The country where the last Romans live?

⚔️ SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items:
spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010...
Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on KZbin: / maiorianus461
🎁 The official Maiorianus merch store is now OPEN:
maiorianus.myspreadshop.com
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maiorianus
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: • Relaxing Roman Music -...
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
📬 Contact us: [e-mail]
#Maiorianus

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus Or become an official Maiorianus member on KZbin: kzbin.infojoin

[@dastanjan320]

hey, at the end you mentioned that you come originally from Romania. Salut confrate! 😀 Ma bucur să știu ca un alt canal de youtube de istorie aparține unui roman! 👍 De unde erai originar din țară?

[@CowboyCatRO]

​@@dastanjan320din craiova

[@LazarAndrei-VNI]

Ha ha, nu cred, esti roman? amuzant, ma uit la canalul asta de ceva timp si nu ma asteptam la asa ceva. Pai ai vazut teoriile astora de la Nasul TV, cu Daniel Roxin?

[@raresdumitras3291]

Felicitări, ești un un producător de conținut desăvârșit. The best Romanian content producer of historical videos on KZbin!

[@mircevich]

I’m wondering how much of this episode was “sponsored” by hungarians on Patreon. This is exactly their theory. Have you been suggested sources by those that sponsored this episode ? I’m asking this since we, the romanians, are fully aware of this “from south” migration which only serves the “we were here first” theory of the maghiars in regards to their ocupation of Transilvania.

[@phileon2323]

To this very day in Lebanon, Greek Orthodox people are called "Rum", which is arabic for roman. So there are people walking this earth right now who've been calling themselves romans in an uninterrupted line since the times where the Empire still stretched to the Levant cost

[@alfredosauce1]

Yup 🇱🇧☦️

[@paulmayson3129]

And even today Greece calls itself as "Rhomeosene", which means "Romanness".

[@cesaramarilla7031]

There's hundreds of millions myfriend. The catholic apostólic romans, as irónic as this may turn to be as history developed.

[@mariano98ify]

​@@paulmayson3129 i am not sure if the Greeks nowadays call themselves "Romans" or any variation. Before? Indeed but they consider pretty much Hellenes.

[@thenamesianna]

​@@paulmayson3129 I thought Greeks called their country Hellas .

[@Lovreone]

My father and I, both born in Belgrade(Serbia) began digging in our family history some time ago. Once we started my father was a proud Serbian nationalist type :). We knew that my great-grand father first came to Belgrade from Ostojicevo, a village in nothern Serbia, close to the Romanian border. So we went there, and according to local church data as well as a Ostijocevo history books, it seems that my ancestors have migrated to Ostojicevo from Lovrin (Romania) sometime in the 1700s. Our surname still derives from the name of Lovrin and is not a typical Serbian surname. Then, more recently my father did a Y-DNA test (direct male paternal linage), and the results came to be R1b-u152, which epicenter (where Gene is most concentrated) is Sub-Alpine Italy, somewhere between Bologna and Milan. The more I keep digging, the more I believe that my ancestors were actually Roman citizens who migrated into Dacia sometime after Trajans conquest, and remained there during all of the invasions and got assimilated at some point.

[@reuven751]

This is wonderful, I am happy you came to know your roots to this extent!

[@PiotrekZiolkowskiPhotographer]

most likely a retired Legionary soldier who was given land in Dacia

[@Lovreone]

@@reuven751 I wish I could learn more, but there is only so much you can find out with so little records still existing, and given how how chaotic the region was over time. All we can find is little fragments here and there and try to connect the dots, although there are facts and there is educated guessing :)

[@Lovreone]

@@PiotrekZiolkowskiPhotographer Could be a veteran legionnaire or a fresh recruit, but could be anything really like Miner/Goldsmith/Trader/... As there were multiple generations could be all of them :)

[@carron979]

the presence of Y2b or southern proto-european haplotype in almost 30% of the Romanian and even Bulgarian or Serbian population is irefutable proof that the Dacians were not exterminated but romanized...

[@TonyFontaine1988]

Used to live in Romania. They defintely look different than the surrounding countries and resemble italians much more.

[@999mi999]

Romanians, especially in the south-west, have a surprisingly high italo-alpine gene admixture, 25% being the average. People from Banat and Oltenia are also significantly shorter than the rest of the country.

[@jeffs6081]

Never been but I’ve met people from Romania, and they all had dark hair, dark eyes and olivey skin, more Mediterranean features than Eastern European.

[@TonyFontaine1988]

@@jeffs6081 Bulgarians also have darker eyes and hair and olive skin, but don't look the same as Romanians. They have more Slavic blood which gives the men a head that is flat on the back, and they tend to be built more blocky and square in the men, and petite with the women. Romanians who are related to Italians have a softer facial shape and body which resembles western Europeans. The more Slavic ones have that distinct features of Slavs.

[@jeffs6081]

@@TonyFontaine1988 very interesting

[@user-vf2jy6wy1w]

@@TonyFontaine1988Stop pulling stuff out of your ass!

[@elisabettamacghille4623]

As Italian I have to say that reading the Romanian language is pretty easy for us, but understanding the sounds of the spoken language is really difficult, we can understand that the language spoken is actually a romance language, but the understanding of the words is not easy. But this also happens with Portuguese and French: the written language is pretty clear while the sounds are difficult. Anyway, thanks and .. long life to the Old King! God bless Latin, nunc et semper!

[@gabrielepopa6870]

You have to keep in mind that before 1800 Romanian was more slavic in his vocabulary. During the 19th century there was a process of romanization of the language, borrowing words or, the root of words, from Italian, French and other latin languages.

[@DISTurbedwaffle918]

New coworker from Romanian says something similar about Italian, that when he hears Italians speak he can understand them pretty well.

[@stamasd8500]

@@DISTurbedwaffle918 I'm Romanian. I never studied Italian but still understand about 60-70% of the spoken Italian I hear.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

​@gabrielepopa6870 the term "Romanization" is wrong, and actually the word you used is wrong, you probably meant "re-latinization". But both are wrong, the correct term is _standardisation_ which was as the word says a process of standardising the Romanian language to be more "western". The Old Romanian language actually went through a period of "Slavicisation" which saw the change of the Latin alphabet to a Romano-Chirilic one and adoption of many Old Slavonic words. This process was changed in the 19th Century.

[@gabrielepopa6870]

@@InAeternumRomaMater Sorry for my poor choice of words, i am Just an uneducated peasant 🥲

[@michaelporzio7384]

"Now or never let us give proof to the world That in these veins Roman blood still flows, That in our chests we hold a name with pride, Victorious in battles, the name of Trajan!" - Romanian National Anthem. Roman based personal names (Aurelian and Aurelia for example) are common in Romania. Thanks for covering Romania, fascinating!

[@jordanmason7127]

its kind of like Stockholm syndrome isn't it, they were conquered and defeated so hard that the only way they can cope is that they are roman, like don't they know that their ancestors were the ones defeated by Rome?

[@cesaramarilla7031]

Epic ational Anthem!!

[@aldolamberti3855]

Caro Amico. Mi hai commosso !!! Nelle tue vene dici che scorre ancora ''sangue romano '' , l'Inno Romeno ne è una prova .Se penso ai tanti Italiani che si sentono ''orgogliosi '' nel parlare male del loro Paese ! Mi sento molto ORGOGLIOSO di sentirmi un tuo FRATELLO !

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

pe bune!? nu poti astepta dupa reunifcare cu Moldova si ultima cruciada

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

@@GGhiba611 Se numeste sarcasm,

[@LuisAldamiz]

Even less clear is how Eastern Wallachia and Moldavia (both halves) became so thoroughly Romanized even if they were never really under Roman control. It's utterly weird.

[@paulmayson3129]

They were not Romanized. The way the Romanians got this name is very simple; the Medieval Roman Greeks would often call Latin as "Roman", despite often calling Greek as "Romaic". As such, they would call Latin Romans as "Romans" and Greek Romans as "Greeks", terms to define "Latin-speaker" and "Greek-speaker". They were all Romans, and the Roman Greeks also called themselves "Greeks" and "Hellenes", while the Roman Latins called themselves also "Latins". Even after the 8th century AD, when the Roman Latins of Italy were Lombardized/Germanized/Frankicized and the Roman Latins of Africa were Arabized, we do have instances of Roman Greeks calling Latin-speaking Romans as "Romans" in contrast to "Greeks". For instance, Constantine Porphyrogenitos called the Dalmatian Romans as such in the 10th century AD. In short, Romanians are called that because they spoke a variation of Latin, as Romanian is a Romance Language, and as such the term "Roman" in terms of "Latin-speaker" also came down to refer to them as well. Nonetheless, this does not mean that "Roman" in this sense also speaks of Roman Identity in a national, political and ethnical sense, only as a linguistic one. Context does matter; "Roman" even has a religious meaning, and it does change on location - if you are in Western Europe, it refers to the Papal Church, if you are in Anatolia, Egypt and the Levant it refers to Greek Orthodoxy.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@paulmayson3129 - They are Romanized because they speak a Romance, one of the oldest divergent branches, along with Sardinian. As for the name, which is not what makes a Romanized people (your example of Greeks calling themselves "Romans" all the way to recent times is very illustrative), I understand that it's a nationalist creation of recent times and that previously the term Vlach or Wallach was much more common instead.

[@paulmayson3129]

@@LuisAldamiz Romanization is not only limited to language. Romanization is to be assimilated into Romanness, which contains all the elements that makes the Roman Identity in a certain period of time (and I say that as we cannot blame 8th century AD Romans for being "Unroman" for being different to the 1st century AD Romans, as then we can also blame the 1st century AD Romans as being "Unroman" for being different to the 3rd century BC Romans). Romanness is basically the Roman Identity as an identity that evolved from a state identity (Roman Kingdom-Roman Republic) to a national identity and an ethnic identity, and therefore extends far beyond just language, all that Romanita encompasses.

[@boudicca9807]

@@LuisAldamiz Vlach or Wallach means 'foreigner' (related to Wales/Welsh) in Germanic languages. It is unlikely to be the name these people called themselves, or preferred to call themselves.

[@pulsar2049]

Muntenia and Moldavia were part of the roman empire, during trajan.

[@lativ3715]

Traiăscă Romania! 🇷🇴❤🇵🇱

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

there is more economic freedom in Romania than in Poland don't let anybody take it away

[@debasishgoswami9896]

Long live Romania! Love from India❤️❤️

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

An interesting word that is not very used and popular, is the latin form of "Long live" in Romanian and that is "Viva", while "Trăiască" is of Slavic origin and more popular. But just to keep it Latin Viva România!🇷🇴🏛🦅

[@VladVlad-ul1io]

@@szymonbaranowski8184 P[oland is faring better than Romania these days or at least this is the local perception

[@out_of_control._]

😂

[@ionutpop1468]

You forgot to say that Dobrogea (the southeastern part of Romania) was part of the Roman Empire until 602 AD being part of the province Moesia Inferior and Scythia Minor later. Aurelian retreated only the army and the administration from Dacia. The romanized population was left behind and the Romanian people formed both at north and at the south of the Danube river.

