A special shout-out to all the people who recently donated to us via Super Thanks 🤗: 🧡 @Xiang Chen 🧡 @Jason Cuculo 🧡 @julius williams 🧡 @Mauro Merali 🧡 @Rank of Master 🧡 @JeffTownUSA 🧡 @Eisenpfosten 🧡 @Squire Waldo 🧡 @Ruufus De Leon 🧡 @David Keane 🧡 @Kevin Gomez 🧡 @scrot 🧡 @Xina Marie Uhl 🧡 @Aaron Flynn 🧡 @Robert 🧡 @Gary Worthington 🧡 @howtorideahorse 🧡 @Franz Nowak 🧡 @(Ἰάσων) Sobek Lord of the Four Corners 🧡 @michael porzio 🧡 @David Batlle Thank you so much for your generous support and for believing in us 🙏 Your host, Sebastian
You're probably not going to see this now, but for future reference. The Thames river is pronounced as the tems. Edit: and Britons is pronounced with a flat i, like the way you say Britain. Not like Brightons which could be confused as people from Brighton
Remember, each generation after the fall, would look upon the ruins, only to realize, that someone and something, greater than themselves, once lived here and built these amazing ruins. They would also realize that they, who have neither the free time nor the knowledge, could ever rebuild the ruins. How sad indeed.
Londinium fondata dai Romani, il più grande e glorioso impero della storia; la grandezza, la potenza, la magnificenza e la gloria di ROMA È AETERNA, ROMA INVICTA ET LUX MUNDI 💪💪💯
There is an Anglo Saxon poem from the ninth century called "The Ruin" which describes an abandoned Romano British city, believed to be Bath but could equally apply to London. It is quite long and some of it is missing but it starts off like this: This masonry is wondrous; fates broke it courtyard pavements were smashed; the work of giants is decaying. Roofs are fallen, ruinous towers, the frosty gate with frost on cement is ravaged, chipped roofs are torn, fallen, undermined by old age. The grasp of the earth possesses the mighty builders, perished and fallen, the hard grasp of earth, until a hundred generations of people have departed. Often this wall, lichen-grey and stained with red, experienced one reign after another, remained standing under storms; the high wide gate has collapsed. Still the masonry endures in winds cut down
that's about Carlisle there's even later descriptions from the 11th century but there is a few mentions of london still going strong well into the 6th century we quite often see bishops of london going to church councils in Europe that implies continuation and the amphitheatre was being used for moots well into 7th century
I'm playing Assassin's Creed: Valhalla, and I found it strange that London (or "Lunden" as it's called in the game) was still so full of Roman ruins in the 800s AD. But it turns out that's accurate. The game developers obviously did their research.
They did but not as much as you'd hope. A lot of the ruins were pure fiction. There is no evidence of any stone aqueduct in Roman Britain, in Valhalla they scatter them everywhere. Roman Bath isn't even there, neither is Fishbourne. Calleva is just random ruins that don't follow what Calleva actually looked like. The layout of the Mithraeum is also wrong. In general the scale and proportion of the ruins is really off. They make them look absolutely gigantic. In terms of Britain's geography in general they overgeneralise massively, with rivers in the wrong place, others not existing, etc. But I am grateful that they did include some of London's Roman structures such as the forum and amphitheatre.
@@mattc9998 actually, a small piece of aqueduct was found during an archeological investigation when constructing the foundation for DLR Canary-Wharf... at least, there was a documentary on Odyssey_history about that.
As a Brit I'm always fascinated by the Roman invasion period of history. When I was a kid growing up in South Wales they fitted a new gas pipe in the woods and fields where we used to camp and when digging they found a huge horde of roman coins worth just under a quarter million pounds that I later got to see at a museum in Cardiff. Makes you wonder what history has happened right beneath your feet
I think no matter where you are in Britain, there is history all around you. We've been scratching around on this lump of dirt for the last 10,000 years more or less since the ice receded.
@@Chichesterfrotesque1001 Because it's British history. You know? It's local to me? Can't help thinking there are more discoveries just under the soil from a period of conflict and the installation of advanced infrastructure and irrigation systems
I think the King Arthur story shows that even though the material culture was in decline, it doesn't necessarily mean the people's spirits were in decline. To us, crumbling ruins and abandoned buildings seem depressing but for all we know people's spirits were high and hopeful and a lot could have been going on during those days. The time scale too is always deceiving in archaeology- it's not like there were old homeless people wandering around Londinium waxing on about when they were wealthy landowners and there games in the amphitheater... there was a hundred years or longer between a villa being abandoned by its original owners and before it started to actually fall apart. Change is usually slow and across generations.
This is partly why I tend to accept the later dates for Arthur. Sure, Roman rule and Roman marching orders ended much earlier than Arthur's time, but how long did it take for Romanitas to truly fade? The traditional end of Arthur's 'reign' coincides really well with the massive climatological event in 535 A.D. The abandonment of Londinium from 450-600 A.D. almost necessitates a 'Camelot,' if it existed at all, having existed between those dates. Many academics aren't seeing what's there and aren't accepting what they're seeing. It's the same as with Pre-Clovis settlement in the Americas. A lot of people want a boring history to keep things simple. History isn't simple because people aren't simple.
When Rome evacuated I suspect trade plummeted. Local and regional food deficits in frequent unkind years, I likewise infer, were not made good through trade. Liberty is fantastic, to those who are fed.
There was a Roman city in modern day Kent known as Camelodunum. This is so close to "Camelot" that it's almost certainly the same thing. The only problem is that it's in the area that would very early have been over run by the Saxons, whom Arthur was supposed to have fought back against. We are missing some details of history but to me, the similarity is so close that it can't be ignored.
Well, the King Arthur story is of course just that: a story, composed in the later Middle Ages, when people had completely forgotten what the world of the 5th and 6th centuries was actually like.
"How many legions would you need to invade Britain?" "Ah. Hmmm. Four. Yes, and a great deal of auxiliary cavalry as well." "Couldn't you do it with three? They're very uncivilized." "It's not worth the risk. You see, on a fresh venture, you must hit hard and quickly. And if you have to send for reinforcements, it just gives the enemy breathing space" "I'll do it one day" "Well, I doubt it's worth it. There's nothing of value there and the people make very poor slaves..." *Conversation between Drusus the Elder (father of Emperor Claudius) and Augustus' heir Lucius*
I've seen a couple of articles recently which point out how heavily forested Britain was, and that the Britons lived on high ground like the Downs because low lying land was impenetarable and full of dangerous wild animals. Of course, the population would have been tiny in comparison to today, so Roman Britain would have looked very different. I live in an area where farming has been largely abandoned and the speedy encroachment of trees onto formerly agricultural land is quite remarkable.
I think I read somewhere that britain is currently more forested than it actually used to be. I think the peak amount of farmland was like 6000 years ago or something
@@pigeonsareugly Interesting. there's an episode of Out of Town with Jack Hargreaves where he talks about the changing landscape and human settlement. It's on youtube.
The country was heavily deforested thanks to the need for charcoal in the smelting of iron, so from about 750BC it was nothing like you say. Peter Salway, a major expert on Roman Britain, estimates its population was about nine million. That may be in the high side, but the land was ploughed higher up the contours than at any time until WWII, when Dig for Victory led to mass ploughing. By 1066, we can estimate the population of England at a million.
Really really love the channel One super tiny thing you might want to know that I’ve noticed: When you say “Gratias tibi ago” it means “thanks you” singular but then you say “amici”, which is plural. You could say “Gratias vobis ago, amici” which is thank you plural. Or “Gratias tibi ago, amice” which is singular. Or you could do nothing because it really doesn’t matter and no one will notice lol
The river wall stood until after 1100. The Normans demolished it and someone dropped a coin of Henry I there. Late Roman London was cut off from its own port. There is a tiny image of Roman London on a medal found in France as part of the Beaurains hoard.
"I'll tell you this. If the sword is all that you're prepared to show us Britons, then be prepared to carry it forever in your hand... and sleep with it forever by your side at night! For you will need it!" *Speech of the defeated Briton leader Caractatus before Emperor Claudius and the Senate*
Thanks for more excellent Late Antique content. One other point with Britain is it had lots of lead in the North Pennines, and Romans used lead for everything. So much lead was smelted (to purify it) in Britain that Roman era Britons were a few inches shorter, as childhood exposure to lead retards growth. The use of lead gradually fell enormously if gradually between the Age of Crisis and the time of Heraclius. It also was supplied a quantity of grain, which while no match for Egypt or Africa, was at least useful for regional civil and military purposes. One general thing about Roman city population is that I've read of one or two scholars (I'll try find the reference) who suggest population densities are overestimated, even for Rome itself (and looking the admittedly not complete findings in London, housing or premises were generally single or two storey strip buildings ie no insulae, apart from fora or, for London, the praetorium, some high status residences or perhaps the curia house), but that might be a minority position. It would say for 12:05 that post Roman Britain was- perhaps at a lower material level with pottery and worked iron becoming rare, perhaps Bronze Age. The kingdoms of pre-Roman Britain had those things, including bullion coins based on their own interpretation of Graeco-Roman coins.
This video came at just the right time for me. I’m reading a book called Dark Earth that takes place in Londinium in 500 AD. This is helping me to imagine what London looked at that time
Lundenwic, just like Londinum, started decaying due invasions by sea. Some excavations around the Holborn and Covent Garden area have uncovered extremely interesting archaeological remains of Lundenwic, including streets, houses and imported quern stones, that were mentioned as a subject of letters exchanged between King Offa of Mercia and King Charlemagne. There are also a few earlier Anglo-Saxon burials found in the area which attest the area as a centre of post-Roman activity in the area.
Not gonna lie, those shots of the Roman ruins taken over by nature were beautiful. That's why I clicked, because of the thumbnail. A videogame in that time period could be amazing, if done right.
Thanks for mentioning Alfred the Great. He succeeded in delivering for the English what Majorian could not for Romans. Curiously, young Alfred visited 9th century Rome on a pilgrimage. I suspect, this is how he learnt the value of education and adopted the idea that monarchy isn’t just a privilege but is a duty and service. Embedding this idea into the English understanding of state was the first step towards the constitutionalism and democracy would be coming to shape for centuries.
London has great history. The Roman culture and amazing improvements that came are still present in today's London. This incredible city is one of a few that survived into modern times.
