Empire (681-1018) as a claim over their legitimacy over an Imperial rule. That's why Tsar Kaloyan, the greatest medieval Vlach ruler who was also nicknamed "John the Vlach", crowned himself as Emperor of the Vlach's and Bulgarian's in order to legitimise his claim over an Empire, just as Otto the Great of East Francia took over Kingdom of Italy and crowned himself King of Germany and Italy to gain a claim over Imperial title. Otto did so by claim imperial succession of Frankish Empire of Charles the Great and from the Western Roman Empire, the reason he crowned himself Emperor of the Roman's. However, Kaloyan had no legitimacy over his throne nor a crown from the Papacy. Thus, Kaloyan claimed lineal descent from the Emperors of the old Bulgarian Empire. However, Kaloyan also recognised to the pope his Roman ancestry. Thus, the Empire was never Bulgarian but Vlach, the dynasty was Vlach and the revolt of 1185 was purely Vlach as the only source on the revolt is Niketas Choniates (liv. 1155-1217), and tells us that the leaders of the revolt were the Vlach's. The Empire of Asan was multiple times referred as _Vlachia_ by writer's such as Geoffroi de Villehardouin, Henri de Valenciennes, Robert de Clari, Ansbert, Henry of Flanders, Snorri Sturluson, William of Rubruck and even Arabic writers

@thatstorm_spectre

5 ай бұрын

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I've never really encountered dacopaths but isn't Dacopathy a belief that the Dacians held an outsized control over Europe and Rome specifically, more conspiracy theories like saying the Dacians founded Rome? I don't think I said anything dacopathic... Yea I probably should've been more clear with the Vlach statement, I was referring to how Kekamenos referred to Romanians as Vlachs while saying they are the "Dacians and Bessi"

@InAeternumRomaMater

4 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre Well Dacopathy is of course a conspiracy theory with those things that you wrote however it also describes the people who are hyper-fixed on the Dacians no matter whether you consider the idea that we are only stemming from Dacians or Dacians and Romans. It is a mental **pathy** which stems from an inferiority complex and obsessive inability to accept the fall of the dacians and to make us Romanians with in fact no linguistical, cultural or ethnical identity connected to them as connected in any shape or form.

@InAeternumRomaMater

4 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre Also, Kekaumenos made that negative reference about us Vlachs due to his political view rather historical. He wrote because of the Vlach revolt of Thessaly in 1066, which got his father in law, Nikoulitzas Delphinas blinded and thrown behind bars in Constantinople. It shows that Kekaumenos made this reference for his agenda, and used the Dacians due to the history between them and the Romans (which later in the view of the Byzantines were them). However we must also point his historical inaccuracies, such as Dekabalos being King of Dacians and Bessi while making the reference that the Vlach homeland was between the Danune and Sava river in modern day Serbia. Thus he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Avreliana. But what I like his reference of us being descendant of both Bessi and Dacians, who were two different tribes geographically separated by the danube and Carphatian mountains. Although, Bessi was also a name continually used to denote all of Thrace and Moesia. Thus, I believe he used it as a reference of the Vlachs originating from Moesia, which includes the Inferior and Superior parts the latter being where he described being our homeland ironically Timok Romanians still lives there.

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

@@InAeternumRomaMater I see, I don't think it's possible to really say we have 0 relations to the Dacians, due to the over a millennia of Romanians being associated with the Dacians, from of course the Communist era, back to Catherine the Great referring to a united Romanian state as Dacia, to Kekamenos and Anna Komnene stating that the Vlachs or Dacians lived north of the Balkan mountains. But I am curious to hear both sides. I want at some point to do a video displaying both arguments and to determine whether or not the Dacian-Romanian continuity theory is valid or not. So could you outline the whole position?

@InAeternumRomaMater

4 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre We Romanians also have relations to Germanics, Celts, Turks and Mongols but that doesn't make us them. Thr truth is, we barely have anything left from the Dacians to prove any connection, not to mention that almost all tribes were wiped out by Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Divi Nervae filius Augustus Optimus Princeps. The Byzantine writers had the fashion to call 'modern people' by ancient groups. They called Hungarians as Sarmatians and Huns, they referred to the Slavs as Tauroschyts and Coumans as Scythians. This trend preceeded the Byzantines and was in use even after them by different writers of whom also referred to us as "Dacians" and that's because we live in their former lands. Same reason of Catherine the Great. And there is no "Dacians-Romanian continuity theory". What you might mean is "Daco-Roman continuity theory" which name means "Romans of the former Dacian lands". This continuity theory argues whether the Romanians are descendants of the Romans of Dacia Traiana, thus a continuity theory after Romes withdrawal from 271 AD.

