The History of Slavs: Every year 400 - 2023. Proto-Slavic ancestry percentage 

if he does he better not forget lorain county ohio is 10% puerto rican

Maybe that could be explained by the type of genetic ancestry based on the masculine lineage showed on this map, the language being transmitted by the mothers (at that time of history without a school system). The slavs moved in the groups of nation (not only men like the tatars= turco/ mongols), If the slavic men died in the confrontations, but the slavic women (the principle of respect for women is very high in that area) survived and gave birth to children of balcanic paternal lineage and transmitted to their children their own slavic language and from generation to generation that was kept and sent from mother to child. So, on the map you see the paternal Y genes, but slavic culture/language was sent by mother lineages. Unfortunately the mitochondrial genetic test for mather lineages is more complicated and isn't usually applied.

The southern Slavs have some descendance from the Romanized Paleo-Balkanians. It is from they that they have a some Mediterranean anthropological type. Geneticaly, on average, Southern Slavs are descended at 55% from the Western Slavs and at 45% from Paleo-Balkanians. While Slovenes have 25% of Paleo-Balkan ancestry, Bulgarians have 60% of this ancestry.

@@The_Geographer_MapsIt's intristing about bulgarians: bulgars normal is a turkic nation but combined with slav women in the volga region and moving sother became a slavic-balcanic nation. I like this simple map: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IaSJH61_8YM.html It's interesting to see your definition for germans. Looking to the map, they are defined by the non-indo-european gene I of the europeans primitives (the civilizations of hunters) like a big side of balkans too. So, the scandinavians Dutch and Daci (phonetically the same) from carpatian isn't a coincidence. So, the today's Germanic are almost the gene R1a/b of slavs&celts but under german control from one moment of time. That I understand that the gene I 1&2 was very cruel. From their hunting activity to animals they easily switched to humans. Their language was too different from those indo-Europeens and the only way was the exploration by force, like the Gots, Gepids, Gets, Vikings, Norses...

@@bla-bla-bla... The Bulgarians have from the Bulgars not only the name, but also 10% of Bulgar ancestry. The Volga Tatars also have 20% of Bulgar ancestry from the Volga Bulgaria. Chuvash who actually speaks in Bulgar language have 5% of Bulgar ancestry. Scandinavians, speaking by ancestry, are genetically identical to the Celts of Central Europe and British Islanders. They actually have the same percentage of hunter-gatherers. The fact is that when the Indo-Europeans spread across Europe, they had a diverse Y chromosome, as in other things all modern peoples. So a small part of the Indo-European people in which haplogroup I prevailed settled in Scandinavia and spread it across it. So for example, in Corded Ware, which was the ancestor of Bell Beaker (who predominately have haplogroup R1b), prevailed the haplogroup R1a. the proto-Germans who settled in Scandinavia, by the way, were also part of the Bell Beakers. It is interesting that despite the haplogroup, the Balkans have the least ancestry in Europe from hunter-gathers

@@The_Geographer_Maps thanks for details, I saw you presentation for indo-europeens spreading and I understood what you want to say about Germans. linguistically and genetically isn't the same. Looking to the genetic geographical situation: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FeMt-R_2wPA.html And history of speeding of I-hunters/first europeans, J/E - anatolian shephard/balcanic&italic and R - celto&slavs: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mpiw4dy_kus.html ...yes, linguistically the scandinavian germans (the true genetic viking&gothic historical characters) had the indo-European influences (keeping mostly the women), but there true cruel character can be explained by their masculine y genetic of the hunters. So, this cruelty was obvious when they gone out of Scandinavia exercising a big exploitation on the continental society, slavs and celts. The true Germanic language is more rigid/inflexible/ based on expression prefabricated not instinctive and creative like Latin and slavic ones, so I think the same primitive character of gene I influenced and the language, even if there are the influences from the R more evaluated society.

Hi

@@papazataklaattiranimam Oh, hi there! :D

And still being the most slavic country by ancestry. If you actually want, you can watch video about history of Ukraine and Ukrainians.

