Excellent vid. Glad u mentioned us Frisians - we usually get short shrift which is mystifying when, as i understand, the Frisian language is considered the closest continental language there is to English...
You get shafted because the Frisians didn’t have their “own” kingdom. Probably because they would have been basically indistinguishable from Saxons. Even the Jutes get shafted and their kingdom was of Kent was dominant for a time
The Frisians wee not mentioned by Bede as being ancestral to the Anglo-Saxons, which is why they get little notice. There is evidence of Frankish involvement in the formation of the Anglo-Saxons, but they were also not mentioned.
Descendant of Frisians here, and agree, they rarely even get a mention in this. There are many place names of Frisian origin in England, they definitely migrated and had an influence.
@@ShawnoAnDerDonau As Frisian and Old English are both descendants of 'North Sea Germanic', also known as Ingaevonic, dating to the Migration Period differentiating between place names would be essentially impossible.
@@sebe2255 Agree - I think a lot of Saxons literally had to pass thru Frisian territory to get to Britain and many Frisians just simply joined them for the ride.
No, you didn't get that right. The Angles were a Danish people. Aengla Land is after the Angles. "Germans" is a fairly modern phrase for the people united under Prussian rule. Prussians themselves, a Baltic, Slavic people, was eradicated by the Germans oddly enough. No wonder Prussian is a byword for "militarism". ;-)
Superior production! Thank you! I learned more in this one video than in several years as a history major who attended the University of Edinburgh. Well done!
I pride myself on my knowledge of English history, but I never actually appreciated how complicated the immediate post Roman period c450 ce to c 800 ce was . Wow,
@@joeblog2672 Well, there are a lot of assumptions here and not a lot of evidence. One of the biggest problems with this very war dominated history is that there hasn't been a lot of war archeology discovered, compared to say the Roman period. Furthermore it doesn't seem like the various tribes mingled much according to the DNA record, which may indicate that the invasion of Britain by these tribes was mainly male, and they failed to "Steal" enough women to establish a breeding population in the British Isles. Basically the indigenous population retreated and when the invaders numbers dwindled, they basically moved in and took it back. There may have ben a lot less "conquest" than suggested here.
That's unfair to the inhabitants to Jutland. After 793 (Lindisfarne) we tried to make up for it, by raiding the Anglo-Saxons for approx. 250 years. And you still want reparations? Once a cry-baby always a cry-baby, I guess. --- From Jutland (Jylland spelled correctly)
Finally, someone who got the history right! 👏👏👏 Well done! Another point to mention is the Brythonic language, which was the original language of what was then called Cymru (the UK) - brythonic was the root of old welsh, Breton, and Cornish languages. Yes, for some people, they may not even know that the Welsh language is much, much older than any form of English or old English language. And yes, I am a proud Welshman 😂❤🏴💪
@@Hanes_Cymru-742h Hardly right (see my other comment), it gets many things wrong. Wasn't Prydain the name for the island? Kymry would have been a later invention to identify "us" against the perceived incursions of the "other" Saes.
Yes, I'm familiar with Prydain and that story. The word Cymru has evolved with time. Starting as Kumri or Kymri, then the K was replaced with a C, and the i became a y. Also, the word could well have connections to King Omri, an ancient king of Israel. This video will help you to understand more on the true history - th-cam.com/video/Kw8at08k254/w-d-xo.htmlsi=nW2GnJCSAs3LTMyc
@@Hanes_Cymru-742h The switch from K to C was only a result of printers (in England) not having enough K letters with which to print, so C was adopted. Not a natural evolution.
IMO the best looking ladies in the UK. It's always good to thrash you at rugby ! But I'd like to point out that Welsh (German Wealsc - people influenced by Rome) is very influenced by Latin.
Some inaccuracies here - the Britons never told themselves they were related to Brutus - that was a 9th century invention of the Anglo-Saxons (almost but not quite referring to themselves as English at that point). Romans left Britain 500yrs before this mention
@@jcoker423 So why did King Aelfred refer to himself as 'King of the English' or AEnglish as it would of been? English is a term formed by the Angles no? same with England.
Point of accuracy, not all the area north of Hadrian's wall was inhabited by PIcts, in what is now Southern Scotland there were British, not Pictish, tribes, they included the Votadini in the Edinburgh area, the Selgovae, the Novantae and the Damnonii. These tribes were culturally and linguistically - they spoke Brittonic, not Pictish - the same as tribes further south, like the Brigantes, Catuvelauni or the Corieltauvi, who were conquered by Rome.
@@kevingray5646 It is believed to have been a 'P' Celtic language, but one that was distinct from Common Brittonic, the ancestor of Welsh, Cornish, Breton and Cumbric.
@CymruCelt01 I do not believe that Pictish has been well enough characterised to ascertain its inter-intelligibility with Common Brythonic, or any of its descendants (Old Welsh, Cumbric, Cornish and Breton. The people of Strathclyde would have spoken Cumbric, a cousin of Old Welsh. The only movement of people, that I am aware of, from what is now Scotland to what is now Wales, is the movement of Cunedda and his warband form Manau Gododdin (Lothian) to counter the Irish colonisation of Lleyn and Dyfed at the very end of Roman control in Britain. Many later Welsh dynasties traced their descent from Cunedda.
I would be careful if I were you, given a lot of it is legend rather than history. You’d do well to cross-check a lot of this information. I don’t buy that “the Britons identified themselves with the Romans” given that “the Britons” weren’t a united bloc at the time (disparate tribes) and that this is blatantly Roman propaganda that’s been disseminated among (some of) the peoples.
Wasn't the island named Pretanike by the greek explorer Pytheas in 4th century BCE? Celtic "pretani", "painted people" (picts), used to name the land "Pretanike", later transformed into "Bretanike" and later "Britain". The name was in use by greek and roman authors way before Brutus.
All correct - Modern name Britain comes from Prydain (Welsh) with mutations occurring to the P and D. Which turns it into Britain. It came into common use with the capture of the English crown by the Tudors in the late 1400s, early 1500s.
Yeah pretty sure the Brutus origin story started with Geoffrey of Monmouth so almost certainly nobody in Roman Britain would be familiar with this story
@iwanmorris293 Wrong, Brutus story was older than Rome, he was an Etruscan (they eventually went north into Switzerland and are mostly called the Bell Beaker people) who descended from the Trojans. Making the Romans and Britons kin folk! Linguistics, archeological finds and place names are all slowly proving the migrations from Anatolia true.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons can you cite the earliest source for the Brutus story? Also on migration theory, since as far as I know any westward migration From Anatolia was likley long before the period of the hypothesised Trojan war.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons The Bell Beaker people's presence in Britain predates the existence of the civilisations of both the Trojans (who were Hittites) and the Etruscans by several millennia. You have got this completely back to front. Put down the Big Boy's Book of Medieval Fantasy and go read an actual history or archaeology book.
What you had was a German civil war during both world wars, especially when most of the other European royal houses had German blood in them as well. This made the wars all the more tragic because of that, too.
@@dogsbecute Yes, it was precisely that. You had members of the Houses of Hanover, Saxe-Coburg Gotha and Hohenzollern intermarrying with the majority of the other royal houses of Europe, thus creating a circumstance whereby the members of the same royal houses were fighting it out with each other on opposite sides by the time WWI occurred.
The century that began in year 700 was the 8th century, not the 7th ... and according to Wikipedia the Heptarchy had already existed for a couple of hundred years (during the 8th century the 7 kingdoms were consolidated into 4).
Great documentary. Pretty succinct. I need to research into all this more to find out where the info actually comes from. I knew some of it, but my memory of it all is a bit fuzzy. Thank you for setting it out pretty clearly. I really like following along with the map.
It always Americans that make videos about my country's heritage. I understand that Cambridge University has stopped studies of Anglo Saxon Settlement etc. Probably because we are now considered to be a multi cultural nation. Ridiculous yes? Great video! Thank you. Best Wishes from Eastern England. 🇺🇸 🇩🇰 🏴 🇳🇴 👍
This English history is so much more interesting and ‘English’ than what happened after 1066. Unfortunately it is very little taught in schools and most UK citizens have very little knowledge of these 600 years or so. Some of the pronounciatons in this video are really bizarre though. ‘Murshia’ for Mercia for example. Or ceorls pronounced as it looks rather than the correct ‘churls’ ( as in the word churlish).
