Personally I think it’s just another attempt to discredit the English. The Anglo-Saxons clearly did exist, we have enough texts, archaeoglocal mateieal to show they did and obviously Old English! Of course the Romano-British mixed with the incomers, in my view there probably was a mix of invasions, gradual settling and mixing with the natives. The genetic evidence seems to suggest a substantial Northern European presence in southern and central England. Of course it is a mixed picture elsewhere but to say there was no Anglo-Saxons is ludicrous, it’s like saying the Romans or Franks didn’t exist.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I don't think it's to discredit the English, but it's the question where we came from. It doesn't matter necessarily if we came from the Anglo-Saxons or if we came from the British. But what's important is that we question and we look into some of them mythologies. For instance, today many people would be very sceptical about a singular King Arthur character who could be historically proven through the mediaeval stories. In the same way we have to question some of the early stories of the Anglo-Saxons to see if they're actually historically accurate. I think the point of the book is to get people to really question and look at things in a different way. It was meant to be controversial, but not undermine anything.

@MrColincrewe

Жыл бұрын

Yes I agree with you it is to discredit English people no one goes to the Scots and say the celts did not exist or the Italians that the Romans did not exsist

@galinor7

Жыл бұрын

Maybe the Romans didn't exist. Perhaps you don't exist. More lefty diversity gibberish anti white anti Germanic rubbish.

@galinor7

Жыл бұрын

​​@@veronicalogotheti1162 some 4000 years before Spain. Existed Celts came from the area called Iberia. The were less like modern Spaniards the Australians are today. Don't be idiotic. They were not Spanish. Spain is a modern dynamic country with both Germanic and Moorish hereditary. Y tía. Hablo Español. Mi mujer es Española.

@dogfriendly1623

Жыл бұрын

I think the book is more likely playing devil's advocate rather than discrediting the Anglo-Saxons existence

What's more interesting to me is that the Kings of Wessex, all the way down to Prince Edgar, who was thwarted from his throne (so to speak) by both Harold Godwinson and William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, were known as AETHELINGS. The Nobles of the Kingdom of Frisia were similarly called ETHELINGS. And they spoke virtually the same language; Old English/Old Frisian respectively. And the fact that the Batavians and Tungrians, were continental tribes that were contracted to Rome to supply tribute in the form of manpower. And so are historically attested to have been inducted into the Roman military, as Ala (cavalry) auxiliary troops and stationed in forts across the island of Britain (as Limitanii???). Both the Batavians and the Tungrians came from areas which were known as Magna Frisia. Again, they thus almost certainly spoke dialects of old Frisian. To my mind all the evidence is out there already that the "invasion" was started by the stationing of Old Frisian troops in Britain by the Romans as Foederati. As the bona fide Imperial troops were withdrawn to elsewhere in the Empire, by successive Emperors, the need by the native "Romanised" population to defend their island fell even more heavily on these Frisian troops. As Magna Frisia was a loose confederation of tribes, stretching all the way from what is now Belgium (Flanders) all through the North Saxony German coast, and up to Schleswig Holstein in southern Jutland, the tribes were INDIVIDUALLY known by Bede as Angles, Saxons and Jutes. As Magna Frisia was eclipsed by the Caroligian Empire, the lands of Magna Frisia were re-allocated (in time) as southern Denmark (Jutland), Lower Saxony in Germany, and Friesland in the Netherlands. Bede therefore seeing these tribes as individual tribes coming from the LATER polities - not from a homogeneous Magna Frisia. Therefore creating the confusion we are faced with today. Add to this the migrations of displaced people who were fleeing Magna Frisia at the time, due to sea flooding of the extremely low lying land, evidently landing on the neighbouring British shores, you have the origins of the Anglian Kingdoms, their ethnicity, and their language, and why the later English took over England from the Latinised Cymric peoples so entirely. And it's all compatible with the broad outline of the "myths", and scant historical documents of the time. One might argue that Magna Frisia was a later state than the end of Roman rule (in Britain), due to the historical attestation of it's Kings from a later period (600-734). But that does not take into account the very scant documentary evidence of this state and it's leaders. And tellingly, it's language not only exists to this day in the former territories of the state, but in it's very close sister language Old English, now morphed into Modern English, in evidence across the great majority of the British island . So I believe it is inescapable that Magna Frisia and it's internal tribal groupings (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Batavians, Tungrians, probably more) has a much older origin than the current history shows us. And was the true origin of the English people. So no, I have to say I don't believe this thesis holds water, when stacked against all the evidence which is out there, which I have touched on above. "If it quacks like a duck.." as the old saying goes...

@davidsoulsby1102

14 күн бұрын

I remember as a child in the 70s, a local tv station, Tyne Tees TV, so the North East, doing a piece on the links between the then Friesland dialect and what is commonly called Geordie. Why I remember it, because they had a local Friesan say a few sentences in his language and I could understand the basic gist of what he said. Moving and milking his cows.... There were no hints he was a farmer, most words were similar but not the same and many I had no idea. Yet I could still get the gist. Who needs Bede to tell us there is or isn't a link when a 10 year old can see so clearly. Maybe today a child wouldn't get it as the Geordie dialect is not used anywhere as much as in the 70s, it's all text, London/West Indian patwa and "International" speech...... "you get me"....😅

Great video. I don't think Susan Oosthuizen's position is a particularly radical or new take, in that many scholars, particularly in archaeology, have been arguing against a large-scale migration since at least the 1990s, with some going as far as to say there was no significant migration whatsoever. Perhaps most notorious example being Francis Pryor (Britain AD). As (initially quite flawed) modern-pop DNA studies started coming through in the 2000s there was a lot of cherry-picking of evidence by both camps; we argued the truth was always somewhere in between, especially in the Midlands, which often gets left out of the argument, but in which a complex mixture of Romano-British and European migrants was always pretty irrefutable. Personally pleased to see the new, far more robust archaeo-DNA Max Planck Institute meta-analysis shows that both extreme camps are wrong - that the Anglo-Saxon cultural complex was formed as a complex mixture of both post-Roman Britons AND a substantial but gradual migration mainly from Northern Europe, that was itself diverse, and had diverse impacts, such that the makeup of communities varied hugely from site to site, and region to region. So at a high level the truth is "in between" but everyone's preferred version is probably true /for somewhere/ within that heterogeneity. Really fascinating individual cases buried within there too - including identified family-trees within cemeteries, in which first generation is of individuals wholly British or Northern European, and next generations mixed; plus surprising examples like a female burial in Kent who turned out to be wholly of East African genetics yet was buried with a rich array of fully culturally 'Anglo-Saxon' grave goods. The tussle over the Anglo-Saxon migration has, at various times, been pretty ugly over the years so mainly I'm thrilled we're getting towards the matter being settled and we can all move on.

