The True History Of Britain After The Fall Of Rome | King Arthur's Britain (Part 3) | Real Royalty

I recently worked with Dominic on a more recent excavation at East Heslerton this summer (Uni of York), fascinating to see how similar these earlier excavations were but also how the techniques have evolved, especially the digital ones. We had a fair bit of photogrammetry, Dominic was often using a drone to photograph the trenches from above. We also used 3D positioning of finds, hopefully when the research is all put together we will have an incredible spatial understanding of the site. It was a similar time period, early Anglo-Saxon.

We know the Saxons were invited in and later brought in more. They were supposed to come temporarily as an army. But they stayed and brought in their families. The DNA has shown too that the Saxons were a different group than the Celts who were already there. I don't understand why there would be any controversy now.

This is terrible. Not a single substantial argument but merely a questioning of how hostile the Anglo-Saxon invasion was.

OK - Ceaser said the ancient Britons were identical to the Belgae The Angles, the Jutes and the Saxons all came from the same area and were pretty indistinguishable from each other The Vikings that invaded were from Denmark - Same areas as the Angles Jutes and Saxons The Norwegian Vikings invaded Scotland and Ireland so their DNA would not be present We've been taking an input from the Frisian area since long before the Romans Surely this is multiple waves of the Same stock of people over many millennia The language shift from Brittonic to Saxon also has an explanation

I really wish these Francis Pryor videos would stop getting uploaded to YouTube. His theory that there were no Anglo-Saxon migrations has been so thoroughly and utterly discredited that his "documentaries" hold basically no educational value whatsoever.

Ffs! If there's one thing I detest, in history as in everything else, is some tit who calls himself a researcher yet practically admits at the outset that he already has reached his own preferred conclusion and everything thereafter will then be aimed at forcing fact and evidence to support it, irrespective of how many hoops they're obliged to jump through in the process.

Pryor cannot explain the wholesale change of nearly all the place names and the the very language of England itself. He is an Anglo-Saxon denier, I suppose he will say the Vikings didn't exist either.

what about the language, - how come old English was so dominated by Anglo-Saxon roots? What about Essex and Sussex and local names like Herfordshire or Birmingham? The whole documentary is a really narrowminded peace of propaganda.

WoW I only wanted to take a quick peek at this,had to watch the whole thing.Nice job :)

"There was also no invasion of bloodthirsty Anglo Saxons, rampaging across the countryside." Well----so much for that liar Gildas and his hysterical polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae.

It is now a widely known fact that Arthur became king because Shrek didn't want the job !

Hengist and Horsa were invited over by Vortigern and defended his territory in exchange for land. Unrest came when Vortigern proved disloyal by retreating from the battle with picts/celts once he had his land back. That's why the invasion doesn't appear hostile! Why does the host pretend he doesn't know this?! It's in like every Anglo-Saxon text...

King Arthur was a Celt and a Briton not a Saxon.

I think this guy is way off base... He clutches on to a tiny base of pseudo-scientific sources to bolster his pet theories, but he just does not convince me. His statements are mammoth, sweeping generalities without sufficient evidence. I suppose it appears advantageous and appealing to present views totally opposite to the vast majority of archaeological and historical evidence and resulting opinions. He pursues this throughout all three episodes, but, for the most glaring example, his assertion that totally denies the Anglo-Saxon invasion appears to be so far from the obvious truth that it is ludicrous. Thus I challenge everything he says.

I love the way modern scholars almost totally disregard the works of early chroniclers when those ancient accounts disagree with what the modern scholars WANT to believe. The modern scholars are so arrogant that they really believe they know more about what happened 1,600 years ago than the chroniclers who lived in those times knew. That kind of reasoning is referred to as Revisionist History, and in the end it is usually found out to be total BS. Many aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture, language and legal system have found their way into English society, along with Northern German DNA. How did that happen? If the British writers of the 5th century claim they were invaded by Anglo-Saxon peoples, who is Francis Pryor to say that were lying?

That argument that the ladder settlement does not show any signs of invasion is contraproductive, because the Romans invaded for sure. So if you cannot see that invasion, there is a possibility that you can't see a later invasion, either. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So this alone is no good argument.

Anglo Saxons often had wars with other Anglo Saxons as well as Celts, Mediterraneans, Germanics, Alpines, East Baltics, and such

Have I got this right? Ancient Briton, many of whom spoke better latin than the Romans, one day decide that they are all going to speak German; the English haven't really got a culture; and England was built by immigration.

At 11:57 he makes this statement "in actual fact, it may have been used for a different purpose. How can something be " an actual fact" and "may have been" at the same time in the same sentence. An actual fact if a FACT, and "may have been" is a statement that leads to an element of doubt. But somehow they can put a statement together like that which only leads people to believe what ever see being said.

Castles were brought by the Normans. The Anglo Saxons did not wear armor like the Normans did