39 minutes worthy time investment

You forget minor details but who cares great video

Well, bulgarian language have also kind of the same amount of french words in % like romanian

Great video. The music is a bit loud and so intense, drowns out your voice a bit.

great video but the music is a bit loud and overpowers your voice at times

I must say, this video is pretty informative and so far afcurate. However my problem stems with the Second Bulgarian Empire. While it is true that the Asen Dynasty were Vlachs, they quickly adopted a Bulgarian identity and the language, while also the practice of calling themselves rulers of Bulgarians and Vlachs ended with Tsar Kaloyan who viewed King of The Vlachs as a secondary title as it was quite common to have a lot of titles back then. Example: Several Bulgarian Tsars also claimed to be Tsars of Bulgarians and Greeks. Also tbf, it wasn't overtime that the Bulgarian element overtook the Vlach but pretty much almost since the start. And while some did call it "Vlachia", the rulers mainly called it Bulgaria and mainly sooke Bulgarian while also most sources called it Bulgaria. Also tbf, it is most likely that Wallachia also started moreso as a Bulgarian autonomous vassal state or atleast became one as Bulgaria owned it as late as the 1300's as they got it back from the Mongols awhile ago by then. For example, Wallachia was part of Bulgaria during Tsar Ivan Alexander.

@nestingherit7012

3 ай бұрын

😂 Spoke what? For Romanians, Bulgarian language is as strange as Swahili. Romanian language is the reason why Bulgarian language has definite articles.

@rawka_7929

3 ай бұрын

@@nestingherit7012 Romanians in medieval times used Old Bulgarian for clurgical and official purposes, but aight.

@nestingherit7012

3 ай бұрын

@@rawka_7929 If it's used in church it's possible, but people didn't understand a thing.

@rawka_7929

3 ай бұрын

@@nestingherit7012The nobility did, but I don't deny the commoners not understanding a thing and never did I claim they did. But such influences from the way the nobles spoke it snuck in a bit into the language.

The video is super interesting, but (maybe it's just me) it was so hard to follow the story with the constant music in the background 😵😫 although I did love the soundtack 😄

WE GOT THEM TERRITORIES

@thatstorm_spectre

2 ай бұрын

Which ones?

Ba cat de mult imi place ! Similar cu Dovahhatty. Foarte tare !

Vlachs back about anyone who speak a Latin language in Eastern Europe not just a Romanian cuz they are many Romans language live in Eastern Europe before the 20th century

29:24 tanks for adding Pocuția to Moldova becouse that teritory belong to Us

The Cyrillic script wasn't used for writing in Romanian up until the 16th century, when we have the first written Romanian text using a Slavonic orthography and most certainly an ad-hoc implementation of a script the people hadn't written Romanian with. All the texts up to that point had been in Slavonic. The Bulgarians didn't convert the people in their own language and made no effort of speaking to them in Romanian. I left another comment explaining the religious history up to that point, and how the Bulgarians uniquely did not need to speak the language of the people in order to spread Orthodoxy, on account of the already Christianized Romanians which they encountered. Romanian then swiftly became the language of the peasant and the inferior, and was not used in Church or Chancellery up until most favorably the 16th, but also 17th and 18th centuries (due to opposition from the clergy). Please check the Wikipedia article on "Româna liturgică" in Romanian, if you know how to read the language. The local rite was the Hispano-Gallican rite prior to Byzantine conversion, that also enforced Slavonic. Dosoftei writes in the 17th century that "He which speaketh in a tongue (not understood by the people) walls himself off: but he that telleth in a tongue walls off the whole Church." In that period, great efforts at speaking to the people in their language had begun within the Church, first with the Protestants which were the first to translate fragments of the Bible in Romanian, and then with Latin becoming moreso seen as a language of the elite and this association bringing Romanian out of it's previous condemnation as a peasant's tongue (during the reign of Cantemir and Brâncoveanu)

Entire?? YOU FORGOT GETO DACIA, THE CUCUTENI CULTURE AND VLAHO BULGARIAN EMPIRE

@thatstorm_spectre

2 ай бұрын

Geto-Dacia we sorta already covered with Burebista as it was under him that Dacia reached its greatest extent and involved the Geto-Dacians. The cucuteni and hamagia cultures are too far back for us to really say they are Romanian, as the video focused on the Romanian ethnicity and not the territory of Romania, and personally I think before the Dacians and Romans it doesn't really make up our identity anymore. And we did talk about the Vlaho-Bulgarian Empire, but only the beginning when Romanians were important to the state, because after a while the Romanian part of the Empire was lost

@DavidRusu1919

2 ай бұрын

@thatstorm_spectre Those things are in Romanian history books, maybe you are an American that doesn't know history

@seaman5705

Күн бұрын

@@DavidRusu1919 E roman si tu esti un capsoman . Nu inseamna ca daca noi ne-am inventat niste povesti in cartile noastre de istorie , Cucuteni are vreo legatura cu romanii sau noi avem mare legatura cu dacii . Asta e propaganda nationalista .

As a Hungarian (rahh🦅🦅🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺)it is my sworn duty to dislike this video (its very well made, am interested to see what you come up with in part 2)

@eleonora78

5 ай бұрын

😂

@not_averge

3 ай бұрын

... Yourself magyar

@alexandrupopa6235

2 ай бұрын

As a Romanian I can say 2 u this , go f.k ur mongol muti in the steps of mongolia

@constantinradu13

2 ай бұрын

Vai mai RAU cersetor incet incet maghiar sclav🖕🤜🇭🇺🏳️‍🌈🤡⚔️👎/...traiasca Romania mare,romanii💙💛❤️

@alinpotop6407

23 күн бұрын

Hello my misguided neighbour!If you like this video I will give you some beers the next time you visit Bucharest.This is totally not a bribe.

