Hey Sean 👋🏻 Interesting what you think, saying this words also being Romanian. The ancients, like Dacian tribes, believed in spirituality a lot. They believed in a prophet called Zamolxis. If you will ever allow time to check on this prophet,that the people were following as muslims as following their Quran, you will find answers why they could face a 1 to 10 battle. ✨🍻

@@duxromanorum9861 the albanians are some keyboard warriors in montenegro-greece-macedonia-serbia area, the are not mysterious.

Zamolxis is dead, that was a pagan god of Dacia that no longer exist, don’t give credit to a false god that was not able to save the Dacians .

Thank you i am Romanian

Romania💙💛♥🖤Albania

💪🇧🇬💪🇦🇱💪🇷🇴

@Gábor Banciu:))

Long compared to what? :) And it gets even more interesting when you try to learn it from books instead of youtube.

it's all a big lie ... nothing is true of this tale ...

@@attilakovacs1415 stay jealous hungarian little boy 🥺🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@Rumunskaya370 romania--tale..fiktion...

@@dalia_mar Mircea the Old Basarab, ruller of Wallachiei, fight în today Basarabia/Moldova....the name of Basarabia is after Mircea the Old (Basarab family).

Bulgaria and Serbia are not brothers of Romania.

Serbia este un dușman al României .

@@petrurares8300 ??? Serbia, Bulgaria, Grecia și Polonia s țările cu care România se înțelege cel mai bine

Albania.romania.are.our.bradher

Documenteaza-te mai mult in privinta miscarilor revolutionare de la 1848 si a celor unioniste de la 1918. Vei vedea acolo destula activitate banateana.

@@nemrody7828 Nu mă refeream la anul 1800 ci la anul 800

@@vicentecarrasco2592 fie cum zici, oricum, Banatul de Craiova iti spune ceva? :))) fireste ca nu, acum se numeste Oltenia. Da.. Banatul a fost un stat mai intins decat ceea ce se numeste Banat astazi, in anii 800-900

*Rakia

*Yogurt

@@user-nu7nd7lf4j *Sour milk

*excrement

You couldn't not know *

The Romans conquered Dacia in 106 AD. The Slavs came into the Balkans in the 600s AD. How exactly are Romanians "Slavs" again?

@@Plata-ori-plumbu i was talking about bulgaria

@@mihneavoinic8411 Oh, my bad. Sorry....

@@Plata-ori-plumbu lol it's ok

@@Plata-ori-plumbu we are Slavs

Kosovo is serbia :D

@@Randompersonldk Moldavia is Romania 💪💪

@@Randompersonldk Transylvania is Hungary 🇭🇺

@@tiborfarkas5180 Ungaria is Bulgarian teritory

@@ghostop1gg and North Macedonia is West Bulgaria.

Yea but Romania doesn't really get on with Russia, Ukraine and Belarus...

Yes like we are a romanic country but we taked a few words from slavs

@@victorbuturoaga6220 Romania's vocabulary is only 20% slavic, 70% latin and 10% other words

All of these flags lived under Turkish domination :) This makes you brothers :) All of you have same father :D

@@huseyinaltun1350 more like step dad, but ok XD

Well as no one has yet covered the full history of Romania I decided to do it. And as you may've seen my channel is kind of "balkancentric". Also as much as I am trying to hide it, I do have some bias on the topic as I have really good feelings for Romania.

"popovici" you sure you ain't serbian

@@miloskocic1759 well... never took an ADN test in my life so maybe I have some slav origin who knows

@@dragospopovici7337 not "slav" but serbian And probably its not small like 12-20 %

@@miloskocic1759 guess you'll never know

I'm proud to be Romanian 😱

@@nicongeorge195 Să se sperăm că corupția din țară ( Știu am făcut o cacofonie) va dispărea...

@@mapleshade2913Dar stii ca poti edita un comentariu? :)

I don't know about others but I'd prefer to be Donald the Duck rather than Dacian.

