Is The Anglo-Saxon Invasion Of England A Myth? | King Arthur's Britain | Chronicle

  görünümler 392,239

Chronicle - Medieval History Documentaries

Chronicle - Medieval History Documentaries

2 yıl önce

The Anglo-Saxons have been long thought to have invaded Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire in 410 AD. Francis Pryor argues that the huge political changes that took place in Britain at the time were caused by a shifting of allegiances within this country rather than a violent invasion from elsewhere. Finding new and previously unexplained evidence Francis overturns the idea that Britain was crushed under Roman rule, then reverted to a state of anarchy and disorder after the Romans left in 410 AD. Instead of doom and gloom Francis discovers a continuous culture that assimilated influences from as far a field as the Middle East and Constantinople.
Welcome to Chronicle; your home for all things medieval history! With documentaries covering everything from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the beginnings of the Renaissance, from Hastings to Charlemagne, we'll be exploring everything the Middle Ages have to offer.
Subscribe now so you don't miss out!
Chronicle is part of the History Hit Network. To get in touch please email
It's like Netflix for history... 📺 Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'CHRONICLE' 👉

Chronicle - Medieval History Documentaries
Chronicle - Medieval History Documentaries Yıl önce
It's like Netflix for history... 📺 Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'CHRONICLE' 👉
Beth Bartlett
Beth Bartlett Yıl önce
My 1st reaction to this Title, (even though, I am Conscious in Thought and Reaching for my Higher Mind): ▶ *What kind of Title is this?* In an era where DNA exists? When the original English Male DNA is 98% replaced by Germanic aka Anglo Saxon? News Media has affected the Ethics of even the Academic interests. Presumes all living through their: Lower Mind, aka Ego Mind aka Adolescent Mind ... There was an expectation of greater Maturity, and now, there's no confidence in the content. *A shared honesty, absent in Judging.*
f1s2hg3 9 aylar önce
When the Romans moved out of Britain and the AngloSaxons moved into Britain the British people knew that AngloSaxon people were coming and they were welcomed into Britain by the British people because of religion! These people were all the same religion and then after the AngloSaxon settled in Britain ALFRED THE GREAT WAS THE KING THAT MADE CHRISTIANITY IN ENGLAND THE RELIGION! It’s very easy to understand because my family was there and we are happy the AngloSaxon people moved to Britain!
Mick von Bornemann
Mick von Bornemann 4 aylar önce
@f1s2hg3 WTF Germanic paganism quite different to both P-Celtic & Q-Celtic Pagans & christians
Oilslick Yıl önce
I think the problem in this case is also a semantic one. When people see the word 'invasion' they tend to picture D-Day in their minds: millions of invaders met by millions of defenders on the beach in an epic decisive clash for the future of the continent.....Invasion in this particular context could well be a much more gradual process of peaceful yet sizeable migration over a longer period of time, punctuated here and there by conflict and flaring tempers over who gets what, resulting in small scale bouts of violence. If D-Day is what you imagine the Anglo-Saxon invasion to be, then indeed there wasn't an invasion. If you however see the gradual-but-not-quite-voluntary displacement of Celtic Britons as an invasion, then there was......
sublicense18a Yıl önce
Very good points.
TurquoisePink Yıl önce
Exactly. If the situation was as 'gentle' as all these theorists suggest- why did the Saxons not learn to speak Brythonic and the country remain Brythonic culture? The language and cultural change is evidence enough. As is the fact that the Brython/ Welsh were pushed out of their own land and into the West, by the Saxons. The Welsh had been fighting for centuries with the Saxons to retain their land. However they want to downplay it, an invasion happened. Whether it was slow and steady over time- which is likely. It still had a hugely negative effect on the Brythonic population.
Von P
Von P 4 aylar önce
Look at the illegal immigration to the United States as a current modern-day invasion which might mirror the Anglo-Saxon invasion. It’s not particularly violent, but there is definitely a cultural change.
daejavue69 4 aylar önce
The Anglo Saxons took the opportunity to settle in the East of Britain after the Romans left , leaving empty builds that the bare arsed brits wouldn't use due to them being afraid of the old owners spirits in them . It left no standing army , or defences so the invaders mearly intigrated with these very similar natives . After all they had been crossing the north Sea to regularly trade with the fresians .
Theotherside 4 aylar önce
The standard picture is of raids quickly growing in size to withstand defences and then staying over, living off the land by conquest. Even the romans had trouble defending the shore from the saxons, by time they left the AG's were coming in large numbers forming territories they would defend from the british counter attacks.
Andrew Olgado
Andrew Olgado Yıl önce
You don't just adopt a new language out of fashion. Changing language is a dramatic change. Not many people would want to adopt a foreign language just for fashion's sake. It's not like an exotic food you can just pickup. From observing other places in the world, dramatic linguistic changes happen from either conquest/colonisation or mass migration. This is why different flavours of vulgar Latin developed in different areas of Europe. I would expect Brittonic language influence to be a lot more dominant in Britain.
Dani de Janeiro
Dani de Janeiro Yıl önce
If they didn't abandon their language after centuries of Latin-speaking Roman domination of all areas of their society, I find it really hard to believe an entire country just started speaking Anglo-Saxon because a handful of handsome Frisians showed up in one or two villages here and there.
Bjowolf2 Yıl önce
Precisely, thank you 🤗 It's simply not true what he is preaching - he just wants it to be true based on no evidence whatsoever, only his feelings 🙄 Hav(e) en god dag [daygh] 🤗 ( Danish ).
Neil Franklin
Neil Franklin Yıl önce
Blame it on the teenagers they always reject the words of their parents and adopt foreign words ,
Neil Franklin
Neil Franklin Yıl önce
@Bjowolf2 tak
Dani de Janeiro
Dani de Janeiro Yıl önce
@Neil Franklin - hahah peppering your language with a few foreign loanwords that you picked up from online games and movies is not quite the same as an entire society abandoning their language and culture for a foreign one brought by a few stray travellers.
Max Fan
Max Fan Yıl önce
Like a few other posters, I find the language aspect the most troubling part of Pryor's theory. People are going to keep speaking the language of the people around them unless they have a very strong incentive to change, and I don't think Pryor provided anywhere a strong enough explanation for why the native British adopted English. If you look at the old Western Roman Empire today, there are three places where locals don't speak a Latin-descended language: North Africa (conquered by the Arabs in the 7th century), the Rhineland (occupied by Germanic-speaking tribes in the 5th century) and Britain. The rest of the Western Roman Empire was conquered by Germanic-speaking tribes, yet within a couple of centuries the invaders had ditched their own language and spoke the local version of Latin. That's a pretty good example of language inertia. The fact that this didn't happen in post-Roman Britain must be in some way significant. The sort of linguistic shift that happened in Britain from the 5th to the 10th centuries only happens where a large but leaderless native population is conquered by an invading population which becomes the new ruling class. The ruling class have no incentive to change their language, while the only hope of advancement in the native population is to adopt the invaders' language. Thus the invaders' language gradually replaces the native language, slowly spreading down through the remaining social classes. Post-Roman Britain had organised kingdoms, but they appear to have been defeated by the Germanic invaders in the late 6th century within the space of a generation (see the Battles of Catraeth and Dyrham). Whatever exactly happened in those battles, the nobility of the British kingdoms disappeared within a very short period of time, in a way that the post-Roman nobility of Gaul, Spain and Italy didn't. This would then set up the scenario described above - the Germanic invaders keep speaking their language, and any native British who want to advance are going to have to learn to speak the invaders' language.
Mark Glanville
Mark Glanville Yıl önce
Probably they were already speaking it!
Damon Roberts
Damon Roberts Yıl önce
Trade with a people who have more economic reach can be a powerful incentive to adopt their language. For example, the English language started displacing Irish Gaelic from the 12thC onward, beginning with Dublin and spreading from there. That was centuries before the Plantation. Lots of people in continental Europe use English as a _lingua franca_ in the absence of any sort of invasion or colonial displacement. If post-Roman Britain was a patchwork of Celtic dialects and vulgar Latin, a trade language would have a lot of advantages.
Max Fan
Max Fan Yıl önce
@Damon Roberts Thank you for informing me of Yola English in Ireland - something I was completely unaware of before now. However I'd humbly suggest that neither this example or the English-in-Europe example are suitable alternatives for the situation in post-Roman Britain. For example, sure, the Romano-British traded, but my understanding is that most of this trade was with southern Europe and the Byzantines rather than with English speakers either in Britain or back on the Continent. Plus, assuming the trade was two-way, there's the question of why the language shift wasn't in the opposite direction. In any case, my understanding is that Yola English in Ireland was on the way out within a few centuries, as the local English were gradually absorbed by Irish culture and language - in much the same way as the German invaders of the Roman Empire adopted the local form of Latin. And regarding English-in-Europe, while it's the European lingua franca ATM, it isn't displacing native languages in those countries - any more than French did when it was Europe's lingua franca a few centuries ago. However I'm happy to discuss this further.
TurquoisePink 11 aylar önce
@Max Fan When England conquered Wales in the 1200s, anti-Welsh language laws were brought in. For example, all official proceedings were to be held in English. Adopting an English identity and language enabled social mobility. So the Welsh essentially became second-class citizens in their own country. What followed, was a form of forced assimilation and a huge effort to stamp out any kind of 'Welshness' and Welsh identity. There has been a long history of trying to eradicate the Welsh language. Up until around 150 years ago, there were a high number of Welsh speakers in Wales. Events such as the Blue Books report (that declared the Welsh language to be 'evil') contributed to it's decline and also mass migration from England with English people refusing to speak Welsh. (Although there were English incomers who did try and learn, but most didn't) The Welsh language only gained equal status in Wales (their own country!) in the 90s, when they repealed most of the anti-Welsh language laws. I don't think it's a stretch to think that something similar happened after the AS colonisation of Britain. Forced assimilation and outright banning of the Brythonic language. The theory the Brythonic people just stopped speaking their language willingly, is absurd and goes against human nature.
Dan McShain
Dan McShain 8 aylar önce
@TurquoisePink And yet the Scots language became the dominant language in Scotland over Scottish Gaelic long before the union of the crowns. Scots is a Germanic language closely related to Anglo-Saxon. This appears to have occurred because the population found it beneficial to switch and not as a result of conquest or force. The Welsh example shows that it isn't easy to suppress a language forcefully, but the Scots example shows that populations adapt and can switch to a new language without any kind of force at all.
Mike W Ellwood
Mike W Ellwood Yıl önce
FWIW, this is quite an old documentary. One clue is that Robin Cook died in 2005. I slowed down the credits to try to read the copyright date. Either 2004 or 2005 (it was hard to see whether it was MMIV or MMV). So, there has probably been a lot more research done since then, especially on the genetics side. FWIW**2 I think that most of us who are not of relatively recent incomer stock, are some sort of mixture of Celtic ("Ancient British"), "Anglo-Saxon" (probably "German", "Dutch", "Belgian", "Dane"), "Viking" ("Norwegian", "Swedish", and "Danish" again), with a trace of Norman, and some remnants of "Roman" (could have come from any part of the Empire, so not necessarily "Italian" Roman). Those whose ancestors come from the north are probably more Viking influenced, and those from the south & south-east, more "Anglo-Saxon", with those from the west & west-midlands more "Celtic".
brovold72 4 aylar önce
I was actually wondering that -- archaeological evidence, even much more of it, would paint an incomplete picture.
DrivermanO 4 aylar önce
Definitely MMIV - 2004!
john patrick
john patrick 3 aylar önce
Since that time its been found that Britain was colonised by Middle-Eastern farmers, about 1000BC. So Britain is NOT ethnically Celtic - although it got a Celtic language! (See: Mass Migrations into Britain in the Late Bronze Age). I think the people are darker the further west you go - which would fit in with the newcomers idea. Ancestry DNA has some interesting results for Britains DNA: something like 10% Norse, 22% Irish, 38% Great Britain, 24% NORTHWEST Europe, 4% Iberian.
Curious World
Curious World 2 yıl önce
History is a lot more complex than we generally think - particularly, when there is little evidence to support a long-held theory. We have to be open to new interpretations, which is why I'm enjoying this series so.
