You must log in or register to comment.

Immortalbob t1_isgs1ly wrote

If there's anything Time Team taught me, it's that it'll just be a bunch of post holes since they mostly built with wood.


Ripheus-33 t1_isgsvrh wrote

True but it’s still a huge find since not much is known about the old anglo-saxons


kobylaz t1_isgtb1f wrote

And we’ve got 3 days to do it!


JensonInterceptor t1_isib01r wrote

We've got two primary trenches and Phil is just opening a third to Tey and discover where the grand mosaic floor would have been.

I always loved the artist section where he sketched a detailed building based on two post holes and some broken pottery


generalcarrots t1_isiiizn wrote

Victor was great, there’s a nice tribute to him on their yt channel.


thedudesews t1_isjm1zc wrote

Phil found some flint so he’s basically useless the rest of the day. We sent Stewart on a walk about. No reason, we just don’t like him.


kobylaz t1_isk9xd3 wrote

GEOFIZZ has found something interesting in the next field…


Saxon2060 t1_isjpybo wrote

Hmm, I'm not sure if you've ever heard of the Venerable Bede or Asser of Wales or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 🤔

I guess "not much" is a vague statement that I might be massively misconstruing but there's masses of contemporary record of the Anglo-Saxons. They write extensively about themselves, they loved it, Anglo-Saxon England was a centre of wealth and learning.


Ripheus-33 t1_iskjm3a wrote

Apologies I should’ve been more specific. By not much I meant in terms of info on the Anglo-Saxon religion and mythology which was abolished by the Christians.


Fofolito t1_isk3znj wrote

*not much we know about them from physical medium. The archeological record of England generally goes Neolithic -> Roman -> ???? -> Norman. Any find that fills in that time between the retreat of the legions and the invasion of the Normans is of critical importance


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_iskg29g wrote

>The archeological record of England generally goes Neolithic -> Roman -> ???? -> Norman.

I think not.


TylerInHiFi t1_iskt6ay wrote

It still pales in comparison to the record keeping of Roman Britain that preceded them, though. And I think that’s the point. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is an excellent resource, but it’s far from an exhaustive history compared to the records that exist for the eras before and after it. You go from obsessive Roman record keeping to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to Domesday, basically. You’ve got a story book nestled between two spreadsheets.

EDIT: Please keep in mind I’m painting with the broadest strokes possible and the reality of things is not so cut-and-dried.


Emalus t1_ish6kfn wrote

That’s Phil Harding’s music!!


Scr1mmyBingus t1_ishf07w wrote

“Nice bit of Samian ware in that trench.”


pmp22 t1_ishkmin wrote

..said Phil never. ;) A peace of flint on the other hand, now that's a certified "ooh aah"-moment.


PuerhRichard t1_isjigmh wrote

Interesting. I read I. The book American Nations that the English settlers built houses with wood while the Germans used stone.


Wretched_Brittunculi t1_isij413 wrote

Hey, English food might be bad, but I suggest you try post-hole stew before knocking it.


slimfaydey t1_isgumzo wrote

It is but a thatched barn, where brigands drink in the reek!


OA12T2 t1_isgu65o wrote

Just started watching the last kingdom - cool find. After watching a few episodes so far, wondered why the English let the Danes come in and basically set up shop. Was England not a power house at that time to stop them?

Edit: thanks for everyone’s responses and sharing knowledge


EvidenceInternal2115 t1_isgwaea wrote

England didn't really exist back then, there were a few different kingdoms making up what is now England, chief among them were Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria and Kent.

So when the vikings came, they didn't come upon a united "england" as it were, but a bunch of powerhungry warlords/kings fighting amongst themselves, if they weren't fighting the british/welsh. And even sometimes within the kingdoms itself, civil war or power struggles within their own ranks wasn't exactly uncommon either.


AppleDane t1_ishfnvc wrote

If the Vikings were to attack one of the other kingdoms, that was a huge plus. That mean you could relax a bit, and possibly gain some territory. Until, of course, the Vikings attacked YOU.


Hukthak t1_isho2c2 wrote

First they came for the Northumbrians, but I did not speak out...


Sex_E_Searcher t1_isgzfui wrote

The individual polities in what is now England had very small armies - a few hundred would be large for a powerful king. Really, they were best described as warbands. In dire situations, they'd call up the peasants in a levy known as the Fyrd.