[@GattsuOfficial]

Yeah but it wasn't "Romanian" in a sense relative to that time

[@ionutpop1468]

@@GattsuOfficial I said that the Romanian people formed both at north and at the south of the Danube river. The Romanian people appeared on the map of Europe in the eight century AD. Aromanian, Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian are dialects of the Romanian language (my mother tongue) spoken at the south of the Danube river in the Balkan peninsula.

[@GattsuOfficial]

@@ionutpop1468 700, not correlating to the time we are in now.

[@_braileanul]

​@@ionutpop1468dobrujan coast was Greek back then, even in late 19th century Romanians were only in the shores of the Danube in Dobruja, not in the interior nor in the coast

[@MihaiRUdeRO]

Not only Dobrogea, much of Oltenia still remained under Roman rule. Trajans bridge was never abandoned, neither was Drobeta until the 6th century. Roman soldiers were still being given land in Oltenia, the region is full of pottery and coins that shows a continuation of occupation... Even the verb tense specific to Oltenia comes directly from Latin

[@tudorm6838]

Constantin built a bridge over the Danube which was ready in 329 AD. This means that the former province was still economically linked to the empire 50 years after the official withdrawal.

[@Transilvanian90]

Yes, and likely the influence was considerable until the 7th century, and then again under the Macedonian Dynasty when Bulgaria was conquered and the Danubian border restored.

[@mariusmitrea1309]

Former Dacia and Roman Dacia were never deserted of population due to periodical pastoral migration in and out of Eastern Roman Empire having limes Danube, Dobrogea (Scitia Minor), North Black Sea shores today Ukraine and Crimeea. The last mentioned zones were the place of pastoral migration to Moldavian region and part of origin of most Eastern Romanians, still having today villages between Dniester and Bug rivers. Large density of Romanians living in today Romania can be explained only by a continuous large presence of autohtone latinized population since Roman Dacia relative to migratory people like Slavs. Pastoral periodic migration were always between "base" and grazing places at large distances with part of family staying home, doing small scale agriculture. This way of living is specific to Romanians and Aromanians till today from mountain in the summer to low land in the winter.

[@tudorm6838]

@@mariusmitrea1309 I think that the farmers also have continuity in the North of the Danube. Whoever was the master of the place had to eat. The nomadic peoples of the migration era did not engage in intensive agriculture and they needed to rely on the local population. They also need to recruit locals into their armies.

[@etherospike3936]

There is another modern Romance language Called Romansh spoken in Switzerland and Northern Italy !

[@mirceaenea1637]

Salut frate!

[@theodoroball]

​@@mirceaenea1637Olá irmão! 🇵🇹

[@Calikid331]

The impact Rome had on the western world is so interesting, it's arguably the only ancient political entity/system that never truly "ended" it just branched off into other institutions.

[@hardlo7146]

China has remained

[@geordiejones5618]

This is a terrible take and just undervalues the success of the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples and cultures. India and China are older and more continuous than Rome and the Roman imperial system was started by Alexander and the Diadochi, who borrowed from Phillip, Darius and Cyrus. And what about the spread of Islam? Those institutions are still standing unlike the Romans who are relics. Christianity itself wasn't Roman until Rome was too weak to resist their inroads but the point is that every civilization owes itself to others and every empire spawns other empires.

[@Blox117]

@@geordiejones5618 modern india and china dont resemble what they were even 100 years ago

[@Blox117]

@@geordiejones5618 german uses latin script and pretended to be successors to rome

[@1981menso]

@@Blox117 Holy Roman Empire anyone....

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

You’re the first person I’ve ever heard pronounce Dacia correctly, bravo!

[@macpopa]

Good documentation, nicely done @Maioranus! I see you put some effort. There are a few problems, still: 1. There is no historic evidence to support a double mass migration. I find it hard to believe that half million proto-Romanians crossed the Danube unnoticed - and did it twice! This is very hard to accomplish - these are the Middle Ages and Danube is a major natural obstacle. The most logical explanation is they never left. 2. Which brings me to the second point: the Romanian language formed in the lower Danube, on both shores. There are two major branches of Romanian (dialects) and they are clearly separated by the Danube river. The Romanians south of Danube are a distinct branch and they speak their own dialects: Aromanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian. 3. The Roman Empire occupied Dacia for only 160 years, but the Romanization continued long after Aurelian abandoned the province. This happened by trade with the neighboring Eastern Roman Empire, until the 7th century and the arrival of the Slavic people. 4. After the Aurelian retreat, the locals abandoned the major settlements, which became targets for the migrating people. They established smaller settlements in isolated areas, behind deep forests, close to the Carpathians. All of them were called ”Tara” (from Latin ”Terra”): Tara Hategului, Tara Barsei, Tara Vrancei, Tara Lovistei. There were no public services or projects, no literacy, no healthcare. So, no written records. Only folklore, which supports the ”stay behind” theory. 🙂

[@vladconstantinminea]

I would like to add one point also, that even though Dacia was a Roman province for 160 years, the contact between the 2 cultures dates back since the days of Julius Caesar, or even before. There would have been periods of trade, periods of raids, and possible mercenaries that would contribute to the slow intermingling even before the full conquest. Also, the Dacians didn't develop writing, at least not on an advanced level. Just this fact would make Latin adoption preferable, especially for trade. In places where there was already an established advanced culture, like greek, romanization was less successful.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

4 Roman sources would disagree with you tho. Those are e.g: _Eutropius,_ _Jordanes_ and _Historia Augusta._ Here is a bit of Eutropius: "He surrounded the city of Rome with stronger walls. He built a temple to the Sun, in which he put a vast quantity of gold and precious stones. The province of Dacia, which Trajan had formed beyond the Danube, *he gave up, despairing, after all Illyricum and Moesia had been depopulated, of being able to retain it. The Roman citizens, removed from the towns and lands of Dacia, he settled in the interior of Moesia, calling that Dacia which now divides the two Moesiae, and which is on the right hand of the Danube as it runs to the sea, whereas Dacia was previously on the left."* _"Urbem Romam muris firmioribus cinxit. Templum Soli aedificavit, in quo infinitum auri gemmarumque constituit. Provinciam Daciam, quam Traianus ultra Danubium fecerat, intermisit, vastato omni Illyrico et Moesia, desperans eam posse retinere, abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Daciae in media Moesia collocavit appellavitque eam Daciam, quae nunc duas Moesias dividit et est in dextra Danubio in mare fluenti, cum antea fuerit in laeva."_

[@macpopa]

@@InAeternumRomaMater Aurelian abandoned Dacia for one main strategic reason: a border on Danube is much easier to control, with fewer resources. The problem is that by doing so, he acknowledged the weakness of his Empire. So, he tried to save face. That's why he established a new Dacia province south of Danube, where he moved all the army, administration and also the upper classes from the "old" Dacia. So, Dacia was not lost, it only moved a little. And all the Romans that were important for the Empire were resettled and were now safe. Aurelian saved the day, again. And all the historic sources play to this propaganda tune. But this only accounts for at most 10% of the population of Dacia. The rest never left because: 1. They couldn't afford it 2. Nobody cared about them 3. Moving 500k people for 500 kilometers is a logistical nightmare.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

@@macpopa It is literally stated in _Eutropius_ in just one sentence "abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Daciae in media Moesia" which translated "He (Aurelian) withdrew all Citizens of Rome from the *towns and lands* of Dacia he stettled in the interior of Moesia" that you try to twist the sentence of "the Roman citizens (aka citizens of Rome) of the towns and lands of Moesia" into more "important Romans" shows more that you are here to push the same communist agenda that has been put down our throats for the past Century instead of actually coming to an understanding of the origin of us. It is also stated that both Moesia and Illyricum were depopulated, towns and cities left, and lands abandoned or destroyed by the invading Barbarians, it gives a reason of a fresh start for the inhabitants of Dacia Traiana than "unaffordable". And if "Nobody cared about them", how is that any "historical proof of no evacuation of the provincials"? Dacia started already for sure being depopulated prior of 270s, take the mother of Galerius Valerius Maximianus, who was a Daco-Roman and abandoned the province prior of Aurelians forced evacuation, and between 271 and 275 AD, is enough time of the withdrawal of 500k people, and surely the Legions and the auxiliaries would have left after the province was entirely evacuated. Not to mention that Aurelian after restored the world, he was having most of his time at Moesia, surely to focus on the evacuation.

[@macpopa]

@@InAeternumRomaMater So, I'm pushing a "communist agenda" 🙂 That escalated quickly. I grew up in Communism. I hated them. It was not their idea the continuous inhabitation of present day Romania. It's always been here, to say so. On the other hand, the migration theory needs to be proven. I'm only pointing out that: 1. You cannot evacuate an entire province entirely. Look at what happened in Brittania. 2. The only sources that support the migration theory are some very debatable texts. They are stretched out to look like a mass evacuation. Please keep in mind that the authors themselves wrote in the key of Aurelian being the restorer of the Empire.

[@karimmezghiche9921]

I'm literally addicted to your videos lol. Would it be possible for you to make a video about the Byzantine Senate? I'm really interested in learning about the evolution of the Senate, especially from the Macedonian dynasty onwards.

[@sandrojones8068]

There are the Romioi in Greece and the Romans in modern Rome who are very proud

[@saint-simon1134]

Do you mean aromanians? With „a“

[@MTGnEWbie420]

i live in Romania in Drobeta Turnu Severin , a city that Trajan came and stood a winter before invading Dacia, here is also the famous bridge where Apolodorus of Damasc built over the Danube river. Pretty amazing if you guys are curious do a google search !

[@vladodobleja748]

Și eu tot de la Drobeta-Turnu Severin sunt!

[@MTGnEWbie420]

@@vladodobleja748 lovely :))

[@vladodobleja748]

@@MTGnEWbie420 In ce zona stai?

[@Transilvanian90]

Eu din Cluj, dar va salut :))) podul lui Apolodor era incredibil.

