March 4, 2021

GIL

Daily Global New Media

How The Anglo-Saxon Settlement Changed British Culture | King Arthur's Britain | Timeline

1 min read

31 thoughts on “How The Anglo-Saxon Settlement Changed British Culture | King Arthur's Britain | Timeline

  1. "Diversity is our strength." The greatest lie ever told. It's currently being used to destroy the Western World. There is a difference between (1) a culture being adaptable; coming into contact with different cultures, taking what is best and most useful from them, and adapting them to better their own people and society; and (2) letting in hordes of non-natives into your society, putting them on a pedestal, giving them rights and privileges above the native people, replacing the native population, destroying native culture, and destroying the social cohesion of the society through disruption and abolition of racial, religious, cultural, and linguistic bonds. The former is a strength. It's diversity. It's what cultures have done since the dawn of time. The latter is not diversity, it is a sin. It is a soft invasion and inevitable genocide. It is the inevitable destruction of diversity.

  2. So it seems that British people want to be anglo-saxon now. What is the goal behind this ? Anglo-saxon refer to the language they speak, which still is english … so why denying this ? Wanting to be anything else ?

  3. So let's recap:
    – The textual sources describe an invasion from northern Germany.
    – The archaeological record shows that an intrusive Germanic culture supplanted that of Roman Britain in most of England.
    – The language changed completely from Brittonic and Latin to Old English.
    – Nearly every DNA test conducted over the past 20 years shows that the English have a large "northern German" component.

    Sorry Francis, but it seems like there was a mass migration.

  4. Portchester castle is strange place to start a documentary claiming there was no Anglo-saxon invasion.

    Portchester was one of the 'Saxon shore forts' built to defend against the continuous Anglo-saxon raids throughout the Roman period which continued after the Romans left.

    The fact is that raiders became settlers. Just like the later Vikings did when they came from the north.

    The argument that defensive positions were tax and customs bases is overly simplistic – tax collection requires the force of legal authority and this requires the state to erect an edifice of physical infrastructure.

    Otherwise he's saying a national health policy is possible without doctors and hospitals.

  5. A sudden replacement of male ancestry doesn't have to occur because the existing males got killed by invaders. The existing males don't need to be killed, but need merely to stop being as reproductive as they had been before the invasion, and if the invaders are polygamous then the invaders will have most of the children, creating the replacement.

  6. Mitochondrial DNA is a better way of tracing ancestries than the Y chromosome, because the Y chromosome has a higher mutation-rate than mDNA, which is passed as an identical copy from mother to child with an error in the cloning only once in a few thousand years.

  7. moral of the story; and it always comes to this(whether you watch geology, history, cosmology…): The only thing constant in the universe is change. Wether it is a good change or not is our opinion.

  8. Francis Pryor is wrong (at 10:45) to advocate mistrusting the DNA evidence. Science doesn't lie. He doesn't have two contradictory harvests of DNA evidence. He's got two contradictory STUDIES of harvested DNA evidence. He's doing what many historians do, which fewer scientists do, which is equating the proper subject matter of history (i.e., the stuff that factually happened whether or not we are aware of it) with the academic body of stuff pertaining to that subject-matter. It seems as if historians study the history of the study of history (i.e. the fact that historians' writings about history do, themselves, have a history of change) more than they study actual history. Perhaps this is by necessity, but let's not forget the distinction. The DNA tells one story, and one only, and if two published papers disagree, then ONE IS FLAWED. The remedy is not to dismiss DNA totally, but to figure out which published paper is wrong, and why it is wrong, and believe the other one. The cop-out of not trusting DNA at all is tossing the baby out with the bathwater, and, worse, it's something that Pryor is doing PROBABLY because once the errors in DNA studies are all sorted then HIS theory won't be the one borne out by the non-discredited DNA-study. (YouTube flag: hate speech against Francis Pryor by daring to express an opinion differing from Pryor's own opinion.)

