@@crabsy6452 Through genetic testing it has been established that the English are themselves are more Welsh-Scot than Saxon. They are up to sixty percent Welsh-Scot.
@@iwouldsetmyselfonfireforu English people aren't really English, they're just Welsh and Scottish? Really? lol Scotland wasn't even a country until centuries after the Anglo-Saxons arrived. It was just a region with Celtic tribes. Romano-Britons escaping the Saxons, or seeking to hold on to their Roman culture went west into now what is called Wales. It wasn't called Wales at the time. The Old English word for "foreigner" is "Welsh" and the Romano-Britons who escaped their attacks were eventually called this by the Anglo-Saxons. There were no "Scots", and there were no "Welsh" people at that time until the Anglo-Saxons invented them, so how you think English people are 'Welsh-Scot' is strange. The people that became "English" had Romano-Briton ancestors too, although their genetic make-up has been added to by the Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavian Vikings and the Normans, who were essentially Scandinavian Vikings themselves; Normans being derived from "North Men" - The men from the north. You seem to be saying that modern day English people don't exist and are practically just Welsh and Scottish. This isn't true. They are descended from Ancient Britons, Romano-Britons, Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, and Scandinavian Vikings. But it was the Anglo-Saxons that forged a unique English identity. Nothing in the genetic make-up of Britain has been "established". It's all just theories and conjecture.
It’s rather irritating to save a video to ‘watch later’, only to realize it’s been retitled - originally the “Britain A.D.” series that I’ve watched many times. This isn’t the only one.
Very funny. When napoleon has invaded Russia, all aristocratic houses were furnished with French furniture and many palaces were built by french architects. But that doesn't mean it was not invaded. Some Russians even had money deposits in French banks, or french gold coins laying around. But that doesn't change the fact that Russia WAS invaded by the french. The logic in this argument in the film is flawed.
I think you mistake absorbed culture vs the hard evidence this discuss. Both can be true. But as an American I find the history of Anglo Saxon England fascinating, because even for most Americans, British history ends with Rome pulls out and when Williams of Normandy returns. Very fair point though.
@Andreas Greven Also consider there is not a single known item in the archeological record from the battle of hastings. My greatest point of contention is that the seven kingdoms all seemed to be ruled by Anglo- Saxons. I hardly believe that the native population went along with that willingly the Welsh and the Scots certainly did not
@Nathan Wardlow the interesting fact is that there are old Anglo-Saxon words still in English that have slavic, Russian origin. A lot. Like shire, for example. Oh habitat. Or saddle. And valley with vertebrae. Spine too. I can go on. And Anglo-Saxons had plantations of birch. Now, birch is THE TREE of Northern slavs. And after the departure of the Romans, a lot of agricultural lands were used as birch plantations. Slaves drink birch juice and used the bark for writing media and for making baskets and stuff. Not to mention, it was stated that Anglo-Saxons were free Christians, another words, not under any Ecclesiastical institution.
It's all very well challenging a version of events that is in the history books ... but challenging one that ISN'T?? My history books tell me that the period from 400 - 600 AD is called the "Dark Ages" because of the paucity of written evidence to shed any light on what was happening in those years. It has nothing to do with whether it was a barbarous age or not. So if the archaeological evidence shows that it was not a barbaric era, that is not "challenging the traditional historical narrative". Far from it. It is archaeology shedding light which history (in its conventional meaning of "the study of written records") cannot. SO there really is no need for all this sensational "I am going to show that the historians are wrong to call it the Dark Ages" nonsense. The historians freely ADMIT that they cannot shed much light on these years (hence ... they are dark ages so far as the historical record is concerned). So why not just tell it like it is, and say "the historian cannot shed much light on what was happening in Britain between 400 and 600 ... but the archaeologist can"??
If you look at the physical evidence 0-400 roads, writing and stone buildings, 400-600 no roads, no stone buildings and no writing. 600 onwards civilisation again.
@Richard Marcosek Why not do both? You know, live in the now at work and out and about out side, and live in the past with a ancient world documentry when at rest.