Would like one on the last bastion of the Western Roman Empire. Salona and Emperor Diocletian's Palace (Spalatum) in year 500 so during Gothic Rule. It was also involved in the Gothic Wars but avoided the fate of Rome of in the 500s. The 600s however ended the at that time Eastern Pearl of the Adriatic.
Apparently there was a large late Roman church built approximately where Tower Hill is now (built around 380) which didn't collapse for several centuries afterwards.
The lack of writing from this period really shows how apocalyptic this period was. Imagine being 10 years old in 410 AD and living in Roman London to say a middle class family. By the time you were 68 in 478 AD London was either in the process of being abandoned or almost depopulated. You would probably have moved west to safer areas. Your grandchildren and possibly even your children would be living in wooden hillforts or defensive outposts. By the dawn of the 6th century your grandchildren would never have known a Roman world, Western Empire would have collapsed, trade with the continent ceased, famine, depopulation and constant invasions and war. You would have tried to explain Roman technology and society to your grandchildren who were probably illiterate and unable to grasp the world you witnessed disintegrate.
> living in Roman London to say a middle class family. Interesting thought. In my analysis, a middle-class family that did anything other than farming, would have faced starvation very quickly. Once the Military Complex pulled out, and the Government along with it, there would have been no more economy. No more money coming into the Isle for all the skilled workers, like the metal workers, stone workers, carpenters, brick workers, etc. These groups would have been hit hard and fast, as they would quickly not have any money to buy food for themselves and their families. In all likelihood, most will starve. If you were a farmer, your biggest customer just left, so while you may not have any money, you at least still have food, and at least know how to farm. Your biggest problem is security, as you would need to defend yourself, your family, and your farm from the roving band of the Bagaudae, who were groups of peasant insurgents, now including those skilled workers, who didn't want to just quietly starve to death. It would have been a real mess, and like any apocalyptic scenario, 80% of the people perish, due to starvation, disease, and violence. > You would probably have moved west to safer areas. I think many moved east, to Gaul, and created Brittany.
It really is. I love this line "the romano-british reorganized themselves back into their traditional tribes suspiciously quickly", almost as if they weren't really romanized at all, while in Gaul and Hispania it seemed the conquering barbarians were conquered culturally by the local Romano-Gallic and Romano-Hispanic populations respectively, much like what happened with the Yuan Dynasty in China.
@@banananotebook3331 > almost as if they weren't really romanized at all I don't believe that was it, it was a matter of survival. No government came in to replace the Romans when they left, causing the Romano-British economy to completely crash. No Roman money means no trade and no economy, with everyone but the farmers with no food or work. They could only survive by falling back into an agrarian subsistence existence. > while in Gaul and Hispania it seemed the conquering barbarians were conquered culturally by the local Romano-Gallic and Romano-Hispanic populations respectively That is exactly what happened, as the Barbarians wanted to be a part of the Roman culture, the Roman way of life. They respected and copied the Romain Laws and made them their own. No such entity came into Roman Britain. The only groups that went in after the Romans pulled out, initially, wanted to raid and pillage.
@@TEverettReynolds But before Rome invaded Britain there wasn't just "an agrarian subsistence existence": if I recall correctly, there was at least one trading sea route travelled by Phoenician ships from the Mediterranean Sea through the Pillars of Hercules that went to Britain's coasts. And Iron Age Britain was far from a subsistence economy: gold and silver jewelry found in hillforts ruins show that, at least for a part of the population, there was enough of a surplus of production to exchange it with luxury goods and materials, like gold and silver, who are not found in Britain naturally. Coins coined by continental Gauls were found in Britain, showing that goods were exchanged, sold and bought at least partially with money, and traded with the continent. So it could be supposed that when Romans left Britain, some wealthier roman-british (and, arguably, some military people too) remained there and kept some of the roman "way of life" alive, since it wasn't so MUCH different from the original one. The problem, there like in all other parts of the Empire, was the maintenance and security of the roads, that couldn't be maintained like before because the army (that usually was the one appointed with that service) had other things to do (push back the attacks of the "barbarians" on the borders, for example) or was recalled to Rome or relocated to other regions (like the case of Britain). But the roads didn't fall into ruins in 10 years, so, again, it could be supposed they could still be used for travel and trades for 100 years or so, and the same can be said about the cities and their buildings. The most different thing and probably the one that most suffered from the Romans leaving was probably water supply and management: acqueducts and sewers were the major technological and societal innovation introduced by Romans in their european territories, and one that needed the most specialised people to maintain. If one thing was abandoned after the Romans departure was probably that one.
Julius Caesar, Claudius and Agricola: *Manage to conquer Britannia after many years of efforts and countless bloodshed* Honorius: "So, anyway, I started neglecting..."
AN interesting video on the history of London. The area now known as Oxford Street would be lined with traders such as Roman Candy Stores, Pennyland and Greggius Bakery
The map is 1:20 is from 150 AD as it show the Roman frontier in Scotland (the Antonine Wall), but it does not show the occupation of today's Baden-Wurtemburg (the green triangle area which lasted to the 260s of of the mountains of Romania on the right. R was evacuated sometine between 270 and 275.
Nice one, Maiorianus! A welcome side path into one of the outer provincial capitals of Rome and its' descent from thriving urban center to abandoned ghost town. Also thanks for the recommendation of Diadokhoi - I will be sure to check them out! - IMPERATOR CAESAR LVCIVS SEPTIMIVS SEVERVS PERTINAX AVGVSTVS
I have never quite understood what happened in Roman Britannia. The written word of books does not capture what imagery and the spoken word can present. Thanks for such a vivid picture.
Awesome video, sir. Super fascinating and bitter period which has always gotten my imagination going. Can you imagine if there had been just a handful of literate individuals documenting the slow slide into total anarchy? Or describing that strange in between era which can truly be considered a "dark" age? In the absence of any surviving writings your video is very illuminating and I truly thank you for your hard work and enthusiasm and am now subscribed. Greetings from Florida....can't wait to see more!
There is one source that survives. Check out Gildas' On the Ruin of Britain (De Excidio Britanniae), written a generation after the events, likely based on testimony from those who lived through it. The author was a Christian priest so his focus is religious, but he talks a great deal about the Romans leaving, raids from the north, and the degeneration of civil society. This lead to the Romano-Britons actually inviting the Saxons to come be their protectors (similar to the arrangement Romans had with auxiliary forces). Unfortunately for the Britons, the Saxons weren't content to just protect them...
Excellent upload. It made me think of today’s woke world. The Romans took some of us Britains as slaves! I’m terribly upset that my ancestors were treated thus. So I want an apology from them AND reparations. All Roman names to be removed from our country and other things - which I can’t think of at the moment - we won’t get rid of anything that was good, we’ll keep. And while we’re about it, those Vikings…
Just discovered this video and the channel. Wow! Great that someone did a video on this topic! I love the post-Roman or early medieval period. Keep these coming. I plan to soon become a patron.
Greetings from Gallia Aquitania. I like this video. Personally I find much more interesting talking about the provinces of late Roman Empire than alternative history. Maybe you'll find time and energy to make a video about gallo-roman people?
Please do soon this for cologne and trier! I don’t know about trier, but cologne was devastier by Hund, but recomputed soon later back by Roman’s. In medieval times the colognes found a Roman cemetery and thought it was the Holy Ursula. Not many Roman ruins survived, but they are some few. The cathedral is builded on the Fundament of a Roman church or something. The city of Trier got the Porta Nigra and the imperial palace. It had about 100 000 inhabitants during its Roman peak times.Constantin I. made it into the capital for a while. Either Trier or cologne had the longest Aquädukt north of the Alps. Cologne was named first something with Ubier included. Later was named into Colonia Claudia Ara Aggrepinensia or was it Aggrpinesnium? Trier was Augusta Treverorum, as the Treverer lived there. Cologne was famous for its glad manufacture across the Roman Empire. Roman Glas made in Cologne could be found in almost every Roman province. Therefore lot of Roman’s from different provinces settled there. The Roman Egyptians community was big in cologne and in cologne the oldest Jewish community in Germany could be found. It was in roman Germania where and when Constantine got closer contact to Christians.
It is fascinating how the descendants of Germanic barbarians first ravaged the Roman world only to build up some of the finest kingdoms upon the ashes.
12:28 Now pause here and Imagine being a kid with your little friend playing in this ruins, running with the echoes of the steps and little screams... And then suddendly stop and wandering the sight up the great vault and wondering who on earth would have made such a big and majestic building. Forgetting about it a moment later and back to running around and play
The eagle of the ninth (set in Roman Britain) is probably the most famous. Don't be put off by the "children's Book" tag. The silver branch, the lantern bearers (set at the end of the Roman Empire after the légions have left) Frontier Wolf... She wrote about 40 books altogether (some set in Saxon or Viking Britain too) Her father was an army man so the army and battle stuff is very realistic. She was such an author and such a person, I have a feeling you are going to love her 😊
Excellent as always. 👍 If you haven't seen it yet, may I recommend "Geat and Maethild", a recent upload on the Northworthy Sagas and Stories channel here on UA-cam.
The river that flows through London is pronounced tems, looks like Thames but sounds like tens but with an m's, a quirk no doubt of old written English and old spoken English.
And is probably a pre-Celtic word for flowing waters or some-such (as much as anybody can know) cogante with the Teme (pr. Team), Tamar, Thame (tame), Tame
It's amazing that after being left empty for such a long time, and after how much if the Roman-era technology being forgotten, the name still prevailed.
I enjoy your videos Maiorianus! There is evidence that the Roman villas and culture continued into the 6th century, and Justinian's plague was the real killing blow to Roman Britain. The number of burials in Roman cemeteries suddenly collapsed about 540 AD. Until then, the mines in Cornwall kept a trade going with the rest of the Roman world. Bede reports that Angles conquered Britain, but there is no evidence of any battle. Probably the Roman Britons collapsed in numbers by 50 or 60% due to the plagus, and the Angles walked in unopposed.
It’s interesting that there wasn’t more local enterprise. The population, when the legions departed, seemed to have learned few skills. That’s a real hazard of relying on goods from afar.
in all fairness the Britons did not stop making steal that one tech stayed around. and armour making too. but the more boring stuff like concrete, glass, paved roads, writing, math were all thrown out. why would a largely farmer base people want that stuff for?