​@@userlimususer4472 actually it's Belarus and Poland not urine

@@CommunismEnjoyer Arguments from cretins are not accepted

Yes, they took over the slavic population in Pannonia and mixed.

That is not surprising, Hungarians are more similar to other West Slavic Central European peoples while Serbs and Bulgarians are more similar to people from the Balkans and the Mediterranean region.

The Hungarians and the Romanians are 'Honorary' Slavs! 😀❤️

No, Slavs are an ethnic group, meaning it is fundamentally based on language like any other ethnic group, not genetics.

@@user-wc5dz6mj9n The west and east slavs are based on genetics, the southern on language.

In addition to this map, I have already worked with maps on the distribution of the Turks and Indo-Iranians. I am also thinking of making a map about the distribution of the Uralic peoples, and after it about the distribution of the Germanic peoples

Migration to south Chile and south Argentina from Serbia - Croatia around 1800 maybe?

In Brazil, principally in the state of Paraná, there is a great comunity of polishes and russians

Fun fact: Brazil is the country who have the most speakers of pomeranian, a slavic-germanic language of East Germany, more than in Germany

Wait Tatars are from Tatarstan, a Republic just west of Bashkotistan

@@quakeknight9680 yep

@@quakeknight9680 both my parernal and materlal granparents moved to Ufa from Kazan during the Soviet Union. Now that I think about it they told me for sure that we didn't have a single russian in our family tree dating back to 300 years and yet I still have the 80% of their blood, hell, and the looks too. So I think putting whole of Tatarstan in white (as in 0% white) is kind of silly, but mass DNA testing hasnt't been done, so i may be just an exeption :)

Non-Russians (Tatar, Chuvash, Bashkir, Udmurt etc.) live predominantly in the countryside, cities were always home to Russians while Turkic and Finnic tribes controlled the pastures & villages.

The Proto-Balto-Slavs split into proto-Balts and proto-Slavs. This map speaks about the spread of the Proto-Slavs, and then just before their spread across Eastern Europe. The division between the Balts and Slavs happened a long time ago, namely in 1300 BC. If we talk about the relationship between the Slavs and the Balts, then we need to make a map about the distribution of the Balto-Slavs

@@The_Geographer_Maps thanks for the clarification, loved the video

@@YeastCartography Thanks!

I thought to use the Vahaduo program but it works very inaccurately, so I prefer to use the Principal component analysis charts as well as genetic studies.

I don’t know exactly when the Hungarian language became dominant in Hungary, but for sure genetically the Hungarian conquerors did not affect the local population in any way

he is right 100%. Modern hungarians have mostly Slavic blood, and then native Balkan potentially from Romanized Romanian populations who lived before. But the proportion of Slavic ancestry is clearly higher than in Serbs and Romanians so it's safe to say they are more Slavic. There is little to no Uralic ancestry

@@wsngtndc4750 Does anyone maybe know how it can be explained that Hungarians have mostly Slavic ancestry?

@@elvenrights2428 A tribe conquers a locality but doesn't has the numbers to replace the local population. But by virtue of holding power it is able to influence the culture, and more importantly the language spoken in that area due to the prestige of being the ruling class? A bit like latin in the old roman empire... most people weren't of latin stock, but the government often was. Speculating though.

Often languages don't match with genetics that's a common confusion people do, just as indo European is a language family and not an ethnic family

Scythians=ProtoSlavs

Really?

@@mrtrollnator123 there's a placename in east Anglia named after the tribe. Rutherford I think the name is? It's after the Rugani. I read a book called "origins of the Anglo-Saxon race" and it has an entire chapter of Wends. Aka the Slavonic.

@@noahtylerpritchett2682 so anglo-saxons are part-slavic as well? Never knew that

@@mrtrollnator123 only the East Anglians. All the absolute rest were just Germanic and Brythonic hybrids we know the English too be. East Anglia? A weird Germano-Wendish exception.

