*Watch my latest full length history documentary here* :- ua-cam.com/video/c3Hq6UaFQqk/v-deo.html Hi guys! Thanks for stopping by. So this was the second video I ever made (Just under a year ago) Things have changed a bit since then... Hit that subscribe button to check out the new stuff! (50+ new videos coming this year on a huge variety of different subjects)
I watch a lot of history channels on youtube and I really like your diligently made videos. It would be nice, however, to order the "The Early Medieval World" playlist in a timely chronological order of the events and people covered. I just watched the playlist and was a little bit confused by the setlist.
@@Khasidon This is very true. It is also possible that the actual battle never happened. Nothing was written leading up to the battle, nothing shortly after the battle...and almost all the information came from a short 73 line poem penned many years afterwards and rewritten and translated many times, with never a whisper of where the actual battle took place. There was also continual copying and plagiarism going on for centuries, with increasing regularity even up to modern times.
This so so bloody cool!!!! Sorry, I didn't mean to swear, really, but this is cool. I had a history teacher eons ago, who used to tell history as a story, like you do, and it was fascinating...started my love for history. I think you have been doing an exceptional job with this. Thank you for taking the time to bring history to life for us ordinary folks!
@History Time--Thanks for your very informative and well presented videos. Personally, I think that you're an excellent narrator and very thorough in your explanations and the way the videos are edited and arranged. I think that I would have appreciated history lessons more when I was younger and in high school if there were teachers like you around with these type of videos.
The narrator makes a very valid point -the Viking raiders of the Anglo-saxon lands were doing exactly the same thing that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes had done to the Romano-British several centuries before and they came from roughly the same areas of northern Europe.
Bob Bulat Good job the English never did that! Oh wait a minute that's how England came about and oh they went on to rape most of the world and the British Isles!!
@@bobbulat1393 The Belgic Celts did exactly the same about 800 years before the Anglo - Saxons. They invaded and drove the former natives west and north into the mountainous areas of modern Wales and northern Britain. History repeated itself over and over again.
Where my ancestors lost their lands, where my kin wept, and where our last true king fell and was forgotten by history. Cymbriana and the Cymbrik remember the wounds we suffered though few we are.
I have seen archeological proof that the battle took place at Bromborough near Birkenhead on the Wirral. Excavations have revealed numerous weapons from the period.
That is completely false! There is certainly zero evidence that the weapons relate to any war, and not even conclusive proof that the battle happened or where it was even fought!
100% nowhere else makes any sense. The finds are also pretty conclusive. I also think thr cuerdale hoard was buried there as the Scots and norse retreated back north, and clearly never came back. Its dates from around the same time and as the Scots king survived he must have made his way back north, probably chased all the way.
The Cuerdale hoard found on the banks of the Ribble in Preston and dating from around that time could have been deposited on their retreat back to Scotland so that it didn't slow them down. That it was never recovered tells me the anglo saxons caught up with them at some point on their way back. And the contemporary accounts tell us that they did pursue the retreating survivors. From the Wirral going north, you'd eventually have to cross the Ribble and it looks like they did so at the first point where it's shallow enough to cross, a stone's throw from where the hoard was found. All seems to fit to me.
I enjoy your observations, personal evaluations, the most. It's still difficult to truly put things in context with short videos (as opposed to long historic fiction novels) but when you are able it makes sense.
@History Time. Good vid. I've watched a few of your vids now and I've enjoyed them a lot. I also really like the music you use. Keep the vids coming. ;-)
Came here after finishing Last Kingdom on Netflix- honestly I feel like the show does a good job! Obviously dramatized, but with the information they had I feel like I learned a lot by just watching the show!
