I was worried this video topic might seem a stretch, I asked people about it and they had never even connect Romans & Romania in their heads, but glad to see initial positive reaction. Thank you all
I've thought about it since the Roman Empire covered many areas and Latin originated important languages used today. All these Roma, Romania, Romani... So interesting.
It's true. Romania is called after the invadors, but it's not just that. The name was used in order to let people know that 'hey, we aren't hungarians ,russians or anything else' . This way , our latin origins were way overestimated . Nowadays,some people think that it would be better if the name would change to Dacia. Btw loved your video ❤️ and how you said 'Burebista'😁
@@hheely20 I don't think it's true, I was in Italy last year and you could feel the hate they have towards naples, I have to assume it's some kind of independent state
The funny thing is that before the all world they are really little countries but If they assemble today to make the Neo Roman empire and successfully blend their culture together ( kind of like UK ) they would be one of the most powerful country of the world . In the same category of russia ,China and USA ( but still behind USA ) .
I learned to talk Romanian because my mom is Romanian and my dad Italian and it was very easy since words were very similar like bread: Can you spot the Italian and Romanian without traslate or knowing the language Paine Pane
The French are in fact a Germanic people speaking a romanized Celtic origin language :D The vast part of the modern Romanian language is neologism borrowed from French and italian
Andi CRIMSON Cmon bro I'm actually American and we indirectly Occupy 100s of nations and have overthrown dozens of legitimate democracys in more wars and conflicts than any nation since WWII to further our dominance in the world. We are not some force for good just like the Roman's weren't. We are about power and conquest today just isn't the day of direct imperialism that's the only difference between the US and Rome.
Andi CRIMSON just because Russia is terrible don't think America is some great morally responsible nation we have committed many atrocities and war crimes and even murdered more innocent civilians than any other nation since WWII. Russia is a terrible brutal nation as well but there are no good guys here none.
It's worth at least mentioning that the "Byzantine Empire" as we call it, who we must remember always referred to themselves as "Romans", did also use the name "Romania" to refer to their lands, though it was one of several.
@@andradaacarpei3752 cum sa fie Romania Italia daca in Italia vorbesc doua dialecte diferite iar noi ne înțelegem cu cei din Moldova s-au făcut teste biologice am păstrat sărbători noi suntem daci
Great video. I learned a lot from this video. Just one thing: Dacians had nothing to do with Slavs. Dacians were an unique ethnic group of their own, and slavs did not even exist in the Balkans during this time. They only migrated in the region during the 6th, 7th and 8th century CE.
In Italy we have a Region called " Romagna" . The region used to be called Romania because of...the byzantine empire( who still called themselves Romans) .The region hosted the Esarcate of Ravenna , wich was a powerful byzantine stronghold with Ravenna as capital just before Lombard territories up North. The name stuck even after lombard conquest in 751.
I think the country is also called Romania because of the Byzantine Empire. When the Turks took Constantinople many believers retreated here, in Romania.
@@alonia09the BE and the ERE are the same thing in every sense, I mean not just "politically" but literally the terms are synonymous. Maybe you wanted to point out that the BE is politically the same as the RE (as a whole)
Furthermore medieval Romans never used Byzantine refering to themselves, because that adjective didn't even exist in those times. Byzantine is a western historiography's made term in order to distinguish medieval phase of Roman empire (centered on Costantinople, i.e. Byzantium) from classical phase (centered on Rome).
@@sarantis1995 The onky thing is the Byzantine Empire was never used as actual name by the empire it was a name given by some western guy. The Byzantine Empire is considered a different phase of it which is *culturally* different as it has more greek culture
@@DEJUNHODE-SAOCARLOS In Romanian we would say "Salut, ce faci?" Actually, ce faci means what are you doing, but we use it to mean how are you. For how are you we would say "cum eşti?". Also "tudo bem?" sounds like "totul bine?". They are similar, but we have many ways to say things :)
My first thought reading your comment was "Oh common, who actually cares about that stuff, it's obviously an oversight". But then I would also be kind of triggered if a map of Romania didn't have Transylvania in it. So I understand.
@@hatakekitama3953 lol Piedmont*, not sardinia. "Kingdom of Sardinia" was the name after ALSO Sardinia was annexed to the kingdom of Savoy, but the capital was in Piedmont (Torino or Turin in english), the royal family was in Turin and literally everything was in Piedmont (wich, by the way, is called Piemonte in Italian). And it's also a fact that the Sardinians were, for most of the Italian history, excluded and isolated from the rest of the peninsula: to this day they feel really isolated from what's happening to the rest of Italy, it's just an historical fact. So no, I wouldn't say they "helped" with most of the reunification, as it was done by Savoy royal family, a piedmontese family.
I was just in Romania and was talking with the Uber driver. I mentioned how many people don't know that Romanian is a Latin language and he told me, "Almost, Latin is a Romanian language."
I believe the *are* some theories romanian was actually a predeccessor to latin at one point and still is around,with it coming from the belief that the italiand weren't just influenced by greece,but also by the dacians which supposedly spoke basically romanian without roman/greek influences,tho I really dkn't remember it so it's probably different,I just know my dad tried to explain it to me once since he's fully into the idea romanians are near pure dacians and that we were the place Eden in biblical stories is based off of,though there isn't really,y'know,any real evidence so I'm still gonna go with the more commonly known truth over the conspiracies of ultimate grandure.
What he told you is what the secretary of Pope John Paul told us, that in the Vatican they have documents which state that Latin is a Romanian language rather than the other way around.
Well, there are people in Romania who can't easily accept the fact that they were Romanized, but either can they deny that the language they speak is related to Latin. I mean, if you are a Romanian and read or hear Italian or Latin, it's impossible not to feel the connection. So, the language connection being undeniable, in a reversal of history, they came up with the idea that it was actually the Dacians who founded Rome and that Latin was actually some sort of Dacian dialect. I shit you not.
