The border of Samogitia is Kaunas and the river Nevezis egsacly as shown on the maps,but its not all now days Lithuania.Now days Lithuania is Samogitia,Aukshtaitia,small parts of Semigalia and Jotva but not only Samogitia as you try to show.That is misinformation.
Just to those who think Beralus = Lithuania (also due to some reason, maps in this video are shown starting only from 1613 and not around 1000): Baltic and Slavic languages are very different even today after centuries of the Baltic language branch being like an island surrounded by Slavic countries, despite Polonization (not forced) and Russification (forced) in their history. Baltic tribes are mentioned in very old written sources, such as ancient Roman Tacitus's “Amber Road”. Baltic tribes include Galindians, Latgalians, Lithuanians, Samogitians, Curonians, Selonians, Semigallians, Yotvingians, old Prussians, Pomeranians. Lithuanians and Samogitians were one of the largest tribes. In around 1000, baltic tribes united into a country known as Lithuania, which is according to one of the main tribes - “Lithuanians” name (Samogitians thou, was included in Lithuania's sphere, as they were a large tribe they remained quite autonomous, they were more “pagan” than other tribes, so there was a problem with them to accept Christ, and they become known as last pagans in Europe). Not all Baltic tribes belonged to Lithuania - some became current Latvia, is part of Poland or Kaliningrad (Teutonic order took the old Prussian settlement “Tvankste” and made it into the city of Königsberg). Officially, Lithuania’s name as the country was first mentioned in 1009 in the Annals of the Quedlinburg monastery. Take note that the “Lithuania” name was long before the appearance of “Grand Duchy of Lithuania”. From then started dynasties of famous Lithuanian dukes, no kings as it was a pagan country not accepting Christianity. The only king was Mindaugas, who accepted Christianity. Lithuania's main capitals were around the current Vilnius location. The first capital, was Kernave (35km from Vilnius), the second capital Trakai (30 km from Vilnius) and finally, Vilnius, which was founded by Grand Duke Gediminas. After Baltic tribes unified in the country and after the Mongol invasion - it was a good moment for country expansion, and so the Grand Duchy of Lithuania appeared. Algirdas (in the video mentioned Olgerd) was one of 7 sons of Gediminas and belonged to the Gediminas dynasty. During “Grand Duchy of Lithuania” -it consisted of Lithuanians and Ruthenians (Belarus, plus part of Ukraine). And it is based on Europe’s written sources. For example, Lithuania’s that time enemy Teutonic Order writings divided “The Grand Duchy of Lithuania” army into Lithuanians, Ruthenians and Tatars. That includes writings about the famous battle of Grunwald. Thou “The Grand Duchy of Lithuania” was ruled by Lithuanian dukes, there were much more Ruthenians than Lithuanians and Ruthenian was common language for communication. But Lithuanians were always Lithuanians, Belarusians were Ruthenians, and Ruthenians were never Lithuanians. Lithuania was before Grand Duchy of Lithuania and it was formed from Baltic tribes.
1) Lithuania was not a country in 1009. It was just a baltic tribe. Lithuania become a country only in the middle of 13 century as a union of lithuanian tribe and Novogrudok city (under the rule of Mindovg). It was a union of the most rich city and the best warrior in the region. 2) Initially lithuania was located at Vilnia (Vilnius) region (modern Lietuva) and Grodno region (modern Belarus). But later all western part of modern Belarus was called as Lithuania. Ruthenian part of Belarus is only eastern part (Polotsk, Vitebsk) (15-16 centuries). By the 18 century all territory of Belarus was called as Lithuania. Ruthenians are mostly ukrainians 3) Vilnia (Vilnius) was not founded by Gedimin. It's only a myth about creation of Vilnia by Gedimin. The city existed before Gedimin (archeology rules :-) ))
@@alanparker2918 I replay, though it is nothing to discuss, the only ones who can believe this nonsense are the ones who want to be that true. I mean, some Belarusians may want to be Lithuanians, but they still always will have only Ruthenian ancestry. This myth that Belarus is Lithuanian is not even so long created, in the 19-20th century, some Belarusian historian wrote that, and it became the only written source of how Belarusians try to prove this... It is enough ancient writings, and those are made not even by ancestors, Lithuanians, themselves, but by nations that interacted with it - the Holy Roman Empire, Teutonic Order, and Vikings saga, also even Lithuanians were Pagan nation - they still make in many of Europe's monarchy royal trees. Those ancient writings clearly describe Lithuania. And note again, - Lithuania was way before the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian appearance. Lithuanians were always - Baltic and Ruthenian were always - Slavic. And this will not change even if you really want this. As well, - no other European historians, except some Belarusians (who want to be this true), believe this nonsense because everyone believes in real prof and ancient writings and not that some 9-20th century Balussian historian made up.
@@Tautas1123 Nice try, but - no. 1) Part of lithuanian tribes were slavianized. I hope you know that official documents of GDL was not even translated to your language because people (including balts) knew ruthenian language. So actually they became ancestors of belarusians, poles (now they live in Vilnia region) and modern lithuanians. Even more: all territory of Belarus was populated by balts. Slavic tribes went to the territory of Belarus only at 5-7 centuries. Belarusian are mix of balts and slavs from the very beginning (even without influence of lithuanian tribes). That's why about 80% of hydronyms in Belarus have baltic roots. 2) Second myth is that lithuanians were pagans and slavs were only orthodox. Even in 14 century a big part of slavs were pagans. 3) Third myth is that other historians supports your version. In real life they just don't care about it. It's just a dispute between you and us. BTW ukrainian historians support belarusian version. Looks like you even don't understand the difference between lithuanian tribes (which are balts for 100%) and Lithuania as a country (GDL) which is mainly slavic country. GDL had slavic governmental institutions (laws for example), official language, even coat of arms was called with a slavic word "Pogonia" (name Vytys was invented only in 19 century). Even name of the country was slavic "Litva" and not "Lietuva" - just google photos of GDL coins - they contains name of country "LITVA". In general GDL had only 2 baltic features: name and dynasty. The rest is slavic. PS: stop liking your own comments - it looks like sucking your own balls ))
Which Ukrainian historians support this Belarusian version? As far as I am aware the Baltic origin of the Lithuanian state is the mainstream accepted version.
This video has a lot of errors. It's kind of funny. Not gonna mention all. It is more complicated than you think. Samogitia is like Scotland of Lithuania. Samogitia is only part of Lithuania. It is like Britan and Scotland and all lands under are like the British Empire. Also, Belarus is not white rus, but it is west rus, because directions were in colors. White means west, black means north and red means south. Also, it is funny that you ignore that all rulers were Lithuanians and all names are in the Lithuanian language. Writing in Cyrillic doesn't change the word meaning.
No - Samogitia and Lithuania (including for the purpose of 15-17 cent maps) are clearly two different things. Look even at the maps brought by Lithuania Propria. Definitely no - "colors of Rus" have nothing to do with directions. It's a long-debunked myth. Colors appeared in vastly different times and mostly on Western European maps. No - everything Baltic does not = modern Lithuanian. A huge Baltic legacy is in everything Belarusian. From West to East. Yes - there is factual documented evidence that Old Lithuanian dukes spoke Slavic themselves (which btw makes them Slavs regardless of their origin). And we only assume they spoke some Baltic tongue, too. For all we know, the original Old Lithuania was pagan, spoke Slavic, used Baltic, Germanic, Slavic names, and its territory was somewhat equally split between modern Belarus and modern Lithuania.
@@Woloh Stop spreading your bs. Samogitia is different. It is like Scotland and Lithuania proper is like Britan and joined rus lands where rus lived is just part of empire like British empire. Speaking about colors. Baltic means White and White means west. Black means North and Red mean South and it literally corresponds to rus inhabited lands. It is not disproven. No matter how many times you try to on my comments. Facts are facts. Speaking about languages. Dukes specifically were Lithuanians. They were from Lithuanian tribes. Ofc dukes knew multiple languages. They ruled Slavs. Also, there are written sources proving that dukes spoke the baltic languages in between each other, without even talking about passed names. You only assume that they spoke Slavic and that is incorrect. Your argument that their names were from different origins also incorrect. All their names were from the Baltic origin. Talking about Lithuania. Yes, Lithuania was pagan. Meanwhile, rus lands weren't. Also its kind of funny that Slavs have their main god Perun. It is a baltic god Perkunas(thunder) and it is made of 2 baltic words via and body. Meaning that striking lightning goes across the body. And you have no clue what it means. For all we know, original Lithuania proper was a pagan, spoke Baltic, extended up to half of modern Belarus was inhabited by baltic people, and were ruled by baltic dukes.
Vienu metu kada Lietuva buvo iki Juodosios jūros, tada buvo Žemaitijos kunigaikštystė išsiplėtusi beveik iki Vilniaus. Paprasčiausiai visos LDK provicijos išsiplėtė jos didybės metu apie maždaug 1410-1550 metus. Dėl to autorius ir daugybė baltarusių teigia, kad Samogitia = Dabartinė Lietuva.
Zhemaitiya and Aukstaitiya are regions of the modern Republic of Lithuania, or rather, Zhemaitiya and Aukstaitiya were called Lithuania at the end of the 19th century, in historical and Ethnic Lithuania was located in the central and Western part of Belarus
Это регион современной , а к исторической Литве Жемайтия, Аукштайтия и Судавия отношения не имеют, они были автономией Литвы. Историческая и Этническая Литва находилась в центральной и Западной части Беларуси, где и обрадовалась ВКЛ. Летописная Литва находилась между реками Неман, Вилия и Березино
@Emmet Paliy Для тупого Ивана из России. Всю территорию Беларуси населяли Балты,и с приходом Славян они никуда не делись, в а остались на своём вместе, после крещения приняли церковнославянский язык. А центральные и западные территории современной Беларуси были всегда за бвлтами, славян там было мало. Более того Этническая, Летописная и изначальная Литва находилась в центральной и Западной части современной Беларуси, и тут жило племя Литва, которое предок Беларусов, современные Литовцы тогда были Жемайтами и Аукштайтами а не Литвой, потому что Литва была только в центральной и Западной части современной Беларуси, и в Вильно, который тоже беларуский, после того как Сталин подарил его современной Литве, он стал Вильнюсом. ВКЛ образовалась на территории Беларуси. Для тупых объясняю, Русь на территории современной Беларуси были только восточные и южные территории, а Центральные, западные и серверные были Этнической Литвой. А немцы ходили на Литву в Гродно и на Новогрудок, ну и на Жемайтию которая и есть современная Литва
There are numerous maps showing where White Russia/Alba Russia/Blanche Russia is and where Lithuania exactly is. Lithuania is named on those maps as “Lithuania Propria”. This author compared modern map to his picked maps just to mislead people and tell that only Samogitia is Lithuania, but, as Vytautas the Great said, Lithuania is Samogitia + Aukstaitija (Lithuania Propria). This psueodhistorical narrative is called “Litvinism” where Belorussians steal Lithuania’s history.
Moscow´s Genocide of Belarusian nation. Terrifying reading, but I am 100% sure you did not read about it in your school , its still taboo subject in Belarus sorry, for using stright forward google traslate : "After World War II, the 10-million-strong Belarus lost about 3 million of its inhabitants, but about 2 million were killed even before the war by the communist NKVD. In Belarus, 70 percent of all Belarusian writers were physically destroyed, scientists and artists were killed. (The troupe of the Third Belarusian State Theater of Vladislav Golubok was arrested in full force. Almost all of them were shot.) They were killed on ethnic grounds. For this, the label "natsdem" was invented (it means - a national democrat, although such a party did not exist). This label was stuck to all Belarusians whom the Stalinists planned to destroy. In the depths of the NKVD, a non-existent anti-communist organization SVB ("Union of Liberation of Belarus") was invented. Under an invented phantom, the NKVADists carried out arrests, conducted an imaginary investigation, interrogated, tortured, tried, then exiled to Russia and shot innocent people. After the Riga Agreement in 1921, Belarus was divided between Poland and Russia. The division border was drawn not far from Mensk. There was a secret order from the NKVD to destroy the entire Belarusian population along the border. The Russian auxiliaries wanted to create a deserted area here. The destruction was carried out by the border troops. The trustees were given a rifle and a shovel. When such a border guard soldier met in a deserted place (on the road, in a field, in a forest) a lonely Belarusian or Belarusian, or a child, he would shoot a person, immediately dig a hole with a shovel and fill up the corpse. That was the instruction. The people in the villages were not so afraid of the "man with the gun" as they were the soldier with the shovel. (These facts were published in the Belarusian press in the early 90s.) In the 30s, 95-99 percent (almost completely) was destroyed (exiled and shot) the Belarusian communist-party and Soviet administration. Even the directorate and business leaders were destroyed. Russians from Russia were sent to the posts of murdered administrators and communist leaders-Belarusians. Russians (the so-called "promoted") came to Belarus, occupied vacated positions, received benefits, property, apartments, and the first thing they did was to close Belarusian schools, translate them into Russian so that their children could study without burdening themselves with studying , as they said, “unnecessary” Belarusian language. Thus, the invaders created a "Russian-speaking population" in Belarus. Ethnocide, linguacide, mnemacid and genocide were carried out by the Bolsheviks at the same time. The extermination of Belarusians by the Russian NKVD continued during the German augmentation as well. In June 1941, in the first days of the war, the communists shot thousands of prisoners in prisons and in stages. Only in the Brest Fortress, where there was a terrible NKVD prison, they did not have time to liquidate all those arrested, some of them fled. Meanwhile, a large group of NKVD overseers and functionaries were blocked in the fortress by the Germans. They sat there for about a month until they died out. About 20 years after the war, the communists came up with a legend about the "heroic defense" of the Brest Fortress. Attention is drawn to the fact that the broad Soviet partisan movement was organized only in Belarus and partially on the ethnic Belarusian lands that were part of Russia (Smolensk region, Bryansk region). There was no partisan movement in occupied Russia. Why? Because the plan for the destruction of the Belarusian nation continued to operate. Moscow, using the organs of the NKVD, dragged the masses of the Belarusian civilian population into the war against the Germans, and thereby exposed the Belarusians to the German attack. The necessary work of the struggle proceeded from an insidious plan and was carried out by vile methods. (Stalin wanted to get a double benefit.) Enkavadists specifically killed a German near a Belarusian village or made another provocation in order to cause a punitive operation of the Nazis (who usually burned the whole village, most often together with people). Thus, by the way, as a result of a special provocation of the Soviet partisans, the famous Khatyn was also burned, which the communists later advertised to the whole world in the 70s as a typical victim of fascist atrocities. As a result of this communist-fascist joint "work", more than 9 thousand villages were burned in Belarus. Moscow did not trust the Belarusians. Therefore, by the end of the war, as a result of a special operation of the NKVD, many Belarusian commanders were sent to death, removed from command, killed and repressed. Their places were taken by Russians sent from Muscovy and loyal NKVADists. In the summer of 1944, when the "Red Army" occupied Belarus, the Russians mobilized into the army on Belarusian territory. Tens of thousands of young Belarusian men, almost without preparation, were thrown into the front line of the front. Russian commanders raised them into unnecessary attacks under the fire of German machine guns, without even giving weapons in hand, or with rifles, but no cartridges. They died in thousands, like grass under a scythe. And those that fled back, fell under the bullets of the NKVD" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurapaty www.radabnr.org/en/kurapaty-the-road-of-death/
Well, the first one did not capture the land of Belarus. Almost all Belarusian principalities were annexed either voluntarily, as Polotsk did in 1307, or by dynastic marriage, as Vitebsk did in 1320. Only two principalities were captured by military means. Residents of Novogrudok invited Mindovg to reign.
Baltic Lithuanians are small tribes. They were not even called Lithuanians until 20th century. Every modern person from Lithuania even now know what tribe the belong to.
The author of the video calls Rus' “Kievan Rus”. In brackets he writes: "Ruthenia" And this person talks about history?-) "Kievan Rus" never existed. This is a historical term from the 19th century. The state was called simply - "Rus" The names “Ruthenia”, “Rosia”, “Venaya”, “White Rus'”, “Muscovy”, etc. are what various states called Rus'. Rus' itself never called itself that. This can be seen from the primary Russian chronicle of 1110 and other Russian chronicles. What are these names for? What would what? The author’s entire “history” is a cardboard house he himself built out of a misunderstanding of history, myths and banal mistakes. ________________ I will analyze the funniest argument: 7:10 - 8:02 1. "These lands became the basis of what we today call Kievan Rus" a) “Kievan Rus” is a term, not a state. b) The state was called simply “Rus” c) The state of Rus' began with Ladoga and Novgorod. Then, spreading to Kyiv and other principalities. The author simply deliberately mixes everything up creating phenomenal confusion. 2. “Kievan Rus” (Rus) included the principalities of Kiev, Chernigov and Peryaeslav. No. At the time when Kyiv was annexed to Rus', it already included the northern lands of Novgorod and many others. Source: "Primary Russian Chronicle of 1110" 3. “The beginning of Kievan Rus is associated with the period when Kyiv was captured by the ruling dynasty from Novgorod” a) For the third time: “Kievan Rus” did not exist. b) Kyiv was captured by Rus'. c) The name Rus' comes from the name of the Vikings, who were invited by the Slavic tribes to reign in Ladoga (northern, Ilmen Slavs. Tribes: Ves, Krivichi, Slovene, Merya) Source: Primary Russian chronicle of 1110. 4. “Kievan Rus spread to the principalities of Novgorod, Smolensk, etc.” a) The Varangians (Vikings), who were called “Rus”, were invited to rule the Ilmen Slavs and Finno-Ugric tribes. The Varangians - Russ began to rule in Ladoga, Izborsk, Beloozero and Novgorod. It was then that the land began to be called Rus. b) “Kievan Rus” never spread to Novgorod since Rus itself came to Kyiv FROM NOVGOROD. Just a circus. ______________ The main humor and circus is that the author mentions that Kyiv was captured by the ruling dynasty from Novgorod in 882. (7:34) And then, he talks about how “Kievan Rus” spread to Novgorod. That is, Kyiv was captured by the Rus from Novgorod, so that later “Kievan Rus” would capture Novgorod. That's all I wanted to say -)
I believe the video talks about real historical maps, not modern interpretations designed to create national myths. I don't think anybody made maps of Lithuania in the 12th century.
@@Woloh So what does it mean, because there were no maps there was no country in that place? There are plenty of written sources that prowes Lithuania was there. Lithuanian kingdom in 13th century was pretty much in the place of current Lithuania. Later Vytenis, Gediminas, Algirdas and Vytautas annexed lands of current Belarus and Ukraine. Our country has full right to use name of Lithuania, because it all started here while Belarus has right to use coat of arms sign of Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
@@xwing8029 Unfortunately, we are trying to make strong statements here about things that have literally zero to none factual evidence. We know very very little about ancient Lithuania. No one knows anything about its measures and what kind of people lived in it before written sources appeared. What do we have: 1) We have archeology - remains of pottery and graves in areas that we traditionally associate with this or that culture. This is no precise science, its understanding continuously changes, and it says us close to nothing about which language they spoke, or which country (or rather tribe) they belong to in this area. We traditionally thought of Yotwingians as Balts, and of Radimichis as Slavs. Now we see that Yotwingians had a huge Viking influence (to the point that some now think they were Vikings at all), and Radimichis had Baltic-type graves (and this is almost in Ukraine/Russia during Kievan Rus). Bottom-line - today's maps are not facts, they are opinions, often little informed and influenced by politics and national fantoms. 2) The only thing we know about the localization of ancient Lithuania is that Annals of Quedlinburg mention Bruno of Querfurt who was killed on the border of Lithuania and Rus in the 11th cent. Where was this place - nobody knows, but somewhere between Brest and Pinsk in modern Belarus based on indirect evidence. It's a pretty Slavic-speaking region by then, btw. 3) So, we know that Samogitia and Lithuania are two different things on old maps. We know that ancient Samogitia is like 80% of modern Lithuania (based on those maps). We know that ancient Lithuania covered the Vilno region of modern Lithuania, but also a pretty major region in Western Belarus. At the very least, Novogorodok, Slonim, Grodno, and maybe all the way until Polesia. 4) The ONLY written source of the "Lithuanian language" in the 14th century turns out to be very much Slavic. It was when Keistut gave a blood oath / blessing to a Hungarian king during a sacrifice of a cow when they cut its throat. A Hungarian chronicler wrote down as he heard it from Keistut himself - "Rogachina roznenachy gosponany". And even though it's a Baltic ritual, linguists overwhelmingly agree that the saying was in Slavic (Old Belarusian) meaning "rogacina" - i.e. "cattle", "roznenahy" - i.e. "determined/showed", "gosponany" - "gospod z nami" - "God is with us". "The cattle showed the God is with us". So, the Old Lithuanian language turns out to be a very Slavic language. What does it all mean? For sure we can say only very few things. For sure we can say that Lithuania was a pagan country. For sure we can say that Lithuania was a Slavic speaking country. For sure we can say that Lithuania was somewhere between completely Baltic (Samogitia) and completely Slavic (Polotsk) lands, covering the Vilno region in modern Lithuania and Western Belarus. That's it. And this Lithuania definitely doesn't = modern Lithuania, nor it = modern Belarus. It was something in-between. But after Olgierd it's a completely different country, after the addition of all the Ruthenian lands. Let me remind you that Samogitia was not a part of this process and remained independent or semi-independent all the way until Vitovt.
