วีดีโอ

I appreciate it! I hope I didnt make it sound like all Bulgarians came from Asia. I was refering to the group known as the Bulgars who spoke an Oghuric Turkic language and who are the origin of the name "Bulgarians" and the creators of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgarians themselves in terms of genetic makeup are far more influenced by the Slavs and Thracians which were far more numerous than the Bulgars. Im sorry for any misunderstanding. And hey! Congrats on making it into Schengen! We finally did it!

@thatstorm_spectre Thank you brother, usually thracians means barbarians in ancient greek, the thracians called themselves bulgarians that's why i react anytime when somewhere someone is mentioning things like we came from asia or our ancestors are asians, also bulgarians had big migrations through asia, that's where the connection with all the asiatic nations like turks,persians and other comes from, but im not going to do a speech and annoy, engage you with my talkings😁🤝 Best Regards!

I was not able to find any such Law. If you can link it to me that'd be a huge help! I assume that you may be referencing the Byzantine practice of Porphyrogénnētos, or Those Born of the Purple, which was a cultural practice in the Byzantine Empire which said that the heir to the Emperor should be the oldest son he had after ascending to become Emperor as that son would be born in a special porphyry chamber in the Palace of Constantinople. This practice would favor the younger son over the older if the older son was born before his father became Emperor. But this was not a law. And this is totally irrelevant to the Ottoman Empire, both because Mehmed was not the son of an Emperor and therefore the practice would work against him and the Ottoman claim but also because the Ottoman Empire is a totally different state from the Roman/Byzantine Empire and therefore the laws are irrelevant.

I wish I could one day have a fraction of the greatness that beautiful Bosnian man has Also valid opinion

@@thatstorm_spectrelmao ironically Living in Europe is Romanian that lives in Serbia

He's a Serbian living in Romania, but a long time ago he took a DNA test and turned out he was majority Bosnian

@@thatstorm_spectre ohh ok

It has nothing to do with DNA. Its just a linguistic category. The Bulgars spoke an Oghuzic Turkic language, so theyre linguistically turkic. Even if they were somehow "genetically turkic" which isn't really a thing they make up so little of the Bulgarian genetic origins it doesnt even mattee. By the way Happy New Year! I hope your 2025 is full of success!

Yea I feel bad that I didnt talk about Horea and the rest honestly. The problem with titling a video "The Entire History of Romania" is that there'll always be another important person that I missed. As for Ceaușescu yea he wasnt a great guy. Thats not to say everything he did was terrible but he didnt put Romania in a great place, sure he lowered the debt but Id say we're way better off today than we were during his time. And yea I spent 10 minutes talking about the communist times. Its a pretty notable time in our history

Toquz Oyuz - Epic Turkic Music by Farya Faraji. His work is honestly the best stuff on TH-cam I have every song in order of apperance in the description so if you want to find any music I use in my videos just look in the description.

@@thatstorm_spectre Tysm

Yes I severely misspoke. I apologize for that. Im not sure what exactly I was trying to say. If you take a look through the comment section to find other people who complained about the Bosnian section you'll see that I clearly already knew about the Bosnian unique church and early history. So yea thats on me. I owe you guys a proper Bosnian video at some point 🙏

@thatstorm_spectre Thank you for owning up to the mistake. I noticed other comments but wanted to give my own 2 cents with sources. Best of luck in future videos, and don't let mistakes like these happen again, as it can be really insulting. Waiting for that Bosnia video then 💫

Ill do my best man! Happy New Year! I hope it brings you nothing but success!

Sper că nu, gândind că și eu sunt roman lol

The genetics arent relevant. The Bulgars spoke a Turkic language specifically an Oghuric Turkic language which today only has one living relative in the Chuvash language found in Russia. That means they are a part of the Turkic language group.

Yea exactly. Im not saying the Bulgarians are Turkic, just that the Bulgars were. The Bulgarians themselves are a Slavic speaking group and following the First Bulgarian Empire the Bulgars got assimilated into the larger Slavic speaking population.