The establishment doesn't want to teach Anglo Saxon history because it will inspire a sense of identity and pride in the English as they come through school. They want us to worship the EU and globalist bs
The pronunciation is because the channel uses AI for the voice It's my biggest gripe with this channel, but they do a pretty good job of everything else so I deal with it
I wouldn't say more interesting, just as interesting. The Norman's and the Plantagenets are amazing to read about and are much more well documented. And I wouldn't say the Saxons were more English either being that they conquered the local inhabitants in the same way the Norman's did. I'd say they are equally interesting. Buy I agree the Saxons should get more interest, though it does seem they are becoming quite popular these days. Kids being taught about the dynasties from the Norman's on is probably likely to the amount of information available and the bigger impact on the eventual culture it created.
Having read recent books on Anglo Saxons and all the shifting sands of fortune from the 5th Century, it’s great to see it in this format. Just shows how stable in relative terms Roman rule was for the previous 400 years. Every town around me has Angle and Dane names, and my own family is linked to an Angles. My wife surname is Walsh, which is clearly from Welsh meaning Celtic foreigner, all this generally goes unnoticed and hardly mentioned by anyone.
That’s an inaccurate and outdated statement. It’s believed that the Anglo Saxons didn’t massacre the native Britain’s but instead amalgamated. Modern day genetics indicates that the English have 60% Briton Celtic DNA.
"60%" - Can you prove that with a source? And why do they speak a Germanic language then? After all it would be quite ironic that they call themselves "English" which is literally derived from "Angles".
I disagree with source: The video "Origins of the English" by "Fortress of Lugh" (@29:46) specifies that the DNA of the English originates mostly from Northern Germany and Denmark.
Exactly. The "bloody conquest" theory is rooted in a 19th and early 20th century nationalist mindset. Modern science is assuming an adaptation to germanic culture and language by the brythonic population. As you mentioned, DNA research also supports this theory.
In those days, the term “British” wasn’t in use for the geography. It was fully used solely for the cultural Britons. So using British in the terms of geography is not historically accurate. The word Britain is accurate, but not British when talking about history on the island that occurred to England.
British history is a good enough term for the general history of the island of Britain. Though it could also be confused for the history of the British Empire, referring to the period after the unification of England and Scotland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
*Can you do a video on the horn of Africa* *I'd like to see the Rise of cushites in east africa* *This is a seriously underrated history which includes The Land of punt, the macrobian kingdom, Adulis and rise of Axum, the Ancient Barbaria city states, Zagwe dynasty, Adal, ifat and abyssinia* If theirs a way to get in contact for this project I'm fuy capable of writing a script for this Really respect the work that goes into making these videos
It would be hard to do this as in reality Amhara and Tigray etc are really Cushitic people who speak a Semitic language so does he do stories about them?
@@Topagendadolla it could work but just like how he broke down the differences between Saxons and angles we could get a description of the differences in cushite groups and those who evolved due to Semite migration Same with later galla migrations in the 16/17th century and earlier sidamic peoples and even earlier Eastern cushite groups we know today as somalis
A highly frustrating and inaccurate account. The invasion narrative has for decades been considered inaccurate and is not well supported by archaeological and genetic evidence. Certainly, there was no genocide of the Britons in England. Most who consider themselves ethnically English today have mostly British (i.e. Briton) genes. There was a cultural and linguistic leap to the newly-arrived Germanic culture. The fact that some of the "English" kings and kingdoms have names of British origin also suggests that it wasn't anything like as black and white as this video makes out. The narrative of the superiority of the English over the natives is a largely Victorian invention - a result of imperialistic thinking - and which, unfortunately, still lingers in the minds of many today. And our concept of nationhood simply isn't transferable to this period. Neighbouring English and British kingdoms were as like to war on their own "kin" as against each other.
If true, that’s still sad in a way. English people today, despite being ethnically British, do not speak the British language or identify themselves as such in the true meaning of the world. Gotto admire the Welsh for their sheer determination not to let these things disappear.
To be fair, the idea of gentler integration is out now and the violent takeover is back in. Gildas predates the Victorian’s romance and was clear the Germanic invaders wrought hell onto the Britons.
No it’s been shown that the majority of the English are Germanic. Interestingly there is evidence that there was no Celtic migration of the British isles and that it happened by diffusion.
No that is flat out wrong. The majority of the English people are Germanic. I don’t know where people keep hearing that the English are mostly Celts because they’re not. They even look like they’re Germanic brothers on the continent. The areas of Denmark and Germany that the Anglo-Saxons migrated from were depopulated because of the amount of people leaving for Britain. This is what led to the Danes settling in Jutland. Not only that but there is basically no Celtic influence on the English language. If it was a case of Britons adopting English culture then you’d expect there to be tons of Brythonic loan words in English and there’s not. Now it definitely wasn’t a genocide going on but the Anglo-Saxons were definitely displacing the Britons in large numbers and very quickly. Within a century or two the majority of the population of what would become England was culturally and linguistically Germanic. If the Britons weren’t being displaced that would have taken much much longer. Now the farther west you go in England the higher amount of Celtic admixture there is but they’re still majority Germanic. Not to mention after this there was two more Germanic invasions which solidified England even more as genetically Germanic
There’s no genetic evidence for the mass extermination of the Britons and Anglo Saxon DNA only forms up to 40% of modern British DNA. As with most invasions, the existing population is not wiped out but serves the new landowners.
Exactly! Most of the time when places get conquered its a lot closer to the idea of “under new management” rather than a total replacement. The people in charge at the top change, but the majority of the commoners are the same, and there’s also often a large amount of intermixing.
I've read the Northmen who ventured to the British Isle were just called Northmen when they came for peaceful reasons, but the Northmen who came for dirty deeds were called Vikings, which was the word for pirate.
I think cause of roman defenses the Briton society was quite fragile and lacked its own protection, it was also not United and Briton tribes would go to war with one another and side with the germanic tribes when convenient. Also they do still exist, they're called the Welsh and cornish.
Translation "I'm getting a free video that looks months to prepare and don't give a sh1t about all that work and I can't sit through an ad because I'm also too cheap to pay for youtube premium"
This could only be written by an american who used wiki for evidence. Most of this is highly inaccurate. Firstly 'Rome' did not conquer the UK solely by force of arms, it used trade with its client kingdoms. Secondly areas of England were never under their control e.g.Cornwall, Devon, parts of Wales, all of Ireland and, as said, northern parts. Thirdly, what 'new political system' did 'conquerors bring? Rome, from Augustus onwards for several generations, was de facto a monarchy as were european groups. There's little difference between a tribal warlord and a king - just semantics. But really and lastly 'along with a new religion - Christianity' - no they didn't. Christianity spread through Rome in the 1st and 2nd century spreading everywhere in Europe. It had already been established in Britain well before european groups moved over and as Scandinavians attacked and then settled it spread to them. 'The confrontation, which went down in history as the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, began.' is just plain wrong. It was a gradual process over a thousand years and many, like the Irish, were only partly involved.
It was not an invasion either, they were settlers. And unless I am wrong there are no recorded battle-fields or evidence of battles between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, they had a wary mutual respect and plenty of land and distance between them along with as you'd expect, trade.
Either you didn't watch the video or your English comprehension is terrible. Video talks quite a bit about how the Anglo Saxons were Pagan and, people like Penda, resisted conversion to Christianity.
And the exterminations were not usual. You don’t kill off the peasants who will work the land under you. Brythonic and Neolithic genes remain common in England. Essentially the ‘Welsh’ remained in England and took on English culture.
Bitter, judgemental, you assume things about everyone, you refuse to capitalize *America* but capitalize "England" (which has 1/5 the population and 1/10th the economic output)... How sad is your life, bro? 😄
Shame photography wasn't around during the Anglo Saxon conquests. But we do have the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, Kingdom Of Germania and the works of venerable Saxon Monk Bede.
What...? "Briton" How tediously Juvenile of you. Not to mention pedantic. The guy who put this together sounds like some young American chap, whoever he is he's done a spectacular job here, although I question his dates, not so much the dates as his pin point accuracy. But you need to forget the 19th, 20th centuary concept of the nation state.
Anglo Saxons wasn't a thing until circa the 10th century. Before that there were still distinct groups that existed, like the Northumbrians, the Mercians, and Cumbrians, yes they had similar origins but it would be disingenuous to simply call them Anglo-Saxons
By definition the Cornish did not adopt Anglo Saxon culture, as your map seems to suggest, if so the Cornish language would not survived into modern times.
He was from Etruria, and he was the descendant of Aaneaus of Troy. He indeed came to Britain and that’s who the Britons (Welsh) are. They were Kinfolk of the Romans.
