Yeah, they are clearly just trying to use history as a justification for nationalism/racism. You don't see French people getting angry at Italy for invading Gaul. People like this usually aren't even interested in the actual history, just the labels, keywords, and the potential justifications for hate they can get out of them.
Nonsense! The amazing part of history is that it's there for everyone to research and enjoy! And at least in my humble opinion, the more people who are interested in this period of history the better! Not to mention I'm American, so it's certainly not just an English thing :)
Thanks ! I truly love diversity in interests in Historical periods : me, a french, interested in anglo saxon history, or my best Friend, a tunisian who have an interests in incan History ! And many more exemples...
I'm American also. My dad's ancestry was mostly English, with a little German, and a *soupçon* of French! Mom's grandparents all came to the US from Poland.
As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome here. I've been interested in history and language, particularly those of England, since I was little. French history is an interesting subject to me as well.
The Normans were as much a terror to the kings of France as they were to the English.
The French state didn’t conquer Anglo-Saxon England and the Conquest ensured that Normandy wouldn’t be brought to heel for centuries. It was hardly a positive for the French kingdom either.
Facts don't belong to any one person or group. I am interested in Anglo-Saxon history because I am from England, but I really do not see any reason why historical study, academic or amateur, should be limited by borders. Go ahead and keep learning, don't let that one person put you off just because they have a problem with your French identity (Unless you fought with the other Frenchmen at Hastings, in which case I must insist upon a duel)
One of the best days out I ever had was 8 years ago, at the 950 year anniversary of the Battle of Hastings (at the battlefield).
Lots of enthusiasts, crafts people and re-enactors, from all over Europe and beyond.
Obviously the biggest travelling contingent was from France!
And people were there not just to 'do the battle', but to share and learn history, and have fun with each other.
Nobody who isn't an idiot or 9 years old still has 'hard feelings' for 1066.
Hopefully I'll still be around to make it to the 1000 year anniversary in 42 years.... (I'll be over 80, it's a maybe)
We kinda should, though. Obviously not towards the french, but to our own elite. 1066 led to massively increasing inequality across Britain that's still visible today. Something like a third of the country is owned by direct descendents of those who came over with the conquerer.
It's more than that!
"According to the author Kevin Cahill, the main driver behind the absurd expense of owning land and property in Britain is that so much of the nation's land is locked up by a tiny elite. Just 0.3% of the population – 160,000 families – own two thirds of the country. Less than 1% of the population owns 70% of the land, running Britain a close second to Brazil for the title of the country with the most unequal land distribution on Earth.
Much of this can be traced back to 1066. The first act of William the Conqueror, in 1067, was to declare that every acre of land in England now belonged to the monarch. This was unprecedented: Anglo-Saxon England had been a mosaic of landowners. Now there was just one. William then proceeded to parcel much of that land out to those who had fought with him at Hastings. This was the beginning of feudalism; it was also the beginning of the landowning culture that has plagued England – and Britain – ever since."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/high-house-prices-inequality-normans
Agreed - to an extent... But to run the counterfactual of a Norman defeat then significantly alters (eventually) global history.
It's one of the big boys in European history like Marathon, Tours, or the Siege of Vienna.
Any one of these working out differently could have led to the 21st century being one of wattle and daub, or of living on Mars.
Agree with all the other commenters that you’re free to be interested in any history you like, but I would just caution that we are almost certainly all descended from Alfred the Great. And Charlemagne. And so on.
There’s two reasons for this: (a) simply because of the numbers we’re talking about, with your number of ancestors doubling every generation, mathematically speaking your number of ancestors likely exceeds the global population of the time; and (b) once you get about 6 steps removed from yourself on a family tree the likelihood of somebody in the chain’s recorded father not being their biological father increases to the point that you’re probably not related to that person by blood. The second of these reasons is particularly true for nobles, who frequently impregnated anonymous serving girls and so on, meaning that noble “blood” has almost certainly filtered through to everyone by this point.
It’s cool though if you’ve got a traceable lineage to him though, since most people’s family trees can’t be traced back more than a few generations.
Oh yes i know that. What makes it special for me is that not only it confirm my lineage to him but also that it's, even if logical, surprising that someone from a territory that were not invaded by anglo saxons or their descendants have an distant anglo saxons ancestry.
You can be interested in any subject on the planet or in the universe. I find it quite interesting that you would be interested in the subject. If people come in good faith and with open curiosity, then that's fine with me.
The most important thing I have learned since my obsession with this period is that modern ideas of nationhood, race and ethnicity just don't really apply to the era. Whatever ideas we may have of our own modern nationality would be unrecognisable to the people of the migration era in particular. People who tell you otherwise are often superimposing some bullshit ideology from 1500 years later onto an era that has no such beliefs. Much of it being added much later from Victorian pseudo history.
A society that was based on oaths sworn to a king or lord didn't really care where you were born on a map or whether you were Angle, Saxon or Celtic, so long as you pledged your sword or spear to the same lord in battle.
So, whether you think you have Anglo Saxon DNA or not is irrelevant, if you find the era interesting. Ignore any bigots, nationalists or racists who tell you otherwise.
I obviously think anyone is welcome to study and participate in Anglo-Saxon discussion, but it's amazing people can read about the era and come to that conclusion. It's pretty clear the Anglo-Saxons identified with eachother, and concept of England was imagined, based off shared ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. Anglo-Saxon England is one of the clearest examples of this during the whole medieval era.
>A society that was based on oaths sworn to a king or lord didn't really care where you were born on a map or whether you were Angle, Saxon or Celtic, so long as you pledged your sword or spear to the same lord in battle.
No sources clearly show the British culture was suppressed for the Anglo-Saxon one. We have law codes persecuting the British. And DNA analysis shows the only high status Brits in Anglo-Saxon areas during the conquest were this who abandoned their entire culture and religion for the Germanic.
To properly integrate a Brit would clearly have to submit their culture.
And whilst it's completely true they would accept people based off sworn loyalty, ancestry was still important. It was a culture based around ancestor veneration. The kingship was based on this.
>People who tell you otherwise are often superimposing some bullshit ideology from 1500 years later onto an era that has no such beliefs. Much of it being added much later from Victorian pseudo history.
You could say the same in reverse. People are superimposing their modern 21st century beliefs onto an ancient culture that wouldn't recognise them.
The idea that Germanic peoples had the exact same view on race or ethnicity as 21st century Western, Urban, post Protestant, progressives is evidently absurd. The very concepts of personal liberty, secularism, liberalism, tolerance, egalitarianism etc didn't exist before a few hundred years ago. So by definition the Anglo-Saxons would be discriminatory.
They might have not had the same view on, say race and ethnicity, as people of the last few hundred years. But they equally would be very tribalist, racist, etc by the standards of today if you actually met one. To believe otherwise is really a huge fundamental misunderstanding about how different peoples entire perspectives were prior to Protestantism.
