This lecture dives into the politics and conversion that took place in Britain before the Viking Age and Viking Invasions. Though it covers a variety of topics and areas it focuses on Northern England and Scotland during this period. From political conflicts to the adaption of Christianity by the Anglo Saxons we watch as events transpire and unfold before the the arrival of the Viking ships that would change the history of the British Isles forever. What are your thoughts? Comment below!
I’ve taught at the college level for 45 years and I find David Thornton an excellent, engaging, and massively informative professor. I’m learning so much and enjoying good teaching. I pulled it off as often as I could, but of course I had my off-days over the years. David Thornton never seems to have one. Of course, he has the advantage of not posting the off days, but he really is good and I would love to know him as a teaching colleague.
The teacher translates the root of thr "Kingdom of Mercia" as meaning 'Boundary' ... and I am sure that's correct, though there's a better modern version. "The Borderlands" !
I enjoyed this lecture and the mosaic of history in north Britain is fascinating, however I thought the idea that the Picts were descended from the female line was dismissed too readily as the history related from the old texts (Bede?) relates the coming of the Picts out of Scythia, first to Ireland, possibly from Iberia Spain by way of ship. They could communicate with the Irish Gaels and the text alludes them to be a band of warriors unaccompanied by women or children. The Irish gave them wives and asked them to settle in north Britain provided they chose their kings and queens from the female Irish line. The people of Ossetia in the north Caucasus today believe that the Scots - Irish and the ancient Britons of king Arthur's era are their distant cousins who migrated out of the north Caucasus (part of ancient Scythia) in waves of migration post 100 A.D.
Thats a load of BS. There was no migration of Picts from Scythia. The Caledonians/Picts, along with the Britons and Gaels are mostly of Bell Beaker descent and came to British Isles during the early Bronze Age. The southern Britons also had Contental Celts from France during the Iron Age. Some of them moved into eastern Scotland and few went on to Ireland.
@@billmclaurin6959 The correct spelling is 'continental'. No, it is not BS. The word loch, for example loch Lomond, has the same vocal pronunciation as the Russian 'x'. I suggest a common root. Before Russia appeared, Scythia was a very wide land stretching across the steppe land from the Carpathian hills through to the Dnieper, Don, Terek and Volga rivers. What is the name of one of the important rivers flowing through Aberdeen? It is the Don River. Aberdeen, of course was an old Pictish territory. An exiled band of Scythian warriors may well have ended up in Scotland, after taking wives from the Irish.
I know right? I love the uploads of academic lecture series - but I freakin' hate the dumpster fire that is the comment sections of ill informed people mad that their niche contemporary beliefs arn't backed up by solid research presentations....
Scots referred to the Gaelic peoples that lived on both sides of the Irish sea. Irish wasn't even a concept at this point in history. The Gaels didn't invade or colonise Scotland, there is zero archaeological or place name evidence for that.
The Picts defeated the Northumbrians at the battle Battle of Dun Nechtain 20 May 685, The battle ended with a decisive Pictish victory which severely weakened Northumbria's power in northern Britain.
The Epidii/Scoti aristocracy eventually intermarried with the Caledonians/Pictish aristocracy during the late 7th and 8th century. The Picts spoke a Brythonic Celtic dialect similar to the Britons. See Guto Rhys pdf doc 'Approaching the Pictish language:'. The Picts were introduced to the Gaelic language by the Irish missionairies who contverted them to Christianity towards the end of the 6th century. The Epidii/Scoti lost most of their lands to the Norwegean viking invasions, while the Picts struggled to fight off the Danes on Scotland's east coast and lost their king and most of his nobles. Due to family connections from previous intermarriages the Picts were able to claim the territories of the dead king and his nobles, while the Picts gracefully accepted it along with the hlep of the Epidii/Scoti warriors which helped them fight off the Danes. This eventually led to the establishment of the kingdom of Alba, which eventually was called Scotland by the 13th century.
the anglo-saxon chronicle / ingram translation begins establishing that the picts arrived from scythia, landing in ireland and were bode by the scots there to settle in Britain and were given wifes.. on the proviso that they made their kings on the matrilineal line, which he claims.. they continue to do.