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsWelsh are "Celts" aka descendants of Japheths eldest son Gomer in the Bible the first people to settle Europe post global flood the first Europeans ...hence the Welsh language was called Gomeraeg in old Welsh
One should also go back to 129 BC when the Kimber, Teuton and Ambroni Tribes left Jutland due to several years of crop failures caused by excessive rains (Roman Warm Period). They went south towards the present Balkans, but were stopped by a Roman General telling them to go to Iberia, being empty. The tribes listened to him, and staying north of the Alps, eventualy reached present day Provence, a Greek colony at the time. They remained there for some time, when the Kimber tribe went to Iberia and skirting south of the Pyrenees went westwards, but the area was not empty, thus returned to where the cousin tribes remained. After some succesful clashes with Roman Legions, the Teutons went north-west and reached Enland, the Ambroni remained in present day France, while the Kimber entered Italy via the Brenner Pass. The Romans fought them at Vercelli, and the survivors sought shelter in the mountains north of Verona and of Vicenza. I have no Italian DNA, but can trace my Kimber, Greek and Iberian roots.
Arthur most definitely existed, and there were two. The first who fought under the British-Romano Emperor Macsen Wledig (Magnus Maximus) and the second being Arthwys so Meurig of Glamorgan and Gwent. We have Genealogies that outline several centuries worth of Kings in Wales who all were related to these Arthurs. Even later English kings used their connection to Wales in order to justify invading and ruling Wales. Btw, those fighting under Macsen were the ones who founded France as a nation, and their first king was Clovis. As for the Bretons, they were already there by the time the Anglo Saxons turn up in Britain. With Conan being their first king.
@sebe2255 semantics, the point is there were two and academics have purposefully put the events that occurred to both into one character. In order to throw off people who go looking, as he couldn’t have fought both Saxons and Romans. Could if the man was an amalgamation of two.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons No it is not semantics, “Arthur” literally didn’t exist. Although his legend may have been inspired by various figures that did. It wasn’t academics that merged anything either, it was medieval people telling stories. Stories that were centuries later picked up by Normans and French nobles who gave them there own spin and created new stories.
King Arthur was Cornish!! The Welsh love usurping all aspects of Brittonic history and culture! Even early texts in the language of Cornwall,(Kernowick) are held in Wales!! Give what belongs to the Cornish, back to the Cornish now!!
@sebe2255 it looks like u left out the crucial words “didn’t” and “wasn’t” in your comment, making it seem like you’re saying the opposite of what u actually seem to mean!
Very educational. I found history boring at school but this video I found very informative; good graphics; excellent commentary, and very descriptive £
Enjoyable well made content but I have to correct you on your pronunciation of Bamburgh. As a native of the North East of England i can confirm It's not pronounced as Bam-Berg but Bam-Borra the same as Edinburgh is spoken
The story of Cerdic and Cynric is probably not of germanic origin, both names suggest a brythonic origin: Coroticus and Cunorix. Most likely they were local british petty chieftains who hired mercenaries of saxon origin to defend them from british and pictish raiders. The best way to pay those guys was giving them land and marrying their daughters. So the origins of Wessex is most likely brythonic. Supposedely Cerdic and Cynric slew a certain Natanleod, a british warlord, and took his lands. But if Cerdic was a british chieftain, most likely he was using saxon mercenaries to overthrow Natanleod's overlordship and expand his own lands.
Indeed, I’ve often found it strange why so many early “Saxon” kings all bore British names. And could never find anyone who was willing to help understand why? They would just make blanket statements like, nah, they are just similar and it’s coincidental.
Indeed, they're very similar to the Welsh "Ceredig" and "Cynwrig". These could be descriptive titles rather than names, in that Ceredig derives from "generous" and/or "beloved", and Cynwrig meant something like "first/chief man".
@@WalesTheTrueBritons You could argue that the first generation of many anglian and saxon tribal kingdoms were predominantly british, others were indeed germanic. But the British ones raised princes who most likely spoke both languages, but who they were culturally speaking is much more complicated.
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsIt is not necessarily many English kings, as this was mainly limited to Wessex. Kent, Sussex, Mercia and Anglia all had kings with very much Germanic names But yes it could mean that at least the founders of the house or kingdom of Wessex were Britons. The Britonic names fade out quite early on even in Wessex, so it implies at least an assimilation into the Saxons if the above theory is true
True. But if you want to have kids that speak language A then marry a woman speaking language A. Children will speak the language of the Mother. So there must have been a large influx of AS women into today's England.
“Welsh” does NOT mean ‘foreign’ generically, rather it’s a specific ethnonym (exonym) meaning “Celtic” or better “Gaul” after the Germanic equivalent *walhaz to the Gaulish tribe the Romans referred to as the “Volcae”. After the continental Celtic peoples were romanised, the more southern Germanic speakers used “Welsch” to refer to Romance speakers they were in contact with. In Switzerland “Welsch” refers to the French speaking Swiss, in Austria it’s Italians or Friulians or Ladin speakers. When the Anglo-Saxons settled in Britain they called the inhabitants “(partially) romanised Celts/Gauls”. Yes, they were “other” than themselves, but they weren’t generic “foreigners”. “Cymro” < *kom-brogios means “fellow countryman”.
Exactly right, and Walnut/Walnuss is from German 'Welsh' nut was it was introduced to the Gaulish people by Rome. The poem and then Lied 'Watch on the Rhine' referred to the 'Welsh'. But they changed it, along with not singing the first verse of D-Land, D-Land Uber Alles ! But were the Britons Gelts/Gauls, I thought only the Belgae in the SE, the rest were IndoEuropean speakers, influenced by th Celtic culture ?
But in all these other cases the term refers to Romance languages speakers. Welsh is definitely the exception because it refers to Celtic language speakers
@@sebe2255 It's a Victorian mistake. The Welsh/Scots/Irish/Cornish/Breton do not speak a Celtic language. It's indo European and related to Celtic. But the Celts were an IndoEuropean culture than only made it to the SE of Britain (Kent) with teh invasion of the Belgae. Celtic/British are also more closely related to Latin than German.
@@sebe2255 No they are Indo European languages. Celtic was a specific culture in Middle Europe within the IE languages. The only 'Celts' that got to the British Isles were the Belgae that settled in SE England. The ancestors of todays Irish/Welsh/Scots/Cornish etc were not Celts. Have a read up on it!
I notice for the flag of the Hwicce tribe he used a white horse on green field. I always thought the Hwicce banner was a dark yellow cross on black field. Dose anyone one have any idea on this?
@@jcoker423 I speak a language where we use accents over (Latin) vowels to signal their length so I know all about those (my last name is properly spelled "Hákonarson"). The Cyrillic letters I am referring to appear only in the images of saints - take a look at 19:38 for example - it reads Svjatii Sigebert in CYRILLIC characters.
@@LeifurHakonarson Sorry, I missed that. As you say Cyrillic was only devised by Cyril & Methodius for the Slavs, not Anglos or Scandics. As it's a Scandic name, maybe it was one of the Russ ?
@@jcoker423 Cyrillic Script was invented by the Russian monk Cyril - though it borrowed heavily from the Greek alphabet. It was never used by any Germanic tribes (let alone Nordic ones) as far as I know - it is Slavic in origin. No doubt these saints were later glorified by the Greek-Orthodox Church - but that didn't happen till much later.
Hey History Mapped Out, for the next video can you make about the Viking invasions on England that caused the unification of England? And later, can you make the Norman conquest and aftermath? A series about the history of England.
14:37 you have ireland indicated as scots and they moved from Ireland to GB, its was Gaelic Irish who did this bringing What became scots gaelic language to Scotland. So I question how much of the rest of the video is accurate now!?
Good job showing the old welsh names like 'Hen Ogledd'. Just on that, the "dd" in welsh is almost like the "th" sound in English and welsh. So Hen Ogledd is not Ogled but more Ogleth if that makes sense. But don't worry, I understand that only the welsh can say this sounds accurately 😅👍
@@Hanes_Cymru-742h the double "d" in Welsh is merely a soft "th" in English, as in "with" but not as in "thanks", i.e. it is voiced but not aspirated. And anyone can easily make this sound - it is not limited to Welsh speakers. Such a claim is ridiculous.
The very name "Angle" comes from the configuration of the area that tribe inhabited, which included the estuary of the Elbe river. The shoreline at that point takes a more or less 90° angle in direction. The Angles also held territory along the coast on the west side of the left bank of the Elbe river, though this is not shown on maps. This has been passed down to me through my Angle and Saxon blood.
