How The Celts Saved Britain – BBC Four
Dan Snow blows the lid on the traditional, Anglo-centric view of history and reveals how the Irish saved Britain from cultural oblivion during the Dark Ages, in this provocative, two-part documentary.
Travelling back in time to some of the remotest corners of the British Isles, Dan unravels the mystery of the lost years of 400-800 AD, when the collapse of the Roman Empire left Britain in tatters.
While in Britain Germanic barbarism replaced Roman civilisation, Christianity transformed primitive Ireland into the cultural powerhouse of early medieval Europe.
Dan follows in the footsteps of Ireland’s earliest missionaries as they bring Christianity to the future nations of Scotland and England. And he reveals how with Christianity came literacy and technological progress.
A visually stunning and stimulating journey into one of the least-known chapters of British history, How The Celts Saved Britain reveals a fascinating story of how the Irish civilised Britain.
Bank Holiday Monday 25 May
9.00-10.00pm BBC FOUR
Chat about this on the Unreality TV Forum »
Loading ...
Hopefully this won’t encourage the dogmatic council types (who insist on bi-lingual road signage from the Trossachs onwards) to ‘civilise’ us non-gaels further.
G
How the celts saved britain. No! How Christianity destroyed celtish culture and was then exported to Britain. Certainly they brought reading and writing but only to support religion.
By the way Dan Snow should (as a historian) know the difference between chaos and anarchy.
The program was grossly anti-pagan. Where was the evidence for this apparent pro-roman point of view?
i want some new ideas and a bit of history… the camera whizzing about and the “whoosh!” sound were over used, i listened rather than watched and there appears to be no realisation of the destruction of the celtic world..
to use net speak…
Fail!
i will not watch ( listen ) again
Mallisonz
Hopefully it may educate the British nation further away from their prejudicial stereotypes of the Irish as stupid and dumb. It was the land of saints and scholars long before it was the land of bricklayers and labourers and long before they had Shakespeare. The biggest export Ireland has given the world is its’ people and its’ literature. Even if the English still insist on calling Oscar Wilde British. Not intent on claiming our land as their own they so commonly try to claim our writers. Eireannach agus broduil as.
Christianity brought civilization? Tell that to the civilizations massacred by the forces of the Holy Roman Empire!
Unconvincing.
The Irish Church’s missionaries may have been making inroads into the north of Britain for decades before the arrival of St. Augustine in Kent. However, as Snow himself demonstrated by examining the role of St. Augustine and his successors, it was the Roman Church’s agents who converted the greater part of England to Christianity.
To put it another way, the ‘Celts’ did not so much ’save Britain’ as enjoy very temporary possession of a fragment of it until a bigger and more significant organisation arrived on the scene and relieved them of control.
Or to be flippant, saying that the Irish Church ’saved Britain’ is like my neighbour claiming to have saved my burning house if he turned up with a fire extinguisher two minutes before the fire brigade.
Is it the case that the only way for popular historians to get noticed today is to make programmes that try, unconvincingly, to turn a historical concensus on its head?
I was deeply dissapointed by the first programme. There was no attempt to balance the Christian propoganda coming either from Patrick or the Catholic church. Roman influence = ‘good’, Christianity = ‘Light’, Paganism = ‘Dark’.
Despite the fact that Snow insists he isn’t a believer, it’s fairly obvious the writers behind this rubbish are.
Well,i do like a good history programme.But not this one.The programme was titled,`How the celts saved Britain.`I do not remember Dan Snow mentioning the Celts.He consistently said`Irish`.Was he dumbing it down or just being inaccurate?
Also,Paganism got a real bad press along with the Anglo-Saxons and I didn`t learn anything about Celts and their culture,day to day lives,social structures,etc.
It just seemed a Pro-Christian 2 hour special telling us that we had the Irish/Celts to be thankful for rescuing Britain from doom!
Agreeing with the last 2 comments; the premise of celt-irish vs anglo-pagans is a gross oversimplification and hugely insulting to the actual ‘British’, i.e the Brythonic Welsh, Cornish, Breton (and Cumbrians)who were living on the British mainland and practising Christianity throughout the relevant period – glaringly omitted from the programme to retain its reductivist strapline
At last an obvious and sensible documentary. Obviously it did not cover everything that people wanted to see from the show but it undoubtedly put to rest this new age dilettantism that requires paganism and Christianity to somehow be put on an equal footing. Snow’s documentary merely restates the obvious fact that Christianity has probably been the most progressive and positive force in European culture to date. Only a barbarian pagan, anti-Christian, luddite with a half-baked education would fail to recognise this most salient fact.
