Heya! So this video is only the first half of my inițial video în the entire history of Romania, but it became too long (over 1 hour) and I had to split it in half. The modern part will hopefully be uploaded în a week or two. Thank you all so much for watching, and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Thank christ, because i was excited for the next parts, but the video ended, with no part 1 in the title. Great video and keep up the amazing quality :3
I am a romanian who loves history, but the one that s true. I don t even know where to begin to tell you how many mistakes you made in this video. I am curious from where you got your informations?
@@rohandiana1789 According to all data from the archives, linguists specializing in toponyms agree that there are no settlement names or geographical names of Wallachian - Romanian origin before the 13th century in the Kingdom of Hungary, which included Transylvania! The conclusion of specialized historians and linguists is that a larger population that settled somewhere for at least a century, had to leave traces of the names of settlements, rivers - streams - mountains and valleys somewhere! Very few peoples have given names of localities and geographical names as logical, with a meaning, as the Szeklers and Magyars did. There is a document called "Regestrum Varadense" from the Kingdom of Hungary (the Oradean register) which contains about 711 locality names and about 2500 personal names, registered between 1205 and 1238. No name or locality name in this register has Romanian origins! But the Romanians did not build any fortress or city in Transylvania, nor in Banat or Crişana! What's more, the Romanian word oraş - city clearly comes from the ancient Hungarian word varas -város, which has been used by Hungarians for over 1500 years! Likewise, in the history of Transylvania, from all the medieval archives at the end of the 13th century, out of 511 names, we find only 3 names of Romanian origin! But not only do place names and geographical names not exist, there are also no cemeteries of the Vlachs or the fictional "Daco-Romanians" in these areas! The Hungarian archives contain data on the arrival of the first Vlach settlers, when in the 1210s, King András II settled the Vlachs in the area of Fogaras - Făgăraş and Hátszeg - Haţeg on to the royal lands! The vast majority of Romanians are misled even by that you do not know the origin of these names, because you do not know Hungarian, that these counties all had ancient Hungarian names, such as Fogaras - from the ancient Hungarian word "fog" - "fogas" which means tooth and catch, or Hátszeg from the ancient Hungarian words "hát" and "szeg" which means back and nail, but in Romanian it means nothing, neither the word Făgăraş nor the word Haţeg! This is just like the ancient name of Transylvania, which the Romanians have no idea about, because it was Erdőelve and not Erdély, which meant areas beyond the forest, only the medieval Hungarians combined these names and that is why it became Erdély. It became Transylvania in Latin because it was originally translated from the Hungarian Erdőelve from the 11th century, when Vlachs didn't even live anywhere like this, because then they would have called it "Ţara de dincolo de păduri" in Romanian! But since many bigots did not know about these, they started to invent that Erdély was originally Ardealul, and they wrote such nonsense that this meant Ară dealul and all kinds of impossibilities, when etymologically it is clear that the first Vlachs made Ardeal from Erdély! The northern migration of the Romanians is described in the chronicle Letopisetul Cantacuzinesc, which was written in the early 1700s and this part of which was tried to be erased from the Romanian memory, but it is not taught anywhere in Romania! I quote first time the original Romanian text: "Insă dintâi izvodindu-se de rumânii carii s-au despărţit de la romani şi au pribegit spre miiazănoapte. Deci trecând apa Dunării, au descălecat la Turnul Severinului; alţii în Ţara Ungurească, pre apa Oltului, şi pre apa Morăşului, şi pre apa Tisei ajungând şi până la Maramurăş." Quotes from the newsletters about the genetic research, which were also published in the Bulgarian newspaper Novinite: "The Romanian genome is 50-60 percent of Slavic origin, similar to its Balkan neighbors, Bulgaria and Croatia," the comprehensive study revealed. The paper added that the Serbian, Spanish and research carried out in collaboration with American scientists sheds light on the prevalence of Slavic genes in the region." "According to the results published by the Serbian agency Tanjug, Bulgarians, Romanians and Croatians have the highest Slavic gene concentration. In contrast, Greeks have the lowest presence of this genetic heritage: it ranges between 4 and 20 percent," they wrote. All of this may have had an unpleasant effect on the Romanians, because for decades they have been promoting the Dacian-Romanian theory, which is a theory based on the kinship of the Romanian and Latin languages."
God damn, I'm impressed. This might be one of the best videos I've seen covering Romanian history. There's some nitpicking here and there about certain events or if certain people were/weren't Romanians plus some map errors but other than that well done. You've earned a new subscriber.
@@thatstorm_spectre Honestly the main thing that I feel should've been added is that the istro-romanians probably moved to Istria from Transylvania much later probably at some point during the Ottoman occupation of Hungary. Other than that I think the rest of my nitpicks are more personal rather than anything I can cite :D
As a hungarian I cant write anything nice to you. (Love for romanian history and peoples from hungary, you are one of the most generous people in the world).🇭🇺❤🇷🇴
@@alexandrupopa6235 Its because she miswrote a common phrase in english. The right way to say it is: I can't write anything nice enough to you. It may sound like an insult but it is a compliment. maybe dont judge people for their english when it clearly isnt your first language either
Very impressed by the video as a Romanian, bravo. The wording especially at the beginning while important in specification, you got it right on the mark, not technically balkan but right above it; really just in the middle of where everything in the region meets. Bravo din nou, acesta este cu ușurință unul dintre cele mai bune videoclipuri ale istoriei României de pe internet și, mai de departe; cel mai bun în limba engleză! 🎉
dude! thank you for all the time and intentional effort you put into this video. as a romanian living in america, i'm having a hard time understanding the timeline of our history but this video helped a ton
@@thatstorm_spectre caught up with that one now and enjoyed it too! What do you plan on covering next? If you intend to stay in the niche of Romania and the wider region then histories of other national groups nearby would be very interesting as it’s quite a neglected region in terms of content. History on specific fascinating minority groups like the Transylvanian Saxons (and other Danubian Germans), Aromanians and Gypsies/Roma could be really interesting too and quite unique.
@@PartiesandPolitics I would certainly like to talk about more than just Romania. For now I'm definitely tired of discussing Romania lol. I'm thinking to discuss the differences between the German nations next, but talking about the regional French identities or the ethnic makeup of Russia is also a possibility. Or I might completely change my mind before I start researching lol, we'll see
honestly, this video was brilliant, really enjoyed watching it! However there was a fairly significant time skip between the principalities becoming vassals and the unification. Rulers such as Constantin Brancoveanu(who has a whole architectural style named after him) or Dimitrie Cantemir are historical figures worth mentioning. Also the Fanariot epoch as it was called was a very dark age for the country that can be a source for much of our corruption today ngl. During that period the thrones of the nation were literally held up for auction and every leader's goal was to find the most effective way to exploit the country and get back their money during their short reign. It's also worth mentioning how the nation was significantly orientalized. The story of the 1821 uprising is very interesting and tudor vladimirescu and his panduri are definetely worth talking about. This may be a bit nitpicky though, but I feel these 2 centuries were glossed over. Anyhow, felicitari ! ai facut un video foarte reusit, frumos si entertaining ! bafta in continuare, ai castigat un abonat nou !
Beautiful video, my only criticism is that the music is slightly too loud, I can't hear your beautiful voice, keep it up though, this channel has a good future!
I’m bingeing Romanian history videos and I have to say there are quite a few videos… not necessarily with 3000 years in one video but you can find videos about every period….
At least for me when I started out on my journey of learning history there were only I think 3 or 4 major videos about the wide view regarding the Romanians and a couple other popular ones about specific things like the Romanian revolution and Vlad III and Stefan the great Since then there's definitely more videos, but I hope I still managed to bring some fresh knowledge to the table for those interested in this little countries history 😁
It is said that the Forest of Impaled people were all the captured people Vlad III Tepes Dracula he had taken from his incursions in Bulgaria as he would relate in a letter to Mathias Corvinus the exact number and then the ottomans would count the people that the forest was made up of, and the numbers matched.
So long story short we are Dacians that got latinised by the Roman Empire with the consequence of our territory getting split up. Later on, with the invasions of turkic and slavic tribes (mainly) we could not recover from our previous wars and had to scatter around the old Dacian province playing nice, making both friends and enemies along the way. This way we managed to create new smaller provinces that would finally unite and create what today is Romania.
Very good video and a great follow up from your Spain vs. Romania comparative video essay. Super excited for the more modern history that has all the juicy political nuance!
10:16 I keep coming back to this video, its very well made, but i was wondering can you please tell me the source for this? I can't find it in the Moesia wiki page nor in the Carpi one. I wanna know where does it say they imported Carpis in Moesia because I've been trying to find anything about it for hours🙏🏻
For sure! The claim that Rome settled the Carpii in Moesia comes from Aurelius Victor, who wrote that all of the Carpii were moved to Moesia. Of course this is likely Hyperboly. This next one I haven't read myself but supposedly Ammianus mentions the Carpii that had been settled in the Empire twice in his works
@@thatstorm_spectreHi, its me again, here's what i found... The Carpi were sent to Scythia Minor and Pannonia, both of which are pretty far from the origin place of romanians that's thought (dacia aureliana/moesia superior). I looked up the source you gave me but Aurelius Victor only says they were sent to "the same place Aurelian sent them" without saying which one, and Aurelian sent them to Pannonia. I've tried looking for mentions of Carpi in Ammianus's waitings too, and he also says they were sent to Pannonia. I couldn't find anything linking the carpis with moesia (both superior and inferior) outside the fact that they raided it... I would've loved this to be true which is why I came back to you for some direct quote or anything that maybe I didn't find
@@nih0nium24 hey man! For sure, my first source regarding the Dacians south of the Danube was the book The Lost Romans by Mircea Davidescu, on page 28 it says "About 50.000 Dacian refugees were transfered south of the Danube during Augustus reign (Strabo, 1924, VII, 3, 10) and an additional 100.000 were settled into Moesia (the northern half of Bulgaria) by Nero (Braund, 1984, pp. 136-137). A Dacian society was starting to form south of the Danube if Roman epigeaphic sources are anything to go by. The Dacians south of the Danube were thus already experiencing Romanization by the late first century AD." Then on page 47 he says "...Dacia was not just handed over to Barbarians, and Aurelian's protective policies strongly suggest he was forced to leave the colonists behind (Husar, 2002, p. 632). (Furthermore) indirect evidence for this is that Aurelian settled the Carpi south of the Danube in 272, and many other barbarian settlements followed (Watson, 1999, p. 157) making it clear that the southern provinces had not been repopulated by Roman colonists from the north." I hope this helps! Also, edit, Scythia Minor is modern day Dobrogea, and is a part of Moesia in most settings. Meanwhile I generally don't actually think the Romanians formed in Dacia Aureliana, and neither do any of my sources, I've found no substantial evidence to say the Romanian identity formed there. I'd argue the most likely place that Romanians were formed is Moesia (just south of the Danube) and Dacia Traiana, just north of the Danube. Likely the Romanians from north of the Danube spoke a more "corrupted" Romanian with more Gothic, Turkic etc influences, but in the end, the Romanian dialect south of the Danube mostly won out, probably due to them being more organized than the rural population of the former Dacia Traiana. But that's just my theory. I'm working on a massive video on the Origin of the Romanians and the Dacian connection. Although I need maybe another month before I can release it! 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre Thanks man I really appreciate it, also, most modern theory is the one about Dacia Aureliana because thats where kekaumenenos placed the homeland of vlachs and most historians believe Romanians are latinized thraco-illyrians (main inhabitants of the area), but if youre right about Moesia then this might be revolutionary, i love history and how it changes all the time... i just find it so weird why wikipedia has nothing about this stuff and only talks about the Pannonian dacians
Having watched this video entirely, nevemind the second half that is just as long, and as good, I'm seriously surprised you put an hour worth of visuals and researched information. Though for as long as this great recap was, i felt like there could've been less corners cut (franlly i dont know whether this would have intetested the non romanians, as on latter side, most of us natives, were sort of here to admire and rate the accuracy of what was retold) Nevertheless, 6k views is criminally underappreciated, hope you continue on gaining attention. Best of luck!
missed a few important notes: 1. Emperor Trajan killing spree also meant sending (out of his way) a dacian legion to the damp rock of Britania and they left some marks there, mainly Wales 2. Vlad the Impaler was smeared by the saxon merchants and because they refused to pay the tariffs he went hard on them like the ottoman delegates 3. I think Baba Novac was caught by the huns and boiled in Transylvania 4. The Cuza union was not out of the blue as the Kingdom of Moldavia got scared shtless when the Russian Tzardom just felt like outright annexing half of it. This was a big deal as Walchia, Moldova and for the most time Transylvania as well were used only to client state status. So Moldova went ham on pushing the union. Basically Moldova as being less time under Ottoman influence was the center of romanian culture while Walachia was the martial power. As France was at that time pretty ousted or left from most important colonies, it focused on a beef with the Ottomans and people should know even today that France takes latinity world wide pretty serious so romanians keeping that frame in face of ridiculous adversity was probably awe inspiring to them. 5. How dare you not mention the second best friend international backer of a unified Romanian state: the USA on the frame of manifest destiny. The damp rock empire was always pissy, but in anticipation of the next part, once profit was in sight, they were major backers of developing the oil industry at least.
Yea, the Dacian legions I want to touch on in a video about Dacian-Romanian continuation, but I did forget to mention it here More discussion about Vlad and the Saxons was probably warranted, I kinda didn't mention why he and they didn't get along so well I know he was boiled alive but I dont remember who it was, I doubt it was the Huns tho Honestly I didn't know this, that makes a lot of sense, especially considering how Iași looks compared to București, but that could have also been the Communist influence And yea I should've praised the Americans a bit. But maybe that'll wait till I make a video about them We'll see 😁
At 36:05 , wasn't that the Banat of Craiova? Was it Hungary or Austria that snatched that? cause I don't remember it being Hungary but at the same time it was all under the Habsburgs. I was pretty certain it was the Austrians, but I don't know.
That part is also totally off. He probably meant the Fogaras Declaration (Declaratio in Protectionem Cesareo-Regiam), in which the Principal Mihály Apafi and the assembly of Transsylvania declared that from now on they quit the vassalhood of the Ottomans and declared loyalty to the Habsburg Leopold I. Hungary "snatched" nothing, Hungary at the time had no independent foreign policy, it was a province of the Habsburg empire. Then in the Habsburg-Ottoman war (1716-1718) the empire reconquered the Temesköz (I dont know what the Romanians call it), and aimed to retake Belgrade. In the Peace of Pozarevac, the Sultan gave over Belgrade, plus "Little Wallachia" (Oltenia) to the Habsburgs. This treaty made the liberation of Hungary complete from Ottoman rule.
@@somodizoltan We don't have a word for Temesköz (I found some maps subdividing larger geographical regions that do mark that section as the Timis or Banat plain), I know it's sort-of the Romanian Banat. In geography as we learn it here, that isn't a distinct plain, but apart of the Tisza plains. When we speak strictly of Romanian geography that whole region is called the Western Plain, covering the border with Hungary and Serbia. Each nation has their own particular ways of analyzing these things, different naming conventions. We split the Carpathian mountains again in a way that is sort-of strange.
Yea this was a bit of an error on my part. I'd always seen this portrayed with Oltenia as a part of Hungary (of course under the Habsburg domination). It took some digging for me to find the "Empire Autricien au XVIII. siecle" map, which shows that yea, it was a seperate Banat, although it also shows the Banat of Timisoara or Temesvar as seperate from Hungary too. The maps I've seen have it administered as a part of Hungary but those could've been wrong
@@thatstorm_spectre In the first few decades after Eugene of Savoy drove the Turks out, the Banat of Timisoara was indeed separate of Hungary - it was under direct imperial administration. Only towards the end of the century did the Austrian emperor transfer administration of the Banat of Timisoara to Hungary.
