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". ;-)
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.
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)
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,
That’s an inaccurate and outdated statement.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.
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.
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!
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 - ruclips.net/video/Kw8at08k254/видео.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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? 😄
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).
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.
I think Deirans and Bernicians were Frisians, and Lindsey were Rugians. While East and Middle Anglia, and Mercia are Angles. No changes for Saxons and Jutes. Jutes, And we by having genetic evidence for Franks, I think Pescaetia were Franks. North of them are Saxons. North of Saxons are Angles, North of Angles are Franks, North of Franks are Rugians. And north of Rugians are Frisians. And the Geats were Aristocracy all over all Germanic kingdoms. I think.
Wasn't Bede an Angle? Sure I read it somewhere could be mistaken but if he was he didn't mention Frisians so far North, I would of thought they were Angles.
@@anglewoden he was a Angle. And when I said Frisians were that far north. I never meant it was exclusivity. But highest percentage. Given Yorkian dialect has similarities with Frisian. Or that might just because a lot of Danish vikings were also Frisian (look it up)
@@noahtylerpritchett2682Partially correct. Jutes are basically Geats/Gøtar. The Jutes from Kent pretty much eventually took everything over in the end. Their dynasty early on married into the Merovingians (St. Bertha of Kent, Kent's Golden Age followed this). Generations later Ecgberht/Ecbert spent time in exile at the court of Charlemagne and while there he married one of Charlemagne's daughters. Their grandson was Alfred the Great. My mothers fathers line is from Kent and they are Jutes. Via my father I am a direct descendant of Princess Margaret of Wessex, later known as Saint Margaret of Scotland. Her father was Edward the Exile and her mother was Agatha, a Kievan Rus princess.
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!?
*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
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!
the Roman influence in Britain was only strong in the south but almost superficial,when the Anglo Saxon established in the area the roman influence faded away soon.
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
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.
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.
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.
There are soo many historical inaccuracies, this can't be taken seriously. Take it as a general thought at best, but not fact. 1. The Picts never made it down south as a conquest of of Briton. They did harass the northern parts. 2. All Celtic tribal names and lots of information thereof, are factually known because Julius Caesar wrote them down in his "Gallic Wars" reports. 3.The Romans departed over time, but by 410 there were very few cohorts left. Furthermore the roman emperor (Honorious) sent a letter back to the Romano British tribes telling them they must now look to their own defences, thus the collapse of Roman empire in Britain. That was in the Third (3rd) Century, not the 5th. 4. The Saxons had by then already started to be a menacing presence in Britain, as they had been hired as mercenaries, by the Romano-British leaders to help push back the Picts in the north, the Irish in the west, and the rest in the East. Historical Facts are REALLY important!!!
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
“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!
@@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.
You missed the admittedly rather small matter of Wihtwara regaining independence from Sussex and reverting to Paganism under King Arwald. This was the last English Pagan kingdom until it was conquered by Wessex. Subsequent Viking raids were either defeated or or were by Vikings already converted to Christianity.
6:40 Ambrosius Aurelianus: here we have the historical figure most likely to be the inspiration for *king Arthur* . his Latin moniker suggests native origins in contrast to the Germanic invaders. as the Romans shaped their province Britannia for about 450yrs we can assume him to descent from a landowning family who turned local warlord once the Roman legions and administration left the island in 411 AD. he probably had more Roman than native Brythonic blood. the figure of Merlin/Myrrdin is a modern (12th century) frabrication to separate aspects of his persona/legend not considered chivalric enough for a British king in the middle ages.
Ambrosius Aurelianus was most likely not the inspiration of King Arthur. There already is a legendary character based on Ambrosius: Emrys Wlegid, made brother of Uther Pendragon by Geoffrey of Monmouth, thus uncle of Arthur. Usually Ambrosius is connected with a brythonic war chieftain called Riothamus who was active aroun 470 AD. He was helping the romans against Euric, king of the visigothis, and crossed the english channel to aid his allies. He was betrayed and defeated, and most likely returned to Britain.