There is only one document, written hundreds of years later which suggests Ambrosius Aurelianus even existed. Sorry there's a solid chance King Arthur has no basis in reality
One Document? The Harlean genealogies I presume you are talking about? There is definitely enough evidence to suggest he, or should I say they existed. The first indeed being Ambrosius, he who fought the Romans in Europe under Macsen Wledig. The One who fought the Anglo Saxons was Arthwys Ap Meurig of Glamorgan and Gwent. Direct descendant of the first. There is considerably more evidence for the second one, as we have very detailed recordings of both his son Morgan (Morcant) and his Father Muerig (Maurice).
The best book I know developing the "Real Arthur" side is The Age Of Arthur by John Morris. It's a massive book and quite an education, even if you wind up disagreeing with his thesis.
According to old historical sources, the original Saxons were ancient Macedonians from Alexander's Macedonian army who sailed from Asia after his death and established Saxony at the current federal German State Lower Saxony, also known as old Saxony. According to the same source the Macedonians at the same time established the settlements of Frisia in today's Holland, and Brunswick, which today is a city province in Lower Saxony.
The Romans did not divide Britain at Hadrian’s Wall, that wall was a fall back garrison position, they always inhabited southern Scotland to just north of Glasgow, Stirling and Edinburgh. Antonine built his wall along this line.
@@troomoozic3858 Many English Anglo-Saxons fled England after the Norman Conquest to take refuge in France, mainly in Brittany, Dordogne and the Bordeaux region. France has always generously welcomed political asylum seekers. Their many descendants still live there but it is no longer possible to identify them among the French because these refugees have adopted over time the language and family names of their new country. The new English immigrants who settle today in these French regions (over 150 000) are the descendants of the Normans who conquered England, mixed over time with the Ango-Saxons who stayed put and remained there as serfs or slaves of the new Norman lords. I do not see any other plausible explanation for the disappearance of the Anglo-Saxons in England. The new population of England a century after the conquest was as different from the former Anglo-Saxon society as the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural England of today is from the predominantly white and English-speaking population of 1925. With all due respect, the English of today are a veritable ethnic minestrone, if I may say so. It is truly fortunate in a way to have such a rich genetic heritage, because hybrid populations are proven to be more resistant to various epidemics than endogamous groups that are generally more vulnerable to new diseases.
As it has been related to me, the reasons that the Romans invaded what is now England was that the Roman Emperor, Claudius heard that the Island was awash with pearls, a highly prized item then and there. That is also one of the reasons that the Romans tried to move in on what is now Yamen, not only because of the Frankincense and Myrrh but also because of the peals that might be had there. The Romans were well known for stealing anything and everything that wasn't nailed down. Over and above the stealing of intellectual property in the form of slaves.
I find it interesting that freedom of movement was pretty much the norm for most of the world’s history. It’s only empires like Rome, Han, etc. with their Hadrian and Chinese walls that insisted on tying people to a land. Even at the height of the Hundred Years’ War there wasn’t any law prohibiting travel, the closest I can think of would be off in the HRE which usually had customs for entering smaller principalities with a large retinue.
@Angelcynn_2001 Your English Parliament allows the immigration of all manor of people into Cymru. I dont want English people moving here and eroding our culture, let alone all of these other peoples.
Are you suggesting that because our land was invaded constantly for a thousand years that we should let the invasions continue? It's interesting how many foreigners think we don't have the right to our own land. It has nothing to do with you.
Britons: You Saxons formed Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Middlesex. Why didn't you go North?
Saxons: We didn't want to live in Nosex.
Northumbria was Saxon though
@@patrickkelly6691 It was a joke.
@@patrickkelly6691 it was Angle, do not believe the woke saxon agenda
@@patrickkelly6691 Northumbria was Anglian.
@@patrickkelly6691 No
Excellent vid.
Glad u mentioned us Frisians - we usually get short shrift which is mystifying when, as i understand, the Frisian language is considered the closest continental language there is to English...
You get shafted because the Frisians didn’t have their “own” kingdom. Probably because they would have been basically indistinguishable from Saxons. Even the Jutes get shafted and their kingdom was of Kent was dominant for a time
The Frisians wee not mentioned by Bede as being ancestral to the Anglo-Saxons, which is why they get little notice. There is evidence of Frankish involvement in the formation of the Anglo-Saxons, but they were also not mentioned.
Descendant of Frisians here, and agree, they rarely even get a mention in this. There are many place names of Frisian origin in England, they definitely migrated and had an influence.
@@ShawnoAnDerDonau As Frisian and Old English are both descendants of 'North Sea Germanic', also known as Ingaevonic, dating to the Migration Period differentiating between place names would be essentially impossible.
@@sebe2255 Agree - I think a lot of Saxons literally had to pass thru Frisian territory to get to Britain and many Frisians just simply joined them for the ride.
So the English are named after the Germans, the Welsh are named after the Britons and the Scots are named after the Irish? Got it.
Yes, which means the English and Scots are not actually Britons but bloody immigrants who came here on little boats. Who would have thought?
@@Simonsvids Haha - History is so ironic 🤣🤣 Basically England is a complete mixed bag 🤣🤣
No, you didn't get that right. The Angles were a Danish people. Aengla Land is after the Angles. "Germans" is a fairly modern phrase for the people united under Prussian rule. Prussians themselves, a Baltic, Slavic people, was eradicated by the Germans oddly enough. No wonder Prussian is a byword for "militarism". ;-)
@@elvenkind6072 german as a word is not even modern, the romans already called the area as germania.
@Simonsvids All Northern European though 😉
Superior production! Thank you! I learned more in this one video than in several years as a history major who attended the University of Edinburgh. Well done!
Bucouse you never open a book in your life
You must’ve not been listening then
I pride myself on my knowledge of English history, but I never actually appreciated how complicated the immediate post Roman period c450 ce to c 800 ce was . Wow,
Try British History Podcast.
Scotland historically,Irish,Welsh,Viking and Anglo-Saxon
Assuming accuracy here, this is a lot of light shed on the dark ages!
@@joeblog2672 Well, there are a lot of assumptions here and not a lot of evidence. One of the biggest problems with this very war dominated history is that there hasn't been a lot of war archeology discovered, compared to say the Roman period. Furthermore it doesn't seem like the various tribes mingled much according to the DNA record, which may indicate that the invasion of Britain by these tribes was mainly male, and they failed to "Steal" enough women to establish a breeding population in the British Isles. Basically the indigenous population retreated and when the invaders numbers dwindled, they basically moved in and took it back. There may have ben a lot less "conquest" than suggested here.
Hey it was free real estate!
When will the British throw off the colonialism of and demand reparations from the inhabitants of Jutland, Schleswig, Holstein, and Saxony?
That's unfair to the inhabitants to Jutland. After 793 (Lindisfarne) we tried to make up for it, by raiding the Anglo-Saxons for approx. 250 years. And you still want reparations? Once a cry-baby always a cry-baby, I guess. --- From Jutland (Jylland spelled correctly)
Where’s my Danegeld?!?!
@@ThomasEhnert The same place your other tax-payments are. Gone.
You'll have to show that you were directly affected in a negative way first.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Nowadays affected negative emotionally is enough for reparations.
fantastic visual summary of a complicated time and space in history. thank you!
Finally, someone who got the history right! 👏👏👏 Well done! Another point to mention is the Brythonic language, which was the original language of what was then called Cymru (the UK) - brythonic was the root of old welsh, Breton, and Cornish languages. Yes, for some people, they may not even know that the Welsh language is much, much older than any form of English or old English language. And yes, I am a proud Welshman 😂❤🏴💪
@@Hanes_Cymru-742h Hardly right (see my other comment), it gets many things wrong.
Wasn't Prydain the name for the island? Kymry would have been a later invention to identify "us" against the perceived incursions of the "other" Saes.
Yes, I'm familiar with Prydain and that story. The word Cymru has evolved with time. Starting as Kumri or Kymri, then the K was replaced with a C, and the i became a y. Also, the word could well have connections to King Omri, an ancient king of Israel. This video will help you to understand more on the true history - th-cam.com/video/Kw8at08k254/w-d-xo.htmlsi=nW2GnJCSAs3LTMyc
@@Hanes_Cymru-742h The switch from K to C was only a result of printers (in England) not having enough K letters with which to print, so C was adopted. Not a natural evolution.
IMO the best looking ladies in the UK. It's always good to thrash you at rugby ! But I'd like to point out that Welsh (German Wealsc - people influenced by Rome) is very influenced by Latin.
@@jcoker423 Best looking men are Welsh too
Is there a bibliography or list of readings for this video? I’m very curious to read in detail about this period.