[@LordWyatt]

Very informative video:) I asked this when Britannia had 600 years but had less Latin influence than Dacia which had only 160 years, yet both were frontier provinces. I was told Dacia was wealthy and was a focus for the Romans while Britannia had to be built from the ground up, had the sea as a natural defense, and few resources to extract. Only the British elite had to learn Latin while the people of Dacia learned Latin

[@zyracxes9333]

Around the Romanization of Dacia exist the theory of the gold rush, they explain it that it happen like in Americas how entire native civilization become assimilated by Spain or other European powers in less than 200 years. They say many people come in big numbers after gold and wealth, as Dacia was rich in gold and silver. Meanwhile Britania was a province with nothing to offer resource wise and it was not atractive as today for emigrants, this is why Romans dont put to much effort to conquer Germany also for them it had nothing to offer. Latin was spoken in Dacia even before conquest maybe as today all we know English even if is not our native language, many inscriptions left from Dacians are writen in Latin. So the romanization exist even before thru trade, later during the roman conquest and after the conquest when the locals keep in touch with those from south.

[@davidmcgarry8910]

@@zyracxes9333 Britannia had more tin than anywhere else, quite a lot of copper, some lead and that was about it. The tin was available to traders before and after the Romans were in Britain, so there was no sound economic reason for the invasion. It was more about pacifying Celtic tribes who might have been a nuisance if left to their own devices.

[@AntoniuDraculea]

Dacia was heavily colonized with romans (latin speakers), including large numbers of roman veterans, all after a traumatic war where notable % of the male dacian population got wiped, leaving a large % of dacian females without any dacian pair. Britain was basically uncolonized. Most romans there were just romanized native britons. The dacians previously had a state of their own and were accustomed to living in symbiosis with a state, accustomed to being influenced and guided by it. The britons never had a centralized state, a civilization of their own and were unaccustomed to interracting with a state, with being influenced by it. In Dacia Christianity took root as a popular cult based on the vulgar latin language. Accepting Christianity meant accepting vulgar latin (proto-romanian). Even the goths who invaded Dacia were largely aryan chrisitan. In Britain Christianity got wiped out by the pagan invading anglo-saxons and later re-intorudced by a centralized church. Thats basically it.

[@zyracxes9333]

@@AntoniuDraculea Are you the same Antoniu Draculea, from Quora?

[@virgilius7036]

Anglo Saxon invasion imposed the German language!

[@paolorossi9180]

Viva la Romania.Saluti da Roma

[@AntoniuDraculea]

From the book Aurelian and the Third Century by Alaric Watson - page 55 “Aurelian’s solution was as radical as it was bold. He ordered the complete withdrawal of all the legionary forces stationed in Dacia and redrew the defensive line along the Danube, thereby greatly reducing the length of the frontier to be guarded. Furthermore, he evacuated from Dacia a sizeable proportion of its more important citizens and resettled them south of the river in a newly constituted province of Dacia Ripensis. “ As the academic source above clearly states, only part (not even all) of its more important citizens (richer landonwers, richer merchants, richer craftsmen, etc, so basically somewhere between 2% of daco-romans and 0.something%) were moved south… I mean seriously, do you honestly believe hundreds of thousands/a million people abandoned all their livelyhood in Dacia (their land, which at the time was the most precious form of property) only because some dude in a palace said so, and moved through hundreds of kms of mountain, forest, marshes, etc on foot to settle in Moesia which was the most devastated (raided) province in the whole empire? That makes 0 sense which is why the near consensus among historians (as shown above) is that nobody besides the army, administration and a few local elites left.

[@Transilvanian90]

Agreed! The bulk of the population likely remained behind, and while there may have been emigration waves in both directions across the Danube in the medieval period, it seems clear to me that there was a continuous Latin-speaking population in Dacia since Trajan's conquest. If we look at a more modern comparable example, in 1759-60 New France was conquered by the British Empire; the French ceded the territory and evacuated its military officers and troops, its administrators and other lords, but the rest of the population stayed behind and now form the French-speaking part of Canada, the Quebecois people. Those people preserved their French language despite being surrounded by English-speakers in both Canada and the 13 Colonies, and in fact that French language is closer to how French was in France prior to the Revolution.

[@razvanandreiantonescurogoz4236]

I recommend the article "The Vlach Connection and further reflections on Roman history", it is available for free online. Just to clarify, Romanians since the Early Middle Ages were very good at knowing the terrain and were not afraid of crossing the Danube or the Carpathians. They were everywhere from what is now Poland, Czechia and Slovakia (those countries literally have administrative regions for Vlachs, which is what we were called by foreigners) until what is now Greece. We were formed as a nation both north and south of the Danube, but we could only remain a majority north of the Danube.

[@torikeqi8710]

Romanians and different Aromanian populations in different parts of Europe have nothing to do with eachother.

[@razvanandreiantonescurogoz4236]

@@torikeqi8710 Really ? Despite being called the same name by foreigners ? Despite all the similarities in clothes, occupations and other elements of folklore ? Despite even now having enough linguistic similarity that Aromanian can be argued to be a dialect of Romanian ? Now imagine over a thousand years ago, it was basically the same language, from people with the same roots.

[@adrian.farcas]

@@torikeqi8710 an you have nothing to do with a decent human

[@torikeqi8710]

@razvanandreiantonescurogoz4236 LOL Aromanians are basically different people latinsed in different locations in balkans. Aromanian is so different according to places Aromanians live, that it can be considered different language. There are similarities in folklore and clothes between different Balkan populations but it doesn't make these nations the same.

[@addylupe5997]

@@torikeqi8710 It's a different language rather than just a dialect, for sure, but once shared a close common origin and was the same language about 1000-1200 years ago. The populations have obviously diverged and gone in different directions and blended with others both north and south of their original location, but to say they have nothing to do with each other reflects a lack of close research on the topic, with all due respect. It's been a somewhat heated contentious debate because both sides feel strongly about the issue, particularly Aromanians who now identify as basically Greek that don't want to be pulled away from that identity. But I'm almost positive at one point they were closer; the similarities aren't just coincidental. And I have partial Aromanian background as well.

[@CTXVII]

Fun fact: If Canada became a monarchy than both we and Romania would’ve been unified, at least on paper, by a marriage alliance. This would’ve made for one of history’s most random, yet most interesting crossovers. Imagine that, Canadians and Romanians as one, Celto-Germanics and Latins together again 🇨🇦🤝🏻🇷🇴

[@patrickohooliganpl]

Wait... Canada IS a monarchy. In personal union with the U.K.

[@CTXVII]

@@patrickohooliganpl No, no, I’m referring to if some of the British royals had become Canadian monarchs separate to that of the British monarchy itself.

[@Transilvanian90]

What potential event are you referring to? What royals? As a Romanian living in Canada I must know lol

[@CTXVII]

@@Transilvanian90 I cannot remember the specifics, but basically Usefulcharts (on KZbin) made a video a few years back about what if Canada became a monarchy. Anyways, he gave Canada to one of the royal lineages of the British monarchy and I believe it was one of the princesses from that particular line of royals who actually married the Romanian king irl, back in the early to mid 20th century. So what I’m getting at is if Canada became a monarchy, through this marriage between this British princess (who’d of be queen of Canada in the alternate scenario) and the King of Romania, both Canada and Romania would be unified at least under a marriage alliance. It is a very speculative scenario that assumes things go perfectly a certain way, but I thought it was fascinating that there once was the possibility for both Canadians and Romanians being very close allies with one another and possibly even unified into one nation in essence.

[@themapleleafforever1526]

"If Canada became a monarchy". Wait, when did we stop being a monarchy?

[@lentulus01]

Thanks for that! Romania does have an interesting history and I would love to see more about it.

[@daveweiss5647]

Great video! I have been waiting for you to cover this subject since the beginning. You are the first youtube channel that I have been able to follow and subscribe to simce the very first video first came out so I am a bit ashamed that I am unable to support you more through patreon or other means since I do not have the financial ability right now but I hope to soon. Please keep making your great content as long as you can you are one of the best history creators on the platform and one of my favorite channels. Thank you so much for what you do!

[@raydziesinski7165]

Very insightful and thorough. Well done.

[@jamesgrey1227]

Always wondered where you were from. Coincidentally, I visited Romania in May. Stayed in Bucharest, but visited Brashov (Castle Dracula day trip) and Constanta. Loved it there. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇷🇴🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇷🇴.

[@anthonybird546]

It's worth pointing out that in many provinces, the local inhabitants outside of the towns did not pick up Greek and Latin as languages until they Christianized as those were the liturgical languages, Cappadocia is an example.

[@ramseyr2852]

Well done as usual!

[@islar7832]

The romans civilized us so thoroughly that we started to enjoy it and asked for more!

[@ADINSANE]

xdddddddddd

[@MrDubyadee1]

I had read somewhere that a number of Legionnaires retired in Dacia, i.e. they were given land to farm and settle in and that it one reason for the stronger Latin ties. The Empire thought that by settling large numbers of Legionnaires in the area is would strengthen its ties to Rome.

[@MrMjwoodford]

This happened throughout the empire.

[@MrDubyadee1]

@@MrMjwoodford I was speaking of an official policy with special incentives. The Empire particularly wanted to settle this area with loyal Roman citizens. The other areas tended to be settled because they near where the legion was stationed.

[@Hikaeme-od3zq]

That's just a myth, there is no real proof to prove it's real that I've heard of, even though it's an interesting theory.

[@Transilvanian90]

@@Hikaeme-od3zq No myth, many veterans were given land in many parts of the Empire, and that included Dacia

[@muscledavis5434]

Didn't know you're Romanian, cool! I love that country, been there this year to dig out some Cucuteni settlements. Romania really has a rich history! I also love all the beautiful orthodox churches there and interesting archaeological sites. Like the Tropaeum Trajani which they reconstructed

[@naepopoescu7322]

To be super accurate, the original stones of the monument are displayed inside a museum and the ruins of the adjacent ancient city are open to visitors.

[@muscledavis5434]

@@naepopoescu7322 Yes you're right. I think the tropaeum trajani is special because not often you have a basically 1:1 newly reconstructed version of an ancient monument, mostly only partial reconstruction. So that's pretty cool

[@wallachia4797]

He's not Romanian. He might be the child of a Romanian family who lives in Western Europe or the USA though. How do I know he's not Romanian? He cannot pronounce "Român" properly, it's pretty clear he does not speak our language. Also, to note, he says that he is "Romanian at origin", not that he's Romanian. Big distinction to make.

[@christopherevans2445]

I love this channel! Always good

[@ceer9141]

So interesting, thank you!

[@unarealtaragionevole]

If calling yourself Roman, speaking a descendant of a 'Roman' language, and neighbors calling you Roman are the criteria...then the Pontic Greeks of Turkey are also still Romans and in some ways more Roman than Romanians. They settled and have been there since it was Eastern Rome, their language is unchanged, and they are recognized by Turks as Romans. Yes, their numbers are now small and they are dying out...but it doesn't change that Eastern Romans exist still.

[@Marcelocostache]

We are all Romans it does not matter as both Latin and Greek where oficial language of the empire until the 7th century in essence we are all Romans.

