So many butthurted people in comments. He never said that word Slav came from word slave. He said that word slave came from word Slav. Can you even understand english? And btw, thanks for video Masaman.
slave (n.) late 13c., "person who is the chattel or property of another," from Old French esclave (13c.), from Medieval Latin Sclavus "slave" (source also of Italian schiavo, French esclave, Spanish esclavo), originally "Slav" (see Slav); so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.
Kretek Actually the word Slav was invented in the 19 century! Before that the word was Sloven ! It means word or people with whom you can speak at a common language! So I hope you understand how much ignorant you are and how rude! ?
They say that the Eastern Romans discovered the slavs Squatting and dancing to hard bass in there villages for a ritual. Oftentimes the romans would state that these people would fight in combat with an ancient battle armor what is called today as Adidas.
Not true! When slavs came from north in Bulgaria, they were peaceful farmers, but when they started living together whit Trace, they started learning from them how to defend with infantry, after that from Byzantium how to siege and from Proto-Bulgarians how to use eficialy horses and use them in Byzantium strategy.
Slavs were called Wend/vend/vind/ by their neighbors. Wend means kin, tribe. Slav is from slavic language and from "słowo" "słowianie" those who speak one language. And we called Germans "Niemcy" this word from "niemi" - it means voiceless because we could not communicate with each other.
The Slavic autonym *Slověninъ is usually considered a derivation from slovo "word", originally denoting "people who speak (the same language)", i. e. people who understand each other. The word slovo ("word") and the related slava ("glory, fame") and slukh ("hearing") originate from the Proto-Indo-European root *ḱlew- ("be spoken of, glory"), cognate with Ancient Greek κλέος (kléos "fame"), whence comes the name Pericles, Latin clueo ("be called"), and English loud. The popular Italian-language (and international) salutation Ciao is derived from the word. The Byzantine term Sklavinoi was loaned into Arabic as Saqaliba (صقالبة; sing. Saqlabi, صقلبي) which is a term used in medieval Arabic sources to refer to Slavs and other peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, or in a broad sense to European slaves. The term originates from the Middle Greek slavos/sklavenos (Slav), which in Hispano-Arabic came to designate first Slavic slaves and then, similarly to the semantic development of the term in other West-European languages, foreign slaves in general. The word is often misused to refer only to slaves from Central and Eastern Europe but it refers to all Europeans and others traded by the Arab traders during the war or peace periods. The English term slave derives from the ethnonym Slav from Middle English, from Old French sclave, from Medieval Latin sclāvus (“slave”), from Late Latin Sclāvus (“Slav”), because Slavs were often forced into slavery by Muslims in the Middle Ages.
Just a reminder that Yugo Slavs were slaved by the Turks for 500 years and they managed to preserve their culture and national indendity as well as fight off the Turks.
Yugo Slavs were slaved by the Turks for 500 years in ottoman times.if it s true or you are agree with so you must accepth this now Yugo Slavs were slaved by europan culture especially french english and german since collapse ottoman ..by saying this Yugo Slavs were slaved by the Turks for 500 years you are agree with this slav from slave ..but it is not true The correct is one is Slov, from Slovo, which means word. Thus, anybody who spoke our language was a Slov, while foreigners were Nemcy (Mutes). The name Nemcy stuck as the Slavic name for Germans, but it used to be an umbrella term for the foreigners. be smart and think again mr. markovic
@@wolfieblack32 Yougoslavia was made from several different countries and it was not even in start at that time. Otoman empire was stopped in Croatia so it could not invade the rest of europe. They were a lethal force at that time. Just leearn about the Suleyman the great and the Chicken they catapulted in his tent in the town Siscia. A bad sign for him. Some time after that he died.
Otomans did not conquer "Yugoslavia " at that time as there was no Yugoslavia ( made from severals different countries as it was after WW2 ) so this is wrong assumption. Again crooked interpreting. Yes the Ottoman empire did spred from east to half of the Croatia. But not all. Serbia ,Bosnia and Herzegovina ,Albania etc were all under Otoman empire. And most people at that time switched to islam for their well being at that time. Which still remained. On youtube everyone is interpreting stories as they fit. Just to profite from adverts,views and commenta. I am amazed how much is there mislieading info here. Pleaee pople dont think everything what you see on youtube. There are books which have to be checked from authorities about their written supstance. Please Do read.
@Hist Ory Most empires didn't bother to assimilate their captive peoples - it required too much effort, produced too much rebellion, and perhaps most inconveniently for ruling elites, loaded the social pyramid with too much upstarts, threatening incumbent establishment. Truth be said, Ottomans excelled in social mobility, but at the same time moving up on social scales also required assimilation into Turkish identity and converting into Islam religion.
Easier said than done though. Look at Ukrainians seeking protection from the U.S. against their “brother” Russians. Soon you will see US military bases set up in Ukraine. Then clueless gals will start hanging with GI Joes, insisting they’re their gf but only to reduce themselves to their sex toys. It’s kinda sad.
Ever watch that video of a bunch of gopniks turned soldiers in Russia trying to catch bullets... and succeeding!? Yeah, one shot his pistol by the other one, while the latter tries to catch the bullets with his hands. He does it.
Slav is actually an incorrect pronunciation that has set roots in the west. The correct one is Slov, from Slovo, which means word. Thus, anybody who spoke our language was a Slov, while foreigners were Nemcy (Mutes). The name Nemcy stuck as the Slavic name for Germans, but it used to be an umbrella term for the foreigners.
Slava and slovo derived from the same word a long time ago, thus both interpretations are correct (it initially meant to verbally glorify the gods from what I've read, so you can see how it split into two words). Both are used depending on which slavic group you are talking about.
Shuhister, I'm skeptical about this considering how the typical slavic greeting is essentially wishing health (based on zdrave and its variations) and doesn't sound similar to neither glory (slava), nor word (slovo).
Y i think slav is slavic ward so i dont know what you are talking about we call ourselfs slovani=slavic people slovan comes from slava which means glory its pegan thing in our roots like glory to our forefather.So yes you are wrong because slavic comes from the ward Slovan (in my language everyone got there own words for "us" but some words are the same in the biger Picture and everyone Will know what you mean with the word SLAVA but even more prfect is SLAVA RODU glory to our kin!) now you know the truth so dont write bs anymore.
@Hus Nope, it comes from the word SLOVO or WORD. So "Slavs" means "people of words" or those who can understand each other. In contrast, people who "don't have words" or could not be understood were NIEMCY, and similar words now mean German in several Slavic languages :-).
@ Random Smartass What makes you think they accepted Ottoman rule for 500 years? Do you know the history of the region? One of the many rebellions, 1594: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Saint_Sava%27s_relics BTW, fighting for hundreds of years for liberation is a good example of never giving up, capisci?
@Random Person Romania is not as poor and disorganized as some would believe. Moldova takes the cake for that. That said, being Mediterranean wouldn't be much better, unless you mean Italy. I'm not sure the Albanians or Greeks are doing hot themselves.
@Random Person Remember when he said that the slavs were the cannon fodder of Europe? Well Romania was i guess even more (or same) cannon fodder cause of surviving slavs and getting plaid by Hungarians for ages. So its a miracle we survived. With dignity to. Been on this ground since beginning of time. Never bothered nobody but paid for everybody. Super proud Romanian.
Slava means "glory". Also "sloviti" means "those who can speak" (они који слове, говоре). We call germans "nemci" because they could not speak our language (they are "mute")... So, the ones who can speak the same language as you can is for you Slav, Slavic... Not slave, which is "rob".
The Slavs called the Germans 'Nemci' (literally - 'the mutes') because they culdn't speak their language, and they called themselves Slav/Slovak/Slavak/Slovian(in) because the were 'the people of the common word/language' (slovo), and NOT because of 'slava'/'pride'. Deriving the word 'Slav' from 'slava' is a total misconception. 'Slav' comes from 'slovo' (word/speach/language).
@@SteaksOnSpear Latin for "slave" is "servus". Slavs didn't appear on historian's horizon yet while Roman economy was based on slave labor. However, Slavs captured in Viking raids were allegedly earliest and most common slaves in Norman societies and that could be the etymology for slave in English.
Amazing how for almost all western "experts" on Slavs Great Moravia simply didnt exist. Old Slavnonic language was already liturgical language besides Greek and Latin in 9. century.
Russian linguist and self-taught historian here. I can see the discussion in the comments and have an opinion on that topic. The word Slav most probably originated from the word slovo (слово), meaning "word". So Slavic people are the people who spoke the word (common language, people who could be understood). As an opposing term there's a nemec (немец), meaning "mute", or the one who doesn't speak the common language. Nemec means German in most Slaviic languages, but there are numerous records of other Western Europeans being cold nemci (немцы), like Swedes, Austrians, Dutch etc. The word slave comes from Germanic root (in German slave is sklav). Sklavins are one of the ancient Slavic tribes. During the Early and High Middle ages Slavs were fighting nomadic tribes ever so often. Most Slavs were Christians by late 10th century, which prevented them from selling their captured enemies as slaves. But most nomadic peoples of Eastern Europe and Asia were pagans which allowed them to do so. Slavic women were beautiful and Slavic men were strong, so they were in high demand in North Africa, Middle East and even in Western Europe. Thus, the word "slave" indeed came from the word "slav". But that was just a coincidence and there's nothing degrading about it. Thank you for your attention
The word słowo and sława were probably originally the same, pronounced "sławo". The ancestral reconstructed Indo-European form was 'kleu'. Some linguists presume that the proto-Slavic language lacked the vowel 'o'. This may be confirmed by the example of the Byelarussian language, peripheral to other Slavic languages, which frequently has 'a' in places where other Slavic languages, like Polish, have 'o'. So the Slavs may have called themselves "Sławeni". This could be rendered by Greeks as Sclavenoi (Sclaveni). This does not mean that all the Slavs called themselves "Sławenin" or similar as the Byzantine sources clearly differentiate between two major groups known to them: the Sclavini and the Antes. They were known to them also under other names like Suobenoi, Venedi, Sporoi. Not all the slaves sold to the Muslim countries mus have been of Slavic ethnicity, and probably were not, as selling even family members into slavery was quite common in older times (see biblical Jacob) also in the Caucasus. Even the Romans sold other Romans, they were in conflict with, into slavery. At some time the Slavs were the most numerous and their name just stuck as a generic one in countries neighboring their lands in the west. There was also a psychological motive, as those nations feared the Slavs who frequently waged wars on them. Even the Italian word "cravatta" (necktie) originated from Croatian "Hrvat" (Croat) as it was the Croatian soldiers, who first used them.
Citizen, you must have been swilling a lot of vodka before you came out with this nonsense. You think slavery came about in the middle ages? Or they had it before that but didn't have a work for it?
@@remamili Thanks for the tip. Isn't that precisely as I alluded to? Is the vodka-soaked citizen saying slavery existed before the middle-ages (which it did. It has existed since the dawn of civilization and probably before) but there was no name for it? Or that it has existed since the middle-ages?
Thanks! I know it's been 3 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
An Eastern European has one of the heaviest raw totals in powerlifting (1160kg by Petr Petras) and powerlifting is much more popular in the West. Mariusz Pudzianowski (Polish) has the most world strongest man titles (5 titles) in history. Nikola Tesla (South Slav) was one of the smartest men in recent history. Slavs were very oppressed because of bad circumstances - Slavs were some of the first people attacked by Asian invaders and so acted like a shield for much of Europe. Slavs were also extremely divided and violent towards each other, which severely weakened Slavs, making them easier targets for Asian invaders.
The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Fun fact about Slavs and one of the reasons they grew so large in numbers is that they never held prisoners of war nor enslaved other peoples. Instead, they would keep the captured soldiers for a trial period and would then give them two options: 1) join the Slavs and become one of them or 2) return home with all the gear they were captured with. According to Byzantine sources Slavs were not aggressive people like the Mongols for example, but were very fearsome warriors when it came to defending their lands. In the very early stages of their migrations they were known to use guerilla tactics when fighting stronger enemies and that's how they dominated the Byzantines, for example, in every major skirmish giving them opportunities to form their own statelets in the Balkans. Similar thing happened with the western Slavs under Samo who defeated the Franks and formed a large confederation of Slavic tribes that stretched from the Baltic all the way south to the Adriatic sea. They were very sturdy and could handle both extreme heat and freezing winters, tall and strongly built. Even today you will notice that Slavs don't like to give ground to anyone and are great and hospitable people for friendly visitors but harsh and fierce soldiers to those who wrong them. Little Serbia of 4 million people pushed back the great Austro-Hungarian invasions in WW1 and was not subdued until it was attacked by three different armies. And even then refused to surrender but instead retreated to Greece to regroup. Later that same beaten and exhausted Serbian army would break the Salonica front and liberate it's country in a record time where the French generals were recorded to have pleaded the Serbian infantry to slow down because the French cavalry couldn't keep up.
RealAlbo4life if this is a type of videos is what you consider as a reliable source then I can't imagine the poor education you get in Albania. My sources are contemporary Byzantine historians. On the contrary, Albanian biggest contribution to the world is fighting for their masters. Enjoy your empty history of being the world's biggest lapdogs.
+Xilaw Good one, mate. Would you be so kind to refer me to some of your sources? I find the topic interesting and would like to dig deeper. To the other guy - if 22 000 soldiers (2-3 full WW2 divisions) is all what you need to invade and make Albania submit, then you are not in a position to be barking at anyone, ever.
+Lukasz P czesc :) The most descriptive of the early Slavs was Procopius of Cesarea who describes them as I mentioned in my post. You could look up his work "History of Wars" where he writes about Slavs in more detail, e.g their system of governance (which he describes as a democracy), their religion, etc. Jordanes is another historian who mentions Slavs in some more detail in his work "Getica" though the main focus of that work are the Goths. Interestingly, the rulers of the Ostrogoths at that time according to him are certain "Valamer, Thiudemer and Videmer" names transliterated as Vladimir, Tuđimir and Vidomir - Slavic in origin. Other notable sources are Maurice's "Strategikon" and later period's "De Administrado Imperio" by Porphyrogenitus. Although, DAI is a very important historical source of 10th century Sclavenes (south Slavs) it has some obvious historical mistakes.
Xilaw I readet in the early middle age sourses that the scitians didnt have a prisoners from the battles for a long time--thay ask for some ransum and when nobody has given it,the scitians invite the prisoner to live with tham if he would like,or send tham at home.Nowhere i readet about slavs.(sclavas in latin and sklavos in greek,what means subbordinated).
Xilaw Nowhere in Gethica Yordanes did not mention "slavs".He write for scitians, gethas, named ostrogotes and visigots.He did not write for sclavas like some later hronicals.Where did you see that slavs?
A rather western point of view of Slavic history. You didn't even mention that Germans conquered Slavic territories in modern East Germany, which were previously inhabited by Slavic tribes
@@larsonpartisan2855 This is only the general consensus. Not much is known about the Veneti. It is thought that they have spoken germanic languages as Tacticus recorded no real linguistic differences as far up to the fin-ugrian boundaries as he passed through. Yet the Veneti fairly consistently held the R1a gene which is often linked to the Slavs. The unfortunate reality is that we don't know for sure what the predominant linguistic culture was before 500 AD in what is now eastern Germany and western Poland. There is a broad spectrum for speculation. And unless we invent a time machine we probably won't ever know for sure.
@@larsonpartisan2855 Fortunately, there is science like genetics. Have a look at the layout of the Y haplogroup on the map of modern Europe and compare it with the archaeological DNA. Then we can see where the Slavic Haplogroup R1a1a dominates. Genetic tests also allow to check how long a given population lives in a given area. Looking at this data, we can see that nowadays Germany is a Creole nation. Celtic genes dominate in the west, in the north there are Old European genes. East Germans are Germanized Slavs who did not come to this land in the 6th century as 19th century German historians have invented themselves, but have lived there for several thousands years. If the Slavs came to this land only in the 6th century, why did the DNA tests show that bones dug up on the Tolense River (13th century BC) belong to the ancestors of people who live in Poland today? Genetics is a terrible science - Germans will have to re-write school textbooks.
@@adrem7613 Not only that, but even R1b Bell Beaker (first dominant Indo-Europeans in central Europe) remains end up closer to Poles and Czechs than to Germans.
Jedna etnicita, jedna společnost, jeden národ, náš rod. Sláva rodu bratři a sestry! ua-cam.com/video/r1fGXM1w4VY/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/0s0OKCBeHFY/v-deo.html
First of all, he didnt say we are slaves. Secondly we made damn sure we arent and he points that out. Thirdly, no true Slav would be offended by mere words. Thats the whole point of being an eastern european, not being a little butthurt bitch but a tough and proud person who overcomes all the shit that he gets and conquers hence Slava=Glory.
Besides, even _if_ Slav came from "slave", well... so what? Half of the different ways people denote themselves would be found at the very least kind of deregatory today. "Japan" means "Rising Sun". Rising for whom? Well, the Chinese, of course. That's what the Japanese call their own country: the place in which the sun rises to shine over fucking *China.* But guess what? They don't give a crap. Similarily, how many of you will change your mind about England if I tell you that it literally means "the Land of Angels"? WIll you be like, "Damn, I used to hate these tea-drinking pricks but now that their name has such a nice ring to it, I guess I could..."?
S. V. Actually Slavs are pretty butthurt when someone hurts their pride. I remember when some news reporter in the US said something offensive about Serbia, everyone were up in roars here and demanding apology from her, ridiculous I say. Sure you can joke about gays and talk about stuff that is forbidden in the west, but if you insult a Slavic nation or it's history you can expect a shitstorm. The problem is of course that merely being objective about history of a Slavic nation can get you in trouble. This is especially true with smaller nations, but I guess that's how it is with all smaller nations around the world, they can't stand any criticism at all.
@Demy Troy Borscht? Pierogi? That's just two. I could name a ton of excellent Polish pastries and foods that blow boring old Italian pasta and salad or American hot dogs out of the water in terms of nutrition density and taste. If you can't handle a nice plate of sauerkraut and sausage, that's your problem.
The term "Balkanization" has nothing to do with Yugoslavia. It comes from the dissolution of the Balkan part of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century.
It's yet another English term that puts other people down and guest makes them feel superior. They "balkanized" Middle East, Asia and Africa, filled their museums with stolen history and goods, but they are civilized and the Balkan is not. Balkan is the cradle of the world civilization and they can't take it!
@Random Person They didn't. They said that it's the cradle of civilization (Which is debatable. The neolithic Europeans didn't perform any grand feats to put them above contemporary Mesopotamians or Indus Valley peoples). Anyone saying the Balkans are civilized now has a real problem though.
@Random Person Well, "civilized" West is going through process or project of "arabization" and it will be done soon. So, I guess we will be the same. Oh noo, wait! There will be no white people in the west, they will all blend in multicultural-new world-sharia law brown. We are not the same after all and never will be.
@@GGTanguera Exactly. Lying western propaganda should never be trusted because it was assembled around liea glorifying western colonialist culture and degrading everyone elses.
@@Userius1 It's so easy hiding behind pseudonims, isn't it? When you commenting on the Indus valley people are you aware that modern day Slavs understand Sanskrit vocabulary more than most Indians. Also its well known fact that most Brahmans carry R1a haplotype. All evidence suggests that "Indo-Europeans" came to India, they are not from India.
I feel like the Bulgarian empire is hugely underrated. I have several supposedly "world History books" at home, which go in intricate detail about obscure tribes, but not one features Bulgaria, even the ones which talk about Slavic tribes/Kingdoms (which isn't many btw). Which is weird... Bulgaria was huge for quite a while, twice, invented Cyrillic, and set Christianity as a Slavic religion in stone. So I am curious about why it often gets forgotten.
I know it's been 4 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Because a people can have a romantic language and largely Slavic culture simultaneously. Rome covered large portions of 3 continents. It wasn't really a single ethnicity. It was a political affiliation with some cultural attachments.
I love people explaining word Slav in comments without actually taking in account prechristian origin of the word. All pagan Slavs were divided into clans and each clan had its Slava (Celebration) which was always dedicated a Slavic diety Perun, Svarog, Vesna etc., clans were lead by the Elderly Council , old men who very extremely conservative and were there to protect the old ways and traditions, extremely neo-phobic people. Marriage between people of two clans who celebrated the same deity if they lived near each other was not allowed because they were usually blood related. Slavs cared a lot about preventing incest (even today in every Slavic country first cousin is often called brother or sister and treated as such) also pagan Slavs lived near rivers and lakes and cared a lot about personal hygiene and Slavic women had very low mortality rates of infants which in 9 and 10 century lead to rapid population expansion of Slavic people. You can consult Enc. Britannica for references. Also more than half of population of modern Austria are germanized Slavs and most of population of Hungary are former Slavs assimilated into Hungarian nation. Autosomnal DNA tests keep surprising Hungarians and Austrians... Hungary was a melting pot of ethnic groups from the whole region. This is just so you understand why there is no physical connection between South Slavs and the rest of the Slavic people. Back to word Slav, modern day Serbs who are Orthodox Christians have family Slava (family holiday) and it is carried over from generation to generation from father to son and it is always a Saint of Serb Ortodox Church, it is syncretism of an old pagan Slavic custom and Christian religion. So Slav in prechristian terms is a member of people who have Slava holiday and thus who celebrate a specific Slavic diety as their protector and who understand each other because they share the same language.
I agree with the comment that most modern Austrian are Germanisized Slavic people. Back in the 8th century the Caratanian elected a leader amongst themselves who spoke Slovenian(slavic language) and was coronated for 4years near a ceremonial stone near Salzburg. The first written slavic language was Slovenian, where a manuscript is kept in a Munich museum. To be honest, I don't care as long as there are no wars. Still don't understand the logic for invading the Ukraine.
@@johnkern1878 There is no logic, only primitive emotions. Russians think they need to take care of their neighbouring nations and show them "the way", probably a blurred memory of the Soviet times. And Putin is a thief. He doesn't think long term, he just wants more. The fact that he stole the Super Bowl Winner ring from the club pres of the Patriots, in front of a room full of people, tells you everything 😂
The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Slave does not come from Slav, it is simply a homonym. Slavs owned many slaves themselves and most of those slaves were Greeks. I really dont understand why there is SO MUCH anti-slavic sentiment or slavophobia in western and Mediterranean Europeans (some having some Slavic in them themselves because of Slavic expansion). Jealousy because we inhabit more than half of Europe now maybe?