13:22 No, that’s false. The book stragicon makes no mention of the Carpathian Mountains. Neither mention of any mountain ranges along the Danube for the matter. If kommenicos was referring to north of the Danube why did he neglect any phrases which would suggest so? With this in mind, stragicon most certainly did not say the vlachs were north of the Danube in this period. In fact it wasn’t until much later that the vlachs, bessian, Slavic by ethnicity, Illyrian-roman by culture, and Dacian by geography were mentioned north of the Danube.
Yes I misspoke, you can see instead on the map I had visible where he most likely was referring to, near the Sava and Danube. It's still debated exactly what he meant by this but that's beyond this specific video. But I am curious what you meant at the end by "Bessian and Slavic in ethnicity, Illyro-Roman in culture and Dacian in geography". I'll assume you're using the American definition of Ethnicity which means genetics, yea the Vlachs were probably genetically similar to the Slavs by this point thanks to interbreeding, and Bessian means Thracian which I would agree with but I don't know if you meant that. Culturally Illyro-Roman is a stretch that can't really be defended or attacked. We don't know culturally if the Vlachs held onto Illyrian, or Thraco-Dacian cultures, but we know they had some kind of Paleo Balkan remnants. Geographically it's more likely Dacian/Thracian in culture, considering that the Illyrians were rather far from Moesia and Dacia were the Vlachs were. I've sent you a bunch of sources about Vlachs/Romans/Dacians north of the Danube before the 1200s on a different comment so take a look at those if you feel like it. And geographically Dacian I assume you mean that they live in what used to be Dacia, which yea that makes sense. Sorry it's just that I've never seen it phrased that way. But definitely an interesting way to see it 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre Yes the bessians are a synonym for the thracians south of the danube. I did mean everything I wrote, and they are illyro roman because unlike dacia, there is a scholarly consensus on the romanization of Illyria, along with genetic evidence which points to the Romanians being Illyrian by ethnicity (see why are Romanians related or descended from the Albanians) along with illyrians living in and out of Illyria speaking the latin language. This also explains the migratory patterns of the Romanians in the southern balkins. The non Romanian vlach populations still in parts of Illyria and Thessaloniki are of (most likely) Illyrian origin, and speak latin. There wasn’t a particularly distinct Illyrian culture, they were roman, and spoke latin. Also illyrians are the only people that would have been able to speak latin and be able to be in the physical geography of the southern Balkans, since all other peoples, discluding dacians spoke Greek instead of latin, which was hellanized thraican. Therefore to prove the existence of the vlach population south of the danube, they either are 1. Roman-illyrians. Or 2. Roman-dacians. Both of which prove the migration theory right, since if it was wrong, the vlachs (souther balkins) would have spoken Greek, which they don’t.
@@schutzanzug6731 I see, yes I partially agree, the Romanians must be either Romanized Illyrians or Dacians (Thracians are possible as well as they also lived to the north of the Jirecek line which separated the Latin speaking parts of the Empire from the Greek speaking part). But this doesn't mean that the migration theory is necessarily correct. In my opinion, there were probably Romanians both north and south of the Danube. I've previously sent you some sources that talk about the Romanians north of the Danube prior to the 1200s, but the Romanians are also mentioned in north Moesia a lot like when Theophilacta of Simoncata and Theofanes the confessor mention a unique dialect of Latin being spoken north of the Balkan mountains (Torna Torna Fratre), or when Anna Komnene mentions Dacians north of the Balkan mountains, along with Vlachs being guides through the Balkan mountains and of course the whole Vlach uprising which created the Second Bulgarian Empire. These along with the sources that place a Romance speaking population north of the Danube make it likely that there existed Romanians on both shores of the Danube, most likely however the Vlachs south of the Danube were more organized (on account of being either a part of the Roman Empire or the Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire, which either way preserved their language better than the north), which is why the modern Romanian language is lacking in things like Eastern German words (although Eastern Germanic languages like Gothic may have Romanian influence like their word for marriage) because the southern dialect won out as the southern Romanians were more organized and uniform than the scattered Romanians in the Carpathian mountain arc whenever the Southern Romanians joined the northern ones. The fact that the Aromanians of today are below the Jirecek line means they must have moved there from somewhere else, either from Moesia or as Kekaumenos says from near the Danube and Sava, north of the new Dacia Aureliana. Judging from the ethnicy of these areas prior to Roman Conquest, this would make Romanians mostly Dacians with certainly some Thracian or Illyrians within the ranks as well. As North Moesia was primarily Dacian but also included a lot of Thracians, meanwhile the new Dacia Aureliana was split between Dacians and Illyrians. So probably Romanians descend from all of these groups along with many different groups like Italians, Gauls, Iberians, North Africans, Greeks and others because that's who the Romans brought to colonize Dacia. But the overwhelming majority of Romanians are probably descended from Dacians. Genetically it's hard to prove one way or the other, as Romanians are closest to Bulgarians genetically, this could be because of the many slavs which came and went or it could be from the Thracians and Dacians which inhabited the area and were assimilated into Bulgarians and Romanians but are still genetically similar. It's not like you can find an Illyrian genetic and say definitely Romanians are Illyrians. And as for if Dacia was romanized there's a lot of evidence to say it was but the most important ones are that at the beginning of the Roman occupation of Dacia the names recorded are extremely diverse hinting at many different backgrounds for the population but after a few years the names become extremely uniform with around 75% being Imperial Roman names, showing at least the population took on Roman naming conventions. Then we have records showing that the Roman Legions that were brought in got married to local Dacian women, which would likely mean that the children were going to speak Latin, and finally every single city in Dacia were grates the rights to citizenship as 8 of the 11 Roman settlements in Dacia were granted the title of Coloniae which was the highest title a city could receive showing it was thoroughly Roman and all 11 cities being granted the title of Municipum which was the point at which all inhabitants of the city were made citizens. Then additionally we have a lot of inscriptions left in Dacia and from all of them over 3000 of them are in Latin with second place being in Greek with 40 inscriptions, making Dacia statistically actually the second most Roman province only behind Italy.
@@thatstorm_spectre Some of what you are saying is true, however you have misinformation scatted throughout what you are saying. For example, when you say, “-have moved there from somewhere else, either from Moesia or as Kekaumenos says from near the Danube and Sava, north of the new Dacia Aureliana” Your correct in the fact that they moved there from somewhere else, however its false that Kekaumenos says that the vlachs originated from near the danube and savas. Kekaumenos does mention Vlachs living "near the Danube and Sava" rivers, however I do not see how you can interpret this as if the Romanians migrated/originating from there. Despite archaeological evidence for vlachs south of the danube being everywhere, not a single piece of conclusive archaeological evidence for Vlachs has appeared north of the Danube, at least until the 10th century. This information corroborates with the contemporary sources describing the vlachs and their geography. You also said “- when Anna Komnene mentions Dacians north of the Balkan mountains” From what I can tell, there is no references from Anna Komenene mentioning any dacians north of anything, again the reference to where they were was just near the Danube. This highlights the point that probably some of the sources you are using are willing to twist information to make the daco roman continuity theory more plausible then it really is. And also, I am not denying that it couldn’t have happened, im saying for the most part that the migration theory is more plausible, with much more robust archaeological and contemporary foundings. Anyways, As I pointed out in my last argument, Dacian was commonly used as a antiquated geographical term by the byzentines, since the byzentines considered themselves as a successor to the roman empire. You also make statements, which claim that the vlachs were north of the danube or “likely” on both shores, reliant on false or heavy interpretations that have no validity or reason. Also the illyrians played a large role in the formation of the vlach/Romanian society, clearly as we can see with evidence such as Procopius and Jordanes, making references to Vlach-speaking populations inhabiting areas that were part of the former Illyrian territories, numerous words and grammatical features that are believed to be of Illyrian origin, and loanwords which are also believed to have been from Illyrian origin. Many place names in regions associated with Vlach populations, have been shown to have Illyrian linguistic roots. This geographic distribution of place names with Illyrian elements suggests a significant Illyrian presence in the areas where Vlachs have traditionally lived. This genetic influence (which we probably wouldn’t be able to see supposing the daco roman continuity is correct), can be seen in modern Romanians, as the descendance of the Illyrians are whom the Romanians are some of the most closely genetically related to, even with Bulgarian and Slavic influence on the Romanians.
@@schutzanzug6731 I'll provide you with what my translations say so we're on the same page Kekaumenos: They lived formerly near to the Danube river, and the Saos, the river which we now call the Sava, where Serbs live now, in secure and inaccessible places. Being confident in these (places), they pretended friendship and service to the earlier emperors of the Romans, and used to go out of their strongholds and plunder the lands of the Romans; as a result they were angered with them, and, as has been said, destroyed them. They left those parts, and were scattered throughout all Epirus and Macedonia, but most of them inhabited Hellas. It looks like he is saying that the Vlachs originated near the Danube and Sava, but from context he seems to be referring to the territory of Dacia (north of the Dabube) as he discusses the Roman conquest of Dacia and then says the Vlachs were scattered and moved south to Epirus, Macedonia and Hellas. This could be interpreted either by emphasizing that he is saying they were from next to the Danube and Sava or by emphasizing the context (of which theres more than what I quoted but its a lot so I wont quote it all bur I can give you the link, just search for Dacia in page: ancientwisdoms.ac.uk/mss/viewer.html?viewColumns=greekLit%3Atlg3017.Syno298.sawsEng01%3Adiv5&viewOffsets=-321 ) of him describing the conquest of Dacia and therefore he's saying the Vlachs came from North of the Danube. Meanwhile for Anna Komnene she says: "On either side of its (The Haemos Mountains, today known as the Balkan mountains) slopes dwell many very wealthy tribes, the Dacians and the Thracians on the northern side, and on the southern, more Thracians and the Macedonians." "Formerly they (the Sarmatians) dwelt on the land separated from the Roman Empire by the Ister, but now they rose in a body and migrated into our territory. The reason for this migration was the irreconcilable hatred of the Dacians for their neighbours, whom they harassed with constant raids. So the Sauromatæ seized the opportunity of the Ister being frozen over and by walking over it" "But on the contrary most of them (the Roman army) were dispersed, for some were keeping guard in the valleys of Serbia and in Dalmatia; others were protecting the lands along the Ister against the inroads of the Comans and the Dacians" (BTW the Ister means the Danube) So it looks like she's describing Dacians as being both north of the Haemos or Balkan Mountains and the Ister or Danube river. This wouldn't make sense if she meant Dacian as in whatever people exist in what used to be Dacia because north of the Balkan mountains or Moesia wasn't a part of Dacia, and considering we know the Romanians were north of the Balkan mountains at this time and we can speculate they were also north of the Danube and we know from Kekaumenos that the Byzantines often associate the Dacians and Vlachs we can say pretty confidently she's referring to the Romanians here. As for contemporary mentions of Romanians north of the Danube we have: - In the 500s Maurice notes in the strategikon that there are Romans north of the Danube who "forget their kind" and help the Slavs - In 545 Procopius notes that some slavs learned Latin so well in present day Moldova that they fooled Romans into thinking they were generals - In 860 Emmerich of Elwagen says that the Dacians are one the groups north of the Danube - In the 11th century Gardizi says there's a Roman population north of the Danube who are more numerous than the Hungarians but weaker and without rights, but calls them NNDR. - According to the Scriptores Historiae Polonae of Vincentius Kadlubko in 1040 thr Vlachs were a part of the army that opposed Casimir in Poland, this one is less clear but still that's pretty north Meanwhile for Archeology you're right, it's a lot harder to tell because telling a culture based on archeology isn't as easy as you'd expect, because things like pottery cultures don't match perfectly to things like linguistic groups, as hard as some Romanian and Hungarian nationalists try. About the archeology south of the Danube relating to Vlachs and the Illyrian naming conventions I'm not super knowledgeable so if you'd be able to teach me a little about that I'd be super grateful, but as for the ones north, the only real evidence I've seen is the fact that the Roman cities of Dacia continued to be inhabited and we continue to see engravings in Latin way after Rome pulls out, with the cities with military walls seeing fortification and continued habitation, meanwhile the cities without walls see the population gradually spreading out into the outer regions. Examples include: - Porolissum where archeologists have found the forum was fortified into a basic fortress, and new structures like water basins being built even after the Roman withdrawal - Napoca which sees small villages being built around the city going further out the longer after Rome withdrew with many Roman style graves with Latin inscriptions containing Roman coins and pottery, with one specific grave giving honor to a Gothic Prince calling him Patrician of the Romans "Patricius Romanorum" - Sarmizegetusa shows that the Amphitheater was fortified in 375 AD meanwhile small villages also began sprouting up around the city until the city was eventually abandoned. Of course the problem with all of this is that we can't prove for sure the culture or language of the people within the cities, because although we find Roman graves and Latin inscriptions, there's no telling if it was just Barbarians copying the Romans because they thought it was cool or if it was actually a Roman population. I think the odds are pretty good that this is actually a Roman population thanks to the Latin inscriptions but that's not set in stone. And then lastly about genetics, honestly I'm not the most knowledgeable on genetics, but from what I know a majority of Romanians have the I2 paternal hablogroup which is essentially native of the region of Romania, because its from the pre Indo European farmers of that region, which to me means that most likely at least the majority of the population cannot be immigrants from a different part of Europe. Of course this doesn't necessarily disprove that the Vlachs could have still come from elsewhere and assimilated the locals but seeing as there wasn't an actual Romanian country in Transylvania, it seems that it would be pretty unlikely for the Romanians to assimilate a group that was so different and much larger than them without any country to support them. Meanwhile genetically from my understanding Romanians are most similar to Bulgarians, Moldovans and Serbians. Of course this could just be because they're bordering each other, but this is also probably down to the historic nations in all of these regions, Moldovans because we'll they're just Romanians so sure, Serbs and Bulgarians both share that slavic genetic mark but Bulgarians and Romanians probably have a lot of PaleoBalkan genetics from the Thracians and Dacians. Meanwhile the Illyrians, it's tough because assuming that the Albanians are the Illyrians, Romanians and Albanians aren't too similar but this can be explained as Romanians being from the Illyrians closer to Moesia which could have been genetically different from the Illyrians of Albania. Meanwhile yea there's a lot of Albanian/Illyrian influence on the Romanian language, but we don't know for sure if this is Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian, we know it's Paleo Balkan but this could have been common across all 3 languages, only 2 or maybe it is entirely Illyrian, we don't really know because none of the 3 languages survived or have large inscriptions, except Albanian of course. Some parts of the Romanian langauge we can say for sure are Dacian, like Princhindel from the Dacian per, mal from Dacian mala, or apa from dacian apos (it obviously also comes from Latin aqua, but it could be a convergent etymology, two different languages call something by a similar name so they both start using the same name), meanwhile other words are almost certainly Albanian like brad and bredh for fir trees, fluture and flutur meaning butterfly, and vatră and vatër meaning hearth. So it's hard to say, it could be, or it could not be.