[@unarealtaragionevole]

@@Marcelocostache In a sense. But there is a difference being hinted at in this video. There is a big difference between saying 1) We are the children of Rome, and 2) We are Romans. The children of Rome generally say "We came from Rome, but we are now Spanish/French/Italian...." This video is saying that Romania and Romanians were the last Romans because across history they never stopped considering themselves to be Roman. They called themselves Romans, they identified as Romans, they were called Romans by others. We cannot say the Romanian language is the same language spoken when it was a region a Rome. That's not correct. It's a Romance language, and like all Romance languages, it developed after that region was officially part of a recognized Roman province. Yes it's a Latin variant that morphed into a Romance language. But when the region was officially recognized as part of any Roman domain...that wasn't the language they were speaking. Not yet anyway. So going back to what I said earlier....using the criteria that the video uses to say that Romania and the Romanians were the last Romans; I would say that the Pontic Greeks are a better candidate for this title. Because unlike the Romanians, the Pontic Greeks were Eastern Roman citizens, who settled in a eastern region of the Eastern Roman Empire, their Greek was the version of the Greek used in the Eastern Roman Empire, and both they and others called themselves Romans. And nothing has changed in 1700 years, Today July 1st 2023 they are still in the same region, speaking a language which has changed very little since it was part of Rome, calling themselves Romans, and being called Roman by others. Even the Turks, the people who own the land they dwell on now call them Romans....it's pretty cool actually. Why say Romania is the country where the last Romans lived....when we could say that Turkey still has Romans living in it today?

[@Marcelocostache]

@@unarealtaragionevole thing is it’s hard to define what Roman is we are talking about a state that existed since the 700’s BC up to 1453 that’s some 2200 years of history yet it was the same state that changed from a kingdom to a republic to en empire so the question is what is Roman? Is it to be a romance speaker is it to be a Greek speaker? Is it to be an orthodox Christian or a Catholic one ? Are modern Greeks (romaioi) still descendants of the eastern Roman Empire ? Are modern day Italians, Romanians, Sards, Spanish, Ocicitans, Romansh, Portuguese Galicians and French descendens of the Romans? How do you defy as Roman we are talking about a state that started as a small kingdom on the Tiber then conquered most of the known world and ended its life as a Christian Greek state on the Bosphorus. A Roman from the second century will feel like an alien in Basil II Constantinople yet it was New Rome capital of the Roman Empire so again it’s hard to define what Roman is.

[@unarealtaragionevole]

@@Marcelocostache I will be the first to agree, as I often try to focus the passions of some of the Roman and Greek enthusiasts I see making videos or commenting on these types channels by reminding them that we must always try to be more mindful and careful on what we say and how we say it. Because if we are not specific...we are often not accurate. So I agree 100% that a framework needs to be created for any given topic and debate, which Maiorianus does at the start of their video when they say which criteria they are using to form their opinion. Which I really appreciate as they often do in their videos (which is more than a lot of the Roman/Greek videos and channels I see doing on KZbin these days). However, based on the criteria being used, I was saying there is a better group of people currently existing right now that fits their criteria for the title of "the last Romans." Now the questions you ask are wonderful questions. And we in the modern day, as well as the ancients themselves in the past, are asking them day after day. However, as we explore these questions we have to be mindful of not only of the answers...but the origins of the questions themselves. For example, when I see the types of question that you are asking here I can see that they are designed to create different methods of classification for "What does it mean to be a Roman?" A wonderfully important question that seems very complicated, if not impossible, to answer. But is it really? The reason I think people struggle with these types of questions is because they are missing a very very very very import part of the question. To every question asked...we need to add the phrase "....at this point and time." For example, "What does it mean to be a Roman at this point and time?" This simple phrase added to every question cuts through the majority of the chaos that comes from the fog history. The very chaos which you talking about. When we add this phrase we can't compare things that cannot be compared.

[@Marcelocostache]

@@unarealtaragionevole agree with you 100%👍

[@kyleanuar9090]

Saw a documentary on some western China people claiming to be descendent of the Romans but DNA showed they came from Iraq and they got really upset.

[@juansanchez5001]

DNA test always tells the truth 😅😅😅

[@memofromessex]

Appearance doesn't guarantee someone's ethnicity - I look like I am from the coast of the Mediterranean Sea - but I am of British, largely Scottish descent, both from DNA and family tree evidence

[@campelodemagalhaes]

And? Romans from the I century fighting in the East could be from that Iraq region…

[@deuteroniusz9222]

Results depend on the way how they were done, and by whom.

[@RAAM855]

​@@campelodemagalhaesat that point to now the pool has been so diluted its probably closer to native Iraqi than legitimate Mediterranean blood

[@lukang72]

your channel uncovers the fascinating parts of Roman history that most neglect. Great stuff!

[@robbabcock_]

Fascinating stuff!

[@TheRavenD]

Great work as usual! Are you a descendant of the Siebenbürger Sachsen? :)

[@Transilvanian90]

Interesting perspective; while I think it's possible that there was some truth to the migration theory, in that *some* Daco-Romans probably did move south, and later back north, I doubt it's the prevailing ethnogenesis of the Romanian people. First, one must remember the mountainous nature of Romania and how it's easy for a population to survive for a very long time in the forested mountainous areas of the Carpathians (and Apuseni) mountains, virtually immune to the waves of invaders in the lowlands. The same explains the long-term survival of people in places like Afghanistan or Greece's Mani peninsula, where Pagans thrived until 1000 years ago. Second, note the sub-languages of Romanian outside Romanian, notably Aromanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian, scattered throughout the Balkans; these are likely small remnant populations of the much larger Latin-speaking populations of Late Antiquity. Despite the much longer Latin presence south of the Danube, only these small groups remain, which makes little sense in the context of a migration theory to the north. These languages are also much more heavily Slavic-influenced than Romanian is. Indeed, the brevity of the Roman occupation of Dacia might explain why Romanian is closer to Latin: it separated from the evolving Latin world earlier than the languages that later became Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese; while these languages influenced each other for centuries onward, drifting away from Latin, Romanian's greater isolation kept it closer to the original Latin, similarly to how other languages in isolation retained a form close to their original language. A good example is Quebec's French, which sounds much closer to pre-French Revolution french than does French in France itself, which has changed in the last 300 years more than Quebec French did.

[@alexandruposiar2024]

You hahe my subsciption...keep it up ! And expand in more history time lines...good luck

[@ivanayala6789]

Great history video ⚔️

[@steppenwolf1872]

Thanks for the content! I' m Romanian and my name is Tiberiu!

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

Noi suntem Romani, noi suntem Romani! Noi suntem urmași de-al lui Traian! _-A Romanian song_

[@ulicadluga]

I think 165 years is long enough for some eight generations of "Romanisation". In fact, this migration from the Latin speaking Empire happened on a cultural high - when the Empire was at its peak. The incentive to assimilate and intermingle would have been great - and the region of Dacia, well surrounded by mountains, would have offered a "safe haven" to the Romanised culture, albeit on a smaller scale.

[@explorer1968]

About two years ago I stumbled upon a documentary about Roman Emperor Trajan and the modern-day Romania. There is an Institute in Bucharest called the Children of Trajan (I don't remember well), where the students declaim poetry and sing songs in Roman Latin! I believe that Emperor Trajan sent massive quantities of Roman settlers to conquered Dacia, ensuring a quick and deep romanization of the new province at an even superior level than that of Hispania and Gallia. Plus, the prestige of Roman civilization radiated to a very distant lands never conquered by Rome, making possible the firm preservation in Dacia of permanent romanization! Ave Maiorianus!!

[@smacpost3]

Fascinating. I'd love to visit Romania.

[@deathtocringe2464]

Some more hints would in the case of Carpathian mountain comunities of Romanians the use of Repedea (quick) for rivers that are called Bistrița (slavic for quick) in lower areas such as hills and plains. These might be the Daco-Romans that stayed behind. Another hint would be that Romanians in Transylvania always use Slavic place-names when those exist instead of Hungarian place-names. This would suggest that Romanian presence, even by migration, is dated before the arrival of the Hungarians. Which goes hand in hand with the information contained in the primary source "Gesta Hunganorum". Population movements of romance-speaking populations are known under the First Bulgarian Tsardom. After the siege of Adrianopole the Bulgarians move 15,000 of this cities inhabitans north of the Danube. These people might have been the ones that built the fortress of Slon (9th-11th AD) which controled one of the main access ways to Transylvania from the Danube. Also Emperor Mauricius in his Strategikon talks about Romans that live on the Danube facilitating access in the empire to barbarians. Also he mentions that raiding Slavs would take prisoners that they enslaved and would allow freedom or integration in their society after 7 years. Which might hint to the way romance-speakers interracted with Slavs. Another thing is that Slavs arrive at the Danube without using ceramics made on the potter's wheel (Prague culture). Yet at the lower Danube all archaeological cultures succeding the Romans have wheel-made pottery (Sântana de Mureș - Cherneahov 3rd to 4th century usually atributed to Goths and Ipotești - Cândești 5th to 7th century). Bassically craftmanship grew in close link to what was happening south of the Danube, trade did not dissappear, BUT there is a complete ruralization begining with the first decades of the 4th century AD.

[@tturcato]

Awesome video

[@gabrielepopa6870]

Fuck! I knew Maiorianous was a Romanian youtuber, i felt the accent in your english speech. Greetings from Italy, my homecountry, and greetings from Brasov, my parents hometown! Amazing videos

[@-haclong2366]

I thought he was German.

[@alexandrub8786]

​@@-haclong2366he might be from banat swabian or transylvanian saxon.

[@gabrielepopa6870]

@@alexandrub8786 exactly my thought

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

​@@-haclong2366 So did I. However, he still can be both German and from Romania, just as Peter Maffay.

[@memofromessex]

If I can make a request - can you do a video on the province of Valentia - the supposed province between Hadrian's and Antonine's wall?* Or other late mysterious provinces? *Most recent historians place it to the south, but they can not say for absolute certainty and rely on a dearth of datable evidence, but Carl Sagan once reportedly said “Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence”

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

Thanks for covering one of the Eastern European countries. We get so little history of these, Roman or otherwise, here in the US.

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

You're welcome :) I was born there, so of course I have a bit of a connection to Romania and Eastern Europe. I will make more videos about particular countries and their connection to the Roman Empire.

[@VladVlad-ul1io]

@@Maiorianus_Sebastian You were born? May i ask your ethnicity?

