The Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2022
- Britain is a diverse island inhabited by many different groups and cultures. In this video, we will talk about the settlement of the most important single group in British history - The Anglo-Saxons.
Check out the first part at: • Who were the Anglo-Sax...
And the third part at: • The Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy
Sound provided by Andreas Waldetoft: "The Feast"
Sources:
Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People: books.google.pt/books?id=qaKF...
Anglo Saxon Hides and Tribal Hidage: www.jstor.org/stable/3678924
archaeology.co.uk/articles/fe...
www.cambridge.org/core/books/...
www.buildinghistory.org/brist...
regia.org/research/misc/earne...
Pictures:
Portable Antiquities Scheme, Acton hoard 1: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
Twitter: / knowhistoryyt
Patreon: / knowhistoryyt
Discord: discordapp.com/invite/CmyatuF
#Medieval_History #Britain #Anglo_Saxons
Crusader Kings III Copyright: 2020 Paradox Interactive AB. www.paradoxplaza.com
Total War: Atilla www.totalwar.com/
Buy the game here: geni.us/kiR7Nho
I really enjoyed the video. One amusing idea of this is that at any point in history that someone turned up to the British isles and found the climate "splendid".
Thank you! ahah when your homeland can't even sustain your existance ig that england is heaven, it's all a mater of prespective ahah Gladly we live in a era where almost everyone can make fun of the UK's climate!
I can imagine it not seeming so terrible if you're from northern Germany or Denmark: it's how Romans could bear the place that baffles me! No wonder they recruited troops from Germany!
@n1uk when you’re Canadian I guess UK weather seems acceptable….
England has a really mild climate, fairly reliable seasons and very low chances for natural disasters to annihilate a city. So it's a pretty nice place to have your kingdom
@@lost6516 thats more like it!
East anglia (the first location for Anglo-Saxon settlement) could not have been better for them. It’s flat, temperate, tons of great farmland and many small rivers to place your towns and villages.
Plus all those extra digits make it somewhat difficult to wield a weapon in defence.
@@Basslessonsuk lmfao
Tyneside was the first English settlement in Britain. Jutes were given land there for beating back the Picts.
@@markhirstwood4190 well you know first place of significance in history.
@@markhirstwood4190 Source? I'm from Newcastle and have never heard this ... not saying you're wrong, but just interested. R (Australia)
As a Dane - we can’t visit Britain without stumbling over words, sites and villages/cities that makes SO much meaning in danish…
Very nice upload.
England's real name is Denmark the Great
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j Or ‘Saexland’ due to the fact that the most prominent tribe of all was the Saxons!
😂
@@phoenixrose1192 True they and the Vikings
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j Well the Vikings lost to the Saxons when England became unified as one. Beforehand the land that would become England consisted of separate, often warring kingdoms.
@@phoenixrose1192 No, the Vikings won in the end, led by William the Conqueror, but the ruler of England was his uncle
great video, the history of the british isles is very interesting and i really enjoy this series. i also like the parts where you explain where certain words might originate from.
can't wait for the next one
I love linguistics, so it's always a nice adition to me! :D Thank you!
It's not the history of the British "Isles". Its the history of _one_ of them. The big boring germanic one on the right.
I wouldn't say that around 450 most of Britain was under germanic control. I suppose that the anglo-saxons would, mostly, live at the edge of the island: Kent was basically in the coast, the saxons confined themselves around coasts and rivers, the angles in East Anglia were also, in the eastern coasts, and the angles of Bernicia and Deire began their own kingdoms very late, at the middle of the 6th century.
Thank you for this comment! It's always great to hear insightful comments from viewers into our historical research and accuracy, so thanks!
At 7:40 we specifically mention that it was England, not the whole of Britain that was mostly under control of Anglo Saxons by 450. Still, I agree, "mostly" is a problematic term here, the Anglo Saxon settlements were patchworky, often around and within areas not under their entire control, and the areas definatively under the dominionship of a particular Anglo Saxon chief / community is rather difficult to place. Borders weren't nice lines drawn on the map after all.
That being said, we know that in many regions of England, there were firmly established Anglo Saxon Kingdoms exersizing control and dominionship over vast lands as early as the early 450s, Kent being attributed to around 450, with both a Jutish Kingdom in the East, and a possibly Saxon kingdom in the West. In addition, we know that many areas not settled by the Anglo Saxons were tributary to nearby Saxon communities. We know that by the start of the 500s, around 1 million Anglo Saxons lived in these lands, rivalling the Romano-Briton population given their exodus, enslavement or outright genocide, or simple reduction to puppets. Once again, "most" is problematic, as we evidently do not have enough solid reliable records to indicate just which lands were actually controlled by who, such is the problem with researching early saxon England.
450 as a date however is safe to say, too early to say "most" of England being under Anglo Saxon control, I do admit this.
Correct: it took a century or two to complete the expansion of settlement, and a Celtic population element persisted even in the more strongly Saxonised southeast, so it was a much more gradual process.
@@calum5975 I'd say it's really a small part of England that's under Anglo-Saxon control in the 450s, effectively only Kent, and possibly not even all of that: Sussex and Wessex only come later in the 5th century, the other kingdoms in the 6th.
Your estimate for the 6th-century Anglo-Saxon population looks decidedly excessive: I'd be surprised if there were many more of all communities in the whole of England, at least by 600 and probably long after. What by then constitutes an Anglo-Saxon is also problematic by the end of the period after several generations of mixing in the areas of settlement.
Romano-British "exodus, enslavement, genocide or reduction to puppets" is an unduly pessimistic take: the latest evidence from just the more Saxonised eastern and coastal southern parts (a couple of months after your upload, so it wasn't clear then) suggests that the two groups often co-existed and even intermingled, with Anglo-Saxons evidently in charge in the regions they held, but with little evidence for native wipeout, enslavement or even the harshly disciminatory "apartheid" sometimes suggested as the cause of eventual linguistic Germanisation.
