Welsh wouldn't exist, as the Anglo-Saxons bringing their language and it becoming the main language of England isolated the Brittonic speaking people into Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. Over time of being isolated from one another the languages became distinct and actually different languages. Though I do agree the name probably would be similar to the Welsh name.
It would be called something like Pritani- which was the Brythonic name for the land of Britain at that time. Something with 'Pr' as the first letters, for sure.
Prydain is very similar in pronunciation to the French word "Bretagne" for Brittany, which has always led me to imagine some Dark Age Frank asking these new arrivals where they were from, being told "Prydain", and then corrupting the word into "Bretagne".
Ahh, EUIV music, a clean and relaxing voice, beautiful maps, consistent and strong logic in alternate history, and a beautiful video overall 👌👌👌👌 I'll check all other videos soon. The Part 2 and that channel are also neat. Blessings 🙌
I disagree with the Briton’s becoming Protestant, the circumstances in our time were entirely based on personal factors of the royal family that seem unlikely to occur. I would put the chances at 3 out of 10 for conversion
I don’t think that the Britonic people would have became Protestant. The reason there would be no King Henry VIII. Also the people of Albion are closer to Celtic. I also think the The United Kingdom in this timeline might extend to Brittany.
@@adamskeans2515 Yeah because Brittany never fully became Protestant. Nor the majority of Ireland. Scotland only the lowlands became Protestant. So without really having a King Henry VIII there wouldn’t be a Protestant majority British Isels and instead it would be a Catholic majority with Protestant pockets scattered throughout the country.
@@adamskeans2515 Yeah, but England in our timeline orginally didn’t want to get involved with the Reformation at first. So It might have been even more so in this timeline
Alternate histories like these can be so fascinating! Thanks to Neatling for sending me. Stay well out there everybody, and Jesus Christ be with you friends.😊
I read somewhere that the people in the earliest Saxon graves were of people who were differemt from those found in later Saxon graves ... they were very similar to the people who built Stonehenge!
I think this'll be the concept for the next video (a Crusade of Varna alt history with Skanderbeg as an obvious important figure), just need to make sure I can write a compelling/reasonable enough script. I'll highlight this comment in the video for credit, you can notify me if you don't want me to do that.
This is a cool video, but it fails to take into account that the departure of the Roman military and the fact that the province no longer pertained the the empire did not at all mean that all Latin culture and language simply vanished. Indeed, we find evidence that many urban centres harboured heavily Romanized populations who would have gone on to speak a form of Romance language akin to French, Spanish, Italian etc. albeit perhaps with some Brythonic influence. Roman Britain was not at all uniform in it's Romanization, and the South East in particular was heavily Romanized and, if you didn't end up with Romance-speaking populations elsewhere, you almost certainly would have in places such as Kent. In our timeline, the most Romanized areas were prevented from developing fully Romance cultures similar to those found elsewhere in former Roman territory by the Anglo-Saxon incursion. In the new timeline, at least for a small period of time (before a Brythonic-dominated kingdom invaded them, perhaps), have a sort of mini Roman rump state or Romance kingdom in South-East Britain, and as you headed more to the North West, find this culture becoming more and more Brythonic. The brown area on your map would probably be more or less the maximum extent of this Romanized area. A better name for these people instead of Brythonic would be Romano-British.
Deserves more subs , but for some reason the only things on this platform with subs are children’s 3d “animation” nursery rhymes . Don’t give up you will hit a big break and get a lot more subs soon, look at me I just subbed and love this channel, good luck
In my view if the Anglo-Saxons had not invaded Britain, the Vikings would certainly have attempted it at some point, or possibly the Franks. However, it's worth noting that when the Britons actually united, as they did on occasion, they were able to thoroughly defeat the Anglo-Saxons in battle, even if they did enjoy numerical advantage. One example of a Brythonic king who achieved this was Urien, the king of Rheged, who led a coalition of north British kings to defeat the Northumbrians in the 7th century. The Anglo-Saxon takeover of Britain was not inevitable, it occurred primarily because the Britons lacked unity, and lacked war leaders that could actually unite the various kingdoms against the Anglo-Saxons. In the early medieval period the Britons likely didn't see themselves in opposition to the Saxons any more than in opposition to each other. Had they done so and waged an effective campaign to expel the Saxons, they likely could have.
I find funny how some alternative history UA-cam channels, when they talk about Normandy, they forget 3 things: 1- Normandy was not a viking descendants majority land, only the nobility of Normandy had Nordic blood, hence, Normandy is just another aleatory duchy of France, with vikings having little influence in the local genetics, local language and even local culture. 2- People like to underrate the Anglo-Saxons just because the Normans won in our timeline. I will remind you all that in terms of military, Anglo-Saxon England was at least 5 times stronger than Normandy. Angland was one of the few united kingdoms in Europe without the problem of being divided into Duchys and Counties. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons lost to the Normans and Willian the Bastard was just because they had already fought the Norwegians in the North, and so, they were tired, they were in need to travel back fast to fight the Normans, and they being tired was an advantage to the Normans. With a little bit more of strategy, the Normans would be out of game just like the Norwegians. And so, same way that the Anglo-Saxons were capable of winning the Norwegians and Normans, so would be the Britons. 3- Normandy was still a vassal of France. When they tried a invasion in England, they were risking everything, and if England repelled the invasion and then decided to clash with France because of that "betrayal of diplomacy" that would mean that the history of France would change as a whole too.
7:30 those wouldn't be Danes. Without Jutes and Angles exerting strength in England they would of conquered and pushed back the Danes. Meaning this land would be Anglaw not Danelaw.