... nu

A fost chemat țara românească nu chiar valahia, valahia este un exonim care vine din germană

Thanks man! I'm not Serbian, I'm Romanian and most of it is just for humor's sake. Bits like that are just there for laughs. I try to come at it from as unbiased a perspective as possible because I know I like it when TH-camrs are funny but also don't take sides. Also, glory to Albania! You guys have some awesome history and should absolutely be proud of it! Oldest group in the Balkans along with the Greeks after all!

@thatstorm_spectre appreciate your positivity, hope your channel and career grows strong!

@@thatstorm_spectre Be careful when you talk about Albanian history, triggered Serbs are bound to come after you,…..

Sorry man, in the first couple videos I hadn't gotten the balance right yet. I hope for the Balkans video onwards it's better

While its true I underplayed the Thracians unknowingly regarding the history of the Bulgarians, saying the Bulgarians have 40% to 72% Thracian DNA is tricky and potentially not relevant. The reason being that there is no such thing as "Thracian DNA". The Thracians were not too dissimilar to the Slavs or Latins genetically because as groups they hadnt been seperate for all that long. DNA works on far larger time spans than things like culture. That being said its absolutely true that there is very little Central Asian DNA in Bulgarians, ans the reason is that the Turkic Bulgars were not a majority, they were a ruling class that organized the first Bulgarian state, passed on their name and some culture and proceeded to get assimilated into the much larger Slavic population. The problem here is regarding how you classify "ancestors" because most Serbians have Latin or Illyrian DNA, thats how assimilation works, because when the Slavs came into the Balkans they assimilated the people already living there, in this case Illyrians and Romans but that does not mean Serbs are Illyrians or Romans. Same could be with the Bulgarians. The thing that would make this relevant is if Bulgarians hold significant cultural overlap with the Thracians, which isn't crazy to say seeing as they have many cultural tendencies that overlap with the Dacian traditions in Romania which aren't shared by the rest of the Balkans. As for if Avitohol is Attila's father I'm skeptical but I've never really heard of it before. But either way the Huns were most likely Turkic regardless. And again yea makes sense that Bulgarians and Romanians are genetically very similar. We live right next to each other and have lived like this for over a thousand years, it would be more surprising if we weren't genetically similar. Its nothing to do with RomanIans being Bulgarians or the inverse, it's just that when people live next to each other over time they'll be genetically similar. The whole Balkans are relatively genetically similar. Also Vlad III name was just Vlad, no Vladislav and same with his brother Radu, just Radu not Raduslav. So you're names are still from the same origin his is just a little shorter. The Balkans are full of super interesting history, specifically because the cultures here come from places that are so far separated. Whether the 7 hills of Rome, the ancient Polis of Greece, the Siberian plains, the coast of the Baltc Sea or the Central Asian steppe. Truly a cluster fuck of beauty

@@thatstorm_spectre there is tracian tombs alot of them in bulgaria and yeah there is tracian dna since thats how they conducted the studies , as for the bulgars not being numerous its simply not true since alot of historian back then writed about them being the most numerous people after hindus and chineses i wont get onto the names of vlad and brother you can research yourself nothing is hidden if you know where to look as for avitohol its what most historian agree on nomalia of bulgarian khans is tthe document it is 2 pieces of rocks writen in old bulgarian found on todays russia whit the same script that historian date to 9 century but the rocks are way way older i cant have an argument there since as i stated history is not truth in most cases , and yeah there is only 2 etnithies on the balcans as i implied there is helenic illirian and tracian(icluding dacians as they are just a subgroup of it) the dna studies are not hard to find just ask mr google

