American Reacts Why did The Anglo Saxons Migrate to Britain?

👉Original Video: • Why did The Anglo Saxo...
👉Discord: / discord
👉 Patreon: / mcjibbin
☕Buy me a coffee!: www.buymeacoffee.com/Mcjibbin
📦P.O. Box info (NOT accepting ANY perishable items)
For any clothing: l'm a Men's size large
McJibbin
P.O. Box 447
Bristol, Rhode Island 02809
USA
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through KZbin videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

[@francisedward8713]

The average Englishman takes 40% of his DNA from the Anglo-Saxons, and they were literally the original Vikings. Only around 20% of which is “Celtic”; the rest is Scandinavian (Dane and Norwegian migrations, around 10%) and Northwestern European (German and French). There was definitely a mass migration, hence why England is so different from Wales, who are the modern descendants of those Britons, as are the Cornish.

[@AlexTheGerman]

No. First off, It's weird to operate with modern terms to describe ancient facts. The term "German and French" is a silly group term made up and used by those pseudo-scientific DNA tests that you can for fun today ("Pseudo" because they e.g. use "Ashkenazi" for example as a group term for an ethnicity while it's in fact a term for a religious group: The Nazis did the same, falsely stating Jews were different people from the Germans. The racism and error in this is pretty obvious …). The Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes WERE Germanic tribes. So, how do they differ from what you use in your posting as "French and German"? Not at all! Also, France got its name from the Germanic tribe of the Francs, and still today, you can find a region in Northern Bavaria called Franken, the place were the Francs who later settled in France came from. These were ethnically all Germanic people. This is also true of Scandinavians, ethnically seen: they were all the same. "Viking" is, by the way, an exonym, a term we as modern people gave those Germanic tribes. Terms for specific regional tribes that either were (mostly) seafarers (Angles and Jutes) or farmers (Frisians) or merchants (Angles and Saxons) should not be confused with genetic group terms.

[@francisedward8713]

@@AlexTheGerman Except this is a scientific study that I am citing, published in 2015, which I am quoting. I can show you more if you like. I am well aware modern nationalities mean little in terms of DNA but it essentially means that bit of DNA is most similar on average to X Y or Z population, aka French, German or whatever else. It is not racist, either, weirdo. I’m left wing and avoid all of that crap, especially those racist Americans who tout how “Anglo-Saxon” they are. It’s my heritage. You’re also saying things I already know. Vikings were Germanic? DUH. Anglo-Saxons were too? DUH. Franks? DUH. Are you studying Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at university, which includes everything from history to the study of Old English and Old Norse to the archeology of these peoples? No. Am I? Yes.

[@AlexTheGerman]

@@francisedward8713 You disqualified yourself by calling me a weirdo. I refuse to debate facts.

[@hardywatkins7737]

I'm 'English' .. from Devon, (where i have a good load of ancestry for the last 200 years ) My dna is 40% anglo saxon, 25% 'southern Britain & northern France' (whatever that means ...perhaps gallic/belgian?) 25% Welsh, 8% Irish/Scots, and 1% Norway.

[@AlexTheGerman]

@@hardywatkins7737 So, I assume that you took one of these "my ancestry dna" tests? I wish people would realise that they're not more than a party gag, modern fun stuff that has nothing to do with science. Haplo groups can't be dealt with by using modern times national borders! The angles and the saxons were Germanic tribes, Northern France is supposed to mean frankish DNA, the francs being the Germanic tribe from what is now Franken, Germany? "Norway" is the name of a rather new country. That area was inhabited by Jutes for centuries, a Northern Germanic tribe. DNA goes much better along with language families and similarities. The percentages for "Welsh, Irish, Scots" could be seen as Celtic, while gaelic would be more a term for a culture and language that differed from the Germanic settlers that came to the British isles from around 450 onwards. "Southern Britain" is clumsy, too, but could mean Romano-Britons, the people that lived there (Dover etc. area today) roughly from 0 to the year 450. If so there is a good part mediterranian DNA mixed in from the Thousands of Soldiers sent there from all of Rome's provinces. All such a DNA test tells you is that you're a white Western-Central European man, because it's pseudo- scientific. Fun stuff for pub talk, nothing more.

[@F6blue]

It's not England until the 10th century..also the Angles and Saxons are not interchangeable! The Romans never left 'English lands'..

[@alicemilne1444]

And the "English" were not "Anglicised" either.

[@Rachel_M_]

2:01 can we just take a moment to appreciate the Dad's Army style map 👏

[@francisedward8713]

Don’t forget the Frisians! They also migrated alongside the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Also don’t forget England is literally “Land of the Angles” (Anglaland).

