ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
ต่อไป
เล่นอัตโนมัติ
Ancient Celts: Anglo-Saxon Invasion of Britain DOCUMENTARYKings and Generals
มุมมอง 1.6M
Did the Romans live better than us? | Quality of Life and SalariesHistoria Militum
มุมมอง 1.9M
Why did the German Tribes Start Migrating?Knowledgia
มุมมอง 236K
คราวหลังอย่าให้พ้ออีกประธานฮ่าง Channel
มุมมอง 190K
พ่อขอกินไอติมคำนึงนะ!! #พ่อ #กินไอติม #ไอศครีม #นปโปะหม่ำๆ #shortsคิดดีทีวี | Kiddee TV
มุมมอง 392K
ทนายเดชา ล่าสุด (หมดที่ยืน)#บิ๊กป้อม#เพื่อไทย#เศรษฐา#เท้ง ณัฐพงษ์#พรรคประชาชนข่าวเด่นวันนี้
มุมมอง 432K
The Crazy Engineering of VenicePrimal Space
มุมมอง 2.9M
Why did The Anglo Saxons Migrate to Britain?Knowledgia
มุมมอง 690K
Britain's Celtic languages explainedRobWords
มุมมอง 487K
How Hungary Finally CRUSHED the Mongols - DOCUMENTARYReal Crusades History
มุมมอง 2.7M
King Arthur: What Everybody Gets WrongCambrian Chronicles
มุมมอง 920K
Nabateans, Petra and the Lost Kingdom - Ancient Civilizations DOCUMENTARYKings and Generals
มุมมอง 133K
Why did the Celts Collapse?Knowledgia
มุมมอง 1.7M
The Entire History of Roman Britain (55 BC - 410 AD) // Ancient Rome DocumentaryHistory Time
มุมมอง 6M
Last stand of the 300 - Battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC - The fight for GreeceHistoryMarche
มุมมอง 524K
เดินจากอยุธยาสู่อ่างทองกับพี่ตั๊กบริบูรณ์...จะถึงไหมครับKyutae Oppa
มุมมอง 1.2M
[UNCUT] ชาวบ้านถาม “นายกอุ๊งอิ๊งค์” ประชาชนมีกิน มีใช้ กี่โมง? I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 16 ส.ค. 67ช่อง8 : Thai Ch8
มุมมอง 1.2M
7 Days Stranded In A CaveMrBeast
มุมมอง 52M
นายกฯ ต่อจาก "เศรษฐา" ใครมีโอกาสได้ตำแหน่งมากที่สุด? | Thai PBS NewsThaiPBSNews
มุมมอง 355K
แบงค์ปิ ปิยวัฒน์ - เทคมีเอาท์ไทยแลนด์ ปัดขวาหารัก EP.1 (17 ส.ค.67) Full EPTV Thunder Official
มุมมอง 168K
🍌Hiwwhee Games EP.1 | เปิดงานหิ้วหวีกีฬาสีใครจะอยู่สีไหนบ้างHiwwhee Official
มุมมอง 398K
สุดยอดอาหารเช้า เผาไขมัน สร้างกล้ามไวจี๊ด 💪 #หมอท๊อป #หมอท๊อปลดน้ำหนักDoctor Top
มุมมอง 41K
Hey lads! We are back again after a long pause of uploading. In the meantime I and a great team of dozens of artists have poured hundreds of hours into an Alternative History series that some of my older subscribers and fans of Allternative History might enjoy. If that sounds fun to you you can watch our most recent episode here: th-cam.com/video/6uhxXIGbDTc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=PZvxfLwLR02TzJcc
glad to see you back. Still strong after 6 years!
I’m sorry but I’m Perry sure most of this is “Alternative” History! You are taking real events and twisting them to fit a narrative of Saxon excellence and Brythonic ineptitude.
londinium - ludinium - ljudinijum --> serbian peopleinium! ljudeja, ljudi, ljudsko naselje.
I give it a try but I like the history videos more
Why the Yankee accent on the videos and at least be accurate
Britain didn’t become English! The land who the Anglo Saxons took became England and English. With the Britons going on to found Wales.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons Also the kingdoms of Elmet, Rheged and Deira were Welsh until they were taken over by the Vikings.
@Thebattler86 indeed, they were taken over by Anglo Saxons first and then they had them taken off of them by Vikings. Southern Scotland was also British, and this is why Most major places in Scotland have names that come from Brythonic (Welsh) as opposed to Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic.
I'm pretty sure most of that land was acquired fair and square by inbreeding. How else do you think the royals first appeared? They sacrificed their genetics for those kingdoms. The Brythonic way was for women to get an equal share in inheritance, was it not? To get half of a Brythonic kingdom fair and square by law and by DIVINE RIGHT you just marry your first cousin once or twice in a row.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons southern Scotland Galloway is called land of the gaels
@@WalesTheTrueBritons I disagree in the same way the people of Strathclyde who were ancient Britons when Scotland united they became Scots
The fact that people use this time period to justify modern day immigration in Britain shows how little they understand that this era must’ve absolutely horrific for the original inhabitants.
Exactly. Comparing modern-day immigrants to the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans might just be the biggest self-own in history
Yeah one came in through brute force, another because of desperation and because your governments allow it for cheaper workforce for the capitalists. One took over the authority another is under law of authority
Not as ridiculous as European juice justifying an actual invasion after migration to Levant with thousands years old claim. Which many westerners does not seem to have much problem with repeating while complaining about migration in their own continent
Britain’s “migrations” were historically north Western Europeans of very similar ethnic groups conquering and settling these islands, which is a VERY different thing than millions of people from whole other continents coming here artificially
They know it’s an invasion
The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool, found the English to be of plurality Anglo-Saxon-like ancestry, with heavy native Celtic Briton, and Norman admixture which varies on the location.
The genetics tell one story but so does linguistics. There's not a lot of Welsh words in English, even today. While this probably wasn't an industrial genocide in the modern sense it's clear that armed polities subdued Briton areas and the legal, language and economic barriers instituted made it difficult for Brythonic speakers to exist in Anglo-Saxon lands. They either assimilated, fled or died. The gene pool only shows that assimilation.
The Celtic admixture is modern not back then.
The Norman was post 1066 anyway.
Between 410-1066 the Anglo-Saxons were 75% Anglo-Saxon.
Only after 1066 it ranges 25-50% Germanic, 11-43% Brythonic.
And 14-42% French.
I think. I hope I didn't misremembered the percentage calculations.
But that means before the Celtic genetic rebound there was a genocide.
Who knows maybe the Bretons from Brittany joined the Normans significantly enough to rebound the Celtic genes
Missing the point completely, The genetics doesn’t account for the hundreds of years of Travel between the England and Wales. Why exactly did a lot of the early “Saxon” kings sport British names?!
@@WalesTheTrueBritons first generation rape babies from a Brythonic mother.
That doesn't negate tens of thousands of dead Britons.
Yeah, the men were killed and the women were taken.
The Romano Briton warrior elite were either wiped out or driven west into Cymru and Kernow, north into Cumbria, and south across the sea to Amorica. The towns people merchants and small farmers stayed behind and were assimilated into the Anglo Saxon kingdoms.
Pretty much
Did the Romano-Britons abandon Christianity for Germanic paganism upon assimilation into Anglo-Saxon culture?
@@tonegrail650I've seen it said that Frankish missions were key in Christianizing the Anglo-Saxons so probably.
@@tonegrail650 No, if anything the religious transfer was the reverse. the celts assimilated into anglo-saxon culture and retained their religion and language in most cases for hundreds of years. very few celts became pagan, but the pagans became christian. the celtic form of Christianity with the "wrong" easter
Indeed, looking at the topography of Britain, it makes more sense for the centre of military power for the Britons to be In Wales and Scotland.
Nowadays it's turning Muslim
Joshua: You mean the Middle East? I am from the Middle East 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Did you compare slave wage immigrants to settler colonialist genocide, rape, plunder & forceful ethnic cleansing?
@@HaloJumper7 did you compare an undevoped medieval society to a modern and thriving one?
