Talk:Saxons

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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Germany Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Germany portal 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does this mean Englishmen and North Germans are ethnically one & the same ???

No. Ethnicities often decide themselves because of historical, cultural, political, geographical and linguistic issues. It only means that Saxons were one of the component progenitors (along with Angles, Jutes, Frisians, etc.) of Anglo-Saxons. - Gilgamesh 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would say that they are connected, as they are part of the overal Germanic Ethnic Group (Yes the English are Germanic, due to liguistics, culture and history)...however to say the English are Northern Germans is slightly incorrect (As the people that became Anglo-Saxons were from the Netherlands, Northern Germany and Denmark...which all have different albeit connected identities). Some would disagree with this however I am afraid they are mistaken and/or guided by nationalistic biases!

Laender

I'm a native German speaker and wonder if "Today's Laender Nordrhein-Westfalen" is correct English? At least it's not correct German because Laender (or Länder) ist the plural of Land and Nordrhein-Westfalen is just one federal state of Germany. --217.229.88.91 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Britain

This needs to be cleaned up a bit. Most historians AFAIK believe the Roman withdrawal happened some time before the Saxon conquest, something like 50-100 years. In the interim Britain was ruled by Romanized Britons speaking British (i.e. Welsh).

As well, the whole "Hengest and Horsa" bit has to be taken with a grain of salt. Many believe that one or both of these were mythological figures. --Saforrest 18:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, British is more 'Old Welsh'. I have amended the section to remove the idea that the Britons fled in the face of the Teutons and replaced it with the accepted historical account, that the Britons were absorbed into England. Enzedbrit 04:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Saxons were described by Charlemagne (himself a renowned Warrior King,) as 'ferocious' and I have no doubt that an 'invasion' by the Saxons was just that. Their name is derived from the Seaxe fighting knife which is a particularly decisive weapon and very hard to parry. It is for slashing and cutting. I have one like I have Celtic and other hand weapons. They would probably have fought with great tenacity and in the Germanic way. That is, firstly the ethos was better to die than run, and that if victorious they would have burnt even the valuable captured items such as horse tack. They would have been used to fighting larger forces than the Brythons (Britons,) including the Franks and Romans. I just don't think that the cultured Romano-Britons were kitted out psychologically to face them - why they asked for them to come and help against the Picts in the first place ib 450 AD.

But I do agree that the Hengest story in possibly a bit 'grainy,' I believe he existed but that Horsa was just that - his horse. Yet his name is recalled by Gildas and others.

Miner 27 Jan 07 18.49

Have to agree with Miner - almost as soon as the legions left Britain the Britons asked for help in repelling the various Germanic tribes, and were refused. The nature of Roman axillary recruitment meant that any legionries recruited in Britain would be stationed elsewhere in the empire, so the only trained fighters in Briton would have been withdrawn when the legions left. The Britons didn't know how to fight. It is difficult to believe that any tribe known by the name of it's fighting knife went for peaceful settlement. In addition, a genetic profile of the northern regions of England a few years ago indicates that up to 90% of the Romano-British male population "disappeared" at the time of the Anglo-Saxon occupation, while a genetic comparrions with Frisia indicates a displacement of the Romano-British population at somewhere between 50% and 100%. I think it is also worth considering that many arguements against a violent Anglo-Saxon invasion seek to dispute this view on the basis of historiography.

The old version of violent barbarians taking land by force, were it is argued, a both product of and justification for the expansion of the then British (Anglo-Saxon) Empire. It is nothing more than history written to fit the then contemporary attitudes of violent conquest and seizure of land. This more pacific view, however, first appears in the late 1960s and onward - a period when violent invasion was out of fashion. I would argue that the pacific displace of Romano-British culture is actually biased histoiography, penned to fit-in with the desires of a war weary world. The Anglo-saxons themselves did not, most likely, share this view.

Kro666 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture?

