Are we the baddies moment

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

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

[removed]

Cologne was the seat of the Agrippina family. Not far off was the site of Teuteborg Forrest 9BC and the Catalaunian Plains 451 AD. Germanicus moved his seat to Cologne. The family had be allies to the Sicambri for thousands of years, and the Sicambri held a bit of influence over the Belgae and the Germani.

If you look at the People's Crusade and the Children's Crusade it becomes apparent that all the Crusades were a farce intended to kill off Franks and replace them with Getae.

It is the definition of historical

Serpentine running back and forth to avoid trebuchet hits.

Trubuchet for your archers, wolowolo protecting the trubuchet.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[removed]

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.

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.

[removed]

By definition, "ancient" means everything before the Middle Ages, commonly understood as everything before 500 CE. So that includes ancient Egypt, Sumer, the Hittites, China, Greece and Rome, etc. On the other hand, when people mention "antiquity," they're generally talking about the period of ancient history circa 800 BCE to 500 CE. This is defined as the period coinciding with the Greco-Roman period, but it's important to note that there were other important developments going on in other parts of the world during this time as well.

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

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

My word! Is everyone here so sensitive?

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.

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.

How far do you agree that in the English educational system, kings who generally fit in with the stereotypical "king" epitome (eg John, Henry VIII, Charles I) are given an unfair precedent?