@@merlusillo Nobody on this planet is more aggressive than english speaking people. Ask to native people in Australia, America or try to investigate about how they do behave on holydays when they escape from their nice locations to visit civil countries...
less than 10% of european population is muslim, so not true at all. also muslims are getting less religious with every generation they live in the west ^^ in 40 years islam in europe will go the way of christianity, only used for ceremonial purposes.
there are a lot of fake informations. This video is made by German nationalist. Brits where occupied by Vikings not by Germans. Lower Silesia in Poland was germanized fully 500 years later than this guy showed. False information than Germans where in Poland and Czechia before Slavs. This area was settled by Celts when Slavs came. In Czechia and South Poland Slavs mixed with Celts.
@@Rolando95 seems that in the map it's showed that Angles were continental germans and about that I agree. About lower Silesia, yeah it was *fully* germanized 500 years later and it's literally what this guy shows. About the Celts in Poland I don't think we can actually discover that but it's generally known that the area was inhabited by germans in 1 AD
@@Rolando95yes and I don't know why he didn't separate English Dutch and German people's like he did with the Latins and even italians and friulians, meanwhile latins ethnicity and languege are more closely related to eachother than germanic.
Assuming that you equate ethnicity with language, I’ve found a few mistakes on your video: 1. The spread of German in Silesia is way too fast. German wasn’t a dominant language on most of the territory you marked in 1300. 2. Russinians? What is this? You mean the Rusyn people? I know it’s a difficult issue dating the separation of languages and ethnic groups but 1250 is way too early. They became distinct after centuries of Hungarian rule. 3. Polish language did not reach that far into Prussia in 1300. Significant Polish colonization started at the beginning of the 15th century. 4. Why are Masovians listed alongside Poles? 5. The border between Poles and East Slavs was not stationary from 700 as you present in the video. The modern easternmost reaches of Poland (Rzeszów, Przemyśl) were historicaly part of Red Ruthenia and they were only settled at the time of Casimir the Great from Lesser Poland and to some degree Masovia. (Fun fact: The older border between Poland and Ruthenia rather closely aligns with the Polish dialectal isogloss of mazuration. Some see that Ruthenian influence in that region reinforced the threeway distinction between Polish sibilants and caused them to resist the spread of mazuration, but the discussion is somewhat more complicated.) 6. Writing both Ruthenia and Rus on the map is like writing Germany and Deutschland. Rus’ is the native Slavic name for the entire East Slavdom as well as the mediaval state. Ruthenia is the Latinate rendering of this name, it means the same thing. The areas of Rus which became part of Poland-Lithuania (and Hungary) were referred to as Ruthenia for longer, because Muscovy adopted the Greek rendering Russia (Rossiya) instead. East Slavic languages are very close to each other and they were rather uniform (with the exception of the Old Novgorod language) for longer than, say, West Slavic (which has actually never been one language, the differences between Lechitic (Polish, Pomeranian, Polabian) and Czech-Slovak are ancient and date back to the Late Common Slavic period). From around the 12th and 13th century dialectal differentiation begins in East Slavic, with two centers of linguistic innovation in the south (Ukraine) and the center (Belarus-southern Russia), eventually causing the language to fragment into what we have today. 7. Not really a mistake but there used to be some curious Lithuanian language islands way south in western Belarus, might be cool to include them. Also I must say good work on including the last place where Polabian was spoken by the Drevians near Lüneburg, I must say I didn’t expect you to get this right. This definitely took you a ton of work so don’t feel too bad. I’m sure you’ll correct those the next time you do something related.
Have the poles ever lived in the area which is now Kaliningrad oblast? I know they lived in the southern/western part of Old Prussia which was much larger than this russian part we see today. However, baltic prussians, germans (since the 12th century), and lithuanians had inhabited the current area of Kaliningrad region. Most of that area, even part of todays Poland was called Lithuania Minor. In the 18th century, many lithuanians died during the plague, and were replaced by germans from Austria. Lithuanians still dominated the northern part of region until the end of wwII. It was a main center of lithuanian language and culture (alongside neighboring Sūduva region), when lithuanian was banned in moskovian empire. But on this map I see it was ethnic german/polish land from the start of 15th century...
so on this map I see Kaliningrad oblast of Russia was entirely ethnic german/polish land from 15th century forward... Even baltic prussians were not extinct at the time, not to mention lithuanians. They lived there up until wwII. Also Northeastern part of Poland was originally lithuanian/baltic, even today there is lithuanian majority in small parts of the region, and they even have some official local status. But this map just shows ethnic line by current 1920 LT-PL state border line already in 13th century when it was ethnic baltic sudovian/lith land, part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Well, everyone always wants to erase us from history. We're used to it. Even on those fake ethnic maps, where half of ethnic Lithuania and our capital are always marked as polish/russian. Now, with the start of the war, monuments of Lithuanian writers are being taken away in Tilžė (Tilsit, or Sovetsk, Kaliningrad region), and the last Lithuanian schools are being closed in Belarus in September. Anyway. About Koeningsberg.. Sadly it Illegally became part of russia, and now it's naZi ruSSian military missile base in the middle of Europe. This time we may not survive if the ruskie come..
@@kiauraskaminas8038 Yes, that is also incorrect on the video. You're completely right, I just forgot to mention it in my comment. Poles were never indigenous in the current Kaliningrad Oblast, maybe some settlers in very small numbers or some burgher immigration to Königsberg, as it was our vassal after all. But definitely doesn't justify making it Polish on the map. And you're also right about the northeasternmost part of our country being historical Lithuania (Sejny etc.).
@@kiauraskaminas8038 Also very interesting are the possible linguistic traces of the Yotvingians in western Belarus. It seems that even some grammatical suffixes might have been borrowed into the local Slavic dialects. I have a research paper by Kuraszkiewicz on the topic, but I have yet to read it.
yea i have heard that western belarusian dialects have features of lithuanian. I don't know about yotvingian elements on belarusian, but i've recently read some article about local lithuanian dialects of Lazdūnai (if I remember corectly) in Belarus had some features of yotvingians and even prussians, when researchers talked with locals in some period of 1970s or 80s. There were still many villages around the place full of lithuanian speakers (despite the fact that in official soviet cencus made at similar time, it was... litarally 1 lithuanian woman in the area, and according this video the whole Belarus are slavic from the year 1600, which is nonsence in my personal opinion..), worth mentioning they don't prounounce 't' and 'd' sound as 'ts' and 'dz' as other liths in BY and southeastern LT which was very interesting for researchers. Also they found many archaic features non existing in modern LT. Later it was forbidden by soviet authorities for scholars or linguist to go to Belarus from LT even to speak to local people. I can only gues why, but at least for me its obvious.
Ethnicity and language are often paired but not always. This is especially true in the past. For example, we can be reasonably certain that if you were from ancient Greece and spoke Greek that you considered yourself a Greek and so did those around you. However, today things have become more muddied. For instance, you may live in America and speak English but be ethnically African.
@@constantinuslefug2874 It is confusing to me the more I think about it. Ethnically you can be French and your nationality/language French, it seems the same for most European countries. Should there not be sub groups for ethnicities? As an example, in France you can take two caucasian French people, would their ethnicity be French or would it there be varying degrees of "sub-ethnicities"?
@@BXC1990 I don't quite follow. Assuming that these two Caucasian parents are ethnically French, the child would also be French. Now, perhaps these two Caucasian parents are actually a Danish mother and a Welsh father living in France and speaking French. Their son is raised speaking only French. Is he French? Or Danish? Or Welsh? Well, ethnos is not like DNA. It is an organic, communal thing that is defined by both the individual and the community. If our French community judges all Caucasians who speak French to be French and our hypothetical child considers himself French, then ethnically he would be French and we could not prove otherwise without conducting a genetic study. That's what's so fascinating about heritage. It is both absolutely real while also being difficult to define.
“Romance people/latin people” lol. It is a language group, not an ethnicity. The Iberic peninsula has Iberic ethnicity ( Basque, Galician, Castilian, and Catalan too), Italy has lost its ethnicity from Roman age and are a mixed genetic bunch.
The Latins (Latin: Latinus (m.), Latina (f.), Latini (m. pl.)), sometimes known as the Latials[1] or Latians, were an Italic tribe which included the early inhabitants of the city of Rome (see Roman people). From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium (in Latin Latium vetus), that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 km (62 mi) southeast of Rome. Following the Roman expansion, the Latins spread into the Latium adiectum, inhabited by Osco-Umbrian peoples.
@@maiorproposita9957 that isn’t the modern Latin group. The Latin were fused into the romans. The modern Latin group are “Latin descending languages speaking populations”, the Latin derives from the Latin language. The two Latins only have the word in common
@@maiorproposita9957 the Latins in Europe descended from the Romans, yes. Romans loved to mingle with differe cultures. But that’s not it. Regarding Sicilians and Sardinians they are obviously connected to ancient Romans, but even to Iberic people (Spain) and the moors as they were under them for a period of time. They also are connected to Northern Africa. In northern Italy they are connected more to Celtic, Gaelic and Slavic tribes. Regarding ethnicity ancient romans were a mixed genetic bunch. Modern studies confirmed that Italians are too with a 97% identical to ancient romans. The further you go from Rome the less this perceptual becomes: 95% in Sicily or Lombardy and 3% in Romania. Current Spain has relations to ancient romans too, but they have more to the Iberic people and other Iberic peninsula ethnic groups. A Spanish guy is both part of the Latin and the Iberic (randomly picked) group. One is a language group and the other is the ethnicity. Even if romans mingled with all types of people it doesn’t mean everyone is the same. They mingled with ancient Egyptians too, but they are neither part of the language groups and not the ethnic group as they share too little with the romans. Turks too, when they conquered Anatolia they mingled with the ancient people living there. If the ancient people mingled with romans and had a somewhat 7% of romans blood, that was diluted when they mingled with the Turks. In fact modern Turks in Anatolia share only a 0,7% of genetics with romans. They are neither part of the ethnicity nor the language group.