The key to the advent of the Viking age, and what made them so mobile and deadly was the viking ship. They were clinker built (planks overlapped), which made them really light!.So their ships were able to go up rivers as shallow as only four to five feet of water, meaning they had ready access anywhere where there was a sloping beach and way inland wherever the terrain was relatively low-lying. Basically, the whole of Ireland, much of the east of England, and much of France was totally exposed to attack. But the other thing that made the real difference from Anglo-Saxon boats was that they had sails. Up til then, this could not be done because a mast would put so much pressure on the middle of the boat, it would break in two. But then came the invention of the mast-fish. This was block of wood put on a plinth to spread the weight of the sail over a larger area. And now the vikings could sail just about anywhere and everywhere, which is exactly what they did. This will also explain why an 'irish' army could turn up in the east of England. With a viking-ship this would be no trouble at all, although the Wirral would be closer.
As I understand it, Ireland was called Scotia in the 2nd century. Scotians migrated to the land of the Picts, and settled there, renaming it Scotland. Now, as far as I know, there was no displacement or slaughter of the Picts, so present day Scots would be the mixture of Scotians and Picts. But, there language was replaced by the Celtic Scots I do not know if the Picts were Celtic, but of an earlier group, like the Fir Bolg in Ireland.
Well you got to accept you have Anglo Saxon blood in Scotland. The Kingdom of Northumbria conquered large areas of Scotland and occupied them for many generations.
@@ADZ01982 Although Northumbria itself remained redominately ethnically Brythonic. Only the elite were Angles and they largely intermarried with Britons themselves. The Brythonic language declined as the elite exerted their influence and they themselves had there language and culture strengthened by operating with social cirles of the wider Anglo-Saxon world. DNA evidence confirms this as the north of England and southern Scotland has greater Brythonic genetic markers then the rest of England and Scotland.
@Macsen Wledig Northumbria was unique among the English kingdoms in that it wasn't Saxon and most of the subjects and even the royal family were Brythonic. The royal family were an Angle and Brythonic family. It was also the only kingdom to embrace Celtc Rite Catholicism as opposed to the southern kingdoms who embraced Augustines Latin Rite Catholicism. If we look at the early saints of Northumbria and Mercia we see Welsh names. The Mercians early saints were a single family who came from Northumbria; St. Chad (name means battle), St. Cedd (pronounced Kev like in Kevin). The same 'dd' is the last letter of my name, something in between the English 'v' and 'th'. Also St. Cynybil and St. Cælin. They were all contemparies of Northumbria's infamous Celtic Rite Catholic St. Cuthbert.
@Ben Fizz Nothing to do with rewriting history, nor do I see how that benefits Welsh nationaliam. If anything it undermines it. But that is the current understanding based on current DNA evidence, etymology evidence and historical evidence from English and Welsh sources from the period. If true it undermines our cause considering the Welsh allied themselves with the Mercians to liberate themselves from Northumbrian overlordship in the 7th century.
A couple of points Archaeological evidence from pollen analysis and cultural finds seems to support a likelihood that the Romano British had been decimated by the various plagues in the Roman Empire from the plague of Cyprian through to the Plague of Justinian. The deaths associated with the large cities provides good reason for the Anglo-Saxons avoiding them. Please do not conflate building in stone with "engineering skill," a simple examination of stave churches in Scandinavia shows that engineering skills are equally important when building in timber Shield walls are a common tactic in all cultures pre-firearm, they were not a left over Roman tactic
@Obiwank Keb34 Great points. The vikings had many skills but at that time farming and structural engineering weren't among them.. I disagree that the romans were the first to go shoulder to shoulder with the shield wall though. The spartan hoplights, and for a time the carthaginians who were being trained by a former spartan General xanthippus. But the spartans and carthaginians would stand in a line, with spears at ready... The romans brought in their own hexagonal legionnaire formation..and used short swords... Hollywood need to remake some of these old battles into some epic movies
I am also one of those that believe the battle was fought in East Lancashire, somewhere in and around the area of Burnley, which has the River Brun, from which some believe the Brun in Brunanburgh takes its name, there are other clues in the landscape which local historians have pointed out such as the battle stone. But certainly this area is worthy of consideration, but seems to be largely ignored by mainstream historians.
That Greggs image 04:58 . what has become of the great warriors? 3 characters representing Anglo Saxon, Irish & Vikings. Jokers fighting the frontline.