The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
@@cerebrummaximus3762 yeah just ignore him. He is some fanatic polish guy trying to start a fight at every single comment. You should see him when the video is getting political or even better, has anything to do with Poland. Then he will find a way to show how great they are, especially compared to Germans 😂
@margaret Everyone's manipulated. There's no ethnic condition to how easily someone gets influenced by something. That would be the first I ever heard of that "science".
Thanks! I know it's been 2 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Final note on Slav. Typical Polish names: Bronislav, Wladyslav, Mieczyslav, Czeslav, Stanislav. All of them end with slav - from Slava = Glory. Just this simple example shows that Slav-ic has nothing to do with Engish slave. No one would ever create names like that for themselves! The meaning of them is also clear: Broni-slav (Bronic - means to defend) meaning he was glorified for defending something. Wlady-slav (Wladac - means to rule ), so he was glorified for being a great ruler, Mieczy-slav (Miecz - means sword) so, he was glorified for skillfully using his sword etc. One would hope this issue should've been solved long time ago.
@@thijsvandenberg7843 You're so stupid you don't know what you're talking about! Slavic people are the greatest fighters in the world and they have always been dominating people. Slavery denomination has nothing to do with slavic people. Just go to the psihyater stupid head.
Fun fact: a lot of people in Scandinavia (especially Iceland) have Slavic roots due to marriages with captured Slavs in the past. Also, Eastern Germany is basically just Slavs who were converted to German culture/language, hence the surnames of many Germans being somewhat Slavic (von Below for instance), and the cities/cites having names of Slavic origin.
Fun fact, the Austrians greeting with "Servus" which is the Latin word for slave. I found another explanation that Slawe origin from "Slovo" meaning Word or "who speaks" while "Niemec" , describing of germanic tribes means Silent or "who can't speak (same langugage)". This sounds much more reasonable.
Yeah... he wasn't saying Slavs started calling themselves slaves, that would pretty ridiculous. Foreigners started calling slaves "slaves" because many Slavs were taken as slaves by the Greeks (and later Muslims), as they weren't Christian. Oh the great civilized Judeo-Christian world some conservative elements like to talk about, so egalitarian :)
@@matusmotlo3854 Of course, I'm terribly sorry. When did the Greeks take the Slavs into slavery? In addition, in the Greek language, the word slave sounds very different.
@@roza2939 "The English term slave derives from the ethnonym Slav. In medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved, which led to the word slav becoming synonym to "enslaved person". In addition, the English word Slav derives from the Middle English word sclave, which was borrowed from Medieval Latin sclavus or slavus, itself a borrowing and Byzantine Greek σκλάβος sklábos "slave," which was in turn apparently derived from a misunderstanding of the Slavic autonym (denoting a speaker of their own languages). The Byzantine term Sklavinoi was loaned into Arabic as Saqaliba (صقالبة; sing. Saqlabi, صقلبي) by medieval Arab historiographers. However, the origin of this word is disputed." If the word slave derives from Medieval Greek, they probably did take them as Slaves. Honestly though, I'm not blaming the Eastern Romans. The Slavs invaded their lands and often murdered all Greeks and Latins in the towns they captured and took the women, Slavs entirely deserved it.
The problem is, that the genes of the Slavic People, are very stable on the territories of central Europe. The haplogroup R1A is present in Poland about 3000 years, so the theories about the late migration in the 7-th century are wrong.
Ye its germanic rewriting of history they say that 1. These lands were inhabited by mostly Germanic tribes, relatively in detail described by Greek and Roman historians and cartographers. They were accomplished craftsmen - manufacturing their own weapons and tools, building defence systems - a network of forts and their common culture bound with common language. The Slavs were able, according to this theory, to overcome these people not on individual basis but on mass scale to the point that these people lost their identity and took up the culture of Slavs. This could only happen if Slavs were aggressive invaders systematically murdering everybody or they were culturally superior, which cannot be said about inhabitants of swamps. 2. In 200 years the Slavs originating from beyond the shores of Vistula, conquered lands 2500 km to the west, south-west and south. More that 7 million square kilometres. They were apparently welcomed everywhere, their agricultural skills in high demand. Where did they learn this anyway if, for 200 years, they did nothing else but conquering other territories? 3. The Slavic takeover was so complete that all the original names of rivers, mountains and lands vanished, only the Slavic remained. The Germanic tribes were giving their towns and villages Slavic names several centuries before their invasion, which was documented in Ptolemy’s Geography in 200AD. He is describing many places in Germanic lands with Slavic names: Bogadion (town of god), Kalaigia (place of forging metal), Budoris (building), Menosgada (name of snake), Brodentia (Ford); there is no sign of Germanic dialects.
@@sab5686 I think PeteMaravich 744 comment is interesting: but there is no way of me knowing what Masaman is up to. I haven't experienced what PeteMaravich 744 went through so I'm not going to judge, but I'll keep an eye out for that sort of behaviour from Masaman. It also looks like @sab is trying to take a cheap shot at PeteMaravich 744 without trying to debate him. If you really are that smart @sab, take a shot and debate me on what PeteMaravich 744 said about the Slavs. Try to argue against his points with logical assessments on the Slavs, instead of being condescending. Let's see how well you do.
Genetics aren't helpful in discussing spread of cultures. Migrations in Eurasia were not like the colonisation of North America. Previous populations were assimilated, not slaughtered in order to make place for new settlers, so people with the same haplogroup in Central Europe were in different periods of time culturally Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, then in modern day eastern Germany again Germanic and in Greece hellenized without any major population flows.
True slavic origin is quite unknown. We have very little evidence of their amazing old traditions. We know that however they believed in the sun god. In poland some traditions like women wearing flowers on their head, and throwing them in the river, still somewhat exists, even their beautiful dresses. actually the famous christmas tree on christmas came from the slavs. When christianity was coming for Slavic cultures they couln't leave some of their old ways, and the church actually couldn't disagree. Slavs used to decorate trees that don't grow leafs in shiny objects towards winter times for they believed, it will do good as in winter the day was shorter, with less sunlight.
Denisovan Cro-Magnon neanderthal in that descending order that is the archaic admixture found in modern-day Slavs if you go a couple thousand miles east and you enter Mongolia and you find more denisovan DNA if you go south from there into the Asian continent you find florensis/Hobbit people DNA in modern humans particularly of the Asiatic areas
We do know so little thanks to Catolic Church who eradicated whatever they found and consider as "pagen" ,thus all remains of early slavic culture was destroyed and parished.Church made the utmost atrocious things to Slaves in the name of Jewish god . Generaly Church was building Christian churches on the spots where there were slavic pagan temples or holly spots, places of importance to Slaves .Today, digging under the churches is prohibited and politically unwise :) It is jarring sound today ,when I hear that patriotism is always connected with the believe in Jews god LOL. It means that this so callet "patriots" do not know own history:) which is pagan by nature and a christianity belief was grafted artificialy to native culture of Slaves
@Random PersonNever heard of that. In fact it's often the reverse. Steppe people lose their culture to sedentary ones. Do go on though how flower wreaths and such in Poland are somehow Tatar traditions (please show me some journal discussing this or video showing it), despite Tatars never being a significant presence this far west, except as being beaten horribly, such as at Hodow in the case of the Crimeans. As for the Lipka, they were mutually beneficial in Poland-Lithuania. I swear, you Russians are silly sometimes ;)
@Random Person It technically is in terms of its current political affiliation to NATO and being part of the EU. So yes, it is a "western nation", although that's not something I'd like to be a part of nowadays. I don't need to explain things to a Russian though, or rather some guy from a backwater that doesn't even have a country.
We have to go back to the drawing board since the discovery of the Vinchan culture. The river Danube is the cradle of the civilisation so comments that the Celts, Galls. Germanic tribes, Vikings and what later was to be called Slavs are one people now divided by different languages. The history as it officially stands today has to be rewritten. The main problem is that many will find it difficult to accept what might be the truth and that seems to be that from the Atlantic to the Pacific from the Baltic to the Mediterranean we are mostly the same people. Are the nations and the borders but a very recent inventions. There is a fortification on the Danube built in the XV century with an inscription using a different calendar by which it would today be the year of 7528. So most people leaving in what we now call Balkan have lived there for more than 7000 years often under many different names depending on who writes about them.
We Bulgarians are not mongoloids. Biologically we're distinct from Turkish and Central-asian people. We have been a center of south slavic culture for centuries, creating masterful artwork and literature and more importantly having saved the old church slavonic alphabet from persecution by the Catholic church. Whoever taught you history needs to return their degree. The Bulgar tribes that migrated into modern day Bulgaria might have been central-asian, but they were assimilated by the vast majority of slavs that lived and continue to live here. Educate yourself.
Your Serb propaganda is always amazing in its stupidity! We, Bulgarians, know very well that we have multiethnic, multicultural heritage and origins. There were at least 28 tribes and cultures that contributed to our identity! Only stupid pro-Soviet pseudo-scientists were putting up with the Slavic/Turkic made-up stories. The Slavic language was imposed by Boris I as the official language for political reasons. He could have chosen Greek if that served his purposes!
As a romanian, I'm pretty sure we have some slavic genes as well, it's impossible to live in the sea of slavic people and not be affected by them. Pretty sure we mingled with each other at some point in time and exchanged bodily fluids...I mean...genes lol. I'm pretty sure even though I took no DNA test, that I have some slavic blood in me. I don't know how it makes me feel really, not proud, but not ashamed either, I'm a mixture of the old native Dacian population, Romans, Slavs and some other genes that made it into Romania through conquest, like the huns, mongols, tatars, turks etc. And this doesn't bother be at all. What bothers me is that fellow romanians started mingling with gypsies...you know the travelling indians, and started taking some vocabulary and behaviour from them while they are a very closed "culture" with no desire to assimilate anywhere, and that is not ok in my books.
Ingenius3 You re right, Romanians look more like Slavs than Romans, I often visit Timisoara (from Belgrade) and I feel like Im still in Serbia. Everything looks same, people, buildings, public transportation...I also noticed we have a lot of common words... Btw, I LOVE ROMANIA!
BGDboy90 All in the balkans axept greek are thracians--dacians,misians,getians,odrisians,tribalians,besians, serdians,ilirians a.t.c.Tracians can not disapear, thay was named slavs to the historicals in 19 century.Had you not ask yourself how the greeks did not disapear, but all trakian evaporate in several years and thay come some slavic tribes who jump over the territory from the Karpats to the Danube and settled in south of Danube to Pelopones and Little Asia how is written in the history for the slavs! I dont believe it.
Румяна Бурин It was actually an invented consesus among Austrian and German anthropologists in the 19th century. The whole story of coming magically in the 6th or so century from the Karpatians. It's based on very spurious archeological finds mangled together to fit a narrative. Because they wanted a narrative to disregard Slavic people to make it ok to forcibly germanize them. It's being heavily disputed by Anglospheric scientists who have no bone in the narrative game, but our own national academics are still under complete German narrative control so they disregard anything that goes against it. Very aggressively in some cases.
Румяна Бурин Ofcourse, all those tribes couldnt just wanish with no trace, I guess We (Balkanians) are a mixture of Slavs and Dacians, Thrakians, Illyrians etc. Common name for Serbs and Croats in coastal areas of the Adriatic sea was "Illyrians" until the end of XIX century, and I dont think that was just a coincidence.
@@namesurname8460 We can understand a lot of what every slav nation says and vice versa. I understand a lot of Serbian because the dialect we speak is closer to Serbian and croatian since my family came from former Yugoslavia.
@THE 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000 Nikdy som sa neučil srpsky. Moja rodina vie srpsky jak slovansky a jak to má hovoriť, žatože vo vojvodine mali srpských susedov. Niektoré slová sú Inakšý od vášho slovenského dialektu. Jak slovo "robiť." Používame toto slovo na "prácu." Moja rodina rozprava lepšy slovenski jak mne. Esče naučiem jak ti vidíš. Pekný deň!
@THE 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000 Pol moja rodina je na canadska teraz. Zijem na canadska. Moja rodina pochádza z pivnice. (To je mesto.)
THE 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000 Moj fárár pochadla z slovensko. Slovensko je rovnaké jak srbsko. Velice krásna. Mám len 14 rokov, ale bol by som rád, keby ma moja rodina zobrala do srbska. Aj ksem ist do slovensko. Obídvoch je dobre!
You kinda forgotten Great Moravia. You know, the first purely Slavic country (because Bulgaria was first) from 883 to 907 the ancestor to Bohemia/Czechia. Not Kiewan Rus, Not Poland, but Moravia was the first
@Saint Stalin I mean, it was country, smashed between Franks and Magyars between which they had to switch allegiences, so no side would gain too much power over them. That makes fact that they even existed and held territory for so long respectworthy.
Not the ancestor to Bohemia. The core Moravian territories were modern-day Moravia and Western/Central Slovakia, Bohemia was only a part of the kingdom/principality for 5 years before deserting to the Germans again in 895 after Svatopluk and the old Moravian ally Bořivoj were dead. Traitors you could say :)
Greater Moravia wasn’t the first Slavic country. If anything, Samo’s kingdom which comprised of Slovenes(known as Caranthanians at the time), Slovaks, Moravians and Czechs was the first. But than again, that was a union Caranthania(ancestors of Slovenes) did exist from 658 to 828 tho
@@cameronbrown8515 who are you to call a entire nation like that? in your mind ...russians are still soviets, germans are still nazi, japanese are still kamikaze your stupid mentality makes me sick Romania have good relationship with Serbia so what?
We are all brothers we should stop fighting each other,we are all from the same Slavic Tribe love you my slavic brothers! Sława, Slava, слава to all slavs.
Yes We are all brothers we should stop fighting each other,we are all from the same Slavic Tribe! Just because the Ukrainians and Poles are today the enemies of the Russians doesn't mean it has to stay that way! In earlier times, Poland was at enmity with the Ukrainians and the Czechs. Today Poles, Ukrainians and Czechs are friends. There will also be friendship with Russia if common sense prevails. If one considers these future catastrophic conditions in various European countries because of the conflicts caused by the non-assimilating migrants that are increasing in number. Then the question is how will the Slavic states, which will not be affected but will be endangered, react? Today a Slavic union seems completely out of the question because a war is raging between two Slavic nations. Yes, but that will change, just a matter of time. With time, the situation can change and certain Slavic nations can find a political compensation and reconciliation. It should not be forgotten that the Polish nation and the Ukrainian nation were at war with each other 100 years ago. In the shadow of World War II there were massacres of Poles by Ukrainians and massacres by Poles of Ukrainians. That's 75 years ago! Today, Ukraine and Poland are friends, although there are still problems, but the relationship is friendly. Also Czechoslovakia and Poland were at war 100 years ago and Czechoslovakia occupied territories in Poland. Poland then brought these areas back in 1938. Today there are certain problems, but Poland's relationship with the successor states of Czecholovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is friendly. Enemies became friends, because the Czechs, Slovaks and Poles are now friends. So if these Slavic nations can be friends today, then actually all Slavic nations can be friends in the future. It's just a matter of will. So this is not the end point of understanding of the Slavic nations. There will be a Slavic Union! Only a matter of time! Today the Slavic nations are still divided but the situation in the future will be completely different. If Czechs, Slovaks and Poles could become friends, then the other Slavic nations can too! Poles and Ukrainians used to be much more hostile and today have friendly relations. At the end of the understanding there will be Slavic union! There is a sense of togetherness among the Slavs which shows that the Slavs are much more than a language family. There are various Panslavic videos on UA-cam like this one too. In all, most of the comments are positive and pro-Slavic. This is an example of one such Pan-Slavic vido entitled: "This Is Slavia"! Another video has the title "Slavic People" The second comment in the list by @David Trivic is as follows. "The dream of a united slavia will never die. Love all of my Slavic brothers:🇧🇦🇧🇬🇧🇾🇭🇷🇷🇸🇵🇱🇲🇪🇷🇺🇸🇮🇸🇰🇺🇦🇨🇿🇲🇰." Pan-Slavism also shows that the Slavs are much more than only a language family. Slavs feel like an ethnic group and are an ethnic group. Because this definition applies to the Slavs: An ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area. This applies to Slavs! These common attributes distinguish the Slavs from other groups. Today a Slavic Union seems like an impossible dream. But the time of the Slavic Union will come and the Russians will be part of it too! If the western European states and Germany perish in the civil war in the fight of "native" against orientals for supremacy in this countries, the Slavs will have to come to an understanding or perish. Already today there are big conflicts in this countries of the "natives" against the orientals, although the orientals have reached until now only about 10% of the population in these countries. Only a small percentage is assimilated. Most wanted to keep their oriental identity! In fact, most of them feel superior to the natives because of their religion which also prevents assimilation. What's going to happen when it's 20% or 30%? Because of that there will be chaos and civil war for supremacy. Already today radicals including soldiers and police officers are already setting up weapons depots and planning armed struggle with the aim of overthrowing the government. But there are also more and more radicals on the other side. It is a fact that already today there is more and more violence from both sides with deaths. There is increasing radicalization on both sides. Muslim graves are already being desecrated today. Orientals are already being murdered today. There are already thousands of attacks on the migrant camps today. Conversely, there is already violence in the other direction including terrorism. All this happens at 10% of the population of Orientals in these countries. It is obvious that the situation will escalate completely when there will be 30% oriental population. Maybe yes even already with 20% oriental population. Due to higher birth rates and immigration, the number of Orientals in these countries will increase to this level and continue to increase. Germany and France etc. are doomed to fail! This countries will definitely not survive that! The chaos and civil war is the future of this countries! If the EU and NATO haven't gone under before then, they will doom in this chaos. In any case, the chaos for the Slavic states will also cause problems, even though that kind of population does not exist there. There will be economic losses because export markets will disappear. Of course, the EU will no longer exist. There may be refugees from these countries. There could even be border incidents. Etc. This will automatically lead to the Slavic nations moving closer together. Since there will be a long pro-Slavic campaign beforehand, the pan-Slavic idea will meanwhile also be widespread in the Slavic states. Necessary is a positive pro-Slavic spirit in the the Slavic states. Before that there will be a long-term Proslavic campaign! Then there will probably be several pan-Slavic conferences in which the Slavic nations will then also decide on the union. But the prerequisite is that there is a will to reconciliation, because today, as is well known, some Slavic nations are actually enemies and two Slavic nations are actually at war with each other. Russia will only be able to participate if Russia agrees that there are mechanisms in the Union that prevent one state from dominating. Incidentally, Russia will have no problem agreeing to this, because there will be no restrictions on the sovereignty of the participating states. Russia will also have the opportunity to pursue an independent foreign policy like the other states. But why shouldn't the states of the Union support each other in foreign policy? There are no logical reasons against such a Slavic union! Why shouldn't this Slavic union exist, from which all participating Slavic states would only benefit in very problematic times. At a time when there will be an enormous threat to the security of all these states from outside. Either the Slavic nations will be able to overcome their feuds, or they will perish. Panslavism is not about creating a Slavic superstate, but about a union of Slavic states with equal rights. I am sure that the Slavs will learn from the mistakes of the EU! There will be no attempt to establish a united Slavic state. It will be a union of equal states in which it is prevented that one dominates. It will be a union of independent states, but they will work closely together on an economic level. There will be limited political cooperation, especially in the military sphere. Because that will also be a defense alliance at the same time. By the way, non-Slavic nations would definitely not want to be in a Slavic union, because there would be an automatic assimilation process. I'm sure no nation wants to be assimilated by the Slavs. But I'm sure there will be associated privileged members. Hungary and Romania would certainly accept the invitation to become such Associate Members. Because such an associated membership would mean a lot of economic advantage, for example, access to the Slavic markets without tariffs. In any case, this would be very useful for the Slavic Union, because it would give a land connection to the southern Slavs. It could also be that Greece would also receive an invitation to such membership. However, unrest in that country would prevent that. So what will be decisive is what the situation in Greece would be like. Although an intervention could pacify the country. Another country that would be offered such an associative membership would be Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan would agree because of the large Slavic minority there. So this scenario is very likely for the Slavic nations, because much of Europe will descend into chaos and a Slavic Union is the logical consequence.
I'm Romanian and though we speak a romantic language I still feel like i share more of the a common cultural heritage Southern Slavs, Serbs in particular, than any of the other romantic speaking countries (France, Italy etc). There are even romanian subgroups like Aromanians that have settled comfortably in Serbia. The spoken and written languages may seem like a huge difference at first glance, but a shared history, deep ties to the Orthodox church, and strinkingly similar folklore and legendry overshadow the linguistic divide. Also, a quick glance at the two countries' most abundant haplogroups makes an even stronger case for their similarities.
settled comfortably? more like serbia stole timok from romanians and to this day Romanians being abused and forced assimilated not even allowed to speak their own language or have their own churches.
Borislav Herak wow in all honesty ive never really researched a first-hand account and what i know about the aromanian diaspora in serbia has all been from articles and other reading. I know from my parents that serbs have for the most part treated romanians fairly well. In the chaos after 89 we were lucky enough to get visas to america and had to take a train through serbia for our plane from roma. The romanians working the train actually kicked us off right before reaching the serbian border out of spite or jealousy or who knows so my parents along with my grandparents and me and my sister had to walk a couple of kilometers to the serbian frontier in the snow. The serb frontiermen gave us housing, food, and blankets for a night and even managed to book our next ride free to rome. Here in sacramento the treatment had been similar. There had not yet been a romanian orthodox church in the area and the serbs, before the greeks or russians rushed to let us use their church until we managed to build our own. But i suppose it's entirely possible my family has a unique experience with them, and in any case we were never aromanians living in the FYR so we are out of touch with the situation there. You seem very well versed with the areas history, why so might i ask? As far as the serbian land grab, its south easterm europe my friend im fairly certain all our borders have moved a few kilometers so many times no one knows the actual historic boundaries any more lol. Cheers happy new year.