Bruce Ironside
Bruce Ironside 2 yıl önce
Why aren't the long held traditions more trustworthy than modern interpretations of scattered archeology. They were compiled and rewritten from various separate earlier sources (Bede 700s, Nennius late 700s early 800s and Gildas in the 500s.), A hell of a lot closer to the events than Francis Pryor is and so there was less time for oral tradition to be forgotten and distorted than 1500 years later. Once Francis has dug up every bone and dna tested every sample of that era and finds an ancient written account saying that it was a peaceful migration made at the request of the British Kings, then it is just a weak theory based on a picked small selection of evidence that suits his narrative. He's a publicity sl-t losing his relevance, and looking for a way to get in the limelight again.
puffin51 2 yıl önce
@Bruce Ironside I completely agree with you. Every literary source we have from Gildas to Bede, without exception, testifies to invasion and conquest. The archeological evidence is capable of quite different interpretations to those preferred by Pryor. But above all, the proof is in the outcome. Beyond a very general outline, we have no real idea of events in Britain/England from about 410 until nearly 800, but at the end of that period, there is nothing left of the Romano-Britons east of the Severn. Only a few place-names survive. All law, custom, art, authority, society, field systems - everything - is Anglo-Saxon. This was not immigration. There was no integration. This was the erasure of an entire people.
Mike Barrow
Mike Barrow 2 yıl önce
@Bruce Ironside there are no reasons why long-held traditional interpretations of the past need to be considered wrong or flawed. Nevertheless, there is no reason why they shouldn't be challenged. Francis Pryor is an accomplished archaeologist and academic, and it's his job to do this. If his ideas are flawed the academic community will say so. Frankly, however, IMO his argument carries some weight. In my university education in History there was little mention, if any at all, of an invasion, and a peaceful migration and integration seems perfectly feasible. The fact that your id bears that of a legendary Saxon implies your pending disagreement. As a DNA-proven Brit with no English in me whatsoever, you will understand that whatever you think I won't give a shit.
Bruce Ironside
Bruce Ironside 2 yıl önce
@Mike Barrow Sorry Mike I have never communicated with you before. So know nothing of your opinions or views until now. Don’t actually know why you are jumping in now, ages after the fact. I’ve only communicated with 1 other person on this topic, so it’s refreshing to get other insights. I actually agree with more or less what you say. The issue I have is that some people are taking this video as gospel (a matter of almost religious faith) and what is being postulated as FACT, when it has yet to be PROVEN, beyond rough theory. Just because it is said by my lord god Francis Pryor. Francis Pryor was a great hero to me for years, and he and the rest of Time Team got me into archeology. I understand that he wishes to maintain the level of lifestyle he had become accustomed to after many years on Time Team. I don’t begrudge him that, I just expect more balance from someone of his stature in the Archeological Field of study. Actually my surname is from Danish Viking heritage, that is why it is Ironside, not Ironsides. And almost half of my genealogy is Scottish from the Fraser clan and the other half Danish. I also have no English of significance. But that does not make any difference to the larger body of evidence currently available supporting an initial migration by mercenary troops at the behest of the British people to protect them from raiding Picts and Irish (small war bands, not Roman sized armies), followed by staggered small take overs of territory over probably around 150 years, until dominance over the indigenous peoples was achieved. Whether you choose to call it an “invasion” or not, it has not yet been proven as a 100% peaceful migration. It just seems odd to me that anyone would think that the British were so used (after 350 years) to being under the control of a foreign power, that when said foreign power left, they felt the best option was to get another foreign power in to dominate them. Perhaps a few tribes did feel that way, but impossible to think the whole of the island felt the same way. Therefore if any of the tribes who didn’t approve of the takeover resisted, then it was an “invasion”. If anyone can prove that every tribe in Britain welcomed the Angles, Saxon’s and Jutes as their new overlords without hesitation and without regret. Then I’ll believe it. Until then logic rules supreme.
SOP83 Yıl önce
After watching documentaries on the roman invasion of Gaul, I find it unthinkable what I heard. Some of the estimates i've seen suggest that over 1/2 of all celts were killed and another 1/3 enslaved(over the entire geography of modern day France). If this was the case, the thought that something similar happened in the UK wouldn't be so unbelievable. Essentially mass genocide with whatever percentage, that wasn't killed or couldn't migrate away, integrated and their genetic % small or diluted over time. This documentary didn't even mention Celts untill over 32min in.
mizofan Yıl önce
bias, impure and simple.
Sarmatae1 Yıl önce
@mizofan It's not bias. Other than what Celts were already there, they don't factor into the very early equations. Ireland, Wales, and Caledonia (Scotland) were all independent nations at odds with "Britannia" in this time period. Everyone was trying to get a foothold. You're right about everything else, but those Celtic origins you're defending didn't come into place until much later.
Aaron B
Aaron B Yıl önce
The point is that there is no archaeological evidence for such an event taking place.
Sarmatae1 Yıl önce
@Aaron B The same could be said for every single event in the Bible. The difference here is that we DO have historical references, AND we have evidence that it happened. They just didn't mention any of it here.
Christus Regnet
Christus Regnet Yıl önce
@Aaron B it's not an event. It's a 200 year period of history.
Eryximaque Yıl önce
History as it is told , says more about the historian than about the history itself.
Alexandre Eremenko
Alexandre Eremenko 2 yıl önce
From the Norman invasion a lot of Latin words remain in the language but the core did not change. It it must have been an extraordinary, overwhelming invasion to change the language completely as it happened in the 5-8 centuries.
RobBCactive Yıl önce
Observing that invasion doesn't change a language fundamentally, doesn't justify assuming a greater invasion would. France & Spain were invaded by germanic tribes too and Spain had a long Arab occupation with similar word additions. There archaeological evidence of small saxon/viking conflicts, so if there were Romano-briton/Saxon ones there should also be finds.
Donald Fart
Donald Fart Yıl önce
There are two forms of English. Onshore English is the language that is spoken in day to day life. It has a very low frequency of latinate words derived from Norman French. Offshore English is the 'posh' language that is written and used in formal situations..and crucially taught overseas. When I work with people who were not brought up in England, even if there accent is perfect, this difference gives them away immediately.
Aaron Kulkis
Aaron Kulkis Yıl önce
Additionally, "Old English" isn't Angle-ish at all, it's Brythonic, just like Welsh, Manx, and the Irish and Scottish dialects of Celtic (That's pronounced with a "k" at both ends, as "keltik", NBA fan, as witnessed by a famous Irish book from around 1000 AD, "The book of Kells"
Mick von Bornemann
Mick von Bornemann Yıl önce
@Aaron Kulkis your wrong, Old English is definitly Germanic that’s why Icelandic people can understand it without much issue, whereas they can’t understand Celtic languages at all
Kevin McNeeley
Kevin McNeeley Yıl önce
I had thought Angle and Saxon mercenaries had been invited in. Accustomed to having the Romans to protect them the Britons found the Scots and Picts to be troublesome. So they hired mercs to help out. Have others heard this idea? HAs it gone out of fashion?
Linoran Yıl önce
This is my understanding as well.
savvageorge Yıl önce
This theory makes perfect sense. The same thing happened to Romans in mainland Europe. They hired mercenaries like Attila the Hun who then used his knowledge to conquer large parts of the empire. Saxons probably did something similar.
Balding Bee
Balding Bee Yıl önce
@savvageorge Same thing happened in France a few hundred years later. The French king got fed up with raids on his coast and on Paris, so he allowed some Northmen to settle in what is now Normandy in exchange for protecting his coast and the Seine.
C.E.T Gale
C.E.T Gale Yıl önce
It does not fit the multicultral narritive..... They need more African Doctors and Engineers to come across the channel..........
swerve1960 Yıl önce
@C.E.T Gale lol! 🤣
Tim Horn
Tim Horn 2 yıl önce
I believe there was a little bit of both I believe they were early Anglo-Saxon immigrants who came peacefully to trade and find a place to live to get away from all the violence in their homelands but we’re also people who chose to take it vantage of the fact that the Romans were gone and chose to invading claim lands for their own
Jay Turner
Jay Turner 2 yıl önce
Exactly also some brought over as mercenaries for protection...
KissMyArse93 Yıl önce
Agreed, but the fact this guy actually thought there wasn't a Saxon invasion is bollocks , there were invasions but there were some peaceful immigrations.
Judge Magister
Judge Magister Yıl önce
All of the western Roman empire was conquered by Germanic tribes, but Germanic foederati were also present in large numbers within the Roman army itself.
Harris Pilton
Harris Pilton 11 aylar önce
@Judge Magister have you read any of Gunnar Heinsohn's research into stratigraphy?! The "Saxon" Lundenwic (wic=vic=VICUS) was built next to, and in the same stratigraphic layer as the "ruined", walled Roman settlement of "Londinium"! Fascinating!
AtheisticAtheist 10 aylar önce
Another 'i believe' You can't know what happened.
Julie Jane Smith
Julie Jane Smith 2 yıl önce
That one guy put it right when he talked about people not wanting to change their understanding of history, but he himself finding it “far more interesting to find out it was all wrong.” I feel this was completely, its why I live learning about history because if you go into enough detail or deep enough you always find something that completely shifts your idea of the mental image you had about the people at that time.
Harris Pilton
Harris Pilton 11 aylar önce
they are looking at the evidence of a post-"roman"/"saxon"/"celt" cataclysm, and completely ignoring it! :P
Marshall Lyon
Marshall Lyon 2 yıl önce
I find the language changes quite interesting. There are two well documented and complete invasions of England - the Romans and the Normans. In both cases the ruling class used the language of the invaders - Latin and French. However, neither of these languages actually became what the common people spoke. I think the introduction of Germanic English likely resulted from a mass migration rather than a military invasion. I see the development of English likely as a way for the new settlers to be understood by the natives, or vice versa. Almost like Spanglish is in modern times, a hybrid of two languages but with one dominating. Similarly we see the later Viking invasions contribute to language, mainly in place names but also in some words. However, it was not nearly to the same extend of the Anglo-Saxon migration. Again, Vikings were invaders/raiders and did become rulers in some Medieval English kingdoms, but English as a language persisted. I also find it strange that archeologist talk about the 5th century (or 6th or 1st) the same way we speak about the 60s. When in reality the difference between the 5th and 6th centuries is akin to how we think about the Victorian or Edwardian ages. Sure the pace of change is hectic now but 100 years is a long time and and the change over those 100 years need not be drastic.
A. Westenholz
A. Westenholz 2 yıl önce
Actually the Vikings may have contributed more than that linguistically. Despite what this program may have said, structurally English is more akin to Danish than Celtic in its grammar in that both share some unique features. Since it is much more difficult to change language structure, the Danish impact on English, may be said to be enormous. Also when the Vikings "invaded" (a slightly exaggerated account since while some raided, others did come and peacefully settle like ASs) the linguistic differences between Scandinavian and AS English would have been slight and mutually intelligible. Rather the same way the various Scandinavian languages today are different yet mutually intelligible to native speakers, especially with a little practice.
Bruce Ironside
Bruce Ironside 2 yıl önce
Actually in each invasion - roman, saxon, viking, Norman - the language of the common people evolved and took in words and phrases that remain to this day. The language we speak today is nothing like like the language even 400 years ago. Even in relatively unscathed areas of Britain the language has evolved to be almost unrecognisable to 1400 years ago (cornish, Bretton, Irish and Scots). Time, dominance and education are what gets the biggest changes in one language over another. But integration and intermarriage plays a huge part too. The Norman's tried not to intermarry and hence we don't speak French. But the saxons and vikings did intermarry and were closer in status to the common people of Britain and now we have mostly a language based on germanic and viking.
Pyriform Yıl önce
"a hybrid of two languages" But English does not seem to be a hybrid of the two languages, as far as I can tell. I'm not a linguist, so I may have missed it, but I don't see that there is any significant influence of Brythonic on English. The word order in English may be different from other Germanic languages, but it is different from Welsh too, and there seems to be very little of Brythonic in the vocabulary either.
