The Anglo-Saxon Arrival - The Fifth Century in Post-Roman Britain

In this video, we look at the archaeological evidence for the Anglo-Saxon arrival into Britain. The evidence points towards a world that is infinitely more complicated than the stories make it out to be, as we go over how a unique mixture of geographical luck, economic circumstance, and human behaviour created the perfect storm for the Romano-Celtic ideas of Eastern Britain to be totally uprooted.
Instead of being part of an army, the individuals who came were immigrants from all over the Germanic world, seeking land to improve their personal circumstance. The vast majority of them couldn't even afford a sword. Hengist and Horsa and the stories we know of them conquering Britain should, I argue, be seen as propaganda to explain a circumstance that even we struggle to understand.
This topic is incredibly difficult to summarise as I have done here, and it is an explanation that a lot of people won't be fans of. But the truth is that culture and identity in early fifth century Britain was constantly being redefined, and the concept of Anglo-Saxon, while useful in general terms, doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
Twitter: guthlacyt
Website: www.guthlac.co.uk

[@GuthlacYT]

Hey all! I've noticed a lot of people being led to this video by schools and teachers; I'd love to know what country and institution you're all being directed from! please do leave a comment or a reply to this letting me know :) and if you're a teacher let me know if you're using this video!

[@Mark-hp9bh]

let's go you're in schools now

[@danikmurroyos3261]

Thanks you for do this video. It is complicated to understand this historical period, but today I understood more. Grettings from Mexico!

[@suz4nnx]

My teacher sent this to everyone in our class for online school and I love it it explains so WELL

[@nahlaessam7963]

I am sure my students would be very helped by this video

[@adamvlogs3738]

I love these vids and I have an exam tomorrow wish me luck from Egypt

[@jlouden23]

This is a really incredible video that clearly spells out a lot of confusing and convoluted ideas within England in the 1st millennium AD. Thank you so much for making this. I know it's only been up for a month, but I think this will prove to be an invaluable resource for years and years to come

[@GuthlacYT]

Thanks! It's nice to know my efforts were worth it :)

[@ahightechlowlife]

This might be my favorite period of history. I hope KZbin recommends this video to a lot of people. Really well done. Excellent video.

[@GuthlacYT]

Thank you!

[@humeedeleto1908]

May you help me? I could not get this part.. And i need some help

[@kevwhufc8640]

@@humeedeleto1908 couldn't get what part? If Guthlac doesn't mind I would try answering any questions you may have, I've spent 25 years excavating Celtic Roman and Saxon archaeology, I love this period of history, i really enjoy Guthlacs videos ⚔⚒⚔

[@tapere7277]

Thank you so much for doing this. It is so refreshing to have a balanced view of these times, with a focus on evidence and recognising the hagiographic and political agendas of the few "histories" which were written in the early middle ages. I tend to agree with Robin Flemming's perspective (founded on the archaeological evidence) of an evolution of germanic culture between migrants and natives. It is also possible that germanic culture (and maybe language) also had a small foothold in the south and east, given some of the tribes apparent continential connections (Belgae, Atrebates and especially the Cantii) and also the numbers of germanic foederati employed by the Romans which were already resident. This might explain in part why so few brythonic words and place names survived. In any case, as you say, there is no archaeological evidence to date of large scale military invasions of conquest, or of mass slaughter or displacement of the native population. It is possible that in the power vacuum after Rome departed, the remains of the original tribes reverted to their warfare, bickering, conquest and alliances that had existed in the past and that the migrants (wherever they were from) became part of the mix.

[@elainechubb971]