Why did Moldavia own a random city near crimea?

@cosimoalbaster

5 ай бұрын

It's the modern day city of Ochakiv. Back then it used to be a Moldavian trade-port.

@flavi9692

5 ай бұрын

@@cosimoalbaster how did they get it?

@cosimoalbaster

5 ай бұрын

@@flavi9692 It was an abandoned Genoese or Greek (really can't remember) port that some Moldavian pirates captured in the 1400s and it later became part of the Moldavian principality. It was used for trading with the Crimean Tatars and with the Genoese. Also it was called Vozia by the Moldavians.

@flavi9692

5 ай бұрын

@@cosimoalbaster thanks for the answer!

Also I like how ur pronouncing

moama ce fain video , las un laik ca bani nam =D

I like your videos but the background music is always too loud and i can't hear you speak at all. :(

Kraut inspired

Collect me if I'm wrong but the word Dracula and Romanian become become the name of devil and that become anonymous that he the son of the devil and not the original name the son of the Dragon

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

Yep, correct 😁

I see you took inspiration from DovaHatty

@thatstorm_spectre

5 ай бұрын

He was the reason I became interested in Roman History, so if it weren't for him I probably wouldn't have made this channel 😁

I am in love with you

@thecanadiancactus7000

5 ай бұрын

Many agree

Bravo coaie😂❤

hamagia? cucuteni ?

Facetiva un test genetic si o sa vedeti aproximativ povestea asta :))

@thatstorm_spectre

2 ай бұрын

Eu și câți-va prieteni am făcut deja un test genetic lol. O să facem un videoclip despre asta când putem

@Bidenisapedo

2 ай бұрын

Andrew Tate e tata vostru.

32:16 "so back to vlad, like any good ruler..." AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH! You just said like 5 mins earlier he put poor people in a building and lit it on fire lmao

@CipiRipi-in7df

4 ай бұрын

Yes, he put "poor people" in a house and burned it to the ground. But they were not ordinary poor people. Keep in mind that since the death of Mircea the Elder, Vallachia was riffed with civil wars between House of Draculesti and House of Danesti. Two noble houses that competed (and fought) for the throne. Vallachia was full of poor disbanded fighters from previous figths, that had nothing to do, a breeding ground for banditry. Vlad decided to weed out the roots of the rampant banditry by getting rid of those useless wanderers, leaving conscience objections aside. After all, he was a ruler, not a monk. :)

Romani's peste tot.

i am at minute 22 and... 1. the debate is st00pid because we were here first. even if we "left and came back" lol. reminds me of the debates i read between Jews and muslims. on parts of the Hebrews being exiled from time to time and returning home after a certain period-event. 2. the way you wxplain the romanisation of Trajan-Marcus Aurelius falls a bit flat. Dacia of Decebalus had between 800.000 to 1.200.000 inhabitants. several tens of thousands were enslaved and thousands among the elites were k1ll3d. the Dacian spirit weakened and with the arrival of the colonists the Latin language gained a foothold in the area. due to its status it will continually spread throught the passes and roads and by the end of the 5th century whatever Dacian dialect there will be will be nearly extinct.(there was also Arian priest Ulfilas and his Gothic gospel. maybe he looked at the Dacian language remnants as well) 3. Galerius, Licinius AND MAZIMINUS DAZA. you forgot this one 4. Constantine will reconquer parts of Banat, Oltenia and Muntenia and rebuilt bridges for better commerce with the Goths and Daco-Romans. it would be abandoned by his son Constans(which "d1ed because he was too gae") 5. i wished for more chronicle references(which i forgot myself but i remember there being more. remember Ramunc being present at Attila's wedding? or... you know, maybe not too much "it was always about vlachs in the south". they were not as strict on Moesia and Tribalia-Ripensis. i had some documents in google drive at one point...) 6. during the time of Mauricius, general Priscus writes that "there are quite many Latins north of the Danube, however crowded by the slavic migrants" in his campaigns in Wallachia. 7. more details on the nomadic rules. Gothic, Hunnic, Gepidic, Bulgar, Magyar, Pecheneg, Cuman. how they garrisoned, which were their prefered settlements, the industries(salt mines-Bulgars, gold mines-Magyars), the "standardisation" of Orthodoxy by the Bulgarians(they "leveled up" from the Bulgars, now they have a turkic name, slavic language and thraco-roman blood) 8. the Asen dynasty was originally Latin but they mixed with Cuman and slavo-Bulgars in time. and yes, the Arabs called it al-Walaq. 9. some mention of the magyar speaking szekely border guards in the eastern Carpathians and the German colonists? 10. Transylvania has: blue dark sky with sun and moon(representing the Szekler branch of the Magyars) the Turul bird(legendary Magyar bird) the 7 Saxon fortresses painted yellow the red Austrian imperial strap so for a region that has been majority Romanian since its inception(and even before) in 1111(you gotta love how this year is just a bunch of 1's), on its emblem, the Germans and Magyars appear twice. anyway, i will continue watching the video. maybe i will add other points.

