SORRY...WASN'T ABLE TO SAY WHAT I MEANT...MY POINT IS EVEN IF YOU WERE 2ND GENERATION JAPANESE, IF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR FAMILY WERE SCOTTISH, WELL THEN YOUR HARDLY JAPANESE.
I was born in England, my parents were also born in England but I have a Scottish Grandad, and obviously Scottish Great Grandparents. I also have an Irish Nan/grandmother and obviously Irish Great Grandparents. My other grand parents where born in England but my Nan/grandmother's parents were also Irish. Would I be considered a Celt?
@TheMitchy93 Obviosly for the most part you are...It doesn't really matter were you or your parents were born, it's more important what there line is or where there ancestrial line comes from , for example : if your granparents were from SCOTLAND moved to JAPAN and had a daughter there and she grew up in JAPAN met a man in JAPAN who was born there but was also of SCOTTISH descent as well.. "technicaly" acording to any law you would be considered "JAPANESE" but you would still be very scottish
@TheMitchy93 SORRY...WASN'T ABLE TO SAY WHAT I MEANT...MY POINT IS EVEN IF YOU WERE 2ND GENERATION JAPANESE, IF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR FAMILY WERE SCOTTISH, WELL THEN YOUR HARDLY JAPANESE.
@TheBasqueLand the jews did not populate the world thay cudnt of lest of all we celt unless ur sum religus nut theres no need to say sumthing so silly an u are dont bother us with it jews are daor slave we are laoch warrior
@rydomart911 The Celts originated in southern Germany. Black hair is akin to the Basque/Iberian peoples. Furthermore, there is speculation to whether or not the Celtic people even reached the British Isles. The word "Celt" is used far too loosely. The "Celtic" people were not all dark haired, either.
Seriously, do a little research before you spout off nonsense.
@DefeatedElitist Irish people have 80 percent celt dna the rest is germanic norman.And of course the celts reached ireland we have celt ruins all over the country.
@JordoF6 I phrased my point incorrectly. What I meant was, there is still debate going on whether the Celtic people had a significant influence on the DNA of anyone from the British Isles.
"Celtic" is a term far too loosely thrown around, almost as a way to separate "Celtic" people from from the English, which I could have understood at the time, but now is becoming quite absurd. Genetically, the makeup of everyone in the British Isles is very similar.
@DefeatedElitist Similar in that we are all arrivals from the Balkans, but there are Y chromosome divisions between the English & the Western side of Britain. It's the same for Ere. The Irish are mostly the descendents of the original settlers, with a small English/Norse incursion. 3/4 of the English share with Holland/Denmark a paternal ancestors, who's decendents arrived in England in various waves of tribes. i.e. La Tene peoples, Belgae, Anglo-Frisian,Saxon, Jutes, & Danes
@JordoF6 It's called Celt DNA, and I call it Celt, but the Irish are and weren't really Celts.
There YDNA is mostly a downstream 312/L21/529 & as much as 2/5 have a mutation called M222. There's also sparse amounts from Iberia, and as you've said the rest is Norse, Norman, and English
@rydomart911 Whether one was historically "Germanic" or "Celtic" either on the continent or in the British Isles depended upon what language one spoke. Genetically most of the people of Britain are descendants of people who have lived there thousands of years. They have accepted or had imposed on them cultures and languages of small groups of continental invaders. The Saxons weren't barbaric hordes but mercenaries who only revolted when those Britons who hired them could not longer pay.
@gradyloy1 Thats not an absolute. The R1bYDNA is predominent in England@60% of which in the (old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms) 40% of samples show a downstream which links the English with the spread of the Germanic confederations who flooded across the Western Roman Empire. 75%Frisia. 10%France-representing the Franks/Burgundians etc.
The mutation is 3000 years old but the spread does matched the history!
I follow Sykes on this but corroborated by historians like Jones, Myers and Whittock. Rb1Y is even more common in Ireland/English W Country (80%) than in E. England or Germany. It is not a "celtic" gene or a "teutonic" gene but long predates those essentially linguistic divisions. Anglo Saxons (N. Germany) are likely to have R1a gene absent in West England but present in E. England. But in England this is more likely from mesolithic hunters and vikings.
@gradyloy1 R1a isn't high anywhere in England. But it's mostly in Slavic lands, falling away further west. Yes 80 in Cornwall. Sykes basic haplogroup was about 51, 55, 57% R1b- E.Anglia, midland, and South. In the Anglia DNA project it shows R1b at 44% and there's difs with East & Wales. Wales has all these older mutations and substantial amounts of R1b which is found in Spain. Genetic markers are just markers but we have to equate them to something. Maybe U106 does signify Saxon
@LeeHoxton1 Read my below comment first. Even Myers fails to understand - peasant seaborne invasions were neither feasible not actually historically reported. The not so small (5-10%) Anglo Saxon genetic signature in E. England, when not muddled with later Viking immigration, is because the Romans early settled mercenary Saxons on the coast who then (from Carausius time) traded with the "Old Country" gradually building up their numbers. A trickle not a flood. Nothing sinister.
@gradyloy1 Your taking about Mucking and the like. Sykes was saying that most of the British came directly from Iberia. The L21/U106/U152 and I253 markers are only 3000-4000 years old and arrived from North and central Europe. Sykes cannot be right because the mutations have been dated.
Why is it not feasible that over the course of 2 centuries many Anglo-Saxons arrived and displaced most of the idiginous male pop. through war & birth successes?
@LeeHoxton1 I know you do not approve of Sykes but I so far see no reason to disbelieve him. He suggests there were two migrations to Britain, Mesolithic and Neolithic, and that differences between east and west are in some sense according to those. To deny that any Anglo Saxons invaded England would be nonsense. But historically nationalism was quite different from what is understood. A nation like Frankia was called Frankia because it was ruled by Franks, not populated by them.
@gradyloy1 East Anglia DNA sample group. 44% R1b of which 28% U106 (3000 yr) 22% U152 (3500) In Wales L21 is 4000 years old. It did arrive before 2000-3000 B.C. The R1b YDNA came up through the Balkans. Sykes was wrong. I read the book. It was very nicely written but he was wrong.
@LeeHoxton1 Lee, please read comments in reverse order, thanks. Best historical understanding not I think inconsistent with genetics is that Saxons brought in over 200 years, their numbers grown to 5-10% on SE coast, when Roman control ended, continued supporting local successors of Romans (some of whom may've been assimilated Saxons). When support systems broke down (445), Saxons revolted - like the Goths. Roman elites had fled. Expansion & Peasant Linguistic Assimilation followed.
@gradyloy1 They were still Saxons though. I don't care when they arrived. Before, after Roman sphere of influence. What matters is that they were arriving here. According to some historian:- A. Marcellunus (what ever his name is) said that the Goths no. 200k on the Danube. About 15000 Alemanni/Suebi/Burgs died at Strasbourg. Those barbarians all have dependents. We know this cause Rome wrote this hit down. Why is it not feasable that 200k Saxon arrived too 1.8 million Britons?
@gradyloy1 But it's the reverse for the Franks. The Franks adopted Latin and the Franks/Gauls stop speaking Germanico-Celtic. A small Ango-Saxon elite would find it difficult to take over large sections of Britain. They'd need support. It's been considered that the 12 Saxon kingdoms started as 40+ kingdoms. The only reason the Normans took over easily is that it's easier to take over a country with adminstrations. Just like today with Afganstan. Our common tongue is Anglo-Saxon German
@gradyloy1 When I mention Afgan land I was saying that taking over a feudel country would be harder than taking over the adminstrative duties of civil servants in England.
@gradyloy1 I. Dug out old notes:- Sykes Quote:- The strongest signal is a Celtic clan Oisin (R1b) which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominant in every part of the Atlantic chromo, with strong affinities to Iberia. It is this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin in our Y Chromo.
Sykes goes on to say that English paternity in the South is 10% A-S and 20% A-S/Dane in East Anglia.
Spain is doesn't have the R1bYDNA downstream of L21, found in Wales
@gradyloy1 II. At least Spain doesn't have the numbers of L21 that Britain has. Spain also has >50% of downstream 312 that's undefined. In England that is extremely low, but much higher in Wales
@LeeHoxton1 Hi, thanks for some of the more detailed genetic background. I do understand that R1b and R1a originated in the Balkans or Ukraine or thereabouts. R1b originated on the continent and I would not hazard a guess. Not stuck with Spain. However, My maps show Ireland apprx 80% covered by R1b and same for SW England. Ireland only a trace of R1a (attributable to the Vikings. R1a =1/3 of Norway) England like N Germany is abt 1/2 R1b and 1/10 R1a.
@LeeHoxton1 The map I am looking at suggests a fair bit of R1a in England in the East. It could all be from Vikings (I am not up enough to do a really rigorous ratio analysis even assuming my Wikipedia charts are any good.) One historical note - the Saxons Angles and Frisians are known to have admixed considerably with the Wends and the Scandinavians both. There is a complex as yet undeciphered ethnic history of the North sea coast independent of modern language distributions.
@LeeHoxton1 Please read one lower post first: If I look at the J YHaplogroup which is common in N Germany/Denmark it is about 1/10 there and about 1/30th in E England meaning (since the Norse do have a lot of R1a and almost no J - and I am not forgetting the Danes have the same J signature as the Saxons - as far as we can tell this late) that assuming 0 Danish immigration you could arrive at something like a manximum 1/3 of the E English population has Anglo Saxon male ancestry.
@gradyloy1 E, G, & J...Didn't pay any attention! 1/3 is possible. Unfortunately DNA is not absolute, unless a downstream mutation is found that dates to the early to middle part of the first millenium, that started in Denmark, and is 1/3 in English samples.
what is clear is that most of the English gene pool came to England from 4000 B.C. I think.
@LeeHoxton1 Since the Danes migrated to the Danelaw for 300 years virtually uninterrupted under conditions much more favorable than those experienced by the Saxons (Saxon migration occurred slowly from 300 to 450 arguably picked up from 450 to 500 was reversed from 500 to 550 and had a last small burst 550 to 600.) and probably (as Sykes suggests) account for greater numbers in the Danelaw, also the area of heaviest Saxon settlement. I would put Saxon origin as about 1/6 the total.