[@iainsan]

The language thing makes me think that it was a forceful conquest rather than a peaceful settlement. People learn different languages because they are useful. If the Anglo-Saxons held all the top positions through conquest and owned all the land, subjecting the Britons, it would be useful for the latter to adopt their conquerers' tongue. Against this is what happened after 1066 when Norman-French speakers successfully conquered England. Old English degenerated into a simplified pidgin form because only peasants spoke it and education was conducted only in Latin or Norman French. There were no Medieval university courses in English. This resulted in the hybrid Germanic / French language that English actually is today. Simplified German grammar, with 60% French / Latin origin vocabulary.

[@janolaful]

After 1066 we spoke french for 300yrs that's why our spellings are different.

[@iainsan]

@@janolaful The nobility and clergy spoke Norman French. Peasants kept speaking Old English, which gradually became simpler (less cases, no noun genders, etc) incorporated French words and eventually became Middle English. This class divide can still be seen today. Words for live farm animals (cow, hog, deer) that the peasants cared for are English, but the cooked meats the nobles ate are French (beef, pork, venison). Colours are another example. Basic colours are English (red, green, yellow, black) more sophisticated colours are French (mauve, blue, purple, orange).

[@MrBulky992]

The language simplification began before the Norman conquest: the Danes and Anglo-Saxons needed to communicate and the grammar was too unnecessarily complex to learn so it became simplified, as well as absorbing some Danish and Norse words. Education, carried out by the church, in latin also preceded the Norman conquest by hundreds of years. King Alfred of Wessex read and wrote in latin. He reigned in the late 800s. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was begun on his reign, was written in English and continued into the 12th century so is a good source to show development of the English language between those two dates.

[@jetster785]

Lol i recall Russian bots inaccurately referring to us Brits as "Saxons" as though its a negative thing months ago! I dont mind about this ancient mix long ago as Britain had benefited from some migration, just as China & others did with their regional enemies to safeguard and prosper though the dangerous ages!

[@francisedward8713]

It isn’t inaccurate for the English. Many languages still refer to the English as Saxons, including WELSH.

[@jetster785]

​@@francisedward8713 News to us about the Welsh! And like I said the Saxon term IS INACCURATE cos the majority of Brits including the English are not true Saxons cos native Brits had already descended from continental Europe anyway! The term Anglo/Saxons was coined to describe the ruling dynasties, not the people. So there were no Anglo-Saxon people. There were Saxo-Britons in the South and Anglo-Britons in Central Great Britain. Today everyone in Great Britain (except modern immigrants) have about 60-70% ancient British DNA with the rest made up (with still some variations) of Saxon, Jute, Angle, Frisian, Dane, Norman, Gael and still a bit from the Roman empire. So that is true for the WHOLE of Great Britain!

[@francisedward8713]

@@jetster785 This is incorrect. I’m not sure what source you’re citing but the ones I have cite the average Englishman as follows: 36-40% North Sea Germanic/Anglo Saxon DNA; 20% Briton; 9% Scandinavian (Danish Viking migration); 20% Northwestern European (similar to modern French and Germans); and the rest being a mix of Iberian, Greek and Italic. England is literally “Land of the Angles”. On the eastern coast of England, there was a 75% displacement in genetics towards North Sea Germanic. Western England has more Brittonic DNA but North Sea Germanic aka Anglo-Saxon often still makes up the plurality. The Britons in present day England did not just adopt a foreign language and religion. Genetic evidence is overwhelming. Yes, The Bell Beaker culture which adopted Celtic languages and cultures was genetically identical to the Corded Ware, which later became the Germanic tribes. However, genes mutate over time and so their DNA can be differentiated. Yes. Look it up. The Welsh word for an Englishman translates to Saxon (seasnes). There are many other languages which do the same. The English are not the same as the Welsh or Scots, but actually a lot of lowland Scots have a lot of Anglo-Saxon DNA too as Northumbria stretched to the Forth. None are better than the other, of course, but there are differences. The diversity should be celebrated. All of us Brits are a mixture of all invaders and migrants, but for England, the Anglo-Saxons were the most significant genetically. The Normans, comparatively, were really only just the elites and comprise little genetically, and the Romans next to nothing. The Welsh and the Cornish are the only true claimants to the Britons.

[@jetster785]

​@@francisedward8713 Well it something that we agree with cos you have unknowing supported my own point for stating a rough figure of under 40% Germanic ancestry links hence why I stated it to be between 60-70%.

[@francisedward8713]

@@jetster785 Brittonic DNA only comprises about 20% of the modern Englishman’s DNA. You said it was 60-70%. If you combine Anglo-Saxon with Scandinavian it is about half, and then with German elements even higher; the English are a Germanic people and culture, not Celtic. Anglo-Saxon makes up a plurality (aka the biggest proportion) of the vast majority of English people’s DNA. A mass migration definitely occurred.

[@pleegjepleegje]

7:46 Exactly, migration is just human nature. It's what we do. And sometimes the outcome has been pretty ugly for some people, but there isn't such a thing as planned repopulation

[@smitz7847]

And now the whole world is here and many parts of London english is the second language spoken. Crazy

[@helenwood8482]

You're not off-topic. You are grasping the very essence of world history. You should look into pre-Roman Britsin. That is fascinating too.