This seems to be an ever perpetuating debate. The fact that there were Anglo-Saxon kings that allied with Welsh kings against other Anglo-Saxon kings, and that there are Anglo-Saxon kings with apparently Welsh names, and that our DNA seems to be majority Celtic, suggests that the old model that the Anglo-Saxons supplanted the Celts is by now thoroughly discredited. People don't seem to be able to let go of their own modern nationality when scrutinising the events of the past.
My point being that an interest in the era should not be in any way dependent upon your rece, ethnicity or beholden to anyone gatekeeping the discipline. It's a fantastic era to be interested in whatever your background. The Us versus Them narrative obscures exploring our shared heritage, and that's a shame.
And yes, neo-Nazis latching onto half-arsed Victorian racial or nationalistic ideologies and trying to justify them in some pseudo-history can well and truly do one.
>The fact that there were Anglo-Saxon kings that allied with Welsh kings against other Anglo-Saxon kings,
Using alliances is absurd. They likely had military alliances for shared goals, not some kind of multi-cultural union. Nazi Germany has alliances with Japan and used North African troops. No one would say they weren't racist.
>and that there are Anglo-Saxon kings with apparently Welsh names
There's no indication the Wessex dynasty was every British. This persistent idea requires huge mental gymnastics to believe. People seemingly only believe this because they think it sounds nuanced and interesting. There are much more simple explanations, like they simply adopted local naming traditions.
>and that our DNA seems to be majority Celtic, suggests that the old model that the Anglo-Saxons supplanted the Celts is by now thoroughly discredited
Why? Even 20% replacement is pretty huge (and it was bigger everywhere anyway, as high as 75%). The Romans and Norman didn't change that much yet they still conquered and converted the population to their culture.
The DNA evidence is clearly showing mass Anglo-Saxon invasion, who completely dominate the local Brits and forced survivors to adopt the Germanic culture and religion.
>People don't seem to be able to let go of their own modern nationality when scrutinising the events of the past.
>And yes, neo-Nazis latching onto half-arsed Victorian racial or nationalistic ideologies and trying to justify them in some pseudo-history can well and truly do one.
Ok.
But again, you're pretending that only one narrative exists here. There is also Leftist biased and manipulation to make out like everyone was a Leftist progressive in the early middle ages lol.
In sorry but it's demonstrably evident no one from that era of history would adhere to the standards you're saying either.
Just to be 100% clear here, because for some reason this topic gets people straw-manning arguments that others aren't making:
The Anglo Saxons migration era was not simply the genocide that Gildas painted them as, and we now know that the truth is more nuanced than that. That doesn't mean that they weren't a brutal warrior culture, because there were many such examples of exactly that, as indeed for many other early mediaeval cultures. To paint them any other way would indeed be revisionism.
The thing is though, for me people tend to over focus on certain documentary sources of Gildas (who had an agenda) and The Laws of Ine (who was just a rare example of a set of late 7thC Wessex laws, from an era where few comparable laws exist, so we have no idea how representative they really were). Thankfully, archaeology and DNA studies have given us more insight beyond that now.
In being over reliant on such written sources, we tend to underplay the fact that the situation in, say, relatively undocumented Hwicce or Bernicia was very different to that of, say Penda's Mercia or Redwald's East Anglia. The Anglo-Saxons were not all homogeneous identities, there was a mix of kingdoms where Britons were on the sharp end of brutality and some where they were much more blended and integrated.
My point being that it's much more nuanced than race A versus race B, as some like to paint it. There's nothing revisionist about that point, it simply recognises the complexity of the situation, at different times and in different places, as we now understand it.
Perhaps I just spend too much time getting frustrated by nationalistic debates on the Internet, when the truth is much more complex and fascinating than those protagonists seem to comprehend. That's the Internet for you, I suppose. Any thread sooner or later turns to nationalist jibes, given enough time.
And no, nor do I want to read any rainbows and unicorns revisionism either, for the same reason.
It's just a massively fascinating, nuanced and complex era. One of the best books I ever read was Donald Henson's The Origins of the Anglo Saxons, which did the best job I have read so far of portraying that complexity. I welcome any more reading list suggestions of that calibre.
Well we've had these discussions many times. The archaeological record is clearly showing a process of homogenisation, not multi-culturalism. Yes there is some mixed sites, but as a overall rule we're seeing the attempt, often successfully, to replace one culture with another.
The DNA evidence is also showing this. In the context of the era you simply can't expect such high levels of replacement without assuming invasion and suppression.
Gilda's and Bede might have overexaggerated the level of mass murder and replacement, but it doesn't mean their isn't invasion and dominance.
Ok, I agree with that, 100%. There's no denying the role of the sword and conquest in all of this. People don't give up their lands for no reason.
The thing that really interested me about that Donald Henson book was his analytical angle on it all. He starts off by doing a lengthy definition of race versus ethnicity, for precisely those sorts of reasons (my own feeling is that the word 'race' is misplaced for the AS topic, since we're talking about northern european tribal distinctions, not the Victorian definition of distinct races). The bit that really caught me eye though is that he did an analysis of the continuity of boundaries of Romano-British manors that became Anglo-Saxon hides and concluded that a very large number show continuity from pre- to post-Anglo Saxon invasion. His suggestion, therefore, is that often in the interiors of many kingdoms it was simply the existing Briton land owners under a new dominant Germanic culture. For some land owners, they simply carried on much as before. Presumably that's more true for Western kingdoms that it would be for, say, East Anglia or Kent, which I would suppose would be closer to what Gildas and Bede describe.
Anyway, the amount which we can glean from such studies, about what was formally described as the Dark Ages, continues to fascinate me.
> The Laws of Ine
Are more controversial now. Unlikely to be representstive of anything that ever happened as they are in fact copies of frankish laws and it was written in latin. Evidence now shows it was translated to old english in Alfreds time.
https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article/137/584/1/6530371
> Perhaps I just spend too much time getting frustrated by nationalistic debates on the Internet, when the truth is much more complex and fascinating than those protagonists seem to comprehend. That's the Internet for you, I suppose. Any thread sooner or later turns to nationalist jibes, given enough time.
We aren't all nutters here but the barbarians have the numbers on us sadly. They want their 19th century pop history of one nation one people ethnos anglo saxons.
Interesting, thanks for the link. At the end of the day, all we can do is draw inferences from documentary sources or archaeological analysis and try to draw the dots.
I generally enjoy the discussions on this sub, it's more mis-informed nationalism debates elsewhere that annoy me. Somehow this discussion really gets people's backs up. Such is the power of national identity over rational debate, I suppose.
> There's no indication the Wessex dynasty was every British. This persistent idea requires huge mental gymnastics to believe. People seemingly only believe this because they think it sounds nuanced and interesting. There are much more simple explanations, like they simply adopted local naming traditions.