@@Woloh Werent ancient Belarus ancestors ortodox? It was written in Annals of Quedlinburg that Bruno of Querfurt was killed by pagans. Also there are other sources that Bruno of Querfurt was killed near Prussia so it pintpoints location even better. Samogitia is only a part (33% at most) of modern Lithuania (just google about duchy of Samogitia). Btw, region of Samogitia speaks a lot different from remaining part of current Lithuania, different dialect and different culture. Remaining part of Lithuania is NOT and have NEVER been part of dutchy of Samogitia (Biržai, Utena, Ukmergė, Traikai, Kaunas, Vilkaviškis, Klaipėda (Memel)). You should agree there are more significant towns and places in current Lithuania than in Belarus, you said it yourself that Ruthenian lands were added later. Because of that it is completely incorrect to use 16th or 17th century maps to prove that current Lithuania is not a Lithuania. At this point you need to use sources like letters or some ancient annals. You also need to keep in mind at those times territories and their walls tend to change constantly. There is quite a lot things that prove Lithuanian-Baltic ethnicity of nobles in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I will mention only one of those, though it should be more than enough. Form of their names. It is totally Baltic, it is composed usually of two words meaning something. For instance, Mindaugas - Min ("minėti" - to mention, to talk about) + daug ("daugelis" - many) = Mindaugas (famous, mentioned by many people). And there are much more facts that prove Grand Duchy to have been ruled by Lithuanians (ancestors of modern Lithuanians). However, I do not deny that Belarussians had a huge impact to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This kind of history interpretation might be justifiable. Belarussian culture needs a myth to keep its own culture which is now endangered. Lithuanians had their own myth long time ago about their roman origins. This myth helped Lithuanian culture to survive but now it is well known to be false. Hopefully Belarus culture also survives and then we can talk about our common history without those crazy ideas that are now spread across Belarus
Algirdas did not write that himself, it was scribes who were educated. It is a known fact Rusin scribes were cheaper than Latin scribes. Also in Latin their names are nearly the same as standard Lithuanian.
The idea of the "Scribes Conspiracy" who changed all names of their masters - Lithuanian Grand Dukes - is a very weak explanation and long debunked by historians. Btw, chronicles state that Olgierd knew a whole range of languages. It is reasonable to expect he knew how to write at least one of them. And at the very minimum, he understood how his scribe wrote his own name. The inconvenient truth is that Olgierd spoke Slavic as his native tongue. And was very likely named after his mother Olga (Olger - the little one from Olga). The encyclopedia by Starchevski suggests that the Smolensk Duchess Olga was the second wife of Giedymin after Evna (Eva) of Polotsk.
@@Woloh Just a lie. He said himself all Russia should belong to Lithuanians, he had nothing to do with Rusins. His name was Lithuanian , his religion was Lithuanian. He gave his sons Lithuanian names. Omnis russia ad litwinos deberet simpliciter pertinere.
@@1MuchButteR1 "He gave his sons Lithuanian names" Lol, fun fact - did you know Olgierd named his son Andrei even though he wasn't even Christianised? A Christian name without baptism! Or maybe you are referring to his other sons Vladimir and Dmitri? Yup, very Baltic names, indeed. Btw, those were Olgierd's oldest sons. I.e. those sons who he named first. He also had Jogaila, Skirgaila, and Svidrigaila. This should give you a taste of how everything was mixed up. Baltic, Slavic, Christian, Pagan - and all in one family.
@@Woloh He already gave you a direct message. All Russia should belong to Lithuanians. Not even to the mixed Lithuanian State, but to the Lithuanian nation. Lithuania from sources is known to show among first nationalism in Europe. Belarusins are left over Rusins due to historical circumstances, nothing less nothing more.
@@1MuchButteR1 So, a Slavic speaking Olgierd, who's married to Slavic Mary of Vitebsk and then to Slavic Uliana of Tver, whose own mother is Slavic Evva of Polotsk (or Slavic Olga of Smolensk), whose first three sons are called Slavic names Andrei, Vladimir and Dmitri, whose own brother Lubart is chosen (!) by a Slavic Galicia-Volynia Duchy as its ruler - that very Olgierd says that all of Slavic Ruthenia must belong to Lithuania. And he says it not to anybody, but to the Holy Roman Emperor! And yet he doesn't say anything similar about Baltic Samogitia (whose status is challenged by the Teutons and you would think Olgierd should be mentioning it to the Emperor first). As a matter of fact, he and his decendants easily trade Samogitia out when they need a peace with the Teutonic Order. Doesn't it tell you that Lithuania and Ruthenia where much closer to each other than Lithuania and Samogitia?
I see a lot of Aukstatians @sses on fire. the fact is that GDL was a rusin (rus) state , language , form of governance, laws, titles, etc. Aukstatians elements in the state stricture are impossible to find. Aukstatian forest language has never been used , you show in your schools books printed in Prussia, which was always independent country
@NoZo-S サンダーデン edit: old - Belarusian language, Blats didn´t have form of governance, laws, titles, thats why you renamed Pohonia in 20c to Vitiazias (?) LOL, guys Prussian Blats in 19c made up your version of history , 50 000 Prussian balts who never have been part of GDL )))
@NoZo-S サンダーデン your forest sect never had Vilnia, show on the map´s GDL name "vilnius " , once again GDL was a rusian (Belarusian) state like it or not, get over it , learn Official GDL state language
@@el_Litwin And what does Vilnia means in Belorussian? Give me please the link to a reliable analysis of etymology done by a professional and recognized linguist.
A natural Georgian view: Lithuania was a confederacy formed on the lands of Baltic tribes Aukstaitijans, but southeastern part was already heavily under slavic influence, they later expanded into what is today Belarus, and fought against crusaders alongside Samogitians, that later lad to incorporation of the region into grand duchy. Lithuania kept local laws and freedoms, integrated local nobility(which was far less influencial than it's western counterpart), and even Gediminids dynasty were intermarried with Slavs. This way people of the duchy started to consider themselves Litvins rather than a distinct people, this tendency continued when Lithuania became a junior partner under Poland, although kept it's laws, which were much more favourable for the population than the polish once.
There was never any other ethnicity with the name “ Litwin” other than Lithuanians themselves . Like with other nations , Lithuanians are called differently in different languages. For example word “Litwin” is Polish for Lithuanians.
Secondly, there was no such a state "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus, and Samogitia" - it is just a fake term invented by east Slavic nationalists living in the alternate world and creating fake stories. The name of the state was always the The Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
I suggest reading real academic history books based on original sources from the time that the history is covering. I recommend Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East Central Europe 1295-1345" written by S.C. Rowell and published by Cambridge University Press. This book is also translated in the Belarus language. You will learn that material written at that time shows that Belarus land was conquered by Pagan Baltic Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas. He even conquered Kyiv. If you need a second source I can recommend Robert Frost's book " The Oxford History of Poland Lithuania; Volume One: The Making of the Polish Lithuanian Union 1385-1569" published by Oxford University Press. I do not understand why Belarus You Tubers want to be Medieval Lithuanians . I would expect them to call modern Lithuanians the descendants of occupiers and ask for an apology .
The theory of the heredity of Belarusians to the history of the Principality was not built from scratch. The pagans did not conquer the Belarusian territories. All of them were annexed peacefully.
@@TomTly I don’t know. But I know for sure that there were raids on the Principality of Polotsk. Mindovg and his followers annexed Russia without blood
@@fidenemini111 I don’t remember what I wrote there. And the Poles cost them. Did they forget about Polonization? Do not forget that churches were also built during the Polish Republic. There were also many settled Poles.
Your land unification is a pure accident. Eastern border is battle of Orsha, Sothern border is Union of Lublin and etc. You have nothing to do with Lithuania left over Rusins on east European plain.
I see a lot of Aukstatians @sses on fire. the fact is that GDL was a rusin (rus) state , language , form of governance, laws, titles, etc. Aukstatians elements in the state stricture are impossible to find. Aukstatian forest language has never been used , you show in your schools books printed in Prussia, which was always independent country
Forest troll, if you are "Grand" why you can not build a Nuclear Power Plant ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astravets_Nuclear_Power_Plant you are 100% right with your trolling , we will force you to take a proper name , for new you are using ours
teutonic sources mention the dukes of lithuania being pagan and believing in many gods, while the east slavic population was orthodox by then. How come?
@@fidenemini111 Oh really ? )) You can start from reading story of saints Anthony, John, and Eustathius. Initially these guys were pagans. Their pagan names were Кумец, Круглец, Нежыла. Slavic names as you can see. Later these guys become christians (and changed their names to christian ones). These guys were killed by Algerd. It's 14 century. Now they are saints of city Vilnia )) You even don't know history of "your" capital )) LOL
A great video in English. Everything is very clearly "laid out on the shelves." The only note is that at 4:50, where they talk about "a massive extension of "slavs"" - I think it would be more correct to say "a massive extension of slavic languages" after the Gothic movement to the south in the middle of the first millennium AD.
Recent genetic studies in Belarus have shown that the gene pool of the population of these areas remained unchanged for 3500 years (!), almost until the 20th century, and in rural areas there still live mostly descendants of ancient Balts (haplogroup R1a), so there was no "expansion of the Slavs", but there was the adoption of the Slavic koine by the local Baltic tribes. In fact, it is the same as the adoption of the Baltic koine by the Finno-Ugric Samogitian tribes (haplogroup N1c).
And the so-called "Slavic genes" never existed; in order to be sure about this, it is enough to compare, for example, the genotype of "Slavs"-Bulgarians with the genotype of "Slavs"-Poles, or, for example, the genotype of "Slavs"-Czechs with the genotype of "Slavs" of the Volga region or the Urals.
You forgot to mention WHY the slavic language expanded. It spread from the Byzantine empire where slavic written language was invented. It was cheaper to hire slavic clerical language to write documents rather than Latin (which was simply more expensive and more difficult to find people being able to write Latin).
I would appreciate you did more research and didnt steal our history. Samogitia is not lithuania. Theyre another baltic tribe that joined lithuania and now has assimalated into lithuania. They even had theyre own language. And you completly ignored the short lived kingdom of lithuania that king mindaugas ruled. The cyrrilic alphabet was used because the lithuanian language didnt have its own alphabet or even a lithuanian book. And yes the ruthenian population was bigger than lithuanians but the rulers were lithuanian. The way you proove your point in the video is just looking at the maps and not even looking at the origin. Samogitians arent lithuanians. And infact is still a region in modern day lithuania.
"Mindaugas" - can I ask you a question? Why do you guys keep making up fake names to historical figures? For example, imagine you were born to the Gashtold noble family, and your mom and dad named you Jan. And sure, different nations give different spellings to your name. In Poland they will write you as Jan Gasztołd. In Cyrillic languages they will write you Ян Гаштольд. But in all of them you will still sound relatively close to how you originally were called - JAN GASHTOLD. And then people come to Wikipedia and discover that your name was Jonas Goštautas, because new Lithuanians renamed and reclaimed you ....... Facepalm. Can you imagine you told that guy that 5 centuries later he would become Jonas and Goshtautas??? He would probably execute you on a spot.
@@Woloh Really? So then please explain why every source on the internet , every documentary , every school book , every single person , historical documents ETC and ETC. Use MINDAUGAS as the name , can you become smart and understand that Lukashenko propaganda isn't real life ? Thanks man , cya soon in smartland.
@@matushka__ What lukashenka propaganda? He likes to get of our language and makes us use Russian. Surely he would not make us use Russian. If he did want to "steal" history.
@@ianyacuk6883 Im litterally too tired and annoyed to reply , check the other comments I posted , if not , please watch this video ( Note only watch it if you didnt read my comments) ruclips.net/video/UDCdGrJBON0/видео.html
@@matushka__ I have read your comments and saw the video. But Lukashenka wouldn't really care as he's destroying the culture. That's just the correction.
@@wawa-zm5wl We don't live on our own planet, our language is just way harder than yours and our words have the End parts which are either feminine or masculine
The myth of a non-Lithuanian Grand Duchy of Lithuania rests precisely on the fact that it was not a nation-state, making it easy for the historians of other countries to emphasize those traits of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that were more related to their ethnicities than to the Lithuanian ethnicity
@@PhilipDaineka Vytautas himself referred to lithuanians and Samogitians as a same people. So in terms of citizenship, yes, Ruthenians were Lithuanians, but not Ethnic Lithuanians.
@@eveningabused5123 at start capital of GDL was Novogrudok, city in Belarus, but then it was moved in modern Vilnus. And modern belarusians was real lithuanians
I really like your video. Thank you for sharing it. Belarus's history can be complicated as it is closely connects to the neıghbouring lands' histories. I mean without knowing Kievan Rus' and Polotsk's , Lithuania's ,Russia's or even Poland's history it can be confusing to fully understand Belarus's history. But your video really helps me to understand it more clearly. Thank you for your efforts to make this video Hetmanopedia.
There was no such a state "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus, and Samogitia" - it is just a fake term invented by east Slavic nationalists living in the alternate world and creating fake stories. The name of the state was always the The Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Be careful. Everything about Lithuania in this video is pure pseudo-science, created by Belorussians to justify their lack of national history. In reality Lithuania originated in the eastern part of Lithuania, while Samogitians were just one of Baltic tribes who maintained independence and did not unite with other Baltic tribes until very late. They still have very strong language differences and not all Lithuanians understand what they say.
Maybe we should call Belarus the third ethnicly baltic country? In Lithuania up to the Soviet takeover in 1940, Belarus was called Gudija and the people gudai. What do you fellow gudai think? Estonians want nothing to do with balts. Do you want to have a close relationship with modern Lithuania and Latvia?
@@Maxz85 That is nice to hear. Remember that white ruthenians are also gebetically part baltic like the english are part celtic or the yugoslavs part illyric. The merging of slavs and balts in the modern territory of belarus was peaceful.
Durneli,negi nemataikadčia visiškas litvinistis kliedesys,kai belarusai eilinì kartá bando pavogt mūsu istorijá? Tegu jie būna LDK dalimi bet nebando primetinėt kad jie yra tikrieji baltai ir LDK kūrėjai
The only reason why territory of today’s Belarus was called Lithuania for some time is because it was conquered and incorporated into a county later known as Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Centuries before these Slavic lands had no known Baltic element aside from Baltic lands of northwestern part of today’s Belarus. Lithuanians were a Baltic tribe that lived east of Samogitians and the fact that today’s Belarusians are starting to make some claim to that name is ridiculous.
It is very easy to prove that this is a lie. Point us to any single battle, any single captured city from that conquest, any evidence, please!? You cannot. Because there was none. Forget chronicles, even archaeologists have nothing. The best you can do is the capture of Smolensk by Vitovt. First, it's not even Belarus today. And second, two other Smolensk lands (Orsha and Mstislavl) joined the GDL peacefully and willingly and stayed loyal to it throughout centuries. Same as all other cities - from Polotsk to Pinsk. (While Samogitia, by the way, had to be pacified with force).
Living in shit with no perspectives for a better life. Wait, let's invent the glorious past by this we will change our future. Very "smart" move - fake it until you make it.
@@Woloh can you name any battles where Slavs ( Belarusians ) conquered Samogitians ? Yes , there is very easy to disprove claim of Belarusians that they are , somehow Lithuanian . No sources prior to the incorporation of their land to Lithuanian state called them by the name . It was just part of the land, known as Rus’s .
@@birchheights6542 That is not the claim of Belarusians. The claim of Belarusians is that they come from a mix of three different duchies. 1. The Duchy of Polotsk - one of the ancient Viking-Slavic entities that competed with Kiev; 2. The Duchy of Turov - this was an integral part of the Kievan Rus; 3. The Duchy of Lithuania - a Slavic-speaking Pagan-dominated mix of Slavs and Balts. The claim of the Belarusians is that this third duchy - Lithuania - was culturally, linguistically, and politically much closer to Polotsk than to Samogitia. The key difference was religion, not language. The problem of modern new-Lithuanians is that they associate Belarusians only with Polotsk. And this is simply not the case. Balts gave rise to various countries. Including those that became not really Baltic-speaking. Rus and Litwa are different things. But both of them make up modern Belarus. And another part of Litwa and Samogitia make up modern new-Lithuania.
As a Belarusian, I want to express my highest level of graditude to you! Your video is a very transparent and true point of view on our history. We need more stuff like that to help the rest of the world better understand my country. Thank you very much again!
Well it's nice that you bring up maps, but mix it with emotional conclusions. What I got from you is that White Rus originated from Russia/Novgorod/Moscow, but somehow cannot be connected to Russia or God forbid be called White _RUS_sia, because...? Politics?
@@ИгорьЧулинда The term "Kievan Rus" was created by Russian Imperial historians in 19th century, surprise-surprise they don't teach that in the Ukraine today. There are no documents signed as "Kievan Rus", but Russian chronicles do talk about "Rus" or "Russian land" and "Russian princes". Modern Russia has everything to do with ancient Rus. Russia has the first capital of Staraya Ladoga and the second capital of Novgorod. I can open some old Russian chronicles today and read them without too much of training myself.