@janebaker966

Жыл бұрын

Interesting about the African lady. From that analysis of teeth they do I know that they've found a lot of the people buried around the Stonehenge area,Amesbury all that area they were born in France,Belgium or some other place in western Europe. But of course its quite hard for minds now to contemplate that the land mass wasn't this country and that country then,as we know them now. But human nature being what it is I bet there were still regulations and rules of some sort relating to travel but only if a local magnate or king had the power to enforce such.

@RichardBrown7k

Жыл бұрын

There would never have been any single ingenious genetic population of Britain. Britain was repopulated after the end of the last Ice Age, the new population were Nomadic Mesolithic hunter-gathers coming via the richer pickings of Doggerland before it sank into the ocean (as would also be the case on the other side of the North Sea). There would always have been constant further small-scale movements of people both ways, but this would have increased significantly from the start of the Bronze Age when clinker-built ships would be available. The new arrivals in the east would have been from North Sea Coast countries and in the east from what is now France and Spain. Thus, for a period of about 1500 years until the Roman withdrawal the eastern population would have acquired a large portion of (very loosely speaking) ‘Germanic’ genes and those in the West ‘Celtic’ ones, (which would have continued and perhaps increased over the next 1500 years up to the present day). So a bias of towards ‘Germanic’ DNA in the East is only to be expected. And oversimplification of course because they would have been inter-British movements of people, although as travel by river would be far easier over land and mountains the suggested bias would apply. Therefore I respectfully suggest that the doctrine that ‘Anglo-Saxon genes’ came from a brief and very small movement of people in the 5th century AD should be treated with caution. On the matter of the origins of the English language, it may be more controversial but there have been suggestions a proto-English was spoken in at least parts of Britain before the Roman ‘withdrawal’, particularly by Stephen Oppenheimer (The Origins of the British). English is very similar to Frisian#; apart from Germanic auxiliaries in the Roman Legions, there are legends of Frissian Migration to the Saxon Shore (East Coast) following constant flooding and coastal submersion of their homeland in the third of fourth centuries AD, and Belgae tribes are known to have settled in southern Britain a century or so before the time of Julius Caesar. # I don’t claim this is significant to the matter, but my father maintained that when he was a boy in Yorkshire in the 1910’s there were still some elderly people who spoke an English dialect ‘that could be understood in Denmark’.

@antonyreyn

Жыл бұрын

Hi where was the East African burial in Kent? Never heard of it very interesting

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE7447 Updown Cemetery :)

@bernicia-sc2iw

Жыл бұрын

@@RichardBrown7k Massive population movements happened in Britain before the Bronze Age . Farmers almost completely replaced the hunter gatherers in the Neolithic , then the Bell Beakers arrived and largely outproduced those people. Genetically , the people of the British Isles are basically watered down Beaker people . Oppenheimer in his book was wrong about everything unfortunately.

Thanks for this, Alex. Genetic studies are presenting fascinating new data to add to the discussion.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

And one I hope to add shortly!

This is great content. Makes you think out of the box. Hope we can soon get to the core of it. My personal hypothesis is that the angles jutes frisians and saxons did arrived although not in great numbers more like family tribes of ex federati soldiers that established in Britain in the rural areas and transmitted their language and customs culturally changing the Romano Celtic people gradually. Kinda like the Hittites in the Hattian land of what is now Turkey. Even Turks are not genetically steppe nomads and genetically remained their indigenous DNA since bronze age.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

It is interesting but I will do a follow up video on the genetic information that we have! Glad you enjoyed it!

This is a fascinating video and I think we need works that put forward radical arguments to nurture debate and challenge views that are accepted as fact but are actually based on dubious historical sources such as those of Bede. (Although I have heard several of the arguments made by Oosthuizen before so not entirely radical and I would not discount Bede as entirely without value). What came into my mind when listening to the part about Old English developing from Frisian in the context of a trade language is that, if true, Oosthuizen might have actually proved the English are a 'nation of shopkeepers'! Thank you for the great videos.

I like the video very much. 👍 I think you should do more videos like this where you review or recommend books. Regards

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I'll have a go! It was interesting enough for me to want to share it! Hmm I'll have to think of other books I could do!

@marijaokic2427

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK Looking forward to it.☺

An excellent video. The debate goes on until we can arrive as close as we can to the truth of it.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, I don't doubt that there were people who migrated into the British isles, but they weren't the same Anglo-Saxons who lived at the time of Alfred, all the same Anglo-Saxons who fought at Hastings. Things always change and develop and The brilliant thing is we're learning more about British history as we go. The most difficult thing for me is when people see the history that they learnt at school or in books a decade, two decades three decades ago, cannot be updated or added to what we know now. The resistance of experienced has definitely surprised me somewhat. I know I was being a bit controversial but the way people are responded is quite different to what I was expecting.

@bernicia-sc2iw

Жыл бұрын

Sort of , but those that denied an Anglo-Saxon folk movement was responsible for cultural , linguistic and genetic changes in England have been shown to be wrong. Not their fault entirely - they were following the accepted archaeological doctrine of the time ( 'pots are not people' ) and wouid still be today if wasn't for the revolutionary progress made via ancient DNA analysis .

One of the surprising things is the lack of celtic origin of place names in England. One assumption was that the AngloSaxons simply wiped out all memory of their predecessors, maybe through total annihilation of the populations. That seems unlikely, because even invaders tend to use local place names. What is more likely is that the east of Britain was already inhabited by germanic speaking peoples, and the more numerous germanic migrants after the fall of the Roman control of Britain, found the names familiar and carried them forward with minimal change. I don't know of any specific evidence of this, but the North Sea was clearly easy to cross before and during Roman occupation, so why not?

@AlexIlesUK

Ай бұрын

I've tried to cover this topic in a number of series on the channel. Have a look at the Anglo-Saxons genetics one

According to the latest study from September last year, I think this theory has been disproven by the new DNA evidence. That study and others before it shows a population replacement of up to 75% in the classical Anglo-Saxon heartlands.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Aye I'm going to do a video on that. I don't agree with her conclusions but I like the challenge to the acceptance of the stories in Bede and Gildas. It's important that we don't just accept old stories and instead challenge them and get a full picture of what actually was happening.

@Fellwinter

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK Cool I will watch it. Keep up the good job.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@jf330

Жыл бұрын

The new theory blows the old out the water. There was a a substantial influx of Northern European Anglo Saxons into what is now England and the generic evidence proves this, enough said.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

@@jf330 did you read the above comment?!?