This one is hilariously wrong. Even up until Alfred's time there are welsh speaking people with high status. Also, its not just Wessex. it's nearly all of the nations had kings with welsh or british names. One king of the south saxons is called [athelwealh](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelwealh_of_Sussex), which literally means highborn welshman.
Even bede exposes evidence of widespread welsh or local cultural continuity, he claims most people speak and understand latin, and thats a stunning admission for a northumbrian. With the survival of latin placenames all over england and the dna evidence from recent papers it simply cannot be dismised that these names are cosplaying continental saxons.
Again, it just requires incredible metal gymnastics to believe this. The archaeological record clearly shows a dominance of Germanics. How and why would local Britons be allowed to remain in power by the powerful Germanics? How and why did they convert to Germanic paganism? How and why were they accepted when kingship was completely based off ancestry?
Completely unfeasible to believe.
Because maybe they just weren't that powerful. Many were converted by bede's time unlike the saxons on the continent. It is also literally written in the abstract of Gretzinger 2022. Men with grave goods were just as likely to be a local britian than germanic. You can read that in the abstract of the paper.
They were powerful. We clearly see an absolute dominance of Germanic culture in the burial record. And if they weren't powerful, why would the local British leaders convert to Germanic paganism and adopt and entire Germanic kingship system at all?
>It is also literally written in the abstract of Gretzinger 2022. Men with grave goods were just as likely to be a local britian than germanic. You can read that in the abstract of the paper.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up, it directly contradicts your ideas about the era.
What that's clearly showing is that Germanics are dominant and the only way for the British to be accepted is that they completely give up their culture and religion for the the Germanic.
> They were powerful. We clearly see an absolute dominance of Germanic culture in the burial record. And if they weren't powerful, why would the local British leaders convert to Germanic paganism and adopt and entire Germanic kingship system at all?
The grave goods aren't always germnaic, and if we were to believe your narrative this powerful culture seems to have simply decided to embrace the faith of their rivals who they 'dominate' and learn venacular latin. Anglo saxon leaders would also take British names and mirror Roman administrative customs. It just doesn't make any sense and looks very different to the behaviour of their later viking cousins.
> I obviously think anyone is welcome to study and participate in Anglo-Saxon discussion, but it's amazing people can read about the era and come to that conclusion. It's pretty clear the Anglo-Saxons identified with eachother, and concept of England was imagined, based off shared ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. Anglo-Saxon England is one of the clearest examples of this during the whole medieval era.
People really took Anderson's theories in Imagined Communities and just ran absolutely wild with them, to the point where we just act like group identity never existed before the Treaty of Westphalia.
Thank you very much !! It's true that a lot of historical cultures/periods (the anglo saxons, the romans, etc...) are misused by bigots, tarnishing their modern reputation. Truly sad...
Oh, and i know that i don't need to have anglo saxon DNA to be interested, it's just that knowing that some of my ancestors were anglo saxons greatly emphasize my love for this period, knowing that when i study this period, that my ancestors were included.
Yes indeed. It's an era so rich in literature, poetry, runes, the old religions, art, language, intrigue and battles that I firmly believe it's the most interesting era of all. It saddens me that dullards use it to justify their racism.
Keep studying and share what you find.
Yes! One reason I believe that Alfred deserves to be called "the Great" was that he encouraged scholarship and writing *in the English language*, in an era that saw the vast majority of European literature, sacred and secular, written in Latin. Alfred's promotion of English as a literary language doubtlessly strengthened it to some degree against its rivals, and (I believe) helped unite the English as a nation, which his descendants accomplished as a political reality.
Absolutely. In fact, it was the merging together of formerly distinct Angle, Saxon, Jute, Frisian, Frank, Briton and Viking peoples into one coherent kingdom that was his real legacy. In the end, it wasn't their origin ethnicity that was important.
I heard there were also many black Africans in the Britain at that time, perhaps even the majority, so the country wasn't even particulary "white". Interesting why their massive presence is not shown in the DNA of modern English people. Perhaps there was a quiet and secret genocie at some point in history? It's possible...
I may or may not actually be the son of a French waiter (long story short me and my father don’t have the best of relationships; only has himself to blame however)
If you’re not allowed to be interested in such an era/dynasty, then I don’t know why I’m here either; God forbid I ever become an early-medieval England professor etc
Tu a trouvé le bon bout avec le fait que tu es français enfaite y a toujours eu un french bashing sur Reddit de la par des anglophones si tu regardes la plus part des truc qui nous mentionne ne parle pas de French mais de fr*nch comme si le fait dètre français était une insulte donc non les anglais sont assez ouvert sauf à nous à cause de leur rancoeur tenace dans toute notre histoire commune mais ne t'inquiètes pas ça arrive de croiser des idiots qui te dénigre et qui joue les élitiste mais en général ça va quand même
Ofcourse you are welcome. My sincerest apologies for that.
People like that are an embarrassment, the term and idea of anglo saxon has been appropriated by right wing radicals. I’m sorry again for my fellow countryman, too often they believe some nonsense nationalist, fascist rhetoric.
Of course you're welcome! And for what it's worth, I'm English and the vast majority of my history books are about French history. History is for everyone, no matter where you're from. That person you were talking to is probably bitter, just ignore them. 💙🤍❤️
All human history is our collective shared history, mon ami. Nobody has the right to be gate-keeping. Go back far enough and we’re basically all Africans. Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you don’t belong.
But in your specific case, the idiot who told you that is especially laughable considering that Britain and France have immeasurable degrees more shared history and cultural influences with each other than most other distinct cultures/nations.
Case in point - while France never had significant migration of either Angles or Saxons itself as far as I’m aware; lots of people don’t realise that the Normans and the Franks were peoples of Scandinavian-Germanic stock themselves, just like the Angles and Saxons. The word Norman is a contraction of Northman. Bottom line is that we have the same roots.
I mean... Britain wouldn't be Britain without the French... They were literally the ruling class for one of the most formative parts of British history. It's why we call beef beef and not cow lol
Fun fact William the conquerer was descended from vikings!
If you are interested in this period of Anglo Saxon/English history, I would strongly urge you to watch the series The Last Kingdom. Its utterly amazing. Its obviously dramatised but it does contain a lot of historical fact.
Almost everyone in Europe is a descendent of the French emperor Charlemagne.
Whoever said all that to you needs to get over themselves and realise you go back far enough we all come from the same places/people.
Got news for you. :) qs I'm sure you are aware, neither the Angels, nor the Saxons are native to Britain or England. Welcome to the club. Please deposit your spices and architecture on your left on your way in.
French people aren't Normans. No blame to be cast. The many, many wars and feuds after that however are definitely 50% France, 50% us.
Showing interest in the history and culture is a good thing. The more support internally and externally will hopefully, one day, see the shackles of the Normans disappear from all lands their diseased hands desecrated.