@@thatstorm_spectre there is alot of tracian tumbs (they were buried the same way as egiptians whit tons of gold including there horses) in bulgaria and there is alot of tracian dna to take you can find them yourself and make your opinion about it (by the way there is no dacian tumbs adn yet romanian claime to be desendands of them wich is strange), about avitohol i cant realy say anything since i dont realy believe historians are to believe but thats what most of them claim the document was found in todays russia and it consist in 2 rocks whit writing in a lenguage that was later calld old church slavonic and proto-bulgarian the problem whit it is that those stones date to alot of years before the script(aka glagolic later to be changed by cirilic) for that lenguage even existed , the claime that bulgars where not numerous is kinda sus since theres alot of documents from persia aand other empire who describet bulgars being the most numerous people after chineses and hindus wich makes sence since slavic people as they were referead to after 1860 wich is a totaly new terminology are also numerous , and maps from roman empire during the conquest of trasia and misia stadet clearly in latin here is bulgaria centuries before the bulgars and bulgarian stade was suposedly created non the fact that the oldest and acurete calendar acepted by UNESCO is the pro-bulgarian one wich is dated to 5501 BCE and only second apart from todays astronomical one , about the names of vlad and his brother i wont even discuse it since its plaine truth the name of the ancestor of vlad was vladislav 1 and 2 but somehole he was calld vlad :D ore vlad dracula as we all know him :D make no sence to debate that bro be realist

@@thatstorm_spectre i dont know why but i tried to repsond and all my replies where deleted insta , gonna just put it shorter tracian dna exist alot of tumbs in bulgaria to be taken from nomalia of the bulgarian khans was found in todays russia writen in rocks whit a script that was not suppose to exist till alot of years later as i said i think historians are just teories no think that is realy proven so i cant disagree ore agree whit them im more of a cientific truth hunter , if we based on historian scripts there alot of persian historians back then naming the bulgars as the most numerous people after hindus and chineses wich totaly contradics todays historians also maps of the roman empire from the times of the conquest of tracia and misia which claire states here is bulgaria in latin , also the existence of the oldest and most acurate calendar acepted by UNESCO the proto bulgarian one which is dated to 5501 BCE and only seconds apart from the todays astronomical , as for the names of vlad and his bro cant argue just check there ancetors name :D vladislav 1 2 but yet he was simply vlad and his lenguage was church slavonic also known as old bulgarian since the terminology slav is new just like byzantium back then they were romans as slavs where bulgarians that simple

and i wanted to add that the only think im sure about is that on the balcans there are only 3 numerous etnicities helens ilirians and tracians(including dacians sice they were the same people) thats the script of the nomalia of bulgarian khans Авитохолъ житъ лет. ~т. род ему Дуло. а лет ему диломъ твирем. Ирник. житъ лет. ~(ри). род ему Дуло. а лет ему дилом твeримь. Гостунъ наместникь сьï два лета. род ему. Ерми. а лет ему дохсъ. втиремь. Курт: 60 лет дръжа. род ему Дуло. а лет ему шегоръ вечемь. Безмеръ ~г. лет. а род ему Дуло. а лет ему шегоръ вемь. сii ~е княз. дръжаше княженïе обону страну Дуная. летъ. ~ф. ~(еi). остриженами главами. И потом прiиде на страну Дунаа. Исперих княз тожде и доселе. Есперих княз. 61 лет. род Дуло. а лет ему верени алем. Тервен. -к~а. лето. род ему Дуло. а лет ему текучитем. твирем. ~(ки). лет. род ему Дуло. а род ему дваншехтем. Севаръ. ~(еl). лет. род ему Дуло. а лет ему тохалтом. Кормисошь. ~(зi). лет. род ему Вокиль. а лет ему шегоръ твиремь. Сiи же княз измени род Дулов. рекше Вихтунь. Винех. ~з. лет. а род ему Оукиль. а летъ ему имаше Горалемь. Телець. ~г. лета. род Оугаинь. а лет ему соморъ. алтемь. И сïй иного рад. Оуморъ. ~м. днïи. род ему Оукиль а ему дилом тоутом. Avitohol (attila or his ancetors if you ask me probaly some of his ancestors and himself since no one lives 300 years :D) lived 300 years. His clan was Dulo and his year (of ascending to the throne) dilom tvirem. Ernak son of attila also name irnik lived 150 years. His clan Dulo and his year dilom tverim. Gostun, the regent, 2 years. His clan Ermi and his year dokhs tvirem. we all know who he is if were balcaners Kubrat ruled 60 years. His clan Dulo and his year shegor vechem. Batbayan 3 years and his clan Dulo and his year shegor vem (vechem). all the names are also whit years based on the protobulgarian calendar i named acepted by unesco what realy makes sence is that almost all of them are from the clan dulo the leaders of the bulgarian nation for centuries and after some years of dominance of the clan dulo there is alot of diferent clanes taking over Asparuh knyaz 61 years (ruled). His clan Dulo and his year vereni alem. Tervel 21 years. His clan Dulo and his year tekuchitem tvirem. (An additional ruler is sometimes inserted here, depending on the reading.) Sevar 15 years. His clan Dulo and his year toh altom. Kormisosh 17 years. His clan Vokil and his year shegor tvirem. Vinekh 7 years. His clan Ukil [Vokil]. And his year (imen)shegor alem. Telets 3 years. His clan Ugain and his year somor altem. Umor (ruled) 40 days. His clan Ukil [Vokil] and his year dilom tutom. and yet there 3 main teories about where bulgars come from turkic one wich is almost imposible on the last found evidences persian iranic wich is still debated cause there is alot of bulgarian names there also and ofcourse the most posbile one schytia tracia

