There is an earlier reference to Arthur in the poem 'Y Gododdin', from probably 250 years or more before 'Historia Britonnum'. It is very brief, essentially praise for a warrior called 'Gwarddur' which concludes something like, 'but he was no Arthur'- This would suggest that 'Arthur' was already well known and a byword for martial excellence at a very early date.
The Gododdin is a most annoying poem because it tells us almost nothing about the battle. It is a collection of elegies for the fallen British warriors.
Also although the battle is generally dated to around 600 the poem is much later, around 800 at earliest. It's another example of how unsatisfactory our sources for the period are.
Interesting factoid or tidbit: when the legions were withdrawn in 410 part of that proclamation was the emperor granting citizens in Britain the right to bear arms. This interesting as the Romans despite having a highly militarized culture were not accepting of citizens bearing arms. You could own weapons but carrying weapons out of uniform ranged from taboo to highly illegal, especially inside the pomerium in Rome itself.
there's a mod called when the world stops making sense for CK2 that starts from 476 but it's in beta, There's also a mod for EU4 called extended timeline that starts in the year 2-9999
@transylvanian the issue with that is the lack of historical sources on the rulers of the time. The paradox devekopment team already stated they had problems with the 769 start in terms of historicity on the rulers that actually existed as opposed to semi-legendary figures (hence why its no longer available in ck3), so i doubt they would take it as far back as the fall of rome.
Saxons get extra representation in history because 1) they have more cousins on the continent e.g. Old Saxons, 2) Wessex is the last man standing and does a lot of the writing especially in the post-Viking period, 3) the angles main areas coincide with the areas most affected with Norse settlement too.
The Welsh did not invent the longbow. They may have popularized it before the English, but longbows have been excavated from all over Europe dating back as early as 3000 BC, well before the Welsh were even a distinct people.
He makes the kinds of broad statements many historians make. It's a high school textbook style of thinking. He doesn't ask questions like, "Did the Welsh really invent a stick with string?"
@@LANeverSleeps You're absolutely right but I need to correct myself. In another one of his vids he says something more specific. To paraphrase, he says the practice of fielding large numbers of high draw weight bows originated with the Welsh and presumably the training regimine needed to use that kind of bow as well.
He didnt do the bsst research on Ireland. There was around 6 annals who describe things without contradicting each other apart from occaisonal dates or years. You might be able to find my comment where I expained what Ireland was actually like in the dark ages
Saxons got all the coverage because they came first. they were described as Seaxnas because that was their primary weapon. my suspicion is that Jutes are Saxons from Jutland, Angles were Saxons from Angeland, Geweisse, Hwicce and Hastingas being just small tribes of Saxons and so on. The ones that did not get a specific name, we just call "old saxons" Biede was full of it... Angles, Saxons and Jutes. lol. What about Frisians, Franks, and all the other tribes that crossed the channel?
Very likely King Arthur was inspired by some romano-britain warrior or king or something and then time and stories turned him into a legend. No Arthur but a legend created from a warlord.
I think the modern British plus English largely identify with King Arthur and the Anglo saxons despite that the only time that was a distinct group is the worst period in British history because it gives them a simultaneously dire and conquering founding myth.
They get to be both Christ-like and Barbarous. I can’t think of any other country with the same sort of founding myth. I guess the French are the closest with the “nos ancestres Les gauls” as righteous defenders versus claiming Charlemagne as the father Of France. But charlemagne is regal the Anglo saxons aren’t.
@IFFs 35th it was but around 300-400AD they started calling it Scotia. This was around the time the Irish started raiding the coast of wales and scotti was the name given to the Irish.
