How Was London Founded? | London 2000 Years of History | Channel 5  

I live there

Alex Davenport I can relate 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Not weird but found out William the Conqueror built the tower of London which is pretty awesome. Pardon my ignorance

It's supposed to be English ??

The capital of the United Kingdom has a long, rich history that stretches back to the ancient Romans. London is the capital of England and the United Kingdom and one of the largest and most important cities in the world. The area was originally settled by early hunter gatherers around 6,000 B.C., and researchers have found evidence of Bronze Age bridges and Iron Age forts near the River Thamesis. Ancient Romans founded a port and trading settlement called Londinium in 43 A.D., and a few years later a bridge was constructed across the Thamesis River to facilitate commerce and troop movements. But in 60 A.D., Celtic queen Boudicca led an army to sack the city, which was burned to the ground in the first of many fires to destroy London. The city was soon rebuilt, but burned again about 125 A.D. More rebuilding occurred, and within a few generations the population exceeded 40,000 people. After the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 A.D., however, the city was attacked numerous times by Vikingsand other raiders, and soon London was largely abandoned.

Do you know why they chose Christianity ? And why they changed from paganism

@@ramzan.k9266 because they changed what Christianity was, and made it paganist and full of idols and symbols, it's quite a story

Britannia was not "occupied" by Rome. That is like saying Texas is occupied by the US. It was an integral part of the Empire and there were no uprisings after Boudicca in the centuries before the Saxons arrived. In fact it was the most prosperous part of the empire in the Crises of the Third century as it stayed out of the conflict and had the biggest tin and lead mines in the empire. Historians say that Britannia has the biggest boom in villas and saw a huge rise in trade and wealth generation. The Romano-British were right to be angry when their legions, many who were locals, were pulled unto the mainland and they were left open to raiding parties from Ireland, Scotland and Denmark.

That's right, he was a dictator.

@M Grant It's not a matter of opinion but a fact. Julius Caesar was appointed for life by the Senate of Rome as dictator. After he was killed, 2 civil wars ensued. Augustus was later nominated as "First Citizen" or what we call them now "Emperor"

@M Grant His nephew Augustus was the first Emperor, not Caesar.

@M Grant evidence and source? History.

Watch it again future emperor was said m8

The winters are sickening, one just wants to hibernate untill spring, the same in Germany.

The southern highlands of Australia receive miserable winters as well with temperatures lucky to reach 10c for at least three months.

Correct. They messed up

Julius Caesar actually was an emperor in everything but name. After he took over the senate he was all powerful.

He became dictator for life. Wich later became emperor or caesar. There is a reason roman emperors are called caesar. Because he was the first. Before it was even a thing

@@mangaman6833 Well by that logic Sulla was the first emperor as he was dictator for life, granted by the senate, like Julius.

​@@gentlebabarianfalse, Caesar refused the crown several times, Caesar feared that if he accepted the crown, he would be considered a tyrant by the Romans and lose the popular support he had gained. Furthermore, the crown would represent a violation of the Roman republican political system , in which power was theoretically distributed among institutions. Caesar wanted to maintain the appearance of respect for Roman institutions and the senate, even though in reality he had acquired an enormous amount of personal power. Finally, Caesar also had personal concerns regarding safety. He was aware of the risk of attacks and popular uprisings, and he feared that accepting the crown might increase these risks. Other than dictator, he was a man of honor

History is written by the victors.

Do you mean like virtually every other city in Europe?

You literally described every big city in Europe, except Paris

Because the Roman technology was more advanced than early medieval technology for a long time, we're used to seeing technology improve linearly over time, but roman technology is an example of where a generation was actually less advanced than its predecessor and trying to uncover the knowledge of the past would teach them about useful technology that did not exist in their time

@@jonathancooper5104 Yes. Its a curious period where things go backward, when most alive are used to things going foward. There were certain british monastries from the roman period that held technology in books that contained medicine and building techniques that were lost to Europe for centuries, but employed by the arabs that also had the same texts. A Irish monastry is famous for having so many roman botany books that were found in the 1700s and used again

Where can I read about this

Great nations

if you exist today you are descended from conquerors

It had the biggest tin mines in the empire, and at a time was the most prosperous province as they were not involved in the imperial sucession wars.

It used to be when I was at school.

@@edwardoleyba3075 really? Now it’s all just Henry the 8th, his wives, lizzy 1 and ww2. Over and over when I was school

@@stephaniew5275 . What a shame. I had a whole term of Roman history of London and England. It was interesting to see how the country developed during that period. The downside was the closure of my school during the “great comprehensive debacle”. After that my education took a severe downturn 😞. Fortunately, my love of reading saved me from becoming a complete imbecile 🙂, (I hope)!

