EXCELLENT VIDEO!!! Many MANY good points about the Germanic settlers placed in Britain by Roman design during the late occupation of the Roman Empire in Britain. Nobody else seems to be talking about this! 410 is just the year that Constantine III took all the Comitatenses (probably not the Limitanii) on expedition to help defend the Rhine frontier, and ultimately to take the throne of Rome (which he did - sort of). But that doesn't mean that it was the "End of Roman Britain". Even when the Honorius told the Britons to look to their own defences "Romanitas" need not have ended. In my view The reason for the proximity of the "Anglo Saxon tribes" to Roman sites is obvious. The Roman administration in Britain (which was in all likelihood ethnically BRITISH, not from Rome) "outsourced their defence and policing needs" to the various Frisian tribes the Empire had always turned to for this purpose (Batavians and Tungrians etc). "Vortgiern" was simply following a well trodden path inviting in these Germanic tribes. Especially since Honorius had made it explicit that bona-fide Imperial troops would not be forthcoming. The 'myths' tell us what happened then; the mercenaries rebelled for want of better remuneration! And the reason for the wholesale take-over of the now English part of the island of Britain was simply due mainly to the flooding that happened in the North Sea, along the coast of what is now the Netherlands, during that time. A good deal of the population of Magna Frisia was innundated, and it's population set sail for refuge in Britain. Hence, mass IMMIGRATION. Leading to the language change from Brythonic to Old English.
Great stuff Alex. Heard the theory too that the Saxon Shore was not forts guarding against AS but manned by them. Maybe as usual a little of both . Cheers
Such a nice way to Educate..Not heavy..But clear resoning..Well for me😊Plus I took it in..And Enjoyed..Liked the Idear re Late Roman and Gernan Soldiers..Already got their Feet here..Smart Thinking..Great Teaching TU Alex 😊
Interesting, but the thing is that while all these germanic soldiers may have laid the groundwork for later Anglo-Saxon peoples coming, the fact that English language reflects its origin in the Anglia/Jutland peninsula.
It's more complicated than German mercenaries married into the local population and supplanted the local language. Firstly the Roman military tried to get its recruits speaking Latin and Romanise them, and secondly all the Romano British place names would still exist. But the fact is they don't. Perhaps the Roman militaries romanisation process had fallen apart a bit, by the 4th century, but I'd expect if there was a kind of continuation of Roman government locally, just with the key jobs going to Germans, then surely this bureaucracy would have just carried on using the same names for all the towns and villages that had always been used. If we look at how the norse went about things, the impression you get is they chased the locals out of the area, then just set their own settlements up using their own names.
That sounds much more plausible as to how Britannia transitioned into the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. It never quite rang true that there was a sudden Saxon Advent in 450 AD, and they drove the natives before them, as they occupied and settled the land. That sounded far too simplistic. There has never been any evidence discovered of the kind of death and destruction caused by a marauding invading army of Angles, Jutes and Saxons, of the kind that was obvious from the Boudican revolt.
One small thing. Carausius was not the Gallic Empire or the Crisis of the Third Century. That was Postumus. Carausius rebelled in Britain against Diocletian after all that had happened.
Just because there are Germanic speakers there does not mean that they are Saxons. They could be Goths. They could be Lombards. Any number of other Germanic tribes. Franks. I suspect the truth is much more complex than what is presented in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and what is being discovered here by archaeologists. Perhaps there was already an established population of Germanic people which were then joined by non-romanized Germanic people from the north sea coast of what is now Germany and Denmark.
@@AlexIlesUK on further reflection, mustn’t discount the linguistic record. The language attested to them is purely North Sea Germanic. It is not Gothic or Langbardic, Old Franconian or Old hi German. It is extremely closely related to old Friesian as it should be. Also very similar to old Saxon as in, from the continent. A man like Alcuin Who was born about 300 years after the fall of Rome would have had no problem communicating with the Friesians Charlemagne was trying to Christianize when he was at his court. So, if there was a Germanic presence in the form of Roman legions I do not think these left much of their language. Unless, of course, they were originally comprised in there majority of Saxons and angles working for the Romans in addition to maybe romanized goths and invited their friends and relatives across the north sea when Rome recalled the Legion to come and take over the land that they had previously guarded. Every legend has a kernel of truth. This would tie in nicely with that Hengist and Horsa story.
I do agree - I don't think I was specific enough when I made this video - many of the troops listed as being in the British isles were from the modern Netherlands, North Western Germany and Belgium so it would have been constituted as 'Frankish' by the Romans as they liked blanket terms, the Angles and Saxons were likely slightly invisible within this blanket term and only really became culturally visible once they were settled and mixed with the British creating the Anglo-Saxon culture. At least that's the early stages of my theory. More research required!!
@@AlexIlesUK The Jutes are also worth mentioning as possibly being or related to the geats, Bewoulfs people. Anyhow there seemed to be a strong worship of Woden/Odin around the areas of East kent, and with traces with bracteates on the isle of wight and the Meon valley.
Great video with original content. Maybe it will be explained in another video, but even with a gradual increase in Germanic peoples over centuries, how is it that the native British language and place-names were so thoroughly eliminated from the landscape? Do you buy into the Justinian plague theory wiping out the Britons or anything like that?
