@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 How trustworthy do you think, Germanus ( 378-448 ad) , passio Albani is ? Apparently the whole story of the martyrdom came to Germanus in a dream which he promptly gave instructions for thd story to be written. All info used after Germanus, from Gildas today Bede came from Germanus works, Although nobody knows who the author was or when it was written or who wanted it written.
Thank you so much for continuing to upload these lectures. I think you've become my favorite channel on YT. The only constructive criticism I can think of is that it would be convenient to have links to where I can find the additional material to be read outside of lectures. I can normally find them myself within ten minutes, so I'm certainly not complaining; it would just be a nice convenience. Again, thank you so much for your time an effort in maintaining this channel.
Charlie Day hey thanks for commenting and for showing your support! If you’re meaning that you want links to the original source and other lectures definitely check out the video description and it should be posted there! If you have issues with the link and or finding it let me know!
Thanks very much for sharing. I'm glad to have finally found a clear explanation on this topic, I also appreciate the clarity and perfect pace of the speaking. Great lecture!
Funny. I started studying post Roman Britain dark ages into middle ages spring 2019. Funny just over a year later how much material showed up that would have been helpful. This is great.
Interesting- clearly an introductory lecture so it skipped bits I would have thought of as important: the Romano-Brits were hopeless with arms because Roman Citizens were not allowed to carry weaponry, armour etc. - so all the skils from warrior skills to tactics and generalship had been lost after the Roman conquest. There was push as well as pull in the movement of these peoples from Jutland, Saxony and the Angle who moved and left deserted their old lands because of sea-salt poisoning the soil where they farmed - all this due to post-ice age buckling of the land making some parts dip down and others push up.
True. The typical Briton tribal structures would have been destroyed and had no army systems to defend themselves. They had fought off the Romans many times before, but on the 3rd try, with a much bigger army, the Romans managed to colonise. And after Rome collapsed, they had no tribal systems to fall back on. I really believe had Britain not been colonised by Rome, that they would have fought off the Saxons. (Recent DNA studies show that there was mass migration of Germanic peoples into Britain)
Makes sense my Ancestor Titta being an Angle because the name is Teitr in High Germanic which shows proximity to perhaps Denmark etc. Ironic that the later Viking Invasion would be a fight between very closely related peoples. (especially if you consider the Origins of the Angles).
Professor what are your thoughts on the Hyperborean Ice Wall and the 'genetic leaks' that came through melted perforations from the ancient forest burnings???
One and a half years late to the show, yet being a bit unhappy about 33:3 brooch and the lack of explanation that came with its special form: the Saxon form is very closely related to the 'Fränkische Scheibenfiebel', meaning there is a 'french fashion idea' behind it; probably following wool-trade-routes, or soldiering experiences (be they 'warm, fashionous mantle with brooch as a reward for service by frankish trader' or 'expensive mantle with brooch plundered' and if the leading people wear them, the others want similar things, too).
Good stuff ,thank you for sharing this with us all,best wishes from the wirral,site of the great battle of Brunanburh/Bromborough 937AD,Wirral,namechecked albeit in Welsh in the medieval poem of sir Gawain and the green knight....E
osea5000 - really? I found he spoke at the perfect speed for me to understand him. With his accent, if he spoke any faster, I wouldn’t have understood everything that he said. I also live in the western US so we talk slower ‘round here. 😏 Where do you live? (Just the general region, not your address. #duh) I’m wondering if this is a regional preference. 🤷🏻♀️
The idea of a sort of transfer of fashion is quite funny... Why would they give up their cultural and social markers for those of other peoples? "N-kay?" Oh, and the point about his Welsh mother not speaking any English until 6 years old is equally irrelevant. Why? Well, for starters 5th century Britain probably had very little in the way of organized schooling...! Et cetera, et cetera, to quote a language long dead but still very present today
His argument is ridiculous. Wales lost their language due to mass migration from England into Wales (population doubled during the industrial revolution) and government efforts to suppress the language (banned in schools etc) and English was an established language at that time. It makes zero sense that a whole population would invent a new language based off trade with other countries. Zero. Thankfully we now have DNA evidence that proves there was mass migration of Germanic peoples into Britain which would explain the language change.
Different languages and dialects are more and less efficient for the time they're used, Frisian may have dominated from constructive simplicity or usefulness rather than any power relation of the people that brought it. I realise modern English is probably unrecognisable from the language of the arrival of these Germanic people, but it's possible it inherited the flexibility and forgiving nature of use as opposed to the more inflected and less transitive forms
Most people don't know that . Most people believe that Roman Solders came from city of Rome . The fact that 3 of the 4 Legions that originally came to Conquer the Island came from the Basque country on the Iberian peninsula. Or Hispania,
The politics of naming Arthen as Arthur (an ancestor of Alfred) is interesting from the perspective of the royal family (since they have no relation to him). The members of the RF most connected to the old regime are the Bolles family, as in Her Highness, the Duchess of Cornwall.
The question of sovereignty is linked to popularity. The Colonials have poached a Royal (Harry). His skill in navigating celebrity has made him a very popular resident and husband and parent of an American citizen. If crowned by the Archbishop(s) of Washington, he would be kung - as this is a religious office. The triumph of the Glorious Revolution is Parliament telling the Catholic Church to pound sound, ending the religious and anti-democratic wars sponsored by the Holy See. This confirms the legitimacy of the House if Windsor as a democratic sovereign. Of course Rome is still causing trouble by creating Ordinates to poach those elements of the Anglican Church who oppose the ordination of women. On the other hand, Ecumenical Patriarh Melios and the Great Synod have affirmed the validity of Anglican orders. What the Pope would do if forced to address this determination is interesting. And that is how Medieval History is linked to modern politics and religion.
@@michaelbindner9883 Harry's only claim to fame is that he's famous. He's a narrative, not even a real person and that's who the public sees when we see pictures or videos of him. Some kind of romantic, fairy tale figure. In spite of that, a lot of us see a weak individual, fawning over a narcissistic woman who's leading him around by the nose. That's our narrative. I wonder which narrative is closer to the truth.
@@mrdarren1045 I have since found differently. There have been spices unearthed that Arthur was in the 6th Century in and around the Krakatoa eruption winter period.
Always that one person who wants to complain when a student who's trying to pass a class ask us question they paid to ask even though they're getting a lecture for free
Wales lost the language due to MASS MIGRATION (during the industrial revolution) from England and also government efforts to stamp it out. English was an already established language when it was imposed on and imported into Wales (and Ireland). And Wales is a bilingual country, whereas Brittonic completely disappeared in England. Both Wales and Ireland were dominated by much larger countries. We now have DNA evidence of MASS MIGRATION into Britain, of Germanic peoples which would explain the change in language. People do not spontaneously make up a new language due to a small number of 'elite' warriors.
Saint Gildas, saint Maelok / saint Maelog, and saint Michael are all sons of saint Caddow king of strathclyde. Saint Michaels name gets abbreviated to Hael. Gildas would be born about 560ade and fleed to northern france in abour 590ade. Maelog fleed to northern spain at the same time.
@@kevingriffin1376 hi Kevin...some red haired adventurers from Ireland landed in south Wales in the 3rd and 4th century ,the name of Twdr /Tudor ,settled by Llangorse lake ,gradually married upwards....present day descendant of the Stanley branch here on Merseyside at Knowsley hall...Lord Derby...there are ogham inscribed stones dotted all over west and North Wales....the Llewyn peninsula is so named after the men of Leinster...hope that helps..
@@eamonnclabby7067 , I know of the ogham stones in Wales, which indicates Irish influence, but is there any evidence of an invasion (archaeological or DNA)?