Atleast it's not turning Papist.
Absolute nonsense. Britain is about 5% Muslim and considering nearly everyone from middle eastern nations is normally very religiously Islamic that’s nothing. Britain has over 40% non believers and over 50% Christian. It just looks a lot more because they don’t mix in with everyone and stay in groups
People forget that King Arthur fought to free the Brittan's of the English.
Yeah, Later English and French authors done wonders to turn him into a king associated with their countries.
So in other words, to free England, from the English, pretty poetic
I know that he did.
People forget that Kind Arthur is semi-mythical, at best!
@@zacsayer1818People don’t seem to even realise-never mind “forget”-that the term “mythical” never originally meant “fictional”. Mythos literally means “story”-not “fiction”.
DNA shows that my ancestors were native Britons: Devonian and Cornish.
Well done m8
You're in the 1%
You would be surprised.
DNA shows that most English people are native Britons. Briton/Celt accounts for up to 60% of English genetics. Modern genetics has really upturned the old narrative of Britons being pushed out to Wales, Scottish border lands, Cornwall, etc. The English are just the resulting ethnic group that came about from the ethnogenosis of the Britons in what is now England and the Germanics (Anglo-Saxon, Norman)
@14Anon2 no it doesn't!
Some things not mentioned:
- The House of Wessex, aka the Cerdicingas, which means descendants of Cerdic, were, mostly likely, of british origin. Tha name Cerdic is recognized as british, from the brythonic Coroticus, and cognate to a welsh name: Ceredig. So extermination was not the case here, but assimilation between native britons and incoming germanic mercenaries.
- The same could be said from Kent, since the kingdom's name is taken from a brythonic one.
- Earlier kings of Mercia, like Penda, display very brythonic names, another evidence that the midlands were heavily british and the elite was anglian, and the natives slowly adopted a germanic culture.
- Yes, there were some raids, skirmishes, and sieges, but actual invasions began around the year 550 AD.
Meh, Brythonic names likely from early generation rape baby kidnapped Brythonic moms.
Doesn't negate tens of thousands of dead Britons.
Or
- The first generation of Anglo-Saxon conquerors after taking on Celtic wives and kingdoms, used Celtic names as the main name of their first descendants. So, yes, Celtic underclass Anglo rulers.
- People adopt the place names all the time, Danes conquered Jutes but still called the Peninsula Juteland. So Kent being named Kent doesn't imply the Kentish Celts still ruled it.
Its likes people conveinently forget it took litteraly centuries for brythonic languages to stop being spoken in england even after the angles and saxons conquered it
@@ikengaspirit3063
In the case of Cerdic, he was, perhaps, a local british chieftain who used germanic mercenaries for his own gains and become independant. At least the local story of Natanleod tells us how Cerdic defeated a british warlord and expanded his domains. If Cerdic, or Coroticus was fighting this obscure Natanleod, his goal was to assert his independance and rewarded his germanic mercenaries with land and he was named "king".
@@RoyalRegimentofScotland We know of the minority leftover Britons. Cambrian Chronicles has good video on that. Doesn't mean the population was significant.
The Gretzinger et al. Nature paper (2022) actually says this: "We estimate that the ancestry of the present-day English ranges between 25% and 47% England EMA CNE-like [North Sea Germanic, AKA Anglo-Saxon], 11% and 57% England LIA-like [Native Celtic British] and 14% and 43% France IA-like [Pre-Roman Gaulish Celtic]". The first thing to note is that all the estimations have very large ranges, second, the maximum numbers are 47% (less than half) Germanic, 57% native British Celtic (more than half) and 43% Gaulish Celtic (less than half). The take-away message is that, whether native British, or incomer Gaulish, the majority of the ancestry of the present-day English people is pre-Roman Celtic and not Germanic.
The Iron Age Gaulish descended incomers were presumably introduced to Britain under Frankish patronage and were also perhaps somewhat Germanised in culture and language. There were also now little-known 'Saxon' settlements of the 5th-6th century on the Channel coast of what is now France, especially in Normandy. These settlements may also have played a part in the export of Gaulish genetics to Britain.
How Britain became Anglo-Saxon. It became English only in 1066
Genetics prove this very wrong. We're very mixed with our invaders and celtic blood.
Cope and seethe. Celtic DNA is trivial in difference to Nordic/Germanic in the first place and current studies say the Anglo element is 38-40% in present day people. And because nearly the entirety of English culture is Anglo-Saxon, it is perfectly reasonable to call English people Anglo-Saxon. In terms of invaders, the French Normans, the Romans, and the Vikings actually did not leave a significant genetic marker. For the vikings, for example, it was common for English women to be either kidnapped and taken back to Scandinavia or they willfully romanced the Norsemen on their own.
@@carmichaelree completely untrue. There's variation in each region. The majority of us have celtic base then depending where you live will determine which invader bred with you native ancestor. You need to remember the native Britons and their invaders all had been conquered or fought the Romans. The roman way wasn't massive death upon conquest. This is a trait most seen by most European armies and powers since. The people are apart of spoils of war, the women and the people who skills are valued mainly but a country with no people is just land. This is why we didn't have an entire population and culture replacement but a hybrid who picked the best aspects their own and their conquers. This is how the English culture was born and was one of the most influential and important ones known. We're the only the empire that former subjects and colonies that have flourished and still continue to operate and govern in the British style. This country has taken ingredients from other culture but what it gave back was completely original and unseen anywhere before us.
@@myopinionsmayoffendyou 40
Percent is still significant and I stand corrected by the fact our language and virtually every cultural aspect is Germanic. NOT Celtic.
@@carmichaelreemost of the English words derive from Latin.
@@carymnuhgibrilsamadalnasud1222 30%
My theory is that there was not an eradication of the native Britain's, but the native inhabitants, were out classed by the immigrant invaders, they therefore became subservient and had to take second place to the invaders who just had the edge over them, the natives were assimilated, they weren't anihalated they were just out-classed, and so the new comers achieved dominance in this way. The legacy of the natives, is the soft skills, more compassionate less domineering which moderated the more harsh elements of the Germanic tribes (compare Britain versus Germany today). The Britain's are still with us today mixed in with our German Saxon forbears.
Also the legacy of Rome in Britain was weak, so there was much less underpinning to support the British Celts when the new wave arrived, when the Romans walked out there probably wasn't a lot to aspire to from a Saxon perspective.
Then why do all the early “Saxon” kings sport British origin names?!
@@WalesTheTrueBritons I probably expressed that too strongly, my point reflecting the comment made in the video which was on the continent, there was much more of an amalgamation of cultures when the german tribes arrived, which the video expresses that the invading German tribes bought into. The weaker or weaker Roman legacy here, gave less to buy into culturally. Why did Early Saxon kings take Celtic British names? Perhaps you could give some examples? Perhaps it was intermarriage with the local population, perhaps it was a conscious approach much like the Romans combined or used local deities to take on the identity of Roman Gods, perhaps for a time the two spheres were on a more equal footing until gradually the primacy of the Germanic tribes allowed them to elevate themselves above their by now peers. That's not to say that Britain is not stronger for having the fibres of ancient Britain interwoven...it definitely makes us stronger better and I reckon a nicer community / world
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsokay, then why did they switch completely to Anglo-Saxon names?.
Taking up Briton names could just be usurping rights over the land from the previous dynasty much of whose political system remained.
Hard Fact: The MEN were annihilated, and the women were taken. That's what happens.
Stop the boats
Stop the toy boats
For those who don't know, such as the guy making this video.
He missed out the beginning of the story ,
The Celts who were living in Britain when the Roman's invaded, had only been in Britain for 150 years.
They came to Britain around 100bc a time known to most historians as "the Belgic migration".
The guy ignores that part and talks as if the Celts had been in Britain for 1000s of years.
Not mentioning that is like making a history video about the USA and not mentioning the English, the 13 colonies and being ruled by England for most of its history.
The Belgic Celts were in Britain 150 years then the Romans conquered and ruled for 400 years..