When the Vikingrs arrived with the Great Heathen Army, they numbered in the thousands. The only way the English kind could match their numbers was with the Fyrd, and that would be pitting peasants against hardened Vikingrs.

So, the Anglo-Saxons struggled for some time against the Vikingrs and the polities they set up on the island, with Alfred the Great ultimately making massive changes to the way his society functioned, in order to have garrisoned forts prepared for them at all times. It worked, mostly, except for the times that it didn't, but it was more effective than what they had before.


Trackmaster15 t1_ish4ntf wrote

Its funny how lords and kings basically had the one pragmatic purpose for peasants: to "protect" them. But really, the lords and kings just conscripted peasants to fight their wars anyway.


OtisTetraxReigns t1_ishezus wrote

Probably not as often as you think. It’s not prudent to send all the people that grow your food off to die.


YishuTheBoosted t1_ishpq12 wrote

Textbook mistake in age of empires.


TheLastPromethean t1_isiaf4n wrote

Nah bro, I'll just Wolololo some of your villagers to replenish my workforce. Pro gamer move right there.


Dokutah_Dokutah t1_isivnxi wrote

I counter your monk with at least 2 archers to kill him quick before he converts any.


Trackmaster15 t1_ishf5ks wrote

Then they're not getting protection. My point is that the "protection" that they offer is coming from themselves. And the king or lord has no claims to the peasants food without giving them something in return.


TastyVictory t1_ishhvgo wrote

Think of it as a modern day draft. Its only used for desperate times. The peasants were protected by not being sent off to war unless the alternative was everyone would be brutally killed any way.


mehvermore t1_isiq3z1 wrote

Peasants were tenant workers. Being able to live off their lords' land was what they were getting in exchange for the burden of serfdom. Not that it was a fair system by any means, but protection was at most a distant secondary consideration in the "contract" between a peasant and their lord.


borednord t1_isimzgf wrote

You seem to be under the misconception that kings and lords ruled over peasants in some sort of mutual contract of protection?


Trackmaster15 t1_isj2xsw wrote

I was not under any misconception. You seem to have not learned about this historic fact. You might need to take some courses on feudalism.


borednord t1_isjfqqm wrote

There is no need for hostility my friend. I offered a question as your take on Lords providing some sort of service in return for goods from peasants is a take that is mistaken on many levels as regards to the concept of feudalism.

Simply put a lords "claim" to a peasants food was "I am instated by God" and "I let you work my land and you give me your food". Rather your take on peasants providing food for a ruling caste is better described as manoralism and really has nothing to do with the term feudalism, as that describes the relationship of vassalage and should be further distinguished by geographical constaints, as feudalism in England is different from France, and the rest of europe.


GirthIgnorer t1_isj5443 wrote

Idk everyone seems to be owning you for your dumb reductionist take all over this thread, maybe go hit the books for a couple years yourself


Sex_E_Searcher t1_ishl3um wrote

It was not very common to do so. Peasants were not skilled fighters and you'd need to equip them. Most medieval armies were small and consisted of full time soldiers and nobles.


Alaknog t1_isivg5g wrote

Many times this "peasants" is equipped by themselves and know how fight too. They just not do this full time job.


Sgt_Colon t1_isiugi1 wrote

Those that comprised the fyrd would have been ceorls, free men that owed service as part of their social standing (and according rights and wealth) and as a continuation from earlier 'germanic' society.


arebee20 t1_isisrjr wrote

Also you just give some Viking lords land and christianize them to get them to flip to your side and they bring their army with them


inbruges99 t1_isgwkyq wrote

“England” as a singular entity didn’t exist at the time. It was several kingdoms (like in the Last Kingdom) and even within those kingdoms it was very decentralised. But really it’s impossible to fully answer your question in a Reddit comment.


Blueshirt38 t1_ish599y wrote

Totally don't expect a dissertation on the ancient history of a kingdom, but could you point to some good sources to do the reading ourselves? This subject and timeframe has become a great interest of mine lately.


EvidenceInternal2115 t1_ishbw0c wrote

There is a really good podcast called "the british history podcast" that goes into great detail on the history of britian starting from prehistory , and pretty much the entire anglo-saxon history is covered as they just hit the William the conqueror era. Which marks the end of the anglo saxon era.

Otherwise just reading up on the kings and kingdoms of that era on wikipedia will also give you a pretty decent picture. And you can always check the sources there.


