From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Anglo-Saxon)
Jump to: navigation, search


FIXME! Ethnonym[edit]

There is a statement ...the use of Anglo-Saxon disguises the extent to which people identified as Anglo-Scandinavian after the Viking age or the conquest of 1016, or as Anglo-Norman after the Norman conquest. Which is either a typo or lacks context:

  • While I was not there myself, I do recall the Norman Conquest being in 1066.
  • 1016 was the Battle of Assandun, which reestablished Norse rule under Cnut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I just today noticed this, and decided to "be bold" and make the change. Explanation is in my edit comment. Jersey John (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Additions 2[edit]

Shouldn't be mentioned in the entry chapter the so-called "Angeliter Land" the area in northern Germany (today, often south of Denmark) - south of the city of Flensburg - where quite some English folks came from? Of course Angel = (German) Engel leading to the name of England? ...and the Saxons came to that danish/german area before like the Westphalians from the east.

--Gaschroeder (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


I have added some additions from the Anglo-Saxon chronicals to show that there is evidence in addition to the massive archealogical evidence on the Germanic Migration to Britain (at a time when there were massive migrations into Gaul and other parts of the Roman Empire.) But giving a redirect to the main migration debate. Which I have read. Very POV. Hartram 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept that compromise. (NovusTabula 13:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

OK thanks. The reason for the strong resistance on the article from me and others is that it (the article,) has been through this cycle several times before. I have not a problem with the debate - but this article is just about the Anglo-Saxons. Laws / customes / etc etc. Neutral stuff. Hartram 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle stuff does not belong in a general article on the Anglo-Saxons. Neither does the genetics material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
why not the genetic stuff? It seems to me that it makes a dramatic difference whether the Anglo-Saxon invaders were colonizing tribes that were already germanic and similar, or whether the pre existing peoples were substantially different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is wrong with the ASC either. The genetic question is interesting as to whether there was a population replacement, with the Britons being ethnically cleansed or the male Anglo-Saxon colonists taking British wives (or women) and assimilating. The evidence tends to be towards the latter view rather than the former, traditional view.--Streona (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More levels[edit]

I am particularly interseted in Anglo-Saxon / Germanic tribe warfsre. Plus other stuff. I am going to start to add some more to the article. Anyone want to help? Starting with warfare using Stenton and Stephen Pollington. I got two years at Uni on this so I might as well. Hartram 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"It was perhaps under Offa of Mercia (reigned 757–796), or under Alfred the Great (reigned 871–899) and his successors, that the several kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxons existed. Under the reign of Athelstan (reigned AD 924–937) the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom took shape into England."

This seems oddly phrased. Is there any real need to hedge so much? Maybe better:

"For much of its history, Anglo-Saxon England was not a unified political entity. Under Athelstan (reigned AD 924–937) the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom took shape."

Paul Borysewicz Lawrenceville, New Jersey, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been studying some stuff on Anglo-Saxons laws and the development of runes to alpahbet and the development of the church. Am going to add some stuff soon. Taking it from when this Anglo-Saxons were a confederation to later. Anyone wants to beat me to it go ahead - I will just fit in.Hartram 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Alfred jewel.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Alfred jewel.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I just wanted to respond to this diff: [1]. Holstein is in Jutland and Old Saxony is the result the expansion of the Saxon tribes from Jutland.. I am not sure why I was referred to these locations after my requested changes? As it stands I think my change was correct: the Angles, Saxons and Jutes all likely came from Jutland. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They came from Northern Germany (today Daenemark, Schleswig-Holstein, Niedersachsen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen, Westfalen, Friesland und Nedderlanden). (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SeriesXobv.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:SeriesXobv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Complete farce[edit]

Like all the wikipedia articles about the English(O.E. Englisc) this seems a complete farce. These people should be called the English not the Anglo-Saxons as he term English was invented by them (Englisc). If anything they have more of a right to be called English than the modern day English, who prefer to think of themselves as a race who descend from pre-Indo-European inhabitants of Europe. I am sick of people trying to distance themselves from the Europeans; it is racist and incorrect. (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be sick of people trying to distance themselves from the Europeans, but what has this got to do with the article? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Errr...what? (MJDTed (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
There is a large body of historians who dont believe the English are Anglo-Saxon at all..except by cultural inheritance from them. ie the Anglo Saxon invasion was simply an invasion of Elites, not of people and was identical in that respect to both the Roman and Norman cultural invasions. No language was imported except borrowings. The proto-English had always lived in England as an underclass probably to recent Celtic tribal leaders, then to Anglo-Saxon leaders, then to Norman ones, before they finally emerge from obscurity, leading themselves in the middle ages. The emergence of Written English around 1150 AD is evidence of that. Anglo Saxon has been proven to be more distant from English than for example Frisian. Anglo-Saxon was a Scandinavian language similar to modern day Danish. Beowulf is evidence of that, and is quite incomprehensible.-- (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"There is a large body of historians . . . ": Who are these historians? Name a few. " "No language was imported . . . ": Then where on earth does Old English come from? "Anglo Saxon has been proven to be more distant from English than for example Frisian": Proved how, by whom, where? Why is it that it doesn't read like that to me, or to anyone else I know who has studied the language? Etc etc . . . In short this is written by someone with a large bee in his bonnet and no knowledge of the subject. None of his claims to knowledge quote sources at all. Also To whom is Beowulf incomprehensible? Does the anonymous writer mean it is incomprehensible to speakers of modern English? Is he meaning to imply that this "is evidence" that "Anglo-Saxon" is unrelated to modern English? If so it seems a wierd concept of what constitutes evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Genetic research by Brian Sykes et al I believes questions many long-held views of European ancestries and implies that we are inter-related with all nations of the world. The Norman & Roman conquests seem to have been an "invasion of elites" leaving little genetic traces, the question is - is this true also of the Anglo-Saxons and also of the Celts themselves? It maybe that the majority of British ancestry derives from Vikings, who did migrate en masse and the megalithic peoples of the stone age. The fact is that modern descendants have inheritance from 2 to the power 60 ancestors from 1500 years ago (given 4 generations per century) which is more people than are in the world now, let alone then so everyone alive then is either our ancestor, or nobody's ancestor. My understanding is that Frisian is closer to Old Emglish than to Modern English but that is not quite what was being said. --Streona (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo edits by Appleyard[edit]

I have undone edits by Anthony Appleyard. He can come along to one of my lectures on Anglo-Saxon history and find out how important the Anglo-Saxon chronicales are to the history of Britain not juts the English. But I doubt that eh would. Hartram (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

confusing section? (it's gibberish)[edit]

"The people of the contrasts with the other kingdoms. West Saxon their own nation as a part of the Angelcyn and of their language as Englisc, and the West Saxon royal family claimed to be of the same stock as the royal family of Bernicia in the north; but Bede may have based this distinction solely on names such as Essex (East Saxons) and East Anglia (East Angles). That Bede could envisage one English people (gentis Anglorum and Anglorum populi) at least demonstrates that the Anglo-Saxons could be thought of in such terms in the 8th century." what???21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just spotted that, independently, so I'm removing that whole chunk, and placing it here for future reference. It's both gibberish as edited, and it's unreferenced. I don't know why Bede is cited as "l.15", my guess is that should be "c.15" - but, he certainly didn't write that paragraph. It would probably be a perfectly good quotation, otherwise.
Bede, writing in the early 8th century in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, (I.15) suggests that:
The people of the contrasts with the other kingdoms. West Saxon their own nation as a part of the Angelcyn and of their language as Englisc, and the West Saxon royal family claimed to be of the same stock as the royal family of Bernicia in the north; but Bede may have based this distinction solely on names such as Essex (East Saxons) and East Anglia (East Angles). That Bede could envisage one English people (gentis Anglorum and Anglorum populi) at least demonstrates that the Anglo-Saxons could be thought of in such terms in the 8th century.[citation needed]
So, by all means move it back if you can also supply the necessary, anyone - i.e., a bit of intelligibility wouldn't go amiss... Nortonius (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