@@mercianthane2503 I'm sorry. nothing, *absolutely nothing* Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about these characters can be taken seriously or as having even an ounce of truth to it. it's all made up fantasy by this 12th century guy. please don't forget the difference in time. we are talking about something which happened 700yrs prior to when Geoffrey cobbled his tale together for the benefit of the new Norman rulers. Geoffrey didn't apply scientific accuracy to anything he did. that was not a thing back then. he had other motives. he didn't have access to anything other than hearsay over the centuries from brythonic ancestors living in Brittany. a few decades after the Normans conquered England he came over, had the hearsay compounded by hearsay from the Welsh relatives and spun his tale to entertain and please the new rulers. when we try to separate all the fantasy from who actually lived and what actually happened we have to go to sources who actually lived at the time or very near that. not much can be found today but Gildas would be our primary source. he mentions Ambrosius Aurelianus by name and lived at the time of the battle of Badon Hill. that's the best we have.
Even the Celts migrated to the British Isles, mate! They didn’t even build Stonehenge or the other megalithic sites. Before them were ancestors of successive waves of even earlier migrants from the Steppe (Yamnaya people probably), early European farmers (EEF, from Turkey and the Near East), and western hunter gatherers (WHG, from Africa). Before that? _H. heidelbergensis_ and _H. Neandertalensis_ - human occupation off and on since at least 700,000 years ago.
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.
Going back on my ancestry I find alot of them coming from the south and east side of the island. Going back to the 1400s -1600s .I've also see majority coming to American in the 1600s-1700s
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.
Some evidence suggests Germanic peoples had occupied parts of south and east England before the Romans arrived,and the Celts were to the North and West. The post Roman Saxon invasion May have been between 5000 and 50000 over A 100 year period, and the post Roman Saxon invasion was in fact a continuation of a war predating Roman times but suspended during their rule.
The boundary between modern-day England and Scotland went back well before the Romans ever set foot in England as the evidence shows Also, the various the people's of the island had different beliefs as to their origins.
How to pronounce Æthelred? The first letter æ sounds a bit like "AY in say, or AE" english people just pronounce it "A" most of the time Its funny how Angles/english people used to have the letter Æ, but now only Denmark and Norway has it
@@MerkhVision I think you're right, but to further confuse matters the name also occasionally pops up as Elfred. I suspect there might be a shift over time from a more German "e" pronunciation (as in edel -> aethel-) to a more English "a" (aetheling - > Adelin), but that's just speculation on my part.
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.
Well it's difficult to distinguish them. What can be said is between 400AD and 700AD there was a large migration of people into the E of Britain from the Lowland/Denmark. In the 60's they liked to downplay this (hippies and tie-dye singing songs, ain't it all luvly). But it's more like the Victorian idea of colonisation.
@@RootGroves-hl8kt FWIW my understanding is that the peninsula became grossly underpopulated and the southern Swedes moved in. The close link between the two is illustrated by the popularity of Beowulf in East Anglia despite being set in Southern Sweden.
@@RootGroves-hl8kt i don't think they all left. in fact if you look at the original inhabitants of copenhagen and scania ( old danish province) in southern sweden they look more nordic than most people in jutland. here in jutland we look a lot more like the british !!
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.
From linguistics, there is evidence that at least 6 villages had a Slavonic settlement. And a few that were Rugian, and genetic evidence Franks and Geats from Belgium and Sweden also settled in Britain. The 6 Slavic settlements one was at least 6000 individuals. The Germanic word for the Slavs at the time was Wend. The 6 villages are 1. Wendover (Buckinghamshire) 2. Wenden Lofts (Essex) 3. Wennington (Cambridgeshire) 4. Wenlock (Shropshire) 5. Wendlebury (Oxfordshire) 6. Wentworth (South Yorkshire) They would have no genetic or linguistic impact as at least a million Germanic speakers would assimilate and outbreed them. There were also likely Rugians as well. Bede admitted the Rugians, And place names Admit the Slavs. But Geats and Franks were genetically proven to of also arrived into Britain with the Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Frisians.