@@davepx1
Sure. Now i'm not saying that there were no germanic settlers in Brittain. The Duke of the Saxon Shore is the best evidence of a germanic warrior elite present in the island.
That been said, the germanic expansion began to happen sometime after the romans left the island for good. Kent is the earliest anglo-saxon kingdom, possibly because the jutish warlords over there no longer were protecting the coast, since there was no reason to keep the job. They became the paymasters to any migrants from the continent: saxons, frisians, franks. We don't know when the kingdom was established, 450 is just one way to set a proper date, but we have no idea when was created or even acknowledge as a kingdom by the neighboring british kingdoms, who, surely, did not appreciated the existence of this "barbarian" state.
What about Sussex, Middlesex and Essex as kingdoms? We have no idea. Possibly between 450 to 500, but there are no records speaking of a germanic elite taking control of these regions during those dates. Maybe because the migrants never established a proper kingdom, instead they were invited by british chieftains as mercenaries and, after a generation, or two, the britons of these lands adopted a germanic culture and traditions.
Wessex (aka the Gewisse) first king, Cerdic, was probably a briton. His name is of celtic origin, not germanic. So, there the britons accepted their newcomers as friends. Perhaps Caratacos (Cerdic's true name) married a germanic woman, and gained independence after 500 AD.
So the early story of the britons and anglo-saxons is: there is war, surely, no doubt; but also adaptation in some ocassions.
@@mercianthane2503 There were certainly lots of migrants from the 5th century onward, and they seem to have been more numerous, to have arrived over a longer period and to have been drawn from a wider Continental area than was previously thought. I think though that all of the later movements to the west and north were independent of the situation in Kent: there seems to be no "joined-up" character to the initial settlements, and kingdoms were forming into the late 6th century (and fighting among themselves shortly afterward).
Sussex and Wessex originate in the half-century you mention, Essex later: Middlesex is altogether more obscure and may never have been a kingdom in its own right though it presumably came under Saxon overlordship in the same period. The puzzle of Cerdic (along with Celtic place-name survivals, notably in Wessex) is a reminder that it wasn't just displacement and subjection. That shouldn't surprise us: few "conquests" are really so clear-cut as the Victorians liked to imagine.
Amazing work. This series is starting to cure an inch I’ve had for ancient Anglo-Saxon settlers for awhile now.
Migration is a very great risk as you said, just look at what happened to the Greenland Vikings.
And the Vikings were pretty good at migration for the most part anyway.
Excellent video as always my friend!
Thank you! And exactly! Many tribes tried to migrate we only know the tales of the ones who survived, like it's usually said "history is written by the victors". I really enjoy the viking american colonization, the fact that they surviving so long in Greenland is in itself surprising! There's a great episode about them on the Fall of Civilization's TH-cam channel!
What happened to Greenland vikings,
@@sohailpathan314
No one knows exactly but when they migrated to Greenland they died out completely after a few generations.
Fall of civilizations has an excellent video about them and what happened to them.
@@MarcusAgrippa390 cool..yoo where to learn about vikings history?
Look at modern day Europa for why (((certain))) migration is a very bad idea
Amazing video, can't wait for the next episode in this series!
Thank you! Hopefully soon!
Nice, got one more epsiode of Mike DUncans The History Of Rome to go (180), this is a nice addition to tha. I am from the UK, left at 24 in 1981, and live in Sydney Australia. Have done a lot around King Arthur onwards but this transition from Roman times to Saxon time has always been a bit of a mystery for me and my mates. Thanks for sheding some valuable light on that.
Other sources indicate that the Roman style society and culture did not disappear, but continued for several more decades.
judeo-christian genocide
The Anglo-Saxons: Those in Wales and Scotland, help us, my friend, to kill them, and Odin and the Dragon will love you
We still have much Roman style today.
Much of the anglo saxon architecture its based in the Britano-Roman base
Just stumbled across this. Great video. Thanks.
Fantastic videos. Looking forward to the same treatment for the Vikings and hopefully the Irish too! 🤞
Thank you!! I do wish to make a couple viking videos in a distant future hehe
I like how you use paradox games like CK3 or Imperator Rome for the images
yeah its literally the best way to present history
Very interesting. Thank you!
Outstanding - thank you
The pleasure is mine! :D I am glad you enjoyed!
great video as always
Excellent. Well explained. Thank you. The main point here being around this time nothing was recorded so we'll never ever really know what the real geo-political outcome was. Ahh, ignorance is bliss!
It is interesting how similar frisians, angles, saxons and jutes during early germanic migration to the british isles took place, actually were to the danes, geats and norweigian norse who would assume the role of raiders and invaders (vikings). It is simply a continuum.
The explanation of the roman feoderati makes a very interesting argument for also the continuum of anglo-saxon settlement in britiab on to viking settlement and ultimatly the christianization of north Europe to stop the raids of the barbarians.
mistake made here too.
they were not frisians, angles AND saxons, but ONLY anglo-saxons, as for the real SAXON had nothing to do with them, they are not even related in a direct line !
Germanic peoples have been pillaging and plundering the world since they first appeared on the historical record as Visigoths sacking Rome through to Vikings sacking Europe, from Prussia to the Third Reich, from Anglo-Saxons to the British Empire, from Jim Crow to Apartheid - the Germanic peoples have been history's barbarians and nothing has changed.
@Eysenbeiss You’re new to this subject? Or you’re just making things up?
Christianisation is the worst thing that happened to the Germanic peoples.
It was far easier to fight the Roman legions, than to fight Christianity and the armies of Karl and the Franks.
Hey man great video! i was wondering if you could tell me how you were able to use the Crusader Kings 3 map for your videos? like how did you get the blank map with the beautiful ocean? :)
Hello! Thank you so much! I used console comands on the launch version of CK3 and an xbox controller to get the smooth camera movement, as for the maps i posted a tutorial and download link on the ck3 subreddit but i can help you with it if you join my discord server and DM me there!