@@noahtylerpritchett2682 damn

ukrainians are not very slavic genetically , they have high non slavic genes especially in south

Since when Russians and Ukrainians are Slavs. The Russians are the descendants of the Golden Horde, and the Ukrainians are the Khazars. The only Slavs in the east today are Belarusians.

​@@Andrei-ev7duThey are least Slavic from all of "us"

Why? Because of the Siberian expansion?

information on the distribution of the Eastern Slavs in Eastern Europe and Siberia is fragmentary, and therefore it may not look so beautiful. If you are not satisfied with the fact that the Eastern Slavs have become Russian, then let me explain to you. The Eastern Slavs continued to be named after their own tribes until about 1200. Gradually, self-naming by the name of their own tribes was replaced by the self-naming of the common state: Russians, Rusyns or Rusichs. Around the end of the 16th century the common name was divided into: Great Russians, White Russians and Little Russians, and then only in the highest circles of society. Although linguistic differences were found between the Great Russians, White Russians and Little Russians, they were considered parts of the one Russian nation. Only after the arrival of the Bolshiviks, the very concept of a single Russian nation was rejected. The Great Russians were renamed into Russians, White Russians into Belarusians and Little Russians into Ukrainians and were already considered separate peoples.

​@@The_Geographer_Maps Personally I think the word "Ruthenians" would work better than "Russians" which in my opinion should be used only from the times of Peter I as name of the "Great Ruthenians". Maybe it's just my bias becouse in polish "Rusini" and "Ruś" are separeted from "Rosjanie" and "Rosja".

@@paganposting5146 Initially, the self-name of the Eastern Slavs was mainly "Rusyn" or "Rus'kiy", although it is this naming that is redirected as Ruthenians, which I did not take into account. I just used census maps before the revolutionary times, where the name "Russians" was used as the basis, and Great Russians, White Russians and Little Russians branched from them on the maps, and the name "Ruthenians" was not used on them. It was after the revolution that the name "Russians" were only referred to the Great Russians and not to all the Eastern Slavs as before.

Yes and western are probably half Gauls

lmao 100% Slavic russians in siberia

The Slavs who originally inhabited Macedonia called themselves as Draguvites. Later inhabitans of Macedonia were historically named differently: Bulgarians, Macedonian Slavs. Their status as separate nation from the Bulgarians has always been controversial. If you know how they were called then tell me.

@@The_Geographer_Maps The Draguvites and Berziti were he slavic tribes who inhabited what is now the territory of northern Macedonia or vardar Macedonia. Both came under rule of the Bulgarian empire in 842. To suggest that a separate Berzite or Draguvity identity or consciousness existed after the reign of Tsar Simeon the great is simply ridiculous. The Christianization of Macedonia was cemented the Bulgarization of these tribes. Was Tsar Samuils empire the state of the Draguvites? The state of the berzites? That claim is simply ridiculous and quick research would quickly disarm it. As for the other question, the idea of a separate Macedonia nation from the Bulgarians certainly didn’t exist in the 1400’s. Such ideas started around the time of the IMRO in certain intellectual circles and really didn’t have much traction until after the treaty of Berlin in 1878. Even still the people still considered themselves Bulgarians. Such distorted interpretations didn’t exist until Tito’s de bulgarization process and the subsequent Antiquization. If you showed a separate Macedonian identity after 1944 sure but the 1400’s? You should be ashamed to call yourself a historian

@@user_ghost34 First of all, I call myself an amateur historian, and I have the right to be wrong. As for the Draguvites, they are still mentioned as a people in the 13th century. Just check Wikipedia. As for the individual nations of Bulgarians and Macedonians, here I could be mistaken, as in other matters with the Montenegrins.

@@The_Geographer_Maps The wiki mentions a Byzantine briefly mentioning them to still exist in some capacity under bogomilism. You never addressed my point on Tsar Samuils empire. What did they call themselves then? But my question is,? Did the Byzantines face the Draguvity at Skopje in 1004? did the Byzantines face the Draguvites at the Battle of Kleidion in 1014? Did the Byzantines face the Draguvity at the battle of Bitola in 1015? You are grasping as straws with a brief mention. Tbh I don’t think you put much thought into this friend

There were Slavs in Macedonia at least 100 years before the Bulgar tribes were ever mentioned in the Balkans.

