"The Anglo-Saxons Were Worse Than the Vikings" - A Problematic Article Part I

The Anglo-Saxons Were Worse than the Vikings Article:
sciencenordic.com/anglo-saxons...
History of the Vikings in England:
• The History of the Vik...
Definition of "Viking:"
• It's Time to Stop Bein...
Were the Vikings Meaner Than Others?
• Were the Vikings Meane...
Fund My Windmills (Patreon):
/ historywithhilbert
Join in with the banter on Twitter:
/ historywhilbert
Enter the Fray on Facebook:
/ historywhilbert
Music Used:
Mystery - Holfix:
• [Free Music] HolFix - ...
Impact Andante - Kevin MacLeod
Clean Soul - Kevin MacLeod
Eastern Thought - Kevin MacLeod
Feral Dub - Kevin MacLeod
Send me an email if you'd be interested in doing a collaboration! [e-mail]
#AngloSaxons #Vikings #ScienceNordic

[@GlidusFlowers]

Well, without a doubt: The Vikings were way Norse than the Anglo-Saxsons.

[@rateeightx]

As A Descendant Of Norwegians, I Can Confirm This.

[@xaviernorman8624]

No shit Sherlock Holmes

[@techmaster9775]

Punny

[@torbenjohansen6955]

NOPE THEY WHERE NOT. i come from the area where the angles lived witch is also the area where some of the vikings came from. i know my ancestores. also funny how a hobby historian know more about that subject. Than professional historians that have data that the hobby historian has never seen or even heared of.

[@GlidusFlowers]

Torben Johansen, read my comment again... slowly.

[@ataman6430]

“Muh ancestors good, yours bad” sums up this entire article.

[@jasper677]

@A hc wow i can't understand a single one of your jokes

[@jasper677]

@Swithun the angles where from modern denmark, so its just idiotic

[@jasper677]

@A hc I'm german and jutland is modern denmark

[@MartieD]

That's because people always talk about how terrible the Vinlngs were, but ignore other pagan peoples. This article probably just wants to give a more balanced view.

[@TheAnthraxBiology]

@Swithun Hilbert does this a lot too :/

[@elizabethlyons8539]

Why do people continue to judge the past by present day standards and norms? ugh

[@mjr_schneider]

So does this mean England will have to give the Welsh casinos and free university?

[@mikeoxsmal8022]

I hope so

[@gretabruno9245]

Lordparshnipz57 nope cause then you have to pay us Italians as well 😂 you Germanics and Celtics have to pay tribute to Italy

[@mikeoxsmal8022]

@@gretabruno9245 im not welsh, the Welsh never invaded Italy, the Celts weren't every really a group

[@gretabruno9245]

Lordparshnipz57 Celts are a tribe then breaks down into Bretons of France and Irish and Welsh and Scotties.

[@gretabruno9245]

Lordparshnipz57 Romanum Invictia !

[@Survivethejive]

The celts eradicated pre celtic languages in the British isles!

[@gretabruno2817]

Don't matter my people left their mark in all forms Genetic Language Laws Beliefs

[@Survivethejive]

@@gretabruno2817 "your people"?? The original Celtic tribes were genetically like modern Austrians. Are you Austrian?

[@gretabruno2817]

@@Survivethejive Nope Romans We gave the British a lot and You Germanics grew to be Great. I as a Italian i'm proud of you Germanics. Just don't forget your past

[@gretabruno2817]

@@Survivethejive I'm visiting Kentucky and I have found Scot-Irish ethnic Group and Irish and German and Swiss and Greeks and quite a few English Americans as well. Most say they have Cherokee Indian Ancestry and have a odd flag with (13 stars and in a X shape)

[@Snillomator]

@@gretabruno2817 The Romans basically left zero genetic footprint in Britain. Their legions were of mixed tribes from all over Europe not just the actual Romans from Rome. All other people which came to England were all originally from the lower area of the Rhine. These peoples genetics have traces in English people. Celts, Anglo, Saxons, Jute, Belgians, Norman and Viking. Notice which people have zero trace? The ones which didn't come from the lower Rhine area. The Romans. The Romans left law, their language and beliefs in Britain. Not their genetics.

[@aaronlewis702]

Seems like someone pushing their modern political opinions on a part of history where it doesn't particularly belong. Question is why?

[@trimdinbusk]

Elaborate please

[@starhawck]

Jee, i wonder which part of the Netherlands he is from? "Frisian this, frisian that" splattered all over the browser*

[@topacybits3576]

Friesland

[@nickmancuso6894]

Skyrim belongs to the Nords!!!!

[@calwood6008]

"Never should have come here"

[@enderman_666]

“FoR thE gLorY Of tHe Em..” *slams Wuuthrad into legionnaire’s skull*

[@ipoopexelence]

Except for the reach

[@korpifox5445]

Ya'll milk drinkers need Talos!!!

[@kolsveinnskraevolding]

@@korpifox5445 Nay, Shor and Wulfharth! Not Talos and Tiber Septim. Okay, praise Ysmir.

[@pickettywitchoriginal]

Woah what’s with the music that almost burst my eardrums mate!

[@pickettywitchoriginal]

Steven Moore hardcore tactics for sure.

[@sjnm4944]

That article sounds like something straight out of The Guardian, with a headline like that.

[@cnppreactorno.4965]

Hilbert, you sound like a native English speaker in this video- so are you sick?

[@willek1335]

I love these kinds of articles, because they strengthen my own understanding of the subject when people like Hilbert takes up the mantle and teach us about the nuances of what was actually the case.

[@Huodinia]

Science NORDIC defending NORDIC people... Hmmmm... Makes you think

[@Huodinia]

@@anasevi9456 whatever helps them sleep at night I guess... I've never lost sleep over the Baltic people that died under my Russian heritage. Not my fault

[@belstar1128]

@Seb E You are thinking about Sweden Denmark is now the most right wing country in western Europe but thats not saying much

[@dangerdan2592]

Are Danes embarrassed about their heritage? Why would they be? I know Sweden has the whole white guilt problem but why would Danish people try to revise history to make it seem like others were worse? It's all history at this point. Seems stupid and pointless to me.

[@hewithdarkwings]

@@dangerdan2592 I don't understand this whole white guilt thing, I am not responsible for what my ancestors may or may not have done. As for it being prevalent here in Sweden it strikes me as those who do "suffer" from this are over represented, as in person I've never meet someone who actually has expressed such an opinion.

[@santommaso7265]

Huodinia perhaps their superiority complex is caused by their lack of relevance

[@Halloyaw11]

This is the equivalent of Gildas and his "The Anglo-Saxons literally set Britain on fire and murdered everyone on it" texts.