@@kevingriffin1376 hard to nail down, however try The King in the North by Max Adam's ,Britain 400 to 700 AD ( King Oswald ) and maybe Battles for Wales by Myrddin ap Dafydd ( some great sources at the back of the book ) ...good hunting Kevin..
@@kevingriffin1376 it’s more likely that Gaels from Ulster settled in western Scotland before 400 A.D. I don’t follow the DNA comment as the Irish have a very strong genetic connection with the Highlands and Isles with some Norse DNA thrown in for good measure.
Northern & western Europe people were constantly moving around from 1st century BC. Onwards In Britain things calmed down from 40 ad under Roman rule until 410 AD when Romans leave Britain. Without the legions Britain was defenceless & Saxons Angles , Jutes begin migrating to Britain & settling. Mid 700s viking raids begin. The battle for Britannia between saxons & Vikings begin in earnest . Fighting each other on & off until 1066 , when English king Harold had defeated a major viking leader & his army in northern England. Soon after the Normans land on the south coast. Harold never managed to recall everyone that had fought the Vikings days earlier, bc he let most go home to sort the land the harvest etc , not knowing the Normans had landed. He fought bravely but not at full strength & the Normans won. That was last time England was successfully invaded.
@@silverdeathgamer2907 it wasn't an invasion , the Dutch didn't defeat the British. Prince William was married to Mary a sister of king James , fears about James bringing back Catholic religion was why they invited William and Mary to rule tpgether. Both being protestant and Mary a legitimate Stuart' made it an easy transition Had William been married to anyone else he wouldn't have been invited He signed power to parliament, He was a figure head rather than a king with some power. What power he had wax shares with the British Mary Stuart.
We know for a fact that Germanic Tribes worked for Romans as 2nd class citizens, (Manually labor , Border Guards etc... and were segregated from Latins) Germanic people were all ready in Britain and by 410ad some family's had been there generations some at lest 8-10 generations. Mostlikey the Romans called them all the same Saxonians or the later French Saxon (Even though there were 3 groups . Fris, Sansha (Saxon) and Anglas . The Jutes had always been trouble makers and did not have a working relationship with Rome. Roman records show these 3 having an alliance of sorts, or at lest they got along for the most part. The Romans named the southern eastern part of Britain the Saxon shore because most likely that's were the immigrants were processed . By 410ad the active Administration and active army of Rome left . By Then the Britons and Latin's had melded in to Romano-British . Roman records show that the " Saxons" Saxonians were given their freedom . Is Rome talking about Continental Saxons ? I believe not , but Anglo-Saxons or West Saxons now by 410ad. Then began a 100 year power Vacuum(Time of warlords and violence in Britain) . The Jutes were hired as Mercs at 1st and then taking Londinium (to control trade from Continental Europe ) and Pushing Romano-British and Native Britain's into what we call Wales and Cromwall . But by 500ad all these groups began to meld together culture wise. Till Wessex and Mercia were established around 520 ad? . Its pretty hard what to say went on in those 1st 100 years after Rome had left .
Nice to see the Irish have their mucb more numerous invasions of Britain detailed. Anyone would thinj it was just the Briyish empire 'oppressing' the Irish. When in avtually fact they killed more Britons, took slaves and conquered to the point that whole swathes of Wales had their place nsmes changed from brythonic celt to gaelic celt. Invaders only do that if theyve massacred the indigenous welshman or just forced othem out! Its about time ireland answered questions on the crimes!
Technically Scotland is an Irish colony. Ystrad Clud, which was a Welsh kingdom was conquered by the Scots/ Gaels and annexed into Scotland. And Gaelic replaced the Cumbric language.
Vortican maybe basis for Mortigan or Mordred (who was a caricature)? Maybe Marley had access to Gildas and poached names. Arthur would be Arten, father of Dyfenwallon (of Dyfed origin legend)?
@@Seyiu. No, because this is wrong. Arthur Dux Bolerum was the warlord from around 500 until 536, when the region was ruined from the Krakatoa volcanic eruption in 535. So say the chronicles. Arthur III was in America and was killed there and sent home. This was the year with no summer and little sunlight..
@@Seyiu. there was no Arthur Pendragon. He was created from whole cloth as a work of fiction. The real story of worldwide darkness, plague, fire and warfare is much more interesting.
how did they(he) know these things regrding UK at this point in time?? theres like 1 or 2 written docs that discuss this era...sort of. crap shoot i say
They did. It’s not a lie. Dal Riata was a kingdom that originated in Ireland. It spread, through conquest, into northern Britain and became Scotland. They conquered the Picts and merged. Then they conquered Welsh/ native Briton territories, Yr Hen Ogledd- The Old North. Ystrad Clud which was a Welsh kingdom, was conquered and annexed into Scotland. The king of Ystrad Clud was killed in Ireland at the request of the Scots king. At one point the Welsh kingdom was having to fight off the Irish raiders, Scots, Anglos and the Vikings. This is how the Scots were able to conquer Ystrad Clud because the kingdom was so weakened by attacks by other groups. Scotland is basically an Irish colony (settler colonisation), Gaelic replaced the native Brittonic/ Welsh language and culture, as did the Saxon culture and language in England. And there was an Irish colony, Dyfed, in (where we now call) Wales. And the Welsh kings had to kick them out (while at the same time having to fight off the Saxons). The Irish had a long history of raiding the Welsh coastline and were enemies. At one point, the Irish and Scots were enemies to the native Britons/ Welsh as the Saxons. They all pillaged, raided and invaded Britain and the Britons were spread out having to fight them all off. In fact, the Saxons used the Irish/ Scots invasion of Britain to justify the Saxons coming to Britain. And later on, the Irish would continue to raid and pillage the Welsh and English coast, which was a factor in the Normans going to Waterford. It’s not some 'Anglo' myth. It’s actually well documented in Brittonic history.
This is an interesting video, in that I've been watching lots of Time Team videos, and it always interests me the British seem to identify as Anglos and Saxons. As an armchair novice historian and American with a strong Irish Catholic upbringing, along with also being part Norwegian and German, I find understanding British history enlightening. I have a concept about how things might have gone down concerning Rome's departure and the arrival of the German's. When the Roman military pulled out of Britain around 400AD they had been Christian for 100 years, and I suspect the Church had a good foothold in controlling traditional communities when the foot soldiers went home. I suspect the Anglos and the Saxons where much like the Vikings around BC/AD, coastal raiders, etc.. I read something about maybe the Vatican, around 400AD, encouraged the recently Christianized Germans to migrate to Britain, and may have even helped finance them. What say you_
They were operating at a very basic level for the first centuries. They cannibalised sophisticated Roman towns whose ruins remain today and built by comparison very basic structures. It took them many generations to organise themselves in Britaannia. They clearly had good handcrafting skills and basically were very similar to Scandinavians. Fierce warriors . Farming communities . The pre Roman Britons left large building structures . They must have been numerous . Earlier Neolithic structures are immense . The Saxons are a fairly unimpressive bunch for centuries in England till really the Norman era kickstarts massive building projects
I think a big factor was the good farming value of Southern England- you see a long history of robust civilizations forming in that area and we know that different civilizations grew to be powerful from possessing Southern England. First Neo-lithic civilizations that built Stone-Hendge, followed by the Celtic and later Romano-British cultures that were there all built impressive stone structures probably related to the wealth of the Region. Later Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms became dominant following gradual rise of a united England. Finally the Normans came to dominate all of Britan.
The rejection of the careful and methodological account from the Saxon Annals, as opposed to the rant of Gildas, can only be explained as racism. No logical reason is offered as to why the English must have got their own dates wrong, despite having been the neighbours of a calendar-literate Roman Empire for 500 years in a period where there was frequent cultural interaction. There is only stereotyping of some 'thugs' (as he refers to the English) sitting round a bonfire telling stories. I'm not buying this inexplicable dismissal. Still, its well worth watching.