At one point in April it read
"Other early writers do not bear out consistent distinctions, though in custom the Kingdom of Kent presents the most remarkable contrasts with the other kingdoms. West Saxon writers regularly speak of their own nation as a part of the Angelcyn and of their language as Englisc, and the West Saxon royal family claimed to be of the same stock as the royal family of Bernicia in the north; but Bede may have based this distinction solely on names such as Essex (East Saxons) and East Anglia (East Angles). That Bede could envisage one English people (gentis Anglorum and Anglorum populi) at least demonstrates that the Anglo-Saxons could be thought of in such terms in the 8th century."
The last sentence in the para above was added 2 years ago[2]. Doug Weller (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good - thanks, you just did a bit of checking that I was feeling a bit too busy to do myself! I've found the ref to Bede now, there's a good quotation to be had from that - but the views expressed in a "WP voice" still need a citation, plus a bit of clarification. I could have a go at an edit in a little while, unless someone else gets to it first...? Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Just to note, the image used in this article under Anglo-Saxon History with the caption "2nd to 5th century A.D simplified migrations." is a German map. It would be nice to have an English version. --Alex Kozak (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It doesn't seem relevant and I'm dubious about its accuracy anyway. Doug Weller (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England[edit]

That's an interesting piece of research, which has just been added to the list of "External links" - and it is relevant - but, we can't have external links to every piece of research that's available - the list would be longer than the page! Also, incorporation within the text would require much editing, with outlines of existing research & relevant historiography, which I think should be done at the same time as adding the external link. On the other hand, I'm wondering if really it doesn't belong elsewhere anyway, per the section "Additions", above. Perhaps it would fit better at History of Anglo-Saxon England - or even Racism?! Those are only suggestions, there may be other places more suitable still. Consequently, I've decided to move the link here, for further consideration. Do comment, if you want!

  • [3] Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England

Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll answer myself on this one! The above research is already covered at Racial_segregation#Anglo-Saxon_England, and, on reflection, I really don't think it belongs here, any more than it might belong, say, in an article on the Visigoths. For future reference, I think it's worth pointing out that the use of the word "apartheid" may lead a person who has not read the research to make unfortunate associations with modern politics of racism: rather, I think a fair assessment of the research would be that it's looking into genetic evidence for fairly predictable aspects of conquest and settlement, not limited to that of European invaders of the former Roman province of Britannia. The best explanation for what I mean by all of the foregoing would be to read the research. Nortonius (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The 7th century Laws of Ine of Wessex provide a lower wergild for "welshmen' (i.e. Britons) which implies a lower social status, although the term "apartheid" perhaps implies something more, such as actual separation.--Streona (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

from[4] ...The new theory helps explain historical, archaeological, and genetic evidence that until now had seemed contradictory, including the high number of Germanic genes found in modern-day England.

there 's a difference between the word theory and the word evidence,let me add i dont like these genetic studies about the races ,they remember me the doctor Mengele etc etc

"It is not necessarily the only possible interpretation," Tyler-Smith added--Differencess (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All interesting stuff, but I still think it's important not to use the word "apartheid" in this context, for reasons I already gave; and I still think that discussion of the subject belongs elsewhere, as I also previously indicated. Mention of wergild in this context puts me in mind of murdrum - again, see my earlier comment! In other words, this wasn't a distinctive feature of Anglo-Saxon society. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, I've just removed a non-sequitur ref re "apartheid", which had always been thus, since it was added in this edit of November 2007! Nortonius (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


"no secular buildings above ground" Cnut's palace at Southampton is a stone building of two storeys. can we count this ?--Streona (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A Google search on "Canute palace southampton" shows this building to be 12th century Anglo-Norman, and not Anglo-Saxon - see e.g. Southampton City Council's list of Scheduled Monuments, entry no.71. I'm no expert though, I'm just saying what I found. Nortonius (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Another illusion shattered...--Streona (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't the plan! And, I know the feeling. ;) I did try looking for alternatives online, but didn't find anything that qualifies as a "secular building above ground" - only references to archaeology. Nortonius (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is generally held that the Anglo Saxons built single storey structures of wood but not stone. However much of what they built was torn down by the Normans or incorporated in larger structures. Can we ever know? Certainly the Synod at Calne which resulted in the collapse of the floor was on two storeys.--Streona (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the Bayeux Tapestry, maybe? As I understand it, a fairly strong theory is that it was created by English women, who obviously would have been in a position to give a visual impression of contemporary Anglo-Saxon buildings. There's probably detailed discussion of this aspect to be found somewhere, but I know that the second building shown in the tapestry is believed to a depiction from memory of the church at Bosham, in Sussex. The adjacent section of the legend in the tapestry mentions the church at Bosham ("Bosham ecclesia"), and it's been argued that the arch shown there in the tapestry is the same as the chancel arch in the church, which survives today; but then there are similar arches shown elsewhere in the tapestry. Anyway, I think the point here is that, if it's accepted that the tapestry does show contemporary Anglo-Saxon buildings, then it seems that some of these are secular, from what I can see, beginning with the building shown to the right of the church at Bosham; and, it's on two floors, with the upper floor reached by steps, and looks pretty stony to me. Hope that's of some interest, and I'm not just telling you stuff you already know! ;) Anyway, as I say I bet there's a reliable, published source about this out there somewhere, but if there is, I'm afraid I don't have it. Nortonius (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't, thanks.--Streona (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Severe Contradiction of this article[edit]

"The indigenous British people, who wrote in both Latin and Welsh, referred to these invaders as Saxones or Saeson - the latter is still used today in the Welsh word for 'English' people.[7]" This is extremely incorrect. There are no historical records of who would be the first English people as records of such were wiped out from a prolonged period of ancient war. Anglo is English and the English people are of a Germanic tribe racially. There are no "British People". If they wrote latin it was most likely because they were Latin which would surely make them not of England. There were many Latin invaders of England and time of rule under the non-English Latin invaders. If anything England should be thought of as a minor territory of Germania. Some leaders spoke in Latin but it was because they were leaders not because that is the language of the English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealvan (talkcontribs) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man but that doesn't make sense at all . . . there was most definitely a Romano-British people separate from the Germanic tribes, and they did indeed write pretty much exclusively in Latin and Welsh - though of course the ones outside of Wales and Cornwall spoke Brythonic, it's just not written anywhere. Take Nennius for example: " ea sunt quattuor gentes: scotti, picti, saxones atque brittones" (In britain there are four peoples: the Scots, Picts, Saxons and Britons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Does this contributor have any knowledge of the subject? What does he mean by 'There are no "British People"'? Does he mean that there were no people in Britain before the Roman invasion? Or does he accept that they existed, but for some reason object to the conventional use of the word "British" to refer to them? If the latter, then what word would he prefer, and why does he prefer it to "British"? As for his comments about Latin, is he under the impression that all of the Latin written across much of Europe in the middle ages was written by ethnically Latin people? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Clearly the original poster has no knowledge on the subject. I have just watched Britain AD - such an interesting programme. How fascinating to see an even more updated theory which is that the English began to speak English due to picking up a continental culture, likewise with jewellery, clothing and social systems, and minimising the evidence of there ever being a Teutonic invasion. It also explains the rise of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic difference in literature and historical "accuracies". If anything, this evidence - be it true - completely nullifies any future argument for English being "Germanic" by race or blood and questions the need for such profound English, Welsh and Scottish nationalism today. It is not at all absurd that a new dominating culture can arise from within a nation without the need of migration, invasion or conquest, as it has happened in many parts of the world and is still happening today with popular culture from America or Japan, for example, causing peoples to change to what's hip, new and seen as better. (Enzedbrit (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC))
The thing is, they could never accept that, they enjoy the oppression. (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation of "rex Anglorum Saxonum".[edit]

I refer to the following sentence in the "Etymology" section: "The term "Anglo-Saxon" is from Latin writings going back to the time of King Alfred the Great, who seems to have frequently used the title rex Anglorum Saxonum or rex Angul-Saxonum (king of the Angles and Saxons)."