The Germanic language group was close to extermination but recovered and ended up with a language in it’s ranks that would spread all over the world 🏴
You can show that Turkey is divided ethnically, but are you saying that Europeans are not divided? This must be some kind of joke. Europe is already a combination of many ethnic groups. Okay, you separate this with maps, but it is not enough. You have to explain this by dividing the segments and ethnic races within the map, just like Turkey. This is cruel because
@user-zg6mm1vr4b that is a lie. Poland was not occupying territories around Lviv. They were held by Poland legally, in accordance with international law. Stop lying. Anyway, you really claim that the border from 1945 is exactly the same as Eastern border of Poland in middle ages? Funny.
@@eqramer Stalin drew the border along the "Curzon line". Lord Curzon was the British Foreign Secretary who proposed the border between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1920. Then the Poles seized the lands of Western Ukraine and Belarus. But in 1939 Poland was again divided by the Russians and Germans, who agreed to the border along the "Curzon line". She also remained after the end of the 2nd World War. To compensate the Poles, Stalin cut off the lands of East Prussia to them, which Poland prefers not to remember.
@user-oc3im9fe9q Curzon line does not cover the section of border between Poland ans Ukraine in Galicia section! and believe me, yes Poles do remember that Stalin took away half of Polish prewar territory and he gave Poland only half of its equivalent from land that he stole from Germany - not from good heart (he was a beast worse than Hitler) but to catch Poles into the trap - he hoped that Poles fearing German revange would be also tied up with Soviet persecutors.
@@eqramer Make no mistake, in Russia it is known that there were two versions of the "Curzon line". Option "A" with the transfer of Lviv to Ukraine and option "B", with its abandonment to Poland. The Poles, of course, do not remember the first option. Which is not surprising. However, even with Lviv, these were not "native Polish lands", since Lviv belonged to Austria-Hungary until 1818. Therefore, Stalin annexed lands ALREADY INHABITED by Belarusians and Ukrainians to Ukraine and Belarus. And if you are disgusted by Stalin's "gift" in the form of East German lands (with Danzig), then give them to Germany. I think it would be fair. And you can take the Lions away from your allies, the Ukrainians. The Russians will definitely not object to this! Figure it out for yourself, with these bestial Galicians.
Incorrect map. Before the Balkan Wars, there was a Turkish population in the Balkans. There is also a Turkish population in some Greek islands and Cyprus.
This is partly true but they were heavily heavily persecuted and continuously murdered for centuries under Turkish rule in a period known as Tourkoukratia
Albanians were not the majority in kosovo during the middle ages. The serbs were the majority until the 17th century when they migrated north under pressure from the turks. The albanians then moved in from north albania
Completely wrong.... Ethnicity is not official language... Eventhough because celt languages were used even after the Roman conquer of Europe. Beyond this, l In last Roman centuries legionars were scandinavian (or German if you prefer this word)
It's by far more complicated than that. Basically, I think the best method is to mix DNA's haplogroup + language + and that's maybe the most important ingredient and by far the most forgotten by universitarians READ ANCIENT HISTORIANS. From the Greeks to the pre-"enlightment" era, aka 1650. Chroniques, annales, everything is basically true even if false in some details. Thus, according to that, the germanophile school of history should be put at its rightful place : a lesser one. Neither Goths, Franks, Flemish, Austrians, Vandals and south and west actual germans are "germans" (nordic). Vast majority of western Europe belong genetically to R1b, which is NOT "Celtic" but GAUL. (use "celtic" for Gaul should be as stupid as using "Athenians" for Greeks). TLDR, actual Germany is a genetical mix between Gallic r1b in south and west, nordic I1 in north and slavic R1a in east. For Romania, Greece or Turkey, I think only a genious could resolve this bread of mistery and confusion))
They are germans. Scots are very different to the english, they were forced to speak english in countless wars and such. Austrians are literally bavarians that left bavaria and called their new country eastern realm. You can be Berliner and are German because of that. Franconian and German because of that. Bavarian and german because of that. With austrians its the exact same thing. The Austrian State simply isnt inside of germany. Its like saying that people from Manchester arent english anymore the second they leave the country as a city state (an example). The war in 1866 is called Bruderkrieg or Deutscher Krieg. "War between Brothers" and "German war" or "War between Germans". Austrians viewed themselves as germans for almost a thousand years. Swiss People are just germans, french, and italians (and some other romance/germanic groups) that formed a country between them. Nothing else. Up until the late 1900 they viewed themselves as ethnic germans. All this "we swiss/austrians are not germans" started after ww1 and ww2 respectively.
Moors doesn't make sense. The majority population was the muwallad (muslim romans) while sirian arabs where the elite and amazigh only start to have some impact after the almoravid invasión in the 12 th century.
2100 dont forget high levels of miscegenation between Europeans and non Europeans creating a new ethnic groups and mixed race popoulations much like that of mestizos and cape coloureds
This map has full of mistakes. The Anatolia was never Greek. Trojans, Lydians, Lycians were not speaking Greek language either. Their ethnicity is Hattic or Hittites. Hittites is a language belongs to Indo-European but definitely not Greek.
@@narekmargaryan4429 Not it is not, the Anatolian languages existed until 6th century locally. In addition, modern Y-DNA results how huge difference between the Anatolian vs Greek DNA pool. The Anatolian pool which are not coming from Turks are the results of ancient Hattic genes.
@@ipekfakeok7756 They were assimilated gradually: Lydian, Carian, Bythanian before AD, Phrygian,Cappadocian, Isaurian Galatian during 1-6th centuries.For this l reccomend you "History of Anatolian languages" "History of Phrygian language" and " History of Thracian languages", videos from Costas Melas.
@@ipekfakeok7756 Come on man I have west anatolian ancestry and I already know that Greeks from the mainland don't look much different from anatolian Greeks, because Greeks from Anatolia are still Hellenic
@@Edarnon_Brodie ,,Ethnicity - the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.'' ~Oxford Languages. ,,Ethnicity refers to the identification of a group based on a perceived cultural distinctiveness that makes the group into a “people.” This distinctiveness is believed to be expressed in language, music, values, art, styles, literature, family life, religion, ritual, food, naming, public life, and material culture'' ~Encyclopedia Britannica. What is your source?
Nothing mention for albanians before 1200- not even one word The term " Albanian " existed at middle age Many ancient Greek cities- Appolonia Epidamnos Antigonia etc existed in albania( Illyria back then )
the truth now that I realize the slaves have assimilated a lot of peoples, Gothic Burgundians Vandals Germans Turks and Romanized Illyrians and Thracians I would have liked to know what would have happened if those peoples had not been assimilated by the slaves
@@dcoulter2685 Now that the option to translate comments from English to Spanish is activated again, I will only say that you say it probably will not happen since the Balkans are a very unpopulated region for their territory Besides that they are probably like the Albanians only that they would not be Muslims that would be the only difference xd
@@messier8888 fair point. Although the Balkans were only underpopulated because the Huns ravaged and genocide the population leaving the land empty for Slavic expansion. Maybe the Illyrians would have prevented that…
Inaccurate, for example people in Brittany are French.. they're not less French or more Celtic. Actually Britanny is not the most Celtic region of France, Auvergne is more Celtic than Britanny, yet it's French. French englobs multiple older ethnicities, Celtic Gauls, Italic Romans, Germanic Franks, Celtic Brittons, Iberian Visigoths, etc..
While I agree with the claims of inaccuracy(namely the listing of everyone throughout time in modern scotland as 'scots') this comment is more so inaccurate. The Bretons are Celts, they are Brythonnic to be specific and migrated into the region during the migration era. They speak a Brythnonic language and continue the customs of their ancestors, in spite of French efforts of anti-provincialism (ethnic cleansing) from the minute to the intense, they are a distinct nationality from the French with more in common with the people of Cornwall and Wales than Paris. Up until the last decade, it was still legal in Brittany for French teachers to beat Breton students caught speaking their native Breton language. I recall one of my classmate's pen palls mentioning in one letter how they were smacked by their teacher for speaking their language(this was around 2006) instead of French.
In Spain, there is no Catalan group, basque are together with Navarran, galicia should be together with Asturians....BUT, all in all is the same people, together with Portuguese, and part of south France and Italy.
En el norte de España estan la etnia vasca,gallega y la catalana no son éticamente española como dicen algunos, supongo. In the north of Spain there are the Basque, Galician and Catalan ethnic groups, they are not ethically Spanish as some say, I suppose.
@@mawdyardie what about the immigration of people from other continents will destroy European culture? Because of the rapid aging of the native European population, immigration is necessary to prevent economic collapse (economies need young, working age people to prosper and grow). Besides that, I haven't seen anything that suggests the endangerment of European languages, music, art, etc. by immigration. Unless it's not the culture you're actually worried about?
