From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Germanic studies articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Wetman et al. on Angle usage questions[edit]

" The region's shape, 'an angle' is generally believed to be source Angle toponym, although some suggest angeln as in "to fish" as an alternative." I had to remove this. People have no concept of how modern is 'cartographic imaging' --as attributed to the 5th century or earlier here. Or maybe this was tongue-in-cheek. User:Wetman

Um, yeah - they DIDNT NEED cartography. Look at a map its not a large region. Its not some new theory - its existed for centuries. Youre erasing my contribution without even knowing that the angles were teutonic - are you for real? How could you have any backround in history, i mean enough to tamper?


That, I am afraid, is completely false. 'Angle' is a fairly recent Latinised import into English of the Old English 'Engel'(From which comes 'England', etc.) The mathematical shape 'Angle', on the other hand, comes directly from Latin itself - 'angulus'. Up to the end of the 6th century, English and Latin barely met. They could not have borrowed the term. Deriving it from 'to fish' is more likely, but probably untrue. Despite the apparent similarity, they come from different roots. The fact that the theory's been around for centuries makes it almost certainly untrue. We knew next to nothing of linguistics until the 19th century.


A bit of a quibble, this, but 'Angle' isn't descended from 'Engel'; it's descended from the Latin 'Anglus', which was borrowed from the Germanic word which became, in Old English (at a later stage) 'Engel'. The original borrowing, however, occurred in the time of Tacitus, in the first century AD - before the development of Old English. So, 'Angle' isn't descended from 'Engel', but rather is a cognate of it. (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Faassen on historical theory and technique[edit]

Kenneth Alan, I think it is misleading for you in the edit comments to be saying "rv vandalism" while you're doing nothing of the kind. There is a factual argument about ethymology going on, and such an argument should not be called vandalism. It should be resolved on the talk page if possible.
Note to others: Kenneth Alan propagates on wikipedia an apparently mostly private theory on the history of Germanic peoples. I've created a Vanir/Aesir theory page for it, but he persists in continuing to add statements on history and etymology as factual when these are at the very least contested. Martijn faassen 00:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your statement about the vandalism rv. I'm happy to hear we can continue to work with each other.
Back to the debate about your theory: I can't very well go find the source as it's generally not specified. You have very kindly provided a list of source material, but sources for individual theories I haven't been able to track down yet. Of course I'm limited to what I can check nonetheless, but a reference to particular historians, books, papers, data that supports particular theories would be very useful. Not just to me, but because it improves the whole encyclopedia with more information.
What I'm worried about is a continued pattern of statements from you as fact, while these frequently disagree with other historical theories. Fact is difficult in science, and history is full of interpretation. The very least you can do when you add these statements making clear this is a theory, not a fact. Preferably with sources of support for this theory.
The only theories that should be described as fact are theories so widely accepted by such a variety of experts it is considered to be virtually uncontested. That the earth is a flattened sphere for instance. That the planets orbit the sun due to a gravitational force. Even then one should be careful; these theories turn out to be far more contested than the people who consider it uncontested like to think. I myself for instance consider the basics of evolution by natural selection as a given, but many people disagree with me and insist it is called a theory. And they're right, even though I think they're wrong about their assessment of this theory.
I think the theories you propagate are not near to being uncontested, so they should not be described off-hand as if they are. This again adds value to an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should not just contain knowledge but also knowledge about knowledge. Martijn faassen 22:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To put this out of the way, I am not part of some movement to suppress knowledge about anything, including European tribalism. In fact I would like to know more about it, and this is part of my attempt to learn more. You obviously have some ideas you feel are very important, also on an emotional level. This in itself is not bad as everybody has their own ideas. How wikipedia tries to resolve this is by including all theories and to qualify them carefully. I think this is good science and good in an encyclopediac venture. I think your passion for your own theory influences you to sometimes remove stuff that conflicts with your ideas and replace it with your own theory. This worries me.
I am rather dubious that there is a historical theory about the origins of the Germanic tribes that can be described as so agreed upon by everybody in the field that it is next to fact. I think such theories are very rare in history; I can't think of an equivalent theory for the origins of any other people in the world. We have theories for the origins of the Indo-Europeans, the Aryans in India, the Etruscans, the Latin tribe, the Greeks, the Turks, the Aztecs, and so on. We don't have facts. We have evidence and debates. As long as multiple competing theories exist one should not be described as fact. Even with a single extant theory it may not have enough evidence to be described as fact.
I know there are multiple competing theories for the origins of Germanic tribes, if only because I've seen you remove statements that conflict with the theory you added to wikipedia. Please leave the originals in, add your own theories (described as theory), and wikipedia will be more enriched by it than if either of them were left in it by themselves. Martijn faassen 12:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. I'm not blaming you for all that's wrong with these articles. I'm just asking you not to aggravate the matter. Add your theories as theories, leave the original theories in (as theories). Later on we can get back to it and restructure it. I'm willing to help, but I cannot do it now, as frequently I can't even recognize that a debate exists before I check the history of an article. It's not stupid bureaucracy to take some care when editing an article.
You believe that an important part of history is being suppressed. So don't contribute to the problem and suppress other people's theories, no matter whether you think they're wrong. Put them both in, and let the reader figure out the truth of it.
By the way, I don't think I quite fit in your ideological framework (either as pro or con). Could you please leave me out of it? Martijn faassen 21:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dissociation of Ynglings[edit]

