Really love your videos brother. One thing I have always wanted to ask is... have you ever gotten into radio, or some kind of voice over work? Amazing voice, always captures me into your reactions and opinions. Keep it up mate. Much love from the UK.
The series Vikings, depicts the Norsemen fighting the Anglo-Saxons who had seven kingdoms in present day England and conquered the Britons, the original inhabitants
Britain (strictly Great Britain, to differentiate it from Brittany, the other "Britain") is the island, Britons are the inhabitants. Mercia's named for the region's predominant group of Angles, the Mierce (probably "frontier people", themselves expanding through local accommodation and integration), whereas Murcia in Spain derives from Latin. Nations (like races, a different but similarly fabricated concept) are historical constructs. The video helpfully gets it the right way round, showing that an "England" only emerged from the territorial unification of the 9th-10th centuries and the integration of the various peoples of the new kingdom as the heads of the ruling house went from "king of the West Saxons" to "king of the Anglo-Saxons" (Alfred) then "king of the English" (Aethelstan) and finally "king of England" (Edgar). The lesson? You can't impose uniformity (as later English monarchs tried and failed to do for centuries in Wales), nor is it innate; a shared allegiance has to be built, and far from representing some mystical timeless unity, nations are a product of political, economic and cultural processes incorporating diversity alongside shared experience.
@@dawatcherz No Norway was still a small kingdom that had only just united during the Viking age under a king which is why many Norwegians moved to and settled Iceland, first later did Denmark get hold of Norway
If you watch the series, "The Vikings" it adds a whole extra perspective to understanding English history... It wasn't fully accurate, chronologically, but the interplay and influence both cultures had on each other was fascinating to me. Could be a great series for doing reactions to, now that I think about it. Somewhat similar to Game of Thrones, but with some actual historical figures...
@@rawgaentertainment yeah if there was another film using the "Saxon Chronicles" books besides "7 Kings Must Die" and the 5 season "Last Kingdom" series I'd love to know as I've enjoyed both the books and the series.
MATE you don't realise but ur now famous in the uk , their was a newspaper article and Facebook feed video about you , The story says ur from Chicago but now live in Florida but you identify as British.
Aethelflead & Edward aka Edward the Elder were 2 of Alfred aka Alfred the Great's children. Aethelflead married Aethelred of Mercia & after his death in 911, Aethelflead became Queen of Mercia & Edward was King of Wessex after his father died in 899. Alfwynn was Queen for a short while like 6 - 18 months after Aethelflead died in 918 until Edward took the throne because Aelfwynn was deposed. The show The Last Kingdom is based on Alfred & his family though only 2 of his children appear in it & it is the most historically accurate then the sequel movie Seven Kings Must Die is historically based on how England was formed. The narrarator is mispronouncing the old name for Scotland which is Alba not Alaba.
And most of the English. People seem to think that when a map changes colour it means the people were killed or pushed out. It actually means the area had new rulers, but the people were still there. That's why Britons are Anglo-Celts, but even though we've known that Anglo-Saxon was a misnomer for decades people still believe what they were taught in school.
Really poor video choice the story of England is way more complicated than this video portrays this really only covers the Anglo Saxon bit find a better video 👍🏻🇬🇧
The irony of Brexit and its xenophobic basis being mostly an English initiative is astounding, considering how Angles were not indigenous to those isles in the first place. It's like people of the US telling Mexicans to get out of Texas or California, and go back to Mexico...
It was over 1000yrs ago and as was implied by continued use of danelaw a large number of the "natives" survived. The majority of people who voted for brexit were dissafected and misled rather than xenophobic, that being said some self proclaimed "patriots" are and I always chuckled at the irony of some pasty, bean-headed, xenophobic, scrote declaring pride over Anglo-Saxon heritage.
The irony of this comment is goes also over your head. If they done it before they know that outcome. A thief will also don't like be stolen from even if he does it to outers. So their xenophobic opinion is legitimited. Ask the Native Americans how their openess had treated them.
@@saxogrammatikus4195, MINITRU strikes again. Maybe you can tell me why? Here it is again, "It was over 1000yrs ago and as was implied by continued use of danelaw a large number of the "natives" survived. The majority of people who voted for brexit were dissafected and misled rather than xenophobic, that being said some self proclaimed "patriots" are and I always chuckled at the irony of some pasty, bean-headed, xenophobic, scrote declaring pride over Anglo-Saxon heritage."
He totally ignored William the Conqueror who was a Viking from heritage who came from France and changed the whole country, all the way down to the language.
Lazy, pretending to be history and it literally just falls strraight into the Heptarchy paradigm. Far more than 7 seven kingdoms were formed. Bede just mentioned these 7 as the most important
@@rosshein356 well we don't know for sure who the first inhabitants were but Britons are atleast the people living in the area of England and Wales when the Roman's came over.