[@antoniomoreira5921]

Schwerpunkt made an interesting video bout about Late and post Roman Dacia as well as Medieval Wallachia and Moldavia. Basically it would be get down to a mix of transhumance movements and some persistence

[@mrawesome1688]

Today's italians are mixed of germanic tribes with Latins. Also Dacia today known as Romania was conquered and romanized. I wouldn't say though that Romania is the last country where the Romans live. Cause greeks also call themsleves Romans until today also south Italians are deffinetly likely to have strong roman dna also people in Spain are likely to.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

It really doesn't have anything to with DNA tho, and it is true, we are all Romans in a sense. But what I understood, the purpose of the video is to show how Romanians have seen themselves and embraced the Roman identity, not that Italians and Greeks are not Roman. The Proto-Romanians (5th-8th Century) likely had around their Roman identity much more of a Romanness meaning than compared to Romanians of the 16th Century in which the French traveller noted Romanians seeing themselves truly descendant of the Romans. Not sure of the other Western-Latins e.g Italians and Spaniards, but we Romanians do have 3 Roman traditions, like Mărțișor, Sânziana and Călușari, not sure about the Greeks tho if they have anything around that was Roman today. It is really hard to give any clear definition of what do *we* see as being Roman in modern sense as well🤷

[@mrawesome1688]

@InaeternumRomaMater to be fair. Romans I'm the sense of the roman citizen in the Roman empire during the early centuries after the death of Christ simply dont exist anymore. Because that Empire fell a long time ago. Like you said, some of its culture and traditions were passed down to us today. But saying one country is the Romans of today is just simply unrealistic. Yeah we can find a lot of the Inheritance the Romans left behind to us. But that's about it. Honestly, Rome symbolised something much more than an Empire. It was a united European front. Europe was never more united than during the Roman Empire. I simply hope one day we can reunite having one border. Because there's not really a lot that differentiates us as Europeans rather than old grudges of the past, which I strongly believe we can set aside and achieve unity.

[@mrawesome1688]

@InaeternumRomaMater also the chrismon symbol you are using (☧) is greek for (Χριστός=Christ). Chosen by the Romans as a Christian symbol to carried I'm their shields after their conversion to Christianity because ancient greek was the most popular language if the Roman Empire.

[@kostatheteacher5458]

Dacia had lots of gold and was therefore incredibly important to the roman economy, lots of settlers were sent and the years Dacia had under the Roman Empire were enough on their own to permanently Romanize it. Traiasca Romania

[@sirjordancarter]

nah most definitely stayed, it's goofy to believe 80% of a large areas population will just leave everything

[@mars31m]

You ever seen the carpathian mountains? is very easy to hide there, even for 500 years!

[@QalOrt]

Hmmm Constanta was in the Roman Empire until the 12th Century. Is there any evidence that the folks who dwelt in Constanta moved out from the city and into the countryside?

[@fredhercmaricaubang1883]

Ave, Frater Sebastianus! This is just WONDERFUL! WONDERFUL! Most SCHOLARLY! It's just so sad & disgusting that the algorithm encourages idiocy & falsehoods & not such SUPERBLY SCHOLARLY works! I wish you & your channel THE VERY BEST!

[@yrthchannel5701]

"The Vlachs were only mentioned after the 12th century" - the Hungarian Chronicles: *details the Magyar conquest of Transylvania from the Vlachs, event which took place in the 9th century* "I am but a shadow." But for the most part I say you did a very good job and I appreciate the mentioning of my country. ^^ Roma Invicta! Roma Aeterna!

[@barnahammer2772]

The Hungarian Chronicles didnt mention the vlachs during the conquest of the Carpathian basin. They mention slavs (Svatopluk). It would be hard to mention vlachs, because at that time they were in the Balkans according to archeological artefacts.

[@lglubbock7593]

@@barnahammer2772hungaran chronicles you mean siberian reindeer herder propgandas

[@barnahammer2772]

@@lglubbock7593 Chronicon Pictum, made in the XIVth century, but I can mention the Gesta Ungarorum, which was written in the XII-XIIIrd century

[@lglubbock7593]

@@barnahammer2772 old BS is still BS the hungrian reindeer herders had an agenda back then also

[@lglubbock7593]

@@barnahammer2772 you were riding reindeers you only conquered pannonian steppe where slavs were the vlachs were in the mountains

[@AmericanShia786]

I agree with your view on the Romanian language. This is a fascinating study.

[@muscledavis5434]

Fuck it, time to support you on patreon🤝

[@Bidmartinlo]

In my opinion, Romanians have some of that Roman-like friendliness. Like the one you can read from their letters to each other. This is what I admire most from the Romanians. 🙂

[@AlexVictorianus]

Romans actually live in Rome, continuing ancient identity (SPQR) and institutions (Church) Most of Italian ancestry goes back to the Roman Italy. Italian language is the closest state language to Latin. yes, Romanian culture also comes from Ancient Rome. But Romanians are further from ancient Romans than Italian genetically and linguistically.

[@besteos]

Even if the title is a little clickbaity, nobody claims otherwise. Even the most enthusiastic nationalist doesn't claim that. On the contrary, nationalist movements tend to emphasise the dacian part of our ancestry more than the roman one.

[@imperator7828]

That would be Greece, albeit for various reasons after our liberation we were prevented from pursuing our Roman Byzantine Past, we were the ones who used and some still use the Name "Romania" and "Romaios"

[@user-sb2zw5gi8v]

Ευχαριστώ πολύ❤

[@WalesTheTrueBritons]

The majority of Europe have pockets of people who have descent from Rome. A lot of native Britons (Cymru Welsh) have Roman ancestry!

[@tiberiuandrusca4729]

It is possible that a part of the population took refuge first to the south of Danube in the province of Moesia, but I think the greater part stayed in former Dacia, in a ruralized society. The fact that were so many waves of migration people is also another explanation why organized states were not able to apear in former provinceof Dacia until 11-12 century. And also the situation in Transylvania is suportung the theory of staying behind. The romanians were the major population of Transylvania from the begining of hungarian conquests until the unification of Romania. Now I imagine it would be hard that several hundred thousands people would migrate into occupied Transylvania and just settle there with the aproval of hungarians...

[@raulpetrascu2696]

Another funny thing I hear is that only a few migrated, under the radar, and they "massively outbred" the Hungarians... 😂

[@Transilvanian90]

@@raulpetrascu2696 Yes, and this conveniently happened AFTER the Hungarians showed up, magically giving them prior presence in the Transylvania that they're so desperate to get back. What a convenient theory, eh!

[@RFCircle]

proving superior romanian sperm* and genetic quality :)))))) what a bunch of idiots would use such a theory against themselves @@raulpetrascu2696

[@comraderomania7988]

We are a very unique people. We speak a Latin language, we call ourselves Romans but we keep the Dacian traditions alive (as well as some Slavic & Celtic traditions)

[@corpi8784]

Scythia minor and southern parts of Dacia ( righbank Danube in what is today's Oltenia) were under Roman infleunce and on/off control up to the 6th century ( Constantine, Justinian, Maurice)

[@TzarTzarevich777]

I thought it was a click bait. Till i watched. No way the Romanians are Slavic Romans. But it turbed out that they are Romans. So Congratulations Romanian brothers! You are Roman! (P.S From the Land of Rus, Russia.) 🎉

[@Marcelocostache]

Yo do know that the Original Rus where Varangians ( Vikings) right ?!

[@TzarTzarevich777]

@@Marcelocostache yeah but then after Duke Vladimir married Basil II's daughter the Rurikids had Roman blood.

[@Marcelocostache]

@@TzarTzarevich777 true

[@shaggythewriter8185]

For the record I don't think anyone here would mind if you ever want to do Romanian history videos😮

[@alexandrub8786]

It could be his niche or an occasional side project.

[@shaggythewriter8185]

@@alexandrub8786 maybe even a second channel

[@alexandrub8786]

@@shaggythewriter8185 Now i remembered that there is a channel that makes videos about medieval Romania around Vlad III Drăculea(i.e. the Impaler): Corpus Draculeanum(bad news it is mostly if not only in romanian,good news it has english sibtitbles and not the automated kind) idk if it would be a good idea. It would need ro make a new audience,the subject is marginal and Eastern Europe is already niche subject.

[@alexandrub8786]

@@shaggythewriter8185 also if you are inteested Schwerpunkt was a playlist about Roman Dacia and Medieval Romania kzbin.info/aero/PLsTzegJZgtyhxTFfjW_om3FeqbKD0IDDB

[@ryandugal]

Space nerd here following you to Rome.

[@edwardfranks5215]

North of a line from modern Albania thru the northern half of Bulgaria Latin prevailed. This was lost to Slav languages. The Latin derived survived north of the River.

[@dorincucos2197]

The 12th century would be too late for a northern migration to explain the sizeable presence in Transylvania. I think it is far more likely that this happened starting from 700-900, a period during which the First Bulgarian Empire had control of the both banks of the Danube. Also the population that moved or was moved north doesn't need to have been Daco-Romans - any Latin speakers, of Thracian or Illyrian background, could have played this role. The few words that are considered to have been Dacian are thought so because they can't be classified as Latin, Greek, Slavic, Turkic etc in origin. But they could still be Thracian or Illyrian, as these languages are just as unknown. Regardless, it is an amazing story, and what can't be denied is that somehow, after a millenia of undocumented happenings, romance speakers represented a majority in the lands of what is now Romania - more than slavs, hungarians, cumans etc. This was the end of the world in those times (looking at the whole of Europe, this is the region that developed centralised states the latest), but my ancestors were happy to call it home.

[@radu9150]

What is really fascinating is the resistence of the romanian language during the test of time, while surrounded by slavonic and other languages

[@michaelporzio7384]

Thanks!

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

Thank you for your kind donation, I really appreciate it. Thanks to friendly people like you, this channel is made possible. Thanks!

[@kostadin11]

The theory that persuades me is that these Dacians or other tribes who were living near there, were always speaking a relative latin language. They are probably an autonomous latin group.

[@qbpdnguyen2844]

I still wonder why the Romans didn't use the Carpathian as a new natural obstacle like a second line of defense for the Balkans and Rome itself

[@alexandrub8786]

They would have needed to conquer modern day Slovakia,Czechia and the part of Hungary that was a vassal to them for that,at that point you might aswell take southern Germany to shorthen the border. But the main reason is,there is nothing there of value to conquer.