The Ynglingsaga is available on the web at with no mention whatsover that I can find that Angles are descended from Yngvi. (I also own a more recent English translation.) I have removed this reference. The Ynglings in the Ynglinssaga are in any case a royal family in Sweden from whom later descend the Kings of Norway.

Etymological comments[edit]

Angling means "hooking" from Old English _angel_ hook, especially a fishhook. The mathematical word _angle_ is from Latin _angulum_ 'angle'. Both are descendants of PIE *ang-/*ank- "to bend".
From :
noun a member of a West Germanic people from N Germany who invaded and settled large parts of E and N England in the 5th and 6th centuries a.d
[ETYMOLOGY: from Latin Anglus, from Germanic (compare English), an inhabitant of Angul, a district in Schleswig (now Angeln), a name identical with Old English angul hook, angle², referring to its shape].

_Ing_ words do not appear in the Old English dictionary at with any relation to marsh or swamp. In any case _Ing_ is not the same word as :_Angle_ and even possibly unrelated to Norse _Yngvi_ though scholars usually suppose a relationship and I think that relationship likely.
User:jallan 16:29, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look,angulus (not angulum) on latin do not means only "angle" but also piece or gulf. So,those who live in a piece of that land?those who live near a gulf?--Doubttttt (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Angles/Frisians Mystery[edit]

I don't think it is really so mysterious that Angles are mentioned in historical sources, while archeologists find evidence for a Frisian migration. When Bede talks about Angles, he is talking about a political group; he's associating them with kingdoms such as East Anglia. When archeologists talk about Frisians, they talk about a cultural group, identified by excavated objects. It could simply have been that cultural Frisians were politically Angles. This would not be unusual, for example today, cultural Frisians are politically either Dutch or Germans. --Chl 01:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed "This small and relatively easterly geographic localisation of the original Angeln tribal group has led to one of the Anglo-Saxon invasion's enduring mysteries: how it is possible that the Anglo-Saxons were so frequently mentioned as colonisers of ancient England in all the ancient and medieval written sources, while evidence of the neighbouring and much more powerful Frisians' concurrent colonising activities in England has been so limited to discoveries in archaeological science, and more often to logical deductions and inferences alone. Ethnic Frisians are known to have inhabited the land directly in the path of any migration route from Angeln to England (except for the long and difficult route by sea around the northern tip of Denmark). They also inhabited lands between the ancient Saxon domain and England; yet they are rarely mentioned as having taken part in the vast migration. This same hypothesis has been applied to the Franks, since the Saxons made a short stay in northwestern Gaul (the Bessin in what became Normandy) before ultimately moving to England. In the Roman era, much of the southern coast was called the Saxon Shore and attested for their presence in the English Channel." as it is unsourced and nonsensicle. For starters there is evidence for Frisian migration to Great Britain, Bede mentions them and we also have Dumfries in Scotland which means 'Frisian's Hill'. Secondly as it is believed the Angles had a territory that stretched from East to West in Southern Jutland (that is, it had an East and West coast) the Frisians are not in the way of migrating Angles, or that the Angles would have to sail around the tip of Jutland (which is far from impossible for a Seafaring people as the Vikings for one proved). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Angles have all migrated ,Saxons partially . Frisians fought Franks before the Radboud's final deafeat.In Frankish Empire they lost their language ,related to Anglo-Saxons to new early medieval Middle-German from Frankonia .Angles were afraid of the arrival of new people from middle Sweden-Old Uppsala-Danes ,who's defeated Heruli in Eastern Denmark and were on search for new conquests.