Good and interesting video, but I have one point to correct - "Scottish" is an adjective only, and not a noun. The name for the people of Scotland is "The Scots", not "The Scottish". We differ from the English and Irish in that regard.
Dude, your maps are so well made! New sub here! Edit: imagine not commenting: ""“minecraft" "asmr" "pewdiepie" "music" "fortnite" "markiplier" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” "runescape" "world of warcraft" "shadowlands" "dream" "mrbeast" "warzone" "faze clan" "100 thieves" "call of duty" "pokemon" "pokemon cards" "card unboxing" "charizard" "they don't want you to know" "flat earth" "round earth" "triangle earth" "the earth is not earth" "what even is earth if not earth omg government is lying to you" "minecraft" "asmr" "pewdiepie" "music" "fortnite" "markiplier" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” "runescape" "world of warcraft" "shadowlands" "dream" "mrbeast" "warzone" "faze clan" "100 thieves" "call of duty" "pokemon" "halo" "devil may cry" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” “cocomelon” “t series” “minecraft" "asmr" "pewdiepie" "music" "fortnite" "markiplier" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” "runescape" "world of warcraft" "shadowlands" "dream" "mrbeast" "warzone" "faze clan" "100 thieves" "call of duty" "pokemon" "pokemon cards" "card unboxing" "charizard" "they don't want you to know" "flat earth" "round earth" "triangle earth" "the earth is not earth" "what even is earth if not earth omg government is lying to you" "minecraft" "asmr" "pewdiepie" "music" "fortnite" "markiplier" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” "runescape" "world of warcraft" "shadowlands" "dream" "mrbeast" "warzone" "faze clan" "100 thieves" "call of duty" "pokemon" "halo" "devil may cry" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” “cocomelon” “t series
If Albion was conquered similar style to hastings By the Normans, there wouldn't be a couple hundred years wars between English and Welsh regions, meaning less rebellions, more military uniformity, means more soldiers the Normans can deploy in the 100s year war, not sure if the hurrying of the north will Still happen or not.
A third of the Norman army was from Brittany. It's not even sure if Brittany exists in this alternate timeline or if it does it might be part of Albion.
@@damionkeeling3103 that too. But it's possible without a Brittany or a smaller Brittany that peninsula would get conquered solidifying Norman pull of resources and control, and without hundreds of years of wars In Wales, a united Norman Albion has more soldiers to fight elsewhere along with a larger population to recruit from who aren't dying or being killed by Normans or killing Normans.
In our timeline the Roman governors got killed at the treason of the long knives. Several romanized briton kings, provincial governors, remnants of the Roman aristocratic nobility, commanders and other Roman high titles politicians, the ones who haven't evacuated Britain, along with their educated enterage of briton monks and historians, the literate writing men who'd of been at the party with Vortigern to write the event down. All these culturally Latin Britons died. With this drain of culturally Latin politicians, the Anglo-Saxons robbed the Britons of Romano-British culture leaving Britain to be culturally more Celtic. And less like, say example, Brittany In our timeline. Without the Anglo-Saxons invasion and night of the long knives than British culture would have significantly more romance influences and that's still just before the 1066 Norman Conquest with romance French culture.
(1/2 - see reply) Watching this video again, a whole load of assumptions are made about the similarity of this timeline to the actual real world timeline, and I have to disagree. A Britain without the Anglo-Saxons would have been totally different to the Britain with the Anglo-Saxons. Here are my detailed thoughts on what it might look like. If the Anglo-Saxons never settled, this would be either because 1) the Britons and possibly Picts/Irish unite to defeat them, or 2) they never leave Germany/Scandinavia. 2) is highly unlikely as regardless of the pressures in their homelands, their populations would eventually grow to the point they seek out new lands. So the most likely scenario is them being defeated. This is possible, as the Britons were capable of defeating the Anglo-Saxons in battle (there were historical examples of this). It would however require a cultural change away from partition succession and towards a permanent high kingship of the Britons. It would also, crucially, require the Britons to see themselves as one people. This was something that could have happened, had a powerful British ruler ruled for long enough and created a permanent sense of Brythonic identity, but by no means would this have been easy. This would have happened only if the Britons saw themselves in contrast to an "other". For the sake of a hypothetical scenario, I will say that the Anglo-Saxons are the "other". The Britons in this scenario are sufficiently threatened by a specific Anglo-Saxon kingdom or leader to unite against them. So the Britons unite under a permanent high king and drive out the nascent Anglo-Saxon kings in the 5th/6th centuries. However unlikely this may seem, if the Anglo-Saxon threat had united into a single powerful kingdom early enough, and posed a threat in general to enough powerful Brythonic kingdoms, it is possible, and the only way I see the Anglo-Saxons not settling, due to their military superiority. The British would use sheer numbers to defeat the Saxons, they would in time absorb them into the British populations and take on some of their military traditions. Then it is assumed that the borders of the state of "Albion" (or Prydain) remain identical to modern day England, while the Picts inherit all of modern day Scotland. This is highly unlikely. A Brythonic high kingdom formed in the 5th/6th century would also count Strathclyde (which stretched from Dumbarton in modern day Scotland to possibly as far south as Lancashire in modern day England) and the area in lowland Scotland around Lothian. This is because these areas were post-Roman Brythonic kingdoms (Gododdin and Alt Clut). Therefore a hypothetical Brythonic high kingship would stretch from Cornwall to Edinburgh and would in time be able to dominate the Picts and absorb/annex them to the high kingship as a client state. Since the Picts are believed to have been possibly related to the Britons, they would just be seen as some sort of "wild cousins" and largely ruled, semi-autonomously, by a local Pictish elite that swore fealty from time to time to the high kingship. Whether the Irish are conquered depends on how stable and strong the institution of the high kingship is, and whether an ambitious ruler arises to actually invade Ireland. But it would certainly be possible. Britain was capable of supporting a population of several million during this time and an army of tens of thousands would be theoretically possible. Therefore, in the most plausible scenario in which the Anglo Saxons do not settle, the Britons come together under a high king permanently. Such high kingship would obviously be squabbled over by powerful factions/subkingdoms in periods when the Britons do not face an external threat. However such a high kingship would grow to become very powerful and wealthy if it were sustained, because it would essentially encompass the whole of Great Britain. Where this high kingship would be based would be interesting. London is actually possible