@@TishoYanchev the Germanic arrivals are bound by Germanic ancestry from Sweden. A 2024 study proves all Germanic ancestry is from a swedish ethnogenesis homeland. As for my more ethnographic usage of the Slavs. I only loosely said wends because who knows what tribe they came from. And of the million Germanic immigrants there's only 6000 Slavs who'd assimilate early on and are genetically irrelevant but all the same kin contrast to several Germanic immigrant lineages who all do share common ancestry.
This makes no sense lmao, Wenlock for one is derived from a Welsh word. You can’t just look at modern spellings for places and assume that anything with Wend in it = Slavic
Though remember guys someone's mess is someone's else's progress Lots and lots of collaboration Don't get bogged down by the fighting as the trade and progress is fantastic over many years just the way it should be..
Yep totally B0011ix BS. The Celts like Boudicca didn't think that they were Roman nor did the Druids of the holy isle of Anglesey who the Romans slaughtered. Wise up Yankee Anglo Saxons. Or as Gaeilge Sassanach !
The Britons saw themselves as still Roman, albeit self governing Romans, once the Empire withdrew its forces. Rome remained the model of government and culture just as the Roman Christian church remained. The idea that Christianity was brought to Britain by Catholic missionaries is a a myth. It took @400 years for England to take over all of modern England; say @16 generations.
This history is a great example of why getting all tangled in your shorts over who settled where first is ridiculous. Through out history lands all over the world were conquered and reconquered, populations decimated.
Very educational. I found history boring at school but this video I found very informative; good graphics; excellent commentary, and very descriptive £
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
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 😉
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.
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.
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!
A commercial break every 4 minutes is to much not watching this anymore
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.
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
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.
This very nicely illustrates my view that history changes every five hundred years: 51BC, 550AD, 1066AD, 1545AD,
Now.
fantastic visual summary of a complicated time and space in history. thank you!
Is there a bibliography or list of readings for this video? I’m very curious to read in detail about this period.
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
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 - ruclips.net/video/Kw8at08k254/видео.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
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.
Just goes to show that just about everyone lives on conquered land
I've watched loads of similar videos but this is by far the best. So much information in it and beautifully created. Superb.👍🏻
The Angles were formed of two main tribes: the obtusians and the acutians
😂 ha clever 👍
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.
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
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.
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.
Loved the simplicity will definitely follow more
Fantastic video!
Really entertaining and insightful.
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
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
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.
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? 😄
Rome: "We'll just leave this island, It'll be fine!"
Britain: "hold my beer"
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.
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.
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).
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.
Fascinating vid, nice content!
It's absolute made ups nonsense.
I think Deirans and Bernicians were Frisians, and Lindsey were Rugians.
While East and Middle Anglia, and Mercia are Angles.
No changes for Saxons and Jutes.
Jutes,
And we by having genetic evidence for Franks,
I think Pescaetia were Franks.
North of them are Saxons.
North of Saxons are Angles,
North of Angles are Franks,
North of Franks are Rugians.
And north of Rugians are Frisians.
And the Geats were Aristocracy all over all Germanic kingdoms.
I think.
Wasn't Bede an Angle? Sure I read it somewhere could be mistaken but if he was he didn't mention Frisians so far North, I would of thought they were Angles.
@@anglewoden he was a Angle.
And when I said Frisians were that far north. I never meant it was exclusivity. But highest percentage. Given Yorkian dialect has similarities with Frisian.
Or that might just because a lot of Danish vikings were also Frisian (look it up)
@@noahtylerpritchett2682Partially correct. Jutes are basically Geats/Gøtar. The Jutes from Kent pretty much eventually took everything over in the end. Their dynasty early on married into the Merovingians (St. Bertha of Kent, Kent's Golden Age followed this). Generations later Ecgberht/Ecbert spent time in exile at the court of Charlemagne and while there he married one of Charlemagne's daughters. Their grandson was Alfred the Great.
My mothers fathers line is from Kent and they are Jutes. Via my father I am a direct descendant of Princess Margaret of Wessex, later known as Saint Margaret of Scotland. Her father was Edward the Exile and her mother was Agatha, a Kievan Rus princess.
@@theGhostofRoberttheBruce you want a even greater mind fuck?
The Goths are Geats or rather, the Geats are the Goths that stayed behind.