The article contains extensive edits made at 22:01 on 27 Oct 2004 by User:, an alias of the banned User:Kenneth Alan. The accuracy of the article cannot be relied on until they have been edited out - MPF 17:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Classics fixes[edit]

I didn't see anything wrong some careful classics couldn't fix, but I went into the article late. Also I do like the pictures if you don't mind. Illustration is one of the virtues of on-line presentation. You do need the Latin, as the early sources are Roman (and Ptolemy, who wrote in Greek but was later Latinized). Also we are only reinventing the wheel here. The small size and non-angular shape cast doubt on the angle, which is one of the reasons why a larger angle was postulated. All the problems you are arguing about really are problems of the topic and have been argued a good many times before. Another advantage of an on-line encyclopedia is that it gets the topic together for a large number of people. One disadvantage of course is the limitation of space, but you get around that with interlinked articles. I hope you do not get too angry with each other. On learning of a new fact or an error one ought to be able to say "oh yes, of course" and do a 180 degree volte face if that is warranted. Embarrasing, isn't it? Has to be done, has to be done.Dave 03:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles[edit]


WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

--Ling.Nut 20:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dover / Rugen images[edit]

That's a nice coincidence, but has Rugen ever been home of the Angles? I suppose it is quite a bit too far away from Schleswig. -- 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rügen (Kap Arkona)[edit]

The 'island' of Rügen is not relevant to discussion of the Angles, who originated in the district of Angeln in south-east Jutland. There was no Germanic settlement further east than East Holstein at this period, as has been verified by place-name research.

Kap Arkona, at the northeren end of Rügen, overlooking the Baltic Sea, became a Slav cultic centre in the early medieval period (8-10th centuries). Germans only expanded eastwards in the period of the 'Ostsiedlung' from approximately 1150 CE occupying and germanizing lands held by the Obodrites (Wends) and related groups of Slavs. 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This article, for the most part, is worded awkwardly and generally not up to the same standard as other Wikipedia pages. For example, in the first paragraph, what does it mean that the Angles "took their name from the cultural ancestor of Angeln"? Is this referring to a language? A person? What is a "cultural ancestor" and were the Angles scholars who researched the "cultural ancestry" of Angeln, then decided to adopt its name? (I doubt it). The paragraph under "Evolution of the Name" is more pedantic than informative. For example, explaining the Latin gender declension of "Anglius" doesn't contribute to the argument for its word origin. What is the relevance of Pope Gregory changing the spelling from Anglii to Angli, which we are informed "he did in an epistle"? Somebody who is an authority on the subject and a clear writer really needs to edit this page. I would go ahead and try to clarify the English, but I don't know enough about the subject to not insert further misinterpretation on top of the existing confusion.WikiPicky 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Anglo-Saxons article?[edit]

I suggested this because the two article cover a lot of similar ground, and if we believe Bede's account the Angles, migrated to England in 5th C. AD, and became the "English", so in a way that is a continuation of this article. Is there are any documented sources of Angle tribes remaining in Germany? Could we have a not have a short of background in the Anglo-Saxons article about their origins, or does this this merit a whole article by itself? (Nebulousity 10:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes, it does warrant its own article - it already contains a lot of detailed information not found in the Anglo-Saxons article. TharkunColl 10:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, it's better to have it as a seperate article. I removed the merge templates.