It is very difficult now to figure out what the Romano-British culture was really like--and it probably varied a lot from region to region. Some Britons were probably more Romanized than others. What we have is incomplete archaeological evidence--incomplete because a lot of artifacts were of perishable materials such as wood and fabrics, and the British climate is too damp to preserve a lot even iron rusts easily in damp soil--and very scanty writings, mostly well after the date of the arrival of the English/Germanic peoples. And, lately, genetic evidence of the ancestry of people in different areas. I wonder how much was left of the ancient tribal structure after three or four centuries. Maybe the majority of the Britons were not particularly warlike anymore after relying on the Roman legions for defense for so long. When the professional soldiers left, it was probably hard to reconstruct a self-sufficient central or local government capable of maintaining the integrity of a small kingdom. People's loyalties were, I suspect, mainly to their small village and maybe a larger settlement , the seat of the chief of their tribe or clan. It became economically unfeasible to keep up the structure of Roman government, and the villas would have been unsustainable when repairs couldn't be made. Imagine if your central heating system broke down! You'd be better off living in a snug hut that could be kept warm with far less fuel. If your area had become de-urbanized and people were living in small settlements or large farmsteads with less access to replacements and repairs to their tools, the new Angles and Saxons (and Jutes) might have been welcomed as a new source of manpower and supplies. Many years ago I read (in a history book or article) that the English/Germanic plows were stronger and better able to turn over the heavy clayey soils of, for example, the Thames valley. I am not sure if that theory still holds true, but if so, it would be an example of why the newcomers were welcomed or at least tolerated. I suspect that back then there was a far less strong feeling of identity, to tribe or locality. If things got bad, you might just move on. There wasn't really nationalism then in the modern sense. And the Romano-Britons also had some mixed heritage, since the soldiers stationed in Britannia might well settle there when their tour of duty was up. Someone from anywhere in the Roman Empire could settle down with a native wife rather than slogging back to Hispania, or Sicily,, or Asia Minor. This is rather speculative, but I do think that the picture of the "invasion" or immigration might well be pretty accurate. Most people are pragmatists rather than martyrs.

[@reginaldamoah8608]

Interesting explanation which looks at the geography and the economy than the writing of religious commentary of Bede and Gildas. I've heard propositions that Germanic proto English wasn't imported by Angles Saxons and Jutes but was present prior to Roman conquest in Eastern Briton since prehistory. Because there is no indigenous writing in Britain we have to rely on Roman writers. However the place names and even the latinised versions support this. Londonium from Landen plural of Land. Eboracum from eboura the town. Gildas called Bath Mons Badonicus so Badon or Bathen plural of Bath might have been the pre Roman name. It might be worth looking in to if you have time. But thanks for the video really enjoyed your explanations

[@reginaldamoah8608]

@Barely Fishing kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKi7gKVqbKp9Z6c

[@D.A.99740]

Hi, Guthlac, I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to put this video together--this is my favorite historical period. It's clear you've made a lot of effort in researching it and you've laid all the complicated stuff out in an exceedingly clear way. It's definitely true that the original narrative of the Anglo-Saxon arrival was almost certainly embellished, and then made to fit with ethnonationalist views common in the nineteenth century. That said, as somebody who studies historical linguistics, the notion that a minority elite of Anglo-Saxons could have simply ousted the native rulers and then gotten basically all the natives speaking English within a century and a half is pretty ridiculous--even in the case of the Romans in Gaul that took over six centuries. I see the Anglo-Saxon arrival as being not too different from the early English settlements in what is now the US. Like you say, the groups that migrated were not necessarily invaders/conquerors, but ordinary people and families, looking for a better life and more economic opportunities (in the case of many of the Germanic groups, probably something to do with climate change and sea level rise). In Britain they would have found land that was better than what they were used to and would have thrived as a result. They might have found fellow Germanic speakers already there due to the Saxons soldiers employed by the Romans, and the original Frisii who seem to have, in part, re-settled in Kent, The new Old English-speaking communities, which would of course have contained some people of British descent, would have been successful, and their populations would have grown as a result. By contrast, the west of the island was ravaged by plagues brought about by Roman trade links. (The east coast communities would have been less affected, as they are part of the North Sea world.) This, along with more migrants arriving from various North Sea regions, would have facilitated the spread of westward and northward migration of the culturally Germanic communities. Something like this, to me, is the most plausible explanation for what happened, particularly since Gildas certainly seemed to see the new settlers as being, essentially, of a lower order. A DNA test from 2016, in fact, strongly suggested that the immigrants tended to be poorer than the natives. I guess, though, my main point is that this is a very good video--keep making them! I've subscribed to your channel, as you definitely deserve more views.

[@GuthlacYT]

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoy my stuff :) I'll be releasing more videos around this topic in due course, unfortunately the research does just take time!