@gradyloy1 Even during peace in Bede's time we can't determine whether continental migration stopped. Did the Saxons hire from the indig populas or recruit more Saxons to drive on into the West. The genetic data tells us that the English are more linked to Denmark than the Welsh/Irish are, it's just not clear on the levels of migration at different times.
Didn't Ethelred get 40 ships from Thornkill the viking. How many people fit in those ships? Sykes' book?
@LeeHoxton1 This is easy. It certainly did not. Peaceful migration which I contend was always the main form continued unabated in the North sea emporium (including London, York, Quentovic, Doer and other North Germanic ports). The Scandinavians from 500's became increasingly involved. The strength of the kingdoms of Edwin, Oswald and Offa slowed the flood for 200 years but with the weakening of Mercia late 8th century Scandinavians picked things up again. Same basic migration.
@gradyloy1 The model of change from Old English to middle English is well documented, but it's generally thought that our common tongue is technically Anglo-Saxon German. Although this has been disputed. Most notabably by Oppenheimer, who advocates English as being much older (he's a nut) I've actually got an e-mail from a professor at UCL who said that Oppenheimer was an amatuer.
But I would expect an absorbing of German into dominant language if the Saxon incursion was 5,000
@LeeHoxton1 I cannot see how it can have been other than Anglo Saxon English. Anyway, thanks for your exchanges. I have learned much today. Good night and happy new year (1 hour away here in Japan)
@LeeHoxton1 For the best discussion of how many people fit in the boats see Michael Jones the End of Roman Britain (Cornell) chapter 3. It is not necessary to agree with all of his conclusions to find his discussion of the boat capacity of Saxon and Viking ships very interesting. Jones is a believer that few Germans actually came (until they basically controlled the country One must admit that without certain immigrant numbers its impossible to get the people to change language).
@gradyloy1 If I remember rightly Sykes said that 10% of Southern English men were patrilineal A-S. How did he come up with that. His anaylsis was wrong. Even now with substantial genetic links to Germania, we can't be certain of the numbers of Saxon types from 300-600. M&U Eng. S.E.:-8% 312* 16% U152, 24% L21/529 & 24% U106 & 4% M222 (Irish)
If Sykes had found the markers he wouldn't have said that we're directly from Iberia & could claim 10%.
@LeeHoxton1 Here I have to rely on your more extensive erudition. 10% is for reasons I have mentioned based on historical evidence an attractive figure. More and we would have seen more evidence. Less and Celtic culture would have held a wider sway. I agree it is a hard call to make as to what was a Saxon and and what was not based only on Y Haplogrpous since we are talking not about essential differences but differences in ratios in a population slowly churning for 1000+ years. .
@LeeHoxton1 And that is taking account of far more successful fathering of children than the defeated Briton males and a healthy economy supported by robust North Sea trade. It does not seem unreasonable in view of an assumed total Saxon population ca 500 of 200,000 of whom at least 80% were native born. I would not put total immigration at over 50,000. Jones for historical and acheol reasons thinks the adventus migration was abt 25000. That would be a huge invasion.
@gradyloy1 Harke of Germany said 200,000. I don't we will ever know. Only if they dig up some Latin church manuscript that writes objectively about the incursion. Perhaps something along the lines of ''In the year of our lord.....many 1000's came to Dorset' or something to that affect.
I'm still wondering why the Romans always numbered Barbarians in many thousands including the Goths. I think they were evading the Huns. they could have tried to go north to Britain
LeeHoxton1 For me 200,000 is an estimate but it is not of the number of people that got in boats in the 400's and went to Britain, it is the number of people immigrant and assimilant who considered themselves Anglo Saxons in about 450AD I still believe that most were native born and many probably sided with the Britons (with whom they had mixed and been neighbors for generations) The revolt leaders were immigrants (Hengist) who went unpaid and revolted like Alaric.
@gradyloy1 I can't dispute that those earlier settles from Germania could have sided with thier British counter-parts during the later part of the 5th century. A few 19th cent nationalist said that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the Britons, but in equal measure other scholars disputed this at the time same that if all the men were killed the women wouldn't be. There were cluster settlements of peasant remnants
@LeeHoxton1 In some situations they may have done so to the mid 6th century (south bank Upper Thames, the Cerdicingas, the settlers at Mucking, Soemil (Edwin's forbear), the Saxons defeated at Aderidasleag by Aelle (British Saxon shore guards were largely Saxon), Penda - I am certain he served Powys and when he took over Powys after Brocmail died (616) he allied with Cadwallon rather than submit to Edwin, and certain Saxons in Essex and Surrey who apparently served Verulamnium.
@LeeHoxton1 The later Saxon leaders/settlers of Essex (Which archeology suggests returned to British control with Badon) with their S and Seig alliteration appear to have appeared in the mid 6th century. Given continental politics it is likely they were allies of Kings Theodebert and certainly King Sigebert of Austrasia both of whom controlled continental Saxony and meddled in Denmark (Hygelac). Muy guess is that many of them had been involved in the Lombard invasion.
@LeeHoxton1 When the Lomard Kingdom of Alboin (Aelfwine) collapsed, many Saxons returned home (where there was nothing for them to do). It is highly likely that Sigebert and later Brunhilda sent some of them to Britain to shore up friendly Kent and counter whatever meddling Chilperic and Fredegunda were contemplating via the Bayeux Saxons and Bretons in the British kingdoms and the Solent Saxon settlements. (see G of Tours for Fredegund's use of Saxons to meddle in Breton affairs.)
@gradyloy1 Again, it could be a complete coincidence but the distribution of the YDNA mutation does seem to nicely fit with the movement of people from the Danish peninsula. I. The 25% or 25/100 men sampled in England along with higher levels in Frisia/Danish penin correspond. As does the migration pattern to Ere/It matches to the Franks/Burgudians/Lombards migrating across Europe. Logically there's no gene discrimination, so Saxons would arrive with other downstream mutations.
@gradyloy1 II. So in S.E. Eng 25% of men have the downstream U106 marker. A proportion of their ancestors (as u say) would have arrived as Roman Soldiers & the others as later invaders. So a proportion of U152 and L21 would have arrived in both fashions. It's impossible to determine how many modern Englishmen with these markers arrived in the 2-3rd wave. If we take just the 25 U106 & exclude all others including I1-253 it's still a substantial number in the modern English gene pull.
@LeeHoxton1 I have long felt that the "everybody came in three keels - kings, soldiers, farmers, wives, kids, goats, merchants, chickens" theory held by the Germans was naive and too based on sentimental stories of American prairie schooners bound for Oregon. On the other hand, there had to be enough Saxons in Britain to (1) scare off the Picts, (2) completely ravage Britain (3) Conquer the whole country by 625 (Edwin) and change the language. The problem: how did they get there?
@gradyloy1 As you can tell I'm a little bit more up to date with the genetic publications. It's been years since I looked at Saxon history. I just recently picked up the Sykes/Opp books, & initially believed it, then looked at all the other studies and realized that they completely wrong.
David Weston UCL:-E.Anglia:- R1b44%,R1a1%,I134% of which 18% I-M253 considered an Anglo-Danish marker. Again, impossible to determine Viking or Angle.
@gradyloy1 Last part on YDNA, Sykes' Haplogroup marker samples are very good, and he also states that 30% of S. England markers are I1. Of this I don't know what proportion would be I1, but to speculate it could be up to 50% M-253.
With regards to the Goths the historian said 200k but I agree they would exaggerate the numbers killed at the battle of Strasbourg. (There's no archaeological evidence for this battle!!!)
@LeeHoxton1 Regarding the Goths the Romans were notorious for overestimating the size of enemy nations but it varied with historians. Ammianus who was Greek (and wrote about the Goths in the 2nd century was probably more accurate than most. However (and you are of course correct about the Balthi fleeing the Huns) the Goths as a discrete ethnic group had ceased to exist. They were 1/3 Sarmatian (Steppe Iranian) 1/2 Bacaudae with the remainder a mix of North central German tribes.
@LeeHoxton1 Again reverse order (sorry) led by the arguably Scandinavian Balthi and related clans. Most of the Goths probably did not speak Gothic which is why 200,000 of them assimilated so beautifully in Gaul and Spain and except for their names disappeared (See Liebeshuetz "Alaric's Goths Nation or Army" in Fifth Century Gaul). The Ostrogoths were more noticceably German but still hopellessly mixed and supplemented. The Anglo Saxons were near unique in their "Germanness."
@LeeHoxton1 They were evading the Huns. They did not get to Britain because the Franks beat them before they could reach the channel. The Frankish position in Nuestria was due to Aegidius (magister militum) use of mixed German and Roman Generals (including some Saxons at Bayeux and on the Loire) such as Count Paul, Odovacar, and Childerich (Clovis father). Frankish war bands, were a key part of the Northern defense. When Aedigius died, his son Syagrius tried to make a go of it.
@LeeHoxton1 Childeric fled to Thuringia, Odovacar went to Rome and Count Paul was dead. But Childeric's son Clovis came back and drove Syagrius into the hands of the Goths (who gave him back) and took over an area where he already had extensive ties with local officials. Besides Britain was a mess and the measures he almost certainly took with regard to it (and which everyone now overlooks) were probably limited to forestalling Saxon raiding of his shores from Sussex and Anglia.
@LeeHoxton1 Regarding Dorset, I am pretty sure (as Myers has suggested) that Dorset did not fall. Wessex was one of those kingdoms that was in fact the heart of Britishdom. Cerdic was a Saxon warlord on the west end of the Litus Saxonicum (not from Germany) The last king of that line attested is Aurelianus Conanus (Cyan). The Wessex Kingdom was composite. It seems likely the male line of the Aurelii died out and a faithful Saxon retainer of the Cerdicingas became ruler.