Northumbria etymology wrong[edit]

The Wiki entry on Northumbria gives the correct origin of the term as referencing the Humber estuary. It has nothing to do with the Angles as is incorrectly implied in this "Angles" entry. The ethnicity of this kingdom is similarly complicated and it is unclear that Northumbria ever had a primarily Angle population or governance, though that may have been a perception at the time of Bede. 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

An angle is also a degree that an object can be put at to change the speed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the use of the word "heathen" really necessary?[edit]

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

language of the Angles?[edit]

Did/do the Angles have a language of their own? I've read things strongly implying that they did/do, but it's all rather vague. Maybe something about this can be mentioned in the article? Gringo300 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ohh yerr[edit]

I Hәтэ Λпglэs Mәпп —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

migration to thuringia ![edit]

sorry for my interruption - the german wikipedia tells about a turingian migration of some sections of the angles alongside the "british invasion" - please check it - thx ~~Brühlfrosch —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


did the angles learn from the romans???????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplejs97 (talkcontribs) 01:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


The wikilink to Ohthere goes to the wrong person, the correct link is Ohthere of Hålogaland. --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Now fixed per this diff, thanks for pointing it out. Nortonius (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the correct adjectival form of "Angle"?[edit]

I've seen three different adjectives for "Angle" in different works concerning Anglo-Saxons and so forth, but I wonder what is actually considered correct. I.e. is "Angle kingdoms in England" correct as it is, or should it be Anglic or Anglian instead? Hayden120 (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Etymological Explanation for the Origin of the Word England[edit]

I would like to add another etymological explanation for the word England as opposed to the one stating that Eng is a derivative of Angle, thus implying that England means land of the Angles.

In England there is an East Anglia - why not a West Anglia or simply Anglia for the whole country - because the Angles did not settle the whole of England therefore it was never Anglialand.

An English speaking person seeing Eng either as a syllable of a word or on its own would pronounce it with a hard e and not Ing. England is, however, pronounced as though spelt Ingland. This is the clue to the correct meaning of England. The Old Norse word Eng which is also a modern Danish word, and in Danish pronounced ing, means meadow. England was named by Norse settlers who on first landing on our shores observed that it was a land of meadows - thus England in Old Norse.

I live in Denmark and speak Danish and know what England means in modern Danish - literally Meadowland. I live on a road in Vejle, Denmark called Vestre Engvej - pronounced Ingvi. It means West Meadow Way!

It is also possible that the correct spelling is not England but Englund. Lund is a common place name suffix in Scandinavian countries and has another meaning than land.

Profoundpaul (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect please discuss such ideas on relevant internet forums, where I am sure people will be happy to explain what is wrong with your theory. On Wikipedia we try to summarise what is published. This talk page is for proposing such things or discussing how to explain them the right way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Andrew is correct PLUS what you are doing is considered Original Research and has no place in Wikipedia. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


Why the inclusion of '(Latin Anglii)'? Regards, Rob (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it is relevant factual information that benefits the article? HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Germany Manga where they Angles came from where not Christian[edit]

All you do is tell your lies here. Engish language did not exist until the Norman's( Orginally a tribe from Scandinavia) brought it over from present day France over sometime in the late 13th century. Facts are 1. German language did not exist until 8th century!. Why see ptolemy's maps from 2nd century AD, Germania (Mostly Roman, Christians and where latin speakers and writers, and Germania Manga which includes the area's of Schleswig-Holstein ( East and northern side, Non Christians, most likey did not speak latin). Charlemange was note: First German king in mid 8th century who started the use of the German language see Monk "Abogran". So how could these Anglo Saxon mythical tribes speak OLD ENGLISH when the German language did not exist in the 5th century its IMPOSSIBLE!. Attila the hun also traveled up the Danube and then the Rhine and was killed in Gaul (France) no where near the Angles. No Huns made it that far ever, And the later Avars around the 8th and 9th century had bases in Hungary and Bulgaria. Mongols in the 13th century also never made it to Schleswig-Holstein area. Please supply some artifacts some copies of the actual documents from 1000-1500 years ago. And shame me in front of the whole world. Also the slavic tribes see Arrived in 9th century but yes all the Germanic and Germans tribes left for Britannia in the 5th century AD. My history is not the best but I believe only two unarmed Saxon tribes arrived by ship in the city of present day Wessex around 460,470AD but Saxony is near Czech Republic?. All English old documents like the dooms day book 1066, Bede the Monk, as example are in latin, all your churches before say the 16th century where all christian and later Catholic. I could go and on but you really should know better. OLD ENGLISH. Thou shall be quite now. ROMANS spoke and wrote in latin. SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN WAS IN GERMANY MANGA they where not Christens like you!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)