[@kevwhufc8640]

I think Latin didn't last because not many people spoke it , Celtic people's continued to speak their own language depending on the region, although I'm sure whatever part of Britain ( England) they would understand each other. Top admin jobs , possibly Roman or Greek would be in the offices equivalent to our council building , but the average people learned their trade like doing an apprenticeship, others worked land being mainly agricultural. Pish Romans spoke Greek in Rome, like after the Normans the English speaking plantagenets would choose French when chatting to lords , Earl's barons etc at court. The common people continued to speak the evolving celt , German English language. Most were illiterate, except for church scribes and upper classes. Thats what i think :) Britain ( south of hadrians wall) was small kingdoms, looking at early church writings we can see the different ways different parts of England wrote names of kings and towns differently to each other, bernard Cornwall says his ancestor UHTRED was also spelled OOTRED UTRED UTREAD , all similar, I can't remember any others off top of my head but I'm sure you get the point , eventually it all linked up pretty much by the time the Normans arrived ruining everything 🙈🙈🙄 The Saxons were the original pirates ,centuries before the Vikings, sutton hoo shows the ships were built the same way.

[@greenjack1959l]

I don't believe that there would have no conflict at all. It's a Question of scale. I think that a small but powerful warrior Elite would have seized control in the areas where there was a power vacuum. Once they had seized control, Brythonic speakers would be at a disadvantage if they wanted to get on in life. So they adopted the language and customs of those in the driving seat.

[@andrewwhelan7311]

The area now known as wales was never fully conquered.It was the Helmand province of its day and Roman's were never safe outside their forts.The silures tribe fought Rome for over a generation.The Cymru still speak the ancient native language of Britain and the saxons never gained influence over the welsh.Even the normans took 250 years to subdue the welsh where the saxons fell in the blink of an eye.The native cymru are still here to this day.Rome,saxons, Vikings,Norman's and various mercenary hordes were never able to extinguish the indigenous people of the island, yet their story is airbrushed from view.

[@GuthlacYT]

The resistance of Wales to Roman invasion was believed up until quite recently (the 2018 heatwaves in fact!) When evidence of Roman presence firmly in Wales, on the Llyn Peninsula, was found: www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/discovery-roman-fort-changing-what-15143660 Otherwise, I'm not sure anyone who invaded (bar the English of course!) Ever had the aim to extinguish the language and culture of the native Welsh! It's always been a 'live and let live' attitude.

[@ajrwilde14]

nonsense Welsh has significant latin vocabulary

[@andrewwhelan7311]

@@ajrwilde14 Around 600 words is not, 'significant', by any reasoning. These words entered the prehistoric language of the Cymru during the Roman, ' occupation '. However Latin and Welsh derived from the same common denominator, so these words are not derivatives, they are cognates. Do some research before you spout nonsense. If you can really be bothered to look, you will find that the living fossil that is the ancient tongue of the indigenous Briton's has words for the celestial bodies and planetary movement which pre dates Latin by thousands of years. These root words originate from the near East. Heddwch/ Peace in the ancient tongue.

[@matthewmann8969]

The Anglo Saxons, Anglos, Saxons, Celts, Normans, Slavs, Germanics, Vikings, Gauls, Latins, Greeks, East Baltics, And Dinarics had so much to debate about

[@netanyelrucker]

Just stumbled across this by the algorithm gods and it's fantastic. I love animated history in any form I think I'll be subbing for more.

[@masterdrewanthony]

Just want to say that I only recently became acquainted with this channel as of last night, and I've only watched this episode so far, but I already love it to death. Looking forward to binge watching the rest of the videos soon!

[@lakelandbuzz2252]

Good stuff, I love this stuff about the Britons and Anglo Saxons. It's nice to see some continuity between the Britons and the Angles be established and explained.

[@andrewwhelan7311]

When the Saxon invited all the native leaders to parle, it was agreed that no weapons would be allowed at the meeting. However, after a while when the native leaders felt at ease, the Saxon brought out their concealed weapons and slaughtered the chiefs of the Cymru. The treachery of the long knives is hardly ever mentioned in historical programmes today. A good video though. Diolch/ Thanks.

[@charlesyanni5195]

Thank you very much for all of the difficult work that you did in creating this! With your permission and in accordance with your request, I will go ahead and share this with a Facebook history club called Forgotten History, of which I am a member! I happen to know that Ms. Jackie Richards, the founder and moderator of Forgotten History, is indeed very interested in this subject, as am I, as are many members of our club. Thank you again very much for all of the very hard work that you did in creating this very relevant video!

[@webcelt]

Why wouldn't there be more of a creolization between Germanic and Brythonic languages, like happened later between Anglo-Saxon and Danish? Or am I greatly underestimating the Brythonic influence on English?