@LeeHoxton1 This would have been either by marriage or accclamation or whatever (who knows) but the abundance of celtic names in the early Wessex house, plus the shameless grafting of the Ceawlininga (Thames valley Saxons) saga onto a Cerdicinga saga that was set back in time 40 years is one of the more brazen atrocities of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle (See both Dumville and Myer) So Dorset went peacefully into England. Dumnonia (Devon and Cornwall) was independent.
@LeeHoxton1 There is almost no archeological signature for the Anglo Saxons (Though I admit that is debatable proof of anything) in Dorset that early yet neither the chronicle nor Bede mention the conquest of these lands. The chronicle mentions the loss of what was in effect Southern Powys to the Gewisse (Ceawlin 570) so it is unlikely that if the ruling house of Wessex had had to fight for the Southwest it would not have been mentioned. So I agree with Myers this was assimilation.
@LeeHoxton1 Dorset was important. It was where Gildas lived apparently. Also it has almost no Chronicle history (nor do Silchester, Wiltshire - well there is a little Cerdic stuff, Somerset, etc etc. A vast territory of which Dorset was the heart passed peacefully into what was to become the dominant Saxon realm.) I am a little lost as to the Paganism of the Gewisse into the mid 7th century. Also the choice of Dorchester on Thames as the first see is mystifying.
@LeeHoxton1 Anyway, ultimately the Anglo Saxon culture prevailed. Aethelfrith and Edwin were key to its success. Had Cadwallon not died 635 after killing Edwin its doubtful it would have done and the English would be an interesting memory like the Lombards. But die he did and the lands he grabbed fell to his ally Penda and his enemy Oswald, both Angles. Afterward friendship of the Church, Frankish trade and utter British military failure guaranteed final cultural transformation.
@gradyloy1 There's Cadwallon, so which one's the Welsh one. That is the Welsh one. Cadwallon's Welsh. So which one's Cadwalla? And Penda was killed by Oswald or Osway. It's been so long since I read this stuff.
What's your theory on the survivor of the Cornish. It's the late incursion by Egbert ?
Did Altherstan really expel the British quarter from Exeter. Why does Cornish survive. Those Corns want to be clasified as an ethnic group. They're not black so they're treated like shit.
@LeeHoxton1 Bede I think called Venedotian Cadwallon "Cadwealla" because he did not like the house of Wessex (which as I have suggested may have been largely British and therefore unclean in Bede's eyes) Ceadwalla was a Saxon King of Wessex who went to Rome in 685. The King who took Northern England for a year was Cadwallon son of Cadvan. His father had been Edwin's vassal. Pagan Penda of Mercia was his brother in law.
@gradyloy1 That's it Cadwealla. And it was Cadwallon who said he 'wanted to kill to all of those race of English.' Or something to that affect. That's it, Penda made an alliance with the Welsh, Penda kicked an arch bishop out of Mercia, and he was killed by a Northumbrian. This should be all on Wiki. I can't stand Wiki....It's got Sykes & Oppenheimer quoted all over English origins (and they're wronglol) Bede cursed the Britons for not bringing Christianity to the English. Bless Bede
@LeeHoxton1 Bede was wrong on this. The British refused Augustine because he was bishop of a country whose vassals had just destroyed a couple of their kingdoms (Verulamnium, Berenicia) and Aethelfrith, quite differently from Edwin and Ethelbert was a homicidal maniac. They could not comprehend Augustine's/Paulinus' elevation to lordship over christians of people whose kings ordered the butchery of christian clergy. Clumsy. The Franks were far more clever in their dealings.
@gradyloy1 It is likely Gregory favored the Anglo Saxons as his people in Britain because he felt (1) he wanted them in the church - he already had the Welsh and (2) he feared that between Pelagianism and the politics of the Frankish church he was better off with a fresh slate. (Brunhilda could certainly have delivered extensive conversions in Britain is she wanted) It did not turn out to be that good of a strategy although his agents did manage eventually to convert the Anglo Saxons.
@LeeHoxton1 Penda was a pagan and may have egged Cadwallon on to destroy Edwin and Eanfrid and the others (although that was usually what happened) because he considered them enemies from the days he (as I believe) was an ally of Powys which Aethelfrith largely destroyed and also because Penda was of royal Angeln blood (descendant of Angeln king Offa) and considered Edwin and his successors uprstarts. Doubtless there were other factors. Bede forgave Penda but detested Cadwallon.
@LeeHoxton1 The Cornish were so far down the Dummnonian peninsula they were hardly worth bothering with. As I mentioned I am part of the group that believe that the SW went peacefully into Saxon hands. Dummnonia was a separate kingdom with intensely strong ties to Brittany and there was probably a bit of piracy there (had been since Caesar's time). Anyway Ine and Caedwalla had been directing force in that direction for some time.
@gradyloy1 I've got the breakdown for the S. West English DNA and 30% of samples are U106 (Germanic marker if it can be called that. I'm slightly hesitant to call it a German marker, but it's difficult to articulate on here)
I'm not sure which town the samples were taken, but it could be anyway and probably not Cornwall
@LeeHoxton1 Egbert arrived after the family had been in Kent (and to judge from the names had mixed extensively with the very Anglo Saxon royal family there) and spent exile in Frankia. He took over Wessex as the Viking incursions were starting and Mercian power was collapsing. I think he dispatched whatever independence Cornwall had left as a matter of course. Housekeeping. I think failure to Anglify Cornwall had to do with its remoteness and rusticity.
@LeeHoxton1 Aethelstan may well have expelled the British from Exeter. IF he did it was not racial prejudice. In addition to their mixed origins the House of Wessex also had excellent ties with the Welsh (eg Aser) during Viking invasions. Until the Normans came the Wales didn't really claim independence again (much of the Welsh hatred for the Anglo Saxons is of 15th to 17th century date and is artificial since the Welsh never really endured Saxon depredations, except when deserved.
@gradyloy1 Harold II killed someone & married his wife. I remember bits & pieces. I should say thank you for the info on mainland Europe. I don't know a thing about it. Insular English interest for my part. Not seen the movie. Watching bits as I type. Zeta Jones when she was alright.
@LeeHoxton1 Well in law Blackstone suggests Cornishmen are just Englishmen with rustic habits and funny speech. There was a Duchy of Cornwall but never an independent set of laws. So I think the British are kind of at a loss as to what to do with them. Speaking of the modern Cornish, did you ever see Blue Juice (British surfer movie) set in modern rural Cornwall? I got a kick out of it. But ethnic group, nah. They are no different from Devon and Somerset folk.
"The bloodline of king David and Christ. In other words, descendents of the true Jews of the Bible, (NOT todays so-called Jews whose descendents were Edomites who merely took on the Jewish religion centuries before Christ).
The Basque people are of a holy bloodline,one of the world's best kept secrets as the so-called Jews claim this birthright " This was said by a non basque woman..the british,the irish and americans of british descent also have this blood because the basques settled britain
Actually...all the English come from Germanic tribes such as Jutes, Angles and Saxons, they were the majority of the germanic tribes that make up what we know as the English. The Britons on the other hand (the original inhabitants of all of the british Isles) are all Celts...the Britons and the Celts are one in the same. The Irish are Celts the Welsh are Celts The Cornish are Celts and some other areas as well.
@nichols4326 There is no such thing as "English" people, in the way you're using it. The theory that the Anglo Saxons wiped out the indigenous population of Britain has been disproved. Anglo Saxon DNA makes up less than 5% of the genetics of people living in England to this day.
@DefeatedElitist NO, sounds like yr quoting Oppenheimer or Sykes.....It's not possible to absolute determine Anglo-Saxon DNA but what is clear from all scientific studies on European DNA is that >80% of YDNA (in old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms) of English samples shows that the English share ancestors with the modern people of Frisia, & Danish peninsula.
1 downstream of a Y chromo links the English to the Germanic confederations who moved into the Western Roman Empire (40% in England)
@DefeatedElitist P.S. If yr quoting Oppenheimer, he has been completely disproven.
As for Sykes, he argued that the English arrived from Iberia. There's virtually no matches between the English and Iberians. There are some in Wales, and there are some in Ere.
Spain is YDNA 312 undefined & 312/L21-with various mutations
@LeeHoxton1 I wasn't necessarily quoting Oppenheimer's views, and I know he has been discredited by others. However, I was mainly arguing the fact that the English are primarily of Anglo Saxon heritage. That theory has been widely discredited by most historians/anthropologists.
@DefeatedElitist Well I'm advocating that the connection between the Eng paternal line & Danish peninsula could be a result of a large Anglo-Saxon & later Danish settlement. Also mixed with Saxon mercenaries in the service of Rome and some from the Belgae.
Don't think that the connection is a result of a an earlier migration.
The U106 marker correlates with the movement of the Germanics & if this is a marker it will include an older L21 marker
@LeeHoxton1 I have done some research, and was basing my comments off the information I had found. However, you clearly know more on the subject than I. Interesting to get another perspective.
@DefeatedElitist Basically studied Anglo-Saxon history 15 years ago, then got pissed for years, then read Sykes and Oppenheimer's books of '06, reading them just last year. Then believing that this must be the case, then investigating other geneticists publications, then seeing Sykes/Opp mentioned on Youtube. This is got my goat because people should have done their research.
The Myres R1b distribution with piecharts of England/France/Ere are good. Seen this?
@LeeHoxton1 Can't say I have, but would love to research further. I only started dabbling in it, myself, a few months ago. Fascinating subject to learn about. Thank you for the recommendations.
@DefeatedElitist For me it's just a very easy look at the difference between the R1b distribution of three nations. Got any e-mail and I'll send them. I'm happy to as I doing this and watching Man United get well beaten. Happy Days!
Jeez...I thought I'd see comments on the video (which was great I'll say), only to find all these amateur geneticists yakity-yaking. :p None of you are Saxons, Celts, Angles etc. or whatnot now anyway, since 'culture' made these people who they were, and not these half-baked notions of race, left over from Colonial European thinking.