Muito bom! Continua com os vídeos! 🇨🇻
Obrigado!!
CV é nois
This channel deserves more views
Thank you! I can only pray to the algorithm :')
hey, how did you get the nice visuals from CK3? I might be VERY INTERESTED IN THAT
Please do one the Celts in the British Isles, including their arrival and the society they developed, up until the period of Roman Britannia
England was founded in 449 CE by Jutes led by Hengist. They settled at three points: Tyneside, Kent and Hampshire, controlling the land and the shipping lanes. Many Angles joined in and Frisians and Saxons came later. Some Norwegians were settling in the north of England in the 500s too but they got called Angles once they'd come over. Jutes were hired to come put down intra-Celtic problems. Eventually payment issues changed the deal and they took over. From 1,700 BCE on, Germanic tribes built up their power in Scandinavia and by the 400s the Jutes were known to be the most powerful, which is why Vortigern and the Britons hired them.
England was founded in 927 AD
I love youre channel i wanna thank you i learned so much 🤗
Thank you! I hope you learn even more from the next releases! :D
The Anglo-Saxons basically carried out ethnic cleansing because they brought their own womenfolk with them. Vikings however came mostly as males only so bred with local women without displacing all existing genes.
"The Anglo-Saxons basically carried out ethnic cleansing because they brought their own womenfolk with them" doesn't even begin to make sense and is contradicted by the DNA evidence anyway, natives and newcomers each contributing substantially to today's genetic mix.
Only they didn't. Recent studies have show the DNA of the typical English person (not counting recent immigrants) is only on average about 25% Germanic. They are very closely related to the rest of the people of Britain and Ireland.
I don’t recall Saxon settlements in clydeside, once again confusing Britain with England. Britain was Celtic before they came and remained so for many years speaking Celtic tongues
Superb.
Now 64, wish I had this stuff as part of my history and English curriculum back in my English school. Great detail.
Now living on an island continent - 🇦🇺🦘👍
Are the clips from CKIII modded?
Great video thanks.
Awesome video about the Anglo-Saxons migration!
Thank you!
@@KnowHistory You do make good content!
@@theculturedjinni I try my best! I am glad you enjoyed it :D
Greetings from Westfalia....Westsaxon.......old home
Finally!
Somebody called the right place the home of the Saxons.
I have been pushing that for years.
Also, that there were no Anglo-Saxons.
A misnomer.
I'd say it's a far more gradual and nuanced affair than the video suggests (though further evidence for that only came along a few weeks after the upload). Even in the south and east the pre-Saxon element wasn't eliminated from the population, and of course it remained a good deal stronger in other parts even after they came under Anglo-Saxon overlordship. And far from happening in a single wave, the arrival of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians and later "Franks" (the last already by then combining Germanic and Romano-Celtic ancestry) seems to have taken place over centuries, with most probably arriving after 500 and not even extending their sway over most of the future England until around the third quarter of the 6th century.
Nor should we assume it's all about conquest and subjugation: there seems strong evidence for co-existence and admixture in between the battles beloved of the chroniclers. So the settlement needs to be seen as an uneven and varied process rather than an event, and with population having by most reckonings fallen from its Roman peak (probably under rather than over 2 million) it seems unlikely that there was any need to fight over every inch of territory or to eliminate existing populations.
Well put. Same scenario happened with the Eastern Romans in the Balkans.
@@kkech1 Likewise Italy, and doubtless elsewhere.
We Too are actually living in an era of the fall of great Western empire,that being the American empire,it's fascinating to watch..
@@peterroberts7684 Oh, I've been enjoying that since 2004. I see Rome though as not having fallen, but rather as having yielded to a more basic but dynamic configuration. The eclipse of US/western supremacy seems to be following a similar path toward a more polycentric world rather than cataclysmic collapse.
Hopefully the age of global hegemons is behind us: they were never much use at the best of times, and China mercifully doesn't seem too keen to repeat others' mistakes as it contemplates its own limitations.
@@davepx1 Lol no, the natives were enslaved and their women bred with the conquerors, while their men did not get to breed. That's what happened, and that's what happens to all conquered peoples.
Also, >muh china
Chinese century just got cancelled by the US military, if you haven't been paying attention.
We are Celtic, a bit confused due to the reformation. But the Saxons were there for a relatively trivial amount of time. Then they were kicked out. The Brittonic English could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
Genetics say we are both Celtic and Germanic. The Saxons never left.
@@docjw8914 I've read from more than one study that there isn't that much difference genetically between any of the peoples of Britain and Ireland. The original post-ice age Neolithic tribes, the later Celtic invaders and then the later Germanic invaders (in varying percentages).
@@jeffmorse645 So have I friend. There really is not much difference between most West and Northern Europeans. However, we can still tell a difference. Yes overall they share a majority of DNA, but they do cluster into separate groups. This is in part due to geographic isolation to an extent but also the influence of other peoples. In the case of the English, they have greater genetic influence from populations termed Germanic. As for the the Neolithic farmers, they didn't leave much of an influence on either population.The male population at least seems to be wiped out or outbred by the later Indo European arrivals.
Modern nationalism keep the divisions going. Politics aren't genetics. In Yorkshire nr Tadcaster there's a village called Saxton, a Saxon enclave, or their descendants amid the Danelaw. Lots of scandi names in my area. Thingwall, Litherland,(hlidr, smooth) croxteth, Tarbock, Skelmersdale. Hoscar, Bescar, Ormskirk.
Several recent Archeologists are saying that England is by & large still 'Britons' who adapted to Saxon culture rather than be 2nd class civvies. They say no evidence to justify a mass migration.