После 2-й Мировой войны 10-мильонная Беларусь не досчиталась около 3-х мильонов своих жителей, однако околь 2-х миллионов были убиты еще до войны органами коммунистического НКВД. В Беларуси физически уничтожили 70 процентов всех белорусских писателей, убили ученых и художников. (Труппа Третьего Белорусского Государственного театра Владислава Голубка была арестована в полном составе. Почти все были расстреляны.) Убивали по национальному признаку. Ради этого был придуман ярлык "нацдем" (это значит -- национальный демократ, хотя такой партии не существовало). Этот ярлык приклеивали ко всем белорусам, которых сталинисты планировали уничтожить. В недрах НКВД была придумана несуществующая антикоммунистическая организация СВБ ("союз освобождения Беларуси"). Под придуманный фантом энкавэдисты проводили аресты, вели воображаемое следствие, допрашивали, пытали, судили, потом ссылали в Россию и расстреливали невинных людей. После Рижского сговора в 1921 году Беларусь разделили между Польшей и Россией. Границу раздела провели недалеко от Менска. Существовал тайный приказ НКВД уничтожать всё белорусское население вдоль границы. Российские аккупанты хотели сделать здесь безлюдную зону. Уничтожение осуществляли пограничные войска. Довереным лицам выдавали винтовку и лопату. Когда такой солдат-пограничник встречал в безлюдном месте (на дороге, в поле, в лесу) одинокого белоруса или белоруску, или ребенка, он стрелял человека, тут же лопатой выкапывал яму и засыпал труп. Такова была инструкция. Люди в деревнях не так боялись "человека с ружьём", как солдата с лопатой. (Эти факты опубликованы в белорусской печати в начале 90-х годов.) В 30-х годах на 95-99 процентов (практически полностью) была уничтожена (сослана и расстреляна) белорусская коммунистическо-партийная и советская администрация. Уничтожали даже директорат и хозяйственных руководителей. На должности убитых администраторов и коммунистических начальников-белорусов присылали русских из России. Русские (так называемые "выдвиженцы") приезжали в Беларусь, занимали освобожденные должности, получали льготы, имущество, квартиры и первое, что они делали -- закрывали белорусские школы, переводили их на русский язык, чтобы их дети могли учиться, не обременяя себя изучением, как они говорили, "никому ненужного" белорусского языка. Таким образом оккупанты создавали в Беларуси "русскоязычное население". Этноцид, лингвацид, мнемацид и геноцид проводзились большевиками одновременно. Уничтожение белорусов российским НКВД продолжалось и во времена немецкой аккупации. В июне 1941 года в первые дни войны коммунисты расстреляли в тюрьмах и на этапах тысячи заключенных. Только в Брестской крепости, где была страшная тюрьма НКВД, всех арестованных ликвидировать не успели, часть из них разбежалась. Тем временем большая группа надзирателей и функционеров НКВД была заблокирована в крепости немцами. Они сидели там около месяца, пока не вымерли. Лет через 20 после войны коммунисты придумали легенду о "героической обороне" Брестской крепости. Обращает на себя внимание тот факт, что широкое советское партизанское движение было организовано только в Беларуси и частично -- на этнических белорусских землях, которые были в составе России (Смоленщина, Брянщина). В оккупированой России партизанского движения не было. Почему? Да потому, что продолжал действовать план уничтожения белорусской нации. Москва, используя органы НКВД, втянула массы гражданского белорусского населения в войну против немцев, и этим подставила белорусов под немецкий удар. Необходимое дело борьбы исходило из коварного замысла и осуществлялось подлыми методами. (Сталин хотел получить двойную выгоду.) Энкавэдисты специально около белорусской деревени убивали немца или делали другую провокацию, чтобы вызвать карательную операцию гитлеровцев (которые обычно сжигали всю деревню, чаще всего -- вместе с людьми). Таким образом, кстати, в результате специальной провокации советских партизан была сожжена и известная Хатынь, которую коммунисты потом в 70-х годах разрекламировали на весь мир как типичную жертву фашистского зверства. В результате такой коммуно-фашистской совместной "работы" в Беларуси сожгли более 9 тысяч деревень. Поэтому к концу войны, в результате специальной операции НКВД, многие белорусские командиры были посланы на смерть, отстранены от командования, убиты и репрессированы. Их места занимали русские, присланные из Мосвы, и верные энкавэдисты. Летом 1944 года, когда "красная армия" заняла Беларусь, русские провели мобилизацию в армию на белорусской территории. Десятки тысяч молодых белорусских мужчин, почти без подготовки, бросили на передовую линию фронта. Русские командиры поднимали их в ненужные атаки под огонь немецких пулеметов, не дав даже оружия в руки, или с винтовками, но без патронов. Они гибли тысячами, как трава под косой. А те, что бежали назад, попадали под пули энкавэдистских "заградотрядов". Впрочем, заградотряды стреляли и в спину. Так продолжалось уничтожение белорусов на войне, руками немцев и русских одновременно. Как говорили коммунисты, "в борьбе за советскую родину". В 40-х годах русские вывезли в Сибирь и там замучили всех лесников и так называемых "кулаков" из Западной Беларуси. Вывозили вагонами, по разнорядках. ruclips.net/video/RmxTyyRvrzI/видео.html Відэа распавядае пра злачынства ў вёсцы Дражна - 25 мірных жыхароў, былі забітыя ў 1943 г. партызанамі трох савецкіх і аднаго габрэйскага атрадаў.
Почему ты ставишь знак равенства между русскими и большевиками? Большевики были и беларусами. Большевики это политическое объединение. Больше всего большивики убили именно русских
Hands down. I’d love to hear more. I appreciate both the Grand Duchies of Moscow and Lithuania for the history of Belarus, as without both I would not be here. It is the USSR which turned everything into mess and whose memory should be spat upon and all those who try to uphold it as our people’s epitome when it was our people’s lowest point.
Where are the Aukstaitijans in all this Belarus story? Lithuania was a confederacy formed on the lands of Baltic tribes Aukstaitijans. They were always marked separately from the rest of Lithuanians (same as Samogitians).
Before grand duchy of Lithuania and kingdom of Lithuania there was big pressure from Livonian ordin tautenic order and Poland cose Lithuania was pegan and was big battles like saules battle durpes battle and many more king mindaugas starter to unite Lithuanian lands and become as kingdom and fought against all threats and become principalities and army that time Belarus and Russia was just tribes like Moscow polock and so on wasn’t united and that’s why golden hord swept across Russian lands so easy that times Belarus was threatened by hord and asked for Lithuanian kingdom for incorporate Belarusian lands to Lithuanian kingdom there was no Belarus in Lithuanian kingdom it was just lands ruled by duchy but Lithuanian history for you would be very interesting how from small pegan lands become one of biggest powers in Europe that time... Belarus is not Lithuania Belarus was vasals of Lithuanian kingdom and that’s it
Please, open any of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania's statutes. I bet you won't understand what it says just because it's written with old belarusian (actual old lithuanian) language) That says a lot about which culture dominated in medieval Lithuania, isn't it?
@@kiimakikatterhot3391 what ??? Lithuanian kingdom wasn’t just Lithuania it was Belarus parts of poland Ukraine Latvian Estonian Moldova crimea you can find numerous of different written in different languages within Lithuanian kingdom 🤦♂️ and yes it is in Slavic language I’m not arguing about it. If you want to understand how our king Mindaugas was ruling kingdom you need to read more about him and his ruling he was paigan within Lithuanian kingdom (actual Lithuania) but taking Slavic religion within other lands like Belarus and jesuit within other neighbours like Poland
@@kiimakikatterhot3391 and one more thing we have all grand duchy statutes written in Lithuanian and you are not Belarus you are Gudija what means in Lithuanian (the others) referred as other part of Lithuanian kingdom Who doesn’t speak Lithuanian
This is not so. After all, the Teutons attacked the Polotsk land. Despite the fact that they had been Christians for 300 years. Just remember that the crusaders attacked Grodno and Novogrudok. Although there were about 6 churches in Grodno. And there are more in Novogrudok
Original name of the map: La Pologne dressee sur ce qu'en ont donne Starovolsk, Beauplan, Hartnoch et autre auturs ... a Amsterdam chez I. Covens et C. Mortier.
The quality is good, the map is thematic, all regions of the Commonwealth are represented, including modern Lietuva, Belarus and Ukraine. All names are given in the Slavic tradition with transliteration into Latin, without Lietuvian and Latin endings: Medniki, Troki, Kowno, Vilna, Vilkomir. 1. BORDERS OF SAMAYTIA AND LITHUANIA Lithuania and Samogitia-Zemaitija are part of the Kingdom of Poland. The border between Lithuania and Samogitia is outlined with a thin line. Borders from west to east: to the north just behind Kovno-Kaunas (still part of Lithuania) slightly north of Ukmerge (still part of Lithuania) and further strictly on Juodut along the Sventoji River. This card refers not only to Samogitia itself, but about half of modern Aukšaitia, that is, about 90% of the ethnic Lietuva. This map does not correspond to the ethnic borders of Lietuva and Belarus in 1918-1940 by about 50-60 kilometers along the Vilnia-Kaun line and 80-100 kilometers along the border between Lietuva and Latvia. 2. BORDERS OF HISTORICAL LITHUANIA AND THE GRAND DUCHENESS OF LITHUANIA There are two Lithuania on the map.
The first historical Lithuania is simply Lithuanie, the inscription is located strictly above the modern Grodno region and partially above the Vilna region.
The second Lithuania is the ON itself or the Grand Duche de Lithuanie, the inscription is located over the entire territory of modern Belarus.
That is, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania also includes a smaller Lithuania, by which the authors could only mean the historical primordial Lithuania. 3. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA On the map, immediately to the south, Polesie is followed by Russie Polonoise (Russia Polyakov), the inscription reaches the modern Belarusian Rogachev (the very north of the Gomel region). Polish Russia means the entire south of modern Ukraine. At the same time, the ON is bordered in the east by Russie Moscovite (Moscovite Russia). Kiev itself clearly belongs to Ukraine (Ukraine) and borders on both Russia - Polish and Moscow. 4. CONCLUSION Thus, in 1720 in Amsterdam:
- on the territory of modern Belarus, except for the Gomel region, they did not see any Rus - neither White, nor Polish, nor Moscow;
- historical Lithuania occupied an insignificant part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and meant the Grodno and partly Vilnius regions, while the ethnic Lietuva was definitely not included in this concept.
Lithuanian names Mindaugas- Minėti (mention) and daug (a lot) i.e. "Known-by-All" Gediminas - Gedėti (grieve, mourn) and minėti (mention) i.e. "He Who is Mourned or Missed" Kęstutis, diminutive of Kęstas - Kęsti (suffer, endure) i.e. "Ever-Enduring" Algirdas - Aliai (everyone) and girdėti (to hear) i.e. "All-Hearing" Vytautas- Vytis (horse rider, to chase) and tauta (nation) i.e. "Horse Rider Nation" Doesn't get more pagan than that. This is besides all the other sources. Even belarusian favourite Algirdas is mentioned as a pagan till his death by Hermann von Wartberge and Jan Długosz. Byzantine Patriarch Neilos described him as a fire-worshipping prince and Patriarch Philotheos excommunicated all who helped "impious" Algirdas. But I guess "Mindoug", "Gedemin" , "Kyestut", "Algerd" and "Vytout" also have deep meanings in belarusian :)
Yes and no. Yes, those forms have their own meanings (different, Kiestut for example means agile). No, because these names. have not slavic but germanic roots (mostly connected with Gothic language).
As a Lithuanian I would like to connect our countries once again as it was before occupation. We have the same hundreds years of history and the same blood in our veins. It's just wrong that these two countries are splitted
I agree, I think we as one country would make a great union. After all Belarusian are just Baltic ethnicity that adopted Slavic language. They are as much a part of Lithuanian history as Lithuanians proper themselves.
It's simple. Lithuania and Samogitia were 1000 years ago and remained. The baltic tribes have long lived in the area together with the slavic tribes. The language was mixed with Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Russian. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania naturally united its Baltic, already Slavic-speaking tribes. Belarus does not mean white russia, but Baltic russia. You are the Baltic-Russian nation of the Lithuanian Empire, together with Lithuanians and Ukrainians.
It is not the case. Colors were used for direction. Baltic means White and White means west. Black means North and Red means South. Also, we didn't use the word baltic for our tribes. It is a new thing. Tho Samogitia and Lithuania aren't Belarus.
I see a lot of Aukstatians @sses on fire. the fact is that GDL was a rusin (rus) state , language , form of governance, laws, titles, etc. Aukstatians elements in the state stricture are impossible to find. Aukstatian forest language has never been used , you show in your schools books printed in Prussia, which was always independent country
Belarus The name first appeared in German and Latin medieval literature; the chronicles of Jan of Czarnków mention the imprisonment of Lithuanian grand duke Jogaila and his mother at "Albae Russiae, Poloczk dicto" in 1381. I like how he show edited maps where it doesnt show region called ithuania proper (real lithuania). if you have any doubts read Grand duke vytautas letter where he himself describes core of lithuania , being two main tribes Owsteitens and samagotians .Gediminas first mentioned in prussian chronicles as rex de owsteiten {king of Aukstaicia). There was 3 regions in gdl dutchy of samagotia(lowland lithuanians) , lithuania proper(real lithuania ,highland lithuanians ), ithuanian ruthenia (ukrainians +belarus) . "We do not know on whose merits or guilt such a decision was made, or with what we have offended Your Lordship so much that Your Lordship has deservedly been directed against us, creating hardship for us everywhere. First of all, you made and announced a decision about the land of Samogitia, which is our inheritance and our homeland from the legal succession of the ancestors and elders. We still own it, it is and has always been the same Lithuanian land, because there is one language and the same inhabitants. But since the land of Samogitia is located lower than the land of Lithuania, it is called as Samogitia, because in Lithuanian it is called lower land [ Žemaitija ]. And the Samogitians call Lithuania as Aukštaitija, that is, from the Samogitian point of view, a higher land. Also, the people of Samogitia have long called themselves as Lithuanians and never as Samogitians, and because of such identity (sic) we do not write about Samogitia in our letter, because everything is one: one country and the same inhabitants." - Vytautas the Great, excerpt from his 11 March 1420 Latin letter sent to Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, in which he described the core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, composed from Žemaitija (lowlands) and Aukštaitija (highlands).[13][14] Term Aukštaitija is known since the 13th century.[15]
Man, it's always a pleasure to find a lithuanian who isn't salty and angry on us because of how history played out. Much love, don't forget the formula: Belarus+Lithuania=Great Duchy
@UCKD4uJDwkZI8GpbckxXWA_Q Many lithuanians are brainwashed by many of our historians and think that nationalist minded belarusians are secretely wanting to take Vilnius or are afraid that Belarus would "steal" all the legacy of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania for their country. I find it the thinking of those brainwashed lithuanians people extremely stupid. First of all, we have had a shared state and the heritage of the Grand Dutchy belongs to both lithuanians and belarusians. Belarus is the only neighbouring country lithuanians never had a conflict with. In fact we even had border skirmishes with the latvians in 1919, but never any fight with the belarusians :)
Oleg from Novgorod conquered Kiev, what do you mean Novgorod came under Kiev? The state of Rus (Kievan Rus is the term invented by Russians in 19th century to depict their history with capital Kiev, but the principalities called themselves Rossiyskaya zemlya), began from Novgorod and it continued throughout Novgorod. Oleg of Novgorod, prince Igor from Novgorod, Saint Olga from Pskov, Vladimir the Great prince of Novgorod, Yaroslav the wise prince of Novgorod, Alexander Nevsky- prince of Novgorod and later Kiev, Ivan III descendant from the formers - Tzar of all Russia, including Kiev in 1472 after Marrying niece of Byzantine emperor. The Rus state just lost its southern lands through the centuries but they never seized to exist/evolve as one land.
What looks like "f" to you is actually a so called long s (Lang-s or langes s). So it's not "Slucenfis" but "Slicensis", not "Rzenczycenfis" but "R..censis" etc. The long s is not really needed in Latin but used to be integral part of written German. It basically died out in the 20th century, although it was still used sometimes until the mid 20th century.
Wow, incredibly well-made video, really a lot of interesting historical information that even I didn't know as a ukrainian, great work. hope to see more content like this from. P.S. - I thingk that all the dislikes are just from rusophills and triggered lithuanians with delusional view on history so just ignore them, your video great and historically honest.
Насколько я помню, Белая Русь/Russia Alba была отмечена на севере ещё в 15-м веке на иезуитских картах. То есть почти на век раньше, чем на картах скандинавов.
Wanna point out that this conflict mainly exists between wannabe internet Lithuanian and Belarusian historians (sometimes even polish ones for some reason). All major western historians agree that Lithuania was in the leading positions throughout the life of the GDL. Everyone here is either coping or wasting their time since at the end of the day the historians who have picked through everything available have come to that conclusion. Or is someone here gonna claim that the historians forgot to take the "evidence" from their specific blog into account? If unbiased western historians ever re-evaluate the history of the GDL and conclude that Belarus was more relevant that previously thought, then I'm sure the vast majority of Lithuanians will accept it. For now though, this theory will face as much resistance as any other theory that goes directly against the common concensus. Side note, this Litvinism theory isnt even consistant. Everybody has different evidence & sources and their all trying to prove different things. From Lithuanians and Belarisians being equal in their GDL claim / Lithuanians being irelevant peasants for most of its history / Lithuanians not even being part of its history at all and that the founding Balts were actually Belarusians & Moscow helped the Lithuanians steal their real history. The whole theory is getting more and more extreme as time goes on, soon Belarusians will start claiming rome.
But Russland just means land of the Rus. Hviterussland just means land of white Rus. Why are you assuming hviterussland is a reference to modern Russia? It's a literal translation of Belarus...
Fake history... what kind of demographic data are you showing, there was none in Middle Ages. There is only one figure, Lithuanian language named cities such as Lida and other Lithuanian names in western Belarus.
Also Olgerd is not changed it is Algirdas the leader was Lithuanian. god you need to check more about Lithuania you have so many mistakes...... (also it was written in that way because Lithuanians didnt have there own langage so they used Ruthenian language)
9:37 It's Algirdas not Olgerd stop making up false history. Belarus as a nation only came into existence in the 19th century after the local Ruthenians mixed with Russians (muscovites)
I loved this video. I learned a lot, and I'm sure I'm going to watch it again. I also hope you make more videos like it in the future. However, I have a point of contention with the main premise of the video. The terms Russia, Russie, Rusia, Russland, Rusland, etc. in various western European languages are just a combination of "Rus" and a Latin or Germanic suffix that means "land of". Similarly, adding that same ending to Belarus as Biélorussie, Bielorrusia, Weißrussland, Wit-Rusland, etc. can similarly just be interpreted as "Land of the White Rus" (although such interpretation is admittedly not very convincing in Dutch). It doesn't necessarily mean that those names automatically refer to "White Russia", although of course, it does mean that more communications like this video are necessary to clear any confusion in those languages.
@@Dievas.yra.Karalius I wonder what's more convincing, arguments and maps with their sources that I can and have independently verified, or a random comment in a mocking tone with zero substance or arguments of any kind...
@@Dievas.yra.Karalius How about you stop wasting my time and study it yourself, along with some other useful skills like reading comprehension and rhetoric?
Cry belarusians, because real Belarus started exist at 1918s. Belarus is Gudia. And Samagotians and Lithuanians was the same country just with 2 sides: Samagotia, Grand of duchy Lithuania. Belarus didn't had history, they just steeling history from Lithuania. Ohh yes, what about Lithuania - Poland Commonwealth, maybe it was Belarus - Poland Commonwealth? No its wasn't so cry Gudians.
@@mikbelarus It's almost like when a tribal society occupies a far larger and culturally more advance society, the tribal society assimilate into it... What was the official language of the Scandinavian founded Rus state again? Oh right, Slavic. Guess, all those Scandinavian vikings that formed the Rus state were in fact Slavic all along!
Hmm , I think you may have of mistaken some of the maps , because some map makers didn't feature Aukstaitija (The place where the Lithuanian language still used today originated from) Therefore this isn't accurate and you should just use this video , do a bit more research and re-upload it , as this is currently mis-information. I am not denying that Belarus was part of Lithuania or that they had Baltic heritage , just saying that it's not fully complete and seems a bit rushed. For now , I must leave this video: ruclips.net/video/UDCdGrJBON0/видео.html once you fix those few bits of looking at maps of the entire world , taking into account that they were made 500 years ago with fucking eyewitness accounts, where belarus was indeed in the Grand duchy of Lithuania. So yeah.
Although our leaders were Baltic. Lithuania started out in Navahurak. Mendog or Mindaugas was expelled from the Baltic region because of his failed mercenary jobs. He fled to Navahrudak and got elected King. He then conquered the Baltic tribe Litva. Litva was originally Blatic and not Slavic word. But once conquered, Mendog named his duchy Litva. Why? many nations have done that. For example Prussia was originally Baltic but was germanized but still kept the name Prussia.
I think you misunderstood something. The video talks about ACTUAL old maps, made by ACTUAL people who lived in 15th-16th century, based on ACTUAL information they had at that moment. Not to mix with modern "historical" maps where everyone draws whatever they like based on political or national preferences. Those old maps clearly show a distinct Samogitia. And if none of them says a word about Aukstaitija that means either those cartographers never heard about it, or didn't consider it an important enough information to get included on a map. Unlike other sub-regions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, like the Slutsk Duchy, or the Mogilev District. Sorry.
@@Woloh as much as you want to steal history and take the glory from us , just accept the fact that you are a russianized polish Lithuanian and Ukrainian mix of people
@@matushka__ Look, I'm happy to accept anything you like, but you have to give me facts and figures, not just your ethnic ambitions. There are such sciences as Archeology and History, there are archives of ancient documents and chronicles, and they paint a different picture. Whether you like it or not, we clearly know that ancient Lithuanians were pretty different from modern Lithuanians. At the very least, we know that they spoke and wrote a Slavic language and they were not Christians, used pagan names. (Which btw immediately makes them Slavs because "Slavic" is a linguistic concept, not an ethnic one). You are saying it was their second language - maybe, but there is zero evidence for that so far. Pottery and shapes of graves tell you nothing about other languages. But this doesn't even matter. We know that their key settlements - the most of which are in modern Belarus, sorry - were a peaceful mix of cultures. Including a huge footprint of Scandinavian cultures among the neighboring "Baltic" Yotvingians, for example. We are trying to divide them based on Baltic / Slavic duopoly with an idea to shoehorn them into one of the modern states. Well, good luck with that. Then you are be building your ethnic identity on a very shaky foundation which can change overnight with every new document discovered or another layer of an old settlement unearthed.