[@leehallam9365]

The middle ages started earlier than you think, the late Anglo Saxon period is usually considered the Early Middle Ages. The Dark Ages, just called that because there is little record in Britain started as the Romans left and ran through 2 or 3 centuries.

[@johnnyuk3365]

The term “Dark Ages” is generally not used by historians today, and is preferably referred to as Early Middle Ages or Early Medieval period. That is because knowledge about it is much less dark today thanks to archaeology and DNA. Dates are a little flexible but generally taken as between 450 to 1000 CE.

[@jetster785]

Not quite, there's no universally accepted dates regarding the period of the Middle Ages. Your claim that the period spans up to 1000 AD is too early cos I've always thought of the medieval era (Dark Ages) finishing by the 1450s cos times then were truly dark after 1000AD period with the Black Death, killings, neverending wars, famine etc.

[@johnnyuk3365]

@@jetster785 I was referring to the EARLY Middle Ages which is what is generally used as the alternative to the Dark ages. Yes the later Middle Ages did go on until the renaissance.

[@veronicajensen7690]

@@jetster785 the term Dark ages was used by an Italian poet named Petrarch he was complaining specifically about the general quality of literature in his own time in Italy during the 1300, and people have misused and misunderstood the term ever since

[@anette7283]

The danes later on needed more land to feed their families

[@taffyducks544]

Wait, did the narrator really say that Bede is authentic but Gildas isn’t? When he also stated that the work of Bede directly or in part comes from Gildas!

[@alicemilne1444]

Yep, a huge amount of inaccuracies and wrong information in this video.

[@enemde3025]

Why can't Americans pronounce BYZANTINE properly !? The DARK AGES, or EARLY MIDDLE AGES, was from 5th to 10th century.

[@stevo728822]

The thing is, to sail from Jutland to England with a square sail ship requires an Easterly wind. An Easterly wind is the coldest wind because it blows in from Scandinavia and Siberia. Remember the icy Best From The East weather pattern in 2018. So maybe these people were simply escaping freezing weather for better conditions on the British Isles. On continental Europe, other tribes like the Visigoths were also moving West.

[@AlexTheGerman]

Connor, the middle ages ARE the "dark ages" because the period of roughly 500 (end of the Roman empire) to 1500 (discovery of America) is a period of time in between two other well-documented periods. The Romans were obsessed with writing everything down; in fact, a scribus (a writer) was the first officer paid by the state to be installed in any new settlement in order to produce protocols. From 1500 onwards, the number of printed books (sources) exploded. We only have very little (and reliable) sources from the period in between, and that's why we call it "the dark ages".

[@Ian_Ward_Army]

The Anglo saxons were invited by the Romano British after the roamans left, we were being invaded by the irish who were trying to take advantage of the vacuum when the romans left. So we asked the saxons to fight for us as mercenaries, but we faild to pay them after the war so the saxons just took the english kingdom's in payment instead, whoever made that video has no idea what he is talking about.

[@MrBulky992]

The "Middle Ages" (Medieval period) are so called because they are between the beginning of the fall of Rome c410 AD and the beginning of the modern era (1500). The"Dark Ages" are the early part of the Medieval period, even though many people immediately think of the late Middle Ages when they hear the term "Medieval".

[@helenwood8482]

It's no longer called the Dark Ages, because it turns out to have been time of learning.

[@MrBulky992]

The "darkness" was surely down to not knowing much about what happened: there are so few historic documents and their accuracy has been open to question.

[@user-qj7et4wv3q]

​@@MrBulky992correct

[@randombutuseful1254]

The fact that the historian is calling it England before it actually became England is just really really strange. England wasn’t Anglicised; that area of Britain was anglicised and became England.

[@carolharris8167]

You need to watch a video about the Anglo Saxon burial mound of a king, who they believe is king Raedwald King of the East Angles. It was found in Suffolk in East Anglia and is called Sutton Hoo, near to where I live. He was buried in a boat which left it's imprint within the sand. A film called The Dig which came out about 3-4yrs ago on Netflix is all about it. It's become a heritage site because of all the artefacts that were found there.

[@WalesTheTrueBritons]

Sutton Hoo is clearly a British burial mound! They only found the site because of the Bolts used in the Ship. Whereas the Anglo Saxons used wooden dowels! They also found a Crwyth and renamed it a Lyre (Liar). They also found a sword with a language on it that supposedly wouldn’t be invented until the late 1700s. The odds and ends also had the story of Gilgamesh which the Anglo Saxons couldn’t possibly have known about as they were Pagans. We also have on the helmet a diction of A Knight being trampled by what looks to be a Native American, the only people in Briton that claims to have traveled to America is those days were the Cymric people of Wales.

