MAYBE not using click bait titles would get uou less comments and you'd really hate that, right? Anglo-Saxons wouldn't call themselves by that term. The Welsh wouldn't call themselves "Welsh"; Deer wiukdn't call themselves "deer". Therefore, there were no deer in the 4th Century. And YOU don't like the term Celtic"; How about "Pillock"? Or "Berk"? "Git"? Maybe you are one third each. Maybe not. Great visuals, though! I learned a lot staring at your walls.

It is Germanus, not Germanicus who came to Britain, he had been a military officer. Pelagianism was not anti-Christ, but postulated that good deeds were enough for personal salvation, rather than being dependent upon Grace given by God, as the Catholic Church insisted. I have always thought that the Roman Auxiliaries had a large part in the British population, from the first century the garrisons of Vindolanda were already Germanic, & more Germanic troops constantly were employed as time went on. Around Hadrian's Wall were Swavian, Vangones etc etc. In fact it was these Auxiliaries that were the 'Romans' that most Britons would have known throughout the Roman period. Their presence would have made the Germanic proto-English language common within 'England' at least, easing the way for it to become the dominant language, Therefore there was no need for a dramatic. rapid adoption of a foreign tongue by the Britons in the migration period, because a large part of them were already of Germanic ancestry. At last some people are beginning to see what I have suspected for years, the 'English' were already in Britain in the Roman period, & possibly before that with their close ancestral ties across the surrounding seas, including to none Celtic parts of NW Europe, recorded by Caesar & Tacitus etc. The way of life of all these peoples, including the islands iron age peoples, was very similar, being mostly a warrior elite led society, so their habitations etc would be fairly similar. It was the Mediterranean civic building style, in stone etc, that was anomylous, once this collapsed both native & 'newcomers' habitations would look much alike.

Fascinating!

But surely there were Saxons, Angles, Jutes, & probably other groups who identified as belonging to those groups, hence the naming of 'Kingdoms' as Wessex, Essex, East Anglia etc . Why assume Gildas & Bede were entirely wrong, surely their basic material must be in essentials correct. Limited samples of populations in specific areas may be of little use as indicators for a country wide assessment of people. One also does not know what proportion of continental DNA entered the British isles during the Roman period, or even earlier, & how certain is it that the assumed British DNA really is that. Have enough country wide samples of populations been identified for each period, & how distinct are these in reality? There is recorded a substantial migration of Britons into Gaul, enough to create the new country of Brittany, so these people movements need not have been all in one direction, nor need they be limited to those recorded by the ancient historical records. Clues may come from the archaeology, for instance the whole Sutton Hoo complex indicates a close connection to northern Europe/Scandinavia at a date as early as the 6th century, far earlier than the noted Danish/Norse invasions, but perhaps indicating that the originators of the Anglian line of kings there were sort of proto-vikings, & Angeln, the original home of the Angles is in that area. I think it is a little presumptious to simply dismiss Gildas & Bede out of hand, for whatever motives they may have had in telling their stories, they were using history, as known to themselves; & theirs was a semi-literate society so they could have had access to reliable records, & Bede especially records the searching out of older documents etc. Both of them certainly lived far closer to the events they record than we do, nor can we expect that archaeology & DNA will fill in all the details we would like, either in support of, or at variance to, their accounts, so we should allow them to still inform the narrative, at least on a basic level. After all we can hardly expect to find battle sites & war cemeteries for what must have fairly small scale clashes between competing groups of the period, when much greater & well recorded battles are also not evident in the landscape, even up to & including those of the English Civil Wars.

💚

Fascinating. And of course, all the conflict that went on weakens or, indeed, disposes of much revisionist theory.

In Norfolk ( I think), there is a village called Swaffham, i.e. the village of the Swabians/Suebi - a Germanic tribe detailed by Tacitus.

Information good, presentation, not so much. Your camera on a stick, allows wind interference, and nothing of interest, action wise.

Interesting video. Surprised that the glass on the chair arm survived though :) .

People say this to discredit england and the english. They say the english did not have an ethnicity or a culture or anything else that would constitute as our own civilisation. They would say we are a mix of a race made from everyone else they want to get rid of english identity so they can justify mas immigration onto the island.

Fab video! Love the topic area and time period. Non-roman, roman era britain doesnt get enough coverage especially north east England. So many incredible hill forts up here. Would love to know more!

