Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"collectively known as the Saxon conquest"? - In fact, it's more usually known as the Anglo-Saxon settlement(s); I've never heard "conquest" used before as a name/title (an event or process, yes, but always with a small "c"). Also, I don't think there's evidence of Roman abandonment before 407 (ie 5th C.), and more importantly, Angles weren't Saxons, they were Angles. User:David Parker

---

My sentiments entirely. However, a number of historians refer to it as such, rightly or wrongly. It is very seldom referred to as the Anglo-Saxon settlement, and Anglo-Saxon bloodbath would be more altogether more apposite. Your settlement was anything but.

The Saxon Conquest is a slack generic name for the overlapping waves of Jutes, Danes, Angles, etc. that pitched up on our shores, and we can certainly counter this misnomer on these pages. It's provenance, however, is interesting: the Celtic population used the name "Saxon" generically to describe all the Germanic people they met. This indicates that there was a heavy preponderance of Saxons in the early raids and settlement. Please for one moment don't think the indigenous population gave up without a fight. The encroachment was not without its bloodshed at a level of savagery which might put the Israelis and the Palestinians to shame: Mons Badonicus, Dereham, Camulan, Otford Bridge, etc, etc, etc.

On, your second point, the Romans were never particularly interested in Britain, other than as a mechanism for suppressing the activities of the Druids and the Gauls, for whom Britain was a kind of early-day Afghanistan, a nice safe retreat from which to regroup, until the Romans took the country that is. The Roman empire's decline led to a progressive diminution of interest, and though it certainly accelerated duing the early 5th century, the process had started long before. There is plenty of documentary evidence for this. Certainly northern Britain was degarrisoned in about 300 AD after the troops were pulled back to help the empire fight back against barbarian incursions in central Europe, and Pictish incursions over the wall were many, frequent and bloody. sjc

---

The term "Saxon" might have been used as a catch-all term among the invaders' opponents, but it was the Angles who gave their name to he northern kingdoms and eventually to the country as a whole; indeed "English settlement" is the other term used, which I'm again more familiar with than "Saxon Conquest".

The issue of a "bloodbath" is one that remains unresolved. The problem is that the only evidence for native population loss is our language, and there are other ways in which this could be accomplished, though the time-scale involved indeed suggests a less than gentle process. I imagine that then as later actual fighting involved only a small fraction of the population, most of whom had better things to do with their time, and I doubt that Anglo-Saxon military organisation made for very efficient executions of genocide, even if they'd been interested in such activities given the limited numbers which we can evisage wanting to migrate or being shifted across the sea. Most Britons I think probably indeed experienced settlement rather than warfare, though settlement "over" rather than "among" them.

I recognise that this view seems to be challenged by the recent BBC/UCL genetic survey, for which I've only seen very sketchy evidence so far, however. The whole convoluted German-Polish fracas illustrates how very different populations could co-exist, intermingle, exchange language and occasionally even embrace each other's rule to free themselves from some of their own "compatriots". Until mass British extinction is shown with some degree of certainty, I think the jury's still out on this one. User:David Parker

---

We need a sensible compromise name for this topic, and I don't think that I am going to sway you on this, and I have to say I have my own reservations.

But it must indicate that the settlement was definitely forced. Mons Badonicus was, even by modern standards, a major battle, and the splitting of the Cornish from the Welsh at the Battle of Deorham was a decisive moment, perhaps the decisive moment, in English history; had the tide of battle turned the other way, and by all accounts it could have done, this article would be being written in Brythonic Celtic.

The fighting was not only against the indigenous population; the internecine warfare between the settlers was on a massive scale: Offa conducted years of warfare against the Hestingii for example.

And yes, I have to admit the genetic survey was very interesting.

Where do you suggest removing this article to? User:sjc

---

Hey, I'm swayable - I'm not out to start an argument, sjc, I just thought the issues were worth raising. As I said, the first genetic results look quite different from what I'd been expecting. I'm certainly not suggesting that settlement was pacific, and I don't think that's what others meant in the past. Personally, I'd recommend plain "Anglo-Saxons" as a title, which could start from discussion of their continental origins and conclude with modern uses of the term (de Gaulle et al). But I'm not out to interfere with your discussion of the conquest/settlement per se. Cheers, User:David Parker

I wasn't really suggesting you were. It's just an interesting little academic debate. Anglo-Saxons it is then. Cheers, sjc.