[@carolharris8167]

​​​​​​@@WalesTheTrueBritons The reason I mentioned it is because it's Anglo Saxon according to the experts and thought it might be interesting to watch a video about it. It's very interesting what you said about it though. I've been to the burial site twice now. It was discovered by Basil Brown who was called in to look at the burial mounds, by the owner of the land Mrs Edith Pretty. Her house overlooked them and knew they were of some significance. Basil Brown started to dig into one of them and eventually uncovered the imprint of a burial ship that was left in the sand. The only thing left of the boat were the rivets which you mentioned. That's when experts from the British Museum got involved and worked alongside Basil Brown to fully excavate it. Time Team have been there this last month excavating more of the land. I always say the true Brits are the Welsh a beautiful country to.

[@HenriHattar]

The battle of BadenHill..about 540 was a victory of the British over Hengist and the saxons and limited for about 100 years the further push by the angles and the saxon, Baden Hill is where the Arthur legend began.

[@WalesTheTrueBritons]

Yes, and located in mid Wales! It was on every OS map prior to 1984 and then being solely created in England.

[@user-qj7et4wv3q]

This period Connor is confusing to a lot of people, first Romans, then Vikings, then Angles Saxon and Jutes, at this time England had not even been thought of, England as a name came about in about 979AD named as E(A)ngland was named because of the Angles main settlements were in the South and East of the country , the area of Britain called East Anglia (land of the Angles in the East) is still a remnant of the times, in fact many place names can give clues as to who was in charge of an area such as Thwaite (village) so a person called say John Postlethwaite would mean John of the village of Postle, as with Hebblethwaite, these villages are in the North Eastern areas, so is indicative of Saxons being in charge, hope that is a bit of useful information for you Connor. Oh by the way Connor if a Scotsman ever calls you a Sassenach, they are actually calling you a Saxon as the Scots of the time had difficulty in pronouncing the word Saxon.

[@alicemilne1444]

The Saxons were not in charge of of the northeast, I'm afraid. They were in the south, which is why you get the counties of Essex (East Saxon), Sussex (South Saxon) and Wessex (West Saxon). The Angles were mainly all up the east coast from Anglia up to Northemberland. Names like "thwaite" come from Old Norse (it originally meant a meadow, not a village) and are a remnant of the Danish invasion from around the 800s onwards, that gave rise to the Danelaw in England. The word for village in Old Norse was "thorpe", and you will find plenty of village and towns ending in "-thorpe" in the northeast of England. They were the Vikings who arrived in that region several hundred years after the Angles. As a Scot myself, I have to correct you on the origin of "Sassenach". It was based on the Old West Germanic word "sahs", which didn't have an "x" sound. The Old English Futhark alphabet didn't have a letter X in it either. It was the Romans who introduced the letter X and used it to represent "seax", their pronunciation of the typical long knife/short sword used by the peoples that the Romans then called "Saxones". Anyway, the Welsh and the Irish got to know the "Saxons" from the south of England way back in the 4th century and they adopted the "original" pronunciation of the name. In Welsh, an Engishman is a "Sais". In Scottish Gaelic (related to Irish), England is Sasainn (pronounced "sassaing") and Sasannach is the Gaelic adjective for "of England" or "English-speaking". 1000 years ago, the Gaels in what became known as Scotland used the word Sasannach simply to denote speakers of English. The word was also used for those in the south of Scotland who did not speak Gaelic. In present-day Scotland the Scots used the spelling Sassenach.

[@user-qj7et4wv3q]

@@alicemilne1444 Es tut mir leid, ich bin erst kürzlich nach Großbritannien gezogen und lerne immer noch, Sie um Verzeihung zu bitten

[@alicemilne1444]

@@user-qj7et4wv3q Kein Problem 🙂. Ich habe auch jahrelang gebraucht, die Geschichte der alten Germanen zu erforschen.

[@user-qj7et4wv3q]

@@alicemilne1444 would it inclusive military fahnen und standarten my paps drawn the bild for him and a friend author

[@Bjowolf2]

The three very similar Scandinavian languages still have lots of very similar basic words compared to English as well as similar grammatical structures in many respects - the last thing mainly because of the later contacts and merger between the West Germanic Old English and the closely related North Germanic Old Norse of the Viking settlers in the Danelaw region in Eastern & Northern England ( c. half of England ! ) , which over time led to a remarkable restructuring and a great simplification of the very complex and heavily inflected Old English on its path towards becoming Middle English - a completely different and almost unintelligible Germanic creole language in just 150 years or so - or just 5 - 6 generations. Check out the brilliant video from Langfocus called "Viking Influence on the English Language", if you want to know more ;-)

[@philanderson5138]

As people below have said - people migrated/invaded - probably each boat with different reasons for coming. Each village or area may have had a different experience. But over the centuries everyone learned, mixed and became our current English-ness. (clumsy words)

[@taffyducks544]

Majority of British history is just a Germanic version they want to have existed. And anything that goes against that gets thrown out. Did you know that Bede Mentions that King Arthur was King of Glamorgan and Gwent in Wales? I doubt you have as it’s a part of Bedes work that is a no no!