I've been "Pagan" for 30+ yrs of my life. "Animistic" since birth, lol. I am 49 so it's been most of my life. Anyway, I've studied this subject many many times. Part of me feels a bit betrayed by the christianization of Europe and specifically the regions I am from. Englad and Sweden respectively. And I am from Raedwald's part of England and the part of Sweden that held that massive Pagan Temple, Uppsala. So when I read the old stories and sagas I can see "myself" in them. Some connection, a sense of cultural lineage. And then it takes a nose dive somewhere around the 6th-8th centuries. So much of what we had we lost utterly. Wisdom of thousands of years of tradition - Gone. The names and rites of all the Old Gods. Festivals, holidays, the list goes on and on. All gone. And I wonder what we would be had we remained Pagan from the start. Most Christian holidays come from Pagan holy days or festivals. Easter, Xmas, Halloween, etc. They just co-opted them to make Christianity easier to swallow. There are so many thing that Christianity either took from us or outright destroyed. And it's hard to not look back and wonder. Imagine a modern northern Germanic Empire. It would be amazing. Christianity didn't give us anything we didn't already have. Except perhaps widespread literacy. And even with that you had to be a monk or hang out with monks. Lol. I think it took more than it gave. I can't help but wonder what we'd be right now if things had gone different.
Everyone is "pagan" in the uk in one way or another. Apart from a group of people united with their companions around the world. Yet are descended from every tribe and language. Christendom has never been Christian. We know very little about how the tribes of these islands saw themselves in pre/post Roman world. Since Netflix, everyone wants to be a Viking! The Scotti crossed from northern ireland. The scottish lowlanders are a mix. Liverpool was in the Danelaw at one point. Lots of scandi names in my area. We know what we know if there are artifacts or contemporary, named documentation. The rest is politics. The River Mersey means boundary river.
No it did not - Brittonic people were all around the Islands, British meant and means Brittonic people. - Welsh is just a modern leftover and indeed, the modern Welsh is probably really a hybridised version of older extinct Brittonic languages ( as Cornish is ). Celtic / Brittonic evidence is found in many places. Eg: Kings Lynn in Norfolk, originally just Lynn - the same as Llyn, as the original settlement was surrounded by inland sea and water ( Llyn meaning 'lake' more or less, as I am sure you know ). :-) Britain, is derived from the Romanisation of a Brittonic language, means - "Painted people lands" more or less. They took the word for 'painted'.
@@junctionfilms6348 no it doesn't painted face is picture that's what picts comes from the Welsh and British are the same people . The Latin word picture is painted face not Britain or British
@@gwynwilliams4222 I am not sure I understand :-) Picts where named due to the pictures that carved on stones as I understand. Britain, is derived from a Latinisation of old Celtic words and you could say it means "Painted People Lands" Going back, yes, Britons were or are Celtic and that is where the modern name comes from. Now, British are generally not Celtic , rather Germanic. even in Wales, Ireland and Scotland there is a lot of Norse or Germanic influence. Though, going back further in time about 2000 years, they were the same people anyway.
@@gwynwilliams4222 Pict comes from a Latin word Pictus directly referring to the painted bodies of the Picts but alsodid not necessarily solely relate to them. See the similarly named Pictones tribe in Gaul. However Britain actually comes via Romanised Britannia from the Greek word Pritannike which is believed to have come from a Brythonic/Brittonic word rendered by the Greeks as Pritanniki also believed to mean painted ones like Pict. In Proto-Brythonic it's been reconstructed Pri-den, evolving into the modern day word Prydain which is one of the Welsh names for the Island of Great Britain.
We could use Roman conquered Britain and the free British. When he talks about the 10 th century as the time when Scotland is recognisable as one separate entity named such a similar date could be used for England. Be consistent.