[@IosuamacaMhadaidh]

The answer to that first question, imo, is that Romano-Britons were not fully romanized. They adopted aspects of Roman lifestyle and organization but were distinctly Brythonic, and many still spoke the old language. Not long after Rome left, the old hillforts were inhabited again, and the old Celtic warrior culture came back and stayed alongside the Saxon expansion and even until 1066. After Norman and saxon culture mingled, the Anglo-Normans did well to wipe out most of the Brythonic Celtic culture in England proper, pushing it to the extreme west (Wales, Cornwall) and north into Scotland. Eventually we all mostly become English by choice or by force, between Highland clearances, the outlawing of Gaelic, the persecution of Cymru (Wales) and outlawing of their language, the attempt at wiping out the Irish, and much more.

[@Leo_ofRedKeep]

Since we do not seem to know when and how exactly the Romans left Britain, I wonder how much their control of the land relied on Angle, Jute or Saxon mercenaries who never left but were the military element slowly mixing with local populations, eventually keeping a hold on the place. It would explain why there are no archeological traces of a Saxon invasion after the Roman one and possibly provide a basis for Gildas' tale of King Vortigern and his invited defenders. It has also been speculated that the "Saxon forts" on the coast line were not defence against Saxons but storage facilities held by Saxon forces.

[@jsrw]

This explanation makes a lot of sense although I suspect local land disputes settled through fight or flight also played a major part and in this, the Saxons won out: so it is a blended approach.

[@histguy101]

Gildas was writing a sermon about current events, making it even more valuable than an ancient historian writing a century later with no one to quote. There's no ethical reason to dismiss him, and you didn't actually give one besides "it's very religious." And even though Britain lacks sources for the 5th and 6th centuries, the mainland has an abundance of them. The Romans were definitely aware of events in Britain in that period, and trade and other links continued. For instance, one of the greatest historians of late antiquity, Procopius, writes of events in Britain. Should we doubt him? Archeology can be used to verify historical writings, but we don't deny the history until that archeological corroboration comes in! We could be waiting for an eternity. Ancient historians are given the benefit of doubt in all cases unless other ancient historians dispute it, or there is some other more complex logical reason for doubting it, but certainly not simply an absence of evidence in the current archeological studies to date.

[@ImNotAMonster0]

This video was amazing! The effort and care put into this project is clear, thanks for the fantastic content. I find myself getting totally immersed in your videos :)

[@dennisaur66]

I just discovered this channel and I love it.

[@peppertrout]

English is a West Germanic language, most closely related to Friesan, Dutch and German. English was heavily influenced by the Viking raiders and later kingdoms in eastern England, but English is not a North Germanic language. The Angles, Jutes and Saxons came from the coasts of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, not from Sweden and Norway. The latter came as raiders and then settlers after the Lindisfarne Raid.

[@GuthlacYT]

Fair, but the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes didn't come from anywhere, and reflect only Bede's imagination within the eighth century. The Germanic individuals who arrived did so, yes from modern Denmark, but also Frisia and Norway, and to a lesser extent Sweden. They weren't members of wider tribes; they were inveterate. Where these individuals came from can be separated from the language they eventually spoke; which as you rightly said was West Germanic.

[@peppertrout]

@@GuthlacYT Nice job on the video, by the way. Before Rome evacuated Britain, they built fortifications in the late third century on either side of the Channel against raiders and pirates coming from the North Sea. The Roman military referred to this area as the Saxon Shore. “Saxon” might have been a comprehensive epithet applied by Rome to any barbarians coming from the North or Baltic Seas; however, the Romans chose the name from the most numerous warring parties. Those people’s homeland was the Elbe estuary and Holstein, the earliest known homeland of the Saxons. There were Scandinavians, obviously the Danes, who participated in the Germanic migration into Britain; however, the most numerous groups originated from the Frisian and German coasts. As we both acknowledge, English is a West Germanic language and a contest of numbers of migrants determined which branch would progress to a new language in Britain. Ingvaeonic speakers had great mutual intelligibility during the century long Roman retreat with all Germanic tribes, including the northern dialects which progressed later to become Proto-Norse. These Scandinavians had language contact in Britain with their fellow migrants but there were greater numbers of Ingvaeonics and their dialects were already derived from West Germanic. Old English established itself from Ingvaeonic in the fifth century. US high school students begin their study of the history of English in the Shakespearean era. Unfortunately, Shakespeare doesn’t appeal to many and so they believe that the history of English is a bland and uninteresting subject. If the curriculum began with this era of Germanic barbarians swinging swords, winning beautiful women and conquering fertile lands, it would appeal to a much greater segment of 15 year olds. I would be so very pleased to see young people appreciate more fully our elegant language, it’s literature and rich history. Your video being seen in schools will capture the interest of some and cause them to excel at English rather than endure it.