The story of boudica should have been included as pre knowledge and also the union of the anglo saxen kingdoms
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
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
*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
how long does it take you to make one video? Do you work alone or with a team?
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!
the Roman influence in Britain was only strong in the south but almost superficial,when the Anglo Saxon established in the area the roman influence faded away soon.
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
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.
Can you make a video about 100 years war!
Sure, but we need 1 month
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?
This is a great summary of what can be a confusing time period.
A MAJOR point missing entirely, is/was that the Land is beautiful, fertile, mild and temperate. The landscape is gentle and green.
Love your content! Thanks For this! Alfred the Great please ❤❤❤❤
This channel has bright future
Europeon bloodlines are all mixed in generations down its not possible to distangle them
Well, true.
Great video and history.
@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
Great video, thanks
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.
There are soo many historical inaccuracies, this can't be taken seriously. Take it as a general thought at best, but not fact.
1. The Picts never made it down south as a conquest of of Briton. They did harass the northern parts.
2. All Celtic tribal names and lots of information thereof, are factually known because Julius Caesar wrote them down in his "Gallic Wars" reports.
3.The Romans departed over time, but by 410 there were very few cohorts left. Furthermore the roman emperor (Honorious) sent a letter back to the Romano British tribes telling them they must now look to their own defences, thus the collapse of Roman empire in Britain. That was in the Third (3rd) Century, not the 5th.
4. The Saxons had by then already started to be a menacing presence in Britain, as they had been hired as mercenaries, by the Romano-British leaders to help push back the Picts in the north, the Irish in the west, and the rest in the East.
Historical Facts are REALLY important!!!
Why the Cyrillic spellings at 19:20 and 19:37?
Probably the original video was in Ukrainian and they forgot to translate those parts
The big question is... Why was the previous civilisation in Britain wiped out?
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.
“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!
It's a miracle there's still people left after several hundred years of war.
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
You missed the admittedly rather small matter of Wihtwara regaining independence from Sussex and reverting to Paganism under King Arwald. This was the last English Pagan kingdom until it was conquered by Wessex. Subsequent Viking raids were either defeated or or were by Vikings already converted to Christianity.
Cymru (Pyrdain ~Britain), the real British people.
Not Angles Saxony, Africans or Pakistani
6:40 Ambrosius Aurelianus: here we have the historical figure most likely to be the inspiration for *king Arthur* . his Latin moniker suggests native origins in contrast to the Germanic invaders. as the Romans shaped their province Britannia for about 450yrs we can assume him to descent from a landowning family who turned local warlord once the Roman legions and administration left the island in 411 AD. he probably had more Roman than native Brythonic blood.
the figure of Merlin/Myrrdin is a modern (12th century) frabrication to separate aspects of his persona/legend not considered chivalric enough for a British king in the middle ages.
Ambrosius Aurelianus was most likely not the inspiration of King Arthur. There already is a legendary character based on Ambrosius: Emrys Wlegid, made brother of Uther Pendragon by Geoffrey of Monmouth, thus uncle of Arthur.
Usually Ambrosius is connected with a brythonic war chieftain called Riothamus who was active aroun 470 AD. He was helping the romans against Euric, king of the visigothis, and crossed the english channel to aid his allies. He was betrayed and defeated, and most likely returned to Britain.
@@mercianthane2503 I'm sorry. nothing, *absolutely nothing* Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about these characters can be taken seriously or as having even an ounce of truth to it. it's all made up fantasy by this 12th century guy. please don't forget the difference in time. we are talking about something which happened 700yrs prior to when Geoffrey cobbled his tale together for the benefit of the new Norman rulers. Geoffrey didn't apply scientific accuracy to anything he did. that was not a thing back then. he had other motives.
he didn't have access to anything other than hearsay over the centuries from brythonic ancestors living in Brittany. a few decades after the Normans conquered England he came over, had the hearsay compounded by hearsay from the Welsh relatives and spun his tale to entertain and please the new rulers.
when we try to separate all the fantasy from who actually lived and what actually happened we have to go to sources who actually lived at the time or very near that. not much can be found today but Gildas would be our primary source. he mentions Ambrosius Aurelianus by name and lived at the time of the battle of Badon Hill. that's the best we have.