The British were Romanised Belgic Celts,
The Saxons Angles etc, didn't invade and push the Romano British from the east to the west , they remained where they were , the history of the part that became England, is different from town to town region to region
There is no single story that happened to everyone.
There was no such thing as a British identity , Britain was full of people with regional identities.
The Germanic peoples generally speaking came in groups, families and settled on land that belonged to nobody
The population of Britain was quite small full of unclaimed land.
There was some fighting, but not all between Saxon and Celts, if anything there was more Celts fighting other Celts.
The Celts and Saxons mostly lived side by side without any problems, they married and traded until they became one .
Just parg of different kingdoms, mercia, wessex, Essex, northumbria etc .
Until king Alfred's grandson became ruler of England..
The Normans fkd everything up..
@@GeeeEmmm yes , the Norman conquest was a really bad time for the English, rich and poor , in Saxon times even the poor had a value, wereguild, and they could move from town to town looking for work etc , but after the Normans invaded
The people who worked the land were no longer free they owned by the Normans along with the buildings and lands , the poor no longer had any say , they were outlawed if they left the towns , they could be killed without any payments to their families.
The Normans really were bastards and treated the English as property, slaves.. :(
Source: his ass
The Celts definitely came to Britain before 100 BC
@@sebe2255 your right of course, ( i should have made it clear in my post ) Celts had been & were already living in Britain from around 700 bc .
But very little is known about them, the ones we do know about the ones that produced well known characters, such as Casivelaunus, Cunobelin, Caratacus- catuvellauni,
Prasutagus, boudicca - Iceni, etc , are all from tribes that arrived between 100 bc - 60bc .
Relatively new comers, who within a short time ruled their region some, such as the catuvellauni ruled most of south east Britain by the time of the Claudian invasion ( 42ad) .
Yet videos like this don't mention anything about that.
By not mentioning it people assume 'celts' were all one people who had been living in Britain for many centuries.
Which is wrong, the new comers had only been in Britain a century or so .
Its very important that should be made clear.
But it's not . :/
Ragnar❤
There's a new theory that suggests their was more of an integration less a conquest. based on DNA and building design
By people who want to convince us that one ethnic subjugating another is OK
@@KenEze-k6knot necessarily
most off the nobles and elite class were wipe out but the common folks had no choice but to adapted and adopted the new master...even today most elite, nobles and lord in England and UK as a whole are Germanic , Scandinavian and French descends...and red headed celtic common folks were consider stupid, wild and barbarian LMAO
You don't understand how conquering works, man. Usually conquerors take local women. This is the most common way of gene mixing.
The animation and the narration is awesome 🔥
Yo, you forgot to mention how native celts of England began migration to Brittany in France. They were called Bretons and so did their language later.
Make Britain Welsh again.
That literally translates as " make Britain foreign again "
@andym9571 "Welsh" is derived from the Saxon word for "foreigner." That is correct. But it's the most commonly understood modern word for the people and the nation there. So, its derivation is irrelevant.
Nah
@@andym9571Cymraeg again so
England began when the Angles arrived lol
And the assimilation of the British Isles would even continue years later in the Irish people, where currently the majority speaks a dialect of English and a minority speaks Irish Gaelic.
A handful of Irish lords, maybe even only one - made the catastrophic error of inviting in the Normans. The bigget mistake in Irish history.
Irish invaded scotland in 800s
@@neilog747 They were invited in by a man who wanted his kingdom back from another king and who didn't particularly care if the Normans took over Ireland after he died.
@neilog747 They'd have probably come hear eventually anyways. An English invasion of Ireland was inevitable
True but if the kings had properly and quickly united [they were in the process but much too slowly] they might have been able to put up a better resistance and MacMurraigh would not have had the excuse of losing his kingdom to help them to get a way in.
By saying Briton you are saying England, Wales and Scotland but Scotland and Wales aren't English. Stop making Britain English when it's not just English.
Briton means native celtics to what is now britian. Im scottish and most Scots especially low lands have english dna
@@ciaranReal Briton doesn't mean native Celtic, maybe in roman times. Plus I meant Britain.
1. a native or inhabitant of Great Britain, or a person of British descent.
2. a Celtic inhabitant of southern Britain before and during Roman times.
That's the google definition and I am Scottish too, full lowlander with some English but I wouldn't call myself English.
So Anglos are experts of replacing native peoples and their modern population complains about getting replaced themselves lol
We are experts at conquering 💪🏻🏴
Why wouldn’t they complain about that?
Germanic tribes conquered parts of what is now England and then brought their family’s, they then became the ruling cast and mixed with the Celtic locals, there was conflict between the Germanic invaders and Celts which forced a large number of Celts to move further west to wales, but there was no extermination. Largely, Celts and Saxons mixed, with there being larger amounts of Germanic population in eastern England and larger amounts of Celts in the west. They essentially became one people over the decades and centuries. The later Viking and Norman admixture also added to the populations genetics, but essentially they’re a Germanic/Celtic people made up of north Western Europeans. This isn’t going to be the case for long though, native British are projected to be 50% of the population before the end of this century due to mass migrations from the third world.
Native British were wyped out 5k years ago.
Nah there definently was extermination, only thing is that they took the women and mixed with them and created a caste like system like india, essentially creating a new genetic profile from that point on
When the Romans left in the early 5th century the Picts (todays Scots) attacked Hadrian's Wall and raided all the way down to Kent, thats why the ancient Britain's asked for the Saxons to come and help, btw the Romans never conqured today's Scotland they invaded but they got kicked out.
All of this seems so implausible you would almost think that there was a momentary glitch in the matrix and history went a completely different direction.
Pretty sure Bede stated that Arthur was king of Glamorgan and Gwent in his Brut of England. This definitely backs up the Harlean genealogies!
just because one monk who never left his monastry says something doesn't make it true.
So we Have genealogy records, A enemy historian saying he lived there! A cross found in south Wales with his name on! And we have records of a king with the name Arthwys in the same region all those were found and described as being associated with him. But it’s just a coincidence? Yeah!
@@Jamie-h3e Doesn't make it false either. Monks wee historians in most Eurpoean cultures at the time.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons or perhaps later kings wanted to associate themselves with a mythical Arthur to gain legitimacy. Simply because a historian or king says something in a genealogy doesnt make it true. Many kings have claimed to be the descendants of gods. do you believe that too?
@@Jamie-h3e ''History fake because i don't like it'' - Jamie , professional redditor historian.
The West Saxon dynasty was founded by a man with a native Celtic British name Cerdic (same as the British kings Ceretic of Strathclyde and Ceretic of Elmet). The West Saxon or Gewissae (at the time), Bretwalda (overlord of Britain) Ceawlin also had a Celtic name. The last king of that dynasty to have a Celtic name was Caedwalla (Cadwallon), who died as late as 689. The names of Pybba and his son Penda, kings of Mercia, are also Celtic in origin. St. Chad, a Northumbrian bishop and all three of his brothers had Celtic names, as did the Northumbrian poet Caedmon, the first recorded poet using the English language. Things are never simple. they were far from simple between 450 and 700 AD.
All true, definitely more going on than we are led to believe. Personally, I think it was a mutual sharing of cultures akin to a modern day marriage where one side takes the name of the other. As “outsiders”, the Saxons would take British names in order to show their willingness to settle into Brythonic society, and over the course of hundreds of years more and more people adopted Saxon names instead. Till the point where a divergence happened and the Modern states that are England, And Wales emerged, with one abandoning its culture and one keeping it.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons I suspect that is true of the Mercian kings, whose names appear to be nicknames, Pybba, probably from the Welsh for Stout/Strong, and Penda, probably meaning 'the Eminent'/ 'the Head-Honcho', given because they had a lot of Welsh-speaking subjects. However, for the West Saxon royal line their names are actual Welsh given names and it is far more likely that they had British origins. I suspect that the men of a warband, British, Anglo-Saxon, or mixed were far more interested in the prowess and authority of their leader than his ethnic origin or mother tongue.