[@Duncan23]

I love this analogy, gotta love an angry gildas though :)

[@zoetropo1]

Tyler Lammers: That’s not quite what Gildas said. Most of his anger was directed at the British leaders for bad behaviour, including fighting each other, after they beat the Saxons.

[@pumbar]

Gildas the wise guy.

[@toade1583]

@@zoetropo1 It was both, to be honestly.

[@MrTeniguafez]

I think you can make a solid argument that Scandinavian languages had a deeper impact on English than the Normans. The Norman impact is certainly more visible in vocabulary, but in linguistic terms, words are cheap; they come and go quite often and borrowing is not nearly as rare as some people seem to think. Where I think Scandinavian influence is very prominent is in syntax; English sentence structure is much more similar to Nordic languages than the West Germanic languages it's actually more closely related to. Verb placement is a big one; English has "I *have read* the book," Danish has "Jeg *har læst* boket," but German has "Ich *habe* das Buch *gelesen* ," with the participle at the end of the sentence. Zero relative pronoun ("The man I saw") and preposition stranding ("Who did you give it to?") are two other hallmarks of English syntax that appear in Nordic languages but not in West Germanic ones.

[@kyleramsey5189]

That's also the word order for French and Norman as well though. J'ai lu le livre.

[@MrTeniguafez]

@@kyleramsey5189 Normans did not interact with the general English speaking populace the way the Norse did.

[@kyleramsey5189]

@@MrTeniguafez English of the Viking period doesn't show the same dramatic changes that we see in the Norman period. Pre-1066 English has a lot more in common with West Germanic languages than the Norse ones.

[@Epicrandomness1111]

West Frisian is supposedly the closest Germanic language to English, draw your comparison from that rather than German, its more similar to old low Saxon dialects that made it to the isles

[@elbentos7803]

There's also the plural forms of names ending in "s", just as in french.

[@hutchlinda9]

Please don't add music that is louder than the person is talking, it hurts peoples' ears! (timestamp- 10.25)

[@Josh-of-all-Trades]

Yeah, I think my neighbors are pissed now... And I'm wearing headphones.

[@bapo224]

It's an ear rape joke, calm down it's just 2 seconds.

[@TheRealRusDaddy]

Stop whining

[@daragildea7434]

@@bapo224 It doesn't make any difference how long they are, they are really fucking annoying.

[@bapo224]

@@daragildea7434 It's a joke not a cock, you don't have to take it so hard.

[@archeofutura_4606]

Did I hear some modern Icelandic pronounciation of Old Norse? I think not😤 -made by Dr. Jackson Crawford gang

[@meginna8354]

Icelandic pronunciation is the standard my dude.

[@Malentor]

@@meginna8354 No, it is not.

[@meginna8354]

@@Malentor yes it is, i'm pretty sure it is.

[@thebenis3157]

@@meginna8354 No, that would be reconstructed Old Norse pronounciation

[@meginna8354]

@@thebenis3157 Education time. Reconstructed pronounciation is not the scolarly convention, Icelandic pronounciation is the scolarly convention.

[@bobs_toys]

As a Cornish exile, this will be useful for helping me get native title to London.

[@AutismIsUnstoppable]

Screw that just come home. You know you miss the sea air.

[@bobs_toys]

@@AutismIsUnstoppable living next to the Sydney harbour. The UK has terrible beaches. Not interested in going back, but the rents would be lovely 😋️

[@mikespearwood3914]

@@bobs_toys What do you pay near Sydney harbour?

[@bobs_toys]

@@mikespearwood3914 currently nothing. Finishing a six month contract. Managed to talk my employer into providing accommodation. The place is worth 2k AUD a week though. I miss the last one. Looking over the Opera house. Contract finishes on Monday. Waiting for paperwork that will move my exile to Hong Kong.

[@mikespearwood3914]

@@bobs_toys Bloody hell! What are you, some kind of high level executive banker or something?!

[@MartieD]

You need to read the original article by Mads Ravn. He never says you are "more likely" to hear "bairn" in N-E England, he just says the word exists in the dialect. Also, he wasn't referring to the Normans - what he meant was "had Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons not met and intermarried, modern English would have been more similar to _either_ Danish OR Frisian, depending on which of Norse and Old English had come to dominate."

[@victorrand8811]

As if the Anglo Saxons werent more or less vikings of their own time centuries earlier

[@czthjvv]

Exactly

[@keighlancoe5933]

They were, they raided Roman Britain on their ships for centuries, that's why the Romans built the Saxon shore.

[@jamesatherton1853]

Question for Hilbert What do you do outside of KZbin? Do you have a job to do with British/European dark age history?

[@bapo224]

tfw you get a heart but no answer.

[@jamesatherton1853]

@@bapo224 he'll answer in his face reveal video and I'll be internet famous

[@historywithhilbert146]

@@bapo224 I've made a note of it to answer in the face reveal haha :P

[@gretabruno9245]

History With Hilbert can you do a video what If Roman Empire never fell and expanded to colonize America. please do it cause I want to see what you can come up with

[@calebcampbell9280]

We get it, you like Rome.

[@williamcooke5627]

It is very doubtful whether the effects of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of what became England can fairly be characterized as 'ethnic cleansing'. The sources suggest and in places prove that in many places a subject class of Britons survived. But the relative purity of Old English and the thoroughly Germanic character of Anglo-Saxon social institutions argue that the newcomers overwhelmed and eventually largely assimilated them.

[@williamcooke5627]

DNA evidence isn't as helpful in answering that question as one might think, because it is becoming clear that there was very little variation in the DNA of the peoples that invaded or settled in Britain from the 1st c. B.C. down to the late Middle Ages.

[@martinhughes2549]

Mass murder no, displacement, reduction in status etc. Whatever you say, people have to explain why Brythonic Celtic languages disapeared in most of what is now England.

[@williamcooke5627]

@@martinhughes2549 Exactly!

[@johnkilmartin5101]

The reason English doesn't have gendered nouns is that Anglo-Saxon and Norse cognates wouldn't have the same gender. The same thing happens with case endings that disappeared in most instances. Basically the interactions with the Norse changed the structure of the language rather than the vocabulary. The Norman invasion enlarges the vocabulary but the structure changed very little. If you were to count the actual vocabulary in English more come from Romance languages or Latin itself than proto-Germanic or its descendants. However, if you look at frequency of use Germanic words win hands down. So the impact of the two invasions are quite different.

[@gretabruno9245]

John Kilmartin my ancestors made English Good

[@Ice_Karma]

Nouns often did, to some extent, have the same genders, but even where they did, the endings still didn't agree, so it seems that this has a lot to do with Middle English eroding almost all the endings away into -∅ or -ə(n).