IsThisReal we weren’t romanized our forefathers had spoken a form of Vulgar Latin and only 20 percent of Dacia was taken over and only for 150 years and in that measly time the Romans had taken enough gold that no one in Rome had to work for 12 years
actually the actual italians nowaddays are mostly descendants of various barbarian groups invading and mixing with the latind namely lombardians, goths, etc
De fapt , se pare că este exact invers - limba latina provine din daca și nu romana din latină și asta explică multe , 😅 . Uitați-vă la declarațiile făcute de Micheal Ledwit , fostul consilier al lui papa , după ce a citit multe cărți neaccesibile publicului larg din biblioteca Vaticanului 😅
@@BartSimpson-jd2vs Nu spuneam ca suntem unici pentru ca ne mandrim cu identitatea noastra, ci invers, ca suntem mandri pentru ca suntem unici. and that's ok. crede-ma, chiar nu sunt genul care sa fie nationalista dar sunt mandra de originea mea romana intr-un anumit sens pentru ca mi se pare foarte interesanta formarea noastra. e ok sa fii mandru de originile tale, ce nu e ok e sa te crezi cel mai tare din parcare pentru ca ai anumite origini (ceea ce de multe ori e cazul la romani)
@@BartSimpson-jd2vs El se refera la faptul ca suntem urmasii Romei intro zona unde nu se vorbeste limbi trase din Latina. De aia suntem unici, si de aia ne mandrim. Nu ca avem o mandrie mai mare decat alte tari.
Stormy Molnjavichen Because "Hellas" never existed. Even modern Greeks are a lot closer to the Romans than they are to the ancient Greeks. They were the medieval Romans after all. But modern "Greeks" like to hide this fact under the rug because it is inconvenient to their current national agenda.
+Ulpian Heritor "Hellas" existed as a general description of the wider Greek-speaking world of antiquity, it wasn't the name of a polity. "Hellenes" is as old of an endonym as it gets and there is no earlier all-inclusive term to encompass Greeks that we know of. "Graecus", "Yunan" etc are all tribe-specific from the ones Italic peoples and Persians met first respectively. "Hellenes" is in fact a pertinent term. Also, you are committing to a logical fallacy. All people are closer to their medieval ancestors than the ancient ones, that doesn't mean the medieval ancestors had no equity or connection to the more ancient ancestors or that these are 2 mutually exclusive ideas. That's like saying modern Armenians have nothing to do with ancient Armenians because they are more similar to medieval Armenians. It's a complete non sequitur. Not only that, but even if you back to the middle ages, there were self-conscious ethnic Greeks in the mid/late medieval period. Namely Alexios Komnenos was portrayed purposefully as a classical Greek hero in the Alexiad, ancient Athenian pronoia was invoked in the creation of the Archontopouloi regiment and the Palaiologoi spoke of themselves and their subjects as "children of both Romans and Hellenes". The emergent classicism and idolization of antiquity is much older than you may think. And of course, in order to demonstrate the direct continuity of ancient and medieval Greeks, one can easily reference the countless ancient Greek documents preserved, copied, analyzed and commented upon by medieval Roman scholars. Much of Arab learning and connection to ancient Greek literature was done via obtaining said documents from the Romans. Late Hellenistic architecture and art are unmistakably relevant in the emergence of early Christian (and hence Orthodox) art. For example, the halos around saints' heads was a Hellenistic trend to signify exalted individuals such as philosophers. Early Christianity and its theology was largely based on Neo-Platonic ideas, for example the idea of "Logos" the Divine Word/Reason. When early theology was established officially, the Greek-speaking Anatolian bulk basically dictated its form over the Miaphysites of Egypt and the Levant or the Arians of western Europe. And to top it all off, you are grossly exaggerating how little regard Greeks have for their medieval ancestors. "Byzantium" is seen as a second golden age akin to the Hellenistic period and many people (usually religious ones, but not only) look back to it as the true apogee of Greek statehood. If anything, the confusion and historical inaccuracies begin when Greeks look at "Byzantium" as not Roman and instead exclusively Greek, which it wasn't. But the very fact they do shows a reverence and sense of belonging that disproves your claim. And all that without being at the cost of the reverence of their ancient ancestors.
Actually there is a region in Italy named Romagna, which has the same etymology as Romania. It was named like this since it was the piece of land ruled by the Roman (Byzantine) Empire after the Lombard conquest of Italy. The Lombard land, aka Lombardia, is in the fact the name of another Italian region.
Italy was Italy hundreds years before romans. Even for romans, their home nation it was called Italy and they always considered themselves just one of the people of Italy, as it was from the early morning of the history.
@Jizldiedizl B don't mind him. Not every romanian is as brainwashed as him. He's probably an 11 years old kid who playes Minecraft and has nothing to do with history.
@@andradaacarpei3752 they are romance not latin lati is the basis of all languages in europe inclduding the germanic the English and german and mos tof germanic languages write in latin alphabet and they have some romance words and most of them come from becuase of france who invaded england in 1066
@@gutsjoestar7450 latin linguage is new francs, anglise, italic, spanish, grecks, vlachs.Romanic or Latin is big famili.Romanic is linguage italic but liguage Latin si romanic linguage in world
joben1414 Joben they were never winners. I think that Decebal didn't commit suicide. And he capitulated with a big reason. The most important secret of the mankind. Dacians were not barbars and Rome never captured the entire territory. They only got 19%.
easy way no, no argument. But based on your previous comments and comment wars with others I can just day that you are a idiotic ultra-nationalistc piece of shit.
WHAT, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME ARE U STUPID OR WHAT????????????????????????????????????? YOU ARE FROM ONE OF THE MOST SEARCHED COUNTRIES THAT ROMANIANS WANT TO LIVE IN AND YOU ARE LEAVING THE RICH AND BIG SOIL FOR SOME COMMIE BUILDINGS AND SOME MOUNTAINS THAT WILL SOON be destroyed because no one cares about them. You should really go back to Italy.
Oricand This country have no future. With politicians like that. And I know that romanians go to italy to earn money. But do you earn living in Romania as a italian
Fun fact, in Italy there's a region called Romagna (from middle-latin Romania, a reference to the fact that it was under the Byzantine empire long after the western Roman empire had collapsed), so I guess you could say at least a bit of Italy is called after the Romans, right ? Ahahah
Also, during the Middle Ages Romania did not refer to to modern day Romania but instead it referred to the Balkan penninsula because that was the heartland of the Eastern Roman Empire. Romania was the common name of the area prior to the Ottoman Empire, who introduced the Turkic rooted word "Balkan". How cool would it be if we still called the Balkans Romania?