@@iandougall7169 They didn't understand economics but enacted laws to stop people from buying silk as so much money ended up in China. They didn't even know where China was but it was going along the silk road.
An interesting perspective on a time that is badly recorded by contemporary writers. My thoughts are that the breakdown of the slave system would have contributed to the lack of maintenance of buildings, especially public buildings. In terms of perspective, Bronze age culture was highly organised and culturally rich as was Anglo Saxon culture, the lack of civic structures and buildings would have been because of a different economic system.
The fate of Londinium is so similar to fate of old Roman city of Emona at the place of modern city of Ljubljana the capital of Slovenia. I guess many Roman cities have similar story to Londinium.
One has to be careful in assuming that everything in the former western Roman empire was in ruins in this era.One need only to look at the Ostrogoths in Italy and the Visigothic kingdom in Spain to realize that most of the Roman infrastructure was still in working order in these places-the irrigation systems,the aqueducts and indeed the lavish public buildings were all still there,The Visigothic king Reccared actually had plans to build a city,in the style of Constantinople,which he would call Reccaredopolis.Someone has written a book called "The myth of the Andalusian paradise" that sets out to prove with copious historical references that it was the Visigoths that civilized the invading Arabs and Moors and not the other way round.Indeed the famed Moorish horse shoe arch so prominent in the great Cordova mosque was invented by the Visigoths not the incoming Moors.
I think you make a good point and add nuance to the discussion, but here we get to the controversial question: "did Rome really fall?" I really like this particular take on the matter, which mentions in a way your main point while also giving one particular conclusion. "*The collapse of Roman political authority doesn’t represent any sort of clear break in anything we might call ‘Roman civilization’* - on this, Ward-Perkins seems to me to be quite clearly wrong when he terms the fall of the Roman Empire in the West as the ‘Death of a Civilization.’ Latin persisted; Christianity persisted; Roman literature persisted; Roman law persisted; the Roman Empire itself persisted in the East. But it is quite clear that, on the one hand, the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West represented a substantial decline in state capacity, borne out by smaller churches, fewer public buildings, smaller armies, and smaller, less centralized, more fragmented polities and a greater degree of endemic warfare (although those wars were often on a smaller scale). Resource mobilizations that were casual accomplishments for the Romans - the construction of the infrastructure of Roman cities essentially ex nihilo through much of Gaul and Spain - would be flatly out of reach for western European states until the High Middle Ages. At the same time, it seems fairly clear from the evidence that *the collapse of Roman connectedness took a slow economic decline and turned it into a collapse*. As I’ve said, what you see here depends on where you look and what you think is the most important; for me - as I’ve noted before - my focus is drawn to the living conditions of the people in a society. From that perspective, the fall of Rome was an unmitigated disaster, a clear (but not total) break with the economic patterns of antiquity which had enabled a measure of prosperity in the Mediterranean world. *The world that emerged in the sixth century was one that was substantially poorer, its population brought back in line with its reduced production by decades of grinding misery and shortage.*" acoup.blog/2022/01/14/collections-rome-decline-and-fall-part-i-words/
It is an amazing video, Sebastianus! We could discover more unknown facts of the Late Antiquity bit by bit. By the wayI will study in the Glasgow University and enroll the MA History Honours course. A modest ruins of Roman baths could be found in there, and hopefully you will visit there in one day! ☺
Really interesting and emotive video. One little detail I would add for discussion is the subject of the British population during the Saxon takeover. The genetic evidence now shows that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes didn't displace the general inhabitant of post Roman Britain - and England specifically. Across England, only 20-40% of DNA is Germanic in origin. This suggests a complex and interesting period of the people having to come to terms with a new ruling class, gradually adopting their language and some of their customs. And Saxon immigrants adding to the population rather than replacing it. Meanwhile, it was two way with regards the Christianisation of the Saxons and the way Saxon rulers soon also looked back to the Roman period. Alfred being the best example of course, but not the only one. Meanwhile, Romano-British leadership still clung on in the west - Wales especially, but also Cornwall and Cumbria for a time. There, they kept their language and more traces/fragments/echoes of the final years of Roman Britannia. As you mention in the video, this is likely where the mythology of Arthur is rooted - legends which happens to be particularly strong in Wales. I would love to see more histories, and dramatisations set in this fascinating period. Given this, I think the idea of Anglo-Saxon England is a little bit of a misconception, at least to a degree. People tend to think of a Saxon invasion, and the Britons being pushed into Wales. The local rulers may have fled, but the people largely stayed. I think it is more a two way interaction between Saxon warlords, becoming Kings, and themselves being shaped by the Britons they ruled, influenced by Christianity and the Roman church, and haunted/fascinated/inspired by the ruins of Roman Britain all around them. I'd be interested to know what other people's thoughts (or challenges) are on the above.
Although the region of Cornwall is always included as part of the Roman Empire, archaeologically Cornwall is bereft of Roman buildings and artifacts, including pottery, which current thinking lends to the realisation that the Romans didn't enter Cornwall for some reason, be it resistance from the Cornish tribes (likely) or some type of truce (unlikely, else pottery etc. would have surely been traded). The extent of the Roman Empire should therefore end around the Devon/Somerset border where the Roman artifacts and buildings end.
One of my favourites. Actually, the inhabitants of London, Londinium, from AD 410 would have recognised much in AD 450, and those of AD 450 much in AD 500. The major difference being the loss of trade and associated industries and crafts, and therefore they'd have seen a much-reduced area of occupation. London essentially returned to the two city-settlement of pre-Roman times the docks area (then within the Roman wall environs) and the trading village areas (outside the walls); the main Saxon area Lundenwic was noted mainly west, outside the walls, the Strand, Aldwich to Trafalgar Square (the from the old port to St Martin-in-the-Fields), though some had settled near Covent Garden - enough to have left burial grounds. St Martins Church remained a recognisably Roman area outside the city (in the fields), with occupation up to AD 450s[ London, Lundunburg .. London, the city (within the wall) was still a place of relative safety in AD 457 .. for Kentish Romano-Britons (the upper-crust if not the peasants and labourers) fled there after a military defeat at Crayford. By AD 519, two junior officers of the now Saxon-led Romano-British remnants (fifty years after the great exodus of the British elites to Brittany), e.g. Cerdric, Creoda, Cynric, and Ceawlin, so it would seem, 'began to rule' .. among the West Saxon settlements (Wessex). To the East, in Kent, Durobrivae = Durobrivis - Robrivis = Ro(brivis)chester, remained an important and even thriving Post-Roman settlement, under Octa, Eormenric, and Aethelberht (AD 515-616), while in Essex, the East Saxons, Colchester = Camulodunum was of more importance than London, under Aescwine, Sled and Saeberht (AD 520-615) - both still had their Roman walls and Christian churches in the mid-fifth-century (a Christian basilica in London, perhaps based on the model of St Ambrose's cathedral in Milan, at Tower Hill, burned down at this time and was not rebuilt, smaller churches seem to have remained in use, e.g. St Peter's Corn Hill). This was no major disaster area, other than for the top level among the ruling Romano-British landowners and civic rulers (including the likes of bishops); it was simply that the usefulness of cities, towns, townships, and military camps had shifted and their kind of bureaucratic governance ceased - even in places like the trade-focused city of London. Great stuff.
@@raduraducu2668 Except history. There is relatively little actual evidence for what happened to Roman London except that it was replace by Anglo-Saxon London .. that is the trading facilities shifted. The major difference, however, was in its loss of political significance; the Roman imperial civil service had ceased to operate from there. The best way to consider it is not as a sudden successful series of Blitzkrieg atacks, as hit London between AD 1940-44 (which also left large parts of the City a devastation area, occupied by ruins and London Pride .. a local weed, for a few decades), but as a removal of the capital and its business (this was intended to happen, before the USA enter the war, and remained an option until the German Vengeance Weapons were stopped). Between AD 460-520 London (the square mile) was largely abandoned by the local civilian population for many of the jobs that employed them had gone, yes, even its large Church fell prey to fire - and was not rebuilt, but then it was no longer needed as a politico-economic centre .. so there was no need for anyone to be there. The Saxons were interested in farming production and trade, not imperial politics, and it was this new way of life (or rather the resurrection of an older way of life) that marked out the future of London .. Roman, in 500, did not offer the British any US Cavalry type of assistance let alone vast amounts financial reconstruction aid ... www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/london/vol3/pp62-68
Suggestions for other cities in the Roman empire you could cover: Eboracum, Lutetia, Hadrian's Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina, Nicaea, Serdica, Roman Carthage, Roman Athens.
The thing to remember, is that by the time the Roman legions are recalled around 410AD, the whole population is roman. 16+ generations have lived and died since the roman invasion. Nobody will remember life without Rome. Think of 400 years from today 1622, but with no books only vocal history, yet none of think we are Jacobeans or puritans. There would only be Romans in the south of England the idea of Britons resisting the mighty roman oppression as existed in 54bc would not exist. I believe this to be one of the most powerful realisation in history by 400AD we are just Roman British not Britons living under Roman rule.
One reason for the decline of the western roman empire were the overstressed agricultural resources. Here is one example from the latest scientific results: Near Koblenz in Germany about 140 years ago a roman villa had been excavated. For a long time people thought that this hugh agricultural object had been destroyed during the raids of the Alemanni after they crossed the frozen river Rhine in 407 a. d.. But the latest pollen analyse of the late roman soillevel showed the missing of grain and an increasing number of heathland plants. This result indicates a rural breakdown in the middle of the fourth century. Also several written sources describe the agricultural crisis, i.e. roman legions who stood sentinel over the river Rhine recieved their grain from Britain as in Gaul their was not enough food available for the entire population. WIth an unfertile soil people left the villa about 70 - 100 years before germanic raiders crossed the river Rhine. At the Koblenz site further analysis shows that the soil remained unfertile for the next 600 years.
That picture of what Londinium was supposed to look like really caught my eye because it shows a double drawbridge. Did the Romans really build those? I can find references to single drawbridges but not any double drawbridges. It seems very fanciful to me, and I'm doubting its authenticity.