great video, thanks for that. Also asking why is the few hundred years gap in between the Roman withdrawal from Provincia Dacia and the first Wlach/Moldavian state
Thanks a bunch! I'm really glad you liked the video! The reasons for the large gap between Roman withdrawal and the ceeation of the Romanian principalities are twofold. The first and largest problem is we just don't have sources talking about the area north of the Danube. Prior to the Hungarian conquest very little is known about this region. Thanks to eymological analysis we have been able to estimate the existence of certain states in the area such as Blahnița and Vlăhița în Transylvania, and of course if the Gesta Hungarorum is to be believed there were various Romanian states/states that included Romanians in Transylvania. But of course we don't know how literal the Gesta was or when these states were created or if they even existed. Otherwise we get vague mentions by people like Ananias to a "country of the Thracians" and a "land of the Dacians" north of the Danube. But whether this meant a Romanian state, group of states or just some land associated with Romanians or just the actual Dacians and Thracians of antiquity is unknown. Otherwise we've found coins mentioning a certain Sponsianus în Transylvania which could indicate that after the abandonment of Dacia, a Roman Dacian state under a military ruler was formed. But again, no sources, so we really don't know. The first small states we can confirm from historical letters which exist prior to Wallachia and Moldova are some small fiefdoms in Moldova which belonged to various lords and swore loyalty/tribute to the Mongols, Halych-Volhynia or Hungary, and the state of Ilaut in Oltenia. But these are considerably later and are only known because the region was more documented thanks to Hungary, Halych-Volhynia and just sheer luck that these letters survived the sands of time. And the second reason is that the area north of the Danube was highly contested from Rome's abandonment until the Mongolian incursions. Even in more stable areas in the Roman Empire like Hispania, the moment Roman control over them subsided they were replaced with barbarian states like the Visigoths, not states run by the local Romans. Same thing happened in Dacia, except with a smaller Roman population. This is why the Gepids and Goths took over the area initially, but we're we're replaced by other more powerful barbarians like the Huns, Avars and then Bulgarians, with the Hungarians, Cumans and Mongols showing up later as well. In an area as highly fought over as the Romanian territories it was difficult for such a small and disunited group such as the Romanians to establish their independance. In the end it wasn't even really Romanian efforts that established Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldova, as all 3 were established by the Hungarians, who thanks to already having a powerful and established kingdom were able to expand towards the Carpathians and across them to establish first Transylvania, then Wallachia and then Moldova. Once the states had already been established it was only then that Romanians could revolt and distance themselves from foreign domination like what happened with Radu Negru. So we probably owe the Hungarians a lot of thanks 😁. In summary, we don't have sources so we don't even know whether there were Romanian states north of the Danube or not. And North of the Danube was such a cluster smash of chaos that it would have been extremely difficult for the Romanians to establish their own countries among the constant threat of foreign domination from the east. Hope that helped, and feel free to ask any other questions on your mind, I'd be happy to help! 😁
I will have to make a correction. It is most probable, on account of linguistic aspects I implore you research yourself (Wikipedia should have you covered with the history of Christianity in Romania), that Romanians were Christians since Saint Andrew, and infarct it was only Orthodoxy that the Bulgarians spread. As such you also have the fact that the Romanian language was not utilized by the Bulgarians in Christianizing the Romanians. All converts quite typically are spoken to in their own language, but in the case of the Romanians, that was not what had happened. It looks like the Vlachs were quite easily persuaded to enter the church of the Bulgarians on account of their already pre-existing Christian faith, which also was the means by which the two ethnic groups mixed and influenced one-another (you have a lot of Slavic groups, not simply Bulgarians, which take greatly from the Romanians, such as the Gorals, the Hutsuls, etc). You have quite a few Proto-Romanian saints such as Dionysius Exiguus and the other Scythian monks beside him, and even Emperor Justinian who was said to have been at the very least from that same sort-of region from which you have "Torna, Torna, Fratre" and otherwise what's hypothesized to be the Aromanian homeland. To that extent he was probably a Daco-Roman / Thraco-Roman (since if you look at the Moesi, they were closer to the Dacians) of peasant origin, and spoke that sort of Latinic dialect. So all this before the Slavs had raided them. It is most probable that the Romanians had a folk-religion, without ecclesiastical institution, like the Alpine peoples which were theoretically Christian, but highly mystical, "heretical" and largely paganistic by orthodox Catholic standards. You can research that but, in essence, Highlanders such as the Romanians seem to have preserved Christianity in that sense. You should read about the dualistic cosmogony of the Romanians with the mythological "Fârtat" and "Nefârtat" divinities. Now their legend seems to resemble that of Perun and Veles of the Slavs, but the apparent Christian overlay to it's pagan root was characteristic of faith among the early Romanians, who most certainly believed in Christ and so on, moreso than the Slavs. The lack of proper ecclesiastical institution before the Slavs is on account of Christianity spreading among the people prior to the Edict of Milan, not trough a significant effort of hierarchical dissemination. Christianity spread from the grassroots up. Check the several artifacts attesting this among the Daco-Romans such as the Biertan Donarium (and as stated prior, also the linguistic artifacts, like the name for God and Church [Dumnezeu - Biserică] which come from Latin, are quite uniquely Christian, and differ from their counterparts. As such they must have come from the developing Vulgar Latin prior to the Aurelian retreat). I doubt that they would have lost Christianity and adopted some Pagan faith foreign to them prior to a re-conversion process taken up by the Slavs of all people. Otherwise, how come the linguistic anomaly?
Im really sorry, my Hungarian is not so good, I'm from Banat so. But yea, the Daco-Romanian continuity theory is widely believed both in Romania and abroad. The theory just says that Romanians are the product of the assimilation of the Dacians and the newly arrived Roman colonists which populated the province of Dacia. Same as how the French are a result of the local Gauls which were assimilated and the Roman colonists in the province of Gaul. Its nothing Dacopathic like saying Dacia invented the pyramids or something silly.
Well, there's obvious mistakes in the video, and the part that I see as the biggest mistake is the level of Dacopathy that is deeply ingrained in the minds of my Romanian brother's and sister's. But at all the Dacian parts, the only mistake I could see outside of Dacopathy is that you said Dacian's were formerly called Vlach's as well, which is not true. As the exonym Vlach was exclusively used for Roman's and Celt's, and later for Romance-speakers. Then we go to the Vlachian Empire, which unfortunately you talked more about the Romanian principalities compared to our only and great Empire that existed from 1185-1396. However, the Empire was Vlach Empire and not Bulgarian, nor an union between Vlach's and Bulgarian's. The Asan Dynasty, which was a Vlach dynasty and the one's who founded the Empire used the idea of succession of the old Bulgarian Empire (681-1018) as a claim over their legitimacy over an Imperial rule. That's why Tsar Kaloyan, the greatest medieval Vlach ruler who was also nicknamed "John the Vlach", crowned himself as Emperor of the Vlach's and Bulgarian's in order to legitimise his claim over an Empire, just as Otto the Great of East Francia took over Kingdom of Italy and crowned himself King of Germany and Italy to gain a claim over Imperial title. Otto did so by claim imperial succession of Frankish Empire of Charles the Great and from the Western Roman Empire, the reason he crowned himself Emperor of the Roman's. However, Kaloyan had no legitimacy over his throne nor a crown from the Papacy. Thus, Kaloyan claimed lineal descent from the Emperors of the old Bulgarian Empire. However, Kaloyan also recognised to the pope his Roman ancestry. Thus, the Empire was never Bulgarian but Vlach, the dynasty was Vlach and the revolt of 1185 was purely Vlach as the only source on the revolt is Niketas Choniates (liv. 1155-1217), and tells us that the leaders of the revolt were the Vlach's. The Empire of Asan was multiple times referred as _Vlachia_ by writer's such as Geoffroi de Villehardouin, Henri de Valenciennes, Robert de Clari, Ansbert, Henry of Flanders, Snorri Sturluson, William of Rubruck and even Arabic writers
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I've never really encountered dacopaths but isn't Dacopathy a belief that the Dacians held an outsized control over Europe and Rome specifically, more conspiracy theories like saying the Dacians founded Rome? I don't think I said anything dacopathic... Yea I probably should've been more clear with the Vlach statement, I was referring to how Kekamenos referred to Romanians as Vlachs while saying they are the "Dacians and Bessi"
@@thatstorm_spectre Well Dacopathy is of course a conspiracy theory with those things that you wrote however it also describes the people who are hyper-fixed on the Dacians no matter whether you consider the idea that we are only stemming from Dacians or Dacians and Romans. It is a mental **pathy** which stems from an inferiority complex and obsessive inability to accept the fall of the dacians and to make us Romanians with in fact no linguistical, cultural or ethnical identity connected to them as connected in any shape or form.
@@thatstorm_spectre Also, Kekaumenos made that negative reference about us Vlachs due to his political view rather historical. He wrote because of the Vlach revolt of Thessaly in 1066, which got his father in law, Nikoulitzas Delphinas blinded and thrown behind bars in Constantinople. It shows that Kekaumenos made this reference for his agenda, and used the Dacians due to the history between them and the Romans (which later in the view of the Byzantines were them). However we must also point his historical inaccuracies, such as Dekabalos being King of Dacians and Bessi while making the reference that the Vlach homeland was between the Danune and Sava river in modern day Serbia. Thus he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Avreliana. But what I like his reference of us being descendant of both Bessi and Dacians, who were two different tribes geographically separated by the danube and Carphatian mountains. Although, Bessi was also a name continually used to denote all of Thrace and Moesia. Thus, I believe he used it as a reference of the Vlachs originating from Moesia, which includes the Inferior and Superior parts the latter being where he described being our homeland ironically Timok Romanians still lives there.
@@InAeternumRomaMater I see, I don't think it's possible to really say we have 0 relations to the Dacians, due to the over a millennia of Romanians being associated with the Dacians, from of course the Communist era, back to Catherine the Great referring to a united Romanian state as Dacia, to Kekamenos and Anna Komnene stating that the Vlachs or Dacians lived north of the Balkan mountains. But I am curious to hear both sides. I want at some point to do a video displaying both arguments and to determine whether or not the Dacian-Romanian continuity theory is valid or not. So could you outline the whole position?
@@thatstorm_spectre We Romanians also have relations to Germanics, Celts, Turks and Mongols but that doesn't make us them. Thr truth is, we barely have anything left from the Dacians to prove any connection, not to mention that almost all tribes were wiped out by Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Divi Nervae filius Augustus Optimus Princeps. The Byzantine writers had the fashion to call 'modern people' by ancient groups. They called Hungarians as Sarmatians and Huns, they referred to the Slavs as Tauroschyts and Coumans as Scythians. This trend preceeded the Byzantines and was in use even after them by different writers of whom also referred to us as "Dacians" and that's because we live in their former lands. Same reason of Catherine the Great. And there is no "Dacians-Romanian continuity theory". What you might mean is "Daco-Roman continuity theory" which name means "Romans of the former Dacian lands". This continuity theory argues whether the Romanians are descendants of the Romans of Dacia Traiana, thus a continuity theory after Romes withdrawal from 271 AD.
Vlachs back about anyone who speak a Latin language in Eastern Europe not just a Romanian cuz they are many Romans language live in Eastern Europe before the 20th century
@@thatstorm_spectre she's the one who made my Vtuber model, she's helped me a lot on my Vtuber journey. I'm originally from Romania myself so she made my model design with authentic Romanian dress patterns in mind. I use Vtubing as a avenue to learn more about my own culture since I never had that opportunity.
If only our Loed and Savior Dovahhatty had kept going we would have had an unbiased history of the Middle East 😭 But yea, especially Labanon I've always been a bit curious because of competing claims of origin regarding the Phoenicians and Arabs. I just have to get un burned out from the bac first (it's like mega finals for the IB)
@@thatstorm_spectre that’d be cool! I’m actually Syrian, so I selfishly would rather see one for Syria lol although, one side is from the coast so I probably have that Phoenician blood as well (other side is closer to iraq, so I have that Mesopotamian blood as well). Although, you’d never tell by looking at me. I think that’s what’s interesting about that area, as you brought up in Romania, it was run through by many different groups, as was the Levant. Might be even worth doing one for the Levant as a whole rather than by each country, especially since they’re so new, relatively speaking. Also, Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world - that’s a cool tidbit isn’t it?
The Cyrillic script wasn't used for writing in Romanian up until the 16th century, when we have the first written Romanian text using a Slavonic orthography and most certainly an ad-hoc implementation of a script the people hadn't written Romanian with. All the texts up to that point had been in Slavonic. The Bulgarians didn't convert the people in their own language and made no effort of speaking to them in Romanian. I left another comment explaining the religious history up to that point, and how the Bulgarians uniquely did not need to speak the language of the people in order to spread Orthodoxy, on account of the already Christianized Romanians which they encountered. Romanian then swiftly became the language of the peasant and the inferior, and was not used in Church or Chancellery up until most favorably the 16th, but also 17th and 18th centuries (due to opposition from the clergy). Please check the Wikipedia article on "Româna liturgică" in Romanian, if you know how to read the language. The local rite was the Hispano-Gallican rite prior to Byzantine conversion, that also enforced Slavonic. Dosoftei writes in the 17th century that "He which speaketh in a tongue (not understood by the people) walls himself off: but he that telleth in a tongue walls off the whole Church." In that period, great efforts at speaking to the people in their language had begun within the Church, first with the Protestants which were the first to translate fragments of the Bible in Romanian, and then with Latin becoming moreso seen as a language of the elite and this association bringing Romanian out of it's previous condemnation as a peasant's tongue (during the reign of Cantemir and Brâncoveanu)
I must say, this video is pretty informative and so far afcurate. However my problem stems with the Second Bulgarian Empire. While it is true that the Asen Dynasty were Vlachs, they quickly adopted a Bulgarian identity and the language, while also the practice of calling themselves rulers of Bulgarians and Vlachs ended with Tsar Kaloyan who viewed King of The Vlachs as a secondary title as it was quite common to have a lot of titles back then. Example: Several Bulgarian Tsars also claimed to be Tsars of Bulgarians and Greeks. Also tbf, it wasn't overtime that the Bulgarian element overtook the Vlach but pretty much almost since the start. And while some did call it "Vlachia", the rulers mainly called it Bulgaria and mainly sooke Bulgarian while also most sources called it Bulgaria. Also tbf, it is most likely that Wallachia also started moreso as a Bulgarian autonomous vassal state or atleast became one as Bulgaria owned it as late as the 1300's as they got it back from the Mongols awhile ago by then. For example, Wallachia was part of Bulgaria during Tsar Ivan Alexander.
😂 Spoke what? For Romanians, Bulgarian language is as strange as Swahili. Romanian language is the reason why Bulgarian language has definite articles.
@@nestingherit7012The nobility did, but I don't deny the commoners not understanding a thing and never did I claim they did. But such influences from the way the nobles spoke it snuck in a bit into the language.
@@flavi9692 It was an abandoned Genoese or Greek (really can't remember) port that some Moldavian pirates captured in the 1400s and it later became part of the Moldavian principality. It was used for trading with the Crimean Tatars and with the Genoese. Also it was called Vozia by the Moldavians.
17:11 No, there was a Turkic people called the blackis in Transylvania at that time. Just because some people called the Romanians the same name does not discount the validity of these Turks.
The Turkic Blackis are a difficult subject, because we don't know if they actually existed. We know of a Turkic population called Ulaqis/Bulaqis south of the Urals, but whether this population made it to Transylvania is super unclear. Every time the word "Blackis" or some version of it in Transylvania is defined in sources they call them Italian/Roman colonists or something similar, never Turks. Examples include The Gesta Hunnorum et Hunnarorum which calls them Shepards and Settlers of the Romans, Jon Kinnamos calls them Blachos/Vlachos/Flachos and says they are descendants of Italian colonists in Dacia, the Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis says the native "Blachos de Villa Petri" were upset the land they've had for thousands of years was being given to the newcoming Germans, and more. The one source that supports the Bulaqis being in Transylvania(ish) is William of Rubrick, who confusingly claims that during the Hunnic migration came the Bulgars Vandals and Blacs. With the Blacs coming from greater Blachia south of the Urals, but are also called Iliac and are the origins of the Iliac in the land of Asani, which is between Constantinople and Bulgaria and lesser Hungary (either referring to Moesia, Wallachia or Transylvania). But most likely he's just confused because of similar names, because in the land of Assen (the Vlach who created the second Bulgarian Empire) we know the Romanians are, whether that be Moesia, Wallachia or Transylvania, because by the point William wrote this, the Second Bulgarian Empire was established by Vlachs and Bulgarians, the state of Ilaut existed, soon to become Wallachia and Romanians had already been mentioned in Transylvania. Although it is still a super confusing source so 🤷
The video is super interesting, but (maybe it's just me) it was so hard to follow the story with the constant music in the background 😵😫 although I did love the soundtack 😄
It was sorta too far hack for me to consider it a Romanian culture for this video but for sure we need to talk about it at some point, the old pottery culture types are super interesting to look at! 😁
@@thieph We aren't Romans, and we did not get assimilated by Slavs, but embraced their strong culture and language after which the old Bulgarian language would be used as a tool to spread our culture and religion to the all the other Slavs in Europe.
@@RosTheXD bruh, search about thracians and how they got romanizied, then they become slavicized as today bulgarians. Your DNA is not like ukrainians, why do you think bulgarians have dark hair and eyes and ukranians not so much?