Yep! There are quite a few historians sharing the opinion that Dacians where in fact celtic/gothic in origin. But this Burebista guy united them all and helped them focus by setting fire to all grapevines. He had a high priest (Deceneu) which noticed that the Dacians were more involved in making wine than, you know, extract gold, build fortresses and working in general.
Because of historical ties to the Ottoman Empire and to the Slavic peoples to the south, despite the language being a Romance language. Romanian was written in Cyrillic until the 1860s, and "Moldavian/Moldovan" until the 1990s. It's due to history/inertia.
At least you have kept the name of Britain form the old greek Brettaniai/Pretanike that was inspired from the what the celtic Pretani/Bretani (P and B seemed to flow freely back then, like B and V do nowadays in Spanienland) _might_ have called themselves, or their dogs.
@Konjina "People from london never made that impact to input their name on others" That's becuase way back London hardly existed. Colchester is the oldest recorded town in Britain and was the 'capital' of celtic Britain. That's why Claudius (who properly invaded Britain, not JC), headed straight there to take it. After that, Wincester was the 'capital' of England. So your comparison of Rome and London here demonstrates complete ignorance. Numpty.
@@sunnyjim1355 you are missing the point of my comment... colchester never was an empire either so the whole land could never be called colchesterland. My point still stands numpty. Id rather not know this fact than be as ignorant as you and not be able to read between lines like you. And in fact IF LONDON WAS NOT THAT BIG OF A CITY THE ORIGINAL POST HAS EVEN LESS POINT SO IT MAKES MY POINT COMMENT EVEN MORE SENCE BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL POST SAID THAT IT WOULD BE CALLED LONDONLAND SO INSTEAD OF ME WHY DONT YOU TELL YOUR STORY TO HIM YOU IGNORANT NUMPTY AND ILLETERATE PERSON
@@sunnyjim1355 my comment still stands that london never had impact as you said it yourself it hardly existed. So my comment still is proving the point england, britain ir whatever you want to call it wouldnt be called londonland for any reason. Damn you are some old man full of facts but unable to do with them anything. Cant even prove a point on a random comment. Feelsbadman.
LNB KS. Greece was created 1830 before that there was no Greeks Greece. The hellenic tribes left Greece between 600-900 AD. And the Persians was the new inhabitants
Brits Have Small Penis learn history albanian Pelasgians are the indigenous inhabitants of Greece from which all Greek groups would emerge and would later be given various names including the known name Hellins (Greeks) Hellins (Greek) resided in the are covering mainland Greece, Cyprus,the islands of the Aegean Sea, Asia Minor and Black Sea. According to ancient Greek writers Pelasgians are identical to Greeks in terms of language, customs, traditions and regional coverage. Also many ancient writers are aligned that Pelasgians were gradually renamed to Hellins (Greeks). Thucydides (460-398BC): Pelasgians and Greeks are the same nation. Evsevios: Pelasgian were masters of the seas before the Minoans, Mykinians, Cypriots and Phonecians. Herodotus (485/-421/415BC): Greece was knowns as Pelasgia and that the inhabitants of Attica (region of Athens), Cyclades (Islands of the Agean Sea) were Pelasgians Hesiod (around 700BC): Pelasgians are indigenous to the Greek territory and Dodoni (Asia Minor) is one of its foothold. Skimnos of Chios:The Pelasgians residing in Hellespontus (also known as the Dardanelles Straight) are indigenous Plato (427-347BC): Greek tribes/clans originate from the Pelasgians. Dionysus of Hallicarnasus (70-6BC): Pelasgians are ancient and originate from the Peloponese (region of mainland Greece) Stravon (64BC-24AD): Pelasgians are indigenous and covered all the broader Hellenic region. Herodotus and Thucydides: Pelasgian clans and cities were renamed to the known Greek names.
Israel was under Romans occupation for 800 yrs, Greeks under Turks for 600 and so on ... they never change their language 🤔 Traianus Avgustus concurred 15% of Dacia for 150 yrs and you want us to believe they changed their language?? Today >
@@gygykent9840 trebuie sa o scrii si la comentarii normale. Poate mai invata si ai nostri istoria reala. Dumnezeu sa ne binecuvanteze si sa ne deschida ochii si mintea !
actually, the name Romania exists in Greece too. The Greek people in the times of Byzantine Empires were called "Romioi"(Ρωμιοί) which means citizens of Rome, but the people changed the actual meaning to Greek. Because the name Έλληνας(Hellen) was used by Romans when mocking Greeks, they started calling themselves Romioi(Ρωμιοί). Until the 20th century people of old age would still call themselves as Romioi, and Greek-ness as Romania(Ρωμανία). There are many places in the Greek region of the Balkans with that name like -Roumeli(Ρούμελη), reffered to Central Greece, means Land of Greeks. -Roumlouki(Ρουμλούκι), reffered to the Macedonian region around mount Olympos, means Place of Greeks -Romelia(Ρωμυλία), reffered to northern Thrace-south Bulgaria, also means Land of Greeks. These names are Turkish, because the Turkish called Greeks Rum, meaning Romioi. Funny thing is, Southern Italy and Sicelia inhabitants are mostly of Greek descent. Una razza una fazza.
Just a correction, noone mocked the Greeks by calling them Hellenes. It's just that the word Hellenes ended up being synonymus to believing in the Greco-Roman Pantheon and after the empire adopted Christianity, one would not call himself that for obvious reasons.
