As a Greek I had always assumed the relations between the eastern Roman empire and medieval Serbia were positive, so I thank you for opening my mind to the nuances of this period.
The early history of these parts was mostly about Serbo- Byzantium wars. Albanians learn from their book , which they payed heavily, off course, that the Greeks and Serbs, Romans , Britons, Germans are all Albanians and that our history belongs to them😂
@@Forevertrue-z2wNot like Serbs don't claim Albanians like Skanderbeg tbf. I've seen many outlandish Serb claims too, so you guys aren't in the clear and tbh, no Balkan people's are. Also, what are you on about? Serbia for most of history was a small power, tossed around in the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars. How the hell was early history mostly about Serb and Byzantine wars then?
@@playaddavy429 Big impact during the early history? Sorry, but not at all. It was a power that had no say over anything really and was basically tossed around from Byzantine to Bulgarian influence.
@@rawka_7929 Haha ok I don’t know if your biased or just hating for no reason. I will not waste my time, but if these topics for you have 0 impact on history then sure. Topics of impact: Religion, disintegration of states and shaping terretories to modern day and influence on ottoman. So yeah to me it had a big say to history. Like all the small details have. You ignorant
Yugoslavia wasn't a mistake, but the ethnic supremacy of Serbians in the state was. Ironically enough, the states started off as a merger between a state of South Slavs seeking independence from the German supremacist Austria-Hungary with Serbia, but slowly devolved into Serbia taking up the same role as the Austrians. Sure on paper, everyone was equal, but in reality, Serbs had advantages over others and then there's the natural problem of states like Yugoslavia, states built on ethnicity(the land of South Slavs) often have little room for those who don't fit into that ethnic culture. Kosovars aren't Slavs so how do they fit in a country that says it's built for South Slavs?
There was no Serbian supremacy. Croats and Slovenes fought against Serbia in WW1 and in turn got the status of constituent nations - Kingom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (lol). Montenegrin and Bosniak ethnicities didn't yet exist back then. However, Croats and Slovenes wanted what was offered to them by AH empire (lol), and when they didn't get that, they started crying about "hegemony". Does that remind you of a certain group of people in the US always asking for more privileges and when they are finally told no, they start crying? Also, the fact that the country name changed to Yugoslavia doesn't mean that it was only meant for South Slavic people. Ask yourself, how come Slovaks or Romanians for example never had any complaints, but those who were killing Serbs in WW1 and later in WW2 and then demanded favors had. Also, there is no such thing as "Kosovars", there are only Albanians, "Kosovo" didn't exist until 1999 as a political subject. Please don't discuss complicated things like this one if you don't even know the basics.
@@miroslavakosticЈугославија је грешка само ако не знаш какве су нам биле алтернативе 1918. године. Ако знаш, нема ни најмање шансе да Југославију можеш назвати грешком.
Great Video. I Just feel like you missed how the Bosnian Kingdom Was majority Catholic as were the ruling families. Orthodoxy never had a large presence in Bosnia until the Ottomans took over
You seem to largely attribute Bulgaria's role in the Cyrillic alphabet and writing to Byzantium, which is pretty sad tbh. Bulgaria not only did the first true translations of holy scripts and translated the bible first. But also many non clurgical works and so on, laying the foundations for the literature of the rest of the Slavic world. I don't think it's nationalist at all to say Bulgarian literature paved the way for the rest of Slavic orthodoxy. As for the Cyrillic? Entieely failed to say it was made by Bulgarians, in Bulgaria and under order of the Bulgarian tsar.
Certainly it is not nationalistic to say that Bulgaria created the Cyrillic alphabet and was the godmother of so-called Slavic culture. But we know that for certain peoples (Russians, Serbs and Macedonians) it is hard to swallow that their culture and literature was much influenced by the Bulgarian such, so they try to minimise Bulgarian role in these people history, as in this video.
@@BalkanOdyssey_I've only been in Belgrade and Novi Sad (I wonder why a Scotsman spent 10 days near Petrovaradin Fortress...it might have been a certain music festival lol) before, but after seeing a few travel videos i'd love to get out and about around Eastern Serbia, looks like my kind of place. If you have any recommendations of a population centre to camp close to in the summer, it would be much appreciated comrade.