The Welsh are always ignored. it is a shame. :( Idwal Foel was killed 'king of the Britains' at the time so i thought you would have touched on why the Welsh stayed out of this and would the result have been different.
I know I’m super late but I just had to say for a man that sounds like he comes from the UK and to still say that the British (instead of English) loved to invade Scotland is crazy to me. Other than that little nitpick it was an amazing video!
Nice work! As far as I know, the notion that the site of the Battle of Brunanburh was pre-arranged by the two sides comes from Egil's Saga, which dates from 300 years after the battle and seems unreliable on other points.
why? better to agree on a battlefield then look for each others army for months "damn where are they?" "maybe across the hill sir" "you said that three hills ago!"
You acknowledge that the details of the battle are shrouded in mystery, then pluck the number 5000 out of thin air when discussing numbers of soldiers. Please explain.
Picts weren't Celtic, they are just Picts, no one knows where they came from. Dal riata in Argyll where Celtic settlers from Ireland who formed the Kingdom of Scotland later on.
'Celtic' is such a barely defined concept that it's more or less meaningless for practical purposes. Pre-Rome, basically everyone from the Balkans to Spain, Northern Italy to Scotland, can be loosely called 'Celts'.
Interesting but you keep showing a painting of the Battle of Stanford Bridge in 1066 when the Norse King Harald Haralson got an arrow in the throat on the way to defeat by Harold. Harold of course then got an arrow in the eye if you can believe the tapestry a few weeks later during his defeat by William at the Battle of Hastings.
there is more than just circumstantial evidence to say that the battle of brunnanburgh took place in east lancashire. annoyingly oxfordian academia for some strange reason just will not even look in that direction. the reasons they cannot accept this as the site of battle are kept hidden along with many important artefacts found in the localities that was a sizeable battleground. gggrrrrrr.
Could it not be that this disputed battle may have taken place at Athelstan store in East Lothian. Surely such a stranger name found in Scotland could lead to more clues in this direction. John Murray
wait a minute; only Northhumbria was converted to Christianity by celtic monks. the southern kingdoms were converted by Benedictine monks from Rome, under St. Augustine of Canterbury.
Vortigern married a Saxon princess and allowed some settlement in Wessex. Vortigern was said to have been murdered by his Saxon wife. These Saxon became allies to King Arthur when he was chasing the Black-Irish/Visigoth invaders out of Wales, forcing them into what became Mercia. The Saxons then switched sides and fought against Arthur at Camlan.
Michael Livingston, American, is biased and mistaken for his feverish favour of a West coast site of the battle. Michael WOOD - a proponent of the EAST of England, is correct.
i used to think i was prejudiced for getting confused with middle-eastern names during my studies of islamic history but nope. i can't figure out who's who with ancient western european peoples either. so i'm not prejudiced i'm just stupid
Scots never called them self's picts that name was given by Romans it means painted or painted men which is thought to refer to them being almost naked covered in tattoos
The accounts I've read generally claim the Scots and Picts were two hostile peoples competing with each other, who were united in common cause against the Norse by Alba Mac Áeda (posthumously renamed Constantine II), who was descended from a mixture of Scottish and Pictish nobility, and therefore a person who was considered acceptable to lead their unification. But that is probably an oversimplification, like most historical accounts of the genesis of national identities. And as you note, the Picts didn't call themselves "Picts". Norwegian accounts indicate that the Norse called themselves "Yngling", or descendants of Yng, but that is discounted in British accounts due to its uncomfortable similarity to "English". But "Angle" and "Yngling" are apparently the same word in different dialects.
Tommy O Donovan : no, it comes from DIXIES = Dicks under their skirts. Just in case, don't kneel down to take that soap, LOL !
5 років тому
Cool but England invading scotland etc is a case by case thing. not a general disease. The shield wall was simply the best way to sto the others. both did it and then the margins for killing were applied. Its a equation of force. Thanks for these histories.
no jay that is just micheal wood and stuffy academias wild stab in the dark. the track along the bottom of boulsworth was the route of the fleeing norse.at the end of that route is the danish hamlet emmot or eamot. there is much more lost or hidden from history. they dont even consider.