No, recent DNA testing throughout the UK and Western Europe revealed the true antecedents of to-day's indigenous population of Britain/UK came from the olden fishing villages of the coastal areas of Portugal and Spain. It might be more romantic to believe that you descend from the Normans and/or Germanic tribes and even the Celts (whose origins are much farther east, by the way), but your bio-chemistry is not so inclined. Undoubtedly, these other groups too were there but not foremost.
@ManInControI ok i could pass german dutch i have reddish brown Fine hair and blue eyes and my face is long and narrow a blonde mustache we are germanic most of us dont look northern spanish
west of england more celtic briton blood than germanic
east of england more germanic blood than celtic briton thats true folks
my ancesty comes from yorkshire northumberland and staffordshire so im celtogermanic a mixture and of course i must be more germanic than celtic briton
lf Arthur existed at all ...and that seems likely in some form ..then it is possible he was desended from a Romano British family . Arth in Welsh {the nearest we can get to Brithonic or old British} means bear and we know that the legions carried standards with animal heads while aruthr means marvellous which, if his 12 victories over the Saxons is true , then he certainly would have been . There is no mention of him in the list of Celtic kings so he must have been a war leader of some sort
@celtic4ever18: Absolutely right, they are more Germanic than Celts, that is why they was fighting the Irish and the Scottish, and have a German queen on the throne of England, governed by the Illuminati. You are correct, they marry in with the commoners to fool the nations, but why as a stepping stool to go back to their roots, of massacring the world and plunder it. These are a Germanic tribe that has no respect for humanity.
Lucius Artorius Castus lived in the II AD, he commanded an "ala" a cavalry squadroon in Britain. Roman cavalry had the Drake for standard.
Maybe he and others romans general like Aurelius Ambrosinus are tha base of the carachter of Arthur, or maybe not.
Many others romans people are into british legends, like the King Macsen Wledig (the emperor Magnus Maximus) or Costantin III (Flavius Claudius Constantinus).
Its a film, entertainment first and foremost, no one has a true idea of who and what and where the peoples of these islands even DNA has confounded the experts. But this is a film, watch it eating popcorn.
to all who think they know history from a damn movie let me tell you. the movie isn't true people, in fact I've come across sources that Arthur was a British(the tribes who were settling there) leader who defended Britain from the Saxons who were invading from Germany, he lived around 5-6 AD century, it's still unknown whether he exists or not but it's a strong possibility that he was in fact real, many cultural and historical sources point to that he was real, coincidence? don't think so
There are three primary sources of Germanic heritage and genetics in Scotland: The Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans, all of which had previously also absorbed Celtic peoples. The Vikings were related to the northern Scottish tribes, especially the northern islands, which were at one item a part of the Danish kingdom.
@Eso1 Also in the west, Viking influence and genetic streams are notable in the Isle of Skye and related Outer Hebrides. Some names within ghte McDonald cland there are actually Germanic, like McQueen and McSwain,. the latter is based on the Germanic word swain, meaning young man. Similarly onve the centuries Viking groups traded and settled in the northwestern areas of Ireland.
@Eso1 In every part of the British Isles various Germanic tribes intermarried with Celts native to the region and moving from one area of the Isles to another over several centuries. You mention some of the Germanic streams. Lowland Scots are mostly Germanic, though intermarried with Celts.
@Eso1 The Scots language (sometimes considered a dialect of English, but really a different language) is the descendant of the original Anglish tongue spoken by one of the Anglo-Saxon groups settling in the north. This language is also called Lallans (a form of the word Lowlands). A dialect of this is also spoken in Northern Ireland, where in more recent centuries, Scots moved in large numbers.
Northern Italy has been dominated by Germanic peoples in the centuries since the final breakdown of the western realm of the Roman Empire. The empire survived in the East until the final onslaught of the Osmanli (Ottoman) Turks. The previously Celtic areas of northern Italy were then overrun by Germanic waves, who had already absorbed eastern Celts in their progress from the east and north. Details are available in the authorities. Already mixed with Greek, Etruscan, Roman and others
@Eso1 the Celtic customs persisted in some form through the Germanic overlay.
In the northern areas, particularly, Celtic characteristics and practices continued, with the Germans being absorbed, and various groups moving into one of the two major language streams, Latin (Romance) or Germanic. Thus the mix of names and physical characteristics we see over history and today among various peoples with Germanic or Celtic background.
Northern Italians even today have Celtic practices, including bagpipes. A form of bagpipe was documented in the Greek period from the east to Italy. The Greeks in Iberia and southern Europe were in place along with or slightly before the Celts. History records the Germanic peoples then moving in several waves over those southern and western areas, absorbing Celtic peoples, and being changed by them.
In virtually every area of Europe, Celts were the earliest known Indo-European peoples there. They were already present perhaps as the Etruscan Empire arose, and definitely had clashes with the northern move of the Etruscans as they were pressed by Greeks and Romans on the southern fronts of their Italic Empire. Later Germanic waves absorbed some more Celtic genes and customs.
Most people do not know that even names and adjectives we associate now with Germanic peoples were actually names of Celtic groups originally. The word Teuton, for instance was the name of a Germanic tribes. Much is being done on several fronts right now to clarify the growing information that has appeared in recent years on European pre-history and early history. Germanic and Celtic specialists will have details on this. There are sources on the Internet.
@CRAiGbritain .Romans weren't all Italian. You were considered Roman if Rome ruled your country--you could be Spanish,German, British,North African, Gallish etc etc. And what does a 'celt' look like? The Romans described celts in southern England as fair like Gauls, Scots as redheaded and people in Wales as dark like Iberians.
@cranyonrye .Wrong. The R1b in England is primarily of the prehistoric Atlantic strain not the Germanic R1b which contains different markers.Very few archaeologists would claim anything like a Celtic 'genocide' today--there is no evidence to support it genetically or physically. Where are the bodies?? They have found mass graves from periods as early as the neolithic but little from this era.
@sonofherne Lol its funny though as it has been proven that a huge migration took place to Brittany (modern day France) around the same time as the Saxons migrated in huge waves. Coincidence?
Romans are christian yeah right. The roman emperor had christians fed to lions in the roman collesium, and when people wouldn't follow the roman pagan ways they brought their paganism into the catholic church. This video is a bunch of hogwash. Just look at ancient Rome, and Pompeii and see all the paganism, and homosexual sex there. They even had sex infront of their own children. Romans are flaming faggots, and the celts were more christian than they are.
They should have used a Cruachan song
jimmygrunts 1 month ago
@jimmygrunts Teir Abhail riu
MacDonaldSeumas 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
We are all the same.
ridiai99 2 months ago
SORRY...WASN'T ABLE TO SAY WHAT I MEANT...MY POINT IS EVEN IF YOU WERE 2ND GENERATION JAPANESE, IF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR FAMILY WERE SCOTTISH, WELL THEN YOUR HARDLY JAPANESE.
KNichols2012 2 months ago
truth is mates we are both some take after britons and some take after germanics
celtic4ever18 2 months ago
i thought the celts fought naked?
musiccomuk 2 months ago
@musiccomuk u are correct sir
noodles1916 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rydomart911
Actually, if you really think about it, it would have had to be an irish woman.
ChirstamsLover 2 months ago
An Irishman fucked a carrot and that's how red hair came about
rydomart911 3 months ago
@jVlonzter yes you can with face shape
celtic4ever18 3 months ago
I was born in England, my parents were also born in England but I have a Scottish Grandad, and obviously Scottish Great Grandparents. I also have an Irish Nan/grandmother and obviously Irish Great Grandparents. My other grand parents where born in England but my Nan/grandmother's parents were also Irish. Would I be considered a Celt?
TheMitchy93 3 months ago
@TheMitchy93 What difference does it make anyway? It's all about the music mate! :)
DKDamilos 3 months ago
@TheMitchy93 Obviosly for the most part you are...It doesn't really matter were you or your parents were born, it's more important what there line is or where there ancestrial line comes from , for example : if your granparents were from SCOTLAND moved to JAPAN and had a daughter there and she grew up in JAPAN met a man in JAPAN who was born there but was also of SCOTTISH descent as well.. "technicaly" acording to any law you would be considered "JAPANESE" but you would still be very scottish
KNichols2012 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMitchy93 SORRY...WASN'T ABLE TO SAY WHAT I MEANT...MY POINT IS EVEN IF YOU WERE 2ND GENERATION JAPANESE, IF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR FAMILY WERE SCOTTISH, WELL THEN YOUR HARDLY JAPANESE.
KNichols2012 2 months ago
Hey im a conqueror, your welcome for infrastructure !
MastroCicio 3 months ago
ensignmessage . com / basques . html
TheBasqueLand 3 months ago
@TheBasqueLand the jews did not populate the world thay cudnt of lest of all we celt unless ur sum religus nut theres no need to say sumthing so silly an u are dont bother us with it jews are daor slave we are laoch warrior
kingpharaohtsar 2 months ago
@drolorin jealous gypsy from deep spain trying to discredit me..envy is a bitch
TheBasqueLand 3 months ago
Fair hair is a Germanic trait, most Celts were dark haired. It's a proven fact that England is the fairest nation out of the four countries.
rydomart911 3 months ago 10
@rydomart911
What about red hair?
northman585 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rydomart911 you are silly
celtic4ever18 2 months ago
@rydomart911 The Celts originated in southern Germany. Black hair is akin to the Basque/Iberian peoples. Furthermore, there is speculation to whether or not the Celtic people even reached the British Isles. The word "Celt" is used far too loosely. The "Celtic" people were not all dark haired, either.
Seriously, do a little research before you spout off nonsense.
DefeatedElitist 2 months ago
@DefeatedElitist Irish people have 80 percent celt dna the rest is germanic norman.And of course the celts reached ireland we have celt ruins all over the country.
JordoF6 2 months ago
@JordoF6 I phrased my point incorrectly. What I meant was, there is still debate going on whether the Celtic people had a significant influence on the DNA of anyone from the British Isles.