MalayaJinny t1_isicu4t wrote

I would also recommend the same podcast. Very detailed and thorough description of this time frame.


Ok-Train-6693 t1_isl41s9 wrote

An army of Englishmen conquered Normandy in 1091. The AS Chronicle continued to about 1154. So the transition was complicated.


Saxon2060 t1_isjqcu3 wrote

For a good introduction to basically any frigging thing you can think of, "A Very Brief Introduction to:" series from Oxford University Press. They're written by leading academics in their field and could fit in a front pocket of your jeans.

There is A Very Brief Introduction to The Anglo-Saxons.


swan0 t1_ish2wz1 wrote

Unless the reddit comment is on /r/askhistorians of course


2635northpark t1_ishehqd wrote

Last Kingdom, I just received it. Hope it's good.


Holidaywhobiewhatie t1_isj70rr wrote

The show is great. The books by Bernard Cornwell are even better.


Refreshingpudding t1_isk1po6 wrote

Warlord chronicles are better written and tighter paced. The alt king Arthur story is fun


Ok-Train-6693 t1_islgm6b wrote

I suspect that the House of Wessex was originally a cadet branch of the House of Cornwall, which incidentally outlived it as a ruling dynasty.


StatikSquid t1_ish85r9 wrote

I finished the Last Kingdom and played the game Assassin's Creed Valhalla, both which feature real locations and real people from that era.

As people already mentioned, post-Roman Britannia was a series of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms all fighting for power.

If you read up the history on Alfred the Great, it'll fall in line with the plot for the the show.


Pilscy t1_isifmp1 wrote

Ac Valhalla brought a newfound love for Viking history for me. Well actually Witcher 3 but it was skellige that caused me wanna get into the Viking games and eventually buying ac Valhalla.

Currently watching Vikings. Then I’ll start last kingdom


Pepperonidogfart t1_isin88e wrote

Vikings is not a history show. The beginning is decently close to events but it really goes off the rails after ragnar. Last kingdom though.. actually not bad aside from uthred being an insert to follow along with the real events.


Lil_Mcgee t1_isjlsr2 wrote

The events depicted in Vikings are much more based in legend than real verifiable history anyway.

Not denying that the show goes off the rails a bit, it's just that the concept of a historically accurate Viking show isn't all that feasible in the first place. This is somewhat the case for any historical fiction but it's especially true when it comes to pre-modern societies who weren't known for writing down their histories.


Pilscy t1_isjbkn1 wrote

Yeah I seen a lot of people say this. They said Vikings become another show after a while and it’s not historically accurate


StatikSquid t1_isjd8a0 wrote

Uhtred is based on Uhtred the Bold, who was an ealderman of Northumbria. But the big difference here is the Uhtred the Bold was born like 150 years after the events of the show.

I haven't seen vikings, but now I'm disappointed that it's not historical. Ironic given the show was basically the History Channel's small glimpse of redemption after they went all in on reality tv.


Ok-Train-6693 t1_islgy3q wrote

The real Uhtred the Bold lived several generations later, that’s true. He was related to the ancestors of the Nevilles.


chickenwithclothes t1_isjadtv wrote

Give the History of England podcast a listen. David Crowther help this period make sense to me


SkepticalVir t1_isj1vyp wrote

Truly clueless comment. Why don’t you go do some independent digging on some subjects and come to the answer yourself.


metropitan t1_ishiz0q wrote

every little scrap of information that can be found about the anglo-saxons is useful, as it is a truly long-lost civilisation


Pepperonidogfart t1_isimz7j wrote

I want to know more about sub roman britons that fought against them. Now thats a lost civilization. Best thing we have from them are a few welsh poems that are awesome btw. Y Goddodin is wild.


Ok-Train-6693 t1_islianq wrote

Well, no, not lost! The Romano-Britons did remarkably well. They created cross-Channel kingdoms that expanded from Cornwall, Devon and Wales.

They fought against Attila and the Visigoths, established colonies in the Somme, Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Maine, Blois, Berry, Aquitaine, Gascony and Galicia (in Spain), and from these arose many prominent dynasties, some of which were highly influential in England and across the Continent.


Pepperonidogfart t1_isnl4c5 wrote

Can you suggest some sources so i can learn more about that?

*edit: You guys rule thank you!


Ok-Train-6693 t1_it18bsd wrote

Shrines to Breton saints are found in many regions of northern Europe.