First Bulgarian Highschool was established in Romania (Principality of Moldova, immediately before the 1859 Union with Wallachia). Moldova's name throughout the history was also Wallachia / Little Wallachia / Black Wallachia / MoldoWallachia. After Hitler-Stalin protocol (Ribbentrop-Molotov), BOlgrad and South Bessarabia was taken by USSR and now is part of Ukraine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolhrad_High_School

6:08 1859*

Lol Romanians have no other great state than dacia Turks had many great States in history

@@glaus7593 if you want I can count how many turkic States they were in history and with wiki proof

@@glaus7593 lol only If you knew how many they were and Albania isn't turkic it's albanic smartass

@@glaus7593 your just a troll like this boy

@@glaus7593 and ig the one in your pfp is you a dog

Mooie NATO!!! 🇺🇸🇪🇺🏳️‍🌈🤡

@Gábor Banciu kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p96PaJli2qqyqXk.html

>the "Primary Cronicle" mentions that the magyars defeated the vlachs when they conquered transylvania. Does it? Where? >Plus in Romania is a city named "Gilău" wich is located in the region we assume Gelou reigned. So Gilău most likely comes from "Gelou". Maybe it's the other way round, we know Anonymous named rulers after toponyms in the region he put them.

@Gábor Banciu translate :)))

@Gábor Banciu translate in a speakababell lanqwicy

@Gábor Banciu turks :))

@@g-rexsaurus794 this is what he was talking about The Russian Primary Chronicle, written in ca. 1113, wrote when the Volochi (Vlachs) attacked the Slavs of the Danube and settled among them and oppressed them, the Slavs departed and settled on the Vistula, under the name of Leshi. The Hungarians drove away the Vlachs and took the land and settled there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

I am one

I think Gelou, Banat, Menumorut was slavic.

Yeah it is stil debated. Although Gelou is mentioned to be Blach(vlach).

@@historyrhymes1701 And Wallachia was Polish vassal in few years, i include it in my new video about Poland, but this is small mistake beacuse nobody knows about it dx.

@@POGKPP moldavia was polish vasal

Yeah way before that, we had Getic tribes as early as ~750 B.C.

Wrong, Romanians called themselves Romans centuries ago, since at least the 15-16th centuries

Utahraptor amm..you are ok my friend? If you want to comment about a history of a country learn it first..that’s relly absurd

@@9_9876 not really. It just used to be Wallachia, Moldavia and Transilvania, which were made up of simmilar people (modern day romanians) but they never called themselves romanians. Even when they united in the Middle ages, they were called Wallachia.

@@bacebulgarianmapper1186 it is sometimes said that Michael the Great's intention was not to unite the three principalities for the Romanian people or something, but it was in his interests. So the name Wallachia was kept. In the Nibelungenlied from 1180-1210, a "Duke Ramunc of Wallachia" is mentioend, which could have evolved into "român". Anyways, during the Renaissance, mostly Italians went to the three principalities, so now we have at least thirty 16th century documents in which Romanians use this designation, which has been translated as "romei, romanesci, romuini, ruman, rumani". In 1666, Johannes Lucius says that the Wallachians don't even call themselves Wlachians or Wallachians, but Romanians. Vlach has always been an exonym used by Greeks and Slavs for all the romance speaking peoples in the balkans, but the use of it by the Romanians has been very low, even if the name "Vlach" originates from Wallachia. So Romanians have been using this name for a long time

@@dragosdrg8051 read my comment

@Mihai Mungiu Andrei What is the song's name?

@@danielninchev724 lelita saftita

@@tuamadretuopadre240 Multumesc : )

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bbSjodeLt57GiGQ.html

I believe it is a turkish-influenced song. I did not know at the time of making the video. Still a nice old Romanian song.

@@historyrhymes1701 Its actually an aromanian song if you dont know aromanians are a group of southern balkanic inflenced romanians ... so this is why i could understand just a few words even the old romanian is easier to understand

Melodia, de pe fundal este făcută de Anton Pann in secolul 19,si are influențe grecești

@@_iustin_n8960 no it's not a aromanian song. There is no proof it originates from aromanians , and the dialect is perfectly romanian . It has greek influences and turkish influences , but anton pann is romanian

@@prodbyIGNAT Nu, are influente bizantine.

Your people came from the East after the dacians were there, so no. ;)

Yes, you are Romanian 🇷🇴

Nem. Ez a videó egy kurva nagy bullshit. A románoknak semmi köze sincs a dákokhoz.