It doesn't make sense to put "Friulians" and not other ethnicities of nowadays Italy like Venetians, Sicialian, Lombards, etc... you can't follow modern nationalism to define medieval ethnicities
Turkey is not true. You said "Armenian/Greek genocide" yeah i know propaganda about never happened Armenian genocide but Greek genocide? Yeah some fights happened in both Turkey and Greece (If you say this is a genocide well you need to say what happened to Turks living in Morea) in population exchange (you said this expulsion, i dont know this word much) but saying this is a genocide? Anti Turkic propaganda in west is really bad and poor and still successful, even UK (the country that makes genocide propagandas in WW1) doesnt recognize this and when you look reports of US generals you can easily understand this is a propaganda like this reports are far more after from "genocide" , 1910 Armenian population research (made by Armenian church) says there is only 1 million Armenian in all of eastern Anatolia but US reports says 1,5 million Armenians are "genocided", according to this all of Armenians are dead but he speaks about what happend to Armenians. It is obvious, really bad propaganda but successful because of poor western education system (dont try to deny this, americans dont even know Africa is a country or continent). You eat a lot of western propaganda but you dont really know Turkeys populations in today. You need to add little Kurdish population in some place and little Zaza population in another place. You need to make south eastern Anatolia a mix because populations are not fully Kurdish or not fully Turkish. But the worst part is you make Hatay a fully afro-asiatic? What? You really know nothing about Turkey.
Greeks were living in Minor Asia Pontos Anatolia from antique. Turks were invaders not natives Also turks in mainland Greece They invaded from east Asia. These genocides( turks did) against native people- Greeks Armenians Assyrians Kurds- are historian facts
We know all turkis massacres against ancient native people- arabs armenians kurds Greeks These civilizations mentioned by Greek and Persian ancient authors thousand of yrs before turkis nomadic groups arrived
If you say invaders you can say but you need to accept Englishs are also invaders both in Britain and in America, Greeks are also invaders (Anatolia was controlled by hittites and hittites are also invaders). But it is in past and now is different. We arent living in history. And spot this ww1 propagandas about never happened genocides. I show you source but you are just speaking this propaganda words. No there isnt any official genocide happend in Turkey or Ottoman Empire you need to show source but i already did it and proved it source about Armenian genocide is false. What happend? Armenians are relocated because they are supporting Russians and pillaging villages (of course you dont know this because you dont know anything, you are just speaking what they told you). Relocating is good? Obviously no. But it has reason and it isnt genocide. And what is it? 2 sided tragedy. Why am i telling this? You wont understand anyway. You will still speak "1.5 million armenian is genocidede!!!" and ignore the population count was made by Armenian Church shows there is only 1 million Armenian in Anatolia. You just know what they told you.
@@srd895 Hittites disappeared after 8th cen and do not appears in writing documents. After Alexander expansion to east anatolian people adopted Greek religion culture and language- dominator civilization from 4th cen bc untill 14th cen.- Greek cities names untill today as Anatolia too The difference is that uncivilizated nomadic groups invaded in regular civilizated states and destroyed it When Greeks expanded in Pontos M east Anatolia etc native people adopted everything by a superior civilization thousands yrs before turks Archaeological evidence- temples cities sculptures coins etc are undouptable facts
@@srd895 Armenians refered by ancient Greek authors from 14th cen bc- king Armenos was with Jason and Argonauts in Bosporus ( Georgia) trip 3300 yr before. Nomad invaders destroyed all these civilizations
many mistakes on Polish-German Border - Surely Lower Silesia wasn't fully germanized in 1300. Lower-Silesian dialect of Polish language existed there until 19 century.
We split up. We develop different habits. Our language changes slowly. We even write a book that contains OUR ultimate truth. Our language is slowly changing even more... But do you really not remember that we once had the same mother? that WE were the same? There is no them and they, there is only Us....
There were indo-european swedes in the norrland coastal region before sami ever set foot in Sweden. There's been indo-european burials that date to like 2000BC with non sami people in the regions you coloured as sami.
@SaxonThrashQueen Despite Haplogroup I1 being the most prevalent paternal haplogroup in Scandinavia the two runner ups are both R1a and R1b. Something else of note is that when comparing proto indo-european DNA with modern humans people around the baltic region, especially Scandinavia cluster really close to them, showing us that scandinavians are one of the most "pure" descendants of the corded ware culture. Also, I was talking about material culture in the post I made, the burials I was reffering to had skeletons of R1a haplogroups and was fashioned in an early indo-european way.
A sort of political historical cultural and linguistic map... it have nothing to do with ethnicities and groups. If you are intersted in ethnic groups, taxonomy and phenotype/genotype just search haplogroups, alleles od DNA and autosomal admixture.
"An ethnic group [...] is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area." - Wikipedia
the "Romanian" word was only invented at the end of the 19th century by French historians and leaders... The word "Romanian"was invented in France to name the different ethnic groups living in the territories of the principality of Wallachia and the principality of Moldavia in the end of 19th century.... how can the word "Romanian" appear on your map during the Middle Ages?
Ruthenians is not russians and we (ukranians) know, that we was ruthenians in 15-20 centuries. If we are translate this words in russian language, then it will be русины-Ruthenians, русские- Russians
@garilo7773 Oh and theres a difference between rusich and russki too now yeh? ruthenian was latin for russian. and rusyn is the way the western slavs pronounced russich. and u know where the word ukraine comes from. it means borderland in slavic in case u forgot. where do u get your history from? your politicians? you should turn your TV off and read some real history buddy 👍
Because Ethnicity is also Identity. With your logic, Dutch are also German and Czech and Slovak are also same ethnic group. Its often hard to difference ethnic groups
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 they are, both germanic and Slavic, of course they have different identities, but you cannot see a difference between a Spanish and Portuguese just by looking
@@thierryferreira4825 I can see differences between Germanic tribes, but the difference between Dutch and German is also because Monarchial borders like Spain and Portugal. But over the centuries, the Monarchial borders are also the identity borders and Ethnicity is also definited of identity and modern language
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 I don't think that language and ethnicity are always connected many times they are not this one is a good example, Portuguese and Galicians are literally the same people that got separated politically and developed their own similar cultures, but are of the same ethnicity.
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 how did u colour Kosovo as Albanian in history when it was fully Serbian, from there Serbian ethnicity was created, literally before 15th century there was not albanians there. By this map in Kosovo there weren't any Serbs but somehow Serb ethnicity emerged from who Albanians, this is to simplify for u what absurdity u made
"Spanish people" doesn't exist, Spain is formed by various ethnicities (and languages). In Asturias we are Asturian, Asturians didn't dissappear or become Castilian. And we have an Asturian language which is independent from Castilian. It makes no sense because we aren't and weren't part of Castile, the Kingdom of Leon existed, which had its own language, Leonese from which Asturian (and other languages such as Mirandese in Portugal) come from. Spain is all wrong and you ignored the ethnic groups of Iberia.
The Spanish people do exist. Spain is not made up by ethnic groups but regions. The Spaniards are a one-off race and ethnic group. The problem is that in the past 50 years politicians have made the people of each Spanish region believe that they are unique, different and incompatible with the other Spanish regions. Spain is the union of three kingdoms: Aragon, Castile and Navarre. The Principality of Asturias is a part of the Kingdom of Castile. The Asturian language is an almost non-existant century-old langague that nobody hardly speaks. The situation is the same in almost every European country with a certain size. There were originally several languages in every European country, but only some languages have survived. The difference is that unlike Spain, the other European countries don't spend the present thinking back upon the dead languages spoken one millennium ago.
@@karm3667 The people from Euskadi, Navarre, Catalonia and Andalusia are 100% different from the rest of Spain doesn't mean they deserve or need independence.
@@karm3667 Lies. You know nothing about Spain. During the 20th century Spanish politicians tried to create a false Spanish culture that's a mix of things from different regions, the Asturian language isn't non existant is spoken by 60% of Asturians and even those that don't speak it still are Asturian with their own culture. Read your history, Asturias was never part of the Kingdom of Castile. It was part of the Kingdom of Leon which eventually became part of the *Crown* of the Castile but still had its laws and customs just like Aragon. Ridiculous to say that a Basque and an Andalusian person are the same.
So....Polish pepople are slavized germans and batls in most Ukrainians, slavized turks,balts, iranic in most Swedes and Norways germanized fins in most Turks turkized greeks, thats why often looks white Russians are finnic people in most and turks
And what do Turks have to do with Russians? They did not live in Russia. The Finno-Ugrians, yes. Russians mixed with them. And there is quite a lot of Finnish substrate in the genome of Russians (genetics has proved this). And by the way, Estonians have a lot of Russian genes. But the Turks have nothing to do at all...
@@peterHarding-ml6rt I know, that's why I made the difference between German and Germanic. German and Luxembourgish refer to the presend day ethnicities, while germanic refers to the broader cultural and linguistic family. Just like you said Germanic isn't an ethnicity, but a type of ethnicity.
There are a lot of fake informations. This video is made by German nationalist. Brits where occupied by Vikings not by Germans. Lower Silesia in Poland was germanized fully 500 years later than this guy showed. False information than Germans where in Poland and Czechia before Slavs. This area was settled by Celts when Slavs came. In Czechia and South Poland Slavs mixed with Celts.
Boy you forgot Saxon and Anglo were a thing. Viking is not an ethnic group. Stop watching Netflix and go read some books made by mindfully people. For Poland I don’t know, I’ll check
Yet again even for Poland you don’t know…. With some quick research, although I found some different informations, it is agreed that from the 13th century (1200´s) Silesia Germanic. I won’t even bother checking is your last claim in right or wrong. Remember kid, best way to never be wrong in life is to shut the fuck up when you don’t know. It’s better to ask.