[@kokofan50]

German seems to still be stuck in that transition.

[@williamcooke5627]

Actually, as one might have expected with two such closely cognate languages, the vast majority of cognate nouns in Old English and Old Norse have identical genders.

[@johnkilmartin5101]

@@williamcooke5627 I don't know what to tell you. This is when the change occurs i.e. 850-1030. The only other Indo-European language that I am aware of where a similar relaxation in grammar occurs is Afrikaans around the turn of the last century.

[@satorius4337]

Question for Hilbert: have you ever considered going outside your usual time frame when making a video? Also if there was one time period and location you could travel to to live in, with your modern knowledge (and automatic knowledge of the local language), which would it be?

[@rich_jg5705]

Revision through the lens of victim/oppressor and amplifying negative impact is typical of today. Romans impacted Britain like it or not. As did Celts, Picts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans. Sifting through each legacy in times of warrior Kings shouldn't alter modern feelings towards a group - which is what this article is doing in a way. History should be looked back through a an objectively clean mirror. There's bound to be some dirt with bias, but squabbling over who was worse towards who over a thousand years ago is intentionally divisive. Some of that is inevitably part of the story of Britain but it's hardly a modern reflection.

[@gretabruno9245]

rich _jg my ancestors made Celts smart then filth from Germania ruined it

[@JohnJohn-ls2uz]

Greta Bruno Yeah, And Greeks made your ancestors smart, and Phoenicians made the Greeks smart, what's your point?

[@GCAbleism158]

The way I see it, both can easily be as bad as each other.

[@Seth9809]

Most "history" that was "recorded" was basically propaganda, so it's just going to make up a ton of horrible stuff that never happened and ignore a ton of stuff that did happen.

[@RogerTheil]

God I lost it at "FOR NOW"

[@BigHossHackworth]

A kindred spirit...

[@jakobschoning7355]

I just love the sentence "The Viking's did not *irradiate* Old English"

[@MrFirefox]

'dutch people speak great english' well they dont type it

[@Sam-rs3lp]

Just a note for you- I am from Lincolnshire (Grimsby) and the word ‘bairn’ for child is still used a lot.

[@ole7146]

@Sam Swinburn, Barn in Danish. Do you use other words that differs from English?

[@tn00bz]

I skimmed an article about the genetic make up of the British isles and the conclusion was that the average English citizen was something like 30% Norse, 30% Celtic, and 40% pre-Celtic bronze age Britain...don't quote me on that, but if ethnic cleansing was the goal, it certainly didn't work.

[@mikespearwood3914]

More of a cultural takeover than an ethnic takeover.

[@veronicajensen7690]

ethnic cleansing can also mean the population was forcefully moved (pressed out) of an area so dna may show a dominating Anglo-Saxon in areas for a period but then later people mixed and the Anglo-Saxon dna diminished in those areas later, a lot of Anglo-Saxons also left when the Normans came, in Denmark we were also told the eastern/western farmers ethnically cleansed Denmark and Sweden for the earlier eastern/western hunter gatherer however they were pressed into the mountains of Sweden and Norway and later mixed so we have between 42-50% HG dna today, sometime articles don't tell the entire truth they just wrote there was a "complete turnover of the population"

[@jeetking1157]

Bairn is commonly used in Yorkshire

[@philsaspiezone]

And in Newcastle/Tyneside area. You can hear it in programmes like Auf Wiedesehen Pet and When the Boat Comes in

[@walterrob5567]

Question for Hilbert: How often do you visit Fryslan, when do you plan to come back and is it purely for pleasure or do you do some investigating / research as well?

[@humlebamsen]

I am a bit confused as to why only the English article has the picture and bit of speculative text about the Sutton Hoo helmet. Checked the original at videnskab (.) dk and a couple of reprints. In the original he also writes 'hollandske Friesland' not the Netherlands and Friesland. The BCE/AD mistake is not in the original and the list keeps going to the point where these are two different articles. I am sorry but, Cathrine Jex did a poor job translating this.. and why there are added pictures and text which are not in the original I really can't get my head around. Anyone else notice this? Love the channel Cheers.

[@jwilly40]

In your research have you come across any name changes from Bairnheimr to Childers?

[@Alan_Mac]

'Britain had been reduced to Saxon rule'? Really? You have an odd definition of Britain.

[@jaredw5059]

Alan Mac Cymru and Alba remained Saxon free for quite some time.

[@hersirivarr1236]

That's what the Romans wrote.

[@dthompson1450]

Not his definition. This is a direct quote from the Gallic Chronicle. And yes, it (and many sources from the period) have an odd definition of what counts as Britain. For example mid 7th century king Oswald of Northumbria is described as “Emperor of Britain” simply by being ruler of the (precariously) most powerful Anglo Saxon kingdom at a very particular time even though only ruling a chunk of northern England. Later supreme Anglo Saxon kings are referred to as “Rex Anglorum” (king of all the English) instead, reflecting a more nuanced understanding, in recognition that they ruled the Anglo Saxon people of Britain not Britain itself or as a whole.

[@NMahon]

@@dthompson1450 King of the Britons? I didnt vote for you.

[@hersirivarr1236]

@@dthompson1450 I believe king Aethelstan of England also styled himself as being 'Protector and Emperor of the Britons'.

[@connorrivers798]

Scandinavians did change English quite a bit. Old English had a similar grammar structure to Frankish. Modern English has a grammar structure similar to Danish. Also English is a primarily spoken as a Germanic language despite all the "french & latin" words that exist in English.

[@ole7146]

I'm from Denmark and I read that about 600 words in English comes from old Norse. In the different dialects of Scots I've seen so many words that are more related to Danish than to English, for example Sc/Da/En: Fremd/fremmed/stranger, Beret/båret/carried, Blad/blad/leaf, Mirk/mørk/dark, Hoond/hund/dog, Melt/milt/kidney, kirk/kirke/church, Bruik/bruge/use just to name few.

[@DrJRL]

People say bairn in Lincolnshire. Also in West and South Yorkshire where I am from.

[@DimNussens]

Question for Hilbert: Are there any interesting things about the Cornish and continental Britons that'd be worth going over? It's such a fascinating language to me, and it'd be cool to see a nice piece done on them.

[@jasper677]

Question for Hilbert: Does your historical interest derive from some kind of studying or work or does it come from personal interest?

[@rateeightx]

*SOMETHING LIKE QUESTION FOR HILBERT* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What Is The Airspeed Velocity Of An Unladen Swallow?

[@gregorymacdonnell7914]

A European swallow , or an African swallow?