Collect me if I'm wrong but the word Dracula and Romanian become become the name of devil and that become anonymous that he the son of the devil and not the original name the son of the Dragon
Dont rely on a source was written 800 years after the fact. Your quote on the greek Kekaumenos does not really mean anything. Yes dacians were north and south of the danube. By 1075 AD, the Vlachs were under byzentine rule. All vlachs under byzentine rule were forced to be eastern orthadox. Thus romanian eastern orthadox tradition today. Under hungary at the time, eastern orthadox was banned. This was still centuries before Vlachs entered wallacia and transylvania in the 13th century. This means that if the daco roman continuation theory was true and the dacians were in fact living in trasnylvania at the time, Romania would certainly be roman catholic. Also you skipped past hundreds of years in the imbetween period of the formation of romanian states in the 13th century from the Vlach migration north of the danube and the 1st to 3rd century when the dacians were invaded by Rome. After which, they were no longer a state. Do you think a stateless unorganized peoples could live in transylvania for hundreds of years? Transylvania was heavily resource rich and there is no evidence of dacians living there past the 3rd cenutry. Dozens of differant peoples came in and out of the now romania area. None of which were eager to have a orthadoxy people living in their land taking their gold and silver from transylvania. Everything points to the romanians coming stright from the vlachs in the 13th century. And i think that the quote by Kekaumenos is faulty for several reasons. 1. Dacians were a broad group of people. 2. there was differant types of "vlachs" and 3. There is conflicting sources from the same time period. I have seen many sources which describe the Vlachs as living exclusively south of the Danube as migrants moving east. I can knitpick any one of those broad quotes and it would be just as irrelevant.
Dw bro, I've got a video for you in the future on my view for this topic. The script's nearly done, a couple more revisions. I apologize that it'll take a bit longer tho because studying for the bac will take all of my effort for now. So stick around and if I haven't convinced you there then I don't think I'll be able to 😉
Hey sorry, before I finish the script for my Dacian-Romanian continuity video, could you link me the source you mentioned about conflicting primary sources that say the Vlachs exclusively came from South of the Danube? I haven't been able to find them, but I might just be looking in the wrong place. Also same for the source that says Hungary outlawed Eastern Orthodoxy, I cant find anything like that either. It would be a huge help, cheers 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre Yes i would happily. There aren't any contemporary sources mentioning Vlach's north of the danube until the later half of the 11th century. This is significant because sources like byzantine chronicles (10 century), Ioannes Kinnamos's historia (12th century) Kekaumenos, Anna Komnena book Alexia, ( daughter of the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnen 1083-1148), Georgios Kedrenos, Niketas (Nikhetas) Choniates ( Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XI: 12-13 centuries, Cf., Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, p. 250, note 21.), These are most of all contemporary sources i could find mentioing vlachs from around the 10th century to 12th century. And not a single one says that the vlachs were from north of the lower danube. In fact, some of my sources i just gave you, clearly reffer to hungarians as Dacians, further expanding the validity that the term dacian at the time was referred to by a geographical term more then a cultural one. Now, some of these sources are debated on where the romanians were mentioned, because of broad geographical terms used in them to describe the location of the vlachs, such as Kekaumenos's writings "near the savas river where the serbians live today". But most of these arguments againsed the sources are easily picked apart. For example, in reference to the example i gave you, some romanian historians argue that Kekaumenonos was refferring to north of the danube. however, the author does not mention any carpathain mountains, or any mountains at all in that text. The only mountains he does mention, is the mountains of the lower balkins, where all the other sources can confirm the vlachs were. The Niketas (Nikhetas) Choniates source also has some debate around it. The scholarly consensus, highlighted by "the prominent Romanian scholar and foremost expert on Dacia Traiana, Constantin Daicoviciu" tells us that the romanian interpretation of the source mentioned in regards to the vlachs possibly being from north of the danube is false. Pre 10th century sources such as the Priscus at the court of Atilla, which takes place in the carpathian mountains, make no mention of these vlachs, or even native roman speakers. And mentions many characters, (i suggest you read it its very intresting), of the ammount, you would expect to see some romanian or at least native latins, of whom you dont. So if you actually look for sources in this, you absolutely will find them, if you look for the romanian distoration of history, you will fall short with repetitive mentions of geulo and glad that was written 300+ years after the fact, by a writer who directly worked for the king, who merely wanted to increase the land value since the estate sales were at a all time high when it was written. If you want me to, i can link sources to everything i just stated.
@schutzanzug6731 Hey, I appreciate the sources, but I already knew about these and they're all banking on absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. The original comment said he had sources that from what I understood would be of the Hungarian perspective in the middle ages commenting about how the Romanians are newcomers or that they hadn't been north of the Danube until recently I will have to push back about the Hungarians ever being called Dacians. My reasoning being, Anna Komnene talks about the Dacians north of the Danube in 1081 saying they push other groups south with their aggression, but she also says the Dacians live north of the Balkan mountains, which happens to be where we know Romanians were as well, so most likely Anna is calling Daco-Romanians in the north Dacians, meanwhile she exclusively uses Vlachs for the Aromanians living in Greece and North Macedonia and some Megleno Romanians which act as guides in the Balkan mountains. This can't be a geographic term because north of the Balkan mountains is traditionally Moesia, not Dacia, which would either be north of the Danube or in modern day Serbia. If you have a source that clearly makes a connection between her calling Hungarians Dacians, I'll reconsider, I could always be wrong, but for now this appears the most likely. Then of course there are actually other sources that mention Romanians north of the danube pre 1200s. I believe that before the 1200s it's not that Romanians werent north of the Danube, but just that they weren't called Vlachs, because later sources always go backwards and say Vlachs were there but meanwhile sources from the time call them Romans or Dacians. Case in point in the 500s Maurice notes in the strategikon that there are Romans north of the Danube who "forget their kind" and help the Slavs, in 545 Procopius notes that some slavs learned Latin so well in present day Moldovs that they fooled Romans into thinking they were generals, in 860 Emmerich of Elwagen says that the Dacians are one the groups north of the Danube, and in the 11th century Gardizi says there's a Roman population north of the Danube who are more numerous than the Hungarians but weaker and without rights, but calls them NNDR. Only later sources call this group Vlachs, like the Russian Primary Chronicle which says the Vlachs settled in the Carpathian mountains but were defeated by the Hungarians, the Gesta Hungarorum (and the Gesta Hungarorum et Hunnarorum) calling them Blackis, with the GHEH specifying they are colonists and shepards of the romans, the German Song of the Nibelung saying the Vlachs were present in Atillas court, the Weltchronic which says Charlemagne found Vlachs in his attacks on Pannonia, the Descriptio Europae Orientalis which says the Vlachs had 10 Kings who were defeated by Arpad. Then by the 1100s the term Vlach spreads from only being used for the Aromanians to also being used for the Daco-Romanian, where for example John Kinnamos says the Vlachs, spelled either Blachos, Vlachos or Flachos (he can't make up his mind) as being descendants of Italian colonists and fighting against the Hungarians. Also just a neat bonus in 1366 the Hungarians note that the Indigenous Vlachs (Blachos de Villa Petri) complain that the land which had been theirs for thousands of years was being given to German newcomers, (Teutones aduenae, Teutones ad praedium Hussalseiff) (…ut territorium suum ultra mille annos possesum dissipetur). So there's a Hungarian source saying the Vlachs were there first. Also you mention Priscus, but he says it's super common for people to speak Latin or Ausonian as he calls it north of the Danube, especially if they interact with the Romans. He says it's rare for them to speak Greek, nothing proving or disproving a population speaking native Latin there. But I am sorta on vacation after finishing my bac so I'll get back to making a proper video on this topic in a few weeks maybe, lemme know if anything here doesn't stand up to scrutiny and I'll look into it, have a good day 😁 Also I will say that I've never heard such a good explanation for the Gesta before, smart!
“--so most likely Anna is calling Daco-Romanians in the north Dacians, meanwhile she exclusively uses Vlachs for the Aromanians living in Greece and North Macedonia and some Megleno Romanians which act as guides in the Balkan mountains” Yes I agree, this only further proves that antiquated geographical terms were used to describe peoples. “. If you have a source that clearly makes a connection between her calling Hungarians Dacians, I'll reconsider” Chronographic by the Byzantine historian Leo the Deacon refers to the Hungarians as Dacian. When describing the Battle of Arcadiopolis in 970 CE, Leo writes "When the Dacians, who are also called Turks, learned of this, they gathered a huge army and marched against the Romans." Here, he is clearly referring to the Hungarians, who were known as the "Turks" by the Byzantines at the time. In another passage, Leo writes about the Hungarians raiding Byzantine territories "The Dacians, who are also called Turks, made frequent incursions into the Roman domains, plundering and destroying everything in their path." This is clearly a example of when the byzentines refferd to a peoples by their broad antiquated geographical term which was used in the roman times, which the Byzantines did to promote the idea that they are the successor to the roman empire, which is true. “Priscus, but he says it's super common for people to speak Latin or Ausonian as he calls it north of the Danube, especially if they interact with the Romans.” first mention". For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin" second mention ", his dress, his voice, and his words, which were a confused jumble of Latin, Hunnic, and Gothic" third mention "but a barbarian who sat beside me and knew Latin, bidding me not reveal what he told" There was only 3 mentions of the word latin in his work. For refference, barbarian is mentioned 25 times, scythian 30. Though, In my opinion, at his time, latin was todays English, even though it was on the decline.
21:15 “ 3 Romanian principalities” in the 1200’s to 1300’s Transylvania was not a Romanian principality by any standard. It was ruled by Hungarian nobles, with Romanian serfs working the land on the nobles behalf.
Depends on what a "Romanian Principality" means in your book, in Romanian historiography it refers to the 3 principalities that would unite to make Romania. So Transylvania would be considered a Romanian principality no matter the make up of the population or nobility. That being said, the vast majority of serfs and therefore the population was Romanian and at the beginning the Romanians did actually have some nobility, for example the archbishop of Strigonius, Lodomerius send a letter addressing the Hungarian, Saxon, Szeklely and Romanian nobles in Sibiu and Borsa then in 1281 King Andrew III held an assembly which included the Vlach nobles. Although these nobles would either assimilate to Hungarians or would be pushed into lesser importance, at the beginning of the Principality of Transylvania they did exist.
@@thatstorm_spectre So your saying if hungary invades and united all of Romania with itself everything will be Hungarian? Even if the population and the nobility are Romanian? That is what im taking away from what your saying.
@@schutzanzug6731 Its a bit of a weird comparison but think about how in the United Kingdom Scottland is considered one of the Historical British countries even before the United Kingdom existed or irrespective of English influence on the country.
O7. Trianon was pretty harsh for Hungary, but all treaties at the time were almost unnecessarily brutal. But we're all in the EU together now so it doesn't really matter anymore 😁
i apreciate the effort but as a romanian myself he got some things wrong like vlads cruelty wich was greatly exagerated and i dont like how he skiped most of the 16th century but i understand beacuse that is a not so nice period of romanian history and not many pepole care about it wich its a shame i could say the same about the 17th century but he didnt cover it in this epsode hovever if you wish to learn romanian history in detail i sugest istoria romaniei podcast by calina however its in romanian. You can find it on spotify or even on youtube
Salut frate, yea I considered talking about things like the Principalities semi independance and the increased subjugation under the Fanarioți, but these periods in my view lacked interesting events to point to in order to keep the story going, and with only the first part of the History being 40 minutes I had to cut some things. With Vlad I hope I made it clear that his deeds were imbellished by the Sași and while he did do a lot of the "bad" things he's accuses of its nowhere near what the Sași claim. I will actually take a look at the podcast, you can never be too knowledgeable on something 😁 Oricum, mersi frate, și sper că o să stai să vezi și partea a 2-a. Plus acum lucrez la un videoclip despre Dacii, așa că poate vrei să remăi pentru ăsta 😉
@@thatstorm_spectre I will shurely chek them out and i hope you like the podcast by the way i hope that it changes your view as it changed mine and as a lover of history i think we should apreciate it all (and yea that is my favourite period of history...) I love your work frate keep going (and i sugest that you rank the romanian voievoedes and princes well at least some of them just in wallachia there are over 90 princes )
32:16 "so back to vlad, like any good ruler..." AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH! You just said like 5 mins earlier he put poor people in a building and lit it on fire lmao
Yes, he put "poor people" in a house and burned it to the ground. But they were not ordinary poor people. Keep in mind that since the death of Mircea the Elder, Vallachia was riffed with civil wars between House of Draculesti and House of Danesti. Two noble houses that competed (and fought) for the throne. Vallachia was full of poor disbanded fighters from previous figths, that had nothing to do, a breeding ground for banditry. Vlad decided to weed out the roots of the rampant banditry by getting rid of those useless wanderers, leaving conscience objections aside. After all, he was a ruler, not a monk. :)
Heya! So this video is only the first half of my inițial video în the entire history of Romania, but it became too long (over 1 hour) and I had to split it in half. The modern part will hopefully be uploaded în a week or two. Thank you all so much for watching, and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Thank christ, because i was excited for the next parts, but the video ended, with no part 1 in the title. Great video and keep up the amazing quality :3
I am a romanian who loves history, but the one that s true. I don t even know where to begin to tell you how many mistakes you made in this video. I am curious from where you got your informations?
@@rohandiana1789 According to all data from the archives, linguists specializing in toponyms agree that there are no settlement names or geographical names of Wallachian - Romanian origin before the 13th century in the Kingdom of Hungary, which included Transylvania! The conclusion of specialized historians and linguists is that a larger population that settled somewhere for at least a century, had to leave traces of the names of settlements, rivers - streams - mountains and valleys somewhere! Very few peoples have given names of localities and geographical names as logical, with a meaning, as the Szeklers and Magyars did. There is a document called "Regestrum Varadense" from the Kingdom of Hungary (the Oradean register) which contains about 711 locality names and about 2500 personal names, registered between 1205 and 1238. No name or locality name in this register has Romanian origins! But the Romanians did not build any fortress or city in Transylvania, nor in Banat or Crişana! What's more, the Romanian word oraş - city clearly comes from the ancient Hungarian word varas -város, which has been used by Hungarians for over 1500 years! Likewise, in the history of Transylvania, from all the medieval archives at the end of the 13th century, out of 511 names, we find only 3 names of Romanian origin! But not only do place names and geographical names not exist, there are also no cemeteries of the Vlachs or the fictional "Daco-Romanians" in these areas!
The Hungarian archives contain data on the arrival of the first Vlach settlers, when in the 1210s, King András II settled the Vlachs in the area of Fogaras - Făgăraş and Hátszeg - Haţeg on to the royal lands! The vast majority of Romanians are misled even by that you do not know the origin of these names, because you do not know Hungarian, that these counties all had ancient Hungarian names, such as Fogaras - from the ancient Hungarian word "fog" - "fogas" which means tooth and catch, or Hátszeg from the ancient Hungarian words "hát" and "szeg" which means back and nail, but in Romanian it means nothing, neither the word Făgăraş nor the word Haţeg! This is just like the ancient name of Transylvania, which the Romanians have no idea about, because it was Erdőelve and not Erdély, which meant areas beyond the forest, only the medieval Hungarians combined these names and that is why it became Erdély. It became Transylvania in Latin because it was originally translated from the Hungarian Erdőelve from the 11th century, when Vlachs didn't even live anywhere like this, because then they would have called it "Ţara de dincolo de păduri" in Romanian! But since many bigots did not know about these, they started to invent that Erdély was originally Ardealul, and they wrote such nonsense that this meant Ară dealul and all kinds of impossibilities, when etymologically it is clear that the first Vlachs made Ardeal from Erdély!
The northern migration of the Romanians is described in the chronicle Letopisetul Cantacuzinesc, which was written in the early 1700s and this part of which was tried to be erased from the Romanian memory, but it is not taught anywhere in Romania! I quote first time the original Romanian text: "Insă dintâi izvodindu-se de rumânii carii s-au despărţit de la romani şi au pribegit spre miiazănoapte. Deci trecând apa Dunării, au descălecat la Turnul Severinului; alţii în Ţara Ungurească, pre apa Oltului, şi pre apa Morăşului, şi pre apa Tisei ajungând şi până la Maramurăş."