I'm so happy I found your channel please keep posting cuz I've been trying to learn croatian for the past year and these videos help with A LOT with the captions!!!
Tvrtko was crowned for a king of Serbs, at the grave of Saint Sava in the monastery of Milseva in 1377. By orthodox representatives. You could've also mentioned that the first Serbian king was also catholic, Mihailo Vojislavljevic, crowned in 1071. And that it had been his father, Stefan Vojislav who had first broken the Roman hold in 1042 by defeating them in the highlands behind Bar. Really, Serbs exist of whatever faith out there. Croats and Bosniaks often confuse religion and ethnicity and nationality and thus jump to incorrect conclusions. Also, Croats never lived in Bosnia. Maybe modern-day Bosnia, around Bihac, Livno and Duvno for sure, but these were called "Turkish Croatia" when they had fallen and did not fall under the Bosnian vilayet. Nevertheless, the fact Serb and Croat may have been interchangeable can be seen in the dynasty of Kosaca. VlatkO Vukovic was a Serb, orthodox, his son, Sandalj Hranic was a muslim and thus closer to modern-day Bosniaks, with Herceg Stefan Vukovic declaring himself as a Serb later on, and last but not least, there was a "Hrvoje Vukovic (sometimes called Hrvatinic)", who had the croatian coat of arms but was Orthodox and ruled a Serbian ethnic ground. Also, Germans didn't exist before 1871. Don't misuse the word, Germanic's the word you're looking for. You're overall seen negatively due to your great anti-Serbian bias in most of your videos and an undeserved sympathy for the neighbors. This is however mostly a good video, keep on this track.
@@radagast1708 Actually no, he speaks about the history of Serbian people and never explicitly is it stated that they did not exist. Family -> Tribe -> People -> Nation, and whether you and the author want to see this truth or not is up to you. Idk where your dumb ass got the idea to even make a comment like that to me lmfao. I'm of course a photocopy of a Serb and not a croat, german or some other newly-composed thing lmfao, what were you expecting? LOL
Firstly the creator of the video is Serbian. Secondly so much of what you said was wrong and no amount of propoganda can change the fact that Bosnia and Croatia have always been distinct from Serbia. Both Have had their identities for over 1000 years and were majority catholic. Tvrtko Was crowned King of The Serbs as he ruled Raska which had a large Serb population and he wanted to assume the title through his grandmother who was apart of Nemanjic dynasty. We see through this he was 25% Serb and the rest is Bosnian or Croat
Sorry, but it is hard to believe that the source of the national division between the Frankish and Byzantine influenced peoples was as organic as you claim. The people we call Russians were divided historically much more, some even speaking Tukic or other non-Slavic languages to this day, yet call themselves Russian, ethnically, if you ask. Cuvashi, Russians in Kazakhstan, Tula, Vladivostok. The source of ethnic identity is linguistic and cultural, but the real glue of a "nation" is a central power that can educate everyone into becoming Russian, French, etc.
Mainstream historiography states that the White Serbs and White Croats arrived in Southeastern Europe at the behest of the ERE to annihilate the Avars in Lower Pannonia and Illyria, and founded their first states in the 620s and the 630s - some 50 years before the arrival of the Proto-Bulgars and the Seven Slavic Tribes. Regarding the period of Ottoman vassalage, it lasted for fewer than 20 years, 13 years in the first phase - from 1389 to 1402, and in the second phase, from 1453 to 1459.
It wasn't a state though, but maby different tribes at that time. Same as how the Bulgars had many tribes in Ukraine even in the 400s yet a united state was only founded in 632 AD.
@@rawka_7929 it was called "zupanija" and the leaders "zupani", maybe something like counts, around 630. the first official serbian state was formed in 780.
@@user-dl8xm4kz4i But still not fully organised. The Serbs ultimately organised as to not be incorporated into the Bulgarian Empire and to fend off against it during Khan Presian's campaigns.
Super je video. Ima dosta o istoriji Srbije da se kaže. Ima na primer Jovan Nenad koji je iskoristio poraz Mađara na Mohaču da napravi svoju verziju srpske države u Vojvodini.