Thanks mate. I like that time period in old Ireland too

Gotta love a DEVILS CAUSEWAY 😈😈😈 ...the disconect in the english countryside with features attributed to the work of Satan 😆 you'll be walking in a lush green landscape 🏞, butterflies in the air, birdsong, grass gently blowing in the wind & then you check the map & its called 'Demons Buttocks' or 'Hellfire bottom' or similar

Romanes eunt domus

You say that there was no concept of English identity until the time of Alfred the Great and that people would have identified themselves by their family, tribal group or kingdom. Yet 150 years before Alfred and 60 years before the very first Viking raids which supposedly created it, in the year 731, Bede wrote his *Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum* . Am I wrong to assume that Bede saw exactly that: a common culture shared by all the people south of the Forth and the Clyde who were not the successors of the Romano-British inhabitants? If so, why did he use the word "Anglorum"?

It was the normans that destroyed it more

Ok first of all, the Scots did not come from Ireland. The national name of 'Scottish' doesn't translate into 'Irish', and Scotti is just the Latinised form of Scottish, which applied to Scotland and Northern Ulster - or what is now called Northern Ireland. The word 'Hiberni' is the Latinised form of 'Irish' and 'Hibernia' is the Latinised form of 'Ireland'. Also, the Scots were already recognised by name before 800AD, the same as the English. The Latin speakers saw Ireland initially as just a small British offshore Isle, akin to the Isle of Man (which also used to be a part of the Kingdom of Scotland prior to the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 - 1801). Brian Boru was a Scotti, not a Hiberni, so I would agree on that being a title he was once proclaimed as, however he was only later retrospectively claimed to be 'Irish', long after 1542 when Ireland was officially formed as a legitimate nation state for the first time. So while he would certainly constitute as Irish today, the problem with that is that he wasn't actually Hiberni in his time (the historic Irish), so he did not identify with it and would therefore not identify himself with the name of Irish, and that's what Irish ultimately means - it's just the Anglicised form of 'Hiberni' - which first started to be used only after Pope Leo X united the whole island under the name of Irish and Ireland regardless of whether they were Hiberni or not. What this resultantly means is that the Scotti settlers of the North and the Anglo settlers of the South were then also considered 'Irish' from that point onward when historically they were not Hiberni (actual original Irish), the Anglo were allied with the Hiberni against the Scotti settlers of North Ulster and the Scottish from Scotland - which makes up the Northern side of Great Britain. We know also from Maewyn Succat of Conchessa and Calpurnius in his Epistle to the chieftain Corroticus that the Scotti (Scots) and the Hiberni (Irish) are distinct peoples initially, however the Hibernian settled minority Scotti did merge with the Hibernian Hiberni (historic Irish) majority and all were named Irish from then on, while the Scots of Scot.and were never Irish and retain their ancient national identity to this day. Incidentally the word 'Gaelic' was not widely used prior to the 16th century, prior to that it's definition used to be synonymous with the word 'Scottis', so not Irish. What you call Scots-Gaidhlig is actually properly called 'Albannach' in its own tongue, which effective means Scottish, as Albannach relates to Alba (Scotland), which itself relates to the island of Great Britain's oldest and most ancient name - 'Albion'. Irish-Gaeilge is actually 'Eirennach' (Irish) in its own language, Eirennach is not as mutually intelligible with Albannach as some people pretend it is, it has no more similarity than Scots does with English, the reason why is because Albannach is far more the conservative language of the two - having retained most of its ancient forms and changed very little over time, whereas Eirennach (Irish) has evolved and changed a lot over the past thousand years or so. Either way though, the word 'Gael' has more to do with France than either Scotland or Ireland, despite what some writers believe, it does relate etymologically to 'Gaul' - which was the name of proto-France during the Pax Romana. As does the Greco form 'Galatia'. Even the 'Gall' part of the word means 'foreign'. In fact it was the Roman - Tacitus himself who believed that the southern Britons (pre-Anglo-Saxon, proto-English in all but name) were partly related to the Gauls - it was from this view of his that modern historians came up with the idea that Britons started as a wave of Celts migrating from Gaul. Even though the word Gaul itself comes from Weidhala (proto Indo-European for 'forest people').

Anglo-Judean.

I appreciate your balanced, grounded approach to new information and insights-and I love the enthusiasm! You have a new subscriber!

Several times in the video you say "Germans", rather than for example "Germanic people" or "Germanic tribes". I wonder why? I find it a bit grating, as these people, afaik, were _not_ "German" in any ordinary sense of that word? Can you provide some explanation?