There are certain people's last names that are linked to the Angelo Saxons

@Lamellbranch00

Жыл бұрын

I found some information on it but it had a limit I'm trying to go beyond that limit can you find anything other than what everybody else seen I can't describe it but the more I look into it I'm trying to go down the rabbit hole in reverse starting from last name backwards

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I understand. While I don't agree with her arguement, I expect she's just trying to find a different origin for the English and therefore you would still have names that we call Anglo-Saxon as the English would have evolved from this group that was called Anglo-Saxon under the time of Alfred. There is some good research to be done in place names, research, but individual names are a little bit more complex and as you say can be a real minefield to navigate and understand.

@NorvelCooksey

Жыл бұрын

Thank you.

@antonyreyn

Жыл бұрын

Most people didn’t have a Surname until the 1500s so way after the migration period. Ps my Name is Germanic but does that mean i am? My Dna result 60% Germanic 30% celtic . Cheers from Mercia

Did the picts exist? Did the keltss exist? Bede wrote of Anglo Saxons jutes and other peoples driving out and slaughtering Romano Britons was he lying? And the dna blood groups of the Anglo Saxons is most common in eastern England.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Hi Wayne, So the Picts are an identity the Romans created for the peoples north of the wall, that Bede uses to describe the people up there (likely to reinforce the Roman nature of his Catholic nature, versus the people up there, we don't know what they called themselves). Celts don't exist as it's a blanket term used by the Greeks for all the peoples North and West of them, not even the Romans used it - they create new geographic boundaries. Bede uses Gildas who says there was killing and driving out, but we don't know how much is biblical allegory comparing his times to the old testament (as he was a Christian monk) and how much is actually history as we don't have the Archeological evidence to suggest genocide. The migration is something that happened and I'm not denying that, it's a book review and I find what she says interesting as it's useful to think about these ideas, but the evidence does show there is a mixing of people. Hope that helps :)

‘Don’t trust ancient sources they had an agenda’ ie bede then proceeds to cite an ancient source about the Celtic origins of Wessex…. Umm

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Bede is not the source, modern study is the reference I'm talking about - projects.arch.ox.ac.uk/wessex.html It's good to be critical of ancient sources. Anyhow I hope you enjoyed the rest.

@antonyreyn

Жыл бұрын

I did enjoy the video and will now subscribe, but I wasn’t talking about you just experts in general cherry picking sources as valid. Cheers

@antonyreyn

Жыл бұрын

I was comparing her analysis of Bedes Northumbrian history to the analysis of the Celtic names of Wessex both from ancient sources with modern interpretations.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

@@antonyreyn ah got you! I sometimes struggle to remember each video and the sources so I can't always remember each one. Glad you enjoyed it.

@antonyreyn

Жыл бұрын

Yeh i always like my comments and yours or anyone else because it helps with the Algorithm doesn’t it? Cheers

You've achieved a first - a YT video gets me to buy a book 🤣

@AlexIlesUK

5 ай бұрын

Let there be many more! I love books and need new bookshelves but bookshelves are expensive!!

FInally looking back to the book of Taliesin and 'Ludds conversation ' poem, described as "deliberately vague" by williams and Lewis. ' The Cymry making war on slaves. I worry I wonder what their course will be. The Briton who, in Wessex .. rose up in triumph.'

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Read

Cool jumper 😎

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Thank you

Summing up, Myres believed that: It is thus possible ... to think of Cerdic as the head of a partly British noble family with extensive territorial interests at the western end of the Litus Saxonicum. As such he may well have been entrusted in the last days of Roman, or sub-Roman authority with its defence. He would then be what in later Anglo-Saxon terminology could be described as an ealdorman ... If such a dominant native family as that of Cerdic had already developed blood-relationships with existing Saxon and Jutish settlers at this end of the Saxon Shore, it could very well be tempted, once effective Roman authority had faded, to go further. It might have taken matters into its own hands and after eliminating any surviving pockets of resistance by competing British chieftains, such as the mysterious Natanleod of annal 508, it could 'begin to reign' without recognizing in future any superior authority.[21]

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

read

Very interesting. I read that book a while ago and found it very plausible. What are the chances the Belgae and other southern tribes already spoke a Germanic language a opposed to Brythonic? Even if we accept the most recent DNA studies that support a mass migration we are still only talking about a couple of hundred thousand? into a population of 2 million? over several decades? Doesn't really explain the language shift for me. But her idea many were already speaking Friesian made sense.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I am not sure if they put numbers on it, the 2019 study suggests quite a long term migration over centuries, and quiet a lot of people during that time but it's always complex isn't it! I can't comment on the language as I've not read enough on that.

@tonysullivan8701

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK I’ve read a number of different estimates for both the migration and indigenous population. I think Cunliffe estimated 20% in south and east. Complicated by one study suggesting a 10% elite could contribute many times more within 5 generations. Plus difficult to tell difference with later Vikings. What seems certain is there was a significant amount of migration but also a significant amount of continuation of population and land use. I looked at what was happening in fifth century Gaul. Some people becoming disillusioned with Roman corruption an£ high taxes. Preferring barbarians rule. Plus changes in cultural identity. I feel there’s a few bits of the puzzle we lack.

@tonysullivan8701

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK I did try to estimate the numbers based on an average of various models. And a couple of boats a week for a hundred years would move 300,000 people (compared to 80,000 vandals and others who moved en masse, or 200,000 visigoths). That’s not a massive change. But on the other hand William the conqueror only had a few thousand and that changed history dramatically. Quite possible there were a variety of events occurring across several decades. Elite Takeovers, assimilation and the odd local invasion.

@janebaker966

Жыл бұрын

Most of the people buried around Stonehenge/Amesbury area where they ve been able to do those tests on the teeth they found were born and grew up in France,belgium etc on the continent so there was always a lot of movement of people and a Europe wide culture. And not the "nations" we now think of ourselves,no England,France,etc. I do get that it wasnt one big sweeping influx of people in one go centuries later but these reinterpretations of history always have a contemporary political relevance.

She makes great points. The Anglo-Saxon Invasion was to me just the continuation of the earlier Gothic invasions into Europe from a similar area surrounding the Baltic Sea. But with Goths they took the line of least resistance East to the Black Sea. The Angles Saxons and Jutes headed West knowing that Step Nomads were ever present to the East of them. The same culture continued into the Americas. Once the fertile valleys of East Coast America were filled with settlers they quickly grew restless and formed long WAGON TRAINS into new horizons. I have noticed family associations (Thank you Mormons for recording these connections) Here is a Family closely related to mine. Culmstock from a river in Devon, migrated to America, married into a half Indian (Uncas) family and went West to Fort William Henry (Met Montclam there) Now their name was Comstock. They became land traders and were fighting at the Wyoming Massacre. Their little Native Child was called Cornstock. They went onto become Buffalo hide traders (Google Buffalo Bill Comstock) Some went onto the frontier to discover the Comstock Lode Silver Mine. Always on the Fridges of Civilization they were rugged men.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

While it's a interesting book to read to get you to think, it's been disproven a lot since it was published. As for your American parallels I don't know enough to comment.