The video is full of mistakes and misconcepcions.

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

Feel free to list them, I can always make mistakes, I'm only human 😁

@thieph

4 ай бұрын

You are hungarian and that is a mistake

@szakaattila7899

4 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre Why don't you make a video about what was recently published in historical studies about the origins of the Romanians, where research carried out in collaboration with Serbian, Spanish and American scientists sheds light on the prevalence of Slavic genes in the region?! Maybe that's why the Romanian historians and newspaper writers keep quiet about these sensational researches about the origin of the Balkan peoples, in which Romania also participated, because they don't like the result?! Among others, Novinite reported that pioneering DNA research covering Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Albania and Greece led to startling discoveries about the genetic makeup of the Balkan population. It was clearly revealed that the Romanian genome is 50-60% of Slavic origin, similar to its Balkan neighbors, Bulgaria and Croatia, and no Hungarian researchers participated in this comprehensive study! The newspaper added that the research carried out in collaboration with Serbian, Spanish and American scientists highlights the prevalence of Slavic genes in the region, which means that more than half of the Romanian people come from Slavs who migrated from the north, so they could not have had anything to do with the Dacians but with the Romans neither! According to the results reported by the Serbian agency Tanjug, Bulgarians, Romanians and Croatians have the highest concentration of Slavic genes. In contrast, Greeks have the lowest presence of this genetic heritage: it ranges between 4 and 20 percent. Anyway, it has already been shown in other population genetics studies about the Romanians in Transylvania that they are more similar to Hungarians and Austrians genetically, which would justify the theories that from the 18th century onwards, especially in the 20th century, a lot of Hungarians and Germans became Romanians in Transylvania and in the Partium! Because the DNA of the Cumans/Pechenegs and Tatars is also present in the southern Romanians, at least 5%, not to mention the Turks and Gypsies who moved in during the Ottomans, who added at least 10% to the Romanian origin, and then the old Balkan Illyrian and together with the genes of Latin shepherds, the other 30% also comes out!

❤

Good job. Only the one, it's that Principality of Transylvania the most time controlled by the Hungarians.

As a hungarian, great video man! Trianon did happen and it was fair.

@thatstorm_spectre

5 ай бұрын

O7. Trianon was pretty harsh for Hungary, but all treaties at the time were almost unnecessarily brutal. But we're all in the EU together now so it doesn't really matter anymore 😁

@da_Sizzle

5 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre totally agree! Keep on creating man, love your content!:)

Dont rely on a source was written 800 years after the fact. Your quote on the greek Kekaumenos does not really mean anything. Yes dacians were north and south of the danube. By 1075 AD, the Vlachs were under byzentine rule. All vlachs under byzentine rule were forced to be eastern orthadox. Thus romanian eastern orthadox tradition today. Under hungary at the time, eastern orthadox was banned. This was still centuries before Vlachs entered wallacia and transylvania in the 13th century. This means that if the daco roman continuation theory was true and the dacians were in fact living in trasnylvania at the time, Romania would certainly be roman catholic. Also you skipped past hundreds of years in the imbetween period of the formation of romanian states in the 13th century from the Vlach migration north of the danube and the 1st to 3rd century when the dacians were invaded by Rome. After which, they were no longer a state. Do you think a stateless unorganized peoples could live in transylvania for hundreds of years? Transylvania was heavily resource rich and there is no evidence of dacians living there past the 3rd cenutry. Dozens of differant peoples came in and out of the now romania area. None of which were eager to have a orthadoxy people living in their land taking their gold and silver from transylvania. Everything points to the romanians coming stright from the vlachs in the 13th century. And i think that the quote by Kekaumenos is faulty for several reasons. 1. Dacians were a broad group of people. 2. there was differant types of "vlachs" and 3. There is conflicting sources from the same time period. I have seen many sources which describe the Vlachs as living exclusively south of the Danube as migrants moving east. I can knitpick any one of those broad quotes and it would be just as irrelevant.

@thatstorm_spectre

Ай бұрын

Dw bro, I've got a video for you in the future on my view for this topic. The script's nearly done, a couple more revisions. I apologize that it'll take a bit longer tho because studying for the bac will take all of my effort for now. So stick around and if I haven't convinced you there then I don't think I'll be able to 😉

@thatstorm_spectre

Ай бұрын

Hey sorry, before I finish the script for my Dacian-Romanian continuity video, could you link me the source you mentioned about conflicting primary sources that say the Vlachs exclusively came from South of the Danube? I haven't been able to find them, but I might just be looking in the wrong place. Also same for the source that says Hungary outlawed Eastern Orthodoxy, I cant find anything like that either. It would be a huge help, cheers 😁