Quotes from the newsletters about the genetic research, which were also published in the Bulgarian newspaper Novinite: "The Romanian genome is 50-60 percent of Slavic origin, similar to its Balkan neighbors, Bulgaria and Croatia," the comprehensive study revealed. The paper added that the Serbian, Spanish and research carried out in collaboration with American scientists sheds light on the prevalence of Slavic genes in the region."
"According to the results published by the Serbian agency Tanjug, Bulgarians, Romanians and Croatians have the highest Slavic gene concentration. In contrast, Greeks have the lowest presence of this genetic heritage: it ranges between 4 and 20 percent," they wrote. All of this may have had an unpleasant effect on the Romanians, because for decades they have been promoting the Dacian-Romanian theory, which is a theory based on the kinship of the Romanian and Latin languages."
I'm the first of my Romanian family to be born in America. I find the history of my people to be fascinating. Great job with the video!
God damn, I'm impressed.
This might be one of the best videos I've seen covering Romanian history.
There's some nitpicking here and there about certain events or if certain people were/weren't Romanians plus some map errors but other than that well done.
You've earned a new subscriber.
Thank you so much. Please feel free to tell me what I did wrong, I can always learn more! 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre Honestly the main thing that I feel should've been added is that the istro-romanians probably moved to Istria from Transylvania much later probably at some point during the Ottoman occupation of Hungary. Other than that I think the rest of my nitpicks are more personal rather than anything I can cite :D
Much support from Bulgaria!
Cheers другарю, may your nation prosper evermore! 🇷🇴🤜🤛🇧🇬
May our nations stay together in the future 🇧🇬🤝🇷🇴
I'm impressed by Romanian sense of self-irony. Cheers from Ukraine :)
As a hungarian I cant write anything nice to you. (Love for romanian history and peoples from hungary, you are one of the most generous people in the world).🇭🇺❤🇷🇴
Why do you have to be sarcastic?..There is only hate and envy from hungarians toward us ..Keep your jokes on your court man
@@alexandrupopa6235 I'm wasn't sarcastic..................
@@alexandrupopa6235 Its because she miswrote a common phrase in english. The right way to say it is: I can't write anything nice enough to you. It may sound like an insult but it is a compliment. maybe dont judge people for their english when it clearly isnt your first language either
@@fanmixman8831 Do you think the Assyro-Babylonians allow us to be friends?
Aw much love to you back, I personally love Hungary and its people, language, food, and culture! Szertlek szomszéd! 🫶🏻🇭🇺🇷🇴
Very impressed by the video as a Romanian, bravo. The wording especially at the beginning while important in specification, you got it right on the mark, not technically balkan but right above it; really just in the middle of where everything in the region meets. Bravo din nou, acesta este cu ușurință unul dintre cele mai bune videoclipuri ale istoriei României de pe internet și, mai de departe; cel mai bun în limba engleză! 🎉
dude! thank you for all the time and intentional effort you put into this video. as a romanian living in america, i'm having a hard time understanding the timeline of our history but this video helped a ton
ROMANIA MENTIONED 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴💪💪💪
But jokes aside it's a very well done video, I hope you keep doing more in the future.
there are better in english, the best are made by a welsh guy
A really excellent video for your start as a history UA-camr. I look forward to seeing you cover modern Romanian history.
That parts already out 😁
Although it'll probably be the last video for 3 or so weeks until I finish finals
@@thatstorm_spectre caught up with that one now and enjoyed it too! What do you plan on covering next? If you intend to stay in the niche of Romania and the wider region then histories of other national groups nearby would be very interesting as it’s quite a neglected region in terms of content. History on specific fascinating minority groups like the Transylvanian Saxons (and other Danubian Germans), Aromanians and Gypsies/Roma could be really interesting too and quite unique.
@@PartiesandPolitics I would certainly like to talk about more than just Romania. For now I'm definitely tired of discussing Romania lol. I'm thinking to discuss the differences between the German nations next, but talking about the regional French identities or the ethnic makeup of Russia is also a possibility. Or I might completely change my mind before I start researching lol, we'll see
honestly, this video was brilliant, really enjoyed watching it!
However there was a fairly significant time skip between the principalities becoming vassals and the unification. Rulers such as Constantin Brancoveanu(who has a whole architectural style named after him) or Dimitrie Cantemir are historical figures worth mentioning. Also the Fanariot epoch as it was called was a very dark age for the country that can be a source for much of our corruption today ngl. During that period the thrones of the nation were literally held up for auction and every leader's goal was to find the most effective way to exploit the country and get back their money during their short reign. It's also worth mentioning how the nation was significantly orientalized. The story of the 1821 uprising is very interesting and tudor vladimirescu and his panduri are definetely worth talking about. This may be a bit nitpicky though, but I feel these 2 centuries were glossed over.
Anyhow, felicitari ! ai facut un video foarte reusit, frumos si entertaining ! bafta in continuare, ai castigat un abonat nou !
How was Romania orientalised?
Fantastic video man. Very entertaining and informative.
Very well put together! Keep it up man
This was very entertaining and teached me some new facts like the fact that Romanians became Cossacks! Good video and I cant wait for the 2nd video!
Your channel needs to explode! One of the best countryball educational channels!!!
THANK YOU (multumesc foarte mult) -- you explain the history, etymology and events VERY well !!!
This is great stuff frate
Love from a Greek-Romanian!
i'm already waiting your next video mate,well done
Love your work! so good to find a new history channel that 1: isn't AI, and 2: is long form and meme'y
Excellent video, well done!
Congratulations on a well-made and, obviously, well-researched video about Romanian history.
Beautiful video, my only criticism is that the music is slightly too loud, I can't hear your beautiful voice, keep it up though, this channel has a good future!
Thank you! I has the same problem last time with music being too loud. I thought I'd fixed it but I'll drop it some more for the next part! 😁
I’m bingeing Romanian history videos and I have to say there are quite a few videos… not necessarily with 3000 years in one video but you can find videos about every period….
At least for me when I started out on my journey of learning history there were only I think 3 or 4 major videos about the wide view regarding the Romanians and a couple other popular ones about specific things like the Romanian revolution and Vlad III and Stefan the great
Since then there's definitely more videos, but I hope I still managed to bring some fresh knowledge to the table for those interested in this little countries history 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre the more the merrier… I enjoyed your video too.
It is said that the Forest of Impaled people were all the captured people Vlad III Tepes Dracula he had taken from his incursions in Bulgaria as he would relate in a letter to Mathias Corvinus the exact number and then the ottomans would count the people that the forest was made up of, and the numbers matched.
So long story short we are Dacians that got latinised by the Roman Empire with the consequence of our territory getting split up. Later on, with the invasions of turkic and slavic tribes (mainly) we could not recover from our previous wars and had to scatter around the old Dacian province playing nice, making both friends and enemies along the way. This way we managed to create new smaller provinces that would finally unite and create what today is Romania.
Very good video and a great follow up from your Spain vs. Romania comparative video essay. Super excited for the more modern history that has all the juicy political nuance!
Very good job stealing 38 minutes of my time on a excellent video, romanians will be proud
The quality of these videos is entirely too high for such a low subscriber count. Glad I stumbled upon the channel. Please keep educating us!
Can't wait for part 2
10:16 I keep coming back to this video, its very well made, but i was wondering can you please tell me the source for this? I can't find it in the Moesia wiki page nor in the Carpi one.
I wanna know where does it say they imported Carpis in Moesia because I've been trying to find anything about it for hours🙏🏻
For sure! The claim that Rome settled the Carpii in Moesia comes from Aurelius Victor, who wrote that all of the Carpii were moved to Moesia. Of course this is likely Hyperboly. This next one I haven't read myself but supposedly Ammianus mentions the Carpii that had been settled in the Empire twice in his works
@@thatstorm_spectre Thanks a lot man
@@thatstorm_spectreHi, its me again, here's what i found...
The Carpi were sent to Scythia Minor and Pannonia, both of which are pretty far from the origin place of romanians that's thought (dacia aureliana/moesia superior).
I looked up the source you gave me but Aurelius Victor only says they were sent to "the same place Aurelian sent them" without saying which one, and Aurelian sent them to Pannonia.
I've tried looking for mentions of Carpi in Ammianus's waitings too, and he also says they were sent to Pannonia.
I couldn't find anything linking the carpis with moesia (both superior and inferior) outside the fact that they raided it...
I would've loved this to be true which is why I came back to you for some direct quote or anything that maybe I didn't find
@@nih0nium24 hey man! For sure, my first source regarding the Dacians south of the Danube was the book The Lost Romans by Mircea Davidescu, on page 28 it says "About 50.000 Dacian refugees were transfered south of the Danube during Augustus reign (Strabo, 1924, VII, 3, 10) and an additional 100.000 were settled into Moesia (the northern half of Bulgaria) by Nero (Braund, 1984, pp. 136-137). A Dacian society was starting to form south of the Danube if Roman epigeaphic sources are anything to go by. The Dacians south of the Danube were thus already experiencing Romanization by the late first century AD." Then on page 47 he says "...Dacia was not just handed over to Barbarians, and Aurelian's protective policies strongly suggest he was forced to leave the colonists behind (Husar, 2002, p. 632). (Furthermore) indirect evidence for this is that Aurelian settled the Carpi south of the Danube in 272, and many other barbarian settlements followed (Watson, 1999, p. 157) making it clear that the southern provinces had not been repopulated by Roman colonists from the north."
I hope this helps!
Also, edit, Scythia Minor is modern day Dobrogea, and is a part of Moesia in most settings. Meanwhile I generally don't actually think the Romanians formed in Dacia Aureliana, and neither do any of my sources, I've found no substantial evidence to say the Romanian identity formed there. I'd argue the most likely place that Romanians were formed is Moesia (just south of the Danube) and Dacia Traiana, just north of the Danube. Likely the Romanians from north of the Danube spoke a more "corrupted" Romanian with more Gothic, Turkic etc influences, but in the end, the Romanian dialect south of the Danube mostly won out, probably due to them being more organized than the rural population of the former Dacia Traiana. But that's just my theory. I'm working on a massive video on the Origin of the Romanians and the Dacian connection. Although I need maybe another month before I can release it! 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre Thanks man I really appreciate it, also, most modern theory is the one about Dacia Aureliana because thats where kekaumenenos placed the homeland of vlachs and most historians believe Romanians are latinized thraco-illyrians
(main inhabitants of the area), but if youre right about Moesia then this might be revolutionary, i love history and how it changes all the time... i just find it so weird why wikipedia has nothing about this stuff and only talks about the Pannonian dacians
Having watched this video entirely, nevemind the second half that is just as long, and as good, I'm seriously surprised you put an hour worth of visuals and researched information. Though for as long as this great recap was, i felt like there could've been less corners cut (franlly i dont know whether this would have intetested the non romanians, as on latter side, most of us natives, were sort of here to admire and rate the accuracy of what was retold)
Nevertheless, 6k views is criminally underappreciated, hope you continue on gaining attention. Best of luck!
missed a few important notes:
1. Emperor Trajan killing spree also meant sending (out of his way) a dacian legion to the damp rock of Britania and they left some marks there, mainly Wales
2. Vlad the Impaler was smeared by the saxon merchants and because they refused to pay the tariffs he went hard on them like the ottoman delegates
3. I think Baba Novac was caught by the huns and boiled in Transylvania
4. The Cuza union was not out of the blue as the Kingdom of Moldavia got scared shtless when the Russian Tzardom just felt like outright annexing half of it. This was a big deal as Walchia, Moldova and for the most time Transylvania as well were used only to client state status. So Moldova went ham on pushing the union. Basically Moldova as being less time under Ottoman influence was the center of romanian culture while Walachia was the martial power. As France was at that time pretty ousted or left from most important colonies, it focused on a beef with the Ottomans and people should know even today that France takes latinity world wide pretty serious so romanians keeping that frame in face of ridiculous adversity was probably awe inspiring to them.
5. How dare you not mention the second best friend international backer of a unified Romanian state: the USA on the frame of manifest destiny. The damp rock empire was always pissy, but in anticipation of the next part, once profit was in sight, they were major backers of developing the oil industry at least.
Yea, the Dacian legions I want to touch on in a video about Dacian-Romanian continuation, but I did forget to mention it here
More discussion about Vlad and the Saxons was probably warranted, I kinda didn't mention why he and they didn't get along so well
I know he was boiled alive but I dont remember who it was, I doubt it was the Huns tho
Honestly I didn't know this, that makes a lot of sense, especially considering how Iași looks compared to București, but that could have also been the Communist influence
And yea I should've praised the Americans a bit. But maybe that'll wait till I make a video about them
We'll see 😁
Thanks for the video, greetings from Bulgaria :)
very good video mate. You've done your reasearch about the history of the romanian people,
Keep up the good work! Thanks!!
Hahahaha, bro, I can't tell you why, but your last name is awesome! A really rare name there! You should be proud
Amazing video! Please lower the background music a little bit, but still an amazing video I'm glad Romania is finally getting some recognition
were do you live
Romania have a old and very nice history ❤❤❤
Bravo! Continua cu istoria României!
13:22 this is where Dacia Aureliana was formed with the capital of the Province being Sofia, Bulgaria.
At 36:05 , wasn't that the Banat of Craiova? Was it Hungary or Austria that snatched that? cause I don't remember it being Hungary but at the same time it was all under the Habsburgs. I was pretty certain it was the Austrians, but I don't know.
That part is also totally off. He probably meant the Fogaras Declaration (Declaratio in Protectionem Cesareo-Regiam), in which the Principal Mihály Apafi and the assembly of Transsylvania declared that from now on they quit the vassalhood of the Ottomans and declared loyalty to the Habsburg Leopold I. Hungary "snatched" nothing, Hungary at the time had no independent foreign policy, it was a province of the Habsburg empire. Then in the Habsburg-Ottoman war (1716-1718) the empire reconquered the Temesköz (I dont know what the Romanians call it), and aimed to retake Belgrade. In the Peace of Pozarevac, the Sultan gave over Belgrade, plus "Little Wallachia" (Oltenia) to the Habsburgs. This treaty made the liberation of Hungary complete from Ottoman rule.
@@somodizoltan We don't have a word for Temesköz (I found some maps subdividing larger geographical regions that do mark that section as the Timis or Banat plain), I know it's sort-of the Romanian Banat. In geography as we learn it here, that isn't a distinct plain, but apart of the Tisza plains. When we speak strictly of Romanian geography that whole region is called the Western Plain, covering the border with Hungary and Serbia. Each nation has their own particular ways of analyzing these things, different naming conventions. We split the Carpathian mountains again in a way that is sort-of strange.
Yea this was a bit of an error on my part. I'd always seen this portrayed with Oltenia as a part of Hungary (of course under the Habsburg domination). It took some digging for me to find the "Empire Autricien au XVIII. siecle" map, which shows that yea, it was a seperate Banat, although it also shows the Banat of Timisoara or Temesvar as seperate from Hungary too. The maps I've seen have it administered as a part of Hungary but those could've been wrong
@@thatstorm_spectre In the first few decades after Eugene of Savoy drove the Turks out, the Banat of Timisoara was indeed separate of Hungary - it was under direct imperial administration. Only towards the end of the century did the Austrian emperor transfer administration of the Banat of Timisoara to Hungary.
13:22 No, that’s false. The book stragicon makes no mention of the Carpathian Mountains. Neither mention of any mountain ranges along the Danube for the matter. If kommenicos was referring to north of the Danube why did he neglect any phrases which would suggest so? With this in mind, stragicon most certainly did not say the vlachs were north of the Danube in this period. In fact it wasn’t until much later that the vlachs, bessian, Slavic by ethnicity, Illyrian-roman by culture, and Dacian by geography were mentioned north of the Danube.