Lots of traditions survive to this day maybe not in London but out in the counties they have been passed down. My Nan was fountain of tradition almost like a wise woman still giving her advice.
Maybe travellers or visitors were required to disarm before crossing the causeway. Traditionally, people do not need nor desire weapons to worship. Something like that.
In 407 AD Honorius was the Emperor in the West and Arcadius the Emperor in the East. Constantine III was only the Emperor in the East. There was a Roman General in Britain who proclaimed himself Emperor, took his forces to Europe.
Wrong!!!!!. ConstantinE became co emperor of the west AFTER the british legions proclaimed him emperor in 407 and invaded gaul to fight honorius........ Check your facts
Layfield spelling variations before English was standardized a few hundred years ago,spelling variations of names were a common occurrence elements of Latin, French and other languages became incorporated into English through the middle ages and name spellings changed even among the literate the variations of surnames layfield,Layfield,leighfield,Leefield,Leafield,Lafield and many more.
Early origins of the Layfield family the surname was first found in Nottingham where they held a family seat as lords of the manor,the Saxon influence of English history diminished after the battle of Hastings in 1066 the language of the courts was French for the next 3 centuries and the Norman ambience prevailed .But Saxon surnames survived and the family name was first referenced in the 13 that century when held estates in that shire. So the saxons were a group of early Germanic peoples whose name was given in the early middle ages to a large country near the north Sea coast of what is now Germany in the late Roman Empire ,the name was used to refer to Germanic Coastal Raiders ,and also as a word something like the later Viking.
That's what I Love about the dark ages. All hearsay, rhetoric. No one can say 100% what really happened. But to say there was no conflict between the Germanic settlers and the Romano British seems ludicrous.
@1:40:00 When the Roman's left there was no longer the legionaries and auxillaries stationed in Britain as the governor abandoned the provence to invade Gaul. There was no central government only local institutions. Not much of an army will be raised as you have to raise untrained locals and rely on there being a retired vetran presence in the attacked area. It would not take much to settle a sparsely populated region with that oposition.
Why does he think Byzantine merchants travelled direct to Britain? Trade goods can be traded multiple times in antiquity. If an item gets to Byzentine Carthage or Italy it could be traded to the old Gaul provance and then go to Britain or Germania via other merchants. Unlikely a single Byzentine merchant will travel via ship from Hellas or Anatolia to the edge of the med around hispania, through biscay, around Brittany and cross the channel. The sea route would be several middle merchants.
I realised that I know almost nothing about post-Roman England, and I happened to start trying to reduce that ignorance here. A unfortunate choice, I hope I will be able to find something less pompous and ridiculous. I think there must be historians who are able to say: this is my hypothesis, based on these facts - not, I am going to show you what really happened.... Quite unimpressive.
Fair comment. Adding to existing information is great but it does not in the process remove all of what was considered before. Vortigern was instrumental in more Saxons coming to England to join the mercenaries who had served in the Roman army - so 'no invasion' is correct but huge numbers arriving is ignored so this really does arouse my suspicions. A character does not simply vanish from history due to these new pieces of information especially one who was established as a real person. Arthur is a fascinating mythical character but he shouldn't take prominence historically over somebody like Alfred the Great for example.
@@felipevillalobos1716 No one chooses where they come from. I am proud that my ancestors and their descendants did so well for themselves after centuries of oppression by the ruling classes. What is it exactly your trying to get at ?
The last 40 minutes of this documentary is totally nonsensical. The natives adopted Germanic customs and language out of choice? What absolute nonsense.
@@christopherthewreckerthats2295 all your celtish blood is on the mothers side, 9 in 10 Y chromosomes were replaced whether due to murder, males having too low a status to reproduce, or dilution of the gene pool by sheer volume of migrants. if it makes you feel better, the celtic and the germanic tribes are pretty closely related anyway, the bell beaker peoples being their common ancestors
@@firefox7801 this ignores the fact that every other post Roman people in the west also went through the process of a Germanic ruling elite, but maintained Latin based languages and adherence to Christianity, while the English developed a Germanic language and were pagan for a while, indicating there was a greater exertion of influence by them than in the other cases (Franks in Gaul, Goths in Italy and Hispania). They certainly dominated the Britons in their kingdoms, whether they genocided them or not.