Dimitry Alexander Actually in the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) only Greeks were considered and called themselves romans/Ρώμιοι. Bulgarians, Albanians and the slavs weren't called "romans" and didn't consider themselves romans either.
there was a nice thing you miss. in italy there is a region called romagna, that derived from latin romania, lands of the romans. That region was the only one left under the roman empire after the longbards invaded italy
Actually, the ones that called themselves Romans during the Middle Ages were the Byzantine Greeks, who were the continuators of the Roman Empire. In her work, the „Alexiad”, Anna Komnene calls the peoples who lived North of the Danube as Dacians, Vlachs or Scythians. Two centuries before that, Eginhard called the land that was on the current borders of Romania (and not only) Dacia. Anyway, unfortunately for the Eastern Romans, their empire was conquered by the Turks during the 14th and 15th centuries and everything ended for them in 1453, when Constantinople was conquered (although during the history classes during the high school years it is not or vaguely mentioned that the city was first conquered in 1204 by the Crusaders; although the Byzantine Greeks managed to reconquer Constantinople 57 years later, things were never the same, as the empire was growing weaker and weaker). So, the Eastern Roman state died in 1453. As far as I know the Westerners called them Greeks. Also, the Westerners discovered many things about Romanian history, such as the Roman origins of the people and the great Latin legacy of the Romanian language. During the Modern Era, in the 18th and the 19th centuries, Romanian scholars from all the regions tried to find a way to build the country as a free state. Although it was difficult, because the neighboring states - the Habsburg Empire, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire - were way more powerful than the Romanian Principalities, the latter were lucky enough to benefit from the conflicts between the empires and to have a very good generation of scholars, who managed in the end to unite the principalities into one country. The name was The United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, but the people - at least the elite - called themselves Romanians. And the name was changed to Romania. Why? Simply because of the Roman origins and legacy. At the end of the 18th century - the beginning of the 19th century, there was the so-called Transylvanian School, a cultural movement that tried to promote the rights of the Romanian people and their Roman origins. The work of the members of the Transylvanian School was the base of the Romanian emancipation and unification movement and scholars from later generations continued their research on the origins of the people and language. Of course, there was a movement which insisted on the Dacian origins of the people and language, but that remains to this day a very controversial matter (the Communist regime that reigned in Romania until 1989 aggresively insisted on and promoted it; in the end, they fucked up the possibility to find out exactly what the hell happened here). I guess Romania is the best name they could choose for the country in the 19th century. In this way they were able to show that Romanians are neither Slavs, Greeks, Hungarians or Albanians and that their most important Ancient influence and origin is the Roman one.
Hi, as a Romanian, it never even occured to me that the name of our nation was originated from the capital of another country. Also, we don't see romans in Romania as invaders, we identify as the children of both Dacians and Romans. Our "roman heritage" is a point of pride, emperor Trajan even being mentioned in our national anthem
Srdjan Kos I do not know why you had to make a comment like that, but as I said, we do not think they we're conquerors. Wars have to happen, nations are born and destroyed. We view the wars between our ancestors as inevitable, as Rome was a mighty empire, and Dacia was a growing kingdom with plans to make conquest. It was the ideals of 2 nations clashing. Way better in my opinion than being a steppe tribe and just raiding everything until you can conquer some land.
Ramsay Snow yeah, I know, but the whole nation was named after Rome, the capital of the empire and roman people. So yeah, our country was named after a capital
I was just going to say something about the fact that this is about the Italian peninsula which is a geographical term separate from the territories that the Italian Republic has sovereignty over, but the fact that he was talking about countries makes you completely right.
Tim Snowsill I find this comment very funny because you're trying to use the rhetoric of a very limited minority of people in Italy for god only knows what point you're trying to make.
I love the way that you skipped all the history between Dacia and the establishment of the country of Romania, including the Kingdoms of Wallachia, Moldavia (not to be confused with the modern day country of Moldova, although this did used to be a part of Moldavia) and Transylvania. I didn't expect too much talk of this as this isn't a history channel, but might have gone to explain that there wasn't a Romania until fairly recently in history (the 1800s) and I guess the name Romania was a compromise as it was union of kingdoms and it had to be name differently to those entities. Also sort out your pronunciation please. The way you said Trajan and Balkan just makes it sound like you didn't watch anything on this country at all in your research. I like your channel, but this lets you down time and again and is an amateur mistake in what is otherwise a very polished and professional channel.
When political interest dictates, many people bring up the fact ROmania wasnt a country till more recently. But I dont really get that argument as romanian myself because well... romanian language was always spoken, at least after the roman invasion, if it wasnt already latinic that is, we dont know for sure. However that being said, Germany wasnt a country till a certain year, Italy wasnt a country till a certain year... even the great propagandists to the east... Russia wasnt a country till a certain year. So while try to use to political advantage the fact a country appeared in certain year... most of the countries did so, with slight differences in age, they are still the same. Its not really about the country or even its name... its about the language , the people from same roots, and same traditions. Germanic tribes existed long before Germany as a country, I dont see anyone making claims on german history. Well many of our neighbors took us for fools , challenged us with all kind of claims, only to bite them in the ass later (the claims that is).
I wasn't trying to belittle Romania or people who are now Romanians who would have heritage from any of the kingdoms that I mentioned. You are right in that whatever the kingdoms were called they had a common language that is Romanian and came from Latin and the period of when the Romans invaded Dacia. I was merely pointing it out that he skipped the whole period of history between the fall of the Roman Empire and the establishment of the modern Romanian state. Borders, although now seemingly fairly well fixed in Europe, did change quite considerably during the Middle Ages with countries and empires taking chunks of other countries through war, sometimes even obliterating them as in the case of Poland for a while, I was merely pointing out that whilst the name of Romania obviously comes from the Romans, and the fact that the people of the kingdoms that were established after they left weren't called Romania and i doubt the people in these kingdoms called themselves Romanian back then, it wasn't entirely explained why they chose this name over a different one, say Wallachia or Moldavia, which were the dominant kingdoms at the time. Maybe there isn't much evidence and since they had a common language it was named after the language, but this isn't implied in the video and no real mention is made of the history behind it. That's all. I hope that makes sense and clarifies my earlier comment.
Wallachia is the name who was used by other peoples THAN romanians (germans,huns) to name the region south of Carpathians.Between us romanians we ALWAYS called this region "Tara Romaneasca or "Teara Rumaneasca as in Romanian Land - "Terra Romana".So this region won over the others when was elected a name for the united romanian lands.Civis romanus natus dacus
@@mattpotter8725 romanians called themselves from the earliest known writing as "romanian" and even the mouth story that grandparents told children was about the roman-dacian war and the common roman-dacian ancestry. that was as early as we can look back, way before the 18th century when scientists began studying history, linguistics, genetics, and figuring out the history of europe and our roman ancestry so the name romania was a simple and natural country name for people who called themselves romanians... they called themselves romanians irrespective of the regions and the region in the south, where the gold was mined was always called "tara romaneasca" aka romanian country.. it is the natural name of people which called themselves romanian
@@healththenopulence5106 But some people from regions of Romania don't even call themselves Romanian today and I'm not sure you can know what people 2,000 years ago told their children, except for those that could read and write, who would obviously be Roman, because as far as we know the local tribes didn't have written documents by that stage. I'm not saying that today, or even in recent history, say the least few hundred years the majority of people in say Transylvania, a part of Romania that used to be part of Hungary as far as I'm aware, aren't majority Romanian or that it shouldn't be part of Romania today, just that there are still pockets of Hungarian and even German communities still in certain regions of Romania. I just think this goes to show that over centuries borders change, peoples change their allegiance, and become assimilated, and of course migration happens and become populated or repopulated by different peoples, borders aren't static, or at least weren't back in the times when feudalism was the norm.