I cannot possibly read "rex Anglorum Saxonum" as meaning "king of the Angles and Saxons". "Anglorum" and "Saxonum" can be read either as 2 nouns in apposition or as a noun with an adjective in agreement; either way they both refer to the same entity, not to 2 entities to be joined by "and". It seems to me that the most natural translation is "king of the English Saxons" (as contrasted with the continental German Saxons). I have amended the translation in the article. If anyone thinks I am wrong please put an explanation here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


I've been reading things- this article included- that seem to state that Anglo-Saxons are partially descended from Jutes. I was under the inpression that Anglo-Saxons were descended only from Angles and Saxons. Can anyone straighten this out? Gringo300 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is not a lot to straighten out. The traditional view (first expressed, as the article says, by Bede) is that the Germanic settlements in Britain were from 3 tribes: Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. It is questionable to what extent, in fact, the people in question really were from distinct groups; probably they were more of a broad continuum spread over a number of not very distinct tribes, but I am aware of no reason to doubt that the majority were from the 3 areas listed by Bede. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the origin of the Jutes is a disputed topic—at best it's possible to say that Bede suggests that a people called the Jutes came with the Angles and Saxons across the sea. Some people, to my understanding, have even suggested that the name "Jutes" was an interlineation (i.e. something added to the original text) in the Ecclesiastical History. Also, the fact that they come from Jutland is a hypothesis, not a proven verity. The name derivation of Jutland is not particularly close to the possible name for the Juteish people, and the Oxford English Dictionary seems to suggest that the Jutes are synonymous with the Geats of Beowulf: and they're apparently from Sweden, not Jutland at all. Even Wikipedia's Own topic page on the Jutes ( states several hypotheses. Should it not be stated in the article that the Jutes may have formed part of the Anglo-Saxons, but that their origin is unknown. Zach Beauvais (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there's something to be made of what you say, Zbeauvais, but my initial thought is that this article is about Anglo-Saxons, so too much on Jutes here might not be right - perhaps you could just add "possibly" to mention of their being from Jutland, in the lead? It would better reflect what's on the Jutes' own page, as you say, and I've just added a wikilink to the Jutes page for their only other appearance in this article. Then, why not do some work on the Jutes article? I seem to remember reading someone somewhere saying that the Jutes in England were even a figment of someone's imagination! I doubt that's mainstream, though...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming from "Anglo-Saxons" to "Anglo-Saxon"[edit]

SilkTork has moved the article "Anglo-Saxons" to "Anglo-Saxon". Is there any good reason for this? SilkTork refers to "Anglo-Saxon" as "correct term", but gives no reason for regarding "Anglo-Saxons" as incorrect. The article is about the people known as "the Anglo-Saxons", and that seems to me to be the natural title. An article entitled "Anglo-Saxon" would seem to me to suggest it is about the language sometimes known as "Anglo-Saxon". Is there any reason for not restoring the original title? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unjustified move, I'd say. Trigaranus (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Anglo-Saxons would be preferable to Anglo-Saxon for the people so as not to be confused with the language that is sometimes called Anglo-Saxon. I don't think either is necessary more correct than the other. Kman543210 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought this would be an uncontroversial and uncontested move. The article as it stands is about Anglo-Saxon matters and almost exclusively uses the term "Anglo-Saxon". The main category and sub-categories use the term Anglo-Saxon - Category:Anglo-Saxon England. It has been "Anglo-Saxon" since 2006. The move to Anglo-Saxons was done by User:Abtract in July of this year, with no corresponding amendment of the article contents. My concern was to ensure the title of the article matched the topic and content of the article. However, if people wish to open up a discussion on this and the consensus is to move it back to Anglo-Saxons, then I'll make the move. It is worth looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conflict for some background to naming disputes and guidance on how to proceed. Guidance in those pages indicates "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." And Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references suggests using Google and other reference sources. Encarta uses Anglo-Saxons. Britannica has Anglo-Saxon. Anglo-Saxon in Google books returns 22,596 results. Anglo-Saxons returns 9,280 results. Google hits for "Anglo-Saxon" gets 5,620,000, while "Anglo-Saxons" is 1,120,000. My inference from that, is that while some reliable sources use "Anglo-Saxons" the majority use "Anglo-Saxon". The article has been Anglo-Saxon until the recent move to Anglo-Saxons, which didn't change the content of the article, leading to a conflict between title and content. We are now left with a situation in which we can leave things as they are in which the article matches the majority of reliable sources, and the content and title go together. Or we can move the title to Anglo-Saxons, and rewrite the content to match. My suggestion would be to leave the title at Anglo-Saxon. SilkTork *YES! 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added the alternative term in the lead sentence. It can be swapped around later if people still feel this article should be moved to Anglo-Saxons. SilkTork *YES! 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles on groups or peoples are probably more often plural or collective forms: Huns, Mongols, Udmurt people, Polabian Slavs, Berber people, Frisians, exception Viking, Goths. I don't think any Google search can be constructed which will produce a relative frequency count of the use of anglo-saxon or anglo-saxons as nouns referring to the Englisc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. I think there may be an argument that articles on ethnic groups should be named "Foo people" as in "Anglo-Saxon people" to differentiate them from articles on the culture and history of the people or period (as Anglo-Saxon can be thought of as much a period of history as a distinct group of people). However, convention is clearly currently more in favour of using the format "Foos" so this article would be flying in the face of convention, so I have moved it back. SilkTork *YES! 08:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct - not that the conventions for categories are different, because Category:Anglo-Saxons etc are usually needed for biographies, though here we use Category:Anglo-Saxon people. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Protestant roots[edit]

Hello here ! I highly appreciate the so far both given definitions of the former invaders of Great Britain, and the French way to describe the Anglosphere. But. I would like to know how english speakers refere - if they do, as I imagine that I do, using a (third meaning of ?) the expression "Anglo-Saxon" - to the importance of the Protestants (e.g. WASP) in the world ? I mean : no Protestants without Germans, so, no Anglosphere without them either. Does the expression "Anglo-Saxon" match a little with my feeling ? Thank you for your help. PRC 2rh (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I then suggest to add a third meaning to the article, since the "Anglo-Saxons" cannot be described as Protestants only, and not as (Roman) Catholics either. And speaking of "Catholics and Protestants" just describes a (large) part of the world, without any consideration with respect to the Latins or Anglo-Saxons roots of its parts. 2rh (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • They were pagans when they migrated, and only later converted to Christianity. It would be a melenium before the Reformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


I've queried the renaming of Edwy to Eadwig at Talk:Eadwig of England. Is there a consensus for this move, and the other moves made by User:Cavila? I'm no expert and I'll go with the informed consensus view, but I'm not wholly convinced so far. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Original Anglo-Saxon settlements[edit]

The Anglo-Saxons emigrated as Frisian nomadic tribes originating from the tribes Anglo-heim and Sakso-heim. The ‘heim’ extension means tribe or heir. Most likely Anglo was a son of Sakso, a brother of Friso. The name of these tribes transformed during time in Englum and Saaksum. The original settlements can be found here: Anglo-Saxons had famous neighbor tribes like the Aeldo-heim (now Aalsum) and Azinga warlords (now Ezinge). Kingship and expansion by war and emigration were central elements in these ancient cultures. F.N.H. February 19th, 2010. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Contemporary Meanings[edit]

"The term 'Anglo-Saxon' is used to refer to the modern people of the British Isles". Is it? Or is that an example of "Wiki-speak", on a par with confusing English with British? The modern people of the British Isles include a large number of Celts, who should not be referred to as Anglo-Saxon. I suggest either inserting the word "inaccurately" or referring to "the modern people of England". Ausseagull (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Blimey - well spotted! How long's that been there? Of course you're right - I'll change it, but feel free to tweak it to a better wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The diff that created the error is here - I've now reverted to the pre-January wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
French people often refer to the people of Britain as "Anglo-Saxons", particular in a semi-perjorative sense, and I don't think they know or care about the Welsh or even the origin of modern culture from the Normans.Eregli bob (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they do, and it's very irritating !! And when I tell them that the Irish are not Anglo-Saxon they get flustered... 'Improper' is the correct term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon as an ethnic group?[edit]