[@barrytaylor6603]

Hi my family name is jinks , it is a saxon name i would like 2 know more about how far it gos back in history if u can help thanks , love the channel,

[@GuthlacYT]

Unfortunately there isn't much I could tell you about the surname Jinks that Google couldn't! But the concept of surnames as we understand them don't really exist in the Anglo-Saxon period, most surnames were settled on in the later medieval period (1300s), and are flexible, mostly based on occupation or place of former residence So for example, someone from Blackburn named Thomas would be a Smith, so he might be known as Thomas Smith; then if he moved to London, he would become known as Thomas Blackburn

[@FJMLAM]

Really interesting video. Clear explanations. Well done.

[@3dfried163]

Hell yes! New Guthlac video!

[@mathewdallaway]

Very clearly explained and so interesting! Vert well written and narrated, Thank you!

[@user-hq8wm8giyujcg]

what is the difference betwwen englishman behaviour and culture and latin and romans, and what about greeks and other east euro, are they same culture with romans?

[@Leehow80]

fascinating - well done! It is true that often we talk about the north and south divide...but i feel that it is often over amplified. There is a significant west and east divide which is overlooked even to this day.

[@jsrw]

NB It is also not accurate to say that the Saxons arrived without weaponry because they would have had spears (for hunting boar), axes (for chopping wood), and seax (general purpose knife), all of which are deadly weapons.

[@KULCAT79]

The video was terrific but it would be quite astonishing that germanic people acted collectively as destructive conquering force through their might in numbers and with their armies in the continent and then just didnt in Brittania, Especially since since the vikings were also germanic people and did just that a few hundred years later. Further more, modern DNA tests show people from westertn england are very different from the rest of the country which would somewhat invalidates the peaceful asimmilation theory for the displaced brittons one.

[@RichardBrown7k]

Exactly why should the genetic make-up of the East and West have been identical in the first place, bearing in mind that there had been cross migration in the East over the North Sea since at least the Bronze age, and to possibly a lesser extent between the West/Ireland and France/Spain., particularly in view of the differences mentioned in the video between sea/river and cross land travel? Actually the overall genetic difference is not that much, so can be largely explained by statistical bias such as I suggest above.

[@ABAlphaBeta]

Don't forget Germans who had been there since 300 AD. Also, Saxons had seen money, cities and Rome for sure. Some were even Christianised and latinate

[@GuthlacYT]

You're right that there were Germanic warriors who had been there since 300AD, but this was over a century prior to the arrival of the Germanic settlers. The descendants of these 300AD mercenaries would have had nothing in common with the later arrivers, so to consider them the same people is over-simplistic. The population who moved in the Early Medieval period were very small in quantity, and the first arrivers were not of a social class that would be mobile enough to have seen these cities - if nothing else, because when the majority arrived, the Roman world and its cities was very much a thing of the past. Again, we're discussing the world of the 470s when the majority arrived, when most Roman towns had ceased to function by the turn of the 400s.

[@ABAlphaBeta]

@@GuthlacYT That was the broader point I was trying to make, sorry for being unclear - my point was labels were useless. You had ethnic Germans who were culturally Roman, spoke Belgic (Southeast Brythonic), were Arian Christians and identified as Sarmatians. You had ethnic Britons who were culturally Pictish, spoke Irish, were secretly Pagan and identified as Saxon even in the 470s. They were politico-cultural labels - I doubt many people actively resisted the new settlers (for every Cerdic and Ælle we have a peaceful cultural transition). Invasion narratives meant very little before borders (for every Attila, a peaceful and friendly Childeric). If I were the King of Ebrauc, I would fear cattle raids from *my own men and neighbours* over one hundred farmers being very peaceful but speaking a funny language 20km away, or better yet helping me as foederati - and we mustn't forget Britain considered itself a Roman province until the 550s and continuously wrote to Rome and drafted up foedus parchment agreements with the "barbarians", like Vortigern, Magnus Maximus and Constantine III but also many other lost examples

[@ABAlphaBeta]