  9. If Angles and Saxons didn't mass migrate from northern Germany, then Anglos are Celt.

    Ireland&Scotland: Always have been. Anglos BTFO and on suicide watch. 😁

  10. These languages would suggest that the known intrusions and colonizations by the Norse (and Dano-Norse) Irish Finngaill (Finn-Gaels) and Dubgaill (Dub-Gaels) as part of the first Norse and later VIkings become those portions of the boundary counties between Scotland and England (but also those surrounding the entire Scotland, King of Man, King of the Isles, Hebrides, Guernsey, Jersey, and all down the Neustria/Normandy shoreline. These would have those Scando-Germanic and Scando-Norman languages.

    The Anglo-Saxon period of 450-750s-950s suggests a different story and timeline.

    It is even strongly suggested by latest PhD studies of the boundary counties that General Rognvald, Keeper of Brix, Normandy (founder of the De Brix De Brus De BRUCE dynasty), was actually the intermarried descendant of a Dubgaill Rognvald, Earl/King of Northumbia/York, with that of the Norse Normans at the time of Rollo's entrance into Neustria. Such intermarriages and incoming populations from the mainland would have these migrations onto the island. And in short order, the Normans would come over and displace the Dano-Norse realm (and these lands) across England and Scotland in 1066.

    https://www.academia.edu/13635613/PhD_Thesis_Neither_Scotland_nor_England_Middle_Britain_c_850_1150

    With knowledge that the Flemish Flander Lowlanders were actually invited into the post-1066 conquest, and actively settling across England and Scotland (by their respective kings), you continue to have continued immigrations of continental peoples.

    https://www.academia.edu/11828718/The_dubh_gall_in_southern_Scotland_the_politics_of_Northumbria_Dublin_and_the_Community_of_St_Cuthbert_in_the_Viking_Age_c_870_950_CE

    https://www.academia.edu/33460121/Lauran_Toorians_Flemish_Settlements_in_Twelfth_Century_Scotland

    With greater proof that the said castle-storehouses were for international trade vs defensive strongholds, this makes Britain an economic (and continued) international producer-trader across the English Channel. If you have depopulation, you seek laborers to keep up production. Either Romans left or became Britain-ized and expats. These expats would continuing holding their Roman villas and farm (manoral) complexes – or they were passed to the next assumptor of the lands and region – and continuing production. Needing laborers (even slaves in those days), they would have tenant and cottager farmers cultivating the land. Population down – immigrate farm laborers and workers onto the land. Not an invasion, but an incoming assimilation of continental populations of Scandinavians, Lowlanders, and such Norman/Neustrian Western EURO continental peoples up into the times of the primary and secondary (Dano-)Norse intrusions, colonizations, and assumption of the national government, … until the time of the 1066 conquest.

    Continued populations of diverse peoples into Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) from Ireland, Norway, Denmark, and western EURO lands.

  11. From the appearance, albeit population residencies, these would appear to be extincted villages from the Black Death, and they had been those long-timed villages of the Domesday book with the previous Anglo-Saxon and Norman villages of 1094.

  12. The Sachsens that remained at old Sachsony (Holland to Denmark) were eventually wiped out by Charlemagnes knights, converting or killing heathens. just as the Picts would have tried to wipe out the dregs of Rome left behind, but failed….and vanished.

  13. Well done. I just find it extremely disturbing when two similar studies (genetic studies) have completely different findings. Oh well. You present the facts, and it allows us to theorize! Thanks.

  14. It's not just Bede who has an agenda. There may be a surveyed area where there was continuous settlement; doesn't mean there was no invasion (after all, most English villages survived the Norman invasion). It particularly makes no sense that Augustine arrived to find a "complete" Christian church and simply ignored its existence (the two must have interacted more complexly). Some Body is trying to replace one origin myth with another which equally forgets lots of facts, as many other commenters suggest in detail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seventeen − twelve =