If you compare with the Norman Conquest, English as a language survived albeit much changed by influx of French vocabulary. So I am sceptical that the "small ruling elite" hypothesis is sufficient to explain how people came to speak Old English instead of Celtic. We know from Roman sources that in 367, there was an invasion by the Saxons, as well as Picts and Irish. We also know there were "Saxon Shore Forts" eg Pevensey, which that term suggests as a defence against the Saxons.
Couldn't the genetic makeup have remained mostly Romano-Briton even if a large number of invaders took over the political and legal dynamic?
The Brits were impressed by the A-S merchant class & blended in with them out of respect/advantage rather than remain 2nd class. In other words the Brits chose to 'keep up with the Joneses. Boat people cannot completely remove the existing population now....or back then.
The genetics say otherwise. There was a mass migration. It may not have been as complete as once theorized, but there is a significant component of the England's DNA that can be attributed to Germanic tribes' migration / invasion.
English DNA 'one-third' Anglo-Saxon - BBC News Doco 2016.
There was the Late Antique Little Ice Age (536-560) after 3 volcanos erupted in 536, 539/540, & 547 AD. That caused a lot of migration in nothern Europe along with famine and plague.
This is happening here again, just different players
You mentioned that the jutes had to move away because of the danes. But where did the Danes come from? Scandinavia?
Love the way you use CK3, you should also use stuff like bannerlord for battles
is the shot at the beginning from total war?
A point often overlooked is the Celts that Julius Caesar dealt with were refugees from wars in Gaul. The population of eastern Britain may have been Germanic speakers who survived the disappearance of Doggerland under the North Sea. Also the North Sea is not a great barrier to migration. Also the Saxon-shore was name given both shores from Normandy/Isle of Wight to the Wash/Scheldt by the Romans.
What game is the footage from? Cant tell if its Bannerlord or Total War
First Anglo Saxons possibly arrive in the year 449 AD.
So the Vikings came a bit later than the period you mention?
Anglo-Saxons arrive mostly in the 5th & 6th centuries, vikings (a smaller movement) in the 9th & 10th, so while they're similar populations they're two distinct waves, the second originating further north than the first.
@@davepx1 Thanks. When watching the Vikings tv series, they initially seemed to have little knowledge of anything lying to the west ie Britain.
@@firstlast5350 Yes, it would have been at best low on their radar until the 8th century. I'm not sure what changed: improved ship design? Charlemagne's war against the Saxons drawing their pagan neighbours south and west? Or a new awareness of riches to be had? Perhaps all three.
Its so interesting how similar British history is to the history of my country Austria. First you've got Celts that where then conquered and partly romanized by the turn of the Millenia. Then after the fall of the Western Roman Empire alot of the Romans and romanized Celts left making for a vacuum which Germanic Tribes filled during the Great Migrations. For you guys the Anglo-Saxons and for us the Bavarians and Alemanni. And on top of that you called the leftovers of the old inhabitants of Britain "Welsh" while in the Alps we call them "Welschen" or "Walchen". We have alot of place names here containing the word "Welch" or "Walch", for instance "Walchsee" or the old German name for the Trentino: "Welsch-Tirol". The Slavs (Slovenians, etc.) at our borders where called "Winden", which, I guess, must stemm from the same root. Its probably a name the Germanic tribes gave to everyone whose language they didn't understand haha
Welsh, Vlach, Gaul (France) etc come from a Germanic word which is thought to come from the Celtic tribe of the Volcae who once bordered Germanic tribes. The Winden probably come from the same root as Wend referring to the Veneti who were a Baltic tribe - no idea if they were Slavic, Old Prussian or something else.
Vienna was Vindobona in ancient times, a name that meant something like settlement of Vindos. Vindos was a god of prophesy, poetry, hunting, much like the Greek god Apollo. Vindos shares common origin with the Irish hero Fionn (MacCumhaill) and the Welsh hero Gwynn (ap Nudd).
Great😄
Fascinating. A great topic would be the history of Ihe Isle Of Thanet (Kent), because it has a massive wealth of little known history.
where do you get such wonderful maps?
IIRC it's Crusader Kings 3!
Anglo Saxons were basically the early patch of Vikings. Also came from Denmark, how ironic
The process of Anglicisation took a couple of hundred years from the establishment of the Heptarchy in the 5th century. Probably best not to take Gildas and Bede's dates too literally.
Which game is that in the cutscenes ?
Crusader kings 3!
Hey! Parabéns! To gostando muito do seu conteúdo!
Muito obrigado! :D
Good use of CK 3
Jazby sent me here so I subscribed with the bell on. Just saying.
Welcome aboard! I hope you like the stay! :D
Wonderful video. Very well researched and a lovely mix of animation/graphics with solid background information. If you are of European descent, then we are all related..... I am Irish, my wife is 50% Belgian and 50% African. We are both descendants of ancient humans who lived on the steppes of modern day Russia/Ukraine. The science doesn't lie. My understanding is that English was probably most likely derived from the language of the people from Friesland in modern day Holland. Borders change and people tend to forget where their ancestors came from.
As someone from Ireland, I would always have detested the thought of being related to our English neighbours who were so cruel in their treatment of my ancestors. And then DNA reveals that we share common ancestors. Does this mean that I should dislike myself ?
Anyway, my point is that we are all related and if only we could realise this that we might stop hating and killing each other. The people of the Ukraine are only a short skip and jump away genetically from the people of Russia that are currently trying to harm them.
Sorry for going off on a tangent. Thanks for producing this video, I really enjoyed it.
Nephilim, the sons of the gods. Satans White conspiracy to dominate the planet
The huns or hunner? I don't now how to call those tribes in English, played a big role by pushing to the west a lot of germanics tribes. Merci pour la vidéo. 👍
British might have been culturally dominated by Saxons/ Angles/ Jutes but genetically not so much. Between 20-40% in the extremes.