Yes I misspoke, you can see instead on the map I had visible where he most likely was referring to, near the Sava and Danube. It's still debated exactly what he meant by this but that's beyond this specific video.
But I am curious what you meant at the end by "Bessian and Slavic in ethnicity, Illyro-Roman in culture and Dacian in geography".
I'll assume you're using the American definition of Ethnicity which means genetics, yea the Vlachs were probably genetically similar to the Slavs by this point thanks to interbreeding, and Bessian means Thracian which I would agree with but I don't know if you meant that. Culturally Illyro-Roman is a stretch that can't really be defended or attacked. We don't know culturally if the Vlachs held onto Illyrian, or Thraco-Dacian cultures, but we know they had some kind of Paleo Balkan remnants. Geographically it's more likely Dacian/Thracian in culture, considering that the Illyrians were rather far from Moesia and Dacia were the Vlachs were. I've sent you a bunch of sources about Vlachs/Romans/Dacians north of the Danube before the 1200s on a different comment so take a look at those if you feel like it. And geographically Dacian I assume you mean that they live in what used to be Dacia, which yea that makes sense.
Sorry it's just that I've never seen it phrased that way. But definitely an interesting way to see it 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre Yes the bessians are a synonym for the thracians south of the danube. I did mean everything I wrote, and they are illyro roman because unlike dacia, there is a scholarly consensus on the romanization of Illyria, along with genetic evidence which points to the Romanians being Illyrian by ethnicity (see why are Romanians related or descended from the Albanians) along with illyrians living in and out of Illyria speaking the latin language. This also explains the migratory patterns of the Romanians in the southern balkins. The non Romanian vlach populations still in parts of Illyria and Thessaloniki are of (most likely) Illyrian origin, and speak latin. There wasn’t a particularly distinct Illyrian culture, they were roman, and spoke latin. Also illyrians are the only people that would have been able to speak latin and be able to be in the physical geography of the southern Balkans, since all other peoples, discluding dacians spoke Greek instead of latin, which was hellanized thraican. Therefore to prove the existence of the vlach population south of the danube, they either are 1. Roman-illyrians. Or 2. Roman-dacians. Both of which prove the migration theory right, since if it was wrong, the vlachs (souther balkins) would have spoken Greek, which they don’t.
@@schutzanzug6731 I see, yes I partially agree, the Romanians must be either Romanized Illyrians or Dacians (Thracians are possible as well as they also lived to the north of the Jirecek line which separated the Latin speaking parts of the Empire from the Greek speaking part). But this doesn't mean that the migration theory is necessarily correct. In my opinion, there were probably Romanians both north and south of the Danube. I've previously sent you some sources that talk about the Romanians north of the Danube prior to the 1200s, but the Romanians are also mentioned in north Moesia a lot like when Theophilacta of Simoncata and Theofanes the confessor mention a unique dialect of Latin being spoken north of the Balkan mountains (Torna Torna Fratre), or when Anna Komnene mentions Dacians north of the Balkan mountains, along with Vlachs being guides through the Balkan mountains and of course the whole Vlach uprising which created the Second Bulgarian Empire.
These along with the sources that place a Romance speaking population north of the Danube make it likely that there existed Romanians on both shores of the Danube, most likely however the Vlachs south of the Danube were more organized (on account of being either a part of the Roman Empire or the Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire, which either way preserved their language better than the north), which is why the modern Romanian language is lacking in things like Eastern German words (although Eastern Germanic languages like Gothic may have Romanian influence like their word for marriage) because the southern dialect won out as the southern Romanians were more organized and uniform than the scattered Romanians in the Carpathian mountain arc whenever the Southern Romanians joined the northern ones.
The fact that the Aromanians of today are below the Jirecek line means they must have moved there from somewhere else, either from Moesia or as Kekaumenos says from near the Danube and Sava, north of the new Dacia Aureliana. Judging from the ethnicy of these areas prior to Roman Conquest, this would make Romanians mostly Dacians with certainly some Thracian or Illyrians within the ranks as well. As North Moesia was primarily Dacian but also included a lot of Thracians, meanwhile the new Dacia Aureliana was split between Dacians and Illyrians. So probably Romanians descend from all of these groups along with many different groups like Italians, Gauls, Iberians, North Africans, Greeks and others because that's who the Romans brought to colonize Dacia. But the overwhelming majority of Romanians are probably descended from Dacians.
Genetically it's hard to prove one way or the other, as Romanians are closest to Bulgarians genetically, this could be because of the many slavs which came and went or it could be from the Thracians and Dacians which inhabited the area and were assimilated into Bulgarians and Romanians but are still genetically similar. It's not like you can find an Illyrian genetic and say definitely Romanians are Illyrians. And as for if Dacia was romanized there's a lot of evidence to say it was but the most important ones are that at the beginning of the Roman occupation of Dacia the names recorded are extremely diverse hinting at many different backgrounds for the population but after a few years the names become extremely uniform with around 75% being Imperial Roman names, showing at least the population took on Roman naming conventions. Then we have records showing that the Roman Legions that were brought in got married to local Dacian women, which would likely mean that the children were going to speak Latin, and finally every single city in Dacia were grates the rights to citizenship as 8 of the 11 Roman settlements in Dacia were granted the title of Coloniae which was the highest title a city could receive showing it was thoroughly Roman and all 11 cities being granted the title of Municipum which was the point at which all inhabitants of the city were made citizens. Then additionally we have a lot of inscriptions left in Dacia and from all of them over 3000 of them are in Latin with second place being in Greek with 40 inscriptions, making Dacia statistically actually the second most Roman province only behind Italy.
@@thatstorm_spectre Some of what you are saying is true, however you have misinformation scatted throughout what you are saying. For example, when you say, “-have moved there from somewhere else, either from Moesia or as Kekaumenos says from near the Danube and Sava, north of the new Dacia Aureliana” Your correct in the fact that they moved there from somewhere else, however its false that Kekaumenos says that the vlachs originated from near the danube and savas. Kekaumenos does mention Vlachs living "near the Danube and Sava" rivers, however I do not see how you can interpret this as if the Romanians migrated/originating from there. Despite archaeological evidence for vlachs south of the danube being everywhere, not a single piece of conclusive archaeological evidence for Vlachs has appeared north of the Danube, at least until the 10th century. This information corroborates with the contemporary sources describing the vlachs and their geography. You also said “- when Anna Komnene mentions Dacians north of the Balkan mountains” From what I can tell, there is no references from Anna Komenene mentioning any dacians north of anything, again the reference to where they were was just near the Danube. This highlights the point that probably some of the sources you are using are willing to twist information to make the daco roman continuity theory more plausible then it really is. And also, I am not denying that it couldn’t have happened, im saying for the most part that the migration theory is more plausible, with much more robust archaeological and contemporary foundings. Anyways, As I pointed out in my last argument, Dacian was commonly used as a antiquated geographical term by the byzentines, since the byzentines considered themselves as a successor to the roman empire.
You also make statements, which claim that the vlachs were north of the danube or “likely” on both shores, reliant on false or heavy interpretations that have no validity or reason. Also the illyrians played a large role in the formation of the vlach/Romanian society, clearly as we can see with evidence such as Procopius and Jordanes, making references to Vlach-speaking populations inhabiting areas that were part of the former Illyrian territories, numerous words and grammatical features that are believed to be of Illyrian origin, and loanwords which are also believed to have been from Illyrian origin. Many place names in regions associated with Vlach populations, have been shown to have Illyrian linguistic roots. This geographic distribution of place names with Illyrian elements suggests a significant Illyrian presence in the areas where Vlachs have traditionally lived. This genetic influence (which we probably wouldn’t be able to see supposing the daco roman continuity is correct), can be seen in modern Romanians, as the descendance of the Illyrians are whom the Romanians are some of the most closely genetically related to, even with Bulgarian and Slavic influence on the Romanians.
@@schutzanzug6731 I'll provide you with what my translations say so we're on the same page
Kekaumenos:
They lived formerly near to the Danube river, and the Saos, the river which we now call the Sava, where Serbs live now, in secure and inaccessible places. Being confident in these (places), they pretended friendship and service to the earlier emperors of the Romans, and used to go out of their strongholds and plunder the lands of the Romans; as a result they were angered with them, and, as has been said, destroyed them. They left those parts, and were scattered throughout all Epirus and Macedonia, but most of them inhabited Hellas.
It looks like he is saying that the Vlachs originated near the Danube and Sava, but from context he seems to be referring to the territory of Dacia (north of the Dabube) as he discusses the Roman conquest of Dacia and then says the Vlachs were scattered and moved south to Epirus, Macedonia and Hellas. This could be interpreted either by emphasizing that he is saying they were from next to the Danube and Sava or by emphasizing the context (of which theres more than what I quoted but its a lot so I wont quote it all bur I can give you the link, just search for Dacia in page: ancientwisdoms.ac.uk/mss/viewer.html?viewColumns=greekLit%3Atlg3017.Syno298.sawsEng01%3Adiv5&viewOffsets=-321 ) of him describing the conquest of Dacia and therefore he's saying the Vlachs came from North of the Danube.
Meanwhile for Anna Komnene she says:
"On either side of its (The Haemos Mountains, today known as the Balkan mountains) slopes dwell many very wealthy tribes, the Dacians and
the Thracians on the northern side, and on the southern, more Thracians and the
Macedonians."
"Formerly they (the Sarmatians) dwelt on the land separated from the
Roman Empire by the Ister, but now they rose in a body and migrated into our
territory. The reason for this migration was the irreconcilable hatred of the Dacians
for their neighbours, whom they harassed with constant raids. So the Sauromatæ
seized the opportunity of the Ister being frozen over and by walking over it"
"But on the contrary most of them (the Roman army) were dispersed, for some were keeping guard in the valleys of
Serbia and in Dalmatia; others were protecting the lands along the Ister against the inroads of the Comans and the Dacians"
(BTW the Ister means the Danube)
So it looks like she's describing Dacians as being both north of the Haemos or Balkan Mountains and the Ister or Danube river. This wouldn't make sense if she meant Dacian as in whatever people exist in what used to be Dacia because north of the Balkan mountains or Moesia wasn't a part of Dacia, and considering we know the Romanians were north of the Balkan mountains at this time and we can speculate they were also north of the Danube and we know from Kekaumenos that the Byzantines often associate the Dacians and Vlachs we can say pretty confidently she's referring to the Romanians here.
As for contemporary mentions of Romanians north of the Danube we have:
- In the 500s Maurice notes in the strategikon that there are Romans north of the Danube who "forget their kind" and help the Slavs
- In 545 Procopius notes that some slavs learned Latin so well in present day Moldova that they fooled Romans into thinking they were generals
- In 860 Emmerich of Elwagen says that the Dacians are one the groups north of the Danube
- In the 11th century Gardizi says there's a Roman population north of the Danube who are more numerous than the Hungarians but weaker and without rights, but calls them NNDR.
- According to the Scriptores Historiae Polonae of Vincentius Kadlubko in 1040 thr Vlachs were a part of the army that opposed Casimir in Poland, this one is less clear but still that's pretty north
Meanwhile for Archeology you're right, it's a lot harder to tell because telling a culture based on archeology isn't as easy as you'd expect, because things like pottery cultures don't match perfectly to things like linguistic groups, as hard as some Romanian and Hungarian nationalists try. About the archeology south of the Danube relating to Vlachs and the Illyrian naming conventions I'm not super knowledgeable so if you'd be able to teach me a little about that I'd be super grateful, but as for the ones north, the only real evidence I've seen is the fact that the Roman cities of Dacia continued to be inhabited and we continue to see engravings in Latin way after Rome pulls out, with the cities with military walls seeing fortification and continued habitation, meanwhile the cities without walls see the population gradually spreading out into the outer regions. Examples include:
- Porolissum where archeologists have found the forum was fortified into a basic fortress, and new structures like water basins being built even after the Roman withdrawal
- Napoca which sees small villages being built around the city going further out the longer after Rome withdrew with many Roman style graves with Latin inscriptions containing Roman coins and pottery, with one specific grave giving honor to a Gothic Prince calling him Patrician of the Romans "Patricius Romanorum"
- Sarmizegetusa shows that the Amphitheater was fortified in 375 AD meanwhile small villages also began sprouting up around the city until the city was eventually abandoned.
Of course the problem with all of this is that we can't prove for sure the culture or language of the people within the cities, because although we find Roman graves and Latin inscriptions, there's no telling if it was just Barbarians copying the Romans because they thought it was cool or if it was actually a Roman population. I think the odds are pretty good that this is actually a Roman population thanks to the Latin inscriptions but that's not set in stone.
And then lastly about genetics, honestly I'm not the most knowledgeable on genetics, but from what I know a majority of Romanians have the I2 paternal hablogroup which is essentially native of the region of Romania, because its from the pre Indo European farmers of that region, which to me means that most likely at least the majority of the population cannot be immigrants from a different part of Europe. Of course this doesn't necessarily disprove that the Vlachs could have still come from elsewhere and assimilated the locals but seeing as there wasn't an actual Romanian country in Transylvania, it seems that it would be pretty unlikely for the Romanians to assimilate a group that was so different and much larger than them without any country to support them.
Meanwhile genetically from my understanding Romanians are most similar to Bulgarians, Moldovans and Serbians. Of course this could just be because they're bordering each other, but this is also probably down to the historic nations in all of these regions, Moldovans because we'll they're just Romanians so sure, Serbs and Bulgarians both share that slavic genetic mark but Bulgarians and Romanians probably have a lot of PaleoBalkan genetics from the Thracians and Dacians. Meanwhile the Illyrians, it's tough because assuming that the Albanians are the Illyrians, Romanians and Albanians aren't too similar but this can be explained as Romanians being from the Illyrians closer to Moesia which could have been genetically different from the Illyrians of Albania. Meanwhile yea there's a lot of Albanian/Illyrian influence on the Romanian language, but we don't know for sure if this is Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian, we know it's Paleo Balkan but this could have been common across all 3 languages, only 2 or maybe it is entirely Illyrian, we don't really know because none of the 3 languages survived or have large inscriptions, except Albanian of course. Some parts of the Romanian langauge we can say for sure are Dacian, like Princhindel from the Dacian per, mal from Dacian mala, or apa from dacian apos (it obviously also comes from Latin aqua, but it could be a convergent etymology, two different languages call something by a similar name so they both start using the same name), meanwhile other words are almost certainly Albanian like brad and bredh for fir trees, fluture and flutur meaning butterfly, and vatră and vatër meaning hearth. So it's hard to say, it could be, or it could not be.
great video, thanks for that. Also asking why is the few hundred years gap in between the Roman withdrawal from Provincia Dacia and the first Wlach/Moldavian state
Thanks a bunch! I'm really glad you liked the video!
The reasons for the large gap between Roman withdrawal and the ceeation of the Romanian principalities are twofold. The first and largest problem is we just don't have sources talking about the area north of the Danube. Prior to the Hungarian conquest very little is known about this region. Thanks to eymological analysis we have been able to estimate the existence of certain states in the area such as Blahnița and Vlăhița în Transylvania, and of course if the Gesta Hungarorum is to be believed there were various Romanian states/states that included Romanians in Transylvania. But of course we don't know how literal the Gesta was or when these states were created or if they even existed. Otherwise we get vague mentions by people like Ananias to a "country of the Thracians" and a "land of the Dacians" north of the Danube. But whether this meant a Romanian state, group of states or just some land associated with Romanians or just the actual Dacians and Thracians of antiquity is unknown. Otherwise we've found coins mentioning a certain Sponsianus în Transylvania which could indicate that after the abandonment of Dacia, a Roman Dacian state under a military ruler was formed. But again, no sources, so we really don't know. The first small states we can confirm from historical letters which exist prior to Wallachia and Moldova are some small fiefdoms in Moldova which belonged to various lords and swore loyalty/tribute to the Mongols, Halych-Volhynia or Hungary, and the state of Ilaut in Oltenia. But these are considerably later and are only known because the region was more documented thanks to Hungary, Halych-Volhynia and just sheer luck that these letters survived the sands of time.