The Anglo-Saxon clones of the viking-ships made the mistake of thinking 'bigger is better', and so they were not as good, and therefore best suited to defence. Besides, where should they have attacked? The vikings came from all over Scandinavia. An attack in one part would not put the fire out.
But did the battle actually happen? Michael Wood seemed to think that it happened in East Yorkshire and was a victory for the English. A generation later, Neil Oliver, spun it so that it was an important battle that signified Scottish independence and identity, placing the battle in the south west of Scotland. All we have - that I know of - to say that the battle actually took place is a beautiful poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This, I suspect, could be more down to wishful thinking than anything else, as the plucky English fight and overcome all their domestic enemies: Britons, Viking Irish and the Scots all at one and the same time - yet so far no one really knows where the battle took place.
Istehomo : With Aethelstan the english wanted to invade Scotland. The balance: England couldn't conquer Scotland and it lost Northumberland. Typical english victory, LOL !
Æthelstan successfully invaded the Kingdom of Alba 3 years before this battle and made Constantine II submit. He didn't want to conquer "Scotland" which didn't even exist at this point in time. The Dublin, Strathclyde and Alba kingdoms wanted to "kick the Anglo-Saxons out of Angleland" was a rally call - they united because Æthelstan and England was growing too powerful in comparison
Assers Cynwit : Well, «Scotland» was to put it geographically, it was the Britons of Strathclyde, Pictland, Alapa and Dublin's Norsemen. But at the end Aethelstan lost the war.
I believe both this attack and the start of the Viking attack was because the Christian Europe was given a ban from doing trade with non Christians. And that was for example why the Vikings had to develop a warship in stead of their traditional trading ships.. ;)
Over the next few / three or four decades, not 'over the next decades', which is just backwash from non-natives' poorly remembered English. Don't denude your own language, son. 😢
What a load of waffle! It took 15 minutes to tell me that no one knows where it was fought, the best that could be said was that casualties were high and the outcome was at best a nominal win by Athelstan. Total waste of time.
*Watch my latest full length history documentary here* :-
ua-cam.com/video/c3Hq6UaFQqk/v-deo.html
Hi guys! Thanks for stopping by. So this was the second video I ever made (Just under a year ago) Things have changed a bit since then... Hit that subscribe button to check out the new stuff! (50+ new videos coming this year on a huge variety of different subjects)
I watch a lot of history channels on youtube and I really like your diligently made videos. It would be nice, however, to order the "The Early Medieval World" playlist in a timely chronological order of the events and people covered. I just watched the playlist and was a little bit confused by the setlist.
Shield wall is by many scandinavian scholars not considered a real thing, but more as a literary tool by those who wrote the history.
@@Khasidon This is very true. It is also possible that the actual battle never happened. Nothing was written leading up to the battle, nothing shortly after the battle...and almost all the information came from a short 73 line poem penned many years afterwards and rewritten and translated many times, with never a whisper of where the actual battle took place. There was also continual copying and plagiarism going on for centuries, with increasing regularity even up to modern times.
This so so bloody cool!!!! Sorry, I didn't mean to swear, really, but this is cool. I had a history teacher eons ago, who used to tell history as a story, like you do, and it was fascinating...started my love for history. I think you have been doing an exceptional job with this. Thank you for taking the time to bring history to life for us ordinary folks!
Excellent well, done the best documentary I have seen on this subject !
@History Time--Thanks for your very informative and well presented videos. Personally, I think that you're an excellent narrator and very thorough in your explanations and the way the videos are edited and arranged. I think that I would have appreciated history lessons more when I was younger and in high school if there were teachers like you around with these type of videos.
The narrator makes a very valid point -the Viking raiders of the Anglo-saxon lands were doing exactly the same thing that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes had done to the Romano-British several centuries before and they came from roughly the same areas of northern Europe.
They say history repeats itself.
Bob Bulat Good job the English never did that! Oh wait a minute that's how England came about and oh they went on to rape most of the world and the British Isles!!
yep we were good at it... and the world was better for it ;)
Well some of the Anglo-Saxons were mercenaries for the Brittonic Kingdoms and mutinied.