Interesting (re)interpretations of the archaeological record. I knew about the later, mainly wooden, buildings discovered at Wroxeter and by Hadrian's Wall, and about the recent excavations at Tintagel but didn't know about the interesting pollen analysis at Reading University showing that much of the countryside did not revert to the "Wild wood" after the Romans left. I only take issue with the assumption that the serpentine found in the clay pottery from Tintagel "must have come from the eastern Mediterranean". There is also a source much closer to home: The Lizard! This is an ophiolite complex (ancient seafloor, later thrust up by earth movements) and is composed of the same sort of rock- so this needs checking (perhaps the precise geochemical signature matches closely to serpentine from Cyprus or elsewhere, but this isn't made clear and I wonder if the archaeologist is jumping to conclusions? The amphorae clearly do come from the Med, however so it is possible but I'd like to see more substantial evidence). Otherwise a very interesting, if rather long documentary.
Caesar wrote about the Belgae (from where the Frisians were later) settling on the coasts of Britain, so it makes perfect sense to have the same genetic markers both in the Netherlands and in large parts of Britain, and with the Romans mixing up the genetic cauldron it went further inland.
first hour, we found a coin so this person must have lived here. second hour, just because they have german artifacts dont mean germans were here. you got to love the story tellers that are archaeologists.
@@bencrawshaw1227 Jutes and Angles were from denmark. Same as Vikings but much earlier...you could say they were the first vikings although historians seem to miss that point. Also they were invited here to defend britons from scots and picts. they didnt invade at all but were copied by britons in style of dress (just the same happened when the vikings turned up). Also...the quarrel the anglo saxons had with vikings was really one of religion....they were scared that they would reintroduce paganism....anglo saxons had only been christian for 150 years or so and believed in more or less the same things as vikings untill men with crosses came....they basically saw themselves in vikings...the way of life was basically the same....trade... war and many gods. Once christian the anglo saxons were influenced by the likes of charlemagne and turned their backs on their old scandinavian roots...Beowulf...oldest tale in english was actually set in denmark ..,.and is a tale of changing times if you read it right. Skol Wulf
Am I understanding this correctly when I take the meaning to say Bede invented Angle-Saxons? As in the angles, saxons, and jutes weren't still pagan in the 4th-5th century? About 2:14:00.
Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon kings was achieved by the 680s - when Bede was an adolescent. He coined the term Angul-Seaxan, but the precise reason why he identified the two ethnicities in this combined way is unclear, except that they became unified by their Christian conversion in Britain. So it may be the distinction began to break down. The kings customarily married each others' princesses. Bede was read well by others on continental Europe even though the 8th century is not thought of as an age of great literacy. Writers on the Continent familiar with Tacitus just called all North Sea Germanic people "Anglii," without sub-tribal distinction. So the name stuck.
I was expecting Oswald, Oswalds tree (Oswestry), Hengist and Horsa, Alfred the great, Athlestan, Harold Godwineson....how they came to the throne, their famous battles and family background...The major rivals and acquaintances...historical sites
Yes not to detract from an otherwise excellent video, I was expecting at least a little on those characters, St.Hilda (Whitby Abbey) another name I could throw in. But this obsession whether Arthur was real or not pales into insignificance for me when we know Alfred absolutely did exist or is he being airbrushed out now?
It's fascinating to learn about one's heritage. One branch of my ancestors came from the Essex region with the last name Whipple. They came over to the US in the early 1600's helping to settle Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
There's still so much we don't know about the time of England, between 410 ad and 600 ad . Many parts of England continued to rule themselves for 200 years after the last Roman legions left.
King Arthur never lived anywhere in Britain. The legend of a sleeping king who would awake when his country was in its greatest peril....etc., was brought to Britain by Scandinavians (Vikings) in the 9th century. The king is actually King Holgar the Dane, who is sleeping in Kronborg Castle, Denmark.
He does this by ignoring DNA and human nature, thereby making the video nonsense, unless you are an inane left-wing idiot who denies science and probably claims than a man can have a cervix.
