Countries at their greatest extent 7 

Ain’t ruthenians just what Ukraines where called around that time?

What about Gagauzia? it is a pro-Russian, non Romanian ethnic region after all

@@andromeda1908 True, sorry I forgot about it. They would most likely also leave Moldova if it were to join Romania.

They could have possibly retook the lands during the collapse of the Soviet Union the only reason they didn’t in our timeline was because they where more focused on getting rid of communism but if it was neutral during ww2 then the ussr would have no reason to invade them

@@Cody-ps3wy Yes, that’s why I said, a more realistic Greater Romania would be one that includes most of Moldova. Part of Bessarabia was given to Ukraine, so I don’t think they would have gotten that.

@@Cody-ps3wy on paper thats how it should work, but as if you ve probably seen in history, nothing is exact and true, so we probably would ve had the russians invade us for some other casus belli and make us communist

They didnt even spoke Ukrainian, they were the fathers of all east slavic nations, he spreads Ukrainian propaganda!

Well, Raska in history of Serbia n Montenegro is also something same for both sides n technically is not only Serbia. What about Jugoslavia, it wasn't as a medieval kingdom, it was a union of different nations in Balkans

yes agreed

Belarus is already at its largest!

@@nxp38_66 not quite!

@@ladahieno2382 what was bigger?

@@ladahieno2382 The only larger realistic Belarus is in the timeline that Soviet Union didn't gave back Bialystok to Poland after WW2, and after intependence Belarus is little bigger.

@@thisguy4895 yeah and I want to see Neatling discuss it ?

I am going to. I stopped mostly to try and make other types of content, so I don't have an audience that expect only 1 specific type of video.

@@Neatling Alternate History ARMENIA would be interesting!

Watch episode 5

A propaganda Ukrainian!

finaly somebody with an A+ in history

@@otterly6562 your argument makes no sense on basis that it was the same state founded by all 3 people.

İt has multiple russia,ukraine and belarus

Algeria ( Exist since 1000-300BCE), Ethiopia (Exist since 1000BCE), Macedonia (Has almost no History) are at theyre largestgreatest extent right now!

Kurdish and Uyghur Kingdoms could be interesting tho!

For India it would probably be the partition of India never happening And for pakistan a realistic greater pakistan imo would be one that kept Bangladesh and western Kashmir

For other ideas I could see Egypt keep the gaza strip and maybe sudan. there was a Mali federation consisting of Senegal and mali and some ideas have been thrown about Burkina Faso and mali uniting.for cyprus northern cyprus would I guess make sense. There was also a kingdom of cyprus crusader state that had a very smol bit of land in anatolia.

Because they're scared of that!!! The powerful countries don't like when the weaker countries regain their historical pride!

@@stemcell11222 True

Dacia was an entirely different thing that just happened to be in the same land

@@mariasirona1622 no, genetic studies show Romanians are the successors of Dacians! (Geneticly)

True!