Oh yea, Im still kicking. I entered University tho and thats been taking up my time. But I have a half made History of Spain video on the backburner and a first draft script for a video on Dacia and Romania. Probably after finals Ill finish at least one of them. We'll see how it goes

Not sure where people are getting these percentages. The Romans held initially modern day Dobruja, Oltenia, Muntenia, Transylvania, Banat and south Moldova, abandoning South Moldova and most of Muntenia but keeping the rest when Hadrian pulled back. Thats most of the Dacian territory. Plus the Romans managed to totally Romanize Dobruja in less than 100 years according to Roman Sources (The Lost Romans, Mircea Davidescu page 36, in case you want the source). I assume you're trying to say the Romans could never have Romanized the Dacians, but even the sources of the time say the province of Dacia was thoroughly Romanized (Eutropius VIII, 6).

There were no romans in moldova dude. Where are u getting your infos? Stop spreading missinformation about things u dont know for sure.

Transilvania was under austro-hungarian occupation for like 800 years but dispite of that we speak romanian, we keept our tradition and we remain romanians under this evil austro-hungarian rule

The Roman frontiers spread into Moldova. Not the present day Republica Moldova otherwise known as Bessarabia, but the region of Romania called Moldova. If you look at a map of the Roman Empire at its height under the Emperor Trajan like this one: images.app.goo.gl/vxBprjb9MM3jGKjn9 You'll see the Romans holding the South of Moldova. Some maps like to paint this as client Kingdoms but this is likely untrue based on what we are told by Eutropius who says Hadrian pulled back from certain parts of Dacia (South Moldova and most of Muntenia) but could not abandon the whole province due to the large population of Roman citizens which would be left beyond the Danube.

It was not under Austro-Hungarian rule for 800 years nor was Austria-Hungary inherantly evil. The Principality of Transylvania was established in 1111 AD under the Kingdom of Hungary but it was an autonomous Principality for most of its time. In 1246 AD it was incorperated into Hungary, only to have an on and off independence status for the next 300 years until in 1526 AD it gets split off by the Ottomans and becomes its own independant Principality initially called East Hungary but then changed to Transylvania due to the Principality being mostly non Hungarians. In 1600 briefly taken over by the Wallachian Voivode Mihai Viteazul and then regaining its independance until 1711 when its taken again by Hungary, then Austria and then Austria Hungary until 1918 when it rejoins Romania. Its not quite as simple as "Hungary occupied it for 800 years". And the Austro Hungarian Empire was no more evil than any other Empire, the same as the Russians, the Germans or the Spanish. (Although Id argue the Ottomans were far worse)

Yea that's fair bro. I'd say all the Latin countries are Roman, I mean I understand Latin and I'm Romanian. Spain is just unique from the other Latin countries in that they legally have claim to be the Emperors of the Romans. ¡Asi que, Felicidades España!