Excellent video. Very well done. As an American, maps would truly help, as well as a timeline. I’m German and English. For instance, when did Europeans arrive?
the background 'music', noise, effects, were so overwhelming didn't make it to 4 minutes into the video, i want to hear someone speak, not to banal incidental music/noise.
@@larryzink8978 It won't by choice I am afraid. I raised an issue about it when I was a programme reviewer for the BBC around 20 years ago and so did a few others. I got rid of my TV set 12 years ago, enough was enough.
Interesting info , I'd never heard of Riothamus until I saw your post , the date they mentioned 470 I believe is about the right time, I'll continue to read about him, appreciate your knowledge I always enjoy finding out about new information .
Whilst this documentary paints some fascinating possibilities for early England, it could also be foolish (in the opposite direction) to base everything on one village and a few other indications. Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon invasion was less about major battles and other things that could readily be identified by archaeologist, and more about a cultural "take-over" if you will. A cultural "take-over" that was possibly just as resented as any classical invasion that you might have expected, but without easily interpreted evidence. The frustrating thing about archaeology is that we never can get a complete picture. The only thing that is certain is that actual history is probably far more different and colorful than anything either ancient historians or modern archaeologists have put forth.
"As a WASP academic professor who earns a living specialising in the Anglo Saxons I'm going to arrogantly dispute the history of hundreds of highly educated people who went before me just so the bbc will pay my bills"
I don't think you've fully grasped the concept of considering new explanations in the light of new data. The highly-educated people you mention are mostly dead and unavailable for comment.
As a descendant of the Anglo-Saxons, i want to say: the romans came to briton and killed the brits. the romans kept the welsh as slaves to mine for coal and other minerals. "welsh" means slave. the Anglo-Saxons killed the romans and set the people free. The Angel (Anglo), Saxons and Jutes that came to England (Angel-land) are just 3 out of collective of 15 different barbarian armies that worked together to take down the roman empire in a single campaign lasting from 410AD to 450AD.
@@eaglebearer Well I just check that Walhaz page. It's pretty useless because it seems to refer to a dozen different languages and people, and they each refer to a dozen different people. You should look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_language Press Ctrl+F to search for "slave". Besides, we know that the Romans invaded Britain and killed the Brits. But they kept some as slaves or to send to the gladitorium ar colloseum to fight for the entertainment of the roman people. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_conquest_of_Britain The Anglo-Saxons aren't just "settlers". We are part of 15 different nations that allied together to destroy the roman empire. We came to Briton and rescued the Brits from the Romans. The Romans are bad people.
@Tuan Anh No one really cares what you laugh at, because each Wikipedia article has references by writers, scholars and academics, you clearly have no academic training, therefore your opinion is basically worthless for you to make such a basic mistake. I laugh at people's unsubstantiated opinions based on nothing more than their own dunning-kruger low academic standards. The Romans never called the Welsh the Welsh they called them Cambrians, so it's just more the throwing words up in the air and seeing if they stick that is more problematic about that Welsh being slaves crap, also the Latin word for slave is nothing like Welsh either. Then there is the extant Celtic caste system where most people were tied to the land except for elites and bards, and they also had slaves. Rasterz does not know what the fuck they are talking about and needs to read some books instead of making shit up. The Anglo Saxons also called it Anglealand and not "Angel-land", what is that, the place next to angel cakes? Where the Angles came from in Denmark is well known and their home province is still called Angland, angle as in right angle, not angel, that for fairy stories, like with not knowing your own past and making dumb shit yup instead.
Interesting documentary. If I'm correct he did not deny there was an invasion just there was no evidence for it. Maybe it was an 'invasion by invitation' such as lwhen US soldiers came to the UK during WWII, so Germanic troops were settled here by whoever was in charge to defend the country. Foederati as they were known by the Romans. There are precedents for this on the Continent and also the Roman Army was highly Germanised by the later Roman period, ashame this wasn't explored. This would explain anomalies such as early Germanic settlement in what's now England prior to traditional settlement period and the use of Celtic names by the royal and noble families of the period. It could also explain the use of the dragon standard by the Anglo-Saxons as this was the type of standard issued to auxiliary troops. This of course is just me speculating.