The way that I learned was that a relatively small number of Anglo, Saxon, and Jutish males invaded the island with even fewer of their women. These men then killed the Brtionic males and took the women as wives. This led to very rapid assimilation and rapid population growth of the Germanic invaders. This is seen by the absence of Celtic Y chromosomes in Englishmen. Also - to suggest that this is the first time ethnic cleansing has happened is blatantly false. For example, all one must do is look to the expansion of Asians in Asia which took place several thousand years before the fall of Rome. The reason why East Asians look so similar is that rice farmers exploded out of central China and wiped out other peoples. The Ainu once inhabited all of Japan and Korea but are limited to only Northern Japan and the Kuril Islands today. The Negretos of Malaysia and Indonesia once inhabited the whole region but the rice farmers drove them deep into the jungles. Other examples include Bantus in Africa, Indo-Aryans in India, Turks in Centeal Asia, or even when the Celts invaded northern Italy while Rome was a small city state. The examples are endless. What happened in Britain was not unique but unfortunately rather common in the historical record. With that said, excellent video. You gained a subscriber.
There is not an absence of Celtic Y chromosome, i'm not sure where you've got that from. the DNA clearly shows assimilation not male genocide of celts
September 21st 2022 Anglo-Saxon study proved a 76% genetics genocide replacement.
Only today are the English like 50% Celtic.
That's just Briton minority population recovery rebound.
@@davestevenson9080 but how far back?
The entire Anglian tribe crossed over to Britain, or at least most of it. Bede records Angeln as being desolate and depopulated in the 8th century. This would also explain the greater size and number of Anglian kingdoms compared to the Saxons or Jutes, who only had partial migrations.
@@Burgermeister1836 survive the jive shows the jute migration was entirety in recent videos.
Only reason they didn't have more land is their Sussex attempt was slaughtered.
Disconnecting Kent from Wight
The modern english was actually formed only after 1066. Up until then the Anglo-saxon language was very much like ither german languages.
True, that extra norman influence heavily changd that
Not really there were already several distinct English dialects by the time of Alfred the Great, in fact, he had some books on agriculture translated from the Mercian dialect to the Wessex one, as part of his plans to increase the use of writing
What happened to Englands native Celtic population? just go to England as you'll see there still there in their millions.
Scottish exist
Two studies.
"Human Skulls Reveal New Clues About Early Anglo-Saxon Ancestry"
And
"The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool"
Two studies, one cranial and genetic
3/4th or 75% of the DNA of Anglo-Saxons and their skulls is Germanic.
Well until near the mid to late 600s when they acquired more Celtic DNA around half and less.
Which the historian in me correlated with both their Christianization making them less genocidal, and more territory in modern western England with Brythonic territories population.
You follow?
Nah, modern English are legit mixed
@@jasrajsandhu1658 Modern indigenous English are Celtic/Anglo Saxon mix, Our DNA shows us this it's been proven, we always knew this anyway we didnt need to be told.
@@alunevans380 you guys can't be indigenous if you are pretty much 1/3 saxon lol, quit whining
They're now called *Welsh* .
It wasn’t the least romanized at all. Roman Britain was as much Roman as Gaul or Hispania. It was under Roman control for over 300 years that’s longer than the US has been a country. Dr. Wyman’s explanation makes more sense to me than this.
Compared to other provinces yes it was, also the roman influence was lesser, not because they were their less but because britania was harder to control
Amazing! Loved that you covered the rising of the Germanic Rexs and their level of Roman assimilation by the turn of the 500s. No one covers it!
Please do Romano-Brittonic Wales!
Even Brittany and Cornwall would be great too
English people are still majority Celtic by blood, stop spreading non-sense about an "extermination".
If nothing else it was a cultural extermination
When you look at what the English have later done to the world, I think it's safe to say that the anglo Saxon invasion was the single worst thing to have happened in history
@juannaym8488 No, the Normans, the last invaders of the British Isles, were worse. They're the one's who laid the foundations of the England we know today.
When the Romans left today's England the Picts attacked Hadrian's Wall and raided down to today's Kent! That's why the Britains asked the Anglo and Saxons to help them out, and the Anglo-Saxons did not even fight the Picts they just took over today's England.Stilicho's Pictish War is a name given to a war between the forces of the Western Roman Empire led by Stilicho and the Picts in Britain around 398 AD.
It is interesting That Wales is the only truely bilingual country in the British Isles. They have held on to the language that is very similar to that being used over the whole of the islands two thousand years ago. Finally this nonsense confuses England and Britain throughout this download.
Holy shit You greatly improved, neat.
If he thinks 5th Century Britain might represent the first case of ethnic genocide, he needs to read a lot more history and archaeology!
I know right _"the first case of ethnic genocide"_ 😂😂 I thought, "is he having a laugh?!" Let's just ignore 4000+ years of wars across the globe prior to this eh.
Hi! Came here from historymarche.
Great video! I was wondering how you animate your maps?
@@ThomasWhiteX hey thank you sir! Cool content on your side as well ! In terms of the maps , I make them in photoshop and do all animation in After Effects.
For some of the icons and other models I use blender, but I predominantly use After Effects .
I also use premiere pro in post production and for Sound design . Illustrator also comes in handy from time to time .
@@historyrhymes1701 You're welcome! Thanks as well ;£, I really appreciate the reply. That's good to know, you're very proficient at it. So the adobe products must be pretty useful.
I would love to make a video on that If you ever wanted to do a small collaboration on that topic, just let me know :)
@@historyrhymes1701 Do you do your own voice?
Anglo pride worldwide!!!
British pride!!! Down with the Saxon horde.
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsmy last name is evidence British men took English women and became Anglicized.
Hard to defeat us, when many join us. 😘🤗😌😏.
When we were pagan and the Britons were Christian you coulda expelled us.
But alas, y'all apostized and we christianized.
That's why we could hold out the Danes.
We only got defeated but not exterminated by the Normans because they were even more righteous Christians but unlike Britons and Danes, we English were righteous enough to be merged not destroyed as a habitational population in Britain.
Yes I'm gonna say race is bullshit.
Christ is risen ✝️🏴
Pride before the fall
@@jahinsadman1505 Semites like you generally soar with it. I am sure you speak from experience Jahin.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 I am not a Semite. Just like the first settlers and creators of neo crusader state of Izrael which is the last western colony left in middle east
Then the Danes arrive to conquer the Anglo Saxons.
I have to say this video was great, one of the best ive seen, so well explained and addressing so many questions and key points... Clearly demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Except he’s wrong. The native Britons weren’t exterminated. There were pockets of Brythonic speakers throughout what is modern England, right up into the Middle Ages.
There was social mobility too, where Saxons converted to Christianity and Britons converted to Paganism.
The modern English are on average, up to 50% Anglo-Saxon and in the south, up to something like 20-25% French.
Genetically speaking, it might be more accurate to call the English, Anglo-Celtic or Celto-Saxons.
@@Inquisitor_Vex but to be fair to him in such a short presentation there is only so much you can convey. But yes agree with your point about Brythonic people up to the middle ages, and if you know what you are looking for you can visually see the different levels of ad-mixture in different people.. native Britain's, swarthy dark hair with a tendency to be curly. I watched a German series entitled 1989 where I unfortunately identified that to all intents and purposes I looked exactly like a German... Rather disappointing.
The Western Roman Empire crumbled because all their elite Warriors were lost in the civil War under Magnus Maximus and his fight to reclaim his birthright. This opened up not only Gaul to become France under the Franks but The Britons to lose What would become England and Scotland to the Saxons and Scoti. The Britons are fighting Irish, Scoti, Saxons, Mercians, Picts. It’s amazing they are even still here!!!! And it’s Amazing that Wales exists at all.
Picts are britons by the way. But most people in britian still heavily decend from the anceint Britons anyway and after all these years after all these invaders normans , vikings , scotti , angles , jutes saxons what do they all call themselves now?
Britons! They call themselves Britons. But the real question is who gave them the authority to? The Tudors after the battle of Bosworth field! The year in which the Mab Darogan was fulfilled and the year England got its first British monarchs.