@@bobbulat1393
The Belgic Celts did exactly the same about 800 years before the Anglo - Saxons. They invaded and drove the former natives west and north into the mountainous areas of modern Wales and northern Britain. History repeated itself over and over again.
Where my ancestors lost their lands, where my kin wept, and where our last true king fell and was forgotten by history. Cymbriana and the Cymbrik remember the wounds we suffered though few we are.
I have seen archeological proof that the battle took place at Bromborough near Birkenhead on the Wirral. Excavations have revealed numerous weapons from the period.
That is completely false! There is certainly zero evidence that the weapons relate to any war, and not even conclusive proof that the battle happened or where it was even fought!
100% nowhere else makes any sense. The finds are also pretty conclusive. I also think thr cuerdale hoard was buried there as the Scots and norse retreated back north, and clearly never came back. Its dates from around the same time and as the Scots king survived he must have made his way back north, probably chased all the way.
The Cuerdale hoard found on the banks of the Ribble in Preston and dating from around that time could have been deposited on their retreat back to Scotland so that it didn't slow them down. That it was never recovered tells me the anglo saxons caught up with them at some point on their way back. And the contemporary accounts tell us that they did pursue the retreating survivors. From the Wirral going north, you'd eventually have to cross the Ribble and it looks like they did so at the first point where it's shallow enough to cross, a stone's throw from where the hoard was found. All seems to fit to me.
Archeologists are not so sure
I enjoy your observations, personal evaluations, the most. It's still difficult to truly put things in context with short videos (as opposed to long historic fiction novels) but when you are able it makes sense.
Great video again thanks for doing them The Saxxon History is Amazing keep the videos coming and Happy New year
A very good telling. I enjoyed this very much.
Thanks very much! I'll be revisiting this battle in quite a few videos coming over the next months
They have found this battle site now. It’s in the Wirral.
Very concise. Thank you. The Greggs shot at 5:00 made me laugh. :)
@History Time.
Good vid.
I've watched a few of your vids now and I've enjoyed them a lot.
I also really like the music you use.
Keep the vids coming.
;-)
Came here after finishing Last Kingdom on Netflix- honestly I feel like the show does a good job! Obviously dramatized, but with the information they had I feel like I learned a lot by just watching the show!
A tale well told. Thank you.
The key to the advent of the Viking age, and what made them so mobile and deadly was the viking ship. They were clinker built (planks overlapped), which made them really light!.So their ships were able to go up rivers as shallow as only four to five feet of water, meaning they had ready access anywhere where there was a sloping beach and way inland wherever the terrain was relatively low-lying. Basically, the whole of Ireland, much of the east of England, and much of France was totally exposed to attack. But the other thing that made the real difference from Anglo-Saxon boats was that they had sails. Up til then, this could not be done because a mast would put so much pressure on the middle of the boat, it would break in two. But then came the invention of the mast-fish. This was block of wood put on a plinth to spread the weight of the sail over a larger area. And now the vikings could sail just about anywhere and everywhere, which is exactly what they did.
This will also explain why an 'irish' army could turn up in the east of England. With a viking-ship this would be no trouble at all, although the Wirral would be closer.
“…hewed battle shields with the remnants of hammers…”
Puts you right in the thick of it.
As I understand it, Ireland was called Scotia in the 2nd century. Scotians migrated to the land of the Picts, and settled there, renaming it Scotland. Now, as far as I know, there was no displacement or slaughter of the Picts, so present day Scots would be the mixture of Scotians and Picts. But, there language was replaced by the Celtic Scots
I do not know if the Picts were Celtic, but of an earlier group, like the Fir Bolg in Ireland.
The vikings slaughtered and displaced the picts, watch this channel's video on viking invasions of the british isles
Well you got to accept you have Anglo Saxon blood in Scotland. The Kingdom of Northumbria conquered large areas of Scotland and occupied them for many generations.