Robert Settle well, I’m not in the class....so that statement makes no sense. Hey, wait, are YOU the schmuck in the class who keeps asking stupid questions? I hoped you failed.
I do not know why all of the so-called historical people I am encountering on TH-cam speak of Britain rather than England, unless it is meant to acknowledge that the Bretons were one of the native tribes. The oldest living residents of the island are Germanic people, yes? and that is what is signified in the name England?
I guess it's because "England" is a fairly modern political entity with borders that were still being established in the 1970s. Also much of this history involves areas that would later become Scotland and Wales. The names England and Scotland would be irrelevant to that time period.
England didn’t exist. The oldest surviving culture, language etc in Britain is Welsh (which I suppose could be called ‘Modern Brythonic’ or ‘Modern British.’ Its antecedent predates the Anglo Saxons and even the Romans in Britain.
@@mrdarren1045 The British Museum web page is excellent, Chris Stringer is the man. I think the original poster is American. They think British and English are the same thing.
The Germanic tribes like the angles, saxons, jutes and frissians etc only came to britain after the romans left in the early-mid 5th century. The native britons were in the island for a lot longer than that. For example Stonehenge is around 5000 years old. The germanic tribes are the newest arrivals to britain apart from the normans and the normans didn't make much impression on the population. The normans only replaced the land owning aristocracy. England refers to the south and eastern part of the island that was settled by the angles and saxons etc. Before that time there was no England or wales or Scotland.
The Anglo Saxons did not come from Northern Germany. They came from Flanders. (and nowadays called French Flanders) Old English and Flemish used to be one and the same language in every regard. This is still seen in the spelling of practically every English word. It's pure Flemish. The claim the Anglo Saxons came from northern Germany is based upon a historical mistake made by some Dutch monks in the 14th century who situated the anglos and saxons north to Noviamagus (Nijmegen)in Holland not knowing of Noviomagus in Northern France, the real residence of Charlmagne. And proven so!
@Gus Shredney no i'm not. The Saxons come from northern france and the anglos were situated just north to them in what's now Flanders. Official history is wrong.
Because English is a Creole language with very simplified grammar compared to Old English or German. The English way of asking a question with "do You...?" is a good example, in German this exists too, but is kids talk.😂
It's very fashionable to say nowadays that there were virtually no Anglo-Saxons who came to England and it was all top-down, cultural elite changes. The trouble is, the evidence doesn't really support this idea. The Norman conquest was a genuine elite takeover but what do we see? Anglo Saxon continuity, even in the language of today's English, albeit now with Norman influence. Where is the evidence of Celtic continuity in England that we would expect to see? Cornwall, Cumbria, other pockets of the West Country, yes. But they were always outside the main migration areas anyway. The burden of proof should be on you to say why the evidence is wrong, not to say, 'well I know there's this evidence but I don't much care for it.' The professor refers to the fact that Welsh, Irish, Scottish people speak English today. But these nations are still Celtic in culture and place names, etc. England mainly isn't. Hengist and Horsa may well be as fake as Romulus and Remus, but that doesn't mean we can discount all of the other vidence as well.
A great read of Britain 400 to 700 AD ,the King in the North by Max Adam's ,vividly described the Angles, Gael ,Brittonic tribes their interaction and featured King / Saint Oswald who Tolkein based Aragorn on
@@davidagnew6191 while it is true that probably Anglo Saxons only made up 10% of the population after the migration, now days more than 50% of our male ancestors come from that 10%.
Your comment aged VERY well, considering the recent DNA studies that disprove the 'elite migration model'. Mass migration of Germanic peoples did happen! Wales is a bilingual country, whereas Brittonic disappeared in England. And as you say, has still retained a 'Celtic' identity.
No absolute evidence for Hengist or Horsa . Majority of post Roman info comes from Bede, late 600s , written several centuries after the events of the 4th 5th 6th centuries . Very good lecture imo . Good info, considering how little real info there is.. Are the Geats mentioned in Beowulf , actually the Jutes . Because the Geats seem to disappear and the only spelling that's similar is the Jutes ?
The weird thing with Bede and his historical "litterature" Is if he lived during these times, why arent the professor showing his written down source in Old English? You know before Anglo-Saxony and British/Welsh with Latin and Old Norse with a touch of scottish from the picts became English Modern that we read today. Gutes/Geats/Goths not the same as Jutes since Jutes are Danes from Jutland. While Gutes/Geats/Goths are Swedes from Götaland or Gotland Island. I can understand Old English and I'm Swedish, thx to learning Modern German in school and some understanding of the Runic Alphabet Elder Futhark I can understand the most of the text written in Old English by a small margain of failure. If he wants to nonchalantly disregard the Anglo Saxons Historical sources in Saxo Gramaticus as folktales and myths but listen to a modern translation of some dude named Bede and Valetinius and Voldemort from Wales. First of all I doubt there is anyone even named Hengest or Horsa at the 600century, because the name Horsa(Horse) was pronounced Eoh, horse=eoh, anyhow there is nothing Bede written the dude who lived in Northumbria, the professor on this seminar/lecture states that the Brythonic Brittons so to speak are confounded only to Welsh area or wales, which is weird by itself since Wales is Gaelic.
@@godsaveme thanks for the information, I didn't know about that, I was just wondering from an English perspective, Ive just read bedes translations , I don't believe much of what he says about many things, I don't think he was a liar , he was just writing on Gods behalf, he wrote about my home city StAlbans ( Roman verulamium that boudicca burned after London) he writes about the saint Alban his death and Martyrdom, and about others from the church who apparently visited his shrine, yet non of this appeared until over 400 years after the supposed death of Alban .
@@godsaveme The original British records are in Welsh, some in our ancient alphabet, that the English refuse to consult even today, and over the centuries have done their best to suppress. However they are well documented and go back 4000 years. Hengist is well known in Wales, the places associated with his story still bear the names that commemorate the event, complete with grave mounds. Moreover, the real reason for the British decline and migrations to Brittany, leaving only sparse and scattered survivors after the comet of 562. This was what ultimately allowed the Saxon incursion to take hold. Wilson and Blackett's years of research, books and videos explain what the records really show.
@@kayew5492 there are no records at all in Britain that go back 4000 years. Thats not right at all. The britains were in illiterate ppl before the romans came. Tell me one source that is 4000 years old
The clarity in the record of the ancient historians and the genetic explanations give us an idea of how clear history and genetic science would be if the planet was not ruled by gangster-prostitute anarchy.
the trade within the roman empire had opened the eyes on irish and germanic people that there might be a future abroad in britain -same as now same as when vikings came or normands
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 "British" was created in 1606 by elites, the greeks named the island but im 100% sure the ancestors of the Picts did not call themselves British
@Urien Rheged According to my OED, the earliest appearance of the word "British" in the written record is the year 855, and there are other appearances in writing in 1000 and 1100. At any rate, the word "British" long pre-dates the 17th Century, so I don't know where John Maclagan got the idea that it was created in 1606.
@@robertsettle2590 Correct the the Saxons, Angles, Vikings, and Normans were and always will be invaders. Only the Cornish, Welsh, Mannish, Picts and formerly the kingdom Alt Clut can lay claim to be original Briton's.
" . ...nothing more destructve, nothing more bitter has ever befallen the lands. How utter the blindness their minds, how desperate and crass stupidy, they invite under the same roof a people who they feared worse than death ... " - Sounds like modern Islamic Britain. :D History REPEATS
The thumbnail on your video is so disingenuous. It reminds me of when Trump drew his little extension of Hurricane Dorians path to make his lies "true". The north east of Ireland in that time period was just as Irish as the south west of Ireland in the same period. You can pretend that they stood outside Irish society of the 5th and 6th century to assuage to feeling of present day Scottish nationalists, but it does harms your reputation.