Nope. Only saamis and Finns are somewhat asiatic admixed, and by extension northwestern Russians.

Maybe I showed the Romans of Balkans little wrong, so after studying in more detail I can tell you their story. Initially, the Romans of the Balkans were called Vlachs. In the 14th century, the Moldavian and Wallachian principalities were formed. In the 16th century, the Principality of Transylvania appeared. The peoples of these principalities were named after them .After the unification of the Wallachian and Moldavian principalities in 1859, they began to be called Romanians. But the Moldovans of the Russian Empire continued to be called Moldovans. Their status of unity with the Romanians remained controversial. But after the accession of Moldova to the USSR, the Moldovans were considered a separate people from the Romanians. After the collapse of the USSR, Moldova is ethnically and politically integrating with Romania. Now everyone thinks differently, some consider them separate peoples, some one. Even the Moldovans themselves have different opinions on this matter.

@@The_Geographer_Maps Moldova=Romania. Dont be part of russian propaganda. Slava Ukraina. Slava Romania. F..K Russia.

Moldovans and other Romanians are one people who speak dialects of the same language, but these colors show Slavic DNA % and on that topic you can clearly see more Slavic admixture in Moldovans than other Romanians. If it was Russian propaganda it would show the Russians in one color as well.

@The Geographer "Vlach" and other forms of it was always an exonym, the people of Wallachia (and in some accounts Transylvania) called themselves "Român" or "Rumân" even in the middle ages, people from Moldova adopted their own name but they still refered to their language as "Romanian". The Romanian identity is quite older than the 19th century revisionism and Russian propaganda always pushed to exaggerate the Moldovan separatism in Basarabia. Just wanted to clear that up. Genetically speaking your map is still mostly correct, and it's a good display on how genetics and language should not be confused with ethnic identity. That is a mistake people around here make too often.

@@zuraorokamono204 All romanian speak one dialect (Moldova, Walachia, Ardeal, Oltenia, Dobrogea, Banat, Maramureș - all speak romanian dialect). Other dialect are Vlacs (aroman), Meglen and Istria.

Probably because these colors depend on language not on dna.

Maybe because there's no "slavic DNA". Slavs are linguistic group

@@SvidomyjKmet Typical Slavic people are haplo R1A!

@@SvidomyjKmet Yes, but typical for this group i haplo R1a1.

@@SvidomyjKmet slavic DNA exist

Did you even see the video? That huge Slavic invasion/migration went all the way to the Peleponese. Modern Macedonians And Modern Greeks are a mixture of Ancient and Slavic etc. And No, Macedonians were never Greek. But, the Macedonian Ancient Aristocracy wanted to be Hellenic, because it was deemed to be a superior civilization.

@@bigozimak ahhahahahah thats so sick...im from Macedonia Greece..ive been to ancent pella..philippoi...vergina...all these macedonians spoke ancient greek...wrote ancient greek..believed in the greek gods..had greek education...participated in the olympic games that only greeks could participate..jesus...I dont even have to write those things..go to a city of Alexander the Great or read anything anyway

@@giorgossket1118 Your from Macedonia are you, the same Macedonia where 100 years ago was 80% my people and 10% yours. The same Macedonia that Greece called (so ironically) Northern Greece until 1988! 90% of Greeks were brought over from Anatolia to Macedonia in the 1920s. My people were executed, exiled or assimilated. As for Ancient times, I told you, the Macedonian Aristocracy wanted to be Hellenic, but they weren't. Poor old Philip wasn't allowed to participate in the Olympics, why? So he settled for PhilHellene! Friend of but not. Demosthenes himself said, ' Not only not Hellene, but a petulant knave from Macedonia where one cannot even find a decent slave'. Anyway, I'm so over all of it. But remember, only the sun is older than Macedonia!