1. Byzantines often falsely linked new ethnic groups with old ones, especially if they fit geographically or culturally. Like mixing Magyars with Bulgars, Turks and Huns, and calling Latin speakers of the ex-Provinces of Dacias (plural, because they renamed Moesia after Rome abandoned Dacia) as Dacians. 2. Aromanian and Romanian split linguistically in the 10th century, so no need to differentiate Vlachs before that. Istroromanians is considered a late split, around the 11-12th century and didn't start in Istria but migrated there. 3. In the Gesta (which is a genre of literature), if Blachi = Vlach, only Gelou was a Vlach ruler, the other two were bulgar/khazar/cuman. Which raises a problem. In the Gesta, which was written in the late 13th century, they try to write about the 9th century when the Hungarian conquest took place. At that time, Cumans didn't even enter Europe (that was the 11-12th cenrury), yet to be in the Carpathian Basin. Not talking about how they found Khazars in the Carpathians when they left them North of the Caucasia. Gelou (Gyalu) and many other figures from the Gesta, mysteriously was never mentioned in other sources (despite those existing), and they died at places that bare their name. Hungarians wouldn't name towns after their enemies, and Gyalu, is a toponym that can be found even outside of Gelou's potential realm. Gyalu is a hungarian word and name with turkic origin. 4. King Bela and Andrew settled Romanians into Transylvania, calling them foreigners. And Wallachia and Moldova even before their creations, gave bufferzones to Hungary, and Magyars even settled those aeras. Sadly only the Csangos remain. 5. Voyk (hungarian/turkic pagan name) di Huniad was Wallachian/Romanian (probably with Cuman roots). But his son Johannus was born in Kolozs (Cluj) as a Hungarian noble who probably didn't even speak Romanian. (Vlad Tepes is also a Romanian with Cuman origin.) 6. Matthias fought the Czechs and Germans to become Holy Emperor, because he realised Hungary and the Romanians is not enough to stop the Ottomans. But he gave the Szeklers to the Romanian Principalities as support units. 7. Principility of Transylvania was a Hungarian state. (Also Haiduc/Hajdúk is a Hungarian word and unit originally.)

Make Dacia great again

A romanian femboy doing history content on KZread? I am not so sure

Music to loud, can't listen any longer, at min. 6:35, I'm out. Pity...

horrible clip is full of mistakes

@thatstorm_spectre

2 ай бұрын

Poți să-mi dai ceva detalii?

@davidcostea9767

2 ай бұрын

​sunt multe@@thatstorm_spectre

@BozgorSlayer

2 ай бұрын

Make a better one then.

@krusty4555

2 ай бұрын

​@@thatstorm_spectre bro e hater, nu il baga in seama, video e foarte bien facut

So the dacian province of roma have existed only for 170 years than pushed back to around today Sofia, problem with rumanians you have no history and try to believing that a loser steppe-warriortribe fairytale ,the loser dacians disappeared without hardly any trace just like avars or thraks or huns or sarmatans or goths.

Living ironically in Europe clone

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

I wish to one day be a fraction of that beautiful Bosnian man's greatness o7

please dont pronounce latin in a super over the top way. I can't understand anything you say when you do that lol. I had to google the names of people

@thatstorm_spectre

5 ай бұрын

Sorry, I was taught the names this way. Aside from Caesar I'm used to saying their names in Latin or Romanian so I'll see if I can anglicize the names in the future!

@cosimoalbaster

5 ай бұрын

I thought the pronunciation was good, he even used some classic latin pronunciation.

@sticlavoda5632

5 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre You pronounced everything more than well!

@andrewthejew6007

5 ай бұрын

@@thatstorm_spectre im sure the pronunciation is correct but all the names sound the same to me when you use the non anglicized version and its just difficult for me to understand. I would imagine most people would like you to use the latin version first and then the anglicized version. Great video other than that though.

@thatstorm_spectre

5 ай бұрын

Thanks! I'll try in the future then to introduce in Latin and continue with a more anglicized version. Sorta like how I did with Trajan in this video 😁

1:33 Vlachs are a completely different entity and peoples, completely unrelated to the Dacians. Vlachs originated as a illyric peoples living in modern day albania and migrated through the years, to south of the danube in then bulgaria until they, in the 13th century conqured turkic and nomadic tribes in wallacia and Moldavia. This was over 1000 years after the dacians were said to have inhabbitted the lands of now romania. There is apsolutely no way that they are connected in any way. Also we know vlachs were defantly orthadox because of the byzentine invasion of bulgaria, where the byzentines forced the vlachs into eastern orthadoxy. Where meanwhile the hungarians banned eastern orthadoxy, where the supposed dacians lived. mind you there is apsolutely no evidence at all they were there in the first place any time past the roman invasion in the 2nd century. So the daco roman continuation theory is basically just complete nonsense by Romanian propaganda and nationalists. Also, just know that latin was only spoken in romania past the late 18th century. 17 centuries AFTER the romans left. The inhabitants of romania used cyrallic. Why? because romanians are slavs, possible descendance of the roman colonists not in dacia, but in Illyria, a place we have actual doccumented evidence of romanization. And just so you know, romania is the only "latin" country that is eastern orthadox.