...so a new language, a new culture and a new people. Right.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

That's the traditional view of the Adventus - the Anglo-Saxons come in bringing a new culture, language and people. I don't agree with Susan Oosthuizen but think her idea are good to shake up the study because people just accept the Adventus when the Archeology is a lot more complicated.

This question is unthinkable without both the Norman Conquest and the lack of teaching in English schools today about the deep origin of the English nation. Tacitus records us in 98AD. The argument in the video is neat and elegant. I liked it. A few years ago I met my 'twin', Brian. He was from Esbjerg in Jutland! An extra feature of this argument has to be genetics. The genetic map of Jutland today may reflect the Danes overunning Jutland, so that today's genetic profile there is not what it was in 450AD. This has implications for using DNA mapping in Britain to build an English settlement story. It could support the theory, in that Danish DNA from Jutland in 850AD could look 'western germanic' when mapping English genetics today.

@AlexIlesUK

Ай бұрын

Have a look at the Anglo-Saxon aDNA episode. I think you'll enjoy it!

I think the genetic evidence is pretty conclusive for an arrival of Germanic peoples into the UK, but that probably began of course before the collapse of the Imperial Roman administration in Britannia, and certainly after when mercenary units were employed by the local Romano-British rulers. The current DNA evidence in the UK indicates the greatest Germanic influence was in the eastern side of the country, weakening as it moves west. I myself have Irish, Scottish and English blood in almost equal measure, with 5% Norse thrown in for added spice. That is not uncommon in the UK, only the percentages will tend to differ. Romano-British life did not end in Britain until at least the 6th century in the west. The Battle of Deorham in 577 AD signified the death rattle of Roman Britain. After the battle, the significant cities of Bath, Cirencester and Gloucester fell, and the Saxons reached the western sea. Recently there has been some incredible news from Chedworth Roman Villa in Gloucestershire, which was constructed around 120 AD. During on-going excavations at the site in 2017, a mosaic that was previously believed to date from the fourth century has now been radiocarbon-dated to around 100 years later, 450 - 480AD, well after the generally accepted end of direct Roman administration. In fact, over half of the coins found at Chedworth date from the mid-late 6th century, clearly indicating Romano-British occupation well into the Anglo-Saxon expansion period. That would tie-in with the famous Romano-British victory at the Battle of Badon around 500 AD, which held back the Saxon advance in the west for at least fifty years.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

It's a amazing period and one I'm really passionate about studying and brining together the information and data on!!

As one of mixed ancestry both welsh and English I suggest a deep dive in to western British sources .. evidence from Ireland THE annals of ulster examination of family trees of Ireland and Scotland and Bernicia /Northumberland starting with Nial of the nine hostages of Ireland .. who's mother was purported to be an Anglo Saxon. often disputed as contemporary

@drewsmith8154

Жыл бұрын

sectarian expediency.. in my opinion this would not sit well with an Anglo Saxon being a progenitor to the Irish Kings.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Hi Drew, I have looked through all your comments and get your understanding. I find Myers a bit out of date and find theres a lot more up to date sources, I have read what you have said though and would like to cover many of the sources you have refrenced in the future.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I have had to write 'read' or youtube will show me all your comments forever! and I wont see new ones

Yes. The Anglo-Saxons created England. The English ethnicity, language, culture, laws, literature, surnames and place-names, all have Anglo-Saxon Germanic roots.

@AlexIlesUK

8 ай бұрын

Did the Anglo-Saxons create England or did the Danes give the kingdom of Wessex a chance to expand and create England?

@Mercian-Lad

8 ай бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK a chance? The Danes are the reason Wessex had to fight and ultimately unite the heptarchy.. Wessex achieved that.

The map behind you shows the border between the Picts and the Britons to be around Hadrians Wall. This is wrong. The actual border was roughly just north of a line between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Well it depends, as the Romans called the peoples up there 'Picts' they could be refering to everyone north of the wall. It's only in the Early Mediaeval period we start seeing 'Pictish' kingdoms. The lines are all wrong anyway as the power of these groups and there they had influence was in constant flux!

So during the 5th century all most of the people in the South and East of what is now called England completely abandoned their own language, culture and religion, deciding to become someone else... To support this thesis there would have to be an enormous amount that simply isn't there. One fact: children learn language at their mother's knee. Ergo, in the relevant period most mothers spoke Old English.She maintains they somehow picked it up from Frisian traders. Evidence? None

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I'd suggest reading the book, I don't agree with her but it's interesting to see her argument.

@ConradAinger

Жыл бұрын

@Alex Iles You summarised her argument very well. I am a history graduate , and familiar with social reductivism. I do enjoy your output by the way. The last one I watched was about the Great Barbarian Conspiracy. ( The author we are talking about would doubtless see it as a social construct...)

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! The evidence for the conspiracy is just documents so people try to find evidence for it and it's hard to prove! That's why people can discount it or say it didn't happen!

@ConradAinger

Жыл бұрын

@Alex Iles Yes indeed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think it is true to say that there is no archaeological evidence for the Battle of Hastings...

@kev3d

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I don't buy it. Why would Wessex, Sussex, Essex, and Middlesex being so named unless they were largely peopled with, and probably dominated by, Saxons? And the same thing with the Angles in, appropriately, Anglia. While migration patterns are difficult to know with precision, I can't imagine a bunch of post-Roman Britons just decided to integrate a Germanic language and use certain Germanic place names because of coastal contact with Continental traders.

a good starting point for exploring these issues is Gaelic speaking Alistair Moffats The Sea Kingdoms: The History of Celtic Britain & Ireland Alistair Moffat

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Oh Moffat is an interesting author!