@@borisselbstadler3209 specifically raiders from ireland then or however you wish to say it. Unless you have evidence of them calling raiders from elsewhere "scotti"
Arguably anglo-saxon. Remember that England would be essentially been welsh until the anglo-saxons changed the cultural identity. The Anglo Saxons gave us welsh an identity to oppose, an "us and them" that was really the first cultural differentiation between the two countries. Obviously there was never really a Unified welsh country until the Norman English invasions, but the cultural identity as a difference to the English would've only formed by the anglo/saxon/jutes cultural changes
I don’t really get how it’s useful to shit on the only ancient source we have. Like do historians think it makes them smart or z good historian to keep repeating “herodotus probably exagerated these numbers” or “this one and only ancient source we have for this event had X religion, so he can’t be trusted?” Like bro as history consumers we don’t care, and like if it’s the only source we have, then it’s not like we have an alternative so may as well make the best of what we have right? Idk the sort of smartallec “oh we know better than this old dead dude” is so tiresome
Historians pursue facts, not stuff that makes your dick hard. You can’t have facts or objectivity if you don’t at least somewhat scrutinize your sources (and scrutinize the people scrutinizing those sources and so on).
Ireland was a united country back then. There was a High King of Ireland starting from 400 AD at the latest. There was the same laws throughout the country at this time. And also the same langauge religion and culture. It was united from 400 AD to 1100s AD. The political system was very complicated which must've led you to think it wasnt united.... There was a High-King who ruled all of the Irish lands. Then below him has the 5 petty kings who ruled the 5 regions of Ireland. The High-King also ruled one province and 5. The petty king was allowed to make his provinces lands larger by invading part or even all of another province. If he invaded the High-Kings province then that petty king became the new High-King. Under the 5 Petty kings there was around a dozen tuatha. They were ruled by a Rí and one of 5 the petty kings was rí of a tuatha inside of his province. These tuatha was also allowed to invade other tuatha's land and could possibly become the King of the province his tuatha is in. It wasn't a very good system at all but United as a nation nonetheless, similar to the holy Roman empire, I suppose. This system did kind of work as Ireland successfully invaded Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man and Cornwall during the dark ages. Iceland and Faroe Islands was also Irish territory in these times.
Overall the information you provide is great. I am thankful for your videos. However I don't think the Welsh invented the longbow. I don't think they invented a stick with string. It is similar to a claim you made in your coverage of William the Conqueror--that there were no castles in England before him. Maybe there were no Norman styled castles before William but it doesn't make sense to say that as if there weren't surviving Roman forts, fortified homes, cities or other locally designed fortifications around. These would all look like castles to a civilian and they all would have performed similar functions to castles. I don't think William introduced the concepts of walls, ditches and hills to Britain.
Arguably Western Civ is nothing without France and England. I know your expertise is ancient Greece but these are some really important things that you gloss over here, don't you think? My specialty is Nazi Germany but I sure as hell am not going to gloss over Ancient Greece even though much of it bores me to tears. It's just too important. And so is the formation of England by way of all these kingdoms you barely mentioned. I think English History during this period is far more important than Visigothic Spain or Vandalic North Africa. Why bother posting a video if you aren't going to really even discuss a lot of the important elements of early English history?
There is an earlier reference to Arthur in the poem 'Y Gododdin', from probably 250 years or more before 'Historia Britonnum'. It is very brief, essentially praise for a warrior called 'Gwarddur' which concludes something like, 'but he was no Arthur'- This would suggest that 'Arthur' was already well known and a byword for martial excellence at a very early date.
The Gododdin is a most annoying poem because it tells us almost nothing about the battle.
It is a collection of elegies for the fallen British warriors.
Also although the battle is generally dated to around 600 the poem is much later, around 800 at earliest.
It's another example of how unsatisfactory our sources for the period are.
@@alanpennie8013 how dare that poet honor the dead instead of describing the battle!
Interesting factoid or tidbit: when the legions were withdrawn in 410 part of that proclamation was the emperor granting citizens in Britain the right to bear arms. This interesting as the Romans despite having a highly militarized culture were not accepting of citizens bearing arms. You could own weapons but carrying weapons out of uniform ranged from taboo to highly illegal, especially inside the pomerium in Rome itself.
I love these videos I put them on as a podcast and play crusader kings
Yoooo I do the same exact thing.
there's a mod called when the world stops making sense for CK2 that starts from 476 but it's in beta, There's also a mod for EU4 called extended timeline that starts in the year 2-9999
@transylvanian the issue with that is the lack of historical sources on the rulers of the time. The paradox devekopment team already stated they had problems with the 769 start in terms of historicity on the rulers that actually existed as opposed to semi-legendary figures (hence why its no longer available in ck3), so i doubt they would take it as far back as the fall of rome.