So, this is something I'm currently working on with a university essay but the answer isn't simple. They weren't really wiped out and there are quite a few native names about that have survived! I do need to film some more episodes over Christmas, so I'll try to add this to the list! It's really interesting, some people put a lot of weight into the Justinian plague and some don't think it caused any impact at all! I think it did cause an impact and it's identifiable in skeletons but you'd need to put together a lot of data to prove that it caused widespread population damage! Like a lot of things in this period it comes down to 'more research required'! If I ever do merchandise, I need to put that on a mug, but it's not catchy at all!!
You're supposing that the British spoke Celtic everywhere which may be wrong. It's possible that this was always only a western speech with a proto English always in the east. The Roman writers Caesar & Tacitus tells how the Britons were related to the peoples across the seas nearest to the islands, which means Belgae & other Germans, such as the Suebians. Only in the west, now Wales are they related to the Celtiberians of the Iberian peninsula. So the main part of Roman Britannia may have been inhabited by a Germanic people rather than a Celtic population. This was regularly reinforced by repeated employment of further Germanic Auxiliary Cohorts throughout the Roman period, which intensified over time, but is already evident in the tablets from Vindolanda fort from c 100 AD. This means there was no need for the Britons to adopt a 'new' language during the migration period, & integration with any further migrants or invaders would have been much easier. There was invasion, by invite or not, & warfare ensued by elites for control, leading to a division into various groupings & power centres, eventually resulting in Anglo Saxon & British kingdoms.
It is Germanus, not Germanicus who came to Britain, he had been a military officer. Pelagianism was not anti-Christ, but postulated that good deeds were enough for personal salvation, rather than being dependent upon Grace given by God, as the Catholic Church insisted. I have always thought that the Roman Auxiliaries had a large part in the British population, from the first century the garrisons of Vindolanda were already Germanic, & more Germanic troops constantly were employed as time went on. Around Hadrian's Wall were Swavian, Vangones etc etc. In fact it was these Auxiliaries that were the 'Romans' that most Britons would have known throughout the Roman period. Their presence would have made the Germanic proto-English language common within 'England' at least, easing the way for it to become the dominant language, Therefore there was no need for a dramatic. rapid adoption of a foreign tongue by the Britons in the migration period, because a large part of them were already of Germanic ancestry. At last some people are beginning to see what I have suspected for years, the 'English' were already in Britain in the Roman period, & possibly before that with their close ancestral ties across the surrounding seas, including to none Celtic parts of NW Europe, recorded by Caesar & Tacitus etc. The way of life of all these peoples, including the islands iron age peoples, was very similar, being mostly a warrior elite led society, so their habitations etc would be fairly similar. It was the Mediterranean civic building style, in stone etc, that was anomylous, once this collapsed both native & 'newcomers' habitations would look much alike.
@@AlexIlesUK Not Jesus Grace, but God's. Pelagius said that good deeds were necessary as well, maybe more so. This is only heresy if you think good deeds are pointless. Pelagius attitude suited the British character better. He was a Briton, not Irish.
Brilliant and really comprehensive - I was lucky enough. To be taught by Richard Bailey at Newcastle Uni in the 1980s - a champion of Northumbrian culture - his course the art and archeology of. Anglo Saxon and Viking England was a real treat and these talks take me back…
Saxon 'invasion' has been out of fashion as a concept for some time . No great battles or destruction , yet how was it that Roman Britain became Anglo-Saxon? Here again Alex you give a very clear concise account of a complex period of cultural transition . Always a pleasure to watch .Thanks.
@@AlexIlesUK Thank you for this video. I have been saying the same thing that Philippe Breton has been saying for a while. While my interest is Continental Saxon, there are some major differences between the continental Saxons and Anglo-Saxons. When understanding that the Roman word for Germanic individual was "Saxon", in reality, the Germanic peoples in Britainnia were from many different Germanic tribes, not just the Saxons. While these tribes are very similar, the continental Saxons did not have Kings for example (not kings like Christian kings, as 'cunning' in Old Saxon is a clan/family leader, not kings like the Kings Bede writes about, kings who ruled more people than their clans.) I think the Germanic peoples in England was a far more complex and long process than what Bede and Gildas tell us. Not to mention, Old Saxon is different from Old English, which seems far more Romanized, or Latinized. Still similar, but Latinized. Great video, thank you.
@@aldsidu8600 I'm really glad you enjoyed it! It's still early days and I need to do more research but it's good to see that there are other people who have similar lines of inquiry! Could you please email me some of your reading as I'd be interested in the difference between the old Saxon and Anglo-Saxons language!