due to much of the wealth being in the South East of Britain, but it isn't inevitable. Militarily some of the strongest kingdoms of the Britons were Gwynedd and Powys in modern day Wales/western England, the Old North kingdoms of Strathclyde and Rheged, and Dumnonia/Cornwall, all of which are in the West of Britain. The most powerful of these in the 8th-10th centuries sometimes called themselves "King of the Britons". So it's possible that one of these kingdoms could have been the permanent basis, or they could have chosen a base in the South East. As this video correctly observed, the Celts were Christian at this point. However, in a united Britain timeline, the specific Celtic elements of Christianity spread throughout mainland Britain, possibly influencing and being influenced by the Celtic Christianity in Ireland too. Therefore, Celtic Christianity is stronger relative to orthodox Catholicism in this timeline. More on this later. The Vikings would certainly raid Britain during the Dark Ages, as the High Kingship would not be able to send aid to remote settlements quickly enough to stop a successful raid. Whether they would attempt to invade and settle would depend on how strong the High Kingship was. If it was fragmented or destroyed for a period, they might invade successfully at first. But considering they were ultimately defeated by Wessex, led by Alfred the Great, in our timeline then a united Britain would likely see off the Viking threat. A united Britain - likely the only scenario in which the Anglo-Saxons do not settle and ultimately dominate Britain - would be far too strong for an army of raiders, far from home, numbering a few thousand to conquer, regardless of how skilled fighters they were. If the Vikings do actually attempt to invade a fully united Britain, they are defeated. If however the high kingship has been destroyed or broken down by this point, but the Anglo-Saxons have also been assimilated into the British societies, then the Vikings have a chance at initially conquering, but the recent memory of the high kingship would surely force the British kingdoms back into unification against the Vikings, as had been the case against the Saxons. An alternative scenario, and one quite likely, is that Vikings do not attempt to conquer large amounts of land, but settle and assimilate, adopting Brythonic language and culture and Celtic Christianity in return for land and military service, in a similar way to how they ultimately did with the Anglo-Saxon state. The video then makes assumptions regarding the Norman Conquest playing out as it did in our timeline. But I don't think this is likely. Instead I believe that Britain, if it remained united for long enough, would be potentially one of the strongest kingdoms in Europe by this point, matching the strength of the kingdom of France, albeit being less developed economically and militarily. It would have a huge population as the size of Britain and its isolation would make large scale wars unlikely and an invasion difficult. Therefore, rather than the Normans invading to seize the British throne, the French kingdom would likely be forced into greater unification to defend against threats from British raiders. This then accelerates the consolidation of the French state. The Bretons of course, do not migrate to France in this timeline or do so in lesser numbers, or even may have returned to Britain. The video subsequently goes on to talk about the reformation, as though the major cultural differences between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons would have had no impact on the development of Christianity over a period of about 500 years despite the absences of the Saxons from one of Europe's biggest and most prosperous regions. But it would have had a huge impact. Let's assume in one possible scenario that Britain does not being fully orthodox and become Catholic, which is a major assumption and very speculative indeed, since a nascent high kingship in Dark Age times would have benefitted greatly from Church support.
(2/2) Instead of, or perhaps in addition to a Protestant reformation in the 15th century, we would have seen major religious conflict between orthodox Catholicism and Celtic Christianity to become the dominant religious worldview in Western Europe. This may have prevented the Catholic Church from becoming so decadent and corrupt in the high and late medieval period due to the presence of a competitor. This may have meant no Protestant reformation at all, as much of the fuel for demands for change came from abuses of the Church's position - corruption, the sale of indulgences, the moral laxity of the clergy. In the absence of utter religious dominance, the Catholic Church takes more seriously the need to be seen to keep a lid on such abuses, and Catholics are also more united against both Islam and Celtic Christianity, which is seen as astray. Any conflict between orthodox Catholicism and Celtic Christianity could even theoretically motivate wars between continental powers and Britain. Such wars would not likely result in conquests, but would certainly weaken both sides. The presence of Celtic Christianity as a major player in international religious politics would also have consequences for the Muslim faith, the Crusades, paganism, and so on. Would Celtic Christians participate in a Crusade against Muslims? They may have supported the crusades as the orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire sometimes did. But they may not have done, as Byzantine leaders' support for the crusades was not always enthusiastic. In the absence of a united Western Europe in religious matters, the likelihood is that the consolidation of Europe under Christianity takes longer than in our timeline, if it happens at all. Europe could become much more fragmented religiously; pagans may hold out longer, Islam would remain in Iberia potentially for longer, or even consolidate and expand more than it did historically. If Protestantism or other heresies arise, Catholicism may either suppress these more or less than in our timeline, which could potentially alter the basic nature of modern Catholicism by incorporating various elements of Protestantism or other heresies, like services in the vernacular. If Protestantism doesn't arise and Europe is fragmented and preoccupied by religious division, how does this affect the colonisation of the New World by Europeans? This is a huge issue and to be honest too speculative. But I believe that it's possible that this would be affected in a major way, whether it would happen later or possibly which powers would be doing the colonisation, and whether the natives would have any chance of maintaining more of their dominance over their own lands. I would need to research Celtic Christianity and the period more to also know whether slavery would have been practiced (it likely would have) if the Britons had played any role in the colonisation. I'm assuming that Europe remains as a result of this the major military power in the world, but to be honest even that is speculative given the potential consequences of a non-Saxon Britain. Assuming, therefore, that a non-Anglo-Saxon Britain would retain significant religious differences to Catholicism (which is only one possibility - another, quite possible, outcome might be Britain becoming fully Catholic, for example) then I would suggest that this would be a quite possible path. A non-Anglo-Saxon Britain alters, potentially, a huge amount about the history of Europe and the world, and I don't feel the potentially massive implications of this were fully discussed.