I've watched loads of similar videos but this is by far the best. So much information in it and beautifully created. Superb.👍🏻
Some inaccuracies here - the Britons never told themselves they were related to Brutus - that was a 9th century invention of the Anglo-Saxons (almost but not quite referring to themselves as English at that point). Romans left Britain 500yrs before this mention
King Alfred the Great even referred to himself as King of the English did he not? Even though he didn't have all the territory then.
I don't think it was an invention of the AS..... more likely the Britons
@@anglewoden Angelcyn..... English kin
@@jcoker423 So why did King Aelfred refer to himself as 'King of the English' or AEnglish as it would of been? English is a term formed by the Angles no? same with England.
@@anglewoden Do you have the wording in Anglo-Saxon..... ? I think it was Angelcyn
This very nicely illustrates my view that history changes every five hundred years: 51BC, 550AD, 1066AD, 1545AD,
Now.
Not oversimplifying at all
Point of accuracy, not all the area north of Hadrian's wall was inhabited by PIcts, in what is now Southern Scotland there were British, not Pictish, tribes, they included the Votadini in the Edinburgh area, the Selgovae, the Novantae and the Damnonii. These tribes were culturally and linguistically - they spoke Brittonic, not Pictish - the same as tribes further south, like the Brigantes, Catuvelauni or the Corieltauvi, who were conquered by Rome.
He didn’t say it was all Picts
Pictish probably was a Britonic language, eg place names like Aberdeen, Abernathy etc, sound familiar ?
@@kevingray5646 It is believed to have been a 'P' Celtic language, but one that was distinct from Common Brittonic, the ancestor of Welsh, Cornish, Breton and Cumbric.
@@kevingray5646Abertawe ( Swansea)
@CymruCelt01 I do not believe that Pictish has been well enough characterised to ascertain its inter-intelligibility with Common Brythonic, or any of its descendants (Old Welsh, Cumbric, Cornish and Breton. The people of Strathclyde would have spoken Cumbric, a cousin of Old Welsh. The only movement of people, that I am aware of, from what is now Scotland to what is now Wales, is the movement of Cunedda and his warband form Manau Gododdin (Lothian) to counter the Irish colonisation of Lleyn and Dyfed at the very end of Roman control in Britain. Many later Welsh dynasties traced their descent from Cunedda.
Your video is absolutely loaded with information. I have been looking for something this concise for quite some time.
I would be careful if I were you, given a lot of it is legend rather than history. You’d do well to cross-check a lot of this information. I don’t buy that “the Britons identified themselves with the Romans” given that “the Britons” weren’t a united bloc at the time (disparate tribes) and that this is blatantly Roman propaganda that’s been disseminated among (some of) the peoples.
Wasn't the island named Pretanike by the greek explorer Pytheas in 4th century BCE? Celtic "pretani", "painted people" (picts), used to name the land "Pretanike", later transformed into "Bretanike" and later "Britain". The name was in use by greek and roman authors way before Brutus.
All correct - Modern name Britain comes from Prydain (Welsh) with mutations occurring to the P and D. Which turns it into Britain. It came into common use with the capture of the English crown by the Tudors in the late 1400s, early 1500s.
Yeah pretty sure the Brutus origin story started with Geoffrey of Monmouth so almost certainly nobody in Roman Britain would be familiar with this story
@iwanmorris293 Wrong, Brutus story was older than Rome, he was an Etruscan (they eventually went north into Switzerland and are mostly called the Bell Beaker people) who descended from the Trojans. Making the Romans and Britons kin folk! Linguistics, archeological finds and place names are all slowly proving the migrations from Anatolia true.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons can you cite the earliest source for the Brutus story? Also on migration theory, since as far as I know any westward migration From Anatolia was likley long before the period of the hypothesised Trojan war.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons The Bell Beaker people's presence in Britain predates the existence of the civilisations of both the Trojans (who were Hittites) and the Etruscans by several millennia. You have got this completely back to front. Put down the Big Boy's Book of Medieval Fantasy and go read an actual history or archaeology book.
Thank you for this video. I enjoyed it so much and maps help me a whole lot!!😊
Brits during both world wars:
"We hate Germans!"
Historians:
"Technically, you guys are Germans too..."
Her Majesty clears her throat in the background.
It's funny how rife Teutophobia was considering how many of us literally have German blood flowing through our veins!
What you had was a German civil war during both world wars, especially when most of the other European royal houses had German blood in them as well. This made the wars all the more tragic because of that, too.
@@douglasschliewen4302 wasnt ww1 literally a family feud
@@dogsbecute Yes, it was precisely that. You had members of the Houses of Hanover, Saxe-Coburg Gotha and Hohenzollern intermarrying with the majority of the other royal houses of Europe, thus creating a circumstance whereby the members of the same royal houses were fighting it out with each other on opposite sides by the time WWI occurred.
great video and all! smooth and easy to consume
The century that began in year 700 was the 8th century, not the 7th ... and according to Wikipedia the Heptarchy had already existed for a couple of hundred years (during the 8th century the 7 kingdoms were consolidated into 4).
Great documentary. Pretty succinct. I need to research into all this more to find out where the info actually comes from. I knew some of it, but my memory of it all is a bit fuzzy. Thank you for setting it out pretty clearly. I really like following along with the map.
Rome: "We'll just leave this island, It'll be fine!"
Britain: "hold my beer"
Loved the simplicity will definitely follow more
The Angles were formed of two main tribes: the obtusians and the acutians
😂 ha clever 👍
It always Americans that make videos about my country's heritage.
I understand that
Cambridge University has stopped studies of Anglo Saxon Settlement etc. Probably because we are now considered to be a multi cultural nation. Ridiculous yes?
Great video!
Thank you.
Best Wishes from Eastern England.
🇺🇸 🇩🇰 🏴 🇳🇴 👍
germanic conquerers were conquered by germanic conquerers themselves LOL!
Then (technically) Celts too (i.e. the Mixed-Celtic Normans, although they were still of mixed Scandinavian stock either way).
What a mess 😅
I know right LOL again😅
@@WY-Commander do tell😂
happened in spain too
Really enjoyed this episode guys.
This English history is so much more interesting and ‘English’ than what happened after 1066. Unfortunately it is very little taught in schools and most UK citizens have very little knowledge of these 600 years or so.
Some of the pronounciatons in this video are really bizarre though. ‘Murshia’ for Mercia for example. Or ceorls pronounced as it looks rather than the correct ‘churls’ ( as in the word churlish).
Mark/Marchlands
The establishment doesn't want to teach Anglo Saxon history because it will inspire a sense of identity and pride in the English as they come through school. They want us to worship the EU and globalist bs
The pronunciation is because the channel uses AI for the voice
It's my biggest gripe with this channel, but they do a pretty good job of everything else so I deal with it
I wouldn't say more interesting, just as interesting. The Norman's and the Plantagenets are amazing to read about and are much more well documented. And I wouldn't say the Saxons were more English either being that they conquered the local inhabitants in the same way the Norman's did. I'd say they are equally interesting. Buy I agree the Saxons should get more interest, though it does seem they are becoming quite popular these days. Kids being taught about the dynasties from the Norman's on is probably likely to the amount of information available and the bigger impact on the eventual culture it created.
ACT OF UNION 1707 DISSOLVED ENGLAND'S SOVEREIGNTY!!! GET A GRIP.
Having read recent books on Anglo Saxons and all the shifting sands of fortune from the 5th Century, it’s great to see it in this format. Just shows how stable in relative terms Roman rule was for the previous 400 years. Every town around me has Angle and Dane names, and my own family is linked to an Angles. My wife surname is Walsh, which is clearly from Welsh meaning Celtic foreigner, all this generally goes unnoticed and hardly mentioned by anyone.
I'm a Hicks. Long ago I read "The Anglo Saxon Chronicle". Since then I bought my own copy, but am getting so old that I don't have time to reread it.
That’s an inaccurate and outdated statement. It’s believed that the Anglo Saxons didn’t massacre the native Britain’s but instead amalgamated. Modern day genetics indicates that the English have 60% Briton Celtic DNA.
Then where have all the Hobbits gone, hey?
"60%" - Can you prove that with a source?
And why do they speak a Germanic language then?
After all it would be quite ironic that they call themselves "English" which is literally derived from "Angles".
I disagree with source:
The video "Origins of the English" by "Fortress of Lugh" (@29:46)
specifies that the DNA of the English originates mostly from Northern Germany and Denmark.
Exactly. The "bloody conquest" theory is rooted in a 19th and early 20th century nationalist mindset. Modern science is assuming an adaptation to germanic culture and language by the brythonic population. As you mentioned, DNA research also supports this theory.