Keep it up BBC four – don’t listen to the heathen hoards above or below – imbecilic dilettantes who don’t even do original research and scholarship – arm chair historians who’ve read one book on the topic, or quite plainly nothing at all.
The assertion that “Christianity has probably been the most progressive and positive force in European culture to date” really needs to be properly considered in historical context. It was Christianity that was used for centuries as a way to keep the common person in their ‘place’.
The entire feudal system was built on the idea that God somehow intended everyone to have a specific place in the pecking order. Slavery was justified for generations by referring to the book of Genesis. Vile and cruel punishments were dealt out to those who followed their natures and had any form of sex outside of church sanctified marriage, and thousands died at the hands of church officials on trumped up charges of heresy and witchcraft. Meanwhile anyone who sought to rise above their ’station’ and question their ‘betters’ was likely to meet a similar fate.
The main assertion of the programme was that without Christianity there would have been no literacy. This regardless of the fact that both the ancient Celts and the Nordic tribes had their own writing. In fact the church suppressed literacy among the common people for centuries for fear that they might begin to interpret the bible for themselves.
There were sophisticated and technologically advanced pagan civilisations in the past. The ancient Celts being one of them as was pointed out in the programme that preceded this one on BBC4. It is more likely that christianity hindered enlightenment by at least ten centuries than that it encouraged it.
As for it somehow being a folly to insist that paganism and Christianity should be put on an equal footing, I would respectfully point out that some of the major religions are pagan. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism are all pagan. I would argue that a pagan point of view is just as valid as a Christian one and that both are equally valid ways to seek the divine.
“It was Christianity that was used for centuries as a way to keep the common person in their ‘place’.”
No it lead to the greatest of reforms in European society – the least are the greatest in Christianity – just look at the movements of the merchant class. Social status is linked to wealth, not Christianity, as people trade people can change status – wealth is the factor, Capitalism frees (Christianity – talents), feudalism is not a Christian concept – in fact it is the opposite to what Jesus states in the gospels. It is pagan, through and through.
“paganism and Christianity should be put on an equal footing, I would respectfully point out that some of the major religions are pagan. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism are all pagan”
Have these ‘pagan’ religions done something equivalent to European culture as Christianity? The honest answer is no, Islam has done somethings, not much inspirational under the Ottomans apart from the court of Mehmet III and some sultans, maybe Leo Africanus – basically individuals, but as a cultural force its done nothing significant to the Europe we know today. So why would we put them on a equal footing. Use a weighing scale, Christianity is Europe.
“It is more likely that christianity hindered enlightenment by at least ten centuries than that it encouraged it.”
Are you mad? What kind of idiot gives this kind of general sweeping opinion. Literacy is the way to advancement, and Christ is the Word. Christianity brought literacy, a pan European community for trade and exchange of learning – what kind of mind do you have, who taught you to speak, who said you can speak when you know nothing. Please opinions are rubbish, go and become a member of the National archives, go become a member of the British Library, go do a paleography course and then read manuscripts, go back to the sources and learn the truth.
If it hindered European civilsation by ten centuries then why is European, American – christian civilisation the strongest in the world today. SUrely we should be ten centuries behind everyone else – according to that logic the Middle east should be the most economically wealthy part of the world, as should sub-Saharan Africa which existed without Christianity and with paganism for centuries – surely then we should be looking there for our wealth, prosperity, a dominant culture, enlightenment… I don’t see it though. Your arguments have been refuted
“No it lead to the greatest of reforms in European society”
But those reforms would not have been necessary if not for Christianity. By the fourth century CE Christianity had become the spiritual side of the enforcement of empire. It provided the baseline social structure for what became feudalism.
“Social status is linked to wealth, not Christianity, as people trade people can change status – wealth is the factor,”
Possibly, but wealth was not available under the feudal system backed by medieval Christianity. Serfs were little more than slaves and rising above one’s station was made very difficult. It wasn’t Christianity that changed this situation, it was the plague. The decimation of the available workforce by the plague put the peasants in a situation where they could charge for their work and rise in status.
“feudalism is not a Christian concept – in fact it is the opposite to what Jesus states in the gospels. It is pagan, through and through.”