[@stamasd8500]

@@alexandrub8786 There's uranium at Joachimstal, but they didn't know that. :)

[@qbpdnguyen2844]

@@alexandrub8786 Yea I think they think about defense lower than economic benefits just like the rhine front with the slogan "One defense line is enough"

[@Transilvanian90]

The Carpathians were likely what kept Transylvania Roman for almost 2 centuries, but as a defensive line for the Empire itself the mountains have a problem in that there's a giant gap where the Carpathian bend exists; any migratory force can bypass the Carpathians from the east (Between today's Focsani and Galati)

[@qbpdnguyen2844]

@@Transilvanian90 Well that's bad but tbh without help on time no natural defend can help the Romans

[@stefanvas6984]

As a Bulgarian (with some distant Romanian connection among other things), I find this a very interesting topic. I think the role of the Bulgarian Empire (founded in 681) for the forming of the Romanian language is a very interesting topic. National states emerged on the Balkans after the 19th century and we can not apply the idea of the national state to the Medieval period. Each country had multiple ethnic groups within it. So is the case of the Bulgarian Empire. There is a widely shared opinion in the Bulgarian historiography that the First Bulgarian Empire included significant part of what is now Romania (which once again, gives no information about the ethnic constitution of the said lands or the languages spoken there): as there were wars waged with Khazars, Avars, Franks, and Hungarians. That is probably the case until the 10th century when the First Bulgarian Empire weakened. It is worth noting that there were strong connections between the Bulgarian aristocracy of the Second Bulgarian Empire (from the late 12th century; which by the way is sometimes referred as state of the Bulgarians and Vlachs) and the Cumans, and later the Vlachs and that Church Slavonic was in use in the Wallachian Churches for several centuries. However, to what extend the Second Bulgarian Empire (at least until the Mongol invasion in the 1240s when it again weakened) influenced/controlled what is now Wallachia remains a guess at best. These thoughts are not to tolerate some inflated and baseless chauvinistic ideas but in fact, the idea is to try to escape from the paradigm of the nationalism of the later centuries when thinking the Middle Ages. I do feel like that both Romanian and Bulgarian historians work piecemeal, concentrating on the the lands of their respective countries while a more interdisciplinary or rather supranational approach is needed. This could perhaps explain why Slavic language was dominant south of Danube while Romanian language dominated North of Danube. Probably the Carpathian mountain also played a significant role in the surviving of the romanized people throughout the centuries. Unfortunately, I think more research is needed and if there is, I will be inquisitive to have a peek in it.

[@andrelegeant88]

I've seen before arguments that Daco-Thracian and Italic languages would have been closely related. Strong similarities between the languages could also facilitate and reinforce Latin adoption. It might also explain why Romanian and Italian are the romance languages closest to Latin grammatically.

[@addylupe5997]

I'm Romanian and even I must admit that there is some credit that has to be given to the migration theory. Personally I think it was a blend of both, and realistically some complex, poorly documented and understood ad-migration process, a bit of both theories. They probably didn't completely leave but I think the bulk of the people who brought the language came from the south, or at least provided a strong reinforcement to any possible dwindling East Romance speakers to the north in what became Wallachia. I do find it very difficult to believe a population only Romanized for a century and a half hangs on to that language like that, but I also think the Romanization there was kind of atypical, even if it happened to the south, since you get some 'black sheep' type developments with it. Linguistics points more strongly to the migration or south/central Balkans formation: * Romanian contains inherited Latin terms pertaining to Christianity (eg. 'biserică' -church, 'preot' - priest, 'cruce' - cross, 'înger' - angel, 'creștin' - Christian, 'păgân' - pagan, 'boteza' - baptize, 'cumineca' - take communion, 'ajuna' - fast, 'altar', 'rugăciune' - prayer, 'martor' - witness, 'păresimi' - Lent, 'Crăciun' - Christmas, 'Dumnezeu' - God, and has some old folk names for saints starting with 'sânt' from sanctus before being replaced by the now more common Slavic influenced 'sfânt', for example the archaic 'Sânicoară' from Sanctus Nicolaus vs the modern Sfântul Nicolae), and this would've had to enter AFTER the early 4th century, since Christianity was not tolerated until that point (by Constantine in 313) or made official (by Theodosius later in 385). These terms indicate an already formed Christian church and some basic established traditions, not to mention veneration of saints that died during the persecution of the late 3rd early 4th century. So if they got cut off in the 270s this wouldn't make sense. Furthermore there are the terms 'cârneleagă' and 'câșlegi' pertaining to Christian fasting derived from Latin, and thename or Palm Sunday, 'Florii', from an ancient flower festival. It's true that many later Orthodox Christian terms came from Slavic and Greek as they came under the orbit of the Bulgarian and Byzantine church influences, but the most core terms are Latin. * There are also several pan-Romance inherited Latin terms that would've had to enter Romanian only during the late Roman Empire or Late Antiquity, or at least words whose senses evolved in a common way in that later period (despite this Romanian and other East Romance maintained some "older" terms for certain words, like 'alb' for white vs the Germanic 'blanco' in the West; but it seems Romanian also got a proto-Germanic Latin borrowing in the verb 'toca' which wouldn't have been used until Germanic became more influential on Latin in Late Antiquity). Also the closest Italian dialects are those of the South, so at one point there may have been some continued long distance and indirect communication across the Adriatic in the early Middle Ages) Thus I think the early proto-Romanian speakers only got cut off from the rest of the Latin/Romance speaking world in probably the 6th or early 7th century with the arrival of the Slavs and Avars and such, and later Bulgars. Another interesting linguistic tidbit is the now-archaic Romanian word 'șcheau', from Sclavus, which meant Slav or Bulgarian (now also a Romanian surname), preserving the original ethnic sense of this word, while in Western Romance the word developed the meaning of "slave", like in Italian 'schiavo' because in the early days many slaves were taken from these peoples. Sclavus was not a classical Latin word and probably only entered the late vulgar or medieval Latin lexicon during the early Middle Ages when Slavs were first encountered, again hinting at the longer presence of Romanian to the south within the Eastern Roman Empire rather than that early split in the 3rd cent. * All Eastern Romance including Aromanian shares some of the same interesting cognates with Albanian, which formed deeper in the Balkans, indicating longer cohabitation. And interestingly they both seem to share the same layer of early South Slavic borrowings which developed in the same unique way, further indicating longer earlier close habitation in the Balkans. Where they differ is the stronger additional later Slavic influence on Romanian (along with Hungarian and a bit of German) and the stronger Greek and Turkish influence on Aromanian. Though Romanian certainly has a decent amount of Greek (both more modern and ancient, via Vulgar Latin). Also note that the other Balkan Romance language, Dalmatian on the Adriatic coast, was not as close to Romanian as Aromanian is and rather closer to Italian, particularly Venetian and some northeastern dialects. I think proto-Romanian formed somewhere around what is now northern Serbia and Bulgaria but extended up to the northernmost areas of North Macedonia possibly, and Justinian was from there and a Latin-speaker. * I've done a thorough linguistic analysis and comparison with other East Romance languages like Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian (which is even closer to Romanian), and there's no doubt in my mind that they are uniquely and closely related, having been one language for a longer time than the 3rd century (possibly as recent as 1000 AD), and aren't just coincidentally both Romance and in the Balkan region. People who say otherwise haven't studied the languages structures and etymologies in depth. They share some of the same unusual (compared to other Romance) semantic developments too. Many terms had to do with transhumant shepherding, something that was noted as an important characteristic of both these populations historically. They share Latin terms that had a more general sense that became applied to specifically shepherding related contexts. But 90% or more of the vocab they inherited from Latin matches each other, with a few later divergences. Interestingly the folk costumes of the Balkans including Eastern Romance populations do show some similarities to Late Roman tunics but this could be just superficial and is uncertain. * I will say that Romanian's vaunted similarity to Latin is somewhat overstated by those who haven't studied it that much. It did admittedly receive both paleo-Balkan substratum influence (whether Dacian, Thracian, or Illyrian) from the start as well as heavy Slavic influence later, and this permeates much of the language... see also the concept of the 'Balkan Sprachbund'. Sardinian is technically the closest, and arguably Italian in some ways is up there too. Some of the high lexical similarity in modern studies results from the thousands of borrowings Romanian made from French, Italian, and Latin in the 19th century as part of a partial "re-Latinization" process for more modern vocabulary. * It's also interesting that you only definitively start hearing about Vlachs north of the Danube in historical records around the time that other little "Wallachia/Vlachias" start popping up in the southern Balkans/northern Greece, and with what was going on with the Second Bulgarian Empire (which was partly Vlach in leadership and sometimes referred to as such). Some of these things can still I guess be explained by continued influence of the Romans across the river for centuries after the 270s but I don't know. Sadly I doubt we will ever get a definitive answer to this just because there isn't enough evidence to do so. Realistically, these different Eastern Romance peoples have differentiated over the centuries of course, and each mixed with different peoples in the lands they now live in. And Roman doesn't necessarily mean Italian, it was just an idea based around citizenship in the empire and a certain language and culture. It is interesting that genetically Romanians tend to cluster either more south or at least in the center of Balkan populations rather than further north as one would assume based on simply geography, so it's a pretty complex thing...

[@raulpetrascu2696]

For me the idea that a large population completely moved out and back in again without any actual trace of that mass migration from the 3 surrounding literate empires interested in the area, into a dangerous exposed territory already populated by multiple hostile tribes, is less believable than the 160 years isn't enough thing (for the most heavily and roman colonisation effort of a resource rich province no less). Modern genetic and archaeogenetic research has shown that a whole population getting completely replaced or moving doesn't happen, almost never. Most people living in Turkey are primarily descended from the Hittites living there 3,000 years ago for example, Bulgarians are mainly Thracian despite their name and language. Even if the language formed south of the Danube, it is just not plausible that the majority of Roman Dacians left (when you also consider that modern Romanians don't map as gothic or something). There's too many assumptions in the migration theory, all it does is try provide a gap in the history of Transylvania where it's not settled by someone else... Before the modern country Romanian or Vlach meant speaker of Eastern Romance, these were throughout the area on both sides of the Danube, in the Byzantine Empire, even in Serbia, mainly pastoralists. (This is backed by many written sources and there were multiple Wallachias over the place). Slav migrations and assimilation over the centuries eventually reduced this spread population to just Romania and some sparse Aromanian settlements in Greece etc. There is no mass migration necessary

[@Transilvanian90]

@@raulpetrascu2696 Agreed; people give too much importance to the Aurelian evacuation and tend to ignore the cultural and linguistic influence that likely lingered for centuries after, certainly during the time of Constantine, and probably before Trajan as well.

[@user-kf3dg3ud5m]

The real descendants of the Romans are the Romance peoples such as the Italians, French, Spaniards, Portuguese and Romanians. There were also enclaves of the Western Roman Empire in the form of the Britto-Roman kingdoms of Gwynedd, Powys, Morgannwg and Rheged. Today they are modern Wales, which in turn is part of Great Britain!

[@nourmajzoub8328]

I like your study very much I'm lebanese and I studied medicine in cluj napoca then i studied my speciality in gastro enterology in toulouse france .I love history . You must do a research of the history of german population:nemții in romania.that would be nice

[@alexhatfield4448]

I remember seeing on the history Channel that Dacia had some great religion with a great prophet, but that the Roman's so thoroughly destroyed the nation that most of this religion is lost to time. I'm super curious to learn more about that stuff!