Honestly I agree with your broad argument. This is a video I would like to redo, although I probably need quite a few videos under my belt before I get around to covering it again. I really enjoyed reading your comment, you have great depth.
I can't see Picts or Gaels chipping away at the Britons like the Anglo-Saxons either but do pick away a few regions. When I got on several sources online, notably Britannica and Wikimedia it gave me a list of defeats and victories lasting 300 years against the Anglo-Saxons. So presumably we can translate this for the Picts and Gaels. Without Anglo-Saxon mercenaries being a even playing field pushing back the Picts and gaels. I can see some Gaelic and Pictish carved up territory in northwest "England" Albion in this alternate timeline. But certainly nowhere like the Anglo-Saxon carve up we see in our timelime. The county of Cumbria in England today? That might be Gaelic and Pictish. I can see Pictish culture pouring into northern England, either leaving Picts into a stronger position to fight back Scotii raiders preventing Pictland from Gaelicizing, or the over stretch leaves Dal Riata to conquer pictland faster except in areas ironically south of Hadrian's wall. Perhaps without the Scots language descent from Angle language Northumbrian Inglis, Gaelic will still thrive in Highlands, but the Pictish language may still survive in the Lowlands.
Without the Anglo-Saxon exodus, and leaving a larger population behind likely warring instead of disperse farming in Britain, the Vikings in this timeline will still have Vikings and stronger more experienced skilled Vikings. Without the Angles and Jutes leaving Denmark especially the Angles who conquered more of England than the Jutes (just look at Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia in size or even factor the Mercian supremacy and Northumbrian golden age) just allocate that strength to the Angles in Denmark who might conquer Jutes (who only conquered the Isle of Wight and Kent) the Angles would conquer Jutland and without the vacuum left behind the Danish islanders couldn't conquer the population remnant in the peninsula. The Angles would conquer the islands and southern Sweden, which at the time was Danish. The Angles would just form the Danelaw of this timeline. Perhaps a even stronger Danelaw. Sweyn and the Danish did temporarily conquer England as well. So English might be in Britain anyway. But with a temporary instead of permanent presence. The Saxons and Frisians staying behind In larger numbers might make the Saxon and Frisian wars against the Franks last a decade longer.
ua-cam.com/video/BU7RFVwvG6E/v-deo.html Neatling's vid. Feel free to leave feedback and suggestions. Cheers for the support everyone.
I feel like I am in the middle of a war, I have the urge to move my troops, but I can't.
God will lead 10 Lost tribes Moses and Arrons people
Same way He did in the wilderness.
Why wouldn't it be called Pyrdain, the welsh word for Britain?
That could definitely have happened.
Welsh wouldn't exist, as the Anglo-Saxons bringing their language and it becoming the main language of England isolated the Brittonic speaking people into Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. Over time of being isolated from one another the languages became distinct and actually different languages. Though I do agree the name probably would be similar to the Welsh name.
It would be called something like Pritani- which was the Brythonic name for the land of Britain at that time. Something with 'Pr' as the first letters, for sure.
Prydain is very similar in pronunciation to the French word "Bretagne" for Brittany, which has always led me to imagine some Dark Age Frank asking these new arrivals where they were from, being told "Prydain", and then corrupting the word into "Bretagne".
If im not wrong, the Picts called the whole island Albion.
Ahh, EUIV music, a clean and relaxing voice, beautiful maps, consistent and strong logic in alternate history, and a beautiful video overall 👌👌👌👌 I'll check all other videos soon. The Part 2 and that channel are also neat. Blessings 🙌
I disagree with the Briton’s becoming Protestant, the circumstances in our time were entirely based on personal factors of the royal family that seem unlikely to occur. I would put the chances at 3 out of 10 for conversion
Protestantism was almost exclusively a German thing.
I don’t think that the Britonic people would have became Protestant. The reason there would be no King Henry VIII. Also the people of Albion are closer to Celtic. I also think the The United Kingdom in this timeline might extend to Brittany.
so you feel that they would buck the trend of most the rest of Northern Europe?
@@adamskeans2515 Yeah because Brittany never fully became Protestant. Nor the majority of Ireland. Scotland only the lowlands became Protestant. So without really having a King Henry VIII there wouldn’t be a Protestant majority British Isels and instead it would be a Catholic majority with Protestant pockets scattered throughout the country.