[@tubekulose]

"Dark Ages" is not a historical term. The Middle Ages began around 500 AD and ended around 1500 AD. Early Middle Ages: ~500 to ~1000 High Middle Ages: ~1000 to ~1300 Late Middle Ages: ~1300 to ~1500

[@davethatcher4954]

😅The narrator of that video kept saying England/ English were invaded by the Anglo Saxons. We didn't become "England/ English" until after they arrived. Most of the video is bullshit!

[@WalesTheTrueBritons]

Indeed, the loose overview is correct but the many intricacies are definitely lost on the narrator. For example, he claims Beds was telling the truth and Gildas not, but in the next sentence says that a lot of Bedes work directly comes from Gildas. If beds is authentic, by default, what was taken from Gildas is also authentic, and in turn surely All of Gildas’ work should be seen as authentic. This cherry picking at history has to stop. Did you know in the Brut of England, Bede mentions King Arthur was king of Glamorgan and Gwent?

[@paulharvey9149]

Good question, Connor. I suspect it may simply have been because they could! Britain has a more favourable climate, and in an agricultural economy, crops would be more lucrative there...

[@hardywatkins7737]

I heard one time that the Danes pushed out the Angles from their lands.

[@barbarahayden5602]

In 1066 an army did enter Britain and that was the end of Anglo-Saxon life of peace and tranquillity. Enter the Normans and slavery (called serfdom)

[@leehallam9365]

He didn't answer the question in the title. It was almost certainly pressure from other people's behind them, we know that the Jutes were not the Danes, they moved down from Scandinavia. That probably explained why they were the first group. There is in the traditional account an invitation from British King Vortigen to Jutish mercenaries to help, and that they then demanded land in Kent. Migration to settle was certainly a big part of it, but some of those settlers were armed, and some became war Lords and formed mini kingdoms. No one just adopts someone else's language and culture wholesale and drops their own unless they have become a powerless minority within the society. The Anglo Saxons must have come in large enough numbers to be that dominant, and to have seized power. Very little was adopted from the celts.

[@veronicajensen7690]

the Jutea and the Angles were different tribes than the Danes but same people, a Danish historian Saxo wrote in year 1166 "the Danes, Jutes, Angles and Teutans are brothers" that was confirmed by dna tests as Anglo-Saxon dna is indistinghuable from Danish Vikings and still very similar to modern Danes and Dutch, all the Jutes never left Danmark there were Kings of the Jutes later than the migration and Gorm the old plus his son Harald Bluetooth Viking Kings united al of Denmark, we do however still call people from mainland Denmark Jutes

[@Dan-B]

You’re right about what you said, labels and national identities are an invention and usually a great generalisation of how people actually lived their lives (especially when many identifiers and descriptions used for historical reference are strictly exonymic in nature; an outsiders perspective, not people describing themselves) in reality people are rarely one “thing” especially in notably mixed populations (even more so when identities have continually changed throughout history, modern day identities majorly not resembling historic identities of the same geography)

[@helenwood8482]

The Victorians loved the idea of conquest, because of the Empire. I much prefer the idea of people getting along as they always have. There were battles, but trade and migration have always been important. Bede and Gildas had their own agenda.

[@maozedong8370]

People haven't always gotten along though and never will because people do what is in their best interest and that will always be the case. Your statement is foolish. People are generally peaceful when they can be just because they don't want to cause issues.

[@MelbourneLife]

The usual date for the beginning of the invasion of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes is put at 451 AD. At precisely this time Attila the Hun was rampaging through western Europe. Attila died in march 453 AD. I think he died in Gaul. The Germanic tribesmen probably just wanted to put some distance between themselves and the Huns.

[@jonochristian2256]

before the romeans left they had built and maned a line of saxson shore forts so clearly the saxsons were raiding before they left.

[@user-iw3xl4pl1g]

Most English people will have a mixture on Anglo-Saxon and British DNA. And, is some cases, Danish too due to the Viking settlements in Eastern England. The Dark Ages are referred to as such due to the lack of historical writings around the period from 5th-11th century.

[@veronicajensen7690]

if they have Anglo-Saxon dna they have Danish dna as Anglo-Saxon dna is indistinghuable from Danish Viking dna, it was different tribes but same people, and we still have Jutes in Denmark, it was not a situation where Jutland was emptied of Anles and Jutes and the the Danes came, the Danes took over and united the population under Gorm the old and his son Harald Bluetooth ,that is why the mainland continued to be called Jutland and the people Jutes

[@veronicajensen7690]

the Dark ages is a term a poet called the period from the 5th-10th century as a critique of the lack of great literature , a lot of people misunderstand it as a peiode where the western power didn't create things that however is far from true

[@taffyducks544]

It’s weird as we have an un-broken record of the period. With both the Roman (Latin) and successor British (Welsh) records proven each other true. The problem comes from the fact that Modern Germanic centric academia will never admit British records are true. In turn we end with a period in which looks as though everyone just stopped recording anything relevant.