"Celtic" is a term far too loosely thrown around, almost as a way to separate "Celtic" people from from the English, which I could have understood at the time, but now is becoming quite absurd. Genetically, the makeup of everyone in the British Isles is very similar.
DefeatedElitist 2 months ago
@DefeatedElitist Similar in that we are all arrivals from the Balkans, but there are Y chromosome divisions between the English & the Western side of Britain. It's the same for Ere. The Irish are mostly the descendents of the original settlers, with a small English/Norse incursion. 3/4 of the English share with Holland/Denmark a paternal ancestors, who's decendents arrived in England in various waves of tribes. i.e. La Tene peoples, Belgae, Anglo-Frisian,Saxon, Jutes, & Danes
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@JordoF6 It's called Celt DNA, and I call it Celt, but the Irish are and weren't really Celts.
There YDNA is mostly a downstream 312/L21/529 & as much as 2/5 have a mutation called M222. There's also sparse amounts from Iberia, and as you've said the rest is Norse, Norman, and English
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@rydomart911 Whether one was historically "Germanic" or "Celtic" either on the continent or in the British Isles depended upon what language one spoke. Genetically most of the people of Britain are descendants of people who have lived there thousands of years. They have accepted or had imposed on them cultures and languages of small groups of continental invaders. The Saxons weren't barbaric hordes but mercenaries who only revolted when those Britons who hired them could not longer pay.
gradyloy1 2 months ago
@gradyloy1 Thats not an absolute. The R1bYDNA is predominent in England@60% of which in the (old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms) 40% of samples show a downstream which links the English with the spread of the Germanic confederations who flooded across the Western Roman Empire. 75%Frisia. 10%France-representing the Franks/Burgundians etc.
The mutation is 3000 years old but the spread does matched the history!
How many thousand years are u saying?
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 Hi Lee:
I follow Sykes on this but corroborated by historians like Jones, Myers and Whittock. Rb1Y is even more common in Ireland/English W Country (80%) than in E. England or Germany. It is not a "celtic" gene or a "teutonic" gene but long predates those essentially linguistic divisions. Anglo Saxons (N. Germany) are likely to have R1a gene absent in West England but present in E. England. But in England this is more likely from mesolithic hunters and vikings.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 R1a isn't high anywhere in England. But it's mostly in Slavic lands, falling away further west. Yes 80 in Cornwall. Sykes basic haplogroup was about 51, 55, 57% R1b- E.Anglia, midland, and South. In the Anglia DNA project it shows R1b at 44% and there's difs with East & Wales. Wales has all these older mutations and substantial amounts of R1b which is found in Spain. Genetic markers are just markers but we have to equate them to something. Maybe U106 does signify Saxon
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 Read my below comment first. Even Myers fails to understand - peasant seaborne invasions were neither feasible not actually historically reported. The not so small (5-10%) Anglo Saxon genetic signature in E. England, when not muddled with later Viking immigration, is because the Romans early settled mercenary Saxons on the coast who then (from Carausius time) traded with the "Old Country" gradually building up their numbers. A trickle not a flood. Nothing sinister.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 Your taking about Mucking and the like. Sykes was saying that most of the British came directly from Iberia. The L21/U106/U152 and I253 markers are only 3000-4000 years old and arrived from North and central Europe. Sykes cannot be right because the mutations have been dated.
Why is it not feasible that over the course of 2 centuries many Anglo-Saxons arrived and displaced most of the idiginous male pop. through war & birth successes?
The Goths numbered 200,000
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 Shit, I meant didn't arrive before 3000 B.C.
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 I know you do not approve of Sykes but I so far see no reason to disbelieve him. He suggests there were two migrations to Britain, Mesolithic and Neolithic, and that differences between east and west are in some sense according to those. To deny that any Anglo Saxons invaded England would be nonsense. But historically nationalism was quite different from what is understood. A nation like Frankia was called Frankia because it was ruled by Franks, not populated by them.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 East Anglia DNA sample group. 44% R1b of which 28% U106 (3000 yr) 22% U152 (3500) In Wales L21 is 4000 years old. It did arrive before 2000-3000 B.C. The R1b YDNA came up through the Balkans. Sykes was wrong. I read the book. It was very nicely written but he was wrong.
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 Lee, please read comments in reverse order, thanks. Best historical understanding not I think inconsistent with genetics is that Saxons brought in over 200 years, their numbers grown to 5-10% on SE coast, when Roman control ended, continued supporting local successors of Romans (some of whom may've been assimilated Saxons). When support systems broke down (445), Saxons revolted - like the Goths. Roman elites had fled. Expansion & Peasant Linguistic Assimilation followed.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 will do. Could use Roman nums
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 They were still Saxons though. I don't care when they arrived. Before, after Roman sphere of influence. What matters is that they were arriving here. According to some historian:- A. Marcellunus (what ever his name is) said that the Goths no. 200k on the Danube. About 15000 Alemanni/Suebi/Burgs died at Strasbourg. Those barbarians all have dependents. We know this cause Rome wrote this hit down. Why is it not feasable that 200k Saxon arrived too 1.8 million Britons?
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 But it's the reverse for the Franks. The Franks adopted Latin and the Franks/Gauls stop speaking Germanico-Celtic. A small Ango-Saxon elite would find it difficult to take over large sections of Britain. They'd need support. It's been considered that the 12 Saxon kingdoms started as 40+ kingdoms. The only reason the Normans took over easily is that it's easier to take over a country with adminstrations. Just like today with Afganstan. Our common tongue is Anglo-Saxon German
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 When I mention Afgan land I was saying that taking over a feudel country would be harder than taking over the adminstrative duties of civil servants in England.
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gradyloy1 I. Dug out old notes:- Sykes Quote:- The strongest signal is a Celtic clan Oisin (R1b) which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominant in every part of the Atlantic chromo, with strong affinities to Iberia. It is this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin in our Y Chromo.
Sykes goes on to say that English paternity in the South is 10% A-S and 20% A-S/Dane in East Anglia.
Spain is doesn't have the R1bYDNA downstream of L21, found in Wales
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 II. At least Spain doesn't have the numbers of L21 that Britain has. Spain also has >50% of downstream 312 that's undefined. In England that is extremely low, but much higher in Wales
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 Hi, thanks for some of the more detailed genetic background. I do understand that R1b and R1a originated in the Balkans or Ukraine or thereabouts. R1b originated on the continent and I would not hazard a guess. Not stuck with Spain. However, My maps show Ireland apprx 80% covered by R1b and same for SW England. Ireland only a trace of R1a (attributable to the Vikings. R1a =1/3 of Norway) England like N Germany is abt 1/2 R1b and 1/10 R1a.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 I wouldn't dispute 80% R1b S.W. Regional S.W. Myres & Underhill:- 4% R-P310 undefined, 17% U152, 21% L21/529 & 29% U106. Total:- 72% So easily nearer 80% in that sample to 55-60 in the East.
Ere has all this R-P312* and L21 with M222 mutations.
Any U106, I253, and trace R1a must have arrived with vikings + 16-7 cent migration from England/Scotland.
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 The map I am looking at suggests a fair bit of R1a in England in the East. It could all be from Vikings (I am not up enough to do a really rigorous ratio analysis even assuming my Wikipedia charts are any good.) One historical note - the Saxons Angles and Frisians are known to have admixed considerably with the Wends and the Scandinavians both. There is a complex as yet undeciphered ethnic history of the North sea coast independent of modern language distributions.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Please read one lower post first: If I look at the J YHaplogroup which is common in N Germany/Denmark it is about 1/10 there and about 1/30th in E England meaning (since the Norse do have a lot of R1a and almost no J - and I am not forgetting the Danes have the same J signature as the Saxons - as far as we can tell this late) that assuming 0 Danish immigration you could arrive at something like a manximum 1/3 of the E English population has Anglo Saxon male ancestry.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 E, G, & J...Didn't pay any attention! 1/3 is possible. Unfortunately DNA is not absolute, unless a downstream mutation is found that dates to the early to middle part of the first millenium, that started in Denmark, and is 1/3 in English samples.
what is clear is that most of the English gene pool came to England from 4000 B.C. I think.
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 Since the Danes migrated to the Danelaw for 300 years virtually uninterrupted under conditions much more favorable than those experienced by the Saxons (Saxon migration occurred slowly from 300 to 450 arguably picked up from 450 to 500 was reversed from 500 to 550 and had a last small burst 550 to 600.) and probably (as Sykes suggests) account for greater numbers in the Danelaw, also the area of heaviest Saxon settlement. I would put Saxon origin as about 1/6 the total.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 Even during peace in Bede's time we can't determine whether continental migration stopped. Did the Saxons hire from the indig populas or recruit more Saxons to drive on into the West. The genetic data tells us that the English are more linked to Denmark than the Welsh/Irish are, it's just not clear on the levels of migration at different times.
Didn't Ethelred get 40 ships from Thornkill the viking. How many people fit in those ships? Sykes' book?
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 This is easy. It certainly did not. Peaceful migration which I contend was always the main form continued unabated in the North sea emporium (including London, York, Quentovic, Doer and other North Germanic ports). The Scandinavians from 500's became increasingly involved. The strength of the kingdoms of Edwin, Oswald and Offa slowed the flood for 200 years but with the weakening of Mercia late 8th century Scandinavians picked things up again. Same basic migration.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 The model of change from Old English to middle English is well documented, but it's generally thought that our common tongue is technically Anglo-Saxon German. Although this has been disputed. Most notabably by Oppenheimer, who advocates English as being much older (he's a nut) I've actually got an e-mail from a professor at UCL who said that Oppenheimer was an amatuer.
But I would expect an absorbing of German into dominant language if the Saxon incursion was 5,000
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 I cannot see how it can have been other than Anglo Saxon English. Anyway, thanks for your exchanges. I have learned much today. Good night and happy new year (1 hour away here in Japan)
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 For the best discussion of how many people fit in the boats see Michael Jones the End of Roman Britain (Cornell) chapter 3. It is not necessary to agree with all of his conclusions to find his discussion of the boat capacity of Saxon and Viking ships very interesting. Jones is a believer that few Germans actually came (until they basically controlled the country One must admit that without certain immigrant numbers its impossible to get the people to change language).