What’s most misleading is the label “Scots/Irish” - which doesn’t even make sense for that period. “Scotti” (ie Scots) was just the Roman term for the Irish, who were all part of the larger “Gaeldom” that stretched from Muster to the Hebrides. The people who are referred to as “Scots/Irish” in modern times are not Gaels. Before the ethnic cleansing (or “clearances”) of the the 6 counties, the Western Isles, and the Highlands, the Irish & Scottish Gaels had been united by blood, culture, & religion. That’s why they were cleared out to make room for Brits who not only shared none of these bonds with the natives, they actively opposed all things Gaelic. The “Scots/Irish” come almost exclusively from the Lowlands & Scottish borders, which outside of Galloway -for a relatively period of time- had never been part of that Irish or greater Gaelic world and to this day don’t belong in it. Once we reach unification (by 2030), they can choose to either embrace the people & the country they are living in, or they can -this may sound like a crazy idea- go live in Britain if they’re “British identity” is important. They already have the Union Jack flying over there & I’m sure they allow parades, so it should make for a seamless transition.
@@ruaidriodomhnaill4489 I kind of feel that you have overemphasized the place of Scotland in the history of the Irish language. Irish, as a language, both classical and vernacular can only be studied in Ireland. There is no literature in Irish from Scotland. It was an unimportant outcrop of Ireland. The history of the Irish language occured in Ireland.
I find it distracting that he has to keep marching back and forth across the room all the time. He needs to stand still and make more eye contact. He also needs to interact with the students more.
Okay, he's using a projector. Every image on the wall has to be placed on the projector manually. He doesn't have a fancy smart board or even PowerPoint. This must be an old lecture.
It works fine when you are in the room. It doesn't work well on video. This was primarily intended as an in-person experience so I don't think he owes us an explanation or apology or even a promise "to do better in the future".
If i paid tuition in this institution i'd want a refund. Honestly, are you still using overhead projectors with faded markers? We live in a 360 degree multimedia world. Time to retire the 1950's level technology and lecture format.
Why would you want a refund if what you were being taught was good? History doesn’t change. A good teacher can teach with the bare minimum of resources. Sounds as if you put style over substance. Oh and this video is actually pretty old, and is itself an uploaded version of older footage
@@airlinesecret6725 which Irish do you refer to...?? the Scots who founded Dalriata before evolving to Alba and then Scotland ...?? The Scots who were transplanted into Ulster and became Scots Irish some of whom migrated to America...then there are the tens of thousands of Irish who bypassing De Valera to serve in WW2...or Anglo Irish like Paddy Mayne of the SAS...
All this Anglo-Saxonism was a Victorian attempt to present the English as Nordic ( influenced Hitler later on). The English are hardly Nordic ( just take a look at them, most fat shortish and not blond!) The Celtic/Briton influence is central to the English.
@eekfreak17 The Scotii(Northern Galic) invaded Pictland. NOT Britain . Ireland wasn't Centralized by any means in 400 ad. Small Tribal Kingdoms that didn't get along with each other.
![Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 | เพื่อจักรพรรดิ ! [ตอนเดียวจบ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4M0ckYMA4-U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello from Panama. I am studying British History and Culture at UMECIT University. I enjoyed this video and the teacher explanation. Regards 🙋 🇬🇧 🇵🇦
Hello Karen ,hopefully your studies have borne fruit....
Good luck
We can't agree what is our culture so outside opinions might help
Anyway, Freedom for Scotland 🏴👍🙂
Worthy field of study! 😁👍🏻🏴
Hola Karen, soy Británico pero vivo hoy día en Chiriquí. No sabía que se ofrecían planes de estudios sobre la historia nuestra aquí en Panamá.
@@DrJRL Es parte del programa educativo para docentes de Inglés.
Thank you for continuing with all these extremely interesting lectures/videos!
eric cloud you’re very welcome! Thanks for showing your support!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449
How trustworthy do you think, Germanus ( 378-448 ad) ,
passio Albani is ?
Apparently the whole story of the martyrdom came to Germanus in a dream which he promptly gave instructions for thd story to be written.
All info used after Germanus, from Gildas today Bede came from Germanus works,
Although nobody knows who the author was or when it was written or who wanted it written.
Thank you so much for continuing to upload these lectures. I think you've become my favorite channel on YT.
The only constructive criticism I can think of is that it would be convenient to have links to where I can find the additional material to be read outside of lectures. I can normally find them myself within ten minutes, so I'm certainly not complaining; it would just be a nice convenience.
Again, thank you so much for your time an effort in maintaining this channel.
Charlie Day hey thanks for commenting and for showing your support! If you’re meaning that you want links to the original source and other lectures definitely check out the video description and it should be posted there! If you have issues with the link and or finding it let me know!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 My apologies, I missed that. Thanks for your continued work.
Charlie Day hey no worries!!!! Perfectly fine!
The Study of Antiquity and the Middle Age
Tamara Cairns hello, I saw your comment!
Thanks very much for sharing. I'm glad to have finally found a clear explanation on this topic, I also appreciate the clarity and perfect pace of the speaking. Great lecture!
Funny. I started studying post Roman Britain dark ages into middle ages spring 2019. Funny just over a year later how much material showed up that would have been helpful. This is great.
Thank you so much for this! Please never delete those videos.
Fascinating, complicated & messy. Thank you for this lecture.
408, 409 and 40-10? Lol, didn’t know if y’all caught that in the intro. Interesting lecture!!
Libardo Rosales - that one made me laugh too. Totally something I’d say!
Merely a slip, dear boy, merely a slip!
He’s Welsh? Makes me enjoy his lectures even more 🏴
Then why does he sound like a regular guy from London?
@@dvdextras-byvincentcorani9136 retarded comment
Interesting- clearly an introductory lecture so it skipped bits I would have thought of as important: the Romano-Brits were hopeless with arms because Roman Citizens were not allowed to carry weaponry, armour etc. - so all the skils from warrior skills to tactics and generalship had been lost after the Roman conquest. There was push as well as pull in the movement of these peoples from Jutland, Saxony and the Angle who moved and left deserted their old lands because of sea-salt poisoning the soil where they farmed - all this due to post-ice age buckling of the land making some parts dip down and others push up.
Interesting
True. The typical Briton tribal structures would have been destroyed and had no army systems to defend themselves.
They had fought off the Romans many times before, but on the 3rd try, with a much bigger army, the Romans managed to colonise.
And after Rome collapsed, they had no tribal systems to fall back on.
I really believe had Britain not been colonised by Rome, that they would have fought off the Saxons. (Recent DNA studies show that there was mass migration of Germanic peoples into Britain)
Makes sense my Ancestor Titta being an Angle because the name is Teitr in High Germanic which shows proximity to perhaps Denmark etc.
Ironic that the later Viking Invasion would be a fight between very closely related peoples. (especially if you consider the Origins of the Angles).
Isn’t history fascinating
The Celts have suffered at the hands of Anglos, Saxons, Anglo Saxons, Anglo Celts, Norman's, Anglo Norman's, Roman's, Greeks, and many others yeah
What course are these lectures from? I really enjoy them
Professor what are your thoughts on the Hyperborean Ice Wall and the 'genetic leaks' that came through melted perforations from the ancient forest burnings???
Just discovered this series. Great listen - thank you!
One and a half years late to the show, yet being a bit unhappy about 33:3 brooch and the lack of explanation that came with its special form: the Saxon form is very closely related to the 'Fränkische Scheibenfiebel', meaning there is a 'french fashion idea' behind it; probably following wool-trade-routes, or soldiering experiences (be they 'warm, fashionous mantle with brooch as a reward for service by frankish trader' or 'expensive mantle with brooch plundered' and if the leading people wear them, the others want similar things, too).