Kalvin Castro those countries are named after the people living there, there are no Balk people living in the Balklands, plus the peninsula is named after the Balkan mountins
From the olest times ppl here called themselves “rumân / român” and the old were saying they descend from Romans & Dacians… That is way before the ancient history was figured out in the 18th century… So Romania comes natural for the people which named themselves “Români”.. its not even a made up name.. Pretty interesting, right? Also bonus point: the sounthern romania was called “Tara Romaneasca” (Romanian Country), many centuries before.. and its roughly the area where the romans mined gold..
Present day Romania didn't exist as a state during the middle ages. There were 3 smaller kingdoms: Wallachia (the southern part under the Carpathians), Moldovia (the eastern part just east of the mountains) and Transylvania (the North Western and central part - above and to the west of the mountains). The last one (Transylvania) was conquered by the Hungarians in the 10th century and has been under their rule for the next 900 years - until 1918 when Romania formed as a state. Vlad III - the Impaler was indeed ruler of Wallachia and not Transylvania (like Bran Stoker portrayed him), but here's a fun fact: he was born in Transylvania (in the city of Sighisoara).
On behalf of all Romanians, I thank you for this interesting and kindhearted video. Still, I'd like to point out that historically, things were not always like this: Our land was made of 3 parts Transilvania, Moldova and Tara Romaneasca (also called Wallachia), many foreigners called us Wallachians, olahi, etc. Even if we were constantly aware of our great ancestry: Dacian + Roman, throughout our history we had a rough time from powers that kept influencing and oppressing us Hungarians, Austrians but mostly the Turks. In the 18th century, the Turkish influence started to fade and Romanians started to become more aware of their Latin heritage, seeking friendship with France, Italy, etc I think it is then that we developed our public image of a strong, young Latin nation. Especially after the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia (celebrated today, btw), the new country was called Romania.
gosh, you nailed me!!!! actually i'm Dracula+ Steven the Great+ Base... do you have a problem with that? lol. the man did his best to make a rather nice vid about us (which is rare), and i thought it'd be nice of me to show my appreciation, thinking that others might feel the same. i wasn't speaking on your behalf, if you don't like it.
How turks oppressed you? If that would be the case you would lost your own identity and call yourselves turks too as like how many anatolians believe they descended from actual middle asian turks.
The dacian-romanian people have such a strong culture that has consolidated over millennia that it is impossible for any invading power to completely destroy our identity. Many invaders have tried over the years and yet still here we are. Our culture is unshaken because we have chosen to lead a simple life and live in peace. Surely we have incorporated cultural aspects form other cultures, but our core culture remains unchanged. The main strength of the romanian people lies in their unification during times of duress. This unification and sense of brotherhood of the romanian people has never been broken. When the ottomans invaded they never had any intention of transforming the population of very far vasal states like Wallachia was. They were simply content with putting in place a dummy loyalist leader that would pay a yearly tax to the empire. As long as the money came in they didn't care how the province was administering itself. They did try to impose the muslim religion on parts of the country but that didn't take as romanians were very entrenched in their orthodox beliefs. We simply resisted the muslification just like we had resisted many other forceful population conversions in the past. So you see, you are wrong. Romanians have never lost their heritage or identity as a people, even though our nation's name changed a few times. I suggest you document yourself a bit more before throwing unsolicited comments about a subject that you know very little about.
Because Romania is heir to Roman empire, we also call us (Roman) or (Romani) not to be confused with gypsies dont listen to those chuvanist hungayrians im also from Transylvania.
@@sebokimre892 communist dictator education system. The history books would say "the romanians, being kinder than the Hungarians, ....." But yes they were heir to the Empire in as much as Greece, France or Spain.
Bro, please be more conscientious about your pronunciation - as a name channel, it should be a high priority. Balkans, not Balklands Trajan or Traian, not Tarzhen Calábria, not Calabría You got this!
I'd add a factor the equation: maybe since they were the only romance people in the region their romanic identity would stand out more, so that the slavs and others around would simply call it "the land of the romans". Italy on the other hand had many different tribes for many centuries (including the Latins) before the Romans took over, and by that time the latin language ALREADY had a name for Italy from BEFORE it became all-roman. IDK, just a thought. Great video!
I for one would like to know how the name of Romania actually used to be pronulounced as "R-oo-mania" and variants thereof for much of its history (even in English, up until the mid-twentieth century). I know that [o] and [u] sometimes switch between one another in languages but still...
Actually, the term Wallach/Vlach is kind of tricky because it seems to apply to different Romance-speaking groups of people all across the Balkans, both in Romania and Greece or Serbia. Fun fact: in Polish and Hungarian Italy is known as Włochy and Olaszország respectively, both of which derive from the Vlachs/Wallachs, whose linguistic similarity to the inhabitants of the Italian Peninsula probably led to the confusion.
Well i'd guess Romania is called that way precisely because it is surrounded by non-latin speaking peoples - and only since "roman" was no longer associeted with "citizen of rome/byzantium". Italy has not only been called italy during roman times but the italians have also been neighbouring other romance-speaking peoples ever since the fall of western rome. Therefore there was no need to identify over being a descendant of rome.
Well yeah it's obviously not "italy" as in the english variation of "italia". But you get what i mean: "italia" (or italy as we would call it in english) isn't a new name for the homeland of the italians. It has been around since ancient times.
Mihail Nikoloff while it is true that we heavily latinized in the *i believe* 18th century, the Vlah language never was a non-Latin speaking language... We did use the cyrillic alphabet, and what? There are lots of non-Latin speakers that use the Latin alphabet. Old church Slavonic was not used that much outside churches... Stop spreading lies.