To sum it up Iranian: OG's Uralic: Doesn't know anyone at the party Slav: "How did they get so big?" Celt: Sudden feeling of depression caused by you getting pushed every time Greek: Why does Romance copy from me? Romance: Why don't Greek understand we are relatives? Basque: If I remain quiet, no one will know I am here- German: *m o u n t a i n a o u s t e r r a i n* Turkic: Attack people that has way more population than you, defeat them severely, get assimilated by them, and no one even knows you were Turkic before! (Bulgars, East & South Ukrainans, Crimeans) Afro-Asiatic: Oh land! Let's conquer! *has civil war and loses everything Albanian: Albania actually conquer the worl twice but Albani friendly countrie so they give land back to other countrys Baltic: Instead of killing soldiers, we should do that to ourselves instead!
That is false! Romanians until 1150-1200 lived south to the Danube, in the Balcanic Peninsula. There is no archaeological, historical, linguistical evidence of Romanian presence in todays Romania until 1150-1200. From 271 to 1200 in the teritory of Walachia and Moldavia lived Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Uzes, Cumans and Slavs, while in Transylvania Goths, Gepids, Huns, Avars, Slavs and Magyars. About the existence in these territories of these peoples are plenty of archeological and historical evidences, while there is no evidence of Romanians there until 1150-1200. For example where are the Gothic, Gepidic, Pecheneg loanwords in Romanian, if they supposedly, lived together hundreds of years? And why Romanian is filled with South Slavic and Albanian loan words? Because they lived in the Balkans! Or why, until the 17th century the language of the Romanian church was Slavonic, although in todays Romania no Slavic Church existed and the Slav church father (Cyrill and Methodios) never made missionary activity in the territory of Romania?
They arent all the same tho. I mean they are all european ethnicities but they have different admixtures. Like English ppl have a lot of brythonic heritage and east germans west slavic
Albanians came to Balkan in 1043 idk why do you show them before that,also on Kosovo they arrived in larger numbers in 18th century, population suvery from 1455 done by the ottomans show's that they make 0,23% of population of Kosovo and north Albania
According to my researches, Albanians are mentioned for the first time in the II th century AD as ”Albanoi ” for a tribe that lived in Albania, in the XI century AD, Albanians are mentioned as ”Arber” which is said to have evolved from ”Albanoi” they called themselves Arber, plus if Albanians camed to Balkans on the XI th century, there would be documents talking about population movement by them, however, there isn’t documents talking about Albanians coming to the Balkans at that time, which means that Albanians are Paleo-Balkanic like Greeks
@@haufjzo There is a document from 1043 that talks about the immigration of Albanians, in which it is said that they were brought from Sicily to participate in the civil war in the Eastern Roman Empire, and then they settled in the territory of what was then Serbia, and that is their first official mention, first the Albanians do not call themselves Albanians, it is a name that was only accepted in the 19th century, they are called "Scipeters", secondly, linguists have long established that Albanians have no connection with Illyrians, firstly, Albanians do not have words for fishing and See Fearing, and Illyrians are famous sailors, Albanians use borrowed words from another language for anything releted to sea, secondly, Latin words come to Albanian indirectly, Albanian historians have established that, the Illyrians were under Rome for 6th century and mostly spoke Latin. Have a nice day
Thats when you live in propaganda state like serbia and lern lies of litetatur of your ortodox church that does push genocid forward...you better respect your neighbur rather than hate....
This is so dumb. You use linguistic borders for Italy but while you actually put the true languages in Spain you just act like Italian was an actual language spoken by a nation for 1000 years...
The same thing happens with Germany, the German we all know is actually just a language standard that I think 3 centuries ago, just before that, the Germans speak different but similar languages. The German language has 3 variants High German Central German and Low German in the past these were independent languages. With the German unification of 1871, a language standard would be necessary so that they could be understood. The strange thing here is that Low German is more related to Dutch than to High German and Central German, the latter 2 are related, and much so since they separated not long ago.
Seeing the celtic culture slowly fading away breaks my heart
Celtic culture is a nonsense.
Islam is way better.
☠️@@caliberto5087
@@caliberto5087 why?
They dont respect women, they are agressive... Etc
@@merlusillo
Nobody on this planet is more aggressive than english speaking people.
Ask to native people in Australia, America or try to investigate about how they do behave on holydays when they escape from their nice locations to visit civil countries...
@@caliberto5087 yeah obviously going crazy on a holiday is worst than Stone women for not wear their burka
Europe 1AD: 👨🌾🇮🇹
Europe 100AD: 👨🌾🇮🇹
Europe 1000AD: 👷♂️🇩🇪✝️
Europe 2000AD: 👨💼🇪🇺✝️⚛️
Europe 2100AD: 👳♂️🧕☪️🕉️⚛️
Sad but true
@@morpheus4773so we must do something against this.
Europe 2045. 🏳️🌈 🤖👾
less than 10% of european population is muslim, so not true at all. also muslims are getting less religious with every generation they live in the west ^^ in 40 years islam in europe will go the way of christianity, only used for ceremonial purposes.
Interesting to see that there was a golden age of maximal expansion firstly for Celts, then Greeks, then Italics, then Germanics and finally Slavs
there are a lot of fake informations. This video is made by German nationalist. Brits where occupied by Vikings not by Germans. Lower Silesia in Poland was germanized fully 500 years later than this guy showed. False information than Germans where in Poland and Czechia before Slavs. This area was settled by Celts when Slavs came. In Czechia and South Poland Slavs mixed with Celts.
@@Rolando95 seems that in the map it's showed that Angles were continental germans and about that I agree.
About lower Silesia, yeah it was *fully* germanized 500 years later and it's literally what this guy shows.
About the Celts in Poland I don't think we can actually discover that but it's generally known that the area was inhabited by germans in 1 AD
@@Rolando95yes and I don't know why he didn't separate English Dutch and German people's like he did with the Latins and even italians and friulians, meanwhile latins ethnicity and languege are more closely related to eachother than germanic.
Europe in 1900 💂
Europe in 2020 🧑🔬
Europe in 2100 🧕
Pov 🇫🇷 France and 🇸🇪 Sweden 🇩🇪 Germany 😢😢 sick 🧕🏿🧕🏿🧕🏿☪️☪️☪️
@@smilingwomen3841
there are way more immigrants in englandistan
Kinda racist. Btw a lot of white European are muslims before immigration from other continents
not the good parts of europe@@Guerillalilla
@@GuerillalillaWhat are these?
Ethnicity ≠ Language
In most cases it is
@SaxonThrashQueen ratio
There are exceptions, but for the most part it is
Look at the legend. He made a special structure for people with different language and ethnicity
Fr
There are four types of Indo-Europeans in Asia: Anatolian, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Tocharian, of which the first and fourth have disappeared
Armenian is next on the chopping block
Aslında Anadolu insanı kaybolmadı , romalı oldular
Şimdi ise Türk ve Yunan genlerine karıştılar
А славяне?
I'm native Anatolian like mostly people in Turkey but they all Turkifed through İslam, my family not Muslim
@@maiorproposita9957how happy is the one who says l am aTurk.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk❤❤❤
Greetings from Finland ! ❤ Thank you for the video.
Uralic languages are dying :( (except Finnish and Estonian and Hungarian)
it's all wrong
I'm czech and seeing someone calling us "czechians" is really funny
Assuming that you equate ethnicity with language, I’ve found a few mistakes on your video:
1. The spread of German in Silesia is way too fast. German wasn’t a dominant language on most of the territory you marked in 1300.
2. Russinians? What is this? You mean the Rusyn people? I know it’s a difficult issue dating the separation of languages and ethnic groups but 1250 is way too early. They became distinct after centuries of Hungarian rule.
3. Polish language did not reach that far into Prussia in 1300. Significant Polish colonization started at the beginning of the 15th century.
4. Why are Masovians listed alongside Poles?
5. The border between Poles and East Slavs was not stationary from 700 as you present in the video. The modern easternmost reaches of Poland (Rzeszów, Przemyśl) were historicaly part of Red Ruthenia and they were only settled at the time of Casimir the Great from Lesser Poland and to some degree Masovia. (Fun fact: The older border between Poland and Ruthenia rather closely aligns with the Polish dialectal isogloss of mazuration. Some see that Ruthenian influence in that region reinforced the threeway distinction between Polish sibilants and caused them to resist the spread of mazuration, but the discussion is somewhat more complicated.)
6. Writing both Ruthenia and Rus on the map is like writing Germany and Deutschland. Rus’ is the native Slavic name for the entire East Slavdom as well as the mediaval state. Ruthenia is the Latinate rendering of this name, it means the same thing. The areas of Rus which became part of Poland-Lithuania (and Hungary) were referred to as Ruthenia for longer, because Muscovy adopted the Greek rendering Russia (Rossiya) instead. East Slavic languages are very close to each other and they were rather uniform (with the exception of the Old Novgorod language) for longer than, say, West Slavic (which has actually never been one language, the differences between Lechitic (Polish, Pomeranian, Polabian) and Czech-Slovak are ancient and date back to the Late Common Slavic period). From around the 12th and 13th century dialectal differentiation begins in East Slavic, with two centers of linguistic innovation in the south (Ukraine) and the center (Belarus-southern Russia), eventually causing the language to fragment into what we have today.
7. Not really a mistake but there used to be some curious Lithuanian language islands way south in western Belarus, might be cool to include them.
Also I must say good work on including the last place where Polabian was spoken by the Drevians near Lüneburg, I must say I didn’t expect you to get this right.