There's a September study in the 21st of that month in 2022 which estimates English people between 25-47% Anglo-Saxon. And 5.2% Swedish which i rationalize were the Wulfingas, a Germanic Geat aristocracy who merged with the other tribes becoming Anglo-Saxon.
This means at the lowest English is 25% Anglo-Saxon. And at most it's 52% Anglo-Saxon. Or Germanic. I still don't know about the 5.2% Swedish dna, so 47% if you don't want to be generous.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 There's no real definitive studies to support any claims of English people being between 25-47% Anglo-Saxon at all. Most studies that have been taken, actually say the complete opposite, and that we inherit a majority of Celtic DNA still and the second largest majority especially in England is French.
@@praetoriantiberius529 Have a look at the ongoing Oxford study "People of the British Isles" (POBI), headed by Prof Sir Walter Bodmer, which compares living populations. Most of England stands out as distinct and relatively homogenous, whereas the "Celtic" areas are much more varied. After centuries of internal migration, that's quite remarkable, and shows that something decisive happened in the peopling of what became England. It wasn't a "non-event", as has sometimes been claimed.
@@praetoriantiberius529 But we also need to get over this Francis Pryor/1960's/ old school archaeology model of 'pots were not people'. And which study are you referring to regarding the 'second largest majority... is French' ? I also assume by Celtic DNA you mean Iron Age and Roman Britons ? I would put it like this : the English are basically formed from northern (Rhenish) Bell Beaker and Bronze Age people . Most northern Europeans are derived from these same/v.similar populations , including Germanics . So Anglo-saxons were just introducing a slightly different genetic mix into England , nothing radically different . But they clearly impacted eastern England (at least) massively during the Migration Period as the latest studies suggest (eg Gretzinger et al 2022) . All English regions still show a strong Germanic influence (not domination) that is weakest on the fringes , especially Cornwall (notably the lowest, though still around 20%) , but other regions vary between 32-48% , which is a LOT in my book. There is also likely a post Migration Period French influence higher in the south than the north.
@@bernicia-sc2iw You might be right. But what I'm suggesting is that all these studies seem to point at an entire population/genetical displacement and replacement, which I don't think is the case at all. I have no doubt of the facts that Anglo Saxons that settled made a huge cultural impact and to some degree of breeding with the native populace a genetic impact too. However, considering the British Isles has succumb to thousands of years of invading forces of mixed descent I believe it's more of a mixed pot of genetic descent. I do believe that we still inherit our DNA predominantly from Iron Age Celtic tribes/ Romano British peoples.
It's always so disturbing and sickening to see advanced civilization destroyed, in history 😢
Very good
Can you do history of leo sgourus or history of skanderbeg?
I've been getting requests for Skanderbeg for years, i have indeed been working on and off on a script about him for the past year, but I can never seem to finish it, It will eventually be released, but I can't promise dates Ahah. About Leo, I'll look into him!
@@KnowHistory Mercurio Bua is another leader like skanderbeg but hes underrated . You really make nice videos you wil get 1 milions you seem
Love the Maps
nice content
London was not taken till 571.
Wow adorei o vídeo! Bom trabalho! Não sabia que haviam youtubers portugueses a produzir videos assim no TH-cam. Subscrevi quase instantaneamente.
Muito obrigado! :D
Scots, Picts, Norwegian Vikings existed in Scotland
It is rarely acknowledged but there was another less dramatic, more gradual influx into Britain from the European continent involving the ancient Frisians and Belgae from the Low Countries.
"Franks" too from further west, incorporating a large Gaulish component with a western Germanic overlay: we should probably think of that whole coastline from Jutland to northern France as the source region, rather than just odd groups. And of course further west we had Britons moving the other way, so it wasn't all in one direction except perhaps anticlockwise.
Thanks
I'm the one who's super grateful! :D Thank you so much!
So we know many Saxons stayed on the continent and were instrumental in forming Germany, but what happened to the Angles and Jutes that stayed on the continent, or did any of them stay? Seems we don't hear anything about continental Angles or Jutes after the migration to Britain the way we do with the Saxons.
They never had their own well established Kingdom. The Jutes would go on to be integrated into Denmark and become Danes, while the angles kinda just fizzled away altogether.
My name is Hanson. I come from Yorkshire. I used to think my main ancestory was Anglo-Saxon - then I thought Norse - but now I am sure that I am a result of a huge mixture. Your surname means little to nothing. However, the difference between Norse and Jute/Dane/Schleswig is almost zero. Even the Normans who committed genocide in Yorkshire / Northumbria / Lancashire / Cumbria / Lower Scotland were related to the same ancestors. Scandinavian genes more than German genes - even though the Germans were also very influenced from Scandinavia. I am quite sure Celtic genes also exist in me - and probably even pre Celtic genes. Long live the sovereignty of Britain and Ireland. Not only gene pools link us. God bless! Defend your sovereignty - now more than ever!
Get a dna test
Doesn't our being a luxuriant mix of genetic inputs rather suggest that obsessing over the "sovereignty" of little bits of turf is a bit silly?
@@davepx1u mean having had you ancestors genocided meas you should just forgive and forget? Weird
@@naradaian When it's something you made up, yes.
I'm from Nottinghamshire. Ancestry DNA results suggest 10% Danish/Swedish through my Dad's ancestors who lived in Norfolk. Other than that I am pure mongrel.
The Romans kept the Barbarian tribes for as long as they could,but eventually they had to return to protect the City State of Rome from the tidal wave of Germanic tribes..The Saxons bided their time,then went full in,as what was left of Romano Britain was left naked and defenceless...