He reminds me of Mr. Mackey, m'kay!
Is there a follow on video to this one that says more about the migrations from Dumnonia to Armorica?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seisyllwg would be kingdom of Seisyl, who was Arten's father.
I have watched this 3 times now......I feel there will be more
Good stuff ,thank you for sharing this with us all,best wishes from the wirral,site of the great battle of Brunanburh/Bromborough 937AD,Wirral,namechecked albeit in Welsh in the medieval poem of sir Gawain and the green knight....E
Cilgwri I think? Penbedw is Birkenhead.
Try x1.25 playback speed
osea5000 - really? I found he spoke at the perfect speed for me to understand him. With his accent, if he spoke any faster, I wouldn’t have understood everything that he said.
I also live in the western US so we talk slower ‘round here. 😏 Where do you live? (Just the general region, not your address. #duh) I’m wondering if this is a regional preference. 🤷🏻♀️
The idea of a sort of transfer of fashion is quite funny... Why would they give up their cultural and social markers for those of other peoples? "N-kay?" Oh, and the point about his Welsh mother not speaking any English until 6 years old is equally irrelevant. Why? Well, for starters 5th century Britain probably had very little in the way of organized schooling...! Et cetera, et cetera, to quote a language long dead but still very present today
His argument is ridiculous. Wales lost their language due to mass migration from England into Wales (population doubled during the industrial revolution) and government efforts to suppress the language (banned in schools etc) and English was an established language at that time.
It makes zero sense that a whole population would invent a new language based off trade with other countries. Zero.
Thankfully we now have DNA evidence that proves there was mass migration of Germanic peoples into Britain which would explain the language change.
Are there some articles or books to be recommended on the subject of jutland and Saxon pottery?
Different languages and dialects are more and less efficient for the time they're used, Frisian may have dominated from constructive simplicity or usefulness rather than any power relation of the people that brought it. I realise modern English is probably unrecognisable from the language of the arrival of these Germanic people, but it's possible it inherited the flexibility and forgiving nature of use as opposed to the more inflected and less transitive forms
Very good lecture. Always excited to discover new history youtube channels
He's making it up as he's going along.
Your knowledge of this period is limited.
Your understanding is minimal and I would rather listen to him than you.
The Roman British would be used to foreign soldiers fighting for them; Roman soldiers and auxiliaries came from all over the Roman Empire.
Most people don't know that . Most people believe that Roman Solders came from city of Rome . The fact that 3 of the 4 Legions that originally came to Conquer the Island came from the Basque country on the Iberian peninsula. Or Hispania,
The politics of naming Arthen as Arthur (an ancestor of Alfred) is interesting from the perspective of the royal family (since they have no relation to him). The members of the RF most connected to the old regime are the Bolles family, as in Her Highness, the Duchess of Cornwall.
The question of sovereignty is linked to popularity. The Colonials have poached a Royal (Harry). His skill in navigating celebrity has made him a very popular resident and husband and parent of an American citizen. If crowned by the Archbishop(s) of Washington, he would be kung - as this is a religious office.
The triumph of the Glorious Revolution is Parliament telling the Catholic Church to pound sound, ending the religious and anti-democratic wars sponsored by the Holy See. This confirms the legitimacy of the House if Windsor as a democratic sovereign.
Of course Rome is still causing trouble by creating Ordinates to poach those elements of the Anglican Church who oppose the ordination of women.
On the other hand, Ecumenical Patriarh Melios and the Great Synod have affirmed the validity of Anglican orders. What the Pope would do if forced to address this determination is interesting.
And that is how Medieval History is linked to modern politics and religion.
@@michaelbindner9883
Harry's only claim to fame is that he's famous. He's a narrative, not even a real person and that's who the public sees when we see pictures or videos of him. Some kind of romantic, fairy tale figure. In spite of that, a lot of us see a weak individual, fawning over a narcissistic woman who's leading him around by the nose. That's our narrative. I wonder which narrative is closer to the truth.
@@JackHaveman52 all monarchs are fairy tale characters. President's too.
How on earth do you work out arthur was in any related to alfred. Never once heard that in my life. Sources please?
@@mrdarren1045 I have since found differently. There have been spices unearthed that Arthur was in the 6th Century in and around the Krakatoa eruption winter period.
13:15 always that one student holding up an interesting lecture with some banal, helpless question.
Always that one person who wants to complain when a student who's trying to pass a class ask us question they paid to ask even though they're getting a lecture for free
@@theinevitablegodemperordea4278 More than one person, cupcake.
@@goodyeoman4534 get a room you two
You want to go to a BM book launch/lecture. Might be the same group of banal idiots going from function to function
Survive The Jive critique in 3-2-1
Wales lost the language due to MASS MIGRATION (during the industrial revolution) from England and also government efforts to stamp it out. English was an already established language when it was imposed on and imported into Wales (and Ireland). And Wales is a bilingual country, whereas Brittonic completely disappeared in England. Both Wales and Ireland were dominated by much larger countries.
We now have DNA evidence of MASS MIGRATION into Britain, of Germanic peoples which would explain the change in language. People do not spontaneously make up a new language due to a small number of 'elite' warriors.
You need to edit out all the administrative stuff about how can we get our pdfs.
I like those bits. Gives it an authentic university feel!
hmm yeah I'm sure he has time to edit the videos, just because you don't like those details 🤦♂️ hardly the end of the world
@@gooner_duke2756 : Yes, hardly the end of the world. I was just offering suggestions for improvement.
The related languages are Ingaevonic (North Sea German).
NOPE!!! Your very wrong. Obviously you don't know what your talking about LASS!!!
@@robertsettle2590 What do you mean? He's right that English is Ingaevonic and thus related to Low German and Frisian.
The poor sound quality was more than I could endure.
Saint Gildas, saint Maelok / saint Maelog, and saint Michael are all sons of saint Caddow king of strathclyde. Saint Michaels name gets abbreviated to Hael. Gildas would be born about 560ade and fleed to northern france in abour 590ade. Maelog fleed to northern spain at the same time.
We didn't get to the Irish invasions.
The "Irish invasions" are not supported by archaeological or DNA evidence.
@@kevingriffin1376 hi Kevin...some red haired adventurers from Ireland landed in south Wales in the 3rd and 4th century ,the name of Twdr /Tudor ,settled by Llangorse lake ,gradually married upwards....present day descendant of the Stanley branch here on Merseyside at Knowsley hall...Lord Derby...there are ogham inscribed stones dotted all over west and North Wales....the Llewyn peninsula is so named after the men of Leinster...hope that helps..
@@eamonnclabby7067 , I know of the ogham stones in Wales, which indicates Irish influence, but is there any evidence of an invasion (archaeological or DNA)?
@@kevingriffin1376 hard to nail down, however try The King in the North by Max Adam's ,Britain 400 to 700 AD ( King Oswald ) and maybe Battles for Wales by Myrddin ap Dafydd ( some great sources at the back of the book ) ...good hunting Kevin..
@@kevingriffin1376 it’s more likely that Gaels from Ulster settled in western Scotland before 400 A.D. I don’t follow the DNA comment as the Irish have a very strong genetic connection with the Highlands and Isles with some Norse DNA thrown in for good measure.
Anyone know what books the images are coming from?
It's clear to me that north west Europeans moved around fairly easily between 800 ad and present day
Northern & western Europe people were constantly moving around from 1st century BC. Onwards
In Britain things calmed
down from 40 ad under Roman rule until 410 AD when Romans leave Britain.
Without the legions Britain was defenceless & Saxons Angles , Jutes begin migrating to Britain & settling.
Mid 700s viking raids begin.