@@AlexIlesUK I will start keeping a "list" or maybe make an article on my blog site. My site mainly discusses the Old Saxons, and I discuss Old Saxon on it, a language I have studied and read for 21 years. I read parts of the Old Saxon Heliand and the Uurmsegen daily, and when I read Beowulf in Old English, it is a struggle. Old Saxon in particular does not have a "chs" letter or sound (or an "x"). Some simple examples: In Old English, "East Saxony" would be "Essex." (Or more accurately: "East-Seaxe") But in Old Saxon, "East Saxony" would be "Ost Sahsonland." Same with Wessex vs. Uuest Sahsonland, (West-Seaxe); Sussex vs. Suth Sahsonland, (Suþ-Seaxe etc. The Old Saxons only used the Elder Futhark (these are 100% of the runic finds in Saxony), and the Anglo-Saxons used the Anglo-Frisian Futhorc, which were also known as "Anglo-Frisian Runes." Anglo-Frisian Runes, or the Anglo-Frisian/Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, are only found in Frisia and England. This being said, Old English is absolutely NOT my strength, but many people out there this Old English is Old Saxon. People often argue with me when I say Old Saxony was in Germany, and that is where the Saxon People lived. They have no idea that things like the Saxon Wars (like Widukind and Charlmagne) ever happened. In most people's mind, Saxons only existed in England. This is at least most of the comments I get through my blogsite. (And on occassion, some people fixated with the Vikings and Last Kingdom TV shows are shocked to learn the Saxons were originally Heathen, not Christian.)
We at Woden's Folk have been saying this for years now, that there were Germanic Tribes here in England even before the Romans, and that these were akin to the English. There are records of a tribe called the Tegeingl who moved from the South-West of Ireland to Wales, and ended up in Flintshire at an area they called 'Englefield'. The name 'Tegeingl' is Welsh and means 'Fair Ingl'; the Romans called them Deceangli - what other tribe is called by the name 'Angles'. The Tegeingl lived up in Gwynedd, North Wales and Anglesey (Angle's Island) and they came over with the Gangani (Germanic - 'Wanderers'). These moved from Ireland around 100BCE! For those who do not believe there was this Germanic presence a tribe called the Cauci - a Germanic Tribe akin to the Saxons - lived where Leinster is. In 1999 the 'Irish Times' ran a piece where an archaeological dig in Dublin on a Viking site found a SAXON DWELLING under the Viking ruins!
A clear lack of toponyms in Eastern England may indicate the tribes were Germanic and just lumped together with the Britons by the Romans. Usually, we adopt the names of places we enter into, with a sprinkling of our own. Look at Australia, Canad and USA, or Mexico, full of indigenous names. The Belgae were also reported to have been a Germanic tribe, who may have adopted the Celtic language and culture.
Extremely interesting historical narrative and research!! I very much enjoyed this video! It makes a lot of sense to me when you look at the big picture of Germanic influences in the British and how it was more a gradual change in culture starting in Roman Brittanica! Thank you!! Subscribe!
Several times in the video you say "Germans", rather than for example "Germanic people" or "Germanic tribes". I wonder why? I find it a bit grating, as these people, afaik, were _not_ "German" in any ordinary sense of that word? Can you provide some explanation?
Sometimes, I can just make a slight mistake while filming. Replace German with Germanic whenever I say it and hopefully you won't be as annoyed by it. Best wishes.
@@AlexIlesUK thank you! Also for the quick answer! I expected it to be a mistake, but there are just too many "historic" channels on UA-cam with a non-scientific agenda, so I just wanted to be sure.
Enjoyed that, okay there is a little confirmation bias on my part but the argument that there were already germanic peoples present in Britain prior to 410, mechanisms for such articulated well by your good self, is an argument that holds much water in my opinion. In, The Gododdin of Aneurin - by John T Koch, Koch, whilst starting a big argument among historians over the context of the era in question, in his reanalysis of the text makes some interesting observations, in that some of the names commemorated may have been germanic in origin. Plays into the Pendragon/Gildas mercenary jape, but also leaves the door open to the resettlement theme aired in this presentation.
Not off the top of my head I'm afraid, other than digging into the book it's self. Actually if you just skip the context section & focus on the reconstructed eulogies and authors notes you could cover it quite quickly. The peer comment that I've seen all seems to focus on issues with Koch's post roman context rather than the main body of the work. Which is a pity as the linguistic stuff is over my head, so I'd appreciate some scholarly discussion around that. Well worth a look though.
I have translated your comment and I dont understand what you are trying to say ' Thiago, where did you watch the ICL from? Complaint' what do you mean?
Admixtur is how "Iberia" was created. Inhabitants were called Iberians, Celts and Celtiberian. That signifies the various grades of admixture even back then. But we are not sure who Iberians are; that they came from the East or the Caucassus is more than probable, but from where exactly? There is another Iberia in Caucassus; not to mention that the terminology seems to relate to Eber Finn, the Milesian / Hebron, Palestine / Hebrides islands / Ebro river and, who knows if it is sound to venture a connection to "Hebrew". I'm not even adding in Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Alans, Vandals or Visigoths. Etymology is fascinanting, it is a substract as well. Have you seen all those Tur- related places? It could be ventured that it accounts for one particular time that the 'Turks' or 'Turkic' people were there. I mean Turdetani / Santurce, Basque Country / Kanturk, Ireland / Turku, Finland / Thurso, Scotland / Tharsis, Spain / Turin, Italy / Turingia, Germany, etc.