@@ADZ01982 Although Northumbria itself remained redominately ethnically Brythonic. Only the elite were Angles and they largely intermarried with Britons themselves. The Brythonic language declined as the elite exerted their influence and they themselves had there language and culture strengthened by operating with social cirles of the wider Anglo-Saxon world. DNA evidence confirms this as the north of England and southern Scotland has greater Brythonic genetic markers then the rest of England and Scotland.
@Macsen Wledig Northumbria was unique among the English kingdoms in that it wasn't Saxon and most of the subjects and even the royal family were Brythonic. The royal family were an Angle and Brythonic family. It was also the only kingdom to embrace Celtc Rite Catholicism as opposed to the southern kingdoms who embraced Augustines Latin Rite Catholicism. If we look at the early saints of Northumbria and Mercia we see Welsh names. The Mercians early saints were a single family who came from Northumbria; St. Chad (name means battle), St. Cedd (pronounced Kev like in Kevin). The same 'dd' is the last letter of my name, something in between the English 'v' and 'th'. Also St. Cynybil and St. Cælin.
They were all contemparies of Northumbria's infamous Celtic Rite Catholic St. Cuthbert.
@Ben Fizz Nothing to do with rewriting history, nor do I see how that benefits Welsh nationaliam. If anything it undermines it. But that is the current understanding based on current DNA evidence, etymology evidence and historical evidence from English and Welsh sources from the period. If true it undermines our cause considering the Welsh allied themselves with the Mercians to liberate themselves from Northumbrian overlordship in the 7th century.
A couple of points
Archaeological evidence from pollen analysis and cultural finds seems to support a likelihood that the Romano British had been decimated by the various plagues in the Roman Empire from the plague of Cyprian through to the Plague of Justinian. The deaths associated with the large cities provides good reason for the Anglo-Saxons avoiding them.
Please do not conflate building in stone with "engineering skill," a simple examination of stave churches in Scandinavia shows that engineering skills are equally important when building in timber
Shield walls are a common tactic in all cultures pre-firearm, they were not a left over Roman tactic
@Obiwank Keb34 Great points. The vikings had many skills but at that time farming and structural engineering weren't among them.. I disagree that the romans were the first to go shoulder to shoulder with the shield wall though. The spartan hoplights, and for a time the carthaginians who were being trained by a former spartan General xanthippus. But the spartans and carthaginians would stand in a line, with spears at ready... The romans brought in their own hexagonal legionnaire formation..and used short swords... Hollywood need to remake some of these old battles into some epic movies
Good point, I remember seeing more battles with shield walls during the Viking era onward.
I hear the battle was near Birkenhead, it started then and they are still kicking the bejesus out of each other there.
Brombough
Who else is here because of Uhtred of Bebbanburg ? I love that show and I love the real history of this time period.
Uthred and his wolfs of bebbanburg held the left flank against King Constantine warriors 😄
Excellent!
So tragic! My husband and I both descend from the Campbell and Stewart line.
I am also one of those that believe the battle was fought in East Lancashire, somewhere in and around the area of Burnley, which has the River Brun, from which some believe the Brun in Brunanburgh takes its name, there are other clues in the landscape which local historians have pointed out such as the battle stone. But certainly this area is worthy of consideration, but seems to be largely ignored by mainstream historians.
Brunanburh : Blackburn
Aethelstan.... I miss Aethelstan and Ragnar. It was fun to raid with them when they where around.
Æthelstan*
U mad Lad? It’s just I’m a big fan of the show despite some inaccuracies. Good show.
That Greggs image 04:58 . what has become of the great warriors? 3 characters representing Anglo Saxon, Irish & Vikings. Jokers fighting the frontline.
The battle was on the wirral in bromborough
The Welsh are always ignored. it is a shame. :( Idwal Foel was killed 'king of the Britains' at the time so i thought you would have touched on why the Welsh stayed out of this and would the result have been different.
I know I’m super late but I just had to say for a man that sounds like he comes from the UK and to still say that the British (instead of English) loved to invade Scotland is crazy to me. Other than that little nitpick it was an amazing video!
A fly in the ointment my friend 😊... historically, Scotland has attacked and invaded England far more often than the other way round.