[@rateeightx]

@@gregorymacdonnell7914 Well I Don't Know That!

[@bthanbeethan5590]

Question for Hilbert- do you have a job of hobby related to history I remember you saying something about a role play troop you were in in a Viking podcast you did

[@ferronzomeren2733]

Ik ben heel erg benieuwd wat er in het google docs document genaamd ‘ui’ staat xD

[@bapo224]

Is dat een google doc? Ik dacht dat dat het google translate logo was.

[@varjagen4160]

ferron zomeren docs is short for documents, now with that knowledge re-read your comment

[@historywithhilbert146]

Het was een vertaling van het Nederlands naar het Duits om te vragen waar Noord-Friesland is xD Geen idee waarom en hoe ik op het idee van "ui" kwam hahaha

[@varjagen4160]

History With Hilbert from where in Frisia do you originate? My parents come from lemmer and Akkrum

[@varjagen4160]

Zǫlǫmunduz ?

[@donaldkaspersen3768]

What is the problem with the meaning of Viking? The ing ending occurs in the Scandinavian(at least in Norwegian) means "people" and Vik means cove, a sheltered place for boats, hence sea people. what are other usages that confuse?

[@MMadesen]

Vikingr means something along the line of sea raiding, so it describes an activity, not a culture or people. The mongols were nomadic horse raiders, but we dont call them horse riders as a people. Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jütes aso took part in viking, but only some of them, the normal scandinavians were farmers, traders or fishermen. Not warriors. So calling the whole people after a small warrior class is just wrong. You dont call medieval people knights for that matter.

[@jbussa]

one of the reasons they struggle with this topic is they think there were 0 Germanic peoples in Britain before Hengist and Horsa... Then they have to explain the language change with a relatively small number of immigrants. There were some there even before the Romans. The Romans even named the southern area as the saxon shore... There is no secret here. it was more gradual than they think.

[@Chunkalicious]

Regarding the bairn vs child argument, and more loosely the general tone of the case of verbiage in relation to the line of demarcation, what are your sources, and how do they translate by time period? If you're utilizing sources based on today's use of verbiage vs the time period, are you accounting for migration?

[@tabinekoman]

Meanwhile mongolian like : what the problem?

[@edwardaugustus9680]

The Gaelic invasion of Scotland was worse than the Vikings prove me wrong. Pro tip: You can't.

[@jaredw5059]

Edward Cavill you’re very right.

[@silverdeathgamer2907]

Wrong by what standard?

[@vestty5802]

Edward Augustus yup the Irish were fairly brutal towards the Picts

[@chesterdonnelly1212]

Everyone was bad. The Saxons were only in Britain because the Britons needed protection from the Picts and Irish. But then they wouldn't leave.

[@evandxvies]

@@chesterdonnelly1212 we gave them Kent, then they got greedy and started to betray us

[@fracturee_4669]

I’m from the Humber region of Yorkshire and we commonly use “Bain” *bay-n* as reference to a child

[@saftsuse866]

Question for Hilbert Kinda concerning this topic. Do you think the vikings were _"the worst"?_ Do you think they can live up to the rumour that's been given them?

[@halonkin2]

What's the name of the song that almost ruptured my ear drums?

[@historywithhilbert146]

Magna Frisia by Baldr's Draumar: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4u1YWuZm8eDZ5Y

[@daragildea7434]

@@historywithhilbert146 Are you literally trying to damage peoples' ear drums?

[@HYDROCARBON_XD]

I think there is no “west Germanic”,but 4 different branches that split from north-west Germanic: North Sea Germanic (Jutland peninsula to zeeland) that included anglo-Saxon,old Frisian and old Saxon Wheser rhine Germanic (around low countries) that included high franconian and low franconian Elbe Germanic (around Germany and a part of Poland) that included a lot of dialects like allemanic and bavarian And… North Germanic (well,Scandinavia) that included old east Norse,old west Norse and old gutnish

[@joeybanana3366]

the anglo-saxons did nothing wrong...again? the article is wrong but you shouldn't use that to swing the pendulum into the other direction either, come on man

[@komradekevinthekommuneistd7362]

The welsh did start it This is just the price for not paying us whilst they had the chance

[@stuartdryer1352]

Thanks for posting this. Very convincing. Do we really know when the Anglo Saxons first arrived on the British Isles? I recall reading evidence it occurred quite a bit earlier than texts suggest. But I may not be remembering correctly.

[@stuartdryer1352]

@Sakkra101 Yes, that is the legend, as first outlined by Bede, writing in the early 8th century in the Ecclesiastical History of the English People. All other mentions are even later, and the Hengist and Horsa stories have all the features of widely told Germanic legends. But isn't there some archeological evidence of Anglo-Saxons arriving somewhat earlier than that?

[@torinjones3221]

1:33 You say that but Cnut did replace much of his advisors with English ones and it got to the point that both Denmark and Norway hated him and the only people who still liked him were the English. He basically became Anglicised just like the later Normans were.

[@JamesJJSMilton]

England's greatest goal was convincing a norse king to be english

[@simontown1765]

Baern is commonly used in south yorkshire in places around barnsley and sheffield. And I have heard it used quite often in manchester and derbyshire

[@danukil7703]

Is this a scholarly journal? Where are the footnotes?

[@patrickholt2270]

The process of Anglo-Saxon expansion was clearly a form of settler-colonialism. The conquerors didn't assimilate into the Romanised population, but expelled them from the land, starting with the best land which they redistributed among themselves and settled. There doesn't have to be active genocide to be settler colonization, just de facto ethnic cleansing and an ethnic stratification between the populations whereby one can thrive and the other declines. Being kicked out of their homes and farms threw Briton men, especially, into dire poverty, so that they couldn't easily marry or sustain families, and their numbers dwindled within a few generations of their area being occupied by the incomers' forces. Britonnic language and identity only survived in those places to which the Romanised natives could flee, west into Wales, Cumbria and Kernow, and south across the channel into Armorica, creating Brittany. It's because the conquerors didn't assimilate into the native culture that Old English became the dominant language, not a slightly Germanised form of Latin as became, or rather, remained the dominant language in Gaul, Iberia and northen Italy where the Goths, Franks, Suebi, Vandals and others were able to conquer much more quickly. Likewise the Saxons drove Christianity out from the land as they gradually ground their way inland and westwards, something which ddn't happen on the continent, so that the English kingdoms had to be re-evangelised centuries later by the Celtic church and by Augustine's grand Catholic mission. While less is recorded of the early depredations of the Saxons, and less physical evidence of seiges and sacking shows up in the archaeology, because after all the first stage of the conquest was the rebellion of the Saxon mercenary garrisons of the Saxon Shore forts, there is no reason to assume that the conquerors' appropriation of the land from its previous owners and inhabitants was anything other than brutal, because how can evicting people not be? Surely there were killings, surely there were fires lit, and surely there was terror, just as with Serbs who fled from Bosnian held territory at the end of the Bosnian war, and just as with Bosniaks forced to flee from Serbian and Croatian held territories at the same time. The difference in early England was that the process of ethnic cleansing proceeded at a relative snail's pace over two centuries as Romano-British military capacity to resist the incursions of the tribal peoples from across the North Sea steadily waned. But ethnic cleansing in slow motion is nothing unfamiliar either, as we watch the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories slowly but steadily expand, and Palestinians be forced from their homes and off their land with agonising, inexorable slowness, one family at a time, subjected to a rigid and punishing ethnic stratification which deprives them of their property rights, and much of their civil rights, under the occupiers' laws.