Online English I think he is referring to the unification of the nation of the Scots, from the Latin meaning tribe or people. Essentially prior to the 10th-11th century Scottish was not entirely an identity and quite frankly the nation of Scotland was an amalgamation of various diverse cultural and ethnic groups; most notably, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Irish, welsh and Pictish. Moreover, what we imagine as the borders of Scotland today were entirely different - for example, strathclyde and Lothian were not part of the de jure Scottish crown’s Holdings.
Sorry but this is pretty dated and inaccurate. The guy doesn’t really know the topic. Scotland was a kingdom in 843 not the 10th century. He also says Atholl is a Pictish name. It isn’t. Its Gaelic and means New Ireland
John Gamba You are correct. However, I don’t think he means the kingdom of Alba, he means the nation of what we refer to as Scotland/ The People of Scotland. In which, he would be approximately correct as there was still some inhabitants of what we refer to as Scotland which referred to themselves as Pictish - by around the 11 century, according to historical account, the Pictish language and identity stopped being widely spoken and utilised. However, you would be right about Scotland and it’s formation as a kingdom, in terms of dates and time. However, the formation of the Kingdom of Pictland goes back to the mid-8th century and the Kingdom of Scotland in the 8th century, which is what you refer to, had Gaelic kings which dually held titles of the kingdom of Scotland and Pictland. Furthermore, Scotland, in the Latin world, had the Latin name attributed to it which translated roughly to ‘Little Ireland’ detailed on medieval maps, which dates to the 10th century. Funnily enough.
John Gamba I am a Scotsman too. However, a lot of Scots do not know of this knowledge and thus, I doubt nationality is some sort of credential for the knowing of history. I was simply saying that the Scots identity was a melting-pot culture of sorts, and only came into a unified effect around the time of the 10th-11th century. Before that time, it was fairly mixed with tribes of Irish, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh and Pictish (Brythonic) - much like the rest of the British Isles.
If you actually know anything about the history of this country,This channel is just the woke version of history.It doesn't bear any resemblance to the real history of the country.
Suspicious of the term ‘woke’ as it tends to be used by bigots to describe anything they don’t like - and that is practically everything and everyone. But do explain - how is this history lecture ‘woke’?
@@Knappa22 I am suspicious of the term "bigot" as it is used to narrowminded totalitarians to describe people they want to proscribe - and that is practically everyone and everything. But do explain, why is the OP a "bigot?"
@@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093 I never said they were, merely that the way they used the word aroused my suspicion. Lets see how they answer my question. If they can prove to me that Dr Thornton's (pretty accurate and succinct) account of historical facts 'bear no resemblance to the real history of the country' (their words) then I will gladly withdraw.
@@Knappa22 Nice, you are assuming him guilty until he can prove his innocence. Really well-developed sense of justice you have there. One might even say you are prejudiced and bigoted towards someone you don't even know. Very cool.
@@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093 Well they did say that the lecturer's facts bore 'no resemblance to the real history of the country', which is quite some claim to make (i.e not that parts of it were wrong or disputable but that it bore *no* resemblance to reality, and was 'woke') Seeing as the lecture was a very reasonable account of historical facts one must conclude that the commentator is *unreasonably attached to a belief or opinion informed by their prejudice rather than the facts.* That is textbook bigotry. It's even the dictionary definition of it!
This lecture dives into the politics and conversion that took place in Britain before the Viking Age and Viking Invasions. Though it covers a variety of topics and areas it focuses on Northern England and Scotland during this period. From political conflicts to the adaption of Christianity by the Anglo Saxons we watch as events transpire and unfold before the the arrival of the Viking ships that would change the history of the British Isles forever.
What are your thoughts? Comment below!
Thank you for these uploads.
Pro tip : watch movies on flixzone. I've been using it for watching loads of movies during the lockdown.
@Bridger Kenzo Definitely, I've been using flixzone} for since december myself :D
I’ve taught at the college level for 45 years and I find David Thornton an excellent, engaging, and massively informative professor. I’m learning so much and enjoying good teaching. I pulled it off as often as I could, but of course I had my off-days over the years. David Thornton never seems to have one. Of course, he has the advantage of not posting the off days, but he really is good and I would love to know him as a teaching colleague.