Great video ! You have a new subscriber today :)
Anyone ever considered the area around Bury as the site of the battle?
Its a shame that the Wirral peninsula has no financial backing for the history behind it. Theres been a long boat discovered. Nothing happened tho.
Nice work! As far as I know, the notion that the site of the Battle of Brunanburh was pre-arranged by the two sides comes from Egil's Saga, which dates from 300 years after the battle and seems unreliable on other points.
Thanks for the input! I'll be revisiting Brunanburh in quite a few new videos over the coming months.
why? better to agree on a battlefield then look for each others army for months
"damn where are they?"
"maybe across the hill sir"
"you said that three hills ago!"
This should be taught in English schools, not the post Norman kings and battles.
Sound is too low
You acknowledge that the details of the battle are shrouded in mystery, then pluck the number 5000 out of thin air when discussing numbers of soldiers. Please explain.
That picture of England hahaha
Theme music going through my head: Swedish Pagans - Sabaton
Forged in Valhalla, by the Hammer of Thor.
I'm also a Metalhead who loves history
The battle took place at modern day Bromborough,Wirral.
❤❤❤
CANT believe that there is no records of where this battle took place, how is that possible.
The Normans possibly banned it from being taught post-1066.
Bromborough on the Wirral
lol "Not that Aethalstan". I was just about to ask before that came up
Picts weren't Celtic, they are just Picts, no one knows where they came from. Dal riata in Argyll where Celtic settlers from Ireland who formed the Kingdom of Scotland later on.
'Celtic' is such a barely defined concept that it's more or less meaningless for practical purposes. Pre-Rome, basically everyone from the Balkans to Spain, Northern Italy to Scotland, can be loosely called 'Celts'.
My Fathers ancestry is Anglo Saxon English and my mothers ancestry is Scandinavian English.
Thomas Sugg funny. My kids will be/are the exact opposite: Norrland father, Yorkshire mother. Danelaw is bluidy marvelous, maaaayte.
Nice
Interesting but you keep showing a painting of the Battle of Stanford Bridge in 1066 when the Norse King Harald Haralson got an arrow in the throat on the way to defeat by Harold.
Harold of course then got an arrow in the eye if you can believe the tapestry a few weeks later during his defeat by William at the Battle of Hastings.
random picture of English 4:59 was just dandy:)
Most scholars put the battle somewhere near Liverpool
Yeah in a place called bromborough
Which is in Cheshire.@@DS_portraits
there is more than just circumstantial evidence to say that the battle of brunnanburgh took place in east lancashire. annoyingly oxfordian academia for some strange reason just will not even look in that direction. the reasons they cannot accept this as the site of battle are kept hidden along with many important artefacts found in the localities that was a sizeable battleground. gggrrrrrr.
Could it not be that this disputed battle may have taken place at Athelstan store in East Lothian. Surely such a stranger name found in Scotland could lead to more clues in this direction. John Murray
My last message should create Athelstan ford notvss written in error
?
wait a minute; only Northhumbria was converted to Christianity by celtic monks. the southern kingdoms were converted by Benedictine monks from Rome, under St. Augustine of Canterbury.
4:57 Is that supposed to be a joke???!
Vortigern married a Saxon princess and allowed some settlement in Wessex. Vortigern was said to have been murdered by his Saxon wife. These Saxon became allies to King Arthur when he was chasing the Black-Irish/Visigoth invaders out of Wales, forcing them into what became Mercia. The Saxons then switched sides and fought against Arthur at Camlan.
Michael Livingston, American, is biased and mistaken for his feverish favour of a West coast site of the battle. Michael WOOD - a proponent of the EAST of England, is correct.