[@neilog747]

The ethnic English are roughly on average 2/3 British genetically. This is importnat becuase it seem to remove the possibilty of ethnic cleansing. in DNA terms Anglo-Saxons are Anglo-British despite what ancients texts say.

[@patrickholt2270]

@@neilog747 Given how very few people actually migrated from the Angle and Saxony, achieving 1/3rd of the average DNA of modern English necessitates the settler-colonisation I was talking about. Briton wives and concubines were taken, while Briton families and men were pushed into the fens and uplands and chalk where they wouldn't be able to thrive. The other evidence is of course the changing of place names, construction methods, languages, art and religion as the English settlements expanded and the Briton settlements and polities shrank.

[@paperflowers-ks6vv]

@@patrickholt2270 Just wanted to say, that your comment is the best and most plausible explanation I have seen so far about this subject. People seem to think it has to be this one mass event, but as you say, it's a slow process. In Anglo Saxon law, an Anglo Saxon person's life was worth from 2 to 5 times more than a native Briton i.e Welsh person (in terms of blood money). So it's not a stretch to say that the native Britons/ Welsh were now second class citizens in their own country. They lose their homes and income, of course that's going to affect life expectancy etc. Loss of generational wealth. And of course, as you say, the evictions would have been brutal. You only have to look at the huge difference in population size between the Welsh and English to see something drastic happened. If we look at when Wales was conquered/ invaded by England around 1200. The usage of Welsh was banned in official use, and it was encouraged to adopt an English identity to advance in society- so again, Welsh were second-class citizens in their own country. Also, their names were Anglicsed and eradicated (everyone now called Jones!). It was a sort of 'ethnocide'. Also, a lot of their land was now owned by English invaders, which of course left the Welsh people even poorer. The figure of 2/3 that the above person quotes, it only applies to a small study of a few people living in a certain place in England, not the whole of England. The figures in southern England, where the initial wars/ invasions happened (modern day Sussex) the figures are very different, as they show mainly Germanic DNA. This 2/3 figure is being used to pat themselves on the back that they didn't wipe out all the native Britons. As you say, Briton wives were taken, concubines- men kept as slaves to work on the farms etc. Just because some Britons survived, doesn't mean they were treated well. English people seem to be very uncomfortable with the history of how their people and country was founded. This is why there is a desperate need to re-write the Anglo Saxons as mere 'migrants' and not colonists. The Saxons had a long history of raiding Britain, before they invaded. In their own words, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, they reveal how they feel about the native Britons and the things they did to them. Thank you again for your comment, it's very insightful.

[@patrickholt2270]

@@paperflowers-ks6vv Thank you kindly. I think the essential clue is how long the formation of England took. When the Danish Great Pagan Army arrived, and young Alfred was forced to move to a remote island base in the Somerset fens, Somerset was only a generation or so under Wessex control, and still mostly Briton. The other interesting thing is the recent discoveries of the origins of the Jute, Angle and Saxon migrants in the 5th century, and the context of a brutal cold period which forced the tribes of Jutland to war against each other for control of the limited food supply, leading to the eradication of everyone else's independent kingdoms by the incoming Danes who were expanding westward from southern Sweden, and how it relates to the names of individuals, places and peoples in Beowulf, including Beowulf's own people, the Geats who were a western branch of Goths. Tom Shippey has written a book about this lately which he talks about here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIGlpWNrgLqZsMk

[@paperflowers-ks6vv]

@@patrickholt2270 Thanks! I guess another factor would be, is that the native British society was in collapse after Rome left. And from what I've learned, Romans banned the native Britons from owning weapons and having any kind of army. So they would have been unprepared to fight off invaders- which the invaders would have taken advantage of. Also, they were having to battle the raiding Scots and Irish too. It must have been a nightmare time to live in. As you said in your other comment, the main evidence is in the changing name places and language. Historians seem to gloss over this language issue as just 'oh they just learned the new language'. That's not how society works. I've seen some great comments under other videos who compare language changes in other societies, and it always happens under great changes in power structure. People generally don't want to learn a new language and culture! Just the fact that English has next to no Brythonic words is a also a big clue.

[@RuneSkimmy]

cool ear rape, very funny! i'll stay subbed!

[@yourmajesty1361]

I don't like the argument which claims that there wasn't an Saxon mass migration to Britain and that it was just the ruling class which changed; similar how the Norman Invasion happened. But no one speaks French in England today and that would also mean that Celts magically started worshipping Germanic Gods instead of Jesus Christ and instantly spoke Old English. And this simply does not make sense. In my Opinion the Anglo-Saxons drove the Britons out of Britain to the corners of it by warfare. Of course 'genocide' occured but not in classic ww2 style.

[@JW-ix4bt]

Didn't the Anglo Saxons convert to Christianity pretty quickly, though?

[@yourmajesty1361]

@@JW-ix4bt well that took almost 200 years. Way after anglo-saxon had established their Kingdoms.

[@martinhughes2549]

It's a combination of displacement, getting better land, interrmarriage, but British speakers had lower status, enslavement. & gradual acculturation of remaining Celtic speakers over a long period. What is interesting is Cymric/Latin disappeared over most of what became England by 700. It's a linguistic and cultural replacement/ not an ethnic mass murder.

[@leod-sigefast]

No. Your hypothesis is wrong. The DNA and historic evidence disproves your theory. The Anglo-Saxons came in, true, but their numbers were not enough displace 1 million Britons. It was a matter of assimilation. The Britons learnt Old English. When the Normans came in they made french number one ruling language. The problem is the Normans were complete cunts. Hence why the folk did not adopt their language. Of course, many French words seeped into English due to them being the masters at the time.

