Why did The Anglo Saxons Migrate to Britain?
video description
Date: 2023-12-16
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 29
-leehallam9365
I think it is foolish to dismiss Gildas and Bede, and much of the motivation for doing that has come from archaeologists who because they couldn't find evidence for battles, have dismissed the idea of conquest or mass migration in favour of the voluntary adoption of Anglo Saxan language and culture by celts from a small group of high status migrants. That never really stacked up with the evidence of language, religion and culture, and DNA has now shown that there was a mass migration. I don't think there was a mass conquest, but I do think there were armed invasions, a degree of local rulers using them as mercenaries who wouldn't go away followed by more peaceful migration into areas under germanic control. Bit by bit the country was taken over and within each area celts either were enslaved, intermarried or conformed to new rulers, though many moved ahead of the slow invasion, which is why Brittany exists. The video didn't try to hard to explain why they left their homelands, is their evidence of flooding at that time? What we do know for example is the Jutes were under pressure from Scandinavians as the Jutes are not the same people as the later Danes.
reply
I think it is foolish to dismiss Gildas and Bede, and much of the motivation for doing that has come from archaeologists who because they couldn't find evidence for battles, have dismissed the idea of conquest or mass migration in favour of the voluntary adoption of Anglo Saxan language and culture by celts from a small group of high status migrants. That never really stacked up with the evidence of language, religion and culture, and DNA has now shown that there was a mass migration. I don't think there was a mass conquest, but I do think there were armed invasions, a degree of local rulers using them as mercenaries who wouldn't go away followed by more peaceful migration into areas under germanic control. Bit by bit the country was taken over and within each area celts either were enslaved, intermarried or conformed to new rulers, though many moved ahead of the slow invasion, which is why Brittany exists. The video didn't try to hard to explain why they left their homelands, is their evidence of flooding at that time? What we do know for example is the Jutes were under pressure from Scandinavians as the Jutes are not the same people as the later Danes.
reply
-Jeudaos
The INCREDIBLY ironic thing about this. Is that I just recently found out about a new 'historical' theory called: Anti-normanism. Which basically says that the anglo-saxon and the Kieven Rus migration of the Norseman and german people either never happened. Or was never NEARLY as impactful on the place that they migrated too. As current history suggest. It's essentially an 'anti-nazi, anti-scandinavian/german' historical migration theory. Which is incredibly interesting sense this video suggest that the celts of the english isl did in fact invite the anglo-saxons to help against the picts. and then settled there. Same as that the archeological evidence suggest that the local slavic population invited the norseman to settle the Kieven Rus because the norseman were better suited to rule than the local slavic population were able to to for themselves.
reply
The INCREDIBLY ironic thing about this. Is that I just recently found out about a new 'historical' theory called: Anti-normanism. Which basically says that the anglo-saxon and the Kieven Rus migration of the Norseman and german people either never happened. Or was never NEARLY as impactful on the place that they migrated too. As current history suggest. It's essentially an 'anti-nazi, anti-scandinavian/german' historical migration theory. Which is incredibly interesting sense this video suggest that the celts of the english isl did in fact invite the anglo-saxons to help against the picts. and then settled there. Same as that the archeological evidence suggest that the local slavic population invited the norseman to settle the Kieven Rus because the norseman were better suited to rule than the local slavic population were able to to for themselves.
reply
-KAZVorpal
Hold on, you're leaving out a lot of the most current and strongest evidence.
For example, the Britons appear not to have -invited- the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians from Scandinavia like you depict, but from their own coastline.
There is serious archeological evidence that they, primarily Angles and Frisians, were living in southeast coastal cities during the Roman occupation of Britannia Superior.
This makes their inclusion in fights against Picts and Scots more natural.
Additionally, you give too much weight to the efforts to dismiss war between the Germanic tribes and the Britons. One must compensate for the desire to modern, and even previous, desire by some to gloss over the strife, as the Angles et allum are seen as more important to historic credibility than the Britons.
reply
Hold on, you're leaving out a lot of the most current and strongest evidence.
For example, the Britons appear not to have -invited- the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians from Scandinavia like you depict, but from their own coastline.
There is serious archeological evidence that they, primarily Angles and Frisians, were living in southeast coastal cities during the Roman occupation of Britannia Superior.
This makes their inclusion in fights against Picts and Scots more natural.