[@raulpetrascu2696]

Zalmoxis was his name and the theory is he was this really smart guy from Greece, said to be a student of Pythagoras, who taught the Dacians maths, philosophy, civilization and that souls are immortal so they believed him to be a god when he died/ascended, becoming monotheistic long before the arrival of christianity

[@AlexAlex-km9db]

Really like the video, but I always wondered why they would migrate from the safety of the Roman Empire/Slavic kingdoms, where their homes and their ancestors lived, into a land that is constantly under attack by invading forces/migrators and somehow outbreeding and winning the assimilation wars in the area (germans, avars, hungarians, slavs, steppe peoples), while always being subjugated or considered foreigners up until the formation of Wallachia and Moldavia, and in Transylvania until the formation of Romania in the 20th century or whenever it was formed. While the Vlachs south of the Danube were losing the assimilation wars even though they were reportedly more numerous and spread all over north of the Jireček Line, most likely south of it as well. Also, why not migrate into the eastern Byzantine Empire when the western one fell? The Byzantines Empire still considered itself the Roman Empire, not the Greek empire, so they were culturally close. Why the province of Dacia specifically, and somehow retaining the same kind of territory the Dacians did? Moldova, Transylvania, Wallachia.

[@alexandrub8786]

1.the safety of the roman empire/slavic kingdoms Because there wasn't that much safety there as you might think? We don't talk about the Pax Romana times we talk about "this year there were 3 emperors,we are at war with Persia again with the emperor on the front and the barbarians over the river[Danube] have started raiding us because they jeard that" times 2. About the ancestral land and invading forces Why did the germans and irish leave their ancestral lands for america while the 30 years war happened in Germany and the Great Famine happened in Ireland? And with the invading forces a method to not get attacked was semi-nomadism of the shepherders. That is how Moravian Wallachia existed. 3."And in Transylvania until the 20th century" Yes king Ludovic de Anjou of Hungary did weakened the standing of the romanian people with his decree in Turda and decimated "Universitas Valachorum" forcing the local vlach nobility to lose all to the crown or to a hungarian noble or to convert to catholicism and be magyarised. 4. Why not migrate to the Byzantine Empire. Here the romanians mirror the gypsies. Their homeland was devastated and they moved north-west to Europe and people ask "why did they not remain in India" the answer is "They did but the ones that remained have a different name now than the ones that left".

[@notyourdaddude1957]

Most probably not all of them migrated, some migrated because they had no choice, but some remained in their lands.

[@Muhfariztopvideosshortsstats08]

"BRING BACK (OLD) ROMAN EMPIRE’S ERA!" "Romania Should be Unite "First "Roman Empire" is again!" - Romania

[@isimerias]

Linguistically I think it might also be interesting to consider when the daco Romance languages are estimated to have started diverging. Aromanians in Greece are certainly present due to medieval migrations. What about elsewhere?

[@francks3544]

Most probably in the 11th/12th century (the Romanian language has formed south of the Danube - important vocabulary from late Latin). The Romanians were the Romans from Ilyria/Moesia (nowadays Serbia + NW Bulgaria, a highly Latinized region, where at least 6 Roman emperors were born) who took refuge in the south (Macedonia, N Greece) after the collapse of the Danubian frontier. After the Byzantines conquered Bulgaria in the 11th century, the Vlachs had an important military role (historian Florin Curta from the University of Florida found evidences of a Vlach military elite in Bulgaria/Macedonia, that was behind the rebellion from 1185/86 forming the Vlacho-Bulgarian kingdom under the Asen brothers). During that period the Hungarian kingdom, expanding east, began to settle Vlachs from the south in Oltenia, Wallachia & southern Transylvania, where there was almost no population. From the Roman times, almost nothing remained in the current Romania: no place names, only a few river names (but through Slavic intermediaries). Romanians are the lost child of Rome in the Balkans, who found a homeland N of the Danube against all odds.

[@etherospike3936]

You find it hard to believe that the Daco -Romans stayed behind in Dacia while there was a a lot of Germanic and Slavic migration, why don't you find it hard to believe that the Gallo Romans remained in France during Visigoth or Frankish or Burgundian or Vandal migration ? Why don't you find it hard to believe that the Ibero-Romans remained in what is now Spain and Portugal(the Iberian peninsula ) while they had their share of migration , and Arab occupation ?

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

Because first Romanization was very successful in Gallia and Hispania. Secondly, Gallo-Romans still were under Roman administration and military protection, even after Visigoths and Burgudians settled. Thirdly, the Franks adopted the Roman urbanism, society and kept its administration and the language of the Romans became by time popular. And same thing quite happened to the Ibero-Romans. Now, compared to the Daco-Romans, we have literally 4 Roman sources that specifically tells us that Aurelian resettled the Roman provincials of Dacia Traiana to Dacia Aureliana and the rest of Moesia, like _Eutropius._ The only thing that I disagree with the video is the idea that Proto-Romanians migrated north of the Danube in the 11th-12th Century, when Moesia fell in 7th Century for 400 years until its reconquest by the Byzantines in the 11th Century, it would be weird that Proto-Romanians chose to migrate north of the danube when the Byzantines reconquered the land...Și sunt Român dacă osă începi cu idea că bă "ești Bozgor"

[@etherospike3936]

@@InAeternumRomaMater Nu voi incepe cu ideea, dar da , te apropii de unul :) Romanian people had their continuity within the Carpathian arch , when Hungarian leader Tuckutoum invaded Transit ANIA He found Duke Gelu (Gelou ) how declared that his loyalty is with Constantinople , and they mentioned that the country was enhabited by Wlachs , and it's not me but the anonymous chronicle of King Bella (who was Hungarian and had no interest to place Walachs within " their" realm !

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

@@etherospike3936 I know about Gesta Hungarorum, I read it as well and if you take a look at my comment to the video you will see that I mentioned it. The fact is, the Gesta just proves my point, that Proto-Romanians wouldn't have migrated to North of Danube in the 11th-12th Century, but much earlier. The Hungarian conquest over the region of Transylvania was finalised in early 10th Century, which means Proto-Romanians were already very well settled North of the Danube by 8th-9th Century, and that they migrated there by 7th Century. _Eutropius_ writings shows how the Romans of Dacia Traiana were resettled at Dacia Aureliana and the rest of Moesia, there is no way any Romans except at Drobeta still lived North of the Danube by the 10th Century. "He surrounded the city of Rome with stronger walls. He built a temple to the Sun, in which he put a vast quantity of gold and precious stones. The province of Dacia, which Trajan had formed beyond the Danube, *he (Aurelian) gave up, despairing, after all Illyricum and Moesia had been depopulated, of being able to retain it. The Roman citizens, removed from the towns and lands of Dacia, he settled in the interior of Moesia, calling that Dacia which now divides the two Moesiae, and which is on the right hand of the Danube as it runs to the sea, whereas Dacia was previously on the left."* _"Urbem Romam muris firmioribus cinxit. Templum Soli aedificavit, in quo infinitum auri gemmarumque constituit. Provinciam Daciam, quam Traianus ultra Danubium fecerat, intermisit, vastato omni Illyrico et Moesia, desperans eam posse retinere, abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Daciae in media Moesia collocavit appellavitque eam Daciam, quae nunc duas Moesias dividit et est in dextra Danubio in mare fluenti, cum antea fuerit in laeva."_

[@GrayShark09]

Hello Sebastian!☺ Do you speak Romanian? Are you born in Romania?

[@corpi8784]

Today's Romania was part of 2 Roman provinces (Dacia was even more province) Dacia and Scyhtia minor (todays Bulgarian & Romanian Dobrudja region on the Black Sea coast) For a time Roman influences/power extended well intoo todays southern Ukraine with Oliba pontica close to modern Mykolaiv and other colonies on Crimea

[@raulpetrascu2696]

I had a feeling you were Romanian! There is just some thing about being obsessed with Rome and being Romanian, so many history youtubers are from there. The German accent had me doubting tho, for so many videos until the moment you pronounced români perfectly here

[@mariusstefan7214]

He is Romanian

[@Haasthimself]

Transylvanian Saxon

[@VladVlad-ul1io]

@@Haasthimself he is really transylvanian saxon?

[@boudicca9807]

What about the Romansch speakers of Switzerland and other alpine countries?

[@alexandrub8786]

Aren't they dying? Also wasn't romansch made an official language inly because all the other languages were part of another country(France,Italy and Germany) and the age of Nationalism has given Switzerland an existential crisis?

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

Love this video as a Romanian🇷🇴🏛🦅! But one thing about the Romanian origin South of the Danube that I actually agree with. Romanians wouldn't have actually migrated again back to the former province of Dacia Traiana in the 11th/12th Century, as Moesia fell for about 400 years, briefly from 586 to 595 AD and again in 615 AD all the way to its reconquest in 1009 AD. That tends to show that when Moesia fell and was open to numerous Barbaric plundering, the Proto-Romanians started migrating North by 7th Century actually. And not only to the North, but also to the Byzantine Empire, mainly Greece and modern day Albania and Montenegro as Aromanians live there and Stari Vlah meaning "Old Vlah" region was documented as early as 11th Century in modern day Serbia/Kosovo. The Aromanians in Greece who are part of the Proto-Romanian branch are documented there as early as 10th Century. Romanians north of the Danube are actually mentioned there in _Gesta Hungarorum_ a Hungarian Chronicle dating between 11th-12th Century mentions Vlachs and Slavs living in Transylvania and their Duke a Vlach called Gelou ruling the region in the name of the First Bulgarian Empire during the Magyar conquest in early 10th Century. Romanians of the Haemus Mountains which the first ever record of the Proto-Romanian language there in 6th Century are mentioned guarding again the mountains in the 11th Century when the Byzantines conquered the land again. This is not the only fascinating thing, the Timok-Romanians in modern day Serbia still live in the former Moesia Superior! The fact is, 4 Roman sources mentions the evacuation of Dacia Traiana and how the Roman provincials from Dacia Traiana were relocated to Dacia Aureliana, e.g Eutropius, Historia Augusta and Jordanes... About the first record of the Proto-Romanian language, it was mentioned two times, one time in Theophylactus Simocatta Histories written c.630 but refers to an event taking place in the year 587 AD, and again in Theophanes Confessor Chronographia written c.814. Both events takes place in the Haemus Mountains modern day Bulgaria called Balkan Mountains. In 587 AD the word _Torna_ is mentioned coming from Latin _Tōrno_ meaning "Come back", and still exists in Aromanian as _Tornu_ and In Romanian _Toarnă_ but its meaning has changed to "pour" in Romanian. And in 814 AD, a new word is mentioned and it's _Fratre_ coming from Latin _Frāter_ meaning "brother" and still exists in Romanian and also Aromanian as _Frate_ still meaning brother. And about the Romanian ethnonym of _Român_ and the _Vlach_ exonym. Let's start with the exonym Vlach, this name is an exonym which means that it is a name given to us and not something that we used for ourselves originally. This name is used for Romance-speakers and for the Celts. It originates from Antiquity, during Caesars conquest of Gaul and the mention of the tribe Volcae that the Germanics also called Walhaz. The name Volcae comes from the Gaulish noun Uolcos meaning "hawk, falcon". It started being used by Germanics later for Celto-Romans and a bit later for Romans in general. It later passed to the Slavs and from Slavs to the Byzantine-Greeks. And it started to be used for all Romance speakers of the Balkans. Italians as an example were called as Lehi by Slovenes, Wloszy by Poles and Olasz by Hungarians that even today refer to Italy as Olaszország. Hungarians and Poles referred to us Romanians as Oláhs and Wloszy. But we Romanians always referred to ourselves as Romanians. The ever surviving document from us Romanians (that I know of) that mentions the ethnonym _Român_ is a letter from 1488 AD from the Moldavian Prince St.Stephen the Great. And from the outside is from King Béla the Third in 1185 AD. But, we didn't only use the ethnonym Român but also Rumân, both meaning Romanian and coming from Latin Rōmanus. But Rumân started meaning "Peasant" so by 1746 during the reign of Prince Constantine Mavrocordato, he abolished serfage and the word dropped, but was kept in usage by locals until 20th Century. But Timok-Romanians still use it tho.