*You told a wrong information about Rus. The Statutes of Lithuania, published in three main editions 1529,1566, 1588, claim that a full name of this state was (in Latin language): Magnus Ducatus Lithvaniae, Rusiae, Samogitiae. Explanation: Lithvaniae - it's Belarus, Rusiae - it's Rus - means Ukraine, Samogitiae - it's the modern Lithuania. The independent Ukrainian Kingdom of Rus united with Grand duchy of Lithuania since 1362. Interesting fact about Odesa city: a Rusyn from Ukrainian family of Ostrozkyis founded this city Kachebiyiv on place of Odesa. In details here:* ukraine93.webnode.com.ua/
It is not a name, it is the list of lands ruled by a monarch. The same list is for Russian Empire, but the official name was never the list (title of the ruller). And the projection of the title is only in the first Statute.
@@fidenemini111Actually it's a name. Here is a quote from Statute 1529: "Права писаные Старого Статуту и даные Великому княжству Литовскому, Рускому, Жомойтскому и иных через наяснейшого пана Жигимонта з Божее милости Короля Польского, Великого Князя Литовскаго, Руского, Пруского, Жомоитского и иных многих."
@@alanparker2918 Actually it is not. This projection - Великому княжству Литовскому, Рускому, Жомойтскому и иных - appeared only in first statute and lived only for 35 years. In later statutes it was not repeated and it never was used as official name of the state in any contemporary written documents. Everywhere was only Lithuania (LITVANIA - where "V" in capital writing, following Roman tradition, represents "U") Grand Duchy of Lithuania (MAGNVS DVCATVS LITVANIAE).
@@fidenemini111After Union of Lublin Ruthenian (modern Ukraine) part of GDL became part of Poland Kingdom. That's why this full name was used only in first Statute (1529). Yes - Union was signed after Statute was released. But the process of preparation to this Union was started earlier. Statute - is the main juridical document of the country. So it's enough that this name mentioned there. Name "Lithuania" was used only in documents written in latin. You can find photos of GDL coins and check how name of the country was written. It's "LITVA". Sounds a bit slavic - isn't it?
Something interesting to see was descriptions and depictions of 18th century Ukraine Lithuania and Poland where Belarusyns are called Lithuanian Ukrainians
Belarusians called themselves lithuanians ("litviny") in written since 16th century, for instance Francisk Skaryna. And he never called himslef ukrainian. If you mean he identified as "rusin" or ruthenian, he meant his faith. In the belarusian language "rusin" means orthodox christian and "polak" means catholic.
@@Name-t9fbd lil bro, I’m very well aware of the difference between litvins and litovtsi and the fact that for a specific period of time Rusyn meant orthodox living in “Lithuania” and “Poland” that doesn’t change the fact that in 18th century there were depictions of “Belarusyns” titled Lithuanian Ukrainians, this is because as you well understand foreigners didn’t really understand the difference between litvins and litovtsi thus why they wrote Lithuanian Ukrainian in reference to litvins…. and side note, during the 18th century Rusyns no longer meant orthodox inhabitant of Lithuania or Poland, it was earlier.
What I think as a belarusian: Belarus (Polotsk etc.) fought Crussaders along with Lithuania. They were allies. Dukes are balts, but they spoke slavic and almost everyone spoke slavic. A lot of people were orthodox. Then Polish Lithuania appeared and polonisation started, country became catholic. After that 3 divides of PL
Wich is wrong, Polotsk did not fight the crusaders with Lithuania, the Lithuanian dukes did not speak slavic and 100% not veryone spoke slavic so you basecly got tought wromg history by a lieing litvinist ( belarusian )🫠
@@Dievas.yra.Karalius I know that Lithuania was ally of Polotsk and that Polotsk fought with crussaders. Ok maybe dukes didn't spoke slavic but I am absolutely sure that many people spoke slavic bc almost all territory of GDL were slavic dutchies
@@Черепабло Lithuania was not allyed with polotsk we had our problems and you had your as Lithuania started to become stronger and more stable, the crusaders came, also Polotsk colapsed, Lithuania having to survive agenst the crusaders they took what reamande out of Polotsk and used those teritorys as help to fight the crusaders. Also there is no mabe about the dukes not talking slavic, becouse they DID NOT, some eaelyer dukes did know slavic but that was a minority, and a big one, Dukes mostly learned western languages, like Latin, Polish, German, yeah slavic was a choise but it was an old thing and as Lithuania got bigger, the less amount of dukes knew slavic, ofcourse, unless your talking about the dukes of the regions of GDL, so yeah big diffrence
The way your telling history is: -Belarus is Lithuania -Lithuania is samogitia -Nougarduk is the first capital of Lithuania -Lithuania united belarusian tribes ( and not the Baltic tribes like in reality and history books ) -Lithuanian and Jotvingian tribes were speaking slavic and baltic ( were you suspiciasly marked the Lands of Vilnius as disputed by Slavs and Balts, when in reality it was only Baltic lands and everyone spoke baltic there. I can see how your trying to clame Vilnius and the history of Lithuania as Belarusian just to try and prove your litvinist lies to the open world ) -Then you say that KievenRus broke in to two countrys ( wich is alredy so wrong ), then yous say that they are grand duchy of Moscow and grand duchy of Lithuania ( of wich both is wrong as the GDM formed way latter then the colaps of KievenRus, and GDL wich had nothing to do with KievenRus, not even having it's teritorys controled by KievnRus and not being slavic ) -Then you say that PLC formed only Ukriane and Belarus ( wich i mean, you don't nead to be a mastermind to know that it's wrong ). So over all you explanation of Belarusian history is: -Slavic (belarusian) tribes -Then Polotsk forms -Them it falls -Then all of the history of Lithuania from the begining is Belarus -Belarus is the grand duchy of LITHUANIA -and thats it ( wich is 50% of all the history of Belarus ). So over all out of history telling it's a 2-3/10
Sorry... you are so wrong in so many very important aspects. The placement of the original slavic tribes is not so small. The Rus' was just Rus' not Kievian Rus'. Its principalities and Republics later continue to recognise themselfs as part of the old Rus'. Novgorod was never subjected of the Golden Horde. You forgot to explaine what made the orthodox principalities where now is Belaruss to unite with the Catholics that connected to the Baltic sea and Novgorod didn't. The center of the Lithuania Duchy was the orthodox Rus's but they lost influence with time, even let go of it's orthodoxy and Poland took over. Novgorod like Lithuania never claimed to be the only sucessor of the Rus's but Vladimir and the Principality of Halychian Rus did. The metropolit of Kiev exiled itself in Vladimir and later to Moscow, from Moscow there was the spiritial claim to be the sucessor of the Kiev Orthodoxy. On the west the Principality of Halychian Rus, also never part of the Golden Hold claimed to be the sucessor state of the Rus' and ask for regonition from the western christian states, ending up to loose its religious independence becoming catholic too. Rus' was translatet into greek as Russia. The Principality of Halychian Rus' started to write it in Latin, as Rex Russiae. Has the Principality of Halychian Rus and the old Orthodox Principalites in the Lithuania Duchy become Catholic and absorved into Poland, Moscow extended its power not just as the center of the Orthodoxy of the old Rus's but as it political sucessor as wel. Russins, Ukranians, Belarussians and Russians are all descendents of the Rus'.
Many of the historical maps shown were forgeries, false de jure claims. It's hard to know for sure, so much deception and rewriting of history and borders during USSR's reign.
Who told you that? We had a common history, that's all. We have no claims to the Lithuanians, We are not like Moscovites. Calm down, don't worry. By the way, the Moscovites called my ancestors Lithuania, for them there was no difference, and the Moscovites went to us with raids much more often than to you.Look at the maps from the times of Ivan the Terrible and you will understand why, so when my ancestors fought for their land, they also defended yours. No offense, you need to know the history.
TL DR version: imagine if native Americans would begin claiming that the Founding Fathers were in fact natives. This is the video in a nutshell. Maps are a irrelevant source, as very few of them were created locally, and usually were drawn somewhere in Amsterdam from sketches and other sources. There is a circular argument about Lithuanians and Samogitians, excluding the most important part - religion. If one would accept the argument in the video - Kiev Rus' and Orthodoxy influenced "Lithuanians" somehow become pagans, with pagan rulers of Lithuania who did pretty well in Northern Crusades, so what was that about? You cannot have a cake and eat it - either these synthetic Lithuanians (Ruthenians) were pagan. And generally there is a mistake of trying to draw ethic maps of medieval and Early Modern Era as stable. We now from research that both the Deluge and the Plague of 1709-1711 significantly affected the ethnic boundaries and the recently emptied villaged were recolonised in part by people from the Eastern part of the state. In XIX century there was a shift in national identity around Vilnius due to social status the Polish identity provided, where socially upwardly mobile people switched their identity to Polish from Ruthenian and Lithuanian (beginings of first mass schooling did also have an effect). These shifts were begining to reverse with mass politics and creation of Lithuanian and Belarusian national liberation movements. Brothers could choose to be of different nationalities (Narutowicz, the President of Poland and his Brother, a Founding Member of Lithuanian Council, also Ivanauskas family (famous biologist, with brothers who chose identification as Belarusian and Polish).
occupied? bruh. we're literally had good relationships slavs and balts at that times what the fuck is occupied? occupied is when there is genocide, torture etc
Let me pretend for a second that I am outraged at your lower-germanisch joke. Because actually Dutch is considered to be part of the central German dialects, i.e. the dialects of the Ruhr-Rhine area. Low German dialects are actually spoken in the Netherlands, in the north east closer to the border with the German state of Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen in German) and called Nedersaksisch in the Netherlands, but it is considered a different language from Dutch.
Of the Grand Duchy or today's Lithuania? Because we believe it's not completely the same. The Charter of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was in old Belarusian.
@@MinskGuide How many people were literate those times? Even not everyone of noble descend could read and write then. So how do you know what language they spoke between themselves? Well indirect source could be chronicles of the given period, and (surprise surprise) place names and names of rivers and lakes.
Nope. Look at polatsk, it was Belarusian. Belarusian have baltic roots but are not Lithuanians. Krivchi were Slavs that lived on Belarusian lands. Balts lived in Belarus but were assimilated before Grand duchy of Lithuania even began.
And you mixing up with one region of samagodia it was core of Lithuania kingdom in 13 century Vytautas the grate (that Vytis on the Lithuanian flag or as well old Belarus flag) sent a letter to sigismund holly Roman emperor describing Samgadia as core of duchy of Lithuania that map its as moast maps its inaccurate that’s how they was drawing maps that time it’s appeared in metrics and it was known and it appeared on maps that times Belarus didn’t existed
"Where we have Lithuania we have Belarus and where we have Samogitia we have Lithuania" - that is misleading and dishonest! Overlay the maps to scale and you see that historical Samogitia makes up a only 1/3 of present day Lithuania. Also, if you look at earlier maps (12th or 13th Centuries), most of Lithuania is in present day Lithuania with only its' minor parts being found in the border region in modern day south western Belarus territory, where Lithuanian ( Baltic) language was primarily spoken in those areas until 16th Century with the rest of Belarus territory being a mix between between Lithuanian and Slavic languages as far as Orsha.
Ето какой то позор. Уже и на английском начали свои басни распростронять? Я понимаю, когда нет способности творить свою историю, приходится ее сочинять. Пиходится административную и етническую ситуацию 19 перекладывать на карту 13 века. Ой как удобно. Ковенская губерния вдруг стала жамойтией 13 века. Каунас ни когда не входил в Жемойтское воеводство. А до 17 века вокруг Вилнюса , Ашмян, Лиды ни каких белорусов небыло. Ситация начала менятся после "Потопа" и череды епидемий, когда в запустевшые дворцы начали переселять крестиян и крепостных из глубины Алба Русия. Как может Новогрудок являтся центром Литвы, йесли он приграничный городок. Нет даже намека на то, что Миндауг когда либо его посещал. Там сидел второстепенный князь Войшалк, резал по несколько православных в день и вдруг решил "Важнейшый центральный" город державы подарить волынскому князю. Как у вас все ето в голове вяжется? Почему не показываеш карты, выпущены в самой Литве, где ясно обозначена Исконная Литва (Lituania Propria) и Литовская Русь. А также первая столица Литвы. Нпрмр карта Радивила Сиротки? Слабо? Рушется все ваши мифы?
žamoitis uspakoitis. Литва находится на территории Беларуси, в Новогрудке создали Великое княжество. Единственная часть Литвы, которую отдал Сталин вам, жамойтам, город Вильня. Этим вы подкрепили свои сказки будто вы не жамойты, а литвины. Нашему гербу Погоня 700 лет. Вы его украли в 19 веке и придумали название "Витис". Ваш настоящий герб - Медведь. При создании вашего государства шли споры назваться ли Жамойтией, но решили что беларусам конец, поэтому выгоднее украсть нашу историю и дурить весь мир.
@@Name-t9fbd Из каких источников вы щерпаете сию чепуху? и вообще, укажи мне какой либо источник 13,14 ну или хотя бы 15 веков, где намекается что Миндауг хотя бы мимо Новогрудка проезжал?
mistake,dear licvinists.These "belarusian" lands in your maps called not Lithvaniae , but Magni Dvcatvs Litvaniae.And in Shenk's map when you talking about "Lithuania today" it's only Samogithian region :)))) where is Aukstota with Kowo,Troki,Vilna ? My dear pravoslavic litvins you are ruthenian krivichi ,don't be afraid of that ;)
It is called external digestion - like spiders do. Russia injects fluids of Ruski Mir into a body of Belarus and after it sucks the fermented fluids out of it. Meanwhile Belorussians keeping on cosplaying "ancient Lithuanians".
And as an accused 😢😢😢Chinese I do feel bad when the avars, Huns and Mongols went west because the Chinese kicked them out and causing all the troubles in Europe. 😢😢😢
The border of Samogitia is Kaunas and the river Nevezis egsacly as shown on the maps,but its not all now days Lithuania.Now days Lithuania is Samogitia,Aukshtaitia,small parts of Semigalia and Jotva but not only Samogitia as you try to show.That is misinformation.
Just to those who think Beralus = Lithuania (also due to some reason, maps in this video are shown starting only from 1613 and not around 1000):
Baltic and Slavic languages are very different even today after centuries of the Baltic language branch being like an island surrounded by Slavic countries, despite Polonization (not forced) and Russification (forced) in their history. Baltic tribes are mentioned in very old written sources, such as ancient Roman Tacitus's “Amber Road”. Baltic tribes include Galindians, Latgalians, Lithuanians, Samogitians, Curonians, Selonians, Semigallians, Yotvingians, old Prussians, Pomeranians. Lithuanians and Samogitians were one of the largest tribes. In around 1000, baltic tribes united into a country known as Lithuania, which is according to one of the main tribes - “Lithuanians” name (Samogitians thou, was included in Lithuania's sphere, as they were a large tribe they remained quite autonomous, they were more “pagan” than other tribes, so there was a problem with them to accept Christ, and they become known as last pagans in Europe). Not all Baltic tribes belonged to Lithuania - some became current Latvia, is part of Poland or Kaliningrad (Teutonic order took the old Prussian settlement “Tvankste” and made it into the city of Königsberg).
Officially, Lithuania’s name as the country was first mentioned in 1009 in the Annals of the Quedlinburg monastery. Take note that the “Lithuania” name was long before the appearance of “Grand Duchy of Lithuania”. From then started dynasties of famous Lithuanian dukes, no kings as it was a pagan country not accepting Christianity. The only king was Mindaugas, who accepted Christianity. Lithuania's main capitals were around the current Vilnius location. The first capital, was Kernave (35km from Vilnius), the second capital Trakai (30 km from Vilnius) and finally, Vilnius, which was founded by Grand Duke Gediminas. After Baltic tribes unified in the country and after the Mongol invasion - it was a good moment for country expansion, and so the Grand Duchy of Lithuania appeared. Algirdas (in the video mentioned Olgerd) was one of 7 sons of Gediminas and belonged to the Gediminas dynasty.
During “Grand Duchy of Lithuania” -it consisted of Lithuanians and Ruthenians (Belarus, plus part of Ukraine). And it is based on Europe’s written sources. For example, Lithuania’s that time enemy Teutonic Order writings divided “The Grand Duchy of Lithuania” army into Lithuanians, Ruthenians and Tatars. That includes writings about the famous battle of Grunwald. Thou “The Grand Duchy of Lithuania” was ruled by Lithuanian dukes, there were much more Ruthenians than Lithuanians and Ruthenian was common language for communication. But Lithuanians were always Lithuanians, Belarusians were Ruthenians, and Ruthenians were never Lithuanians. Lithuania was before Grand Duchy of Lithuania and it was formed from Baltic tribes.
1) Lithuania was not a country in 1009. It was just a baltic tribe. Lithuania become a country only in the middle of 13 century as a union of lithuanian tribe and Novogrudok city (under the rule of Mindovg). It was a union of the most rich city and the best warrior in the region.
2) Initially lithuania was located at Vilnia (Vilnius) region (modern Lietuva) and Grodno region (modern Belarus). But later all western part of modern Belarus was called as Lithuania. Ruthenian part of Belarus is only eastern part (Polotsk, Vitebsk) (15-16 centuries). By the 18 century all territory of Belarus was called as Lithuania.
Ruthenians are mostly ukrainians
3) Vilnia (Vilnius) was not founded by Gedimin. It's only a myth about creation of Vilnia by Gedimin. The city existed before Gedimin (archeology rules :-) ))
@@alanparker2918 I replay, though it is nothing to discuss, the only ones who can believe this nonsense are the ones who want to be that true. I mean, some Belarusians may want to be Lithuanians, but they still always will have only Ruthenian ancestry.
This myth that Belarus is Lithuanian is not even so long created, in the 19-20th century, some Belarusian historian wrote that, and it became the only written source of how Belarusians try to prove this...
It is enough ancient writings, and those are made not even by ancestors, Lithuanians, themselves, but by nations that interacted with it - the Holy Roman Empire, Teutonic Order, and Vikings saga, also even Lithuanians were Pagan nation - they still make in many of Europe's monarchy royal trees. Those ancient writings clearly describe Lithuania. And note again, - Lithuania was way before the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian appearance. Lithuanians were always - Baltic and Ruthenian were always - Slavic. And this will not change even if you really want this. As well, - no other European historians, except some Belarusians (who want to be this true), believe this nonsense because everyone believes in real prof and ancient writings and not that some 9-20th century Balussian historian made up.
@@Tautas1123 Nice try, but - no.
1) Part of lithuanian tribes were slavianized. I hope you know that official documents of GDL was not even translated to your language because people (including balts) knew ruthenian language. So actually they became ancestors of belarusians, poles (now they live in Vilnia region) and modern lithuanians.
Even more: all territory of Belarus was populated by balts. Slavic tribes went to the territory of Belarus only at 5-7 centuries. Belarusian are mix of balts and slavs from the very beginning (even without influence of lithuanian tribes). That's why about 80% of hydronyms in Belarus have baltic roots.
2) Second myth is that lithuanians were pagans and slavs were only orthodox. Even in 14 century a big part of slavs were pagans.
3) Third myth is that other historians supports your version. In real life they just don't care about it. It's just a dispute between you and us. BTW ukrainian historians support belarusian version.
Looks like you even don't understand the difference between lithuanian tribes (which are balts for 100%) and Lithuania as a country (GDL) which is mainly slavic country. GDL had slavic governmental institutions (laws for example), official language, even coat of arms was called with a slavic word "Pogonia" (name Vytys was invented only in 19 century). Even name of the country was slavic "Litva" and not "Lietuva" - just google photos of GDL coins - they contains name of country "LITVA".