Good point about the later Germanised Roman army. As I also understood things there were Saxons serving in the Roman army and that was how some of them ended up in Britain but many stayed behind when the Roman legions returned to defend the shrinking empire. There wouldn't be any point in Saxons returning home to somewhere already conqured by Romans when they found themselves currently in a similar situation but in greater relative peace. I thought Vortigern might have gotten a mention because he was instrumental in or at least blamed for more waves of Saxons coming in to the vacuum left by the Romans but then this seems to be possibly part of what is being rewritten here. For me they don't quite pull that trick off but it is a bold attempt and interesting nonetheless. The obsession with diversity for the sake of it is becoming ridiculous now though. We now know that this is all being actively manipulated as the onetime apparent conspiracy theory now government acknowledged agenda21 (well at least the Great Reset part) along with forcing GM seeds on UK farmers. So I got highly suspicious when the term new world order was thrown in albeit I realise from an entirely different historical context but that still counts as a typical subliminal message from the producers: the BBC.
British DNA is hard to trace due to its diverse range and haplotypes. Everyone that had Anglo Saxon DNA has a portion of Viking DNA. The British people's have been everywhere and due to just this 1 fact alone, THEY the Brits still have strongholds on even cultures as far away as India, where Britishness is in every upper class home. Believe me I know, I grew up there. English colonial rule and empire traversed to the most remote of islands, where some people have never ventured to go. Pirates were of British origin and the ancient British DNA has been found even in Cook Islands and Polynesia where they, the British knights have many strongholds. Deciphering British culture is akin to describing Druids and the very eccentric, excellent, and esoteric minds of Ancient British.
Pity there is no book list for further reading. Robin Fleming's book in the Penguin history of Britain put together many of the more recent views, based on archeological evidence, written evidence being pretty scant.
As an American I always wonder what kind of a place or civilization it would look like had it never been colonized and left for the natives to forge. Likewise, I wonder what Britain would have looked like had it's natives had the ability to shape themselves. I can't help but to see the parallels between the natives of America and the natives of Britons. Both were discovered and colonized by super power empires. Both tried resisting and defend their homelands. Both were a spiritual peoples that werebdeeply appreciative of it's nature and were guided by it. They were a beautiful people.
The "natives" of Britain of which you speak were actually largely descendants of the "Beaker culture", a group of people that arrived in Britain about 4,500 years ago and almost entirely displaced the previous population. DNA analysis suggests that the previous inhabitants, the builders of Stonehenge, were essentially wiped out. Although archaeologists in the UK still resist the interpretation (and perhaps the previous inhabitants were already in trouble from disease for something else), the DNA evidence points to genocide, essentially. The impact on population DNA of the subsequent Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Norman migrations are very minor by comparison.
That wasnt an invasion that was a plan from english superiors william didnt even had absolute power they restrict him for that same reason, becauase he was a protestant so nope the last truly time england has Been invaded was 1066.
@@francoisdaureville323 Well, sailing far inland, destroying the English ships, and taking the flagship back to the Netherands...if that isnt a invasion, then what is ?
@@francoisdaureville323 I am clearly talking about 20 years before William the 3th came to England. The utter destruction of the English fleet,in their inlsnd port, near London. I even put a yeardate, and still you talk about something else.
this was a good documentary, however the title of this youtube video is misleading. It's not so much about the Anglo-Saxons, but really about the Celts focusing on around 410-600
1:27:18 "during the sixth century modern Europe is invented and it´s invented here...", the british always tells his history as if they were the center of the earth...sorry but it´s very exagerated.
I believe King Arthur legend itself has shaped England. I always thought King Arthur to be both real in history as well as prophetic. If Arthur (Bear) did exist... his legend and spirit has shaped Wales and England over the Centuries. Welsh Kings such as King Llywelyn paralleled those legend. The Plantagenets especially King Edward I revived Arthurian legend. Great Info here. Thank You.