@@martinmalicus3987Look up Y DNA haplogroups R-L21, R-U152, and R-U106. The majority of English men are descended from those three haplogroups.
Another great video! Would love to see this continued on to William the Conqueror and the Wars of the Roses and other periods of British history.
In those days, the term “British” wasn’t in use for the geography. It was fully used solely for the cultural Britons. So using British in the terms of geography is not historically accurate. The word Britain is accurate, but not British when talking about history on the island that occurred to England.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons Have you never read a book or article or comment before that uses anachronisms?
Would you prefer him to say "english history"?@@WalesTheTrueBritons
British history is a good enough term for the general history of the island of Britain. Though it could also be confused for the history of the British Empire, referring to the period after the unification of England and Scotland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
*Can you do a video on the horn of Africa*
*I'd like to see the Rise of cushites in east africa*
*This is a seriously underrated history which includes The Land of punt, the macrobian kingdom, Adulis and rise of Axum, the Ancient Barbaria city states, Zagwe dynasty, Adal, ifat and abyssinia*
If theirs a way to get in contact for this project I'm fuy capable of writing a script for this
Really respect the work that goes into making these videos
It would be hard to do this as in reality Amhara and Tigray etc are really Cushitic people who speak a Semitic language so does he do stories about them?
@@Topagendadolla it could work but just like how he broke down the differences between Saxons and angles we could get a description of the differences in cushite groups and those who evolved due to Semite migration
Same with later galla migrations in the 16/17th century and earlier sidamic peoples and even earlier Eastern cushite groups we know today as somalis
You forgot that British place names are not always pronounced as spelt. For example the "gh" in Bamburgh is not pronounced.
That’s if that name itself is even from “British” Welsh to begin with.
Lots of place names are just local pronunciations, and not necessarily correct!
@DerekLangdon that would mean they are correct.
@ip2always-wins I've always pronounced it the same ways as Middlesbrough, with more of an uh sound at the end.
@@DerekLangdon I'm pretty sure that local dialects are correct.
A highly frustrating and inaccurate account. The invasion narrative has for decades been considered inaccurate and is not well supported by archaeological and genetic evidence. Certainly, there was no genocide of the Britons in England. Most who consider themselves ethnically English today have mostly British (i.e. Briton) genes. There was a cultural and linguistic leap to the newly-arrived Germanic culture. The fact that some of the "English" kings and kingdoms have names of British origin also suggests that it wasn't anything like as black and white as this video makes out.
The narrative of the superiority of the English over the natives is a largely Victorian invention - a result of imperialistic thinking - and which, unfortunately, still lingers in the minds of many today. And our concept of nationhood simply isn't transferable to this period. Neighbouring English and British kingdoms were as like to war on their own "kin" as against each other.
If true, that’s still sad in a way. English people today, despite being ethnically British, do not speak the British language or identify themselves as such in the true meaning of the world. Gotto admire the Welsh for their sheer determination not to let these things disappear.
To be fair, the idea of gentler integration is out now and the violent takeover is back in. Gildas predates the Victorian’s romance and was clear the Germanic invaders wrought hell onto the Britons.
No it’s been shown that the majority of the English are Germanic. Interestingly there is evidence that there was no Celtic migration of the British isles and that it happened by diffusion.
No that is flat out wrong. The majority of the English people are Germanic. I don’t know where people keep hearing that the English are mostly Celts because they’re not. They even look like they’re Germanic brothers on the continent.
The areas of Denmark and Germany that the Anglo-Saxons migrated from were depopulated because of the amount of people leaving for Britain. This is what led to the Danes settling in Jutland. Not only that but there is basically no Celtic influence on the English language. If it was a case of Britons adopting English culture then you’d expect there to be tons of Brythonic loan words in English and there’s not.
Now it definitely wasn’t a genocide going on but the Anglo-Saxons were definitely displacing the Britons in large numbers and very quickly. Within a century or two the majority of the population of what would become England was culturally and linguistically Germanic. If the Britons weren’t being displaced that would have taken much much longer.
Now the farther west you go in England the higher amount of Celtic admixture there is but they’re still majority Germanic. Not to mention after this there was two more Germanic invasions which solidified England even more as genetically Germanic
Very well done. I only wish my history lessons had been like this.
Fantastic video!
Great video and history.
There’s no genetic evidence for the mass extermination of the Britons and Anglo Saxon DNA only forms up to 40% of modern British DNA. As with most invasions, the existing population is not wiped out but serves the new landowners.
That is because all those of Anglo Saxon lineage went to America.
@@Dan-vi5jp I'm from Angle lineage and I didn't go to America or my family, lol. Some did yes but not all.
@anglewoden I was just joking, man.
@@Dan-vi5jp How was I supposed to know? When I joke I end it with 'lol' to give a clue.
Exactly! Most of the time when places get conquered its a lot closer to the idea of “under new management” rather than a total replacement. The people in charge at the top change, but the majority of the commoners are the same, and there’s also often a large amount of intermixing.
I've read the Northmen who ventured to the British Isle were just called Northmen when they came for peaceful reasons, but the Northmen who came for dirty deeds were called Vikings, which was the word for pirate.
They would also call them Danes most of the time, Northman has a broader meaning.
The Majority of Scottish people are NOT descended from Scoti
No, they are Britons, most closely related to the modern day Welsh.
The Scottish most descended from the Picts.
Scotland was formed in the 9th century after the Pictish Kingdom merged with Dal Riata.
@@alfredpetrie7920 Then, the majority of the Scots are the descendants of the Picts who were called Caledonians by the Romans.
Really entertaining and insightful.
“He invaded Cumbria” as he invades Lancashire on the map.
GREAT VIDEO GUYS!
English people are Germano-Celtic. The Anglo-Saxons, Britons/Gaulish, Irish, and Norse blood = English ethnicity.
English people are insular germanic and that it all. Not Briton, not Gaulish, not Irish.
You are probably right
No, Norse blood is the Blood of Kvasir, his blood was brewed in the Mead of Poetry
Outstanding presentation.
The big question is... Why was the previous civilisation in Britain wiped out?
I think cause of roman defenses the Briton society was quite fragile and lacked its own protection, it was also not United and Briton tribes would go to war with one another and side with the germanic tribes when convenient. Also they do still exist, they're called the Welsh and cornish.
how long does it take you to make one video? Do you work alone or with a team?
Can you make a video about 100 years war!
Sure, but we need 1 month
Fascinating vid, nice content!
It's absolute made ups nonsense.
A commercial break every 4 minutes is to much not watching this anymore
Translation "I'm getting a free video that looks months to prepare and don't give a sh1t about all that work and I can't sit through an ad because I'm also too cheap to pay for youtube premium"
Why are the names of the men in the separate pictures in cyril letters?
This is a great summary of what can be a confusing time period.
Amazing and great story. Many thanks!!
Just goes to show that just about everyone lives on conquered land
What's the source of your information? There is so much inaccurate information!
Who cares? Nice fairytale
This could only be written by an american who used wiki for evidence. Most of this is highly inaccurate. Firstly 'Rome' did not conquer the UK solely by force of arms, it used trade with its client kingdoms. Secondly areas of England were never under their control e.g.Cornwall, Devon, parts of Wales, all of Ireland and, as said, northern parts. Thirdly, what 'new political system' did 'conquerors bring? Rome, from Augustus onwards for several generations, was de facto a monarchy as were european groups. There's little difference between a tribal warlord and a king - just semantics. But really and lastly 'along with a new religion - Christianity' - no they didn't. Christianity spread through Rome in the 1st and 2nd century spreading everywhere in Europe. It had already been established in Britain well before european groups moved over and as Scandinavians attacked and then settled it spread to them.
'The confrontation, which went down in history as the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, began.' is just plain wrong. It was a gradual process over a thousand years and many, like the Irish, were only partly involved.
It was not an invasion either, they were settlers. And unless I am wrong there are no recorded battle-fields or evidence of battles between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, they had a wary mutual respect and plenty of land and distance between them along with as you'd expect, trade.
Not to mention the Vikings.
Either you didn't watch the video or your English comprehension is terrible. Video talks quite a bit about how the Anglo Saxons were Pagan and, people like Penda, resisted conversion to Christianity.
And the exterminations were not usual. You don’t kill off the peasants who will work the land under you. Brythonic and Neolithic genes remain common in England. Essentially the ‘Welsh’ remained in England and took on English culture.