@@mariasirona1622 No it was not. Romanians are the romanized dacians. Here is some sources to prove my claim: Sometime in the 4th Century, there was a Christain donation to a christain population in what is now Biertan. This most likely means that at least some Romanized Dacians survived and became christain. As the donation was in Latin, something goths did not really know during that time. 340-360: Dating of the first Christian church on the territory of Romania, at Slăveni from Oltenia. The church was built over the remains of the Roman camp destroyed in 247. The dimensions of the building are 16 m long by 7 m wide. Again, this proves there was a christain population that could read Latin, something the goths most likely could not do in this region. 336: Constantine and his army would invade Dacia in order to re-capture the lost region, Despite the fact that the Dacians defeated the Roman legions, Constantine the Great still took the title of Dacicus Maximus. Priscus of Panium said that he found huts in the region, which are different from the nomads' court, the people in those regions were not nomads and their main occupation was agriculture (drawback to - shepherds and farmers as the Vlachs' main occupations later described by others), but he called these people the Scythians. Although it's not out of the question that they might have actually been the Vlachs, for the geographical location was too far south for the Scythians. In 448, the Byzantine chronicler Priscus, companion of General Maximim, messenger of the Byzantine emperor Theodosius II at the court of Attilla, mentions the natives of northern Transylvania, who spoke the Ausonian language (Dacian). Priscus specifies the existence of my words and mied. Regarding the Huns, he mentions that they were a mixture of different peoples: Huns, Goths and Ausoni (Dacians). Priscus mentions the existence of an ally of Attila named Curidachus. In 453, in the Primary Chronicle, the Vlachs are mentioned to have attented the funeral of Attila. In the 6th century, the secretary of the famous Byzantine general Belisarius, Procopius of Cesarea, wrote about the wars between he Byzantines and the Slavs who, at that time, were living in Southern Romania. He specifically mentioned an incident with a Slav who had learned Latin so well by speaking with other people on the territory of Romania, that he managed to fool the Byzantine ambassadors into believing he was a Roman general, formerly captured by the Slavs. So the Latin Population that are not the Byzantines in what is now Romania has not been killed by invaders. 579 Two Byzantine chroniclers, Theophanis and Theophylactus, mention the existence of the Armani language (Vlach) - (Roman-Latin language). At that time, the language spoken in the Byzantine Empire was Greek. Latin was used only strictly in administrative and ecclesiastical matters. In the 7th century the Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice wrote in his military treatise “Strategikon” that the Byzantine generals should not trust the Romans living in Southern Romania because those Romans are allied with the Slavs. approx. 612: The Danube border collapses under the pressure of the Avars and the Slavs. The beginning of the occupation of the Balkan Peninsula by the Slavs. This Slavic intrusion will cause the dislocation of some branches of the South-Danubian Romans, being pushed to the south and west of the Balkan Peninsula, a phenomenon that linguistically has the effect of forming the four historical dialects of the Romanian language: the Daco-Romanian dialect in the North Danube. and Istro-Romanian. During Toma's revolt in 821, Iosif Genesios used the term "Getae" to describe a group of people who participated in the revolt, who lived north of the Danube under slavic occupation. Emmerich also mentions the Dacians living north of the Danube in 860. I would continue with more sources however I'll end it here since everything after does not have involvement in the Romanians = Dacians theory

@@ulanten892 Ukraine: Slavic, which is indo european. The slavs during the dacian times were mostly in modern day poland. Moldova: This is literally just romania but russia pokes some holes onto it Hungary: One of the many turkic-uralic nomads that migrated in modern day romanian territory, the only difference is that it converted to christianity so it survived. Serbia: Same stuff as ukraine Bulgaria: Turkic tribe that became slavised. Black Sea: Our best neighbour All of Romania's neighbours are either Slavs or Turkic, which migrated during the fall of the roman empire. By that time Eastern Romance (Which includes Romanian) already was formed. So your argument is basically complete wrong.

Crimea is ethnically Russian and Kievan Rus (862AD) is East Slavic not Ukrainian, it an Ukrainian, Russia and Belarussian Empire! Same with the Rus Khaganat (830AD)

@@nxp38_66 can’t wait to see this reply section to collapse into madness

@@projectember728 I hope so!

It might be ethnically Russian but I’m sure that it wasn’t annexed on that pretext Also wasn’t it given to the Ukrainians during the days of the Soviet Union(Just awakening my inner historian here)

@@projectember728 nah, it was given to the country of Ukraine in Soviet times as sign for friendship, but since Russia the continuation had its black sea fleed positionated in Crimea and Ukraine wasnt anymore part of the Soviet Union Russia of course wants it back!

Neither did russia

Yes, and no. The map he showed is of all the territorty directly controlled by the Serbian Empire. However, Serbia had vassalized a lot of its neighbours, including: The Banate of Bosnia (In modern-day Bosnia), The Vidin Despotate (Occupies some of the northwestern borders of modern-day Serbia and Bulgaria), the Tsardom of Tarnovo (most of Modern-day Bulgaria, except for the south in Adrionopole) and the Despotate of Dobrogea, (The Modern-day coastline of Bulgaria and Romania)

@@hexcss9153 yes you are right. But i thought he should show it but now i understand 👍

Nah you would be better off showing maps of tsarist and soviet russia

That would never have happened, it is Stalin we're talking about after all. More Khruschev

@@mariasirona1622 well, lithuania did administer it under the ussr, although i do see that it would be unlikely.

Yeah, thd dmbäss!

True, this idiet!

True!

Kiev, not Moscow.

@@JackSucksAtCIips The capital of eastern Rome was constantinople, turkey now occupies Constantinople, does that mean the eastern Romans were Turkish?

@@grenadaball7655 yeah

@@grenadaball7655 can you leave me alone now?

@@JackSucksAtCIips or am I?

True!