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 If I remember rightly Sykes said that 10% of Southern English men were patrilineal A-S. How did he come up with that. His anaylsis was wrong. Even now with substantial genetic links to Germania, we can't be certain of the numbers of Saxon types from 300-600. M&U Eng. S.E.:-8% 312* 16% U152, 24% L21/529 & 24% U106 & 4% M222 (Irish)
If Sykes had found the markers he wouldn't have said that we're directly from Iberia & could claim 10%.
3/5 including Danes maybe
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 Here I have to rely on your more extensive erudition. 10% is for reasons I have mentioned based on historical evidence an attractive figure. More and we would have seen more evidence. Less and Celtic culture would have held a wider sway. I agree it is a hard call to make as to what was a Saxon and and what was not based only on Y Haplogrpous since we are talking not about essential differences but differences in ratios in a population slowly churning for 1000+ years. .
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 And that is taking account of far more successful fathering of children than the defeated Briton males and a healthy economy supported by robust North Sea trade. It does not seem unreasonable in view of an assumed total Saxon population ca 500 of 200,000 of whom at least 80% were native born. I would not put total immigration at over 50,000. Jones for historical and acheol reasons thinks the adventus migration was abt 25000. That would be a huge invasion.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 Harke of Germany said 200,000. I don't we will ever know. Only if they dig up some Latin church manuscript that writes objectively about the incursion. Perhaps something along the lines of ''In the year of our lord.....many 1000's came to Dorset' or something to that affect.
I'm still wondering why the Romans always numbered Barbarians in many thousands including the Goths. I think they were evading the Huns. they could have tried to go north to Britain
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
LeeHoxton1 For me 200,000 is an estimate but it is not of the number of people that got in boats in the 400's and went to Britain, it is the number of people immigrant and assimilant who considered themselves Anglo Saxons in about 450AD I still believe that most were native born and many probably sided with the Britons (with whom they had mixed and been neighbors for generations) The revolt leaders were immigrants (Hengist) who went unpaid and revolted like Alaric.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 I can't dispute that those earlier settles from Germania could have sided with thier British counter-parts during the later part of the 5th century. A few 19th cent nationalist said that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the Britons, but in equal measure other scholars disputed this at the time same that if all the men were killed the women wouldn't be. There were cluster settlements of peasant remnants
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 In some situations they may have done so to the mid 6th century (south bank Upper Thames, the Cerdicingas, the settlers at Mucking, Soemil (Edwin's forbear), the Saxons defeated at Aderidasleag by Aelle (British Saxon shore guards were largely Saxon), Penda - I am certain he served Powys and when he took over Powys after Brocmail died (616) he allied with Cadwallon rather than submit to Edwin, and certain Saxons in Essex and Surrey who apparently served Verulamnium.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 The later Saxon leaders/settlers of Essex (Which archeology suggests returned to British control with Badon) with their S and Seig alliteration appear to have appeared in the mid 6th century. Given continental politics it is likely they were allies of Kings Theodebert and certainly King Sigebert of Austrasia both of whom controlled continental Saxony and meddled in Denmark (Hygelac). Muy guess is that many of them had been involved in the Lombard invasion.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 When the Lomard Kingdom of Alboin (Aelfwine) collapsed, many Saxons returned home (where there was nothing for them to do). It is highly likely that Sigebert and later Brunhilda sent some of them to Britain to shore up friendly Kent and counter whatever meddling Chilperic and Fredegunda were contemplating via the Bayeux Saxons and Bretons in the British kingdoms and the Solent Saxon settlements. (see G of Tours for Fredegund's use of Saxons to meddle in Breton affairs.)
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 Again, it could be a complete coincidence but the distribution of the YDNA mutation does seem to nicely fit with the movement of people from the Danish peninsula. I. The 25% or 25/100 men sampled in England along with higher levels in Frisia/Danish penin correspond. As does the migration pattern to Ere/It matches to the Franks/Burgudians/Lombards migrating across Europe. Logically there's no gene discrimination, so Saxons would arrive with other downstream mutations.
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 II. So in S.E. Eng 25% of men have the downstream U106 marker. A proportion of their ancestors (as u say) would have arrived as Roman Soldiers & the others as later invaders. So a proportion of U152 and L21 would have arrived in both fashions. It's impossible to determine how many modern Englishmen with these markers arrived in the 2-3rd wave. If we take just the 25 U106 & exclude all others including I1-253 it's still a substantial number in the modern English gene pull.
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 I have long felt that the "everybody came in three keels - kings, soldiers, farmers, wives, kids, goats, merchants, chickens" theory held by the Germans was naive and too based on sentimental stories of American prairie schooners bound for Oregon. On the other hand, there had to be enough Saxons in Britain to (1) scare off the Picts, (2) completely ravage Britain (3) Conquer the whole country by 625 (Edwin) and change the language. The problem: how did they get there?
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 As you can tell I'm a little bit more up to date with the genetic publications. It's been years since I looked at Saxon history. I just recently picked up the Sykes/Opp books, & initially believed it, then looked at all the other studies and realized that they completely wrong.
David Weston UCL:-E.Anglia:- R1b44%,R1a1%,I134% of which 18% I-M253 considered an Anglo-Danish marker. Again, impossible to determine Viking or Angle.
As you state 300 years of Danish migration!
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 Last part on YDNA, Sykes' Haplogroup marker samples are very good, and he also states that 30% of S. England markers are I1. Of this I don't know what proportion would be I1, but to speculate it could be up to 50% M-253.
With regards to the Goths the historian said 200k but I agree they would exaggerate the numbers killed at the battle of Strasbourg. (There's no archaeological evidence for this battle!!!)
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Regarding the Goths the Romans were notorious for overestimating the size of enemy nations but it varied with historians. Ammianus who was Greek (and wrote about the Goths in the 2nd century was probably more accurate than most. However (and you are of course correct about the Balthi fleeing the Huns) the Goths as a discrete ethnic group had ceased to exist. They were 1/3 Sarmatian (Steppe Iranian) 1/2 Bacaudae with the remainder a mix of North central German tribes.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Again reverse order (sorry) led by the arguably Scandinavian Balthi and related clans. Most of the Goths probably did not speak Gothic which is why 200,000 of them assimilated so beautifully in Gaul and Spain and except for their names disappeared (See Liebeshuetz "Alaric's Goths Nation or Army" in Fifth Century Gaul). The Ostrogoths were more noticceably German but still hopellessly mixed and supplemented. The Anglo Saxons were near unique in their "Germanness."
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 They were evading the Huns. They did not get to Britain because the Franks beat them before they could reach the channel. The Frankish position in Nuestria was due to Aegidius (magister militum) use of mixed German and Roman Generals (including some Saxons at Bayeux and on the Loire) such as Count Paul, Odovacar, and Childerich (Clovis father). Frankish war bands, were a key part of the Northern defense. When Aedigius died, his son Syagrius tried to make a go of it.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Childeric fled to Thuringia, Odovacar went to Rome and Count Paul was dead. But Childeric's son Clovis came back and drove Syagrius into the hands of the Goths (who gave him back) and took over an area where he already had extensive ties with local officials. Besides Britain was a mess and the measures he almost certainly took with regard to it (and which everyone now overlooks) were probably limited to forestalling Saxon raiding of his shores from Sussex and Anglia.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Regarding Dorset, I am pretty sure (as Myers has suggested) that Dorset did not fall. Wessex was one of those kingdoms that was in fact the heart of Britishdom. Cerdic was a Saxon warlord on the west end of the Litus Saxonicum (not from Germany) The last king of that line attested is Aurelianus Conanus (Cyan). The Wessex Kingdom was composite. It seems likely the male line of the Aurelii died out and a faithful Saxon retainer of the Cerdicingas became ruler.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 This would have been either by marriage or accclamation or whatever (who knows) but the abundance of celtic names in the early Wessex house, plus the shameless grafting of the Ceawlininga (Thames valley Saxons) saga onto a Cerdicinga saga that was set back in time 40 years is one of the more brazen atrocities of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle (See both Dumville and Myer) So Dorset went peacefully into England. Dumnonia (Devon and Cornwall) was independent.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 There is almost no archeological signature for the Anglo Saxons (Though I admit that is debatable proof of anything) in Dorset that early yet neither the chronicle nor Bede mention the conquest of these lands. The chronicle mentions the loss of what was in effect Southern Powys to the Gewisse (Ceawlin 570) so it is unlikely that if the ruling house of Wessex had had to fight for the Southwest it would not have been mentioned. So I agree with Myers this was assimilation.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 Dorset was just a randon place mentioned. Sorry
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Dorset was important. It was where Gildas lived apparently. Also it has almost no Chronicle history (nor do Silchester, Wiltshire - well there is a little Cerdic stuff, Somerset, etc etc. A vast territory of which Dorset was the heart passed peacefully into what was to become the dominant Saxon realm.) I am a little lost as to the Paganism of the Gewisse into the mid 7th century. Also the choice of Dorchester on Thames as the first see is mystifying.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Anyway, ultimately the Anglo Saxon culture prevailed. Aethelfrith and Edwin were key to its success. Had Cadwallon not died 635 after killing Edwin its doubtful it would have done and the English would be an interesting memory like the Lombards. But die he did and the lands he grabbed fell to his ally Penda and his enemy Oswald, both Angles. Afterward friendship of the Church, Frankish trade and utter British military failure guaranteed final cultural transformation.
gradyloy1 1 month ago
@gradyloy1 There's Cadwallon, so which one's the Welsh one. That is the Welsh one. Cadwallon's Welsh. So which one's Cadwalla? And Penda was killed by Oswald or Osway. It's been so long since I read this stuff.
What's your theory on the survivor of the Cornish. It's the late incursion by Egbert ?
Did Altherstan really expel the British quarter from Exeter. Why does Cornish survive. Those Corns want to be clasified as an ethnic group. They're not black so they're treated like shit.