Bitter, judgemental, you assume things about everyone, you refuse to capitalize *America* but capitalize "England" (which has 1/5 the population and 1/10th the economic output)... How sad is your life, bro? 😄
This channel has bright future
Love your content! Thanks For this! Alfred the Great please ❤❤❤❤
Shame photography wasn't around during the Anglo Saxon conquests. But we do have the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, Kingdom Of Germania and the works of venerable Saxon Monk Bede.
Weren't those pictures of the Kings real?
Briton was not invaded by Anglo Saxons. Parts of present day England were. Their presence is barely evidenced in Wales or Scotland.
What...? "Briton"
How tediously Juvenile of you.
Not to mention pedantic.
The guy who put this together sounds like some young American chap, whoever he is he's done a spectacular job here, although I question his dates, not so much the dates as his pin point accuracy.
But you need to forget the 19th, 20th centuary concept of the nation state.
Most were invited by the celtics to help fight other Celtics
It's a miracle there's still people left after several hundred years of war.
Anglo Saxons wasn't a thing until circa the 10th century.
Before that there were still distinct groups that existed, like the Northumbrians, the Mercians, and Cumbrians, yes they had similar origins but it would be disingenuous to simply call them Anglo-Saxons
Good grief. Did anyone in antiquity do anything other than invading each other? Seems like they could have used a hobby.
By definition the Cornish did not adopt Anglo Saxon culture, as your map seems to suggest, if so the Cornish language would not survived into modern times.
Not bad. I lasted 51 seconds until you stated Britain is named after someone from Italy. Total nonsense.
He was from Etruria, and he was the descendant of Aaneaus of Troy. He indeed came to Britain and that’s who the Britons (Welsh) are. They were Kinfolk of the Romans.
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsThis is unsubstantiated nonsense unless you quote a written.source
He didn’t state that it was true. He said that this was an origin legend for the British people.
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsWelsh are "Celts" aka descendants of Japheths eldest son Gomer in the Bible the first people to settle Europe post global flood the first Europeans ...hence the Welsh language was called Gomeraeg in old Welsh
You sound very upset by this 😭
Great maps. Well done.
@5:35 "Bamburg" ooh so close, its Bam-ber-ruh
18:28 "Edinburg" - so close, it's Edin-bruh or Edin-buh-ruh 😅
Bebbanburg?
@@elsmallodestiny is all
What about Hamburg
@@andreasstuck3484 ask a German
One should also go back to 129 BC when the Kimber, Teuton and Ambroni Tribes left Jutland due to several years of crop failures caused by excessive rains (Roman Warm Period). They went south towards the present Balkans, but were stopped by a Roman General telling them to go to Iberia, being empty.
The tribes listened to him, and staying north of the Alps, eventualy reached present day Provence, a Greek colony at the time. They remained there for some time, when the Kimber tribe went to Iberia and skirting south of the Pyrenees went westwards, but the area was not empty, thus returned to where the cousin tribes remained. After some succesful clashes with Roman Legions, the Teutons went north-west and reached Enland, the Ambroni remained in present day France, while the Kimber entered Italy via the Brenner Pass. The Romans fought them at Vercelli, and the survivors sought shelter in the mountains north of Verona and of Vicenza. I have no Italian DNA, but can trace my Kimber, Greek and Iberian roots.
Why the Cyrillic spellings at 19:20 and 19:37?
Probably the original video was in Ukrainian and they forgot to translate those parts
When my colonist Romans entered Britain, they had no knowledge of math, they had square wheels.
Arthur most definitely existed, and there were two. The first who fought under the British-Romano Emperor Macsen Wledig (Magnus Maximus) and the second being Arthwys so Meurig of Glamorgan and Gwent. We have Genealogies that outline several centuries worth of Kings in Wales who all were related to these Arthurs. Even later English kings used their connection to Wales in order to justify invading and ruling Wales. Btw, those fighting under Macsen were the ones who founded France as a nation, and their first king was Clovis. As for the Bretons, they were already there by the time the Anglo Saxons turn up in Britain. With Conan being their first king.
If there were two, then Arthur didn’t exist. His legend is just drawn from that existed (in the best case scenario)
@sebe2255 semantics, the point is there were two and academics have purposefully put the events that occurred to both into one character. In order to throw off people who go looking, as he couldn’t have fought both Saxons and Romans. Could if the man was an amalgamation of two.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons No it is not semantics, “Arthur” literally didn’t exist. Although his legend may have been inspired by various figures that did. It wasn’t academics that merged anything either, it was medieval people telling stories. Stories that were centuries later picked up by Normans and French nobles who gave them there own spin and created new stories.
King Arthur was Cornish!! The Welsh love usurping all aspects of Brittonic history and culture! Even early texts in the language of Cornwall,(Kernowick) are held in Wales!! Give what belongs to the Cornish, back to the Cornish now!!
@sebe2255 it looks like u left out the crucial words “didn’t” and “wasn’t” in your comment, making it seem like you’re saying the opposite of what u actually seem to mean!
Very educational.
I found history boring at school but this video I found very informative; good graphics; excellent commentary, and very descriptive £
Whatever you do, don’t trust the “history” given here. It’s rubbish.
Dumnonia looks more Devonish than Cornwallish, no?
Enjoyable well made content but I have to correct you on your pronunciation of Bamburgh. As a native of the North East of England i can confirm It's not pronounced as Bam-Berg but Bam-Borra the same as Edinburgh is spoken
The story of Cerdic and Cynric is probably not of germanic origin, both names suggest a brythonic origin: Coroticus and Cunorix. Most likely they were local british petty chieftains who hired mercenaries of saxon origin to defend them from british and pictish raiders. The best way to pay those guys was giving them land and marrying their daughters. So the origins of Wessex is most likely brythonic. Supposedely Cerdic and Cynric slew a certain Natanleod, a british warlord, and took his lands. But if Cerdic was a british chieftain, most likely he was using saxon mercenaries to overthrow Natanleod's overlordship and expand his own lands.
Indeed, I’ve often found it strange why so many early “Saxon” kings all bore British names. And could never find anyone who was willing to help understand why? They would just make blanket statements like, nah, they are just similar and it’s coincidental.
Indeed, they're very similar to the Welsh "Ceredig" and "Cynwrig". These could be descriptive titles rather than names, in that Ceredig derives from "generous" and/or "beloved", and Cynwrig meant something like "first/chief man".
@@WalesTheTrueBritons
You could argue that the first generation of many anglian and saxon tribal kingdoms were predominantly british, others were indeed germanic. But the British ones raised princes who most likely spoke both languages, but who they were culturally speaking is much more complicated.
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsIt is not necessarily many English kings, as this was mainly limited to Wessex. Kent, Sussex, Mercia and Anglia all had kings with very much Germanic names
But yes it could mean that at least the founders of the house or kingdom of Wessex were Britons. The Britonic names fade out quite early on even in Wessex, so it implies at least an assimilation into the Saxons if the above theory is true
True. But if you want to have kids that speak language A then marry a woman speaking language A. Children will speak the language of the Mother. So there must have been a large influx of AS women into today's England.
A MAJOR point missing entirely, is/was that the Land is beautiful, fertile, mild and temperate. The landscape is gentle and green.
“Welsh” does NOT mean ‘foreign’ generically, rather it’s a specific ethnonym (exonym) meaning “Celtic” or better “Gaul” after the Germanic equivalent *walhaz to the Gaulish tribe the Romans referred to as the “Volcae”. After the continental Celtic peoples were romanised, the more southern Germanic speakers used “Welsch” to refer to Romance speakers they were in contact with. In Switzerland “Welsch” refers to the French speaking Swiss, in Austria it’s Italians or Friulians or Ladin speakers. When the Anglo-Saxons settled in Britain they called the inhabitants “(partially) romanised Celts/Gauls”. Yes, they were “other” than themselves, but they weren’t generic “foreigners”. “Cymro” < *kom-brogios means “fellow countryman”.
Exactly right, and Walnut/Walnuss is from German 'Welsh' nut was it was introduced to the Gaulish people by Rome. The poem and then Lied 'Watch on the Rhine' referred to the 'Welsh'. But they changed it, along with not singing the first verse of D-Land, D-Land Uber Alles !
But were the Britons Gelts/Gauls, I thought only the Belgae in the SE, the rest were IndoEuropean speakers, influenced by th Celtic culture ?
But in all these other cases the term refers to Romance languages speakers. Welsh is definitely the exception because it refers to Celtic language speakers
@@sebe2255 It's a Victorian mistake. The Welsh/Scots/Irish/Cornish/Breton do not speak a Celtic language. It's indo European and related to Celtic. But the Celts were an IndoEuropean culture than only made it to the SE of Britain (Kent) with teh invasion of the Belgae. Celtic/British are also more closely related to Latin than German.