@@rosshein356actually the Britons are the group of celts who lived in England and Wales after the Celtic peoples migrated around 800 BC (the Picts inhabiting Scotland and the Gaels in Ireland, all three being vast generalisations). The people before then are referred to as the Beaker people and these are likely the people who built Stonehenge
'Briton' simply means someone from Britain. Same as Spaniard for Spain. Still used today, it's not some obscure term. 'Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britons never never never shall be slaves'
@@TransoceanicOutreach A Briton in this context does specifically mean a keltoi not an angle, saxon, jute. and usually more specifically a roman-celt or atleast those that had taken on some of the roman-briton fusions of culture.
I have a love/hate relationship with the original video. On one hand, it does a good job in breaking down and explaining the very basics. Yet on the other, it glosses over or straight up ignores some info that I believe is somewhat important. Granted, it doesn’t need to explain everything (that’s not what the video is about) but it doesn’t explain the link/relationships between certain individuals and therefore comes across like everyone are complete strangers or enemies coming together to fight a common cause (which I guess in some case they were). So I thought I’d list some things that was glossed over/ignored which I believe should have been developed and explained more even in this breakdown video: - the dude Alfred made the Lord of Mercia, Æthelred, is the husband of Alfred’s daughter, Æthelflæd (the same woman who became the “Lord” straight after Æthelred). She was the full sister of Edward, who took over Wessex when his father, Alfred died. The reason Æthelred was called the “Lord of Mercia” and not king was because, Mercia was ruled by the kingdom of Wessex/Alfred. It was still able to command its own army and laws, but if things went down and Wessex was in danger, Mercia would fight along side Wessex. - Æthelflæd didn’t just get put on the throne because her husband was the Lord and died, there was a lot of opposition but if I’m not mistaken, historians believe she was accepted simply because of her being the daughter of Alfred the Great and sister of the King of Wessex who had power over Mercia. When she died, I think her daughter was young and obviously had no idea how to stop a Viking invasion and that’s why the Mercian people ousted Ælfwynn. Although this didn’t straight up “create the perfect opportunity for Edward to seized all of Mercia” as he was technically the ruler anyway, it did allow Edward to have complete autonomy over the land and therefore could control the army better. - I think it’s also somewhat important to know, that London wasn’t the powerhouse of a city that it is today. It was a Mercian town/city but it was only a port - important yes, but not as important as it would soon become. Instead, the two most important cities an invader could occupy during this time was either Winchester (the capital of Wessex, south of England and soon England as a whole up until 1066) or York, which was the capital of Northumbria and Danelaw.
Murcia is an Arabic name, meaning "port", as Marseille in France, Mersin in Turkey and probably other cities in Mediterranean, which are ports and established or conquered then named by Arabs.
Considering Marseilles was founded as Massalia by the Ancient Greeks, that theory seems problematic. However the /r/ might have slipped in there as a result of later Arabic influence, from marsa as you suggest.
@@pesmerga182 Yes, it's where we get the term 'Welsh Marches' from talking about the counties bordering Wales. Mercia is actually a Linised version of the name of the Kingdom, which was something like 'The Mark', which is where Tolkien got his name for Rohan from.
Funny thing is, the saxon king of england called himself Britenwalda (Ruler of britannia) Originally the title was Brytenwalder (ruler of much). But after 200 years their dialects had changed so much that they thought bryten was britain.
Really love your videos brother. One thing I have always wanted to ask is... have you ever gotten into radio, or some kind of voice over work? Amazing voice, always captures me into your reactions and opinions.
Keep it up mate. Much love from the UK.
It was a holy place, that's why it was 'disrespected'.
I really like that you've branched out to doing videos like this.i very much enjoy them
The series Vikings, depicts the Norsemen fighting the Anglo-Saxons who had seven kingdoms in present day England and conquered the Britons, the original inhabitants
You know your British history much better then the majority of British people - even some who are quite well infomed in history. Nice work.
i like these history videos you've been doing
Britain (strictly Great Britain, to differentiate it from Brittany, the other "Britain") is the island, Britons are the inhabitants. Mercia's named for the region's predominant group of Angles, the Mierce (probably "frontier people", themselves expanding through local accommodation and integration), whereas Murcia in Spain derives from Latin.
Nations (like races, a different but similarly fabricated concept) are historical constructs. The video helpfully gets it the right way round, showing that an "England" only emerged from the territorial unification of the 9th-10th centuries and the integration of the various peoples of the new kingdom as the heads of the ruling house went from "king of the West Saxons" to "king of the Anglo-Saxons" (Alfred) then "king of the English" (Aethelstan) and finally "king of England" (Edgar).