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 Bede I think called Venedotian Cadwallon "Cadwealla" because he did not like the house of Wessex (which as I have suggested may have been largely British and therefore unclean in Bede's eyes) Ceadwalla was a Saxon King of Wessex who went to Rome in 685. The King who took Northern England for a year was Cadwallon son of Cadvan. His father had been Edwin's vassal. Pagan Penda of Mercia was his brother in law.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 That's it Cadwealla. And it was Cadwallon who said he 'wanted to kill to all of those race of English.' Or something to that affect. That's it, Penda made an alliance with the Welsh, Penda kicked an arch bishop out of Mercia, and he was killed by a Northumbrian. This should be all on Wiki. I can't stand Wiki....It's got Sykes & Oppenheimer quoted all over English origins (and they're wronglol) Bede cursed the Britons for not bringing Christianity to the English. Bless Bede
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Bede was wrong on this. The British refused Augustine because he was bishop of a country whose vassals had just destroyed a couple of their kingdoms (Verulamnium, Berenicia) and Aethelfrith, quite differently from Edwin and Ethelbert was a homicidal maniac. They could not comprehend Augustine's/Paulinus' elevation to lordship over christians of people whose kings ordered the butchery of christian clergy. Clumsy. The Franks were far more clever in their dealings.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 It is likely Gregory favored the Anglo Saxons as his people in Britain because he felt (1) he wanted them in the church - he already had the Welsh and (2) he feared that between Pelagianism and the politics of the Frankish church he was better off with a fresh slate. (Brunhilda could certainly have delivered extensive conversions in Britain is she wanted) It did not turn out to be that good of a strategy although his agents did manage eventually to convert the Anglo Saxons.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Penda was a pagan and may have egged Cadwallon on to destroy Edwin and Eanfrid and the others (although that was usually what happened) because he considered them enemies from the days he (as I believe) was an ally of Powys which Aethelfrith largely destroyed and also because Penda was of royal Angeln blood (descendant of Angeln king Offa) and considered Edwin and his successors uprstarts. Doubtless there were other factors. Bede forgave Penda but detested Cadwallon.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 The Cornish were so far down the Dummnonian peninsula they were hardly worth bothering with. As I mentioned I am part of the group that believe that the SW went peacefully into Saxon hands. Dummnonia was a separate kingdom with intensely strong ties to Brittany and there was probably a bit of piracy there (had been since Caesar's time). Anyway Ine and Caedwalla had been directing force in that direction for some time.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 I've got the breakdown for the S. West English DNA and 30% of samples are U106 (Germanic marker if it can be called that. I'm slightly hesitant to call it a German marker, but it's difficult to articulate on here)
I'm not sure which town the samples were taken, but it could be anyway and probably not Cornwall
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Egbert arrived after the family had been in Kent (and to judge from the names had mixed extensively with the very Anglo Saxon royal family there) and spent exile in Frankia. He took over Wessex as the Viking incursions were starting and Mercian power was collapsing. I think he dispatched whatever independence Cornwall had left as a matter of course. Housekeeping. I think failure to Anglify Cornwall had to do with its remoteness and rusticity.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Aethelstan may well have expelled the British from Exeter. IF he did it was not racial prejudice. In addition to their mixed origins the House of Wessex also had excellent ties with the Welsh (eg Aser) during Viking invasions. Until the Normans came the Wales didn't really claim independence again (much of the Welsh hatred for the Anglo Saxons is of 15th to 17th century date and is artificial since the Welsh never really endured Saxon depredations, except when deserved.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
@gradyloy1 Harold II killed someone & married his wife. I remember bits & pieces. I should say thank you for the info on mainland Europe. I don't know a thing about it. Insular English interest for my part. Not seen the movie. Watching bits as I type. Zeta Jones when she was alright.
LeeHoxton1 4 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Well in law Blackstone suggests Cornishmen are just Englishmen with rustic habits and funny speech. There was a Duchy of Cornwall but never an independent set of laws. So I think the British are kind of at a loss as to what to do with them. Speaking of the modern Cornish, did you ever see Blue Juice (British surfer movie) set in modern rural Cornwall? I got a kick out of it. But ethnic group, nah. They are no different from Devon and Somerset folk.
gradyloy1 4 weeks ago
I WANT A LONGER VERSION OF THE SONG SHE SINGS AT 2:00!! I LOVE IT
bagybf1942 3 months ago 2
i love this movie...its way better than all the other Arthur movies...and this song...AMAZING! Greetings from Switzerland
bagybf1942 3 months ago
"The bloodline of king David and Christ. In other words, descendents of the true Jews of the Bible, (NOT todays so-called Jews whose descendents were Edomites who merely took on the Jewish religion centuries before Christ).
The Basque people are of a holy bloodline,one of the world's best kept secrets as the so-called Jews claim this birthright " This was said by a non basque woman..the british,the irish and americans of british descent also have this blood because the basques settled britain
TheBasqueLand 3 months ago
@TheBasqueLand HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It's not worth responding to this nonsense
drolorin 3 months ago
ha awesome i love next to king arthur castle am Cornish celt
celts rule whether you are from cymru(wales) alba (Scotland)Eire(Ireland) mannin (isle of man) kernow (cornwall) or briez (brittany) :)
Pro13east 4 months ago
name of the first song: corryvreckan - william jackson
Mrs23Butterfly23 4 months ago
what's the name of the first song please ?
valery2938 4 months ago
whats the name of this tune ?
celtic4ever18 4 months ago
Actually...all the English come from Germanic tribes such as Jutes, Angles and Saxons, they were the majority of the germanic tribes that make up what we know as the English. The Britons on the other hand (the original inhabitants of all of the british Isles) are all Celts...the Britons and the Celts are one in the same. The Irish are Celts the Welsh are Celts The Cornish are Celts and some other areas as well.
nichols4326 4 months ago 16
@nichols4326 i have some Irish blood on grandmother side
celtic4ever18 4 months ago
@nichols4326 that's right, but King Arthur wasn't king of the English, he was king of the Britons
amlbrooks93 3 months ago
@nichols4326 get a time machine
celtic4ever18 2 months ago
@nichols4326 There is no such thing as "English" people, in the way you're using it. The theory that the Anglo Saxons wiped out the indigenous population of Britain has been disproved. Anglo Saxon DNA makes up less than 5% of the genetics of people living in England to this day.
DefeatedElitist 2 months ago
@DefeatedElitist NO, sounds like yr quoting Oppenheimer or Sykes.....It's not possible to absolute determine Anglo-Saxon DNA but what is clear from all scientific studies on European DNA is that >80% of YDNA (in old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms) of English samples shows that the English share ancestors with the modern people of Frisia, & Danish peninsula.
1 downstream of a Y chromo links the English to the Germanic confederations who moved into the Western Roman Empire (40% in England)
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@DefeatedElitist II. To be precise it's R1b-269-310/L11* + 310-S21/U106 + L48 & U198
This makes up 50% of haplogroup R1b which is most common in England. About 60%!
Also downstream 312/S116-U152 which can be argued to be a combination of the Belgae/Angles.10-5%
Anglesey was colonised by the Angles and U152 makes up 20% & U106 30% where as both are less than 3% in Wales itself.
It's not an absolute but the DNA corresponds with the historic a/c's
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@DefeatedElitist P.S. If yr quoting Oppenheimer, he has been completely disproven.
As for Sykes, he argued that the English arrived from Iberia. There's virtually no matches between the English and Iberians. There are some in Wales, and there are some in Ere.
Spain is YDNA 312 undefined & 312/L21-with various mutations
LeeHoxton1 1 month ago
@LeeHoxton1 I wasn't necessarily quoting Oppenheimer's views, and I know he has been discredited by others. However, I was mainly arguing the fact that the English are primarily of Anglo Saxon heritage. That theory has been widely discredited by most historians/anthropologists.
DefeatedElitist 3 weeks ago
@DefeatedElitist Well I'm advocating that the connection between the Eng paternal line & Danish peninsula could be a result of a large Anglo-Saxon & later Danish settlement. Also mixed with Saxon mercenaries in the service of Rome and some from the Belgae.
Don't think that the connection is a result of a an earlier migration.
The U106 marker correlates with the movement of the Germanics & if this is a marker it will include an older L21 marker
LeeHoxton1 3 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 I have done some research, and was basing my comments off the information I had found. However, you clearly know more on the subject than I. Interesting to get another perspective.
DefeatedElitist 3 weeks ago
@DefeatedElitist Basically studied Anglo-Saxon history 15 years ago, then got pissed for years, then read Sykes and Oppenheimer's books of '06, reading them just last year. Then believing that this must be the case, then investigating other geneticists publications, then seeing Sykes/Opp mentioned on Youtube. This is got my goat because people should have done their research.
The Myres R1b distribution with piecharts of England/France/Ere are good. Seen this?
LeeHoxton1 3 weeks ago
@LeeHoxton1 Can't say I have, but would love to research further. I only started dabbling in it, myself, a few months ago. Fascinating subject to learn about. Thank you for the recommendations.
DefeatedElitist 3 weeks ago
@DefeatedElitist For me it's just a very easy look at the difference between the R1b distribution of three nations. Got any e-mail and I'll send them. I'm happy to as I doing this and watching Man United get well beaten. Happy Days!
LeeHoxton1 3 weeks ago
@nichols4326 And the britons, the west coast of france, celtic culture is the most beautiful ;)
gomis751 2 months ago
The Legends are real. The Castle is the Castle at Questenberg, Germany. There is where you will find King Arthur's Castle.
downyourtube 4 months ago
Вообще-то, король Артур был как раз римлянином ))
TheNavolok 4 months ago
the second song is a good song
stadenlande 4 months ago
Us british were Mad motherfuckers Whats happened theses Days
TheDangerousDeath 4 months ago
@TheDangerousDeath
We're still mad bastards but we don't know who we hate any more :) Bring back the Soviets...or aliens LOL
AlchemicalDavid 4 months ago
Jeez...I thought I'd see comments on the video (which was great I'll say), only to find all these amateur geneticists yakity-yaking. :p None of you are Saxons, Celts, Angles etc. or whatnot now anyway, since 'culture' made these people who they were, and not these half-baked notions of race, left over from Colonial European thinking.