@@itapi697 it's still a huge trend, that might of had them go the other way, even without a king pushing for it
@@adamskeans2515 Yeah, but England in our timeline orginally didn’t want to get involved with the Reformation at first. So It might have been even more so in this timeline
@@itapi697 yeah, but as I said, nothing is definite
Can't wait for the amazing comeback of videos hope you're alright history's Influence man
GREAT VIDEO love the unique alternate history idea believe this is the first on no Anglo-Saxon invasion of England.
Just came across your channel. Great content, would love to see more!
Great Video.
Great video! Immediate sub!
Alternate histories like these can be so fascinating! Thanks to Neatling for sending me. Stay well out there everybody, and Jesus Christ be with you friends.😊
you got yourself a new subscriber
The story of Richard the Lionheart in the Crusades is actually hilarious
Didn't he randomly yeet Cyprus from a Byzantine noble rebel or something? lol
Long live the Empire of Wales!
All I know as an American is that there are apparently a lot of sheep over there.
@@Makem12 just like in New Zealand, yes
Swansea hell yeah
*Cymru or some other Cymraeg name for Cymru or the Home Islands like Prydain.
@@myrddinemrys1332 that's Cornwall in Cornish and Britain in Welsh...
There'd be peace and tranquility.
Next, no Norman invasion! Great video.
I read somewhere that the people in the earliest Saxon graves were of people who were differemt from those found in later Saxon graves ... they were very similar to the people who built Stonehenge!
Imo Britain would have had a history more similar to Eire leading to a mixing of Norse and Celtic cultures. After that is anyone's guess.
Your this video is heart touching and mesmerising so I have a humble request for you can you make a video on Skanderbeg please please .
I think this'll be the concept for the next video (a Crusade of Varna alt history with Skanderbeg as an obvious important figure), just need to make sure I can write a compelling/reasonable enough script. I'll highlight this comment in the video for credit, you can notify me if you don't want me to do that.
@@HistorysInfluence Thank you so much for listening my wish. Sorry, due to unavoidable circumstances I couldn't reply you. But thank you again bro
@@HistorysInfluence brother Four months has passed when will the video on Skanderbeg come. I stay tuned
@@subhamomm5930 I don't think he was alive. Sorry the video on Skanderbeg will not come?.
This is a cool video, but it fails to take into account that the departure of the Roman military and the fact that the province no longer pertained the the empire did not at all mean that all Latin culture and language simply vanished. Indeed, we find evidence that many urban centres harboured heavily Romanized populations who would have gone on to speak a form of Romance language akin to French, Spanish, Italian etc. albeit perhaps with some Brythonic influence.
Roman Britain was not at all uniform in it's Romanization, and the South East in particular was heavily Romanized and, if you didn't end up with Romance-speaking populations elsewhere, you almost certainly would have in places such as Kent. In our timeline, the most Romanized areas were prevented from developing fully Romance cultures similar to those found elsewhere in former Roman territory by the Anglo-Saxon incursion.
In the new timeline, at least for a small period of time (before a Brythonic-dominated kingdom invaded them, perhaps), have a sort of mini Roman rump state or Romance kingdom in South-East Britain, and as you headed more to the North West, find this culture becoming more and more Brythonic. The brown area on your map would probably be more or less the maximum extent of this Romanized area.
A better name for these people instead of Brythonic would be Romano-British.
Loved this video, good attempt at pronouncing Gwynedd! The double D is pronounced 'th' so like Gwinith, but a tiny bit of the D noise I think. rofl
I've got a bit of Welsh ancestry so I hope my ancestors aren't disappointed lol.
Deserves more subs , but for some reason the only things on this platform with subs are children’s 3d “animation” nursery rhymes . Don’t give up you will hit a big break and get a lot more subs soon, look at me I just subbed and love this channel, good luck
In my view if the Anglo-Saxons had not invaded Britain, the Vikings would certainly have attempted it at some point, or possibly the Franks. However, it's worth noting that when the Britons actually united, as they did on occasion, they were able to thoroughly defeat the Anglo-Saxons in battle, even if they did enjoy numerical advantage. One example of a Brythonic king who achieved this was Urien, the king of Rheged, who led a coalition of north British kings to defeat the Northumbrians in the 7th century. The Anglo-Saxon takeover of Britain was not inevitable, it occurred primarily because the Britons lacked unity, and lacked war leaders that could actually unite the various kingdoms against the Anglo-Saxons. In the early medieval period the Britons likely didn't see themselves in opposition to the Saxons any more than in opposition to each other. Had they done so and waged an effective campaign to expel the Saxons, they likely could have.
What about the magna carta? What type of government might this alternate Britain choose?
rule albion albion rule the waves albion's never, never, never shall be slaves!
It is now known that the Pics were a Brythonic people, that spoke a Brythonic language similar to Cymraeg, Cumbric.
I don’t think Albion will be known as Great Albion because the great is referring to size so big Britain and little Britain (Brittany in France)
I was wondering if i had Europa Universalis running while watching this video :)
18:14 ah bro u left that fluffed line in oh well
lol
I find funny how some alternative history UA-cam channels, when they talk about Normandy, they forget 3 things:
1- Normandy was not a viking descendants majority land, only the nobility of Normandy had Nordic blood, hence, Normandy is just another aleatory duchy of France, with vikings having little influence in the local genetics, local language and even local culture.
2- People like to underrate the Anglo-Saxons just because the Normans won in our timeline. I will remind you all that in terms of military, Anglo-Saxon England was at least 5 times stronger than Normandy. Angland was one of the few united kingdoms in Europe without the problem of being divided into Duchys and Counties. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons lost to the Normans and Willian the Bastard was just because they had already fought the Norwegians in the North, and so, they were tired, they were in need to travel back fast to fight the Normans, and they being tired was an advantage to the Normans. With a little bit more of strategy, the Normans would be out of game just like the Norwegians. And so, same way that the Anglo-Saxons were capable of winning the Norwegians and Normans, so would be the Britons.