Literally the same except I do work while listening to it.
If I had the patience to learn crusader kings' damn mechanics maybe I could multitask like that.
Saxons get extra representation in history because 1) they have more cousins on the continent e.g. Old Saxons, 2) Wessex is the last man standing and does a lot of the writing especially in the post-Viking period, 3) the angles main areas coincide with the areas most affected with Norse settlement too.
The Welsh did not invent the longbow. They may have popularized it before the English, but longbows have been excavated from all over Europe dating back as early as 3000 BC, well before the Welsh were even a distinct people.
Take this guy's work with a pinch of salt as he does mistake in many of his contents
He makes the kinds of broad statements many historians make. It's a high school textbook style of thinking. He doesn't ask questions like, "Did the Welsh really invent a stick with string?"
Multiple discovery or simultaneous invention is possible as well. They're probably just one of many cultures that invented it.
@@LANeverSleeps You're absolutely right but I need to correct myself. In another one of his vids he says something more specific. To paraphrase, he says the practice of fielding large numbers of high draw weight bows originated with the Welsh and presumably the training regimine needed to use that kind of bow as well.
@@mitranimukherjee4844 Oh Ive always wondered how accurate he is, what other kind of mistakes does he make?
Man I really appreciate all this work you do.
You got Gildas the wrong way around. He was from Strathclyde which, back then, was culturally pretty much Welsh, but is nowadays Scottish.
Possibly, possibly not.
The two vitas are late and unreliable.
@@alanpennie8013
Well Thersites meant Strathclyde, which was essentially Welsh but now Scottish.
Doesn’t ireland have a wealth of sources from this time? There’s like 6 different annals which detail this time.
He didnt do the bsst research on Ireland. There was around 6 annals who describe things without contradicting each other apart from occaisonal dates or years.
You might be able to find my comment where I expained what Ireland was actually like in the dark ages
excellent video! thank you :)
Saxons got all the coverage because they came first. they were described as Seaxnas because that was their primary weapon. my suspicion is that Jutes are Saxons from Jutland, Angles were Saxons from Angeland, Geweisse, Hwicce and Hastingas being just small tribes of Saxons and so on. The ones that did not get a specific name, we just call "old saxons" Biede was full of it... Angles, Saxons and Jutes. lol. What about Frisians, Franks, and all the other tribes that crossed the channel?
Very likely King Arthur was inspired by some romano-britain warrior or king or something and then time and stories turned him into a legend. No Arthur but a legend created from a warlord.
I think the modern British plus English largely identify with King Arthur and the Anglo saxons despite that the only time that was a distinct group is the worst period in British history because it gives them a simultaneously dire and conquering founding myth.
They get to be both Christ-like and Barbarous. I can’t think of any other country with the same sort of founding myth. I guess the French are the closest with the “nos ancestres Les gauls” as righteous defenders versus claiming Charlemagne as the father
Of France. But charlemagne is regal the Anglo saxons aren’t.
4:50 interestingly i think England basically is called something like "Saxonia" in the celtic languages
13:58 Wrong. The group of Irishpeople were the Tuatha called Dál Ríata.
Scottii was latin for Irish and Scotia was latin for Ireland.
@IFFs 35th it was but around 300-400AD they started calling it Scotia.
This was around the time the Irish started raiding the coast of wales and scotti was the name given to the Irish.
scotii means pirates or raiders in latin, it's not that specific
@@borisselbstadler3209 specifically raiders from ireland then or however you wish to say it. Unless you have evidence of them calling raiders from elsewhere "scotti"
Columbanus went to Frankreich and Lombard kingdom. He founded Bobbio monastery.
Bayubadu isn’t Frankreich German for France
"Saxons" were only one Frankish client kingdom
Wonderful video Buddy!
So...Kennith MacAlpin...
Good Job^!!^
Yours Truly,
I AM the X-AM
Arthur was mentioned first in the poem Y Gododdin, from the 7th century.
Did u say "killing munsters" at around 20:30? ;)
One question: Were the Romans or Anglo-Saxons the bigger points of conflicts and attention for Welsh mythology and Welsh cultural identity?
Arguably anglo-saxon. Remember that England would be essentially been welsh until the anglo-saxons changed the cultural identity.