The battle for Britannia between saxons & Vikings begin in earnest .
Fighting each other on & off until 1066 , when English king Harold had defeated a major viking leader & his army in northern England.
Soon after the Normans land on the south coast.
Harold never managed to recall everyone that had fought the Vikings days earlier, bc he let most go home to sort the land the harvest etc , not knowing the Normans had landed.
He fought bravely but not at full strength & the Normans won.
That was last time England was successfully invaded.
@@kevcaratacus9428 You could argue the glorious revolution was an invasion also there was other smaller scale invasions.
@@silverdeathgamer2907 what revolution ?
@@kevcaratacus9428 Look up the glorious revolution it was a Dutch backed invasion of Britain, some people dispute whether it was really an invasion.
@@silverdeathgamer2907 it wasn't an invasion , the Dutch didn't defeat the British.
Prince William was married to Mary a sister of king James , fears about James bringing back Catholic religion was why they invited William and Mary to rule tpgether.
Both being protestant and Mary a legitimate Stuart' made it an easy transition
Had William been married to anyone else he wouldn't have been invited
He signed power to parliament, He was a figure head rather than a king with some power.
What power he had wax shares with the British Mary Stuart.
We know for a fact that Germanic Tribes worked for Romans as 2nd class citizens, (Manually labor , Border Guards etc... and were segregated from Latins) Germanic people were all ready in Britain and by 410ad some family's had been there generations some at lest 8-10 generations. Mostlikey the Romans called them all the same Saxonians or the later French Saxon (Even though there were 3 groups . Fris, Sansha (Saxon) and Anglas . The Jutes had always been trouble makers and did not have a working relationship with Rome. Roman records show these 3 having an alliance of sorts, or at lest they got along for the most part. The Romans named the southern eastern part of Britain the Saxon shore because most likely that's were the immigrants were processed . By 410ad the active Administration and active army of Rome left . By Then the Britons and Latin's had melded in to Romano-British . Roman records show that the " Saxons" Saxonians were given their freedom . Is Rome talking about Continental Saxons ? I believe not , but Anglo-Saxons or West Saxons now by 410ad. Then began a 100 year power Vacuum(Time of warlords and violence in Britain) . The Jutes were hired as Mercs at 1st and then taking Londinium (to control trade from Continental Europe ) and Pushing Romano-British and Native Britain's into what we call Wales and Cromwall . But by 500ad all these groups began to meld together culture wise. Till Wessex and Mercia were established around 520 ad? . Its pretty hard what to say went on in those 1st 100 years after Rome had left .
I'm interested to know who the lecturer is. Anyone?
Nice to see the Irish have their mucb more numerous invasions of Britain detailed. Anyone would thinj it was just the Briyish empire 'oppressing' the Irish. When in avtually fact they killed more Britons, took slaves and conquered to the point that whole swathes of Wales had their place nsmes changed from brythonic celt to gaelic celt. Invaders only do that if theyve massacred the indigenous welshman or just forced othem out!
Its about time ireland answered questions on the crimes!
Technically Scotland is an Irish colony. Ystrad Clud, which was a Welsh kingdom was conquered by the Scots/ Gaels and annexed into Scotland. And Gaelic replaced the Cumbric language.
Where did the Frisian migrants end up in Brittania?
Dumfries ,might give a clue....Max Adam's book,the King in the North about King Oswald,who Tolkein based Aragorn on is worth a look 400 to 700 AD
Camelot: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ceredigion
They never talk about 700bc in regards to Rome
Help!! I don’t know how to download the assigned reading!!
this man is a Genius!
Vortican maybe basis for Mortigan or Mordred (who was a caricature)? Maybe Marley had access to Gildas and poached names. Arthur would be Arten, father of Dyfenwallon (of Dyfed origin legend)?
I would agree with you.
Could you explain more?
@@Seyiu. No, because this is wrong. Arthur Dux Bolerum was the warlord from around 500 until 536, when the region was ruined from the Krakatoa volcanic eruption in 535. So say the chronicles. Arthur III was in America and was killed there and sent home. This was the year with no summer and little sunlight..
@@michaelbindner9883 ah so nothing to do with Arthur pen dragon 🤣
@@Seyiu. there was no Arthur Pendragon. He was created from whole cloth as a work of fiction. The real story of worldwide darkness, plague, fire and warfare is much more interesting.
Excellent. Thank you.
Did the Saxons migrate through lower Saxony which is in modern Germany?
that is the home land of the saxons
@Keith Busch Some of them must be in Britain since they later invaded Britain.
Believe Charlemagne pushed them out from their original homelands into what is now Saxony and southern Denmark
@@edwardgreen2436 They must have migrated into England after that.
@@dennisclark554 Charlemagne was c. 800 and the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England were in the 400s
how did they(he) know these things regrding UK at this point in time?? theres like 1 or 2 written docs that discuss this era...sort of. crap shoot i say
sometimes we who r colour blind have a problem following arrows
5th century Ireland, England did not exist, actually today's Ireland was called Scotia as in Scotland look at the Roman Latin text
Irish invaded ? Really? I thought they were always getting messed with
Did you never wonder how we got our patron saint ? Like the Munster Backrow we got our retaliation in first.
@ about 11 mins in - "Can you please spoon feed us the materials" ...
Hengist and Horsa is basically the Ashwin twins mythology common among all Indo European descendants
Great topic as usual. Congrats on the prof. Kline interview. It’s a big deal
It really is! And thank you for your constant support! FYI, I will be opening up the discord channel to non patrons soon if you are interested!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 The King in the North by Max Adam's is a riveting read...
Absolutely no evidence Irish "invaded" Scotland but english historians love to tell us that.
It’s more likely Gaels from Ulster settled in western Scotland a few centuries before 400 A.D definitely not an invasion.
They did. It’s not a lie. Dal Riata was a kingdom that originated in Ireland. It spread, through conquest, into northern Britain and became Scotland. They conquered the Picts and merged. Then they conquered Welsh/ native Briton territories, Yr Hen Ogledd- The Old North.
Ystrad Clud which was a Welsh kingdom, was conquered and annexed into Scotland. The king of Ystrad Clud was killed in Ireland at the request of the Scots king. At one point the Welsh kingdom was having to fight off the Irish raiders, Scots, Anglos and the Vikings. This is how the Scots were able to conquer Ystrad Clud because the kingdom was so weakened by attacks by other groups. Scotland is basically an Irish colony (settler colonisation), Gaelic replaced the native Brittonic/ Welsh language and culture, as did the Saxon culture and language in England.
And there was an Irish colony, Dyfed, in (where we now call) Wales. And the Welsh kings had to kick them out (while at the same time having to fight off the Saxons). The Irish had a long history of raiding the Welsh coastline and were enemies.
At one point, the Irish and Scots were enemies to the native Britons/ Welsh as the Saxons. They all pillaged, raided and invaded Britain and the Britons were spread out having to fight them all off.
In fact, the Saxons used the Irish/ Scots invasion of Britain to justify the Saxons coming to Britain.
And later on, the Irish would continue to raid and pillage the Welsh and English coast, which was a factor in the Normans going to Waterford. It’s not some 'Anglo' myth. It’s actually well documented in Brittonic history.