This definitely took you a ton of work so don’t feel too bad. I’m sure you’ll correct those the next time you do something related.
Have the poles ever lived in the area which is now Kaliningrad oblast? I know they lived in the southern/western part of Old Prussia which was much larger than this russian part we see today. However, baltic prussians, germans (since the 12th century), and lithuanians had inhabited the current area of Kaliningrad region. Most of that area, even part of todays Poland was called Lithuania Minor. In the 18th century, many lithuanians died during the plague, and were replaced by germans from Austria. Lithuanians still dominated the northern part of region until the end of wwII. It was a main center of lithuanian language and culture (alongside neighboring Sūduva region), when lithuanian was banned in moskovian empire. But on this map I see it was ethnic german/polish land from the start of 15th century...
so on this map I see Kaliningrad oblast of Russia was entirely ethnic german/polish land from 15th century forward... Even baltic prussians were not extinct at the time, not to mention lithuanians. They lived there up until wwII. Also Northeastern part of Poland was originally lithuanian/baltic, even today there is lithuanian majority in small parts of the region, and they even have some official local status. But this map just shows ethnic line by current 1920 LT-PL state border line already in 13th century when it was ethnic baltic sudovian/lith land, part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Well, everyone always wants to erase us from history. We're used to it. Even on those fake ethnic maps, where half of ethnic Lithuania and our capital are always marked as polish/russian. Now, with the start of the war, monuments of Lithuanian writers are being taken away in Tilžė (Tilsit, or Sovetsk, Kaliningrad region), and the last Lithuanian schools are being closed in Belarus in September. Anyway. About Koeningsberg.. Sadly it Illegally became part of russia, and now it's naZi ruSSian military missile base in the middle of Europe. This time we may not survive if the ruskie come..
@@kiauraskaminas8038 Yes, that is also incorrect on the video. You're completely right, I just forgot to mention it in my comment. Poles were never indigenous in the current Kaliningrad Oblast, maybe some settlers in very small numbers or some burgher immigration to Königsberg, as it was our vassal after all. But definitely doesn't justify making it Polish on the map. And you're also right about the northeasternmost part of our country being historical Lithuania (Sejny etc.).
@@kiauraskaminas8038 Also very interesting are the possible linguistic traces of the Yotvingians in western Belarus. It seems that even some grammatical suffixes might have been borrowed into the local Slavic dialects. I have a research paper by Kuraszkiewicz on the topic, but I have yet to read it.
yea i have heard that western belarusian dialects have features of lithuanian. I don't know about yotvingian elements on belarusian, but i've recently read some article about local lithuanian dialects of Lazdūnai (if I remember corectly) in Belarus had some features of yotvingians and even prussians, when researchers talked with locals in some period of 1970s or 80s. There were still many villages around the place full of lithuanian speakers (despite the fact that in official soviet cencus made at similar time, it was... litarally 1 lithuanian woman in the area, and according this video the whole Belarus are slavic from the year 1600, which is nonsence in my personal opinion..), worth mentioning they don't prounounce 't' and 'd' sound as 'ts' and 'dz' as other liths in BY and southeastern LT which was very interesting for researchers. Also they found many archaic features non existing in modern LT. Later it was forbidden by soviet authorities for scholars or linguist to go to Belarus from LT even to speak to local people. I can only gues why, but at least for me its obvious.
Moksha is a subethnic group of Mordovians. The western limit of their location is much further east than shown on the map.
Bro made a linguistical map and made it pass like an ethnic one💀🙏🏻
Oh really saddd the 2100 😔
Non.
Croats firstly migrated from The Donbas to The Northern Carpathians/Moravia/Slovakia and then in the late 500s started to migrate onto the Balkans.
Croats actually never migrated, says new history.
Wait, so does this mean that nationality/language can be interchanged with ethnicity?
Ethnicity and language are often paired but not always. This is especially true in the past.
For example, we can be reasonably certain that if you were from ancient Greece and spoke Greek that you considered yourself a Greek and so did those around you.
However, today things have become more muddied. For instance, you may live in America and speak English but be ethnically African.
@@constantinuslefug2874 It is confusing to me the more I think about it. Ethnically you can be French and your nationality/language French, it seems the same for most European countries. Should there not be sub groups for ethnicities? As an example, in France you can take two caucasian French people, would their ethnicity be French or would it there be varying degrees of "sub-ethnicities"?
@@BXC1990 I don't quite follow. Assuming that these two Caucasian parents are ethnically French, the child would also be French.
Now, perhaps these two Caucasian parents are actually a Danish mother and a Welsh father living in France and speaking French.
Their son is raised speaking only French. Is he French? Or Danish? Or Welsh?
Well, ethnos is not like DNA. It is an organic, communal thing that is defined by both the individual and the community. If our French community judges all Caucasians who speak French to be French and our hypothetical child considers himself French, then ethnically he would be French and we could not prove otherwise without conducting a genetic study. That's what's so fascinating about heritage. It is both absolutely real while also being difficult to define.
“Romance people/latin people” lol. It is a language group, not an ethnicity. The Iberic peninsula has Iberic ethnicity ( Basque, Galician, Castilian, and Catalan too), Italy has lost its ethnicity from Roman age and are a mixed genetic bunch.
Interesting video, where did you get this map from?
self-made
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 xd
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247the timeline was also selfmade as i see😂
Me seeing the Slow genocide of Greeks:- 😡😡
Me seeing the deportation of Germans:- 😭😭😭😭🥶🥶🥶😱😱😱😨😨😨😨😰😰😰😰🫣🫣🫣🫣🫣
As a Czech, it is my favorite part of history 😀finally same as before year 1200
If you're talking about greeks in ww1, they were the attackers
Greetings from western Poland.
@@Some112345678910 WTF!
@@sohambandyopadhyayyoutube problem? :D
I really hope it doesn’t end up that way in 2100
Good aside from the nightmare scenario at the end
Tu baragouines quoi toi ?
How can Rugians disappear from the map ?
I have a question please are the bulgarians slavs ?
What ethnicity did the Romance speaking people had ?
Basque
The Latins (Latin: Latinus (m.), Latina (f.), Latini (m. pl.)), sometimes known as the Latials[1] or Latians, were an Italic tribe which included the early inhabitants of the city of Rome (see Roman people). From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium (in Latin Latium vetus), that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 km (62 mi) southeast of Rome. Following the Roman expansion, the Latins spread into the Latium adiectum, inhabited by Osco-Umbrian peoples.
@@maiorproposita9957 that isn’t the modern Latin group. The Latin were fused into the romans. The modern Latin group are “Latin descending languages speaking populations”, the Latin derives from the Latin language. The two Latins only have the word in common
@@mr.archivity Yes, but the Latins in Europe are descended from the Romans. Especially Sardinians and Sicilians are the closest people to the Romans.
@@maiorproposita9957 the Latins in Europe descended from the Romans, yes. Romans loved to mingle with differe cultures. But that’s not it. Regarding Sicilians and Sardinians they are obviously connected to ancient Romans, but even to Iberic people (Spain) and the moors as they were under them for a period of time. They also are connected to Northern Africa. In northern Italy they are connected more to Celtic, Gaelic and Slavic tribes.
Regarding ethnicity ancient romans were a mixed genetic bunch. Modern studies confirmed that Italians are too with a 97% identical to ancient romans. The further you go from Rome the less this perceptual becomes: 95% in Sicily or Lombardy and 3% in Romania.
Current Spain has relations to ancient romans too, but they have more to the Iberic people and other Iberic peninsula ethnic groups.
A Spanish guy is both part of the Latin and the Iberic (randomly picked) group. One is a language group and the other is the ethnicity.
Even if romans mingled with all types of people it doesn’t mean everyone is the same. They mingled with ancient Egyptians too, but they are neither part of the language groups and not the ethnic group as they share too little with the romans. Turks too, when they conquered Anatolia they mingled with the ancient people living there. If the ancient people mingled with romans and had a somewhat 7% of romans blood, that was diluted when they mingled with the Turks. In fact modern Turks in Anatolia share only a 0,7% of genetics with romans. They are neither part of the ethnicity nor the language group.
Alsace-Lorraine beeing german actually hasn't changed since the last centuries
They don't speak German anymore. And genetically Germans and French are still extremely similar.
@@biggibbs4678 more than 90% of the fucking region still speaks german bro
@@Masterchief_Titosource?
@@mybodyisamachine I made it the f up
They speak Elsässer Dytsch, not German and not 90% of them do
The Germanic language group was close to extermination but recovered and ended up with a language in it’s ranks that would spread all over the world 🏴
You can show that Turkey is divided ethnically, but are you saying that Europeans are not divided? This must be some kind of joke. Europe is already a combination of many ethnic groups. Okay, you separate this with maps, but it is not enough. You have to explain this by dividing the segments and ethnic races within the map, just like Turkey. This is cruel because
It's an intentional move. As you can see, in 1925 they write down (socalled) greek/armenian genocide ...
@@laikveataturkcu is this a lie ?
@@albania881 Yes...
@@laikveataturkcu normally only turks call this a lie
It's a bit strange that the borders of the Albanian population don't change, plus I think they're not correct
nothing was correct in this video
Don't you see its changed ?
@@albania881 time?
@@aljosaorevic9077 te qisha nanen dhe motren ne beograd
@@aljosaorevic9077 what do you mean
it is interesting that Eastern border of Poland drawn up by Stalin existed in the exactly same shape throughout all middle ages!