A. Westenholz
A. Westenholz Yıl önce
@Pyriform Indeed, it is more a hybrid of various Germanic languages and Norman French / bastardized Latin, with a smattering of Celtic vocabulary here and there. English at the core remains Germanic, in structure and basic vocabulary. But over time it incorporated a rather large vocabulary from French and Medieval Latin, just the same way many languages today might be incorporating many English words and common tech phrases into their language.
Judge Magister
Judge Magister Yıl önce
@A. Westenholz the vikings already spoke a language closely related to Anglo Saxon Frisian etc, some even came from the same regions so i presume they could easily understand each other.
Flower Meerkat
Flower Meerkat Yıl önce
Whatever happened, I always felt sorry for the Romano-British when the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes came over. It must have been a dramatic change for the existing inhabitants.
k c
k c Yıl önce
they'd been comming over for thousands of years before that, some of the tribes in what is now England were Belgae and had arrived on the Island only a few hundred years before before Caesar crossed the Channel. The Iron Age Parisii near the Humber, guess where they came from....the Paris basin the list goes on. There were Irish in what is now Wales and England. The idea that the people in what is now the UK were a homogenous bunch of 'Celts' ( whatever one thinks they are ) is ridiculous.
Chevin Barghest
Chevin Barghest Yıl önce
@k c Indeed to English are mongrels and mongels are the strongest of dogs. My great grandad was an Anglo Saxon from Hereford on the Welsh border. His wife was a Celtic Bevan from Wales. They emigrated to Yorkshire in the 1872 agricultural recession. My other granddad was the statutory Irish fugitive sheep thief from Dublin. My grandmother was from a Norwegian area of the Yorkshire dales and her family name of Summersgill means 'sommer scali' which is Norwegian for the summer shepherds huts.. Her husband had a Norman French name. I have lived in the USA for 14 years and have adopted nothing of the local accent or language, (eg "I should of went"), so the idea doesn't ring true for all the Yorkshire farmers imitating Friesian coz it's trendy......
carol gebert
carol gebert Yıl önce
The Angles were already living among the Brits. They were already there when the Romans arrived.
Ivo de Bruijn
Ivo de Bruijn 2 yıl önce
In school I got taught that Old English and Old Dutch/Frisian were mutually intelligible until about 700 or 800 AD. This would only be possible if there was a strong connection between the two regions/peoples at some point. Basically the North Sea is "our" mediterranean and off course these peoples were in contact with each other. Sometimes they were at war and out for conquest, sometimes at peace and trading goods. Funny thing is a did one of those DNA-tests and it's 55% Western European and 45% English. This kind of fits in the narrative of the Anglo-Saxons migrating into England (as "English" DNA isn't really a thing as it is always a mix). Basically they're both the same thing. Found this text about the Christening of the Frisians by order of the Franks, which recruited Ango-Saxons because of their similar language: "The Anglo-Saxon mission to the Frisians began in 678. It is possible that the Franks commissioned Anglo-Saxon clerics, who had already played an important role in converting the Franks themselves and their newly conquered territories in central and southern Germany, to lead the Frisian mission because of their linguistic affinity to the Frisians. Both English and Frisian being Ingwaeonic dialects of Germanic (see p. 128), it is possible that the two were still mutually intelligible at that time or that the missionaries could at least learn Frisian with little difficulty." Anyway, interesting stuff.
kamion53 Yıl önce
I find it curious that the area's the Anglo Saxons are supposed to come from overlap the area's that were involved in the Frisian trade. Also that the start of the Frisian trade started in about the same period as the Anglo-Saxon "invasion" is supposed to have happened.
andré Costermans
andré Costermans Yıl önce
Even Tacitus wrote down about the family-links between Gaelic and British tribes
Elizabeth V
Elizabeth V Yıl önce
It's interesting - If you only know German, Frisian will be quite difficult for you to learn, but if you know both English and German, Frisian will be very easy to pick up.
KissMyArse93 Yıl önce
Makes sense since the place where the Saxons originate from is actually part of what is now France , but back then during the Roman period would be a Germanic tribe, the area where the saxons come from would then become Francia Wich would split with the Western half becoming France and the Eastern half Germany. The middle half become other kingdoms. Francis was split in 3 by 3 rulers, Charles the fat being one of the 3 brothers. Funny how Charlemagne's empire he built barely lasted a over a century.
Hræfnwarian Yıl önce
@KissMyArse93 The Anglo-Saxon homeland was likely Schleswig Germany north of Holstein, which is far from France, however their were Anglo-Saxon settlements between the Weser and Elbe river in Germany.
Chuzz Bot
Chuzz Bot 4 aylar önce
I heard a linguist say that the English language structure was heavily influence of Nordic. It would be nice if this language chapter was not so quickly glossed over. Still this was a refreshing perspective that makes a good deal of sense in many ways (if a little sketchy). Also, it would be a good way to take a little sting out of some of the more recent historical conflicts.
Lee Haseley
Lee Haseley 2 yıl önce
History is not a static point in time, but rather an ever evolving and dynamic story.
Rama 5 aylar önce
Riothamus is definitely the most fitting candidate for Arthur. Riothamus being a term meaning High King. Riothamus even has the same connections to Avalon (Avallon in France). Taking all sources into the equation, it looks as though Riothamus ruled a Celtic kingdom spread across Britain and Brittany. He was the first and last true Great Celtic king before Germanic kings took over. He is also the only king to ever have united the Britons. Prior to Roman rule, the Brits were never united under a single king and after the Roman legions left Britain, the locals were used a unified land. It is likely that Riothamus was successful in uniting the Celtic people of the British Isles and was able to hold off invading Saxon armies from the north and northeast. In the time after Roman Britain, it was the southwest of England that was the wealthiest and most populous region due to costal trade with the Roman Mediterranean. It makes sense that a mighty Celtic kingdom that has Roman trade alliances be ruled from this area. A kingdom stretching across to western France. The later additions to the legend about Guinevere & Lancelot has no place in the true origins as they were added 100s of years later through romantic writers, but the battles with Saxons (& Goths, who as Germanic tribes, were likely seen as expanded Saxons) are true if taking Riothamus as the real King Arthur of the Brits. The recent suggestions that Arthur was a Roman from lands not in Britain are also unlikely. Riothamus however was a true British King. Born with Brythonic ancestry.
Steven Lynaugh
Steven Lynaugh 4 aylar önce
i like this theory too but all the continentals seem to think he was a breton!
Rama 4 aylar önce
@Steven Lynaugh But continentals trying to say Riothamus was a Breton miss the major fact that it records that he crossed the sea in a boat to get to Gaul.
Petrovonoc Cymro
Petrovonoc Cymro 13 gün önce
Nonsense. The most fitting person to be King Arthur is the King Arthur of Gwent named and thanked in the Llandaff Cathedral Charters several times for his land grants to the Church in Wales. How much evidence can you lot ignore?
Rama 12 gün önce
@Petrovonoc Cymro source please?
Petrovonoc Cymro
Petrovonoc Cymro 12 gün önce
@Rama find the sources yourself. Search the Llandaff Charters, or, as I have, go to the Bodlian Library in Oxford where the Bruts of England state plainly that King Arthur was crowned in south Wales or look at the works of Wilson and Blackett over the past forty years……
TerryD15 Yıl önce
In the West midlands there is ample evidence of Anglo Saxon dominance. For example Birmingham is known to have developed from a smal Anglo Saxon village (Beormond's ham[let]), we also have Wednesbury and Wednesfield (named after Woden the Anglo Saxon name for the Viking Odin). Several days of the week also derive from Teutonic names of gods (ie. Tiw, Woden, Thunor and Frig aka Fria) If the main influence was Viking we would have had say Odin's day and not Wodens day. They had a huge influence on place names all across the country. The use of suffixes such as '-ham' , '-ford' (Oxford), '-ley' (Dudley), '-wick (Warwick, Berwick), '-worth' (i.e. protective enclosure, 'Handsworth') and so on are Amglo Saxon in origin. If there had een relatively few Anglo Saxons here as seems to be suggested how could they have had such a huge influence on place names. Further it is now accepted generally that King Arthur was mythical. Tne Breton's also have Arthurian legends with Merlin etc.
Malcolm Stead
Malcolm Stead Yıl önce
In that case using place names, look up Proto- English, this suggests English was spoken before the Roman invasion, it's here on TRshow but also papers on the net.
Mark Davids
Mark Davids 4 aylar önce
Woden & Odin are similar names for the same god.
TerryD15 4 aylar önce
@Mark Davids That's exactly what I said if you read the whole posting. I was emphsising that the anglo Saxons used the anglicised nme of Woden rather than Odin so it was anglo SAxons rather than Vikings who influenced place names. If it were the other way around Wednesbury would have been more like Odinsburgh
Helios Deus
Helios Deus Yıl önce
I love how these professionals can have a civil disagreement, address and point out each others valid points and continue on with the conversation. Such a rarity these days
Oliver Moore
Oliver Moore Yıl önce
Worth considering that this documentary was made in 2004. Channels like this give off the impression that these documentaries are new. It should really state the date of first broadcast in the description. I'm not an archaeologist, historian, linguist or geneticist - but I would wager that significant advances have been made in these fields in the last eighteen years with regard to early medieval (i.e. post-Roman/pre-Norman) Britain.
The Re-Sis-Stance is coming
The Re-Sis-Stance is coming 9 aylar önce
Honestly, they probably haven't. Pretentiusness and preciousness about unspoken dogma rules much of academia. Unless rich parasites see opportunities (like techno-freakery), funding does not flow towards new challenging ideas. See how the astronomers dismissed Velikovsky, and how rapidly historians dismissed Morosov. Archaeology is highly interprtative - anything they find in Britain, they automatically label as Roman or Anglo-Saxon, based on the flakiest stretches of 'evidence', especially in the latter case. It hasn't changed. With Saxon Thing Charles, inflating the anglo-saxon past theory is a trend they have no motivation to change. The geneticist on this programme was honest, it makes logical sense that they cant date migrations with genetics. Maybe they can suggest migrations, possibly a sequence, but not with dates. Carbon-dating cant date either lol. And, come to think of it, Geology has no test-retest reliability either (see how 'Lake Conibus' in the USA, from lake-bed analysis, was dated to tens of millions of years ago, by idiots unaware that it appeared on all pre-1800s maps) Historical 'sciences' in general, have no test-retest reliability. They are just theory. Maybe this guy is wrong, maybe he is partly right, but the conventional stories from the mists of time, are built on very little at all ...
Pol Matthiasson
Pol Matthiasson Yıl önce
It may not have been a violent takeover but it was a takeover nonetheless. We cannot ignore the arrival of 6 varieties of a Germanic language not native to the island (and their closest relative being Friesian and not Brythonic), nor the creation of kingdoms based upon either a “Saxon” or Angle hegemony, nor Roman sources stating regions of the island were deeded to Germanic tribes as the Romans pulled out.
KernowPolski 2 yıl önce
There is some great research and data here, BUT ironically (as this attempts to deconstruct the English identity myth) is it ignores the indigenous Celtic data ENTIRELY - the only contemporary writer who has survived is the Welsh monk Gildas who describes a massive Celtic-Saxon conflict. What follows is a rich Celtic written tradition - none of which gets a mention here. Why does Pryor not mention this? I urge him to get rid of his ignorance of the Celts and move beyond his Anglo-centric focus. Kernow bys vyken!
Bruce Ironside
Bruce Ironside 2 yıl önce
The Welsh annuals, Irish annuals and even Romans record that barbarian germanic tribes attacked and took over parts of Britain. Not in 1 large 'invasion' to be fair. But several staggered small invasions just as the vikings did 300 years later. Nenius, Gildas, Geoffrey, and the bardic traditions also comfirm it was NOT a peaceful migration by invitation. However they do admit that the mercenary army they hired were given land to settle - so there was some peaceful settlement by arrangement - but as always that wasn't enough. And because they were the hired muscle for the island, they knew there was little to stop them taking whatever they wanted.
Ser Castamere
Ser Castamere 2 yıl önce
@therachelsam - It's an island, dude. Do we really have to go over the reason why they definitely travelled to Britain, however long ago, isntead of "originating" there?