Blud is so biased💀matthias corvinus hungarian king

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

Of course, Corvinus is a Hungarian king without doubt, and he certainly was recognized as Hungarian. But his family was ethnically Romanian in origin so I felt it was right to mention him. Hungarian and Romanian history overlaps a lot more than anyone really expects 😁

This video could be called The Entire Mythology of Romania. 1. Eutropius narrates that the Romans exterminated the Dacians so thoroughly, that they needed to repopulate it with settlers from all over the Empire. The minimal degree of Thracian/Dacian influence in Romanian language and the negligible number of Dacian geographical names also supports this. There were also no civitas communities established by the Romans in Dacia, because there were no local population and leadership available to support this administrative organization. 2. The degree of Roman withdrawal in 271 is debated as you said. But it is a debate between reason and mythology. The Goths have been attacking the province for at least 15 years before, so how likely is it that the civilians have not fled the invasion, especially after the army and the administration left? If it was logistically possible to populate the province with settlers from all over the empire 165 years ago, how come it was impossible to evacuate them to only a couple miles south? It is obvious that the majority of the Roman settlers, who just came 2-3 generations ago to this land, also left at the first opportunity to safety. Eutropius clearly describes this process and narrates that the population was relocated to Dacia Nova, south of the Danube. 3. Whoever remained in the former province, had to live under various types of Germanic influence for about 300 years, followed by Hun/Avar Turkic domination. Yet, the Romanian language completely lacks any kind of Germanic or Turkic influence. The theory first claims that only 165 years of Roman rule was enough to completely switch culture and language from Dacian to Latin, but secondly it claims that 300 years of Germanic and Turkic influence was not enough to have even minimal language influence? How can these two statements be true at the same time? Is there anyone who seriously believes that three centuries of existence in the dark ages is possible without any kind of contact with the rulers of the land? 4. You easily dispatched the problem of the language relatives in the Balkans with "ohh well it is complicated". In fact, it is not complicated at all. It is only complicated if we want to narrate this story within the framework of Dacian continuity. The Romanian language is clearly Latin, so much, that other Romance languages to such deep Latin influence only developed in territories that were under Roman rule for about 500 years. This is the case with Romanian language too. The lack of Germanic and Turkic influence can only be explained if we accept the fact, that the ancient Romanian people lived in a territory that was never under Germanic and Turkic rule for centuries. The strong southern Slavic influence can only guide us further to the solution, which is confirmed by the presence of their language relatives. Their ancient homeland is in the west of the Balkans, from where they migrated northeast over the centuries, and their first mention in the Carpathian basin is in the 12th century. This ancient homeland cannot be further south, because then they would be mostly Greek, not Latin. There was also no Germanic and Turkic rule there, as opposed to further east. I don't understand why it is so important to parrot this mythological story about the right over Transsylvania. Transsylvania is not Romania because of any historical right, but because they populated it for various historical reasons - mainly the Ottoman conquest of Hungary, and the centuries of warfare that decimated the Hungarian population. And of course because Hungary lost WWI and was unable to defend itself afterwards.

@szakaattila7899

4 ай бұрын

You are absolutely right, only a person who has been immersed in the Daco-Romanian continuity since childhood will never accept this, unless he has a very rational mind and doubted these very fictitious theories even in his youth, but unfortunately today they are in the minority among Romanians!

@Historic_Events.Explained

3 ай бұрын

●They established temporary, it isn't enough to have a big impact. Reading your comment makes me think you support the migratory theory(made by Austrian historian for propaganda). ● Its argument was ruined by a question "how did they become the majority in Hungarian-ruled Transylvania, did they drink loads of goat milk?". ●Why would the Hungarians colonise some migrators with Saxons and Szekelys and how could they overpopulate the Hungarian population? ●About the Turkish population, the Ottomans had a longer presence than the migratory Turks in the Romanian principalities yet we only have Turkish influence in food. ●In Gesta Hungarorum it is written by the Vlachs and Slavs under the Vlach leader, Gelou, who were there before the Hungarian invasions and fought against them. P.S.: Many Daco-Romans remained isolated in the Carphatian Basin, isolated from a strong foreign influence.

@CocoSon-zj5oj

2 ай бұрын

@@szakaattila7899I see that you are very strict with the Daco-Romanian continuity, but does Hungarian continuity in the Carpathian Basin, not just in Pannonia, on the Scythian-Hun-Avar-Hungarian line seem more plausible to you?

@szakaattila7899

2 ай бұрын

@@CocoSon-zj5oj The American anthropologist Grover Sanders Krantz writes in his book: "The Geographical Development of European Languages" Page 72 "the Hungarian language is the oldest permanent language in Europe", its development can be traced back to the transitional Stone Age (Mesolithic). Krantz's results support Bowring's view of 170 years ago. Here it is: "Including, for example, that the Greek language in its current geographical location dates back to 6500 BC, while the Celtic language in Ireland goes back to 3500 BC. The antiquity of the Hungarian language in Hungary is at least as surprising; I. finds it temporary. Stone Age language, preceded the beginning of the Neolithic period." Or what Rabbi Miksa Drechsler wrote based on his research, I quote from his manuscript: "You Hungarians are the oldest nation among the nations alive today. We Jews know this very well. Even before the exodus, your horsemen appeared in Egypt, and we knew of you that they had existed since ancient times. When the end of the 19th century, after the compromise, the terror of cultural politics could no longer be sustained, the Scythian-Hun trend reappeared in scientific research, and Austrian agents offered a large sum of money to prevent the matter from coming to light. And we took the appropriate steps." Or Dr. Aczél József, who proved that the Scythian peoples of Hungarian origin, honored as the cradle of European culture, maintain a close relationship with the pre-Hellenic and ancient Greek languages, based on grammatical and vocabulary similarities! Or Varga Csaba a native language researcher who proves the Hungarian origin of the ancient Greek language with numerous word parallels. And I could list Magyar Adorján, Hóman Bálint, John Dayton, Marija Gimbutas, Michelangelo Naddeo, Mario Alinei and Dr. Révész Péter an American ancient language researcher and many others who came to the same conclusion! After the last 30 years of research, I only believe them!