The lesson? You can't impose uniformity (as later English monarchs tried and failed to do for centuries in Wales), nor is it innate; a shared allegiance has to be built, and far from representing some mystical timeless unity, nations are a product of political, economic and cultural processes incorporating diversity alongside shared experience.
Funny how he drew the arrow from Norway instead of Denmark but at least he got it right that it were Danes attacking
wasn't norway in a personal union with denmark at the time, where the king of denmark was also the king of norway?
@@dawatcherz No Norway was still a small kingdom that had only just united during the Viking age under a king which is why many Norwegians moved to and settled Iceland, first later did Denmark get hold of Norway
@@LynxLord1991 tnx, i was thinking ahead too far in the timeline
@@dawatcherz No worries
793 attack on Lindisfarne was from Norway, but after that it was Danish invaders but that was a long time after
If you watch the series, "The Vikings" it adds a whole extra perspective to understanding English history...
It wasn't fully accurate, chronologically, but the interplay and influence both cultures had on each other was fascinating to me.
Could be a great series for doing reactions to, now that I think about it.
Somewhat similar to Game of Thrones, but with some actual historical figures...
They had a love-hate relationship with the Anglo-Saxone
The movie "The Last Kingdom" was dope on this..
Do you mean the series?
@@evozero905 does it matter
@@rawgaentertainment yeah if there was another film using the "Saxon Chronicles" books besides "7 Kings Must Die" and the 5 season "Last Kingdom" series I'd love to know as I've enjoyed both the books and the series.
@@evozero905 ok
It is epic
MATE you don't realise but ur now famous in the uk , their was a newspaper article and Facebook feed video about you , The story says ur from Chicago but now live in Florida but you identify as British.
Lmao
lol
Ummm, he’s from New York and now lives in Spain.
They did speak English. Old English
Aethelflead & Edward aka Edward the Elder were 2 of Alfred aka Alfred the Great's children. Aethelflead married Aethelred of Mercia & after his death in 911, Aethelflead became Queen of Mercia & Edward was King of Wessex after his father died in 899. Alfwynn was Queen for a short while like 6 - 18 months after Aethelflead died in 918 until Edward took the throne because Aelfwynn was deposed. The show The Last Kingdom is based on Alfred & his family though only 2 of his children appear in it & it is the most historically accurate then the sequel movie Seven Kings Must Die is historically based on how England was formed. The narrarator is mispronouncing the old name for Scotland which is Alba not Alaba.
However, England was taken over completely by the Viking, King Canute (Cnut).
Not for long
The descendants of the original Britons are the Welsh, Cornish and the Breton peoples
And most of the English.
People seem to think that when a map changes colour it means the people were killed or pushed out. It actually means the area had new rulers, but the people were still there. That's why Britons are Anglo-Celts, but even though we've known that Anglo-Saxon was a misnomer for decades people still believe what they were taught in school.
Angleland or England later
By GOD.
Really poor video choice the story of England is way more complicated than this video portrays this really only covers the Anglo Saxon bit find a better video 👍🏻🇬🇧
The irony of Brexit and its xenophobic basis being mostly an English initiative is astounding, considering how Angles were not indigenous to those isles in the first place. It's like people of the US telling Mexicans to get out of Texas or California, and go back to Mexico...
It was over 1000yrs ago and as was implied by continued use of danelaw a large number of the "natives" survived.
The majority of people who voted for brexit were dissafected and misled rather than xenophobic, that being said some self proclaimed "patriots" are and I always chuckled at the irony of some pasty, bean-headed, xenophobic, scrote declaring pride over Anglo-Saxon heritage.
The irony of this comment is goes also over your head. If they done it before they know that outcome. A thief will also don't like be stolen from even if he does it to outers. So their xenophobic opinion is legitimited. Ask the Native Americans how their openess had treated them.
@@saxogrammatikus4195, was that reply to me or the OP?
@@blueskinner To the OP I even can't see your comment unfortunately
@@saxogrammatikus4195, MINITRU strikes again. Maybe you can tell me why?
Here it is again,
"It was over 1000yrs ago and as was implied by continued use of danelaw a large number of the "natives" survived.
The majority of people who voted for brexit were dissafected and misled rather than xenophobic, that being said some self proclaimed "patriots" are and I always chuckled at the irony of some pasty, bean-headed, xenophobic, scrote declaring pride over Anglo-Saxon heritage."
He totally ignored William the Conqueror who was a Viking from heritage who came from France and changed the whole country, all the way down to the language.
The Bastard.