Really enjoyed this! Was rewatching Francis Prior recently & while his case against a Saxon invasion is quite compelling, the individual arguments to the contrary seem to hang on quite slender threads, but having a large presence of Germanic warriors already in place before 410 does draw a lot of the threads together
But Francis doesn't want there to have been a Germanic invasion. His hippy generation were taught that it was an imperialist fallacy which had to be opposed. So a narrative had to be created where the Celts welcomed the newcomers, & happily adopted their alien language lifestyle & decorative dress fittings etc, totalling dismissing their former centuries of society & culture. This of course makes no sense, & neglects the fact of continued weapon production, including shields, which can only mean warfare. One doesn't need these to hunt animals. It's a warrior led society, supported by farmers, not farmers occasionally dressing up as pretend soldiers. Francis is wrong here, & the most recent DNA, though I think it goes to far on limited evidence, suggests a substantial influx of new people from the continent in the early medieval period. For most people this amounts to an almost total takeover by the Anglo Saxons, & displacement of the Britons, or a wipeout. I think this is overstated, as the sampled populations are limited & localised, so cannot be safely taken as representative of the overall population.
England has been opposite Holland and Germany for a very long time, not just during the Roman period. Intermarriage and migration must have been constant. Of course under Rome, Britain and western Europe were a single province which would have accelerated freedom of movement. This is more than enough to account for DNA similarities with eastern England and for the germination and importation of new (pidgin) languages when Rome's importance declined. When can we drop the phoney stories about "anglosaxon" and "viking" invasions?
@@AlexIlesUK From the dismal lack of evidence for either. (Old) English did not spread across England in the Dark Ages but in the 10th century, and that was Middle English - a language with Celtic phonemes and French vocabulary which proves that the prior language of those adopting it were Welsh and French. "Wiccing" is an English word that means bandits not Scandinavians and it was not "vikings" that left a Norse impriint in Britain it was the Danish dynasty that acquired a claim to territory in Britain through marriage. They were no less cultured than the British and enjoyed substantial native loyalty. Not vikings, no invasion. By the way, wasn't the first mention of the word "wiccing" in connection with a raid in Dorset? You literally can't get further away from Scandinavia. And the last attested Welsh speaking community in eastern England did not disappear until the 17th century - a thousand years after the alleged anglosaxon "conquest". Both events are MYTHS.
I've done a lot more reading and I do think there was a movement, but it was more a migration than an Invasion. I've even seen some theories that the 'anglian' homelands were flooded during the global cooling at the time causing them to have to leave. It's a fascinating period and I want to make more videos on this.
@@AlexIlesUK I think I'm right in saying there are earlier Roman sources that state the angles (Or Angli) lived predominantly in heavily fortified coastal settlements in what was then northern germania. What I find interesting and what I think supports your theory is that if these angles were hired as Roman mercenaries it would make absolute Sence in military terms for the Romans to station them where they would be most affective (for example the coastal regions of Britannia... Lincolnshire,east Anglia even Anglesey). This would also support why these aforementioned areas (with the exception of Anglesey) seem both in cultural and genetic terms to be some of the most germanic areas of Britain
Yes and it also begs the question - how long did Roman (local) government last? Even though every history book says 410 as the end, from my reading and study I'm more and more thinking it was far later. That could mean they could have been invited for a long time after 'the end'. Or migrated and amalgamated. More research required!!
@@AlexIlesUK that is interesting. Did we have Roman towns with Roman garrisons with Roman laws and a Roman economic model .... But Just no actual Romans lol
Well the thing is that 'Roman' by the 3rd century AD isn't a ethnic definition but a cultural one, the people in the empire no matter their ethnic background were either Roman or could become Roman, so the 'Romano-British' were just as Roman, speaking Latin and living in Roman towns (though smaller and with less investment) with regional government (if you read the life of St. Patrick he describes how his father and grandfather were both involved in the Roman civil service) but it is not a part of the 'Empire' as we define it during the 5th century due to invasion, fracturing and rebellions during this period!
EXCELLENT VIDEO!!! Many MANY good points about the Germanic settlers placed in Britain by Roman design during the late occupation of the Roman Empire in Britain. Nobody else seems to be talking about this!
410 is just the year that Constantine III took all the Comitatenses (probably not the Limitanii) on expedition to help defend the Rhine frontier, and ultimately to take the throne of Rome (which he did - sort of). But that doesn't mean that it was the "End of Roman Britain". Even when the Honorius told the Britons to look to their own defences "Romanitas" need not have ended. In my view The reason for the proximity of the "Anglo Saxon tribes" to Roman sites is obvious. The Roman administration in Britain (which was in all likelihood ethnically BRITISH, not from Rome) "outsourced their defence and policing needs" to the various Frisian tribes the Empire had always turned to for this purpose (Batavians and Tungrians etc). "Vortgiern" was simply following a well trodden path inviting in these Germanic tribes. Especially since Honorius had made it explicit that bona-fide Imperial troops would not be forthcoming. The 'myths' tell us what happened then; the mercenaries rebelled for want of better remuneration! And the reason for the wholesale take-over of the now English part of the island of Britain was simply due mainly to the flooding that happened in the North Sea, along the coast of what is now the Netherlands, during that time. A good deal of the population of Magna Frisia was innundated, and it's population set sail for refuge in Britain. Hence, mass IMMIGRATION. Leading to the language change from Brythonic to Old English.