Weather phenomenon came about 536 AD not fifth century unless there were 2 terrible weather/volcanic periods
I now know I am from German decent, from Saxony, decendants migrated to England, and settled in Scotland, with an English surname of Cookson
Great❤️❤️
My theory is that the legend of Hengist and Horsa is based upon the reality of Jute nobility establishing a new place to live after being kicked out of Jutland by the Danes. The Kingdom of Saxony was a confederacy of smaller tribes so no doubt I can see some of them leaving their homeland to rule for themselves. For the Angles I can't think of any explanation other than they were probably facing a similar situation with the Jutes, facing Danish expansion.
No evidence for this obviously but I base this speculation on how other Germanic tribes were forced to migrate, a big part of why the Goths moved into the Roman Empire because they were being pushed out of their previous lands by the Huns.
I think you're right about the Danes' movement through the islands into Jutland being a factor for both peoples: Frisians and Saxons may similarly have been buffeted by secondary ripples from the movements of Huns and others, while further west we see movement across the Channel in both directions. I doubt conquest was on anyone's mind at first, rather that's just the way it turned out as south-east England became more solidly Saxon.
@@davepx1 Yeah it seems like a simple explanation yet I've not seen any scholars explore this idea at all, at least that I know of. I think I've also found some evidence of this being true by looking at the Finnesburg Fragment, where Jutes are present in a fight between the Frisians and the Danes.
@@nepnep1453 Indeed, the chronology of events in Jutland seems little explored, but the incomings and outgoings seem to be happening around the same time. I think you're right about the Fragment too: if Danes and Frisians were already in contact (northwestern Slesvig?) Jutes and Angles must already have been squeezed or subjugated to the north and east.
@@nepnep1453 PS. You should write a piece on it and post it on a relevant site or try to get it published. I'd had much the same thought (and mentioned it a while back) but you seem to have been first and to have taken it further, so I'm happy to back you up.
It might be worth contacting Danish scholars of the period to see if current thinking on the Danish expansion into the Anglo-Jutish lands coincides with our period. Bede's comment that the Angles abandoned their Continental home suggests that it does: that isn't said of any of the other migrating peoples, and you don't leave your farms and livestock without a reason.
@@davepx1 I think I will write something thanks for the suggestion
Why do your maps use the modern Scotland/England border to indicate the extent of Roman Britannia?
I think you forgot some early victories of the Romano-Brittans. The Arthur myth and all that.
I thought mercia was corruption of the Spanish immigration after the ice age. Murcia, as much immigration came from the Iberia.
@@neil03051957 LMAOOOOO. Not it meant "border people," for they lived and merged with the Britons to their West
@@hardlo7146the River Mersey means boundary/border river..
The orange section looked like it was foreshadowing the Danelaw four centuries later.
Actual replacement theory in the historical record
What is an invation?
Wouldn't call it that. The Romans were settling even whole tribes in their territories, in later times. They were invited at first, but gradually overthrew and replaced their hosts with bigger population numbers. Same thing happened in the Balkans with Goths and Slavs. Same thing happening nowadays to those northern countries, with immigrants from the south. Just a bit of history repeating.
I think Attila had a big say in the huge migration of the Germanic peoples.
cool
Thank you!
The Germanic tribes in Europe were pressed to migrate by the incoming Huns from Central Asia, who displaced them there and ruled over them for a while. The Anglo Saxons may have migrated to Britain to escape them.
That's ridiculous, the huns never came close to making it that far west into Europe.
It appears that every British petty king had to have his Germanic mercenaries. As the kingdoms got smaller, being regarded as property to be divided among sons, the mercenary settlements also became correspondingly smaller, as can be seen in the archeological record. There were two major revolts, one in about 450 and one in about 570. In between there was the fairly minor revolt of Cerdic (a Briton) against the British government (such as it was). His kingdom soon came to be dominated by its Germanic mercenaries, probably by way of marriage alliances.
Quite apart from genetics, the fact that the Britons were not exterminated or expelled is proven by the fact that Middle English is the only Middle Germanic language that is full of grammatical resemblances to Welsh. These occur with almost equal strength *over the whole of England*. They are absolutely *not* limited to the SW or N. The British peasants just adopted Germanic, with a pretty bad "accent". During the AS period, their language was "peasant dialect". But after the Normans came along and basically destroyed the previously existing noble dialect by destroying the previously existing noble class, a new English noble dialect could only be re-constituted on the basis of peasant dialect.
It is also worth noting that the Celtic sources record no tales of a mass exodus into their lands by displaced British peasants.
So the Vikings raided their relatives..?
I suppose you could say this? Their language wasn't mutually intelligable however, and the Norse didn't see Saxons, Jutes and Angles as their brethren or as a common people. Modern notions of nationality don't really work during this era. Vikings raided other Norse even, because to them they were not one common people, but various tribes and groups open to plunder.
In the Geata Danorum the Danes said the Angles were brothers. Aka Angul and Danum. Brothers of the same father Humbli.
And that Angles and Danes descend from the two figures so are a related people. But recognized kinship doesn't mean anything politically.
The North and South Koreans are Brothers. But both would slaughter each other, if the need arise
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 Well said.
@@calum5975it was mutually intelligible to some extent
There's a myth that sprung from the Victorian era that 'we british are all decendents of Anglo-Saxons' but in reality genetic evidence shows it was not a violent invasion as much as a mostly peaceful process of immigration, with Romano-British people adopting these Germanic linguistic and cultural ideas and behaviours.
Many continental europeans were ASTONISHED to find that Christianity had kept thriving since the Romans left when they came over to 'proletyse' only to find everyone already following the faith lmao.
"mostly peaceful"
After the AS invasions… Many of the southern “ Roman- Britons” who had the means… went West ( as far as Cornwall) and migrated into NW France in large numbers…. Hence the name Brittany for that part of France.
Many went into what is now Wales, which held out for a long time before being conquered.
The initial invasions were far from peaceful…. Mainly because the Roman Celtics who contracted with the AS mercenaries failed to pay them as per their agreement…. Which triggered the taking of lands by the AS!