Bulgarians my friend not only because we are neighbours but because of taken territories from Bulgaria with Bulgarian population, and I’m not complaining about that I’m just stating.
Gabriel Savin Romanians have nothing to do with Slavs. Romanians are Porto Balkan people alongside Albanians and Greeks. Learn your history! Don't let religion fool you! And all Aromonians in Serbia are almost assimilated. Serbia does not recognize them, they have no schools in their native language , they are obliged to name their children with Serbian names and present themselves as "Serbs". You are stupid for admiring Serbs after what they've done to Aromonanians and above all you are ignorant because you relate Romanians with Serbs because of religion even though you are two completely different people.
Good video, but why did you completely miss the history of non-Polish Western Slavs - Slovaks and Czechs? We have an interesting history from Samo's Empire, through Great Moravia, being conquered by the Kingdom of Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire later, then reemerging as Czechoslovakia and then split into Czech and Slovak republics.
Well, mostly. I don't know a lot, but I know a bit of that. Those tribes used to thrive between the gulf of Feenlend and the Ural mountains, sometimes moving as far south as the Black Sea. They were in a peaceful cohabitation with the slavs for perhaps up to a thousand years until the latter decided they must assimilate EVERYTHING and make it into Russia. Western Russia has a ton of finnic place names left (the river Moskva was Mustajoki, or "black river"), and lake Ladoga was called Laatokka.
"The Balkan Troubles" arises from 1800s, when nationality began to reawaken in the Slavic, or Balkan countries in general, who were under the control of Ottoman Empire for a few hundred years. A hundred years later, the national reawakening leads to Balkan War where the Slavs, accompanied by the Greeks, joined forces to push the Muslim occupators out of their lands. European superpowers, who were wary of Napoleonic Wars, decided to stick their nose in matters that didn't concern them and it pissed off the Serbians, which would inevitably lead to WW1. And now, with migrant crisis, with the European Union forcing other countries of Europe to accept people who are not compatible with their culture, and live off the social benefits, how long before the 2nd "Balkan Troubles" begin to brew?
+xani judging your post you didnt understand mine. his question was how long before 2nd balkan toubels begin to brew in europe as a consequence of immigration. i hope asap and i hope after that teher will be no xenophobes and nationalists left
Many sources show Rurik as the leader of the Slavic Abodrites and Ruggians, from the island of Rugen. First of all, the Slavs who settled the region of lake Ilmen (Novgorod) were related to the Slavs who inhabited an area to the southeast of Denmark, in northern present-day Germany. That tribe was called the Abodrites (Obodrichi), and they inhabited this area during the 8th and 9th centuries. The Abodrites and the Slovenes, Slavs of Novgorod, had many similarities in the area of religion, tradition, certain customs, geographic names, language, settlement layout and civilian and defensive construction, similarities that the Slavs around Kiev did not share with the Slavs of Novgorod. This theory started attracting attention in the 18th cent. The scholar and founder of the first Russian university, M. V. Lomonosov once wrote that Rurik with his family/tribe was Slavic and spoke the Slavonic language; he came from the area between the rivers Vistula and West Dvina, near the river Rusa (Neman). Russian historian V. N. Tatishchev wrote that Rurik came from Vandalia. Vandals were Slavs, and the Baltic Sea (Varangian/Vagrian Sea) was named so after the Vandal city of Vagria near Lubeck. Kromer and Bernh(g)ard were quoted by Tatishchev as saying that Venedi (Wends) or Vandals were also called Pomeranians, Varini, Abodrites, Polyabi, Vagri, Rani, etc. Helmold said that Vendi (Wends) lived between the Elbe and the Oder rivers. Strykovsky quotes from the Nikon Chronicle as saying that those who invited the Varyazi-Rus to Novgorod were also called Rus themselves. The Chronicle also says: “…Slavonic tongue and Russian are one…” There were two Rus’s: one in Novgorod and one in southwest Baltic. Rurik and his tribe spoke the same language as the Slavs of Novgorod. Gerard (George) Mercator (16th cent.) explains: “On that island, a pagan people lived by the name of Rani(ans) or Ruteni(ans), they were fierce and cruel in battle, fought violently against the Christians, to defend their idols… Their language was Slavonic or Vandalic. …” This island is Rügen [off Germany’s Baltic coast, just south of Sweden]. It is known as Arkona, the last stronghold of northern paganism. Also on the island was the port of Ralsvik, identified with Veneti. Princess Olga was called by the Germans “Regina Rugorum” and not “Regina Rusorum,” however Olga was the princess of Rusichi. Therefore Rugi and Rusi is the same name but different transcription. Rugi were also called Rusini (or Rutheni), and their country was called Rusinia (Ruthenia), as stated in the Life of Otto of Bamberg. Otto places these Ruteni in Pomerania [northwestern Poland], … calls the leader Odoacer “genere Rogus.” In Salzburg, Austria, there is a stone tablet with the inscription: “Year of our Lord 477. Odoacer, leader of the rusini (rutheni), gepids, goths, ungarians and geruls…” Thus, Rugi-Ruyani-Rane-Rutheni from the island of Rugen and the delta of the river Vistula [Oder?] are the first in line to be identified as Varyazi-Rus. This is the only Rus “beyond the sea,” and this Rus was also called Vandals-Venedi. There is no tribe by the name of Rus in Scandinavia. “Slavyania is ten times bigger than Saxony, if you include the Czechs and the Poles, who do not differ in either dress or tongue from the inhabitants of Slavyania. … The westernmost of the Slavs are Vagri, who border with the Transalbingians. Their city by the sea is Aldinburg (Stargrad). After them there are the Abodrites [to the East], their city is called Magnopolis (Velegrad)…” - Adam of Bremen, 1066. A comparison is drawn between the names Rurik-Rorik, the tribe of Reregi, Rarogi, their city Rerik, with the western Slavic god of fire, Rarog. Rarogi are described by historians as a Slavic tribe living in the first millennium A.D. in the south of Jutland [Denmark], in the land that later became Mecklenburg. A similarity is evident in the Runik Venedi inscriptions of the Slavic tribe Lyutichi (found in Mecklenburg) and that of Lyakhi (found in Poznan, Poland). The same similarity is seen in the Runes found on a cow’s rib in Novgorod as is in the images from Mecklenburg. In “Les Letteres Sur le Nord,” by Xavier Marmier/Chivilikhin, the Legend of the Calling of Rurik of the Abodrites states that the leader of the Abodrites was King Godlav, he had three sons, equally strong, brave and yearning for glory. The first was Rurik, the second, Sivar, the third, Truvar… They went in search of adventure …. They went East. … Then they came to Russia [Roos-sia]. People of this land were suffering under a tyranny and could not raise up against it. The brothers were touched by their suffering and gathered an army with which they overthrew the oppressors. After restoring peace the brothers wanted to return home to their father but the grateful people begged them to stay and rule over them in place of the old rulers. Thus Rurik received Novgorod, Sivar - Pleskov [Pskov] and Truvar - Belo-ozero. “The Genealogy of the Dukes of Mecklenburg” by Frederik of Mecklenburg, 1717, says Rurik and his brothers were sons of the Venedi-Abodrite Prince Gotleib or Godlaib, who was imprisoned and killed by Gotofreid, king of Jutland. Because the brothers were too young the throne passed to their uncles Slavomir and Trasik. Their heirs were Godomysl and Tabemysl… Later the throne passed to Mechislav III. Various sources state that Burivoi, prince of Novgorod, was at war with foreign Varyagi for a long time. He was beaten near the Finnish border and retreated. The people of Novgorod came under the rule of Varyagi [Vikings], and they sent for Gostomysl, Burivoi’s son. Prince Burivoi (descendant of Vladimir the Ancient) was the son of Abodrite Prince Vitislav and Rurik’s great grandfather. Burivoi’s son Gostomysl had a daughter, Umila (born ~ 815), who married Abodrite prince Godlav/Godoslav/Godelaib. Gostomysl was the elected prince of the Sloveni, who came from Vandalia, he ruled from Staraya Ladoga and died in 861. After his death, the people wanted to find a ruler for themselves. So they called for Rurik of the Rus. It is highly unlikely that Slavs could have invited a foreigner of a different faith to rule over them. The Danes were never called Rus. There is only one Rus on the Baltic: Rugii, who are Slavs, according to the Germans themselves. Both the Baltic and the Novgorod Rus spoke the same language and worshipped the same gods (less than ten words of Scandinavian origin can be found in old Russian). Tatishchev asks: if Novgorod is the New City, then where is the Old City? And he answers: It is Aldenburg (Oldenburg), Stargrad in Russian. In the Slavic Chronicle, Helmold writes: “Oldenburg, what the Slavs call Starigard, meaning Old City, is located in the land of Vagri on the western side of the Baltic Sea, and it is the frontier of Slavia… This city… is inhabited by the bravest men, since being located at the forefront of all Slavia their neighbors were the Danes and Saxons, and all military clashes they either started first or, if attacked, they would take the blow upon themselves.” Rurik’s wife was Yefanda, sister of the Viking Odr. It is said that a Viking prince was already in Novgorod with his warriors when Rurik was called in. As you can see, Prince Rurik was a Slav and not a Viking. Look up the Jomsviking (most fierce Vikings according to Sagas) and you’ll see that west Slavs or “Vinds” were also Vikings and made up most of the Jomsviking by 11 cent. In fact Jom is Slavic derived. If you’re not satisfied with the above explanation then I’d say the consensus now is,”In the eighth and ninth centuries there emerged a multiethnic, multilingual, unified social and economic entity represented by the maritime and trading society of the Baltic sea and transplanted by the bearers of the culture of the Mediterranean. It took more than two centuries for the multiethnic and multilingual commercial ventures of some trading companies . . . to transform this into a Christian and linguistically Slavic high culture that became Kievan Rus." Omeljan Pritsak
I'm a Slav and we were slaves, but the subject is not zero-one. The Western Slavs conducted many wars with each other and enslaved each other. Sometimes they also attacked Germans and Scandinavians. From the 10th century onwards, the Polanians began to work closely with the Nords, selling them Slavic slaves, and these were sold to British islands and Arab countries. The male genetic trace of the Slavs in Africa and the Arab countries did not remain because they were immediately castrated, but probably the female haplogroup is still there. This trade continued until the 11th century. Sometimes Western Slavs still fell captive, mainly Poles during the invasions of Mongols, Tatars or Turks. The last large-scale enslavement of Western Slavs took place during World War II. The Germans intended to exterminate most of the Slavs in the camps and enslave the rest. This plan was introduced for the western Polish population. As a result of warfare, murders in extermination camps and slave labour, 5.5 million ethnic Poles (of Slavic origin) died. After the fall of communism in 1989, many Slavic women but sometimes also men were victims of human trafficking. They were transported mainly to Germany and France. Nowadays, this trafficking continues in Eastern and Southern Europe. Since 2008, many Slavs have fallen victim to slavery on their way to work in the west, where they had to work in labour camps while being beaten and not receiving money. The Italian Mafia was often responsible for this, and such situations also occurred in Spain, France, Germany, England and Ireland. The Eastern Slavs, on the other hand, were first enslaved by the Alans, then the Avars, and then they were caught by steppe peoples such as the Khazars and sold to Byzantium. Also the Vikings invaded the Eastern Slavs en masse and sold them to the Arab countries. There they were called Sakaliba. Arabic sources say that at one point there were so many Slavs that in many cities the Arabs began to form a minority. For this reason there were many revolts and led to the creation of several free Slavic cities in the Middle East, but I do not remember their name. Further enslavements of the Eastern Slavs took place in the Middle Ages during the raids of peoples from the steppes. Another enslavement took place in the 20th century, when the Bolsheviks enslaved peasants en masse. After the fall of communism a huge problem of human trafficking arose, which is still a problem among the Eastern Slavs today. However, the worst fate met the Eastern Slavs. It was from them that the slaves were called slaves. They were not slaves all the time. First the Avars, Hungarians, Byzantines, Turks and Arabs. Their slavery ended only after the First World War, but their fate did not turn out to be more gracious. Today they often fall victim to human trafficking and labour camps in the west. Of course, a similar fate as the Slavs met many different peoples such as the Finns or the Baltics. The Greeks and Italians also fell victim to slave hunters many times.
The word Slave in English is Greek in origin (skyleuein) And it means to plunder. There is zero connection between the word Slave and Slavs. The phonetic connection (sound) is only the result of words mutating over time and these two sounding similar. There are tons of examples!
Only one correction. Slav comes from "slovesnost" literally meaning "capable of articulated speech". It is a very common thing for ethnonyms to mean "People" or "People who speak right" Heck, the old name for German: "Thiudisc" also litteraly means "understandable speech"
Not only one correction is necessary for the video, but many corrections! I know it's been 4 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
I came here after finding the Slavic people were used as elite warriors (trained as fighter slaves since children bought by the Muslims) To beat back the final crusade. A narrative completely new to me.
Exactly Mason, the ancient people's of the Balkans were assimilated by the Slavs. Thank you for showing the language map of Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greek Macedonia because it clearly shows the Slavic language been widespread in Greece until fairly recently. What happened to all those Slavic speakers in Greece? Greek denial of these people is beyond sad!
The slavic speakers of Greece were assimilated back at 1913 when population exchanges happened. Today in Northern Greece especially to Thessaloniki and Chalkidiki there is nothing slavic! Even DNA prooved it. So have a nice day and keep telling lies to yourself so to belive you can own all Europe. The ancient civilazations of Greeks,Illyrians and Dacians never got asssimilated. Slavs tried to do so but fortunately they never achieved it! Greeks always had nationalistic spirit! They did never allow to themselves and their children to marry other nationality people! I remember a chase in Chalkidiki back in Ottoman Empire when a turk wanted a greek girl and her parents shamed the turk in publicity and kicked him away ( Chalkidiki was a clear Greek region back then as today it is ). Even DNA prooved that greek,albanians and romanians are still the same as they were at ancient times!
DNA proves that Northern Greeks, Romanians and Bulgarians have the same common roots. Population replacement never happened on the Balkans despite the propaganda.
I know it's been 4 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Yes, Sure. Hungarians are hungry, turkeys are in Turkey, Polish people polish and so on .. Silly way of deduction. Because words are similar it doesn't mean they have similar meaning. Do you research, go to any Slavic country, people will tell you what the word Slava mean. Please.
Hello fellas. Im not sure about all this polish facts. For example you said that we fight with mighty mongols empire. But it was only small party, most of them went south and this little mongolian force plundered a lot of lands. Meanwhile on picture we can see knights from Teutonic Order fightin mongols. This knights were polish biggest enemies. Also you said that polish-lithuanian commonwealth was destroyed by russians and its wrong in some part. Cause its only half of true. It was destroyed by 3 European greaat powers- Prussia, Austria and Russia, alone none of them could handle those baltic-slavs empire. 😋 Greetings from Poland.
Poland-Lithuania killed itself because these clowns were unable to pass reforms or spread advancement through technology. They fought and killed each other.
From united Slavs who conquare together lands to separeted Slavs who kill each other.. Every slav country hate other one, so sad... Also greetings to most peaceful slavic countries Slovaks and Czechs from Serbia :)!
Remember kids, when you have questions about Eastern Europe look no further than Wikipedia.... I mean Masaman. It does not surprise me that Americans think they know everything especially when they turn to no research whatsoever. He seems to know his things. Especially the theories surrounding the origins of the Slavs. Voila! Clap your hands everyone. Maybe go fund his patreon where he can profit off of the lies he spits out in this video today.
Hearing how the slavs were nearly wiped out reminds me how the irish were nearly wiped out by famine and colonisation. Amazing how interconnected and similar our histories
I'm Slavic and i understand the ethymology, so i don't feel offended in any way and no one shouldn't feel :). Good video and keep doing a good job. I'm looking forward to see some more. Greetings from Poland.
Wrong! No Good video and no good job! I know it's been 4 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
The South Slavic tribal groups moved south and southwest from their Pripet homeland, eventually entering the Byzantine-controlled Balkan Peninsula as either allies of or refugees from the invading Turkic Avars during the second half of the sixth century. Their search for a new, permanent homeland proved successful. Today their descendants solidly inhabit virtually all of the northwestern, central, and southeastern regions of the Balkans. Turks comprise a third ethnic component of the Balkan population. Although today numerically small-a little over 1 million people (about 2 percent of the total population) they have played a role in shaping the history of the Balkans far beyond their numbers. In late antiquity the rolling plains of the Danube and Prut rivers in the Balkans' northeast served Turkic tribes from the Eurasian steppes as an open door into the heart of the peninsula and the riches of the Eastern Roman Empire. Huns and related tribes swept through the Balkans in the fifth and sixth centuries, followed by the Avars and their allies in the sixth and seventh. Among these latter were the Bulgars, who established a state south of the Danube. Unlike the Avars, whose settlements in the Balkans proved transitory, the Bulgar state persisted in the face of concerted Byzantine pressures. By the ninth century the Bulgars were challenging the Byzantine Empire for political hegemony in the Balkans, but by that time they also were well on the way toward ethnic assimilation into their Slavic-speaking subject population. The conversion of the Turkic Bulgar ruling elite to Orthodox Chris-tianity at midcentury opened the gate to their rapid and total Slavic assimilation. Within a hundred years of the Bulgar conversion, most traces of their Turkic origins had disappeared, except for their name-the Bulgars had been transformed into Slavic Bulgarians Oğuz, Pecheneg, and Cuman Turkic tribes appeared in the Balkans between the ninth and eleventh centuries. Most of them eventually suffered an ethnic fate similar to the Bulgars and left little lasting impression, although the Gagauz Turks of Bessarabia, a region lying east of the Prut River (now known as Moldova), and some Turks living today in the eastern Balkans may be direct ethnic descendants of those medieval Turkic interlopers. Additionally, the Ottoman Turks' five-century rule over most of the Balkans established numerous scattered enclaves of Turkish- speaking groups throughout much of the southern portion of the peninsula, with a heavy concentration in the southeastern region of ancient Thrace.
To all of those who write that word slav etymologically goes back to word "slava". You actually might be wrong, guys. Slav in foreign (non-slavic) languages is probably just a disorted word "slovenin", which as we know means the person who speaks the common word (slovo). But perhaps the word slava itself also etymologically evolved from slovo.
As for slavs being slaves; does that not stand as a testimony to the ability of the Slavs therefore, to overpower and conquer their captors and spit in the face of danger against all odds as a show of strengh and endurance unmatched, as opposed to expansion under peaceful under a land that gives way to itself? No, the ancient Slavs were surrounded by danger from every possible side, their prevail shows us how how much of a hardy people we really are.
Official history is a laughable....word Slav came from the word Slava which means glory....Slavic nature is a gentle one,they are fierce warriors but they have sense of fairness and justice...There is big historical conspiracy against Slavs...Take any 2 Slavic nation and they will genetically be a way more similar then,for example Northern Germans and southern Germans or Southern Italians vs Northern Italians....Slavs were indigenous to the region and "migration" of Slavs in 6th century is a myth
Nick Seredynski The word "slav" (צלב=cross , referred to Christian cross) is a relatively new word for a description of captured people in european languages . Christians, usually captured by muslim pirots, who described captured Christians as "those who have a cross on their chest" . The word "Christians/christianity" didn't exist those time. More common Old English words for captured people were þeow (related to þeowian "to serve") and þræl (see thrall). The old word in east european languages for captured people : Russian rab, Serbo-Croatian rob, Old Church Slavonic rabu, are from Old east european *orbu. But in Europe we already used to use the word "slave" for captured people which i think is incorrect and even offending since the the word "slav" reffered to Christianity .
Slavs have ancestral ties to Indo-Iranians. If you look at mythological deities of the Slavs (the old gods), many share resemblance to the gods of Ancient India and Ancient Iran. Vishnu = Perun (the god of thunder) Indra = Svarog (literally meaning 'heaven') Xursid / Xorshid = Dazhbog & Jutrobog (Xors) (radiance of solar and lunar light)
The only modern Slavs who ashame of their heritage are the people of "Macedonia" who chose an ancient Greek name for their new country, built statues of Great Alexander in their capital and print books with theories and bullshits in general. Despite the old battles between Slavs and the Greeks during the Slavic expansion, it is good that we managed to find a "modus vivendi" in Balkans. Eastern Christianity brought us closer and healed the wounds.
ΔΑΙΔΑΛΟΣ / Daedalus greeks of todays Greece originaly have in 90% slavic, vallachian and albanian origin. Majority of Dimokratia people in 19. Century and many not even in 20th didnt know greek language. Thats fact. Athens was arvaniti village f.e. not to talk about wallachians in Epireus and Thessalia or Serbs in Macedonia and Thrace.
Mistaken! DNA prooves say that the hellenic DNA have not changed since ancient times. The reason our DNA is familiar to albanian is because greeks and illyrians were a relative tribes that's all.
We hate slavs that's a fact also that prooves you are lying. Morover slavs are usually blonde with blue eyes while most of greeks have brown hair with brow eyes..........another fact you lying!
Thessaloniki mapper Yes, greeks, antient DANAIANS came from Africa with the phoenicians and thay have dark skin, dark eyes and curly black hayr.The thracians "slavs" from regions Trakia and Makedonia were killed or send out of Greece past 1913 year/most of tham/and who stay there vere engreesed.If somebody in Greece has blue eyes, white scin and blond hayr is not a greek,he is thracian or macedonian, so named in 19 century "slavs".