@@GuthlacYT Really great video by the way, I just really wanted to discuss labels with someone. I plan on making my doctoral thesis on shifting political, cultural, social and gender labels after the perceived "collapse" of Rome and genuine lessening of Romanitas. I guess it kind of came out of the blue and overly critical, sorry about that

[@GuthlacYT]

@@ABAlphaBeta I definitely agree, most of the labels I use in this video are problematic, for a few examples; - the differentiation between Roman and British culture was impossible by 410AD. - The term "Germanic" is very difficult to justify because it encompasses people across vastly different areas, with different cultures and beleifs, which changed over the course of centuries; someone in East Anglia would not consider themselves to have a brotherhood with someone in Northumbria, let alone someone in Thuringia. And that's before you consider the slow cultural shift that occurred in individual areas which differentiated them. - The term "Anglo-Saxon" of course comes with connotations of 10th century nationhood and 19th century race. But then without the labels I'd struggle to explain the period and its complexities at all. Though the labels I've used are problematic, I feel they're the least problematic options which can tow the line between explaining the period and holding a newcomer's interest :p

[@GuthlacYT]

​@@ABAlphaBeta Thank you! don't worry about it, I'm always happy to receive comments where I can discuss things :) my initial message probably came across as more annoyed than I actually am, I'm writing this first thing in the morning :p I have other videos more closely related to the fall of Rome in this playlist here; kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIrHYWuAptiMnqc though since you're doing a doctoral thesis in the topic I'd imagine they'd be of no use whatsoever :p I've studied a fair bit of Romanitas myself, particularly in the 600s with the re-use of Roman ruins in the seventh century onward, as well as by Normans in the 11th century, but probably nowhere near to the extent that you're researching it!

[@ewiezikova2654]

this just saved my A level history! i love this channel

[@GuthlacYT]

Thank you! I'm glad I could help, and best of luck in your A levels :)

[@boboesq3994]

what were the roman roads like by this pont

[@cometriver5871]

great video, I really enjoy your content and learning things about these periods with info like this wich not everyone always talks about, looking forward to more content

[@GuthlacYT]

Thank you! I'll try to release more soon :)

[@jameswolsely2202]

Amazing work! Your videos are exceptional!

[@kingroblox4781]

This video is good I wasn’t gonna watch this but my mum made me because I am doing homeschool at my house and I was gonna watch something else lol it looks great dude

[@liabartolomei4312]

Thanks a lot. The best research ever on this dark and mysterious period Still I do not explain to myself why latin disappeared, as anglo saxons had to be males and britons women that merged how came rgat not mothers’ language buth fathers’ ’. Language prospered? Istituto comprensivo don Aldo mei , from Lucca, Tuscany, in Italy

[@AIMInvestorJournal]

The nature of Atilla the Hun's conquests across Europe around this time and specifically the genocidal destruction wrought on the various peoples inhabiting these lands was a primary factor in the displacement and migration of peoples from east to west. It is likely therefore arrivals in the latter half of the fifth century had fought against the Huns or the Romans prior to their campaigns and were better battle tried, more capable of seizing land and local power from those already settled. There may not have been any appetite for large scale resistance against the new arrivals and lacking unity any small skirmishes led by fragmented coastal communities, would have been overwhelmed, leaving the survivors to scatter, driven west. This is perhaps the reason why historical evidence of a large conflict is lacking. As mentioned in the video, there would have been those Britons more accepting of the new arrivals, keen on peaceful relations and who would intermingle over generations.

[@heathen-greaser]

Great video mate

[@woyaochinidedoufu2753]

Do many Saxons specialize in playing the saxophone?

[@markovichamp]

Adolescents denied a continents-worth of opportunities, immigrants arriving in small boats, changing the culture. Sounds strangely familiar? Mar dos hun, Saeson, dusg chledrith tafod a thorr croen!

[@niccoarcadia4179]

Population estimates vary from archeologist to historians: England was not heavily populated at the time of the Anglo-Saxon immigration. Actually Roman Britain had 4 million people. But, Anglo Saxon England was under 2 million. Odd? Apparently somehow the population dramatically decreased and acquiring land was very possible for the newcomers. Forest were cleared exposing rich soil and plenty of streams/brooks/creeks watered the fields. It's not really known, but my guess is larger land owners were probably forced to divide up their lands to into smaller family farms. Other than that I'm one of the peeps who believe the immigration was not violent.

[@rajshekhar8202]

Good video sir. But you must slow down and pronounce more clearly so that details sink in. Please consider it as a request.