I notice on some other cultural/ ethnic group pages they have a similar format, with pictures of famous people of that culture, and 'areas with significant populations' (eg Romani people, Serbs) . Is it possible to do something similar for Anglo Saxons, if indeed there are any relevant studies? Hachimanchu (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No. This is essentially a historical article, not an ethnic one. No modern person can claim to be Anglo-Saxon in the sense of this article, just English. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, the good majority have British nationality, their state is England, their sub-ethnic group is English and their root ethnic group is Anglo-Saxon. If you read recent sources they will tell you that they carry out the same cultural practices that their forefathers did 1500 years ago, including where they live, what they do and how they do it. To be honest, it is just so silly and frankly wrong to completely wipe out a race of people like this. Twobells (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


Inclusion of the term Anglosphere in the See Also section seems like a good idea. Somebody that can edit through the lock want to edit that in? —— (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than adding it to "See also", I've inserted a brief reference in the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Anglo-Saxon?[edit]

According to WP:PLURAL I think this article should be named Anglo-Saxon. I see above a discussion about just such a move a few years back that was quickly undone. Perhaps the policy on plural names has become stronger since then or maybe I am missing something. I wanted to mention this first before I propose the move in case somebody wants to set me straight. –CWenger (^@) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You have misread WP:PLURAL. Anglo-Saxons are a people (referred to with a plural word)--the English before the 12th century. "Anglo-Saxon" is merely an adjective. The proposed title won't even be understood as corresponding to this article... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
But couldn't somebody say "he is [an] Anglo-Saxon"? Just like African American? If so that shows it is not always used in a plural form in English, and therefore the title should be singular. –CWenger (^@) 19:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is an Anglo-Saxon now. If you look at Category:Ancient Germanic peoples or Category:Ancient peoples they all have plural forms. Most national/ethnic groups are in the form French people or English people. That Americans (mostly) use "Anglo-Saxon" to mean English in certain contexts is neither here nor there. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, you seem to be right. I wonder, why the difference between naming for ancient people and modern people? –CWenger (^@) 03:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is such a difference (c/f Germans, Greeks, Czechs, Georgians, etc). A few articles, like the one cited, are deviantly named though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, many of the European articles seem to have been "ethnicized" since I last looked. I wonder if this is a good thing. But globally, in Category:People by nationality, the pattern is clear. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, im new![edit]

Hi! This is a useful website for when im stuck in homework! This article actually helped me complete my History homework for tomorrow lol! THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA! (16th January 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovestar299 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


The intro bit states that they probably spoke old English. Didn't Anglo-SAXONS speak Old SAXON? Woolters (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No: "Old Saxon, also known as Old Low German, is the earliest recorded form of Low German,[1] documented from the 8th century until the 12th century, when it evolved into Middle Low German. It was spoken on the north-west coast of Germany and in the Netherlands by Saxon peoples. It is close enough to Old Anglo-Frisian (Old Frisian, Old English) that it partially participates in the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law; it is also closely related to Old Low Franconian ("Old Dutch"). It was mutually intelligible with Old English.[2]" Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, the section on language states that the language mostly resembles current Frisian Languages, but neglects to mention the Low Saxon language spoken in the north of Germany and the north-eastern part of the Netherlands. Woolters (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you're right, should've read on. Sorry. Woolters (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It's misleading to say that Old English resembles contemporary Frisian or Low German. Both languages have undergone significant changes in the past 1000 years (not surprisingly), and are very different from Old English. If we consider grammar, then Old English is much closer to modern Standard German than it is to modern Frisian or Low German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


I see that you have conformed to the stereotypical image at the top of the page that indicates that these people first and foremost are militarily inclined. I see this all over the internet, images that are combined with articles of Anglo Saxon or Germanic peoples with military symoblism at the topmost of the article. I feel that this is inappropriate and childish, and although images of this kind are good to have, they should not be at the top of the page and somehow indicating even subconsciously to the reader that these peoples were only interested in warfare and conquest. For in fact most peoples of the world in this era were militarily inclined just as a matter of survival even, and I do see articles of moslems that do not show military images, even though they forced their religion on people by the point of the sword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentences[edit]

(moved from further up the page)

The first sentence of the article is gibberish. It looks like it has been altered so many times that any original sense has been lost. 77Mike77 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I've had a go at rewording it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, much better. I was wondering about the phrase "partly descended"; what was the other part? Celtic?77Mike77 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes - the current thinking (as I understand it - I'm not an expert) is that the Brythonic Celtic speakers were not wholly displaced from what became England, but many of them were assimilated into the society. So, what is called "Anglo-Saxon society" would have included some (perhaps few but perhaps many) of Celtic ancestry. I'm moving this section to the foot of the page so that other editors will find it easier to join in if they want. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed - DNA studies are increasingly making it clear that the main component of the genetic make-up of the populations of the British Isles comes from far earlier than the Anglo-Saxons. So a very good dollop of "Celtic ancestry" (bargepole deployed) was probably the norm for nearly all A-S after the very early period. Perhaps the settlers forgot to bring some ladies with them. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
...or it was less of a Völkerwanderung and more of a military conquest. DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


As to the very first sentence of the introduction, "The Anglo-Saxons... partly descended from the Germanic tribes...", maybe one could explain and add from whom the other part of the Anglo-Saxons descended from. Thx. (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Upps, soory, I just discovered that the question has already been subject to the conversation. However, the sentence still appears to be uncomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


I would like to add another explanation for the etymology of the word England. Anglia as in East Anglia is the Anglo Saxon word for England. An English speaking person seeing Eng either as a syllable or on its own would pronounce it with a hard E but it 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 eng is pronounced "ing" and 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profoundpaul (talkcontribs) 16:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reputable reliable source setting out that theory, it can be included. If you can't - for instance, if it is based on your own research or thoughts - it can't be included, and if you try to include it, it will be removed as contrary to policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


I find it odd that there is no mention of the genocide committed by the Norman French against Anglo-Saxon Britain, essentially both people were killed in very large numbers (see Harrowing of the north) and wide scale cultural genocide in that all Anglo-Saxon architecture, art, religion and iconography was deliberately destroyed by the Normans. We often hear and read about other genocides but it seems the Norman French have got off rather too lightly, as a result I think the wall of silence around such practices needs addressing in the article. (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that discusses the "genocide of the Anglo-Saxons" I suggest you add what you think needs to be said with appropriate inline citations. DeCausa (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
We do have one clear attempt at mass murder by Anglo-Saxons, the St. Brice's Day massacre which isn't in this article. Harrying of the North calls William's actions genocide, but it isn't put into context. Mark Hagger argues that ravaging territory was not unusual - he quotes Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus who was still the main 'go to' author for war in Williams time, "'the main and principal point in war is to secure plenty of provisions for oneself, and to destroy the enemy by famine'. Hardly surprising, then, that the destruction of the enemy's resources was the aim of Caesar during the Gallic wars, of Charlemagne when lighting against the Saxons, of William the Conqueror in Maine and in both the north and south of England, and of the English in France during the Hundred Years' War. Nor is it clear that the harrying of the north represents an unusually extensive and intensive example of such destruction. The war fought between Anjou and Blois over the Vendomois in the eleventh century left the area ravaged and desolate." ..."This, then, was not a form of war that William aimed only against the north. It was not genocide, as some have claimed. And although William might have been, in the words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 'stern beyond measure to those who opposed his will', he was no 'war criminal. We should not impose our own standards of morality on William, or on any other medieval person, for our standards were not theirs, and what William did was not in contravention of the standards of his own day."[5] - which seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
To say "all Anglo-Saxon architecture, art, religion and iconography was deliberately destroyed by the Normans" is pretty much nonsense. Edward the Confessor had already brought in Norman bishops at the top (and Norman architecture at Westminster Abbey), & they were all in the same church. AS iconography remained influential on Norman & Continental styles, though many small AS churches were rebuilt in much larger Norman versions, & monastic metalwork in gold and silver was gradually syphoned away to the Norman houses the imposed bishops and abbots came from. The same 11th century ivories are notoriously often dated up to about 30 years before or after the Conquest by different experts, as there is no clear break in style (see Anglo-Saxon art). AS manuscripts have survived in considerable numbers - there are far more of them than from Normany. The Bayeux Tapestry appears to be an exclusively AS type of object, but obviously commissioned by a Norman. And so on. There was no destruction of material artefacts for the sake of it that I can think of (as opposed to destruction for valuable materials), and the Normans adopted and encouraged the cult of selected AS figures like Edward the Confessor and Cuthbert. Having said that our section on the post-Conquest period is too brief; there was a lot of killing, but what stands out is the all-but-complete change in ownership of land. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I've written more at Talk:Harrying of the North which I think has NPOV issues. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Small typo[edit]

Under Language it says "North Firesland". That should be North Friesland.