Ancient greeks were european in a way because all people came from africa. And XD Half of my family is blonde with blue eyes but DNA test didn't show any slavic gene while I am blonde too. Also Greece is not african if you want link just tell me. Lastly you are asian considering slavs became their way from Siberia. So to more things: 1.Learn english 2.You should shearch better.I have lighter skin that the big majority of greek people ( like Balkan type ) but most greeks have the same skin colours as Italians and Spanish people. That's because of sun mate and not from fake propaganda considering in DNA tests all those three ethnicities have clear southern European DNA. Sorry to dissapoint you but you are completely mistaken
Until the 12th century, the languages of Western Europe had their own national concepts - slave (bondman, bondservant, servant, serf, thrall...etc.), However, the history of the modern term "slave" in the languages of Western Europe begins with the 12th century, the announcement by Pope Eugene III of the Northern Crusades against the Slavs not Catholics ("Drang Nach Osten"/"The onslaught to the East" - is the slogan of that time) with a bull from Pope Eugene on forgiveness all sins to every European bandits who joins the cause of the Northern Crusades - which lasted for three centuries in a row in the 12-15th centuries, culminating in the famous ice battle of 1242... I quote the bull of Pope Eugene III (literally) 1147 In the second bull Eugene declared: "Certain of you, however, (are) desirous of participating in so holy a work and reward and plan to go against the Slavs and other pagans living towards the North and to subject them, with the Lord's assistance, to the Christian religion. We give heed to the devotion of these men, and to all those who have not accepted the cross for going to Jerusalem and who have decided to go against the Slavs and to remain in the spirit of devotion on that expedition, as it is prescribed, we grant that same remission of sin...and the same temporal privileges as to the crusaders to Jerusalem" I remind you that not only the crusaders of the Pope, but all the Catholic kingdoms of Europe of the 12th century (neighbors of the Slavs) took a direct part in this pan-European anti-Slavic aggression...
Lol by this logic Germanic tribes are also “slaves” condering that Romans enslaved germanic tribes too. Ottomans also enslaved Greeks so they are slaves too. I dont see why would word for slave come from slav when it doesnt have any linguistical relation.
In the roman empire they used the word for slav instead of the old word "servus" I think to refer to all sorts of slaves until it became the contemporary word slave, sklave, sclav in various languages They kind of replaced it.
"Lol by this logic Germanic tribes are also “slaves” condering that Romans enslaved germanic tribes too." I didn't know that. Well, now everything is clear. The Romans conquered and enslaved most of Europe. Where the Celtic peoples lived, vulgar Latin passed into the Romance languages. Where the Slavic peoples lived, vulgar Latin developed into Germanic languages. Therefore, the Romance and Germanic languages have lost some cases and often the gender category. After the Ottoman rule, the Bulgarian language lost its cases and became analytical. The original Indo-European languages are synthetic and inflected (examples: Latin, Russian).
We literally burned down Constantinople and raided the Danes but no, we were "down-trodden" by the very people we raided. German pseudo-scientific racism still lives on.
My English is perfect. The word slaves does not derive or come from the word Slavs. The reason why is because when the word Slaves came into the existence 9th Century, the word Slav did not exist. It was only in 15th century when the Slavs started using this noun to describe their ethnicity. There is zero records before 15th century. According to this made up history: “The Slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD,” the BBC website asserts.“ There is zero literally zero evidence that Muslims from Spain travelled through western territories to enslave Slavs. I can’t believe people are debating this stupidity.
Thank you for your praise for the Slavs and greetings from Poland but the claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots. In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation. The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land." The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion. Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Europeans come from Central Europe from the Carpathian Mountains and Danube Area. DNA is in the blood and it cannot be detected, but the blood group can be detected. Depending on the occurrence of a blood group, the composition of the population can be determined.
Slavs don't call themselves slavs. "Slowianin" in Polish, for example, comes from the word "slowo", literally meaning the word. Slavs are the people who invented the runes. Etymologically, "rune" is akin to mystery in the so called germanic languages, while in Polish and other slavic countries it is called "runa". Runa is a word closely connected to "rana", which in turn means "a wound". What were the runes? Wood carvings, you are literally wounding a tree to write. So who did invent the runes, those who call it a mystery, or those who tell you what they are? It's also the structure of words that is very organic in slavic languages, for example the use of the letter "o" to signify circulature or roundness. "robic" means "to work", "obrobic" or "obrabiac" means "to work around". And there's ton of other examples and how languages and words are constructed. Napoleon has been quoted saying "if (slavs) knew their history, they might sack the Rome again". Vandals were proto-slavic people, as shown by genetic evidence from towns in Italy which were occupied by them in the past. Eastern Goths who migrated all the way down to Portugal left linguistic evidence in the Portugese, which while comes from completely different ethnicity yet superficially, it sounds like Russian to many, as well as their version of "god knows" is "boh", boh being closely related to "god" in many slavic languages. Other evidence is in etymology of the name of some of the towns or provinces, like Cordoba, which was known for its cork. For example in Polish cork is "kora debu", with similar naming across other languages. Prussia, is just pomeranian Russia. These people were germanized under Teutonic order, and later Branderburg Prussia, but original Prussian language while spoken without fake German accent sounds like slavic language. Similarly, old "German" maps feature cities with names that are very clearly germanized, but have fitting slavic names that don't sound like a random string of letters. We have to remember that what Roman empire used to call "German" or "germania" simply referred to a geographical location. Whether you were slavic, germanic/saxon, frank or sarmatian, if you lived in that region you were called German. Slovians, slavians or slowianin are simply wordsmiths, and they still are being the biggest linguistic family in the Europe. Thanks HRE as well as its Byzantine arm for removing this history and slowly germanizing central Europe.
@@emZee1994 I do not, sadly. The information that I presented above was shamelessly copied by me from a channel Veni Vidi Vandali on youtube. Now, a lot of the information that he presents is pure speculation and conjecture - a bit of it being quite conspiratorial. But some of his videos are bang on point, like the one about the etymology of the word "rune", and I enjoy his channel very much - it made me look at the map in a different light, who knows, he might be right about many things. I'm sure he can provide you with more reading material if you comment on one of his videos.
Today a Slavic union seems completely out of the question because a war is raging between two Slavic nations. Yes, but that will change, just a matter of time. With time, the situation can change and certain Slavic nations can find a political compensation and reconciliation. It should not be forgotten that the Polish nation and the Ukrainian nation were at war with each other 100 years ago. In the shadow of World War II there were massacres of Poles by Ukrainians and massacres by Poles of Ukrainians. That's 75 years ago! Today, Ukraine and Poland are friends, although there are still problems, but the relationship is friendly. Also Czechoslovakia and Poland were at war 100 years ago and Czechoslovakia occupied territories in Poland. Poland then brought these areas back in 1938. Today there are certain problems, but Poland's relationship with the successor states of Czecholovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is friendly. Enemies became friends, because the Czechs, Slovaks and Poles are now friends. So if these Slavic nations can be friends today, then actually all Slavic nations can be friends in the future. It's just a matter of will. So this is not the end point of understanding of the Slavic nations. There will be a Slavic Union! Only a matter of time! Today the Slavic nations are still divided but the situation in the future will be completely different. If Czechs, Slovaks and Poles could become friends, then the other Slavic nations can too! Poles and Ukrainians used to be much more hostile and today have friendly relations. At the end of the understanding there will be Slavic union! There is a sense of togetherness among the Slavs which shows that the Slavs are much more than a language family. There are various Panslavic videos on UA-cam like this one too. In all, most of the comments are positive and pro-Slavic. This is an example of one such Pan-Slavic vido entitled: "This Is Slavia"! Another video has the title "Slavic People" The second comment in the list by @David Trivic is as follows. "The dream of a united slavia will never die. Love all of my slav brothers:🇧🇦🇧🇬🇧🇾🇭🇷🇷🇸🇵🇱🇲🇪🇷🇺🇸🇮🇸🇰🇺🇦🇨🇿🇲🇰." Pan-Slavism also shows that the Slavs are much more than only a language family. Slavs feel like an ethnic group and are an ethnic group. Because this definition applies to the Slavs: An ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area. This applies to Slavs! These common attributes distinguish the Slavs from other groups. Today a Slavic Union seems like an impossible dream. But the time of the Slavic Union will come and the Russians will be part of it too! If the western European states and Germany perish in the civil war in the fight of "native" against orientals for supremacy in this countries, the Slavs will have to come to an understanding or perish. Already today there are big conflicts in this countries of the "natives" against the orientals, although the orientals have reached until now only about 10% of the population in these countries. Only a small percentage is assimilated. Most wanted to keep their oriental identity! In fact, most of them feel superior to the natives because of their religion which also prevents assimilation. What's going to happen when it's 20% or 30%? Because of that there will be chaos and civil war for supremacy. Already today radicals including soldiers and police officers are already setting up weapons depots and planning armed struggle with the aim of overthrowing the government. But there are also more and more radicals on the other side. It is a fact that already today there is more and more violence from both sides with deaths. There is increasing radicalization on both sides. Muslim graves are already being desecrated today. Orientals are already being murdered today. There are already thousands of attacks on the migrant camps today. Conversely, there is already violence in the other direction including terrorism. All this happens at 10% of the population of Orientals in these countries. It is obvious that the situation will escalate completely when there will be 30% oriental population. Maybe yes even already with 20% oriental population. Due to higher birth rates and immigration, the number of Orientals in these countries will increase to this level and continue to increase. Germany and France etc. are doomed to fail! This countries will definitely not survive that! The chaos and civil war is the future of this countries! If the EU and NATO haven't gone under before then, they will doom in this chaos. In any case, the chaos for the Slavic states will also cause problems, even though that kind of population does not exist there. There will be economic losses because export markets will disappear. Of course, the EU will no longer exist. There may be refugees from these countries. There could even be border incidents. Etc. This will automatically lead to the Slavic nations moving closer together. Since there will be a long pro-Slavic campaign beforehand, the pan-Slavic idea will meanwhile also be widespread in the Slavic states. Necessary is a positive pro-Slavic spirit in the the Slavic states. Before that there will be a long-term Proslavic campaign! Then there will probably be several pan-Slavic conferences in which the Slavic nations will then also decide on the union. But the prerequisite is that there is a will to reconciliation, because today, as is well known, some Slavic nations are actually enemies and two Slavic nations are actually at war with each other. Russia will only be able to participate if Russia agrees that there are mechanisms in the Union that prevent one state from dominating. Incidentally, Russia will have no problem agreeing to this, because there will be no restrictions on the sovereignty of the participating states. Russia will also have the opportunity to pursue an independent foreign policy like the other states. But why shouldn't the states of the Union support each other in foreign policy? There are no logical reasons against such a Slavic union! Why shouldn't this Slavic union exist, from which all participating Slavic states would only benefit in very problematic times. At a time when there will be an enormous threat to the security of all these states from outside. Either the Slavic nations will be able to overcome their feuds, or they will perish. Panslavism is not about creating a Slavic superstate, but about a union of Slavic states with equal rights. I am sure that the Slavs will learn from the mistakes of the EU! There will be no attempt to establish a united Slavic state. It will be a union of equal states in which it is prevented that one dominates. It will be a union of independent states, but they will work closely together on an economic level. There will be limited political cooperation, especially in the military sphere. Because that will also be a defense alliance at the same time. By the way, non-Slavic nations would definitely not want to be in a Slavic union, because there would be an automatic assimilation process. I'm sure no nation wants to be assimilated by the Slavs. But I'm sure there will be associated privileged members. Hungary and Romania would certainly accept the invitation to become such Associate Members. Because such an associated membership would mean a lot of economic advantage, for example, access to the Slavic markets without tariffs. In any case, this would be very useful for the Slavic Union, because it would give a duty-free land connection to the southern Slavs. It could also be that Greece would also receive an invitation to such membership. However, unrest in that country would prevent that. So what will be decisive is what the situation in Greece would be like. Although an intervention could pacify the country. Another country that would be offered such an associative membership would be Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan would agree because of the large Slavic minority there.
"The reconstructed autonym *Slověninъ is usually considered a derivation from slovo ("word"), originally denoting "people who speak (the same language)," i. e. people who understand each other, in contrast to the Slavic word denoting German people, namely *němьcь, meaning "silent, mute people" (from Slavic *němъ "mute, mumbling"). The word slovo ("word") and the related slava ("glory, fame") and slukh ("hearing") originate from the Proto-Indo-European root *ḱlew- ("be spoken of, glory"), cognate with Ancient Greek κλέος (kléos "fame"), as in the name Pericles, Latin clueo ("be called"), and English loud." - from :en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs
So many butthurted people in comments. He never said that word Slav came from word slave. He said that word slave came from word Slav. Can you even understand english? And btw, thanks for video Masaman.
Thank you for clarifying. I think there's a bit of a language barrier, so I understand how people can misconstrue what was said.
The term slave has its origins in the word slav
To make it simple: First came "slav". Then came the word "slave". Not the other way around.
slave (n.)
late 13c., "person who is the chattel or property of another," from Old French esclave (13c.), from Medieval Latin Sclavus "slave" (source also of Italian schiavo, French esclave, Spanish esclavo), originally "Slav" (see Slav); so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.
Kretek Actually the word Slav was invented in the 19 century! Before that the word was Sloven ! It means word or people with whom you can speak at a common language! So I hope you understand how much ignorant you are and how rude! ?
They say that the Eastern Romans discovered the slavs Squatting and dancing to hard bass in there villages for a ritual. Oftentimes the romans would state that these people would fight in combat with an ancient battle armor what is called today as Adidas.
lol I wear all adidas
I passed out help
Hahaha addidas best
хард басс денсинг! ;)
Not true! When slavs came from north in Bulgaria, they were peaceful farmers, but when they started living together whit Trace, they started learning from them how to defend with infantry, after that from Byzantium how to siege and from Proto-Bulgarians how to use eficialy horses and use them in Byzantium strategy.
Slavs were called Wend/vend/vind/ by their neighbors. Wend means kin, tribe. Slav is from slavic language and from "słowo" "słowianie" those who speak one language. And we called Germans "Niemcy" this word from "niemi" - it means voiceless because we could not communicate with each other.
Bravo majstore. Objasni im. Well done explain them.
South slavs call Germans "Nemci" or "Njemci" same thing ..
The Slavic autonym *Slověninъ is usually considered a derivation from slovo "word", originally denoting "people who speak (the same language)", i. e. people who understand each other. The word slovo ("word") and the related slava ("glory, fame") and slukh ("hearing") originate from the Proto-Indo-European root *ḱlew- ("be spoken of, glory"), cognate with Ancient Greek κλέος (kléos "fame"), whence comes the name Pericles, Latin clueo ("be called"), and English loud. The popular Italian-language (and international) salutation Ciao is derived from the word.
The Byzantine term Sklavinoi was loaned into Arabic as Saqaliba (صقالبة; sing. Saqlabi, صقلبي) which is a term used in medieval Arabic sources to refer to Slavs and other peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, or in a broad sense to European slaves. The term originates from the Middle Greek slavos/sklavenos (Slav), which in Hispano-Arabic came to designate first Slavic slaves and then, similarly to the semantic development of the term in other West-European languages, foreign slaves in general. The word is often misused to refer only to slaves from Central and Eastern Europe but it refers to all Europeans and others traded by the Arab traders during the war or peace periods.
The English term slave derives from the ethnonym Slav from Middle English, from Old French sclave, from Medieval Latin sclāvus (“slave”), from Late Latin Sclāvus (“Slav”), because Slavs were often forced into slavery by Muslims in the Middle Ages.
@@emin6156 Well Macedonians call them Germanci
@@warfighter2521 Well because macedonians are turks
Just a reminder that Yugo Slavs were slaved by the Turks for 500 years and they managed to preserve their culture and national indendity as well as fight off the Turks.
Yugo Slavs were slaved by the Turks for 500 years in ottoman times.if it s true or you are agree with so you must accepth this now Yugo Slavs were slaved by europan culture especially french english and german since collapse ottoman ..by saying this Yugo Slavs were slaved by the Turks for 500 years you are agree with this slav from slave ..but it is not true The correct is one is Slov, from Slovo, which means word. Thus, anybody who spoke our language was a Slov, while foreigners were Nemcy (Mutes). The name Nemcy stuck as the Slavic name for Germans, but it used to be an umbrella term for the foreigners. be smart and think again mr. markovic
@@wolfieblack32 Yougoslavia was made from several different countries and it was not even in start at that time. Otoman empire was stopped in Croatia so it could not invade the rest of europe. They were a lethal force at that time. Just leearn about the Suleyman the great and the Chicken they catapulted in his tent in the town Siscia. A bad sign for him. Some time after that he died.
Otomans did not conquer "Yugoslavia " at that time as there was no Yugoslavia ( made from severals different countries as it was after WW2 ) so this is wrong assumption. Again crooked interpreting. Yes the Ottoman empire did spred from east to half of the Croatia. But not all. Serbia ,Bosnia and Herzegovina ,Albania etc were all under Otoman empire. And most people at that time switched to islam for their well being at that time. Which still remained. On youtube everyone is interpreting stories as they fit. Just to profite from adverts,views and commenta. I am amazed how much is there mislieading info here. Pleaee pople dont think everything what you see on youtube. There are books which have to be checked from authorities about their written supstance. Please Do read.
350* years give or take.
@Hist Ory Most empires didn't bother to assimilate their captive peoples - it required too much effort, produced too much rebellion, and perhaps most inconveniently for ruling elites, loaded the social pyramid with too much upstarts, threatening incumbent establishment. Truth be said, Ottomans excelled in social mobility, but at the same time moving up on social scales also required assimilation into Turkish identity and converting into Islam religion.
We are all brothers we should stop fighting each other,we are all from the same Slavic Tribe love you my slavic brothers!
True. We’re all brothers and sisters. Love to you bratan
Love from Slovakia bro
Easier said than done though. Look at Ukrainians seeking protection from the U.S. against their “brother” Russians. Soon you will see US military bases set up in Ukraine. Then clueless gals will start hanging with GI Joes, insisting they’re their gf but only to reduce themselves to their sex toys. It’s kinda sad.
@@philsman3694 tell that to Russia
yes balkan war in 1990's did not had to happend
"...UNCOORDINATED YET POWERFUL..."
*shows clips of random gopniks doing stupid explosives for fun*
_A D I D A S I N T E N S I F I E S_
*laughs in rush B*
Yesss😆
Never call explosives stupid
Ever watch that video of a bunch of gopniks turned soldiers in Russia trying to catch bullets... and succeeding!? Yeah, one shot his pistol by the other one, while the latter tries to catch the bullets with his hands. He does it.
Sława, Slava, слава. Regards from Poland my brothers.
UE gotohell
Regards from Slovakia Brother Kurva in your language Kurwa
Hail to Poland, brothers! Best wishes!)
Слава Славянам
Я славянский казах 🎌
Regards from Croatia brotha
Slav is actually an incorrect pronunciation that has set roots in the west. The correct one is Slov, from Slovo, which means word. Thus, anybody who spoke our language was a Slov, while foreigners were Nemcy (Mutes). The name Nemcy stuck as the Slavic name for Germans, but it used to be an umbrella term for the foreigners.
Slava and slovo derived from the same word a long time ago, thus both interpretations are correct (it initially meant to verbally glorify the gods from what I've read, so you can see how it split into two words). Both are used depending on which slavic group you are talking about.
Actually Slava derived from Slovo in the same way as someone (something) is great because it is greeted a lot.
I just wanted to point out that claiming that the word Slav comes from the world slave is just flat-out wrong
Shuhister, I'm skeptical about this considering how the typical slavic greeting is essentially wishing health (based on zdrave and its variations) and doesn't sound similar to neither glory (slava), nor word (slovo).
Y i think slav is slavic ward so i dont know what you are talking about we call ourselfs slovani=slavic people slovan comes from slava which means glory its pegan thing in our roots like glory to our forefather.So yes you are wrong because slavic comes from the ward Slovan (in my language everyone got there own words for "us" but some words are the same in the biger Picture and everyone Will know what you mean with the word SLAVA but even more prfect is SLAVA RODU glory to our kin!) now you know the truth so dont write bs anymore.
A moment of silence for those who don't have slavic roots
Both Germanic and Slavic peoples are Indo European (Aryan)
I wonder how the Nazis would think of this...
Hello, i'm romanian 🇷🇴😗
@@jemoeder51 Šta ima?
slavs nasty.
Lol and why should I feel bad???
All my Respect to the Slavs, they didn't give up
and most of them were never slaves this video is bogus
tyllo TY thanks
Slav" comes from "слава" (slavic for "honor").
@Hus
Nope, it comes from the word SLOVO or WORD. So "Slavs" means "people of words" or those who can understand each other. In contrast, people who "don't have words" or could not be understood were NIEMCY, and similar words now mean German in several Slavic languages :-).
@ Random Smartass
What makes you think they accepted Ottoman rule for 500 years?
Do you know the history of the region?
One of the many rebellions, 1594:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Saint_Sava%27s_relics
BTW, fighting for hundreds of years for liberation is a good example of never giving up, capisci?
"Na zdrowie" to all Slavic brothers😉
Na zdravlje!
Na zdrowie bratan
Na zdraví
Наздраве!
На здоровье!
Helicopter was invented by a Slav. (Sikorsky)
Most of the modern technology comes from ONE Slav. (Tesla)
Tesla was born in austria
Tesla was Croatian ;)
Tesla my favorite Serb.
Yep, first nuclear power plant was created by slav.
First man and woman in space are also slavs.
and etc.
@@diadokhoi5722 But he was still Serbian,his father was Serbian priest.
I am from Romania and you are right. Our language is latin, but genetically we are closer to slavs then mediterranean people.
True
@Random Person Romania is not as poor and disorganized as some would believe. Moldova takes the cake for that.
That said, being Mediterranean wouldn't be much better, unless you mean Italy. I'm not sure the Albanians or Greeks are doing hot themselves.
@Random Person Well seeing as how that was part of the comparison for the OP...nevermind, you can't seem to get it.
@Random Person No
@Random Person Remember when he said that the slavs were the cannon fodder of Europe? Well Romania was i guess even more (or same) cannon fodder cause of surviving slavs and getting plaid by Hungarians for ages. So its a miracle we survived. With dignity to. Been on this ground since beginning of time. Never bothered nobody but paid for everybody. Super proud Romanian.
This video was sponsored by Adidas
Lol
xD
😂
dida
Best comment
Slava means "glory". Also "sloviti" means "those who can speak" (они који слове, говоре). We call germans "nemci" because they could not speak our language (they are "mute")...
So, the ones who can speak the same language as you can is for you Slav, Slavic... Not slave, which is "rob".