Yeah, one very obvious reason why Italy is not called Romania is because apart from the romans, there were a bunch of different tribes. And what you ommit to mention is that the name Italy came to be largely because the greeks called them that, due because of the tribe you mention "Vitali". Conversely Greece came to be called as such because of the Italians meeting with the Graeci tribe.
Konstantinos Sfoungaris Calling "tribes" the Greeks in Italy sounds a lot like a blasphemy... by the way, you're right, Latin was heavily influenced by Ancient Greek after the conquest of Greece by the Romans, and this is a very good example for it
Konstantinos Sfoungaris You said "Graeci tribes". Graeci literally means "Greeks" in Latin, and you definitely can't call them tribes, because the Greek colonies in Italy were cities with governments and laws etc.
Alessandro Pedretti no, originally the Graeci (Γραικοί) were a Hellenic tribe inhabiting central Greece. The inhabitants of Italy at the time came in contact with them first and applied this name to any Hellene. For instance, Greeks in the east are called Yunan, because of the Ionians
Konstantinos Sfoungaris Well, it doesn't matter their Ancient Greek name, Graecus in Latin means "Greek", it doesn't refer specifically to one tribe, but to Greeks as a whole
Watching this 3 years after it was originally posted, it's incredible to see how far you've come as a RU-vidr. Not to dis this old video, which was fine, but you've gotten better at presentation, cadence, and scripting and all the work you've done really shows.
For anyone's concern: Wallachia was a name given by the foreigners. While since the middle ages we called it "Țara românească" meaning Romanian Country or Romanian Land. In our language we call ourselves "român" which is equal to "roman".
no, Adrian, not even the ones from the balkan peninsula. Some quick Wiki stuff that you can verify for yourself: In 1534, Tranquillo Andronico notes: "Valachi nunc se Romanos vocant" (The Wallachians are now calling themselves Romans). Francesco della Valle writes in 1532 that Romanians are calling themselves Romans in their own language, and he subsequently quotes the expression: "Știi Românește?" (Do you know Romanian?). After travelling through Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania Ferrante Capecci accounts in 1575 that the indigenous population of these regions call themselves "românești" ("romanesci"). Pierre Lescalopier writes in 1574 that those who live in Moldavia, Wallachia and the vast part of Transylvania, "se consideră adevărați urmași ai romanilor și-și numesc limba "românește", adică romana" (they consider themselves as the descendants of the Romans and they name their language Romanian). The Croatian prelate and diplomat Antun Vrančić recorded in 1570 that "Vlachs in Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia designate themselves as "Romans" and the Transylvanian Hungarian Martin Szentiványi in 1699 quotes the following: «Si noi sentem Rumeni» ("Și noi suntem români" - "We are Romans as well") and «Noi sentem di sange Rumena» ("Noi suntem de sânge român" - We are of Roman blood).
Victor Emanuel I'm glad to see someone writes with responsibility. Thank you, Victor Emanuel. Atatia prosti comentaza pe net ca ma ingrozesc, nu pot sa cred ca am ajuns la asa un nivel de decadere. Am citit cateva postari si am crezut ca intru in pamant de rusine.
bro i love your videos they teach me a lot of stuff i didn't originally know. my favorite one would have to be when you explained the continents before Pangaea. keep bringing your content through out 2018 and the years to come
Brayden Cook Cheers man! The Pangea video didn’t do as well as I thought it would’ve done but really glad to hear you enjoyed it! It’s one I really enjoyed making :D
I've always had Geography as a small hobby of mine, occasionally i like to open up my old readers digest atlas and just look around. and 52,000 views on your Pangaea video is quite a lot to me i only average around 5 to 6 views on my videos. keep up your hard work man
And the Byzantine Empire or the Eastern Roman Empire was called Romania. So, the name is old and has been used before. It means part of the Roman Empire or citizens of the Roman Empire.
Strange question. Italy was called "Italy" already in the Roman period ... ("Italia" in latin language and modern italian). Why should Italy change his name? ... "In verba mea sponte sua tota Italia iuravit", (Augustus Emperor....) .
@Mysterious Stranger "We" don't want to be named Romania? No no no. It's YOU who doesn't like our name. Dacopaths like you are traitors to the Romanian state. You do not speak for Romanians.
@Mysterious Stranger Of course you are a dacopath. Look at what you wrote. It's a radical belief; which is fine if you believe in it, because you can take your place with the flat-earthers of the internet. However, when it comes to advocating for changing the name of my country to "Dacia", this is nothing short of treason.
@@octaviantimisoreanu5810 da ce aveti ma cu dacia? Ce are? De ce vorbiti asa urat? Nu stau in Romania si nu prea cunosc istoria ei, Dar Scrie clar si pe Wikipedia ca chiar a existat un popor, dacia, geografic vorbind, in Acea zona. Si traian dupa razboi a spus: m am intors pe pamantul stramosilor mei.
@ateb3 some things are not logical to US. They call themselves American, even when América is a whole continent, they are "Estados Unidenses" in portuguese or something like this in english.
LMfao just because they took the name Latins does not make them so... Just another sad bunch of cunts trying to latch onto a glorious history... People with a high amount of Spanish DNA may have some legitimacy calling themselves "Latins" but thats about all.
Thank you for talking about my country and clear things up that not many people know about. And thank you for respecting and understanding Romanian history that they deserve.
Of course because our country is full with people that doesn't know any general knowledge, but instead they know pretty much how to ask their parents to buy the newest and most expensive Iphone X which is absolutely garbage, or staying and making insta stories on instagram but at least they spell it right. Or being a bitch on Snapchat or overloading status on facebook and twitter. Because yeah that's more important than teaching people from other countries that they are wrong and Romania is not all about Dracula and a leader that prefered to kill the invaders in the way we all know...
The Romans manage to conquer only 15% of Dacia.They came with 150.000 soldiers. Romanian language is not derivated from latin. So, 15% of land under Roman Empire domination did not manage to change the language. All Grece teritory was under Roman domination for 500 yrs and they also kept their language. What I can tell is that the language of dacians was in many ways common with the one spoken by romans. Dont belive my words, make your own research. You will discover things you would not belive about that balcanic country wich has no connections with any slavic population.