And the second reason is that the area north of the Danube was highly contested from Rome's abandonment until the Mongolian incursions. Even in more stable areas in the Roman Empire like Hispania, the moment Roman control over them subsided they were replaced with barbarian states like the Visigoths, not states run by the local Romans. Same thing happened in Dacia, except with a smaller Roman population. This is why the Gepids and Goths took over the area initially, but we're we're replaced by other more powerful barbarians like the Huns, Avars and then Bulgarians, with the Hungarians, Cumans and Mongols showing up later as well. In an area as highly fought over as the Romanian territories it was difficult for such a small and disunited group such as the Romanians to establish their independance. In the end it wasn't even really Romanian efforts that established Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldova, as all 3 were established by the Hungarians, who thanks to already having a powerful and established kingdom were able to expand towards the Carpathians and across them to establish first Transylvania, then Wallachia and then Moldova. Once the states had already been established it was only then that Romanians could revolt and distance themselves from foreign domination like what happened with Radu Negru. So we probably owe the Hungarians a lot of thanks 😁.
In summary, we don't have sources so we don't even know whether there were Romanian states north of the Danube or not. And North of the Danube was such a cluster smash of chaos that it would have been extremely difficult for the Romanians to establish their own countries among the constant threat of foreign domination from the east.
Hope that helped, and feel free to ask any other questions on your mind, I'd be happy to help! 😁
I will have to make a correction. It is most probable, on account of linguistic aspects I implore you research yourself (Wikipedia should have you covered with the history of Christianity in Romania), that Romanians were Christians since Saint Andrew, and infarct it was only Orthodoxy that the Bulgarians spread. As such you also have the fact that the Romanian language was not utilized by the Bulgarians in Christianizing the Romanians. All converts quite typically are spoken to in their own language, but in the case of the Romanians, that was not what had happened. It looks like the Vlachs were quite easily persuaded to enter the church of the Bulgarians on account of their already pre-existing Christian faith, which also was the means by which the two ethnic groups mixed and influenced one-another (you have a lot of Slavic groups, not simply Bulgarians, which take greatly from the Romanians, such as the Gorals, the Hutsuls, etc). You have quite a few Proto-Romanian saints such as Dionysius Exiguus and the other Scythian monks beside him, and even Emperor Justinian who was said to have been at the very least from that same sort-of region from which you have "Torna, Torna, Fratre" and otherwise what's hypothesized to be the Aromanian homeland. To that extent he was probably a Daco-Roman / Thraco-Roman (since if you look at the Moesi, they were closer to the Dacians) of peasant origin, and spoke that sort of Latinic dialect. So all this before the Slavs had raided them.
It is most probable that the Romanians had a folk-religion, without ecclesiastical institution, like the Alpine peoples which were theoretically Christian, but highly mystical, "heretical" and largely paganistic by orthodox Catholic standards. You can research that but, in essence, Highlanders such as the Romanians seem to have preserved Christianity in that sense. You should read about the dualistic cosmogony of the Romanians with the mythological "Fârtat" and "Nefârtat" divinities. Now their legend seems to resemble that of Perun and Veles of the Slavs, but the apparent Christian overlay to it's pagan root was characteristic of faith among the early Romanians, who most certainly believed in Christ and so on, moreso than the Slavs.
The lack of proper ecclesiastical institution before the Slavs is on account of Christianity spreading among the people prior to the Edict of Milan, not trough a significant effort of hierarchical dissemination. Christianity spread from the grassroots up. Check the several artifacts attesting this among the Daco-Romans such as the Biertan Donarium (and as stated prior, also the linguistic artifacts, like the name for God and Church [Dumnezeu - Biserică] which come from Latin, are quite uniquely Christian, and differ from their counterparts. As such they must have come from the developing Vulgar Latin prior to the Aurelian retreat). I doubt that they would have lost Christianity and adopted some Pagan faith foreign to them prior to a re-conversion process taken up by the Slavs of all people. Otherwise, how come the linguistic anomaly?
Very enjoyable video, great job.
You are so cool man, awesome video!
good job!
WE GOT THEM TERRITORIES
Which ones?
Tényleg elhiszitek a dákoromán maszlaságot?
Im really sorry, my Hungarian is not so good, I'm from Banat so. But yea, the Daco-Romanian continuity theory is widely believed both in Romania and abroad.
The theory just says that Romanians are the product of the assimilation of the Dacians and the newly arrived Roman colonists which populated the province of Dacia. Same as how the French are a result of the local Gauls which were assimilated and the Roman colonists in the province of Gaul. Its nothing Dacopathic like saying Dacia invented the pyramids or something silly.
This video is so underrated
Well, there's obvious mistakes in the video, and the part that I see as the biggest mistake is the level of Dacopathy that is deeply ingrained in the minds of my Romanian brother's and sister's. But at all the Dacian parts, the only mistake I could see outside of Dacopathy is that you said Dacian's were formerly called Vlach's as well, which is not true. As the exonym Vlach was exclusively used for Roman's and Celt's, and later for Romance-speakers.
Then we go to the Vlachian Empire, which unfortunately you talked more about the Romanian principalities compared to our only and great Empire that existed from 1185-1396. However, the Empire was Vlach Empire and not Bulgarian, nor an union between Vlach's and Bulgarian's. The Asan Dynasty, which was a Vlach dynasty and the one's who founded the Empire used the idea of succession of the old Bulgarian Empire (681-1018) as a claim over their legitimacy over an Imperial rule. That's why Tsar Kaloyan, the greatest medieval Vlach ruler who was also nicknamed "John the Vlach", crowned himself as Emperor of the Vlach's and Bulgarian's in order to legitimise his claim over an Empire, just as Otto the Great of East Francia took over Kingdom of Italy and crowned himself King of Germany and Italy to gain a claim over Imperial title. Otto did so by claim imperial succession of Frankish Empire of Charles the Great and from the Western Roman Empire, the reason he crowned himself Emperor of the Roman's. However, Kaloyan had no legitimacy over his throne nor a crown from the Papacy. Thus, Kaloyan claimed lineal descent from the Emperors of the old Bulgarian Empire. However, Kaloyan also recognised to the pope his Roman ancestry. Thus, the Empire was never Bulgarian but Vlach, the dynasty was Vlach and the revolt of 1185 was purely Vlach as the only source on the revolt is Niketas Choniates (liv. 1155-1217), and tells us that the leaders of the revolt were the Vlach's. The Empire of Asan was multiple times referred as _Vlachia_ by writer's such as Geoffroi de Villehardouin, Henri de Valenciennes, Robert de Clari, Ansbert, Henry of Flanders, Snorri Sturluson, William of Rubruck and even Arabic writers
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I've never really encountered dacopaths but isn't Dacopathy a belief that the Dacians held an outsized control over Europe and Rome specifically, more conspiracy theories like saying the Dacians founded Rome? I don't think I said anything dacopathic...
Yea I probably should've been more clear with the Vlach statement, I was referring to how Kekamenos referred to Romanians as Vlachs while saying they are the "Dacians and Bessi"
@@thatstorm_spectre Well Dacopathy is of course a conspiracy theory with those things that you wrote however it also describes the people who are hyper-fixed on the Dacians no matter whether you consider the idea that we are only stemming from Dacians or Dacians and Romans. It is a mental **pathy** which stems from an inferiority complex and obsessive inability to accept the fall of the dacians and to make us Romanians with in fact no linguistical, cultural or ethnical identity connected to them as connected in any shape or form.
@@thatstorm_spectre Also, Kekaumenos made that negative reference about us Vlachs due to his political view rather historical. He wrote because of the Vlach revolt of Thessaly in 1066, which got his father in law, Nikoulitzas Delphinas blinded and thrown behind bars in Constantinople. It shows that Kekaumenos made this reference for his agenda, and used the Dacians due to the history between them and the Romans (which later in the view of the Byzantines were them). However we must also point his historical inaccuracies, such as Dekabalos being King of Dacians and Bessi while making the reference that the Vlach homeland was between the Danune and Sava river in modern day Serbia. Thus he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Avreliana. But what I like his reference of us being descendant of both Bessi and Dacians, who were two different tribes geographically separated by the danube and Carphatian mountains. Although, Bessi was also a name continually used to denote all of Thrace and Moesia. Thus, I believe he used it as a reference of the Vlachs originating from Moesia, which includes the Inferior and Superior parts the latter being where he described being our homeland ironically Timok Romanians still lives there.
@@InAeternumRomaMater I see, I don't think it's possible to really say we have 0 relations to the Dacians, due to the over a millennia of Romanians being associated with the Dacians, from of course the Communist era, back to Catherine the Great referring to a united Romanian state as Dacia, to Kekamenos and Anna Komnene stating that the Vlachs or Dacians lived north of the Balkan mountains. But I am curious to hear both sides. I want at some point to do a video displaying both arguments and to determine whether or not the Dacian-Romanian continuity theory is valid or not. So could you outline the whole position?
@@thatstorm_spectre We Romanians also have relations to Germanics, Celts, Turks and Mongols but that doesn't make us them. Thr truth is, we barely have anything left from the Dacians to prove any connection, not to mention that almost all tribes were wiped out by Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Divi Nervae filius Augustus Optimus Princeps.
The Byzantine writers had the fashion to call 'modern people' by ancient groups. They called Hungarians as Sarmatians and Huns, they referred to the Slavs as Tauroschyts and Coumans as Scythians. This trend preceeded the Byzantines and was in use even after them by different writers of whom also referred to us as "Dacians" and that's because we live in their former lands. Same reason of Catherine the Great.
And there is no "Dacians-Romanian continuity theory". What you might mean is "Daco-Roman continuity theory" which name means "Romans of the former Dacian lands". This continuity theory argues whether the Romanians are descendants of the Romans of Dacia Traiana, thus a continuity theory after Romes withdrawal from 271 AD.
Vlachs back about anyone who speak a Latin language in Eastern Europe not just a Romanian cuz they are many Romans language live in Eastern Europe before the 20th century
The background Music is so loud can’t hear anything you’re saying 😖
1:44 ah the man that killed tarky tark super bus
12:24 is very bazat
Actually there's also old "Intoarna'te", in all parts of the country.
great video but the music is a bit loud and overpowers your voice at times
like for providing music links!
I know I always liked it when Yotubers did that, so I figures others might like it too 😁
Music is so loud can’t hear anything 😖
I think that someone would make a looooot of subscribers in near future 😁
Dang
Never knew how cool romania was
Well, bulgarian language have also kind of the same amount of french words in % like romanian
you are so underrated lol
Romanian Gang Rise up o7 Also nice Ro Chan reference.
Finally someone caught the reference! Ngl we need more Romanian Vtubers 😭
@@thatstorm_spectre she's the one who made my Vtuber model, she's helped me a lot on my Vtuber journey. I'm originally from Romania myself so she made my model design with authentic Romanian dress patterns in mind.
I use Vtubing as a avenue to learn more about my own culture since I never had that opportunity.
@thatstorm_spectre great video. Can you do a video of Arabic/middle eastern countries like Syria and Lebanon? Love to see an unbiased history.
If only our Loed and Savior Dovahhatty had kept going we would have had an unbiased history of the Middle East 😭
But yea, especially Labanon I've always been a bit curious because of competing claims of origin regarding the Phoenicians and Arabs.
I just have to get un burned out from the bac first (it's like mega finals for the IB)
@@thatstorm_spectre that’d be cool! I’m actually Syrian, so I selfishly would rather see one for Syria lol although, one side is from the coast so I probably have that Phoenician blood as well (other side is closer to iraq, so I have that Mesopotamian blood as well). Although, you’d never tell by looking at me.
I think that’s what’s interesting about that area, as you brought up in Romania, it was run through by many different groups, as was the Levant. Might be even worth doing one for the Levant as a whole rather than by each country, especially since they’re so new, relatively speaking.
Also, Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world - that’s a cool tidbit isn’t it?
The Cyrillic script wasn't used for writing in Romanian up until the 16th century, when we have the first written Romanian text using a Slavonic orthography and most certainly an ad-hoc implementation of a script the people hadn't written Romanian with. All the texts up to that point had been in Slavonic. The Bulgarians didn't convert the people in their own language and made no effort of speaking to them in Romanian. I left another comment explaining the religious history up to that point, and how the Bulgarians uniquely did not need to speak the language of the people in order to spread Orthodoxy, on account of the already Christianized Romanians which they encountered. Romanian then swiftly became the language of the peasant and the inferior, and was not used in Church or Chancellery up until most favorably the 16th, but also 17th and 18th centuries (due to opposition from the clergy). Please check the Wikipedia article on "Româna liturgică" in Romanian, if you know how to read the language. The local rite was the Hispano-Gallican rite prior to Byzantine conversion, that also enforced Slavonic. Dosoftei writes in the 17th century that "He which speaketh in a tongue (not understood by the people) walls himself off: but he that telleth in a tongue walls off the whole Church."
In that period, great efforts at speaking to the people in their language had begun within the Church, first with the Protestants which were the first to translate fragments of the Bible in Romanian, and then with Latin becoming moreso seen as a language of the elite and this association bringing Romanian out of it's previous condemnation as a peasant's tongue (during the reign of Cantemir and Brâncoveanu)
Bravo tie, engleza ta e perfecta !
I must say, this video is pretty informative and so far afcurate. However my problem stems with the Second Bulgarian Empire.
While it is true that the Asen Dynasty were Vlachs, they quickly adopted a Bulgarian identity and the language, while also the practice of calling themselves rulers of Bulgarians and Vlachs ended with Tsar Kaloyan who viewed King of The Vlachs as a secondary title as it was quite common to have a lot of titles back then. Example: Several Bulgarian Tsars also claimed to be Tsars of Bulgarians and Greeks.
Also tbf, it wasn't overtime that the Bulgarian element overtook the Vlach but pretty much almost since the start. And while some did call it "Vlachia", the rulers mainly called it Bulgaria and mainly sooke Bulgarian while also most sources called it Bulgaria.
Also tbf, it is most likely that Wallachia also started moreso as a Bulgarian autonomous vassal state or atleast became one as Bulgaria owned it as late as the 1300's as they got it back from the Mongols awhile ago by then. For example, Wallachia was part of Bulgaria during Tsar Ivan Alexander.
😂
Spoke what?
For Romanians, Bulgarian language is as strange as Swahili.
Romanian language is the reason why Bulgarian language has definite articles.
@@nestingherit7012 Romanians in medieval times used Old Bulgarian for clurgical and official purposes, but aight.
@@rawka_7929
If it's used in church it's possible, but people didn't understand a thing.
@@nestingherit7012The nobility did, but I don't deny the commoners not understanding a thing and never did I claim they did. But such influences from the way the nobles spoke it snuck in a bit into the language.
cool video dude :D music a bit too loud tho
Drop the reading list va rog
Ba cat de mult imi place ! Similar cu Dovahhatty. Foarte tare !
7:27
Why did Moldavia own a random city near crimea?
It's the modern day city of Ochakiv.
Back then it used to be a Moldavian trade-port.
@@cosimoalbaster how did they get it?
@@flavi9692 It was an abandoned Genoese or Greek (really can't remember) port that some Moldavian pirates captured in the 1400s and it later became part of the Moldavian principality. It was used for trading with the Crimean Tatars and with the Genoese.
Also it was called Vozia by the Moldavians.
@@cosimoalbaster thanks for the answer!
Great video. The music is a bit loud and so intense, drowns out your voice a bit.
Also I like how ur pronouncing
39 minutes worthy time investment
I would have watch this till the end but that background music is loud and horrible!!
17:11 No, there was a Turkic people called the blackis in Transylvania at that time. Just because some people called the Romanians the same name does not discount the validity of these Turks.
The Turkic Blackis are a difficult subject, because we don't know if they actually existed.
We know of a Turkic population called Ulaqis/Bulaqis south of the Urals, but whether this population made it to Transylvania is super unclear. Every time the word "Blackis" or some version of it in Transylvania is defined in sources they call them Italian/Roman colonists or something similar, never Turks. Examples include The Gesta Hunnorum et Hunnarorum which calls them Shepards and Settlers of the Romans, Jon Kinnamos calls them Blachos/Vlachos/Flachos and says they are descendants of Italian colonists in Dacia, the Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis says the native "Blachos de Villa Petri" were upset the land they've had for thousands of years was being given to the newcoming Germans, and more.