The Anglo Saxons gave us welsh an identity to oppose, an "us and them" that was really the first cultural differentiation between the two countries.
Obviously there was never really a Unified welsh country until the Norman English invasions, but the cultural identity as a difference to the English would've only formed by the anglo/saxon/jutes cultural changes
anglo saxon, certainly. the welsh (britons) even praise a roman emperior (magnus maximum) for their existance.
Francis Pryor is great on this topic.
even tho hes dead aint he now?
What source talks about a werewolf in Kent?
So, was it ever confirmed if king alfred actually took credit for other's work?
I don’t really get how it’s useful to shit on the only ancient source we have. Like do historians think it makes them smart or z good historian to keep repeating “herodotus probably exagerated these numbers” or “this one and only ancient source we have for this event had X religion, so he can’t be trusted?” Like bro as history consumers we don’t care, and like if it’s the only source we have, then it’s not like we have an alternative so may as well make the best of what we have right? Idk the sort of smartallec “oh we know better than this old dead dude” is so tiresome
Historians pursue facts, not stuff that makes your dick hard. You can’t have facts or objectivity if you don’t at least somewhat scrutinize your sources (and scrutinize the people scrutinizing those sources and so on).
It almost seems like the English just took credit for anything of value from the rest of the Isle.
It does seem that way. I guess that the English have never tried to claim the kilt, to be fair.
@@ThersitestheHistorian Read Hobsbawm and Ranger about the kilt. It's an early modern thing.
Ireland was a united country back then.
There was a High King of Ireland starting from 400 AD at the latest. There was the same laws throughout the country at this time. And also the same langauge religion and culture.
It was united from 400 AD to 1100s AD.
The political system was very complicated which must've led you to think it wasnt united....
There was a High-King who ruled all of the Irish lands.
Then below him has the 5 petty kings who ruled the 5 regions of Ireland. The High-King also ruled one province and 5. The petty king was allowed to make his provinces lands larger by invading part or even all of another province. If he invaded the High-Kings province then that petty king became the new High-King.
Under the 5 Petty kings there was around a dozen tuatha. They were ruled by a Rí and one of 5 the petty kings was rí of a tuatha inside of his province. These tuatha was also allowed to invade other tuatha's land and could possibly become the King of the province his tuatha is in.
It wasn't a very good system at all but United as a nation nonetheless, similar to the holy Roman empire, I suppose.
This system did kind of work as Ireland successfully invaded Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man and Cornwall during the dark ages.
Iceland and Faroe Islands was also Irish territory in these times.
Celtic High-king =/= "United Ireland".
Ireland is relatively not that bad in some respects at that time. I’ve heard they were good at keeping Greek literacy
May I get some sources please?
@@Urlocallordandsavior
Mainly the annals kept by Irish monks.
Yeah the Irish came over to Wales at the end of the Roman rule
You're the greatest -
So, Modem Day Britain
“Danellaw” 😂
Sounds like the television or something is on while recording the audio come on man.
Welsh didn`t invent the long bow, bows have been long far before then. At best they were the most prolific users of it in Englan at the time.
Ambrosius Aurelianus
Overall the information you provide is great. I am thankful for your videos. However I don't think the Welsh invented the longbow. I don't think they invented a stick with string.
It is similar to a claim you made in your coverage of William the Conqueror--that there were no castles in England before him. Maybe there were no Norman styled castles before William but it doesn't make sense to say that as if there weren't surviving Roman forts, fortified homes, cities or other locally designed fortifications around. These would all look like castles to a civilian and they all would have performed similar functions to castles. I don't think William introduced the concepts of walls, ditches and hills to Britain.
But you don't call them roman castles do you?
Arguably Western Civ is nothing without France and England. I know your expertise is ancient Greece but these are some really important things that you gloss over here, don't you think? My specialty is Nazi Germany but I sure as hell am not going to gloss over Ancient Greece even though much of it bores me to tears. It's just too important. And so is the formation of England by way of all these kingdoms you barely mentioned. I think English History during this period is far more important than Visigothic Spain or Vandalic North Africa. Why bother posting a video if you aren't going to really even discuss a lot of the important elements of early English history?