YOU MISS THE SHOW..england was more time under roman occupation and they have english...the thru is behind romans...which they are from romania..old roman empire have dacian and/or thracian origins and when you go to rome..have a loook at dacian warriors monuments..trajan column..if i beat shit out of you..for sure i will not make your monument in my house..this are facts
It's far worse that you christian turk descendants stole the ancient Greek land and history, even though you are not closely related to ancient Greeks.
It's also interesting that in Roman times (0-500AD) Finns didn't even live in Finland yet. They lived near Ural mountains,literally in the border between Europe and Asia. Along with our brothers Estonians and Hungarians i guess.
Uralic language-speaking peoples are so intriguing it's fantastic to imagine how they became so far apart and Hungarians got cornered by all kinds of cultures yet still are so isolated in a way.
Tor Bygjordet cant find the source. It said that before year 700AD there have been no finds of Finnish people's bones. My statement is generalizing , i'm no expert. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland
Bhaalspawn84 Interesting. But the sami speak a ugrian language although they are not an ugrian people. I bet they picked it up from the Finns, and it is unlikely the language spread among the samis in just a couple of hundred years. Seems more likely the Finns came earlier than 700AD. But who knows.
Actually Dacia in the times of Burebista stretched from Poland to the Balkans (vaguely described). It was A LOT bigger than what you showed there, which is how Romania should look in the modern days and what it used to look like in the past century until the Russians took Moldova again. Basarabia e Romania!
Those maps of the Dacian Kingdom are modern interpretations created by nationalists. We actually have no idea how big or small Burebista's kingdom was.
All this according to the history we know today. How about judging everything through the prism of a logical history! After the Roman conquest, only 14% of Dacia's territory was occupied and influenced by the Romans. How is it possible for the rest of the population to give up their own language and customs, in order to import the Latin language spoken by Romans? How is it that in the writings of historians, Romans addressed the locals directly in Latin? How is it that the statues of 8 massive Dacians are enthroned on the triumphal arch of Constantine? THE DACIANS ARE THE ANCESTORS OF THE ROMANS! That's what the Romans knew then. Whoever looks for details in history, finds enough. And one more thing: the Roman army participated with 14 legions (out of the total of 30 that Rome had at that time), together with 90 auxiliary regiments (21 alae, 33 cohortes equitae, 25 cohortes peditae and 10 cohortes sagittariae), forming thus an invading army of at least 125,000 men, so that, in the second war, the number would increase (for example, 13 legions and other auxiliary troops were concentrated). To get an idea of the Roman force, for the conquest of Britain, in 40 AD, Rome needed only 4 legions (which together with the auxiliaries numbered 40,000 people). That says something about the power of only 14% of Dacia! This is an alternative history, a logical history, which tells us how erroneous the history we know today is.
@kurgan anderko You did not understand. The language of the peoples is changing, in the sense that it is evolving. But a whole people will NEVER give up its own language and culture in favor of no one, not even a conqueror, not even after a people is assimilated. We have no correspondent in history! Welsh is still spoken in the UK today! Even now the languages of the Native American tribes can still be spoken of by a handful of people who no longer even have the full genetic identity of the former tribes. Why would a FREE people like the Dacians on 86% of the territory give up the "Dacian" language without even being under Roman occupation? Maybe you understand now. How do you think it is possible that the most powerful people that Rome faced in its history (it needed half of the Roman military force to conquer 14% of Dacia) give up their own language in favor of Latin? The only people to whom Rome (Domitian) paid tribute willingly give up their own language and suddenly speak Latin ?! THE DACIANS WERE SPEAKING LATIN THEN! Different from the Romans, but they understood each other very well, without translator. There are too many historical evidences! The founders of Rome were Dacians! Why did the Roman emperors put their Dacian statues on their triumphal arches? The statues attitude is protective. Power and nobility. As the Roman historian Pliny the Younger said, "the wars between the Dacians and the Romans were fratricidal wars"! Look at the four Dacians! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Constantine#/media/File:KonstantinsbogenAttika.jpg Nobody knows why they are there, but their stature and posture tell about the image of the Dacians in Rome more than all the history I have learned from history books!
@kurgan anderko Romanian has been indicated in the linguist Mario Pei’s study from 1949 to be at 23.5% distant from Latin in terms of phonology, inflection, syntax, vocabulary, and intonation, while the Italian language is 12% away from Latin. This is in spite of all the draconian influences that the Romanian language has endured throughout 2000 yrs of history, from the Slavic, Turkish, Hungarian, etc. languages. Let's not forget that although Romania is an island of Latinity in a great slavic sea, it has kept a distance of only 23.5% from Latin, while French has a proportion of 44% with other latin neighbours! How is it that the historical occupations of the Slavs, Turks, Hungarians, etc have distanced the Romanian language from Latin only twice as much as Italian, which has not had violent influences on the language in the history of 2000 years?! However, in just 165 years of Roman occupation in 14% of Dacia, ALL DACIA abruptly changes its language and speaks Latin! That's IMPOSSIBLE!