Problem with England and Scotland is that the Welsh lived here for 9000 years can you tell the difference between Welsh and English bones

I’m related to aethelfrith

I absoultely love your documentation, I fly paraglider all along this area, I had a flight over Humbleton hill but I have other vids of Yeavering if you would like to see some of the terrain from above. Thanks for all your work brilliant stuff. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHyap6CipaupfLM

My Brother lived there and I never knew any of this, thank you.

Amazing work!!

Picts were not conquered by the Scots, The royal families were joined and became one people to unite against the vikings.

Excellent video. Thank you!

Im English American but my dna is majority native Briton dna it seems. To be fair my mothers family were mostly of lowland Scots ancestry though with most of those families being historically "Anglo-Norman" such as my mother's surname of Montgomery. I was expecting to find more Germanic dna considering my fathers ancestors overwhelmingly came from England with a small distant component of Scots, and Welsh.

Following. What an interesting video.

Isn't this actually a Woke argument about how 'brown' people are the natural inhabitants of Europe, and that 'Caucasoid' type imperialists invaded and 'colonized' the land and so don't belong there? Brown people are just taking back Europe! This is what Americans would say... Caucasoids get out! This is how messed up our world is.

Thank you. I have watched the Time Team digging revealed also that there was a continuation and there was not a sudden collapse in Britain after the Roman Britain. I think the whole problem stems from the tendancy of some academics putting erra in boxes like they like to put people in little boxes. I agree there was a continuation as did my father and he stated that the Normans where very bad for Britain and that it took centuries to have it worked out of our culture. Similarly there was no great invasions just migrations. Early on and later as now. It was and still is as trading nation sea transport being the means.

65% of Britons have Celtic DNA, anglo Saxon was a political invention a couple of hundred years ago for political reasons, there's no population replacement of the celts with germanic tribes it never happened, anglo saxon was invented to create division between the English people and the Irish Welsh and scots ,and it still does funny how ignorant the British are even with the information super highway

Alex you have a great voice. Consider audiobook narration as a side hustle!

Loved it!

Just having a look on Google maps at the sites. I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right place for Maelmin, but the field just north of "Maelmin Henge and Trail" is absolutely packed full of crop marks. There are rectangular (buildings?) with rectangular (walls?) around them, and 2 parallel lines which enclose a huge area, just visible crossing into the field to the south and being clipped by the WWII runway...

Great video

Alex it only took me 35 seconds to subscribe, solely based on that intro wow! never happens lol!

Evolving? No, being destroyed.

cheers mate! love your videos!

Love this. I spent a lot of my childhood years in a village in the Tweed valley (Walkerburn). There are terraces there (possibly farming) on the hill side just before you leave the village to the west. Above and slightly to the east, if you look at Google Earth, it seems that there could be round houses. Locally, these were called the Roman terraces, and people used to say they grew grapes there. There's no evidence of Romans though. I have been watching your channel for a while now. It's great to see how you have evolved as a content producer. I'm not a historian , I'm a retired SEND tutor with a love for our history. Thank you, Alex.

To bolster your thread, here in the wiltshire Avon Valley we have string of hill forts, many reocupided around the end of the iron age, and some, continue to be used into tudor times like at Braemore House. Interestingly this string of forts ( I prefer earthworks) are at very regular distances of 3 miles, from old Sarum at the north end to Christchurch at the coast, and all on the western side of the river. On the Eastern side are nearly all the roman forts, villas and roads, with the only 1 exception:- the triangular 18th century Palace, the home of lord longford

Terrific presentation.

Was medieval England as antisemitic, through Bede, as today's Britain? Or have the British people regressed to being even more savage and ignorant than they were 1500 years ago?

Brilliant.

Not sure why this was recommended to me, but instantly subscribed! Great professional delivery and straight to the point!

You've helped me decide. I'm going to join the Roman Army.

When one thinks about our time and the variety and ages of buildings we use and reuse, I feel a resounding DUH moment. Of course our ancestors didn't stop using sites anymore than we said, 'well, right, the Normans are here now, let's move London. '

Sinthians..?

A person with his feet on the ground. No drama. Just info that is growing without detracting from those who have gone before. Thank you.

history does not evolve, it was what happened and can't be changed to what you want, just because you don't what it really was or don't agree. what people believe can be wrong but this history is not what is wrong or change