ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มี.ค. 2016
- I was delighted a few years ago to discover that there were still substantial remains of the Antonine Wall to be seen. Further north than Hadrian's Wall, it makes a shorter line across Scotland, but the flat terrain means that it is not as defensible as the earlier wall, which is why the Romans had to add sophisticated defensive features such as "lilia" to keep themselves safe.
Great presentation. I wish there were more videos and documentaries made about the Antonine Wall.
Good presentation but please - Hadrian's Wall is not in the "north of Britain". It is in the north of England.
Maybe he meant Britania... but mistook them ?
Romans referred to this Island as Britannia, containing many separate tribes. Neither England, Wales or Scotland were established back then. Hadrians Wall became the most northerly point in the Roman Occupation of Britannia.
Good point. Sorry.
Actually, thinking about it, you are wrong. The Antonine Wall is very definitely in Scotland. The opening scenes in the film are taken just outside the "Falkirk Wheel" - and if you want to claim that Falkirk is in England, I can refer you to a number of kilted Scotsmen who will be happy to discuss the matter with you. Outside. No witnesses.
Very very interesting thank you
Very good discription of this little know ( by me ) Roman structure. Thanks a lot.
Nice video Dude; and you were doing so well until that pompous buffoonery you spouted in the final minute! South of Hadrians Wall went through the same turbulent era (sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages) of warring small kingdoms and economic hardships as anywhere else, including what is now Scotland, after Rome's withdrawal from Britain. What lasting benefit did south of Hadrians Wall retain from once being under Rome's civilization? Particularly once the (then pagan) Anglo-Saxons arrived and swept the Britonnic culture out of the way to the edges like Wales, etc?
You mistakenly referred to those dwelling between the walls as Picts. The tribal peoples of that area were never identified as Picts or Pictish, that being a name given to the tribal groups north of the Clyde - Forth isthmus by Roman documentarians.
It's generally believed now that the reason for the withdrawal back from the Antonine Wall to Hadrian's was so to maintain a buffer zone of less hostile tribes, like the Votadini, between themselves and the enemy Caledonii, etc.
He he! You remind me of Monty Python - "What did the Romans ever do for us?" The Romans left us roads which still for the basis of Britain's road network, they left us buildings, many of which were re-used by Christians as they converted the Saxons, they left us their language (just try and count how many words with a Latin root are in present English) and so on.
Yes, the Britons were driven out *as a political power* but as individuals many remained as oppressed and conquered people in Saxon lands and they too were not without influence on the way England developed.
Oh dear....you were doing so well up until the last minute!!
We were savages until the 1700's...!.?
Yeah, maybe you are right, the 1900's? :)
I know .he said "it was a very bad thing" the cheeky fucker . but what do you expect from the god squad .
Watch a Celtic v. Rangers football match and I think you'll find that 1700 is a bit optimistic.
At the start it’s tamfourhill in Falkirk
Interesting but Hadrian’s wall isn’t 60 miles long it’s about 73 miles. :)
Thanks. It depends on where you measure it from. Carlisle to Wallsend is about 63 miles, Silloth makes it 85 and so on. I think the route that most people walk is around 56 miles.
groovy music
Jesus, only 50 views ........... I am so unhappy being here :)
It is a good video but the ending doesn't add up with that saying. The beat the Romans off _(who remember would give people the beat down to assert dominance, bring in prostitution following their big militaries, and would crucify)._ Without the technology of the Romans, those particular Scots did not mix. It is an indicator of a wider fact that the Roman's left not genetic legacy on the British Isles at that time of leaving. That "xenophobia" of the Scots meant they kept themselves as a peoples, not just an idea or a thought which is a mere memory. Technology is surpassed but having seemingly unpleasant attributes kept those Scots existing. They then quite frequently have the delta32 mutation later on (CCR5) for disease resistance, but the Romans and those near the mediterranean did not end up with it nearly as much (maybe 5% or even 0%) but way north it can be 10% or even 15% in some places in Scandinavia, eventually over longer time.
The Romans' increased prostitution and homsexuality such as with Hadrian can increase risk of disease. There is also a specific sexual-selection (not just natural selection) going on in cold tall white northern european countries where women select the men a husband as tall and white, and so you can see outsiders as the insider population are tall and white. A son can be no shorter than the mother _(environmental factors like disease, injury or malnutrition aside, etc.)._ Otherwise a population risks having the height of the people shrink by regression to a mean (making it harder to distinguish the denizens from outsiders). Also they hold in heat better in their bodies. That can help against illness.
Sometimes is matters what you don't do. Not all those practices are hallmarks of most civilised behaviour. Trusting those italian Romans may get you somewhere, but does it get you where you want to be?
A duck voice one said, _"You bloody fool"._
A narrative somewhat framed from an exceptionalist distorted lens. The labelling of savage until 1700s belies a colonist frame and could ultimately suggest that the colonial and imperialist oppression in the Clearances were justified. I don't believe that you think that. Please note that it was The Celts in The Land of Saints and Scholars which included Dalriada in Scotland which brought Christian missionaries to Britain. The Book of Kells , the first university at Candida Casa,. Perhaps a discussion over cuppa. The word civilised was the keyword in conquest and has caused a lot of misery, but we know through archaeology that the Celts were skilled in art, weaving, poetry and traded with other lands. After all didn't the monks of Iona try to keep all the literature safe from the vikings. Surely you are not suggesting Colm cille, Ninian, etc were uncivilised. I was brought up on the Antonine Wall although I don't live there now. In addition I have studied Celtic History., peer review research. Some scholars even argue that the Gaels came from Galatia, yes Paul's book which was addressed to the Galatians. Best wishes.
The unfortunate fact remains that the clan system (tribal system) was stamped out by the Romans south of the Wall, but remained strong north of the Wall. Yes, the Scots had the saints you mention and the skills you enumerate, but they still fought each other at every opportunity, which I think is one definition of a lack of civilisation!
As for your final comment, the Gauls came from outside Europe and some of them turned left and ended up in Galatia while others turned right and made it through to Wales and Ireland. The language is the give away; for example, Tacitus mentions that the Gauls counted time by nights, not days, and the modern Welsh do the same: the word for week is literally "eight nights" while two weeks is "fifteen nights". Curiosly, the usage seems to have crept into English with "fortnight"!
I think you are getting slightly confused between those north of the wall *before* they became Christians and *after* that happy event. All the good things you mention happened after the people north of the wall were converted. Before that they were a wild and barbarous lot constantly raiding into the Roman empire which, whatever its faults, represented civilisation and the rule of law.
My guy so out of breath lol
9 12 but in fact it was very bad thing ... still laughing
OK but I can live with your scripture ...
What a cheek! Is he saying the English civilised the Scots?
No, the Romans civilised.
This guy clearly has an agenda. There are much better, less biased videos out there