The Slavs called the Germans 'Nemci' (literally - 'the mutes') because they culdn't speak their language, and they called themselves Slav/Slovak/Slavak/Slovian(in) because the were 'the people of the common word/language' (slovo), and NOT because of 'slava'/'pride'. Deriving the word 'Slav' from 'slava' is a total misconception. 'Slav' comes from 'slovo' (word/speach/language).
Well, there is a connection between the two: the fame is when people talk about you, so "slava" is derived from "slovo".
@@SteaksOnSpear Latin for "slave" is "servus". Slavs didn't appear on historian's horizon yet while Roman economy was based on slave labor.
However, Slavs captured in Viking raids were allegedly earliest and most common slaves in Norman societies and that could be the etymology for slave in English.
@@XxpauldadudexXNo. "To rob" is said completely different in slavic languages. I suppose "rob" means something like "worker"
@@salec7592 rob means slave
Amazing how for almost all western "experts" on Slavs Great Moravia simply didnt exist. Old Slavnonic language was already liturgical language besides Greek and Latin in 9. century.
You mean Slavonic ?
We still use it in starover churches tho :))
rip Great Moravia and the first bulgarian empire
I mean I'd understand Samo's Realm, because that wasn't really a country, but yeah, Great moravia and Bulgaria should've been mentioned.
Marek Kucak Latin language was not used in the 9 century it was used till 100 AC.
@@ΑλέξανδροςΜητσοτακής Hmm. I wonder why Martin Luter took the effort to translate the bible then.
Russian linguist and self-taught historian here. I can see the discussion in the comments and have an opinion on that topic.
The word Slav most probably originated from the word slovo (слово), meaning "word". So Slavic people are the people who spoke the word (common language, people who could be understood). As an opposing term there's a nemec (немец), meaning "mute", or the one who doesn't speak the common language. Nemec means German in most Slaviic languages, but there are numerous records of other Western Europeans being cold nemci (немцы), like Swedes, Austrians, Dutch etc.
The word slave comes from Germanic root (in German slave is sklav). Sklavins are one of the ancient Slavic tribes. During the Early and High Middle ages Slavs were fighting nomadic tribes ever so often. Most Slavs were Christians by late 10th century, which prevented them from selling their captured enemies as slaves. But most nomadic peoples of Eastern Europe and Asia were pagans which allowed them to do so. Slavic women were beautiful and Slavic men were strong, so they were in high demand in North Africa, Middle East and even in Western Europe. Thus, the word "slave" indeed came from the word "slav". But that was just a coincidence and there's nothing degrading about it.
Thank you for your attention
The word słowo and sława were probably originally the same, pronounced "sławo". The ancestral reconstructed Indo-European form was 'kleu'.
Some linguists presume that the proto-Slavic language lacked the vowel 'o'.
This may be confirmed by the example of the Byelarussian language, peripheral to other Slavic languages, which frequently has 'a' in places where other Slavic languages, like Polish, have 'o'. So the Slavs may have called themselves "Sławeni". This could be rendered by Greeks as Sclavenoi (Sclaveni). This does not mean that all the Slavs called themselves "Sławenin" or similar as the Byzantine sources clearly differentiate between two major groups known to them: the Sclavini and the Antes. They were known to them also under other names like
Suobenoi, Venedi, Sporoi. Not all the slaves sold to the Muslim countries mus have been of Slavic ethnicity, and probably were not, as selling even family members into slavery
was quite common in older times (see biblical Jacob) also in the Caucasus. Even the Romans sold other Romans, they were in conflict with, into slavery.
At some time the Slavs were the most numerous and their name just stuck as a generic one in countries neighboring their lands in the west.
There was also a psychological motive, as those nations feared the Slavs who frequently waged wars on them. Even the Italian word "cravatta" (necktie) originated from Croatian "Hrvat" (Croat) as it was the Croatian soldiers, who first used them.
The word slave came from medieval latin. Schiavi was a word used for Slavs, Croats, who were kept as slaves mostly in the Republic of Venice.
Citizen, you must have been swilling a lot of vodka before you came out with this nonsense. You think slavery came about in the middle ages? Or they had it before that but didn't have a work for it?
@@reyter01 Slavery didn't came around in the middle ages, it existed before but the word "slave" did.
@@remamili Thanks for the tip. Isn't that precisely as I alluded to? Is the vodka-soaked citizen saying slavery existed before the middle-ages (which it did. It has existed since the dawn of civilization and probably before) but there was no name for it? Or that it has existed since the middle-ages?
I am Vietnamese and I love the beautiful Slavic cultures, music, languages, history and peoples. Very beautiful and good looking people.
Thanks! I know it's been 3 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
An Eastern European has one of the heaviest raw totals in powerlifting (1160kg by Petr Petras) and powerlifting is much more popular in the West. Mariusz Pudzianowski (Polish) has the most world strongest man titles (5 titles) in history. Nikola Tesla (South Slav) was one of the smartest men in recent history. Slavs were very oppressed because of bad circumstances - Slavs were some of the first people attacked by Asian invaders and so acted like a shield for much of Europe. Slavs were also extremely divided and violent towards each other, which severely weakened Slavs, making them easier targets for Asian invaders.
And I love your food ❤🍲
The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
thank you so much! most of my friends are east asian/southeast asian and happen to be vietnamese so thank you so much! your people are also amazing!
Fun fact about Slavs and one of the reasons they grew so large in numbers is that they never held prisoners of war nor enslaved other peoples. Instead, they would keep the captured soldiers for a trial period and would then give them two options: 1) join the Slavs and become one of them or 2) return home with all the gear they were captured with.
According to Byzantine sources Slavs were not aggressive people like the Mongols for example, but were very fearsome warriors when it came to defending their lands. In the very early stages of their migrations they were known to use guerilla tactics when fighting stronger enemies and that's how they dominated the Byzantines, for example, in every major skirmish giving them opportunities to form their own statelets in the Balkans. Similar thing happened with the western Slavs under Samo who defeated the Franks and formed a large confederation of Slavic tribes that stretched from the Baltic all the way south to the Adriatic sea.
They were very sturdy and could handle both extreme heat and freezing winters, tall and strongly built.
Even today you will notice that Slavs don't like to give ground to anyone and are great and hospitable people for friendly visitors but harsh and fierce soldiers to those who wrong them. Little Serbia of 4 million people pushed back the great Austro-Hungarian invasions in WW1 and was not subdued until it was attacked by three different armies. And even then refused to surrender but instead retreated to Greece to regroup. Later that same beaten and exhausted Serbian army would break the Salonica front and liberate it's country in a record time where the French generals were recorded to have pleaded the Serbian infantry to slow down because the French cavalry couldn't keep up.
RealAlbo4life if this is a type of videos is what you consider as a reliable source then I can't imagine the poor education you get in Albania. My sources are contemporary Byzantine historians.
On the contrary, Albanian biggest contribution to the world is fighting for their masters. Enjoy your empty history of being the world's biggest lapdogs.
+Xilaw Good one, mate. Would you be so kind to refer me to some of your sources? I find the topic interesting and would like to dig deeper.
To the other guy - if 22 000 soldiers (2-3 full WW2 divisions) is all what you need to invade and make Albania submit, then you are not in a position to be barking at anyone, ever.
+Lukasz P czesc :)
The most descriptive of the early Slavs was Procopius of Cesarea who describes them as I mentioned in my post. You could look up his work "History of Wars" where he writes about Slavs in more detail, e.g their system of governance (which he describes as a democracy), their religion, etc.
Jordanes is another historian who mentions Slavs in some more detail in his work "Getica" though the main focus of that work are the Goths. Interestingly, the rulers of the Ostrogoths at that time according to him are certain "Valamer, Thiudemer and Videmer" names transliterated as Vladimir, Tuđimir and Vidomir - Slavic in origin.
Other notable sources are Maurice's "Strategikon" and later period's "De Administrado Imperio" by Porphyrogenitus. Although, DAI is a very important historical source of 10th century Sclavenes (south Slavs) it has some obvious historical mistakes.
Xilaw I readet in the early middle age sourses that the scitians didnt have a prisoners from the battles for a long time--thay ask for some ransum and when nobody has given it,the scitians invite the prisoner to live with tham if he would like,or send tham at home.Nowhere i readet about slavs.(sclavas in latin and sklavos in greek,what means subbordinated).
Xilaw Nowhere in Gethica Yordanes did not mention "slavs".He write for scitians, gethas, named ostrogotes and visigots.He did not write for sclavas like some later hronicals.Where did you see that slavs?
A rather western point of view of Slavic history. You didn't even mention that Germans conquered Slavic territories in modern East Germany, which were previously inhabited by Slavic tribes
They established there to what? Be kicked again and again?
Territories which were originally Germanic : www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/3687.jpg?v=1485681310 .
@@larsonpartisan2855 This is only the general consensus. Not much is known about the Veneti. It is thought that they have spoken germanic languages as Tacticus recorded no real linguistic differences as far up to the fin-ugrian boundaries as he passed through. Yet the Veneti fairly consistently held the R1a gene which is often linked to the Slavs. The unfortunate reality is that we don't know for sure what the predominant linguistic culture was before 500 AD in what is now eastern Germany and western Poland. There is a broad spectrum for speculation. And unless we invent a time machine we probably won't ever know for sure.
@@larsonpartisan2855 Fortunately, there is science like genetics. Have a look at the layout of the Y haplogroup on the map of modern Europe and compare it with the archaeological DNA. Then we can see where the Slavic Haplogroup R1a1a dominates. Genetic tests also allow to check how long a given population lives in a given area. Looking at this data, we can see that nowadays Germany is a Creole nation. Celtic genes dominate in the west, in the north there are Old European genes. East Germans are Germanized Slavs who did not come to this land in the 6th century as 19th century German historians have invented themselves, but have lived there for several thousands years. If the Slavs came to this land only in the 6th century, why did the DNA tests show that bones dug up on the Tolense River (13th century BC) belong to the ancestors of people who live in Poland today? Genetics is a terrible science - Germans will have to re-write school textbooks.
@@adrem7613 Not only that, but even R1b Bell Beaker (first dominant Indo-Europeans in central Europe) remains end up closer to Poles and Czechs than to Germans.
Slovanem jsem byl, slovanem jsem a slovanem budu sláva našemu národu bratři!
Ποιό απ'όλα.
Jedna etnicita, jedna společnost, jeden národ, náš rod. Sláva rodu bratři a sestry!
ua-cam.com/video/r1fGXM1w4VY/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/0s0OKCBeHFY/v-deo.html
Slava Rodu!💪💪
First of all, he didnt say we are slaves. Secondly we made damn sure we arent and he points that out. Thirdly, no true Slav would be offended by mere words. Thats the whole point of being an eastern european, not being a little butthurt bitch but a tough and proud person who overcomes all the shit that he gets and conquers hence Slava=Glory.
You got the right idea!
Besides, even _if_ Slav came from "slave", well... so what? Half of the different ways people denote themselves would be found at the very least kind of deregatory today. "Japan" means "Rising Sun". Rising for whom? Well, the Chinese, of course. That's what the Japanese call their own country: the place in which the sun rises to shine over fucking *China.* But guess what? They don't give a crap.
Similarily, how many of you will change your mind about England if I tell you that it literally means "the Land of Angels"? WIll you be like, "Damn, I used to hate these tea-drinking pricks but now that their name has such a nice ring to it, I guess I could..."?
England comes from Anglaland wich means land of the Angles (a german tribe)
S. V. Actually Slavs are pretty butthurt when someone hurts their pride. I remember when some news reporter in the US said something offensive about Serbia, everyone were up in roars here and demanding apology from her, ridiculous I say.
Sure you can joke about gays and talk about stuff that is forbidden in the west, but if you insult a Slavic nation or it's history you can expect a shitstorm. The problem is of course that merely being objective about history of a Slavic nation can get you in trouble. This is especially true with smaller nations, but I guess that's how it is with all smaller nations around the world, they can't stand any criticism at all.
tell that to the countless slavs that you dont even need to offend for them to explode in offendedness
On a personal note that I think you missed. Slavic nations produce the best foods in all of Europe.
I don't know if it's the best, but oh my, your Pljeskavica is perfect!!!!! 😁
@Long duk dong You must be mistaking this with French cuisine.
@Demy Troy Borscht? Pierogi? That's just two. I could name a ton of excellent Polish pastries and foods that blow boring old Italian pasta and salad or American hot dogs out of the water in terms of nutrition density and taste.
If you can't handle a nice plate of sauerkraut and sausage, that's your problem.
Not to mention strong family values, genuine hospitality, beautify children, scientific and athletic achievement etc.
Iron Ox Italian and French food is 100 times better
Brilliant: Hungarians come from a word Hungry meaning hungry, so how did the Hungarians go from hungry to Conquerors…
Bitching at Austrians
How did this good chanel goes from quiality content, to stupid fucks commenting shit?
Haaa
@anonym Arpads conquered land from Bulgarians
Hungary came from word hun. You know the Atila the Hun?
The term "Balkanization" has nothing to do with Yugoslavia. It comes from the dissolution of the Balkan part of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century.
It's yet another English term that puts other people down and guest makes them feel superior. They "balkanized" Middle East, Asia and Africa, filled their museums with stolen history and goods, but they are civilized and the Balkan is not. Balkan is the cradle of the world civilization and they can't take it!
@Random Person They didn't. They said that it's the cradle of civilization (Which is debatable. The neolithic Europeans didn't perform any grand feats to put them above contemporary Mesopotamians or Indus Valley peoples).
Anyone saying the Balkans are civilized now has a real problem though.
@Random Person Well, "civilized" West is going through process or project of "arabization" and it will be done soon. So, I guess we will be the same. Oh noo, wait! There will be no white people in the west, they will all blend in multicultural-new world-sharia law brown. We are not the same after all and never will be.
@@GGTanguera Exactly. Lying western propaganda should never be trusted because it was assembled around liea glorifying western colonialist culture and degrading everyone elses.
@@Userius1 It's so easy hiding behind pseudonims, isn't it?
When you commenting on the Indus valley people are you aware that modern day Slavs understand Sanskrit vocabulary more than most Indians. Also its well known fact that most Brahmans carry R1a haplotype. All evidence suggests that "Indo-Europeans" came to India, they are not from India.
Kinda weird that the Bulgarian empire wasn't mentioned, the place was pretty big for a while
Abc Defgh which is very consistent with what I said.
so was the serbian HEHEHEHEHEHE
Yeah, also the Cyrillic alphabet begun there.
I feel like the Bulgarian empire is hugely underrated. I have several supposedly "world History books" at home, which go in intricate detail about obscure tribes, but not one features Bulgaria, even the ones which talk about Slavic tribes/Kingdoms (which isn't many btw).
Which is weird... Bulgaria was huge for quite a while, twice, invented Cyrillic, and set Christianity as a Slavic religion in stone. So I am curious about why it often gets forgotten.
I know it's been 4 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
I'm Russian and I thought shooting those barrels was a Latin American thing.
Degenerator Nah, our stereotype is drink a lot of coffe and cocaine (i am latin american)
I'm Mexican and we drink alot of beer like our Russian comrades lol
And the Irish, Germans, Scots, Scandinavians, Dutch, Czechs etc. almost all of Europe drinks a lot
Degenerator and we always thought it was a Russian thing
@@ultragamer4960 u cuban?
How do people mistake Romania as Slavic it literally has “Roman” in its name
Because a people can have a romantic language and largely Slavic culture simultaneously. Rome covered large portions of 3 continents. It wasn't really a single ethnicity. It was a political affiliation with some cultural attachments.
Language vs culture vs genetics
They are slavs, but the vatican had its fingers in the game.
They do mistake Romania as Slavic bc Vlachs talked same language as Balkan Slavs did, untill they got latin language and romanian.
Well, Romanov aslo have Roman in name
I love people explaining word Slav in comments without actually taking in account prechristian origin of the word. All pagan Slavs were divided into clans and each clan had its Slava (Celebration) which was always dedicated a Slavic diety Perun, Svarog, Vesna etc., clans were lead by the Elderly Council , old men who very extremely conservative and were there to protect the old ways and traditions, extremely neo-phobic people. Marriage between people of two clans who celebrated the same deity if they lived near each other was not allowed because they were usually blood related. Slavs cared a lot about preventing incest (even today in every Slavic country first cousin is often called brother or sister and treated as such) also pagan Slavs lived near rivers and lakes and cared a lot about personal hygiene and Slavic women had very low mortality rates of infants which in 9 and 10 century lead to rapid population expansion of Slavic people. You can consult Enc. Britannica for references. Also more than half of population of modern Austria are germanized Slavs and most of population of Hungary are former Slavs assimilated into Hungarian nation. Autosomnal DNA tests keep surprising Hungarians and Austrians... Hungary was a melting pot of ethnic groups from the whole region. This is just so you understand why there is no physical connection between South Slavs and the rest of the Slavic people. Back to word Slav, modern day Serbs who are Orthodox Christians have family Slava (family holiday) and it is carried over from generation to generation from father to son and it is always a Saint of Serb Ortodox Church, it is syncretism of an old pagan Slavic custom and Christian religion. So Slav in prechristian terms is a member of people who have Slava holiday and thus who celebrate a specific Slavic diety as their protector and who understand each other because they share the same language.
I agree with the comment that most modern Austrian are Germanisized Slavic people.
Back in the 8th century the Caratanian elected a leader amongst themselves who spoke Slovenian(slavic language) and was coronated for 4years near a ceremonial stone near Salzburg.
The first written slavic language was Slovenian, where a manuscript is kept in a Munich museum.
To be honest, I don't care as long as there are no wars.
Still don't understand the logic for invading the Ukraine.
@@johnkern1878 There is no logic, only primitive emotions.
Russians think they need to take care of their neighbouring nations and show them "the way", probably a blurred memory of the Soviet times.
And Putin is a thief. He doesn't think long term, he just wants more. The fact that he stole the Super Bowl Winner ring from the club pres of the Patriots, in front of a room full of people, tells you everything 😂
@@johnkern1878 Ukraine is a war between USA/England and Russia. It's super simple to understand
The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Slave does not come from Slav, it is simply a homonym. Slavs owned many slaves themselves and most of those slaves were Greeks.
I really dont understand why there is SO MUCH anti-slavic sentiment or slavophobia in western and Mediterranean Europeans (some having some Slavic in them themselves because of Slavic expansion).
Jealousy because we inhabit more than half of Europe now maybe?
It's a shame you didn't mention the Bulgarian Empires. They were quite influential, and left a massive mark in early Slavic culture.
The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Yes indeed, when exactly did the Bulgarian Empire become ours (you know Slavic) is a question that is interesting and you might know.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Excuse me, but what on earth are you on about? Is this meant to be a reply to another comment?
@@bigozimak What do you mean?
@@cerebrummaximus3762 yeah just ignore him. He is some fanatic polish guy trying to start a fight at every single comment. You should see him when the video is getting political or even better, has anything to do with Poland. Then he will find a way to show how great they are, especially compared to Germans 😂
I am likely Germanic+Celtic, but I acknowledge and recognize the greatness, strength, spirit and intelligence of the Slavic peoples.
@margaret Everyone's manipulated. There's no ethnic condition to how easily someone gets influenced by something. That would be the first I ever heard of that "science".
you better :P
Thanks! I know it's been 2 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Hitler didn’t feel that way . He hated the Slav people and tried to eliminate them
Slavic pride
Da
...worldwide
The 5th Estate Same
Slavic Power, not pride.
CanYouFindTheWay patriotism is chosen. 😂
Final note on Slav. Typical Polish names: Bronislav, Wladyslav, Mieczyslav, Czeslav, Stanislav. All of them end with slav - from Slava = Glory. Just this simple example shows that Slav-ic has nothing to do with Engish slave. No one would ever create names like that for themselves! The meaning of them is also clear: Broni-slav (Bronic - means to defend) meaning he was glorified for defending something. Wlady-slav (Wladac - means to rule ), so he was glorified for being a great ruler, Mieczy-slav (Miecz - means sword) so, he was glorified for skillfully using his sword etc. One would hope this issue should've been solved long time ago.
You forgot about the names born by Slavic kings and princes, like Tomislav of Croatia, Boleslaw of Bohemia and Poland and Yaroslav of Kievan Rus.
Yeah thats cause slave came from the word slav, not slav from slave mate.. you’re validating his point..
I think the english word 'slave' came from the word 'slav', as most English people saw them as slaves, because of serfdom.
@@thijsvandenberg7843 The English word is simply a Greek word but ultimately a Slavic word. Byzantines called them slaves.
@@thijsvandenberg7843 You're so stupid you don't know what you're talking about! Slavic people are the greatest fighters in the world and they have always been dominating people. Slavery denomination has nothing to do with slavic people. Just go to the psihyater stupid head.
Sława Wam, Bracia Słowianie!
Fun fact: a lot of people in Scandinavia (especially Iceland) have Slavic roots due to marriages with captured Slavs in the past. Also, Eastern Germany is basically just Slavs who were converted to German culture/language, hence the surnames of many Germans being somewhat Slavic (von Below for instance), and the cities/cites having names of Slavic origin.
Fun fact, the Austrians greeting with "Servus" which is the Latin word for slave.
I found another explanation that Slawe origin from "Slovo" meaning Word or "who speaks" while "Niemec" , describing of germanic tribes means Silent or "who can't speak (same langugage)". This sounds much more reasonable.
Yeah... he wasn't saying Slavs started calling themselves slaves, that would pretty ridiculous. Foreigners started calling slaves "slaves" because many Slavs were taken as slaves by the Greeks (and later Muslims), as they weren't Christian. Oh the great civilized Judeo-Christian world some conservative elements like to talk about, so egalitarian :)
@@matusmotlo3854 Of course, I'm terribly sorry. When did the Greeks take the Slavs into slavery? In addition, in the Greek language, the word slave sounds very different.