3- Normandy was still a vassal of France. When they tried a invasion in England, they were risking everything, and if England repelled the invasion and then decided to clash with France because of that "betrayal of diplomacy" that would mean that the history of France would change as a whole too.
7:30 those wouldn't be Danes. Without Jutes and Angles exerting strength in England they would of conquered and pushed back the Danes. Meaning this land would be Anglaw not Danelaw.
Good and interesting video, but I have one point to correct - "Scottish" is an adjective only, and not a noun. The name for the people of Scotland is "The Scots", not "The Scottish". We differ from the English and Irish in that regard.
When the new video will come
It's been ages ay. Been busy with other stuff. I'll have a video out in the next month at the most, going to start planning consistent uploads.
But would the danes be able to take jutland if the angles never left and would Widukind influence them to raid christian Kingdoms
The Jutes were already moving south and west due to the early Danes. Look up the Euthiones as they were Jutes.
angry saxons
I think this videos ignore how prevalent vulgar Latin was in the southeast of England. I wouldn’t be surprised if Briton ended up as a romance nation.
I suspect that Britannia would be using Bryontic influenced Romance language
Don't worry, if the pretzel blondies won't teach us monkey humans any modern english, the aliens will.
It would be less Urnfield as the British Belgics would collapse and thus less developed and less influential
Dude, your maps are so well made! New sub here!
Edit: imagine not commenting: ""“minecraft" "asmr" "pewdiepie" "music" "fortnite" "markiplier" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” "runescape" "world of warcraft" "shadowlands" "dream" "mrbeast" "warzone" "faze clan" "100 thieves" "call of duty" "pokemon" "pokemon cards" "card unboxing" "charizard" "they don't want you to know" "flat earth" "round earth" "triangle earth" "the earth is not earth" "what even is earth if not earth omg government is lying to you" "minecraft" "asmr" "pewdiepie" "music" "fortnite" "markiplier" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” "runescape" "world of warcraft" "shadowlands" "dream" "mrbeast" "warzone" "faze clan" "100 thieves" "call of duty" "pokemon" "halo" "devil may cry" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” “cocomelon” “t series” “minecraft" "asmr" "pewdiepie" "music" "fortnite" "markiplier" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” "runescape" "world of warcraft" "shadowlands" "dream" "mrbeast" "warzone" "faze clan" "100 thieves" "call of duty" "pokemon" "pokemon cards" "card unboxing" "charizard" "they don't want you to know" "flat earth" "round earth" "triangle earth" "the earth is not earth" "what even is earth if not earth omg government is lying to you" "minecraft" "asmr" "pewdiepie" "music" "fortnite" "markiplier" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” "runescape" "world of warcraft" "shadowlands" "dream" "mrbeast" "warzone" "faze clan" "100 thieves" "call of duty" "pokemon" "halo" "devil may cry" “youtube is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.” “cocomelon” “t series
Cheers man. That gives me an idea for my next video descriptions lol.
I would say an Albion protestanism would be like a revival of Celtic Church traditions.
hello friend
Would we be speaking a language related to Welsh instead of English today?
Albion is a latin word derived from the greek name fro britain
If Albion was conquered similar style to hastings By the Normans, there wouldn't be a couple hundred years wars between English and Welsh regions, meaning less rebellions, more military uniformity, means more soldiers the Normans can deploy in the 100s year war, not sure if the hurrying of the north will Still happen or not.
A third of the Norman army was from Brittany. It's not even sure if Brittany exists in this alternate timeline or if it does it might be part of Albion.
@@damionkeeling3103 that too. But it's possible without a Brittany or a smaller Brittany that peninsula would get conquered solidifying Norman pull of resources and control, and without hundreds of years of wars In Wales, a united Norman Albion has more soldiers to fight elsewhere along with a larger population to recruit from who aren't dying or being killed by Normans or killing Normans.
In our timeline the Roman governors got killed at the treason of the long knives. Several romanized briton kings, provincial governors, remnants of the Roman aristocratic nobility, commanders and other Roman high titles politicians, the ones who haven't evacuated Britain, along with their educated enterage of briton monks and historians, the literate writing men who'd of been at the party with Vortigern to write the event down. All these culturally Latin Britons died. With this drain of culturally Latin politicians, the Anglo-Saxons robbed the Britons of Romano-British culture leaving Britain to be culturally more Celtic. And less like, say example, Brittany In our timeline. Without the Anglo-Saxons invasion and night of the long knives than British culture would have significantly more romance influences and that's still just before the 1066 Norman Conquest with romance French culture.
(1/2 - see reply) Watching this video again, a whole load of assumptions are made about the similarity of this timeline to the actual real world timeline, and I have to disagree. A Britain without the Anglo-Saxons would have been totally different to the Britain with the Anglo-Saxons. Here are my detailed thoughts on what it might look like.
If the Anglo-Saxons never settled, this would be either because 1) the Britons and possibly Picts/Irish unite to defeat them, or 2) they never leave Germany/Scandinavia. 2) is highly unlikely as regardless of the pressures in their homelands, their populations would eventually grow to the point they seek out new lands.