There are buildings now. Plus, it ran at an angle that isn’t parallel with today’s London Bridge.

You have to thank Saxons not Romans, after all you're the same nation both West Germanic

@@levent.a.7280 No, I don't have to 👍

@@onlyme219 yes you do , London was created by Saxons , and you speak their language .

@@levent.a.7280 Wow, seems I have a Karen in the reply section, no I don't, despite your demand of 'yes I do' Also London is not the be-all and end-all of England, I'm from Blackpool (in the northwest). Let's both be adults and agree to disagree, hopefully, you can do that. Best wishes

@@onlyme219 ok but please stop speaking English, because it's a west Germanic language, I recommend you start speaking Roman or Italian.

He never got further than the beach

... Maybe because literacy /writing hadn't been discovered before then so there is little to no first hand primary source documented history prior to that... Obviously things happened... Just we have less information or historical certainty/accuracy about it.... we are left to summise and make inferences through archeology....

Roma il più grandioso e glorioso Impero della storia; Roma ha conquistato, dominato, costruito e CIVILIZZATO; la grandezza, la potenza, la magnificenza e la GLORIA DI ROMA EST AETERNA, ROMA INVICTA ET LUX MUNDI 💪💯

nuh uh

Nope it was ...Brits had no history before the Romans civilized the region

@@NubiansNapata That is just not true. Trade with Europe and even as far east as Greece has been proven before the Romans. It was by no means as civilised before the Romans, Britain was an island of warring and trading tribes and Kingdoms. But to say it had no history?!

@@ChimozuFu nope the Brits did not even have a written language before Romans..

No. Britannia became a part of Rome and the local Chieftain was given rulership of the Colonia (town). Romans didnt send people to take over, just used the legions to build things for the tribes to become part of the empire which worked. The people became romano british. No ethnic replacement like today

@@showgo254 It is incredible how almost everything started in Rome to see it becoming stagnant and well behind!

Drop a RU-vid video so I can check that out

No the celtics did

You are very wrong

Yes, Mr and Mrs Moor. Lovely couple from Droitwich 😂

They try to sell multiculturalism as a positive and progressive thing but our hidden enemy within have used it as a weapon to destroy our society.

Egg or pineapple?

@@Grrrr3FKAGrrrrGrrrrGrrrr pineapple preferably

Irish, Scottish and Welsh idea

@@seansmith445 Who benefits most from multiculturalism ? It’s the Irish, Scotts and Welsh. Not long ago in England there used to be signs in shops and houses saying NO IRISH ALLOWED. For centuries the Scotts and Welsh have also suffered, but the recent mass immigration and multiculturalism has changed all that.

Drop a RU-vid link so I can check out what you mean that just kind of circumvents everything we just heard here

Why do you type like this ?

and then the romans came and refounded it and enslaved the celts

@@aquaticsplashes RU-vid link? Not everything is on RU-vid. There's been a discovery of wood pillars belonging to a bridge that predates the romans, so there is academic debate whether the romans built lundinium but nothing conclusive.

@@aquaticsplashes No they didnt. Romans just built Villas and made the tribal leaders high positions where they kept their status and some of the most powerful ones became senators in Rome. Julius Caesar was killed for many reasons, one was that he gave senator seats to hundreds of celtic chieftains. Thats why Brtiannia did not rebel for centuries after Boudicca which was the last rebellion and saw huge economic growth

He was a tyrant

The Roman catholic church was behind Rome staying stagnant because it was reluctant to lose power.

​@@inverse_swag3290false, Caesar refused the crown several times, Caesar feared that if he accepted the crown, he would be considered a tyrant by the Romans and lose the popular support he had gained. Furthermore, the crown would represent a violation of the Roman republican political system , in which power was theoretically distributed among institutions. Caesar wanted to maintain the appearance of respect for Roman institutions and the senate, even though in reality he had acquired an enormous amount of personal power. Finally, Caesar also had personal concerns regarding safety. He was aware of the risk of attacks and popular uprisings, and he feared that accepting the crown might increase these risks. Other than dictator, he was a man of honor

Roman's looted?

@@malopephasha5341 nope... From their colonies in Asia and Africa.

Nah it's true... Romans brought civilization to these once backwards region

@@NubiansNapata no Saxons and romans made a deal no beef they agreed

@@saynotogoogleandrodgeralli4249 what are you talking about...the Romans even had slaves from this region 😂

@@NubiansNapata so? Did I say they didn’t

@@NubiansNapata The rulers of Londinium was a british chieftain that was a Roman ally. Rome didnt send people to take over, just built stuff with legions and converted the populace to Romans. It was the same people, not itaians suddenly comming to take over