[@necrosero]

well said! one mention though: we still have "inturna" (to come back) in Romanian, although it's not used too often

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

​@@necrosero wow, nu aveam nicio idee de acest cuvânt să mor eu de nu😂. Mersi pentru comentariu

[@boudicca9807]

I'm old enough to remember when Romania was called Rumania by English speakers. If Ruman came to mean 'peasant' and if it was originally the same word as Roman, I wonder whether there was a non-Roman ruling class at one time that equated the agrarian people with Romans.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

@@boudicca9807 "Rumania" was an English borrowing from French "Roumanie". The name was brought from Wallachia prior of the Little Union in 1859 by a Romanian Unionist

[@alexandrub8786]

​​@@boudicca9807according to some theories the Basarab (the progenitor dynasty of the Dăneștii and Drăculeștii houses) was of foreign blood of one of the migrant people of iranic(not iranian,same difference as germanic and german) origin. Now mind you that this is a fringe theory.

[@majormarketing6552]

I wonder how many fled Constantinople to Dacia in 1400+AD

[@Theodorivs]

Doubt much did, especially smart ones seeing the Turk’s rise of power in the balkans

[@MTGnEWbie420]

@@Theodorivs well they went mostly to Greece while less migrated north

[@corpi8784]

If there were remining Daco-romans ( that would have been mostly latinized paleobalcanic people like Dacians /Thracians and possibly also Illiryans) then they as the archeological record shows they will have mixed with the newly arriving immigrant slavic and later bulgaroslavic elements. Probably already beginning in 5th or 6th century. A later additional migration of Balkanromance qddition from areas of Northern Bulgaria/Noetheastern Serbia possibly even northern

[@mikejacob3536]

It's not hard to understand people groups being influenced by powerful, but short lived people groups nearby. Thousands of miles separate the United States and Japan, but there are obvious Americanisms in the Japanese language and culture. Much of this was evident within thirty years after the surrender of the Emperor.

[@AntoniuDraculea]

As a romanian and a longtime viewer of yours I was very excited to see a video about my people, but also very shocked at how poorly researched and supperficial it was. No sources about romanians in today's Romania before 12th century? Wait, what? We do have sources placing romanians in today's Romania contineously since late antiquity to late dark ages, for example Pseudo-Maurice (late 6th century military manual, containing a description about what’s happening north of the Danube (today’s Romania) at the time. ‘’They /the Slavs and the Antes/ live among nearly impenetrable forests, rivers, lakes, and marshes, and have made the exits from their settlements branch out it in a feigned panic and run for the woods. When their assailants disperse after the plunder, they calmly come back and cause them injury.[…] Even some Romans have given in to the times, forget their own people, and prefer to gain the good will of the enemy. Those who remain loyal ought to be rewarded, and the evildoers punished.’’ So, according to the byzantines, the romanians preferred to colaborate with the slavs who setteled among them, rather than with their roman brethren, which angered the byzantines. What you also fail to mention is that although most sources mentioning romanians are written in the 12th century or later they all unanymously agree about romanians being contineously present in the region and being the natives of it since ancient times. For example: 1. Nestor's Chronicle (Kievan Rus 1377) describing events from the 9th century ''In the year 6406 (898) the magyars pass by Kiev, over the mountain that today is named Ogor Koie and reach the Nipr where they set tent, for they are nomads, as are the Polcovii. Coming from the East in a hurry through the tall mountains, they, the magyars, started fighting vlachs (romanians) and slavs who lived there.'’ So, according to the Kievan Rus, when the magyars first entered the Carpathian Basin in the 9th century they found romanians and slavs. 2. Simon de Keza (XIII’th century) describing events from the 9th century+: After almost all of Attila's sons had perished, together with their schythian people, in the war of Crumbelt, Pannonia went on for ten years without a king, remaining only to the foreign slavs, greeks, teutons, messians and vlachs (romanians), who, during the days of Attila were slaves. […] Of the huns, three thousand men were left, who survived by running from the Crimildin war and who, fearing the western peoples, remained in the Chigla plains, until the rise of Arpad. These didn’t even call themselves huns, but Zaculi (Szekelys). For these Zaculi are the remains of the huns who, when they heard the hungarians were returning to Pannonia, stud in their path as they were returning, in Ruthenia and, after conquering Pannonia together, descendend in part, but not in the plains of Pannonia, but, neighbours with the vlachs (romanians) they had the same fate in the mountains (Transylvania). So according to Simon de Keza, both during Attila's times (5th century) and during the magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin (9th century) you had romanians in the place and in Transylvania they were dominant (the szekelys setteled among them, where they are even today). 3. Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum (describing events in the late 9th century hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin) About the Ultrasilvan land ''And, staying there for a long time, Tuhtum, the father of Horca, a clever man, after hearing about the wealth of those living in the land beyond the forest, where a vlach (romanian) Gelou ruled, started to sigh.’’ About Tuhutum's farsight ‘’And the earlier mentioned Tuhutum, a farsighted man, sent a cunning man, Ocmand, father of Opaforcus so that he, sneaking around, would inform about the qualities and fertility of the Ultrasilvan land and what kind of people are inhabiting it and if it would be possible to wage war on them. For Tuhutum wanted to earn reputation and land, and as our minstrels say: all earned land and good name. So what more is to say? When father Ogmand, Tuhutum's scout, sneaking around like a fox, saw as much wealth and fertility, as was possible to see, and the land's people, he was overjoyed and in a hurry he told his lord about the wealth of this land: that the soil is wet by the best rivers, of which names he remembered, that in their sand gold flows, that the gold of that land is the best gold there is, that from that land salt and salty matter is extracted and that the people of that land are the poorest of them all; For they are Vlachs (romanians) and Slavs with no other weapons besides bows and arrows and their duke Gelou is far from being a powerful man and lacks good men and would never dare to match the courage of the magyars, for they already suffer greatly because of the Cumans and Pecenegs.’’ So Transylvania back then was a dukedome ruled by a romanian and inhabited by romanians and slavs. Apparently the dukedome wasn’t a consolidated one and it is this weakness, combined with the riches of the land, that attracted the hungarians. Menawhile is there any single chorncile, any single source talking about any migration of romanians from the south to the north of the Danube? I mean, do you even realise how massive a migration would be to romanianize over 300.000 square kms?!!?? It would have to be one of the largest migrations in the history of Europe, larger than the slavic migration. Is there any chronicle talking about such an event? Any archeological study revealing such an event? Literally none which is one of the reasons why I find your conclusion very supperficial.

[@GM-os6fo]

anonymous did not mentioned vlach people so what u say is not truth He spoke about blashi and slavs I don't think these people were many If they were they could probably stop the Hungarian to coming through the land .but they couldn't They not even tried.. And gyelu maybe is the Hungarian chieftain called Gyula who was literally ruled transylvania in that time

[@AntoniuDraculea]

@@GM-os6fo [your quote: anonymous did not mentioned vlach people so what u say is not truth] Anonymous talked about vlachs (romanians) and this is unanymously agreed upon by western historians. For example, the French Academy awarded Édouard Sayous, Histoire générale des Hongrois, BiblioBazaar, 2014 or the famous Keith Hitchins's with his ''The Romanians & Romania'' books. Vlach, voloh, blach, blackumen, etc are all variants of the same word describing romanians. Older saxons in Transylvania today will call fellow rural romanians '' Blochen, Blechen or Blachen". So no, anonymous was absolutely talking about romanians. And so was Maurice in his late 6th century/early 7th century manual when he said north of the Danube (in general) you find ''romans and slavs''. And so was Nestor when he said that when the magyars first entered the Carpathian Basin they found romanians and slavs. And so was Kekaumenos when he wrote that in the 9th century the byzantine empire was invaded by vlachs from Trajan and Decebalus's Dacia. And so was Simon de Keza when he said that after Attila died Pannonia was left to the slavs, germans and romanians and that after the magyars & huns (szekelys) conquered the Carpathian Basin, the magayrs gave szekelys a home in Transylvania where they setteled among romanians. All sources are unanymous on the matter. Meanwhile there are 0. Literally 0 sources talking about any migration of romanians from the south to the north. So my point stands. "If they were they could probably stop the Hungarian to coming through the land .but they couldn't They not even tried.." They tried as the source says, as every source on the matter says, but sedentary european populations virtually always lost first conflicts with steppe nomads. "And gyelu maybe is the Hungarian chieftain called Gyula" That would make 0 sense phonetically. Anonymous clearly says he is a romanian. You got a historical region named ''Gilau'' near Cluj, where the chornicle says Gelou was slain. Gelu is a relatively common romanian name (local evolution of the ancient roman name Julius).

[@GM-os6fo]

@@AntoniuDraculea he had no Romanian identity so he wasn't Romanian Much like a chief of a local tribes With uncertain background Magyars could defeat the local powers, like moravians.bulgars.bavarians ,Germans If there was a big population in the carpatatians who's anti magyar and non magyar it would be not possible to form a kingdom There could be slavs and vlachs . bulgars and others, but they assimilated into the Hungarians

[@marcmona1864]

aaweosme video btw i cant find the roman rings?

[@carlosfilho3402]

Excellent Vídeo.

[@stefanolteanu512]

How much did the hungarians pay you to support this theory. 😅😅