I'm reading a lot lately on the history of England. Another aspect was the plague and famine that hit during the Roman decline. That left much abandoned and the people needing help. Especially the threat of attacks from the Picts. So it's possible that migration was peaceful in order to increase population.
interesting but an awful lot of conjecture, there is little if any evidence of slaughter of the Britons, not one mass grave of dead local peoples from the period has been found, there is however evidence of them intermingling with the locals, and much of the fighting seems to have intertribal just as it had been before the Romans, and to add to that there was no England, Scotland or Wales at that point in history
Very interesting video - not that these things are not known but it is a good summary.
What does disturb me, is the use of "CE" versus "AD". In our politically correct / woke society, I see this more and more often. So CE means Common Era, in order to avoid AD (Anno Domini) as to not make people of other ethnicity, religion or cultural background feel "uncomfortable".
My sense is that if they want to use our European / Western (Gregorian) calendar, then they might accept us calling it AD instead of CE - after all, it is "our" calendar - and we don´t even accuse them of cultural appropriation (nor for the wide spread use / celebration of Christmas trees, St. Valentine´s Day, New Years (on January 1st) Carnival, Halloween etc. All of these festivities are derived from ancient Germanic / Western / Christian traditions...
Also saying Common Era, seems heavy handed; if it is COMMON, then it means the other calendars are UNcommon.
The others (Muslims, Jews, Hindi, Chinese etc.) also don´t adjust their respective calendars to ours - and why should they?
So if we refer to and use "our" calendar, we should continue using AD instead of CE.
out of all the things to pick up on, it's CE vs AD. Plenty of people and institutions use CE, it's not new, it's not interesting.
And I thought it stood for Christian Era.
My Calendar is Bikram Samvat. Which is older than Gregorian calendar
3 min 19 sec. That is (Roman) Canterbury. A good example of the Canti tribe first romanised then eventually swept over again by the Jutes.
Good video but I think the term ‘Romano~Britain’ to describe British society after rome left is a misnomer. Very quickly old Celtic traditions, culture and even former petty kingdoms had a pretty rapid resurgence especially in more rural areas. Big romanised cities were often deserted by majority of the populace and within a couple decades after rome left, Britain resembled the old Celtic society more so than its Roman period. There was still some Roman influence in cities and high society but by the Anglo Saxon invasions Britain was more Celtic than romanised,
Yeah but Rome occupied Britain for like 400 years. It's not like they left no lasting cultural impact just because celtic culture became resurgent.
@@theskycavedin9592
Which is why I said it was MORE Celtic than Roman, no that it was 100% Celtic.
What evidence to you have for a resurgence?
What is CE?
woke for 'AD'. Not a joke btw.
@@MrChintaro They can't leave anything alone.
@@MrChintaro Wait, so AD is asleep? That's a bad thing right?
@@BillyBobDingo1971 Ahhh, those cheeky bastards who swap AD and "Merry Christmas" with CE and "Happy Holidays". What a shame!
Celtic End
5:25 In some British kingdoms the Germans may have revolted. In others a Nordic mercenary elite intermingled or through trade influenced the government, politics, culture and population, in other cases it may of been a downright invasion.
With internal forces even occasionally being a Briton adopting Germanic culture purely to survive. Cerdic is a Celtic name for example. Though the man is a Angle or a Saxon.
Saxons probably were traditional revolt and conquest model. But I imagine the Angles used mercenary ruling elite class status, political royal intermarriage and cultural trade domination. Rather than a kill everyone that moves mentality.
The Nordic Angles being less aggressive than the Saxon Germans.
Though war and trade of course was practiced by both.
But I can't confirm anything
The Anglo-Saxons may not commit any genocide.
But I do believe a few massacres did happen. But no genocidal extermination or any of that. But massacres may of had happened.
The sheep hired wolfs to protect them against the fox. The wolfs loyalty to the sheep was profit.
@@Nortrix87 great summary
Sound like what may have happened more to me, than these Angles Saxons Jutes and Frisians being simple 'migrators' or what ever the heck that means. The Romano British aristocracy and warrior elites were driven out or killed off, leaving the Briton farmers and urban dwellers but with a new warrior elite ruling them along with their people coming over the sea. I will base my judgement along the writings of contemporary Romano British scribes, and their utter disdain for these heathen foreigners from Germania killing off their kings and churchmen than modern historians.
@@AnthonyEvelyn which maybe what happened.
There's another theory that Justinian's plague arrived to Britain and ravaged the island. Giving another wave of Frisians and Jutes to settle on the farms of Britain.
I won't say this did happen though. Because presence of speculation isn't evidence of events with absence of evidence as of yet.
... and in other cases doubtless local accommodations were doubtless reached. The old-fashioned model of warriors rampaging round slashing everyone they encountered doesn't really hold much water, and there are more than enough pre-Saxon survivals to debunk any notion of native wipeout.
I wouldn't even say there was a "Saxon conquest model": the various settlements seem initially devoid of any recorded conflict, and even the subsequent known battles are few. Most newcomers came as settlers rather than conquerors, but their stronghold in the more populous south-east and later East Anglia provided a powerful base for subsequent expansion.
Their numbers where NOT that large ! They did NOT displace the Britons !! Especially in the East of the island !!!
Most of any displacement would be in the east: they didn't displace the Britons in the west, that's for sure. Their numbers were enough to make the land English-speaking: without a big settler number you don't get an England unless it's by extermination, wholesale displacement or virtual enslavement, none of which happened.
The numbers must have been huge to replace the language and DNA. Englishmen today have between 40-55% Anglo Saxon DNA and very little Briton DNA. The displacement must have been very significant
@@tomben6180 What is this "Briton DNA"? There's DNA consistent with a west-central European background and associated with a Celtic culture, and DNA consistent with a north-central European background that's associated with a Germanic culture, and that's all we have. The two contributions are today of roughly similar size. There was no wholesale displacement across most of England.