6:03 That is very speculstive that people who lived in Serbian lands did not know ethnic community belongs. What about reports of Catholic Church or Eastern Roman Empire. How they knew who live in Southeastern Europe ? They asked the people.
@@rawka_7929many people forget to make the distinction between Bulgars the Turkic tribe and Bulgaria as a Slavic Middle Ages Tsardom - if we look at the Slavic state they appear around the same time.
Might be a little "off topic," but the reference to the 'war shit' early in the vid brings to mind the 1962 Telstar telecast of the symbol of world peace, the Serbian White Angel; anybody old enough to remember this? Regardless, from I have seen online it appears that the ancient monestaries scattered about Serbia are amongst the most magnificent examples of historic architecture to be found.
Very interesting - I have definitely seen the symbol itself, if you're referring to the same thing. But I'm definitely not old enough to remember or recognize the context of the 1962 Telstar telecast... But overall I think not even the most hardcore atheist commie can deny the artistic beauty of many of the architectural works of that time
@@BalkanOdyssey_ I also see that an image of White Angel was broadcast out into space with the hopes of making extraterrestrial contacts of sorts, but details are lacking; anybody know anything about this?
Did Serbia need Yugoslavia? Going into this series, my intuition would dictate that, when you compare the periods before Tito (Nazi occupation, civil war, Jansenovic) and after (equally disgusting --- Hitler Jr. aka George H.W. Bush, Clinton, Albright, NATO, Operation Storm, cultural genocide in Sarajevo, Serbia & Kosovo), Tito looks pretty darned good, warts and all, and one could easily argue that, relatively speaking, Yugoslavia was at least on the right path (secular & socialist). Thus, I really look forward to how this all "plays out" in the upcoming series.
Going into the series with this kind of stance is what I'd expect from a regular viewer on the channel - so I'm sure you'll not be disappointed with my approach or conclusions in upcoming videos
Crazy how powerful propaganda is. Hearing serbs and north macedonians claiming to be illyrian or even autoctone people of the balkans is the most insane and stupid claim an historian can hear of.
40:03 The earliest history as presented here is difficult to understand, but the Big Picture should become clearer as the series moves along ... One observation I will make, though, is this: The Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the Amerikan Empire ... from a Serbian standpoint, what's the difference? (Probably not much.)
Hm alright, I'll note that for upcoming videos. It was a little abstract at the beginning, because I really didn't wanna dwell on that part too much. My main goal was to deliver a general impression of the predicament of that early are and segway into the juicy part as soon as possible.
Original Serbs were Iranian tribe Serboi. Later mixed with Slavic people and Illyrians. But elite of Serbs I2a genetics were probably Sarmatian origin around the Black Sea, similar genetics as Cimmerians and Antes people that ruled over Slavic. Even term Slavic is linguistic term, and it was mix of different types ethnic groups. Like today English language.
Sarmatians / Scythians are original Serbs that mixed with us Slavs in Eastern Europe. They gave us their name, we shared culture among them and from what's today Lusatia, we settled from there to Balkans eventually mixing with already romanized and devastated Illyro - Thracians. R1a and I2a are supposedly to be original Serb haplogroup.
@@Svevladovich That is truth. Maybe there was among Triballians I2a as well, but when I saw remains of Scythians of today Moldavia which was I2a and the closest to today Serbs genetics, it was clear for me that Serbs were like warrior ruling class that was distancing from R1a a little bit. I2a was more shepherds, while R1a was more agricultural orientated.
@@Svevladovich as in Dushan law of Serbia, there was casts like shepherds, agricultural, warrior class etc. Probably they were not mixing too much, so that is reason why I genetics in Serbs are so different than In other Slavic speaking populous.
@@SRB3336 Unfortunately, among Serbs is E1b1b haplogroup and also J2a haplogroup which is not Serb haplogroup. Pity to see some Serbs claim those two haplogroups. I'm I1 haplogroup descended from Germanic Ostrogoths and its obviously not a Serb haplogroup but of course, I have both Slavic and Illyrian ancestry too. 😄
7:49 The Bizantine state never exist. That term for Eastern Ronan Empire invented in 1557. by German "historian" Hieronymous Wolf for political reasons ( The Holy Roman Empire as continue as real Roman Empire ).