@@bigozimak Always the greeks with their purity, they just conveniently ignore the genetic science, annoying little nationalists

​@@bigozimak Well actually genetic evidence proves that the Macedonians had in fact more IE ancestry than the mainland Greeks. Thus makes them more Greek than Greeks.

Cossacks have been appearing on the map since 1500. Who else, in your opinion, could spread across the steppe?

Тут про генетику блять видео, эти востоно славянские племена не отличались между собой в плане и генетики, я тебе больше скажу восточные славяне или русские (так тоже правильно) до сих пор не чем не отличается в генетики вот поэтому их на таких видео обычно вообще не разделяют, а если и разделяют это что-бы никто не оскорбился

Southern Slavs genetically stand between Western Slavs and Paleo-Balkans. The Western Slavs stand between the Germans and the supposed proto-Slavic population. Russians stand between the Finno-Ugrians and the same proto-Slavic population. A common genetic source among the Eastern and Western Slavs that goes into clines with different surrounding populations is the proto-Slavs from which the Slavic languages were spread

​@@The_Geographer_Maps the only thing i would call slightly innacurate is the % of slavic ancestry in western south slavs croats and slovenes, there was a dna test on ancient slavic skeletons which results claimed croats are 75% autosomally similar to white croats pre migration. You also overestimated russian slavic dna % by a lot, russians today have lots od non slavic haplogroups although still in the minority compared to r1a and i2a.

@@lad4415 Probable descendants of White Croats Rusyns and Western Ukrainians actually have a fairly large ancestry from the southern Slavs (65% for the Rusyns and 45% for Western Ukrainians), but the exact moment of admixture between Southern and Eastern Slavs is not known to me. I also do not know the genome of White Croats. If not difficult, can you give a link to the study about the White Croats? As for the percentages of the Western Southern Slavs, I consider them quite accurate, although I may be wrong. Here is the distance of the Southern Slavs between the Eastern-Western Slavs and Albanians (despite the fact that Albanians also have 20% of Slavic ancestry) i.imgur.com/nRovN6H.png As for the Russians, then according to the Y-chromosome, it is not very reliable to consider ancestry. With the Finno-Ugrians, only Northern Russians show a great genetic connection. qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1bd682d8e9743b047d0ecd8cd2a24962-lq The Central and Southern Russians shows quite low Fino-Ugric ancestry, in average 15%. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bhjMlRlIA7w.html

@@The_Geographer_Maps Rusyns have low percent of paleo balkan genes aslo they are light haired and light eyed

There may be errors in the map and in some places it does not look beautiful, but I personally think that in general it was done well. But thanks for your personal opinion.

@@The_Geographer_Maps I could list the countless blunders and inaccuracies i picked up on if you want.

@@user_ghost34 You can let me know, I will take them into account and maybe make a new map without them

@@The_Geographer_Maps Well for starters, there was no “Bulgarian” ethnicity till the time of tsar Simeon , this is when the Bulgarian ethno genesis took place . Secondly you forgot so many slavic tribes in the Balkans , Braničevci , Smolyani, Berziti, Strymonites, Rhynchinoi, Sagudates, Belegezites, Timochans, just to name a few and many more. The slavic tribes in what is now Greece were conquered in the year 785 I believe and you didn’t depict it. The moravians aren’t even in the correct place. You don’t depict the Bulgarians of the morava river valley (pomoravie) the Bulgarians in Thrace and agean macedonia are neglected. Thrace in what is now Turkey had a large Bulgarian plurality until the second Balkan war expulsions. Why does Kosovo suddenly become majority Serbian in 1865? It randomly pushes into northern Macedonia Skopje and Kumanovo, it looks similar to propaganda maps by people like Jovan Cvijić... there are so many things honestly. These are just my first few inclinations. I appreciate the effort and understanding creating a video like this is time consuming and not rewarded by the algorithm, but accuracy is crucial

Also forgot to mention in 1865 you show Vidin as a Serb majority city.