Luckily the British inherited enough Roman DNA and Roman culture to build an empire and bring about an industrial revolution
great channel Thanks
This is an interesting video, in that I've been watching lots of Time Team videos, and it always interests me the British seem to identify as Anglos and Saxons. As an armchair novice historian and American with a strong Irish Catholic upbringing, along with also being part Norwegian and German, I find understanding British history enlightening. I have a concept about how things might have gone down concerning Rome's departure and the arrival of the German's. When the Roman military pulled out of Britain around 400AD they had been Christian for 100 years, and I suspect the Church had a good foothold in controlling traditional communities when the foot soldiers went home. I suspect the Anglos and the Saxons where much like the Vikings around BC/AD, coastal raiders, etc.. I read something about maybe the Vatican, around 400AD, encouraged the recently Christianized Germans to migrate to Britain, and may have even helped finance them. What say you_
They were operating at a very basic level for the first centuries. They cannibalised sophisticated Roman towns whose ruins remain today and built by comparison very basic structures. It took them many generations to organise themselves in Britaannia. They clearly had good handcrafting skills and basically were very similar to Scandinavians. Fierce warriors . Farming communities . The pre Roman Britons left large building structures . They must have been numerous . Earlier Neolithic structures are immense .
The Saxons are a fairly unimpressive bunch for centuries in England till really the Norman era kickstarts massive building projects
You mean Angles. Anglo is a recent colloquial word.
I think a big factor was the good farming value of Southern England- you see a long history of robust civilizations forming in that area and we know that different civilizations grew to be powerful from possessing Southern England. First Neo-lithic civilizations that built Stone-Hendge, followed by the Celtic and later Romano-British cultures that were there all built impressive stone structures probably related to the wealth of the Region. Later Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms became dominant following gradual rise of a united England. Finally the Normans came to dominate all of Britan.
The rejection of the careful and methodological account from the Saxon Annals, as opposed to the rant of Gildas, can only be explained as racism. No logical reason is offered as to why the English must have got their own dates wrong, despite having been the neighbours of a calendar-literate Roman Empire for 500 years in a period where there was frequent cultural interaction. There is only stereotyping of some 'thugs' (as he refers to the English) sitting round a bonfire telling stories. I'm not buying this inexplicable dismissal. Still, its well worth watching.
What?
@@Knappa22 this guy skips a lot of history and is clearly biased in his teachings…
That student who keeps interrupting and sounds very dopey is a real schmuck.
Just like you odorous smekiel!!!
Robert Settle well, I’m not in the class....so that statement makes no sense. Hey, wait, are YOU the schmuck in the class who keeps asking stupid questions? I hoped you failed.
I do not know why all of the so-called historical people I am encountering on TH-cam speak of Britain rather than England, unless it is meant to acknowledge that the Bretons were one of the native tribes. The oldest living residents of the island are Germanic people, yes? and that is what is signified in the name England?
I guess it's because "England" is a fairly modern political entity with borders that were still being established in the 1970s. Also much of this history involves areas that would later become Scotland and Wales. The names England and Scotland would be irrelevant to that time period.
England didn’t exist.
The oldest surviving culture, language etc in Britain is Welsh (which I suppose could be called ‘Modern Brythonic’ or ‘Modern British.’ Its antecedent predates the Anglo Saxons and even the Romans in Britain.
And no the germanic ppl are not the oldest ppl on the island. The britons were.
@@mrdarren1045 The British Museum web page is excellent, Chris Stringer is the man. I think the original poster is American. They think British and English are the same thing.
The Germanic tribes like the angles, saxons, jutes and frissians etc only came to britain after the romans left in the early-mid 5th century. The native britons were in the island for a lot longer than that. For example Stonehenge is around 5000 years old. The germanic tribes are the newest arrivals to britain apart from the normans and the normans didn't make much impression on the population. The normans only replaced the land owning aristocracy. England refers to the south and eastern part of the island that was settled by the angles and saxons etc. Before that time there was no England or wales or Scotland.
Civitas -- isn't that V pronounced as W?
The Anglo Saxons did not come from Northern Germany. They came from Flanders. (and nowadays called French Flanders) Old English and Flemish used to be one and the same language in every regard. This is still seen in the spelling of practically every English word. It's pure Flemish. The claim the Anglo Saxons came from northern Germany is based upon a historical mistake made by some Dutch monks in the 14th century who situated the anglos and saxons north to Noviamagus (Nijmegen)in Holland not knowing of Noviomagus in Northern France, the real residence of Charlmagne. And proven so!
I don't believe any history prior to 1850.
@Gus Shredney no i'm not. The Saxons come from northern france and the anglos were situated just north to them in what's now Flanders. Official history is wrong.
If the Germanic tribes invaded England, and English is a Germanic language, why is it so difficult to learn German?
English. has quite a bit of French courtesy of Norman conquest 1066
Its just as hard to learn old English
60 percent of English words derive directly or indirectly from Latin
Because English is a Creole language with very simplified grammar compared to Old English or German.
The English way of asking a question with "do You...?" is a good example, in German this exists too, but is kids talk.😂
@@davidaxelos4678 Interesting! Does this make it more difficult to talk about complex topics in English compared to German?
It's very fashionable to say nowadays that there were virtually no Anglo-Saxons who came to England and it was all top-down, cultural elite changes. The trouble is, the evidence doesn't really support this idea. The Norman conquest was a genuine elite takeover but what do we see? Anglo Saxon continuity, even in the language of today's English, albeit now with Norman influence. Where is the evidence of Celtic continuity in England that we would expect to see? Cornwall, Cumbria, other pockets of the West Country, yes. But they were always outside the main migration areas anyway. The burden of proof should be on you to say why the evidence is wrong, not to say, 'well I know there's this evidence but I don't much care for it.' The professor refers to the fact that Welsh, Irish, Scottish people speak English today. But these nations are still Celtic in culture and place names, etc. England mainly isn't. Hengist and Horsa may well be as fake as Romulus and Remus, but that doesn't mean we can discount all of the other vidence as well.
Well said.
A great read of Britain 400 to 700 AD ,the King in the North by Max Adam's ,vividly described the Angles, Gael ,Brittonic tribes their interaction and featured King / Saint Oswald who Tolkein based Aragorn on
It may be because the development of DNA analysis shows that the Anglo-Saxons were never the majority population in England.
@@davidagnew6191 while it is true that probably Anglo Saxons only made up 10% of the population after the migration, now days more than 50% of our male ancestors come from that 10%.
Your comment aged VERY well, considering the recent DNA studies that disprove the 'elite migration model'. Mass migration of Germanic peoples did happen!
Wales is a bilingual country, whereas Brittonic disappeared in England. And as you say, has still retained a 'Celtic' identity.
No absolute evidence for Hengist or Horsa .
Majority of post Roman info comes from Bede, late 600s , written several centuries after the events of the 4th 5th 6th centuries .
Very good lecture imo .
Good info, considering how little real info there is..
Are the Geats mentioned in Beowulf , actually the Jutes .
Because the Geats seem to disappear and the only spelling that's similar is the Jutes ?
The weird thing with Bede and his historical "litterature" Is if he lived during these times, why arent the professor showing his written down source in Old English? You know before Anglo-Saxony and British/Welsh with Latin and Old Norse with a touch of scottish from the picts became English Modern that we read today.
Gutes/Geats/Goths not the same as Jutes since Jutes are Danes from Jutland. While Gutes/Geats/Goths are Swedes from Götaland or Gotland Island.
I can understand Old English and I'm Swedish, thx to learning Modern German in school and some understanding of the Runic Alphabet Elder Futhark I can understand the most of the text written in Old English by a small margain of failure. If he wants to nonchalantly disregard the Anglo Saxons Historical sources in Saxo Gramaticus as folktales and myths but listen to a modern translation of some dude named Bede and Valetinius and Voldemort from Wales.
First of all I doubt there is anyone even named Hengest or Horsa at the 600century, because the name Horsa(Horse) was pronounced Eoh, horse=eoh, anyhow there is nothing Bede written the dude who lived in Northumbria, the professor on this seminar/lecture states that the Brythonic Brittons so to speak are confounded only to Welsh area or wales, which is weird by itself since Wales is Gaelic.