One environmental consideration is that there is no building stone in south-eastern Britain. The Chiltern hills to the north and the Downs and Weald to the south are chalk. All building stone had to be transported by sea from Lincolnshire or Yorkshire in the north, or brought down the Thames from the Cotswolds. Many buildings in Londinium must have been built with brick or Kentish ragstone but most were wood with mud and wattle, like the half-timbered buildings that we associate with the Elizabethan Age. Recall that most Tudor palaces, such as Hampton Court, Richmond Palace, St James Palace, and so on were built of brick with stone used only for foundations, arches, and decoration. Some public buildings in Londinium might have appeared superficially to be stone, but it would have been just a thin stone veneer on top of brick, as indeed many buildings in Rome itself were. When the city walls were erected in the 3rd century the building stone came from existing buildings, many of which must have been demolished at this time and never rebuilt. Many gravestones were used in this development and have been found in excavations. And, of course, the city walls were not proper ashlar masonry, as depicted so often, but a rubble core with dressed stone veneer, and the veneers were frequently reused stone where the decorated side was inserted into the rubble to leave a flat, more easily defended exterior. The location of the city of Londinium was based upon London Bridge, and the bridge was positioned where it was because of the gravel bars of Southwark, the only dry approach from the south. The artistic representation of Londinium as viewed from the North-East depicts this well. London Bridge was approximately twice as long in Roman times because there has been massive fill as a result of 2,000 years of excavations for foundations and storm sewers. No remains of possible stone piers have been found, so it must be assumed that the Roman London Bridge was constructed on wooden piers, which would rot and wash away over time. When London Bridge collapsed in the 5th century the occupied zone moved west to a set of gravel ridges to the west in what is now Westminster, which provided a more direct connection to Watling Street, and the ford across the Thames at Lambeth. Back then the tide reached at least to the current Vauxhall Bridge so the gravel bars at Lundenwic were very suitable for a port, considering that the shallow draft ships used in post-Roman trade were drawn up on the beach. The Lambeth ford was used before the Romans, as piles from the area show there was at least a partial crossing of the Thames there, possibly a bridge out to a now lost sand-bar. This is the area where the legions of Claudius crossed the Thames. This is obvious if you extend the line of the Roman road from Kent, and the line of Watling Street. Those lines meet at the old ford at Lambeth. At the same time that Lundenwic became the main port on the Thames, the main port on the south coast was moved upstream to Hamwic on the River Itchen. Other ports at this time included Gippeswic (Ipswich) on the River Orwell, Eoforwic (York) on the Ouse, Quentovic on the Canche river in Gaul, and Dorestad on the Rhine. When Bede wrote his History of the English Church many of his sources appear to have been sagas composed during the Germanic settlement of Britain. They of course glorified conflict and named the battles where ancestors had earned glory or death. However there is almost no trace of forceful occupation in the archaeological record. As the video describes the economy just slowly decayed until two generations after the last tax denarii arrived from the Continent the last villas simply became uneconomic. The villa economy ultimately depended upon slavery, but Roman-style industrial slavery required government enforcement. Germanic settlement probably started even before the collapse of the Roman administration because the oldest Germanic settlements, identified both by archaeology and place name studies, were established in reference to the Roman settlements, which requires that those Roman settlements were still active at the time of the arrival. Probably what happened was that without the power of the state to protect the rights of the villa owners the villa slaves simply went to work for the new Germanic farmers. They had rarely interacted with the owners or management of the Roman villas, and probably had a more intimate relationship with the new settlers. Certainly they acquired the Frisian dialect of the new settlers with only a few traces of Celtic grammar and pronunciation, essentially nothing from Latin.
@@harrynewiss4630 I appreciate your input. Almost everything in my post was a statement of fact either from geology or archaeology. Could you clarify exactly which of my statements you feel is not supported by evidence.
@@jamescobban857 OK, well... 1. 'Frisian dialect'. Not accurate - some settlers were from that area, but most probably not though all seem to have spoken closely related languages 2. 'No trace of forceful occupation in the archaeology' - that overstates things and a key point is that by no means have we uncovered all that might be uncovered. We know from many other sources that there were conflicts in this period - their nature and scope is what is uncertain I think. Similarly Saxon v Viking conflicts later are much more visible in the other sources than in archaeology. 3. 'villa slaves went to work for new Germanic farmers' - we really can't guess about dynamics of this sort - this a supposition 4. There is more Latin borrowed into Old English than Celtic - an intriguing fact. Probably this mostly came via the church and pre-adventus contacts though 5. Rarely interacted with the owners/management of villas - how can we know that?
@@harrynewiss4630 Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time. Frisian: while their may have been distinct social or tribal identities within the Germanic settlers, the North Sea Germanic or Ingvaeonic linguistic group had not been separate from the Istvaeonic or Rhenish linguistic group, represented at the time primarily by Frankish/Proto-Dutch long enough for there to be significant dialectical separation. The communities along the south shore of the North Sea were tightly bound by the ease of transportation by sea, compared to travelling inland. They also shared a common physical culture including building their communities on terpen and living in grubhausen, for which the Frisian terminology is used even by English archaeologists. All of the oldest settlement sites in England share these distinct Frisian features. According to Roman sources the Frisii occupied the entire coastline from the mouth of the Rhine to the West, but archaelogically there is no cultural boundary beyond that as far as the northern tip of Jutland in the 5th century. Furthermore within living memory Frisian dialects have been spoken along this coast from the Frisian Islands of the Netherlands to the chain of islands off the west coast of Denmark. IMHO this continuity was only interrupted after the settlement of England, as a result of movements down the Rhine, Saale, and Elbe by speakers of Istvaeonic dialects which evolved into Platt-Deutsch, Dutch, and Flemish. These movements are documented in early medieval contemporary sources. It seems artificial to me to distinguish between Anglian, Saxon, and Jutish dialects in the 5th century. Indeed even two centuries later Æthelberht of Kent does not seem to have had any difficulty in communicating with his wife Bertha, daughter of Charibert, despite her Frankish accent. I therefore believe that it is not misleading to describe all of the settlers as being Frisian. Please direct me to any archaeological evidence of conflict between the Germanic settlers and their Romano-British "hosts" prior to the mid 6th century. Historical memory is suspect. It is clear that the early sections of Bede are dependent upon sagas, and even contemporary Roman reports would emphasize "bad news". "Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news." Of course there must have been some violent disagreements at times, but even those reported by Bede seem never to have involved more than a hundred combatants on each side. And Gildas, in the early 6th century described a society in which there had been no substantial conflict with the Germanic settlements in his lifetime!
A special shout-out to all the people who recently donated to us via Super Thanks 🤗:
🧡 @Xiang Chen
🧡 @Jason Cuculo
🧡 @julius williams
🧡 @Mauro Merali
🧡 @Rank of Master
🧡 @JeffTownUSA
🧡 @Eisenpfosten
🧡 @Squire Waldo
🧡 @Ruufus De Leon
🧡 @David Keane
🧡 @Kevin Gomez
🧡 @scrot
🧡 @Xina Marie Uhl
🧡 @Aaron Flynn
🧡 @Robert
🧡 @Gary Worthington
🧡 @howtorideahorse
🧡 @Franz Nowak
🧡 @(Ἰάσων) Sobek Lord of the Four Corners
🧡 @michael porzio
🧡 @David Batlle
Thank you so much for your generous support and for believing in us 🙏
Your host, Sebastian
What, London? No no no....we said Athens. Athens from 100-500 ;o)
Glad you guys used footage from Assassin's Creed: Origins. The developers really put their effort into recreating ancient Roman cities.
You're probably not going to see this now, but for future reference. The Thames river is pronounced as the tems.
Edit: and Britons is pronounced with a flat i, like the way you say Britain. Not like Brightons which could be confused as people from Brighton
Sss
You should do other videos about how other UK cities looked Juring the Roman era,
I love how melancholic the end of the Roman Empire feels like, it really is the stereotype of the fall of civilization
Remember, each generation after the fall, would look upon the ruins, only to realize, that someone and something, greater than themselves, once lived here and built these amazing ruins. They would also realize that they, who have neither the free time nor the knowledge, could ever rebuild the ruins.
How sad indeed.
Londinium fondata dai Romani, il più grande e glorioso impero della storia; la grandezza, la potenza, la magnificenza e la gloria di ROMA È AETERNA, ROMA INVICTA ET LUX MUNDI 💪💪💯
Some say our civilization is falling now. What will be here in 500 years?
@@kellysouter4381 Our civilization is planetary now, that's the difference
They had the benefit of hindsight though, as much the bronze age collapse takes place in the Bible.
There is an Anglo Saxon poem from the ninth century called "The Ruin" which describes an abandoned Romano British city, believed to be Bath but could equally apply to London. It is quite long and some of it is missing but it starts off like this:
This masonry is wondrous; fates broke it
courtyard pavements were smashed; the work of giants is decaying.
Roofs are fallen, ruinous towers,
the frosty gate with frost on cement is ravaged,
chipped roofs are torn, fallen,
undermined by old age. The grasp of the earth possesses
the mighty builders, perished and fallen,
the hard grasp of earth, until a hundred generations
of people have departed.
Often this wall, lichen-grey and stained with red,
experienced one reign after another,
remained standing under storms; the high wide gate has collapsed.
Still the masonry endures in winds cut down
that's about Carlisle there's even later descriptions from the 11th century but there is a few mentions of london still going strong well into the 6th century we quite often see bishops of london going to church councils in Europe that implies continuation and the amphitheatre was being used for moots well into 7th century
Isn’t that one of the poetry fragments found with the Finnisburgh Fragment?
Thanks! 😊👍
Saxons: raid, pillage and burn Roman civilization in Britain to the ground
Also Saxons: *Why are these buildings so ruined??*
The Butler Did It:That I HAVE to read!Thank you for the info.
I'm playing Assassin's Creed: Valhalla, and I found it strange that London (or "Lunden" as it's called in the game) was still so full of Roman ruins in the 800s AD. But it turns out that's accurate. The game developers obviously did their research.
They did but not as much as you'd hope. A lot of the ruins were pure fiction. There is no evidence of any stone aqueduct in Roman Britain, in Valhalla they scatter them everywhere. Roman Bath isn't even there, neither is Fishbourne. Calleva is just random ruins that don't follow what Calleva actually looked like. The layout of the Mithraeum is also wrong.