Shouldn't there be some description of saxon culture? This really doesn't give a good picture of who the saxons were, just what they did. (82.12.202.32 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the culture question above. You wouldn't 'just' invade and colonize. There was something built into the culture (like the vikings?) that encouraged invasion and colonization. Also, there must have been a decent economy to help support the invasions. An economy that was better that the invaded area?

Maybe it was a 'lack of economy' that caused all those people to go and settle England. Same reason why all those people moved to the new world (and started killing the natives there) a thousand years later. But yes, they had 'something' built into their culture that made them more likelye to raid and migrate more then other people. Firstly: all Germanic peoples placed a strong emphasise on war, raiding and plunder (endemic warfare). Second, they usually praciced slash and burn agriculture, wich requires you to move on after a few years. Krastain 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saxons are Scythians?

I think saxons are scythians considering their traditions and similarity .Interestingly english oe german is quite close to Marathi,an Indo-European language .Marathas are also considered as probable descendents of scythians.They also professed more or less same warlike culture .kasar59.184.152.183 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Saxons

This is misleading. The Romanians distinguish between three types of Germans in Romania: Saxons (Saşi), Austrians and Swabians. I have edited accordingly.GordyB 12:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph about Saxons in medieval Southeastern Europe

The article writes about Saxons in Southeastern Europe, a group known in German as Siebenbürger Sachsen (Transylvanian Saxons). These people were just called Saxons. They were not Saxons in the sense of belonging to the Saxon tribe. The article, however, is about the tribe.

Everything written about the Romanian Saxons is given in greater and more correct detail in the article about Transylvanian Saxons. I will delete the paragraph for that reason. If you wish, you can see what can be added to that article.

Please be aware that the sources listed make many mistakes. For instance, they claim that the Saxons were ore miners from the Upper Harz. The Upper Harz was settled by the Thuringians - a different tribe - in the late Middle Ages for exactly the reason that there were no Saxon ore miners. -- Zz 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient Greek geographer Jean Julien"

I have never heard of this Ancient Greek with a modern French name... Are you sure? 196.14.137.80 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Errol[reply]

Modern remnants of the Saxon name

as in the famous My ny vynnav kows Sowsnek! (I will not speak English!).

Why is this famous? Famous to whom? POV surely --81.157.123.4 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holstein in Hesse"

"Their earliest known area of settlement is Northern Albingia, roughly that of today’s Holstein in Hesse ..." No, it's in Schleswig-Holstein (~ former Northern Albingia + Anglia), in the north, while Hessen is in the middle. Truchses 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed in Hesse. I am not sure about the claim that the east of the Netherlands was part of their original land (especially if one excludes Lower Saxony: why would their territory end at a border which became a national border almost a millennium later?).

Map

It might just be me, but I found the map to be very unclear. It doesn't give the reader a clear idea of where the Saxon homeland was. I propose that a better alternative be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.106.28 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the map sucks. Krastain (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something missing

"During Charlemagne's campaign in Hispania (778), the Saxons advanced to Deutz on the Rhine and plundered along the river. With defeat came the enforced baptism and conversion of the Saxon leaders and their people. Even their sacred tree, Irminsul, was destroyed."

How do we go from advancing and plundering to defeat? Is there a line missing here, explaining how the tables turned? Gabhala 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Saxons?

Saxon participation in the Germanic settlement of Britain was very strong and at times dominant, so that particularly in today’s southern England, the basic population is thought to descend essentially from the ancient Saxon people.

This is flat out wrong. A simple look at the genetic evidence shows that most of the population descends from pre-Indo-Europeans from northen Spain, who migrated about 10,000 years ago link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woscafrench (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saxons in the Balkans

This paragraph seems to be about 13th and 14th century people from Saxony who moved to the Balkans. Since the first sentence of the article is 'The Saxons or Saxon people were a confederation of Old Germanic tribes.' I'll remove the balkan-paragraph, since the people involved weren't Old Germanic Saxons but medieval Germans. Besides, as the article on Transylvanian Saxons clarifies, these 'Saxons' spoke a Franconian dialect and as such weren't Saxons in any way. Krastain (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]