Ancient Rome, Italian Roman empire is fake. The so called Byzantine empire was real and they gave it falsely the name "roman" when actually real Rome were blonde peoples and Moslems and Tartarians, Roomis.
this isn't serbian medieval history, this is serbian elementary school history, and the emblem used on video thumbnail, of 4 capital latin B's is not serbian symbol, it's a byzantine flag known as tetragrammatic cross, 4 b's stand for "Βασιλεὺς βασιλέων βασιλεύων βασιλεῖ βασιλευόντων" (basileus basileōn basileuōn basilei basileuontōn), which translates to "king of kings, ruling over kings" in english, and that isn't even scratching the surface of misinformation about origin of serbs and medieval times... or even their alphabet 🤦♂
@@Mildau30 yeah like you said today, thats a modern invention of serbian nationslism, has no historic base, just like the croation chessboard. These medeviel dynasties had no connection to thoose symbols what so ever.
The symbol is not within the literal coat of arms of Serbia? I have never claimed this has any historical relevance or connection to medieval times, it's purely a modern nationalist invention. None of what you wrote is relevant to discredit anything said in the video, not even the tasteless "insult" about this being elementary school history, which is curiously backed up by precisely nothing.
Терај га у курац . Видиш да турчин шири антисрбску пропаганду . Србски СТЕФАНИ (никакви краљеви) су рођачким везама и међусобним браковима са Ромелијским Царством претендовали на ромелијски престо . И сматрали су да им припада "византијско" наслеђе .
Serbs did not exists, just like other nations, until 17 or 18 centuries. You are confusing what others called the peoples that will become Serbs with Serbian identity. This is less studies here in the Balkans than elsewhere, bit Germani were also invented by Romans, and some Germani didnt event speak the same family of languages. Same for Gauls, or Mongols for that matter. It is a category created by Empires, for administrative purposes. this has to be acknowledged, at least a bit more strongly than you do. Saying that Serbs didnt consider themselves Serbs is wrong. Serbs did not exist, hence there was no one there to not understand it. Same for anyone else... French, Chinese, etc. The theories of Benedict Anderson are very helpful here, and they do matter.
Not entirely true. Can't speak too much on the Serbs, but even their next door neighbours such as Bulgaria and Byzantium developed the basics of national/ethnic identity by then. The formation of the Bulgarian nation from Bulgars and Slavs to just Bulgarians is proof of it enough.
It's no surprise that we Serbs sometimes feel misunderstood, especially when outdated Germanic historical teachings and neo-communist history are still being taught in schools. Let's talk about this video from a scientific perspective. Frankly, it's pretty unreliable. One big issue is the questionable sources it relies on. The video is filled with all sorts of nonsense, but one thing that really stands out is the lack of solid evidence for the claim that Serbs arrived in the 6th-7th century. The main source being used, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus' De administrando imperio, was written in the 10th century, talking about events that happened four centuries earlier. But here's the thing: we don't have the original text, just copies from the 11th and 15th centuries (and even those are incomplete). And you know what? Copies often get changed to fit the political agenda of the time. So, it's best to be cautious and not take these copies, which talk about the 6th century but were written in the 10th century and copied in the 16th century, at face value. We should definitely question the authenticity of the work.
So, Serbs existed before God/Allah sent Adam and Eve on this planet? Is this what you believe? Because you try to sound polished by talking about scientific examination, but it is clear that you and your ilk actually follow the lunatic Jovan Ilić Deretić. Bonus question: Is Miroslav Krleža a Serb?
It is true it is 7533. year for Serbs , not 2024. We are native people from Balkan who later mixed with south Slavs and Ilirians. This is a germano- Vatican propaganda
@@Forevertrue-z2wThere was 0 mentions of Serbs before the Slavs arrived. You guys also barely have any traditions and cultural heritage from the native people's tbh.
Not cool how you didn't mention who and in which empire was Cyrillic created. Not to mention who offered to take in Cyril and Methodius once they were expelled from Great Moravia.
@@Forevertrue-z2w The cyrillic script was invented by saint Cleament of Ohrid in Great Preslav, Bulgaria. He was one of the pupils of Cyril and Methodius when they came to Bulgaria. He named the alphabet after his teacher. Perhaps you are thinking of the glagolitic script which was invented by saint Cyril and Methodius.