Quentin Quentin
Quentin Quentin Yıl önce
@David Ben Yehuda there is no evidence to support your comment. None. Nada.
grahvis 4 aylar önce
To me, it seems a big problem is when thinking about the times back then, they think in terms of the existence of separate clearly defined kingdoms which wasn't the case. It was more likely to have been a matter of slow migration, with intermarriage and local people adopting new cultures. Whilst in later times, the Welsh language was suppressed, it was also killed off to some extent by those aspiring to be middle class having the attitude that speaking Welsh was for the working class and not for them. Fashion and snobbery can be very powerful.
Camilo Bautista
Camilo Bautista 2 yıl önce
You guys told me to keep my eyes open on Wednesday for a Saxon video..... and guess what ?? Here it is and here i am ! Thank you guys, love this history. More Saxons pleasee
Chronicle - Medieval History Documentaries
Chronicle - Medieval History Documentaries 2 yıl önce
Dutch Man
Dutch Man Yıl önce
Very interesting! So when the British decided to adapt a totally different language, culture, religion and all ways of doing things, they did not pick the Frankian one of mainland Europe, nor that of the expanding Scandinavians, but the one of nations squeezed in between the two, Frisians, Anglos and Saxons. The language is copied fully with all typical and complex structures, but after speaking that language perfectly, they slowly started to change and simplify it, well that makes no sense, does it? Seems more logical to me that the three nations squeezed between North and South like toothpaste had no other option than to go West, and maybe it was not a violent invasion, maybe they were only looking for a place to live, willing to cooperate with the locals, but because of sheer numbers replaced the local culture.
Harry Mills
Harry Mills Yıl önce
Depends on how you look at it. I see it as a tension between competing cultures and world views giving rise to something uniquely British! But then I'm more of a David Starkey kind of guy. I think he gives a good take on the complexities of the situation. Certain Frankian notions came from Roman traditions, and were eventually seized upon by those who Would Rule. The notion of a Church-Approved Anointed King was a huge deal for obtaining at least the perception of legitimacy. The idea of absolute rule by the monarch and absolute authority of Lords and Ladies over tenants on land that was parceled out by kings to lords and ladies.... That's more of a Frankian/Roman thing. The Danes, Swedes, Norse, etc., brought a nice infusion of "Yeah, you're the top dog, but you're only 1st among equals, and you only lead on the sufferance of those who agree to be led." It made it harder for them to organize, which is why Alfred eventually beat them off by building a system of fortified boroughs. To accomplish that, Alfred and his descendants very much used the church as an arm of the government. But at the same time, the pagans from the continent brought a lot of concepts and attitudes towards lords and ladies that eventually led to Magna Carta. Thank the Germanic and Nordic tribes for a lot of that. In many ways they were more tolerant people than Christians of that day. And remember, virtually everything Christian was the direct result and under the direct guidance of the Pope in Rome. Christianity took over from paganism because it was very much in the interest of kings to have a strong church backing them. The Romans were masters at weaponizing religion, and when Christianity started getting traction in spite of all efforts to crush it, the Romans switched to Christianity and pushed it the same way they pushed the previous religion, whose name escapes me. But active "evangelizing" was a big part of the Roman model. Burn the temples, send in your own priests and build NEW temples. Or just hijack the temples already built. Just stick a cross up on the steeple and call it good. In North America, it's fascinating how many Native American principles and ideals have percolated into the larger culture. There's a brand of stoicism there that would put Marcus Aurelius to shame. We exaggerate the regret of things lost, but in the larger scheme, we recognize and celebrate the mingling of genes and cultures, mostly for the benefit of all involved. Not entirely. Nothing's all one thing. But I'm not going to be mad at Asia because that tall, blonde Swedish woman has a deep tan and beautiful cat eyes from Asia.
Aaron B
Aaron B Yıl önce
Its unlikely that the Anglo-Saxon migration would have been large enough to entirely replace an entire population.
Dutch Man
Dutch Man Yıl önce
@Aaron B Nowhere I stated that they replaced the entire population. They replaced the spoken language and a part of the culture by numbers. From all the groups living in the South and East of England they probably were the largest and after they had settled their language and culture spread over the rest of England to the North and West.
Dutch Man
Dutch Man Yıl önce
Yung Blood Even with the first two words you are wrong. They have their roots in the Indo European languages, from which Latin and Greek also derived. Furthermore in Indo Germanic languages, and West Germanic languages. Seems you do not have any linguistic knowledge at all.
Robert Parker
Robert Parker Yıl önce
The Romo-british population had more of a population (The Active army was sent back to Continental Europe) , but the Germanics had a tactual edge because they had been employed by the Romans as border Guards and had more trainable warriors than the Brits.
Saad Abbas
Saad Abbas 2 yıl önce
Fun fact: “The decline of the gentry largely stemmed from the 1870s agricultural depression; however, there are still many hereditary gentry in the UK to this day.”
B Yıl önce
decline doesnt mean end
nikbear 2 yıl önce
I'm sorry, but the idea that the native Early Britons just said to the Saxons "Yeah, sure,you take what you want, we'll just bugger off to Wales and the north, help yourselves" is rubbish. Knowing how warlike these early people were,and how precious territory was, I'm sure they would have fought tooth and nail for it! Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, just because we haven't found those battlefields, doesn't mean they aren't there,and let's not forget, those early post Roman battlefields would be small, sometimes less than fifty men a side,not the great armies of old,so a lot harder to find. ⚔ But no less important.
noorur 2 yıl önce
Naw, the population of England at the time definately wasn't more than 7 million or so, and lots of available land, as the first Saxon mercenary must have saw, told his mates in Angle & Saxony, and they all came in huge numbers without the Romans trying to stop em. What were the native celts to do ? They already been subjugated by the Romans for 400 years and taxed, u think they give a shit about a new group of people coming over and not taxing them ?? Let alone the vast empty spaces available? Or maybe the natives just surrendered or wanted to carry on with their lives.
Spencer Sanderson
Spencer Sanderson 2 yıl önce
Exactly!! Like the Britons put out huge armies to fight against the Roman invasion, then when a load of Saxons came the idea is that the Britons just let their land go freely and live under Saxon rule, adopting their language and customs. It just doesn’t make any sense
w 2
w 2 2 yıl önce
@noorur would a Breton king give up his crown because there were a bunch of them with their own little kingdoms and lands
MarkoRollo 2 yıl önce
"Knowing how warlike these early people were," knowing? can i borrow your Tardis doctor? fact is we 'know' things based on whats been written down in the past, & from some archaeological remains, they even say in this with Bede he used some artistic license based on his own views. everyone does it, even now. Im sure there were some big battles, but the only way we can ever really know what happened in the past is by travelling back in the aforementioned Tardis & seeing it for ourselves..
Andrew Childs
Andrew Childs 2 yıl önce
“Probably they just murdered and fought their way to the top, but they wanted this origin story of always being royal, or descended from the gods” - Helen THAT is a iconic statement that explains a lot of government
Jason Penn
Jason Penn Yıl önce
That statement by Helen was completely ludicrous and is no different than saying "I wanted to appear important, so I made up a story of being conquered by a group of gangsters".
GreyWolfClimber Yıl önce
@Jason Penn no. That’s how people end up at the top.
Paul Beatty
Paul Beatty Yıl önce
Another difficulty I had was accepting Augustine’s mission to Britain as the birth of Christianity there. Constantine legalized the religion in the empire in the early 4th century, so it would have been present in Britain long before Augustine arrived at the end of the 6th century.
Hræfnwarian Yıl önce
Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of Britain around 386 after he wiped out the last of the Druids.
Mike Parker
Mike Parker Yıl önce
Constantine the Great was made emperor in York after his Dad died, which I guess means he grew up here. It makes me wonder whether Christianity was already here, he had some experiences with it growing up, and that inspired him to make the Roman Empire Christian. Apparently there was a Christian Bishop in York in his time.
allanp5 Yıl önce
The traditional view of church history sees Christianity reintroduced into England from Ireland and then Scotland. This is covered by Bede who argues that the Roman practice replaces the Celtic practice. Pryor conveniently does not address why Angle slaves from Britain would have been found in Rome.
Irene 4 aylar önce
​@allanp5 the Anglo-Saxons didn't invent slavery but got the idea from the Romans. Rather than destroy an enemy completely they can be enslaved and set to do all the hard manual labour - with optional castration for difficult males. After enslaving the defeated Britons and enjoying the benefits of a slave owning culture it would have been easy to transition toward enslavement of defeated enemies who were also Angli-Saxon. Profits could be made from selling them on to other slave-owning cultures rather than just burying an enemy with no profit apart from the land you stole. Arguably Britain's wealth all comes from slavery through exploiting the native population, past colonialism and through corporations who are the modern face of slave-ownership/wealth-accumulation and natural resources theft all over the world.
Mr.Firefox 4 aylar önce
​@Irene it goes back past even the Egyptians. Us humans love our slavery
Curl Bennett
Curl Bennett 4 aylar önce
Wow! thats unbelievable that we would have a genetic connection with people from Holland what a genius this guy is!
Marcantonio Savelli
Marcantonio Savelli Yıl önce
The thesis of this - by the way interesting and absolutely respectable - documentary sounds unconvincing to me. Basically, to minimize the impact of the Roman, Anglo Saxon, and even Celtic components, they made up this chimera that is "the britons". What language did these phantomatic britons speak? "Britons" is just a definition that Roman sources used to describe the people that they found in the island, which were of Celtic root. Ceasar's De Bello Gallico is the first to mention them, as Caesar's was the first Roman expedition to the island. The Anglo Saxons, then, spoke a completely different language, and they were completely different people. Invasion or not, they arrived sometime between the 4th and 7th century (nobody can tell for certain, maybe even called in as foederati of the Romans in the second half of 4th century, as has been suggested by many) and had nothing to do with the Celtic people, and they never completely integrated, as still nowadays, centuries after, we can distinguish Celtic speaking regions and not, in the UK. Peaceful integration? Very unlikely. The suggestion that the conquered celts "unlearn" their language to adapt to the Anglo Saxons stands against every evidence of analogue situations in other european regions in the same period. To better understand the mechanism of gradual integration - after an invasion - of germanic tribes in a romanized substratus, should be useful, rather than speculating on insufficient sources, comparing the situation of England with similar processes in other areas of Europe where the sources are way more abundant - the Italian peninsula for example. Last but not least, the only idea of talking of "English people" that exist as an entity impermeable to the Roman domination, and continue to persist "as if nothing happened" after the Romans leave, is lacking in understanding of what the Roman domination - and integration - meant for the civilization of the conquered regions. But that said, well done documentary and absolutely respectable scientific research.
TurquoisePink Yıl önce
The Welsh spoke their language right up until the English government brought in anti- Welsh language policies, and there was a massive backlash and people fought for the right to be able to speak their own language. Up until 150 years ago, everyone in Wales spoke Welsh as a first language. The idea that the Brythonic people just happily changed language is absurd. It goes against human nature, people naturally want to speak their own language. This 'peaceful integration' theory is ridiculous. There is no denying that the Saxons drove the Welsh out of their own land and into what we now call Wales. If they had 'integrated' they would all be speaking Brythonic and not English. What this documentary is proposing- and also other newer books and articles proposing the same theory. Is it not only goes against human nature- but also as you say, we can look at other counties who went through similar changes and see that this 'gentle integration' theory would never have happened.
C.A.J. C.A.J.
C.A.J. C.A.J. 4 aylar önce
Very well done. With all of the trade going on I'm sure a lot of people would settle down. Trading post turns into villages and villages into castles.
Irene 4 aylar önce
Yes and pesky natives could make useful slaves!
John Moore
John Moore 4 aylar önce
GREAT VIDEO - I am not sure I agree with all the statements but it certainly makes one think. I wish we could go back and see what really happened.
Keith Chamberlain
Keith Chamberlain Yıl önce
I have a theory. The land was available due to the falling population and they heard about it on the continent. They moved to vacant land. Peacefully and unhindered.
Steven Allan
Steven Allan 4 aylar önce
I watched this documentary "From late 535 AD to 536, written records from across the world suggest a mysterious climate catastrophe. Dubbed the year "without a summer", the sun was completely dimmed and shadows were invisible..." It appears this volcanic eruption led to the starvation of millions of people, followed by disease, all over the known world. Maybe this is what happened around this time?