Roger Whitehead

Done. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Article problems[edit]

This article is far from the quality project that I am sure many people desire. The tone I feel is set in a very traditional pre-1980s view of the subject. The article and this talk page do not start to outline the synthesis from Archaeology, History and Linguistics post 2000. One of the problems surely is the perception that it is locked to some editors who haven't or cant help get this article to at least B quality or above. If I am wrong is this perception I apologise.J Beake (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have started to develop this article and I suggest we move towards the following structure. This conforms generally with the structure in Roman Britain.

1 History

1.1 Migration period, 1.2 Conversion period, 1.3 "Long 8th century" 1.4 Viking age 1.5 Reform and establishment 1.6 Æthelred 1.7 Conquest and tranformation

2 Life in the Anglo-Saxon period

2.1 Rule and government 2.2 Rural Life 2.3 Towns 2.4 Religion 2.5 Trade and food

3 Anglo Saxon Culture

3.1 Heritage 3.2 Status and roles 3.3 Crafts 3.4 Buildings 3.5 Life and death

4 Legacy 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links

Please give me a comment. J Beake (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems sensible, although I'm not entirely sure what's meant by "heritage". Is that where language, art, literature would go? I'm curious: do you still think that the article "is locked to some editors". It was a puzzling comment. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes Literature and language is better than heritage- Art is more Crafts in the Anglo-Saxon period rather than heritage- and yes I am new to locked articles and couldn't understand that it should be locked at this stage of its development, until I read the history and what is meant at this stage of locking. Thanks for your feedbackJ Beake (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you mean semi-protected. That just protects it from drive-by vandalism etc, which it suffered from in the past. As for "crafts", I understand your point. However, don't forget this is for the general reader who might expect, and might look for, an "art" section who after scanning the contents might be confused. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"Art is more Crafts in the Anglo-Saxon period rather than heritage" - whatever that is supposed to mean sounds completely wrong. There are shelves of books on Anglo-Saxon art, hardly anything on Anglo-Saxon crafts. The whole of 3 sounds wrong. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Social issues, such as "Status and roles" belong more in 2 Life in the Anglo-Saxon period than culture. The culture section seems generally organized sensibly, if too short in some sections. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Could those making major changes to the article please take a little more care over grammar, spelling, and so forth. Errors like "Merican" and "indiguous" are not really excusable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I can thanks, sorry ... but can I ask that you check that atitude. Some of us have to build a strong outer shell whenever people make such comments, it makes me think why bother _ as the previous version of this article was very poor with so many factual errors and lack of verification and I note that you don't help in the contents discussion. Although I WILL excuse you. J Beake (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Best if you stick to the content, and I stick to the copyediting, perhaps. It's a subject in which I'm interested, but you and others have much more information to hand. Still, I stand by my comment. After all, we are trying to write an encyclopaedia, and we should try to avoid typos like "Merican". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You are right I am too touchy sometimes and that effort could spent on proof reading.. Thanks.J Beake (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Further to Johnbod's recommendations, these seem to make sense. We always require some compromise between archaeological ideas and popular perceptions. "Arts and Crafts" is probaly a good way forward. As for the issue on status and culture - this is difficult as there is a direct link for the Anglo-Saxons. For example there are over 2000 differently designed beads found at Spong Hill and this has revealed not only micro-cultures but that people "wore" their culture and status, as John Hines suggests. So I guess the question is: Is society "revealing culture"? Or is culture used to reveal "role and status"? In the later period we have the importance of using language, poetry and manuscript culture as an agent of status. Alfred learns Latin and the Classics with Asser, because thats what Good Kings do. So in a way it is "culture" as an agent of status and role. My thought is that these section are about "agency" and we need to establish what the medium of agency is - is it society or is it culture? Of course this might not seem right in our minds because in the 20th century these agencies act in a different manner. Johnbod what do you think? J Beake (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I still don't really see the need to involve "crafts" - we don't have much of what would be normally called crafts - textiles, leatherwork etc, though there is Anglo-Saxon glass. Anglo-Saxon pottery is too boring and predictable to mention much, though of course very useful for archaeologists. Nor do I see why status and roles should be removed from where one would expect to find them, in the section on society and the economy. I doubt if the inhabitants of Spong Hill thought that the most important thing about status was that you got wear different jewellery, though of course, as all over Europe in this period, you did. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Not going to argue. My point was about agency - not the worth or otherwise of different art. I think, I agree with your essential point - if not the way you have developed it. I will point you to work of Helena Hammerow, (Hamerow, Helena, David A. Hinton, and Sally Crawford, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology. OUP Oxford, 2011) John Hines, also see Leahy, Kevin. Anglo-Saxon Crafts. 2003.). On pottery please see Nugent, Ruth, and Howard Williams. "Sighted surfaces. Ocular Agency in early Anglo-Saxon cremation burials." Encountering images: materialities, perceptions, relations. Stockholm studies in archaeology 57 (2012): 187-208. I think this is available for download. Most of all Leahy, Kevin. Anglo-Saxon Crafts. 2003.
In other words lets discuss the ascetic and functional nature of these objects. J Beake (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"ascetic"? AS pottery certainly is! By all means let's have an article on it, but this main article is a good way from needing to give much space to areas like that. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon England[edit]

I have realised that there is another article called Anglo-Saxon England. I think probably that is the place for much of the historical narrative. I do dislike that title as it assumes England was entity before the 10th century, however maybe I should trim the historical narrative I have added in this article to Early, Middle and Late. We should then concentrate on how this narrative relates to the people, society and culture. J Beake (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about that. This article is in effect the "main article" and the normal link for all and anything "Anglo-Saxon" and gets 80K views a month; the other only gets 18K, probably mostly because it represents the period in the "History of England" template. Other possibilities are to merge the two, or to treat the other as the article on society, the economy, archaeology etc. If it remains the history article the other should probably be renamed History of Anglo-Saxon England to make things clearer; the current title rather suggests that society etc is the topic. Again, if this article stays in its current role as an "ethnic" article, it really does need someone competent to tackle the results of modern genetic studies, a very thorny issue here. I agree something should be done, but this certainly needs wider discussion. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that merging the two articles would not be a good idea, as the resulting article would just be too big, and reducing it in size would lose a lot of useful info. I agree that perhaps the other article should be called History of Anglo-Saxon England. I have left a comment on the talk page there too, about better qualifying what we mean by the England in the title. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this approach, which had been my first thoughts on the subject. I think, a history of Anglo-Saxon England could usefully explain how the historiography has changed over the years and survey the sources and evidence.J Beake (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary meanings[edit]

I would say that most of this section, is not for a section in this article, it has nothing to do with Anglo-Saxons. That some people misuse a term, is unfortunate, but there are links to this at the start in disambiguous links. We have articles for WASP and Anglo-Saxon model for this information. Legacy is more important, for example; language, law and geography of England today.