This guy's great. Very informative. Thanks.
Absolutely fascinating
The teacher translates the root of thr "Kingdom of Mercia" as meaning 'Boundary' ... and I am sure that's correct, though there's a better modern version. "The Borderlands" !
Good stuff. Thank you for posting all these.
I enjoyed this lecture and the mosaic of history in north Britain is fascinating, however I thought the idea that the Picts were descended from the female line was dismissed too readily as the history related from the old texts (Bede?) relates the coming of the Picts out of Scythia, first to Ireland, possibly from Iberia Spain by way of ship. They could communicate with the Irish Gaels and the text alludes them to be a band of warriors unaccompanied by women or children. The Irish gave them wives and asked them to settle in north Britain provided they chose their kings and queens from the female Irish line. The people of Ossetia in the north Caucasus today believe that the Scots - Irish and the ancient Britons of king Arthur's era are their distant cousins who migrated out of the north Caucasus (part of ancient Scythia) in waves of migration post 100 A.D.
Thats a load of BS. There was no migration of Picts from Scythia. The Caledonians/Picts, along with the Britons and Gaels are mostly of Bell Beaker descent and came to British Isles during the early Bronze Age. The southern Britons also had Contental Celts from France during the Iron Age. Some of them moved into eastern Scotland and few went on to Ireland.
@@billmclaurin6959 The correct spelling is 'continental'. No, it is not BS. The word loch, for example loch Lomond, has the same vocal pronunciation as the Russian 'x'. I suggest a common root. Before Russia appeared, Scythia was a very wide land stretching across the steppe land from the Carpathian hills through to the Dnieper, Don, Terek and Volga rivers. What is the name of one of the important rivers flowing through Aberdeen? It is the Don River. Aberdeen, of course was an old Pictish territory. An exiled band of Scythian warriors may well have ended up in Scotland, after taking wives from the Irish.
I'm so glad the comments are from professors, historians, and linguists lmao
I know right? I love the uploads of academic lecture series - but I freakin' hate the dumpster fire that is the comment sections of ill informed people mad that their niche contemporary beliefs arn't backed up by solid research presentations....
Scots referred to the Gaelic peoples that lived on both sides of the Irish sea. Irish wasn't even a concept at this point in history. The Gaels didn't invade or colonise Scotland, there is zero archaeological or place name evidence for that.
Yes, they did. And there are placenames that suggest they did.
Really intresting thanks! 👍
The Picts defeated the Northumbrians at the battle Battle of Dun Nechtain 20 May 685, The battle ended with a decisive Pictish victory which severely weakened Northumbria's power in northern Britain.
The Epidii/Scoti aristocracy eventually intermarried with the Caledonians/Pictish aristocracy during the late 7th and 8th century. The Picts spoke a Brythonic Celtic dialect similar to the Britons. See Guto Rhys pdf doc 'Approaching the Pictish language:'. The Picts were introduced to the Gaelic language by the Irish missionairies who contverted them to Christianity towards the end of the 6th century. The Epidii/Scoti lost most of their lands to the Norwegean viking invasions, while the Picts struggled to fight off the Danes on Scotland's east coast and lost their king and most of his nobles. Due to family connections from previous intermarriages the Picts were able to claim the territories of the dead king and his nobles, while the Picts gracefully accepted it along with the hlep of the Epidii/Scoti warriors which helped them fight off the Danes. This eventually led to the establishment of the kingdom of Alba, which eventually was called Scotland by the 13th century.
the anglo-saxon chronicle / ingram translation begins establishing that the picts arrived from scythia, landing in ireland and were bode by the scots there to settle in Britain and were given wifes.. on the proviso that they made their kings on the matrilineal line, which he claims.. they continue to do.
Not true
Dna says it
Not Anglo saxons
The R. Mersey, boundary river or border
What did the picts or scots speak
The romans didnt say anything about picts and indoeuropeans.