Mr.Firefox 4 aylar önce
Yeh i remember hearing about this. All i can say is this documentary leaves out alot, mainly because its old but also a bit of dishonest hypothesis imo
The New Khan
The New Khan 3 aylar önce
I mean, at the same time the Slavs (Sclaveni, Venethi/Wends, and Antes) enter Central Europe and Balkans from the East, replacing populations that lived there for centuries (including some Germanic tribes). We know that this huge migration in the Eastern Europe happened after some kind of depopulation event, there's a lot of archeological and linguistical evidence suggesting almost a 100% replacement in a matter of 2-3 centuries after this event. I thing it all has to be connected.
Vercingetorix 2 yıl önce
He says that the Germanic DNA could be from the Vikings. But the Vikings didn't leave their language and the Anglo-Saxons did, as well as their DNA. I have also seen evidence of extensive defensive earthworks throughout southern and eastern England. There is also documentary evidence for invasion. Although this hypothesis is conceivably accurate, it seems this presenter has reached his conclusions first, and then selects evidence in support of that hypothesis. That is not the way to do proper research.
Carole Smith
Carole Smith 2 yıl önce
This bothered me also.
Vercingetorix 2 yıl önce
@Mark Morris Documentaries should present unbiased facts. "But what about the other guy" is not an argument.
Jonny Lumberjack
Jonny Lumberjack 2 yıl önce
@Vercingetorix Nonsense. They are going to present the facts according to the documentary maker. These are not scientific papers that need to be peer reviewed, they are documentaries to entertain first, educate second.
Dylan Landry
Dylan Landry 2 yıl önce
@Jonny Lumberjack you have a point archaeology can support anyone's thesis
Chris Scott
Chris Scott Yıl önce
You only have to look at language, culture, religion to know that the English are a germanic people. It is so glaringly obvious that it's painful. Both Angles and Saxons are from northern Germany, and we have archaeological evidence of angles and saxons being the ruling class in England after the 5th century. That along with historical writings confirming that as being true. Don't need a doctorate to figure out it's based in fact.
Hræfnwarian Yıl önce
Right, did they just forget about Edwin, Oswald, Offa, Ethelbert, Cedric, Æthelwülf and many other Anglo-Saxon kings? The whole Anglo-Saxon chronicles tome is a record of all the Anglo-Saxon rulers from the 5th century on.
Aaron B
Aaron B Yıl önce
Thats not whats being asked here. Did you watch the documentary?
Chris Scott
Chris Scott Yıl önce
@Aaron B yep
Markie C
Markie C Yıl önce
@Hræfnwarian Cerdic was an Anglo-Saxon chieftain with a Celtic name. Caedmon ( the father of Old English poetry) was an Anglo-Saxon but his name definitely was not. This means that language/ethnic identity distinction between the Britons and the Saxons gradually overlapped.
Ajrwilde Yıl önce
Genetic evidence: Average English person is 60% Celtic
SA25 - SV Redemption
SA25 - SV Redemption Yıl önce
The ideas might have been plausible, except we do have many battle sites that associate with times of legend (the dark ages) rather than explicitly recorded historic events (ie, the Battle of Bannockburn). This is largely associated with the fact that post-Roman Britain reverted to an oral society, rather than a written society - a point that was well documented by late Dark Age historians like Bede. Most of the records of the Dark Ages are in fact from religious locations - churches, monasteries, abbeys, etc. In the archeological side, there are remains of battles and conflicts, but ones that cannot be definitively linked with one battle or another. We see Dark Age kingdoms like Gwynedd and Strathclyde with definitive archeological sites of conflict, but the records of those kingdoms are scarce and mostly oral history that was recorded sometimes centuries after the fact. That is why legends like King Arthur are legend, as opposed to definable history. That's different from myth, where there is no link. A legend is truth, but the story we get is largely embellished and not necessarily entirely accurate. However, there is historical truth in the story. Mythology is the other side of that coin - things like the Giants and Gods of Celtic traditions. That isn't legend, but mythology. Whereas the history of Edward I is definitive history - the written record and the archeological record are one and the same, the places are identifiable. What this program seems to do is mix legend with mythology. That is wrong. The legends of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table may well contain mostly fictious stories, but the fact that certain battles took place, the prominence of certain Celtic kings and leaders, and their Anglo-Saxon and Jute counterparts, are largely factual. As a result, I feel this documentary is ignoring a lot of historical and archeological evidence and source material in making it's conclusions - as evidenced by the interviewees with whom there is disagreement. I know that places like the University of St Andrews have gone considerably into the archeological and written history of kingdoms like Cumbria and Strathclyde, looking at this conflict between the Celtic nations and the Anglo-Saxon nations. Indeed, the wider evidence of widespread conflict across Eurasia at the time, along with records of plagues and famines, indicate that there is more than just a sliver of truth in the Celtic-Anglo wars of the Dark Ages. Indeed, unless the hypothesis is to dismiss the widespread disorder of the period from the late 400's until the late 1000's, it is inconceivable that the conflicts of the mainland would avoid some sort of equal period of disturbance on the British Isles.
The Re-Sis-Stance is coming
The Re-Sis-Stance is coming 9 aylar önce
I will re-read when not tired ... I skipped from the point at the start about oral tradition (absolutely) ... to the end ... although I spotted 'mythology' ... and I can waffle a while how there are mythology words in english that sort of 'shouldn't be there' ... echos of an oral tradition time when people appreciated the very famous myths of a land far far away ... the myths aint real but the cultures with myths were real ... In case I 4-get, the best phatom-time hypothesis around (although Fomenko's highlighting of Joseph Scalliger is worth checking-out), in my semi-humble estimation ... is Gunaar Heinsonn (thankfully a nonsense club of you-tube rubbish hasn't started from his little known hypothesis, focussing on archaology, although the nonsense-club often refer to stuff that would add to his hypothesis (bizarrely buried old world stuff - they weave it into nonsense, but it adds to the Heinsonn theory)) Heinsonn explains his version of the King Arthur story, and it kinda makes more sense, since he removes the contradiction of Arthur v Romans and Arthur v later invaders. The Welsh claim there were two Arthurs instead. Phantom-time hypothesis dont have to necessarily delete 'dark ages' ... for example ... the jesuit chronicle-collators and editor-'translators' of the holy roman empire (Scalliger and co, funded by the Medici family and others), where western and meditteranean history-writing was briefly centralised ... well, they could have stretched some chronicles here and there ... to fit their agenda (stretching catholic imperialism and such back hundreds of years to glorify the dynasties and 'benevolence', and banish cultural memories of the old world, for the furthering of their power of the 'reborn' world they controlled) ... but stretching the dark ages (necessary if their agenda was anything like what I speculate) doesn't mean there weren't any, necessarily ... Anyway, such a possibility kind of renders pre-renaissance cross-referencing a bit futile (between stories of the lands concerned), since the chronicles could have been embellished and stretched and the cross-referencing already thought of by falsifiers ... at the very least the possibility casts a shadow of doubt ... Which would leave archaelogy as the main remaining jigsaw pieces we have of the old world ...
SA25 - SV Redemption
SA25 - SV Redemption 9 aylar önce
@The Re-Sis-Stance is coming there are greater sources than just the written record of structured civilisation - when you get a chance to reread my comment, you'll see what I mean. But you are correct that largely our knowledge of that era does come from archeology. However, as I raise in my earlier comment, that archeology is largely void of defining narratives - rather, it gives us a sense of the turmoil and the actors in play at the time. What the legends do is give us greater depth with which to view the archeology. Not verbatim, of course, but to see that they come from a source of truth that, in turn, has been embellished and distorted for one reason or another.
Maurizio Costa
Maurizio Costa Yıl önce
Populations of Germanic language were already present in southern Great Britain and in Kent (Cantus) starting from at least the first century BC, coming from Belgica. They largely provided support for the Roman conquest.
Robert Parker
Robert Parker Yıl önce
They miss that in the Documentary LOL that Germanic Tribes work for the Romans and acted has Border Guards on the frontier. This is an extremely important point they omitted from the documentary.
Colin Clark
Colin Clark Yıl önce
I agree with what you are saying, the Celtic and germanic languages were established in Britain before the arrival of the Romans. The primary mode of transportation and trade was by boat. Celtic language and culture spread up the western side of the British Isles from Europe via southern France and Spain, while the Frisian language influenced the eastern side of Britain. If there was an Anglo-Saxon invasion and population replacement in 500AD, was there also a Celtic invasion sometime in the past too? Other than the ramblings of a couple of monks, written centuries after the event, there is no evidence of an Anglo-Saxon invasion and population replacement. The narrative relating to an invasion of Jutes, Angles, and Saxons from northern Germany, is vague, inconsistent, and quite frankly not all that believable. For example, the Romans established Christianity in Britain, the Anglo Saxons replaced monotheism with paganism, and then miraculously a monk from Rome re-establishes Christianity and saves everyone from the heathens....again. Frisian has the closest lexical relationship with English and not German, - funny how that's never written into the Anglo-Saxon invasion storyline. We may never know the real reason why the Frisian language made its way into becoming the most dominant language in England, but the clergy had a good crack at filling in the knowledge gaps, which unfortunately have carried on through to today.
Mike Parker
Mike Parker Yıl önce
The ladder settlement is fascinating, but it's probably unwise to draw conclusions about changes to the whole of the UK, based on observations at one forgotten village in Yorkshire.
Mr.Firefox 4 aylar önce
They still expanded. Land doesnt just empty as they expand, does it
Jubach 8 aylar önce
I could listen to Francis talk for hours and hours and hours.
Dustin Yıl önce
There was certainly Northern European migration to Great Britain. We have genetic and linguistic evidence. Knowing the means by which is occurred is something we probably will have great difficulty in learning. I think that it is probably pretty unlikely to think a large group Celts that lived a Roman lifestyle picked up a Germanic language and DNA for no reason. The linguistic connections and the mutual intelligibility means it had to fit into the conventional timeline, as well. This idea simply doesn't make sense. Not only is the language similar, but the worship of the Germanic gods prior to Christianity. Nope. Every bit of evidence that we have does indeed support that Northern Europeans migrated. In terms of Christianity, other Germanic groups were Christian, like the Visigoths. Although, that was isolated from England. These folks have some agenda.
Pandas On The Road
Pandas On The Road 4 aylar önce
This is very similar to what happened to the Roman Empire after the fall. Nothing basically changed from one day to another , Roma wasn't gone, Rome as the city was still functioning and any transition happened very gradually so even with many battles and fights lands , cultures and people were mixing slowly , such process takes many years. In case of Anglo-Saxon it may simply happen there were fights for the territory but there were also smoother transitions of power.
Jesper Andersson
Jesper Andersson Yıl önce
the 'catastrophe' of the 523 AD volcanoe must be related is safe to say, plus so-called justinian plague(s), likely shared complex cultural unity inside the English channel (/Anglish channel). A return to growth myth is a similar idea in modern and even late Medieaval history, the Black Death was just in some parts lucky and and in no sense a return but rather an autoctalytic process of change (unidirectional).
Aaron Walker
Aaron Walker 2 yıl önce
I am so happy to see members of Time Team still doing what they love!
Marcelo Gartner
Marcelo Gartner 4 aylar önce
By The third century AD,the saxons were better known by their raiding parties, from The sea ,as the Vikings,then they went on to settle parts of Britain,after the fall of roman rule. And also central Europe later on. The angles were better known by their jewelery. English language was born as a mix of several languages. Empires seldom fall they go through transformation like in America.
2msvalkyrie Yıl önce
Irrespective of historical debate ; stunning footage of the English countryside in high Summer . Glorious trees !!
Mr.Firefox 4 aylar önce
Thats why i love British history programs, or history programs in generap
Hardly Working
Hardly Working Yıl önce
This is a perfect example of bad history, take a pre-determined view and try to make the evidence fit. Nothing wrong with the production quality etc. but its just really not worth sitting through
Benjamin Badger
Benjamin Badger Yıl önce
This lecture left out the effect of the Anglo-Saxon plough with coulter that allowed the newcomers to plough the heavier clay soil in the bottom-lands that the locals could not farm. Thus, the newcomers used land that was not occupied. And co-existed with the locals.
