The History of England: The Anglo-Saxon Invasion of Britain 

Britons: You Saxons formed Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Middlesex. Why didn't you go North? Saxons: We didn't want to live in Nosex.

Excellent vid. Glad u mentioned us Frisians - we usually get short shrift which is mystifying when, as i understand, the Frisian language is considered the closest continental language there is to English...

So the English are named after the Germans, the Welsh are named after the Britons and the Scots are named after the Irish? Got it.

This English history is so much more interesting and ‘English’ than what happened after 1066. Unfortunately it is very little taught in schools and most UK citizens have very little knowledge of these 600 years or so. Some of the pronounciatons in this video are really bizarre though. ‘Murshia’ for Mercia for example. Or ceorls pronounced as it looks rather than the correct ‘churls’ ( as in the word churlish).

Brits during both world wars: "We hate Germans!" Historians: "Technically, you guys are Germans too..."

Finally, someone who got the history right! 👏👏👏 Well done! Another point to mention is the Brythonic language, which was the original language of what was then called Cymru (the UK) - brythonic was the root of old welsh, Breton, and Cornish languages. Yes, for some people, they may not even know that the Welsh language is much, much older than any form of English or old English language. And yes, I am a proud Welshman 😂❤🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿💪

When will the British throw off the colonialism of and demand reparations from the inhabitants of Jutland, Schleswig, Holstein, and Saxony?

germanic conquerers were conquered by germanic conquerers themselves LOL!

I pride myself on my knowledge of English history, but I never actually appreciated how complicated the immediate post Roman period c450 ce to c 800 ce was . Wow,

Point of accuracy, not all the area north of Hadrian's wall was inhabited by PIcts, in what is now Southern Scotland there were British, not Pictish, tribes, they included the Votadini in the Edinburgh area, the Selgovae, the Novantae and the Damnonii. These tribes were culturally and linguistically - they spoke Brittonic, not Pictish - the same as tribes further south, like the Brigantes, Catuvelauni or the Corieltauvi, who were conquered by Rome.

Just goes to show that just about everyone lives on conquered land

Wasn't the island named Pretanike by the greek explorer Pytheas in 4th century BCE? Celtic "pretani", "painted people" (picts), used to name the land "Pretanike", later transformed into "Bretanike" and later "Britain". The name was in use by greek and roman authors way before Brutus.

Some inaccuracies here - the Britons never told themselves they were related to Brutus - that was a 9th century invention of the Anglo-Saxons (almost but not quite referring to themselves as English at that point). Romans left Britain 500yrs before this mention

The Angles were formed of two main tribes: the obtusians and the acutians

Superior production! Thank you! I learned more in this one video than in several years as a history major who attended the University of Edinburgh. Well done!

A highly frustrating and inaccurate account. The invasion narrative has for decades been considered inaccurate and is not well supported by archaeological and genetic evidence. Certainly, there was no genocide of the Britons in England. Most who consider themselves ethnically English today have mostly British (i.e. Briton) genes. There was a cultural and linguistic leap to the newly-arrived Germanic culture. The fact that some of the "English" kings and kingdoms have names of British origin also suggests that it wasn't anything like as black and white as this video makes out. The narrative of the superiority of the English over the natives is a largely Victorian invention - a result of imperialistic thinking - and which, unfortunately, still lingers in the minds of many today. And our concept of nationhood simply isn't transferable to this period. Neighbouring English and British kingdoms were as like to war on their own "kin" as against each other.

Is there a bibliography or list of readings for this video? I’m very curious to read in detail about this period.

The Majority of Scottish people are NOT descended from Scoti

*Can you do a video on the horn of Africa* *I'd like to see the Rise of cushites in east africa* *This is a seriously underrated history which includes The Land of punt, the macrobian kingdom, Adulis and rise of Axum, the Ancient Barbaria city states, Zagwe dynasty, Adal, ifat and abyssinia* If theirs a way to get in contact for this project I'm fuy capable of writing a script for this Really respect the work that goes into making these videos

Cymru (Pyrdain ~Britain), the real British people. Not Angles Saxony, Africans or Pakistani

Anglo Saxons wasn't a thing until circa the 10th century. Before that there were still distinct groups that existed, like the Northumbrians, the Mercians, and Cumbrians, yes they had similar origins but it would be disingenuous to simply call them Anglo-Saxons

So many amateur mistakes that you only have less than half a story.

There’s no genetic evidence for the mass extermination of the Britons and Anglo Saxon DNA only forms up to 40% of modern British DNA. As with most invasions, the existing population is not wiped out but serves the new landowners.