No, you are a mongol from Mongolia, Asia, your ancestors emigrated in europe next to romania and they became hungarian

And the avatar from Mother Russia?😁😁😁

@@LeON_MCMLXXVII From Georgia :)

The Anonymus writings about migrating Hungarian fights against Romanians are confirmed by other sources as well (Nestor's chronicle, a Kievan Rus' record). Also - now - by archeogenetics.

He missed out on something.. after Cantacuzino and Cantemir allied with Russia, Turkey sold the throne to the highest paying greek. They lasted a couple years, at best. This ended in 1828, when Russia invaded again.

@@nemrody7828 It ended in 1821, after Tudor Vladimirescu's revolution, not in 1828.

Prima sau a doua?

Found it at this channel under: old Romanian Song. youtube.com/@OptasiMaguraBallMapper

That is simple. Even though probably having a Romanian majority , this principality was ruled by a dynasty of Hungarian nobles who saw their state as continuation of the Hungarian kingdom.

Because in the 16th and 17th century, Transylvania was an Ottoman vassal, ruled by Hungarian nobles. Really simple answer.

@@historyrhymes1701 It's can't be forgotten the TRANSILVANIA because it was recognised almost 600 of self organisation and administration recognised by HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE...and after by the Turkish empire ... ,Transivania it was under the hungarian kindom with interruption 150 years...max 200. After 1545 Hungary was ...PAŞALÂC TURCESC...but not TRANSILVANIA...and after comes the HABSBURGIC EMPIRE...with the capital VIENA for all... hungarians.serbian, romanians...13 minoritys...this is the truth.And which hungarians dynasty...the majority kings was not hungarians origin...you make CONFUSION look hear....the Austrian Empire 1806 1876 CONSIST OF...HUNGARY BOEMIA CROATIA MORAVIA SERBIA TRANSILVANIA ETC...THE IMPERATOR OF AUSTRIAN EMPIRE WAS EVEN KING OF HUNGARY....KING OF BOEMIA KINK OF CROATIA....MARCHIZE OF MORAVIA....BIG PRINCIPE OF TRANSILVANIA....VOIEVOD OF SERBIA..THEY WAS ALL .DIFRENT STATS.... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Empire

@@liltinglullaby3282 Hungary affter MOHACI was DISAPERS from the geographic maps ...have Turkish VIZIR at BUDA...but .not TRANSILVANIA...don't mixt the truth....Transilvania pay the TURKISH TRIBUT...but have one administrative organisation....and affter HABSBURGIC EMPIRE...It's was VIENA.the capital of EMPIRE....BUDAPESTA DOESN'T EVEN EXIST UNTIL 1873....so is not a simple answer...it's simple not truth.

@@eleonoraciorba6679 After Mohács, 1526., Hungary splits into 2. The West, which consisted of everything West of the Tisza river, and the East, which consisted of everything East of the Tisza river (including, but not limited to Transylvania). These borders were constantly changing though. These 2 were now separate entities, but they were still Hungarian, just like how both Germanies were German, and both Koreas are Korean. Then in 1541., the Ottomans capture Buda, which means that now Hungary splits into 3 parts. Thr Habsburg part: Magyar Királyság The Ottoman part: Hódoltság Transylvania: Erdélyi fejedelemség As I said, separate entities, but all 3 were treated as 3 Hungaries.

Who asked?