Catherine Hills summarised the views of many modern scholars that attitudes towards Anglo-Saxon and hence the interpretation of their culture and history has been "more continguent on contemporary political and religious theology as on any kind of evidence."[1] For example that a Glasgow football club calls itself Celtic does not link to a contemporary meaning of the Celtic people. What is important is legacy - what happened to the monastries, what happened to the language, what happened to the churches, why is Cuthbert and Augustine still important, why do some people say that Aldhem was best writer of prose until Milton - why is the Anglo-Saxon culture of Tolkein important in the 21st century. Why did Seamus Heaney translate Beowulf and it became a best seller? Aren't these issue more important than the odd misuse of the term Anglo-Saxon.

I have suggested we revise this section.J ,Beake (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hills, Catherine. Origins of the English. Duckworth Pub, 2003. p21
This article covers all meanings of the term "Anglo-Saxons", not solely about the specific academically-supported definition of the term. The use of the term "Anglo-Saxon" to mean English, in a very wide and technically incorrect sense, should continue to be covered in this article. I don't dispute in any way that the legacy of the true Anglo-Saxons is very important, and needs to be covered in full. But, the wider "misuse" of the term also needs to be covered briefly, explained, and linked to other articles (like WASP). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is "misuse" or "incorrect". It's just another use. I think a short section, for information, noting and briefly explaining that other use is justified, but equally it feels odd for this article to be the main article for that alternative use. They are covering quite different things. In fact Anglo-Saxon world re-directs to Anglosphere and seems to be the main article for "Anglo-Saxon" in that sense - although I'm not sure "Anglosphere" is particularly common and would pass WP:COMMONNAME. My suggestion would be that the section is kept here, but made shorter - perhaps a brief paragraph - with the material transfered to Anglosphere which could be renamed something along the lines of Anglo-Saxon (Anglosphere). The section here could then have a Main article| hatnote for that article. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure that's where the split should be. There is a widely recognised term "Anglosphere", which that article reflects, and I wouldn't support renaming it. Linking from this article to that article is absolutely fine, but the wider use of the word "Anglo-Saxon" should be mainly covered in this article, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, while I am not convinced, I believe that it is a different thing. But I am happy to accept it if it is a happy link. I can see how people can be confused, if a term like Anglo-Saxon is used to mean Anglophone or Anglosphere. Maybe this is a case of and/or, but it seems like misuse to me J Beake (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, it may seem to be "misuse" to you - and it's certainly a very different use of the word - but the fact that the term is widely used outside the sphere of historical and archaeological research needs to be reported as a simple fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that. But I don't think we normally try to cover two different topics, albeit related, in the same article. By analogy, we have Latins (Italic tribe) and Latin peoples. I still think it would be better to reduce the section (but maintain a brief reference) and transfer much of tge material to an article about that topic. DeCausa (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ...not sure Latin peoples was the best example as it's up for merger and tagged as lacking a "single coherent topic"! DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
So friends what should we do. I propose we keep it for now as it is in the article .... continue to develop the article and then I propose we revisit this discussion (maybe in a month or two) when we see how the balance of the article is affected when it is more complete. For the record, while accepting it could be just our view I think DeCausa makes the point J Beake (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
the two separate meanings are both very important. I think they deserve separate articles. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014[edit]

Typo: at the end of the 3rd paragraph in the section 'Ethnonym' I believe 'anoited' should be corrected to 'anointed'. Cheers. (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC) (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014[edit]

Section 'Migration (c.410...)', paragraph beginning 'Gildas recounts...':-

  • "grevious divorce with the barabarians" should perhaps be "grievous divorce with the barbarians"
  • 'The price of peace Nick Higham argues' should perhaps have a comma after 'peace'
  • A link to the article Spong Hill would be nice
  • 'a sigificant number items now in phases' should perhaps read 'a significant number of items...'

BTW I understood that the abbreviation AD should generally precede dates. Cheers (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC) (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Regarding the era designation, WP:ERA states "Do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity." The article states that the earliest historical references of the Saxons is from the 3rd century AD. After that, there is no need for further era designations, so I have removed them. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Anglo-Saxon England[edit]

  • Comment - There are essentially four general articles on the Anglo-Saxon period. This one, Anglo-Saxon England, Timeline of conflict in Anglo-Saxon Britain and possibly Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, then there are quite a few specialist ones that cover language, Christianity, paganism, Architecture, art, runes etc. The Anglo-Saxons article is a general article that covers just about everything AS, whereas Anglo-Saxon England is mainly a political history. Then of course there are hundreds of others on people, battles and the old kingdoms. To merge AS England with Anglo-Saxons would just produce a long rambling article that probably would be too long. I would suggest that it would be better to have Anglo-Saxons as a root article with a paragraph on most subjects with a link to the main article of the subject. AS England could probably do with sections that are not about political history removed as well. In other words a general clean up, rather than merger. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's normal for the editor proposing a merger to make a case for it. Until that's done, I suggest that the proposal be ignored. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
OK - Chgd to comment!Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Technology Loss and Mediterranean Trade Failure[edit]

Roman Britain was very much part of the Roman Empire and International Trade consortium. The Germanic tribes who took over the Western Roman Empire were obviously highly organised and efficient.

What happened to Britanic contacts throughout the Mediterranean? The Anglo-Saxons utilised a very similar culture to that of the Germanic tribes that took control over the Roman Empire. They were not a backward culture. Something happened to the whole economic and information system of Europe and North Africa which had direct consequences to the wealth of Britain and Europe as a whole. Indeed, it seems the authorities had no choice but to use an extreme form of Christianity in order to maintain that form of culture in Europe.

Something new and reductive happened to European/Mediterranean Culture after 600 AD and directly caused the reduction of Anglo-European wealth and power and transformed North Africa, the Middle East and Spain - but it isn't mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are not a place for you to spout your (quite ill-informed) personal opinions about the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire. No Reliable Sources? Then no reason to post. 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Ptolemys map from 2nd century only show Germaina and Germania Magna[edit]

The first I note FIRST German king was Charlemange of the 8th century!. So old English was latin as ins Bede's writtings, to King William of 1066 the dooms day book just to name a few examples. German did not exist in the 5th century it is IMPOSSIBLE!. So please if OLD English existed before the 13th century NORMANS that brought it to England. Please show some evidence. Also northen Germany near Holstein was part of Germany Magna, and they where not part of the Roman Empire, so they where not belivers of Christ. You need to do some research and stop writing dishonest lies. Atilla the Hun went up the danube and rhine and was killed in France 454AD. Avars had bases in Hunguary and Bugaria in the 8,9th century. Who ever wrote this of low intelligence. So please show the world!. Ohh sorry I believe some else wrote some thing simlar but you keep deleting his comments. Propaganda machine is at work here — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What, you mean this, this and this are all wronggg?!1! Fuck me. Nortonius (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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!. OLD ENGLISH is mostly a latin based language — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that Old English is Latin derived really is talking nonsense. And the Normans bringing English? Topsy turvy. Not sure if all of this should be deleted as pointless. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Not only is it pointless, it's abusive. You might compare this, on the talk page for Angles, if you haven't seen it already. Nortonius (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Same post on multiple pages. Whatever we do, it'll no doubt just be seen as proof of whatever conspiracy they believe. Best to just warn and ignore, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

grammar/typo under "early anglo-saxon . . "[edit]

hi there is a grammar error / typo under the section "early anglo-saxon" - "The traditionally narrative of this period is one of decline and fall" - pretty sure it should read "The traditioNAL . ." and not "The traditioNALLY . ."

Thanks. The correction has been made.--BrightonC (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015[edit]

On the fourth paragraph of "Conquest England: Danes and Normans (1016-1066)" it states:

"Edward became king in 1042, and would have been consider a Norman by those who lived across the English Channel."

Shouldn't that be "considered"?