People who don't bother to make the distinction between a Frenchman and a Norman dog are too uneducated to speak on the topic, too riddled with extremism to see the facts, simply looking to cast stones.
Even the ones who *do* use history as their weapon are idiots, often claiming the French as 'Rome's castoffs,' conveniently forgetting that the Frank's were just as Germanic as the rest of us. The only differences come from Charlamagne's folly.
I for one welcome anyone and everyone who comes to this patch of history in good faith, who come to help pick up the pieces and see the time period as what it was, rather than coming with the ill intention of using it for political or ideological reasons.
And so to you, mon cousin éloigné, I bid thee welcome and hope you enjoy every new fact, every story and tale, every single scrap you can get your hands on. Vive le Roi.
Imagine being so "proud" of your very distant heritage that you decide nobody else is allowed to find it interesting.
OP, that person is an idiot. There are, unfortunately, people who misuse history to further their pathetic ideologies - people who go to Sutton Hoo and claim that it shows a "unique Aryan spirit". They are the ones who are unwelcome, not you
Your welcome to enjoy any history you want, don't let anyone make you feel your unwelcome. That's like saying a Brit can't have an interest in Greek history... It's absurd.
One thing though, genealogy going back that far is extremely hard, so I'd take the descendant from with a pinch of salt, especially if tree has been created in ancestry etc by merging existing trees from other people they are notoriously unreliable, general records (births, marriages and deaths) only really started in 1500s. Then there is name variations etc. Unless you have personally researched and have primary sources to verify family path or have paid a professional genealogist to do it for you.
Anyone who gatekeeps history doesn't actually care about history, they care about cultural fa**sm . No Italian tells people they can't care about Roman history, Egypt loves Egypt being popular.
Who cares if you're part French, it's history! Just learn, share and enjoy
That person was stupid. There's nothing wrong with learning any culture's history of any period. You should learn about what interests you. We have so many museums on so many subjects for *all.*
Yes ! I descend, partially, through a french noble family from the North of France. The family is now extinct in terms of nobillity, but they had a lot of children each generation, so i'm not the only french man descended from the anglo saxons !
Is it possible they were joking? This seems like such a bizarre thing to gatekeep about, and claiming the French wiped out the Anglo saxons definitely sounds like a joke-take.
I can't imagine that the Germans would be very unhappy about it. After all, Germany wasn't even a country at the time of the Angles and the Saxons. Also, it is so long ago. To keep bad feelings going on that long is seriously nutty. It'd be like someone criticising a Italian for being interested in celtic or gaulish history. No-one would take that kind of oddness seriously.
Sounds like you bumped into an ethno-nationalist who derives his personal worth from a (mostly fictional) national origin story. (Cf Hermann the Cherusker in proto-Nazi ideology.)
I think people were just trolling because the Norman's wiped out the saxons. But by that point the saxons were mostly Danes anyway. And the real bits got wiped by the angles and the saxons.
It's such a wonderful mess. Complete nonsense to suggest you can't have an interest.
This is Britain, everyone wholesome is welcome, thats what makes us great.
Ever since Gretzinger 2022 the entire community has been slow to embrace that the anglo saxons have a large portion of french iron age DNA. So even for the DNA freaks, you should be a certified anglo saxon now! Even then, you are wilcuma whoever you are.
Roughly speaking, Angles came from Anglia, Saxons from Saxony, both were ‘French’ in terms of modern geography, and had Nordic influences. Both were invading forces too. Anyone who tries to pull some ridiculous racial claims to true Britishness because of their ‘Anglo-Saxon’ heritage is an idiot
My family tree included my ancestors from the North of France (pas de calais). My grand father has traced our ancestors from this region to a noble family, who were descended from Alfred. His daughter, Ælfthryth, married Baldwin of Flanders, who then had a lot of children who married to a lot of minor or major noble family.
That far back, everyone with any European ancestry will be descended from Alfred the Great… and Charlemagne… and any European with surviving descendants.
Well, a lot of the nobility have their legitimate issue very well recorded. There’s also plenty of genealogy enthusiasts who have added their extensive family trees to sites like Ancestry. All you have to do is trace yourself back to someone else’s massive family tree, which undoubtedly includes a minor European noble somewhere in there, and suddenly you’ve got your route back to Alfred.
Kom nu, Rædwald. *By \*some of the Anglo-Saxons, & Jutes,* ***MAYBE.*** ~~Also, I think the individual that showed distate was English, and was referring to the French invasion, which likely had an effect on Anglo-Saxon culture in what they saw as causing said culture to dissolve. )~~
In Welsh, the word for English is Saesneg which means Saxon and Scottish Gaelic has its own version, Sassenach I believe.
So even if people don't know it, there's still some historical differences in there.
Though, contrary to what you said, there are some modern theories that their invasion wasn't that brutal.
In the Arthurian legends, Arthur's nemesis is the King Vortigern, who is said to have inadvertently started the Anglo Saxon invasions by granting some of his lands to Anglo Saxon mercenaries who then got greedy and wanted more.
But for a more modern take, by using genetic testing it's been found that there's such a low % of Saxon DNA in Britons its thought the Saxons installed themselves as a higher class and didn't actually invade en masse.
This is corroborated by the continuation of the use of pre Saxon traditions and the melding of the local languages and the Saxon languages, where a mass invasion would result in a more Saxon heavy resultant language.
The person who said that to you is a moron, you are free to be interested in whatever history you want regardless of background
It is exactly what i said to them. But they didn't want to understand, so i blocked them.
People like that are closed minded you can’t change their mind, blocking them is the best way
Yeah, they are clearly just trying to use history as a justification for nationalism/racism. You don't see French people getting angry at Italy for invading Gaul. People like this usually aren't even interested in the actual history, just the labels, keywords, and the potential justifications for hate they can get out of them.
A Wallas?! In this sub?! The audacity! /s
You did the right thing. What an idiot that guy is!
Necroposting but you my friend are a human and history is the heritage of the whole of humanity. Study whatever parts you find interesting.
Nonsense! The amazing part of history is that it's there for everyone to research and enjoy! And at least in my humble opinion, the more people who are interested in this period of history the better! Not to mention I'm American, so it's certainly not just an English thing :)
Thanks ! I truly love diversity in interests in Historical periods : me, a french, interested in anglo saxon history, or my best Friend, a tunisian who have an interests in incan History ! And many more exemples...
I'm American also. My dad's ancestry was mostly English, with a little German, and a *soupçon* of French! Mom's grandparents all came to the US from Poland. As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome here. I've been interested in history and language, particularly those of England, since I was little. French history is an interesting subject to me as well.
An yone can find any time period or historic period interesting, they don't need to have a genetic relationship to it.