Because Stalin did not draw the Polish border. He just returned the Ukrainian lands occupied by Poland to Ukraine
@user-zg6mm1vr4b that is a lie. Poland was not occupying territories around Lviv. They were held by Poland legally, in accordance with international law. Stop lying. Anyway, you really claim that the border from 1945 is exactly the same as Eastern border of Poland in middle ages? Funny.
@@eqramer Stalin drew the border along the "Curzon line". Lord Curzon was the British Foreign Secretary who proposed the border between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1920. Then the Poles seized the lands of Western Ukraine and Belarus. But in 1939 Poland was again divided by the Russians and Germans, who agreed to the border along the "Curzon line". She also remained after the end of the 2nd World War. To compensate the Poles, Stalin cut off the lands of East Prussia to them, which Poland prefers not to remember.
@user-oc3im9fe9q Curzon line does not cover the section of border between Poland ans Ukraine in Galicia section! and believe me, yes Poles do remember that Stalin took away half of Polish prewar territory and he gave Poland only half of its equivalent from land that he stole from Germany - not from good heart (he was a beast worse than Hitler) but to catch Poles into the trap - he hoped that Poles fearing German revange would be also tied up with Soviet persecutors.
@@eqramer Make no mistake, in Russia it is known that there were two versions of the "Curzon line". Option "A" with the transfer of Lviv to Ukraine and option "B", with its abandonment to Poland. The Poles, of course, do not remember the first option. Which is not surprising. However, even with Lviv, these were not "native Polish lands", since Lviv belonged to Austria-Hungary until 1818. Therefore, Stalin annexed lands ALREADY INHABITED by Belarusians and Ukrainians to Ukraine and Belarus. And if you are disgusted by Stalin's "gift" in the form of East German lands (with Danzig), then give them to Germany. I think it would be fair. And you can take the Lions away from your allies, the Ukrainians. The Russians will definitely not object to this! Figure it out for yourself, with these bestial Galicians.
Outstanding work!
OCCITAN !!
Occitanie est une très belle région
Are you Occitano?
@@imperitalica Of course. De segur.
@@Vicomte.de.Carcassonne greetings from Italy!🇮🇹
Great work! Can you do "ethnic groups of the world 3000 bc-2022 ad" video? It would be wonderful, as there is no such topic on RUclips yet.
I can do it sometime, unfortunately it's not so easy to find map data af Ethnic groups 5000 years ago.
20% of the map of Europe is closed: Volga area and West Ural area
Incorrect map. Before the Balkan Wars, there was a Turkish population in the Balkans. There is also a Turkish population in some Greek islands and Cyprus.
What is ethnicity there isnt a universal explanation
The map has some pretty big inaccuracies, but good video nonetheless
Impressive. Very nice.
Are there Finns in Bosnia?
The greeks of anatolia didnt get replaced by turks, as the map implies, but they merged with them when the new rulers came a 1000 yrs ago.
This is partly true but they were heavily heavily persecuted and continuously murdered for centuries under Turkish rule in a period known as Tourkoukratia
Albanians were not the majority in kosovo during the middle ages. The serbs were the majority until the 17th century when they migrated north under pressure from the turks. The albanians then moved in from north albania
Ok
Completely wrong.... Ethnicity is not official language... Eventhough because celt languages were used even after the Roman conquer of Europe. Beyond this, l
In last Roman centuries legionars were scandinavian (or German if you prefer this word)
What happened to Avars? They just disappeared and Hungarians took their place?
Szekely from Romania they are descendants of the Avars. They were magyarized.
It's by far more complicated than that. Basically, I think the best method is to mix DNA's haplogroup + language + and that's maybe the most important ingredient and by far the most forgotten by universitarians READ ANCIENT HISTORIANS. From the Greeks to the pre-"enlightment" era, aka 1650. Chroniques, annales, everything is basically true even if false in some details.
Thus, according to that, the germanophile school of history should be put at its rightful place : a lesser one. Neither Goths, Franks, Flemish, Austrians, Vandals and south and west actual germans are "germans" (nordic). Vast majority of western Europe belong genetically to R1b, which is NOT "Celtic" but GAUL. (use "celtic" for Gaul should be as stupid as using "Athenians" for Greeks).
TLDR, actual Germany is a genetical mix between Gallic r1b in south and west, nordic I1 in north and slavic R1a in east.
For Romania, Greece or Turkey, I think only a genious could resolve this bread of mistery and confusion))
german speaking swiss and austrians are not germans, they just use German. its like saying Scottish are anglo-saxons.
So I wrote Austrian Germans and German Switzerlanders
They are germans. Scots are very different to the english, they were forced to speak english in countless wars and such. Austrians are literally bavarians that left bavaria and called their new country eastern realm. You can be Berliner and are German because of that. Franconian and German because of that. Bavarian and german because of that. With austrians its the exact same thing. The Austrian State simply isnt inside of germany. Its like saying that people from Manchester arent english anymore the second they leave the country as a city state (an example). The war in 1866 is called Bruderkrieg or Deutscher Krieg. "War between Brothers" and "German war" or "War between Germans". Austrians viewed themselves as germans for almost a thousand years.
Swiss People are just germans, french, and italians (and some other romance/germanic groups) that formed a country between them. Nothing else. Up until the late 1900 they viewed themselves as ethnic germans. All this "we swiss/austrians are not germans" started after ww1 and ww2 respectively.
Moors doesn't make sense. The majority population was the muwallad (muslim romans) while sirian arabs where the elite and amazigh only start to have some impact after the almoravid invasión in the 12 th century.
2100 dont forget high levels of miscegenation between Europeans and non Europeans creating a new ethnic groups and mixed race popoulations much like that of mestizos and cape coloureds
This map has full of mistakes. The Anatolia was never Greek. Trojans, Lydians, Lycians were not speaking Greek language either. Their ethnicity is Hattic or Hittites. Hittites is a language belongs to Indo-European but definitely not Greek.
Troyans, Lydians and Lycians had been assimilated by greeks before 1 ad.
@@narekmargaryan4429 Not it is not, the Anatolian languages existed until 6th century locally. In addition, modern Y-DNA results how huge difference between the Anatolian vs Greek DNA pool. The Anatolian pool which are not coming from Turks are the results of ancient Hattic genes.
@@ipekfakeok7756 They were assimilated gradually: Lydian, Carian, Bythanian before AD, Phrygian,Cappadocian, Isaurian Galatian during 1-6th centuries.For this l reccomend you "History of Anatolian languages" "History of Phrygian language" and " History of Thracian languages", videos from Costas Melas.
@@ipekfakeok7756 Come on man I have west anatolian ancestry and I already know that Greeks from the mainland don't look much different from anatolian Greeks, because Greeks from Anatolia are still Hellenic
@@HelloIdkwhatname Greeks and Syrians look like too. So this makes Syrians Greek? lol
Bruh ethnicity ≠ language. There are more britons than anglo saxons in Britain
They are not Britons but Anglo-Saxon. Language and culture determines it.
@@morvran9074 No, I mean genetically there are more native Britons than Saxon bullshit.
@@Edarnon_Brodie But genetics are not important in that case. Germans and Celts are Cultural-Linguistic groups same as Slavs for example.
@@morvran9074 Ethnicity = genetics. Culture = culture.
@@Edarnon_Brodie ,,Ethnicity - the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.'' ~Oxford Languages.
,,Ethnicity refers to the identification of a group based on a perceived cultural distinctiveness that makes the group into a “people.” This distinctiveness is believed to be expressed in language, music, values, art, styles, literature, family life, religion, ritual, food, naming, public life, and material culture'' ~Encyclopedia Britannica.
What is your source?
do you know moors were never a majority in iberian peninsula? grab a book
Go tell a valencian that he is catalan and see the reaction
go tell a not PP voter that his language is catalan and he implodes from self hate
Based on wich DNA ?
ethnicity is not genetic, its the different nationalities and peoples
No way we were Ruthenians until, like, 20-th centrury
Good video, though you should note that west Greece was inhabited by Albanians since antiquity.
Nothing mention for albanians before 1200- not even one word
The term " Albanian " existed at middle age
Many ancient Greek cities- Appolonia Epidamnos Antigonia etc existed in albania( Illyria back then )
@@elenilepouri7253 There was no such thing as Greek in antiquity. Greek is a recent term invented by Britain. Even your last name is not even Greek.
Wait a sec, is you last nme lepouri like lepuri aka rabbit?
Do the English consider themselves as Germanics?
Germano-Celts
Yes
the truth now that I realize the slaves have assimilated a lot of peoples, Gothic Burgundians Vandals Germans Turks and Romanized Illyrians and Thracians
I would have liked to know what would have happened if those peoples had not been assimilated by the slaves
Slaves? You mean slavs?
@@gtc239If I meant the Slavs sorry for the bad translation
@@gtc239 I speak Spanish I don't know English but everyone here speaks English so I use Google translate
I think the translator was wrong 😅
Albanians are Illyrians
He asked me what would have happened if the Dacian Thracians and Illirios had not been assimilated
They probably would form a united nation and make the Balkans a major European power like England or France instead of a backwater.
@@dcoulter2685 Now that the option to translate comments from English to Spanish is activated again, I will only say that you say it probably will not happen since the Balkans are a very unpopulated region for their territory
Besides that they are probably like the Albanians only that they would not be Muslims that would be the only difference xd
@@messier8888 fair point. Although the Balkans were only underpopulated because the Huns ravaged and genocide the population leaving the land empty for Slavic expansion. Maybe the Illyrians would have prevented that…
@@messier8888 Albanians are Illyrian, and also not all Albanians are muslim and barely any are practicing
@@cbv7207Wasn't it that Albania was a Muslim country?