Great stuff Alex. Heard the theory too that the Saxon Shore was not forts guarding against AS but manned by them. Maybe as usual a little of both . Cheers
Aye I've read that too, it's as likely a theory as any!
Such a nice way to Educate..Not heavy..But clear resoning..Well for me😊Plus I took it in..And Enjoyed..Liked the Idear re Late Roman and Gernan Soldiers..Already got their Feet here..Smart Thinking..Great Teaching TU Alex 😊
Thank you!
Interesting, but the thing is that while all these germanic soldiers may have laid the groundwork for later Anglo-Saxon peoples coming, the fact that English language reflects its origin in the Anglia/Jutland peninsula.
Something I was not aware of at the time of the making of this episode, but matches with my research in the Anglo-Saxon DNA video
It's more complicated than German mercenaries married into the local population and supplanted the local language. Firstly the Roman military tried to get its recruits speaking Latin and Romanise them, and secondly all the Romano British place names would still exist. But the fact is they don't. Perhaps the Roman militaries romanisation process had fallen apart a bit, by the 4th century, but I'd expect if there was a kind of continuation of Roman government locally, just with the key jobs going to Germans, then surely this bureaucracy would have just carried on using the same names for all the towns and villages that had always been used. If we look at how the norse went about things, the impression you get is they chased the locals out of the area, then just set their own settlements up using their own names.
The evidence doesn't suggest they chased them out. There's not a total replacement. It's quite a complicated period.
That sounds much more plausible as to how Britannia transitioned into the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. It never quite rang true that there was a sudden Saxon Advent in 450 AD, and they drove the natives before them, as they occupied and settled the land. That sounded far too simplistic. There has never been any evidence discovered of the kind of death and destruction caused by a marauding invading army of Angles, Jutes and Saxons, of the kind that was obvious from the Boudican revolt.
One small thing. Carausius was not the Gallic Empire or the Crisis of the Third Century. That was Postumus. Carausius rebelled in Britain against Diocletian after all that had happened.
Two minutes in you change my whole understanding of post Roman Britain.
I'm really glad, can I suggest you also watch the Anglo-Saxon DNA episode too?
Just because there are Germanic speakers there does not mean that they are Saxons. They could be Goths. They could be Lombards. Any number of other Germanic tribes. Franks. I suspect the truth is much more complex than what is presented in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and what is being discovered here by archaeologists. Perhaps there was already an established population of Germanic people which were then joined by non-romanized Germanic people from the north sea coast of what is now Germany and Denmark.
I'm starting to think this may be the case and the solidified or changed their culture to 'Anglian' or 'Saxon' over time. More research required!!
@@AlexIlesUK on further reflection, mustn’t discount the linguistic record. The language attested to them is purely North Sea Germanic. It is not Gothic or Langbardic, Old Franconian or Old hi German. It is extremely closely related to old Friesian as it should be. Also very similar to old Saxon as in, from the continent. A man like Alcuin Who was born about 300 years after the fall of Rome would have had no problem communicating with the Friesians Charlemagne was trying to Christianize when he was at his court. So, if there was a Germanic presence in the form of Roman legions I do not think these left much of their language. Unless, of course, they were originally comprised in there majority of Saxons and angles working for the Romans in addition to maybe romanized goths and invited their friends and relatives across the north sea when Rome recalled the Legion to come and take over the land that they had previously guarded. Every legend has a kernel of truth. This would tie in nicely with that Hengist and Horsa story.
I do agree - I don't think I was specific enough when I made this video - many of the troops listed as being in the British isles were from the modern Netherlands, North Western Germany and Belgium so it would have been constituted as 'Frankish' by the Romans as they liked blanket terms, the Angles and Saxons were likely slightly invisible within this blanket term and only really became culturally visible once they were settled and mixed with the British creating the Anglo-Saxon culture. At least that's the early stages of my theory. More research required!!
@@AlexIlesUK The Jutes are also worth mentioning as possibly being or related to the geats, Bewoulfs people. Anyhow there seemed to be a strong worship of Woden/Odin around the areas of East kent, and with traces with bracteates on the isle of wight and the Meon valley.
Great video with original content. Maybe it will be explained in another video, but even with a gradual increase in Germanic peoples over centuries, how is it that the native British language and place-names were so thoroughly eliminated from the landscape? Do you buy into the Justinian plague theory wiping out the Britons or anything like that?
So, this is something I'm currently working on with a university essay but the answer isn't simple. They weren't really wiped out and there are quite a few native names about that have survived! I do need to film some more episodes over Christmas, so I'll try to add this to the list! It's really interesting, some people put a lot of weight into the Justinian plague and some don't think it caused any impact at all! I think it did cause an impact and it's identifiable in skeletons but you'd need to put together a lot of data to prove that it caused widespread population damage! Like a lot of things in this period it comes down to 'more research required'! If I ever do merchandise, I need to put that on a mug, but it's not catchy at all!!