St Albinus (St Aubin) of Vannes, Bishop of Angers, is honoured all across northern France and as far away as Poland.

St Samson is honoured in Conteville, of which Count Robert of Mortain’s and Bishop Odo’s father Herluin was made Viscount.

“Viscount Robert and his brother Odo” occur as witnesses to a charter issued by Count Eudon, Duke of Brittany, at Rennes prior to 1050.

“Alan Rufus, son of Count Eudon” witnessed a charter by Yves de Bellême, Bishop of Séez, dated between 1047 and 1067.

Alan Rufus was captain of William’s palace guard in Normandy, and often appears near Bishop Odo on the Bayeux Tapestry, though they probably became unfriends over various actions of Odo’s later.


Ok-Train-6693 t1_it13w91 wrote

The sources are scattered, diverse and numerous, so they require time and patience to collate.

For the Romano-British presence in northern and central Gaul in last years of the Western Roman Empire, the sources are two letters by Sidonius Apollinaris, Jordanes’ “Getica”, and the writings of Gregory of Tours and of Cassiodorus.

Sidonius was a Gallo-Roman bishop and senator who was contemporary with the events and a friend of the British leader he calls Riothamus, as well as being a friend of the Gallo-Roman official Arvandus who committed treason with King Euric of the Visigoths against Emperor Anthemius with whom Riothamus was allied.

According to the above sources, Riothamus sailed up the Loire with 12,000 men, established a base at Bourges, marched to Déols, was ambushed there by Euric, battled for hours, faced defeat, gathered as many men as he could and retreated into Burgundy. (The nearest ancient Burgundian town is Avallon, on elevated land protected by a tight river bend: see Google Maps.)


Ok-Train-6693 t1_it14hi7 wrote

Jordanes’ “Getica” mentions the Armoricans among Aëtius’s allies against Attila in 451. The Armoricans are the inhabitants of Brittany.

It’s possible that the ancestors of the Angevins/Plantagenets were present, as they originated as Gallo-Roman soldiers in western Armorica from which they were expelled in 383 and subsequently migrated to Rennes.


Ok-Train-6693 t1_it155vu wrote


Ok-Train-6693 t1_it1772h wrote

Two 10th century Counts of Ponthieu had the P-Celtic (identical to Brythonic) names Haelchod and Herluin.

Charter 24 in the Cartulary of the Abbey of Landevennec records Count Haelchod and his son Herleuuin as witnesses of donations on 10 April and 13 August 954.

The abbots of Landevennec had fled Lower Brittany and crossed all the way to Montreuil-sur-Mer where Count Haelchod sheltered them. While in Ponthieu, they built a shrine to Saint Winwaloe (Guénolé in French).


Ok-Train-6693 t1_it177e3 wrote

Two 10th century Counts of Ponthieu had the P-Celtic (identical to Brythonic) names Haelchod and Herluin.

Charter 24 in the Cartulary of the Abbey of Landevennec records Count Haelchod and his son Herleuuin as witnesses of donations on 10 April and 13 August 954.

The abbots of Landevennec had fled Lower Brittany and crossed all the way to Montreuil-sur-Mer where Count Haelchod sheltered them. While in Ponthieu, they built a shrine to Saint Winwaloe (Guénolé in French).


silverfang789 t1_isi65va wrote

So these kings went from long house to long house, depending on where the food was.


Ok-Train-6693 t1_islh3oj wrote

The early modern monarchs did much the same, imposing on their subjects’ manor houses.


palegate t1_isiwy3z wrote

I see they were quick with covering their tracks after having planned their devious heist on the Nordstream pipeline.


fjzappa t1_ish385y wrote

Was there a round table there?


Pepperonidogfart t1_isinte9 wrote

Arthur was a legend of the native post roman britons. They fought *against the anglo saxons.


vangc4 t1_ishz00q wrote

It's somewhere near there.. they just need to find it..


PretendsHesPissed t1_isjmmyh wrote

Curious: How do these structures always end up buried underground? Did they bury them themselves? Is it just because they were abandoned for centuries/millennia and nature had its way with it?

Always make me wonder what history I'm walking over when I'm visiting the fam in Cornwall. I just assume there's history everywhere and seeing things like this makes me wonder even more.


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_isjpodx wrote

Wind and water pick up enough sediment from the surrounding soil to cover sites, not counting things like buildings at low points, which will also accrue soil simply moving downhill very very slowly over decades via gravity. Sites higher up will be subjected to proportionately more weather effects via exposure, and will fairly quickly be worn down to ground level, especially after they fall into disrepair or are abandoned or destroyed, or all three.