Although I don't agree that the Anglo-saxons never existed There is some really interesting info in this video. It does make Sence from a linguistic point of view why people in western Britain didn't adopt the language (or languages) of the Germanic world. if they were mainly trading with the Roman world then using a language other than Romanised brithonic or Latin wouldn't be of much use which is probably why the last brithonic languages (Welsh,Cornish,cumbric) are all from the western side of the island. It also makes Sence why people in the eastern areas of what would become England (The north east, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire,East Anglia etc) seem to be the most Germanic linguistically

Personally, I don't buy it. I've studied linguistics at University and language acquisition on a national scale doesn't come from trade contact. Usually, the adoption of a new language is influenced by mass-scale contact. In my opinion the AS have been in Britain from as early as 4th C. There is evidence, especially along Hadrian's wall, that by late 4th C., where the Germanic mercenaries operated, there was already far less order originally inherited from Rome. Minor tribes and Germanic elites begin to emerge, with own laws and values. When Romans leave completely, the whole of Britiain is up for grabs, and the already pre-established Germanic elites send for their families. That leads to a migration of elites (large-scale 'invasion' likely doesn't happen, because there's no need for one). Those elites then establish a new rule, and with a new rule you get the assimilation of local, native people, who over time adopt the new language, culture or way of living. This is the only way to explain why Old English became so widespread, or why there are artefacts found across Britain that align with early Germanic heritage. There needs to be external influence that slowly develops into an internal evolution. As there was in Kievan Rus - where local Slavic population drew inspiration from their new authority. Or in Normandy, where there was a heavy Scandinavian influence on language, culture etc. The only way to explain the AS emergence phenomenon is to accept that settlers had a big impact on the native population of Britain. But it also worked both ways - if we dissect the AS art or artefacts, we will notice craftsmanship that contains British nuances. What I can agree with, however, is that for a language adoption to become widespread, the local population must be driven to reject their original tongue, for one reason or another. This is where the point about 'rejecting the Roman and looking towards East as inspiration/authority' makes a lot of sense - the language displacement becomes rapid and natural. Going back to my point about Kievan Rus: tthere is evidence that within 2 generations after Scandinavians settled Ukraine, the Norse language was completely erased, and even those Scandinavian elites adopted local Slavic language, while the cultural or religious Norse influence was carried through centuries. Evidently, there was no need for long-term adoption of Norse. This is the opposite of what happens in Britiain, where these small waves of Saxon elites settle across Britain, over centuries, probably until 600AD. With more newcomers, there is even greater pressure to embrace their language for basic communication. In Kievan Rus, this probably doesn't occur because these waves of Scandinavians stop. There is an initial 'invasion' in the early 9th C. and then nothing after, allowing Slavic to prevail. To add to this, ascribing the emergence of 'Englishness' strictly to pressures caused by the Viking Age is outright silly. There are vast manuscripts pre-Viking Age which demonstrate the pride of the 'Anglecynn'. Heck, even Beowulf, an 8th C. poem, harks back to that Germanic heritage and semi-fictional events that were carried orally through generations of AS settlers. The coming of the English people described by Bede isn't a fictional spin aimed at creating a lineage, or proving a point. They are memories, carried through generations via tradition. If Bede was to create a 'mythological story' to spin this narrative, why would he bother shamefully explaining how the original AS were pagan, and that he's embarrassed of this fact. It does seem as though Bede, focused on historical accuracy rather than an agenda, gives a true account of what happened in the centuries before him. These tales of Cedric and Cyndric are carried through history because AS people were infatuated with heroic tradition. To them, these heroic ancestors, as with Beowulf, were admired, and that's it. I doubt these characters were made up to create a Dynastic myth.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I think I would agree with most of your points, but would say that Alfred and his dynasty were working to create a united English identity for their campaigns and the benfit of Wessex and its expansion. I think to put some of the 7th and 8th century litriture on the 5th and 6th century is a bit complex as heroic naritives can develop without a connection to the reality of previous periods, you just have to look at Edward I's focus on Arthur when he was a Plantagenet and not connected to the 6th century semi-historical figure of Arthur.

@benfisher1376

11 ай бұрын

Exactly. I guess all those documents are lies and propaganda.😂

@AlexIlesUK

11 ай бұрын

@@benfisher1376 Helping to fill up my bingo-card of phrases commonly used on this video today :)

I still belief that more research is warranted as I strongly belief that Frisians had much more influence than what historians and scollers think. The Frisian language being nearly the same as old English is not by chance or only through trade, there has to be much more to it, for it to become the dominant language at that time and even today still are the closed in language. If Britton was settled by Anglo Saxons would that language not be identical which clearly is not the case. I think the whole story of settlement in Britton is incorrect and it is time to make some corrections.

@user-wu4ss3dq1b

2 ай бұрын

The people who inhabited the area between Jutland and Friesland all spoke the same language but in different dialects so whether or not the Frisians left much influence on the English, the language would be similar either way. In Lower Saxony (the homeland of the Saxons) the local language, low Saxon, is also very close to Old and Modern English.

Question is what did they call themselves? Were they a mix of Romanised Germans and incoming Germanic,Gothic,Frank's and Heruls.I,m aware some academics have an anti Saxon bias and some even see the term as offensive.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

It's a really good question. I often think they may have called themselves Roman! Bet that would put the cat among the pigeons for some academic debates!!

@Anon1gh3

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUKThey called themselves Anglish or 'Ænglisċ'. It was in seventeenth century Victorian England, long after we started calling ourselves 'English' that we also referred to ourselves as Anglo-Saxon. This was due to the boom in literacy and thus knowledge of our history at the height of the British Empire. The Anglish at the time never called themselves 'Anglo-Saxons', even though they were in fact descended from Angles and Saxons (and Britons). Genetic mapping shows modern English are of ~60% Celtic descent and ~40% Germanic, but the genes themselves are more or less identical. I hope that elucidates part of the reason the term is considered contraversial - it came into use during the British Empire's reign/the Late Enlightenment Era.

@Ganymede559

8 ай бұрын

@@Anon1gh3 That is true. They called themselves Anglii, Angle, Aegle (diminutive for bull calf or ram iirc) or Ænglisċ, which is where you get the name Aethelstan from later on.

@AlexIlesUK

8 ай бұрын

No Athelstan means 'noble stone!'

@AlexIlesUK

8 ай бұрын

17th century Victorian England. I'll leave it there.

The Anglii exist to this day, which is why the Anglosphere is a thing.

@AlexIlesUK

8 ай бұрын

The Anglii, Anglo-Saxons and English are three different things.

Yes, but as two distinct but related tribes, until arriving in England.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I'm not even that certain that they that much of a developed identity before they migrated. More research is needed.

I think its partially true Oppenheimers dna analysis points to a cultural expansion whih i agree that came about through vast cohorts of germanicd stationed in Britain since 2nd century. Ad . The western britons welsh complained in poetry of poorly spoken welsh concurrs with this. Certainly though people came across the sea as seen with sutton hoo ship. Equally the craftamanship was gemeational poiting to a brithonic commission of the ornamental grave goods

@AlexIlesUK

10 ай бұрын

Sorry it's taken a while to respond. Yes and Gertzinger (2022) paper proves that there was a migration, but I don't think everyone just went - oh it's 409 AD, better get the ships ready we're Anglo-Saxons now! People have moved for centuries and I'm sure there was movement earlier and setting up connections.

yes yes they did.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

You didn't watch the episode did you?

@jonhstonk7998

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK doesnt really matter: the Anglo saxons existed and no ammount of ¨studies¨ patronized by a self loathing nd self hating country like the UK which seems hellbent on commiting cultural suicide will change that the Anglo Saxons existed: they were a migration and invasion by Saxons,Angles and Jutes and like in any other migration they invaded and later integrated with the people they invaded, saying they didnt existed for whatever reason is like saying the Indo-Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent didnt happened: nothing more then delusion.