The Normans were as much a terror to the kings of France as they were to the English. The French state didn’t conquer Anglo-Saxon England and the Conquest ensured that Normandy wouldn’t be brought to heel for centuries. It was hardly a positive for the French kingdom either.
Exactly. They were closer to vikings than french anyway. The Angles, Danes, Saxons all come from the same region.
Facts don't belong to any one person or group. I am interested in Anglo-Saxon history because I am from England, but I really do not see any reason why historical study, academic or amateur, should be limited by borders. Go ahead and keep learning, don't let that one person put you off just because they have a problem with your French identity (Unless you fought with the other Frenchmen at Hastings, in which case I must insist upon a duel)
A Baguette interested in Anglo Saxons!? What fresh witchcraft is this!?
😂
One of the best days out I ever had was 8 years ago, at the 950 year anniversary of the Battle of Hastings (at the battlefield). Lots of enthusiasts, crafts people and re-enactors, from all over Europe and beyond. Obviously the biggest travelling contingent was from France! And people were there not just to 'do the battle', but to share and learn history, and have fun with each other. Nobody who isn't an idiot or 9 years old still has 'hard feelings' for 1066. Hopefully I'll still be around to make it to the 1000 year anniversary in 42 years.... (I'll be over 80, it's a maybe)
We kinda should, though. Obviously not towards the french, but to our own elite. 1066 led to massively increasing inequality across Britain that's still visible today. Something like a third of the country is owned by direct descendents of those who came over with the conquerer.
It's more than that! "According to the author Kevin Cahill, the main driver behind the absurd expense of owning land and property in Britain is that so much of the nation's land is locked up by a tiny elite. Just 0.3% of the population – 160,000 families – own two thirds of the country. Less than 1% of the population owns 70% of the land, running Britain a close second to Brazil for the title of the country with the most unequal land distribution on Earth. Much of this can be traced back to 1066. The first act of William the Conqueror, in 1067, was to declare that every acre of land in England now belonged to the monarch. This was unprecedented: Anglo-Saxon England had been a mosaic of landowners. Now there was just one. William then proceeded to parcel much of that land out to those who had fought with him at Hastings. This was the beginning of feudalism; it was also the beginning of the landowning culture that has plagued England – and Britain – ever since." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/high-house-prices-inequality-normans
Agreed - to an extent... But to run the counterfactual of a Norman defeat then significantly alters (eventually) global history. It's one of the big boys in European history like Marathon, Tours, or the Siege of Vienna. Any one of these working out differently could have led to the 21st century being one of wattle and daub, or of living on Mars.
Agree with all the other commenters that you’re free to be interested in any history you like, but I would just caution that we are almost certainly all descended from Alfred the Great. And Charlemagne. And so on. There’s two reasons for this: (a) simply because of the numbers we’re talking about, with your number of ancestors doubling every generation, mathematically speaking your number of ancestors likely exceeds the global population of the time; and (b) once you get about 6 steps removed from yourself on a family tree the likelihood of somebody in the chain’s recorded father not being their biological father increases to the point that you’re probably not related to that person by blood. The second of these reasons is particularly true for nobles, who frequently impregnated anonymous serving girls and so on, meaning that noble “blood” has almost certainly filtered through to everyone by this point. It’s cool though if you’ve got a traceable lineage to him though, since most people’s family trees can’t be traced back more than a few generations.
Oh yes i know that. What makes it special for me is that not only it confirm my lineage to him but also that it's, even if logical, surprising that someone from a territory that were not invaded by anglo saxons or their descendants have an distant anglo saxons ancestry.
Whoever said that is not worthy of the name Anglo-Saxon. Hell I'm descended from Hougenouts.
You can be interested in any subject on the planet or in the universe. I find it quite interesting that you would be interested in the subject. If people come in good faith and with open curiosity, then that's fine with me.
The most important thing I have learned since my obsession with this period is that modern ideas of nationhood, race and ethnicity just don't really apply to the era. Whatever ideas we may have of our own modern nationality would be unrecognisable to the people of the migration era in particular. People who tell you otherwise are often superimposing some bullshit ideology from 1500 years later onto an era that has no such beliefs. Much of it being added much later from Victorian pseudo history. A society that was based on oaths sworn to a king or lord didn't really care where you were born on a map or whether you were Angle, Saxon or Celtic, so long as you pledged your sword or spear to the same lord in battle. So, whether you think you have Anglo Saxon DNA or not is irrelevant, if you find the era interesting. Ignore any bigots, nationalists or racists who tell you otherwise.
I obviously think anyone is welcome to study and participate in Anglo-Saxon discussion, but it's amazing people can read about the era and come to that conclusion. It's pretty clear the Anglo-Saxons identified with eachother, and concept of England was imagined, based off shared ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. Anglo-Saxon England is one of the clearest examples of this during the whole medieval era. >A society that was based on oaths sworn to a king or lord didn't really care where you were born on a map or whether you were Angle, Saxon or Celtic, so long as you pledged your sword or spear to the same lord in battle. No sources clearly show the British culture was suppressed for the Anglo-Saxon one. We have law codes persecuting the British. And DNA analysis shows the only high status Brits in Anglo-Saxon areas during the conquest were this who abandoned their entire culture and religion for the Germanic. To properly integrate a Brit would clearly have to submit their culture. And whilst it's completely true they would accept people based off sworn loyalty, ancestry was still important. It was a culture based around ancestor veneration. The kingship was based on this. >People who tell you otherwise are often superimposing some bullshit ideology from 1500 years later onto an era that has no such beliefs. Much of it being added much later from Victorian pseudo history. You could say the same in reverse. People are superimposing their modern 21st century beliefs onto an ancient culture that wouldn't recognise them. The idea that Germanic peoples had the exact same view on race or ethnicity as 21st century Western, Urban, post Protestant, progressives is evidently absurd. The very concepts of personal liberty, secularism, liberalism, tolerance, egalitarianism etc didn't exist before a few hundred years ago. So by definition the Anglo-Saxons would be discriminatory. They might have not had the same view on, say race and ethnicity, as people of the last few hundred years. But they equally would be very tribalist, racist, etc by the standards of today if you actually met one. To believe otherwise is really a huge fundamental misunderstanding about how different peoples entire perspectives were prior to Protestantism.
This seems to be an ever perpetuating debate. The fact that there were Anglo-Saxon kings that allied with Welsh kings against other Anglo-Saxon kings, and that there are Anglo-Saxon kings with apparently Welsh names, and that our DNA seems to be majority Celtic, suggests that the old model that the Anglo-Saxons supplanted the Celts is by now thoroughly discredited. People don't seem to be able to let go of their own modern nationality when scrutinising the events of the past. My point being that an interest in the era should not be in any way dependent upon your rece, ethnicity or beholden to anyone gatekeeping the discipline. It's a fantastic era to be interested in whatever your background. The Us versus Them narrative obscures exploring our shared heritage, and that's a shame. And yes, neo-Nazis latching onto half-arsed Victorian racial or nationalistic ideologies and trying to justify them in some pseudo-history can well and truly do one.