Glad im of Celtic origin, and don't need to listen to people trying to tell me my past didn't exist.
Even the Celts migrated to the British Isles, mate! They didn’t even build Stonehenge or the other megalithic sites. Before them were ancestors of successive waves of even earlier migrants from the Steppe (Yamnaya people probably), early European farmers (EEF, from Turkey and the Near East), and western hunter gatherers (WHG, from Africa). Before that? _H. heidelbergensis_ and _H. Neandertalensis_ - human occupation off and on since at least 700,000 years ago.
You're nothing special. All of us who are indigenous to this island are of Celtic, Norse and Germanic origin in the main.
No one’s entirely of Celtic origin at this point
@garylancaster8612 Germanic & Norse are not indigenous to British isles😂
Very good content!...Very well created
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.
Really enjoyed this video.
Proud Mercian, Penda was gigabased.
So many amateur mistakes that you only have less than half a story.
You only have one sentence. Boo sir, boo to you.
Going back on my ancestry I find alot of them coming from the south and east side of the island. Going back to the 1400s -1600s .I've also see majority coming to American in the 1600s-1700s
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
Some evidence suggests Germanic peoples had occupied parts of south and east England before the Romans arrived,and the Celts were to the North and West. The post Roman Saxon invasion May have been between 5000 and 50000 over A 100 year period, and the post Roman Saxon invasion was in fact a continuation of a war predating Roman times but suspended during their rule.
@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
The boundary between modern-day England and Scotland went back well before the Romans ever set foot in England as the evidence shows Also, the various the people's of the island had different beliefs as to their origins.
The Danes were also Anglo Saxon who came and created the Danelaw
Danes aren’t Anglos nor Saxons. Danes are Danes
Nah, both Angles and Saxons were West-Germanics most closely related to Frisians and Northern Germans. The Danes are North Germanic.
Why is there cyrilic text in certain images?
What a mess.
Stay focus
How to pronounce Æthelred? The first letter æ sounds a bit like "AY in say, or AE" english people just pronounce it "A" most of the time
Its funny how Angles/english people used to have the letter Æ, but now only Denmark and Norway has it
Does Iceland still have it? I wish we still had the old alphabet, just seems more interesting to me.
I believe æ is supposed to sound more like the a in “at” than “say.” It’s the first sound in the name “Alfred.”
@@MerkhVision I think you're right, but to further confuse matters the name also occasionally pops up as Elfred. I suspect there might be a shift over time from a more German "e" pronunciation (as in edel -> aethel-) to a more English "a" (aetheling - > Adelin), but that's just speculation on my part.
1:15 wow, not only the NAMES and history, but the NAMES as well?
Fantastic that mate, great work
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.
The Brutus story I never heard before and I'm British.
I heard that a lot of the Irish were Trojans though, who the Romans were also.
according to modern british dna research the angles saxons and jutes have identical dna as the danish vikings
Well it's difficult to distinguish them. What can be said is between 400AD and 700AD there was a large migration of people into the E of Britain from the Lowland/Denmark.
In the 60's they liked to downplay this (hippies and tie-dye singing songs, ain't it all luvly). But it's more like the Victorian idea of colonisation.
All are refugees from Doggerland who fled in different directions.
I think Danes kicked jutes and angles out of the danish peninsula , this is my understanding.
@@RootGroves-hl8kt FWIW my understanding is that the peninsula became grossly underpopulated and the southern Swedes moved in. The close link between the two is illustrated by the popularity of Beowulf in East Anglia despite being set in Southern Sweden.
@@RootGroves-hl8kt i don't think they all left. in fact if you look at the original inhabitants of copenhagen and scania ( old danish province) in southern sweden they look more nordic than most people in jutland. here in jutland we look a lot more like the british !!