In general GDL had only 2 baltic features: name and dynasty. The rest is slavic.
PS: stop liking your own comments - it looks like sucking your own balls ))
Which Ukrainian historians support this Belarusian version? As far as I am aware the Baltic origin of the Lithuanian state is the mainstream accepted version.
1. Belarus was not a thing in 1009 and your just jelus
This video has a lot of errors. It's kind of funny. Not gonna mention all.
It is more complicated than you think. Samogitia is like Scotland of Lithuania.
Samogitia is only part of Lithuania.
It is like Britan and Scotland and all lands under are like the British Empire.
Also, Belarus is not white rus, but it is west rus, because directions were in colors.
White means west, black means north and red means south.
Also, it is funny that you ignore that all rulers were Lithuanians and all names are in the Lithuanian language.
Writing in Cyrillic doesn't change the word meaning.
No - Samogitia and Lithuania (including for the purpose of 15-17 cent maps) are clearly two different things. Look even at the maps brought by
Lithuania Propria.
Definitely no - "colors of Rus" have nothing to do with directions. It's a long-debunked myth. Colors appeared in vastly different times and mostly on Western European maps.
No - everything Baltic does not = modern Lithuanian. A huge Baltic legacy is in everything Belarusian. From West to East.
Yes - there is factual documented evidence that Old Lithuanian dukes spoke Slavic themselves (which btw makes them Slavs regardless of their origin). And we only assume they spoke some Baltic tongue, too.
For all we know, the original Old Lithuania was pagan, spoke Slavic, used Baltic, Germanic, Slavic names, and its territory was somewhat equally split between modern Belarus and modern Lithuania.
@@Woloh
Stop spreading your bs.
Samogitia is different. It is like Scotland and Lithuania proper is like Britan and joined rus lands where rus lived is just part of empire like British empire. Speaking about colors. Baltic means White and White means west. Black means North and Red mean South and it literally corresponds to rus inhabited lands. It is not disproven. No matter how many times you try to on my comments. Facts are facts.
Speaking about languages.
Dukes specifically were Lithuanians. They were from Lithuanian tribes.
Ofc dukes knew multiple languages.
They ruled Slavs. Also, there are written sources proving that dukes spoke the baltic languages in between each other, without even talking about passed names.
You only assume that they spoke Slavic and that is incorrect. Your argument that their names were from different origins also incorrect. All their names were from the Baltic origin.
Talking about Lithuania. Yes, Lithuania was pagan. Meanwhile, rus lands weren't.
Also its kind of funny that Slavs have their main god Perun. It is a baltic god Perkunas(thunder) and it is made of 2 baltic words via and body. Meaning that striking lightning goes across the body. And you have no clue what it means.
For all we know, original Lithuania proper was a pagan, spoke Baltic, extended up to half of modern Belarus was inhabited by baltic people, and were ruled by baltic dukes.
@@BitWise501 Mneh... Have you seen the maps? Minsk is more Lithuania than Samogitia.
I'm sorry your national ego is hurt by facts.
@@Woloh What do you mean?
Samogitia is just part of Lithuania.
Minsk has nothing to do with that at all.
Minsk isn't even in proper Lithuania. www.litviny.net/uploads/2/5/4/5/25455257/zemelapis1705.jpg
Samogitia is also known Žemaitija (one of the regions in Lithunia)
Vienu metu kada Lietuva buvo iki Juodosios jūros, tada buvo Žemaitijos kunigaikštystė išsiplėtusi beveik iki Vilniaus. Paprasčiausiai visos LDK provicijos išsiplėtė jos didybės metu apie maždaug 1410-1550 metus. Dėl to autorius ir daugybė baltarusių teigia, kad Samogitia = Dabartinė Lietuva.
@@lithuanianwarrior1081 Late response, but why is Baltic Lithuania and Ruthenia considered one identity on the map?
Zhemaitiya and Aukstaitiya are regions of the modern Republic of Lithuania, or rather, Zhemaitiya and Aukstaitiya were called Lithuania at the end of the 19th century, in historical and Ethnic Lithuania was located in the central and Western part of Belarus
Это регион современной , а к исторической Литве Жемайтия, Аукштайтия и Судавия отношения не имеют, они были автономией Литвы. Историческая и Этническая Литва находилась в центральной и Западной части Беларуси, где и обрадовалась ВКЛ. Летописная Литва находилась между реками Неман, Вилия и Березино
@Emmet Paliy Для тупого Ивана из России. Всю территорию Беларуси населяли Балты,и с приходом Славян они никуда не делись, в а остались на своём вместе, после крещения приняли церковнославянский язык. А центральные и западные территории современной Беларуси были всегда за бвлтами, славян там было мало. Более того Этническая, Летописная и изначальная Литва находилась в центральной и Западной части современной Беларуси, и тут жило племя Литва, которое предок Беларусов, современные Литовцы тогда были Жемайтами и Аукштайтами а не Литвой, потому что Литва была только в центральной и Западной части современной Беларуси, и в Вильно, который тоже беларуский, после того как Сталин подарил его современной Литве, он стал Вильнюсом. ВКЛ образовалась на территории Беларуси. Для тупых объясняю, Русь на территории современной Беларуси были только восточные и южные территории, а Центральные, западные и серверные были Этнической Литвой. А немцы ходили на Литву в Гродно и на Новогрудок, ну и на Жемайтию которая и есть современная Литва
There are numerous maps showing where White Russia/Alba Russia/Blanche Russia is and where Lithuania exactly is. Lithuania is named on those maps as “Lithuania Propria”.
This author compared modern map to his picked maps just to mislead people and tell that only Samogitia is Lithuania, but, as Vytautas the Great said, Lithuania is Samogitia + Aukstaitija (Lithuania Propria).
This psueodhistorical narrative is called “Litvinism” where Belorussians steal Lithuania’s history.
Also Ukraine was called Russia Nigra (Black) and Russia Rubra (Red)
Nawet w Polsce zdarza się, że ludzie myślą o Rusi jak o Rosji, dobrze, że zrobiłeś ten film.
Moscow´s Genocide of Belarusian nation. Terrifying reading, but I am 100% sure you did not read about it in your school , its still taboo subject in Belarus
sorry, for using stright forward google traslate :
"After World War II, the 10-million-strong Belarus lost about 3 million of its inhabitants, but about 2 million were killed even before the war by the communist NKVD. In Belarus, 70 percent of all Belarusian writers were physically destroyed, scientists and artists were killed. (The troupe of the Third Belarusian State Theater of Vladislav Golubok was arrested in full force. Almost all of them were shot.) They were killed on ethnic grounds. For this, the label "natsdem" was invented (it means - a national democrat, although such a party did not exist). This label was stuck to all Belarusians whom the Stalinists planned to destroy. In the depths of the NKVD, a non-existent anti-communist organization SVB ("Union of Liberation of Belarus") was invented. Under an invented phantom, the NKVADists carried out arrests, conducted an imaginary investigation, interrogated, tortured, tried, then exiled to Russia and shot innocent people. After the Riga Agreement in 1921, Belarus was divided between Poland and Russia. The division border was drawn not far from Mensk. There was a secret order from the NKVD to destroy the entire Belarusian population along the border. The Russian auxiliaries wanted to create a deserted area here. The destruction was carried out by the border troops. The trustees were given a rifle and a shovel. When such a border guard soldier met in a deserted place (on the road, in a field, in a forest) a lonely Belarusian or Belarusian, or a child, he would shoot a person, immediately dig a hole with a shovel and fill up the corpse.
That was the instruction. The people in the villages were not so afraid of the "man with the gun" as they were the soldier with the shovel. (These facts were published in the Belarusian press in the early 90s.) In the 30s, 95-99 percent (almost completely) was destroyed (exiled and shot) the Belarusian communist-party and Soviet administration. Even the directorate and business leaders were destroyed. Russians from Russia were sent to the posts of murdered administrators and communist leaders-Belarusians. Russians (the so-called "promoted") came to Belarus, occupied vacated positions, received benefits, property, apartments, and the first thing they did was to close Belarusian schools, translate them into Russian so that their children could study without burdening themselves with studying , as they said, “unnecessary” Belarusian language. Thus, the invaders created a "Russian-speaking population" in Belarus. Ethnocide, linguacide, mnemacid and genocide were carried out by the Bolsheviks at the same time.
The extermination of Belarusians by the Russian NKVD continued during the German augmentation as well. In June 1941, in the first days of the war, the communists shot thousands of prisoners in prisons and in stages. Only in the Brest Fortress, where there was a terrible NKVD prison, they did not have time to liquidate all those arrested, some of them fled. Meanwhile, a large group of NKVD overseers and functionaries were blocked in the fortress by the Germans. They sat there for about a month until they died out. About 20 years after the war, the communists came up with a legend about the "heroic defense" of the Brest Fortress.
Attention is drawn to the fact that the broad Soviet partisan movement was organized only in Belarus and partially on the ethnic Belarusian lands that were part of Russia (Smolensk region, Bryansk region). There was no partisan movement in occupied Russia. Why? Because the plan for the destruction of the Belarusian nation continued to operate. Moscow, using the organs of the NKVD, dragged the masses of the Belarusian civilian population into the war against the Germans, and thereby exposed the Belarusians to the German attack.
The necessary work of the struggle proceeded from an insidious plan and was carried out by vile methods. (Stalin wanted to get a double benefit.) Enkavadists specifically killed a German near a Belarusian village or made another provocation in order to cause a punitive operation of the Nazis (who usually burned the whole village, most often together with people). Thus, by the way, as a result of a special provocation of the Soviet partisans, the famous Khatyn was also burned, which the communists later advertised to the whole world in the 70s as a typical victim of fascist atrocities.
As a result of this communist-fascist joint "work", more than 9 thousand villages were burned in Belarus. Moscow did not trust the Belarusians. Therefore, by the end of the war, as a result of a special operation of the NKVD, many Belarusian commanders were sent to death, removed from command, killed and repressed. Their places were taken by Russians sent from Muscovy and loyal NKVADists. In the summer of 1944, when the "Red Army" occupied Belarus, the Russians mobilized into the army on Belarusian territory. Tens of thousands of young Belarusian men, almost without preparation, were thrown into the front line of the front. Russian commanders raised them into unnecessary attacks under the fire of German machine guns, without even giving weapons in hand, or with rifles, but no cartridges. They died in thousands, like grass under a scythe. And those that fled back, fell under the bullets of the NKVD"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurapaty
www.radabnr.org/en/kurapaty-the-road-of-death/
@@el_Litwin Good luck reading what European atlases say under LITHVANICA:
i.imgur.com/PRNVEW0.jpg
ludzie myślą że pierogi ruskie są z rosji XD
@@el_Litwin long live bielarus, the true heir of grand duchy of lithuania. Love from poland
Grand Duchy of Lithuania was founded by ethnic Baltic Lithuanians who conquered Slavic speakers to the south.
How do you know?
@@MinskGuide from history books
Well, the first one did not capture the land of Belarus. Almost all Belarusian principalities were annexed either voluntarily, as Polotsk did in 1307, or by dynastic marriage, as Vitebsk did in 1320. Only two principalities were captured by military means. Residents of Novogrudok invited Mindovg to reign.
Baltic Lithuanians are small tribes. They were not even called Lithuanians until 20th century. Every modern person from Lithuania even now know what tribe the belong to.
@@got2bgreat1
Baltic tribes -
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Baltic_peoples_and_tribes#/media/File%3ABaltic_Tribes_c_1200.svg
The author of the video calls Rus' “Kievan Rus”.
In brackets he writes: "Ruthenia"
And this person talks about history?-)
"Kievan Rus" never existed.
This is a historical term from the 19th century.
The state was called simply - "Rus"
The names “Ruthenia”, “Rosia”, “Venaya”, “White Rus'”, “Muscovy”, etc. are what various states called Rus'.
Rus' itself never called itself that.
This can be seen from the primary Russian chronicle of 1110 and other Russian chronicles.
What are these names for? What would what?
The author’s entire “history” is a cardboard house he himself built out of a misunderstanding of history, myths and banal mistakes.
________________
I will analyze the funniest argument:
7:10 - 8:02
1. "These lands became the basis of what we today call Kievan Rus"
a) “Kievan Rus” is a term, not a state.
b) The state was called simply “Rus”
c) The state of Rus' began with Ladoga and Novgorod. Then, spreading to Kyiv and other principalities.
The author simply deliberately mixes everything up creating phenomenal confusion.
2. “Kievan Rus” (Rus) included the principalities of Kiev, Chernigov and Peryaeslav.
No. At the time when Kyiv was annexed to Rus', it already included the northern lands of Novgorod and many others.
Source: "Primary Russian Chronicle of 1110"
3. “The beginning of Kievan Rus is associated with the period when Kyiv was captured by the ruling dynasty from Novgorod”
a) For the third time: “Kievan Rus” did not exist.
b) Kyiv was captured by Rus'.
c) The name Rus' comes from the name of the Vikings, who were invited by the Slavic tribes to reign in Ladoga (northern, Ilmen Slavs. Tribes: Ves, Krivichi, Slovene, Merya)
Source: Primary Russian chronicle of 1110.
4. “Kievan Rus spread to the principalities of Novgorod, Smolensk, etc.”
a) The Varangians (Vikings), who were called “Rus”, were invited to rule the Ilmen Slavs and Finno-Ugric tribes.
The Varangians - Russ began to rule in Ladoga, Izborsk, Beloozero and Novgorod.
It was then that the land began to be called Rus.
b) “Kievan Rus” never spread to Novgorod since Rus itself came to Kyiv FROM NOVGOROD.
Just a circus.
______________
The main humor and circus is that the author mentions that Kyiv was captured by the ruling dynasty from Novgorod in 882.
(7:34)
And then, he talks about how “Kievan Rus” spread to Novgorod.
That is, Kyiv was captured by the Rus from Novgorod, so that later “Kievan Rus” would capture Novgorod.
That's all I wanted to say -)
to call Lithuanian not from current Samogitia (region of Lithuania) "samogitian" is considered an insult
I beg to differ. In my personal case, it would only be polite, given how that's literally my name.
Why are you showing maps of 16 century? Show maps of 12 or 13 century where Lithuania was really originated, in current Lithuanian territory.
I believe the video talks about real historical maps, not modern interpretations designed to create national myths.
I don't think anybody made maps of Lithuania in the 12th century.
@@Woloh So what does it mean, because there were no maps there was no country in that place? There are plenty of written sources that prowes Lithuania was there. Lithuanian kingdom in 13th century was pretty much in the place of current Lithuania. Later Vytenis, Gediminas, Algirdas and Vytautas annexed lands of current Belarus and Ukraine. Our country has full right to use name of Lithuania, because it all started here while Belarus has right to use coat of arms sign of Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
@@xwing8029 Unfortunately, we are trying to make strong statements here about things that have literally zero to none factual evidence. We know very very little about ancient Lithuania. No one knows anything about its measures and what kind of people lived in it before written sources appeared. What do we have:
1) We have archeology - remains of pottery and graves in areas that we traditionally associate with this or that culture. This is no precise science, its understanding continuously changes, and it says us close to nothing about which language they spoke, or which country (or rather tribe) they belong to in this area. We traditionally thought of Yotwingians as Balts, and of Radimichis as Slavs. Now we see that Yotwingians had a huge Viking influence (to the point that some now think they were Vikings at all), and Radimichis had Baltic-type graves (and this is almost in Ukraine/Russia during Kievan Rus). Bottom-line - today's maps are not facts, they are opinions, often little informed and influenced by politics and national fantoms.
2) The only thing we know about the localization of ancient Lithuania is that Annals of Quedlinburg mention Bruno of Querfurt who was killed on the border of Lithuania and Rus in the 11th cent. Where was this place - nobody knows, but somewhere between Brest and Pinsk in modern Belarus based on indirect evidence. It's a pretty Slavic-speaking region by then, btw.
3) So, we know that Samogitia and Lithuania are two different things on old maps. We know that ancient Samogitia is like 80% of modern Lithuania (based on those maps). We know that ancient Lithuania covered the Vilno region of modern Lithuania, but also a pretty major region in Western Belarus. At the very least, Novogorodok, Slonim, Grodno, and maybe all the way until Polesia.
4) The ONLY written source of the "Lithuanian language" in the 14th century turns out to be very much Slavic. It was when Keistut gave a blood oath / blessing to a Hungarian king during a sacrifice of a cow when they cut its throat. A Hungarian chronicler wrote down as he heard it from Keistut himself - "Rogachina roznenachy gosponany". And even though it's a Baltic ritual, linguists overwhelmingly agree that the saying was in Slavic (Old Belarusian) meaning "rogacina" - i.e. "cattle", "roznenahy" - i.e. "determined/showed", "gosponany" - "gospod z nami" - "God is with us". "The cattle showed the God is with us". So, the Old Lithuanian language turns out to be a very Slavic language.
What does it all mean? For sure we can say only very few things. For sure we can say that Lithuania was a pagan country. For sure we can say that Lithuania was a Slavic speaking country. For sure we can say that Lithuania was somewhere between completely Baltic (Samogitia) and completely Slavic (Polotsk) lands, covering the Vilno region in modern Lithuania and Western Belarus. That's it. And this Lithuania definitely doesn't = modern Lithuania, nor it = modern Belarus. It was something in-between. But after Olgierd it's a completely different country, after the addition of all the Ruthenian lands. Let me remind you that Samogitia was not a part of this process and remained independent or semi-independent all the way until Vitovt.
@@Woloh Werent ancient Belarus ancestors ortodox? It was written in Annals of Quedlinburg that Bruno of Querfurt was killed by pagans. Also there are other sources that Bruno of Querfurt was killed near Prussia so it pintpoints location even better. Samogitia is only a part (33% at most) of modern Lithuania (just google about duchy of Samogitia). Btw, region of Samogitia speaks a lot different from remaining part of current Lithuania, different dialect and different culture. Remaining part of Lithuania is NOT and have NEVER been part of dutchy of Samogitia (Biržai, Utena, Ukmergė, Traikai, Kaunas, Vilkaviškis, Klaipėda (Memel)). You should agree there are more significant towns and places in current Lithuania than in Belarus, you said it yourself that Ruthenian lands were added later. Because of that it is completely incorrect to use 16th or 17th century maps to prove that current Lithuania is not a Lithuania. At this point you need to use sources like letters or some ancient annals. You also need to keep in mind at those times territories and their walls tend to change constantly. There is quite a lot things that prove Lithuanian-Baltic ethnicity of nobles in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I will mention only one of those, though it should be more than enough. Form of their names. It is totally Baltic, it is composed usually of two words meaning something. For instance, Mindaugas - Min ("minėti" - to mention, to talk about) + daug ("daugelis" - many) = Mindaugas (famous, mentioned by many people). And there are much more facts that prove Grand Duchy to have been ruled by Lithuanians (ancestors of modern Lithuanians). However, I do not deny that Belarussians had a huge impact to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This kind of history interpretation might be justifiable. Belarussian culture needs a myth to keep its own culture which is now endangered. Lithuanians had their own myth long time ago about their roman origins. This myth helped Lithuanian culture to survive but now it is well known to be false. Hopefully Belarus culture also survives and then we can talk about our common history without those crazy ideas that are now spread across Belarus
I can tell u 1 quastion:
Why Vilnus named Vilnus?
Algirdas did not write that himself, it was scribes who were educated. It is a known fact Rusin scribes were cheaper than Latin scribes. Also in Latin their names are nearly the same as standard Lithuanian.
The idea of the "Scribes Conspiracy" who changed all names of their masters - Lithuanian Grand Dukes - is a very weak explanation and long debunked by historians. Btw, chronicles state that Olgierd knew a whole range of languages. It is reasonable to expect he knew how to write at least one of them. And at the very minimum, he understood how his scribe wrote his own name. The inconvenient truth is that Olgierd spoke Slavic as his native tongue. And was very likely named after his mother Olga (Olger - the little one from Olga). The encyclopedia by Starchevski suggests that the Smolensk Duchess Olga was the second wife of Giedymin after Evna (Eva) of Polotsk.
@@Woloh Just a lie. He said himself all Russia should belong to Lithuanians, he had nothing to do with Rusins. His name was Lithuanian , his religion was Lithuanian. He gave his sons Lithuanian names.