Seems like a total rip of the essay "Were the Scots Irish?" by Professor Ewan Campbell

@AlexIlesUK

3 ай бұрын

While I've read it, that wasn't the inspiration for this episode

@tomhill4738

3 ай бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK It seems like Susan's inspiration for the book.

I really wish people would stop trying to rewrite history to suit a political agenda.

@AlexIlesUK

24 күн бұрын

It's a book review, disproved but a useful hypothesis

Tolkien was fighting this shit from the 'nobility', that's why he wrote his legendarium; as a mythology to replace the one the aristocracy had beaten out of them. If they aren't an ethnicity, then it isn't genocide seems to be the dark motive.

@AlexIlesUK

4 ай бұрын

Go watch my Anglo-Saxon DNA episode.

looking at Alaric who sacked Rome in 410 a.d This is a better documented period but may provide a mirror, of Continental issues affecting Britain and alluded to by Romano British such as in the book of Taliesin. Alaric was raised-to supply troops for the Roman army in exchange for peace, control of cultivatable land, and freedom from Roman direct administrative control.[11] Correspondingly, there was hardly a region along the Roman frontier during Alaric's day without Gothic slaves and servants of one form or another.[12] For several subsequent decades, many Goths like Alaric were "called up into regular units of the eastern field army" while others served as auxiliaries in campaigns led by Theodosius against the western usurpers Magnus Maximus and Eugenius.[13]

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

read

yes they did

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Watched the video?

@Gypsygeekfreak17

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK i know and i was giving an answer to the title yes they did

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

And I agree. They did

@Gypsygeekfreak17

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK they do exist

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Did - an identity from the late 8th through to the 10th century, which was replaced by English identity. Some people may describe themselves as Anglo-Saxon but they do not hold the same values, world view or opinions that those people did. Therefore the Anglo-Saxons existed. Past tense.

Ideology and politics is what her book is about. It's an effort to disrupt and dismantle.

@AlexIlesUK

4 ай бұрын

Have you read it?

sorry Alex . ' The Cymry making war on slaves. I worry I wonder what their course will be. The Briton who, in Wessex .. rose up in triumph.' J. N. L. Myres noted that when Cerdic and Cynric first appear in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in s.a. 495 they are described as ealdormen, which at that point in time was a fairly junior rank.[20] Myres remarks that: It is thus odd to find it used here to describe the leaders of what purports to be an independent band of invaders, whose origins and authority are not otherwise specified. It looks very much as if a hint is being conveyed that Cerdic and his people owed their standing to having been already concerned with administrative affairs under Roman authority on this part of the Saxon Shore. Furthermore, it is not until s.a. 519 that Cerdic and Cynric are recorded as "beginning to reign", suggesting that they ceased being dependent vassals or ealdormen and became independent kings in their own right.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

read

England litterly means Anglo land. The county of Sussex litterly means South Saxon. A 1100 year old document exists referring to King Alfred as King of the Anglo-Saxons

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Yes, Alfred who had a campaign of unification and started using the term Anglo-Saxon.... Interesting that isn't it. Can you find Anglo-Saxon in a earlier document? Or just Angle and Saxon? Was Alfred robbing them of their history by making a new Identity that enabled his dynasty to have a claim on more territory? It's a lot more complicated than people slow for.

@jim-es8qk

Жыл бұрын

​​@@AlexIlesUKAn earlier document? The document is nearly one thousand two hundred years old. How much earlier do you want?

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

5th century to 7th would be amazing!!

I think a better and less clickbait-y title would be "Was there a large scale Anglo-Saxon migration to England?" I think the almost complete language replacement is pretty good proof of a large-scale migration. You almost never get that with societies as advanced as Roman Britain without a conquest or large-scale migration or both. Also, you can explain cultural change without a migration but it seems very unlikely that British people would suddenly start referring to themselves as Angles and Saxons (and their neighbors referring to them by those names as well) because of trade and cultural spread. If you look at modern parallels Anglo-American popular media, science, law, and other elements of culture have a lot of people in places that were never conquered or colonized by the US or UK using English to discuss these subjects and picking up slang, fashions, and random bits of material culture from the US and UK, but none of these people ever start referring to themselves and their people and countries as Americans or British. Likewise plenty of American kids get into anime and kawaii and start identifying with Japanese cultural values (as they perceive them), but they haven't started to refer to the US as Japan or its people as Japanese, nor do I expect they ever will.

@AlexIlesUK

4 ай бұрын

If I had done that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's ultimately a book review and I don't agree with the authoress. May I suggest you watch my Anglo-Saxon DNA episode?

The Uí Mhaine are among the ancient Irish dynasties still represented today among the recognized Irish nobility and Chiefs of the Name, by the O'Kelly of Gallagh and Tycooly, Prince of Uí Mhaine and Count of the Holy Roman Empire. Rome never had to invade Ireland they already ran it. Rome sill has a hold on Ireland to this day.

@smurf904

Жыл бұрын

The Uí Mhaine also ruled over Wales and the Brittons of Britttany too.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Interesting, I'll have to talk to @irishmedievalhistory about that.

Umm! No!

@AlexIlesUK

6 ай бұрын

Read the answers in the comment section. It's a book review.

@PortmanRd

6 ай бұрын

Still....No!!

@AlexIlesUK

6 ай бұрын

I think you may be missing the pint.

It's a well known fact that the majority of the population of England during and following the collapse of the Roman Empire were of Indian and Pakistani descent, until the Whyte Supreemazist Norman Klanzmen colonized the proto-Hindu peoples of Britain and forced their survivors on the March of the Thousand Tears across Euro-Asia to where they now reside in their modern states. Thank you Alex for doing your part to bring this oft forgotten history back into the spot-light.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I think you didn't watch the episode or understand it's a book review. Never mind.

@SonsofThunder1234

Жыл бұрын

Ridiculous. That people during and following the collapse of the Roman Empire were of Indian/Pakistani descent. Another fantasy of Indians/Pakistanis to assert their rights of living in Britain today. Not even skin colour of such people is suitable to North Western European climate. Even if Indians/Pakistanis did live in Britain during the Roman occupation, they were slaves of the Romans. Leave us be, please. Let us have something to call our own. Indians/Pakistanis have taken out major cities and have changed our culture. Please don't rob us of our history aswell.

I know they did, because they still exist. Charlemagne knew as well as he fought their king Wedukind and them for about 30 years.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Its a book review on a academics work, but theres two diffrent groups of Saxons - the Anglo-Saxons in modern day England and the Old Saxons in Germany.