Forever Wessex ✊🏻 Somerset born and bred, proud of our Anglo Saxon heritage that’s for sure
i used to think i was prejudiced for getting confused with middle-eastern names during my studies of islamic history but nope. i can't figure out who's who with ancient western european peoples either. so i'm not prejudiced i'm just stupid
Scots never called them self's picts that name was given by Romans it means painted or painted men which is thought to refer to them being almost naked covered in tattoos
The accounts I've read generally claim the Scots and Picts were two hostile peoples competing with each other, who were united in common cause against the Norse by Alba Mac Áeda (posthumously renamed Constantine II), who was descended from a mixture of Scottish and Pictish nobility, and therefore a person who was considered acceptable to lead their unification. But that is probably an oversimplification, like most historical accounts of the genesis of national identities. And as you note, the Picts didn't call themselves "Picts". Norwegian accounts indicate that the Norse called themselves "Yngling", or descendants of Yng, but that is discounted in British accounts due to its uncomfortable similarity to "English". But "Angle" and "Yngling" are apparently the same word in different dialects.
Michael Skelly
Is that where *"Pixies"* comes from. Men is skirts.
Tommy O Donovan : no, it comes from DIXIES = Dicks under their skirts.
Just in case, don't kneel down to take that soap, LOL !
Cool but England invading scotland etc is a case by case thing. not a general disease. The shield wall was simply the best way to sto the others. both did it and then the margins for killing were applied. Its a equation of force. Thanks for these histories.
*5
The literal translation for "Vik-ing" in modern swedish is pretty much "Cove-ling".
Battle was fought on white hill Brinsworth Rotherham
no part of the battle was on the side of boulsworth hill east lancs,also majoritively around briercliffe in the same location.
Hereward the wide awake
Or Bromborough on The Wirral
no jay that is just micheal wood and stuffy academias wild stab in the dark. the track along the bottom of boulsworth was the route of the fleeing norse.at the end of that route is the danish hamlet emmot or eamot. there is much more lost or hidden from history. they dont even consider.
Martin Kitt
Hmmmm
Which sounds more similar...Brimsworth or Bromborough?
where is the river brun ?
I found the commentator spoke far too fast
Strathclyde Lives!!
English and other Viking targets should have launched their own surprise attacks on the Vikings in their own countries.
The Anglo-Saxon clones of the viking-ships made the mistake of thinking 'bigger is better', and so they were not as good, and therefore best suited to defence. Besides, where should they have attacked? The vikings came from all over Scandinavia. An attack in one part would not put the fire out.
But did the battle actually happen? Michael Wood seemed to think that it happened in East Yorkshire and was a victory for the English. A generation later, Neil Oliver, spun it so that it was an important battle that signified Scottish independence and identity, placing the battle in the south west of Scotland. All we have - that I know of - to say that the battle actually took place is a beautiful poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This, I suspect, could be more down to wishful thinking than anything else, as the plucky English fight and overcome all their domestic enemies: Britons, Viking Irish and the Scots all at one and the same time - yet so far no one really knows where the battle took place.
Istehomo The Scots often think everything is about them.
Istehomo : With Aethelstan the english wanted to invade Scotland. The balance: England couldn't conquer Scotland and it lost Northumberland.
Typical english victory, LOL !
Æthelstan successfully invaded the Kingdom of Alba 3 years before this battle and made Constantine II submit. He didn't want to conquer "Scotland" which didn't even exist at this point in time. The Dublin, Strathclyde and Alba kingdoms wanted to "kick the Anglo-Saxons out of Angleland" was a rally call - they united because Æthelstan and England was growing too powerful in comparison
Assers Cynwit : Well, «Scotland» was to put it geographically, it was the Britons of Strathclyde, Pictland, Alapa and Dublin's Norsemen. But at the end Aethelstan lost the war.
I believe both this attack and the start of the Viking attack was because the Christian Europe was given a ban from doing trade with non Christians.
And that was for example why the Vikings had to develop a warship in stead of their traditional trading ships.. ;)
Liverpool
Make Britain Celtic again. 😭
Greggs 😂
Over the next few / three or four decades, not 'over the next decades', which is just backwash from non-natives' poorly remembered English. Don't denude your own language, son. 😢
This is out of date and misleading, more reading of current discoveries and theories needed
What a load of waffle! It took 15 minutes to tell me that no one knows where it was fought, the best that could be said was that casualties were high and the outcome was at best a nominal win by Athelstan. Total waste of time.