BlackBeltJohnson 5 months ago
LOL, roman warriors who don't fight in formation..
SerChade 5 months ago
@SerChade That's usually what happens in an ambush :)
killingdroid13 5 months ago
No, recent DNA testing throughout the UK and Western Europe revealed the true antecedents of to-day's indigenous population of Britain/UK came from the olden fishing villages of the coastal areas of Portugal and Spain. It might be more romantic to believe that you descend from the Normans and/or Germanic tribes and even the Celts (whose origins are much farther east, by the way), but your bio-chemistry is not so inclined. Undoubtedly, these other groups too were there but not foremost.
lordalfred1882 5 months ago
The first song name?
zaddenasdfg 6 months ago
Anglo Saxon And proud
ManInControI 6 months ago
@ManInControI the funny thing is that you only have a small amount of germanic blood probably
celtic4ever18 5 months ago
@celtic4ever18 How could you possibly know that? Do you know me?
ManInControI 5 months ago
Comment removed
celtic4ever18 5 months ago
@celtic4ever18 I'm not celtic at all.
Anglo Saxon and proud
ManInControI 5 months ago
@ManInControI i have reddish brown hair and blue eyes is that Germanic ?
celtic4ever18 5 months ago
Comment removed
celtic4ever18 5 months ago
@ManInControI ok i could pass german dutch i have reddish brown Fine hair and blue eyes and my face is long and narrow a blonde mustache we are germanic most of us dont look northern spanish
celtic4ever18 5 months ago
@jVlonzter germans have nothing to do with brythonic culture ahahah you kidding me? germanic is germanic not brythonic
3tangle3 6 months ago
maria610421 no one cares what you think , this is none of you business, go away and be a black supremest somewhere else and keep you nose out of it.
aussie66monster 6 months ago
@MrBEAST127 yes im 6,25 % Briton from Ireland and thats northern spanish blood i am 1 16th irish
celtic4ever18 7 months ago
Comment removed
celtic4ever18 7 months ago
@MrBEAST127 ancient Britons were Iberian from northern Spain my mum is from yorkshire and she looks Germanic Viking and anglosaxon
celtic4ever18 7 months ago 2
Last song ?
Exazuria 7 months ago
@Exazuria Capercaille 'Fear-Allabain
abelhextkd22 6 months ago
@Exazuria
abelhextkd22 6 months ago
Pff crap...
JazavacShumski 7 months ago
west of england more celtic briton blood than germanic
east of england more germanic blood than celtic briton thats true folks
my ancesty comes from yorkshire northumberland and staffordshire so im celtogermanic a mixture and of course i must be more germanic than celtic briton
celtic4ever18 7 months ago 3
lf Arthur existed at all ...and that seems likely in some form ..then it is possible he was desended from a Romano British family . Arth in Welsh {the nearest we can get to Brithonic or old British} means bear and we know that the legions carried standards with animal heads while aruthr means marvellous which, if his 12 victories over the Saxons is true , then he certainly would have been . There is no mention of him in the list of Celtic kings so he must have been a war leader of some sort
alunhughes147 7 months ago
Comment removed
alunhughes147 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@celtic4ever18: Absolutely right, they are more Germanic than Celts, that is why they was fighting the Irish and the Scottish, and have a German queen on the throne of England, governed by the Illuminati. You are correct, they marry in with the commoners to fool the nations, but why as a stepping stool to go back to their roots, of massacring the world and plunder it. These are a Germanic tribe that has no respect for humanity.
maria610421 7 months ago 3
Comment removed
celtic4ever18 7 months ago
Check out the work of Alan Wilson.
theinfinitezero1 7 months ago
@theinfinitezero1 hi im anglosaxon man with irish blood on grandmother side im mostly germanic with a part celtic cheers
celtic4ever18 7 months ago 8
Lucius Artorius Castus lived in the II AD, he commanded an "ala" a cavalry squadroon in Britain. Roman cavalry had the Drake for standard.
Maybe he and others romans general like Aurelius Ambrosinus are tha base of the carachter of Arthur, or maybe not.
Many others romans people are into british legends, like the King Macsen Wledig (the emperor Magnus Maximus) or Costantin III (Flavius Claudius Constantinus).
Miauriceful 8 months ago
Its a film, entertainment first and foremost, no one has a true idea of who and what and where the peoples of these islands even DNA has confounded the experts. But this is a film, watch it eating popcorn.
rock280258 8 months ago
Comment removed
celtic4ever18 7 months ago
Comment removed
celtic4ever18 7 months ago
to all who think they know history from a damn movie let me tell you. the movie isn't true people, in fact I've come across sources that Arthur was a British(the tribes who were settling there) leader who defended Britain from the Saxons who were invading from Germany, he lived around 5-6 AD century, it's still unknown whether he exists or not but it's a strong possibility that he was in fact real, many cultural and historical sources point to that he was real, coincidence? don't think so
nnezdrav 8 months ago
King Arthur probably lived around the mid third century AD,He was not Celtic in fact he was
a Roman general who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxon forces.
milano921 8 months ago
Europe was and is pretty much just like NYC, a giant melting pot of cultures, traditions and genetics mixing and interbreeding.
Eso1 8 months ago
For further amateur anthropology studies, just google Celtic/Spain connection.
Eso1 8 months ago
Germanic Scots
There are three primary sources of Germanic heritage and genetics in Scotland: The Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans, all of which had previously also absorbed Celtic peoples. The Vikings were related to the northern Scottish tribes, especially the northern islands, which were at one item a part of the Danish kingdom.
Eso1 8 months ago
@Eso1 Also in the west, Viking influence and genetic streams are notable in the Isle of Skye and related Outer Hebrides. Some names within ghte McDonald cland there are actually Germanic, like McQueen and McSwain,. the latter is based on the Germanic word swain, meaning young man. Similarly onve the centuries Viking groups traded and settled in the northwestern areas of Ireland.
Eso1 8 months ago
@Eso1 In every part of the British Isles various Germanic tribes intermarried with Celts native to the region and moving from one area of the Isles to another over several centuries. You mention some of the Germanic streams. Lowland Scots are mostly Germanic, though intermarried with Celts.
Eso1 8 months ago
@Eso1 The Scots language (sometimes considered a dialect of English, but really a different language) is the descendant of the original Anglish tongue spoken by one of the Anglo-Saxon groups settling in the north. This language is also called Lallans (a form of the word Lowlands). A dialect of this is also spoken in Northern Ireland, where in more recent centuries, Scots moved in large numbers.
Eso1 8 months ago
Northern Italy has been dominated by Germanic peoples in the centuries since the final breakdown of the western realm of the Roman Empire. The empire survived in the East until the final onslaught of the Osmanli (Ottoman) Turks. The previously Celtic areas of northern Italy were then overrun by Germanic waves, who had already absorbed eastern Celts in their progress from the east and north. Details are available in the authorities. Already mixed with Greek, Etruscan, Roman and others
Eso1 8 months ago
@Eso1 the Celtic customs persisted in some form through the Germanic overlay.
In the northern areas, particularly, Celtic characteristics and practices continued, with the Germans being absorbed, and various groups moving into one of the two major language streams, Latin (Romance) or Germanic. Thus the mix of names and physical characteristics we see over history and today among various peoples with Germanic or Celtic background.
Eso1 8 months ago
Italian
Northern Italians even today have Celtic practices, including bagpipes. A form of bagpipe was documented in the Greek period from the east to Italy. The Greeks in Iberia and southern Europe were in place along with or slightly before the Celts. History records the Germanic peoples then moving in several waves over those southern and western areas, absorbing Celtic peoples, and being changed by them.
Eso1 8 months ago
Celtic Understructure
In virtually every area of Europe, Celts were the earliest known Indo-European peoples there. They were already present perhaps as the Etruscan Empire arose, and definitely had clashes with the northern move of the Etruscans as they were pressed by Greeks and Romans on the southern fronts of their Italic Empire. Later Germanic waves absorbed some more Celtic genes and customs.
Eso1 8 months ago
Celtic Germans
Most people do not know that even names and adjectives we associate now with Germanic peoples were actually names of Celtic groups originally. The word Teuton, for instance was the name of a Germanic tribes. Much is being done on several fronts right now to clarify the growing information that has appeared in recent years on European pre-history and early history. Germanic and Celtic specialists will have details on this. There are sources on the Internet.
Eso1 8 months ago
@Taranis223
yea I know. only 'england' was germanized (well excerpt Cornwall region)
ILGAR93 9 months ago
@CRAiGbritain .Romans weren't all Italian. You were considered Roman if Rome ruled your country--you could be Spanish,German, British,North African, Gallish etc etc. And what does a 'celt' look like? The Romans described celts in southern England as fair like Gauls, Scots as redheaded and people in Wales as dark like Iberians.
sonofherne 9 months ago
@cranyonrye .Wrong. The R1b in England is primarily of the prehistoric Atlantic strain not the Germanic R1b which contains different markers.Very few archaeologists would claim anything like a Celtic 'genocide' today--there is no evidence to support it genetically or physically. Where are the bodies?? They have found mass graves from periods as early as the neolithic but little from this era.
sonofherne 9 months ago
@sonofherne Lol its funny though as it has been proven that a huge migration took place to Brittany (modern day France) around the same time as the Saxons migrated in huge waves. Coincidence?
NorthernerMatty123 8 months ago
does anyone know the name of the first song?
ILGAR93 9 months ago
Romans are christian yeah right. The roman emperor had christians fed to lions in the roman collesium, and when people wouldn't follow the roman pagan ways they brought their paganism into the catholic church. This video is a bunch of hogwash. Just look at ancient Rome, and Pompeii and see all the paganism, and homosexual sex there. They even had sex infront of their own children. Romans are flaming faggots, and the celts were more christian than they are.
Retro80Lady30 9 months ago