Omnis russia ad litwinos deberet simpliciter pertinere.
@@1MuchButteR1 "He gave his sons Lithuanian names"
Lol, fun fact - did you know Olgierd named his son Andrei even though he wasn't even Christianised? A Christian name without baptism! Or maybe you are referring to his other sons Vladimir and Dmitri? Yup, very Baltic names, indeed. Btw, those were Olgierd's oldest sons. I.e. those sons who he named first.
He also had Jogaila, Skirgaila, and Svidrigaila. This should give you a taste of how everything was mixed up. Baltic, Slavic, Christian, Pagan - and all in one family.
@@Woloh He already gave you a direct message. All Russia should belong to Lithuanians. Not even to the mixed Lithuanian State, but to the Lithuanian nation. Lithuania from sources is known to show among first nationalism in Europe. Belarusins are left over Rusins due to historical circumstances, nothing less nothing more.
@@1MuchButteR1 So, a Slavic speaking Olgierd, who's married to Slavic Mary of Vitebsk and then to Slavic Uliana of Tver, whose own mother is Slavic Evva of Polotsk (or Slavic Olga of Smolensk), whose first three sons are called Slavic names Andrei, Vladimir and Dmitri, whose own brother Lubart is chosen (!) by a Slavic Galicia-Volynia Duchy as its ruler - that very Olgierd says that all of Slavic Ruthenia must belong to Lithuania. And he says it not to anybody, but to the Holy Roman Emperor! And yet he doesn't say anything similar about Baltic Samogitia (whose status is challenged by the Teutons and you would think Olgierd should be mentioning it to the Emperor first). As a matter of fact, he and his decendants easily trade Samogitia out when they need a peace with the Teutonic Order. Doesn't it tell you that Lithuania and Ruthenia where much closer to each other than Lithuania and Samogitia?
Very sluggish examination of the old maps. Modern Lithuania has a lot of those lands most importantly the capital city.
I see a lot of Aukstatians @sses on fire. the fact is that GDL was a rusin (rus) state , language , form of governance, laws, titles, etc. Aukstatians elements in the state stricture are impossible to find. Aukstatian forest language has never been used , you show in your schools books printed in Prussia, which was always independent country
@NoZo-S サンダーデン edit: old - Belarusian language, Blats didn´t have form of governance, laws, titles, thats why you renamed Pohonia in 20c to Vitiazias (?) LOL, guys Prussian Blats in 19c made up your version of history , 50 000 Prussian balts who never have been part of GDL )))
@NoZo-S サンダーデン who gave you our Vilnia ? not Koba?
@NoZo-S サンダーデン your forest sect never had Vilnia, show on the map´s GDL name "vilnius " , once again GDL was a rusian (Belarusian) state like it or not, get over it , learn Official GDL state language
@@el_Litwin And what does Vilnia means in Belorussian? Give me please the link to a reliable analysis of etymology done by a professional and recognized linguist.
A natural Georgian view: Lithuania was a confederacy formed on the lands of Baltic tribes Aukstaitijans, but southeastern part was already heavily under slavic influence, they later expanded into what is today Belarus, and fought against crusaders alongside Samogitians, that later lad to incorporation of the region into grand duchy. Lithuania kept local laws and freedoms, integrated local nobility(which was far less influencial than it's western counterpart), and even Gediminids dynasty were intermarried with Slavs. This way people of the duchy started to consider themselves Litvins rather than a distinct people, this tendency continued when Lithuania became a junior partner under Poland, although kept it's laws, which were much more favourable for the population than the polish once.
Litvin is a slavic word for lithuanian or lietuvis
There was never any other ethnicity with the name “ Litwin” other than Lithuanians themselves . Like with other nations , Lithuanians are called differently in different languages. For example word “Litwin” is Polish for Lithuanians.
Secondly, there was no such a state "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus, and Samogitia" - it is just a fake term invented by east Slavic nationalists living in the alternate world and creating fake stories. The name of the state was always the The Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
@@Habibas777 No, litvin is a synonym for Belarus
@@Habibas777 Litovets is
I suggest reading real academic history books based on original sources from the time that the history is covering. I recommend Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East Central Europe 1295-1345" written by S.C. Rowell and published by Cambridge University Press. This book is also translated in the Belarus language. You will learn that material written at that time shows that Belarus land was conquered by Pagan Baltic Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas. He even conquered Kyiv. If you need a second source I can recommend Robert Frost's book " The Oxford History of Poland Lithuania; Volume One: The Making of the Polish Lithuanian Union 1385-1569" published by Oxford University Press. I do not understand why Belarus You Tubers want to be Medieval Lithuanians . I would expect them to call modern Lithuanians the descendants of occupiers and ask for an apology .
The theory of the heredity of Belarusians to the history of the Principality was not built from scratch. The pagans did not conquer the Belarusian territories. All of them were annexed peacefully.
@@romaanatsko4788 Technically before the liberating Ruthenia they actually raided and pillaged most of the south
@@TomTly I don’t know. But I know for sure that there were raids on the Principality of Polotsk. Mindovg and his followers annexed Russia without blood
@@romaanatsko4788 So why there are so many Catholic churches in Western Belarus? Who forced you to build them?
@@fidenemini111 I don’t remember what I wrote there. And the Poles cost them. Did they forget about Polonization? Do not forget that churches were also built during the Polish Republic. There were also many settled Poles.
GDL = Belarus
Your land unification is a pure accident. Eastern border is battle of Orsha, Sothern border is Union of Lublin and etc. You have nothing to do with Lithuania left over Rusins on east European plain.
I see a lot of Aukstatians @sses on fire. the fact is that GDL was a rusin (rus) state , language , form of governance, laws, titles, etc. Aukstatians elements in the state stricture are impossible to find. Aukstatian forest language has never been used , you show in your schools books printed in Prussia, which was always independent country
Forest troll, if you are "Grand" why you can not build a Nuclear Power Plant ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astravets_Nuclear_Power_Plant you are 100% right with your trolling , we will force you to take a proper name , for new you are using ours
teutonic sources mention the dukes of lithuania being pagan and believing in many gods, while the east slavic population was orthodox by then. How come?
It's not true. East slavic population was half pagan even in 14 century.
@@alanparker2918 And no historical sources to back all this fantasy. How pity.
@@fidenemini111 Oh really ? )) You can start from reading story of saints Anthony, John, and Eustathius. Initially these guys were pagans. Their pagan names were Кумец, Круглец, Нежыла. Slavic names as you can see. Later these guys become christians (and changed their names to christian ones). These guys were killed by Algerd. It's 14 century. Now they are saints of city Vilnia )) You even don't know history of "your" capital )) LOL
@@alanparker2918 You are funny.
@@fidenemini111 no more arguments ?
LIETUVA 🇱🇹 LDK
belarussian culture (without russification) has more in common with culture of early modenr period Grand duchy of lithuania lol
@@michamarkiewicz1642 All Belarussian cities are built by pagan lithuanians
@@michamarkiewicz1642 give one example. Like GDL being pagan country and not ruthenian (orthodox).......??? Super in common
A great video in English. Everything is very clearly "laid out on the shelves."
The only note is that at 4:50, where they talk about "a massive extension of "slavs"" - I think it would be more correct to say "a massive extension of slavic languages" after the Gothic movement to the south in the middle of the first millennium AD.
Recent genetic studies in Belarus have shown that the gene pool of the population of these areas remained unchanged for 3500 years (!), almost until the 20th century, and in rural areas there still live mostly descendants of ancient Balts (haplogroup R1a), so there was no "expansion of the Slavs", but there was the adoption of the Slavic koine by the local Baltic tribes.
In fact, it is the same as the adoption of the Baltic koine by the Finno-Ugric Samogitian tribes (haplogroup N1c).
And the so-called "Slavic genes" never existed; in order to be sure about this, it is enough to compare, for example, the genotype of "Slavs"-Bulgarians with the genotype of "Slavs"-Poles, or, for example, the genotype of "Slavs"-Czechs with the genotype of "Slavs" of the Volga region or the Urals.
You forgot to mention WHY the slavic language expanded. It spread from the Byzantine empire where slavic written language was invented. It was cheaper to hire slavic
clerical language to write documents rather than Latin (which was simply more expensive and more difficult to find people being able to write Latin).
I would appreciate you did more research and didnt steal our history. Samogitia is not lithuania. Theyre another baltic tribe that joined lithuania and now has assimalated into lithuania. They even had theyre own language. And you completly ignored the short lived kingdom of lithuania that king mindaugas ruled. The cyrrilic alphabet was used because the lithuanian language didnt have its own alphabet or even a lithuanian book. And yes the ruthenian population was bigger than lithuanians but the rulers were lithuanian. The way you proove your point in the video is just looking at the maps and not even looking at the origin. Samogitians arent lithuanians. And infact is still a region in modern day lithuania.
"Mindaugas" - can I ask you a question? Why do you guys keep making up fake names to historical figures? For example, imagine you were born to the Gashtold noble family, and your mom and dad named you Jan. And sure, different nations give different spellings to your name. In Poland they will write you as Jan Gasztołd. In Cyrillic languages they will write you Ян Гаштольд. But in all of them you will still sound relatively close to how you originally were called - JAN GASHTOLD. And then people come to Wikipedia and discover that your name was Jonas Goštautas, because new Lithuanians renamed and reclaimed you ....... Facepalm. Can you imagine you told that guy that 5 centuries later he would become Jonas and Goshtautas??? He would probably execute you on a spot.
@@Woloh Really? So then please explain why every source on the internet , every documentary , every school book , every single person , historical documents ETC and ETC. Use MINDAUGAS as the name , can you become smart and understand that Lukashenko propaganda isn't real life ? Thanks man , cya soon in smartland.
@@matushka__ What lukashenka propaganda? He likes to get of our language and makes us use Russian. Surely he would not make us use Russian. If he did want to "steal" history.
@@ianyacuk6883 Im litterally too tired and annoyed to reply , check the other comments I posted , if not , please watch this video ( Note only watch it if you didnt read my comments) ruclips.net/video/UDCdGrJBON0/видео.html
@@matushka__ I have read your comments and saw the video. But Lukashenka wouldn't really care as he's destroying the culture. That's just the correction.
in Lithuanian Belarus is officially called "Baltarusija", but it is also commonly known as "Baltarusia" or "Gudija"
@@wawa-zm5wl It's literally the same word? What is your point?
@@wawa-zm5wl The same way as Poles who call Italy Włochy and literally for each Lithuanian Town have their own Polish name.
@@wawa-zm5wl We don't live on our own planet, our language is just way harder than yours and our words have the End parts which are either feminine or masculine
@@wawa-zm5wl Lithuanian grammar requires for that kind of ending.
@@lukedagon kompleksuoti beloruZZkiai licvinistai sugalvojo pasisavinti visą LDK istoriją ir net Lietuviškus kunigaikščius 😊 ligoniai.
11:48 Red Ruś is specifically the Western Ukraine rather than whole.
The myth of a non-Lithuanian Grand Duchy of Lithuania rests precisely on the fact that it was not a nation-state, making it easy for the historians of other countries to emphasize those traits of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that were more related to their ethnicities than to the Lithuanian ethnicity
True, back then Lithuanians are modern Belarusians, so GDL was genuinely a Belarusian state
@@PhilipDaineka Vytautas himself referred to lithuanians and Samogitians as a same people. So in terms of citizenship, yes, Ruthenians were Lithuanians, but not Ethnic Lithuanians.
@@PhilipDaineka it was Lithuanian controled state not Belarusian (sorry for your hopes being lost.)
@@eveningabused5123 at start capital of GDL was Novogrudok, city in Belarus, but then it was moved in modern Vilnus. And modern belarusians was real lithuanians
@@benkenobi3703 ever heard of a city named Kernavė? That was the original capital of the GDL before Vilnius
I really like your video. Thank you for sharing it. Belarus's history can be complicated as it is closely connects to the neıghbouring lands' histories. I mean without knowing Kievan Rus' and Polotsk's , Lithuania's ,Russia's or even Poland's history it can be confusing to fully understand Belarus's history. But your video really helps me to understand it more clearly. Thank you for your efforts to make this video Hetmanopedia.
There was no such a state "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus, and Samogitia" - it is just a fake term invented by east Slavic nationalists living in the alternate world and creating fake stories. The name of the state was always the The Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Be careful. Everything about Lithuania in this video is pure pseudo-science, created by Belorussians to justify their lack of national history. In reality Lithuania originated in the eastern part of Lithuania, while Samogitians were just one of Baltic tribes who maintained independence and did not unite with other Baltic tribes until very late. They still have very strong language differences and not all Lithuanians understand what they say.
Maybe we should call Belarus the third ethnicly baltic country? In Lithuania up to the Soviet takeover in 1940, Belarus was called Gudija and the people gudai. What do you fellow gudai think? Estonians want nothing to do with balts. Do you want to have a close relationship with modern Lithuania and Latvia?
If Belarus becomes free, I hope we will be recognised as one of the Baltic states.
We were in GDL together with baltic peoples for 545 years.
@@Maxz85 That is nice to hear. Remember that white ruthenians are also gebetically part baltic like the english are part celtic or the yugoslavs part illyric. The merging of slavs and balts in the modern territory of belarus was peaceful.
@@lithuanianwarrior1081 Yep, and baltic tribes lived on our land before slavs came here.
Yeah but they speak slavic....
Durneli,negi nemataikadčia visiškas litvinistis kliedesys,kai belarusai eilinì kartá bando pavogt mūsu istorijá? Tegu jie būna LDK dalimi bet nebando primetinėt kad jie yra tikrieji baltai ir LDK kūrėjai
The only reason why territory of today’s Belarus was called Lithuania for some time is because it was conquered and incorporated into a county later known as Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Centuries before these Slavic lands had no known Baltic element aside from Baltic lands of northwestern part of today’s Belarus.
Lithuanians were a Baltic tribe that lived east of Samogitians and the fact that today’s Belarusians are starting to make some claim to that name is ridiculous.
It is very easy to prove that this is a lie. Point us to any single battle, any single captured city from that conquest, any evidence, please!? You cannot. Because there was none. Forget chronicles, even archaeologists have nothing.
The best you can do is the capture of Smolensk by Vitovt. First, it's not even Belarus today. And second, two other Smolensk lands (Orsha and Mstislavl) joined the GDL peacefully and willingly and stayed loyal to it throughout centuries. Same as all other cities - from Polotsk to Pinsk. (While Samogitia, by the way, had to be pacified with force).
@@Woloh okay bud...
Living in shit with no perspectives for a better life. Wait, let's invent the glorious past by this we will change our future. Very "smart" move - fake it until you make it.
@@Woloh can you name any battles where Slavs ( Belarusians ) conquered Samogitians ?
Yes , there is very easy to disprove claim of Belarusians that they are , somehow Lithuanian . No sources prior to the incorporation of their land to Lithuanian state called them by the name . It was just part of the land, known as Rus’s .
@@birchheights6542 That is not the claim of Belarusians. The claim of Belarusians is that they come from a mix of three different duchies. 1. The Duchy of Polotsk - one of the ancient Viking-Slavic entities that competed with Kiev; 2. The Duchy of Turov - this was an integral part of the Kievan Rus; 3. The Duchy of Lithuania - a Slavic-speaking Pagan-dominated mix of Slavs and Balts. The claim of the Belarusians is that this third duchy - Lithuania - was culturally, linguistically, and politically much closer to Polotsk than to Samogitia. The key difference was religion, not language. The problem of modern new-Lithuanians is that they associate Belarusians only with Polotsk. And this is simply not the case. Balts gave rise to various countries. Including those that became not really Baltic-speaking. Rus and Litwa are different things. But both of them make up modern Belarus. And another part of Litwa and Samogitia make up modern new-Lithuania.
As a Belarusian, I want to express my highest level of graditude to you! Your video is a very transparent and true point of view on our history. We need more stuff like that to help the rest of the world better understand my country.
Thank you very much again!
And it's absolutely wrong. Know your place serf.
even you surname is lithuanian, not belarusian
Belarus was vasals of Lithuanian kingdom and that’s it, don't mix your fake Belarusian school theories with history
Its time to apologize, go on your knees you wretched.
Well it's nice that you bring up maps, but mix it with emotional conclusions. What I got from you is that White Rus originated from Russia/Novgorod/Moscow, but somehow cannot be connected to Russia or God forbid be called White _RUS_sia, because...? Politics?
White Rus originated from Kievan Rus. And modern Russia ISN'T Kievan Rus.
@@ИгорьЧулинда The term "Kievan Rus" was created by Russian Imperial historians in 19th century, surprise-surprise they don't teach that in the Ukraine today. There are no documents signed as "Kievan Rus", but Russian chronicles do talk about "Rus" or "Russian land" and "Russian princes". Modern Russia has everything to do with ancient Rus. Russia has the first capital of Staraya Ladoga and the second capital of Novgorod. I can open some old Russian chronicles today and read them without too much of training myself.
Vatnik detected
It cannot be connected because Rus and Russia is not the same thing. Russia is a derivative of Rus and Belarus, a derivative not of Russia, but of Rus
После 2-й Мировой войны 10-мильонная Беларусь не досчиталась около 3-х мильонов своих жителей, однако околь 2-х миллионов были убиты еще до войны органами коммунистического НКВД. В Беларуси физически уничтожили 70 процентов всех белорусских писателей, убили ученых и художников. (Труппа Третьего Белорусского Государственного театра Владислава Голубка была арестована в полном составе. Почти все были расстреляны.) Убивали по национальному признаку. Ради этого был придуман ярлык "нацдем" (это значит -- национальный демократ, хотя такой партии не существовало). Этот ярлык приклеивали ко всем белорусам, которых сталинисты планировали уничтожить. В недрах НКВД была придумана несуществующая антикоммунистическая организация СВБ ("союз освобождения Беларуси"). Под придуманный фантом энкавэдисты проводили аресты, вели воображаемое следствие, допрашивали, пытали, судили, потом ссылали в Россию и расстреливали невинных людей. После Рижского сговора в 1921 году Беларусь разделили между Польшей и Россией. Границу раздела провели недалеко от Менска. Существовал тайный приказ НКВД уничтожать всё белорусское население вдоль границы. Российские аккупанты хотели сделать здесь безлюдную зону. Уничтожение осуществляли пограничные войска. Довереным лицам выдавали винтовку и лопату. Когда такой солдат-пограничник встречал в безлюдном месте (на дороге, в поле, в лесу) одинокого белоруса или белоруску, или ребенка, он стрелял человека, тут же лопатой выкапывал яму и засыпал труп.
Такова была инструкция. Люди в деревнях не так боялись "человека с ружьём", как солдата с лопатой. (Эти факты опубликованы в белорусской печати в начале 90-х годов.) В 30-х годах на 95-99 процентов (практически полностью) была уничтожена (сослана и расстреляна) белорусская коммунистическо-партийная и советская администрация. Уничтожали даже директорат и хозяйственных руководителей. На должности убитых администраторов и коммунистических начальников-белорусов присылали русских из России. Русские (так называемые "выдвиженцы") приезжали в Беларусь, занимали освобожденные должности, получали льготы, имущество, квартиры и первое, что они делали -- закрывали белорусские школы, переводили их на русский язык, чтобы их дети могли учиться, не обременяя себя изучением, как они говорили, "никому ненужного" белорусского языка. Таким образом оккупанты создавали в Беларуси "русскоязычное население". Этноцид, лингвацид, мнемацид и геноцид проводзились большевиками одновременно.
Уничтожение белорусов российским НКВД продолжалось и во времена немецкой аккупации. В июне 1941 года в первые дни войны коммунисты расстреляли в тюрьмах и на этапах тысячи заключенных. Только в Брестской крепости, где была страшная тюрьма НКВД, всех арестованных ликвидировать не успели, часть из них разбежалась. Тем временем большая группа надзирателей и функционеров НКВД была заблокирована в крепости немцами. Они сидели там около месяца, пока не вымерли. Лет через 20 после войны коммунисты придумали легенду о "героической обороне" Брестской крепости. Обращает на себя внимание тот факт, что широкое советское партизанское движение было организовано только в Беларуси и частично -- на этнических белорусских землях, которые были в составе России (Смоленщина, Брянщина). В оккупированой России партизанского движения не было. Почему? Да потому, что продолжал действовать план уничтожения белорусской нации. Москва, используя органы НКВД, втянула массы гражданского белорусского населения в войну против немцев, и этим подставила белорусов под немецкий удар.