Romanians 5-12th century from from foreign written sources: (we know from archeology that last roman fort died in the 7th century.. and daco-romanians and slavs and gepids were constantly attacked.. and they formed a band of brothers, we find graves in the stana de mures culture of dacians,romans, gepids, slavs living together. we can conclude that the romanians are the descendants of Dacians of king decebalus, who were forced to change to latin language. linguistics and ethnography prove both respectively) * in the 5th century Priscus, the ambassador of the Eastern Roman Empire, met with Attila in what is now Oltenia (South-Western Romania). He reports finding Latin-speaking barbarians among Attilas subjects; * in the 6th century Procopius of Cesarea, the secretary of the Byzantine general Belisarius, reports that a certain Slav had managed to learn to speak flawless Latin somewhere in Southern Romania, to the point he managed to fool the Byzantine ambassadors negotiating a treaty with the Slavs that he is the former Byzantine general Chilbudios captured by those Slavs. His ruse was exposed only when general Narses, who knew Chilbudios in person met with the Slav impostor. So according to Priscus’ testimonial, in the 6th century Latin was still spoken in Southern Romania at the same level as in the Byzantine empire, which made it possible for a Slav to master it just by talking to the locals; * in the 7th century Emperor Maurice, who had campaigned several times against the Slavs in Southern Romania warned his commanders not to trust the “Romans” they meet there, because those “Romans” support the Slavs against the Byzantine army; * in the 11th century, the Byzantine chronicler Kekaumenos reported that the Balkan Vlachs had come to the Balkans from an area which is now the province of the Romanian Banat. he explicitly stated that the Vlachs are the former Dacians of King Decebalus, who had been defeated and killed by the Roman emperor Trajan; * a Norse saga (Eymundar þáttr hrings) about the deeds of some Viking mercenaries during the civil war between Sviatopulk I of Kiev and Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev (early 11th century) states that Sviatopulk had recruited Romanian mercenaries from an area near Halych (Western Ukraine). The mention is important because it shows the area inhabited by the Romanians was much larger back then, extending Northwards and Eastwards further than the borders of Roman Dacia; * the Byzantine chronicle of Niketas Choniates states that in the 12th century the future emperor Andronikos Comnen was captured by the Romanians (whom he calls Vlachs) near Halych. This account confirms the facts stated in the Norse saga that indeed the Romanians had spread beyond the borders of Roman Dacia after 275AD when the Romans had abandoned the province to the alliance of Free Dacians and Goths; * in the 12th century the Byzantine princess and chronicler Ana Comnena writes several times about the “Dacians” who came from across the Danube (from Southern Romania) and invaded the Byzantine Empire alongside the Pechenegs; * in the 12th century, the oldest surviving Hungarian chronicle (Gesta Hungarorum” by Anonymus), talking about how Pannonia and Transylvania were invaded by the Hungarian horde in the 9th century, states that the Hungarians had to defeat the Romanian dukes from Pannonia and Transylvania. It also says explicitly that some of those dukes sought refuge South of the Danube, just like the Byzantine chronicler Kekaumenos reported at the time those battles between Romanians and Hungarians had happened. * in the 13th century, right when the Hungarain trolls claim the Romanians had migrated from the Balkans into Transylvania, the second oldest Hungarian chronicle was written. It is hard to explain how in the midst of that alleged massive Romanian migration the second Hungarian author still wrote that his ancestors had to conquer Pannonia and Transylvania in the 9th century. I mean, was he blind not to see all those Romanian crowds driving their sheep flocks into Transylvania under his very nose?!? What the hell was he smoking?!? I want that stuff myself! Actually, based on the information gathered from all those sources, when the Hungarian horde came raping and plundering its way into Central Europe the Romanians inhabited a much larger territory than today. Hungarians claim “gesta Hungarorum” is not a reliable source. Actually, there is historical proof that suggests Anonymus got it right more than the others. For example, the path the Hungarians entered Transylvania and is exactly as described in Anonymus, and the other sources are wrong. We have the place of the first battle between Hungarians and the locals when entering Transilvania, exactly where Anonymous says it would be. After they won, the Hungarians buried their dead on the neighboring hill, together with the head and feet of their horse. We know it’s the earliest Hungarian graves in Transylvania because it’s a primitive ritual which they gave up later. So as you see, the contemporary written sources cover pretty well the 5th-12th century interval. Academics know that since at least the 18th century when all those ancient manuscripts were translated and published as printed books. The general public on the other hand may or may not know about those sources (I mean, how many of the readers of Quora genuinely care about the 5th-12th century Romanian history?!?). This lack of knowledge is exploited by the Hungarian trolls (and by Russian trolls occasionally) who claim “no contemporary sources exist about the Romanians before the 13th century”. Speaking about trolls who claim no sources exist about Romanians, the motivation of the Hungarian and Russian trolls are different. The Hungarian trolls are attempting to convince the world about the “injustice of the Trianon treaty” which allegedly gave “an ancient Hungarian land” (Transylvania) to the Romanians. According to those trolls, Romanians migrated into Transylvania from the Balkans after the province was devastated by the Mongolians in 1241. They outbred the Hungarians during the next 650 years, so in 1918, the much more numerous Romanian immigrants stole Transylvania from them. Leaving aside the big fat lie about the absence of ancient sources which as you have seen above, confirm repeatedly the Romanians were the native population of Transylvania and the only migrants there were the Hungarians, the Trianon Treaty didn’t give Transylvania to Romania. The Trianon Treaty (1920) merely acknowledged two recent facts: * that in 1918 the Romanian population of Transylvania (~60% of the population of the province), the German Saxon population of Transylvania (~10% of the population) and the Gypsy population (~3%) all voted for uniting with Romania. The will of 73% of the population decided to whom Transylvania should belong; * that in 1919 the Romanian army defeated both a Soviet invasion in her eastern provinces and then an invasion of the Hungarian Soviet Republic in Transylvania. Afer which the Romanians went on and crushed completely Soviet Hungary, occupying Budapest and two thirds of that country in less than 10 days after the attack. As a result of this complete defeat Hungary could not enforce any claims over Transylvania anymore. The Russian trolls on the other hand claim the Romanians are a Slavic people who got brainwashed into believing they are of Roman origin sometimes in the mid 19th century. Why on earth would the Russians need a “Slavic Romania?” Because then the Slavic Romania would “close the Pan-Slavic bridge” to the Mediterranean. Right now the non-Slavic Romania cuts Russia’s land connection to the Slavic countries int he Balkans. If “Slavic Romania” would somehow be persuaded to join the Russian-led Eurasian Union, then Russia would accomplish her 300 years long dream of gaining access to the Mediterranean and through there to Africa and the Middle East. So the Russian trolls’ narrative is that Romania was inhabited mostly by Slavs until a small Romanian-speaking elite arrived from the Balkans, took over the Slavs, brainwashed them and changed their language into a Latin-based one. Since the Russian story is even more laughable than the Hungarian one, we can bump into it less often here on Quora. Nevertheless it still can be found here, alongside its Hungarian version, if one is patient enough (one variant of the Russian trolls version is just the people from Republic of Moldova are Romanized Slavs, but many trolls are bold enough to extend it to all the Romanians). So when you see anonymous questions about the origin of the Romanians here on Quora you can safely label them as Hungarian trolling or Russian trolling. fiecare roman care vede asta trebuie sa il copieze si sa il dea mai departe cand vede unguri in comentarii, doar asa putem combate dezinformarea