I know that since 1200 I should have called them Ruthenians. And what can I do about the fact that pre-revolutionary maps show them as one people? s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/eurasia/original/32dcd063e2e54c5921a25b66097c8b4f.jpg

@@The_Geographer_Maps I will get back to you, let me confer. The thing with maps is, Russian in origin in particular, that they portray favourably skewed or outright doctored information sometimes. The "Ruthenians" if you will but really "Rus" and Rusyn stretched adequately far (they were NOT Russians!). After the succession feud in Novgorod one dolguruky leader set out into golden horde controlled territory and established Moscow in the 12th century which became an independent duchy in the 13th century. People there were mixed ancestry and notable linguistic differences to the Rus-proper language started to appear from Old East Slavic to what would become Russian. Only way later after further conquest into Rus territory and Novgorod did they "rebrand" themselves as "Russians" and "Russky" despite not being Rus themselves (other than who they had conquered in the west). So kind of like when the German states branded themselves as "Holy Roman Empire of German nationhood" - there was nothing much Roman or holy about it just like Russians weren't exactly Rus.

@@aniinnrchoque1861 I have never said that the Russians in 1200 are closer to modern Russians than to Belarusians and Ukrainians. it just sounds more convenient because in pre-revolutionary times they were divided into Little Russians, Great Russians and White Russians and I can’t do anything about the fact that they had the common name "Russians" in those days upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Map_of_the_Russian_Empire_in_Europe.jpg Genetically, Russian Muscovites are no less Russes than the same Rusyns of the Carpathians. On average, Russians are 85% Slavic. The language differed between Eastern slavs, but the people themselves considered the heir of one people of Kievan Rus and did not distinguish each other. For example, a traveler to India, a merchant from Tver, Afanasy Nikitin, called himself Rusyn. Dividing people because of linguistic differences is often wrong. For example, you can divide the Germans into High Germans and Low Germans because of their linguistic differences, but at the same time the people themselves will consider to be a single entity.

@@The_Geographer_Maps the term "Russian" was coined much later. Muscovites merely misapplied the term "Russky" onto themselves later on which is generally associated with the term Russian but originally meant "person belonging to the Rus". As for the ethnic footprint, most ppl in the area were indeed relatively the same, including Balts and Fin-ugrians - the basis of linking certain haplo groups as strictly "Slavic" doesn't work sufficiently imo. In other words a lot of "Russians" trace their actual ancestors to various extinct baltic, fin-ugrian and yet other pagan peoples, loosely or not at all related to Slavs culturally - yet genetically similar to indistinguishable. As for Germany there are some notable regional differences genetically north to south and in the east.

​@@aniinnrchoque1861 Englishmen are not Anglo-Saxons! Theyre germanized Celts!🤦

Nope they are not. They are descendants from the Rus' which was the first united east slavic state from which later Ukraine, Belarus and Russia split up. Ethnic Russians are slavic stop making up nonsense there are so many proofs and explanations you can find with only a few google searches

little russians is a historic name. There is nothing humiliating or fictional about it. It has its genesis from ecclesiastical and Byzantine affairs. The Cossacks wrote in letters to the Tsar, expressing themselves in this way, and there was nothing humiliating about it

ukrainians have high non slavic genes

Offended because Russians are slavic? 😂😂 Man you guys need to stop being offended by everything especially if it is the truth 😂

@ilikedoggos2771 It's the truth, ethnic Russians, Baltic peoples, Poles (especially Northern and Central Poles), Sorbians, Northern Ukrainians and Belarusians have the highest percentage of Balto-Slavic DNA (true Slavic DNA), if you contradict someone who tells his fantasies it doesn't mean that I was offended

@@Andrei-ev7du buddy I replied to the same comment as you, not to your comment. Don't worry bro we are on the same side 😂

Вы смотрели видео до конца?

@@The_Geographer_Maps ой...прошу прощения, хаха

@@niki6969. Нечего