Bulgaria ordered their disciples to do it, but otherwise correct. Also, don't you know? Bulgaria never did anything obviously. We were just a weak nation with 0 influence and all our innovations are clearly just someone else's, obviously.
What kind of arrival??? Google "Illyrian Personal Anthorponyms", "Kjolmen Inscription Bulgaria". Illyrians and Thracians are Slavic. ALL oldest Slavic books say they come from what is today called Balkan. Here the oldest Russian book QUOTE ""Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For when the Vlakhs (Romans) attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyakhs. Of these same Lyakhs some were called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians"
А не , он не чита књиге које не одговарају његовом наративу . Ако и прочита коју сигурно неће поменути битно . За њега су антрополошки , генетички , археолошки докази србска опсесија која служи за србски национализам . Оргинални стари србски писани документи такође . Али су ватикански , хрватски , аустроугарски , бугарски... фалсификати веродостојни . Као и "бошњачке" и шиптарске празне приче .
You fail to realize that we have modern archeological and written proofs that say otherwise.. Right? Like the Greeks even writing of the slabs arrivals as newly migrated people's. Not to mention that Thracian and Illyrian cultures were quite different, fundementally so, from Slavic ones. Lastly, the Balkans simply weren't populated enough to warrant such an expansion. The mountainous and forested terrain of most the peninsula didn't allow for such population growth. Most people's lied on the plains of Moesia minor, Thrace and so on. (Also Slavonija, Wallachia and Pannonia in general were nearby, but they aren't Balkan geographically)
@@rawka_7929 No, not a single book from that time says there was an Slavic immigration, the Greek sources use the word Apostis wich is uprising and calls the Slavs "their neighbours" and some people in Thessally already speak Slavic when the attack happend. Here a quote by Mario Alinei "The only evidence for a great migration of Slavs in historical times that traditional scholars can possibly claim lies in a literal reading of the mentions of medieval historians, such as the Thracian Priscus of Panion (5th century), the Greek Procopius of Cesarea (6th century) and the Goth Jordanes (6th century). But it is quite evident that such mentions do not point to an ‘invasion’ or ‘migration’ of Slavs, but can just as simply be taken as to refer to pre-existing Slavs, the presence of which even traditional scholars now admit." Have you even googled "Illyrian Personal Anthorponyms", "Kjolmen Inscription Bulgaria" ? The only book wich talks about slavic immigration is the De Administrando Imperio the copy of supposedly about 1530 wich first was published in 1611 by John Merseus, the older copies are missing the Immigration of the Serbs and Croats.
The beginning of the narrative of this video turned me off immediately. I can say that the history is not written according to the real archival and historiographic material we have in Belgrade.
De Serven woene nea Joegoslaavje, wy waarden ûnder druk troch Grut-Brittanje, dat ús kening Alexander foarmje de Uny fan Ustasha (Kroaten) en Bali (Bosnjaken).
I would have mentioned that The Nemanjic also aloved slavery, and in fact may have made some provisions even harder on slaves: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakonopravilo#Slaves
@@Mildau30 I see. Since I’m a westerner I kinda saw it in the other way Nationality orthodoxy autocracy. Like every Russian is orthodox and that is what leads to the autocracy.
Yes, Yugoslavia was a mistake... If it wouldn't have existed, us in Slovenia wouldn't follow for so long the insane logic of having our own language and pretending that we're big enough to be a state... I'm not sure if my ancestors were living in the same town as Vodnik during his life or came there in later years... But if they were there at the time it's beyond me why they didn't push him from his favorite bench into the chasm below. So you must imagine how much fondness I have of later big-ego-little-value meddlers further down the road.
@@JmKrokY Being "independent" aka enslaved somewhere else is worth less than assimilating into a stronger culture. There is such a thing as being too small and therefore too weak you know... That's what.
Sve što kažeš- ubrajani u Srbe , su ustvari Srbi. Zašto bi sami sebe ubrajali u Srbe da to nisu?? Bosanska crkva je u početku bila bogumilska , a kasnije pravoslavna.