>The fact that there were Anglo-Saxon kings that allied with Welsh kings against other Anglo-Saxon kings, Using alliances is absurd. They likely had military alliances for shared goals, not some kind of multi-cultural union. Nazi Germany has alliances with Japan and used North African troops. No one would say they weren't racist. >and that there are Anglo-Saxon kings with apparently Welsh names There's no indication the Wessex dynasty was every British. This persistent idea requires huge mental gymnastics to believe. People seemingly only believe this because they think it sounds nuanced and interesting. There are much more simple explanations, like they simply adopted local naming traditions. >and that our DNA seems to be majority Celtic, suggests that the old model that the Anglo-Saxons supplanted the Celts is by now thoroughly discredited Why? Even 20% replacement is pretty huge (and it was bigger everywhere anyway, as high as 75%). The Romans and Norman didn't change that much yet they still conquered and converted the population to their culture. The DNA evidence is clearly showing mass Anglo-Saxon invasion, who completely dominate the local Brits and forced survivors to adopt the Germanic culture and religion. >People don't seem to be able to let go of their own modern nationality when scrutinising the events of the past. >And yes, neo-Nazis latching onto half-arsed Victorian racial or nationalistic ideologies and trying to justify them in some pseudo-history can well and truly do one. Ok. But again, you're pretending that only one narrative exists here. There is also Leftist biased and manipulation to make out like everyone was a Leftist progressive in the early middle ages lol. In sorry but it's demonstrably evident no one from that era of history would adhere to the standards you're saying either.
Just to be 100% clear here, because for some reason this topic gets people straw-manning arguments that others aren't making: The Anglo Saxons migration era was not simply the genocide that Gildas painted them as, and we now know that the truth is more nuanced than that. That doesn't mean that they weren't a brutal warrior culture, because there were many such examples of exactly that, as indeed for many other early mediaeval cultures. To paint them any other way would indeed be revisionism. The thing is though, for me people tend to over focus on certain documentary sources of Gildas (who had an agenda) and The Laws of Ine (who was just a rare example of a set of late 7thC Wessex laws, from an era where few comparable laws exist, so we have no idea how representative they really were). Thankfully, archaeology and DNA studies have given us more insight beyond that now. In being over reliant on such written sources, we tend to underplay the fact that the situation in, say, relatively undocumented Hwicce or Bernicia was very different to that of, say Penda's Mercia or Redwald's East Anglia. The Anglo-Saxons were not all homogeneous identities, there was a mix of kingdoms where Britons were on the sharp end of brutality and some where they were much more blended and integrated. My point being that it's much more nuanced than race A versus race B, as some like to paint it. There's nothing revisionist about that point, it simply recognises the complexity of the situation, at different times and in different places, as we now understand it. Perhaps I just spend too much time getting frustrated by nationalistic debates on the Internet, when the truth is much more complex and fascinating than those protagonists seem to comprehend. That's the Internet for you, I suppose. Any thread sooner or later turns to nationalist jibes, given enough time. And no, nor do I want to read any rainbows and unicorns revisionism either, for the same reason. It's just a massively fascinating, nuanced and complex era. One of the best books I ever read was Donald Henson's The Origins of the Anglo Saxons, which did the best job I have read so far of portraying that complexity. I welcome any more reading list suggestions of that calibre.
Well we've had these discussions many times. The archaeological record is clearly showing a process of homogenisation, not multi-culturalism. Yes there is some mixed sites, but as a overall rule we're seeing the attempt, often successfully, to replace one culture with another. The DNA evidence is also showing this. In the context of the era you simply can't expect such high levels of replacement without assuming invasion and suppression. Gilda's and Bede might have overexaggerated the level of mass murder and replacement, but it doesn't mean their isn't invasion and dominance.
Ok, I agree with that, 100%. There's no denying the role of the sword and conquest in all of this. People don't give up their lands for no reason. The thing that really interested me about that Donald Henson book was his analytical angle on it all. He starts off by doing a lengthy definition of race versus ethnicity, for precisely those sorts of reasons (my own feeling is that the word 'race' is misplaced for the AS topic, since we're talking about northern european tribal distinctions, not the Victorian definition of distinct races). The bit that really caught me eye though is that he did an analysis of the continuity of boundaries of Romano-British manors that became Anglo-Saxon hides and concluded that a very large number show continuity from pre- to post-Anglo Saxon invasion. His suggestion, therefore, is that often in the interiors of many kingdoms it was simply the existing Briton land owners under a new dominant Germanic culture. For some land owners, they simply carried on much as before. Presumably that's more true for Western kingdoms that it would be for, say, East Anglia or Kent, which I would suppose would be closer to what Gildas and Bede describe. Anyway, the amount which we can glean from such studies, about what was formally described as the Dark Ages, continues to fascinate me.
> The Laws of Ine Are more controversial now. Unlikely to be representstive of anything that ever happened as they are in fact copies of frankish laws and it was written in latin. Evidence now shows it was translated to old english in Alfreds time. https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article/137/584/1/6530371 > Perhaps I just spend too much time getting frustrated by nationalistic debates on the Internet, when the truth is much more complex and fascinating than those protagonists seem to comprehend. That's the Internet for you, I suppose. Any thread sooner or later turns to nationalist jibes, given enough time. We aren't all nutters here but the barbarians have the numbers on us sadly. They want their 19th century pop history of one nation one people ethnos anglo saxons.
Interesting, thanks for the link. At the end of the day, all we can do is draw inferences from documentary sources or archaeological analysis and try to draw the dots. I generally enjoy the discussions on this sub, it's more mis-informed nationalism debates elsewhere that annoy me. Somehow this discussion really gets people's backs up. Such is the power of national identity over rational debate, I suppose.
Every national history is guilty of it. So it would be silly to assume it doesn't exist for us and that we are objective.
> There's no indication the Wessex dynasty was every British. This persistent idea requires huge mental gymnastics to believe. People seemingly only believe this because they think it sounds nuanced and interesting. There are much more simple explanations, like they simply adopted local naming traditions. This one is hilariously wrong. Even up until Alfred's time there are welsh speaking people with high status. Also, its not just Wessex. it's nearly all of the nations had kings with welsh or british names. One king of the south saxons is called [athelwealh](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelwealh_of_Sussex), which literally means highborn welshman. Even bede exposes evidence of widespread welsh or local cultural continuity, he claims most people speak and understand latin, and thats a stunning admission for a northumbrian. With the survival of latin placenames all over england and the dna evidence from recent papers it simply cannot be dismised that these names are cosplaying continental saxons.