They made a wall
I think they mixed
The celts were living with the romans so christians
The picts were not
Not really
Over there were romans and celts
Because mitocondrial doesnt change
Actually they found neandertals do change
I've been "Pagan" for 30+ yrs of my life. "Animistic" since birth, lol. I am 49 so it's been most of my life. Anyway, I've studied this subject many many times. Part of me feels a bit betrayed by the christianization of Europe and specifically the regions I am from. Englad and Sweden respectively. And I am from Raedwald's part of England and the part of Sweden that held that massive Pagan Temple, Uppsala. So when I read the old stories and sagas I can see "myself" in them. Some connection, a sense of cultural lineage. And then it takes a nose dive somewhere around the 6th-8th centuries. So much of what we had we lost utterly. Wisdom of thousands of years of tradition - Gone. The names and rites of all the Old Gods. Festivals, holidays, the list goes on and on. All gone. And I wonder what we would be had we remained Pagan from the start. Most Christian holidays come from Pagan holy days or festivals. Easter, Xmas, Halloween, etc. They just co-opted them to make Christianity easier to swallow. There are so many thing that Christianity either took from us or outright destroyed. And it's hard to not look back and wonder. Imagine a modern northern Germanic Empire. It would be amazing. Christianity didn't give us anything we didn't already have. Except perhaps widespread literacy. And even with that you had to be a monk or hang out with monks. Lol. I think it took more than it gave. I can't help but wonder what we'd be right now if things had gone different.
Everyone is "pagan" in the uk in one way or another. Apart from a group of people united with their companions around the world. Yet are descended from every tribe and language. Christendom has never been Christian. We know very little about how the tribes of these islands saw themselves in pre/post Roman world. Since Netflix, everyone wants to be a Viking! The Scotti crossed from northern ireland. The scottish lowlanders are a mix. Liverpool was in the Danelaw at one point. Lots of scandi names in my area. We know what we know if there are artifacts or contemporary, named documentation. The rest is politics. The River Mersey means boundary river.
They living with the celts there
British means Welsh in those old days
No it did not - Brittonic people were all around the Islands, British meant and means Brittonic people. - Welsh is just a modern leftover and indeed, the modern Welsh is probably really a hybridised version of older extinct Brittonic languages ( as Cornish is ). Celtic / Brittonic evidence is found in many places. Eg: Kings Lynn in Norfolk, originally just Lynn - the same as Llyn, as the original settlement was surrounded by inland sea and water ( Llyn meaning 'lake' more or less, as I am sure you know ). :-)
Britain, is derived from the Romanisation of a Brittonic language, means - "Painted people lands" more or less. They took the word for 'painted'.
@@junctionfilms6348 no it doesn't painted face is picture that's what picts comes from the Welsh and British are the same people . The Latin word picture is painted face not Britain or British
@@gwynwilliams4222 I am not sure I understand :-) Picts where named due to the pictures that carved on stones as I understand.
Britain, is derived from a Latinisation of old Celtic words and you could say it means "Painted People Lands"
Going back, yes, Britons were or are Celtic and that is where the modern name comes from.
Now, British are generally not Celtic , rather Germanic. even in Wales, Ireland and Scotland there is a lot of Norse or Germanic influence. Though, going back further in time about 2000 years, they were the same people anyway.
@@gwynwilliams4222 Pict comes from a Latin word Pictus directly referring to the painted bodies of the Picts but alsodid not necessarily solely relate to them. See the similarly named Pictones tribe in Gaul.
However Britain actually comes via Romanised Britannia from the Greek word Pritannike which is believed to have come from a Brythonic/Brittonic word rendered by the Greeks as Pritanniki also believed to mean painted ones like Pict. In Proto-Brythonic it's been reconstructed Pri-den, evolving into the modern day word Prydain which is one of the Welsh names for the Island of Great Britain.
We could use Roman conquered Britain and the free British. When he talks about the 10 th century as the time when Scotland is recognisable as one separate entity named such a similar date could be used for England. Be consistent.