[@user-ox9ec1id9x]

The whole premiss is wrong from the start. Firstly the Romans never 'left' Britain, certainly the Roman army didn't leave a 'vacant landscape' for others to fill. A part of the Roman Army in Britain in c 407/8 were taken to mainland Europe to oppose Barbarian invaders there, to prevent them reaching the island. The usurper Constantine 3rd took the mobile part of the Army on this adventure, & he was successful for a couple of years. He managed to gain the support of the Roman armies Gaul & Germania, & even took control of the routes into Iberia, so would have been well able to secure Britain & the other regions he controlled with the soldiers needed for their defence. The regular Roman garrison troops within Britain, lodged in forts where many of them had been for 3 centuries or more, scattered all across the Province, but most defending the north, would have been almost impossible to remove from what had become their homes of generations, & most of them would have been of little use in the mobile warfare in Europe, while Constantine's early success there would have made them unnecessary there. After his defeat by the Romans in the south of Gaul in 410/11, any surviving troops of his from Britain would have been unlikely to have been permitted to return home, but will have been taken into the continental armies. At the same time the central Roman power was not able to establish a replacement administration in Britain, because of continuing problems in Europe. So, by default Britain fell from the control of Rome, but it was never officially given up. Next, many thousands of 'Roman' soldiers in Britain from the earliest days were recruits from barbarian groups, even serving under their own leaders, as specialist troops to do tasks outside of Roman norms. These Auxiliary Cohorts were the 'Romans' most Britons would have met, for there were many thousands more of these than Romans from Italy. The 'Vindolanda Tablets', documents surviving in a fort of that name, near Hadrian's Wall in northern England, show several of these German units, Batavians & Tungrians, serving there around 100 AD, with officers from their own people who were thoroughly 'Romanised'. These soldiers likely spoke in their native Germanic tongue among themselves, while using Latin for some official stuff. As time went on these troops remained within Britain, often in the same forts for centuries, mixed & interbred with the locals, along with other people from all parts of the Empire, for there were troops from many regions ruled by Rome stationed in Britain, as well as traders etc from all over. As time went by more & more 'Barbarians' were recruited into the Roman Army within Britain. Inscriptions, again from the Hadrian's Wall area, include some by Swabian troopers. Again these are Germans. There were also many Sarmatians posted to Britain. The draughting of such barbarian soldiers only increased as time went on, so that there were complaints of a 'Barbarisation' of the Army. Some groups were employed as native forces under their own leaders, no longer Romanised, but more like mercenaries than auxiliaries. Such groups were labelled 'Federates', & fought directly for a paid bounty, & later for grants of land within the Roman borders. This sort of thing may be what the old stories record by the tale of Hengist & Horsa, the Saxon brothers who are supposed to have led a revolt against the Britons in the mid-fifth century. Whatever happened it is likely that an early form of 'English', or at least a version or versions of Germanic speech, had long been familiar in Britain, & was the every language of a substantial part of the population. This will have aided the transition to 'Anglo-Saxon' England, without the need for a British population to 'choose' to take on a foreign culture & language.

[@cpmahon]

I once read that the Angles were very attractive, apparently people would say there's a cute one!!!

[@oufc90]

They might’ve been cute but apparently also very obtuse

[@iainsan]

It is said that one day, before he became Pope, Gregory the Great was in a crowd in the marketplace in Rome and among the goods for sale were some slave-boys from England. Gregory was told they were pagan Angles and he is reported as saying, 'Not Angles but Angels'. So, I think you may be right.

[@francisedward8713]

@@iainsanThis is correct!

[@sungi7814]

The circle closes when Britain ruled over the kingdom of Hannover which is exactly the area wehre the saxons came from.

[@Janie_Morrison]

I am a European and I am a foreigner from American slogan on are Europeans are foreigners is what we made of Europe's all mingle through each other

[@user-qj7et4wv3q]

Clarification on what you are asking is needed

[@helenwood8482]

It should be noted that the Bronze Age inhabitants changed to speaking "Celtic" tongues in order to facilitate trade and coexistence. When the Saxons brought a new language, the locals adopted that too. We've always been adaptable in these parts.

[@francisedward8713]

Recent genetic studies have shown a 75% replacement in eastern England when the Anglo-Saxons invaded. The Britons did not give up their language willingly or willingly adopt a foreign tongue, nor abandon Christianity in favour of Germanic gods like Woden.

[@anacasanova7350]

En España los germanos visigodos no impusieron su lengua adoptaron el hispanoromano y se convirtieron al catolicismo. Los anglos sajones eliminaron a la mayoria de Britons, muchos huyeron a Francia, Bretaña y a España zona de Galicia.