Additionally, you give too much weight to the efforts to dismiss war between the Germanic tribes and the Britons. One must compensate for the desire to modern, and even previous, desire by some to gloss over the strife, as the Angles et allum are seen as more important to historic credibility than the Britons.
reply
knowledgia
So let me get this straight. The native Britons of the countryside were under Roman occupation for 400 years adapting next to nothing from the vastly superior Roman civilization, no language, no customs, no religion even though that would have given them wealth and power and after a couple of centuries of coexistanse) with their Germanic invaders, colonizers, friends) the Britons through their own identity out of the window like it was nothing? Am I the only one who consider this idea a little bit unrealistic, naive and just lightly political? Sure, maybe the Saxons were a little bit better to the natives than the Romans but that doesn't change the fact that the Saxons were invaders who were pushing their own culture to the Britons.
reply
So let me get this straight. The native Britons of the countryside were under Roman occupation for 400 years adapting next to nothing from the vastly superior Roman civilization, no language, no customs, no religion even though that would have given them wealth and power and after a couple of centuries of coexistanse) with their Germanic invaders, colonizers, friends) the Britons through their own identity out of the window like it was nothing? Am I the only one who consider this idea a little bit unrealistic, naive and just lightly political? Sure, maybe the Saxons were a little bit better to the natives than the Romans but that doesn't change the fact that the Saxons were invaders who were pushing their own culture to the Britons.
reply
knowledgia
basically as romano britons were not allowed a military culture due to romes rules and regulations, they invited in the anglo saxons who were the auxillary troops for the roman legions in britain, to come and protect them. The anglo saxons stayed and had a higher status due to their military power, and over some centuries the much of the indiginous britons acculturated into the anglo saxon society due to the elite status and the priviledges associated, hence so few celtic loan words in the english language.
reply
basically as romano britons were not allowed a military culture due to romes rules and regulations, they invited in the anglo saxons who were the auxillary troops for the roman legions in britain, to come and protect them. The anglo saxons stayed and had a higher status due to their military power, and over some centuries the much of the indiginous britons acculturated into the anglo saxon society due to the elite status and the priviledges associated, hence so few celtic loan words in the english language.
reply
-Hlord-be4xx
The idea that Germanic languages overtaking the local Latin and Brythonic languages due to a choice by the natives is absurd, I would say it had more to do with the fact that the ratio between invaders and locals was not as skewed towards the natives as it was in England.
In Spain and France the locals numbered in the millions while the Germanic invaders numbered in the tens of thousands while in Roman Britain there were only about half a million locals compared to 200, 000 Germanic peoples.
reply
The idea that Germanic languages overtaking the local Latin and Brythonic languages due to a choice by the natives is absurd, I would say it had more to do with the fact that the ratio between invaders and locals was not as skewed towards the natives as it was in England.
In Spain and France the locals numbered in the millions while the Germanic invaders numbered in the tens of thousands while in Roman Britain there were only about half a million locals compared to 200, 000 Germanic peoples.
reply
-adrianpay
Kumbaya history and complete woke garbage.
Think about it, would the Britons really have welcomed invaders and willingly adopted their culture?
Have Americans invited Mexicans into their country and then adopted Mexican culture?
Would the British invite the French into the UK and then adopt Frnech culture?
The reason countries have armies is to defend themselves against invasion - the idea that Britons wanted to be ethnically and culturally replaced by the nice Germans is a joke.
reply
Kumbaya history and complete woke garbage.
Think about it, would the Britons really have welcomed invaders and willingly adopted their culture?
Have Americans invited Mexicans into their country and then adopted Mexican culture?
Would the British invite the French into the UK and then adopt Frnech culture?
The reason countries have armies is to defend themselves against invasion - the idea that Britons wanted to be ethnically and culturally replaced by the nice Germans is a joke.
reply
-mykelhedge7299
The Anglo Saxons didn-t Anglicize England. England was a product of the Anglo Saxons, grew out of their culture and was named after them. This is in contrast to Britons, that were named after the islands they were living on when Rome found them.
What this means is that any people and culture could have been the Britons, because it was just where they lived. Only the Anglo Saxons could have become English and made England as that is a formulation of their culture.
reply
The Anglo Saxons didn-t Anglicize England. England was a product of the Anglo Saxons, grew out of their culture and was named after them. This is in contrast to Britons, that were named after the islands they were living on when Rome found them.