The Romans didn't just wipe out the Gauls in France but also in Asia Minor and Eastern Europe aswell.
@RoyalRegimentofScotl "Pict" is a latinisation of the word "Shqiptar", which was the Albanian name for themselves. Scotland used to be called "Alban", and the tribe who lived in what is now Albania were called "Picentes" by the Romans. The Picts were not Britons, and according to historical sources they certainly didn't speak the same language. The Picts fought against the Britons. They were refugees from Illyrian who spoke a form of Gheg Albanian. Their laws and culture was the same as that of the Illyrians.
Also they were called "Cruithin" in Irish, but probably called themselves "Shqiptar" in their own language.
@@Thebattler86 No way Albanians trying to claim picts now 😭 done trying to claim Alexander the Great now your claiming Britons. You can't honestly be serious?The "picts"as in the roman term aren't even a real group necessarily they are a bunch of briton people that all lived in one area the Romans just gave them the name infact the romans didn't even call them that originally they called them Caledonians. Pict was originally is just a derogatory term for painted Britons outside roman control. The picts didn't speak illyrian they literally spoke pictish a bryhronic language that went extinct in 1100 after gaelic conquests so we don't even know the language nor was it written down. We hardly know anything about pict law and culture because they didn't write anything about their culture like everyone else in britian so how tf would you know they had the same culture as Albanians. The only reason we know anything about the Britons at all is because of gaels and the Romans who wrote it down. The Kingdom of the picts from after the Romans left didn't even encompass all of Scotland anyway. The "picts" raided the rest of britian just like the rest of britian fought each other over and over again that doesn't magically make them not britons even by roman sources they are called britos and the territory they inhabited was literally called northern brittania. The gaelic name for the picts Cruithni literally translates to pritani the original greek name of the Britons meaning literally the gaels also called picts Britons. Not to mention Cruithni are an irish group and many scholars argue the relationship between the Cruithni and britons 😂 there was a bunch of briton peoples in Scotland from the Strathclyde Britons to the picts. Picts aren't Albanians. The name Alban comes from albion and described the whole island not just Scotland 😂. The picts are a brythonic group they don't have anything to do with Albania. Calgacus isnt Albanian. The only reason we use pict and briton simultaneously at all is to distinguish the britons conquered by the Romans and the ones that weren't
I belong to India, I take pledge upon the preamble and all that.
But I see no problem with British Raj.
The type of downward spiral that the compatriots themselves have done to this country is more than what the british were capable of doing while they were on power.
I wish the British could once again rule the world like they once did before.
The rails, bridges, schools and cathedrals built by the British are ,upto this date, intact.
Their constructions have far greater life spans than one bridge built under the supervision of the government which is always filled with potholes every monsoon.
Welcome back general
the Britons were not exterminated, modern day English people have dna made up of a combination of anglo-saxon and romano celtic. your video is based on an old story told by a monk who had never left his monastery, he was also was not alive at the time of the supposed invasion.
@@Jamie-h3e I'm so sick of seeing this regurgitsted, English apologist propaganda. If the Welsh weren't exterminated, then how did the Engkish founds several kingdoms in their land and remove the language and culture?
@@Thebattler86 its called getting conquered
@@clay119 Its called murdering and stealing
@@Thebattler86 aka history
@@clay119 you're wrong.
Thank you for what you do!
At your service good sir!
Well the Anglo Saxons weren't all that opposed to the local culture. These Saxons themselves had weapons and armor that resembled the Late Roman Germanic auxiliaries.
By the time of the Viking era of the late 8th century AD, the Anglo Saxons already were Christianized via the Roman rite, they had no knowledge of their Germanic past as they were now fully assimilated into continental culture, the army of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms were pretty much an evolution from the late Roman styled infantry based system of shield wall, spears and the spatha long sword. They were termed fyrdmen according to Saxon methods of levying troops, but all in all they were already very much Romanized despite centuries of coming to blows with the Romano Brits.
Ultimately there was assimilation and a cultural melting pot ensued
What a polished video 👍
Much of the story of how English culture replaced British culture is now well-known. Genetic and archaological evidence mixed with the written records has pretty much established the story. Essentially, its a tale of the incomplete dominance of an English culture over a British culture which it slowly replaces. Some early English kings and kingdoms have British names. What does cultural difference even mean if you are an illiterate farmer? Note that the pagan English religion was worldly (you can read about Woden/Odin the Havamal) and that Christianity explicity rejects 'worldliness'. England represents the victory of the worldly over the spiritual, hence our unpopularity. The world will not go away, and so neither will we.
Yes we can read native form British names r sole.
the biggest change in Britain, in terms of genetics, took place during the bronze age around 2500 BC, when the Neolithic people of Britain, who built the Stonehenge, almost disappeared (about 90%), most likely due to devastating first-ever wave of plague. They were replaced by bell-beaker Indo-Europeans, who are ancestors of most modern Britons. Subsequent migrations (the Celts, the Anglo-saxons, Vikings, Normans) added to the mix, but didn't dramatically change it, even though language shifts took place. Paradoxically, the Celtic impact appears very small from a genetic perspective, as the Celtic areas of Britain all have distinctly un-Celtic y-chromosome markers. The Celtic languages most likely spread by local pre-Celtic people adopting the language&customs of a small group of Celtic-speaking elite, who brought iron age technology to Britain with them, around 1000BC.
The language of the south east of Britain was Germanic. This is the only possibility that fits the facts: language differences, lack of place names and the only written evidence in Tacitus.
Slavs weren't in Germania Magna in 400AC as the maps suggests tho, it was all German territory, Slavs weren't a big thing in Eastern Europe until after the 7th century
The natives where NEVER exterminated !
Lies
It's a load of crap. They invaded and became the top dogs; rule, settle and conquer was their ambition - not this silly theory of extermination.
Good video. Misleading title. Britain didn't become English. England became English. There's a difference.
Saying England became English is wrong too as the there was no England prior to the English, lowland Britain became English. :)
@redwaldcuthberting7195 Haha very true 👏
Yes true, but other areas have English influence or dna
Have to rely on more “scandalous” titles unfortunately. It is one of the few ways that allows videos like this one to gain the needed traction to make their production cost sustainable.
@historyrhymes1701 Understandable mate. Great video though good work 👍
Lore of The Extermination of England's Natives. How Britain Became English momentum 100
Great video. The English are indeed Anglo-Saxon. Byrne et. al. (2018), found that modern English people are 2/3+ Anglo-Saxon.
Gretzinger et. al. (2022), in the largest study of its kind, found that 76%+ of Britain's post-roman population was replaced by Anglo-Saxons. So 76%+ of people in Anglo-Saxon England were Anglo-Saxon genetically. Those who were not - completely abandoned "Brythonic" ways and became Anglo-Saxon.
Anglo-Saxon/Germanic Heathendom is the true path of the English folk.
Also whilst English kept some topographic place names from "Brythonic", English otherwise has no "Celtic" influence. Welsh on the otherhand has a lot of English influence.
Gretzinger et. al. (2022) found that 76% of ancestry came from Continental Europe in the early middle ages, but that the modern English Germanic admixture peaks at 47% in East Anglia. Stop misciting studies to make an incorrect point; modern England is majority Celtic by blood
@@user-cn8cz3qz6z the study said 76%+ Continental Northern europe "CNE" derived which the study says it uses to describe Anglo-Saxon. Stop misquoting the sources.
"Celtic" blood doesn't exist, there were "Celtic" speakers in Anatolia, who were vastly different genetically from those in the ancient British Isles, who were vastly different to those in Iberia. The ancient British had no understanding of the word "Celtic" it's a modern invention based on Greek Keltoi meaning foreigner. Nobody in the ancient or modern British Isles is "Celtic".
@@BaneSeaxan6 the study said 76%+ in a specific burial sight from hundreds of years ago, and further clarified later in the study that modern English people do not have such a high percentage. Either that burial sight was a biased sample due to Anglo-Saxon cultural dominance (which I believe to be likely) or if signifies that Celtic ancestry has increased in Eastern England over the last several centuries due to internal migrations (which I consider less likely).