[@Lawfair]

I know this is a very old video, but I thought I might point out that maybe the author of the original article when discussing the idea that Norse had an influence on English, they were repeating something I've heard Jackson Crawford say, which is that there was a noticeable difference between the old English from before the ninth century and the English after, because of loan words from Norse and the loosening of the case system.

[@MrPlatonist]

Ok, so usually I don't mind you adding those clips of the Netherlands' anthem, but this Fresian clip was extremely loud. Just a heads up.

[@faarsight]

The Anglo-Saxons were basically Vikings in terms of ethnicity since at the time it wasn't that long ago that the Germanic language family split.

[@kokofan50]

The East Germanic languages had split a while before West and North did.

[@PiousMoltar]

​@@kokofan50 East Germanic doesn't even exist any more and I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion of North and West Germanic peoples.

[@kokofan50]

PiousMoltar, the point is that the branches didn’t split at the same time so, it’s no accurate to say the Germanic languages split when what he means is West and North.

[@palepilgrim1174]

That's true, I mean a lot of them even came from the Jutland peninsula itself, haha. People underestimate just how similar the Anglo-Saxons and Norse were, and also underestimate just how similar English is to its fellow West Germanic languages Dutch and German as well as the North Germanic tongues.

[@wisedragon173]

Yep the Danish Viking DNA and the Anglo-Saxon DNA are indistinguishable.

[@ianalexander6977]

I grew up in Chesterfield and now reside in South Yorkshire. I never hear anyone say bairn. And grew it up I knew it to be a northeast/Scottish thing.

[@geordieinjapan]

If you listen to Yorkshire accents from mid-20th century recordings its fascinating quite how northern they sound. A few of the actors in 'This Sporting Life' for a quick example (good film too). Pretty sure bairn was in there in North Yorks at least.

[@jamesreeve5357]

You mentioned that the Anglo-Saxons didn't go through a raiding period before settling England. Isn't the viking age mirrored by the Germanic raids on Roman Britain?

[@meeds7473]

Bairn is definitely not used in Lincolnshire but I've heard it plenty in Yorkshire - especially in Hull

[@SweatyHaggis]

I’m in east lothian in scotland and we say bairn, west lothian says wain, this seems to be the cutoff point for the use of the word bairn is, in scotland anyway. I’m not sure about england however.

[@geoffwheadon2897]

I'm a pvl, pit village lad, County Durham , we all call them bairns, south in Yorkshire not so much. Pretty much agree with what this lad sez, the place names give it away especially concerning Danelaw, best regards from County Durham

[@kondorviktor]

Hi Hillbert. Comment I: Jackson Crawford is a linguistc in Amerika, specializing on Old Norse and Old English, has a line of videos on the topic. Comment II: a genetic survey revealed here in the UK in 2017 said an overall 31% of genes ofthe population is of Germanjc origin, impossible to to tell Saxonia apart from Danish, whereas 65% on the Westa d 61 on the East coeast are Celtic. Hence do and does woul come in to English as auxiliary verbs around Middle English , which means a certain amount of Celtic speakers even then.

[@-Wolfheart]

The moral of this history should be, there are good and bad people in every group of people. It's the way of life and human nature.

[@mykelhedge7299]

I’m from Rotherham and use bairn, though that is due to my gran being from Glasgow. I don’t hear it being used normally, so little that many times I have heard it being used it has been done so only to mock my use of it.

[@mrgaming4626]

As a Welsh person I can confirm I do exist and haven’t been paid off by the person who wrote the article

[@molecatcher3383]

Would the Viking age not start when they took over Shetland and Orkney? It would have been at some time before 793AD.

[@abritopinionated3740]

Christ, a little warning on the volume boost for us headphone-donning folks please!

[@dantheman4908]

I think complaining about whether your ancestors or their enemies were worse is a petty attempt at trying to solidify pride in your nation.

[@diskordia8531]

1:18 What? Why is there a random England?

[@jasper677]

thats what every independent third world country from 1830-1930 said

[@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901]

Wales is the closest the UK has to a native language

[@rateeightx]

Actually, Wales Isn't A Language. And The Origin Of Both The Middle And Modern English Languages Are In The UK, So...

[@edwardaugustus9680]

You spelt Cornish wrong.

[@rateeightx]

@@edwardaugustus9680 Who Do What Now?

[@edwardaugustus9680]

It was referring to Alt-centrist saying Welsh.

[@rateeightx]

@@edwardaugustus9680 Ah. I Don't See Why Cornish Would Be Closer To A Native Language Than Welsh, As They Are Both Languages Native To What Is Now The United Kingdom.

[@terrybrigden7605]

So why do we have the Romano British Saxon shore forts around our coast if the Saxons were not raiding?

[@karineekg]

Terry Brigden the Saxons were used as mercenaries during the Roman conquest

[@martinan22]

I make same analysis as article and I think the video misses the point. The vikings were closely related to the Anglo Saxons, hence, cooperation and integration was alot easier than between the Anglo Saxons and Celts. Who in turn were more closely related than Celts and Iberians. Anyway, the Anglo Saxons replaced almost all of the Celtic language. Even thought they had the same economic technology, ie, agriculture. So, most likely, the Anglo Saxon was more destructive to the pre Anglo Saxon population. And the Celtic invasion was more destructive than the Anglo Saxon one. As far as I know this show up in the DNA as well. However, I do not agree with "worse". How can you think that the deeds of your ancestors that allow you yourself to exist are "bad"?

[@martinan22]

@Steven Moore You lack understanding of history.

[@madsravn929]