@Fritz999

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK Now I have to go back again: Angels, Saxons, Frisian, etc. All related Germanic tribes that could understand each other and, more often than not, very much disagreed with each other.There was no Anglo-Saxon tribe, but two different and related tribes that, maybe obviously, when in Britain, worked and lived together, and perhaps appeared as one to the ones not in the know. The Angles were a rather small tribe, while the Saxons were a rather large tribe. Living in North-west Germany and what is now the Netherlands, and always under the threat of the Fränkisch tribes. Of course it worked the other way around too: Since the Saxons refused to accept Christianity, insisted on their freedom from Fränkisch rule and keeping their lands their own, they may have looked as competition and some real danger to the Fränkisch rulers.

We wuzz Vikings

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Try again. Try again really hard.

You're telling us all this in the, mainly in the Anglo Saxon tongue. Weird

@AlexIlesUK

Ай бұрын

Modern English is not the Anglo-Saxon tongue. Also it's a book review.

Very well put together argument! I think that the sheer ambiguity we have in the archaeological record even after all this time and all the work thats gone in makes an increasingly compelling argument for gradual and incremental changes, rather than seminal or calamitous events. When an invading army does come in later such as the great heathen army we can track all sorts from marching camps to cemeteries and many distinctive finds. The fact that no such evidence of Invading Saxon 'hordes' has shown up after all this time. Destruction layers/burnings/destroyed settlements do leave a very clear mark in the archaeology and we're simply not seeing any of it from this Post-Roman time period. That lends ever-increasing credence to the sort of gradual, intangible changes that occur in peoples thinking, beliefs, practices & languages - all the sort of stuff that doesn't leave a clear mark in the ground.

Good stuff. At least my Irish lot have always been Irish

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I'm going to look into it! I'm not sure anyone is just X :)

You portray this book as a challenge to the orthodoxy, that’s misleading, isn’t it? As David Crowther said in his review, the consensus she claimed to be challenging had disappeared by the 1970s. As someone who studied Anglo-Saxon history for a few weeks at university more than 30 years ago, that accords with my recollection. So why did the consensus change from one in which military invasion predominated to one in which gradual cultural change predominated? Let’s be clear. This is not about history. This is about modern politics. Academics are lefty types who strongly hold two views: 1. Nationalism is very troubling because it has led to horrible things so the very idea of distinct ethnic groups is bad. 2. Immigration is wonderful and only ever leads to good outcomes. Diversity is a strength and has no negative effects. So historical evidence is interpreted to de-emphasise the importance of ethnicity in history and to suggest that immigration is all about communities living side-by-side and enriching each other, rather than conflict. For instance, there were no Beaker people, it was just a pottery style! Germanic people who came over the North Sea following the end of the Roman Empire lived side-by-side with their Romano British neighbours, celebrating their diversity. Well, now we know, thanks to the geneticists, that this isn’t what happened. There were Beaker people and the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain virtually disappeared when they arrived. And the Anglo-Saxons did exist and Bede and Gildas were probably right. The idea that English originated as a trade language is self-evidently ridiculous as it has picked up virtually nothing from the Brittonic language spoken in Britain. There are only two ways that one language can entirely replace another like that. One is through displacement of the native population, as happened in North America. The other is through political domination, as happened in Ireland. Academics need to show some humility about how they have allowed modern politics to get in the way of the search for historical truth.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I don't think it's about politics, She saw a pattern while studying East Anglian early Medieval settlement, then applied it to the country. She was proven wrong. I feel what you're writing is more about politics as you've got a hypothesis you believe and veiling it as a counter argument to an argument that was never made.

Oh-ho! I sniff a contemporary political agenda here. I bet she's a Vegan too. Look for hundreds of years the narrative went ..waves of alien people came in boats,landed on Dover beach,spread inland and the romano-british culture diminished away and "we" became a whole different culture,complete culture change. All from them furriners landing on Dover beach. Centuries later a dozen or so of "us" landed at the coast of North America. The people already there were kind and helpful. A century or so later,a lot of them were dead and "us" had all the land and yee hah complete culture change. So the job of a woke academic is to change our perception of the lessons us Right Wing Bigots might take from History. Migration does not cause culture change or population displacement. I mean them Native Americans had already invented Cadillacs,we just never got told about it. William The Conqueror never sailed over in a fleet of ships and engaged in a punch up. He already had a nice little bungalow near Shoreham and all this guff about some guy called Harold Godwinson is Marvel comics stuff. Its about CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE. When things are getting sticky,razzle dazzle em. Throw glitter in their eyes and go into your dance. ie take control of the narrative and change it. Its political.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I don't think that's what she's saying, and I don't know her dietary requirements.

@janebaker966

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexIlesUK well yes she is,they are very subtle,as serpents. I'm not changing MY opinion for anyone.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Ok

@philipevenden2834

Жыл бұрын

@Jane Baker well said Jane. Hysterical. We must keep our minds open though and not closed like theirs. We have been amazing for the world. They need to do pieces of African advancements in relation. Can u imagine, that would be a scream

If it is the case that the house of Wessex and English kings have Brythonic origins further evidence ..may be ..the yellow dragon in ancient heraldry and as we all know Wales flag is a dragon. The chroniclers of Romano British western kingdoms ..Taliesin etc. perhaps would not obviously with the increasing continental Germanic hegemony of the east of Britain.

@drewsmith8154

Жыл бұрын

sorry .. i meant to say .. be comfortable with increasing continental/Germanic socio economic hegemony in eastern Britain

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Read

Without being over pedantic it should be remembered the 'Anglo-Saxons' would not have called themselves that. 'Saxon, Saxones' was a Latin term for essentially Germanian tribes North of the Rhine ie from outside of the Empire, and the Angles and Jutes were at most a loose confederation of smaller tribes, who all probably came to Britain in small mixed bands refer than as the kind of organized mass movements of peoples such as happened around the same period in Continental Europe. Indeed the very term Anglo-Saxon was more or less invented, or at least politised by Alfred the Great, who as you said was trying to unite the diverse Kingdoms of England to resist the invading Danes. and referred to all the people of England, not just those who claimed descent from a small elite of high status immigrants

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

That's right and a very good point to make :)

@Ganymede559

8 ай бұрын

They _did_ and still do call themselves that. Anglo comes from Anglii & Angle, which in-turn comes from the much older diminutive word Aegle for the Biblical English - the Tribe of Joseph, whom the English/Angles descend from. In other words: The biblical Tribe of Joseph were often compared characteristically, by the other tribes of the time, to an Aegle (diminutive for Bull Calf iirc) due to their stubborn character or hard-headed nature. This is where the word Angle is derived from, as well as the plural word Anglii. This in-turn is where the modern word Anglo comes from. The Ten Biblical Lost Tribes are in Europe. Anglo-Saxon Tribe of Joseph is still here but is often called the English. So in short, the answer to 'Did Anglo-Saxons exist?' is Yes, they did & still do.