@kurgan anderko Let's see. Use logic! #1. Historical evidence - Dacia was NEVER assimilated in the Roman Empire! It was a 165-year occupation (106 Trajan's victory - 271 WITHDRAWAL under Aurelian). Suppose, however, that the most important opponent of Rome in history would have given up his own language and culture after 106 (although it is absurd), why the free Dacians from the remaining 86% of Dacia's territory (UNCONQUIRED) would have given up voluntarily in his own language and would he suddenly speak Latin? #2. The position of the Dacians on Constantine's triumphal arch does not indicate that they were defeated. On the contrary! The Dacians pose as nobles and it is possible to indicate the origin of Constantine. If you talk about Trajan's Column, there is evoked Rome's victory against Dacia and yes, it is a public advertisement. But there the central character is Trajan who was at the top of the Column. Here the central characters are the 8 Dacian nobles! #3. There was also no written evidence of which languages were spoken in Hispania, Germany, Gaul or Britain. However, there are records of the Romanian historians Dio Cassius and Pliny the Younger according to which the Romans sent messages to Dacia without an interpreter and addressed the ordinary Dacians directly. What is the reason that the Daco-Roman wars were called by the historians of the time "fratricidal wars"? #4. Do not confuse the history of Dacia with Spain, France, which were also conquered by the Romans! The huge difference is that Dacia was occupied for 165 years, while Spain and France were parts of a cosmopolitan world empire bound together by law, language, and the Roman roads and ceased to be part of the empire, practically with its fall, after the year 400. Spania - In 218 BC the Roman senate declared Hispania a Roman province, and in 409 AD, Alani, Seuvi, Vandals and Visigoths poured through Gaul and into the west, effectively removing Hispania from Roman control. So there are about 627 yrs of romanization, with over 400 yrs in witch Spain held all the imperial rights. This left traces in the language, which is only 20% away from Latin. Although Hispanic remnants survived in the Basque area where the language is totally different from Latin! Let's not forget that Trajan and Hadrian were Spaniards! And that's because Spain was assimilated into the empire. Rome deployed a maximum of 6 legions in Spain. France - in 122 BC part of France became a Roman province and was gradually conquered until 274, after which it remained in the empire until 486, practically until the break-up of the empire! The Tha Gauls were not assimilated into the empire like the Spaniards, but this can be seen in the language, where the distance from Latin reached 44%, the most significant of all Latin languages. Rome deployed 4 legions in Gaul (7, 8, 9 10). Britain - was a Roman province for 367 years (43-410 AD), where a maximum of 4 legions were deployed, just like in Germany. The problem of logic - On the territory of today's Romania there were more foreign military incursions and language influences than in all the other countries that were Roman provinces together! However, the distance from Latin of the Romanian language is only 23.5%. And Romanians do not have an alternative language as Spaniards have Basque. Officially, no words are known in the vocabulary of the Romanian language from the old Dacian language, even if some speculations are made without historical basis. Compared to all these peoples, the Dacians were much more numerous and stronger militarily. #5. I did not say that the Romans were Latinized by the Dacians! I said that the first Romans (the tribe of Remus and Romulus) came from Dacia, bringing with them the Latin language. It is a logical finding that results from the sum of the historical evidence we have. I'm not saying that was the case, but it has logic and does not contradict historical sources! # 6. The peoples / tribes you are talking about are a minority compared to the native population and logically, they can be integrated by it. But a majority population (Dacians) cannot be assimilated by a minority population of 13 legions of Romans, (many of whom did not even speak Latin by the way!). It's a flawed logic!
omg name ROMANIA was selected only because of conjuncture 1848 for the single reason UNION between Wallachia (Tara Romaneasca ) ,Moldavia and Transylvania all speaking similar language and DACIA cannot be chosen only because western countries will not recognize the UNION by DACIA name and those countries all speaking same language were between religion boundries catholic (Hungarian Kingdom and Poland ) islam Ottoman Empire kinda a miracle keeping latin language in this area ;some Vatican scholars like Miceal Leadwith agreed that a form of latin language were native to dacian people (thracians ) even Trajan the conqueror of Dacia feeling himself "at home" in Dacia: Dacia was only 20% conqured not to mention also that Roman Empire could not impose in Britannia or other provinces captured his latin languagei nfluence ;Romulus and Remus founders of Rome where symbolical depicted feeding of a wolf ;the wolf were the main symbol of dacians somekind of link between Rome and Dacia was back then and as you said the history is written by the victors sure are some texts left in Vatican library regarding this subject of Dacia and the link with Roman Empire ; anyway the statues of dacian warriors are highly represent in roman culture ;even today romanians see italians as their cousins and is quite easy to understand italian language even if you don't studied before at school
fun fact, Italy is divided into 20 regions, one of them is called Emilia-Romagna (and is basically the union of 2 culturally distinct regions, Emilia and Romagna) Romagna was actually named after the Roman empire, not the western one though, in fact Romagna was the last piece of italian soil that the Eastern Roman empire controlled before giving the whole peninsula up (also the cultural region of Romagna includes also the northern part of the region Marche) Ps. you never showed Sicily and Sardinia as part of Italy even though they are (but considering how each region in Italy has it's own strong feeling of identity is not that bad)
@@angelabender8132 I can see the case for Sardinia, to a degree, but Sicily wasn't, while it has been independent it has been in the same nation as the rest of southern Italy for a long time, and as far as I'm aware it wasn't treated differently than the rest of the south, then yeah, the unification of Italy wasn't kind to southern Italy for sure, but saying that Sicily was a colony is a bit too much
Greece is another state that could have been called Romania, as those who would now identify as Greek, in the 19th century (and for many centuries before that) would identify as Roman (the actual word is "Romios", akin to the actual translation for Roman in greek which is Romeos). This is true because the "greeks" where citizens of the roman empire until the 15th century and during ottoman rule the word Roman (romios) came to mean greek speaking orthodox Christian. And on these two traits the modern national identity of "greek" was (re)constructed. So common folk would call themselves Roman but the "enlightened" leaders of our national revolution of the 19th century promotes the connection of the awaking nation to our ancient roots, instead of our medieval "romanness". No less because that way they would (and did) attract the romanticize souls of Western Europe that had idealized our ancient past in Romanticism. Also westerners (Franks/French and Germanic people) had always trouble accepting the orthodox greek speaking eastern roman empire as the legitimate successor of THE Roman Empire, instead they fabricated their own Roman Empire (starting from Charlemagne and onto HRE ie Proto - Germany.) It was only when Napoleon swiped over Europe that the Roman aspirational of these nations came to an end.
Video interessante. Eu realmente nunca imagine que o nome da Itália tivesse outra origem - Kisses from the biggest roman influenced country in the world (in terms of population and geographic size) - BRAZIL
@@paolorossi9180 YES, BRAZIL IS THE LARGEST ROMAN INFLUENCED COUNTRY!!!!!!!! LANGUAGE + CULTURE - Don't even think that it's Italy because you're completely wrong!
@@marivaldomessias9988 sure Brasil was a part of Roman Empire hahaahahaha.American continent has nothing to do with ancient Roman Empire history,but Italy.France,Portugal,Spain yes!
@@paolorossi9180 You have no idea of what I'm talking about. I'm saying that 'BRAZIL IS THE LARGEST ROMAN INFLUENCED COUNTRY' and if you knew a little about Brazil you would know that Brazil was colonized by Portugal and we speak Portuguese - Roman Culture influence + Language Portuguese. These funny Europeans think they know everything... Wake up, people!