The presenter, Francis Pryor, wrote books and made TV documentaries arguing that there never was an Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, and that the wholesale change from a Celtic/Romano-British culture to a Germanic language and culture happened with just a handful of immigrants. Apart from all the traditional evidence, I think several comprehensive DNA and ancient DNA studies in more recent years have proven his theory quite wrong.
I find it odd that the Romano-British people seemingly never learned - from the Romans - how to build in stone, such that after 410 A.D. they reverted to building in wood.
But but the loud posh man said it was all rubbish? Regardless of the evidence of sophisticated building and culture. He's trying to claim that barbarians living in mud huts were superior to the Roman Empire!
I suppose without a large organised labour force you can't realistically get enough stone to make it a main material. Wood is much easier to get and works well with agriculture as you can do both in a relatively local area.
@@coryfinley8851 well IM......well my parents are from el salvador in central america which was invaded by the Spaniards...and spain was invaded by the moors in the dark ages(the moors were muslim north africans) and before that, spain was invaded by the Germanic visogoths, vandal, and suebi tribes but before that spain was under the roman empires control but before that, spain was a carthaginian colony. before that it was inhabited by the Galic tribes......aaaand before that it was Celtic? to add to it my dad side has italian. italy was invaded by the ostrogoths in the fourth century. my mom has mostly native central american with some very distant turkish(dont know how that happened) apparently many turks settled in central america and the Caribbean. in short we are a whirl pool of genetics. i cant take pride in just one people.
I require more links to respected scources regarding the origins of celtic briton and separately as well about the Anglo Saxon’s. Are the Anglo Saxon’s descendants of the Celts? (I assume they are)
@@jing-xingxu2462 it just seemed like you were confused tbh m8 British history is quite complex and ties back millennia It does go over most people's heads, especially those from a certain large English speaking country west of Britain past Ireland,. so I'm used to seeing all kinds of crazy from people being serious . joke all you want, it's all good , its just I'm so used to genuine thickos a joke isn't going to be first thing I'm gonna think of :)
kev WHUFC Of course, I understand. British history truly is fascinating. Hard to believe Celts, Romans, Germans, Vikings and French (kinda) were all, at least at some point, struggling on this island that seems isolated from European continent. :)
@Winds_of_ Inis British flag ( union flag) union *Jack is a nickname which originated from the flags at thd back of ships a red flag with the union banner in it's an English and Scottish flag combined, the white background & red cross is England St George cross and the blue background with white saltire 'X' type cross , is Scottish flag of St Andrew & together with red saltier of Ireland , is the Union flag of Britain. The Romans first called the island and people Britannia protected by the Goddess Britannia , she's on our coins sitting on a rock with a trident , the defender of the island Britannia. There is no 'union jack flag of England " English flag is white background with a red cross. The Union Jack is for all the countries together, that's why its called the UNION flag , Jacob has nothing to do with the flag
Why is this video called History of Anglo-Saxon England (410 - 1066)??? It starts before the Roman conquest and only goes up to about the 5th or 6th century? It is interesting enough, so i ended up watching it all anyway, but it really needs to be renamed 'the dark ages' or better yet 'Britain AD' which is the actual name of the documentary miniseries
Romans ruled Britain, then the Roman Empire began collapsing so all Roman soldiers left Britain and the Anglo-Saxons came and invaded starting about 410 AD
I've heard a theory that tried to point the Saxons as not Germanic; however, rather as a people of Scythian origin who were in Gemania, which suffered Germanic influence and was confused by straying among Germanic peoples and tribes for a long time.
There wad a very big genetic survey carried out at thevturn of the millenium (if anyone remembers) my family volunteered because we hit the criteria.. Paternal family from the same area of the country (in our case Norfolk) for at least 4 generations... Well my family has lived in the area for at least 500 years and before that came from further up north.. "my family is in the doomsday book! .. The results?... Surpise surprise... Frisian/north germany/denmark + some sweedish decent.. Well into the 95%+ range..... So...???
Not a great show if your looking for facts. It's mostly conjecture without proof. Should have been called "Man on futile mission to prove King Arthur is real (and failing)."