The one source that supports the Bulaqis being in Transylvania(ish) is William of Rubrick, who confusingly claims that during the Hunnic migration came the Bulgars Vandals and Blacs. With the Blacs coming from greater Blachia south of the Urals, but are also called Iliac and are the origins of the Iliac in the land of Asani, which is between Constantinople and Bulgaria and lesser Hungary (either referring to Moesia, Wallachia or Transylvania). But most likely he's just confused because of similar names, because in the land of Assen (the Vlach who created the second Bulgarian Empire) we know the Romanians are, whether that be Moesia, Wallachia or Transylvania, because by the point William wrote this, the Second Bulgarian Empire was established by Vlachs and Bulgarians, the state of Ilaut existed, soon to become Wallachia and Romanians had already been mentioned in Transylvania.
Although it is still a super confusing source so 🤷
Sick video !!
Great video but the music is too loud
pentru vechile granițe!
Întoarce-te în România Mare!
I like your videos but the background music is always too loud and i can't hear you speak at all. :(
You forget minor details but who cares great video
The video is super interesting, but (maybe it's just me) it was so hard to follow the story with the constant music in the background 😵😫 although I did love the soundtack 😄
yea but cucuteni culture an danube culutre u need to make a video of it bc its romanian history too at all u are the besttt
It was sorta too far hack for me to consider it a Romanian culture for this video but for sure we need to talk about it at some point, the old pottery culture types are super interesting to look at! 😁
Long lost brothers, Romanians are Vlachs that got assimilated into a Latin identity. Much love from your southern brothers 🇧🇬♥️🇷🇴
You are thraco-romans which got assimilated by slavs😂
@@thieph We aren't Romans, and we did not get assimilated by Slavs, but embraced their strong culture and language after which the old Bulgarian language would be used as a tool to spread our culture and religion to the all the other Slavs in Europe.
@@RosTheXD bulgarians are genetically native latinized thracians, slavic DNA is lower even than Romania, doesn't reach 50%
@@thieph Bro, how are we exactly Romanised? We have nothing to do with Romans
@@RosTheXD bruh, search about thracians and how they got romanizied, then they become slavicized as today bulgarians. Your DNA is not like ukrainians, why do you think bulgarians have dark hair and eyes and ukranians not so much?
Good job. Only the one, it's that Principality of Transylvania the most time controlled by the Hungarians.
Collect me if I'm wrong but the word Dracula and Romanian become become the name of devil and that become anonymous that he the son of the devil and not the original name the son of the Dragon
Yep, correct 😁
Dont rely on a source was written 800 years after the fact. Your quote on the greek Kekaumenos does not really mean anything. Yes dacians were north and south of the danube. By 1075 AD, the Vlachs were under byzentine rule. All vlachs under byzentine rule were forced to be eastern orthadox. Thus romanian eastern orthadox tradition today. Under hungary at the time, eastern orthadox was banned. This was still centuries before Vlachs entered wallacia and transylvania in the 13th century. This means that if the daco roman continuation theory was true and the dacians were in fact living in trasnylvania at the time, Romania would certainly be roman catholic. Also you skipped past hundreds of years in the imbetween period of the formation of romanian states in the 13th century from the Vlach migration north of the danube and the 1st to 3rd century when the dacians were invaded by Rome. After which, they were no longer a state. Do you think a stateless unorganized peoples could live in transylvania for hundreds of years? Transylvania was heavily resource rich and there is no evidence of dacians living there past the 3rd cenutry. Dozens of differant peoples came in and out of the now romania area. None of which were eager to have a orthadoxy people living in their land taking their gold and silver from transylvania. Everything points to the romanians coming stright from the vlachs in the 13th century. And i think that the quote by Kekaumenos is faulty for several reasons. 1. Dacians were a broad group of people. 2. there was differant types of "vlachs" and 3. There is conflicting sources from the same time period. I have seen many sources which describe the Vlachs as living exclusively south of the Danube as migrants moving east. I can knitpick any one of those broad quotes and it would be just as irrelevant.
Dw bro, I've got a video for you in the future on my view for this topic. The script's nearly done, a couple more revisions. I apologize that it'll take a bit longer tho because studying for the bac will take all of my effort for now. So stick around and if I haven't convinced you there then I don't think I'll be able to 😉
Hey sorry, before I finish the script for my Dacian-Romanian continuity video, could you link me the source you mentioned about conflicting primary sources that say the Vlachs exclusively came from South of the Danube? I haven't been able to find them, but I might just be looking in the wrong place. Also same for the source that says Hungary outlawed Eastern Orthodoxy, I cant find anything like that either.
It would be a huge help, cheers 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre Yes i would happily. There aren't any contemporary sources mentioning Vlach's north of the danube until the later half of the 11th century. This is significant because sources like byzantine chronicles (10 century), Ioannes Kinnamos's historia (12th century) Kekaumenos, Anna Komnena book Alexia, ( daughter of the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnen 1083-1148), Georgios Kedrenos, Niketas (Nikhetas) Choniates ( Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XI: 12-13 centuries, Cf., Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, p. 250, note 21.),
These are most of all contemporary sources i could find mentioing vlachs from around the 10th century to 12th century. And not a single one says that the vlachs were from north of the lower danube. In fact, some of my sources i just gave you, clearly reffer to hungarians as Dacians, further expanding the validity that the term dacian at the time was referred to by a geographical term more then a cultural one.
Now, some of these sources are debated on where the romanians were mentioned, because of broad geographical terms used in them to describe the location of the vlachs, such as Kekaumenos's writings "near the savas river where the serbians live today". But most of these arguments againsed the sources are easily picked apart. For example, in reference to the example i gave you, some romanian historians argue that Kekaumenonos was refferring to north of the danube. however, the author does not mention any carpathain mountains, or any mountains at all in that text. The only mountains he does mention, is the mountains of the lower balkins, where all the other sources can confirm the vlachs were. The Niketas (Nikhetas) Choniates source also has some debate around it. The scholarly consensus, highlighted by "the prominent Romanian scholar and foremost expert on Dacia Traiana, Constantin Daicoviciu" tells us that the romanian interpretation of the source mentioned in regards to the vlachs possibly being from north of the danube is false.
Pre 10th century sources such as the Priscus at the court of Atilla, which takes place in the carpathian mountains, make no mention of these vlachs, or even native roman speakers. And mentions many characters, (i suggest you read it its very intresting), of the ammount, you would expect to see some romanian or at least native latins, of whom you dont.
So if you actually look for sources in this, you absolutely will find them, if you look for the romanian distoration of history, you will fall short with repetitive mentions of geulo and glad that was written 300+ years after the fact, by a writer who directly worked for the king, who merely wanted to increase the land value since the estate sales were at a all time high when it was written.
If you want me to, i can link sources to everything i just stated.
@schutzanzug6731 Hey, I appreciate the sources, but I already knew about these and they're all banking on absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. The original comment said he had sources that from what I understood would be of the Hungarian perspective in the middle ages commenting about how the Romanians are newcomers or that they hadn't been north of the Danube until recently
I will have to push back about the Hungarians ever being called Dacians. My reasoning being, Anna Komnene talks about the Dacians north of the Danube in 1081 saying they push other groups south with their aggression, but she also says the Dacians live north of the Balkan mountains, which happens to be where we know Romanians were as well, so most likely Anna is calling Daco-Romanians in the north Dacians, meanwhile she exclusively uses Vlachs for the Aromanians living in Greece and North Macedonia and some Megleno Romanians which act as guides in the Balkan mountains. This can't be a geographic term because north of the Balkan mountains is traditionally Moesia, not Dacia, which would either be north of the Danube or in modern day Serbia. If you have a source that clearly makes a connection between her calling Hungarians Dacians, I'll reconsider, I could always be wrong, but for now this appears the most likely.
Then of course there are actually other sources that mention Romanians north of the danube pre 1200s. I believe that before the 1200s it's not that Romanians werent north of the Danube, but just that they weren't called Vlachs, because later sources always go backwards and say Vlachs were there but meanwhile sources from the time call them Romans or Dacians. Case in point in the 500s Maurice notes in the strategikon that there are Romans north of the Danube who "forget their kind" and help the Slavs, in 545 Procopius notes that some slavs learned Latin so well in present day Moldovs that they fooled Romans into thinking they were generals, in 860 Emmerich of Elwagen says that the Dacians are one the groups north of the Danube, and in the 11th century Gardizi says there's a Roman population north of the Danube who are more numerous than the Hungarians but weaker and without rights, but calls them NNDR. Only later sources call this group Vlachs, like the Russian Primary Chronicle which says the Vlachs settled in the Carpathian mountains but were defeated by the Hungarians, the Gesta Hungarorum (and the Gesta Hungarorum et Hunnarorum) calling them Blackis, with the GHEH specifying they are colonists and shepards of the romans, the German Song of the Nibelung saying the Vlachs were present in Atillas court, the Weltchronic which says Charlemagne found Vlachs in his attacks on Pannonia, the Descriptio Europae Orientalis which says the Vlachs had 10 Kings who were defeated by Arpad. Then by the 1100s the term Vlach spreads from only being used for the Aromanians to also being used for the Daco-Romanian, where for example John Kinnamos says the Vlachs, spelled either Blachos, Vlachos or Flachos (he can't make up his mind) as being descendants of Italian colonists and fighting against the Hungarians.
Also just a neat bonus in 1366 the Hungarians note that the Indigenous Vlachs (Blachos de Villa Petri) complain that the land which had been theirs for thousands of years was being given to German newcomers, (Teutones aduenae, Teutones ad praedium Hussalseiff) (…ut territorium suum ultra mille annos possesum dissipetur). So there's a Hungarian source saying the Vlachs were there first.
Also you mention Priscus, but he says it's super common for people to speak Latin or Ausonian as he calls it north of the Danube, especially if they interact with the Romans. He says it's rare for them to speak Greek, nothing proving or disproving a population speaking native Latin there.
But I am sorta on vacation after finishing my bac so I'll get back to making a proper video on this topic in a few weeks maybe, lemme know if anything here doesn't stand up to scrutiny and I'll look into it, have a good day 😁
Also I will say that I've never heard such a good explanation for the Gesta before, smart!
“--so most likely Anna is calling Daco-Romanians in the north Dacians, meanwhile she exclusively uses Vlachs for the Aromanians living in Greece and North Macedonia and some Megleno Romanians which act as guides in the Balkan mountains” Yes I agree, this only further proves that antiquated geographical terms were used to describe peoples.
“. If you have a source that clearly makes a connection between her calling Hungarians Dacians, I'll reconsider”
Chronographic by the Byzantine historian Leo the Deacon refers to the Hungarians as Dacian. When describing the Battle of Arcadiopolis in 970 CE, Leo writes "When the Dacians, who are also called Turks, learned of this, they gathered a huge army and marched against the Romans." Here, he is clearly referring to the Hungarians, who were known as the "Turks" by the Byzantines at the time. In another passage, Leo writes about the Hungarians raiding Byzantine territories "The Dacians, who are also called Turks, made frequent incursions into the Roman domains, plundering and destroying everything in their path." This is clearly a example of when the byzentines refferd to a peoples by their broad antiquated geographical term which was used in the roman times, which the Byzantines did to promote the idea that they are the successor to the roman empire, which is true.
“Priscus, but he says it's super common for people to speak Latin or Ausonian as he calls it north of the Danube, especially if they interact with the Romans.”
first mention". For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin"
second mention ", his dress, his voice, and his words, which were a confused jumble of Latin, Hunnic, and Gothic"
third mention "but a barbarian who sat beside me and knew Latin, bidding me not reveal what he told"
There was only 3 mentions of the word latin in his work. For refference, barbarian is mentioned 25 times, scythian 30.
Though, In my opinion, at his time, latin was todays English, even though it was on the decline.
I see you took inspiration from DovaHatty
He was the reason I became interested in Roman History, so if it weren't for him I probably wouldn't have made this channel 😁
moama ce fain video , las un laik ca bani nam =D
Great video, assembled piece by piece completing this complex puzzle 🧩
21:15 “ 3 Romanian principalities” in the 1200’s to 1300’s Transylvania was not a Romanian principality by any standard. It was ruled by Hungarian nobles, with Romanian serfs working the land on the nobles behalf.
Depends on what a "Romanian Principality" means in your book, in Romanian historiography it refers to the 3 principalities that would unite to make Romania. So Transylvania would be considered a Romanian principality no matter the make up of the population or nobility.
That being said, the vast majority of serfs and therefore the population was Romanian and at the beginning the Romanians did actually have some nobility, for example the archbishop of Strigonius, Lodomerius send a letter addressing the Hungarian, Saxon, Szeklely and Romanian nobles in Sibiu and Borsa then in 1281 King Andrew III held an assembly which included the Vlach nobles. Although these nobles would either assimilate to Hungarians or would be pushed into lesser importance, at the beginning of the Principality of Transylvania they did exist.
@@thatstorm_spectre So your saying if hungary invades and united all of Romania with itself everything will be Hungarian? Even if the population and the nobility are Romanian? That is what im taking away from what your saying.
@@schutzanzug6731 Its a bit of a weird comparison but think about how in the United Kingdom Scottland is considered one of the Historical British countries even before the United Kingdom existed or irrespective of English influence on the country.
As a hungarian, great video man! Trianon did happen and it was fair.
O7. Trianon was pretty harsh for Hungary, but all treaties at the time were almost unnecessarily brutal. But we're all in the EU together now so it doesn't really matter anymore 😁
@@thatstorm_spectre totally agree! Keep on creating man, love your content!:)
i apreciate the effort but as a romanian myself he got some things wrong like vlads cruelty wich was greatly exagerated and i dont like how he skiped most of the 16th century but i understand beacuse that is a not so nice period of romanian history and not many pepole care about it wich its a shame i could say the same about the 17th century but he didnt cover it in this epsode hovever if you wish to learn romanian history in detail i sugest istoria romaniei podcast by calina however its in romanian. You can find it on spotify or even on youtube
Salut frate, yea I considered talking about things like the Principalities semi independance and the increased subjugation under the Fanarioți, but these periods in my view lacked interesting events to point to in order to keep the story going, and with only the first part of the History being 40 minutes I had to cut some things.
With Vlad I hope I made it clear that his deeds were imbellished by the Sași and while he did do a lot of the "bad" things he's accuses of its nowhere near what the Sași claim.
I will actually take a look at the podcast, you can never be too knowledgeable on something 😁
Oricum, mersi frate, și sper că o să stai să vezi și partea a 2-a. Plus acum lucrez la un videoclip despre Dacii, așa că poate vrei să remăi pentru ăsta 😉
@@thatstorm_spectre I will shurely chek them out and i hope you like the podcast by the way i hope that it changes your view as it changed mine and as a lover of history i think we should apreciate it all (and yea that is my favourite period of history...) I love your work frate keep going (and i sugest that you rank the romanian voievoedes and princes well at least some of them just in wallachia there are over 90 princes )
I am in love with you
Many agree
Make Dacia great again
You are about as dacian as your father is a caring person
@@schutzanzug6731 yet another latin dacian classic 👍🏻
Bravo coaie😂❤
32:16 "so back to vlad, like any good ruler..." AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH! You just said like 5 mins earlier he put poor people in a building and lit it on fire lmao
Yes, he put "poor people" in a house and burned it to the ground. But they were not ordinary poor people. Keep in mind that since the death of Mircea the Elder, Vallachia was riffed with civil wars between House of Draculesti and House of Danesti. Two noble houses that competed (and fought) for the throne. Vallachia was full of poor disbanded fighters from previous figths, that had nothing to do, a breeding ground for banditry.
Vlad decided to weed out the roots of the rampant banditry by getting rid of those useless wanderers, leaving conscience objections aside. After all, he was a ruler, not a monk. :)
Noo Michel the brave short mencioned :(