My bad 👎 ! I meant the displacement was mainly only in the East !! Once You go past Sussex Germanic DNA decreases rapidly !!!
A new way of thinking about Anglo saxon invasion is to think that it was a few settlers bringing along new ideas and artifacts that gives the illusion that England was invaded. It is the same as assuming that the uk was invaded by Swedes when future archeologists find all the IKEA furniture in most of the homes of the UK.
Genetic evidence disproves this idea
@@EresirThe1st on the contrary: genetic evidence shows that there wasn't a mass migration from one place on the continent but a smaller migration from extensive regions of the continent and that it was indeed a importation of language and culture (from a study carried out by Sydney University).
But contemporary accounts
@@blobrana8515 Lol, an importation of Germanic sperm into the wombs of native women, more like.
@@blobrana8515 I agree with that it's very much not a "replacement" by Germanic hordes, but the scale of settlement was pretty big, as you say drawing on a very broad Continental coastal region. So it's a new and substantial population element (far more than the 100,000 arrivals imagined until fairly recently) rather than Victorians' native "wipeout", but it's very much about people as well as language & culture.
"settlement" lol, like we "settled" america. I'm proud of it though. seems like we are going to need a new "settlement" soon, with how bad things are getting.
You show boats with sails much like vukingships. As the nydambåd, a coplet ship of the time, found in southern Denmark ( Angeln ) showa us, they where roboats not build to use sail.......
Some people say Germanic and German are not the same but are they connected?
Germans are germanic, but so are Danes, some Swiss, Dutch, English, Scottish, and Icelandic, however, not all of them are germans, only germans are germans. TL;DR Germanic is a family, german is an member of that family
@@KnowHistory Scottish Lowlanders* Not "scottish' because if you say Scottish your saying Lowlanders and Highlanders.
Highlanders are Celtic Gaels.
No matter how much someone would argue Norse.
They were connected in the olden times this video is about. It changed around the year 1100, when German tribes conquered the Slavic areas in what is now the eastern part of the country, including Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden and so on. All those place names are Slavic and still have no meaning in German. The Slavic tribes who lived there became Germans and even forgot their original languages, but weren't Germanic. Both ethnic groups are completely mixed since a long time and form what is recognized as "German".
Germans are just one of many Germanic tribes. The English, Dutch, Scandinavians etc. being others. Germanic is an umbrella term for these groups of peoples
@@tomben6180 Hi. So what you are saying is that the English, Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians all belong to the same group of people and are connected?
What happened to Roman currency after the fall? Was it still used as currency?
If I am from the U.K and want to find out my heritage which DNA test is best?many of the are American and have different databases….
I can attest the sun here in California becomes predictable and repetitive. Always seeing the glowing orb go up, go down…
Can concur -- Australian
I’ve always wondered why we Anglophones have named something as commonplace as the days of the week after the Germanic pagan gods, since the pagan Germans seemed to have such a short period of dominance, wedged between the by-then Christian Romans, and Germanic Christianity itself.
The pagan Germanic peoples likely adopted the Germanic names when the Empire was still around. The Germanic languages all seem to use variations of these Germanic names for Tuesday - Friday though German has mittwoch (mid week) for Wednesday, probably to replace Woden who must have been problematic for the early German Church to single out him for being got rid of.
It's a very good point. I think it's between them and the Norse really. Nordic and Germanic languages shared that common ancestory as well, If we consider the Viking age was 780(ish) to 1066, then the Norman's invaded and brought early French with them, but that was still isolated to the upper echelons of society. A wee google suggests that Government and the Monarchy didn't use English in official documents (predominantly using Latin and French) until the mid 1200s, and the Church didn't hold English ceremonies until the 1500s. That's 1000 years of peasants solidfying English/Germanic day names :D so basically, blame uneducated peasants? Just spitballing a theory ^^
From what I have seen, Christianity mingled with paganism in Britain substantially, and although Christianity became the dominant and often sole religion, paganism left its impact on folk legends and tradition, including language. Peasants never really abandoned many pagan festivals, and some pagan beliefs were mixed in with Christian ones. The church generally turned a blind eye to this as it kept the peasants happy and did little actual harm.
In addition, the names of the week were formed long before the Germanic peoples settled in Britain. We know this because in other German languages there are cognates, suggesting that they must have had a common ancestor, meaning the words formed prior to the Germanic peoples of Britain becoming linguistically isolated.
Monday (English) - Montag (German) (named after the Moon)
Tuesday (English) - Tisdag (Swedish) (named after Tiw, Germanic god of War)
Wednesday (English) - Woensdag (Dutch) (named after Odin / Woden / Wotan, the chief God of the Germanic pantheon)
Thursday (English) - Donnerstag (German) (this one is a little more on the nose, Donner is german for "thunder", and what was Thor?)
Friday (English) - Vrijdag (Dutch) (named after Frigga, wife of Odin)
These names weren't created in English during the brief period of Anglo Saxon paganism, these are MUCH older words that simply travelled with the Anglo Saxons to Britain. The days of the week tend to be latin in concept with a Germanic god stuck on top, for example in Rome it wasn't Tuesday but "Mars' Day". The Germanic peoples adopted this aspect of Latin, but replaced Mars with the more familiar Tiw. This would have happened centuries before the migrations to Britain.
Saturday is interesting as it's a Roman God, although it has been suggested that the Germanic peoples adopted him as one of their own Gods. Ancient pantheons tended to allow the existence of foreign gods.
Norse gods not Germanic
Sunday and Monday are named after the celestrial bodies, Sun and Moon, but the other days are named after Norse gods; Tyrs's day, (W)odin's day, Thor's day and Frigg's day.
@@IrishCinnsealach, "Norse" gods are Germanic because the Norse themselves are Germanic.
Zonder de Saksen was er niet van Engeland terechtgekomen.