@@roza2939 "The English term slave derives from the ethnonym Slav. In medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved, which led to the word slav becoming synonym to "enslaved person". In addition, the English word Slav derives from the Middle English word sclave, which was borrowed from Medieval Latin sclavus or slavus, itself a borrowing and Byzantine Greek σκλάβος sklábos "slave," which was in turn apparently derived from a misunderstanding of the Slavic autonym (denoting a speaker of their own languages). The Byzantine term Sklavinoi was loaned into Arabic as Saqaliba (صقالبة; sing. Saqlabi, صقلبي) by medieval Arab historiographers. However, the origin of this word is disputed."
If the word slave derives from Medieval Greek, they probably did take them as Slaves. Honestly though, I'm not blaming the Eastern Romans. The Slavs invaded their lands and often murdered all Greeks and Latins in the towns they captured and took the women, Slavs entirely deserved it.
@@matusmotlo3854 The Latin sclavus is derived from the Latin clavis (key).
@@roza2939 Of course.
Славянски Саюз. Slawianski Sajus. 🇧🇬🇷🇺🇷🇸🇸🇮🇸🇰🇺🇦🇭🇷🇵🇱🇨🇿🇧🇾🇲🇰 Pozdraw Bratja i Sestri 🤝 the biggest and most diverse family on earth ❤️
Where is Bosnia
@@yig_sulovic Bosnia is not Slavic it is muslim
@@aleksandardamjanovic7003 Serbs are 40% Turkic and 50% Gypsies but still in the list.
@@aleksandardamjanovic7003 Did you really just think being a religion is what ethnicity you are? Bosniaks are more Slavic then Serbs lol
@@spitfire3797 You are sick to replay on one year old comment. Please get help!
The problem is, that the genes of the Slavic People, are very stable on the territories of central Europe. The haplogroup R1A is present in Poland about 3000 years, so the theories about the late migration in the 7-th century are wrong.
Ye its germanic rewriting of history they say that
1. These lands were inhabited by mostly Germanic tribes, relatively in detail described by Greek and Roman historians and cartographers. They were accomplished craftsmen - manufacturing their own weapons and tools, building defence systems - a network of forts and their common culture bound with common language. The Slavs were able, according to this theory, to overcome these people not on individual basis but on mass scale to the point that these people lost their identity and took up the culture of Slavs. This could only happen if Slavs were aggressive invaders systematically murdering everybody or they were culturally superior, which cannot be said about inhabitants of swamps.
2. In 200 years the Slavs originating from beyond the shores of Vistula, conquered lands 2500 km to the west, south-west and south. More that 7 million square kilometres. They were apparently welcomed everywhere, their agricultural skills in high demand. Where did they learn this anyway if, for 200 years, they did nothing else but conquering other territories?
3. The Slavic takeover was so complete that all the original names of rivers, mountains and lands vanished, only the Slavic remained. The Germanic tribes were giving their towns and villages Slavic names several centuries before their invasion, which was documented in Ptolemy’s Geography in 200AD. He is describing many places in Germanic lands with Slavic names: Bogadion (town of god), Kalaigia (place of forging metal), Budoris (building), Menosgada (name of snake), Brodentia (Ford); there is no sign of Germanic dialects.
@PeteMaravich 744 dude it aint that deep
Europe is based on 2 lies Greek and Roman culture , thats why they want us to think that Slavs werent here always .
@@sab5686 I think PeteMaravich 744 comment is interesting: but there is no way of me knowing what Masaman is up to. I haven't experienced what PeteMaravich 744 went through so I'm not going to judge, but I'll keep an eye out for that sort of behaviour from Masaman. It also looks like @sab is trying to take a cheap shot at PeteMaravich 744 without trying to debate him. If you really are that smart @sab, take a shot and debate me on what PeteMaravich 744 said about the Slavs. Try to argue against his points with logical assessments on the Slavs, instead of being condescending. Let's see how well you do.
Genetics aren't helpful in discussing spread of cultures. Migrations in Eurasia were not like the colonisation of North America. Previous populations were assimilated, not slaughtered in order to make place for new settlers, so people with the same haplogroup in Central Europe were in different periods of time culturally Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, then in modern day eastern Germany again Germanic and in Greece hellenized without any major population flows.
True slavic origin is quite unknown. We have very little evidence of their amazing old traditions. We know that however they believed in the sun god. In poland some traditions like women wearing flowers on their head, and throwing them in the river, still somewhat exists, even their beautiful dresses. actually the famous christmas tree on christmas came from the slavs. When christianity was coming for Slavic cultures they couln't leave some of their old ways, and the church actually couldn't disagree. Slavs used to decorate trees that don't grow leafs in shiny objects towards winter times for they believed, it will do good as in winter the day was shorter, with less sunlight.
Denisovan Cro-Magnon neanderthal in that descending order that is the archaic admixture found in modern-day Slavs if you go a couple thousand miles east and you enter Mongolia and you find more denisovan DNA if you go south from there into the Asian continent you find florensis/Hobbit people DNA in modern humans particularly of the Asiatic areas
We do know so little thanks to Catolic Church who eradicated whatever they found and consider as "pagen" ,thus all remains of early slavic culture was destroyed and parished.Church made the utmost atrocious things to Slaves in the name of Jewish god .
Generaly Church was building Christian churches on the spots where there were slavic pagan temples or holly spots, places of importance to Slaves .Today, digging under the churches is prohibited and politically unwise :)
It is jarring sound today ,when I hear that patriotism is always connected with the believe in Jews god LOL.
It means that this so callet "patriots" do not know own history:) which is pagan by nature and a christianity belief was grafted artificialy to native culture of Slaves
@@franol7 Very true, the true enemy is always heralded as the merciful. It changes faces often to suit it's lies.
@Random PersonNever heard of that. In fact it's often the reverse. Steppe people lose their culture to sedentary ones.
Do go on though how flower wreaths and such in Poland are somehow Tatar traditions (please show me some journal discussing this or video showing it), despite Tatars never being a significant presence this far west, except as being beaten horribly, such as at Hodow in the case of the Crimeans. As for the Lipka, they were mutually beneficial in Poland-Lithuania.
I swear, you Russians are silly sometimes ;)
@Random Person It technically is in terms of its current political affiliation to NATO and being part of the EU. So yes, it is a "western nation", although that's not something I'd like to be a part of nowadays.
I don't need to explain things to a Russian though, or rather some guy from a backwater that doesn't even have a country.
You have forgotten to include the Great Moravian Empire and the Empire of Bulgaria.
We have to go back to the drawing board since the discovery of the Vinchan culture. The river Danube is the cradle of the civilisation so comments that the Celts, Galls. Germanic tribes, Vikings and what later was to be called Slavs are one people now divided by different languages. The history as it officially stands today has to be rewritten. The main problem is that many will find it difficult to accept what might be the truth and that seems to be that from the Atlantic to the Pacific from the Baltic to the Mediterranean we are mostly the same people. Are the nations and the borders but a very recent inventions. There is a fortification on the Danube built in the XV century with an inscription using a different calendar by which it would today be the year of 7528. So most people leaving in what we now call Balkan have lived there for more than 7000 years often under many different names depending on who writes about them.
We do not count imagined coluntries
We Bulgarians are not mongoloids. Biologically we're distinct from Turkish and Central-asian people. We have been a center of south slavic culture for centuries, creating masterful artwork and literature and more importantly having saved the old church slavonic alphabet from persecution by the Catholic church. Whoever taught you history needs to return their degree. The Bulgar tribes that migrated into modern day Bulgaria might have been central-asian, but they were assimilated by the vast majority of slavs that lived and continue to live here. Educate yourself.
Your Serb propaganda is always amazing in its stupidity!
We, Bulgarians, know very well that we have multiethnic, multicultural heritage and origins. There were at least 28 tribes and cultures that contributed to our identity! Only stupid pro-Soviet pseudo-scientists were putting up with the Slavic/Turkic made-up stories.
The Slavic language was imposed by Boris I as the official language for political reasons. He could have chosen Greek if that served his purposes!
@djole3005 yea yea thats why everything on the balkans belongs to us
0:12 how do i find more of these on the internet? :D
The Blue Mapper search for risky experiments
The Blue Mapper search for ancient Slavic weapons
Just search for Calcium carbide barrels
The Blue Mapper You are my favorite mapper when will you upload more
Slav artillery
As a romanian, I'm pretty sure we have some slavic genes as well, it's impossible to live in the sea of slavic people and not be affected by them. Pretty sure we mingled with each other at some point in time and exchanged bodily fluids...I mean...genes lol. I'm pretty sure even though I took no DNA test, that I have some slavic blood in me. I don't know how it makes me feel really, not proud, but not ashamed either, I'm a mixture of the old native Dacian population, Romans, Slavs and some other genes that made it into Romania through conquest, like the huns, mongols, tatars, turks etc. And this doesn't bother be at all. What bothers me is that fellow romanians started mingling with gypsies...you know the travelling indians, and started taking some vocabulary and behaviour from them while they are a very closed "culture" with no desire to assimilate anywhere, and that is not ok in my books.
How did that happen? Everybody in the Balkans hates gypsies, they're completely isolated among the surrounding populations.
Ingenius3 You re right, Romanians look more like Slavs than Romans, I often visit Timisoara (from Belgrade) and I feel like Im still in Serbia. Everything looks same, people, buildings, public transportation...I also noticed we have a lot of common words...
Btw, I LOVE ROMANIA!
BGDboy90 All in the balkans axept greek are thracians--dacians,misians,getians,odrisians,tribalians,besians, serdians,ilirians a.t.c.Tracians can not disapear, thay was named slavs to the historicals in 19 century.Had you not ask yourself how the greeks did not disapear, but all trakian evaporate in several years and thay come some slavic tribes who jump over the territory from the Karpats to the Danube and settled in south of Danube to Pelopones and Little Asia how is written in the history for the slavs! I dont believe it.
Румяна Бурин
It was actually an invented consesus among Austrian and German anthropologists in the 19th century. The whole story of coming magically in the 6th or so century from the Karpatians. It's based on very spurious archeological finds mangled together to fit a narrative. Because they wanted a narrative to disregard Slavic people to make it ok to forcibly germanize them. It's being heavily disputed by Anglospheric scientists who have no bone in the narrative game, but our own national academics are still under complete German narrative control so they disregard anything that goes against it. Very aggressively in some cases.
Румяна Бурин Ofcourse, all those tribes couldnt just wanish with no trace, I guess We (Balkanians) are a mixture of Slavs and Dacians, Thrakians, Illyrians etc.
Common name for Serbs and Croats in coastal areas of the Adriatic sea was "Illyrians" until the end of XIX century, and I dont think that was just a coincidence.
I'm slovak. So I guess I'm about as slav as u can get. We are smack in the middle of slav nations.
Slovakian is like universal Slavic language, every slav nations can mostly understand it. Who knows maybe you are the ancestor of all Slavs...
@@namesurname8460 We can understand a lot of what every slav nation says and vice versa. I understand a lot of Serbian because the dialect we speak is closer to Serbian and croatian since my family came from former Yugoslavia.
@THE 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000 Nikdy som sa neučil srpsky. Moja rodina vie srpsky jak slovansky a jak to má hovoriť, žatože vo vojvodine mali srpských susedov. Niektoré slová sú Inakšý od vášho slovenského dialektu. Jak slovo "robiť." Používame toto slovo na "prácu." Moja rodina rozprava lepšy slovenski jak mne. Esče naučiem jak ti vidíš. Pekný deň!
@THE 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000 Pol moja rodina je na canadska teraz. Zijem na canadska. Moja rodina pochádza z pivnice. (To je mesto.)
THE 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000 Moj fárár pochadla z slovensko. Slovensko je rovnaké jak srbsko. Velice krásna. Mám len 14 rokov, ale bol by som rád, keby ma moja rodina zobrala do srbska. Aj ksem ist do slovensko. Obídvoch je dobre!
You kinda forgotten Great Moravia. You know, the first purely Slavic country (because Bulgaria was first) from 883 to 907 the ancestor to Bohemia/Czechia. Not Kiewan Rus, Not Poland, but Moravia was the first
@Saint Stalin I mean, it was country, smashed between Franks and Magyars between which they had to switch allegiences, so no side would gain too much power over them. That makes fact that they even existed and held territory for so long respectworthy.
Not the ancestor to Bohemia. The core Moravian territories were modern-day Moravia and Western/Central Slovakia, Bohemia was only a part of the kingdom/principality for 5 years before deserting to the Germans again in 895 after Svatopluk and the old Moravian ally Bořivoj were dead. Traitors you could say :)
Moravia was Second. Slovenia was first
@@matusmotlo3854 A butthurt mountain-Magyar detected, opinion rejected.
Greater Moravia wasn’t the first Slavic country. If anything, Samo’s kingdom which comprised of Slovenes(known as Caranthanians at the time), Slovaks, Moravians and Czechs was the first. But than again, that was a union
Caranthania(ancestors of Slovenes) did exist from 658 to 828 tho
I'm proud to be slavic and Celtic 🇺🇦🇮🇪 I got warriors blood 👊
Celts are much cooler than Germanic. Greetings from Belarus
@@ФёдарМаліноўскі yeah what's up cousin 🇺🇦🇧🇾 .
Lel Mongol
Scrappy zohan coco nice check out book "the irish origins of civilisation"
@@政斌-x8k well...
I’m from a Celtic background! We need to take lessons from Slavs!
Sad Celtic culture has been erased, god bless you!
@evansdrad true like Scotland Ireland, Wales and Brittany but still allot of traditional Celtic area's have forgotten there roots
Cr33p
XD my ancestor was bigger bad ass as yours you celts You Celts lived in a beautiful piece of land. XD
evansdrad
My Ancestors was Slovaks
15% of poland have Scottish blood
As a romanian i can say i saw with my own two eyes the ferocity of slav drinking. Serbians in particular. Also very lovable people. Love from Romania!
Support genociders ?
@@cameronbrown8515 who are you to call a entire nation like that?
in your mind ...russians are still soviets, germans are still nazi, japanese are still kamikaze your stupid mentality makes me sick
Romania have good relationship with Serbia so what?
I don't want to tell a Bulgarian that he comes a Turk!
Mulțimesc
@@cameronbrown8515 уеs, genocide is based unlike cringe liberal westeners
We are all brothers we should stop fighting each other,we are all from the same Slavic Tribe love you my slavic brothers! Sława, Slava, слава to all slavs.
Yes We are all brothers we should stop fighting each other,we are all from the same Slavic Tribe! Just because the Ukrainians and Poles are today the enemies of the Russians doesn't mean it has to stay that way! In earlier times, Poland was at enmity with the Ukrainians and the Czechs. Today Poles, Ukrainians and Czechs are friends. There will also be friendship with Russia if common sense prevails. If one considers these future catastrophic conditions in various European countries because of the conflicts caused by the non-assimilating migrants that are increasing in number. Then the question is how will the Slavic states, which will not be affected but will be endangered, react? Today a Slavic union seems completely out of the question because a war is raging between two Slavic nations. Yes, but that will change, just a matter of time. With time, the situation can change and certain Slavic nations can find a political compensation and reconciliation. It should not be forgotten that the Polish nation and the Ukrainian nation were at war with each other 100 years ago. In the shadow of World War II there were massacres of Poles by Ukrainians and massacres by Poles of Ukrainians. That's 75 years ago! Today, Ukraine and Poland are friends, although there are still problems, but the relationship is friendly. Also Czechoslovakia and Poland were at war 100 years ago and Czechoslovakia occupied territories in Poland. Poland then brought these areas back in 1938. Today there are certain problems, but Poland's relationship with the successor states of Czecholovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is friendly. Enemies became friends, because the Czechs, Slovaks and Poles are now friends. So if these Slavic nations can be friends today, then actually all Slavic nations can be friends in the future. It's just a matter of will. So this is not the end point of understanding of the Slavic nations. There will be a Slavic Union! Only a matter of time! Today the Slavic nations are still divided but the situation in the future will be completely different. If Czechs, Slovaks and Poles could become friends, then the other Slavic nations can too! Poles and Ukrainians used to be much more hostile and today have friendly relations. At the end of the understanding there will be Slavic union!
There is a sense of togetherness among the Slavs which shows that the Slavs are much more than a language family. There are various Panslavic videos on UA-cam like this one too. In all, most of the comments are positive and pro-Slavic. This is an example of one such Pan-Slavic vido entitled: "This Is Slavia"! Another video has the title "Slavic People" The second comment in the list by @David Trivic is as follows. "The dream of a united slavia will never die. Love all of my Slavic brothers:🇧🇦🇧🇬🇧🇾🇭🇷🇷🇸🇵🇱🇲🇪🇷🇺🇸🇮🇸🇰🇺🇦🇨🇿🇲🇰." Pan-Slavism also shows that the Slavs are much more than only a language family. Slavs feel like an ethnic group and are an ethnic group. Because this definition applies to the Slavs: An ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area. This applies to Slavs! These common attributes distinguish the Slavs from other groups.
Today a Slavic Union seems like an impossible dream. But the time of the Slavic Union will come and the Russians will be part of it too! If the western European states and Germany perish in the civil war in the fight of "native" against orientals for supremacy in this countries, the Slavs will have to come to an understanding or perish. Already today there are big conflicts in this countries of the "natives" against the orientals, although the orientals have reached until now only about 10% of the population in these countries. Only a small percentage is assimilated. Most wanted to keep their oriental identity! In fact, most of them feel superior to the natives because of their religion which also prevents assimilation. What's going to happen when it's 20% or 30%? Because of that there will be chaos and civil war for supremacy. Already today radicals including soldiers and police officers are already setting up weapons depots and planning armed struggle with the aim of overthrowing the government. But there are also more and more radicals on the other side. It is a fact that already today there is more and more violence from both sides with deaths. There is increasing radicalization on both sides. Muslim graves are already being desecrated today. Orientals are already being murdered today. There are already thousands of attacks on the migrant camps today. Conversely, there is already violence in the other direction including terrorism. All this happens at 10% of the population of Orientals in these countries. It is obvious that the situation will escalate completely when there will be 30% oriental population. Maybe yes even already with 20% oriental population. Due to higher birth rates and immigration, the number of Orientals in these countries will increase to this level and continue to increase. Germany and France etc. are doomed to fail! This countries will definitely not survive that! The chaos and civil war is the future of this countries! If the EU and NATO haven't gone under before then, they will doom in this chaos.
In any case, the chaos for the Slavic states will also cause problems, even though that kind of population does not exist there. There will be economic losses because export markets will disappear. Of course, the EU will no longer exist. There may be refugees from these countries. There could even be border incidents. Etc. This will automatically lead to the Slavic nations moving closer together. Since there will be a long pro-Slavic campaign beforehand, the pan-Slavic idea will meanwhile also be widespread in the Slavic states. Necessary is a positive pro-Slavic spirit in the the Slavic states. Before that there will be a long-term Proslavic campaign! Then there will probably be several pan-Slavic conferences in which the Slavic nations will then also decide on the union. But the prerequisite is that there is a will to reconciliation, because today, as is well known, some Slavic nations are actually enemies and two Slavic nations are actually at war with each other.
Russia will only be able to participate if Russia agrees that there are mechanisms in the Union that prevent one state from dominating. Incidentally, Russia will have no problem agreeing to this, because there will be no restrictions on the sovereignty of the participating states. Russia will also have the opportunity to pursue an independent foreign policy like the other states. But why shouldn't the states of the Union support each other in foreign policy? There are no logical reasons against such a Slavic union! Why shouldn't this Slavic union exist, from which all participating Slavic states would only benefit in very problematic times. At a time when there will be an enormous threat to the security of all these states from outside. Either the Slavic nations will be able to overcome their feuds, or they will perish.
Panslavism is not about creating a Slavic superstate, but about a union of Slavic states with equal rights. I am sure that the Slavs will learn from the mistakes of the EU! There will be no attempt to establish a united Slavic state. It will be a union of equal states in which it is prevented that one dominates. It will be a union of independent states, but they will work closely together on an economic level. There will be limited political cooperation, especially in the military sphere. Because that will also be a defense alliance at the same time.
By the way, non-Slavic nations would definitely not want to be in a Slavic union, because there would be an automatic assimilation process. I'm sure no nation wants to be assimilated by the Slavs. But I'm sure there will be associated privileged members. Hungary and Romania would certainly accept the invitation to become such Associate Members. Because such an associated membership would mean a lot of economic advantage, for example, access to the Slavic markets without tariffs. In any case, this would be very useful for the Slavic Union, because it would give a land connection to the southern Slavs. It could also be that Greece would also receive an invitation to such membership. However, unrest in that country would prevent that. So what will be decisive is what the situation in Greece would be like. Although an intervention could pacify the country. Another country that would be offered such an associative membership would be Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan would agree because of the large Slavic minority there.
So this scenario is very likely for the Slavic nations, because much of Europe will descend into chaos and a Slavic Union is the logical consequence.
I'm Romanian and though we speak a romantic language I still feel like i share more of the a common cultural heritage Southern Slavs, Serbs in particular, than any of the other romantic speaking countries (France, Italy etc). There are even romanian subgroups like Aromanians that have settled comfortably in Serbia. The spoken and written languages may seem like a huge difference at first glance, but a shared history, deep ties to the Orthodox church, and strinkingly similar folklore and legendry overshadow the linguistic divide.
Also, a quick glance at the two countries' most abundant haplogroups makes an even stronger case for their similarities.
settled comfortably? more like serbia stole timok from romanians and to this day Romanians being abused and forced assimilated not even allowed to speak their own language or have their own churches.
Borislav Herak wow in all honesty ive never really researched a first-hand account and what i know about the aromanian diaspora in serbia has all been from articles and other reading. I know from my parents that serbs have for the most part treated romanians fairly well. In the chaos after 89 we were lucky enough to get visas to america and had to take a train through serbia for our plane from roma. The romanians working the train actually kicked us off right before reaching the serbian border out of spite or jealousy or who knows so my parents along with my grandparents and me and my sister had to walk a couple of kilometers to the serbian frontier in the snow. The serb frontiermen gave us housing, food, and blankets for a night and even managed to book our next ride free to rome.