Sami is completely wrong. It was mostly finns in northern Sweden Finland and Norway...
Why hungar changed team
Inaccurate, for example people in Brittany are French.. they're not less French or more Celtic. Actually Britanny is not the most Celtic region of France, Auvergne is more Celtic than Britanny, yet it's French.
French englobs multiple older ethnicities, Celtic Gauls, Italic Romans, Germanic Franks, Celtic Brittons, Iberian Visigoths, etc..
The people in Brittany are Celts, they have a Celtic language and culture and regional identity, unlike the people from Auvergne.
While I agree with the claims of inaccuracy(namely the listing of everyone throughout time in modern scotland as 'scots') this comment is more so inaccurate. The Bretons are Celts, they are Brythonnic to be specific and migrated into the region during the migration era. They speak a Brythnonic language and continue the customs of their ancestors, in spite of French efforts of anti-provincialism (ethnic cleansing) from the minute to the intense, they are a distinct nationality from the French with more in common with the people of Cornwall and Wales than Paris. Up until the last decade, it was still legal in Brittany for French teachers to beat Breton students caught speaking their native Breton language. I recall one of my classmate's pen palls mentioning in one letter how they were smacked by their teacher for speaking their language(this was around 2006) instead of French.
I am from lorraine and I think we are much more of the franks than romans or celts
You forgot Czechs in now(polish silezia)
In Spain, there is no Catalan group, basque are together with Navarran, galicia should be together with Asturians....BUT, all in all is the same people, together with Portuguese, and part of south France and Italy.
What IS in north Spain?
En el norte de España estan la etnia vasca,gallega y la catalana no son éticamente española como dicen algunos, supongo.
In the north of Spain there are the Basque, Galician and Catalan ethnic groups, they are not ethically Spanish as some say, I suppose.
2100 looks dystopian lmao
why?
@@lukasuhlenkamp9850 too many migrants
@@mawdyardie what's wrong with that?
@@lukasuhlenkamp9850 destruction of the Europe culture
@@mawdyardie what about the immigration of people from other continents will destroy European culture? Because of the rapid aging of the native European population, immigration is necessary to prevent economic collapse (economies need young, working age people to prosper and grow). Besides that, I haven't seen anything that suggests the endangerment of European languages, music, art, etc. by immigration. Unless it's not the culture you're actually worried about?
It doesn't make sense to put "Friulians" and not other ethnicities of nowadays Italy like Venetians, Sicialian, Lombards, etc... you can't follow modern nationalism to define medieval ethnicities
Turkey is not true. You said "Armenian/Greek genocide" yeah i know propaganda about never happened Armenian genocide but Greek genocide? Yeah some fights happened in both Turkey and Greece (If you say this is a genocide well you need to say what happened to Turks living in Morea) in population exchange (you said this expulsion, i dont know this word much) but saying this is a genocide? Anti Turkic propaganda in west is really bad and poor and still successful, even UK (the country that makes genocide propagandas in WW1) doesnt recognize this and when you look reports of US generals you can easily understand this is a propaganda like this reports are far more after from "genocide" , 1910 Armenian population research (made by Armenian church) says there is only 1 million Armenian in all of eastern Anatolia but US reports says 1,5 million Armenians are "genocided", according to this all of Armenians are dead but he speaks about what happend to Armenians. It is obvious, really bad propaganda but successful because of poor western education system (dont try to deny this, americans dont even know Africa is a country or continent).
You eat a lot of western propaganda but you dont really know Turkeys populations in today. You need to add little Kurdish population in some place and little Zaza population in another place. You need to make south eastern Anatolia a mix because populations are not fully Kurdish or not fully Turkish. But the worst part is you make Hatay a fully afro-asiatic? What? You really know nothing about Turkey.
Greeks were living in Minor Asia Pontos Anatolia from antique. Turks were invaders not natives
Also turks in mainland Greece
They invaded from east Asia. These genocides( turks did) against native people- Greeks Armenians Assyrians Kurds- are historian facts
We know all turkis massacres against ancient native people- arabs armenians kurds Greeks
These civilizations mentioned by Greek and Persian ancient authors thousand of yrs before turkis nomadic groups arrived
If you say invaders you can say but you need to accept Englishs are also invaders both in Britain and in America, Greeks are also invaders (Anatolia was controlled by hittites and hittites are also invaders). But it is in past and now is different. We arent living in history.
And spot this ww1 propagandas about never happened genocides. I show you source but you are just speaking this propaganda words. No there isnt any official genocide happend in Turkey or Ottoman Empire you need to show source but i already did it and proved it source about Armenian genocide is false.
What happend? Armenians are relocated because they are supporting Russians and pillaging villages (of course you dont know this because you dont know anything, you are just speaking what they told you). Relocating is good? Obviously no. But it has reason and it isnt genocide. And what is it? 2 sided tragedy.
Why am i telling this? You wont understand anyway. You will still speak "1.5 million armenian is genocidede!!!" and ignore the population count was made by Armenian Church shows there is only 1 million Armenian in Anatolia. You just know what they told you.
@@srd895 Hittites disappeared after 8th cen and do not appears in writing documents. After Alexander expansion to east anatolian people adopted Greek religion culture and language- dominator civilization from 4th cen bc untill 14th cen.- Greek cities names untill today as Anatolia too
The difference is that uncivilizated nomadic groups invaded in regular civilizated states and destroyed it
When Greeks expanded in Pontos M east Anatolia etc native people adopted everything by a superior civilization thousands yrs before turks
Archaeological evidence- temples cities sculptures coins etc are undouptable facts
@@srd895 Armenians refered by ancient Greek authors from 14th cen bc- king Armenos was with Jason and Argonauts in Bosporus ( Georgia) trip 3300 yr before. Nomad invaders destroyed all these civilizations
That's the most inaccurate map ive seen 💀 at this point just redo it
Les Gaulois sont des Celtes. Dans la partie septentrionale, nous descendons aussi des Francs ou d'autres peuples germaniques.
You have also forgotten the addition of the White Croats.
Where are bosniaks in north montenegro and southwest serbia?
Asturians in Greece?
We are still here in Asturias we didn't dissappear as the wrongly says
you know that there are also Macedonians,don't listen to opinions, as it is now recognized
They speak Bulgarian but are pretending to be a differen nationality bc of Serbia
@@bulkax303 according to this logic, Norwegian Bokmål is a dialect of Danish
This Gernan has no idea what an ethnic is. No, Ethnie has nothing to do with the language.
many mistakes on Polish-German Border - Surely Lower Silesia wasn't fully germanized in 1300. Lower-Silesian dialect of Polish language existed there until 19 century.
Look DNA between spaniards and british and i'm sure you will surprise. Much celtic comoonent yet.
We split up. We develop different habits. Our language changes slowly. We even write a book that contains OUR ultimate truth. Our language is slowly changing even more... But do you really not remember that we once had the same mother? that WE were the same? There is no them and they, there is only Us....
based guts!
There were indo-european swedes in the norrland coastal region before sami ever set foot in Sweden.
There's been indo-european burials that date to like 2000BC with non sami people in the regions you coloured as sami.
@SaxonThrashQueen Despite Haplogroup I1 being the most prevalent paternal haplogroup in Scandinavia the two runner ups are both R1a and R1b. Something else of note is that when comparing proto indo-european DNA with modern humans people around the baltic region, especially Scandinavia cluster really close to them, showing us that scandinavians are one of the most "pure" descendants of the corded ware culture. Also, I was talking about material culture in the post I made, the burials I was reffering to had skeletons of R1a haplogroups and was fashioned in an early indo-european way.
Lies
A sort of political historical cultural and linguistic map... it have nothing to do with ethnicities and groups. If you are intersted in ethnic groups, taxonomy and phenotype/genotype just search haplogroups, alleles od DNA and autosomal admixture.
"An ethnic group [...] is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area." - Wikipedia
Latin didnt become the dominant language in gaul until after 500ad
the "Romanian" word was only invented at the end of the 19th century by French historians and leaders... The word "Romanian"was invented in France to name the different ethnic groups living in the territories of the principality of Wallachia and the principality of Moldavia in the end of 19th century.... how can the word "Romanian" appear on your map during the Middle Ages?
that moment when ukrainains find out they used to be russian 😮
Ruthenians is not russians and we (ukranians) know, that we was ruthenians in 15-20 centuries. If we are translate this words in russian language, then it will be русины-Ruthenians, русские- Russians
The moment half of Europe finds out it used to be Roman😮
@garilo7773 Oh and theres a difference between rusich and russki too now yeh? ruthenian was latin for russian. and rusyn is the way the western slavs pronounced russich. and u know where the word ukraine comes from. it means borderland in slavic in case u forgot. where do u get your history from? your politicians? you should turn your TV off and read some real history buddy 👍
why are the diferent contries in iberia separated into etnicities? there is no etnic diference between a portuguese and a galician or a spanish .
Because Ethnicity is also Identity. With your logic, Dutch are also German and Czech and Slovak are also same ethnic group. Its often hard to difference ethnic groups
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 they are, both germanic and Slavic, of course they have different identities, but you cannot see a difference between a Spanish and Portuguese just by looking
@@thierryferreira4825 I can see differences between Germanic tribes, but the difference between Dutch and German is also because Monarchial borders like Spain and Portugal. But over the centuries, the Monarchial borders are also the identity borders and Ethnicity is also definited of identity and modern language
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 I don't think that language and ethnicity are always connected many times they are not this one is a good example, Portuguese and Galicians are literally the same people that got separated politically and developed their own similar cultures, but are of the same ethnicity.