@CocoSon-zj5oj

2 ай бұрын

@@szakaattila7899 "The antiquity of the Hungarian language in Hungary is at least as surprising;" Not surprising but incredible. No one will argue that it is as old as the Turkish language, but that it has similarities with the Greek language, not many believe, with all this pile of names quoted, some famous. Others claim that it is even like Assyro-Babylonian, citing all kinds of famous names, although even the attempts to show a striking resemblance to Persian are not neglected.

You call Upper Hungary Slovakia and say it was a vassal state.... WTF???? Slovakia was founded in 1993 (not counting Tiso's nazi state). And whose vassal state was it then in 1542? The Ottomans'?? Come on ....

The myth of the Daco-Roman people and Daco-Roman continuity has long been dismantled with real data from the historical sciences, so the Romanians they make fools of themselves with this absolutely unfounded theories! That is why Romanian historians and politicians are profoundly silent about the serious genetic research that has recently been published in scientific journals, in which a pioneering research on the origin of DNA covering Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Albania and Greece about the structure genetics of the Balkan population! Because Romania also took part in this research, but they did not expect this result, that it was clearly revealed that Romanians are 50-60% of Slavic origin, moreover, they come from the Slavs, for whom there is accurate data that only from the 7th century they began to migrate from north to south! That is why all those Romanian linguists were silenced from the 19th century onwards, who said that the Romanian language was at least 40% Slavic in origin, and since then several Latinizing language reforms have been carried out since Cuza's time! The professor and archaeologist specialist in ancient history Visy Zsolt says in an interview that he studied all the real documents about the Dacians for many years, but he also participated in many archaeological excavations where Dacian settlements were found, and he came to the conclusion that these settlements did not have had a long continuity nowhere after the Roman conquest! The professor says that there are contemporary descriptions showing that most of the Dacians were slaughtered by the Romans, especially the men, and those who remained were sold as slaves. But there is no data at all about a Romanized population, especially since in this province occupied with many wars, the Romans brought populations from all parts of the empire, among which very few were original Roman citizens from Italy! The professor also says, but many people wrote about it even before that, that nowhere in the world could the Romans Romanize a people by force in just 160 years! After all, if we don't consider the Jews and the Greeks, who were under the Latin-speaking Roman rule for almost five hundred years, but even among the Gauls and other Celtic tribes, this process took more than five hundred years and they never fully Latinized! He says that especially after the withdrawal of the Romans from the province of Dacia in the north of the Danube, neither the Dacian elements nor the Roman elements can be found anywhere, not even in the parts not occupied by the Romans, which means that the Dacians as a population with a specific culture in the settlements, they completely disappeared in these 160 years, but the Roman population also left here! No matter how much some Romanian archeologists searched, especially during Ceausescu's time, the truth is that they did not find anything concrete and then they started to issue some absolutely unfounded theories! In the historical sciences, you have to have more concrete data to prove something, especially if we are talking about the presence of an entire population in a territory! We need contemporary sources, that is, primary sources, which attest to the presence of a population, and then if archaeological evidence and possibly toponymic data from the same life are also found, then we can say that that population lived there in those centuries! But no matter how much it hurts the Romanians, there is no data about the Latinized Dacians, not even from lower Moesia and Illyria, nor are there any archaeological data, because what 99% of Romanians don't know is that the Dacians had a very distinct culture, which for example differed from the Getae and from the Thracians too! The problem is that there are no short texts of the Daco-Romanians in the language if or in Latin at least. At least from the Middle Ages if there was any text in the Dacian language or some references to the Daco-Romans, but there is neither one nor the other! Anyway, no one with serious knowledge of history believes that the descendants of the Dacians would have fallen so far to completely forget the language and writing of their ancestors in just 160 years! Or that the descendants of the Dacians or the Romanians completely forgot to at least build houses and churches out of stone! Not to mention cities, fortresses, castles and palaces, or tombs carved out of stone, or reliefs and statues, statuary monuments, cobbled roads and aqueducts! All of this is completely missing, and not even a thousand years later in the Middle Ages did the Romanians build such monuments! Nestor's chronicle proves absolutely nothing about the presence of Romanians in Transylvania, especially because Nestor lived in the 12th century, and he probably wrote this chronicle towards the end of his life, after 1110, so the chronicle was written over two centuries after those 9th century events! This is exactly the problem with the chronicle of Anonymus who wrote his chronicle after three centuries and not about the Vlachs but about the Karluk Blaks, because in those centuries many stories were born, especially because there are no established historians to study the real data from the archives to analyze and filter them properly! Not to mention that in the Middle Ages there are no auxiliary sciences of history, which are all the sciences that study documentary sources and develop their research methodology! However we take it, to demonstrate the presence of a population on a territory, in the historical sciences you need primary sources first of all, at least two primary sources and preferably from different sources! But primary sources do not exist at all about Wallachians from the 9th century, because the first data about a Wallachian population appear only in the 10th century, and they are all mentioned well south of the Danube in the Balkans!