You are merely a province of rome that evolved,not a successor to THE ENTIRE ROMAN EMPIRE,but definitely a successor to the roman province of iberia You are not THE successor You evolved Get it?

U are serbian troll Makedonia is land of the heroes. Makedonia is country of alexander the great

Hungarian yes, German no. There's absolutely no evidence that Hunyadi János / Ioan de Hunedoara was German. Sources from the time attribute him to being from a Romanian noble family, with his father actually moving from Wallachia to Hungary, not even being Transylvanian natives, but Wallachians.

Well yes! The mountains wouldnt have been impossible to climb, but the point is similar to the Great Wall of China. Even with horses, climbing the mountains would have been a lot of effort, and for what? Just to kill a few shepards? Besides it would be hard for any invading armies to even find the Romanians or Albanians in the mountains in the first place, as unlike valleys which you can scout extremely easily, scouring a whole mountain, let alone a mountainrange for any small villages and groups of shepards would have been a large ask. It's not like the Avars, Gepids, Goths, Bulgarians, Yugoslavs or Hungarians even wanted to exterminate the Romanians and Albanians, so why climb a whole mountain range with an army just to locate them? Throughout history mountains have always had the greatest ethnic and cultural diversity, as their isolation allowed small groups to continue undisturbed for hundreds of years. Just look at the Caucasus, meanwhile the Gauls lasted the longest in the Roman province Trans-Alpine Gaul, where they were protected by the mountains, and managed to hold onto the Gaulish language and culture up until the 10th century! Even with the Romans being much more aggressive with their assimilation and having much more power than the nomadic/migrating groups that took over the Balkans.

@@thatstorm_spectre Mauntains was a huge obstacle mostly in the winter. This is why during the antiquity and medieval period war camping s were avoided in Europe. It is possible for some small group of ppl to survive like this but I mean most of the antiquity population probably get mixed with the newcomers on Balkans and partly survived as cultural heritage. I remember that only tatars crossed the Carpathian mauntain during the winter with huge number of casualties because of the cold in late 13 century.

Yea for sure. It's extremely extremely unlikely that the entire population lived in the mountains, smaller groups made it through in the mountains and then intermingled with the majority populations in the valleys, taking in parts of the incoming cultures and creating the modern versions of these people's cultures

The question is not whether Moscovy was a Rus nation or a Russian nation, because it was both! Moscovy or better put the Mosovites were a subsection of Eastern Slavic / Rus civilization, both culturally, linguistically and genetically, and therefore Russia is too, as Moscovy was the one to form Russia. The question is whether or not all of the Rus are Russian, which is a no. While the Russians are for sure descendants of the Rus so are the Ukrainians and Belarusians, but just because they're all Rus doesn't mean they're all Russians, or even the same in the first place. They're all equal people with equal lineage to the Rus but different cultures, languages, etc. A good comparison is the Latin countries, as Italy France, Spain, Portugal and Romania are all Latin countries with lineage to the Roman Empire but it doesn't mean that Romanians and Portuguese are Italians. And remember that names can be deceiving. The official name of the Byzantine Empire in Greek was Ρωμανία or Romania. So by that logic the Byzantine and therefore Roman Empires are Romanian.

For sure! Heres the first line of their wikipedia page: "The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region between the 5th[3] and 7th centuries" And heres the link: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars Heres what the Bulgarian source says: "Сведенията за езика на прабългарите са оскъдни, но повечето лингвисти го причисляват към групата на тюркските огурски езици." In English, "Information regarding the language spoken by the Bulgars is scarce however most linguists agree it was as a version of the Turkic Ugric dialect" In the modern day the only Ugric Turkish dialect left are the Chuvash in Russia. The Bulgars who spoke Turkic (not Turkish, they are very very different) took over the Balkans during the First Bulgarian Empire, but they were assimilated into the larger population of Slavs and because of that the modern Bulgarians are undoubtedly a Slavic group

Това е факт! И учевидно не познаваш историята си… Както той каза други корени на “Turkic”, обаче!