Lots at inaccuracies here
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 🙄
Anglo, Saxon et Scandinav. ce sont originaire grand familles, Tourque - Touranienne. la familles Tourque - Touranienne, ce sont amozonienne, nomade et montagnard. voilá la familles Tourque - Touranienne, Scyhtes ou Saca, Saga, Saha, Sahara, Scolotes, Scandin, Scout, Çoud etc, Tatares ou Catayi, Karay, Karain, Kitan, Titan, Han, Khan, Wuangn, Katan ou Catan ( Yucatan) etc, la Sibèrie, Sarmates, Kamkaçya, Mongol, Mançour, Tounguz, Ainu, Guril, Kore, Ougro Finnios, lapon, Esquimos, Thrace, Troy, Gètes, German ou Alman, Cimmèrienne, Scandinav, Massagètes, Ases, Huns, Ashkenazi, Khazar, Avar, Alan, Galat, Celtique, Etrusque, Cartaginois, Caucase ou Ibèrique, Basque, Bèrberes, Broton, Kabyle, Indus Valles, Aborigines, Assam, Gange, Dravidienne ou Tamil, Souryas ou Tourcoman, Hiong Nou, Turqistan, Kòktùrk, Tomhu, Yanhu, Çenyu, Tangout, Sikkim, Sindh, Radjou, Tsiganes ou Roman, Nagas, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, Birman, Siam, Annamit, laos, Joung, Mekong, Khmer, Males, Austronèsienne, Polonesienne, Maori, Amèrindienne, Tolteque, Azteque, Inca, Tupis et Carip etc. la familles Tourque - Touranienne, ce sont parentè et mix population. Merci Beaucoup, Bon Continuation.
From linguistics, there is evidence that at least 6 villages had a Slavonic settlement.
And a few that were Rugian,
and genetic evidence Franks and Geats from Belgium and Sweden also settled in Britain.
The 6 Slavic settlements one was at least 6000 individuals.
The Germanic word for the Slavs at the time was Wend.
The 6 villages are 1. Wendover (Buckinghamshire)
2. Wenden Lofts (Essex)
3. Wennington (Cambridgeshire)
4. Wenlock (Shropshire)
5. Wendlebury (Oxfordshire)
6. Wentworth (South Yorkshire)
They would have no genetic or linguistic impact as at least a million Germanic speakers would assimilate and outbreed them.
There were also likely Rugians as well.
Bede admitted the Rugians,
And place names Admit the Slavs.
But Geats and Franks were genetically proven to of also arrived into Britain with the Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Frisians.
Funny how you say Germanic speakers implying that their connection is just the language, but then you say Slavs implying they are an ethnic group.
@@TishoYanchev the Germanic arrivals are bound by Germanic ancestry from Sweden.
A 2024 study proves all Germanic ancestry is from a swedish ethnogenesis homeland.
As for my more ethnographic usage of the Slavs.
I only loosely said wends because who knows what tribe they came from.
And of the million Germanic immigrants there's only 6000 Slavs who'd assimilate early on and are genetically irrelevant but all the same kin contrast to several Germanic immigrant lineages who all do share common ancestry.
This makes no sense lmao, Wenlock for one is derived from a Welsh word. You can’t just look at modern spellings for places and assume that anything with Wend in it = Slavic
The truth is the real history is a lot more complicated than any stories we can tell!
Though remember guys someone's mess is someone's else's progress Lots and lots of collaboration Don't get bogged down by the fighting as the trade and progress is fantastic over many years just the way it should be..
Yep totally B0011ix BS.
The Celts like Boudicca didn't think that they were Roman nor did the Druids of the holy isle of Anglesey who the Romans slaughtered.
Wise up Yankee Anglo Saxons. Or as Gaeilge Sassanach !
The Britons saw themselves as still Roman, albeit self governing Romans, once the Empire withdrew its forces. Rome remained the model of government and culture just as the Roman Christian church remained. The idea that Christianity was brought to Britain by Catholic missionaries is a a myth. It took @400 years for England to take over all of modern England; say @16 generations.
I have met people from north/central Wales with steely blue eyes. Almost wolf/husky like. I find that intriguing.
This was generated by AI
AI = American Idiot?
Geroge RR Martin - Ah the perfect setting for my book
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.
This history is a great example of why getting all tangled in your shorts over who settled where first is ridiculous. Through out history lands all over the world were conquered and reconquered, populations decimated.
This video was painful to watch, knowing the history of my own country
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.