Malcolm Stead
Malcolm Stead Yıl önce
Good point.
Mr.Firefox 4 aylar önce
Somayya mughal
Somayya mughal 2 yıl önce
History is totally a mystery to us. We may never find the real answers
Bruce Ironside
Bruce Ironside Yıl önce
Another/better video that looks at the written and archeological evidence, and discusses both without a preconceived outcome, is on Kings and General channel.
flamos44 2 yıl önce
makes sense like in russia or other places with migrations be it persia, india, middle east, north africa etc what you had was a small ruling class that would over time assimilate into the local populace or if the rulers were more cuturally advanced locals adopt the customs of their overlords. So of course villages back then little would have changed. The tax collector is the tax collector to the farmer whether it be Guttfried or Genadius or Arthur.
Cherries Jubilee
Cherries Jubilee Yıl önce
The story I gleaned from this documentary is closer to a change in fashion than a violent invasion. It is rather like how Levi's and McDonalds "invaded" Russia. Important people married into important immigrant families and just really liked the Anglo-saxon style.
Fetus 2 yıl önce
My guess is its a combinations of things.. sure maybe a king showed up and started a kingdom but it may be 1 or 3 that did . More like returning to known and suppressed to new things all rolled into one that just kept on going .
Dani de Janeiro
Dani de Janeiro Yıl önce
Waited 35 minutes for you to get to the most glaring evidence: language. And what a complete let down. You said native Britons just started to decide to speak Anglo-Saxon because it was trendy? You mean, these people were literally dominated by Latin-speaking Romans for centuries without giving up their language. But then a few Frisians show up in their village and the whole country immediately adopts their language? But only as far as the borders of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. Yeah. Right.
Lock K
Lock K Yıl önce
I remember reading a Roman account of Caesars invasion.mentioning there was essentially no difference between the languages of the southern british tribes and that of the Belgae.But no mention of a similarity with the Celts of Northern France.
MrRomero00 Yıl önce
Tbf modern welsh is heavily influenced by latin. Many words are latin in origin, as is the case in irish. But there was not a complete erasure of the brythonic language and culture like there was in england. I'm surprised they didn't dive further into the genetics. The genetics clearly shows the average Englishman is around a 1/3rd Germanic, either Anglo Saxon or possibly danish viking which Is almost indistinguishable from A/S. So while there wasnt a total replacement of britons in england they were very much dominated by Anglo saxons. Not only is this evidence in the language and cultural shifts but the contemporary Anglo saxons writers at the Time generally didn't have much nice to say about their british neighbors.
MrRomero00 Yıl önce
@Lock K they were very closely linked, both the belgae and the gauls had strong ties to Briton. There were a couple tribes that supposedly had territory both on the continent and in the British isles. It's likely why the cornish fled to brittany, they already had ties there. Then consider the fact that the same north germanic ppl that invaded britain also settled in the Netherlands and belgium etc. Its no wonder why english dna Is so hard to differentiate from other NW euros. They are essentially made up of the same stock.
Sokar Rostau
Sokar Rostau Yıl önce
@MrRomero00 Don't forget the Norman influence. We tend to think of them as French because that's the language they spoke but the Normans (Norsemen) were really just Vikings given land to end the raids. From the Anglo-Saxons to the Normans we end up with almost a thousand years of genetic influence from essentially the same source.
RuneRelic 3 aylar önce
"This theory fell out of favour among modern scholars as successive inscriptions of IX Hispana were found in the site of the legionary base at Nijmegen (Netherlands), suggesting the Ninth may have been based there from c. 120 AD, later than the legion's supposed annihilation in Britain."
Philipp Hackenberg
Philipp Hackenberg Yıl önce
So if there was no measurable immigration from modern day Germany before the arrival of the Vikings, then how the hell did a Germanic language become dominant in what is now England? If the population remained Celtic throughout all this time, why did they call their Kingdoms „Wessex“ or „Sussex“?
Ajrwilde Yıl önce
watch the video it explains it
Шон Yıl önce
@Ajrwilde no it doesn’t
K Kr
K Kr Yıl önce
Wouldn't that episode's conclusion apply just as well to almost anywhere in the Americas, and almost anywhere in the world that didn't rigorously keep their borders closed for hundreds of years?
You-Know-Who 2 yıl önce
Very interesting! Being Irish I am reluctant to comment to much other than from our historical perspective The Vikings who came to both Islands were Danish and Norwegian while Swedish Vikings went east of any Swedes were with they were probably servants or captured slaves. The venerable Bede created the concept of England but. from our perspective it appears English and England only appeared with Henry VIII 😊👍
Pathfinder; Fergus Films
Pathfinder; Fergus Films 2 yıl önce
I'll Go with that... it has been suggested that Edward III began this so called cultural change to England.? Normans becoming English...
oscar ernstell
oscar ernstell 2 yıl önce
More vikings from Swedish areas went west than east. In fact, if you went east, you were seldom a viking at all since viking is a pirate and Eastern travels were less commonly aggressive. And mainly a small region around Stockholm went east. There are more finds and as many runestones regarding western travelers. Your notion is wrong yet sadly still widespread. It stems from a false idea of a premedieval Sweden. In reality, there was no such thing as a Swedish viking and most vikings from what is now Sweden would have been regarded as Danes by British and Irish historians since they usually organized under danish leaders. F ex there was substantial "Swedish" contingents in both Sven Forkbeards and Canutes hosts of which a number of runestones can tell.
You-Know-Who 2 yıl önce
@oscar very interesting . The Swedes around Stockholm definitely made their mark then. There is no doubt they at least went East via Estonia and carrying their boats between lakes stopping off at different places because the Kiev rus emerged out of the Vikings/traders . The furthest east the Danes went was Estonia where the capital city Tallinn derives from Dani Linn in literally Danish town (Dublin is also a Danish city but unlike Tallinn does not capture) the same meaning) from an Irish perspective Viking does not necessarily mean pirate and this is also true in Estonia where the term was also used during ww2. A large Swedish minority lived in Estonia up until late 1930s. The Swedes not Danes or Norwegians made it as far as Constantinople and were reputed to become paid soldiers and bodyguards to the Byzantine. Of course they may well have been composed of others they picked up along the way while simultaneously leavin colonies along the way. Our understanding in Ireland is that the Danes settled in Ireland after leaving many place names behind even to this day. The Irish historical narrative is that they were well able to either pillage trade and then settle. The Norwegians on the other hand were not welcome in Ireland and were only allowed to restock including including taking females and then sent on their way by the Danes. The DNA of Iceland reveals ,not including, recent immigrants that 50percent is Irish even though some females were taken in Scotland which is for reasons I won't get into does not change the DNA record. The Irish historical record also demonstrates further proof of this because before the Danes were defeated by the Irish in 1014 the Irish were ordered to take family names by the Irish high king after the 1014 defeat Danes who had come into help fight were compelled to leave but the Irish Danes were allowed to stay within the country but also compelled to take surnames but not in the same fashion as the Irish this still gives an indication today . In addition Dublin was made a Danish Kingdom . Perhaps among the Danes who had to leave included Swedes and those went on to take over England two years later in1016. When the Normans from France invaded England of England had also been kings of Norway Canute and finally Harald. In addition to this Iceland gained independence from Denmark in 1944 but I have very little knowledge of how Denmark came to be in possession. Iceland also has a history of Irish monasticism with very many monks. Why I find it easy to accept the Swedish eastern theory is that there simply could not have been that many Norsemen. Of course Normandy can be considered west of Scandinavia but then we also have the Norman kingdom of Sicily which would have been easier to reach from Byzantine empire which had territory in mainland Italy . Unlike English language Irish language existed in written form since the fifth century as did Greek and Latin which evolved into a wester dialect and then french which is a hybrid the Normans arrived with after they conquered England. Apart from a few Norwegian anomalies in the Irish family names their is only one surname in Ireland which may have been Swedish but this also requires speculation through the Irish language.and then matching it with English. This is all I can contribute other than to identify that as the Romanov empire was rising in 18th century sweden was also an empire which taught against the Romanov Russian empire eventually relinquishing the province of Livonia which is all of Estonia and as far into Latvia as Riga and from Riga through Lithuania came under polish empire even though the Prussian empire had a language which may be similar to the Lithuanian and Latvian language. The Livonian language whose last native speakers died at the beginning of this century belonged to the finno Ugric group which in the north includes Finnish and Estonian but Finland has a second official language which is Swedish. Finland is also easy of Sweden but this may not have much to do with the Norsemen but more to do with the Swedish empiire which saw Finland becoming part of the Russian empire until 1918 and then under white Russians for a very short period of a year or two. This is all I can contribute . While I knew that Norsemen were in Russia eventually becoming Kiev rus and then Romanovs I always used to presume that they includ Norwegians Swedes and Danes and presumed ther were Swedes among the Vikings in th the north Atlantic archipelago but then I was told that the Swedes went east and now you tell us this. Perhaps the. Concept of. Sweden originated around Stockholm. For my part I do not approach with the view of the term Viking as.only pirates but also traders and settlers. 🤔😃🙋💛
Eamonn Clabby
Eamonn Clabby Yıl önce
Best wishes from the wirral ,site of the great battle of Brunanburh/Bromborough 937AD, where Angles and Saxons began to identify themselves as English, Wirral itself has Irish Irish placenames like Noctorum (dry hill) Hiberno Norse names like Irby ( place of the Irish) ,Wallasey ( Welsh island ) Angle place names like Eastham ,Bidston, I think people assimilated and paid their tithes round here probably at Greasby ( place of the reeve) which dates back as a settlement 3500 years..cheers / slainte....E
Keith Walker
Keith Walker Yıl önce
You can go further back than that. Alfred the Great (849 - 899) formed a 'navy' to defend the country from the attacking Vikings, THe Danes ruled northwest Britain from York which they knew as Jorvik until they were defeated by Athelstan (895 - 939) son of Edward the Elder, at, I think the Battle of Brunanburh in 927 He was king of the Anglo-Saxons 924 - 927 and then king of the English 927 - 939.. He is recognised as the first king of what is now England.
Colin 2 yıl önce
"The real story will reshape our future and rewrite our past." Sounds poetic, but far from true... Sure, it might rewrite our past, but I don't think changing theories (yes, even he is spouting theory) could necessarily change the future.
Randle Browne
Randle Browne Yıl önce
He sounds to me (especially at the end) like someone who is in favor of globalism, and not of Brexit.
TheLincolnrailsplitt Yıl önce
It wasn't a massive military invasion, but it certainly wasn't an orderly and peaceful migration either. Colonisation is arguably the best description.
Amanda McCallum
Amanda McCallum 2 yıl önce
I always wonder what future archeologists will think of us. Could they tell apart a Canadian vs. American? What random piece of clothing or jewelry will end up in a museum?
Pete Nielsen
Pete Nielsen 2 yıl önce
And would they think that people from South Carolina were a different people from those of us in New York because of people in Upstate showing evidence of back strain - even though it would be because of our shoveling 10 feet or more of snow each average winter?
Donna Marshall
Donna Marshall 2 yıl önce
Maybe a peace sign….
gogogeedus Yıl önce
I totally agree with the closing statement but I would go further to include Coffee and the legacy it has imparted to English culture to the extent that the elite Coffee culture was adopted into Law and Authority having influence in the courts and parliament, a member of the Coffee houses or a member of the Bar could make decisions relating to law the legacy of which still exists today in our judicial system.
Scott S
Scott S Yıl önce
The Romans were in England for hundreds of years before any of this happened. The Roman army was made up of many different nationalities, including angles and saxons. In those hundreds of years entire families moved with the army to the occupied lands. When the legions were finally expelled from Briton I can’t believe all of those people just got up and sailed back to mainland Europe. My point is the watering down of dna started long before the 500’s.
Robert Parker
Robert Parker Yıl önce
They had their divisions (Roman army was segregated) . Germanics were 2nd Class Members in Roman society. They served as Auxiliary units and Border guards on the Frontier.
Stuart88 2 yıl önce
Interesting how England and Britain are interchangeable as if Roman Britain existed all over Britain which is a comparative new entity .
Bobby Adams
Bobby Adams 2 yıl önce
Impossible to know all of history, we learn only of relatively small events compared to the enormity of what happened to all the separate lives!