So the most likely scenario is them being defeated. This is possible, as the Britons were capable of defeating the Anglo-Saxons in battle (there were historical examples of this). It would however require a cultural change away from partition succession and towards a permanent high kingship of the Britons. It would also, crucially, require the Britons to see themselves as one people. This was something that could have happened, had a powerful British ruler ruled for long enough and created a permanent sense of Brythonic identity, but by no means would this have been easy. This would have happened only if the Britons saw themselves in contrast to an "other". For the sake of a hypothetical scenario, I will say that the Anglo-Saxons are the "other".
The Britons in this scenario are sufficiently threatened by a specific Anglo-Saxon kingdom or leader to unite against them. So the Britons unite under a permanent high king and drive out the nascent Anglo-Saxon kings in the 5th/6th centuries. However unlikely this may seem, if the Anglo-Saxon threat had united into a single powerful kingdom early enough, and posed a threat in general to enough powerful Brythonic kingdoms, it is possible, and the only way I see the Anglo-Saxons not settling, due to their military superiority. The British would use sheer numbers to defeat the Saxons, they would in time absorb them into the British populations and take on some of their military traditions.
Then it is assumed that the borders of the state of "Albion" (or Prydain) remain identical to modern day England, while the Picts inherit all of modern day Scotland. This is highly unlikely. A Brythonic high kingdom formed in the 5th/6th century would also count Strathclyde (which stretched from Dumbarton in modern day Scotland to possibly as far south as Lancashire in modern day England) and the area in lowland Scotland around Lothian. This is because these areas were post-Roman Brythonic kingdoms (Gododdin and Alt Clut). Therefore a hypothetical Brythonic high kingship would stretch from Cornwall to Edinburgh and would in time be able to dominate the Picts and absorb/annex them to the high kingship as a client state. Since the Picts are believed to have been possibly related to the Britons, they would just be seen as some sort of "wild cousins" and largely ruled, semi-autonomously, by a local Pictish elite that swore fealty from time to time to the high kingship. Whether the Irish are conquered depends on how stable and strong the institution of the high kingship is, and whether an ambitious ruler arises to actually invade Ireland. But it would certainly be possible. Britain was capable of supporting a population of several million during this time and an army of tens of thousands would be theoretically possible.
Therefore, in the most plausible scenario in which the Anglo Saxons do not settle, the Britons come together under a high king permanently. Such high kingship would obviously be squabbled over by powerful factions/subkingdoms in periods when the Britons do not face an external threat. However such a high kingship would grow to become very powerful and wealthy if it were sustained, because it would essentially encompass the whole of Great Britain.
Where this high kingship would be based would be interesting. London is actually possible due to much of the wealth being in the South East of Britain, but it isn't inevitable. Militarily some of the strongest kingdoms of the Britons were Gwynedd and Powys in modern day Wales/western England, the Old North kingdoms of Strathclyde and Rheged, and Dumnonia/Cornwall, all of which are in the West of Britain. The most powerful of these in the 8th-10th centuries sometimes called themselves "King of the Britons". So it's possible that one of these kingdoms could have been the permanent basis, or they could have chosen a base in the South East.
As this video correctly observed, the Celts were Christian at this point. However, in a united Britain timeline, the specific Celtic elements of Christianity spread throughout mainland Britain, possibly influencing and being influenced by the Celtic Christianity in Ireland too. Therefore, Celtic Christianity is stronger relative to orthodox Catholicism in this timeline. More on this later.
The Vikings would certainly raid Britain during the Dark Ages, as the High Kingship would not be able to send aid to remote settlements quickly enough to stop a successful raid. Whether they would attempt to invade and settle would depend on how strong the High Kingship was. If it was fragmented or destroyed for a period, they might invade successfully at first. But considering they were ultimately defeated by Wessex, led by Alfred the Great, in our timeline then a united Britain would likely see off the Viking threat. A united Britain - likely the only scenario in which the Anglo-Saxons do not settle and ultimately dominate Britain - would be far too strong for an army of raiders, far from home, numbering a few thousand to conquer, regardless of how skilled fighters they were.
If the Vikings do actually attempt to invade a fully united Britain, they are defeated. If however the high kingship has been destroyed or broken down by this point, but the Anglo-Saxons have also been assimilated into the British societies, then the Vikings have a chance at initially conquering, but the recent memory of the high kingship would surely force the British kingdoms back into unification against the Vikings, as had been the case against the Saxons. An alternative scenario, and one quite likely, is that Vikings do not attempt to conquer large amounts of land, but settle and assimilate, adopting Brythonic language and culture and Celtic Christianity in return for land and military service, in a similar way to how they ultimately did with the Anglo-Saxon state.
The video then makes assumptions regarding the Norman Conquest playing out as it did in our timeline. But I don't think this is likely. Instead I believe that Britain, if it remained united for long enough, would be potentially one of the strongest kingdoms in Europe by this point, matching the strength of the kingdom of France, albeit being less developed economically and militarily. It would have a huge population as the size of Britain and its isolation would make large scale wars unlikely and an invasion difficult. Therefore, rather than the Normans invading to seize the British throne, the French kingdom would likely be forced into greater unification to defend against threats from British raiders. This then accelerates the consolidation of the French state. The Bretons of course, do not migrate to France in this timeline or do so in lesser numbers, or even may have returned to Britain.
The video subsequently goes on to talk about the reformation, as though the major cultural differences between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons would have had no impact on the development of Christianity over a period of about 500 years despite the absences of the Saxons from one of Europe's biggest and most prosperous regions. But it would have had a huge impact. Let's assume in one possible scenario that Britain does not being fully orthodox and become Catholic, which is a major assumption and very speculative indeed, since a nascent high kingship in Dark Age times would have benefitted greatly from Church support.