Twiggy003 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Iffy statement though Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Re my edit on the persistence of the tribal DNA[edit]

This was published in March 2015 in Nature by Peter Donnelly. Speaking on the BBC Inside Science program for 19 March, Adam Rutherford described it as a "truly magnificent study" using DNA analysis & statistics to map the history of British immigration from the earliest post ice age settlers until the 10th century." Worth a listen JRPG (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for correcting the date. There is extensive discussion at what should be the main article referring to this, Talk:Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles#Leslie.2C_S._et_al._Nature, also Talk:Celts, Talk:English people and elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange assertion[edit]

"The history of the Anglo-Saxons is the history of a cultural identity, and how this developed from divergent groups, "

Divergent groups ? Do you mean, different groups ? Isn't the history of the Anglo-Saxons a history of CONVERGENT groups, as the Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Britons, who were originally separate groups, converged to become the "old english" ? That would seem to me, to be the opposite of "divergent".Lathamibird (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeedy! Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should we merge this article with Anglo-Saxon England?[edit]

No consensus for a full merge. - MrX 18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When looking through these two articles, I really couldn't help but notice the large amount of overlap between the two topics. One might argue that this article is about the people, while the Anglo-Saxon England article is about the time period or history. However, the history sections in this article almost exactly overlap the other article in scope. Really, the only difference is that this article contains a brief summary of events after the Norman Conquest and discusses Anglo-Saxon culture. Since the Anglo-Saxons as a people are almost exclusively attached to their habitation of England, it makes sense that these articles should be one. The history sections would be merged, while the "After the Norman Conquest" section and all those below it could simply be cut and pasted into the other article. I realize the difficultly that might be involved while performing the merge, but I would be willing to help and I think it would ultimately be best to have one central overview article on the topic instead of two heavily overlapping ones. (I'll ping some of the users who would probably have the most interest in this RfC: Ealdgyth, Dudley Miles, Mike Christie) --Biblioworm 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I should also note that I would be willing to discuss alternative options if the merger proposal fails. For instance, we could merge the history sections only, rename the Anglo-Saxon England article to "History of the Anglo-Saxons" and turn this article into one exclusively about Anglo-Saxon society. That would also fix the duplication problem. --Biblioworm 18:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) This article (AS) is 183Kb - ie too long - vs 73 for ASE. The approaches to the history are different, with the other more narrative & people-based, & this focusing on trends. There doesn't seem much actual duplication on a hurried look. The best thing would seem to be to move historical content from AS to ASE, leaving a summary here. ASE might be given a clearer title like "History of Anglo-Saxon England", which should probably be done anyway. But AS got 35k views in the last 30 days, vs 11k for ASE. So there is a good case for doing nothing, except the rename. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note:Anglo-Saxon England was moved to History of Anglo-Saxon England a couple of weeks ago. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Heinrich Härke[edit]

"Heinrich Härke states:

It is now widely accepted that the Anglo-Saxons were not just transplanted Germanic invaders and settlers from the Continent, but the outcome of insular interactions and changes."

Does anyone else find this unclear? I *think* he's trying to say 'we don't think they just came over to Britain en masse and took the land. They interbred with the locals, many of whom took on Saxon style culture and allied with new Saxon factions'. But I can only get that far translating it from historian-ese from a background of wider reading. If anyone has access to the full text, would it be possible to use a longer quote which might be clearer? Or maybe quote a different authority? 'Insular interactions and changes' on its own seems a tad opaque and baffling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Past Tense & Norman Impact?[edit]

Hello, I noticed that ghmrytle reverted my edit stating that 'I gave a misleading account'. which put Anglo-Saxons back into the present tense as the people have not been succeeded by another race according to new research. In fact, I am a little confused as to why the article ever placed the race into the past tense seeing how the majority population of England are Anglo-Saxon English? Here is a pretty recent, non-contentious, reliably-sourced article [1] which lays out the facts, however, I may be wrong as this is not my field, regards.Twobells (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  • edit here is another interesting article: [2]

Also, in the lede is states: The Anglo-Saxon period denotes the period of British history between about 450 and 1066, after their initial Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, and up until the Norman conquest of England, According to the most recent research (and the 2015 Nature article) the impact of the Anglo-Saxon race has been of far greater importance than the Norman Invasion ever was and that Anglo-Saxons didn't suddenly disappear when William landed, rather the same tribal mores and creeds of the race continue to this day in almost exactly the same areas that their ancestors inhabited going so far as to state that the current population lives within the Anglo-Saxon boundaries set up 1500 years ago. So, with this in mind I think we need to revisit the lede put the race into the proper context and reduce the impact the Norman Invasion has on the article, regards. Twobells (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

regards. Twobells (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC) −


The main part of your edit - aside from the claim that "the Anglo-Saxons are a people who have inhabited Great Britain from the 5th century" - was your addition of this statement: "... more recent research in the form of genetic maps showing that most Britons today still live in the same Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms as their ancestors, going back 1415 years, with many expressing a very strong regional identity and associated Anglo-Saxon customs to researchers. The same evidence showed the 'extraordinary stability' of the British population in that the British have not changed much since 600AD." That is untenable and wrong in several respects. Firstly, it derives from a study of "the DNA of 2,039 people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all born within 80km of each other." Most people in Britain, and in England, do not fit into that category - I expect that the proportion of the population whose grandparents were born within 80km of each other is quite small, but we don't know. It's not really a huge surprise that many families who have lived in same area for several generations have histories in the same area going back for several further generations, but it says nothing about the population as a whole. The second problem is your linkage of the study to the concept of "Anglo-Saxons" - which again is not supported. The report says: "The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population." But, it doesn't claim that those people are now, in some sense, Anglo-Saxons. They are English, and/or British, with a strong regional identity, in some cases based on the same regional boundaries as existed 1400 years ago (and in some cases may have pre-dated the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons). We have no way of knowing, from the study or the report, how many now identify as "Anglo-Saxon" - though some may - and so there is no basis for saying that Anglo-Saxons still exist as a people (or ethnicity) in Britain, or indeed that "the British have not changed much since 600AD" or that "the same tribal mores and creeds of the race continue to this day" - which is obvious nonsense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
With respect, essentially what you have done (yet again), is take it upon yourself to challenge the author Sarah Knapter's entirely uncontentious, peer-reviewed work and then employ your supposition to keep the citation off the article. As to why you would wish to interfere in yet another of my edits is known only to yourself and the editor must wonder why you wish to deny the fact that many of the English are Anglo-Saxon at all, irrespective of all the undisputed, historical, genetic and culture evidence. Twobells (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Social differentiation[edit]

I have been reading Robin Fleming (2010), Britain after Rome, and I am struck by how she emphasises the apparent lack of social differentiation in the Anglo-Saxons of the early migration period -- settlements and graves of the 5th century early migration period often showing a hotch-potch of different cultural influences even in the same cemetery, apparently relating to a multitude of different continental heritages all thrown together; but apparently "modest social differences" only, "no very rich households and no very poor ones", "no aristocracy in such hamlets, no warrior class" (pp. 43-44). According to Fleming it is only in the sixth century that social stratification and organisation start to become more evident; and only towards the late sixth century that regiones start to appear, with tributes being brought to elite leaders; which in turn fall like dominoes as the most successful emerging leaders use them as building blocks to establish larger and larger kingdoms.

Here's a similar account in the Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (Hamerow et al, 2011) pp. 157–160.

Also p. 147 onwards of Härke (2003), "Early Anglo-Saxon Social Structure" in J. Hines (ed), The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. (Whole paper also on Scribd).

It seems to me that this is something we should probably discuss more in our "Early Anglo-Saxon history" sections on "Migration" and then "Development of an Anglo-Saxon society".

In particular, it's not clear to me how this apparently quite slow development of a social organisation and hierarchical structure able to project force -- really not until the end of the 500s -- relates to the kind of military force invoked by e.g. Gildas. The two models don't really seem to be compatible.

Later on, under "Kingship and kingdoms", we write

Anglo-Saxon kingship had its origins in war-leadership. Anglo-Saxon leaders, some of whom may well have had forefathers who had been brought to Britain to provide military protection for the Romano-British, were able to seize the initiative and to establish kingdoms for themselves and their successors. Anglo-Saxon leaders, unable to tax and coerce followers instead extracted surplus by raiding and collecting food renders and 'prestige goods'. The later sixth century saw the end of a 'prestige goods' economy, as evidenced by the decline of accompanied burial, and the appearance of the first princely graves and high-status settlements.