Saying there is no such thing as Celtic ancestry because of the Galatians who migrated to Anatolia and were subsumed by the local population is like saying there is no such thing as Germanic ancestry because cape coloreds in South Africa speak English. Stop making absurd and dishonest arguments, you know full well that a genetic correlation exists between ancient Celtic speaking groups, in much the same way a genetic correlation exists between ancient Germanic speaking groups. Saying Celtic is an invalid term just because it is an academic exonym is an argument that literally applies 100% to Germanics as well, and in fact ironically enough many believe the word "german" to be of Gallic/Celtic origin, meaning "noisy". The etymology of a word does nothing to invalidate the concept it describes.
@@user-cn8cz3qz6z the modern Irish, Welsh and Scottish all cluster very differently from one another, with highly distinct genetic variations within these regions, let alone between them. In Ireland alone there is around 10 distinct genetic clusters all on a tiny island. If indeed there was such a thing as a "Celtic" race they would cluster strongly together. They do not. The "Celtic" race theory has been disproved going back to 2016 and further. Modern linguists argue for a handful of traders from Germany and Austria who brought "Celtic" tongues to Britain with the languages being successful due to a "high prestige, low prestige" outcome. There was never a mass migration of "Celts" from central Europe, hence the plurality/multi-racialness of "Celt" speakers.
Pseudo "Celtic" theories which arose in response to the success of the English in the British Isles does not accord with the genetic reality.
The Kentish Law Code of Ine of the 7th century prescribes differing wergilds for English (Jutes) & Britons. Although this indicates discrimination against them, it recognises they were still present.
Saxons were invited to protect people in Britain after rome left and Britain was being attacked by tribes! Saxons higherd to protect people! But in the end they decided to take over.
Nonsense! And the million or so Britons couldn’t find a single person that knew how to fight?
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsyes
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsTo be fair to both of you the Britons were under attack from many directions, such as the Picts from the north, and hired some Germanic warriors to help them, such as Vortigern possibly hiring Hengest, Horsa and their men to help.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons The Saxons were invited over at first by various Celtic tribes. Otherwise they wouldn't have travelled to Britain and wanted the land for themselves.
@@ironblu4110they weren't invited. The romans massively weakend britonic England especially in the lower lands, after they left it was a free for all. The huns were also responsible for pushing the germanic tribes west
How much is wrong with the dramatisation on this title. First of all Britain was never English. Now what...
?
So even their native land isn't their native land
As with many places
It couldn’t have been England’s old native culture as England didn’t exist.
The idea that the withdrawal of the Roman empire from Britain was the first genocide kinda misses what happened when the Bell Beaker people showed up (checks notes) 30 centuries prior.
They had some neat new pots, and because they domesticated cows, lactose tolerant genes became beneficial when they mixed with the existing inhabitants of Western Europe
@@RichardBrown7k And yet, no one ever talks about the Cow Conquest of Europe.
Imposant culture on the native pppulation = graping women
Sure love to push the Anglo narrative! Britons weak, Saxon Strong! lol. Any nation would look weak if they spent 400 years fighting Irish, Pictish and Scoti Raiders, then having to deal with Franks, Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, and Mercians, Vikings, Normans.
I mean.
September 21st 2022 Anglo-Saxon invasion study 76% genetic replacement.
Only Brythonic DNA (and French DNA) rebounded (and increased) after 1066. Probably from Bretons and Normans.
No England became England or an extended Germany. Wales is a Celtic land the original Brits
Extended Denmark or Netherlands
Dutch people are germans lol germans were a people but they dkdnt have a nation until arguably the holy roman empire and bismarck @carymnuhgibrilsamadalnasud1222
The celts actually another earlier folk...
History repeats.
The laws of Wessex, mention Britons, the Kingdom of Cornwall was never fully conquered, and endured into the early Middle Ages.
Linguists still can't decide if the name Cerdic is Germanic or "Celtic" in origin. If Germanic then it is pronounced "Cher-dich". If "Celtic" it is just as, if not more likely, a continental "Celtic" name (rather than Brythonic) which would be consistent with the ASC stating he came over with ships to Britain.
Of course, he could have been a Saxon foederati descendant commanding Brythons (and Saxons) and who bestowed this Cerdic title onto him. First names themselves do not necessarily denote one's heritage. Clearly he was Anglo-Saxon culturally, linguistically and religiously.
As for the "Wal/Wahl" element in names, they're not necessarily connected to "Wælisc" (Welsh). The Queen of Heorot, Wealhtheow, for example - the first part of her name is linked to magic/wand/spells and this is probably the root of many names in the Wessex genealogy.
Our Anglo saxon ancestors deal with them that what happen to them
And then the Normans did smite down your ancestors.
With furious anger.
Those natives were there the same amount of time as the Anglo Saxons have been there as of today.
Then on that basis If I decide to invade Belgium and successfully am able to stay there for a very long time that makes me native... Therefore the longer I am able to impose my will on the Belgians the more legitimately I am able to claim that I am native, and the less relevant the indigenous population is.
And in any event not so the Saxons etc. have been here for 1500 years the Britain's have been here for at least 7,000 years
@@user-jp5rv1fs2j nonsense. the celts were on the island only for 3,000 years not 7,000. and we also have celtic DNA which means our ancestors willingly mixed with the Anglosaxons.
@@user-jp5rv1fs2jthe celts are considered native despite wiping out the previous inhabitants that built stonehenge..
@@user-jp5rv1fs2jthe celts are considered native despite wiping out the previous inhabitants that built stonehenge..
Pope seen Angel saxons in slave market in Rome and said they look like Angels and decided to convert all of Britain to Christian ✝️ English means Angel.
Yes even Lucifer himself was a angel before.
The Britons were already Christians by the time Augustine converted the pagan Saxons. And had been for several centuries.
Angle is to do with angling as in fishing. Fishing hooks are at an angle. Another related word is ankle. England means fishermen land
😂
Total fiction
Good video.
No mention of Britons having a lesser wergild in Wessex than an English man, that's a sort of discrimination which would encourage Britons to become 'Englisc' so to speak.
Well the video did mention the native Britons being treated as second class citizens, so that sort of thing is implied
@@dafyddllewellyn1704 would have been nice to actually reference how much an Englisc mon or Wylisc mon was though. These aren't misspellings by the way by spellings from old English Domas 'judgements aka dooms.'
According to genetic tests, the population of Britain is descended primarily from hunter-gatherers migrated from Continental Europe during the Mesolithic Period. Then from 1300BCE to 800BCE, Celtic peoples migrated to Britain and assimilated the indigenous populations. When the Romans arrived, Celts that embraced Roman culture became the Romano-British where they spoke local variants of Latin and intermarried with settlers from the Roman Empire. Rural communities on the other hand were culturally predominantly Celtic. Scholars are still debating whether there is really a Germanic invasion or peaceful migration. The first Germanic peoples to Britain were auxiliaries serving in the Roman army. The Celts and Romano-British have the choice of either accepting the new Germanic overlords or flee. Many chose to stay behind while the rest fled to present day Wales, Cornwall, parts of what is now southern Scotland and Northwest England formerly known as Strathclyde, Britanny in modern France and Britonia on the northern coast of the Iberian Peninsula. The population of England is descended primarily from Celts and Romano-British that become assimilated into Germanic Anglo-Saxon population.
Archaeology shows almost no evidence for an AngloSaxon invasion and conquest.. Where are burned villages, the skeletons with battle wounds, the remains of battle fields etc?
Saxon: Do you read history? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Genetic evidence show another that it did happen.
@@fyrdman2185 genetic evidence shows that today's English are between 5 and 15 percent Anglo Saxon. Hardly are genocidal conquest.
@@fyrdman2185 More recent DNA info shows the English to be 25 to 40!ercent
We can’t even find evidence for ancient and medieval battles that we definitely know did happen.