so to sum it up.. the dacians which were caught inside the roman empire got converted to latin.. but they kept everything else.. then they allied with romans and ssimilted slavs, free dacians, gepids.. this turned into the daco-romanian culture.. which is romania today a latin speaking country with dacian traditions.. sons of dekebalus it is well known, but i romanian historiography, ceausescu exagerated too much with pseudo-dacianism.. and it got removed but sadly some important parts were also taken, which have historical backing.. such as the duchy of Gelou and Menrumorut, romanian dukes in transylvania 8-9th century from a history graduate, cheers

@@healththenopulence5106 A Dacian should also practice typing retention

@@healththenopulence5106 As vrea sa te trolez pe romaneste dar dupa ce ti-am vazut profilul m-am potolit. Glumesc. Remarcă te rog că povestea despre țaratul bulgar nu era menită să susțină propaganda maghiară, era vorba doar că istoricii maghiari sînt înclinați să spună adevărul despre acea parte a istoriei. Bulgarii ascund partea despre valahii din sud, dar și românii de frica infantilă de unguri. (Dacă ai sub 16 ani ai dreptul să fii infantil. Eu mi-am pierdut acest drept). - Originea exactă a românilor este un mister și să spui că știi care e adevărul este o prostie, chiar dacă povestea maghiară (că am venit după sec. 12) e ridicolă. 90% din toponimele românești sînt pur și simplu slave: nici latine, nici dacice! Ce înseamnă asta? Că românii au ocupat acest teritoriu după invazia slavă (sec. 6-7). Probabil dinspre Transilvania, dar poate și din sud de Dunăre. Cum? de ce nu înainte? De ce atunci? Cum de i-au înlocuit pe slavi? Mister. Dar povestea maghiară nu e o solutie. E o problemă mult mai interesantă care cere altă abordare decât cretina formulă „citește și dă mai departe”. Nu mai sîntem la 1848, România modernă e deja veche, coace-te și tu la minte.

False,yoou are slaved romanian kid bulgarian