I should check the cited chapter -- Hamerow (2005) in Paul Fouracre (ed), The New Cambridge Medieval History, I, c. 500-c. 700. -- to see how much of this that source actually states in so many words, precisely what time-frame this is intended to relate to, and to find out what actual evidence there may be, beyond the literary sources, of early leaders going "raiding and collecting food renders and 'prestige goods'", and/or when they are supposed to have "established kingdoms for themselves and their successors". Jheald (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio issues[edit]

It's not very well credited, but the first two sentences are actually lifted directly from Barbara Yorke (2002), Kings and Kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 157, opening a chapter on "The Development of Kingship, c.600 - c.900", while the final two sentences are lifted directly from the start of the Conclusion section of Helena Hamerow's chapter in Fouracre (ed) (2005), p. 263. (more to come). Jheald (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
All too typical! We need to either summarize/paraphrase, or just make plain these are quotes, which may be better. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The content was added as part of an impressive expansion of the article by J Beake in February 2015 (diff) -- we shouldn't really be using direct quotes like these without marking them as such, but it does make it easier to track down the sources! Jheald (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 :-( It goes on and on like this, with sentence after sentence being lifted verbatim -- a lot from Yorke, not even cited; even a sentence from Britannica (on the Witan) -- lifted verbatim and then all patched together, like a Medieval chronicler. Even some of the references have been lifted in their entirety. The sad thing is the choice of materials and assembly is not too bad. But I guess it's all going to have to be done again. Over to you, Johnbod, if you can face it. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, and I don't have the right sort of books. Fortunately, this and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain are about the only article he ever worked on. But they should probably be entirely redone. He engaged in discussions above in Feb 2014 btw, but no one mentioned copyvio. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The plagiarism was spotted and called out on the other article in May 2014, at Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain/Archive_2#Plagiarism, relating to this content added by J Beake in January 2014, but it seems it was never followed up. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have started a thread at the wikiproject, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anglo-Saxon_Kingdoms#COPYVIO_problem, and also notified J Beake on his talk page -- but he has not been active for a few months, so he may or may not see it. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
He last edited in June 2014, so must be regarded as gone. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Social differentiation (continued)[edit]

Getting back to the question of the social differentiation, and just when a ruling elite arose, Yorke (2002, loc. cit.) writes

The breakdown of centralized authority during the subRoman period allowed power to pass into the hands of those who had military forces at their disposal, and various Anglo-Saxon leaders ... were able to seize the initiative and establish kingdoms for themselves and their successors

Elsewhere (don't have the reference to hand, possibly one of her ODNB pieces), Yorke writes that she finds the mercenaries rebelling in the way described by Gildas very plausible. But does this fit with the model of differentiation as something that took time to emerge quite slowly from an initially somewhat inchoate coming together of households from a multitude of different ancestral locations, with little apparent initial organisation above the level of the household?
Hamerow's chapter is interesting, because up until the start of the conclusion cited above, her focus in the preceding pages is very much on this latter process of evolving differentiation and emerging structure over several generations. The idea of leaders collecting (and distributing) food renders and 'prestige goods', and presumably also raiding, per Hamerow's conclusion paragraph, is certainly true to the later sixth century, when central places for the yielding up and processing of such renders start appearing. But can the model be projected further back? On page 283, Hamerow merely states, crediting Yorke for the suggestion, that "the possibility exists... that some rulers of the later sixth century 'evolved' from such opportunistic raiders [rebellious Saxon federates in sub-Roman Britain] who began to take control of particular territories that they had been exploiting".
But if such raiding leaderships did exist, are there traces one would have expected them to have left behind? And would one have expected to find such traces? Was similar behaviour current in Germany before the migration? Has that left any tell-tale traces? (I think I read a quote from Tacitus being alluded to, describing their war leaders as "kings -- at least to the extent that the Germans have kings", in connection with and apparent lack of social differentiation and pronounced hierarchy in the German tribes. Does that suggest an initial lack of much social differentiation, eg at or just before the period of peak migration c. AD 500, could still nevertheless be compatible with effective force projection? The Saxons did win an ascendancy, which drove a complete cultural shift, after all). I still feel very much in the dark here. What are the models currently being suggested for the early period, when Anglo-Saxon culture became so dominant, before the period of the kingdoms? (And have things moved on again since 2005, not to mention 1990 ?) Jheald (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Historians have also been somewhat bemused by the regnal line of the West Saxons. Yorke amongst others ( Kings and kingdoms of early AS England pp. 138-139) explores this. The early West Saxons (or strictly speaking the Gewisse) had Anglisised Brythonic names. Was this because they were British or were they Saxons adopting British ways? Also the West Saxon Ine in his law code legislates for British subjects as well as his AS ones and the Chronicle was partly conceived to construct an ancestry of the West Saxons for the benefit Alfred the Great. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016[edit]

"As they adopted this language and culture, the barriers began to dissolved between peoples, who had earlier lived parallel lives.[37]"

Here, the verb has to be corrected into the infinitive form: "[ ...] the barriers began to dissolve between [...]"

Having edited/corrected a great amount in Wikipedias GERMAN, SPANISH, some in FRENCH, and some other languages, it seems I lack the record within Wikipedia ENGLISH to be allowed to edit semi-protected texts. Can my record from these others be transferred in some way in order to allow me to enter semi-protected texts in Wikipedia ENGLISH ? --MistaPPPP (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

MistaPPPP (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Please see your talk-page for an explanation of Autoconfirmed status - Arjayay (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016[edit]

Change "In this period and beyond the Ango-Saxon culture is changing." to "In this period and beyond the Anglo-Saxon culture is changing." in the Conquest England section. (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please Stop Writing Me Out of History[edit]

I know, I was being a little flip, however, the vast majority of the English would be horrified to see their race pushed into the past tense. The English and to somewhat greater or lesser extent the 'British' are a race of Anglo-Saxon people, they hold British nationality, their sub-ethnic group is English and their root....Anglo-Saxon. So please, stop consigning us to history :-) warm regards.Twobells (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I hail from Manchester, I can be completely on the side of those who oppose that point of view - science is showing more and more that the base "bloodlines" of most of us are mostly native Briton/Celt, with the Germanic genes tossed in from a numerically much-smaller, but militarily much stronger nation of invaders. (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Who other than you is opposing his pov? Also, 30 percent of the British people are directly descended from Germans with another 45% made up from the Scandinavian races so to suggest that the British are descended from 'celts' or native Britons is plainly mistaken. DNA makeup of the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't try to "prove" the existence of Anglo-Saxons here, but rely on sources to do that. If the large majority contemporary sources support Anglo-Saxons as extant, then we must move this article to the present tense. If the large majority do not, then we follow the sources and use the past tense. Any other arguments are WP:SYNTH, at best. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edotor was blocked indefinitely in January, no point in replying. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DragonGamer99 2/19/2017[edit]

hi, I have noticed that in the first line there's a mistake, it says 'are a people' instead of 'are a tribe', maybe you should turn the word people into the word tribe, BTW, this is NOT answered I'll tell you when it is thanks -DragonGamer99 (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) DragonGamer99 (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no mistake. They are a people made up of tribes, eg Angles, Saxons, Jutes - this is all covered in the academic literature. And you've set the template to answered, which I've done. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@DragonGamer99: And I don't mean to be rude, but if you hadn't asked what is at least a reasonable request I would have blocked you from editing for your first two edits. I'm hoping you won't vandalise our articles again, so I haven't blocked you. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Anglo Saxons by Matthew Arnold[edit]

When the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain, most kept clear of Roman towns. They preferred to live in small villages. However, warrior chiefs knew that a walled city made a good fortress. Some Saxons built wooden houses inside the walls of Roman towns.

Mrs K Cassin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karencassin (talkcontribs) 09:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)