Yep totally B0011ix BS. The Celts like Boudicca didn't think that they were Roman nor did the Druids of the holy isle of Anglesey who the Romans slaughtered. Wise up Yankee Anglo Saxons. Or as Gaeilge Sassanach !

Briton was not invaded by Anglo Saxons. Parts of present day England were. Their presence is barely evidenced in Wales or Scotland.

The century that began in year 700 was the 8th century, not the 7th ... and according to Wikipedia the Heptarchy had already existed for a couple of hundred years (during the 8th century the 7 kingdoms were consolidated into 4).

English people are Germano-Celtic. The Anglo-Saxons, Britons/Gaulish, Irish, and Norse blood = English ethnicity.

Not bad. I lasted 51 seconds until you stated Britain is named after someone from Italy. Total nonsense.

@5:35 "Bamburg" ooh so close, its Bam-ber-ruh

This could only be written by an american who used wiki for evidence. Most of this is highly inaccurate. Firstly 'Rome' did not conquer the UK solely by force of arms, it used trade with its client kingdoms. Secondly areas of England were never under their control e.g.Cornwall, Devon, parts of Wales, all of Ireland and, as said, northern parts. Thirdly, what 'new political system' did 'conquerors bring? Rome, from Augustus onwards for several generations, was de facto a monarchy as were european groups. There's little difference between a tribal warlord and a king - just semantics. But really and lastly 'along with a new religion - Christianity' - no they didn't. Christianity spread through Rome in the 1st and 2nd century spreading everywhere in Europe. It had already been established in Britain well before european groups moved over and as Scandinavians attacked and then settled it spread to them. 'The confrontation, which went down in history as the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, began.' is just plain wrong. It was a gradual process over a thousand years and many, like the Irish, were only partly involved.

there is not that much evidence that the native britons were massacred or even driven out of their homes. there is increasing evidence that this traditional view is wrong and that the 2 peoples soon intermarried or lived along side each other though the anglo saxon culture did dominate but it still does that today.. also there was no shortage of space or valuable land. which is what the continental tribes did not have in their own lands.

What a mess.

Good job showing the old welsh names like 'Hen Ogledd'. Just on that, the "dd" in welsh is almost like the "th" sound in English and welsh. So Hen Ogledd is not Ogled but more Ogleth if that makes sense. But don't worry, I understand that only the welsh can say this sounds accurately 😅👍

Most of the commentary in this video is total rubbish and has no basis in fact at all. Even the references to Britons is complete nonsense and the idea that ancient Britons were in any way accepting of Roman invasion and culture is total nonsense.

1:15 wow, not only the NAMES and history, but the NAMES as well?

Whew, that's a lot of fighting.

Can you make a video about 100 years war!

This is a great summary of what can be a confusing time period.

14:37 you have ireland indicated as scots and they moved from Ireland to GB, its was Gaelic Irish who did this bringing What became scots gaelic language to Scotland. So I question how much of the rest of the video is accurate now!?

Why the Cyrillic spellings at 19:20 and 19:37?

You forgot that British place names are not always pronounced as spelt. For example the "gh" in Bamburgh is not pronounced.

I think Deirans and Bernicians were Frisians, and Lindsey were Rugians. While East and Middle Anglia, and Mercia are Angles. No changes for Saxons and Jutes. Jutes, And we by having genetic evidence for Franks, I think Pescaetia were Franks. North of them are Saxons. North of Saxons are Angles, North of Angles are Franks, North of Franks are Rugians. And north of Rugians are Frisians. And the Geats were Aristocracy all over all Germanic kingdoms. I think.

Brutus of Troy wasn’t Roman, he was pre-Rome and was one of Paris’s cousins who escaped the fall of Troy, a Bronze Age city state on the Turkish coast near Gallipoli.

And they keep complaining about immigrants.

Terrible pronunciation

so in the 1000s the norse came, they were fighting there one kind! whhhaaaattt?

@18:30 "Edinberg" ooh so close, its Edin-bur-ruh

This was generated by AI

Love your content! Thanks For this! Alfred the Great please ❤❤❤❤

Spelt "Bam-Burgh" - pronounced "Bam-Borough" - Same as Edinburgh. (Borough is an old Saxon word for a walled earthen fortification or fort)

Really enjoyed this video. Proud Mercian, Penda was gigabased.

These amazing people made England.