In general the scale and proportion of the ruins is really off. They make them look absolutely gigantic.
In terms of Britain's geography in general they overgeneralise massively, with rivers in the wrong place, others not existing, etc.
But I am grateful that they did include some of London's Roman structures such as the forum and amphitheatre.
@@mattc9998 Thanks for the additional info. Interesting.
@@mattc9998 actually, a small piece of aqueduct was found during an archeological investigation when constructing the foundation for DLR Canary-Wharf... at least, there was a documentary on Odyssey_history about that.
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 Oh really? I'm intrigued. Can you send the name of the documentary?
@@mattc9998 if I can find it, its been a while now and history channels on UA-cam seem to constantly change....
As a Brit I'm always fascinated by the Roman invasion period of history. When I was a kid growing up in South Wales they fitted a new gas pipe in the woods and fields where we used to camp and when digging they found a huge horde of roman coins worth just under a quarter million pounds that I later got to see at a museum in Cardiff. Makes you wonder what history has happened right beneath your feet
I think no matter where you are in Britain, there is history all around you. We've been scratching around on this lump of dirt for the last 10,000 years more or less since the ice receded.
cant say im a fan of latest decisions regarding who lives here it just doesn't reflect historicity
I'm curious, why did you start your discourse with ,"as a brit"
@@EnglishSaxons I'm not interested in your political views
@@Chichesterfrotesque1001 Because it's British history. You know? It's local to me? Can't help thinking there are more discoveries just under the soil from a period of conflict and the installation of advanced infrastructure and irrigation systems
A Roman province for nearly 370 years?! That's amazing. The USA has only been around for 246 years, so who knows what will be here in 124 years?
I think the King Arthur story shows that even though the material culture was in decline, it doesn't necessarily mean the people's spirits were in decline. To us, crumbling ruins and abandoned buildings seem depressing but for all we know people's spirits were high and hopeful and a lot could have been going on during those days. The time scale too is always deceiving in archaeology- it's not like there were old homeless people wandering around Londinium waxing on about when they were wealthy landowners and there games in the amphitheater... there was a hundred years or longer between a villa being abandoned by its original owners and before it started to actually fall apart. Change is usually slow and across generations.
This is partly why I tend to accept the later dates for Arthur. Sure, Roman rule and Roman marching orders ended much earlier than Arthur's time, but how long did it take for Romanitas to truly fade? The traditional end of Arthur's 'reign' coincides really well with the massive climatological event in 535 A.D. The abandonment of Londinium from 450-600 A.D. almost necessitates a 'Camelot,' if it existed at all, having existed between those dates. Many academics aren't seeing what's there and aren't accepting what they're seeing. It's the same as with Pre-Clovis settlement in the Americas. A lot of people want a boring history to keep things simple. History isn't simple because people aren't simple.
When Rome evacuated I suspect trade plummeted. Local and regional food deficits in frequent unkind years, I likewise infer, were not made good through trade. Liberty is fantastic, to those who are fed.
There was a Roman city in modern day Kent known as Camelodunum. This is so close to "Camelot" that it's almost certainly the same thing. The only problem is that it's in the area that would very early have been over run by the Saxons, whom Arthur was supposed to have fought back against. We are missing some details of history but to me, the similarity is so close that it can't be ignored.
@@AF-tv6uf "History is not simple because people are not simple". What a truthful statement.
Well, the King Arthur story is of course just that: a story, composed in the later Middle Ages, when people had completely forgotten what the world of the 5th and 6th centuries was actually like.
"How many legions would you need to invade Britain?"
"Ah. Hmmm. Four. Yes, and a great deal of auxiliary cavalry as well."
"Couldn't you do it with three? They're very uncivilized."
"It's not worth the risk. You see, on a fresh venture, you must hit hard and quickly. And if you have to send for reinforcements, it just gives the enemy breathing space"
"I'll do it one day"
"Well, I doubt it's worth it. There's nothing of value there and the people make very poor slaves..."
*Conversation between Drusus the Elder (father of Emperor Claudius) and Augustus' heir Lucius*
From I Claudius 😉
Thank you very much for this episode! I dreamt about it for a long time.
Hi Gordon, and thank you for your continued support :) I am glad that you and other people are also so interested in roman urban history.
i swear every video title I'm like "I've wondered about that too!" awesome stuff
I've seen a couple of articles recently which point out how heavily forested Britain was, and that the Britons lived on high ground like the Downs because low lying land was impenetarable and full of dangerous wild animals. Of course, the population would have been tiny in comparison to today, so Roman Britain would have looked very different. I live in an area where farming has been largely abandoned and the speedy encroachment of trees onto formerly agricultural land is quite remarkable.
I think I read somewhere that britain is currently more forested than it actually used to be. I think the peak amount of farmland was like 6000 years ago or something
@@pigeonsareugly Interesting. there's an episode of Out of Town with Jack Hargreaves where he talks about the changing landscape and human settlement. It's on youtube.
@@pigeonsareuglyHah...Great Britain was still connected to the mainland by Doggerland
The country was heavily deforested thanks to the need for charcoal in the smelting of iron, so from about 750BC it was nothing like you say. Peter Salway, a major expert on Roman Britain, estimates its population was about nine million. That may be in the high side, but the land was ploughed higher up the contours than at any time until WWII, when Dig for Victory led to mass ploughing. By 1066, we can estimate the population of England at a million.
@@jameshitselberger5845 no, that’s not true. Doggerland was lost after the last ice age.
Fantastic. What more can one say ! Nothing more interesting than the LATE ROMAN EMPIRE ! Keep them coming. Hail Caesar
Really really love the channel
One super tiny thing you might want to know that I’ve noticed:
When you say “Gratias tibi ago” it means “thanks you” singular but then you say “amici”, which is plural.
You could say “Gratias vobis ago, amici” which is thank you plural. Or “Gratias tibi ago, amice” which is singular.
Or you could do nothing because it really doesn’t matter and no one will notice lol
The river wall stood until after 1100. The Normans demolished it and someone dropped a coin of Henry I there. Late Roman London was cut off from its own port. There is a tiny image of Roman London on a medal found in France as part of the Beaurains hoard.
Love the history of all this
Awesome video! Glad you like our clips!
"I'll tell you this. If the sword is all that you're prepared to show us Britons, then be prepared to carry it forever in your hand... and sleep with it forever by your side at night! For you will need it!"
*Speech of the defeated Briton leader Caractatus before Emperor Claudius and the Senate*
Thank you so much for continuing to provide this type of content. You're amazing !
Fantastic video, Sebastian- keep up the great work, amicus 👍
Thanks a lot Sobek, I will try to do that :)
Thanks for more excellent Late Antique content.
One other point with Britain is it had lots of lead in the North Pennines, and Romans used lead for everything. So much lead was smelted (to purify it) in Britain that Roman era Britons were a few inches shorter, as childhood exposure to lead retards growth. The use of lead gradually fell enormously if gradually between the Age of Crisis and the time of Heraclius. It also was supplied a quantity of grain, which while no match for Egypt or Africa, was at least useful for regional civil and military purposes. One general thing about Roman city population is that I've read of one or two scholars (I'll try find the reference) who suggest population densities are overestimated, even for Rome itself (and looking the admittedly not complete findings in London, housing or premises were generally single or two storey strip buildings ie no insulae, apart from fora or, for London, the praetorium, some high status residences or perhaps the curia house), but that might be a minority position.
It would say for 12:05 that post Roman Britain was- perhaps at a lower material level with pottery and worked iron becoming rare, perhaps Bronze Age. The kingdoms of pre-Roman Britain had those things, including bullion coins based on their own interpretation of Graeco-Roman coins.
This video came at just the right time for me. I’m reading a book called Dark Earth that takes place in Londinium in 500 AD. This is helping me to imagine what London looked at that time
Lundenwic, just like Londinum, started decaying due invasions by sea. Some excavations around the Holborn and Covent Garden area have uncovered extremely interesting archaeological remains of Lundenwic, including streets, houses and imported quern stones, that were mentioned as a subject of letters exchanged between King Offa of Mercia and King Charlemagne. There are also a few earlier Anglo-Saxon burials found in the area which attest the area as a centre of post-Roman activity in the area.
Not gonna lie, those shots of the Roman ruins taken over by nature were beautiful. That's why I clicked, because of the thumbnail.
A videogame in that time period could be amazing, if done right.
Yes, maybe AC valhalla?
Muh vidya
Thanks for not lying to us.
Thanks for mentioning Alfred the Great. He succeeded in delivering for the English what Majorian could not for Romans.
Curiously, young Alfred visited 9th century Rome on a pilgrimage. I suspect, this is how he learnt the value of education and adopted the idea that monarchy isn’t just a privilege but is a duty and service. Embedding this idea into the English understanding of state was the first step towards the constitutionalism and democracy would be coming to shape for centuries.
Love the Excalibur cameo at 10:57! (Could you do a full video about the possible origins of King Arthur?)
London has great history. The Roman culture and amazing improvements that came are still present in today's London.
This incredible city is one of a few that survived into modern times.
Would like one on the last bastion of the Western Roman Empire. Salona and Emperor Diocletian's Palace (Spalatum) in year 500 so during Gothic Rule. It was also involved in the Gothic Wars but avoided the fate of Rome of in the 500s. The 600s however ended the at that time Eastern Pearl of the Adriatic.
I was not expecting you to see here. Now THAT is what I call subverting expectations.
Arab attacks?
Apparently there was a large late Roman church built approximately where Tower Hill is now (built around 380) which didn't collapse for several centuries afterwards.
The lack of writing from this period really shows how apocalyptic this period was.
Imagine being 10 years old in 410 AD and living in Roman London to say a middle class family. By the time you were 68 in 478 AD London was either in the process of being abandoned or almost depopulated. You would probably have moved west to safer areas. Your grandchildren and possibly even your children would be living in wooden hillforts or defensive outposts. By the dawn of the 6th century your grandchildren would never have known a Roman world, Western Empire would have collapsed, trade with the continent ceased, famine, depopulation and constant invasions and war. You would have tried to explain Roman technology and society to your grandchildren who were probably illiterate and unable to grasp the world you witnessed disintegrate.
looks like we'll be repeating that cycle soon
@@shaunsteele8244 Let's hope not. But, many things that are the foundation of civilization are crumbling sad to say.