You're supposing that the British spoke Celtic everywhere which may be wrong. It's possible that this was always only a western speech with a proto English always in the east. The Roman writers Caesar & Tacitus tells how the Britons were related to the peoples across the seas nearest to the islands, which means Belgae & other Germans, such as the Suebians. Only in the west, now Wales are they related to the Celtiberians of the Iberian peninsula.
So the main part of Roman Britannia may have been inhabited by a Germanic people rather than a Celtic population. This was regularly reinforced by repeated employment of further Germanic Auxiliary Cohorts throughout the Roman period, which intensified over time, but is already evident in the tablets from Vindolanda fort from c 100 AD.
This means there was no need for the Britons to adopt a 'new' language during the migration period, & integration with any further migrants or invaders would have been much easier. There was invasion, by invite or not, & warfare ensued by elites for control, leading to a division into various groupings & power centres, eventually resulting in Anglo Saxon & British kingdoms.
It is Germanus, not Germanicus who came to Britain, he had been a military officer.
Pelagianism was not anti-Christ, but postulated that good deeds were enough for personal salvation, rather than being dependent upon Grace given by God, as the Catholic Church insisted. I have always thought that the Roman Auxiliaries had a large part in the British population, from the first century the garrisons of Vindolanda were already Germanic, & more Germanic troops constantly were employed as time went on. Around Hadrian's Wall were Swavian, Vangones etc etc. In fact it was these Auxiliaries that were the 'Romans' that most Britons would have known throughout the Roman period. Their presence would have made the Germanic proto-English language common within 'England' at least, easing the way for it to become the dominant language, Therefore there was no need for a dramatic. rapid adoption of a foreign tongue by the Britons in the migration period, because a large part of them were already of Germanic ancestry. At last some people are beginning to see what I have suspected for years, the 'English' were already in Britain in the Roman period, & possibly before that with their close ancestral ties across the surrounding seas, including to none Celtic parts of NW Europe, recorded by Caesar & Tacitus etc. The way of life of all these peoples, including the islands iron age peoples, was very similar, being mostly a warrior elite led society, so their habitations etc would be fairly similar. It was the Mediterranean civic building style, in stone etc, that was anomylous, once this collapsed both native & 'newcomers' habitations would look much alike.
Sometimes I stumble over names in a single take. In the Pictish aDNA episode I mispronounced Scythians and trust me that's upset a few folk.
Pelagianism does suggest Jesus grace isn't required though, so I'd say they were on the ball to call out that heresy.
@@AlexIlesUK Not Jesus Grace, but God's. Pelagius said that good deeds were necessary as well, maybe more so. This is only heresy if you think good deeds are pointless. Pelagius attitude suited the British character better. He was a Briton, not Irish.
Brilliant and really comprehensive - I was lucky enough. To be taught by Richard Bailey at Newcastle Uni in the 1980s - a champion of Northumbrian culture - his course the art and archeology of. Anglo Saxon and Viking England was a real treat and these talks take me back…
Glad you enjoyed it!
Saxon 'invasion' has been out of fashion as a concept for some time . No great battles or destruction , yet how was it that Roman Britain became Anglo-Saxon? Here again Alex you give a very clear concise account of a complex period of cultural transition . Always a pleasure to watch .Thanks.
Thank you! Theres so much out there and I love learning about it as each video I do there's always something to learn!
@@AlexIlesUK Thank you for this video. I have been saying the same thing that Philippe Breton has been saying for a while. While my interest is Continental Saxon, there are some major differences between the continental Saxons and Anglo-Saxons. When understanding that the Roman word for Germanic individual was "Saxon", in reality, the Germanic peoples in Britainnia were from many different Germanic tribes, not just the Saxons. While these tribes are very similar, the continental Saxons did not have Kings for example (not kings like Christian kings, as 'cunning' in Old Saxon is a clan/family leader, not kings like the Kings Bede writes about, kings who ruled more people than their clans.) I think the Germanic peoples in England was a far more complex and long process than what Bede and Gildas tell us. Not to mention, Old Saxon is different from Old English, which seems far more Romanized, or Latinized. Still similar, but Latinized.
Great video, thank you.
@@aldsidu8600 I'm really glad you enjoyed it! It's still early days and I need to do more research but it's good to see that there are other people who have similar lines of inquiry! Could you please email me some of your reading as I'd be interested in the difference between the old Saxon and Anglo-Saxons language!
@@AlexIlesUK I will start keeping a "list" or maybe make an article on my blog site. My site mainly discusses the Old Saxons, and I discuss Old Saxon on it, a language I have studied and read for 21 years. I read parts of the Old Saxon Heliand and the Uurmsegen daily, and when I read Beowulf in Old English, it is a struggle. Old Saxon in particular does not have a "chs" letter or sound (or an "x").
Some simple examples:
In Old English, "East Saxony" would be "Essex." (Or more accurately: "East-Seaxe") But in Old Saxon, "East Saxony" would be "Ost Sahsonland." Same with Wessex vs. Uuest Sahsonland, (West-Seaxe); Sussex vs. Suth Sahsonland, (Suþ-Seaxe etc. The Old Saxons only used the Elder Futhark (these are 100% of the runic finds in Saxony), and the Anglo-Saxons used the Anglo-Frisian Futhorc, which were also known as "Anglo-Frisian Runes." Anglo-Frisian Runes, or the Anglo-Frisian/Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, are only found in Frisia and England.