[@pleegjepleegje]

Interesting! I share 55% DNA with the English, although my family tree is 100% Dutch. Thanks for the video, Mc Jibbin!

[@francisedward8713]

The English and the Dutch are very similar genetically and linguistically. The Frisians, who still inhabit the province of Friesland in the Netherlands, also migrated alongside the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, Frisian is the closest language to English and Dutch not far behind, and they shared a runic system (Anglo-Frisian runes). Some Franks (the ancestors of the Dutch) also likely migrated to southern England; archeological and place name evidence suggests so.

[@pleegjepleegje]

@@francisedward8713 You're right, and the Frisian region used to be much larger than nowadays. Even Zeeland has been Frisian at some point. The words, 'jou', 'mij', and 'ja', for example, sound like 'you', 'me', and 'yeah' in the Zeelandish dialect

[@francisedward8713]

@@pleegjepleegje You’re right! Old Frisia dominated the area before Holland later did, and the language is now relegated to certain areas. Other dialects of Frisian are in much more danger, however, like East Frisian and North Frisian in Germany. Interestingly, there seems to have been a particularly strong link to East Anglia, and quite a lot East Anglians have those distinctive DNA markers that can be linked back to Frisia, even though the kingdom of East Anglia, as the name suggests, was populated by Angles. This makes sense because it juts out into the North Sea.

[@Janie_Morrison]

I am a European and I am a foreigner the landing country I come from Europe

[@speleokeir]

My own theory is based both on the available evidence and what happened later with the Daneland . The Romans largely pacified and disarmed the Celtic tribes in what's now England so when they left leaving a power vacuum the Brtish tribes had lost a lot of their martial skills and might making them a soft target for raiders. We know the Irish raided from the West , the Picts from the North and probably the Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Frisians from the East and South. It's likely some of these raiders were bought off and one way to do so was by granting them land. Saxons paid off with land would have then invited their friends and families. Having opened the door the numbers of new settlers would steadily grow until the local Britons found themselves outnumbered by their new neighbours. In some cases they probably integrated fairly peacefully, seeing the benefits of some aspects of saxon culture and the added protection. In other cases their may have been resentment leading to conflict. The Saxons were better armed and more martial so would most likely have won more often than not, taking over the leadership of these combined communities. Over time more and more Saxon settlers came and spread westwards. Any Britons not happy with the new situation would most likely have moved/fled to the Celtic tribes in the Wales and the West country. It's easy to imagine an ousted British leader and his followers moving to the west and then perhaps trying to gain support and win back their lands. This may well have led to the legend of King Arthur as one or more leaders of the British/Celtic tribes pushed back against these Saxon incursions . That includes a degree of speculation on my part, but we know a very similar thing happened with the Daneland where Danes were employed as mercenaries to protect against other raiders or took land as part of peace settlements/tribute so I think it's quite likely. According to Gildas that's pretty much what happened with King Voltigen in the 5th century when he invited in Hengist and Horsa to protect against the picts and they revolted and formed the Kingdom of Kent. Alfred the Great started the fight to expel the vikings but it took three generations before his grandson Aethelstan regained control of the North and Midlands, in which time the northern population had integrated with the Danes living their and adopted much of their culture. Many of the differences between the North and South of England stem from that time. It's easy to imagine a very similar process happening with the original Saxon settlers.

[@HenriHattar]

The Angles and teh Saxons were both Germanic tribes, but the concept of Anglo Saxon was formed in the UK with these two tribes interacting with the old British and the nordic invaders, the amalgam PRODUCED the ANGLO SAXON ...distinclty diferent from the Germanic tribes.

[@WalesTheTrueBritons]

Yeah, and the old Brythonic (British) descendants became the people we now know as the Welsh.

[@MrIaninuk]

They were invited in to kick out the Irish..

[@reggawardle4874]

I think as the Romans arrived some Britons had already had trade with them and so decided to become Romano Brits.. and some of course decided to fight..so why would it be any different from a Saxon visit.

[@williambranch4283]

Justifiable fear of the Huns. Plus Denmark has periodic crop failure.

[@ArcherDoesROK]

McJibbin401❤

[@McJibbin]

🙏

[@helenwood8482]

Yes, this is the beginning of Mercia, Wessex, etc.

[@lukespooky]

not really, that came later

[@josteingravvik2381]

What would be valueable to know, would be to know what was going on in the lands where Anglos and the Saxons and the Jutes came from. Where there a huge war going on there, or was it simply a lack of space or was it a change of climate such as harvests and food supply on the east side of the channel was too poor? The video doesn't say much about that....