Yes it's happening now promoting the unintelligent to jobs they can't do,filling universities with quotas instead of ability.
Sort of like being in Detroit in the 1950's.
> living in Roman London to say a middle class family.
Interesting thought. In my analysis, a middle-class family that did anything other than farming, would have faced starvation very quickly. Once the Military Complex pulled out, and the Government along with it, there would have been no more economy. No more money coming into the Isle for all the skilled workers, like the metal workers, stone workers, carpenters, brick workers, etc. These groups would have been hit hard and fast, as they would quickly not have any money to buy food for themselves and their families. In all likelihood, most will starve.
If you were a farmer, your biggest customer just left, so while you may not have any money, you at least still have food, and at least know how to farm. Your biggest problem is security, as you would need to defend yourself, your family, and your farm from the roving band of the Bagaudae, who were groups of peasant insurgents, now including those skilled workers, who didn't want to just quietly starve to death.
It would have been a real mess, and like any apocalyptic scenario, 80% of the people perish, due to starvation, disease, and violence.
> You would probably have moved west to safer areas.
I think many moved east, to Gaul, and created Brittany.
It's really interesting to see how different the "fall" of Rome was from an area to another...
It really is. I love this line "the romano-british reorganized themselves back into their traditional tribes suspiciously quickly", almost as if they weren't really romanized at all, while in Gaul and Hispania it seemed the conquering barbarians were conquered culturally by the local Romano-Gallic and Romano-Hispanic populations respectively, much like what happened with the Yuan Dynasty in China.
@@banananotebook3331 > almost as if they weren't really romanized at all
I don't believe that was it, it was a matter of survival. No government came in to replace the Romans when they left, causing the Romano-British economy to completely crash. No Roman money means no trade and no economy, with everyone but the farmers with no food or work.
They could only survive by falling back into an agrarian subsistence existence.
> while in Gaul and Hispania it seemed the conquering barbarians were conquered culturally by the local Romano-Gallic and Romano-Hispanic populations respectively
That is exactly what happened, as the Barbarians wanted to be a part of the Roman culture, the Roman way of life. They respected and copied the Romain Laws and made them their own. No such entity came into Roman Britain. The only groups that went in after the Romans pulled out, initially, wanted to raid and pillage.
@@TEverettReynolds But before Rome invaded Britain there wasn't just "an agrarian subsistence existence": if I recall correctly, there was at least one trading sea route travelled by Phoenician ships from the Mediterranean Sea through the Pillars of Hercules that went to Britain's coasts. And Iron Age Britain was far from a subsistence economy: gold and silver jewelry found in hillforts ruins show that, at least for a part of the population, there was enough of a surplus of production to exchange it with luxury goods and materials, like gold and silver, who are not found in Britain naturally. Coins coined by continental Gauls were found in Britain, showing that goods were exchanged, sold and bought at least partially with money, and traded with the continent.
So it could be supposed that when Romans left Britain, some wealthier roman-british (and, arguably, some military people too) remained there and kept some of the roman "way of life" alive, since it wasn't so MUCH different from the original one. The problem, there like in all other parts of the Empire, was the maintenance and security of the roads, that couldn't be maintained like before because the army (that usually was the one appointed with that service) had other things to do (push back the attacks of the "barbarians" on the borders, for example) or was recalled to Rome or relocated to other regions (like the case of Britain). But the roads didn't fall into ruins in 10 years, so, again, it could be supposed they could still be used for travel and trades for 100 years or so, and the same can be said about the cities and their buildings.
The most different thing and probably the one that most suffered from the Romans leaving was probably water supply and management: acqueducts and sewers were the major technological and societal innovation introduced by Romans in their european territories, and one that needed the most specialised people to maintain. If one thing was abandoned after the Romans departure was probably that one.
Julius Caesar, Claudius and Agricola: *Manage to conquer Britannia after many years of efforts and countless bloodshed*
Honorius: "So, anyway, I started neglecting..."
I have always had a fascination with Archeology and your Utube channel helps feed that thrust. Thanks for the real picture and not any fantasyland.
Evocative graphics and descriptions...I felt as if I were really there. Liked and subscribed. Thanks for providing this experience.
Excellent presentation. Thank you so much.
Very fascinating presentation! I had not known much of this information before. Thanks for creating this video and sharing it.
There is a beautiful, sad and nostalgic poem from around these times called The ruin, it can be found on UA-cam.
AN interesting video on the history of London. The area now known as Oxford Street would be lined with traders such as Roman Candy Stores, Pennyland and Greggius Bakery
🤣🤣
The map is 1:20 is from 150 AD as it show the Roman frontier in Scotland (the Antonine Wall), but it does not show the occupation of today's Baden-Wurtemburg (the green triangle area which lasted to the 260s of of the mountains of Romania on the right. R was evacuated sometine between 270 and 275.
Nice one, Maiorianus! A welcome side path into one of the outer provincial capitals of Rome and its' descent from thriving urban center to abandoned ghost town. Also thanks for the recommendation of Diadokhoi - I will be sure to check them out!
- IMPERATOR CAESAR LVCIVS SEPTIMIVS SEVERVS PERTINAX AVGVSTVS
Thanks for spelling out Diadokhoi - I tried without going back in the video and looking and failed three times :D
So you spell centre as 'center', huh? Who knew Septimius Severus was a yank?
@@thadtuiol1717 Nah, I'm no Yank.
I have never quite understood what happened in Roman Britannia. The written word of books does not capture what imagery and the spoken word can present. Thanks for such a vivid picture.
This video isn’t very enlightening about it either
Awesome video, sir. Super fascinating and bitter period which has always gotten my imagination going. Can you imagine if there had been just a handful of literate individuals documenting the slow slide into total anarchy? Or describing that strange in between era which can truly be considered a "dark" age? In the absence of any surviving writings your video is very illuminating and I truly thank you for your hard work and enthusiasm and am now subscribed. Greetings from Florida....can't wait to see more!
There is one source that survives. Check out Gildas' On the Ruin of Britain (De Excidio Britanniae), written a generation after the events, likely based on testimony from those who lived through it. The author was a Christian priest so his focus is religious, but he talks a great deal about the Romans leaving, raids from the north, and the degeneration of civil society. This lead to the Romano-Britons actually inviting the Saxons to come be their protectors (similar to the arrangement Romans had with auxiliary forces). Unfortunately for the Britons, the Saxons weren't content to just protect them...
Excellent upload. It made me think of today’s woke world. The Romans took some of us Britains as slaves! I’m terribly upset that my ancestors were treated thus. So I want an apology from them AND reparations. All Roman names to be removed from our country and other things - which I can’t think of at the moment - we won’t get rid of anything that was good, we’ll keep. And while we’re about it, those Vikings…
Man Roman history is so awesome!
Without the Romans we all be still living in caves running around semi naked in pig skins.
When the Normans built the Tower of London after 1066 they must have taken what was left of Roman building materials
"Romano-Brightons" sorry that made me giggle a bit 😆
Imagine being a Roman in ancient London not knowing how significant that city would become in the future.
You mean cesspool
Yeah a massive shithole.
@@fenrirrising131 Your brain is the cesspool
How do you imagine that experience? "Gee, here I am, a Roman in ancient London - and I don't know how significant, etc.."
Fascinating..
You could say the same about places like Boston maybe?
Just discovered this video and the channel. Wow! Great that someone did a video on this topic! I love the post-Roman or early medieval period. Keep these coming. I plan to soon become a patron.
Good job. Those are some beautiful pictures.
Love your videos! Would you consider doing an episode on the last Roman-Persian war in the early 7th century?
Very interesting - Thanks for the video!
Amazing! Thank you for making this!!
That was an excellent video. Well presented. I'm subscribing !
Greetings from Gallia Aquitania.
I like this video. Personally I find much more interesting talking about the provinces of late Roman Empire than alternative history. Maybe you'll find time and energy to make a video about gallo-roman people?
Please do soon this for cologne and trier! I don’t know about trier, but cologne was devastier by Hund, but recomputed soon later back by Roman’s. In medieval times the colognes found a Roman cemetery and thought it was the Holy Ursula. Not many Roman ruins survived, but they are some few. The cathedral is builded on the Fundament of a Roman church or something. The city of Trier got the Porta Nigra and the imperial palace. It had about 100 000 inhabitants during its Roman peak times.Constantin I. made it into the capital for a while. Either Trier or cologne had the longest Aquädukt north of the Alps. Cologne was named first something with Ubier included. Later was named into Colonia Claudia Ara Aggrepinensia or was it Aggrpinesnium? Trier was Augusta Treverorum, as the Treverer lived there. Cologne was famous for its glad manufacture across the Roman Empire. Roman Glas made in Cologne could be found in almost every Roman province. Therefore lot of Roman’s from different provinces settled there. The Roman Egyptians community was big in cologne and in cologne the oldest Jewish community in Germany could be found. It was in roman Germania where and when Constantine got closer contact to Christians.
It is fascinating how the descendants of Germanic barbarians first ravaged the Roman world only to build up some of the finest kingdoms upon the ashes.
12:28 Now pause here and Imagine being a kid with your little friend playing in this ruins, running with the echoes of the steps and little screams... And then suddendly stop and wandering the sight up the great vault and wondering who on earth would have made such a big and majestic building.
Forgetting about it a moment later and back to running around and play
If you like this Time and atmosphere I think you would enjoy the Books of Rosemary Sutcliff if you haven't already read them.
@@isabelled4871 I'm gonna look for it like there's no tomorrow :D
Edit: thx!
The eagle of the ninth (set in Roman Britain) is probably the most famous. Don't be put off by the "children's Book" tag. The silver branch, the lantern bearers (set at the end of the Roman Empire after the légions have left) Frontier Wolf... She wrote about 40 books altogether (some set in Saxon or Viking Britain too) Her father was an army man so the army and battle stuff is very realistic. She was such an author and such a person, I have a feeling you are going to love her 😊
@@isabelled4871 Oooh boy you're teasing me so much 🤤😃
😁
Excellent as always. 👍 If you haven't seen it yet, may I recommend "Geat and Maethild", a recent upload on the Northworthy Sagas and Stories channel here on UA-cam.
The river that flows through London is pronounced tems, looks like Thames but sounds like tens but with an m's, a quirk no doubt of old written English and old spoken English.