What this means is that any people and culture could have been the Britons, because it was just where they lived. Only the Anglo Saxons could have become English and made England as that is a formulation of their culture.
reply
-nickvinsable3798
-. .. I have TWO questions: what was happening in & around what is today Denmark at the time (the homelands of the Anglo-Saxons? And could this move be due to the Ancient Roman power vacuum, i. e. hearing the news that their Germanic neighbors to the south have successfully toppled the empire & now they want a piece of the shrinking Pie that was once the Ancient Roman Empire?
reply
-. .. I have TWO questions: what was happening in & around what is today Denmark at the time (the homelands of the Anglo-Saxons? And could this move be due to the Ancient Roman power vacuum, i. e. hearing the news that their Germanic neighbors to the south have successfully toppled the empire & now they want a piece of the shrinking Pie that was once the Ancient Roman Empire?
reply
-jdghok
I hate being reffered to as british as I am a Scot, ive never felt british and don't relate to anything british as I have always been a Scots Nationalist, but I know we'll never get independance as the powers that be are far to corrupt to ever do it as england couldn't survive without Scottish water, hydro, oil etc, its a shame we can't be our own nation due to others greed
reply
I hate being reffered to as british as I am a Scot, ive never felt british and don't relate to anything british as I have always been a Scots Nationalist, but I know we'll never get independance as the powers that be are far to corrupt to ever do it as england couldn't survive without Scottish water, hydro, oil etc, its a shame we can't be our own nation due to others greed
reply
-xuefalan
The Sea people were just migrants, not invaders! The Visigoths were just migrants too, the Anglo-Saxons were just migrants, the Vikings were just migrants, they came with their family, they meant no harm blah blah blah. therefore, today's European Muslims are just migrants. Legitimizing today's invasion is the ulterior motive of these recent historical research.
reply
The Sea people were just migrants, not invaders! The Visigoths were just migrants too, the Anglo-Saxons were just migrants, the Vikings were just migrants, they came with their family, they meant no harm blah blah blah. therefore, today's European Muslims are just migrants. Legitimizing today's invasion is the ulterior motive of these recent historical research.
reply
-user-pl8is8qd4n
England doesnt exist as a concept until the Anglo Saxons made it. So there were no English for the Anglo Saxons to Anglicise. You even summarise this early on by pointing out that the English anglicised a lot of the world. Therefore, the Anglo Saxons would have anglicised the Britons and other such native peoples?
reply
England doesnt exist as a concept until the Anglo Saxons made it. So there were no English for the Anglo Saxons to Anglicise. You even summarise this early on by pointing out that the English anglicised a lot of the world. Therefore, the Anglo Saxons would have anglicised the Britons and other such native peoples?
reply
-adrianlouw2499
I heard the theory where after the Roman power vacuum the native British kings took to hiring Saxon mercenaries and soon the practice became so prevalent that Angles and Saxons were facing each other in the battlefield and realised they could simply unite and take the lands for themselves.
reply
I heard the theory where after the Roman power vacuum the native British kings took to hiring Saxon mercenaries and soon the practice became so prevalent that Angles and Saxons were facing each other in the battlefield and realised they could simply unite and take the lands for themselves.
reply
-user-xn6fg3ln2w
The map is wrong scots is an germanic culture and appeared in the 11th century if anything ireland would be gaels not scots its annoying as a scot to see ireland be disserviced by simply called scots I'm surprised to see no-one mentioning this as its a glaring mistake
reply
The map is wrong scots is an germanic culture and appeared in the 11th century if anything ireland would be gaels not scots its annoying as a scot to see ireland be disserviced by simply called scots I'm surprised to see no-one mentioning this as its a glaring mistake
reply
-fakshen1973
My thoughts would be that these immigrants were farmers and offered more taxes for the collecting. Peasants mean wealth. I would delve into what crops the Romans were producing in Britain as a colony vs. what Britain needed to produce as an isolated, self-governing land.
reply
My thoughts would be that these immigrants were farmers and offered more taxes for the collecting. Peasants mean wealth. I would delve into what crops the Romans were producing in Britain as a colony vs. what Britain needed to produce as an isolated, self-governing land.
reply
-robertdragoff6909
Question:
In this video the Scotts occupied what is now Ireland/ Northern Ireland and what is now Scotland was home to the Pics.
So what happened?
When did the Scotts move to Northern end of England and when did Ireland become Irish?
reply
Question:
In this video the Scotts occupied what is now Ireland/ Northern Ireland and what is now Scotland was home to the Pics.
So what happened?