Online English I think he is referring to the unification of the nation of the Scots, from the Latin meaning tribe or people. Essentially prior to the 10th-11th century Scottish was not entirely an identity and quite frankly the nation of Scotland was an amalgamation of various diverse cultural and ethnic groups; most notably, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Irish, welsh and Pictish. Moreover, what we imagine as the borders of Scotland today were entirely different - for example, strathclyde and Lothian were not part of the de jure Scottish crown’s Holdings.
Fenton Fairway and a similar description could be used for England in the same period.
Online English True.
@@fentonfairway5793 what is with your RACIST HATRED for the WELSH PEOPLE and WELSH CULTURE. The true original culture and peoples of BRITAIN!!!
Much older
Like vikings with runes
Nothing to do with them
The romans became christians
The picts were going around painted and naked
Sorry but this is pretty dated and inaccurate. The guy doesn’t really know the topic. Scotland was a kingdom in 843 not the 10th century. He also says Atholl is a Pictish name. It isn’t. Its Gaelic and means New Ireland
John Gamba You are correct.
However, I don’t think he means the kingdom of Alba, he means the nation of what we refer to as Scotland/ The People of Scotland. In which, he would be approximately correct as there was still some inhabitants of what we refer to as Scotland which referred to themselves as Pictish - by around the 11 century, according to historical account, the Pictish language and identity stopped being widely spoken and utilised.
However, you would be right about Scotland and it’s formation as a kingdom, in terms of dates and time. However, the formation of the Kingdom of Pictland goes back to the mid-8th century and the Kingdom of Scotland in the 8th century, which is what you refer to, had Gaelic kings which dually held titles of the kingdom of Scotland and Pictland.
Furthermore, Scotland, in the Latin world, had the Latin name attributed to it which translated roughly to ‘Little Ireland’ detailed on medieval maps, which dates to the 10th century. Funnily enough.
Fenton Fairway Thanks but as a Scotsman did you think I didn’t already know that?
John Gamba I am a Scotsman too. However, a lot of Scots do not know of this knowledge and thus, I doubt nationality is some sort of credential for the knowing of history.
I was simply saying that the Scots identity was a melting-pot culture of sorts, and only came into a unified effect around the time of the 10th-11th century. Before that time, it was fairly mixed with tribes of Irish, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh and Pictish (Brythonic) - much like the rest of the British Isles.
@@johngamba4823 how was he to know one way or another Johnny Gamba.
As a lecturer (at a fee paying university) he shouldn’t make basic errors about matters so simple that they could be found on Wikipedia.
Greek
If you actually know anything about the history of this country,This channel is just the woke version of history.It doesn't bear any resemblance to the real history of the country.
Suspicious of the term ‘woke’ as it tends to be used by bigots to describe anything they don’t like - and that is practically everything and everyone. But do explain - how is this history lecture ‘woke’?
@@Knappa22 I am suspicious of the term "bigot" as it is used to narrowminded totalitarians to describe people they want to proscribe - and that is practically everyone and everything. But do explain, why is the OP a "bigot?"
@@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093 I never said they were, merely that the way they used the word aroused my suspicion. Lets see how they answer my question. If they can prove to me that Dr Thornton's (pretty accurate and succinct) account of historical facts 'bear no resemblance to the real history of the country' (their words) then I will gladly withdraw.
@@Knappa22 Nice, you are assuming him guilty until he can prove his innocence. Really well-developed sense of justice you have there. One might even say you are prejudiced and bigoted towards someone you don't even know. Very cool.
@@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093 Well they did say that the lecturer's facts bore 'no resemblance to the real history of the country', which is quite some claim to make (i.e not that parts of it were wrong or disputable but that it bore *no* resemblance to reality, and was 'woke')
Seeing as the lecture was a very reasonable account of historical facts one must conclude that the commentator is *unreasonably attached to a belief or opinion informed by their prejudice rather than the facts.* That is textbook bigotry. It's even the dictionary definition of it!
Catterick? - doubtful, that is just a guess peddled as 'truth by consensus', in other words 'sheer ignorance of British history'.
Then where is the ‘Catraeth’ mentioned in the Old Welsh poem?