And is probably a pre-Celtic word for flowing waters or some-such (as much as anybody can know) cogante with the Teme (pr. Team), Tamar, Thame (tame), Tame
It's amazing that after being left empty for such a long time, and after how much if the Roman-era technology being forgotten, the name still prevailed.
I came here as a curious Londoner and stayed as a Subscriber. Fantastic channel and very intriguing, thank you.
I enjoy your videos Maiorianus! There is evidence that the Roman villas and culture continued into the 6th century, and Justinian's plague was the real killing blow to Roman Britain. The number of burials in Roman cemeteries suddenly collapsed about 540 AD. Until then, the mines in Cornwall kept a trade going with the rest of the Roman world. Bede reports that Angles conquered Britain, but there is no evidence of any battle. Probably the Roman Britons collapsed in numbers by 50 or 60% due to the plagus, and the Angles walked in unopposed.
I miss the 2 the Future Videos. just found you on this and subbed, hope all is well
i like the formate and production you've done, nice work.............
I love the music in the background, who is the composer ?
Enchanting narration ty ms xuk
It’s interesting that there wasn’t more local enterprise. The population, when the legions departed, seemed to have learned few skills. That’s a real hazard of relying on goods from afar.
There was a general collapse economically throughout the Roman empire due to debasing the money.
@@harryflashman3141 A hard lesson we - or rather those in power who debase the currency to buy votes - haven't learned yet.
in all fairness the Britons did not stop making steal that one tech stayed around. and armour making too. but the more boring stuff like concrete, glass, paved roads, writing, math were all thrown out. why would a largely farmer base people want that stuff for?
Interesting point. Maybe an early example of the consequences of globalism
@@iandougall7169
They didn't understand economics but enacted laws to stop people from buying silk as so much money ended up in China. They didn't even know where China was but it was going along the silk road.
Fascinating!
And well, well presented
Thank you
An interesting perspective on a time that is badly recorded by contemporary writers. My thoughts are that the breakdown of the slave system would have contributed to the lack of maintenance of buildings, especially public buildings. In terms of perspective, Bronze age culture was highly organised and culturally rich as was Anglo Saxon culture, the lack of civic structures and buildings would have been because of a different economic system.
This video made me hit the bell finally 😀
The fate of Londinium is so similar to fate of old Roman city of Emona at the place of modern city of Ljubljana the capital of Slovenia. I guess many Roman cities have similar story to Londinium.
That's because all European cities existed before the Romans. They simply usurped existing municipalities, which were written out of history.
Very good. There is an early Anglo-Saxon poem: The Ruin. 'Who built these walls...?'
4:10 is a depiction of the roman villa in Chedworth. If you’re ever in the area, it’s definitely worth a visit.
One has to be careful in assuming that everything in the former western Roman empire was in ruins in this era.One need only to look at the Ostrogoths in Italy and the Visigothic kingdom in Spain to realize that most of the Roman infrastructure was still in working order in these places-the irrigation systems,the aqueducts and indeed the lavish public buildings were all still there,The Visigothic king Reccared actually had plans to build a city,in the style of Constantinople,which he would call Reccaredopolis.Someone has written a book called "The myth of the Andalusian paradise" that sets out to prove with copious historical references that it was the Visigoths that civilized the invading Arabs and Moors and not the other way round.Indeed the famed Moorish horse shoe arch so prominent in the great Cordova mosque was invented by the Visigoths not the incoming Moors.
I think you make a good point and add nuance to the discussion, but here we get to the controversial question: "did Rome really fall?" I really like this particular take on the matter, which mentions in a way your main point while also giving one particular conclusion.
"*The collapse of Roman political authority doesn’t represent any sort of clear break in anything we might call ‘Roman civilization’* - on this, Ward-Perkins seems to me to be quite clearly wrong when he terms the fall of the Roman Empire in the West as the ‘Death of a Civilization.’ Latin persisted; Christianity persisted; Roman literature persisted; Roman law persisted; the Roman Empire itself persisted in the East.
But it is quite clear that, on the one hand, the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West represented a substantial decline in state capacity, borne out by smaller churches, fewer public buildings, smaller armies, and smaller, less centralized, more fragmented polities and a greater degree of endemic warfare (although those wars were often on a smaller scale). Resource mobilizations that were casual accomplishments for the Romans - the construction of the infrastructure of Roman cities essentially ex nihilo through much of Gaul and Spain - would be flatly out of reach for western European states until the High Middle Ages.
At the same time, it seems fairly clear from the evidence that *the collapse of Roman connectedness took a slow economic decline and turned it into a collapse*. As I’ve said, what you see here depends on where you look and what you think is the most important; for me - as I’ve noted before - my focus is drawn to the living conditions of the people in a society. From that perspective, the fall of Rome was an unmitigated disaster, a clear (but not total) break with the economic patterns of antiquity which had enabled a measure of prosperity in the Mediterranean world. *The world that emerged in the sixth century was one that was substantially poorer, its population brought back in line with its reduced production by decades of grinding misery and shortage.*"
acoup.blog/2022/01/14/collections-rome-decline-and-fall-part-i-words/
Concepting for a "Arthurian" era comic and this going into the "reference folder."
britons not brightons
This is a good slogan
I would love to see more videos of the "periphery" as well as the "core" Roman provinces/cities in Late Antiquity/Early Dark Ages.
That was quite impressive. Good job, Legate!
It is an amazing video, Sebastianus! We could discover more unknown facts of the Late Antiquity bit by bit.
By the wayI will study in the Glasgow University and enroll the MA History Honours course. A modest ruins of Roman baths could be found in there, and hopefully you will visit there in one day!
☺
Really interesting and emotive video. One little detail I would add for discussion is the subject of the British population during the Saxon takeover. The genetic evidence now shows that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes didn't displace the general inhabitant of post Roman Britain - and England specifically. Across England, only 20-40% of DNA is Germanic in origin. This suggests a complex and interesting period of the people having to come to terms with a new ruling class, gradually adopting their language and some of their customs. And Saxon immigrants adding to the population rather than replacing it.
Meanwhile, it was two way with regards the Christianisation of the Saxons and the way Saxon rulers soon also looked back to the Roman period. Alfred being the best example of course, but not the only one. Meanwhile, Romano-British leadership still clung on in the west - Wales especially, but also Cornwall and Cumbria for a time. There, they kept their language and more traces/fragments/echoes of the final years of Roman Britannia. As you mention in the video, this is likely where the mythology of Arthur is rooted - legends which happens to be particularly strong in Wales. I would love to see more histories, and dramatisations set in this fascinating period.
Given this, I think the idea of Anglo-Saxon England is a little bit of a misconception, at least to a degree. People tend to think of a Saxon invasion, and the Britons being pushed into Wales. The local rulers may have fled, but the people largely stayed. I think it is more a two way interaction between Saxon warlords, becoming Kings, and themselves being shaped by the Britons they ruled, influenced by Christianity and the Roman church, and haunted/fascinated/inspired by the ruins of Roman Britain all around them.
I'd be interested to know what other people's thoughts (or challenges) are on the above.
Although the region of Cornwall is always included as part of the Roman Empire, archaeologically Cornwall is bereft of Roman buildings and artifacts, including pottery, which current thinking lends to the realisation that the Romans didn't enter Cornwall for some reason, be it resistance from the Cornish tribes (likely) or some type of truce (unlikely, else pottery etc. would have surely been traded). The extent of the Roman Empire should therefore end around the Devon/Somerset border where the Roman artifacts and buildings end.
Not true there are artefacts in Cornwall, not as many as elsewhere and there is no evidence of what you suggest.
Makes me think of the medieval town of Chillingbourne.
Stop being so good and presenting, you’re gonna make me spiral into an obsessive Middle Ages history phase
One of my favourites. Actually, the inhabitants of London, Londinium, from AD 410 would have recognised much in AD 450, and those of AD 450 much in AD 500. The major difference being the loss of trade and associated industries and crafts, and therefore they'd have seen a much-reduced area of occupation. London essentially returned to the two city-settlement of pre-Roman times the docks area (then within the Roman wall environs) and the trading village areas (outside the walls); the main Saxon area Lundenwic was noted mainly west, outside the walls, the Strand, Aldwich to Trafalgar Square (the from the old port to St Martin-in-the-Fields), though some had settled near Covent Garden - enough to have left burial grounds. St Martins Church remained a recognisably Roman area outside the city (in the fields), with occupation up to AD 450s[ London, Lundunburg .. London, the city (within the wall) was still a place of relative safety in AD 457 .. for Kentish Romano-Britons (the upper-crust if not the peasants and labourers) fled there after a military defeat at Crayford.
By AD 519, two junior officers of the now Saxon-led Romano-British remnants (fifty years after the great exodus of the British elites to Brittany), e.g. Cerdric, Creoda, Cynric, and Ceawlin, so it would seem, 'began to rule' .. among the West Saxon settlements (Wessex). To the East, in Kent, Durobrivae = Durobrivis - Robrivis = Ro(brivis)chester, remained an important and even thriving Post-Roman settlement, under Octa, Eormenric, and Aethelberht (AD 515-616), while in Essex, the East Saxons, Colchester = Camulodunum was of more importance than London, under Aescwine, Sled and Saeberht (AD 520-615) - both still had their Roman walls and Christian churches in the mid-fifth-century (a Christian basilica in London, perhaps based on the model of St Ambrose's cathedral in Milan, at Tower Hill, burned down at this time and was not rebuilt, smaller churches seem to have remained in use, e.g. St Peter's Corn Hill).
This was no major disaster area, other than for the top level among the ruling Romano-British landowners and civic rulers (including the likes of bishops); it was simply that the usefulness of cities, towns, townships, and military camps had shifted and their kind of bureaucratic governance ceased - even in places like the trade-focused city of London.
Great stuff.
In 450 the saxons have sacked and burn London genociding the locals.
NO COMENTS
@@raduraducu2668 Except history. There is relatively little actual evidence for what happened to Roman London except that it was replace by Anglo-Saxon London .. that is the trading facilities shifted. The major difference, however, was in its loss of political significance; the Roman imperial civil service had ceased to operate from there. The best way to consider it is not as a sudden successful series of Blitzkrieg atacks, as hit London between AD 1940-44 (which also left large parts of the City a devastation area, occupied by ruins and London Pride .. a local weed, for a few decades), but as a removal of the capital and its business (this was intended to happen, before the USA enter the war, and remained an option until the German Vengeance Weapons were stopped).