Необходимое дело борьбы исходило из коварного замысла и осуществлялось подлыми методами. (Сталин хотел получить двойную выгоду.) Энкавэдисты специально около белорусской деревени убивали немца или делали другую провокацию, чтобы вызвать карательную операцию гитлеровцев (которые обычно сжигали всю деревню, чаще всего -- вместе с людьми). Таким образом, кстати, в результате специальной провокации советских партизан была сожжена и известная Хатынь, которую коммунисты потом в 70-х годах разрекламировали на весь мир как типичную жертву фашистского зверства.
В результате такой коммуно-фашистской совместной "работы" в Беларуси сожгли более 9 тысяч деревень. Поэтому к концу войны, в результате специальной операции НКВД, многие белорусские командиры были посланы на смерть, отстранены от командования, убиты и репрессированы. Их места занимали русские, присланные из Мосвы, и верные энкавэдисты. Летом 1944 года, когда "красная армия" заняла Беларусь, русские провели мобилизацию в армию на белорусской территории. Десятки тысяч молодых белорусских мужчин, почти без подготовки, бросили на передовую линию фронта. Русские командиры поднимали их в ненужные атаки под огонь немецких пулеметов, не дав даже оружия в руки, или с винтовками, но без патронов. Они гибли тысячами, как трава под косой. А те, что бежали назад, попадали под пули энкавэдистских "заградотрядов". Впрочем, заградотряды стреляли и в спину. Так продолжалось уничтожение белорусов на войне, руками немцев и русских одновременно. Как говорили коммунисты, "в борьбе за советскую родину". В 40-х годах русские вывезли в Сибирь и там замучили всех лесников и так называемых "кулаков" из Западной Беларуси. Вывозили вагонами, по разнорядках.
ruclips.net/video/RmxTyyRvrzI/видео.html
Відэа распавядае пра злачынства ў вёсцы Дражна - 25 мірных жыхароў, былі забітыя ў 1943 г. партызанамі трох савецкіх і аднаго габрэйскага атрадаў.
Почему ты ставишь знак равенства между русскими и большевиками? Большевики были и беларусами. Большевики это политическое объединение. Больше всего большивики убили именно русских
Fake news history. Why you "forget" to mention Lithuania maps with Lithuania propatia? From 18 century.
Lithuania Propria you wanted to say.
More!!!! We need more! This is by far the best English version of the explanation. Thank you for making this video! Keep them coming!
Hands down. I’d love to hear more. I appreciate both the Grand Duchies of Moscow and Lithuania for the history of Belarus, as without both I would not be here. It is the USSR which turned everything into mess and whose memory should be spat upon and all those who try to uphold it as our people’s epitome when it was our people’s lowest point.
Samogitians we're only a Region of Lithuania, not Lithuania itself.
Where are the Aukstaitijans in all this Belarus story? Lithuania was a confederacy formed on the lands of Baltic tribes Aukstaitijans. They were always marked separately from the rest of Lithuanians (same as Samogitians).
Before grand duchy of Lithuania and kingdom of Lithuania there was big pressure from Livonian ordin tautenic order and Poland cose Lithuania was pegan and was big battles like saules battle durpes battle and many more king mindaugas starter to unite Lithuanian lands and become as kingdom and fought against all threats and become principalities and army that time Belarus and Russia was just tribes like Moscow polock and so on wasn’t united and that’s why golden hord swept across Russian lands so easy that times Belarus was threatened by hord and asked for Lithuanian kingdom for incorporate Belarusian lands to Lithuanian kingdom there was no Belarus in Lithuanian kingdom it was just lands ruled by duchy but Lithuanian history for you would be very interesting how from small pegan lands become one of biggest powers in Europe that time... Belarus is not Lithuania Belarus was vasals of Lithuanian kingdom and that’s it
Please, open any of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania's statutes. I bet you won't understand what it says just because it's written with old belarusian (actual old lithuanian) language)
That says a lot about which culture dominated in medieval Lithuania, isn't it?
@@kiimakikatterhot3391 what ??? Lithuanian kingdom wasn’t just Lithuania it was Belarus parts of poland Ukraine Latvian Estonian Moldova crimea you can find numerous of different written in different languages within Lithuanian kingdom 🤦♂️ and yes it is in Slavic language I’m not arguing about it. If you want to understand how our king Mindaugas was ruling kingdom you need to read more about him and his ruling he was paigan within Lithuanian kingdom (actual Lithuania) but taking Slavic religion within other lands like Belarus and jesuit within other neighbours like Poland
@@kiimakikatterhot3391 and one more thing we have all grand duchy statutes written in Lithuanian and you are not Belarus you are Gudija what means in Lithuanian (the others) referred as other part of Lithuanian kingdom Who doesn’t speak Lithuanian
oh, I forgot!! Maikng a conclusion from whot I've written you're a slav. Just take away "-ius" finale from your surname)
This is not so. After all, the Teutons attacked the Polotsk land. Despite the fact that they had been Christians for 300 years. Just remember that the crusaders attacked Grodno and Novogrudok. Although there were about 6 churches in Grodno. And there are more in Novogrudok
God bless to the people of Belarus!
Thanks from Belarus!
God bless to you too
Thank you!
Original name of the map: La Pologne dressee sur ce qu'en ont donne Starovolsk, Beauplan, Hartnoch et autre auturs ... a Amsterdam chez I. Covens et C. Mortier.
The quality is good, the map is thematic, all regions of the Commonwealth are represented, including modern Lietuva, Belarus and Ukraine.
All names are given in the Slavic tradition with transliteration into Latin, without Lietuvian and Latin endings: Medniki, Troki, Kowno, Vilna, Vilkomir.
1. BORDERS OF SAMAYTIA AND LITHUANIA
Lithuania and Samogitia-Zemaitija are part of the Kingdom of Poland. The border between Lithuania and Samogitia is outlined with a thin line. Borders from west to east: to the north just behind Kovno-Kaunas (still part of Lithuania) slightly north of Ukmerge (still part of Lithuania) and further strictly on Juodut along the Sventoji River. This card refers not only to Samogitia itself, but about half of modern Aukšaitia, that is, about 90% of the ethnic Lietuva. This map does not correspond to the ethnic borders of Lietuva and Belarus in 1918-1940 by about 50-60 kilometers along the Vilnia-Kaun line and 80-100 kilometers along the border between Lietuva and Latvia.
2. BORDERS OF HISTORICAL LITHUANIA AND THE GRAND DUCHENESS OF LITHUANIA
There are two Lithuania on the map.
The first historical Lithuania is simply Lithuanie, the inscription is located strictly above the modern Grodno region and partially above the Vilna region.
The second Lithuania is the ON itself or the Grand Duche de Lithuanie, the inscription is located over the entire territory of modern Belarus.
That is, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania also includes a smaller Lithuania, by which the authors could only mean the historical primordial Lithuania.
3. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
On the map, immediately to the south, Polesie is followed by Russie Polonoise (Russia Polyakov), the inscription reaches the modern Belarusian Rogachev (the very north of the Gomel region). Polish Russia means the entire south of modern Ukraine. At the same time, the ON is bordered in the east by Russie Moscovite (Moscovite Russia). Kiev itself clearly belongs to Ukraine (Ukraine) and borders on both Russia - Polish and Moscow.
4. CONCLUSION
Thus, in 1720 in Amsterdam:
- on the territory of modern Belarus, except for the Gomel region, they did not see any Rus - neither White, nor Polish, nor Moscow;
- historical Lithuania occupied an insignificant part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and meant the Grodno and partly Vilnius regions, while the ethnic Lietuva was definitely not included in this concept.
Lithuanian names
Mindaugas- Minėti (mention) and daug (a lot) i.e. "Known-by-All"
Gediminas - Gedėti (grieve, mourn) and minėti (mention) i.e. "He Who is Mourned or Missed"
Kęstutis, diminutive of Kęstas - Kęsti (suffer, endure) i.e. "Ever-Enduring"
Algirdas - Aliai (everyone) and girdėti (to hear) i.e. "All-Hearing"
Vytautas- Vytis (horse rider, to chase) and tauta (nation) i.e. "Horse Rider Nation"
Doesn't get more pagan than that. This is besides all the other sources. Even belarusian favourite Algirdas is mentioned as a pagan till his death by Hermann von Wartberge and Jan Długosz. Byzantine Patriarch Neilos described him as a fire-worshipping prince and Patriarch Philotheos excommunicated all who helped "impious" Algirdas.
But I guess "Mindoug", "Gedemin" , "Kyestut", "Algerd" and "Vytout" also have deep meanings in belarusian :)
Yes and no. Yes, those forms have their own meanings (different, Kiestut for example means agile). No, because these names. have not slavic but germanic roots (mostly connected with Gothic language).
Literally no one cares.
@@stannumowl 🤣🤣🤣
As a Lithuanian I would like to connect our countries once again as it was before occupation. We have the same hundreds years of history and the same blood in our veins. It's just wrong that these two countries are splitted
I agree, I think we as one country would make a great union. After all Belarusian are just Baltic ethnicity that adopted Slavic language. They are as much a part of Lithuanian history as Lithuanians proper themselves.
Shut up, belarusians are real lithuanians
@@benkenobi3703 Yea, yea. And elephants also originate in Belarus.
@@fidenemini111 I'm talking about the fact that Belarus used to be called Lithuania, and today's Lithuania was called Samogitia
@@benkenobi3703 😂🤣😄😭
It's simple. Lithuania and Samogitia were 1000 years ago and remained. The baltic tribes have long lived in the area together with the slavic tribes. The language was mixed with Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Russian. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania naturally united its Baltic, already Slavic-speaking tribes. Belarus does not mean white russia, but Baltic russia. You are the Baltic-Russian nation of the Lithuanian Empire, together with Lithuanians and Ukrainians.
What about Black Rus? or Red Rus?
It is not the case. Colors were used for direction. Baltic means White and White means west. Black means North and Red means South. Also, we didn't use the word baltic for our tribes. It is a new thing. Tho Samogitia and Lithuania aren't Belarus.
I see a lot of Aukstatians @sses on fire. the fact is that GDL was a rusin (rus) state , language , form of governance, laws, titles, etc. Aukstatians elements in the state stricture are impossible to find. Aukstatian forest language has never been used , you show in your schools books printed in Prussia, which was always independent country
@@el_Litwin lol you are a funny comedian. What a complete lack of grasp on history.
@@oddoni do you understand once Luka out GDL (Bielarus´) 🏳️❤️🏳️ will take all what you (much smaller land) have stolen ?
Belarus The name first appeared in German and Latin medieval literature; the chronicles of Jan of Czarnków mention the imprisonment of Lithuanian grand duke Jogaila and his mother at "Albae Russiae, Poloczk dicto" in 1381. I like how he show edited maps where it doesnt show region called ithuania proper (real lithuania). if you have any doubts read Grand duke vytautas letter where he himself describes core of lithuania , being two main tribes Owsteitens and samagotians .Gediminas first mentioned in prussian chronicles as rex de owsteiten {king of Aukstaicia). There was 3 regions in gdl dutchy of samagotia(lowland lithuanians) , lithuania proper(real lithuania ,highland lithuanians ), ithuanian ruthenia (ukrainians +belarus) .
"We do not know on whose merits or guilt such a decision was made, or with what we have offended Your Lordship so much that Your Lordship has deservedly been directed against us, creating hardship for us everywhere. First of all, you made and announced a decision about the land of Samogitia, which is our inheritance and our homeland from the legal succession of the ancestors and elders. We still own it, it is and has always been the same Lithuanian land, because there is one language and the same inhabitants. But since the land of Samogitia is located lower than the land of Lithuania, it is called as Samogitia, because in Lithuanian it is called lower land [ Žemaitija ]. And the Samogitians call Lithuania as Aukštaitija, that is, from the Samogitian point of view, a higher land. Also, the people of Samogitia have long called themselves as Lithuanians and never as Samogitians, and because of such identity (sic) we do not write about Samogitia in our letter, because everything is one: one country and the same inhabitants."
- Vytautas the Great, excerpt from his 11 March 1420 Latin letter sent to Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, in which he described the core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, composed from Žemaitija (lowlands) and Aukštaitija (highlands).[13][14] Term Aukštaitija is known since the 13th century.[15]
Дзякуй за выпуск, з задавальненнем паслухаў і паглядзеў пра гэтую тэму! Прывітанне з Беларусі 🤍❤🤍
Няхай жыве Беларусь!
Lithuania + Belarus = Grand Dutchy of Lithuania
Man, it's always a pleasure to find a lithuanian who isn't salty and angry on us because of how history played out. Much love, don't forget the formula:
Belarus+Lithuania=Great Duchy
@UCKD4uJDwkZI8GpbckxXWA_Q Many lithuanians are brainwashed by many of our historians and think that nationalist minded belarusians are secretely wanting to take Vilnius or are afraid that Belarus would "steal" all the legacy of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania for their country. I find it the thinking of those brainwashed lithuanians people extremely stupid. First of all, we have had a shared state and the heritage of the Grand Dutchy belongs to both lithuanians and belarusians. Belarus is the only neighbouring country lithuanians never had a conflict with. In fact we even had border skirmishes with the latvians in 1919, but never any fight with the belarusians :)
Lithuania was not Belarussian Or Lithuanian, it was a union of both
@@magnus_ducatus9684 East Slavic lithuanian = modern belarusian. Baltic lithuanian = modern (lithuanian).
@@lithuanianwarrior1081 I still believe that both have rights to take pride for it
Very good video, you earned a subscriber :)
Well you've just lisend to a howl lot of propaganda
Why is the name Latvia derived from Latinized name of Lithuania. They wouldn't associate with a Slavic state.
Latgals no any connection with Litwa !
@@Nenarodec Latgalians were actually puppets of Polotsk for a period of time.
@@Nenarodec they have connection. Baltic culture, baltic language.
In 17 century Lithuania was not independent country.Grand Duke of Lithuania lived in Poland.
Oleg from Novgorod conquered Kiev, what do you mean Novgorod came under Kiev? The state of Rus (Kievan Rus is the term invented by Russians in 19th century to depict their history with capital Kiev, but the principalities called themselves Rossiyskaya zemlya), began from Novgorod and it continued throughout Novgorod. Oleg of Novgorod, prince Igor from Novgorod, Saint Olga from Pskov, Vladimir the Great prince of Novgorod, Yaroslav the wise prince of Novgorod, Alexander Nevsky- prince of Novgorod and later Kiev, Ivan III descendant from the formers - Tzar of all Russia, including Kiev in 1472 after Marrying niece of Byzantine emperor. The Rus state just lost its southern lands through the centuries but they never seized to exist/evolve as one land.
Superbly done explanation 👏
What looks like "f" to you is actually a so called long s (Lang-s or langes s). So it's not "Slucenfis" but "Slicensis", not "Rzenczycenfis" but "R..censis" etc. The long s is not really needed in Latin but used to be integral part of written German. It basically died out in the 20th century, although it was still used sometimes until the mid 20th century.
As a Flemish/Dutch speaker I feel like our news outlets have been shifting to using Belarus instead of Wit-Rusland after the protests happened
Wow, incredibly well-made video, really a lot of interesting historical information that even I didn't know as a ukrainian, great work. hope to see more content like this from. P.S. - I thingk that all the dislikes are just from rusophills and triggered lithuanians with delusional view on history so just ignore them, your video great and historically honest.
It's crazy that your understanding of "delusional view" is Grand duchy of Lithuania not being descendents of Lithuania
Насколько я помню, Белая Русь/Russia Alba была отмечена на севере ещё в 15-м веке на иезуитских картах. То есть почти на век раньше, чем на картах скандинавов.
One of the best videos about the regional history.
My DNA mix is Baltic and Slavic. Putting a historical context in front of me was very interesting.
yeah Belarus does not belong to russia, it belongs to the grand Dutch of lithuania
Wanna point out that this conflict mainly exists between wannabe internet Lithuanian and Belarusian historians (sometimes even polish ones for some reason).
All major western historians agree that Lithuania was in the leading positions throughout the life of the GDL. Everyone here is either coping or wasting their time since at the end of the day the historians who have picked through everything available have come to that conclusion. Or is someone here gonna claim that the historians forgot to take the "evidence" from their specific blog into account?
If unbiased western historians ever re-evaluate the history of the GDL and conclude that Belarus was more relevant that previously thought, then I'm sure the vast majority of Lithuanians will accept it. For now though, this theory will face as much resistance as any other theory that goes directly against the common concensus.
Side note, this Litvinism theory isnt even consistant. Everybody has different evidence & sources and their all trying to prove different things. From Lithuanians and Belarisians being equal in their GDL claim / Lithuanians being irelevant peasants for most of its history / Lithuanians not even being part of its history at all and that the founding Balts were actually Belarusians & Moscow helped the Lithuanians steal their real history.
The whole theory is getting more and more extreme as time goes on, soon Belarusians will start claiming rome.
But Russland just means land of the Rus. Hviterussland just means land of white Rus. Why are you assuming hviterussland is a reference to modern Russia? It's a literal translation of Belarus...
Thank you, bro!
Fake history... what kind of demographic data are you showing, there was none in Middle Ages. There is only one figure, Lithuanian language named cities such as Lida and other Lithuanian names in western Belarus.
You have to be a little more specific than that. What exactly is fake there? Others might debate you, use sources, and references.
@@Woloh Everything from start to end.
@@fidenemini111 That means you have nothing. Just an empty talk. Sorry that facts hurt your nationalist feelings.
@@Woloh That means you are troll.
@@fidenemini111 That means you are uneducated
Great summary and very easy to follow thanks.
Thank you, brother ⬜️🟥⬜️❤️
Lithuania is still Lithuania Samogitia was much smaller region and belarus was much more to the left. Anyways the map is very much not accurate
somogitia land is much much smaller than it is shown.
Also Olgerd is not changed it is Algirdas the leader was Lithuanian. god you need to check more about Lithuania you have so many mistakes...... (also it was written in that way because Lithuanians didnt have there own langage so they used Ruthenian language)
Damn this video is so historically inaccurate it hurts.
it causes your butthurt
Thank you very much for your effort in establishing the historical truth. Well done!
Belarusians - White Ruthenians. That's why they're brothers for Ukrainians forever and ever
White Ruthenia sounds cool. I prefer Belarus though
9:37 It's Algirdas not Olgerd stop making up false history. Belarus as a nation only came into existence in the 19th century after the local Ruthenians mixed with Russians (muscovites)
I loved this video. I learned a lot, and I'm sure I'm going to watch it again. I also hope you make more videos like it in the future.
However, I have a point of contention with the main premise of the video.
The terms Russia, Russie, Rusia, Russland, Rusland, etc. in various western European languages are just a combination of "Rus" and a Latin or Germanic suffix that means "land of".
Similarly, adding that same ending to Belarus as Biélorussie, Bielorrusia, Weißrussland, Wit-Rusland, etc. can similarly just be interpreted as "Land of the White Rus" (although such interpretation is admittedly not very convincing in Dutch).
It doesn't necessarily mean that those names automatically refer to "White Russia", although of course, it does mean that more communications like this video are necessary to clear any confusion in those languages.
😂😂😂you learned nothing now you literaly thinck that belarus was Lithuania and that LDK was belarus💀
@@Dievas.yra.Karalius I wonder what's more convincing, arguments and maps with their sources that I can and have independently verified, or a random comment in a mocking tone with zero substance or arguments of any kind...
@@franciscoflamenco go studdy history and youll find out
@@Dievas.yra.Karalius How about you stop wasting my time and study it yourself, along with some other useful skills like reading comprehension and rhetoric?
@@franciscoflamenco its not my problem your in idiot, i learn history and i do read and i do study it un like you
why did dude stop uploading
Cry belarusians, because real Belarus started exist at 1918s. Belarus is Gudia. And Samagotians and Lithuanians was the same country just with 2 sides: Samagotia, Grand of duchy Lithuania. Belarus didn't had history, they just steeling history from Lithuania. Ohh yes, what about Lithuania - Poland Commonwealth, maybe it was Belarus - Poland Commonwealth? No its wasn't so cry Gudians.