her part 5 The strength of a scientific argument Finally, in a larger perspective I must stress that in the philosophy of science many have worked with the theory of assessing strengths and weakness among different sources of evidence for a number of years (Wylie 1985, 1989, Ravn 1993, 2011). Here as in many other sciences, one cannot in that logic exclude all other lines of evidence on behalf of one kind of evidence of which you happen to be the expert, in this case written evidence. You must look up from your particular source, if you want to take a synthetic approach. And we need to do that sometimes too to get the bigger picture. I maintain that I have a good case combining various kinds of evidence. Looking at the migration period in a long-term perspective, I maintain that the Anglo-Saxons had a much larger impact than the Vikings. And in that perspective they were worse. If you, Hilbert want to show I am wrong about that, you should argue more against these kinds of sources instead of revealing more about your extensive knowledge about the (written) sources of the Vikings. Really, the Vikings are not my interest, only in a comparative perspective (Ravn 2018). I also do not mind if you insist to make the Viking age start in AD 793. It seems however, to me to be dictated by arbitrary written chronicles that seem by default to be considered more ‘true’ than any other kinds of evidence. What about the clinker built ships that came earlier and probably in masses with the Anglo-Saxons? Could they not define the beginning? They made it possible for hit-and-run raids. Incidentally, these kind of ships are known in Denmark already in AD 320, and with sails maybe as early as the early 6th or 7th centuries. In fact, there is a written source by Gregory of Tours telling about a Danish king raiding the Frankian coast already in AD 520. Should we start the Viking Age there, because this is from a chronicle and by default a better source than all the other sources? Literature Leslie, S., et al. (19 authors) 2015. The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population. In: Nature volume 519, pages, 309-314 (19 March 2015). McCrum, R., Cran, W., MacNeil, R., 1986. The Story of English. Elisabeth Sifton Books. New York: Viking Pinguin. Ravn, M., 1993. Analogy in Danish Prehistoric Studies. Norwegian Archaeological Review. Vol.26, (2), 59-90. Ravn, M., 2003. Death ritual and Germanic Social Structure. (ca. AD 200-600). Oxford: BAR international series 1164. Ravn, M., 2011. Ethnographic analogy from the Pacific: just as analogical as any other analogy. World Archaeology (43), 4, 716-725. Ravn, m. 2018. Roads to complexity. Hawaiians and Vikings compared. In Danish Journal of Archaeology. doi.org/10.1080/21662282.2018.1468147 Winroth, A., 2016. Vikings. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wylie, A., 1985. The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (8), 63-111. Wylie, A., 1989. “Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Implications of Practice for Bernstein’s ‘Options beyond Objectivism and Relativism,’ ” Philosophy of the Social Sciences (19), 1-18. Mads Ravn has studied archaeology (M.Phil, and Ph.D cantab) in Cambridge University and history in Aarhus University (Cand. Mag) . He works as a Senior Curator and head of research and collections in Vejle Museums.

[@Ice_Karma]

Isoglosses _can_ sometimes be so nice and clear-cut, but... no, this isn't one of them.

[@yaydawg2118]

I say 'barn' and I'm from Staffordshire.

[@hoegild1]

OK I checked the article. It is written by Mads Ravn Chief of science at the museum of Vejle (In Denmark). It isnt very good in Danish either!

[@michaelbell3952]

Who wrote this?

[@djstona5284]

im from leeds west yorkshire ive seen a few ppl use bairn but not that often my gran whos full scottish uses the word wain

[@drewred9308]

And their assertion about the map was wrong…yes, most of the Saxons were south and west of that line, but many of the angles were on the other side. But that does raise a point I was always curious about: the Angles were from around the German and Danish border area, whereas the Saxons were from Germany. Were the Angles and Danish Vikings connected/known to each other at some point, and which parts of Denmark did the Danish Vikings come from?

[@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo]

I have always wondered how much the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons, especially in the areas of the Angles, could understand each other. During the course of 400 years the original language of the Angles (Proto Norse?) had been mixed with a little Brittonic, and a larger bit of Latin, while in 'Denmark' no mixing occurred and it had developed into Old East Norse (and/or Old Saxon in the original Angle area). But there should still have been a lot of similarities between for example Northumbrian and Old East Norse. Care to make a video about this? If we look at the development of modern English, it is quite possible to still understand Shakespearean English from 400 years ago. We have of course to take printing and centralized education and government into account here, but you get my point. A better example might be the development (or rather lack of such) of Low German during the last 1000 years.

[@kokofan50]

They were very similar. There are some texts from the time with people commenting on how similar the languages are. Here’s a video going into some depth about this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJK6mH2nbrSJfa8

[@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo]

@@kokofan50 thanks a lot, watched it. So the difference was more or less like the difference between Swedish and Norwegian today. In that case the Vikings should have been viewed as vicious cousins by the Anglo-Saxons then, and not as the heathen pirates from an unknown world, as they are so often depicted today. Not even the Franks should have hold that view, trade in the North Sea region had been ongoing since the stone age.

[@madsravn929]

her part 4 The ahistorical Viking Age And here comes my third point. Often the Vikings Age is studied in a narrow time perspective of maybe 200 years only, often because of the nature of the written sources and scholarly traditions that dictate this (Ravn 2018). As a consequence, everything seems new and extraordinary in the Viking Age. My argument is that in a long-term perspective, the Viking Age seems in terms of migrations and violence neither unique nor more violent as previous times, especially if we compare to the Anglo-Saxons who wiped out the previous language, religion, material culture and place names. The Vikings did not. It is true that the Vikings Age is different with towns and trade and money developing among other things. I am not challenging the Viking Age as a period, but maybe the definition of its beginning. I will return to this below. My third argument thus is that many scholars studying the Vikings Age, including Hilbert, may unwittingly have been taking an ahistorical approach. This is logical because their sources, if written down, are few and focused in this or later periods or if the definition of their departments dictates this. It is therefore, I argue that one must compile many different sources and look at them in a comparative and longer historical perspective before we can conclude that the Vikings were worse or more complex than other societies (Ravn 2018). In this perspective, I argue that they were not. Also in this perspective, the Anglo Saxons were worse than the Vikings. The errors I admit there are a few errors. The picture presented in ScienceNordic.com referring to a 7th century helmet is misleading about the early Anglo Saxons. I have notified the editors, as they put this picture in without consulting me. In addition, it should say CE not BCE. CE is gradually used more and refers to ‘common era’, and is compatible to AD. But, this cannot shoot down my entire argument. And, off course borders and language of dialects change over time. The simplifications you may pick were made for a non-scientific audience on the internet; they cannot distract us from the fact that there was some influence by the Vikings in eastern England and that it was less than among the Anglo Saxons. Also, my discussion about the clash between languages, I do not mean Normans. I mean Vikings, as the two languages, as I write, did influence each other, as pointed out by some linguists (McCrum et al 1986, p.70). Please read my example again in the paper more carefully to understand this.

[@flaviusbelisarius7517]

People in South yorkshire say bairn alot. I've heard it in Barnsley mostly but also in Sheffield and Rotherham

[@40MileDesertRat]

Its all about tribes and tribes hate each other. That is the way it was and that is the way it will aways be.

[@paulwhite533]

Question for Hilbert: What do you think is the most overrated historical event or era and why?