On the contrary, it was the concept of divinely appointed kings that provided the basis for the medieval feudal system. People were terrified that if they went against the king they were going against God. This is a concept based firmly in the bible with its concept of anointed kings, which would include Jesus if the claims that he was the messiah (‘anointed one’) were correct. These concepts are still taught in certain churches in the UK to support the idea of divinely ordained leadership among the church leaders. It is a folly to believe that the current form of Christianity is the only one that can be considered. The medieval Christian church had immense power for hundreds of years and formed a foundation for the social structure of the time. Just because their interpretation of the teachings of Christ differ from yours do not make them any more or less valid as ‘Christianity’.
“Have these ‘pagan’ religions done something equivalent to European culture as Christianity?”
I’m not entirely sure what ‘something’ means in this context. China’s pagan culture was superior to the European for centuries. Some would argue that the Japanese culture still is, especially if you are using “capitalism” as a yardstick.
“Christianity is Europe.”
What kind of Christianity? Neo-evangelical? Lutheran? Calvinist? Baptist? Pentecostal? The Catholic Church, with all its skeletons crawling out of the cupboard. I’ve been a Christian and I know that they have enough trouble agreeing among themselves let alone contributing a suitable basis for a social structure.
“Are you mad? What kind of idiot gives this kind of general sweeping opinion. Literacy is the way to advancement, and Christ is the Word. Christianity brought literacy, a pan European community for trade and exchange of learning”
There was literacy before Christianity. I’ll agree that when Henry VIII finally allowed the printing of the bible in English it opened a doorway for ideas. However, it was the church that had suppressed this with the threat of burning for heresy for centuries before this. We cannot know what advances would have been made if it was not for the rigid social structure the church enforced.
As for a ‘pan-European community of trade and learning’, historical evidence shows that this was in place long before Christianity. Trade had gone on for centuries among the European Celts and their neighbours. The evidence points towards a pre-Christian Europe united by a common Celtic tongue and a common belief system. It was partly the Romans and partly the expansionism of the Nordic/Germanic tribes that destroyed this.
“- what kind of mind do you have, who taught you to speak, who said you can speak when you know nothing. Please opinions are rubbish, go and become a member of the National archives, go become a member of the British Library, go do a paleography course and then read manuscripts, go back to the sources and learn the truth.”
This is just plain insulting when you have no knowledge of my background or interests. I was very involved in an evangelical church for decades and spent a lot of my time studying apologetics and church history. I’ll admit there are gaps in my knowledge but unfortunately my current work as a nurse limits my time to research more. However, I have made an extensive study of the early and medieval church and of the social circumstances during the dark ages and the medieval period. I also have read extensively about the Celtic church because I thought for a while it might have been a ‘purer’ form of Christianity than the Roman church of the time. So I do have some idea of what I’m talking about.
“If it hindered European civilsation by ten centuries then why is European, American – christian civilisation the strongest in the world today. SUrely we should be ten centuries behind everyone else”
I suppose a lot depends on what yardstick you use to measure a civilization. I’m not entirely sure if you can measure success in terms of nearly having drained our planet of its natural resources and coming close to making it unliveable for everyone. However, approaching the question in the terms you seem to think in; Europe and America are in the positions they occupy because of the ruthless expansionism of their forebears. We took over large chunks of the world, exploited them for our own gain, subjugated their peoples, destroyed their cultures and generally became kings of the dungheap. This was partly because we, the Europeans thought of it first and became very good at it. There may have been some Christian influence behind it; the concept of pushing the boundaries of Christendom by any means necessary coupled with some of the genocidal passages from the old testament probably helped to provide some justification; Saint Augustine and his theories on compelling the heathen by the sword and that kind of thing. Personally, I don’t think it’s anything to be proud of.
“according to that logic the Middle east should be the most economically wealthy part of the world, as should sub-Saharan Africa which existed without Christianity and with paganism for centuries – surely then we should be looking there for our wealth, prosperity, a dominant culture, enlightenment”
Wealth is not the only measure of a culture’s success and certainly isn’t a measure of enlightenment. I am no longer a practising Christian but even I know “Blessed are the poor for they will inherit the Earth.”
I got annoyed as I just watched Briton BC which said we were’nt Celts but Britons? perhap Celts sailed over to Ireland from spain though they seemed to practice same paganism as the Druids in Britain?
‘I got annoyed as I just watched Briton BC which said we were’nt Celts but Britons?’
Confusing isn’t it? The thing is that ‘Celts’ and ‘Britons’ are both terms applied later. The people involved probably reffered to themselves in terms of their tribal identity instead of by the names the Romans called them as a group. For instance the term ‘Briton’ was derived from ‘Pretoni’, the name of one of several large tribal groups in Britain at the time. It’s a bit like referring to the entire population of mainland Britain as ‘Yorkshiremen’