Official GDL language was oldbelarusian cry zhmudin
Lithuanian became angry
@@mikbelarus It's almost like when a tribal society occupies a far larger and culturally more advance society, the tribal society assimilate into it... What was the official language of the Scandinavian founded Rus state again? Oh right, Slavic. Guess, all those Scandinavian vikings that formed the Rus state were in fact Slavic all along!
Все, любовь к московіі империі прошла, а герпес и папилломы остались....
Лучше быть империей чем покорными слугами чужих стран.
Hmm , I think you may have of mistaken some of the maps , because some map makers didn't feature Aukstaitija (The place where the Lithuanian language still used today originated from) Therefore this isn't accurate and you should just use this video , do a bit more research and re-upload it , as this is currently mis-information. I am not denying that Belarus was part of Lithuania or that they had Baltic heritage , just saying that it's not fully complete and seems a bit rushed.
For now , I must leave this video: ruclips.net/video/UDCdGrJBON0/видео.html once you fix those few bits of looking at maps of the entire world , taking into account that they were made 500 years ago with fucking eyewitness accounts, where belarus was indeed in the Grand duchy of Lithuania. So yeah.
Although our leaders were Baltic. Lithuania started out in Navahurak. Mendog or Mindaugas was expelled from the Baltic region because of his failed mercenary jobs. He fled to Navahrudak and got elected King. He then conquered the Baltic tribe Litva. Litva was originally Blatic and not Slavic word. But once conquered, Mendog named his duchy Litva. Why? many nations have done that. For example Prussia was originally Baltic but was germanized but still kept the name Prussia.
In all fairness. Both Belarusians and Lithuanians created the state.
I think you misunderstood something. The video talks about ACTUAL old maps, made by ACTUAL people who lived in 15th-16th century, based on ACTUAL information they had at that moment. Not to mix with modern "historical" maps where everyone draws whatever they like based on political or national preferences. Those old maps clearly show a distinct Samogitia. And if none of them says a word about Aukstaitija that means either those cartographers never heard about it, or didn't consider it an important enough information to get included on a map. Unlike other sub-regions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, like the Slutsk Duchy, or the Mogilev District. Sorry.
@@Woloh as much as you want to steal history and take the glory from us , just accept the fact that you are a russianized polish Lithuanian and Ukrainian mix of people
@@matushka__ Look, I'm happy to accept anything you like, but you have to give me facts and figures, not just your ethnic ambitions. There are such sciences as Archeology and History, there are archives of ancient documents and chronicles, and they paint a different picture. Whether you like it or not, we clearly know that ancient Lithuanians were pretty different from modern Lithuanians. At the very least, we know that they spoke and wrote a Slavic language and they were not Christians, used pagan names. (Which btw immediately makes them Slavs because "Slavic" is a linguistic concept, not an ethnic one). You are saying it was their second language - maybe, but there is zero evidence for that so far. Pottery and shapes of graves tell you nothing about other languages. But this doesn't even matter. We know that their key settlements - the most of which are in modern Belarus, sorry - were a peaceful mix of cultures. Including a huge footprint of Scandinavian cultures among the neighboring "Baltic" Yotvingians, for example. We are trying to divide them based on Baltic / Slavic duopoly with an idea to shoehorn them into one of the modern states. Well, good luck with that. Then you are be building your ethnic identity on a very shaky foundation which can change overnight with every new document discovered or another layer of an old settlement unearthed.
*You told a wrong information about Rus. The Statutes of Lithuania, published in three main editions 1529,1566, 1588, claim that a full name of this state was (in Latin language): Magnus Ducatus Lithvaniae, Rusiae, Samogitiae. Explanation: Lithvaniae - it's Belarus, Rusiae - it's Rus - means Ukraine, Samogitiae - it's the modern Lithuania. The independent Ukrainian Kingdom of Rus united with Grand duchy of Lithuania since 1362. Interesting fact about Odesa city: a Rusyn from Ukrainian family of Ostrozkyis founded this city Kachebiyiv on place of Odesa. In details here:* ukraine93.webnode.com.ua/
It is not a name, it is the list of lands ruled by a monarch. The same list is for Russian Empire, but the official name was never the list (title of the ruller). And the projection of the title is only in the first Statute.
@@fidenemini111Actually it's a name. Here is a quote from Statute 1529:
"Права писаные Старого Статуту и даные Великому княжству Литовскому, Рускому, Жомойтскому и иных через наяснейшого пана Жигимонта з Божее милости Короля Польского, Великого Князя Литовскаго, Руского, Пруского, Жомоитского и иных многих."
@@alanparker2918 Actually it is not. This projection - Великому княжству Литовскому, Рускому, Жомойтскому и иных - appeared only in first statute and lived only for 35 years. In later statutes it was not repeated and it never was used as official name of the state in any contemporary written documents. Everywhere was only Lithuania (LITVANIA - where "V" in capital writing, following Roman tradition, represents "U") Grand Duchy of Lithuania (MAGNVS DVCATVS LITVANIAE).
@@fidenemini111After Union of Lublin Ruthenian (modern Ukraine) part of GDL became part of Poland Kingdom. That's why this full name was used only in first Statute (1529). Yes - Union was signed after Statute was released. But the process of preparation to this Union was started earlier.
Statute - is the main juridical document of the country. So it's enough that this name mentioned there.
Name "Lithuania" was used only in documents written in latin. You can find photos of GDL coins and check how name of the country was written. It's "LITVA". Sounds a bit slavic - isn't it?
Something interesting to see was descriptions and depictions of 18th century Ukraine Lithuania and Poland where Belarusyns are called Lithuanian Ukrainians
Belarusians called themselves lithuanians ("litviny") in written since 16th century, for instance Francisk Skaryna. And he never called himslef ukrainian. If you mean he identified as "rusin" or ruthenian, he meant his faith. In the belarusian language "rusin" means orthodox christian and "polak" means catholic.
@@Name-t9fbd lil bro, I’m very well aware of the difference between litvins and litovtsi and the fact that for a specific period of time Rusyn meant orthodox living in “Lithuania” and “Poland” that doesn’t change the fact that in 18th century there were depictions of “Belarusyns” titled Lithuanian Ukrainians, this is because as you well understand foreigners didn’t really understand the difference between litvins and litovtsi thus why they wrote Lithuanian Ukrainian in reference to litvins…. and side note, during the 18th century Rusyns no longer meant orthodox inhabitant of Lithuania or Poland, it was earlier.
What I think as a belarusian:
Belarus (Polotsk etc.) fought Crussaders along with Lithuania. They were allies. Dukes are balts, but they spoke slavic and almost everyone spoke slavic. A lot of people were orthodox. Then Polish Lithuania appeared and polonisation started, country became catholic. After that 3 divides of PL
Wich is wrong, Polotsk did not fight the crusaders with Lithuania, the Lithuanian dukes did not speak slavic and 100% not veryone spoke slavic so you basecly got tought wromg history by a lieing litvinist ( belarusian )🫠
@@Dievas.yra.Karalius I know that Lithuania was ally of Polotsk and that Polotsk fought with crussaders. Ok maybe dukes didn't spoke slavic but I am absolutely sure that many people spoke slavic bc almost all territory of GDL were slavic dutchies
@@Черепабло Almost all? Are you mad? 80% yes but not almost all. (Almost all is 90-99%)
@@Черепабло Lithuania was not allyed with polotsk we had our problems and you had your as Lithuania started to become stronger and more stable, the crusaders came, also Polotsk colapsed, Lithuania having to survive agenst the crusaders they took what reamande out of Polotsk and used those teritorys as help to fight the crusaders. Also there is no mabe about the dukes not talking slavic, becouse they DID NOT, some eaelyer dukes did know slavic but that was a minority, and a big one, Dukes mostly learned western languages, like Latin, Polish, German, yeah slavic was a choise but it was an old thing and as Lithuania got bigger, the less amount of dukes knew slavic, ofcourse, unless your talking about the dukes of the regions of GDL, so yeah big diffrence
@@Dievas.yra.Karalius almost all in subjective. For me it is more than 70%
The way your telling history is:
-Belarus is Lithuania
-Lithuania is samogitia
-Nougarduk is the first capital of Lithuania
-Lithuania united belarusian tribes ( and not the Baltic tribes like in reality and history books )
-Lithuanian and Jotvingian tribes were speaking slavic and baltic ( were you suspiciasly marked the Lands of Vilnius as disputed by Slavs and Balts, when in reality it was only Baltic lands and everyone spoke baltic there. I can see how your trying to clame Vilnius and the history of Lithuania as Belarusian just to try and prove your litvinist lies to the open world )
-Then you say that KievenRus broke in to two countrys ( wich is alredy so wrong ), then yous say that they are grand duchy of Moscow and grand duchy of Lithuania ( of wich both is wrong as the GDM formed way latter then the colaps of KievenRus, and GDL wich had nothing to do with KievenRus, not even having it's teritorys controled by KievnRus and not being slavic )
-Then you say that PLC formed only Ukriane and Belarus ( wich i mean, you don't nead to be a mastermind to know that it's wrong ).
So over all you explanation of Belarusian history is:
-Slavic (belarusian) tribes
-Then Polotsk forms
-Them it falls
-Then all of the history of Lithuania from the begining is Belarus
-Belarus is the grand duchy of LITHUANIA
-and thats it ( wich is 50% of all the history of Belarus ).
So over all out of history telling it's a 2-3/10
You talk as if Moscow isn't Rus
No, Red Rus isn't a 'historical name for Ukraine'. It is Red Russia. Ruthenia later. Far to the west of Borderland, which is what 'Ukraine' means.
Ruthenia is how catholic/latin authors referred to slavic lands of former Kievan Rus' empire. Orthodox slavic authors used the term Rus'
Sorry... you are so wrong in so many very important aspects. The placement of the original slavic tribes is not so small. The Rus' was just Rus' not Kievian Rus'. Its principalities and Republics later continue to recognise themselfs as part of the old Rus'. Novgorod was never subjected of the Golden Horde. You forgot to explaine what made the orthodox principalities where now is Belaruss to unite with the Catholics that connected to the Baltic sea and Novgorod didn't. The center of the Lithuania Duchy was the orthodox Rus's but they lost influence with time, even let go of it's orthodoxy and Poland took over. Novgorod like Lithuania never claimed to be the only sucessor of the Rus's but Vladimir and the Principality of Halychian Rus did. The metropolit of Kiev exiled itself in Vladimir and later to Moscow, from Moscow there was the spiritial claim to be the sucessor of the Kiev Orthodoxy. On the west the Principality of Halychian Rus, also never part of the Golden Hold claimed to be the sucessor state of the Rus' and ask for regonition from the western christian states, ending up to loose its religious independence becoming catholic too. Rus' was translatet into greek as Russia. The Principality of Halychian Rus' started to write it in Latin, as Rex Russiae. Has the Principality of Halychian Rus and the old Orthodox Principalites in the Lithuania Duchy become Catholic and absorved into Poland, Moscow extended its power not just as the center of the Orthodoxy of the old Rus's but as it political sucessor as wel. Russins, Ukranians, Belarussians and Russians are all descendents of the Rus'.
Well put together with a lot of information. Like with any other historical subject some will agree and others will not.
Many of the historical maps shown were forgeries, false de jure claims. It's hard to know for sure, so much deception and rewriting of history and borders during USSR's reign.
There is official mainstream approved history and it does not follow this pseudo-history Belarussian bullshit :)
It always seems to me that belarusian and lithuanian hoistory is the most arguable historical thing
So now you want to be Lithuanians?
You were Rhutenians, Litwin's, then Soviets after you became Belorussians . . . what next Chinese?
Who said they want to be Lithuanians? 😂
Who told you that? We had a common history, that's all. We have no claims to the Lithuanians, We are not like Moscovites. Calm down, don't worry. By the way, the Moscovites called my ancestors Lithuania, for them there was no difference, and the Moscovites went to us with raids much more often than to you.Look at the maps from the times of Ivan the Terrible and you will understand why, so when my ancestors fought for their land, they also defended yours. No offense, you need to know the history.
Belarusian people never were Ruthenians. Ruthenians are only Ukrainians.
@@vitaliygalganets I'd say otherwise. They spoke Ruthenian as well.
@@Rolando_Cueva They are wannabies.
TL DR version: imagine if native Americans would begin claiming that the Founding Fathers were in fact natives. This is the video in a nutshell.
Maps are a irrelevant source, as very few of them were created locally, and usually were drawn somewhere in Amsterdam from sketches and other sources.
There is a circular argument about Lithuanians and Samogitians, excluding the most important part - religion. If one would accept the argument in the video - Kiev Rus' and Orthodoxy influenced "Lithuanians" somehow become pagans, with pagan rulers of Lithuania who did pretty well in Northern Crusades, so what was that about? You cannot have a cake and eat it - either these synthetic Lithuanians (Ruthenians) were pagan.
And generally there is a mistake of trying to draw ethic maps of medieval and Early Modern Era as stable. We now from research that both the Deluge and the Plague of 1709-1711 significantly affected the ethnic boundaries and the recently emptied villaged were recolonised in part by people from the Eastern part of the state. In XIX century there was a shift in national identity around Vilnius due to social status the Polish identity provided, where socially upwardly mobile people switched their identity to Polish from Ruthenian and Lithuanian (beginings of first mass schooling did also have an effect). These shifts were begining to reverse with mass politics and creation of Lithuanian and Belarusian national liberation movements. Brothers could choose to be of different nationalities (Narutowicz, the President of Poland and his Brother, a Founding Member of Lithuanian Council, also Ivanauskas family (famous biologist, with brothers who chose identification as Belarusian and Polish).
Belarus was occupied by Lithuanian dukes, peace
may I have at least several battles of this "occupation" ?
occupied? bruh. we're literally had good relationships slavs and balts at that times what the fuck is occupied? occupied is when there is genocide, torture etc
Ахахах
Thanks for the video. In Spanish we say Bielorrusia or an unofficial (Belarús)
Let me pretend for a second that I am outraged at your lower-germanisch joke. Because actually Dutch is considered to be part of the central German dialects, i.e. the dialects of the Ruhr-Rhine area.
Low German dialects are actually spoken in the Netherlands, in the north east closer to the border with the German state of Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen in German) and called Nedersaksisch in the Netherlands, but it is considered a different language from Dutch.
I subscribed.
I want the next videos.
Thanks for the video! Which language did people of Lithuania speak during all those times?
Of the Grand Duchy or today's Lithuania? Because we believe it's not completely the same. The Charter of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was in old Belarusian.
@@MinskGuide The Grand Duchy
@@MinskGuide How many people were literate those times? Even not everyone of noble descend could read and write then. So how do you know what language they spoke between themselves? Well indirect source could be chronicles of the given period, and (surprise surprise) place names and names of rivers and lakes.
@@MinskGuide Good luck reading what European atlases say under LITHVANICA:
i.imgur.com/PRNVEW0.jpg
Old Belarusian
Belarusians are become russianized Lithuanians. That is why you are called Belarusians or White Rus.
Nope. Look at polatsk, it was Belarusian. Belarusian have baltic roots but are not Lithuanians. Krivchi were Slavs that lived on Belarusian lands. Balts lived in Belarus but were assimilated before Grand duchy of Lithuania even began.
and if you watch the video, you would know why Belarus is called Belarus
Nooooo. Grodno region only. Dont mix rus with Lithuanians
This is fantastic. You explain so much here. Thank you!
This is wrong
Well done
And you mixing up with one region of samagodia it was core of Lithuania kingdom in 13 century Vytautas the grate (that Vytis on the Lithuanian flag or as well old Belarus flag) sent a letter to sigismund holly Roman emperor describing Samgadia as core of duchy of Lithuania that map its as moast maps its inaccurate that’s how they was drawing maps that time it’s appeared in metrics and it was known and it appeared on maps that times Belarus didn’t existed
"Where we have Lithuania we have Belarus and where we have Samogitia we have Lithuania" - that is misleading and dishonest! Overlay the maps to scale and you see that historical Samogitia makes up a only 1/3 of present day Lithuania.
Also, if you look at earlier maps (12th or 13th Centuries), most of Lithuania is in present day Lithuania with only its' minor parts being found in the border region in modern day south western Belarus territory, where Lithuanian ( Baltic) language was primarily spoken in those areas until 16th Century with the rest of Belarus territory being a mix between between Lithuanian and Slavic languages as far as Orsha.
Ето какой то позор. Уже и на английском начали свои басни распростронять? Я понимаю, когда нет способности творить свою историю, приходится ее сочинять. Пиходится административную и етническую ситуацию 19 перекладывать на карту 13 века. Ой как удобно. Ковенская губерния вдруг стала жамойтией 13 века. Каунас ни когда не входил в Жемойтское воеводство. А до 17 века вокруг Вилнюса , Ашмян, Лиды ни каких белорусов небыло. Ситация начала менятся после "Потопа" и череды епидемий, когда в запустевшые дворцы начали переселять крестиян и крепостных из глубины Алба Русия. Как может Новогрудок являтся центром Литвы, йесли он приграничный городок. Нет даже намека на то, что Миндауг когда либо его посещал. Там сидел второстепенный князь Войшалк, резал по несколько православных в день и вдруг решил "Важнейшый центральный" город державы подарить волынскому князю. Как у вас все ето в голове вяжется? Почему не показываеш карты, выпущены в самой Литве, где ясно обозначена Исконная Литва (Lituania Propria) и Литовская Русь. А также первая столица Литвы. Нпрмр карта Радивила Сиротки? Слабо? Рушется все ваши мифы?
žamoitis uspakoitis. Литва находится на территории Беларуси, в Новогрудке создали Великое княжество. Единственная часть Литвы, которую отдал Сталин вам, жамойтам, город Вильня. Этим вы подкрепили свои сказки будто вы не жамойты, а литвины. Нашему гербу Погоня 700 лет. Вы его украли в 19 веке и придумали название "Витис". Ваш настоящий герб - Медведь. При создании вашего государства шли споры назваться ли Жамойтией, но решили что беларусам конец, поэтому выгоднее украсть нашу историю и дурить весь мир.
@@Name-t9fbd "в Новогрудке создали Великое княжество"- Как, кто и когда создал в Новогрудке ВКЛ? Расскажи:)
@@druginys В Новогрудрке в 1253 году Миндовг от имени папы римского был коронован королём Литвы.
@@Name-t9fbd Из каких источников вы щерпаете сию чепуху? и вообще, укажи мне какой либо источник 13,14 ну или хотя бы 15 веков, где намекается что Миндауг хотя бы мимо Новогрудка проезжал?
Thanks for video, and greetings from Belarus
mistake,dear licvinists.These "belarusian" lands in your maps called not Lithvaniae , but Magni Dvcatvs Litvaniae.And in Shenk's map when you talking about "Lithuania today" it's only Samogithian region :)))) where is Aukstota with Kowo,Troki,Vilna ? My dear pravoslavic litvins you are ruthenian krivichi ,don't be afraid of that ;)
Выдатнае відэа, але трэба зрабіць яшчэ на мове, бо шмат беларусаў не ведаюць і паловы таго што тут тлумачыцца.
Olgerd, this guy must be pretty metal to defeat mongols.
*Algirdas. Its a lithuanian name
So, Belarus is Russian today and this is what matters. Probably they will be absorbed into Russia at a later point.
watching 20 minute video and still not getting it has to be whole ass lvl of dumb
It is called external digestion - like spiders do. Russia injects fluids of Ruski Mir into a body of Belarus and after it sucks the fermented fluids out of it. Meanwhile Belorussians keeping on cosplaying "ancient Lithuanians".
Wiz isn't "viz" rather pronounced as "wits" or "hwits" since this is middle high German, or middle low German, not Modern day German.
You are brethren people, stop denying
Denying what?
And as an accused 😢😢😢Chinese I do feel bad when the avars, Huns and Mongols went west because the Chinese kicked them out and causing all the troubles in Europe. 😢😢😢
From this perspective I'd like to see origins of Russia and who they are historically different from the Rus ruthenians.