Lock K
Lock K Yıl önce
Didnt the Romans comment on the similarity of tongue between the southern tribes and those of the Belgae( Belgium area),some 500 years before the supposed Anglo Saxon invasion
Karl P
Karl P 4 aylar önce
The Germanic cultural and linguistic predominance in Britain is unmistakable and beyond question.
Ellis Karanikolaou
Ellis Karanikolaou 4 aylar önce
Yet their language script is Latin (Italic) rather than Runic (Germanic).
Stephen Taylor
Stephen Taylor 4 aylar önce
You can see different phenotypes of those people of Celtic or Saxon decent, even our aristocracy looks different. I would put this down to Norman ancestors. Under all that you have the Atlanto-Mediterranean’s, very noticeable in Cornwall and Wales, as well as part of Scotland. Dependents of the pre-Celtic Prittani/Picts.
Richard Peel
Richard Peel 4 aylar önce
Britain and Northern France as parts of the Roman Empire were subject to raids by Saxons from the sea, hence the construction of the shore forts. After the Roman Governor left with the army to claim his title as Roman Emperor a Romano Celtic culture emerged combining the energies of the Celts, the remaining Romans and anyone else that was left in the country including some Saxons and Jutes, the Pendragon family are remembered for leading the Romano Celts through the King Arthur myths against the raids of the Saxons. They used the pre-Roman capital of Britain Colchester as their base, it's Roman name was Camelobdinum, which may be the origin of the name Camelot. They operated a light cavalry legion as a rapid reaction force against Saxon landings. They tried to gain the support of the Celtic population with Merlin a druid and making connections with the pre-Roman High King Caracatus and reviving the Goddess Britannia myth. In 535-536AD the Krakatoa eruption caused a volcanic winter causing many horses to starve to death or become unrideable and for the plague to spread from the Atlas Mountains to Constantinople and hence via trade routes to Britain. Having already lost their warriors and horses and a large part of the Romano Celtic population due to plague and crop failure (the mythical Waste Land) the Saxons moved in almost without a fight. I suggest this fits in with the archeological facts as have been discovered.
Brian Coady
Brian Coady Yıl önce
Thank you for this! I didn't know this was anything but settled history, but in the back of my mind, I always made note of just how easily the Celts et al were swept away. The Celts. Erstwhile conquerors of Rome. Now that you bring this up....
Robert Parker
Robert Parker Yıl önce
???? Celts didn't Sack Rome . The Sack of Rome on 24 August 410 AD was undertaken by the Visigoths(Germanic) led by their king, Alaric
john patrick
john patrick 6 aylar önce
They weren;t Celts - they had already been replaced in the Bronze age! See: Mass Migrations into Britain in the late Bronze Age. And the so-called Anglo-Saxons were very diverse, as a burial ground in Kent recently showed. See: Daily mail Updown.
william m. kydde
william m. kydde 4 aylar önce
@Robert Parker The Celts did sack Rome in the 4th c. BC. They crossed the Alps. The Celts used to settle all over Europe, from Asia Minor to the Channel and into the Spanish peninsula.
Robert Parker
Robert Parker 4 aylar önce
@william m. kydde Were not talking about that time period of the early Republic . The Time period being referenced is The Anglo-Saxon period 400-500 AD . You are 1000 years off
Robert Parker
Robert Parker 4 aylar önce
@john patrick Celtic refers to Their Religion and Culture , Early Bronze age the Beaker People Migrated to Britain(4000bc BC) . Late Bronze age Hallstatt culture (1400 BC) (Celtic )500 (900 BC) years Later the La Tène Culture (Celtic ) From there the Gallic Culture is Derived In Ireland (Around 300AD). The Brits were part of the Older Hallstatt Culture. The Period of the Ago-Saxons (Germanic-Also refers to Culture ) doesn't even Begin till after 500AD ALL of the Folks are Classified as R1b to their Parent DNA . Then there are sub makers to identify each group. Technically as far as Ethnic they had the same Mummy and Dadda
Paul White
Paul White 3 aylar önce
I doubt the Celts just 'learnt a new language', there had to be a reason they adopted this new language, I don't think any language is just cast off.
taivo55 Yıl önce
As a linguist, I found this explanation to be without linguistic foundation. The language of the British (Celtic) was completely replaced by the language of the English (Germanic) in the 5th and 6th centuries. If the transition was a peaceful intermixing, then one would expect to find abundant evidence in English vocabulary and grammar of Celtic influence, as there is clear and indisputable evidence in Zulu and Xhosa of the earlier Khoisan languages in terms of click consonants and other features as mothers (presumably Khoisan women captured by Zulu warriors) taught their children Zulu with imperfect Khoisan-influenced accents and as surviving Khoisan villages used their languages in trade with their Zulu neighbors. However, in English there is virtually no evidence of a Celtic substrate. That means that the Celtic British suddenly decided en masse to switch entirely to speaking the Germanic English language if this video's thesis were true. The linguistic situation is crystal clear--there was a mass replacement of a Celtic-speaking population with a fluent Germanic-speaking population over a relatively short period of time. When the video finally comes to linguistics, the argument for Celtic influence on the language is seriously flawed. The argument is made that Celtic influenced Middle and Modern English, but in order to support the video's argument, then the influence must have been on Old English and not lain like some dormant seed for hundreds of years before suddenly emerging in Late Middle and Early Modern English. It's a linguistically untenable argument. Also, the linguistic comment that Modern English word order has nothing to do with "the other Germanic languages" is seriously flawed since every aspect of Old English and Middle English word order has a clear and indisputable origin in common Germanic. Indeed, the linguistic argument highlights case endings in Modern German and their absence in Modern English, but ignores the fact that the Germanic languages were losing case endings (eight in Proto-Indo-European to six in Proto-Germanic to four in Old English) from their first separation from Proto-Indo-European and that the Scandinavian languages have lost even more case marking than English has. Indeed, the full range of Germanic case endings are only present in the Germanic languages in the most common masculine nouns and feminine and neuter nouns have only about half the number of masculine cases. So using case reduction in English as an argument for the influence of Celtic has no real basis in historical fact.
MusikCassette Yıl önce
I also don't like, how they gloss over the DNA evidence.
Kinnish Yıl önce
Agree the idea that a people would suddenly give up their language with few native speakers to teach them and no formal methods of training seems absurd.
Mike W Ellwood
Mike W Ellwood Yıl önce
I agree completely. In addition, modern Welsh has masculine and feminine genders which are grammatically significant, while in modern English, gender is almost totally grammatically insignificant ("he" and "she" being the only difference I can think of). Modern Welsh still has well defined verb conjugations (although one can get round knowing most of them using the so called periphrastic construction) which English has almost totally lost, and of course a different word order (VSO, as opposed to English SVO).
Mike W Ellwood
Mike W Ellwood Yıl önce
@ᛄᚩᚾ ᛒᛇᚱᛒᚪᚾᚲ That's a good point, and I don't think anybody knows for sure. Happy to be corrected though. There are theories that a form of proto (Germanic) English was spoken (by some, at least) on this side of the channel prior to the Roman invasion, and of course well prior to the "Anglo-Saxon Invasion", but I don't think they are well-supported.
Markie C
Markie C Yıl önce
This is not a new phenomenon at all. When the Abassid Arabs conquered the Levant, Sassanid Mesopotamia, Egypt, Berber Libya and Maghreb most of the local population adopted Arabic and Islam within a hundred years. The same can be said of many Finno-Ugric, Baltic, Sarmatians and Turkic people who lost their tribal identities by becoming Slavicized in the area that became known today as Russia.
Roger Smallman
Roger Smallman 4 aylar önce
Oddly enough there is the legend that unlike the other Saxon Kingdoms Mercia was formed by inviting the Saxons to live with the Britions already there.
Nigel Prosser
Nigel Prosser Yıl önce
I like this guy , and his love for ancient rituals on time team ,,,, 😂😂👍👍
Jed Daniels
Jed Daniels Yıl önce
How times change. This series was released in 2004. We have had a revolution in DNA studies since.
kev WHUFC Yıl önce
Backfilled ditches contain more moisture than the land around that hasn't been dug up , so the crops grow taller than the others either side of a ditch . If a solid Roman floor is under the ground, concrete or flagstone The opposite happens, the crops are stunted, shorter than those around the outside of the ancient building remains. Sunset or sunrise is the best time to look for signs of habitation For those who don't have access to expensive geo-phys equipment ..
Olz Dee
Olz Dee Yıl önce
First thoughts. Why does any invasion have to mean large battles. It depends on how friendly the immigrants were. If they purely wanted to settle and assimilate then there might not have been battles.
william m. kydde
william m. kydde 4 aylar önce
But in England, they didn't assimilate. :)
МЗД Yıl önce
I am from Bulgaria. In the 7th century lands in modern northern Bulgaria were occupied by slavic tribes.About 675-680 in these lands crossing river Danube have come the protoBulgarians.They were tribe from the lands of modern Ukraine. And the slavic tribes and protoBulgarians made an alliance without single fight.They together fought with Byzantium and found country called Bulgaria. This is an evidence that is not necessary invaders and local people to fight each other. Not to forget that in the 6th century there was a plague all over Europe which decreased dramatically population. And probably the Anglo-Saxon invaded England after the plague.The local population was small and there were no battles between invaders and locals.
Matt K
Matt K Yıl önce
14:24 there is this push in modern academia to constantly reinvent and interpret things, no matter how out of context or insane the proposition is. I reminder sitting in a class and was learning about “liminal spaces” and there was these cemeteries with rock walls/ mound around them that represented a space for the living and dead. I’ll never forget this kid who raised his hand and said maybe they needed a place to put the rocks/dirt when digging the graves. Lol the look of the professor was priceless.
John S
John S Yıl önce
Perhaps what you’ve been taught is inaccurate.
PifflePrattle Yıl önce
Wasn't until Robin Cook turned up towards the end that I realised how old the program was. Also a sad reminder of what a half way genuine sincere and ethical politician looks and sounds like. Pity he died so young, but we know he was on the right side of history the day he resigned from the Blair government over the second gulf war.
That dude man tell
That dude man tell 2 yıl önce
"Were these forts used as defense? Maybe not, they may have been used for trade. There is no evidence that they were for defense. The evidence they were used for trade is.............coastal?"
Louisa Capell
Louisa Capell 2 yıl önce
And they were FORTS........ LOL
Bjowolf2 Yıl önce
Why on earth would you go through all the huge and very costly efforts of building these sea forts, if they weren't needed? 🙄
John MacLeod
John MacLeod Yıl önce
'Both' would seem to be the most sensible alternative. When they weren't needed for defense (which would have been most of the time), they would have been used for trade. And, in times they were needed for defense, a fort is a pretty good place to secure trade goods
Matt Zoozb
Matt Zoozb 4 aylar önce
14:20 "these forts..had a supply role rather than a defensive function" he says, _standing right in front of a turret_
Nunya Business
Nunya Business 4 aylar önce
Would someone please acknowledge that there is such a thing as a bad influence?
Tamas Marcuis
Tamas Marcuis 2 yıl önce
Some academic who use English and British interchangeably and talks about "a nation" for Britain while completely ignoring the other nations. There is of course NO British nation unless you are talking about the Welsh. The UK is merely a government that covers various nations and territories.
william m. kydde
william m. kydde 4 aylar önce
The whole film (2005?) is an attempt to prepare the ground for the acceptance of the current wave of immigration as sth benign: "the English nation does not exist", "we don't really know what happened", "it was an economic immigration". Right, in 500 AD, people move in in droves, occupy your land and impose their language. Looks like benign, doesn't it?
Trailing Arm
Trailing Arm Yıl önce
In my opinion it wasn't an invasion so much as steady and growing pressure from European tribes over many generations. They were good farmers, decent fighters and were probably a bit more worldly than the resident Celts because - like many immigrants - they'd travelled and seen more. Obviously the first ones settled near the east coast because this is where they landed (like the Founding Fathers in America). As more arrived the need for land meant they pressed west and the prouder or more warlike of the Celts were gradually pushed back to strongholds in Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, & Strathclyde. The Welsh annals recount many bitter battles with the Saxons, but you would not expect to find archaeological evidence of these. What would be left behind? Some Celts may well have integrated themselves into Saxon society rather than try to fight it or retreat from it. This could explain the genetic puzzle.