[@GuthlacYT]

Thank you! Apologies; I have slowed down my narration style a lot since I first started making videos exactly for that reason

[@georgeeverette3912]

The North Sea is a calm body of water? When the Americans sent a battle ship squadron over to reinforce the British Fleet they found their gunnery was poor compared to the Brits because they had not trained in "rough seas."

[@kingroblox4781]

Also the dude at the bottom said this is so boring

[@guleet75]

The angles and Saxons arrived way More back then 400 AD !

[@kingroblox4781]

Anyways I liked your vid and subscribed

[@elliottprats1910]

??? I see many holes in your hypothesis that I hope you can fill, as well as touch upon afew of the counter arguments you yourself brought up in this video against your overall narrative. Also before you or others claim that I have a bias, I was born in the US and my surname is clearly Catalan so I only care about historical accuracy. I’ll post time stamps to make it easier for you to locate the problems. @1:27 You claim that eastern Britain was heavily romanized, with a large military presence, many roads & towns, and an oversized population. @1:40 Because of the oversized population the price of land was higher than its actually value/productive potential. @1:48 Expansive land in eastern Britain wasn’t worth accumulating. @2:28 So eastern Britain had THOUSANDS of small scale landholdings! Vitality important to remember that the majority of these 1000’s of landholders were former Roman soldiers. So let’s review up to here: Ownership of land is a byproduct of the Roman legal system which is enforced by the Roman military. Large land consolidation didn’t occur in Eastern Britain because it wasn’t practical due to inflated prices. So the ONLY reason for 1000’s of landowners instead of a small few is the Roman military protecting and enforcing its land allocation bureaucracy. @2:53 You say rag tag collections of Germanic people start to come ashore, since land in eastern Britain was expensive this would NOT have been welcomed! You just explained earlier how locals couldn’t expand their land so you’re fully aware that foreigners doing it would be challenged and confronted with force when possible. Human history attest to this being the SOP unless overpowered or receiving great benefit (which didn’t occur). You prove my point right afterwards @3:30 lawless eastern had no one to contest a land claim. Yet you told us earlier about 1000’s of landholders who WOULD & COULD contest a land claim. @3:41 Also why would ANYONE settle for the poor land that grinds their teeth when better land was at-hand which means that land was made unavailable (hint by threat of force wouldn’t leave evidence) to them. It should be clear to you and anyone else reading this that even if one were to say that the Anglo-Saxon replacement of the Britons was “peaceful” - that you’re explanation of the events is illogical and needs some of work. This comment is way longer than I was planning and I’m only @3:50. You continue to make logical errors and miscorrelations throughout the video, I think you’re more or less on the right track but need alot of work on the explanation & justification of said events.

[@jeremiahworkman4563]

Super interesting video. It makes way more sense that the immigration of AS's to Britain was a slow and gradual one rather than the fanciful all out invasion. Were there any other reasons that drove the tribes of Scandanavia to Britain other than 'free' land?

[@GuthlacYT]

Good question! Germanic individuals in Scandinavia could trade for basic goods manufactured in the Empire - not so much like gold or silver, but stuff like furniture, I believe in Norway and Denmark, examples of Roman furniture made in Britain have been found archaeologically (though I'm not certain). In the fourth century, the Roman Empire became inward looking, economically speaking, and economies began to localise, with say, Roman Britain only making their own Roman goods. Presumably this would make surpluses to trade with Germanic tribes increase in scarcity and price. I would hypothesise that Germanic individuals would want to move into areas of the former empire to secure these goods - this could be one of the driving forces behind the Migration Period, as Rome closed up shop and trade which the Germanic world had become reliant upon went with it. But this is just conjecture, so take it with a grain of salt!

[@jeremiahworkman4563]

@@GuthlacYT Sounds reasonable to me. I guess that would imply that Scandanavia common enough interaction with the empire. They weren't just recluses. Kinda makes you rethink the whole way we've been taught to view these 'non-Romans'. Just ordinary people trying to secure a better life for their communities. Edit: Out of curiosity, do you do this as a hobby or is this related to your profession?

[@beakfordclakington1337]

not much a word about the celto-dominiant culture preceeding it tkaecare Gs

[@JackSardonic]

Really fantastic vid.