And genetic evidence shows that Germanic people definitely moved to Britain. And it seems very unlikely that the existing Britons would just give up on their land, language, culture and power without any resistance at all
The editing is fire
Never were irish or scots celts
They were called picts
The celts lived with the romans
The presentation is top noch
Interesting n informative video
The original native English exterminated by the anglo saxon invaders was just a training for the next step in America's 13 colonies and after the rest of the current US territories.
English people are mostly celtic they were never (exterminated)
I disagree - you are conflating several centuries worth of immigration between the other nations of Britain to England and then claiming that England is the same as the others. The fact is England was founded By Saxons and the other weren’t.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons The truth is, todays indigenous British people who were born in England (indigenous English) have mainly Celtic DNA with some North Western European mainly Anglo Saxon DNA, which accounts for between 10 to 40% throughout the UK, it's still mainly all Celtic more so in Western England this has been well proven now.
@@alunevans380 Not the English have a plurality Anglo-Saxon DNA with the rest being native Briton, Franks etc.
@@fyrdman2185 Most of it is still Ancient Briton /Celtic including my own and all my family up to over 90%, and you'll still find this with a lot of indigenous English people today especially on the west side and Northern parts of the country, the Anglo saxon DNA is higher on the Eastern side of the country this is mainy where these Germanic tribes settled but even that is still mainly Celtic amongst the indigenous English people.
@@alunevans380 In the West of England you might be right.
The thing with the demilitarization of Italy, Hispania and Gaul doesn't fly.
There was no 'extermination'. Domination doesn't equal 'extermination'. The inhabitants of the British isles are descendants of Celts mixed with Roman, Norse and German invaders. The language you speak doesn't decide your ancestral background because politically dominant linguistic minorities have often imposed their language on a subjugated majority. The Turkish-speaking population of Anatolia are for the most part the descendants of previously Greek-speaking populations and not Central Asian invaders. The English-speaking population of Utah are for the most part descendants of recent German immigrants.
I went to the North of England once.
Clovis converted to catholicism, not christianity per se. The difference between catholicism and Proto-Protestanism/Apostolic Christianity is almost as great as the latter is from paganism. Catholicism is merely paganism baptized.
The fundamental difference between the two systems is that catholicism objective is world domination via capturing the political sphere. Biblical Christianity looks to secure citizenship in a heavenly kingdom not of this world.
This is one reason why Christ stood aloof from political political uprisings against the oppressive Romans.
You are speaking nonsense my man.
What exactly is it with these channels trying to sell the Britons so short?! Making out they were they some sort of Pacifist who couldn’t lift a sword. They were fighting several different invaders at the same time and they would hand a whooping! To the Vikings a few centuries later.
Meh. The Bretons after 1066 alongside the Normans rebounded Briton ancestry
Lol the Anglo-Saxons repelled and absorbed the Danes.
Unlike the Britons who got bamboozled by the Anglo-Saxons.
Only a aristocratic change after 1066.
No one calls Britons weak.
The Britons won many battles against the Anglo-Normans.
And the Normans used Bretons to conquer the English.
6:45 7:07 12:28 literally made the point that one of the reasons why post Roman Britain turned out so differently from the rest of Western Europe was the fact that the Britons were more effective militarily
@@noahtylerpritchett2682How does that make any sense though? Not that many bretons actually came with the normans. Its absolutely impossible that a few breton nobles possibly managed to rebound an entire gene pool across a whole island of millions
@@historyrhymes1701Nah, you have no right to say that when you make a clickbait vid.
anyone knows the name of the song that plays at 10:24? I've heard it on so many youtube videos, but never seem to find it. ://
The narrators name is chuck isn’t it? GREAT VID
The Celts weren't exactly the ORIGINAL natives. They expanded and invaded numerous areas of Europe around 400 BC. One of these Celtic tribes, calling themselves Brythons, invaded what is now England and Ireland, and subjugated whoever was there before them.
That history is out of date. It’s based on a 300 narrative that never made a whole lot of sense. Read Sir Barry Cunliffe’s Britain Begins or watch one of his lectures on the subject of the Celts to find out more. He claims alll the modern day evidence points to a Celtic beginning here in Britain at the end of the Neolithic some 6000 years ago.
No historical writings back that up ergo it's not history, it's just fiction.
By this logic no one is native anywhere, and the word has no meaning or purpose
@@MaBer-67391 genetic tests have revealed that modern day ‘celts’ are ostensibly the ancestors of the first settlers of Britain once the last ice age came to an end. Even the English, who are more admixed than the Irish and Welsh, have 60% plus the genes of these ancient peoples. Past narratives of the origin of the celts have been misleading. The current models suggest that Celtic culture and its languages were formed in Britain and the end of the Neolithic into the early Bronze Age. There is little doubt that the comings and goings of the Phoenicians left its mark on Celtic languages although they were based on an older Atlantic seaboard language which was Proto Indo European derived. Anyone willing to talk about Celtic origins owe it to themselves to read Sir Barry Cunliffe’s works or check out his content on TH-cam.
The 'Anglosaxon' invasion is just hypothesis based on the religious writings of Bede. But there is no evidence to back it up. In fact modern genetics cast doubt on it and a new hypothesis is forming.
There is evidence to back it up though, primarily linguistically and genetically (on top of the contemporary evidence)
@@sebe2255
By linguistically, I suppose you mean the supposed change from the Celtic language to Old English. However, after 300 years of Roman rule the Britons were probably multi lingual and already spoke a Northen European dialect. Also DNA doesn't prove it either. In fact, it adds to the case against an invasion and replacement, as the majority of DNA remains the same. In fact many graves that were assumed to be A/S due to the grave goods, yet DNA has proved they were actually Britons. These are the reasons that historians are now doubting Bedes account which the invasion hypothesis was based on, because its not backed up by archeology or DNA.
@@johnbrereton5229 Yeah I mean the complete absence of any Celtic/Britonic words in Old English. And it is a massive stretch to suggest that random Britonic peasants who would never interact with this supposedly small group Germanic settlers would randomly be completely fluent in their Germanic language. And you have to be specific here, it wasn’t a Northern European Dialect, it was specifically Old English, a North Sea Germanic language.
And yeah genetically the Anglo-Saxons contribute about 30% to the modern Englishman, on average. There is more in the South East and less in the North West. 30% on average is significant and absolutely confirms a large number of Germanic people moved to Britian, so yeah it is backed up by dna.
There is also no other convincing theory that explains how the entirety of what is now England (minus Cornwall and parts of Cumbria) gave up on their language and culture. None, people who bring into question the invasion and settlement theory never even provide an alternative explanation for this massive cultural and linguistic shift
@@sebe2255
What language were Britons speaking in the 5th century ? You assume it was Celtic but no one really knows. After 350 years of Roman rule it might not have been, many ancient tribal peoples were bilingual, even 'peasants'. Before the Roman invasion Caesar landed in Britain in pursuit of the Belgae people from Europe who he found were also living in Britain quite extensively. The Belgae spoke both Celtic and Germanic so there were Germanic speaking people in Briton before the Roman invasion. Also the Romans army was made up of people from outside Britain and many were also of Germanic origin. Another interesting fact is the first King of the House of Wessex which founded England was Cerdic. Cerdic is a Celtic name as were the names of his descendants for many generations. They also didn't refer to themselves as Anglo Saxons , but Gewisse. Gewisse could be a Germanic word meaning: Sure or Reliable or it could be a Celtic word meaning hillfort.
A/S dna is highest at 38% in not surprisingly, East Anglia. Yet over the rest of Britain it's only 10% so it also shows that the original British people dominated the country even after the so called A/S invasion and all there ancient boundaries remained with fields being worked in the same traditional ways continuously. This is not what we would find if an army of foreigners had invaded and brought different techniques and established different boundaries. That's why the hypothesis of an A/S invasion is being questioned as more and more facts emerge that don't support it.
The reason I originally used the term Northern European instead of Germanic is because many people conflate Germanic with German but they are not the same.
@@johnbrereton5229 No, outside of East Anglia it is also over 10%, again the average is around 30 over the whole country of England.