Rome: "We'll just leave this island, It'll be fine!" Britain: "hold my beer"

The narrator is pronouncing Bambrugh incorrectly. It's more like BAM-bra than BAM-berg. Think about how Edinburgh is pronounced

The story of Cerdic and Cynric is probably not of germanic origin, both names suggest a brythonic origin: Coroticus and Cunorix. Most likely they were local british petty chieftains who hired mercenaries of saxon origin to defend them from british and pictish raiders. The best way to pay those guys was giving them land and marrying their daughters. So the origins of Wessex is most likely brythonic. Supposedely Cerdic and Cynric slew a certain Natanleod, a british warlord, and took his lands. But if Cerdic was a british chieftain, most likely he was using saxon mercenaries to overthrow Natanleod's overlordship and expand his own lands.

All these pride of being english...... and they are from another land.. like everyone else...... migrants 😂

I think the rich Aryan DNA of Saxons made the British invincible. That's why the British were able to rule more than half the world.

Err, I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure most of this is bollocks. I havn't even heard of most of the people you mention, and our own historians havn't been able to find out our true origins (due to the Celts not having writing, and the Roman Empire falling ended the classic era of northern Europe, all that's left are ancient myths and legends), so I'm not sure that a shitty AI generated RU-vid video would be able to. The few people that were left after the Romans left were dealing with endless invasions and plagues, therefore, everything that was Roman went to ruin. The last of the Romans were the Christian monks, who were responsible for preserving Roman culture as best they could. Also, you seem to think that the Welsh are "Britons" when they are Celts.

The Danes were also Anglo Saxon who came and created the Danelaw

Lots at inaccuracies here

Fantastic video!

So why was Wessex Old English so similar to Frisian?

England , Britain isn't England, the Saxons settled ENGLAND ffs.

Another great video! Would love to see this continued on to William the Conqueror and the Wars of the Roses and other periods of British history.

according to modern british dna research the angles saxons and jutes have identical dna as the danish vikings

Britain is named from the early name used by the inhabitants: Pritani. Just a bastardisation of the "Brittonic" early language.

Hey History Mapped Out, for the next video can you make about the Viking invasions on England that caused the unification of England? And later, can you make the Norman conquest and aftermath? A series about the history of England.

so much killing ...

If this invasion hadn't happened the Moors would still own Britain and those immigrant anglosaxongermanic people could be safely and peacefully back in Germany with our forefathers....

Invasion possibly , but most of Britannia was mostly empty and there was plenty of space , similar to the New England colonies. Troubles came later as the immigration numbers grew , which begs the question why did the immigrants arrive from the near continent ?

The #Normans: After settling in Normandy (910), in the 11th century they poured into southern Italy in about 1017, into England (1066), into France. In southern Italy they gave rise to the foundation of the County of Puglia with the Altavillas and in 1130 to the Kingdom of Sicily. The Normans led by the Drengots began to offer their protection, in exchange for a fee, to pilgrims heading to the sanctuary, in order to protect them from the raids of other marauders, soon making themselves known for their skill in arms. Thus they joined the forces of Melo di Bari, who, after the failed anti-Byzantine revolt of 1009-1011, sought the military support that was lacking among the Lombards and that Emperor Henry II had denied him. But the battle fought at Cannae (1 October 1018) was a real disaster for the rebels: the troops were decimated and their leader, Gilberto, brother of Rainulf, fell in battle (according to another version eliminated after the battle by Rainulf himself, who took his place). The survivors of the band found refuge in Ariano, in the Campanian Apennines, seat of an important Lombard county; here, within a few years, they managed to usurp power, so much so that the Norman county of Ariano was formally recognized by Emperor Henry II of Franconia as early as 1022. Subsequently, Rainulf Drengot emerged as the undisputed leader of the remaining Norman militias who, in turn, had to retreat from Puglia to Campania. Here, according to Amatus of Montecassino, they found themselves without allies and surrounded by enemies, but they managed to take advantage of the strong rivalries that divided the undisciplined Lombard princes. Rainulf was initially in the service of the Lombard prince Pandolfo IV of Capua. "Under his protection" - writes Amato - "they set about plundering the territories of their neighbors and tormenting his enemies. But since the human mind is inclined to greed and in the end money always triumphs, from time to time they abandoned him... They sold their services as they could, according to the circumstances, offering more to those who gave more". Soon the balance of power in Lombard Campania fell right into the hands of the Normans. "The Normans never wanted any of the Lombards to achieve a decisive victory, since this could have worked to their disadvantage. By supporting now one and now the other, they ensured that no one was completely defeated". New Norman reinforcements increased the number of soldiers under his command.Count of Aversa Rainulf Drengot thus allied himself with Duke Sergio IV of Naples. After repeated successes, in 1030 Duke Sergius offered him the former Byzantine stronghold of Aversa, north of Naples, along with the title of count and the hand of his sister, Sichelgaita, who however died in 1034. Rainulf then married the daughter of the Duke of Amalfi and granddaughter of Pandolfo IV of Capua, Sergius' bitter enemy. From this moment on he began the work of expanding his territory, especially at the expense of the Abbey of Montecassino. The title of count of Aversa was recognized and confirmed in 1037 by Emperor Conrad II. After defeating the Byzantines in battle in 1038, Rainulf declared himself prince, formalizing his independence from Naples and his previous Lombard allies. He conquered the principality of his neighbor Pandolfo and, with Conrad's approval, united it to his own, thus constituting the largest political entity in all of Southern Italy.