@thieph

4 ай бұрын

Who dismantle? :))

@thieph

4 ай бұрын

😂😂😂 slavic dna doesn't exist. You mean 30-40% similarity to slavs. Which doesn't neccessary means slavic DNA, but also another tribe close to slavs like dacians which possible were already similar due to both indo-european origin.

@Arpoxais1Ateas2

4 ай бұрын

@@thieph Do you supersede the work of Spanish and American biologists-geneticists? What scientific doctorate did you write in biology or about the latest genetic research mods? Do you have any idea what you're talking about, or do you just not like the result and bark like a dog because you can't come up with arguments? But then, on such a basis, you can also believe that the earth is flat, and the Daco-Romanians are the most ancient people who built the pyramids on the flat earth! The only problem is that these never-before-seen Daco-Romanias actually left nothing behind, not stone houses or stone churches, or stone-lined roads, not stone statues or reliefs, not even fortresses and cities, not even writings that international science would recognize and humanity could look up to them! That is why, based on reality, the Balkan Slavic, slightly Latin, Illyrian and Albanian origin of the Romanians is a hundred times more believable, which was clearly confirmed by genetics!

@agfd5322

3 ай бұрын

​​​​​​@@thieph I have to mention some basic things about the Romanians. They do not use the word silva, which means forest in latin. Instead of this word they use pădure. The expression Transylvania can not come from the vulgar latin, that the romanians speak, because this means beyond the forest and in romanian it sounds like dincolo de pădure. It is so simple. And there is another thing. The name of the Danube. It is in romanian Dunarea, but the latin version of this name is Danubius. It also proves the romanians got this word from other nations, maybe from the slaves or from the cumans. And back to the problem of the name of Transylvania. This name appears first in hungarian chronicles, and not romanians and this name is just a simple translation of the expresson of the original hungarian one. It sounds like Erdély. It comes from the old hungarian word Erdőelve. You can also find similar expressions in the modern hungarian historical works, for example the hungarian name of Wallachia. It is in hungarian Havasalföld and in old hungarian Havaselve. And this part of the word, ELVE means a plain or an area beyond something. In this case the prefix Havas refers to the mountains of the Carpathians. If you think about it logically, they make a lot more sense. This is about history and not against the romanians but why should we listen the romanian inabilities.

@thieph

3 ай бұрын

@@agfd5322 this doesn't prove anything, many words without much essence.

Another thing. Hunyadi János was Hungarian. There is absolutely no proof of his Romanian origin, although it can not be ruled out, but very unlikely, given that the nobility of Wallachia in his forefathers time was not ethnically Romanian. However one thing is 100% certain. His own identity was Hungarian. Please stop referring to him as a Romanian. Most outrageous insult to Hungary.

@thatstorm_spectre

4 ай бұрын

Oh I'm sorry. From what I've read it seams his family came from Wallachia and he was called "the vlach" by his peers, historians seem to by and large consider him Romanian ethnically. That's not to say he wasn't Hungarian as well. Of course he was a Hungarian ruler, spoke Hungarian and probably considered himself Hungarian. I felt it was appropriate to mention him. I don't see why both Hungary and Romania can't be proud of him, our histories very often overlap 😁

@somodizoltan

4 ай бұрын

Yes, he was called Oláh János, but his father's name was Vajk, which is an ancient Hungarian name. His grandfather was Serba, potentially a Slavic name. His ancestors were noblemen from Wallachia. Could have been Vlach, southern Slavic, or Cumanian ancestry, nobody could really tell. Ethnicity at that time was less important, this debate is only heated because it is part of the Romanian narrative that Hungarians just happened to be there as a pest for 1100 years, but everything great and glorious was achieved by the original inhabitants of the land, the Daco-Romanians. At that time even the word Romanian did not exist, let alone as a separate national identity. He probably identified himself as a Catholic Christian noble in the service of the king of Hungary, and maybe of Wallachian ancestry (but not Romanian for sure). He had no possessions outside Hungary but he was the greatest landowner in the kingdom. His son didn't speak Romanian according to written sources.

@thieph

4 ай бұрын

​@thatstorm_spedctre don't bother he is a troll, there are also other comments like his "arguments" with the acient hungarian name, even though in modern Romania from all sides you find the name Voicu which is slavic.

@agfd5322

3 ай бұрын

​​@@thiephI'm not convinced by your statement. The first hungarian king's pagan nem also was Vajk. I don't think he was slavic after 105 years the hungarian conquering. It is rather a turkish name. That time Wallachia was a mixture of nations: cumans, vlachs, bulgars lived together. So Hunyadi could even be of cuman origin.

@andreiclawhammer

2 ай бұрын

Vlach and Romanian are interchangeable just like Deutsch and German.