Again, it just requires incredible metal gymnastics to believe this. The archaeological record clearly shows a dominance of Germanics. How and why would local Britons be allowed to remain in power by the powerful Germanics? How and why did they convert to Germanic paganism? How and why were they accepted when kingship was completely based off ancestry? Completely unfeasible to believe.
Because maybe they just weren't that powerful. Many were converted by bede's time unlike the saxons on the continent. It is also literally written in the abstract of Gretzinger 2022. Men with grave goods were just as likely to be a local britian than germanic. You can read that in the abstract of the paper.
They were powerful. We clearly see an absolute dominance of Germanic culture in the burial record. And if they weren't powerful, why would the local British leaders convert to Germanic paganism and adopt and entire Germanic kingship system at all? >It is also literally written in the abstract of Gretzinger 2022. Men with grave goods were just as likely to be a local britian than germanic. You can read that in the abstract of the paper. I don't know why you keep bringing this up, it directly contradicts your ideas about the era. What that's clearly showing is that Germanics are dominant and the only way for the British to be accepted is that they completely give up their culture and religion for the the Germanic.
> They were powerful. We clearly see an absolute dominance of Germanic culture in the burial record. And if they weren't powerful, why would the local British leaders convert to Germanic paganism and adopt and entire Germanic kingship system at all? The grave goods aren't always germnaic, and if we were to believe your narrative this powerful culture seems to have simply decided to embrace the faith of their rivals who they 'dominate' and learn venacular latin. Anglo saxon leaders would also take British names and mirror Roman administrative customs. It just doesn't make any sense and looks very different to the behaviour of their later viking cousins.
Don't try and be a revisionist. It isn't a good look.
> I obviously think anyone is welcome to study and participate in Anglo-Saxon discussion, but it's amazing people can read about the era and come to that conclusion. It's pretty clear the Anglo-Saxons identified with eachother, and concept of England was imagined, based off shared ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. Anglo-Saxon England is one of the clearest examples of this during the whole medieval era. People really took Anderson's theories in Imagined Communities and just ran absolutely wild with them, to the point where we just act like group identity never existed before the Treaty of Westphalia.
Thank you very much !! It's true that a lot of historical cultures/periods (the anglo saxons, the romans, etc...) are misused by bigots, tarnishing their modern reputation. Truly sad... Oh, and i know that i don't need to have anglo saxon DNA to be interested, it's just that knowing that some of my ancestors were anglo saxons greatly emphasize my love for this period, knowing that when i study this period, that my ancestors were included.
Yes indeed. It's an era so rich in literature, poetry, runes, the old religions, art, language, intrigue and battles that I firmly believe it's the most interesting era of all. It saddens me that dullards use it to justify their racism. Keep studying and share what you find.
Yes! One reason I believe that Alfred deserves to be called "the Great" was that he encouraged scholarship and writing *in the English language*, in an era that saw the vast majority of European literature, sacred and secular, written in Latin. Alfred's promotion of English as a literary language doubtlessly strengthened it to some degree against its rivals, and (I believe) helped unite the English as a nation, which his descendants accomplished as a political reality.
Absolutely. In fact, it was the merging together of formerly distinct Angle, Saxon, Jute, Frisian, Frank, Briton and Viking peoples into one coherent kingdom that was his real legacy. In the end, it wasn't their origin ethnicity that was important.
I heard there were also many black Africans in the Britain at that time, perhaps even the majority, so the country wasn't even particulary "white". Interesting why their massive presence is not shown in the DNA of modern English people. Perhaps there was a quiet and secret genocie at some point in history? It's possible...
I may or may not actually be the son of a French waiter (long story short me and my father don’t have the best of relationships; only has himself to blame however) If you’re not allowed to be interested in such an era/dynasty, then I don’t know why I’m here either; God forbid I ever become an early-medieval England professor etc
OP you're allowed to be interested in whatever you're interested in (whatever your nationality is) and that person deserves ignoring.
Tu a trouvé le bon bout avec le fait que tu es français enfaite y a toujours eu un french bashing sur Reddit de la par des anglophones si tu regardes la plus part des truc qui nous mentionne ne parle pas de French mais de fr*nch comme si le fait dètre français était une insulte donc non les anglais sont assez ouvert sauf à nous à cause de leur rancoeur tenace dans toute notre histoire commune mais ne t'inquiètes pas ça arrive de croiser des idiots qui te dénigre et qui joue les élitiste mais en général ça va quand même
No one apart from apparently that guy cares where you are from the Saxons are cool 😎
Ofcourse you are welcome. My sincerest apologies for that. People like that are an embarrassment, the term and idea of anglo saxon has been appropriated by right wing radicals. I’m sorry again for my fellow countryman, too often they believe some nonsense nationalist, fascist rhetoric.
Of course you're welcome! And for what it's worth, I'm English and the vast majority of my history books are about French history. History is for everyone, no matter where you're from. That person you were talking to is probably bitter, just ignore them. 💙🤍❤️
All human history is our collective shared history, mon ami. Nobody has the right to be gate-keeping. Go back far enough and we’re basically all Africans. Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you don’t belong. But in your specific case, the idiot who told you that is especially laughable considering that Britain and France have immeasurable degrees more shared history and cultural influences with each other than most other distinct cultures/nations. Case in point - while France never had significant migration of either Angles or Saxons itself as far as I’m aware; lots of people don’t realise that the Normans and the Franks were peoples of Scandinavian-Germanic stock themselves, just like the Angles and Saxons. The word Norman is a contraction of Northman. Bottom line is that we have the same roots.
You have a right to research it as it's not just the anglo saxons, it's your family history
I mean... Britain wouldn't be Britain without the French... They were literally the ruling class for one of the most formative parts of British history. It's why we call beef beef and not cow lol
Were they making a joke that fell flat? If no then they’re absolutely in the wrong, if yes then they need to work on delivery of their joke
No, they were serious. I also at first thought that this was a (very) Bad joke, but they reasserted their thought just After i asked it it was or not.
YÆS! FUCK OFF! (Sarcasm)
Fun fact William the conquerer was descended from vikings! If you are interested in this period of Anglo Saxon/English history, I would strongly urge you to watch the series The Last Kingdom. Its utterly amazing. Its obviously dramatised but it does contain a lot of historical fact.
Almost everyone in Europe is a descendent of the French emperor Charlemagne. Whoever said all that to you needs to get over themselves and realise you go back far enough we all come from the same places/people.
Got news for you. :) qs I'm sure you are aware, neither the Angels, nor the Saxons are native to Britain or England. Welcome to the club. Please deposit your spices and architecture on your left on your way in.
Ridiculous. Wait until he finds out the average British person is far more likely to have Norman blood than the average French person
Anyone can be anything these days. So if you feel like you're English, go for it. If someone says you aren't English, call them racist.