So now you are saying that the people in England spoke a Germanic language before the Anglo-Saxon invasion? And this is just never stated, attested or shown anywhere. Seems like an infinitely bigger stretch than just admitting that Germanic people moved over in large enough numbers to leave a generic impact and completely change the language. And unlike your theory if wide scale Germanic-Celtic multi-lingualism we do have evidence for the anglo-saxon invasion/settlement of Britain. Also what are you talking about? Borders and lands did change hands, there a plethora of new kingdoms and tribes that show up after the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
Sure there was some Germanic presence before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Primarily through the Romans and through raids. But there is not a shred of evidence that the entire or a significant chunk of the Britonic people were multi-lingual. Even if we assume some of the Belgea might have been (which is not definitive either and would literally be an example of Germanic migration if they were a partly Germanic confederation).
But again, if not invasion and slarge scale Germanic settlement, how and why did the Britons give up on their language, lands, culture and religion? Still waiting to hear how this magically happened.
Sources from the 1950s are way out of date .
Another is titled ,
"why didn't the Anglo Saxons become more British"!
Britain is not a country, its a collective of Wales Scotland England.
The Roman's named the island Brittania, it was a mixture of people & cultures before during and after the Roman's left.
Asking why the Saxons didn't become more British is like asking didn't the Brazilians become more like the north Americans.
Its an impossible question to answer.
First you have to explain what "being British " means.
Another impossible question..
It implies Anglo Saxons were all the same , which they were not.
The other problem is the lack of up to date information.
Archaeology has proven the Saxon, Angles, Jutes ,did not invade and push the Celtic blood natives from east to west.
The idea of the Germanic peoples looking down at the native 'Romano British ' considering them as inferior, is as ridiculous as south Africans considering the USA as inferior.
When the USA have invented many things , including thr technology that sent men to the moon and back
While African's rely of the west for simple things such as clean water ..
Britain after 400 years of Roman infrastructure, buildings, other technology, was light years ahead of the Germanic peoples, them not being part of the Roman empire meant they were way behind in the technology of Rome, which was also in Britain.
They would've seen solid stone bridges, houses with heated floors , plumbing anda filtering system way advanced of anything they had or could build, cambered mettaled roads , instead of the mud tracks they left behind
Ovef time the roads , the plumbing the buildings in Britain collapsed because the Germanic peoples didn't have the skills or craftsmanship to understand to build or repair them.
The reverted to wooden huts , and larger halls for the wealthy .
Carrying water in buckets from rivers to homes , because they had no plumbers , etc etc etc .
Britain was full of stone road markers , giving names of towns and distances, buildings , mausoleums with inscriptions, names, achievements , basically writing, which they never had.
So how would a backward ( in technology) people look down on those far advanced in everything, quality of clothing, jewellery, basically everything, compared to what they new and left behind.
Even Saxon coinage was crude and basic, compared to skilled advanced lettering and imagery, faces that actually resembled the emperor, God's and detailed engravings compared to Saxon sceats that were childlike and impossible to understand, like a horse by picasso next to a Stubbs's , one a stylised unrecognisable 'mess' the other unmistakable and perfectly detailed.
Theres a good reason the first 2 century's of Saxon Britain are known as the dark ages.
A huge step backwards in everything from technology to medicine compared to 400 years of Roman Britain and the people who adopted the ways of the east.
Modern archaeologists and historians have known and proven the old Victorian & mid 50s beliefs of the Saxons pushing the locals from east to west is complete nonsense.
Verulamium is just one great example, iron age catuvellauni adopting Roman ways learning new skills over the 400 years , living inside the solid walled city, and continuing to live work inside the walls long after the Saxons came and verulamium became part of mercia, trading with their new neighbours and not fighting each other.
Evidence of the romano British, jewellery from the east ,ceramics, etc are found in the nearby Saxon settlement, and vice versa inside the old Roman/ Celtic settlement.
Actual evidence they lived peacefully alongside each other.
Just like many other local people from eastern Britain (what became sough east England)
True
I miss these old times in Europe, Imagene it beeing legal to fight back an invasion! Waow
The least Roman Province? What a joke! 5 minutes visiting England and all I see is Rome, everywhere! Every detail of England is Roman! From architectural government buildings, home architecture, interior design, materials used, the red bricks they like to claim is "English" is Roman. Political systems, art, British Empire, American disguised Empire, etc, etc. The only thing Germanic I can see in England is the genetic traits of part of the population and the bad cuisine. Which is normal, giving the fact that the barbarians didn't have sophisticated society.
Haha grow up 😂. The red brick is commonly found from the industrial revolution era of architecture and infastruce
@ferdinand...blah, you obviously haven't visited England
If you had you would notice the main influence of architecture in London is late medieval gothic, parliament, Westminster palace the clocktower known to people as big ben , st'pauls cathedral etc etc..
If you looked at the bricks of regular houses you would have noticed they were yellow, (known as stocks ) 2nd to gothic = goths = German, are the Georgian buildings.
A style unique to Britain.
City's like Bath in the west country are a good example.
Basically each region has differences, colours etc based on the geology, in my region north London the subsoil has a high iron content so the clay is red .
The Romans ruled for 400 years so of course many towns have Roman ruins..
My city was called verulamium in Roman times.
It's full of medieval & also 3 surviving Saxon churches from the early 10th century.
Built by Abbott Wulsin ( in English Wolfs son)
England is full of differences from place to place.
If youd been here you would have noticed.
All European countries are a mixture of historical influences, its something that happens over centuries.
Just like the USA is full of English influences, because we ruled it for centuries, the place names etc etc , English
Sadly the buildings in usa are not as interesting as the ones in Europe, but what do you expect.
@@kevwhufc8640 exactly
@@ciaranReal its weird how most British people who enjoy history no matter what era , ancient, medieval, or empirical
No matter if its foreign or our own history, we enjoy what we enjoy without any jealousy about other countries history.
We defend our history when people get things wrong but we don't go on videos about foreign history just to put them down or say negative things.
Dont get me wrong, I often take the ### out of yanks, but not bc I'm jealous, but in reply to things like how they won the war etc . Basically a laugh.
Yet foreigners like a dig at us ,, not a laugh but because of envy or jealousy..
I guess we are more comfortable with our past and not jealous or bitter.. :)
@@kevwhufc8640 true. Did you see what people were saying to england after Spain won the euros. Truly disgusting. Being Scottish I found it truly sad. Hope England win day 🇬🇧 🙏
9:00 Well, it did happen in North Africa as well?
If we broaden the scope, it happened all over the eastern empire wherever Slavs and Arabs appeared
Pretty sure scotland never became english lol
Not all. But the Anglican kingdom of Northumbria at its peak went all the way up to Edinburgh.
@chrisstucker1813 I get your point but that was before the nations of scotland and england were formed
@@lucabrasi3964 true, but the term “Ænglaland” was used even before the kingdom of England was founded; however, I’m not sure how far back it goes. Alfred the great definitely used it but it was his grandson that formed England.
This seems a bit clickbaity. The normans significantly overplayed the celt vs angle history of britain for their DEI(divide et impera) policy. They pushed the arthur narrative for instance which is probably a king from brittany. We can see in the DNA of English people today that the Y chromosomes of celts and angles went both ways into both populations. You have english speaking celts and celtic speaking angles. We also know of many battles where it was celt & angle vs celt and angle during the heptarchy. gross oversimplication. Go and read Bede.
September 21st 2022 Anglo-Saxon study proved a 76% genetics genocide replacement.
Only today are the English like 50% Celtic.
That's just Briton minority population recovery rebound.
The original DEI policy
The two Arthur’s were from the Britons of Wales. As attested to by Bede in the Brut of England!
@@taffyducks544 No, Bede mentions the names in a questioning way during the pre church history of britain. no detail given whatsoever. arthur comes mainly from gildas, geoffrey of monmouth and other norman chroniclers(propagandists). coincidentally we have the tales from Breizh with an arthur in which match the stories we later find in britain. Peter Beresford Ellis is worth reading if you like celtic myths and legends
@@shorelord_actual Yes, I don't think it is a coincidence that diversity equity & inclusion comes under DEI. very deliberate, proves the elite have a sense of humour