This being said, Old English is absolutely NOT my strength, but many people out there this Old English is Old Saxon. People often argue with me when I say Old Saxony was in Germany, and that is where the Saxon People lived. They have no idea that things like the Saxon Wars (like Widukind and Charlmagne) ever happened. In most people's mind, Saxons only existed in England. This is at least most of the comments I get through my blogsite. (And on occassion, some people fixated with the Vikings and Last Kingdom TV shows are shocked to learn the Saxons were originally Heathen, not Christian.)
@@aldsidu8600 Which one is Latinized/Romanized? Old English or Old Saxon?
We at Woden's Folk have been saying this for years now, that there were Germanic Tribes here in England even before the Romans, and that these were akin to the English. There are records of a tribe called the Tegeingl who moved from the South-West of Ireland to Wales, and ended up in Flintshire at an area they called 'Englefield'. The name 'Tegeingl' is Welsh and means 'Fair Ingl'; the Romans called them Deceangli - what other tribe is called by the name 'Angles'. The Tegeingl lived up in Gwynedd, North Wales and Anglesey (Angle's Island) and they came over with the Gangani (Germanic - 'Wanderers'). These moved from Ireland around 100BCE! For those who do not believe there was this Germanic presence a tribe called the Cauci - a Germanic Tribe akin to the Saxons - lived where Leinster is. In 1999 the 'Irish Times' ran a piece where an archaeological dig in Dublin on a Viking site found a SAXON DWELLING under the Viking ruins!
That's really interesting do you have academic papers you can send or provide links to so I can read up on that ?
A clear lack of toponyms in Eastern England may indicate the tribes were Germanic and just lumped together with the Britons by the Romans. Usually, we adopt the names of places we enter into, with a sprinkling of our own. Look at Australia, Canad and USA, or Mexico, full of indigenous names. The Belgae were also reported to have been a Germanic tribe, who may have adopted the Celtic language and culture.
That was interesting. Shows societies are always more complex than we think.
Totally and alongside that how one period bleeds into another - never as clean or as easy as it seems in school!
Extremely interesting historical narrative and research!! I very much enjoyed this video! It makes a lot of sense to me when you look at the big picture of Germanic influences in the British and how it was more a gradual change in culture starting in Roman Brittanica! Thank you!! Subscribe!
Thank you and much appreciated!
Several times in the video you say "Germans", rather than for example "Germanic people" or "Germanic tribes". I wonder why? I find it a bit grating, as these people, afaik, were _not_ "German" in any ordinary sense of that word? Can you provide some explanation?
Sometimes, I can just make a slight mistake while filming. Replace German with Germanic whenever I say it and hopefully you won't be as annoyed by it. Best wishes.
@@AlexIlesUK thank you! Also for the quick answer! I expected it to be a mistake, but there are just too many "historic" channels on UA-cam with a non-scientific agenda, so I just wanted to be sure.
Enjoyed that, okay there is a little confirmation bias on my part but the argument that there were already germanic peoples present in Britain prior to 410, mechanisms for such articulated well by your good self, is an argument that holds much water in my opinion. In, The Gododdin of Aneurin - by John T Koch, Koch, whilst starting a big argument among historians over the context of the era in question, in his reanalysis of the text makes some interesting observations, in that some of the names commemorated may have been germanic in origin. Plays into the Pendragon/Gildas mercenary jape, but also leaves the door open to the resettlement theme aired in this presentation.
That's really interesting, can I ask has there been anything written on that I could have a look at? Thanks again and glad you enjoyed it!
Not off the top of my head I'm afraid, other than digging into the book it's self. Actually if you just skip the context section & focus on the reconstructed eulogies and authors notes you could cover it quite quickly. The peer comment that I've seen all seems to focus on issues with Koch's post roman context rather than the main body of the work. Which is a pity as the linguistic stuff is over my head, so I'd appreciate some scholarly discussion around that. Well worth a look though.
FANTASTIC. Love your presentations. Your getting better and better!
Thank you! Practice and trying new things helps a lot!
Errrm, well thats thought provoking. kinda adds up as well.
Glad you enjoyed it! I really enjoyed researching it!
Thiago você assistiu o ICL de onde? Denúncia
I have translated your comment and I dont understand what you are trying to say '
Thiago, where did you watch the ICL from? Complaint' what do you mean?
Very interesting approach
Thank you!
Could you do something on the 367 Conspiracy sometime please mate
The Great Barbarian Conspiracy ? That would be fun!
@@AlexIlesUK It would. I`d like it. Never hear much about it
Admixtur is how "Iberia" was created. Inhabitants were called Iberians, Celts and Celtiberian. That signifies the various grades of admixture even back then. But we are not sure who Iberians are; that they came from the East or the Caucassus is more than probable, but from where exactly? There is another Iberia in Caucassus; not to mention that the terminology seems to relate to Eber Finn, the Milesian / Hebron, Palestine / Hebrides islands / Ebro river and, who knows if it is sound to venture a connection to "Hebrew".