(2/2) Instead of, or perhaps in addition to a Protestant reformation in the 15th century, we would have seen major religious conflict between orthodox Catholicism and Celtic Christianity to become the dominant religious worldview in Western Europe. This may have prevented the Catholic Church from becoming so decadent and corrupt in the high and late medieval period due to the presence of a competitor. This may have meant no Protestant reformation at all, as much of the fuel for demands for change came from abuses of the Church's position - corruption, the sale of indulgences, the moral laxity of the clergy. In the absence of utter religious dominance, the Catholic Church takes more seriously the need to be seen to keep a lid on such abuses, and Catholics are also more united against both Islam and Celtic Christianity, which is seen as astray.
Any conflict between orthodox Catholicism and Celtic Christianity could even theoretically motivate wars between continental powers and Britain. Such wars would not likely result in conquests, but would certainly weaken both sides.
The presence of Celtic Christianity as a major player in international religious politics would also have consequences for the Muslim faith, the Crusades, paganism, and so on. Would Celtic Christians participate in a Crusade against Muslims? They may have supported the crusades as the orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire sometimes did. But they may not have done, as Byzantine leaders' support for the crusades was not always enthusiastic. In the absence of a united Western Europe in religious matters, the likelihood is that the consolidation of Europe under Christianity takes longer than in our timeline, if it happens at all.
Europe could become much more fragmented religiously; pagans may hold out longer, Islam would remain in Iberia potentially for longer, or even consolidate and expand more than it did historically. If Protestantism or other heresies arise, Catholicism may either suppress these more or less than in our timeline, which could potentially alter the basic nature of modern Catholicism by incorporating various elements of Protestantism or other heresies, like services in the vernacular.
If Protestantism doesn't arise and Europe is fragmented and preoccupied by religious division, how does this affect the colonisation of the New World by Europeans? This is a huge issue and to be honest too speculative. But I believe that it's possible that this would be affected in a major way, whether it would happen later or possibly which powers would be doing the colonisation, and whether the natives would have any chance of maintaining more of their dominance over their own lands. I would need to research Celtic Christianity and the period more to also know whether slavery would have been practiced (it likely would have) if the Britons had played any role in the colonisation. I'm assuming that Europe remains as a result of this the major military power in the world, but to be honest even that is speculative given the potential consequences of a non-Saxon Britain.
Assuming, therefore, that a non-Anglo-Saxon Britain would retain significant religious differences to Catholicism (which is only one possibility - another, quite possible, outcome might be Britain becoming fully Catholic, for example) then I would suggest that this would be a quite possible path. A non-Anglo-Saxon Britain alters, potentially, a huge amount about the history of Europe and the world, and I don't feel the potentially massive implications of this were fully discussed.
Honestly I agree with your broad argument. This is a video I would like to redo, although I probably need quite a few videos under my belt before I get around to covering it again. I really enjoyed reading your comment, you have great depth.
@@HistorysInfluence Thanks for the appreciation, it was a fun exercise in imagination! As a Welshman it was nice to imagine a world where we won. :)
Then way more Celtic left overs
God bless all Anglo-Saxons 🏴
all hail saxons
I can't see Picts or Gaels chipping away at the Britons like the Anglo-Saxons either but do pick away a few regions. When I got on several sources online, notably Britannica and Wikimedia it gave me a list of defeats and victories lasting 300 years against the Anglo-Saxons. So presumably we can translate this for the Picts and Gaels. Without Anglo-Saxon mercenaries being a even playing field pushing back the Picts and gaels. I can see some Gaelic and Pictish carved up territory in northwest "England" Albion in this alternate timeline. But certainly nowhere like the Anglo-Saxon carve up we see in our timelime. The county of Cumbria in England today? That might be Gaelic and Pictish. I can see Pictish culture pouring into northern England, either leaving Picts into a stronger position to fight back Scotii raiders preventing Pictland from Gaelicizing, or the over stretch leaves Dal Riata to conquer pictland faster except in areas ironically south of Hadrian's wall.
Perhaps without the Scots language descent from Angle language Northumbrian Inglis, Gaelic will still thrive in Highlands, but the Pictish language may still survive in the Lowlands.
Actually germanic people Invaded all Roman Europe, but they didn't change (completely) its culture
anglo sexon 👍
Britain wouldn't be Britain w/o the Germanic influences, german and celtic society was different
Without the Anglo-Saxon exodus, and leaving a larger population behind likely warring instead of disperse farming in Britain, the Vikings in this timeline will still have Vikings and stronger more experienced skilled Vikings. Without the Angles and Jutes leaving Denmark especially the Angles who conquered more of England than the Jutes (just look at Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia in size or even factor the Mercian supremacy and Northumbrian golden age) just allocate that strength to the Angles in Denmark who might conquer Jutes (who only conquered the Isle of Wight and Kent) the Angles would conquer Jutland and without the vacuum left behind the Danish islanders couldn't conquer the population remnant in the peninsula. The Angles would conquer the islands and southern Sweden, which at the time was Danish.
The Angles would just form the Danelaw of this timeline. Perhaps a even stronger Danelaw. Sweyn and the Danish did temporarily conquer England as well.
So English might be in Britain anyway. But with a temporary instead of permanent presence.
The Saxons and Frisians staying behind In larger numbers might make the Saxon and Frisian wars against the Franks last a decade longer.
Eh I personally see the Britons being totally conquered by the Vikings atleast 100 years before the normans invade and the normans would be repulsed
Before watching this, I'm going to guess that England would be more of a cross between Ireland and France.