When did the Scotts move to Northern end of England and when did Ireland become Irish?
reply
-Valhalla88888
The Picts controlled todays Ireland by 200 AD they arrived from todays Scotland and and went back to Pictland ie todays Scotland, and destroyed todays England, thats why todays England asled for the Anglo and Saxon tribed to help them fight the Picts.
reply
The Picts controlled todays Ireland by 200 AD they arrived from todays Scotland and and went back to Pictland ie todays Scotland, and destroyed todays England, thats why todays England asled for the Anglo and Saxon tribed to help them fight the Picts.
reply
-MrMomo182
Some of the -indigenous- Britons had only arrived from the continent decades before the Romans, fleeing Caesar's conquest. Those Romano-Britsh who later fled to Brittany, intermarried with the Norman elites, and returned to oppress the Anglo-Saxons.
reply
Some of the -indigenous- Britons had only arrived from the continent decades before the Romans, fleeing Caesar's conquest. Those Romano-Britsh who later fled to Brittany, intermarried with the Norman elites, and returned to oppress the Anglo-Saxons.
reply
-Andrei99k
English is the lingua franca for a reason. It must have been comparatively easy to learn back then, just as it is nowadays. I mean Celtic languages where a bell and Latin had too many cases. Their doom proven right, it seems.
reply
English is the lingua franca for a reason. It must have been comparatively easy to learn back then, just as it is nowadays. I mean Celtic languages where a bell and Latin had too many cases. Their doom proven right, it seems.
reply
-danielgrubb9668
There is no reason not to believe Gildas- version of the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Contrarians are comprised mostly of PhDs trying to draw attention to themselves with provocative theories of 5th Century Britain.
reply
There is no reason not to believe Gildas- version of the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Contrarians are comprised mostly of PhDs trying to draw attention to themselves with provocative theories of 5th Century Britain.
reply
-Samurai_Champloo
A funny fact is that the Anglo-Saxons came from modern Denmark to Britain, and were already assimilated, and then 300 years later they have to confront the Danes and other Vikings who are raiding the English
reply
A funny fact is that the Anglo-Saxons came from modern Denmark to Britain, and were already assimilated, and then 300 years later they have to confront the Danes and other Vikings who are raiding the English
reply
-ScreamingManiac
People like to think past migrations and colonisations were always violent. But more often people saw some free land and were like -I like this spot, no ones claimed it, so might as well build a house here-
reply
People like to think past migrations and colonisations were always violent. But more often people saw some free land and were like -I like this spot, no ones claimed it, so might as well build a house here-
reply
-theMOCmaster
How does this explain Brythonic speakers outside wales being treated as second class citizens under anglo saxon law codes? Most language shifts go to the elite language, clearly Germanic was the elite
reply
How does this explain Brythonic speakers outside wales being treated as second class citizens under anglo saxon law codes? Most language shifts go to the elite language, clearly Germanic was the elite
reply
-avenaoat
In the VIth Century, there was a huge plague epidemic that affected the British more than the Anglo-Saxons! British had commercial connection with the East Roman Imperium with the tin mines in Cornwall.
reply
In the VIth Century, there was a huge plague epidemic that affected the British more than the Anglo-Saxons! British had commercial connection with the East Roman Imperium with the tin mines in Cornwall.
reply
-Carl_093
saxon are first mercenaries then ended ruling spiting England for them selves
this why in ww2 the germania or saxons origin is good ex british forces captred there treatment is fair than others
reply
saxon are first mercenaries then ended ruling spiting England for them selves
this why in ww2 the germania or saxons origin is good ex british forces captred there treatment is fair than others
reply
-n2mcinty
Wonder when they will start having -Welcome to Country- statements before every gathering in London to reconise the 'First Nations' Britons, like they do in Australia. Or would that be ridiculous?
reply
Wonder when they will start having -Welcome to Country- statements before every gathering in London to reconise the 'First Nations' Britons, like they do in Australia. Or would that be ridiculous?
reply
-antondavidoff150
The Saxons were also being pushed West from the Slavic people in North Germany. it is also well known fact that the Saxons had 0 chance with the people of Arkona from Ruhen when fighting
reply
The Saxons were also being pushed West from the Slavic people in North Germany. it is also well known fact that the Saxons had 0 chance with the people of Arkona from Ruhen when fighting
reply
-vincent412l7
I suspect it might be similar to the vikings. When Rome left, England was open to plunder. As they kept returning t England, they realised how feetile the lands were, and started settling.
reply
I suspect it might be similar to the vikings. When Rome left, England was open to plunder. As they kept returning t England, they realised how feetile the lands were, and started settling.
reply
-hc3657
Farm boys looking for FREE LAND and the good life. (see Vikings for details)
Note that the Celts had been disarmed and turned into serf / farm labour by the Romans for the previous 300 years.
reply
Farm boys looking for FREE LAND and the good life. (see Vikings for details)
Note that the Celts had been disarmed and turned into serf / farm labour by the Romans for the previous 300 years.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