@@godsaveme thanks for the information, I didn't know about that, I was just wondering from an English perspective,
Ive just read bedes translations , I don't believe much of what he says about many things, I don't think he was a liar , he was just writing on Gods behalf, he wrote about my home city StAlbans ( Roman verulamium that boudicca burned after London) he writes about the saint Alban his death and Martyrdom, and about others from the church who apparently visited his shrine, yet non of this appeared until over 400 years after the supposed death of Alban .
@@godsaveme The original British records are in Welsh, some in our ancient alphabet, that the English refuse to consult even today, and over the centuries have done their best to suppress. However they are well documented and go back 4000 years. Hengist is well known in Wales, the places associated with his story still bear the names that commemorate the event, complete with grave mounds. Moreover, the real reason for the British decline and migrations to Brittany, leaving only sparse and scattered survivors after the comet of 562. This was what ultimately allowed the Saxon incursion to take hold. Wilson and Blackett's years of research, books and videos explain what the records really show.
@@kayew5492 there are no records at all in Britain that go back 4000 years. Thats not right at all. The britains were in illiterate ppl before the romans came. Tell me one source that is 4000 years old
@@kayew5492 thank you for these names and information. TH-cam comments are never beaten
The clarity in the record of the ancient historians and the genetic explanations give us an idea of how clear history and genetic science would be if the planet was not ruled by gangster-prostitute anarchy.
the trade within the roman empire had opened the eyes on irish and germanic people that there might be a future abroad in britain -same as now same as when vikings came or normands
The Irish have always been in Britain, we are all part of British isles.
I was hoping this would help me beat Assassins Creed Valhalla, since we live in a holographic illusion of course history is based on video games.
HE'S A KOOL PROFESSOR, buttttttt, 1.25 is the minimum time I would watch it.
A Welshman teaching Turks about British history. So random.
Sabri K the Welsh ARE British, as are the English and Scots.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 "British" was created in 1606 by elites, the greeks named the island but im 100% sure the ancestors of the Picts did not call themselves British
@Urien Rheged According to my OED, the earliest appearance of the word "British" in the written record is the year 855, and there are other appearances in writing in 1000 and 1100. At any rate, the word "British" long pre-dates the 17th Century, so I don't know where John Maclagan got the idea that it was created in 1606.
The WELSH are the only true Britains!!!!
@@robertsettle2590 Correct the the Saxons, Angles, Vikings, and Normans were and always will be invaders. Only the Cornish, Welsh, Mannish, Picts and formerly the kingdom Alt Clut can lay claim to be original Briton's.
Useless 4th year students aren't they?
Two year wait to have someone agree with you.
" . ...nothing more destructve, nothing more bitter has ever befallen the lands. How utter the blindness their minds, how desperate and crass stupidy, they invite under the same roof a people who they feared worse than death ... " - Sounds like modern Islamic Britain. :D History REPEATS
People aren't afraid of Muslim or Jews those. Only Nazis are. They are much more dangerous.
@@soulscanner66 smh I'm afraid of nothing but anyone with a superiority complex is dangerous
@Griffith Taka Go back to sleep fool.
The thumbnail on your video is so disingenuous. It reminds me of when Trump drew his little extension of Hurricane Dorians path to make his lies "true". The north east of Ireland in that time period was just as Irish as the south west of Ireland in the same period. You can pretend that they stood outside Irish society of the 5th and 6th century to assuage to feeling of present day Scottish nationalists, but it does harms your reputation.
What’s most misleading is the label “Scots/Irish” - which doesn’t even make sense for that period. “Scotti” (ie Scots) was just the Roman term for the Irish, who were all part of the larger “Gaeldom” that stretched from Muster to the Hebrides. The people who are referred to as “Scots/Irish” in modern times are not Gaels. Before the ethnic cleansing (or “clearances”) of the the 6 counties, the Western Isles, and the Highlands, the Irish & Scottish Gaels had been united by blood, culture, & religion. That’s why they were cleared out to make room for Brits who not only shared none of these bonds with the natives, they actively opposed all things Gaelic. The “Scots/Irish” come almost exclusively from the Lowlands & Scottish borders, which outside of Galloway -for a relatively period of time- had never been part of that Irish or greater Gaelic world and to this day don’t belong in it. Once we reach unification (by 2030), they can choose to either embrace the people & the country they are living in, or they can -this may sound like a crazy idea- go live in Britain if they’re “British identity” is important. They already have the Union Jack flying over there & I’m sure they allow parades, so it should make for a seamless transition.
@@ruaidriodomhnaill4489 I kind of feel that you have overemphasized the place of Scotland in the history of the Irish language. Irish, as a language, both classical and vernacular can only be studied in Ireland. There is no literature in Irish from Scotland. It was an unimportant outcrop of Ireland. The history of the Irish language occured in Ireland.
@Enphlegminguous Par exemple.....?
@Enphlegminguous ....still waiting to be made aware of this large corpus of literature in Irish from Scotland.....
@Enphlegminguous Enlightment reached, you find a that treasure trove of ancient literature from little Ireland?
I wonder how many classicists are brexiteers
I think this lecture is over a decade old.
CrunchyNorbert 52% of them
I find it distracting that he has to keep marching back and forth across the room all the time. He needs to stand still and make more eye contact. He also needs to interact with the students more.
shut up
I had many professors and lecturers like that when I was in Uni, some where much worse.
Okay, he's using a projector. Every image on the wall has to be placed on the projector manually. He doesn't have a fancy smart board or even PowerPoint. This must be an old lecture.
It works fine when you are in the room. It doesn't work well on video. This was primarily intended as an in-person experience so I don't think he owes us an explanation or apology or even a promise "to do better in the future".
It’s a lecture not a seminar or a tutorial.
He’s not an entertainer either.
If i paid tuition in this institution i'd want a refund. Honestly, are you still using overhead projectors with faded markers? We live in a 360 degree multimedia world. Time to retire the 1950's level technology and lecture format.
Get a life.
this is over 10 years old. I suspect they may have changed their presentation by now
Why would you want a refund if what you were being taught was good?
History doesn’t change.
A good teacher can teach with the bare minimum of resources.
Sounds as if you put style over substance.
Oh and this video is actually pretty old, and is itself an uploaded version of older footage
11:15
"What?"
Cringe amerimutt
Maybe the Irish will stop complaining now they understand they started it !
A very general and trite comment. Would you like to elaborate or just leave something that could be construed as a somewhat hate comment ?
@@kingofcelts Na , stand by what I say. Do your fact check if you don't believe.
@@airlinesecret6725 which Irish do you refer to...?? the Scots who founded Dalriata before evolving to Alba and then Scotland ...?? The Scots who were transplanted into Ulster and became Scots Irish some of whom migrated to America...then there are the tens of thousands of Irish who bypassing De Valera to serve in WW2...or Anglo Irish like Paddy Mayne of the SAS...
All this Anglo-Saxonism was a Victorian attempt to present the English as Nordic ( influenced Hitler later on). The English are hardly Nordic ( just take a look at them, most fat shortish and not blond!)
The Celtic/Briton influence is central to the English.
My dads stronger than your dad!🙄
The Roman Empire never existed.
Dr Anatoly Fomenko, "History: Fiction or Science?"
Most of this video is BS.
did you drink again?
Irish Invasion LOL
it happened
@@Gypsygeekfreak17 The Romans did not Invade Ireland.
@@roboparks no the Irish invaded Britain
@eekfreak17 The Scotii(Northern Galic) invaded Pictland. NOT Britain . Ireland wasn't Centralized by any means in 400 ad. Small Tribal Kingdoms that didn't get along with each other.
@@roboparks they invaded Scotland and killed the people yhere
King Arthur: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthen_ap_Seisyll
What makes you believe that’s Arthur and Camelot is caradigan