Here in sacramento the treatment had been similar. There had not yet been a romanian orthodox church in the area and the serbs, before the greeks or russians rushed to let us use their church until we managed to build our own. But i suppose it's entirely possible my family has a unique experience with them, and in any case we were never aromanians living in the FYR so we are out of touch with the situation there. You seem very well versed with the areas history, why so might i ask? As far as the serbian land grab, its south easterm europe my friend im fairly certain all our borders have moved a few kilometers so many times no one knows the actual historic boundaries any more lol. Cheers happy new year.
Bulgarians my friend not only because we are neighbours but because of taken territories from Bulgaria with Bulgarian population, and I’m not complaining about that I’m just stating.
Tony Pavko each eastern European calls the next one across a border a gypsy. We should just make it a term of endearment
Gabriel Savin Romanians have nothing to do with Slavs.
Romanians are Porto Balkan people alongside Albanians and Greeks. Learn your history! Don't let religion fool you!
And all Aromonians in Serbia are almost assimilated. Serbia does not recognize them, they have no schools in their native language , they are obliged to name their children with Serbian names and present themselves as "Serbs". You are stupid for admiring Serbs after what they've done to Aromonanians and above all you are ignorant because you relate Romanians with Serbs because of religion even though you are two completely different people.
The Slavs are a great people.
Without "a" because PeOPle
Good video, but why did you completely miss the history of non-Polish Western Slavs - Slovaks and Czechs? We have an interesting history from Samo's Empire, through Great Moravia, being conquered by the Kingdom of Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire later, then reemerging as Czechoslovakia and then split into Czech and Slovak republics.
And Slovenes, who were originally western Slavs as well but were sadly cut off by Bavarians and Hungarians
Ey-Slavic brothers and Sisters are ya here with me?
Сговорна дружина, планина повдига!
When people are united, they could move mountains!
Monkeys strong together
Я не люблю такие идеи
somebody once told me that poles were just poor Germans, I never wanted to choke somebody out so much.
I agree. Poles are just crypto.. joo rancher. single handledly fuked up europe
Lots of Poles look like Germans, not Slavs lol
@@jake-qn3tl ethnic poles are slavs
I was interested in non-Slavics in Russia, but this one is good too.
ReconPro that would be really interesting
YESSSS
If you want to know a couple of facts about the uralic peoples in Russia, feel free to ask.
MallarRallam like turkic
Well, mostly. I don't know a lot, but I know a bit of that.
Those tribes used to thrive between the gulf of Feenlend and the Ural mountains, sometimes moving as far south as the Black Sea. They were in a peaceful cohabitation with the slavs for perhaps up to a thousand years until the latter decided they must assimilate EVERYTHING and make it into Russia. Western Russia has a ton of finnic place names left (the river Moskva was Mustajoki, or "black river"), and lake Ladoga was called Laatokka.
"The Balkan Troubles" arises from 1800s, when nationality began to reawaken in the Slavic, or Balkan countries in general, who were under the control of Ottoman Empire for a few hundred years.
A hundred years later, the national reawakening leads to Balkan War where the Slavs, accompanied by the Greeks, joined forces to push the Muslim occupators out of their lands.
European superpowers, who were wary of Napoleonic Wars, decided to stick their nose in matters that didn't concern them and it pissed off the Serbians, which would inevitably lead to WW1.
And now, with migrant crisis, with the European Union forcing other countries of Europe to accept people who are not compatible with their culture, and live off the social benefits, how long before the 2nd "Balkan Troubles" begin to brew?
"how long before the 2nd "Balkan Troubles" begin to brew?" asap i hope
+xani judging your post you didnt understand mine. his question was how long before 2nd balkan toubels begin to brew in europe as a consequence of immigration. i hope asap and i hope after that teher will be no xenophobes and nationalists left
xani you are just looking for any excuse to talk shit about to balkans, arent you? :)
serbians did not start ww1.but if you read history books from the west then yes.serbian just killed an occupier
Many sources show Rurik as the leader of the Slavic Abodrites and Ruggians, from the island of Rugen.
First of all, the Slavs who settled the region of lake Ilmen (Novgorod) were related to the Slavs who inhabited an area to the southeast of Denmark, in northern present-day Germany. That tribe was called the Abodrites (Obodrichi), and they inhabited this area during the 8th and 9th centuries. The Abodrites and the Slovenes, Slavs of Novgorod, had many similarities in the area of religion, tradition, certain customs, geographic names, language, settlement layout and civilian and defensive construction, similarities that the Slavs around Kiev did not share with the Slavs of Novgorod.
This theory started attracting attention in the 18th cent. The scholar and founder of the first Russian university, M. V. Lomonosov once wrote that Rurik with his family/tribe was Slavic and spoke the Slavonic language; he came from the area between the rivers Vistula and West Dvina, near the river Rusa (Neman).
Russian historian V. N. Tatishchev wrote that Rurik came from Vandalia. Vandals were Slavs, and the Baltic Sea (Varangian/Vagrian Sea) was named so after the Vandal city of Vagria near Lubeck.
Kromer and Bernh(g)ard were quoted by Tatishchev as saying that Venedi (Wends) or Vandals were also called Pomeranians, Varini, Abodrites, Polyabi, Vagri, Rani, etc.
Helmold said that Vendi (Wends) lived between the Elbe and the Oder rivers.
Strykovsky quotes from the Nikon Chronicle as saying that those who invited the Varyazi-Rus to Novgorod were also called Rus themselves. The Chronicle also says: “…Slavonic tongue and Russian are one…” There were two Rus’s: one in Novgorod and one in southwest Baltic. Rurik and his tribe spoke the same language as the Slavs of Novgorod.
Gerard (George) Mercator (16th cent.) explains: “On that island, a pagan people lived by the name of Rani(ans) or Ruteni(ans), they were fierce and cruel in battle, fought violently against the Christians, to defend their idols… Their language was Slavonic or Vandalic. …”
This island is Rügen [off Germany’s Baltic coast, just south of Sweden]. It is known as Arkona, the last stronghold of northern paganism. Also on the island was the port of Ralsvik, identified with Veneti.
Princess Olga was called by the Germans “Regina Rugorum” and not “Regina Rusorum,” however Olga was the princess of Rusichi. Therefore Rugi and Rusi is the same name but different transcription.
Rugi were also called Rusini (or Rutheni), and their country was called Rusinia (Ruthenia), as stated in the Life of Otto of Bamberg. Otto places these Ruteni in Pomerania [northwestern Poland], … calls the leader Odoacer “genere Rogus.” In Salzburg, Austria, there is a stone tablet with the inscription: “Year of our Lord 477. Odoacer, leader of the rusini (rutheni), gepids, goths, ungarians and geruls…” Thus, Rugi-Ruyani-Rane-Rutheni from the island of Rugen and the delta of the river Vistula [Oder?] are the first in line to be identified as Varyazi-Rus. This is the only Rus “beyond the sea,” and this Rus was also called Vandals-Venedi. There is no tribe by the name of Rus in Scandinavia.
“Slavyania is ten times bigger than Saxony, if you include the Czechs and the Poles, who do not differ in either dress or tongue from the inhabitants of Slavyania. … The westernmost of the Slavs are Vagri, who border with the Transalbingians. Their city by the sea is Aldinburg (Stargrad). After them there are the Abodrites [to the East], their city is called Magnopolis (Velegrad)…” - Adam of Bremen, 1066.
A comparison is drawn between the names Rurik-Rorik, the tribe of Reregi, Rarogi, their city Rerik, with the western Slavic god of fire, Rarog. Rarogi are described by historians as a Slavic tribe living in the first millennium A.D. in the south of Jutland [Denmark], in the land that later became Mecklenburg.
A similarity is evident in the Runik Venedi inscriptions of the Slavic tribe Lyutichi (found in Mecklenburg) and that of Lyakhi (found in Poznan, Poland). The same similarity is seen in the Runes found on a cow’s rib in Novgorod as is in the images from Mecklenburg.
In “Les Letteres Sur le Nord,” by Xavier Marmier/Chivilikhin, the Legend of the Calling of Rurik of the Abodrites states that the leader of the Abodrites was King Godlav, he had three sons, equally strong, brave and yearning for glory. The first was Rurik, the second, Sivar, the third, Truvar… They went in search of adventure …. They went East. … Then they came to Russia [Roos-sia]. People of this land were suffering under a tyranny and could not raise up against it. The brothers were touched by their suffering and gathered an army with which they overthrew the oppressors. After restoring peace the brothers wanted to return home to their father but the grateful people begged them to stay and rule over them in place of the old rulers. Thus Rurik received Novgorod, Sivar - Pleskov [Pskov] and Truvar - Belo-ozero.
“The Genealogy of the Dukes of Mecklenburg” by Frederik of Mecklenburg, 1717, says Rurik and his brothers were sons of the Venedi-Abodrite Prince Gotleib or Godlaib, who was imprisoned and killed by Gotofreid, king of Jutland. Because the brothers were too young the throne passed to their uncles Slavomir and Trasik. Their heirs were Godomysl and Tabemysl… Later the throne passed to Mechislav III.
Various sources state that Burivoi, prince of Novgorod, was at war with foreign Varyagi for a long time. He was beaten near the Finnish border and retreated. The people of Novgorod came under the rule of Varyagi [Vikings], and they sent for Gostomysl, Burivoi’s son. Prince Burivoi (descendant of Vladimir the Ancient) was the son of Abodrite Prince Vitislav and Rurik’s great grandfather. Burivoi’s son Gostomysl had a daughter, Umila (born ~ 815), who married Abodrite prince Godlav/Godoslav/Godelaib.
Gostomysl was the elected prince of the Sloveni, who came from Vandalia, he ruled from Staraya Ladoga and died in 861. After his death, the people wanted to find a ruler for themselves. So they called for Rurik of the Rus.
It is highly unlikely that Slavs could have invited a foreigner of a different faith to rule over them. The Danes were never called Rus. There is only one Rus on the Baltic: Rugii, who are Slavs, according to the Germans themselves. Both the Baltic and the Novgorod Rus spoke the same language and worshipped the same gods (less than ten words of Scandinavian origin can be found in old Russian).
Tatishchev asks: if Novgorod is the New City, then where is the Old City? And he answers: It is Aldenburg (Oldenburg), Stargrad in Russian. In the Slavic Chronicle, Helmold writes: “Oldenburg, what the Slavs call Starigard, meaning Old City, is located in the land of Vagri on the western side of the Baltic Sea, and it is the frontier of Slavia… This city… is inhabited by the bravest men, since being located at the forefront of all Slavia their neighbors were the Danes and Saxons, and all military clashes they either started first or, if attacked, they would take the blow upon themselves.”
Rurik’s wife was Yefanda, sister of the Viking Odr. It is said that a Viking prince was already in Novgorod with his warriors when Rurik was called in.
As you can see, Prince Rurik was a Slav and not a Viking.
Look up the Jomsviking (most fierce Vikings according to Sagas) and you’ll see that west Slavs or “Vinds” were also Vikings and made up most of the Jomsviking by 11 cent. In fact Jom is Slavic derived. If you’re not satisfied with the above explanation then I’d say the consensus now is,”In the eighth and ninth centuries there emerged a multiethnic, multilingual, unified social and economic entity represented by the maritime and trading society of the Baltic sea and transplanted by the bearers of the culture of the Mediterranean. It took more than two centuries for the multiethnic and multilingual commercial ventures of some trading companies . . . to transform this into a Christian and linguistically Slavic high culture that became Kievan Rus." Omeljan Pritsak
Indo-european is a better word. Slavs are dna r1a- Found from Bulgaria, Romania, Siberia to all the way till Armenia, Georgia and north Iran.
I am Georgian and i have R1a1
I am georgian , but a have i1a
More than just r1a1a.
All the way to eastern afghanistan R1a1 peak in poland and east afghanistan
Wtf is dna r1a
3:19 - Talking about Poles fighting Mongols and showing a picture of Teutonic Knights (mortal enemy of Poles) fighting Mongols :D
Awesome video, thank you. I'm proud to be Slavic 🇷🇺
@moljac причем тут вообще это?
Ura💪
@@tsarnature6587 yes stalin
@@karaboga8825 Stalin was a HORRIBLE person how could you say that?
@@thenorthcarolinian6796 I dont even remember why I said that mate lol
I'm a Slav and we were slaves, but the subject is not zero-one. The Western Slavs conducted many wars with each other and enslaved each other. Sometimes they also attacked Germans and Scandinavians. From the 10th century onwards, the Polanians began to work closely with the Nords, selling them Slavic slaves, and these were sold to British islands and Arab countries. The male genetic trace of the Slavs in Africa and the Arab countries did not remain because they were immediately castrated, but probably the female haplogroup is still there. This trade continued until the 11th century. Sometimes Western Slavs still fell captive, mainly Poles during the invasions of Mongols, Tatars or Turks. The last large-scale enslavement of Western Slavs took place during World War II. The Germans intended to exterminate most of the Slavs in the camps and enslave the rest. This plan was introduced for the western Polish population. As a result of warfare, murders in extermination camps and slave labour, 5.5 million ethnic Poles (of Slavic origin) died. After the fall of communism in 1989, many Slavic women but sometimes also men were victims of human trafficking. They were transported mainly to Germany and France. Nowadays, this trafficking continues in Eastern and Southern Europe. Since 2008, many Slavs have fallen victim to slavery on their way to work in the west, where they had to work in labour camps while being beaten and not receiving money. The Italian Mafia was often responsible for this, and such situations also occurred in Spain, France, Germany, England and Ireland.
The Eastern Slavs, on the other hand, were first enslaved by the Alans, then the Avars, and then they were caught by steppe peoples such as the Khazars and sold to Byzantium. Also the Vikings invaded the Eastern Slavs en masse and sold them to the Arab countries. There they were called Sakaliba. Arabic sources say that at one point there were so many Slavs that in many cities the Arabs began to form a minority. For this reason there were many revolts and led to the creation of several free Slavic cities in the Middle East, but I do not remember their name. Further enslavements of the Eastern Slavs took place in the Middle Ages during the raids of peoples from the steppes. Another enslavement took place in the 20th century, when the Bolsheviks enslaved peasants en masse. After the fall of communism a huge problem of human trafficking arose, which is still a problem among the Eastern Slavs today.
However, the worst fate met the Eastern Slavs. It was from them that the slaves were called slaves. They were not slaves all the time. First the Avars, Hungarians, Byzantines, Turks and Arabs. Their slavery ended only after the First World War, but their fate did not turn out to be more gracious. Today they often fall victim to human trafficking and labour camps in the west.
Of course, a similar fate as the Slavs met many different peoples such as the Finns or the Baltics. The Greeks and Italians also fell victim to slave hunters many times.
The word Slave in English is Greek in origin (skyleuein) And it means to plunder. There is zero connection between the word Slave and Slavs. The phonetic connection (sound) is only the result of words mutating over time and these two sounding similar. There are tons of examples!
You left out the Sorbs of Germany.
Mark Haushahn and polabians, velenti, but those other slavs were killed out by germans and are no more sadly
+Chris The First they were assimilated.
Only one correction.
Slav comes from "slovesnost" literally meaning "capable of articulated speech". It is a very common thing for ethnonyms to mean "People" or "People who speak right"
Heck, the old name for German: "Thiudisc" also litteraly means "understandable speech"
Not only one correction is necessary for the video, but many corrections! I know it's been 4 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
My family is from Yugoslavia and Slovakia and russia! Proud to be slav and you bet I embrace it too.
Slava Rodu💪💪
There is no yugoslavia for over 30 years lmao
@@GrimKnight12 he said his family
>silesians
>shows lower silesia which doesn't have any kind of silesian dialect at all
>ignores upper silesia which does have said dialect
Hey just a question for everyone here. How often do you pause during one of Masaman's videos to look at the maps? Or is that just me?
Jack Gun I never did that once
Jack Gun quite a bit
Jack Gun I do it on every single map, always.
Jack Gun Yes I do that too.
He clearly stated "...the English word slave". Also, derived from Slav.
He did not say that it meant Slave in the Slavic languages.
I came here after finding the Slavic people were used as elite warriors (trained as fighter slaves since children bought by the Muslims)
To beat back the final crusade.
A narrative completely new to me.
I'm Mexican and always liked Slavs for some reason.
I mean, who doesn't?
Apparently Biden but k
Exactly Mason, the ancient people's of the Balkans were assimilated by the Slavs. Thank you for showing the language map of Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greek Macedonia because it clearly shows the Slavic language been widespread in Greece until fairly recently. What happened to all those Slavic speakers in Greece? Greek denial of these people is beyond sad!
The slavic speakers of Greece were assimilated back at 1913 when population exchanges happened. Today in Northern Greece especially to Thessaloniki and Chalkidiki there is nothing slavic! Even DNA prooved it. So have a nice day and keep telling lies to yourself so to belive you can own all Europe. The ancient civilazations of Greeks,Illyrians and Dacians never got asssimilated. Slavs tried to do so but fortunately they never achieved it! Greeks always had nationalistic spirit! They did never allow to themselves and their children to marry other nationality people! I remember a chase in Chalkidiki back in Ottoman Empire when a turk wanted a greek girl and her parents shamed the turk in publicity and kicked him away ( Chalkidiki was a clear Greek region back then as today it is ). Even DNA prooved that greek,albanians and romanians are still the same as they were at ancient times!
Genocide happened, that’s what.
DNA proves that Northern Greeks, Romanians and Bulgarians have the same common roots. Population replacement never happened on the Balkans despite the propaganda.
It totally did in northern greece in the 1910's
Interesting video and great to learn more about my Slavic heritage 😊🇵🇱
I know it's been 4 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Yes, Sure. Hungarians are hungry, turkeys are in Turkey, Polish people polish and so on .. Silly way of deduction. Because words are similar it doesn't mean they have similar meaning.
Do you research, go to any Slavic country, people will tell you what the word Slava mean. Please.
It’s means celebrate
Your comprehension skills seem to be lacking.
Hello fellas.
Im not sure about all this polish facts. For example you said that we fight with mighty mongols empire. But it was only small party, most of them went south and this little mongolian force plundered a lot of lands. Meanwhile on picture we can see knights from Teutonic Order fightin mongols. This knights were polish biggest enemies.
Also you said that polish-lithuanian commonwealth was destroyed by russians and its wrong in some part. Cause its only half of true. It was destroyed by 3 European greaat powers- Prussia, Austria and Russia, alone none of them could handle those baltic-slavs empire. 😋
Greetings from Poland.
Narzekasz.
yea thoses stupid conflicts cost us powerhouse status in europe as poland lithuania commonwealth :/ cheers from lithuania
Poland-Lithuania killed itself because these clowns were unable to pass reforms or spread advancement through technology. They fought and killed each other.
By the way the Poles took Moscw in 17th century, the so-called "Great Confussion" time in Russian history
A 'small party' led by Kadan burned Krakow to the ground...
From united Slavs who conquare together lands to separeted Slavs who kill each other.. Every slav country hate other one, so sad... Also greetings to most peaceful slavic countries Slovaks and Czechs from Serbia :)!
Slava brate! Well slovenians dont hate no one too or am I mistaken?
Wifo24 A little bit Croatia and Serbia i guess
Thank's brother!
its sad that only slavs they like each other are czechs, slovaks, poles and serbians
Yep, pretty much the same could be said about Arabs and the Middle East rn.
Remember kids, when you have questions about Eastern Europe look no further than Wikipedia.... I mean Masaman. It does not surprise me that Americans think they know everything especially when they turn to no research whatsoever. He seems to know his things. Especially the theories surrounding the origins of the Slavs. Voila! Clap your hands everyone. Maybe go fund his patreon where he can profit off of the lies he spits out in this video today.
Hearing how the slavs were nearly wiped out reminds me how the irish were nearly wiped out by famine and colonisation. Amazing how interconnected and similar our histories
If there is one thing I know about Slavs, it's that they know how to start a war in the comment section.
Still better than starting a war in reality.
I'm Slavic and i understand the ethymology, so i don't feel offended in any way and no one shouldn't feel :). Good video and keep doing a good job. I'm looking forward to see some more. Greetings from Poland.
Michał R. Bro You understand Russian ?
kimi mon Unfortunately no. Polish and Russian may live in the same slavic group, but they are not similiar
Wrong! No Good video and no good job! I know it's been 4 years ago, but nevertheless. The claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Another great video. I just want to point out that when talking about the South Slavs and former Yugoslavia, you completely left out the Slovenes.
Fun fact slovenians (celjski grofje) made the last defence of beograd from turks... We failed but we tryed 😅
The South Slavic tribal groups moved south and southwest from their Pripet homeland, eventually entering the Byzantine-controlled Balkan Peninsula as either allies of or refugees from the invading Turkic Avars during the second half of the sixth century. Their search for a new, permanent homeland proved successful. Today their descendants solidly inhabit virtually all of the northwestern, central, and southeastern regions of the Balkans.
Turks comprise a third ethnic component of the Balkan population. Although today numerically small-a little over 1 million people (about 2 percent of the total population) they have played a role in shaping the history of the Balkans far beyond their numbers.
In late antiquity the rolling plains of the Danube and Prut rivers in the Balkans' northeast served Turkic tribes from the Eurasian steppes as an open door into the heart of the peninsula and the riches of the Eastern Roman Empire. Huns and related tribes swept through the Balkans in the fifth and sixth centuries, followed by the Avars and their allies in the sixth and seventh. Among these latter were the Bulgars, who established a state south of the Danube. Unlike the Avars, whose settlements in the Balkans proved transitory, the Bulgar state persisted in the face of concerted Byzantine pressures. By the ninth century the Bulgars were challenging the Byzantine Empire for political hegemony in the Balkans, but by that time they also were well on the way toward ethnic assimilation into their Slavic-speaking subject population. The conversion of the Turkic Bulgar ruling elite to Orthodox Chris-tianity at midcentury opened the gate to their rapid and total Slavic assimilation. Within a hundred years of the Bulgar conversion, most traces of their Turkic origins had disappeared, except for their name-the Bulgars had been transformed into Slavic Bulgarians
Oğuz, Pecheneg, and Cuman Turkic tribes appeared in the Balkans between the ninth and eleventh centuries. Most of them eventually suffered an ethnic fate similar to the Bulgars and left little lasting impression, although the Gagauz Turks of Bessarabia, a region lying east of the Prut River (now known as Moldova), and some Turks living today in the eastern Balkans may be direct ethnic descendants of those medieval Turkic interlopers. Additionally, the Ottoman Turks' five-century rule over most of the Balkans established numerous scattered enclaves of Turkish- speaking groups throughout much of the southern portion of the peninsula, with a heavy concentration in the southeastern region of ancient Thrace.