[@scottmarsh2991]

Well done

[@BajanEnglishman51]

They did not just come from Scandinavia they came from Germania too

[@princekrazie]

#justiceForGildas!!! 😭😭😭 how dare you slander him

[@beakfordclakington1337]

this sounds maybe very skewed tbf about bede etc

[@subtobacongods]

Good video for a kid like me!!!

[@rickyhahn3403]

great job man

[@ce207]

It seems Anglo Saxons were setteled there in Roman times just as slaves, cause Celts didn't want to work for them! Two Anglo Saxons shown to the Pope in Rome in 7 century, were quite slaves! He said "They are like Angels") Greetings from Moscow)

[@tonegrail650]

So did the Britons who assimilated into Saxon culture apostasize from Christianity and convert to Germanic paganism during the early Saxon settlement period?

[@GuthlacYT]

It's impossible to say, but anecdotally, I would presume Christianity didn't lose people to conversion so much as died out, as people's children preferred paganism for whatever reason

[@RichardBrown7k]

@@GuthlacYT In never entirely died out, there was a Celtic Church, and whilst we don't know to what extent this survived in the East, I wonder if Augustine's brief was not so much to convert the Saxon Pagans as the British Arian heretics

[@martinranalli8572]

I thought the Anglo-Saxons came from Germany.

[@NovaLibertasUK]

bangin stuff

[@beakfordclakington1337]

but you did not explain the apparently-celtic exodus to the hills and to the west and maybe north. but then maybe you have propaganda? im not sure 100pc .. but scrutinising it ./ yeah but i will be you advocate now: maybe the maybe celt "kingdoms" had been formented in gales and kernow, during roman prefecturia but also: maybe not that ? Gs

[@QPRTokyo]

Oh,dear.

[@beakfordclakington1337]

ethos does not mean 'identiies'

[@beakfordclakington1337]

birth of a nation was ethnogenisis. rightly or worngly aplied Gs take care anwyay

[@beakfordclakington1337]

but you'd beleive bede when it comes to the vikingen and and lindesfarne? mayeb? Gs

[@subtobacongods]

It good vid

[@user-hq8wm8giyujcg]

are non english speaking espeically italian french and eastern euro not racially and culturally white? i not a westerners so i dont understand ur history and culture

[@danielwiles5869]

why did the breton's leave to france?

[@GuthlacYT]

In Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, movement of people was commonplace; Germanic tribes establishing themselves south of the Rhine or even south of the Mediterranean. We don't know why this was done, but potential reasons are increasing competition for land, and moving to gain access to Roman luxury goods. Germanic tribes weren't the only ones to do it; British tribes did it too, most famously to Brittany in France and Galicia in Spain. This isn't to say that these are the only two places to which Brittonic people went; it's just the only places where they went and then kept their culture; the Franks who moved south of the Rhine adopted very Roman culture and became the nation France; Germanic people who moved to North Africa were conquered and subsumed into Islamic culture

[@danielwiles5869]

@@GuthlacYT that's cool. thank you for the response. Do you think it would be out of the question to assume some of these celtic migrants were displaced through force, though?

[@GuthlacYT]

They may have been displaced by force, there's no certainty unfortunately! But we shouldn't see it as the wholesale removal of one group of people purely because of their language and culture; it's most likely that in losing war they fled

[@danielwiles5869]

@@GuthlacYT thank you!

[@andrewwhelan7311]

Britons / Bretons/ _ they were of the same stock so they would be welcomed with open arms in times of oppression.

[@blugaledoh2669]

You make seem as if the Anglo-Saxon arrival was completely peaceful. I am sure there was violence.

[@GuthlacYT]

There doubtlessly was. But that violence want wasn't merely Germanic people fighting Britons and vice versa - Germanic people fought each other, and Britons will have fought between themselves as much as others. The main take away is that the success of Germanic culture was not due to violence

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@GuthlacYT not violence but geographic I am guessing is what led to their success.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@GuthlacYT would you ever talk about the Gaelic expansion? Anglo-Saxon often get the attention but they weren't the only one expanding

[@GuthlacYT]

@@blugaledoh2669 Afraid not! it's not an area on which I know a great deal; I'm not sure there is an awful lot of evidence for it, but you're right that the Migration Period encompasses a lot of different peoples expanding and moving. I could talk about this from the British perspective at some point in the future, but I can't guarantee that I'm afraid

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@GuthlacYT How many Germanic migrant enter England?

[@beakfordclakington1337]

trent

[@NovaLibertasUK]

love it

[@micann5738]

love. and peace 😂