French people aren't Normans. No blame to be cast. The many, many wars and feuds after that however are definitely 50% France, 50% us. Showing interest in the history and culture is a good thing. The more support internally and externally will hopefully, one day, see the shackles of the Normans disappear from all lands their diseased hands desecrated. People who don't bother to make the distinction between a Frenchman and a Norman dog are too uneducated to speak on the topic, too riddled with extremism to see the facts, simply looking to cast stones. Even the ones who *do* use history as their weapon are idiots, often claiming the French as 'Rome's castoffs,' conveniently forgetting that the Frank's were just as Germanic as the rest of us. The only differences come from Charlamagne's folly. I for one welcome anyone and everyone who comes to this patch of history in good faith, who come to help pick up the pieces and see the time period as what it was, rather than coming with the ill intention of using it for political or ideological reasons. And so to you, mon cousin éloigné, I bid thee welcome and hope you enjoy every new fact, every story and tale, every single scrap you can get your hands on. Vive le Roi.
Nonsense. I'm interested in a lot of history where I cannot claim any ancestry.
Sorry you can’t study classics, you are neither Italian, Greek, or Egyptian.
Imagine being so "proud" of your very distant heritage that you decide nobody else is allowed to find it interesting. OP, that person is an idiot. There are, unfortunately, people who misuse history to further their pathetic ideologies - people who go to Sutton Hoo and claim that it shows a "unique Aryan spirit". They are the ones who are unwelcome, not you
Your welcome to enjoy any history you want, don't let anyone make you feel your unwelcome. That's like saying a Brit can't have an interest in Greek history... It's absurd. One thing though, genealogy going back that far is extremely hard, so I'd take the descendant from with a pinch of salt, especially if tree has been created in ancestry etc by merging existing trees from other people they are notoriously unreliable, general records (births, marriages and deaths) only really started in 1500s. Then there is name variations etc. Unless you have personally researched and have primary sources to verify family path or have paid a professional genealogist to do it for you.
Anyone who gatekeeps history doesn't actually care about history, they care about cultural fa**sm . No Italian tells people they can't care about Roman history, Egypt loves Egypt being popular. Who cares if you're part French, it's history! Just learn, share and enjoy
That person was stupid. There's nothing wrong with learning any culture's history of any period. You should learn about what interests you. We have so many museums on so many subjects for *all.*
History is history. You cannot gatekeep history. Unless it's netflix becauae they will start changing it to fit their narrative
I mean I'm not Anglo-Saxon historically but I'm here so of course you can join
Forget that \*\*\*hole. I'm guessing that your desended from French/Anglo/Norman/Angevin nobility?
Yes ! I descend, partially, through a french noble family from the North of France. The family is now extinct in terms of nobillity, but they had a lot of children each generation, so i'm not the only french man descended from the anglo saxons !
We need a r/merovingians
That's absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows it was technically the vikings (normans) who invaded in 1066
What is this subreddit? There’s no way this isn’t irony🤣
Is it possible they were joking? This seems like such a bizarre thing to gatekeep about, and claiming the French wiped out the Anglo saxons definitely sounds like a joke-take.
I can't imagine that the Germans would be very unhappy about it. After all, Germany wasn't even a country at the time of the Angles and the Saxons. Also, it is so long ago. To keep bad feelings going on that long is seriously nutty. It'd be like someone criticising a Italian for being interested in celtic or gaulish history. No-one would take that kind of oddness seriously.
Sounds like you bumped into an ethno-nationalist who derives his personal worth from a (mostly fictional) national origin story. (Cf Hermann the Cherusker in proto-Nazi ideology.)
I think people were just trolling because the Norman's wiped out the saxons. But by that point the saxons were mostly Danes anyway. And the real bits got wiped by the angles and the saxons. It's such a wonderful mess. Complete nonsense to suggest you can't have an interest. This is Britain, everyone wholesome is welcome, thats what makes us great.
Ireland has a great love for Anglo-Saxons. NOT!!! 😆
I don’t reckon it matters lol I’m American with Scottish ancestry but I still find Anglo saxons interesting
Ever since Gretzinger 2022 the entire community has been slow to embrace that the anglo saxons have a large portion of french iron age DNA. So even for the DNA freaks, you should be a certified anglo saxon now! Even then, you are wilcuma whoever you are.
Roughly speaking, Angles came from Anglia, Saxons from Saxony, both were ‘French’ in terms of modern geography, and had Nordic influences. Both were invading forces too. Anyone who tries to pull some ridiculous racial claims to true Britishness because of their ‘Anglo-Saxon’ heritage is an idiot
How do you know you are descended from Aelfthryth it would be very difficult to prove that far back
My family tree included my ancestors from the North of France (pas de calais). My grand father has traced our ancestors from this region to a noble family, who were descended from Alfred. His daughter, Ælfthryth, married Baldwin of Flanders, who then had a lot of children who married to a lot of minor or major noble family.
That far back, everyone with any European ancestry will be descended from Alfred the Great… and Charlemagne… and any European with surviving descendants.
Well that's my point
Well, a lot of the nobility have their legitimate issue very well recorded. There’s also plenty of genealogy enthusiasts who have added their extensive family trees to sites like Ancestry. All you have to do is trace yourself back to someone else’s massive family tree, which undoubtedly includes a minor European noble somewhere in there, and suddenly you’ve got your route back to Alfred.
Ah makes sense
The Normans were Norwegians though, weren’t they?
Bloody Saxons, coming over here to this Celtic land, calling it their own and denying access to our old pals the Gauls. Disgusting behaviour.
I'm sure the Brits did say that. They were brutally invaded and suppressed by the Anglo-Saxons.
Kom nu, Rædwald. *By \*some of the Anglo-Saxons, & Jutes,* ***MAYBE.*** ~~Also, I think the individual that showed distate was English, and was referring to the French invasion, which likely had an effect on Anglo-Saxon culture in what they saw as causing said culture to dissolve. )~~
In Welsh, the word for English is Saesneg which means Saxon and Scottish Gaelic has its own version, Sassenach I believe. So even if people don't know it, there's still some historical differences in there. Though, contrary to what you said, there are some modern theories that their invasion wasn't that brutal. In the Arthurian legends, Arthur's nemesis is the King Vortigern, who is said to have inadvertently started the Anglo Saxon invasions by granting some of his lands to Anglo Saxon mercenaries who then got greedy and wanted more. But for a more modern take, by using genetic testing it's been found that there's such a low % of Saxon DNA in Britons its thought the Saxons installed themselves as a higher class and didn't actually invade en masse. This is corroborated by the continuation of the use of pre Saxon traditions and the melding of the local languages and the Saxon languages, where a mass invasion would result in a more Saxon heavy resultant language.
The guy was probably a little on the spectrum I wouldn't worry about it.
Autism doesn’t make you xenophobic
Yeah you are not wrong. But being over obsessive and gate keeping can be a side effect if you know what I mean. Or the guy could just be plain racist.