TylerInHiFi t1_isk72oa wrote

You also have grass just growing over everything and then stuff builds up between the blades of grass and creates more soil. Over a few centuries those partial millimetres of yearly build-up become centimetres and metres, depending on the location and how long it’s been left relatively undisturbed. If you’ve ever noticed someone’s lawn encroaching on the edges of a sidewalk, that’s the exact mechanism that leads to buried buildings over time. And it can happen relatively quickly.


PretendsHesPissed t1_iskg53d wrote

Absolutely incredible.

Is this what we can expect too if we quit maintaining out lawns and there were no other humans or other lawn-obsessed animals around to fix things?


TylerInHiFi t1_isl2dg1 wrote

Pretty much, yeah. If you know of any areas near you where roads have been re-routed but the old road surface was left in place you can see it in action.


PretendsHesPissed t1_isl4086 wrote

Oh snap. I know of many a road that, when pot hole season is upon us and the roads are falling apart left and right, you can see bricks underneath. Didn't connect the two together but that makes a lot of sense.

Cool stuff.

Kinda always wondered why they didn't remove the old roads. Figured it was due to some sort of historical reason.


TylerInHiFi t1_isl5ui4 wrote

I think they usually just pave over the old road because the road foundation is fine, it’s just resurfacing that’s needed and that makes paving over the old surface the cheapest and easiest option that also gets the job done as needed.


batch1972 t1_isifph7 wrote

Say they think… no proof that Anglo Saxon kings feasted there. Suppose it better than calling it ritual


Skreamies t1_isisyx9 wrote

Two hours from me and also this is practically beside Sutton Hoo as well which is an Anglo-Saxon treasure trove and a cool place to visit!


boltforce t1_isim9rq wrote

Ah yes now it makes sense. This must be the place were these guys got drunk, someone lost a bet and off to blow the nord stream


jectosnows t1_isjih9h wrote

People back then where strange. They never have roofs over their buildings


Roselace t1_isjmdc7 wrote

Is that Anglo-Saxon Hall near the same place of the ‘Rendlesham Forest’ UAP incident involving USA military nuke site? Lovely coincidence.


Ok-Train-6693 t1_isluwkf wrote

Radwald is known in Brittany, where he is called Radwal.

According to a German manuscript, Judith of Brittany’s mother (Ermengarde of Anjou) was a kinswoman to the East Anglian king, St Edmund the Martyr.


Notabot1980 t1_isigmnc wrote

Is this one of those "if you build it, they will come" sort of things?


Refreshingpudding t1_isk174m wrote

They were "migrants not invaders". Yeah I suppose the Celtic occupants just said hello welcome to Britain please take any land you want eye roll


TylerInHiFi t1_isk7w14 wrote

I mean, they kind of did. The Vikings didn’t so much invade with force as they emigrated en masse and brought their culture with them, eventually overtaking the native Britons as the dominant cultural force in certain regions, particularly what would become the Danelaw. It was a slow cultural shift over decades and centuries, not a bloodbath over a few years.

There was absolutely fighting, because that’s what you did back then, but no archaeological evidence has ever been found to support the narrative that the Vikings showed up and took the island by force, raping and pillaging as they went. The few written accounts of this are likely specific isolated incidents, embellished by the writers. They just kind of showed up and intermingled with the post-Roman Britons and had families.

Also, the Celts did the same thing earlier in history and imported their culture from other parts of the continent onto the Isles, supplanting the cultures that existed in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain, such as the Beaker culture. There is no reason to treat the Celts as anything nearing “native” or “original” Britons. They were yet another in a long history of people who migrated to the part of the European continent that would eventually become the British Isles, bringing their culture with them. The Celts are a relatively recent culture to show up in that area of Europe and treating them any different than the Vikings is, frankly, ridiculous.

History is more a series of slow regional cultural shifts than it is a series of changes by force of violence through invasion. Those events happened, but they’re not as impactful to the whole of history and the changing of eras as pop culture and pop-history would have you believe.


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_iskfllm wrote

Given the population of the entire island was a tiny percentage of what it is now, and more than 50% of it was covered in forest, there was ample land.

Trying to transplant modern racism onto historical peoples is disgusting. Stop doing it.