Not another UK historical video made by an American! Full of historical inaccuracies and assumptions. Stick to your side of the pond!

how long does it take you to make one video? Do you work alone or with a team?

If you're particularly interested in the roots of the names; 'England', 'English', 'Welsh' etc., this is a very informative video - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aXAjMlTO7Dc.html

Going back on my ancestry I find alot of them coming from the south and east side of the island. Going back to the 1400s -1600s .I've also see majority coming to American in the 1600s-1700s

Aurelius Aurelianus?Geoffrey of Monmouth in calling him Aurelius Ambrosius and portrays him as the father of Merlin.

There is only one document, written hundreds of years later which suggests Ambrosius Aurelianus even existed. Sorry there's a solid chance King Arthur has no basis in reality

Arthur most definitely existed, and there were two. The first who fought under the British-Romano Emperor Macsen Wledig (Magnus Maximus) and the second being Arthwys so Meurig of Glamorgan and Gwent. We have Genealogies that outline several centuries worth of Kings in Wales who all were related to these Arthurs. Even later English kings used their connection to Wales in order to justify invading and ruling Wales. Btw, those fighting under Macsen were the ones who founded France as a nation, and their first king was Clovis. As for the Bretons, they were already there by the time the Anglo Saxons turn up in Britain. With Conan being their first king.

This very nicely illustrates my view that history changes every five hundred years: 51BC, 550AD, 1066AD, 1545AD, Now.

So this video believes as many do , that the invasions caused mass migration of native Britons to the west of Britain or even northern France to escape death or subjugation by incoming groups ( angles , Saxons etc) , and hence few traces ethnically or culturally were left behind to influence new society.

Why are some of the kings' names in Cyrillic? That alphabet was never used by Germanic tribes and didn't in fact exist at the time ...

Anglo saxons and saxons came from north france. A long the channel coast. They came first with 3 ceols,,keels english, Kiels dutch. Charlemagne was fighting the saxons for 30 years. Every year. From his palace in noyon. The dani ( danes) lived in what is now normandie. Non of this people came from Scandinavië. The dani ended in what is denmark after they have been kicked out from uk and ireland,and gave this land its name.

Though remember guys someone's mess is someone's else's progress Lots and lots of collaboration Don't get bogged down by the fighting as the trade and progress is fantastic over many years just the way it should be..

The frisians also lived in north france. Bonifatius is murderd by robbers. South of duinkerken frisia, along the bourre river where he was conversing the pagan frisians.. Not north of dokkum in the netherlands.

Nice clean maps and border animations but the AI illustrations are not historically accurate - anglo saxons did not look like that

😂 the British are as German as the Indians are British, pick an invasion, the celts have never been replaced, have a look at the French African territories and stop believing nonsense

England, or Engeland, is a Norse word for ‘land of green fields’. What source claims this name was Land of Angles in the 6th century?

Let me get this right, the Angles and The Saxons travelled to what is now modern day England (colonised peacefully/not peacfully) only to be then invaded by the Danish ? From the same place those people came. Wot ?

The flute player in the background needs his instrument to be shoved up somewhere. The music is very intrusive and spoils an otherwise very good documentary.

It could be argued that Scotland North of the Forth/Clyde line are of Pictish descent but certainly not of the whole area of present day Scotland

I would have assumed "Briton" was a cognate of brehon which was a celtic legal system

This history is a great example of why getting all tangled in your shorts over who settled where first is ridiculous. Through out history lands all over the world were conquered and reconquered, populations decimated.

I remember being younger and feeling rather awkward squaring the fact that I have German blood in my veins. Thankfully, I came to embrace it years ago!

This is so full of errors and dubious claims as to be more pseudo-history than rigorous history.

This channel is just some ChatGPT nonsense pulled into a voice maker.

The Welsh are not named after the Britons they are named after the Anglo-Saxon name for the "other"

mark my words. you are gonna be a saxon in a celtic 'map history' youtube land

It's a miracle there's still people left after several hundred years of war.

So the English now call themselves British….hmmmm

How do you square this fable with the fact that southern British DNA is much closer to that of northern and western France - not Germany?