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 how did u colour Kosovo as Albanian in history when it was fully Serbian, from there Serbian ethnicity was created, literally before 15th century there was not albanians there. By this map in Kosovo there weren't any Serbs but somehow Serb ethnicity emerged from who Albanians, this is to simplify for u what absurdity u made
"Spanish people" doesn't exist, Spain is formed by various ethnicities (and languages). In Asturias we are Asturian, Asturians didn't dissappear or become Castilian. And we have an Asturian language which is independent from Castilian. It makes no sense because we aren't and weren't part of Castile, the Kingdom of Leon existed, which had its own language, Leonese from which Asturian (and other languages such as Mirandese in Portugal) come from. Spain is all wrong and you ignored the ethnic groups of Iberia.
and Valencian people are also their own nationality, and Andalusians, and Navarrese...
The Spanish people do exist. Spain is not made up by ethnic groups but regions. The Spaniards are a one-off race and ethnic group. The problem is that in the past 50 years politicians have made the people of each Spanish region believe that they are unique, different and incompatible with the other Spanish regions. Spain is the union of three kingdoms: Aragon, Castile and Navarre. The Principality of Asturias is a part of the Kingdom of Castile. The Asturian language is an almost non-existant century-old langague that nobody hardly speaks. The situation is the same in almost every European country with a certain size. There were originally several languages in every European country, but only some languages have survived. The difference is that unlike Spain, the other European countries don't spend the present thinking back upon the dead languages spoken one millennium ago.
Y en Badajoz castuo...
Anda, anda, que no andáis nah
@@karm3667 The people from Euskadi, Navarre, Catalonia and Andalusia are 100% different from the rest of Spain
doesn't mean they deserve or need independence.
@@karm3667 Lies. You know nothing about Spain. During the 20th century Spanish politicians tried to create a false Spanish culture that's a mix of things from different regions, the Asturian language isn't non existant is spoken by 60% of Asturians and even those that don't speak it still are Asturian with their own culture. Read your history, Asturias was never part of the Kingdom of Castile. It was part of the Kingdom of Leon which eventually became part of the *Crown* of the Castile but still had its laws and customs just like Aragon. Ridiculous to say that a Basque and an Andalusian person are the same.
Nice work! 400th sub!
The minority’s of Europe will have their own language separate from their motherland in the future
So....Polish pepople are slavized germans and batls in most
Ukrainians, slavized turks,balts, iranic in most
Swedes and Norways germanized fins in most
Turks turkized greeks, thats why often looks white
Russians are finnic people in most and turks
Turks are already a white nation. The fact that they look white has nothing to do with the Greeks. Only our slanted eyes have changed.
And what do Turks have to do with Russians? They did not live in Russia. The Finno-Ugrians, yes. Russians mixed with them. And there is quite a lot of Finnish substrate in the genome of Russians (genetics has proved this). And by the way, Estonians have a lot of Russian genes. But the Turks have nothing to do at all...
How Romanians disappeared from 450 AD till 650 AD, they went in hollyday in another continent? Or they did like Phoenix bird?
Magia
That's the official history version...
i feel bad for sami
Nah don't call us Luxembourgers German. Germanic yes but not German. We don't even speak the same language.
Germanic is not an ethnicity. German and Luxemburg is one.
@@peterHarding-ml6rt I know, that's why I made the difference between German and Germanic. German and Luxembourgish refer to the presend day ethnicities, while germanic refers to the broader cultural and linguistic family. Just like you said Germanic isn't an ethnicity, but a type of ethnicity.
Great video man
There are a lot of fake informations. This video is made by German nationalist. Brits where occupied by Vikings not by Germans. Lower Silesia in Poland was germanized fully 500 years later than this guy showed. False information than Germans where in Poland and Czechia before Slavs. This area was settled by Celts when Slavs came. In Czechia and South Poland Slavs mixed with Celts.
Boy you forgot Saxon and Anglo were a thing. Viking is not an ethnic group. Stop watching Netflix and go read some books made by mindfully people.
For Poland I don’t know, I’ll check
Yet again even for Poland you don’t know…. With some quick research, although I found some different informations, it is agreed that from the 13th century (1200´s) Silesia Germanic.
I won’t even bother checking is your last claim in right or wrong.
Remember kid, best way to never be wrong in life is to shut the fuck up when you don’t know. It’s better to ask.
This video is ridiculous. Etnicity is not Language
The video is about the ethnic groups, not the languages. Only the ethnic groups are shown here
@@LSSD1292 It is not. It is poore based on language. Swiss is an own ethnic. They are not German, French or Italiens.
do america next
The Ottoman Beylik wasnt majority greek
To sum it up
Iranian: OG's
Uralic: Doesn't know anyone at the party
Slav: "How did they get so big?"
Celt: Sudden feeling of depression caused by you getting pushed every time
Greek: Why does Romance copy from me?
Romance: Why don't Greek understand we are relatives?
Basque: If I remain quiet, no one will know I am here-
German: *m o u n t a i n a o u s t e r r a i n*
Turkic: Attack people that has way more population than you, defeat them severely, get assimilated by them, and no one even knows you were Turkic before! (Bulgars, East & South Ukrainans, Crimeans)
Afro-Asiatic: Oh land! Let's conquer! *has civil war and loses everything
Albanian: Albania actually conquer the worl twice but Albani friendly countrie so they give land back to other countrys
Baltic: Instead of killing soldiers, we should do that to ourselves instead!
Wrong corsicans are Italian people and I’m Trieste and some istrian regions italians are the majority and many “Slavs” are ethnically italians
That is false! Romanians until 1150-1200 lived south to the Danube, in the Balcanic Peninsula. There is no archaeological, historical, linguistical evidence of Romanian presence in todays Romania until 1150-1200. From 271 to 1200 in the teritory of Walachia and Moldavia lived Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Uzes, Cumans and Slavs, while in Transylvania Goths, Gepids, Huns, Avars, Slavs and Magyars. About the existence in these territories of these peoples are plenty of archeological and historical evidences, while there is no evidence of Romanians there until 1150-1200.
For example where are the Gothic, Gepidic, Pecheneg loanwords in Romanian, if they supposedly, lived together hundreds of years? And why Romanian is filled with South Slavic and Albanian loan words? Because they lived in the Balkans! Or why, until the 17th century the language of the Romanian church was Slavonic, although in todays Romania no Slavic Church existed and the Slav church father (Cyrill and Methodios) never made missionary activity in the territory of Romania?
Germans, English, Swedes, all just different terms for the same people! Language doesn’t equate ethnicity!
They arent all the same tho. I mean they are all european ethnicities but they have different admixtures. Like English ppl have a lot of brythonic heritage and east germans west slavic
Albanians came to Balkan in 1043 idk why do you show them before that,also on Kosovo they arrived in larger numbers in 18th century, population suvery from 1455 done by the ottomans show's that they make 0,23% of population of Kosovo and north Albania
According to my researches, Albanians are mentioned for the first time in the II th century AD as ”Albanoi ” for a tribe that lived in Albania, in the XI century AD, Albanians are mentioned as ”Arber” which is said to have evolved from ”Albanoi” they called themselves Arber, plus if Albanians camed to Balkans on the XI th century, there would be documents talking about population movement by them, however, there isn’t documents talking about Albanians coming to the Balkans at that time, which means that Albanians are Paleo-Balkanic like Greeks
@@haufjzo There is a document from 1043 that talks about the immigration of Albanians, in which it is said that they were brought from Sicily to participate in the civil war in the Eastern Roman Empire, and then they settled in the territory of what was then Serbia, and that is their first official mention, first the Albanians do not call themselves Albanians, it is a name that was only accepted in the 19th century, they are called "Scipeters", secondly, linguists have long established that Albanians have no connection with Illyrians, firstly, Albanians do not have words for fishing and See Fearing, and Illyrians are famous sailors, Albanians use borrowed words from another language for anything releted to sea, secondly, Latin words come to Albanian indirectly, Albanian historians have established that, the Illyrians were under Rome for 6th century and mostly spoke Latin.
Have a nice day
Thats when you live in propaganda state like serbia and lern lies of litetatur of your ortodox church that does push genocid forward...you better respect your neighbur rather than hate....
Injorant gomar
This is more civilization/language
This is so dumb. You use linguistic borders for Italy but while you actually put the true languages in Spain you just act like Italian was an actual language spoken by a nation for 1000 years...
maybe he was busier with the rest than with that xd
The same thing happens with Germany, the German we all know is actually just a language standard that I think 3 centuries ago, just before that, the Germans speak different but similar languages.
The German language has 3 variants High German Central German and Low German in the past these were independent languages.
With the German unification of 1871, a language standard would be necessary so that they could be understood.
The strange thing here is that Low German is more related to Dutch than to High German and Central German, the latter 2 are related, and much so since they separated not long ago.
He missed languages in Spain not the "true ones"
Bro thinks there are more greeks than turks in blacksea
And in avars had so many mongolians
@@oluisvicrekonseyisividisla8810there were before deportation, it's mostly historical data search it up
What happened to Germans in eastern Europe
There are Expelled and 2,1 Million are killed
@SaxonThrashQueen a small war occurred
After WW2 Russia actually punished Germany unlike the US by expelling all the Germans from eastern Europe and enslaving the former soldiers.
Nice