No
His people, the Normans had viking blood in them,
Lazy, pretending to be history and it literally just falls strraight into the Heptarchy paradigm. Far more than 7 seven kingdoms were formed. Bede just mentioned these 7 as the most important
Yes it was Briton rather than Britain
Depends what you’re referring to. Britain is the name of the island, Britons were it’s original inhabitants
@@rosshein356 well we don't know for sure who the first inhabitants were but Britons are atleast the people living in the area of England and Wales when the Roman's came over.
@@rosshein356actually the Britons are the group of celts who lived in England and Wales after the Celtic peoples migrated around 800 BC (the Picts inhabiting Scotland and the Gaels in Ireland, all three being vast generalisations). The people before then are referred to as the Beaker people and these are likely the people who built Stonehenge
'Briton' refers to the Celtic natives of Britain during and immediately after Roman times. Their languages survive in Welsh, Cornish and Breton
'Briton' simply means someone from Britain. Same as Spaniard for Spain. Still used today, it's not some obscure term.
'Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britons never never never shall be slaves'
When referring to people from this period (9th-10th centuries) it does mean the Celtic folk of the Western half of the Island (including the Manx).
@@TransoceanicOutreach A Briton in this context does specifically mean a keltoi not an angle, saxon, jute. and usually more specifically a roman-celt or atleast those that had taken on some of the roman-briton fusions of culture.
I have a love/hate relationship with the original video. On one hand, it does a good job in breaking down and explaining the very basics. Yet on the other, it glosses over or straight up ignores some info that I believe is somewhat important. Granted, it doesn’t need to explain everything (that’s not what the video is about) but it doesn’t explain the link/relationships between certain individuals and therefore comes across like everyone are complete strangers or enemies coming together to fight a common cause (which I guess in some case they were).
So I thought I’d list some things that was glossed over/ignored which I believe should have been developed and explained more even in this breakdown video:
- the dude Alfred made the Lord of Mercia, Æthelred, is the husband of Alfred’s daughter, Æthelflæd (the same woman who became the “Lord” straight after Æthelred). She was the full sister of Edward, who took over Wessex when his father, Alfred died. The reason Æthelred was called the “Lord of Mercia” and not king was because, Mercia was ruled by the kingdom of Wessex/Alfred. It was still able to command its own army and laws, but if things went down and Wessex was in danger, Mercia would fight along side Wessex.
- Æthelflæd didn’t just get put on the throne because her husband was the Lord and died, there was a lot of opposition but if I’m not mistaken, historians believe she was accepted simply because of her being the daughter of Alfred the Great and sister of the King of Wessex who had power over Mercia. When she died, I think her daughter was young and obviously had no idea how to stop a Viking invasion and that’s why the Mercian people ousted Ælfwynn. Although this didn’t straight up “create the perfect opportunity for Edward to seized all of Mercia” as he was technically the ruler anyway, it did allow Edward to have complete autonomy over the land and therefore could control the army better.
- I think it’s also somewhat important to know, that London wasn’t the powerhouse of a city that it is today. It was a Mercian town/city but it was only a port - important yes, but not as important as it would soon become. Instead, the two most important cities an invader could occupy during this time was either Winchester (the capital of Wessex, south of England and soon England as a whole up until 1066) or York, which was the capital of Northumbria and Danelaw.
Also, the map of the initial Anglo-Saxon-Jutish kingdoms is slightly wrong. The Isle of Wight was a separate (Jutish) kingdom, Wihtwara.
The original Britons were Celtic trubes/Clans, which we still have some of today and their languages.
The first attack of Vikings on Anglo-saxons started with Lindisfarne, in Northumbria
There were earlier raids, but 793 was the one that made it into the schoolbooks.
Murcia does not belong to Andalucia, it is next to Andalucia, but is an entirely different autonomous community.
Murcia is an Arabic name, meaning "port", as Marseille in France, Mersin in Turkey and probably other cities in Mediterranean, which are ports and established or conquered then named by Arabs.
Considering Marseilles was founded as Massalia by the Ancient Greeks, that theory seems problematic. However the /r/ might have slipped in there as a result of later Arabic influence, from marsa as you suggest.
It’s from the word Merce meaning borderland
@@pesmerga182 Yes, it's where we get the term 'Welsh Marches' from talking about the counties bordering Wales. Mercia is actually a Linised version of the name of the Kingdom, which was something like 'The Mark', which is where Tolkien got his name for Rohan from.
Funny thing is, the saxon king of england called himself Britenwalda (Ruler of britannia)
Originally the title was Brytenwalder (ruler of much). But after 200 years their dialects had changed so much that they thought bryten was britain.
In Old English, it meant King of Kings, King of all Britannia
The name Britain came from the Latin word referring to the land of the original inhabitants, the Britons
Yes! Kings English is bizarre