Does a video about the Slavs. Chooses "Soviet March" from Red Alert 3 as the background music. Way to start the video off right. ;)
Rus started in Novgorod, then was transfered into Kiev because of the Dnepr trade route, it wasn't called Kievan Rus but just Rus
yeah. kievan or novgorodian rus is how historians refer to these time periods, not how the people called themselves
@@matteuzs Actual historical knowledge goes hard
Some things invented by Poles:
- bulletproof material/vest: Żegleń/Szczepanik
- mobile X-ray & radiotherapy: Skłodowska-Curie
- mine detector: Kosacki
- kerosene lamp: Łukasiewicz.
Helicopter - Sikorsky
@@benzylmethane157 he was from Ukraine, man
So nothing special
To all of those who write that word slav etymologically goes back to word "slava". You actually might be wrong, guys. Slav in foreign (non-slavic) languages is probably just a disorted word "slovenin", which as we know means the person who speaks the common word (slovo). But perhaps the word slava itself also etymologically evolved from slovo.
As for slavs being slaves; does that not stand as a testimony to the ability of the Slavs therefore, to overpower and conquer their captors and spit in the face of danger against all odds as a show of strengh and endurance unmatched, as opposed to expansion under peaceful under a land that gives way to itself? No, the ancient Slavs were surrounded by danger from every possible side, their prevail shows us how how much of a hardy people we really are.
Nobody cares about this sentiment cause the premise is just as dumb as conflating words like "fat" and "fate" together.
Yup Slavs pulled off some ancient Hebrews shit.
Official history is a laughable....word Slav came from the word Slava which means glory....Slavic nature is a gentle one,they are fierce warriors but they have sense of fairness and justice...There is big historical conspiracy against Slavs...Take any 2 Slavic nation and they will genetically be a way more similar then,for example Northern Germans and southern Germans or Southern Italians vs Northern Italians....Slavs were indigenous to the region and "migration" of Slavs in 6th century is a myth
Nick Seredynski
The word "slav" (צלב=cross , referred to Christian cross) is a relatively new word for a description of captured people in european languages . Christians, usually captured by muslim pirots, who described captured Christians as "those who have a cross on their chest" .
The word "Christians/christianity" didn't exist those time.
More common Old English words for captured people were þeow (related to þeowian "to serve") and þræl (see thrall).
The old word in east european languages for captured people :
Russian rab,
Serbo-Croatian rob,
Old Church Slavonic rabu,
are from Old east european *orbu.
But in Europe we already used to use the word "slave" for captured people which i think is incorrect and even offending since the the word "slav" reffered to Christianity .
strahi popovic
the words "slave"" slava" "slavic" referred to christianity/christians.
They came from the Hebrew word tzlav (צלב ) means cross
Slavs have ancestral ties to Indo-Iranians. If you look at mythological deities of the Slavs (the old gods), many share resemblance to the gods of Ancient India and Ancient Iran.
Vishnu = Perun (the god of thunder)
Indra = Svarog (literally meaning 'heaven')
Xursid / Xorshid = Dazhbog & Jutrobog (Xors) (radiance of solar and lunar light)
Are you thinking of Scythians/Sarmatians ?
The so-called Arayans, which we now refer to them as indo-europeans.
The only modern Slavs who ashame of their heritage are the people of "Macedonia" who chose an ancient Greek name for their new country, built statues of Great Alexander in their capital and print books with theories and bullshits in general.
Despite the old battles between Slavs and the Greeks during the Slavic expansion, it is good that we managed to find a "modus vivendi" in Balkans. Eastern Christianity brought us closer and healed the wounds.
ΔΑΙΔΑΛΟΣ / Daedalus greeks of todays Greece originaly have in 90% slavic, vallachian and albanian origin. Majority of Dimokratia people in 19. Century and many not even in 20th didnt know greek language. Thats fact. Athens was arvaniti village f.e. not to talk about wallachians in Epireus and Thessalia or Serbs in Macedonia and Thrace.
Mistaken! DNA prooves say that the hellenic DNA have not changed since ancient times. The reason our DNA is familiar to albanian is because greeks and illyrians were a relative tribes that's all.
We hate slavs that's a fact also that prooves you are lying. Morover slavs are usually blonde with blue eyes while most of greeks have brown hair with brow eyes..........another fact you lying!
Thessaloniki mapper Yes, greeks, antient DANAIANS came from Africa with the phoenicians and thay have dark skin, dark eyes and curly black hayr.The thracians "slavs" from regions Trakia and Makedonia were killed or send out of Greece past 1913 year/most of tham/and who stay there vere engreesed.If somebody in Greece has blue eyes, white scin and blond hayr is not a greek,he is thracian or macedonian, so named in 19 century "slavs".
Ancient greeks were european in a way because all people came from africa. And XD Half of my family is blonde with blue eyes but DNA test didn't show any slavic gene while I am blonde too. Also Greece is not african if you want link just tell me. Lastly you are asian considering slavs became their way from Siberia. So to more things: 1.Learn english 2.You should shearch better.I have lighter skin that the big majority of greek people ( like Balkan type ) but most greeks have the same skin colours as Italians and Spanish people. That's because of sun mate and not from fake propaganda considering in DNA tests all those three ethnicities have clear southern European DNA. Sorry to dissapoint you but you are completely mistaken
Until the 12th century, the languages of Western Europe had their own national concepts - slave (bondman, bondservant, servant, serf, thrall...etc.), However, the history of the modern term "slave" in the languages of Western Europe begins with the 12th century, the announcement by Pope Eugene III of the Northern Crusades against the Slavs not Catholics ("Drang Nach Osten"/"The onslaught to the East" - is the slogan of that time) with a bull from Pope Eugene on forgiveness all sins to every European bandits who joins the cause of the Northern Crusades - which lasted for three centuries in a row in the 12-15th centuries, culminating in the famous ice battle of 1242... I quote the bull of Pope Eugene III (literally) 1147 In the second bull Eugene declared: "Certain of you, however, (are) desirous of participating in so holy a work and reward and plan to go against the Slavs and other pagans living towards the North and to subject them, with the Lord's assistance, to the Christian religion. We give heed to the devotion of these men, and to all those who have not accepted the cross for going to Jerusalem and who have decided to go against the Slavs and to remain in the spirit of devotion on that expedition, as it is prescribed, we grant that same remission of sin...and the same temporal privileges as to the crusaders to Jerusalem"
I remind you that not only the crusaders of the Pope, but all the Catholic kingdoms of Europe of the 12th century (neighbors of the Slavs) took a direct part in this pan-European anti-Slavic aggression...
Lol by this logic Germanic tribes are also “slaves” condering that Romans enslaved germanic tribes too. Ottomans also enslaved Greeks so they are slaves too. I dont see why would word for slave come from slav when it doesnt have any linguistical relation.
The slavs were commonly enslaved so the term slave became ubiquitous. Kind of like Q-Tips and Kleenex.
When simple etymology bruises your ego 😂
In the roman empire they used the word for slav instead of the old word "servus" I think to refer to all sorts of slaves until it became the contemporary word slave, sklave, sclav in various languages
They kind of replaced it.
"Lol by this logic Germanic tribes are also “slaves” condering that Romans enslaved germanic tribes too." I didn't know that. Well, now everything is clear. The Romans conquered and enslaved most of Europe. Where the Celtic peoples lived, vulgar Latin passed into the Romance languages. Where the Slavic peoples lived, vulgar Latin developed into Germanic languages. Therefore, the Romance and Germanic languages have lost some cases and often the gender category. After the Ottoman rule, the Bulgarian language lost its cases and became analytical. The original Indo-European languages are synthetic and inflected (examples: Latin, Russian).
We literally burned down Constantinople and raided the Danes but no, we were "down-trodden" by the very people we raided. German pseudo-scientific racism still lives on.
My English is perfect. The word slaves does not derive or come from the word Slavs. The reason why is because when the word Slaves came into the existence 9th Century, the word Slav did not exist. It was only in 15th century when the Slavs started using this noun to describe their ethnicity. There is zero records before 15th century. According to this made up history:
“The Slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD,” the BBC website asserts.“
There is zero literally zero evidence that Muslims from Spain travelled through western territories to enslave Slavs. I can’t believe people are debating this stupidity.
Im American but the Slavic people are my favorite people I've ever met and I love their culture.
Thank you for your praise for the Slavs and greetings from Poland but the claim is nonsense and contradicts the historical reality that the Slavs were slaves first. Incidentally, it is not at all proven that the term slave is derived from the term Slav. All the outrageous claims are just prejudices about the Slavs. In addition, many Celts and members of other peoples were enslaved by the Vikings, not just Slavs. It is absurd to also mention the Ottomans and Mongols in this context, because they were in a completely different age. By the way, Byzantines hardly enslaved Slavs, but bought slaves from the Vikings and this slaves certainly weren't just Slavs. Ridiculous and impudent, by the way, that at the beginning of the video guys that apparently are Slavs perform any nonsensical explosions with barrels. Why is such nonsense shown? Obviously the intention is to show that the people the video is about are idiots.
In reality, the Slavs were the most successful and they certainly weren't a people of slaves and idiots. Because idiots and slaves would definitely not have succeeded in colonizing half of Europe. Slavic expansion began during the second century AD, and they occupied a large area of eastern Europe between the Vistula and the middle Dnieper. The Slavs slowly expanded in all directions and assimilated the neighboring cultures. They constantly sought an outlet for the population surplus. Partially they acted without violence and the Slavic peoples infiltrated foreign territories very clever by being cooperative. The Slavs became a dominant force and establishing a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe. According to the historian Paul Barford, "The Spartan and egalitarian Slavic culture clearly had something attractive for great numbers of the European populations living over considerable areas of central Europe", resulting in their assimilation.
The special thing about the Slavs was that they did not practice slavery! Byzantine chroniclers noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Slavs could soon become free members of Slavic society if they wished. So
Slavs were the only ones who even assimilated Romans and not just captured soldiers but the population of entire conquered territories. According to the 6th-century manual of war "Strategikon" by Byzantine Emperor Maurice the Slavs were a hospitable people and did not keep prisoners indefinitely "but lay down a certain period after which they can decide for themselves if they want to return to their former homelands or to stay amongst the Slavs as free men and friends." The Byzantine scholar Pseudo-Caesarius's wrote that Slavs living by their own law and without the rule of anyone. The Slave were reported to have lived under a democracy for a long time. The 6th-century historian Procopius, who was in contact with Slavic mercenaries, reported, "The Slavic nations, are not governed by one man, but from ancient times have lived in democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people." The 6th-century manual of war Strategikon by Byzantine Emperor Maurice is considered an eyewitness of the Slavs and said that "the Slaves were independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land."
The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time). There were no nobility and no kings with the greed for more and contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germanic Tribes. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ... which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of the Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.
Slavs were so successful in the assimilation of other peoples because they weren't as barbaric as the Germanic tribes or Vikings. Slavs did not practice slavery and they didn't maraud like the Germanic vandals, for example, from which the term vandalism is not wrongly derived. That is why the Slavs were successful in colonizing and the violent and Slavery driving Germanic tribes and Vikings were not! That is why today there are very many Slavs and only very few Scandinavian descendants of the Vikings in comparison. That is why half of Europe is populated by Slavs and the descendants of the Vikings live in the same relatively small area as 1000 years ago compared to the large area of the Slavs. The same applies to the descendants of the Germanic tribes, the only thing they have colonized in Europe is England and small Slavic areas in East Germany because otherwise they are where they were 1000 years ago in contrast to the Slavs who successfully colonized half of Europe.
Europeans come from Central Europe from the Carpathian Mountains and Danube Area.
DNA is in the blood and it cannot be detected, but the blood group can be detected. Depending on the occurrence of a blood group, the composition of the population can be determined.
Slavs don't call themselves slavs. "Slowianin" in Polish, for example, comes from the word "slowo", literally meaning the word. Slavs are the people who invented the runes. Etymologically, "rune" is akin to mystery in the so called germanic languages, while in Polish and other slavic countries it is called "runa". Runa is a word closely connected to "rana", which in turn means "a wound". What were the runes? Wood carvings, you are literally wounding a tree to write. So who did invent the runes, those who call it a mystery, or those who tell you what they are?
It's also the structure of words that is very organic in slavic languages, for example the use of the letter "o" to signify circulature or roundness. "robic" means "to work", "obrobic" or "obrabiac" means "to work around". And there's ton of other examples and how languages and words are constructed.
Napoleon has been quoted saying "if (slavs) knew their history, they might sack the Rome again". Vandals were proto-slavic people, as shown by genetic evidence from towns in Italy which were occupied by them in the past. Eastern Goths who migrated all the way down to Portugal left linguistic evidence in the Portugese, which while comes from completely different ethnicity yet superficially, it sounds like Russian to many, as well as their version of "god knows" is "boh", boh being closely related to "god" in many slavic languages. Other evidence is in etymology of the name of some of the towns or provinces, like Cordoba, which was known for its cork. For example in Polish cork is "kora debu", with similar naming across other languages.
Prussia, is just pomeranian Russia. These people were germanized under Teutonic order, and later Branderburg Prussia, but original Prussian language while spoken without fake German accent sounds like slavic language.
Similarly, old "German" maps feature cities with names that are very clearly germanized, but have fitting slavic names that don't sound like a random string of letters. We have to remember that what Roman empire used to call "German" or "germania" simply referred to a geographical location. Whether you were slavic, germanic/saxon, frank or sarmatian, if you lived in that region you were called German.
Slovians, slavians or slowianin are simply wordsmiths, and they still are being the biggest linguistic family in the Europe. Thanks HRE as well as its Byzantine arm for removing this history and slowly germanizing central Europe.
That was really interesting information. Particularly about the runes. Do you have any recommended reading on this topic?
@@emZee1994 I do not, sadly. The information that I presented above was shamelessly copied by me from a channel Veni Vidi Vandali on youtube. Now, a lot of the information that he presents is pure speculation and conjecture - a bit of it being quite conspiratorial. But some of his videos are bang on point, like the one about the etymology of the word "rune", and I enjoy his channel very much - it made me look at the map in a different light, who knows, he might be right about many things.
I'm sure he can provide you with more reading material if you comment on one of his videos.
@@bobadger4771 awesome, appreciate the reply. Will definitely go to that channel
Glory to the slavs
(im slovenian (slav))
@Pajtim Cenaj hahaha stfu dog
Js zivim tut u sloveniji sam nism slovenc ampak vseeno slovenci so carji
@Ronin39 Spartan well we actually have pretty low birthrates.
Love to you from Poland
SLAVA!
Kosovo je Serbia!
Caligvla Caesar Slavs are Aryan, not Germans
POLSKA! 💪 Bóg, Honor i Ojczyzna SLAVA!
+Grachu 1987 Slava !!!!!!!!!
Adolf Stalin Half Fascist, half communist.
Very brief but excellent summary. Thank you.
I’m guessing they didn’t blame everyone for a century and cripple themselves.
Slava svim slavenima braci i sestrama!
хвала брате
Today a Slavic union seems completely out of the question because a war is raging between two Slavic nations. Yes, but that will change, just a matter of time. With time, the situation can change and certain Slavic nations can find a political compensation and reconciliation. It should not be forgotten that the Polish nation and the Ukrainian nation were at war with each other 100 years ago. In the shadow of World War II there were massacres of Poles by Ukrainians and massacres by Poles of Ukrainians. That's 75 years ago! Today, Ukraine and Poland are friends, although there are still problems, but the relationship is friendly. Also Czechoslovakia and Poland were at war 100 years ago and Czechoslovakia occupied territories in Poland. Poland then brought these areas back in 1938. Today there are certain problems, but Poland's relationship with the successor states of Czecholovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is friendly. Enemies became friends, because the Czechs, Slovaks and Poles are now friends. So if these Slavic nations can be friends today, then actually all Slavic nations can be friends in the future. It's just a matter of will. So this is not the end point of understanding of the Slavic nations. There will be a Slavic Union! Only a matter of time! Today the Slavic nations are still divided but the situation in the future will be completely different. If Czechs, Slovaks and Poles could become friends, then the other Slavic nations can too! Poles and Ukrainians used to be much more hostile and today have friendly relations. At the end of the understanding there will be Slavic union!
There is a sense of togetherness among the Slavs which shows that the Slavs are much more than a language family. There are various Panslavic videos on UA-cam like this one too. In all, most of the comments are positive and pro-Slavic. This is an example of one such Pan-Slavic vido entitled: "This Is Slavia"! Another video has the title "Slavic People" The second comment in the list by @David Trivic is as follows. "The dream of a united slavia will never die. Love all of my slav brothers:🇧🇦🇧🇬🇧🇾🇭🇷🇷🇸🇵🇱🇲🇪🇷🇺🇸🇮🇸🇰🇺🇦🇨🇿🇲🇰." Pan-Slavism also shows that the Slavs are much more than only a language family. Slavs feel like an ethnic group and are an ethnic group. Because this definition applies to the Slavs: An ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area. This applies to Slavs! These common attributes distinguish the Slavs from other groups.
Today a Slavic Union seems like an impossible dream. But the time of the Slavic Union will come and the Russians will be part of it too! If the western European states and Germany perish in the civil war in the fight of "native" against orientals for supremacy in this countries, the Slavs will have to come to an understanding or perish. Already today there are big conflicts in this countries of the "natives" against the orientals, although the orientals have reached until now only about 10% of the population in these countries. Only a small percentage is assimilated. Most wanted to keep their oriental identity! In fact, most of them feel superior to the natives because of their religion which also prevents assimilation. What's going to happen when it's 20% or 30%? Because of that there will be chaos and civil war for supremacy. Already today radicals including soldiers and police officers are already setting up weapons depots and planning armed struggle with the aim of overthrowing the government. But there are also more and more radicals on the other side. It is a fact that already today there is more and more violence from both sides with deaths. There is increasing radicalization on both sides. Muslim graves are already being desecrated today. Orientals are already being murdered today. There are already thousands of attacks on the migrant camps today. Conversely, there is already violence in the other direction including terrorism. All this happens at 10% of the population of Orientals in these countries. It is obvious that the situation will escalate completely when there will be 30% oriental population. Maybe yes even already with 20% oriental population. Due to higher birth rates and immigration, the number of Orientals in these countries will increase to this level and continue to increase. Germany and France etc. are doomed to fail! This countries will definitely not survive that! The chaos and civil war is the future of this countries! If the EU and NATO haven't gone under before then, they will doom in this chaos.
In any case, the chaos for the Slavic states will also cause problems, even though that kind of population does not exist there. There will be economic losses because export markets will disappear. Of course, the EU will no longer exist. There may be refugees from these countries. There could even be border incidents. Etc. This will automatically lead to the Slavic nations moving closer together. Since there will be a long pro-Slavic campaign beforehand, the pan-Slavic idea will meanwhile also be widespread in the Slavic states. Necessary is a positive pro-Slavic spirit in the the Slavic states. Before that there will be a long-term Proslavic campaign! Then there will probably be several pan-Slavic conferences in which the Slavic nations will then also decide on the union. But the prerequisite is that there is a will to reconciliation, because today, as is well known, some Slavic nations are actually enemies and two Slavic nations are actually at war with each other.
Russia will only be able to participate if Russia agrees that there are mechanisms in the Union that prevent one state from dominating. Incidentally, Russia will have no problem agreeing to this, because there will be no restrictions on the sovereignty of the participating states. Russia will also have the opportunity to pursue an independent foreign policy like the other states. But why shouldn't the states of the Union support each other in foreign policy? There are no logical reasons against such a Slavic union! Why shouldn't this Slavic union exist, from which all participating Slavic states would only benefit in very problematic times. At a time when there will be an enormous threat to the security of all these states from outside. Either the Slavic nations will be able to overcome their feuds, or they will perish.
Panslavism is not about creating a Slavic superstate, but about a union of Slavic states with equal rights. I am sure that the Slavs will learn from the mistakes of the EU! There will be no attempt to establish a united Slavic state. It will be a union of equal states in which it is prevented that one dominates. It will be a union of independent states, but they will work closely together on an economic level. There will be limited political cooperation, especially in the military sphere. Because that will also be a defense alliance at the same time.
By the way, non-Slavic nations would definitely not want to be in a Slavic union, because there would be an automatic assimilation process. I'm sure no nation wants to be assimilated by the Slavs. But I'm sure there will be associated privileged members. Hungary and Romania would certainly accept the invitation to become such Associate Members. Because such an associated membership would mean a lot of economic advantage, for example, access to the Slavic markets without tariffs. In any case, this would be very useful for the Slavic Union, because it would give a duty-free land connection to the southern Slavs. It could also be that Greece would also receive an invitation to such membership. However, unrest in that country would prevent that. So what will be decisive is what the situation in Greece would be like. Although an intervention could pacify the country. Another country that would be offered such an associative membership would be Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan would agree because of the large Slavic minority there.
"The reconstructed autonym *Slověninъ is usually considered a derivation from slovo ("word"), originally denoting "people who speak (the same language)," i. e. people who understand each other, in contrast to the Slavic word denoting German people, namely *němьcь, meaning "silent, mute people" (from Slavic *němъ "mute, mumbling"). The word slovo ("word") and the related slava ("glory, fame") and slukh ("hearing") originate from the Proto-Indo-European root *ḱlew- ("be spoken of, glory"), cognate with Ancient Greek κλέος (kléos "fame"), as in the name Pericles, Latin clueo ("be called"), and English loud."
- from :en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs
that's the best to date explanation of our blood
call us SLAVES one more time and we will find you
Awesome video. Thank you for sharing!