@@jcoker423 What are you talking about. Welsh, Gaelic and Irish are Celtic languages
@@sebe2255 No they are Indo European languages. Celtic was a specific culture in Middle Europe within the IE languages. The only 'Celts' that got to the British Isles were the Belgae that settled in SE England. The ancestors of todays Irish/Welsh/Scots/Cornish etc were not Celts.
Have a read up on it!
I notice for the flag of the Hwicce tribe he used a white horse on green field. I always thought the Hwicce banner was a dark yellow cross on black field. Dose anyone one have any idea on this?
So many amateur mistakes that you only have less than half a story.
You only have one sentence. Boo sir, boo to you.
Great video, thanks
Why are some of the kings' names in Cyrillic? That alphabet was never used by Germanic tribes and didn't in fact exist at the time ...
It's not Cyrillic it's Latin with accents for long and short vowels
@@jcoker423 I speak a language where we use accents over (Latin) vowels to signal their length so I know all about those (my last name is properly spelled "Hákonarson"). The Cyrillic letters I am referring to appear only in the images of saints - take a look at 19:38 for example - it reads Svjatii Sigebert in CYRILLIC characters.
@@LeifurHakonarson Sorry, I missed that. As you say Cyrillic was only devised by Cyril & Methodius for the Slavs, not Anglos or Scandics.
As it's a Scandic name, maybe it was one of the Russ ?
@@jcoker423 Cyrillic Script was invented by the Russian monk Cyril - though it borrowed heavily from the Greek alphabet. It was never used by any Germanic tribes (let alone Nordic ones) as far as I know - it is Slavic in origin. No doubt these saints were later glorified by the Greek-Orthodox Church - but that didn't happen till much later.
@@jcoker423 From Wikipedia re Cyrillic Script - Earliest variants exist circa 893-940
So most people here came over on a boat across the channel? 😂
I didn't.
I was in Africa, the whole time.
Hey History Mapped Out, for the next video can you make about the Viking invasions on England that caused the unification of England? And later, can you make the Norman conquest and aftermath? A series about the history of England.
14:37 you have ireland indicated as scots and they moved from Ireland to GB, its was Gaelic Irish who did this bringing What became scots gaelic language to Scotland. So I question how much of the rest of the video is accurate now!?
Very little
No academic sources quoted
@18:30 "Edinberg" ooh so close, its Edin-bur-ruh
Genuinely wondering how much to trust a video about British history by someone that doesn't know how to pronounce the name of the capital of Scotland.
@@gordon1545 I know, right?
that's the Americans & their bastardisation of the English Language
when did the migrations of these peoples slow down or stop
Good job showing the old welsh names like 'Hen Ogledd'. Just on that, the "dd" in welsh is almost like the "th" sound in English and welsh. So Hen Ogledd is not Ogled but more Ogleth if that makes sense. But don't worry, I understand that only the welsh can say this sounds accurately 😅👍
@@Hanes_Cymru-742h the double "d" in Welsh is merely a soft "th" in English, as in "with" but not as in "thanks", i.e. it is voiced but not aspirated. And anyone can easily make this sound - it is not limited to Welsh speakers. Such a claim is ridiculous.
@stephenjones1380 Okay, calm down, dear 🤣 you should not be divided against a fellow Welshman. Tut tut 🙄
The very name "Angle" comes from the configuration of the area that tribe inhabited, which included the estuary of the Elbe river. The shoreline at that point takes a more or less 90° angle in direction. The Angles also held territory along the coast on the west side of the left bank of the Elbe river, though this is not shown on maps. This has been passed down to me through my Angle and Saxon blood.
There is only one document, written hundreds of years later which suggests Ambrosius Aurelianus even existed. Sorry there's a solid chance King Arthur has no basis in reality
One Document? The Harlean genealogies I presume you are talking about? There is definitely enough evidence to suggest he, or should I say they existed. The first indeed being Ambrosius, he who fought the Romans in Europe under Macsen Wledig. The One who fought the Anglo Saxons was Arthwys Ap Meurig of Glamorgan and Gwent. Direct descendant of the first. There is considerably more evidence for the second one, as we have very detailed recordings of both his son Morgan (Morcant) and his Father Muerig (Maurice).
The best book I know developing the "Real Arthur" side is The Age Of Arthur by John Morris. It's a massive book and quite an education, even if you wind up disagreeing with his thesis.
Blood of Avalon, King Arthur Conspiracy, there is only a few Arthurian books which focus on the historical origins and records from Wales.
*Gildas* mentions him by name! the guy was already born when the battle of Badon took place. definitely not 'hundreds of years later'.
@embreis2257 as does bede in the Brut of England - calling him King of Glamorgan and Gwent.
According to old historical sources, the original Saxons were ancient Macedonians from Alexander's Macedonian army who sailed from Asia after his death and established Saxony at the current federal German State Lower Saxony, also known as old Saxony. According to the same source the Macedonians at the same time established the settlements of Frisia in today's Holland, and Brunswick, which today is a city province in Lower Saxony.
Europeon bloodlines are all mixed in generations down its not possible to distangle them
Well, true.
The story of boudica should have been included as pre knowledge and also the union of the anglo saxen kingdoms
Cymru (Pyrdain ~Britain), the real British people.
Not Angles Saxony, Africans or Pakistani
That's so wild seeing the origins of names I see each and everyday living in Southampton.
So why was Wessex Old English so similar to Frisian?
Because both derived from a common ancestor, called "North Sea Germanic" or Ingaevonic.
@@urseliusurgel4365 Old English was a mix of Angle, Saxon and other languages in Frisia I suspect before the invasion.
@@anglewoden They were all dialects of the same language, North Sea Germanic.
The Romans did not divide Britain at Hadrian’s Wall, that wall was a fall back garrison position, they always inhabited southern Scotland to just north of Glasgow, Stirling and Edinburgh. Antonine built his wall along this line.
What a mess.
Stay focus
On none of your maps can I see the Channel Islands. As if they werent there. Well, they became really important a bit later.
I love being English.
No better race of people on earth 😊
Yep, same here. The best people, the best culture, the best country in the world....by a country mile 😊 🏴🇬🇧
Yes, it's all that German blood...😂
@@floydblandston108 Nah...there's the germans....and then theres the English 🏴
@@troomoozic3858 Many English Anglo-Saxons fled England after the Norman Conquest to take refuge in France, mainly in Brittany, Dordogne and the Bordeaux region. France has always generously welcomed political asylum seekers.
Their many descendants still live there but it is no longer possible to identify them among the French because these refugees have adopted over time the language and family names of their new country.
The new English immigrants who settle today in these French regions (over 150 000) are the descendants of the Normans who conquered England, mixed over time with the Ango-Saxons who stayed put and remained there as serfs or slaves of the new Norman lords. I do not see any other plausible explanation for the disappearance of the Anglo-Saxons in England. The new population of England a century after the conquest was as different from the former Anglo-Saxon society as the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural England of today is from the predominantly white and English-speaking population of 1925. With all due respect, the English of today are a veritable ethnic minestrone, if I may say so. It is truly fortunate in a way to have such a rich genetic heritage, because hybrid populations are proven to be more resistant to various epidemics than endogamous groups that are generally more vulnerable to new diseases.
As it has been related to me, the reasons that the Romans invaded what is now England was that the Roman Emperor, Claudius heard that the Island was awash with pearls, a highly prized item then and there. That is also one of the reasons that the Romans tried to move in on what is now Yamen, not only because of the Frankincense and Myrrh but also because of the peals that might be had there. The Romans were well known for stealing anything and everything that wasn't nailed down. Over and above the stealing of intellectual property in the form of slaves.
And they keep complaining about immigrants.
I find it interesting that freedom of movement was pretty much the norm for most of the world’s history. It’s only empires like Rome, Han, etc. with their Hadrian and Chinese walls that insisted on tying people to a land.
Even at the height of the Hundred Years’ War there wasn’t any law prohibiting travel, the closest I can think of would be off in the HRE which usually had customs for entering smaller principalities with a large retinue.
Yeah, non-European migrants
@Angelcynn_2001 Your English Parliament allows the immigration of all manor of people into Cymru.
I dont want English people moving here and eroding our culture, let alone all of these other peoples.
Are you suggesting that because our land was invaded constantly for a thousand years that we should let the invasions continue? It's interesting how many foreigners think we don't have the right to our own land. It has nothing to do with you.
@@SaltyGammon567 , how many english folk live in foreign countries and then complain about it not being england