Textbook mistake in age of empires.

And unlike the movie, the Battle of Stirling Bridge did actually involve a bridge.

Oh yeah, you'll love it

The Timurid Dynasty and their subjects were ethnically diverse but they were majority Turkic and Persian, basically the same as people in places like present-day Kazakhstan and Tajikstan. Timur claimed to be descended from a cousin of Genghis, while his mother was probably a Turk who spoke Persian or a Persian. One of Timur's ancestors married a granddaughter of Genghis, so his dynasty called themselves "Gurkani" or "Son-In-Law."

The Mongols come from, well, Mongolia. Their language isn't related to Turkic or Persian languages. You'll notice I'm separating people pretty broadly by language groups but back then they probably didn't see themselves that different ethnically in a broad sense from Turkic nomads. There was plenty of intermarriage between Turkic and Mongolic speakers.

Nobody knows 100% sure who the Huns were. They predate the Timurids and Mongols by roughly 700 years, and there isn't as clear written records linking them the way the Timurids and Mongols are. We have hardly anything of their language documented, but based on the names of their rulers they were probably Turkic speakers. There appears to be continuity between them and the Bulgars, the Turkic overlords of the people who would become the Bulgarians, so that's a little bit more evidence towards them being Turkic speakers.

The word "Hun" is etymologically related to Xiongnu (if you ever watched Mulan, that's who the "Huns" she fought are based on), the major confederation of Steppe people in the late BCs and early ADs. That confederation probably included the ancestors of Mongols and Turks, but their language the language of the ruling dynasty doesn't seem to be either. Dynasty names over time become ethnic names pretty often (like how Han is used for ethnic Chinese people but originated from the Han Dynasty), so it's probable that some of the Huns' ancestors took on the Dynasty name of their rulers and eventually considered themselves Xiongnu ethnically, then rode West and South. That's the earliest possible link between them and the Mongols.

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

Almost the entire thing. Beyond the vaguest possible plot outline, nothing in Braveheart is accurate. William Wallace did exist. There was a Battle of Stirling Bridge. But aside from the historical labels, there's no historical fact there.

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.

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

Thank you for your response. Every illuminating. 🙂

And their brats roll on the floor with their dogs!

Mercia by Annie Whitehead was the best starting for me.

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

That's going to depend massively on the future political landscape: 100 years ago, France would have told you that German history would be much more important to study for the future of Europe than US history, because they would have no way of knowing how greatly circumstances would change during the Cold War.

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.

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.

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.

“Nice bit of Samian ware in that trench.”

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

Generally speaking, how did the movie Braveheart deviate from actual history?

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

Up to the fall of Western Rome, so everything that happened before then is definitely ancient, including the historical events of the Bible.

Same!

So would that mean that "Bibilcal times" is older than "ancient" since the fall of Western Rome happens after large portions of the Old Testament?

And side note: your Atari example makes me feel rather ancient and antiquated. lol

[removed]

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.

I meannn dinosaurs basically are dragons