The Anglo Saxons are a construct of historians for convenience The Angles, existed the Saxons, existed what happened to the Jutes, I don't know as the don't seem to get a look in.

Once I would have been opposed to this idea but not now. This makes total sense and I understand from other historians that there is no evidence of a saxon invasion. It seems to me we are witnessing a collapse of England which is very similar to the collapse of Rome.

@AlexIlesUK

11 ай бұрын

The theory has been disproven but it's important not to believe that the Anglo-Saxons came to the British isles fully formed as a people but instead developed and changed over here to become the people we can recognise historically.

Yeah right .Jesus of Nazereth never existed either. Some Greeks in the ancient Mediterannean invented him because many subjects of the Roman Empire wanted to worship a man, but did not want to keep worshipping the Roman Emperors as gods because the Romans treated them rotten. The disgruntled writers of the Gospels also claimed that this fictious Jesus had been executed for sedition by the Romans. This made him all the more popular as a god-man figure with the disgruntled masses of Roman subjects, who were in a pretty seditious mood themselves. Also, the inventors of the Jesus cult wanted to cash in on the popularity of Judaism while modifying it to enable non Jews to avoid undergoing the painful circumcision ritual, the complicated koosher rules that forbade them from eating their favorite foods. A sort of Judaism light that would spread like wildfire. This idiotic theory is even more popular with the publish-or-perish professors and the Ph,D thesis writers desperate for a new angle than Dr, Oosthuizen's nonsense. But her absurd narrative is cut from the same cloth.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I think she was well meaning and the fens in East Anglia is cut off and does seem to have some continuation, The problem was she put her theory onto the whole county. It doesn't work then. I've never come across that theory about Jesus but heck I can see some academics loving it for upsetting people

If the Anglo-Saxons did not exist, why are you speaking English?

@AlexIlesUK

3 ай бұрын

One, I don't believe they didn't exist, this is a book review. Two, how many cultures speak English even when they are not English. The Welsh, Scots and Irish could be good examples without traveling out of Europe!

@ConradAinger

3 ай бұрын

@AlexIlesUK I accept your point about your video being a book review. As for the Welsh, the Scots, the Irish and others who are not English speaking English, they have come to do so, obviously, because the English have spoken it. No Anglo-Saxon settlement, no English.

@AlexIlesUK

3 ай бұрын

@ConradAinger that's the complex part, English develops because of the events of history - the English and the Anglo-Saxons are two different cultures. English culture develops under the Plantagenet kings, not under the Anglo-Saxons, and English that we can recognise as the English language such as Chauser's is influenced by Norman french, so could you argue, no Normans no English? The Anglo-Saxon migrations do not automatically create English or England. Does that make sense?

@ConradAinger

3 ай бұрын

@AlexIlesUK It makes sense, but I don't find it at all persuasive. English culture developed, I would say, in the 6th and 7th centuries. That is why Bede/Baeda begins his book (as I am sure you know ) with 'We English are...' Though my own degree is in Modern History (I graduated in 22), I've had a strong interest in the period we are discussing. So I familiar with the theory in the book you were reviewing. Have to say, I find it preposterous!

@AlexIlesUK

3 ай бұрын

I don't agree with it but I find it useful to sometimes step back and think about how things developed. Also the foundation myths we can accept. I personally think there's a far stronger British element to the Anglo-Saxons than some are willing to accept, on the other side simply saying that the Anglo-Saxon developed as a culture is wrong. Just to check, and I'm away from my books but I believed he was referring to the Anglian rather than the English. I believe it's Alfred's dynasty who really pushes the Anglo-Saxons identity. Ultimately it's made difficult because people assign cultural names to genetic groups and then it gets entrenched rather than trying to get into the period and really understand how people lived and what they may have thought then! So In summary, I'm not throwing out the idea of the Anglo-Saxons, but personally frustrated as it can be used to describe items, genetics and culture when they can mean very different things! I like Susan Oosthuizen argument about IKEA furniture - would that show that there was a massive migration of Swedish people into the British isles if we found it Archeologically? Obviously not and she jumped the gun on the genetics, but things need to be understood as a whole. Hope that makes sense!

This Means War.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

It's a book review, read the book and see what you think.

I came to bring War and to divide families---Gospel of Matthew 👉🏻Jesus the Jew Prophecy fulfilled---Whether he existed or not

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure how this is relevant?

A few weeks ago I was horrified to see an official notice from the British Museum use the phrase "porky pie" to mean a lie. I gave them feedback and they responded. They felt that because they were English and Upper Class whatever they wanted to say was alright. I confronted them with 350 million Americans who know nothing good about English food and I found the use of the phrase to be "base" and "lower class." which offended the British Museum. The phrase was as parochial as gangster slang and was quite offensive to Americans, who have a firm idea of what "the King's English" should include and exclude. And it doesn't include pork pies. Or Spanners, Bonnets, Boots or Paraphene (that last one is positively dangerous: I haven't figured out if Paraphene is kerosene or naphtha because American translates it as paraffin, a wax, and Hebrew translates it as naphtha, an explosive.) Your lecture shed some light on the Upper Class British Gang Bangers that the British Museum seems full of: They view themselves as Britons (Their museum is named for a people they conquered) and they view the Americans as if they were invading Anglo-Saxons. They might be right. There isn't much to recommend English culture over the American version. The British Museum called me arrogant. I called them Gangsters. I expect that all Communication from them is to be in the King's English. You don't have any trouble using the King's English, I notice.

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

What are you on about?

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

It's a book review.

@RichardBrown7k

Жыл бұрын

Porky Pie is Cockney rhyming slang, because it rhymes with lie, it goes back to Victorian days, and is a very well know phrase in British English; only you just say 'porky' and omit the rhyming word if you don't want to sound like a tourist.

We exist. Anglo-Saxon, aka, Angelcynn, aka Englishman

@AlexIlesUK

Ай бұрын

Did you watch the episode? Also I suggested watching my episode on Anglo-Saxon DNA

looking at British sources ..The book of Taliesin often there is complaints of .. being ruled by slaves.. a clear pointer to Romano British economic elite. and this hierarchy, obviously more resilient in the west, particularly in the house of Gwynedd.. Equally in the book of Taliesin; there are mentions of those who speak.. good.. welsh. On the subject of the house of Wessex being rooted in Celtic or Brythonic. In the 'deliberately vague' short poem on Ludds conversation ' The Cymry making war on slaves. I worry I wonder what their course will be. The Briton who, in Wessex .. rose up in triumph.' it

@AlexIlesUK

Жыл бұрын

Hi Drew, it seems what you were typing was cut offm