Paul Beatty
Paul Beatty Yıl önce
Someone on TRshow presented the idea that Anglo-Saxons were present in Britain while the Romans were still there (3rd-4th centuries). If Saxons wanted to trade peacefully, the Romans would not have objected. The blending of Celt and Saxon had already begun by the time of the Roman exodus. Pax Romana.
WhiteCrossRedGround Yıl önce
The adoption of an entirely different language involves adopting a new culture. Human beings don't do this unless compelled.
Robert Parker
Robert Parker Yıl önce
language is the 1st step to a new culture. The Old-English is a combination of Germanic(Germanic grammar Rule set and alphabet) and even Brythonic Celtic (Most Brythonic Languages were never in written a form ) . To be to able streamline words for 2 languages.
Dan McShain
Dan McShain 8 aylar önce
Compelled doesn't work, the Welsh were compelled to stop speaking Welsh but the Welsh language persisted. But the Scots language (A Germanic language related to Anglo-Saxon) became the dominant language of Scotland without any compulsion. Scotland conquered a small part of the Northumbrian Kingdom, yet rather than impose Scots Gaelic on that population, the Northumbrian language evolved to Scots and became the dominant language of the country, long before the union of the Crowns. Humans also frequently adopt new cultures willingly if not completely. For example Rock and Roll was originally American (and within America specifically African American Culture). yet within a decade it spread and influenced Europe and became the dominant music style in short order. In 1964 America saw the 'British invasion' where bands from Britain, such as the Beatles dominated the American music culture; and doing so playing a musical style that they had taken from American culture originally but adding a British style to it. To this day its hard to tell if a singer is American or British as so many sing in the transatlantic accent that was created by Americans trying to sound like a British band who were trying to sound American. Thus we can see that the adoption of a culture does not rely on compulsion; it simple relies on cultural contact. Cultures that persisted did so because of isolation.
william m. kydde
william m. kydde 4 aylar önce
@Dan McShain One could argue that Northumbria was a relatively wealthy region, densely populated, as opposed to the maily cattle-herding and valley-rading Gaelic regions. Then too, there may have been tensions between the Stuarts and the Highlands clans. And there was perhaps some prestige in speaking English, given the large neighbour to the South. What was the prestige of the "Anglo-Saxon" language for the Britons? Culturally, the colonizers were not superior, nor were they richer. All I see is force and better organization on the part of the "Germans".
Dan McShain
Dan McShain 4 aylar önce
@william m. kydde Northumbria was a relatively wealthy region, but my emphasis is on the word was. This prosperity occurred centuries prior to the Scots language emerging. In the 9th century Northumbria fell to the Vikings save a small rump in Lothian and the Borders, which then fell under the control the Gaelic speaking King of the Scots. By the time the Scots language emerged in Scotland Northumbria was no longer an independent Kingdom. the Scots language is not English do not confuse the two. Whilst Scots like English is a Germanic language and closely related to English, it is a separate language of Scotland, spoken by around a third of the Scottish population today (to various extents). Scots should not be confused with Scottish English which is a dialect of English spoken in Scotland rather than a separate but related language. The Stuarts did not speak Scots originally; they spoke French (and presumably Breton before this when they arrived in Scotland from Brittany). French was the court language of Scotland from the 12th to 14th centuries and was thus spoken by the nobility during this period. Somehow, despite having no political power and a tiny proportion of the population speaking the language initially, Scots became the primary language in much of Scotland (but not the Highlands) and then somehow influenced the elite and then the King to switch to speaking Scots. I find this fascinating. The prestige of speaking English came latter. Both literally as Scot speakers shifted to English following the act of Union, but also because English was not a prestige language when Scots became the courtly language of Scotland. The prestige of the English kings and their cultural impact on the initially Gaelic speaking King David is what lead to the Scottish court speaking French not English. This is because the English court spoke French in the 12th century. The English court continued to speak French until the 15th century, which means the Scottish court switched to Scots before the English court switched to English. I don't know why Brythonic speakers switched to Anglo-Saxon languages. We have almost no primary sources for the period. What we know from the development of the Scots language is that language changes can occur without population replacement, initial political dominance or even a significant population settlement. Thus we must conclude that a change of language on its own proves nothing beyond cultural contact and must look for other evidence.
william m. kydde
william m. kydde 4 aylar önce
@Dan McShain Very interesting, Dan. I was not aware of these nuances. Notoriously, in linguistics, "why" remains most often an unanswered question. Thank you very much. Is there a significant literary heritage written in Scots? Any newspapers? Did Robert Burns write in Scots? I know that the answer can vary from poem to poem, but, e.g., are "Scots Wha Hae" and "Auld Lang Syne" Scots or the dialect?
Varr James
Varr James 2 yıl önce
If only history lessons were as interesting as this at school.
Nina Elsbeth Gustavsen
Nina Elsbeth Gustavsen 2 yıl önce
Classroom teaching is beyond boring. Teachers all sounds like the one in "Peanuts". Going ; Wha wha wha...😄 I read through my history curriculum book in a few evenings, and spent the rest of history classes in the school library. Reading encyclopedias. This was before Google ! I'm sure a lot of students today would learn more and faster on their own, given the chance.
Varr James
Varr James 2 yıl önce
@Nina Elsbeth Gustavsen The company that I work for booked me in for a one week occupation health and safety course a few year ago...things haven't changed Nina, it felt like the longest week of my life!
Dam Brooks
Dam Brooks Yıl önce
Fashion changes, so a new cultural trends then. Of course many would suggest that this evidence of a new culture, something that is happening currently. And as I have mentioned previously, the English language 8s a veritable smorgasbord of various languages, Norse, Danish, Germanic and Latin before we include the impact of Norman/French that makes up English.
Rick Morgan
Rick Morgan 2 yıl önce
How about William the Conqueror? Most certainly an invader, and a few well-known battlefields, but otherwise the landscape of the countryside was unchanged. Just to say that a village survived through a given period with no obvious signs of warfare does not mean there was no invasion. Sorry, but this refutation of the Anglo-Saxon invasion absolutely fails in my opinion.
kev WHUFC Yıl önce
The Normans did change the landscape, they dug ditches and piled it into a mound and built a wooden fort , before eventually enlarging the ditches and the castles using stone . But the Norman invasion didn't affect the ordinary population, they didn't displace the local Celtic Germanic peoples with French or Norman people. Bbut Only the top end lived here, the lords barons who were given land for fighting for William. The Germanic peoples definitely came to Britain/England and settled here, It just didn't happen in the way old history books used to claim. But because of archaeology we know it wasn't a simple invasion like when the Vikings came, and they returned for easy pickings as well as good farmland. The Saxons didn't come with the big army killing everyone in their way burning churches raping and pillaging. The Saxons came over more subtlety, some were paid mercenaries and others came to take advantage of a leaderless country, after 400 years of Roman rule when they left everything changed, the monetary system reverted back to bartering, and most places excepted the rule of the new local chieftain / kings . But with much less violence compared to the Vikings. Take any English town with Celtic settlement then Roman and then Saxon, the archaeology shows the same story , the people carried on farming etc and with little or no violence new leaders are accepted, obviously there are a few exceptions, that wernt so peaceful, but generally speaking most towns like mine passed from old leaders to new ones , and work, farming etc continued as usual. .
Greg Mattson
Greg Mattson Yıl önce
yeah I tend to agree. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To me it was a bit disingenuous of him to completely disregard the genetic study in question. To me, larger studies on that front are the way to get at the real truth. Likewise, him saying without any real evidence that the collapse of the roman empire didn't imply a collapse of the local population. It really depends on how self-sustaining the locals are - If the boats that carried excess food stopped arriving and the technical know-how wasn't there, you BET there was a population collapse in the cities. That's why the guy he was talking to looked so incredulous when he made such a statement, and the most charitable he could be was 'well that's a farmers way of looking at it alright'
kev WHUFC Yıl önce
@Greg Mattson your absolutely right, it depended on how self sufficient , how adaptable , the people from other towns were after the Roman's left. Some adapted and remained unaffected by the administration and supply chain under Roman rule , and continued farming etc Others didn't or couldn't change and they were abandoned and their ruins are in the middle of nowhere. Towns like verulamium changed and adapted to survive and they did, and peacefully, no signs of attack or violence, , the people from the old Roman city at some point accepted the new king of the region & carried on farming etc , and eventually moved to the new Saxon town the church built on top of the hill , and the same thing, era after era the town adapted until the modern time & city it is today . I hate the generalisation that so many historians give , The Romans left and the Saxons invaded and took over England and wiped out anyone in their way... It was nothing like as simple as that, its more complex and interesting, and not as violent as historians try making it seem.
kev WHUFC Yıl önce
@hypppo yes I know about that , as I do most things that happened in my country's history. The north, east and west has always been a troublesome part of England, from Roman times & Saxon times and of course against the Norman barons & then the pheasants revolt.. Its been called the wild west of England.
Dam Brooks
Dam Brooks 4 aylar önce
I would have selected fish and chips as an incredible example of the real British Dish because Joseph Malin set up the first chippy in Bow 1860, the migrant that gave the gammons their favourite dish is brilliant because it demonstrates the irrelevance of prejudice,chips with curry sauce in Daventry once which is a strange place in the country I found.
BFDT Yıl önce
It could have been an invasion (bah dah dummm!) or simply an "invasion" of newcomers who blended in. Now, the Viking invasion, that's a different thing. 🥵
Peter Katow
Peter Katow Yıl önce
What a masterpiece of (self-)manipulation. Very entertaining.
jemahl123 Yıl önce
Frances says there's no evidence for invasion. He means archaeological evidence, there is bucketloads of historical evidence which can't just be dismissed because archaeologists haven't found something yet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
devin cahoon
devin cahoon 4 aylar önce
This is just the kind of thing a Saxon would want us to believe.
shiba inu
shiba inu 2 yıl önce
A stunning number of armchair archaeologists on this one xD
iIVIakeitRainXO Yıl önce
I don’t know if this is a “right” way of thinking but as a fighter (boxer) I would of loved to live within the medieval times as maybe I could of made kingdom and today my family would have a chance of being special and not being as poor as we were as to me it’s evident that the strongest fighters survived back then rather than anyone else
Nathan Smith
Nathan Smith 8 aylar önce
It was really more about money. If you were wealthy you could have afforded better weapons, perhaps a horse, and that would have been what gave you an edge over everyone else.
Cole Parker
Cole Parker Yıl önce
Wait a minute! The commentator is standing in the middle of Sutton Hoo where one of the most intact pre-Viking, Anglo-Ship was uncovered and you are saying that is not at least some evidence of migration and invasion!? Also as the to the Russian analogy, there is evidence that Viking migrations down the Volga along with other cultures were part of the beginnings of the overall Russian culture.
What Was Life In Dark Age Britain Really Like? | King Arthur's Britain | Complete Series | Chronicle
Origins of the English
Fortress of Lugh
görünümler 638 B
Tuna Tavus
görünümler 3,7 Mn
Alparslan: Büyük Selçuklu Final Tanıtımı | Yakında @trt1 'de!
Alparslan: Büyük Selçuklu
görünümler 216 B
Yeni Type-C kablom
Mendebur Lemur
görünümler 458 B
Ebru Yaşar & Burak Bulut - Kehribar
Mahzen Fabrick
görünümler 1,3 Mn
Merlin: Who Was King Arthur's Magical Mentor? | Merlin - The Legend | Chronicle
Chronicle - Medieval History Documentaries
görünümler 927 B
How The Roman Invasion Actually Helped Build Medieval Britain | King Arthur's Britain | Chronicle
The Mystery Of The Village That Beat The Black Death | Riddle Of The Plague Survivors | Chronicle
The Real Da Vinci Code with Tony Robinson
Reijer Zaaijer
görünümler 5 Mn
The Rise And Fall Of Europe's First Advanced Civilisation | Island Of The Minotaur | All Out History
All Out History - Premium History Documentaries
görünümler 454 B
Tuna Tavus
görünümler 3,7 Mn