I'm not even adding in Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Alans, Vandals or Visigoths.
Etymology is fascinanting, it is a substract as well. Have you seen all those Tur- related places? It could be ventured that it accounts for one particular time that the 'Turks' or 'Turkic' people were there. I mean Turdetani / Santurce, Basque Country / Kanturk, Ireland / Turku, Finland / Thurso, Scotland / Tharsis, Spain / Turin, Italy / Turingia, Germany, etc.
Really enjoyed this! Was rewatching Francis Prior recently & while his case against a Saxon invasion is quite compelling, the individual arguments to the contrary seem to hang on quite slender threads, but having a large presence of Germanic warriors already in place before 410 does draw a lot of the threads together
But Francis doesn't want there to have been a Germanic invasion.
His hippy generation were taught that it was an imperialist fallacy which had to be opposed. So a narrative had to be created where the Celts welcomed the newcomers, & happily adopted their alien language lifestyle & decorative dress fittings etc, totalling dismissing their former centuries of society & culture. This of course makes no sense, & neglects the fact of continued weapon production, including shields, which can only mean warfare. One doesn't need these to hunt animals. It's a warrior led society, supported by farmers, not farmers occasionally dressing up as pretend soldiers. Francis is wrong here, & the most recent DNA, though I think it goes to far on limited evidence, suggests a substantial influx of new people from the continent in the early medieval period. For most people this amounts to an almost total takeover by the Anglo Saxons, & displacement of the Britons, or a wipeout. I think this is overstated, as the sampled populations are limited & localised, so cannot be safely taken as representative of the overall population.
Interesting.Thanks
You're welcome!
This is brilliant Alex, it helps to explain so much.
You are welcome - it's not a perfect theory but I think it does start to fill in some of the gaps
Interesting theory.
Thank you
England has been opposite Holland and Germany for a very long time, not just during the Roman period. Intermarriage and migration must have been constant. Of course under Rome, Britain and western Europe were a single province which would have accelerated freedom of movement. This is more than enough to account for DNA similarities with eastern England and for the germination and importation of new (pidgin) languages when Rome's importance declined. When can we drop the phoney stories about "anglosaxon" and "viking" invasions?
Nope, not phoney at all. Where did you get that idea from??
@@AlexIlesUK From the dismal lack of evidence for either. (Old) English did not spread across England in the Dark Ages but in the 10th century, and that was Middle English - a language with Celtic phonemes and French vocabulary which proves that the prior language of those adopting it were Welsh and French. "Wiccing" is an English word that means bandits not Scandinavians and it was not "vikings" that left a Norse impriint in Britain it was the Danish dynasty that acquired a claim to territory in Britain through marriage. They were no less cultured than the British and enjoyed substantial native loyalty. Not vikings, no invasion. By the way, wasn't the first mention of the word "wiccing" in connection with a raid in Dorset? You literally can't get further away from Scandinavia. And the last attested Welsh speaking community in eastern England did not disappear until the 17th century - a thousand years after the alleged anglosaxon "conquest". Both events are MYTHS.
@kubhlaikhan2015 have a watch of the Anglo-Saxon DNA episode. There's plenty of evidence of a migration.
Was it full of pks
? I'm sorry I don't understand the question
This was a really good video. It makes a lot more Sence than the invasion theory
I've done a lot more reading and I do think there was a movement, but it was more a migration than an Invasion. I've even seen some theories that the 'anglian' homelands were flooded during the global cooling at the time causing them to have to leave. It's a fascinating period and I want to make more videos on this.
@@AlexIlesUK I think I'm right in saying there are earlier Roman sources that state the angles (Or Angli) lived predominantly in heavily fortified coastal settlements in what was then northern germania. What I find interesting and what I think supports your theory is that if these angles were hired as Roman mercenaries it would make absolute Sence in military terms for the Romans to station them where they would be most affective (for example the coastal regions of Britannia... Lincolnshire,east Anglia even Anglesey). This would also support why these aforementioned areas (with the exception of Anglesey) seem both in cultural and genetic terms to be some of the most germanic areas of Britain
Yes and it also begs the question - how long did Roman (local) government last? Even though every history book says 410 as the end, from my reading and study I'm more and more thinking it was far later. That could mean they could have been invited for a long time after 'the end'. Or migrated and amalgamated. More research required!!
@@AlexIlesUK that is interesting. Did we have Roman towns with Roman garrisons with Roman laws and a Roman economic model .... But Just no actual Romans lol
Well the thing is that 'Roman' by the 3rd century AD isn't a ethnic definition but a cultural one, the people in the empire no matter their ethnic background were either Roman or could become Roman, so the 'Romano-British' were just as Roman, speaking Latin and living in Roman towns (though smaller and with less investment) with regional government (if you read the life of St. Patrick he describes how his father and grandfather were both involved in the Roman civil service) but it is not a part of the 'Empire' as we define it during the 5th century due to invasion, fracturing and rebellions during this period!
Is there a Saxon-African finance ?
I do not understand your question
Anglo-Judean.
Only those who are Jewish