Between AD 460-520 London (the square mile) was largely abandoned by the local civilian population for many of the jobs that employed them had gone, yes, even its large Church fell prey to fire - and was not rebuilt, but then it was no longer needed as a politico-economic centre .. so there was no need for anyone to be there. The Saxons were interested in farming production and trade, not imperial politics, and it was this new way of life (or rather the resurrection of an older way of life) that marked out the future of London .. Roman, in 500, did not offer the British any US Cavalry type of assistance let alone vast amounts financial reconstruction aid ...
www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/london/vol3/pp62-68
@@TheLeonhamm ,abandont ,they were masacred.
No coments
Suggestions for other cities in the Roman empire you could cover: Eboracum, Lutetia, Hadrian's Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina, Nicaea, Serdica, Roman Carthage, Roman Athens.
Also, Mediolanum, Augusta Trevevorum, Antioch, Sirmium, Nicomedia and of course, LEPTIS MAGNA.
@@septimiusseverus343 Shame on me for forgetting to mention Leptis Magna a place that brought the empire such a chad.
it was enjoyable &informative Walking Through London in 500 AD ...allot thanks
I had no idea that Romans actually created London. That's cool.
And Paris
“Arth” means bear in Brythonic. It’s like a war nickname. I like graham phillips’, “the lost tomb of King Arthur” as the most likely theory on Arthur.
From Londinium to Londistan
Mark Twain be like: *Its free real estate*
The thing to remember, is that by the time the Roman legions are recalled around 410AD, the whole population is roman. 16+ generations have lived and died since the roman invasion. Nobody will remember life without Rome. Think of 400 years from today 1622, but with no books only vocal history, yet none of think we are Jacobeans or puritans. There would only be Romans in the south of England the idea of Britons resisting the mighty roman oppression as existed in 54bc would not exist. I believe this to be one of the most powerful realisation in history by 400AD we are just Roman British not Britons living under Roman rule.
One reason for the decline of the western roman empire were the overstressed agricultural resources. Here is one example from the latest scientific results: Near Koblenz in Germany about 140 years ago a roman villa had been excavated. For a long time people thought that this hugh agricultural object had been destroyed during the raids of the Alemanni after they crossed the frozen river Rhine in 407 a. d.. But the latest pollen analyse of the late roman soillevel showed the missing of grain and an increasing number of heathland plants. This result indicates a rural breakdown in the middle of the fourth century. Also several written sources describe the agricultural crisis, i.e. roman legions who stood sentinel over the river Rhine recieved their grain from Britain as in Gaul their was not enough food available for the entire population. WIth an unfertile soil people left the villa about 70 - 100 years before germanic raiders crossed the river Rhine. At the Koblenz site further analysis shows that the soil remained unfertile for the next 600 years.
That picture of what Londinium was supposed to look like really caught my eye because it shows a double drawbridge. Did the Romans really build those? I can find references to single drawbridges but not any double drawbridges. It seems very fanciful to me, and I'm doubting its authenticity.
Interesting presentation, thank you 👍👍
I bet the Thames was a lot cleaner in those days.
Could you try something similar for Dacia? I suggest the cities of Sarmisegetusa or Porolissum.
One environmental consideration is that there is no building stone in south-eastern Britain. The Chiltern hills to the north and the Downs and Weald to the south are chalk. All building stone had to be transported by sea from Lincolnshire or Yorkshire in the north, or brought down the Thames from the Cotswolds. Many buildings in Londinium must have been built with brick or Kentish ragstone but most were wood with mud and wattle, like the half-timbered buildings that we associate with the Elizabethan Age. Recall that most Tudor palaces, such as Hampton Court, Richmond Palace, St James Palace, and so on were built of brick with stone used only for foundations, arches, and decoration. Some public buildings in Londinium might have appeared superficially to be stone, but it would have been just a thin stone veneer on top of brick, as indeed many buildings in Rome itself were. When the city walls were erected in the 3rd century the building stone came from existing buildings, many of which must have been demolished at this time and never rebuilt. Many gravestones were used in this development and have been found in excavations. And, of course, the city walls were not proper ashlar masonry, as depicted so often, but a rubble core with dressed stone veneer, and the veneers were frequently reused stone where the decorated side was inserted into the rubble to leave a flat, more easily defended exterior. The location of the city of Londinium was based upon London Bridge, and the bridge was positioned where it was because of the gravel bars of Southwark, the only dry approach from the south. The artistic representation of Londinium as viewed from the North-East depicts this well. London Bridge was approximately twice as long in Roman times because there has been massive fill as a result of 2,000 years of excavations for foundations and storm sewers. No remains of possible stone piers have been found, so it must be assumed that the Roman London Bridge was constructed on wooden piers, which would rot and wash away over time. When London Bridge collapsed in the 5th century the occupied zone moved west to a set of gravel ridges to the west in what is now Westminster, which provided a more direct connection to Watling Street, and the ford across the Thames at Lambeth. Back then the tide reached at least to the current Vauxhall Bridge so the gravel bars at Lundenwic were very suitable for a port, considering that the shallow draft ships used in post-Roman trade were drawn up on the beach. The Lambeth ford was used before the Romans, as piles from the area show there was at least a partial crossing of the Thames there, possibly a bridge out to a now lost sand-bar. This is the area where the legions of Claudius crossed the Thames. This is obvious if you extend the line of the Roman road from Kent, and the line of Watling Street. Those lines meet at the old ford at Lambeth. At the same time that Lundenwic became the main port on the Thames, the main port on the south coast was moved upstream to Hamwic on the River Itchen. Other ports at this time included Gippeswic (Ipswich) on the River Orwell, Eoforwic (York) on the Ouse, Quentovic on the Canche river in Gaul, and Dorestad on the Rhine.
When Bede wrote his History of the English Church many of his sources appear to have been sagas composed during the Germanic settlement of Britain. They of course glorified conflict and named the battles where ancestors had earned glory or death. However there is almost no trace of forceful occupation in the archaeological record. As the video describes the economy just slowly decayed until two generations after the last tax denarii arrived from the Continent the last villas simply became uneconomic. The villa economy ultimately depended upon slavery, but Roman-style industrial slavery required government enforcement. Germanic settlement probably started even before the collapse of the Roman administration because the oldest Germanic settlements, identified both by archaeology and place name studies, were established in reference to the Roman settlements, which requires that those Roman settlements were still active at the time of the arrival. Probably what happened was that without the power of the state to protect the rights of the villa owners the villa slaves simply went to work for the new Germanic farmers. They had rarely interacted with the owners or management of the Roman villas, and probably had a more intimate relationship with the new settlers. Certainly they acquired the Frisian dialect of the new settlers with only a few traces of Celtic grammar and pronunciation, essentially nothing from Latin.
Lots of suppositions there
@@harrynewiss4630 I appreciate your input. Almost everything in my post was a statement of fact either from geology or archaeology. Could you clarify exactly which of my statements you feel is not supported by evidence.
@@jamescobban857 OK, well...
1. 'Frisian dialect'. Not accurate - some settlers were from that area, but most probably not though all seem to have spoken closely related languages
2. 'No trace of forceful occupation in the archaeology' - that overstates things and a key point is that by no means have we uncovered all that might be uncovered. We know from many other sources that there were conflicts in this period - their nature and scope is what is uncertain I think. Similarly Saxon v Viking conflicts later are much more visible in the other sources than in archaeology.
3. 'villa slaves went to work for new Germanic farmers' - we really can't guess about dynamics of this sort - this a supposition
4. There is more Latin borrowed into Old English than Celtic - an intriguing fact. Probably this mostly came via the church and pre-adventus contacts though
5. Rarely interacted with the owners/management of villas - how can we know that?
@@harrynewiss4630 Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time.
Frisian: while their may have been distinct social or tribal identities within the Germanic settlers, the North Sea Germanic or Ingvaeonic linguistic group had not been separate from the Istvaeonic or Rhenish linguistic group, represented at the time primarily by Frankish/Proto-Dutch long enough for there to be significant dialectical separation. The communities along the south shore of the North Sea were tightly bound by the ease of transportation by sea, compared to travelling inland. They also shared a common physical culture including building their communities on terpen and living in grubhausen, for which the Frisian terminology is used even by English archaeologists. All of the oldest settlement sites in England share these distinct Frisian features. According to Roman sources the Frisii occupied the entire coastline from the mouth of the Rhine to the West, but archaelogically there is no cultural boundary beyond that as far as the northern tip of Jutland in the 5th century. Furthermore within living memory Frisian dialects have been spoken along this coast from the Frisian Islands of the Netherlands to the chain of islands off the west coast of Denmark. IMHO this continuity was only interrupted after the settlement of England, as a result of movements down the Rhine, Saale, and Elbe by speakers of Istvaeonic dialects which evolved into Platt-Deutsch, Dutch, and Flemish. These movements are documented in early medieval contemporary sources. It seems artificial to me to distinguish between Anglian, Saxon, and Jutish dialects in the 5th century. Indeed even two centuries later Æthelberht of Kent does not seem to have had any difficulty in communicating with his wife Bertha, daughter of Charibert, despite her Frankish accent. I therefore believe that it is not misleading to describe all of the settlers as being Frisian.
Please direct me to any archaeological evidence of conflict between the Germanic settlers and their Romano-British "hosts" prior to the mid 6th century. Historical memory is suspect. It is clear that the early sections of Bede are dependent upon sagas, and even contemporary Roman reports would emphasize "bad news". "Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news." Of course there must have been some violent disagreements at times, but even those reported by Bede seem never to have involved more than a hundred combatants on each side. And Gildas, in the early 6th century described a society in which there had been no substantial conflict with the Germanic settlements in his lifetime!
@@jamescobban857 OK so there's another mass of suppositions there. Too many even to go through.
Can you do one on Roman Paris like isle De Paris which was the first Roman settlement of lutece
I love how some of the backgrounds are from AC Valhalla and Odyssey
Your videos are incredible (and as an amateur historian very interesting.)
Subscribed. Hello from Texas.
Fog, you would have seen a lot of it. The famous Londinium Fog🌫️