[@torinjones3221]

Also that helmet is Rædwald's/Eorpwald's helmet and they're my Baes

[@madsravn929]

her comes part 2: Are written sources always better than all the other sources? Imagine that you in a courtroom present various lines of independent physical evidence for a certain argument. Into the room enters a newspaper reporter and says. ‘Well your evidence is wrong, because many newspaper stories suggests so’. In a courtroom one would not allow some evidence, in this case later written, biased evidence, to have stronger weight than other independent lines of evidence such as DNA, other material and forensic evidence. However, in the argument presented by Hilbert here that is exactly what is done. All my evidence for the Anglo-Saxons having had a stronger impact on England than the Vikings, linguistically, archaeologically, place-names etc. seems to be put aside as erroneous because this evidence is not strictly speaking written down in a chronicle and not as numerous as evidence from the Viking Age. Implicitly Hilbert supposedly thinks written evidence and a lot of it stands above all other evidence. Therefore, he moves on to the Viking Age and discusses the evidence there. Because there is more written evidence about the bad Vikings, my argument is wrong, Hilbert suggests. This is not an argument against the Anglo-Saxons and their impact. It is, however, a common logical error made by some scholars: That you get caught up in your own particular sources and therefore they are more ‘right’ than other kinds of evidence, especially archaeology, which in the past was patronized by certain historians, being seen as nothing but illustrations to their books. I understand why some argued like that. It has probably something to do with the fact that we are a textually- oriented society; we give implicitly more weight to texts than to other kinds of evidence. Well the Sagas show that this should not be the case and the stories about blood eagle and berserkers underline the biased written sources. Also, newspapers today have biases, even thought they are in print. My argument, which is ignored, is that holding various kinds of evidence up against each other, which independently point in the same direction, makes it not just one ‘weak thread’ but a strong ‘cable of arguments’. This way of arguing has also been stressed by the philosopher of scientist Alison Wylie (1989). This line of argument is stronger because one gets a more holistic picture of what happened, and the biases of various sources are more likely corrected and double-checked. In that perspective, I maintain that the Anglo Saxons had a stronger impact on Britain than the Vikings. Additionally, It is not enough to pile up many contemporary chronicle sources (and a few rune stones which have their own biases, especially in terms of dating) pointing in the same direction, as Hilbert does, if they are all biased in the same way. If we did that the Nazi propaganda would go down in history to have been true, for there was lots of it. However, held against other kinds of evidence among others physical evidence of the concentrations camps, we all discovered after the Second World War that a lot of repeated lies does not make one truth. The archaeology and runes stones of the Vikings reveal substantial impact but not as strong as in the 5th century. The same is the case about the propaganda about the Vikings. I give you Hilbert, the Vikings were bad, yes, and they were many yes. Everybody was violent. I do not say in the paper they were not. What I say is that they were not worse nor as many, nor as effective as the Anglo-Saxons; and indeed, they did not conquer England as a population, not even when King Canute took over. The latter was most likely an elite takeover bringing in, admittedly many important men and large groups. But, not an ethnic take-over. Maybe the British taking over of India with few hundred men could be an interesting analogy to work with. Sometimes it seems that you are unclear about terms, such as ‘raids’, ‘settling’ and ‘farming’, ‘ violence’, ‘migration’. How can you claim the Anglo-Saxons did not do raids, when written sources document that Britain was suffering from raids from Saxons, Picts and Scoti from the end of the 4th century. Additionally the archaeology confirms that in massive numbers of artefacts from the mid-5th century and onwards. Therefore, my argument is that you can push the raidings back, and it was more successful back then than when the Vikings came. Why, because they took over England. My hypothesis is that the Vikings had more resistance in the 9th and 10th centuries (and hence worse press coverage) among contemporary Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms than the Anglo-Saxons had in the 5th century Britain. Viking raids were not unique, nor extraordinarily violent. The biased written sources made them special, maybe as part of a propaganda. Furthermore, I cannot take the fame for suggesting that the written sources about the Vikings are wrong and overestimated. This has been suggested elsewhere among others (Winroth 2016).

[@DemonRazor88]

I'm still waiting for a vid about the balts...

[@DemonRazor88]

@lngfcjhn well it's close to Scandinavia so why not.

[@gnenian]

65 A.D.? You mean buried in 625 A.D.? "It was buried around 625 and is widely believed to have been the helmet of King Rædwald of East Anglia,..."

[@Evan_Bell]

For anyone who wants to know the song at 6:22 kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4u1YWuZm8eDZ5Y

[@Evan_Bell]

@@aManAgainstTime You're very welcome

[@gremgreene2725]

The article writer is a mad man.

[@makegeorgeorwellfictionaga9268]

Can someone please help me out here. When did the English reclaim england according to wiki the anglo saxons ended in 1066 and Normans took over. Is that true? So are the English norweigans?

[@makegeorgeorwellfictionaga9268]

@Hunter Smith Thanks that clears things up and I looked through history , the english reclaimed England finallly in the 1500's appx

[@drewweaves7573]

Perhaps " The Anglo-Saxons were more effective at conquering and colonizing the modern day region of England than the Vikings" would be a better title. They both had very similar goals just one was better at it.

[@toade1583]

I wouldn't say they were better, just that there was a lot more Anglo-Saxons that invaded Britain and it was over a longer period of time than the Vikings. On Orkney and Shetland, Old Norse was spoken for centuries after the Danelaw( The word "law" comes from Vikings) fell, not to mention they influence they had on English grammar including giving us the words "they" and "their" as pronouns. The sheer amount of Norse influence on Standard English, let alone the Northern British dialects, in particular Geordie and especially Scots(with the dialects of Orkney and Shetland having even more Norse influence). For a minority that only ruled for about a generation, they impacted English pretty heavily. The French ruled England for centuries and they didn't impact English grammar or pronouns nearly as much as the Vikings did(sure we borrowed a lot of French and Latin vocabulary, but our sentence structure and the words most commonly used in English are clearly Germanic)

[@aedican9719]

Question: Do you play any historic themed video games? Like Crusader Kings II or Total War? If this has already been asked or answered, ignore.

[@jevinliu4658]

The music was too loud, Hilbert. You blew out my ears.

[@italktoomuch6442]

Ethnic cleansing does not have to involve any actual deaths. It can be, and in fact usually does consist of, a forced systematic removal. So in Eastern Europe after WWII, for example, the Allies made the collective decision to "ethnically cleanse" most of the countries round there, by putting the Hungarians inside the Hungarian border, the Poles inside the Polish border, and most notably the Germans inside the German border (the whole thing where Poland moved several hundred miles to the left overnight - the Germans who lived there had to go somewhere, and they generally did so at the barrel of a gun). Forced deportation of a settled population today qualifies as a crime against humanity. That is not to say that there was any real comparison between these forced deportations and the actual mass murders committed during the war, but it is still one of those things that the Allies did that gets brushed under the rug a bit. I would also say that this could be where the general trend for Eastern and Central European countries to be less tolerant towards other cultures (think Muslim refugees in Hungary) - they have lived in largely monocultural ethnostates for decades now.

[@MMadesen]

But several million people died during this process. From the 13 Million ethnically cleansed East Germans about 1 Million died.