[@AnneDowson-vp8lg]

I was always taught that there was flooding in the Denmark/ North Germany/Netherlands/Frisian area, bad harvests, and pressure from Eastern tribes,(the Huns etc) made worse by the building of the Great Wall of China. Then there was a volcanic eruption in the Pacific causing more bad weather, bad harvests then there was the Yellow Plague, which spread round the world, affected Byzantine Empire, even killed the Emporer, and affected the Romano-British because they imported wine from Constantinople and the Med, but the Anglo-Saxons didn't so more of them survived.

[@josteingravvik2381]

@@AnneDowson-vp8lg Sounds reasonable. Thanks for filling my blanks in !! 🙂

[@Heisenberg-Blue]

But that has nothing to do with the Vikings. The Vikings came later.

[@bernieweaver8488]

I think you're not far off it there , just to throw a spanner in the works , a recent DNA survey found that 80% of today's population are of Celtic / ancient Briton decent and only 20% were of Anglo Saxon / Scandinavian decent .

[@sarahhaylock4420]

My last name is an anglo Saxon name HAYLOCK

[@Bjowolf2]

So they are basically closet Danes? 😂

[@claudiavictoria3929]

Picts?

[@claudiavictoria3929]

Damn, he just said that. I should wait before speaking lol

[@DianeLittle-dd6ej]

They never where 😊

[@helenwood8482]

It would be weird if our DNA didn't come from Northern Europe, as there never were indigenous people here. Every group of immigrants came from Europe for thousands of years. You're absolutely right, everywhere is peopled by immigrants. It's why racism is so silly. When plague repeatedly swept across the world, Britain lost fewer people than most countries, because our DNA was so mixed. Immigration makes a country strong.

[@Michael.Talbot]

My name is Michael Talbot and i am English but my name is Viking Norman , I want Gareth Southgate sacked so England can win a tournament in my lifetime . Sack this prat, C'mon England lets go!!

[@brigidsingleton1596]

The narrator's pronunciation of "burial" is somewhat off-putting!! Bur to rhyme with bum!! (Instead of what I'm used to ...bery-ial!!) It's like when Americans insist upon saying "emoo"😡😡😡😡😡 instead of emyu Or "The Toob" instead of tube - 'tyube' (& definitely _NOT_ "choob" 😡😡😡😡😡)

[@stewartmackay]

Coconuts migrate.

[@marieparker3822]

I read somewhere that the Romano-British had written to the Emperor of Rome to beg him to send a legion or two to protect them from the Anglo-Saxons. Did they actually do this?

[@francisedward8713]

Yes! There is archeological evidence of Germanic people (likely North Sea Germanic people/Ingvaeonic aka the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons)at Hardrian’s Wall dating back to at least the 1st Century AD (pretty much as soon as the Romans arrived). EDIT: I read it wrong. I’m not sure about that - but Germanic people were here far before the Migration Period. The eastern shore of England was called the “Saxon Shore” by the Romans because of widespread raids, and likely some early settlements too.

[@AnneDowson-vp8lg]

No, he said you must fend for yourselves. It took them a generation to build up a calvary with well-bred horses and the adoption of stirrups and spurs, which came from the East. This is where an Arthur like figure may have come in

[@davidmarsden9800]

Your history degree was about what again?

[@chocolate-teapot]

Probably because of the overpriced beer in Europe

[@martinburke362]

Connor you seem to struggle with the blindingly obvious

[@helenwood8482]

The term Anglo Saxons is a Victorian term, only used now by white supremacists. Saxons or English are less problematic terms.

[@chrisbamborough222]

Could you explain please ?

[@jillstedtenfeldt6799]

Anglo Saxon tells the origin of the "invaders" (or settlers) which "early medievel" doesn't therefore time will erase the origin of the invaders/settlers. That is erasing history. So...the war of independence was between americans and non-americans (don't you dare call them british because that would be racist and only used by white supremacists). Let USA rewrite their own history and leave Europes alone. As an archaeologist I would suggest tampering with reality is a very dangerous road to take.

[@emmahowells8334]

Problematic where, it's only a very recent use and still not considered by all to be problematic at all it's only to sensitive people that it's problematic.

[@chrisbamborough222]

@@emmahowells8334 Hi Emma regarding that post saying that the term Anglo Saxon was a White Supremacist term you can see I asked for an explanation which I never got. I'm Zillions older😊 than you and I find this present world annoying as comments are made without evidence. I agree with your comment sensitive or finding a problem or conflict where it doesn't exist. (Comments below not related to above. ) My way of dealing with anyone is to Politely ask for them to explain the reasoning and facts of whatever they say to me I find that's the best way it usually ends the conversation. If the person before me is a fool or stupid then arguing achieves nothing their emotional or borrowed argument will rarely have any substance behind it. I'm sure you would like a video on here of a true account and experience. It's the Theory of Stupidity by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The video made by sprouts is the one to watch. Enjoy the weather it got here at last. I would be interested in your comment on the video and looking at all the present Demos and beliefs and Politics in Europe and especially here if you can see any collective Social Hysteria. Take Care.👍