Who did the Anglo-Saxons think they were?

[Eldorado]

In English history, the years AD 410-1066 are traditionally called the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ period. How far is this an appropriate description, and how far can that name also be applied to the inhabitants of early medieval England? More pertinently, how did these people view themselves? John Hines explores the evidence.

The current global situation is a sharp reminder of the virtues and value of goodwill and responsible cooperation by which everyone does what they can for others. Another constructive use of the total pause that the pandemic has imposed is to reflect on whether it is valid to include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ within the category of seriously contested heritage (see CA 355 and ‘Sherds’ in CA 360).

The meaning of ‘Anglo-Saxon’, and its appropriateness as a historical descriptor, have recently been the subject of debate.

Full monty at Current Archaeology UK: Link

[Dreamer screamer]

Quote

For a king of Wessex now claiming sovereignty over all the English, a term that combined ‘Angle’ and ‘Saxon’ had real practical value.

So the king rules as a sovereign; like the queen rules over the people today and it's their kingdom making us all slaves to their sovereign?   Go back further and England was not under any ruler as alfred the Great was appointed to be king under the Vatican.  So what authority did the Vatican have to just appoint a man king of the land??  Too me that is just a take over of land and bringing it under rule of the Vatican. 

[Peter B]

5 hours ago, Eldorado said:

In English history, the years AD 410-1066 are traditionally called the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ period. How far is this an appropriate description, and how far can that name also be applied to the inhabitants of early medieval England? More pertinently, how did these people view themselves? John Hines explores the evidence.

The current global situation is a sharp reminder of the virtues and value of goodwill and responsible cooperation by which everyone does what they can for others. Another constructive use of the total pause that the pandemic has imposed is to reflect on whether it is valid to include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ within the category of seriously contested heritage (see CA 355 and ‘Sherds’ in CA 360).

The meaning of ‘Anglo-Saxon’, and its appropriateness as a historical descriptor, have recently been the subject of debate.

Full monty at Current Archaeology UK: Link

Interesting article for an interesting question.

It's worth considering that what's now England and Wales represent the largest block of land in what used to be the Western Roman Empire where the "native language" isn't descended from Latin (the next largest is the Rhineland).

At first glance that might suggest a severe pruning of the whole Romano-British population by the invaders. But I'd suggest the only pruning was of the Latin-speaking ruling classes of the post-Roman kingdoms of Britain. That would have left the invading Anglo-Saxons ruling a British-speaking peasant population.

In the following centuries I suspect English gradually replaced British, starting with the highest surviving British social classes and moving downwards to the lowest social classes, caused by two factors. First, any A-S man taking a British wife would have had English-speaking children (and there would have been vanishingly few cases of British men with A-S wives). And second, kings and eorls would have only spoken English - so if you wanted a career with good prospects of advancement, you would have needed to speak English.

[Peter B]

5 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

So the king rules as a sovereign... 

Thread derailment alert!

Seeing as 'sovereign' is pretty much a synonym of 'king', um yes, the king rules as a king!

...like the queen rules over the people today...

Nope. As I'm sure most people are aware, the powers of Queen Elizabeth II are considerably less than those of monarchs of previous centuries.

...and it's their kingdom making us all slaves to their sovereign?

Not slaves, but subjects. There's a big difference.

Go back further and England was not under any ruler as alfred the Great was appointed to be king under the Vatican.

No, he wasn't "appointed to be king" by the Pope. He was made consul, which was by that time a fancy and powerless honour. Probably looked good on the CV though.

And anyway, even if he had been "appointed to be king", what of it? Kings across Europe and across this whole time period were regularly deposed and murdered regardless of what any Pope from day to day might have decided.

So what authority did the Vatican have to just appoint a man king of the land??

None. The Popes relied to varying extents on the (forged) Donation of Constantine, and their (varying) ability to withhold religious support from secular authorities.

Too me that is just a take over of land and bringing it under rule of the Vatican.

Well, yes, hence the term 'Christendom'.

Of course, that's a massive over-simplification of the history of half a continent over the period of a millennium. So maybe you might like to learn a bit of history...from actual historians rather than excitable conspiracy theorists.

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

Interesting article for an interesting question.

It's worth considering that what's now England and Wales represent the largest block of land in what used to be the Western Roman Empire where the "native language" isn't descended from Latin (the next largest is the Rhineland).

At first glance that might suggest a severe pruning of the whole Romano-British population by the invaders. But I'd suggest the only pruning was of the Latin-speaking ruling classes of the post-Roman kingdoms of Britain. That would have left the invading Anglo-Saxons ruling a British-speaking peasant population.

In the following centuries I suspect English gradually replaced British, starting with the highest surviving British social classes and moving downwards to the lowest social classes, caused by two factors. First, any A-S man taking a British wife would have had English-speaking children (and there would have been vanishingly few cases of British men with A-S wives). And second, kings and eorls would have only spoken English - so if you wanted a career with good prospects of advancement, you would have needed to speak English.

DNA tests show most English people are 95% Briton in most areas with only a large presence of Anglo-Saxon DNA around Andover and at spots down the east coast.

The Anglo-Saxon takeover wasn`t a genocide, it was a decapitation of the leadership. If you ever go to Saxony then you will notice they don`t look like most English except for the areas outlined above.

They have a light build (thin, thin on the face, lanky, long arms and legs, almost elongated in appearance) Leipzig, saxony, germany, people moving into the zentralstadion Stock Photo - Alamy

If you compare them to Britons we are broader and more stockier. Putting aside stero-types, they are more likely to have brown eyes and darker hair than we have.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Cookie Monster

[Dreamer screamer]

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

Thread derailment alert!

Seeing as 'sovereign' is pretty much a synonym of 'king', um yes, the king rules as a king!

Sovereign is a title which can be applied to the highest leader in various categories. The word is borrowed from Old French souverain, which is ultimately derived from the Latin word superānus, meaning "above"

Go back to Alfred the great, who put him above the rest and gave him England?   No man can ever be above any other man There are rules to this game.  I'm not derailing, this was in the link. 

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

 

 

Nope. As I'm sure most people are aware, the powers of Queen Elizabeth II are considerably less than those of monarchs of previous centuries.

YES!!! she rules because she is under oath to rule her subjects (us) as trustee to the OATH under GOD!!  She holds the highest power above any president in the united states.  She holds all the power in parliament.  Even when you partition the barons, the barons won't do nothing!   

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

 

 

Not slaves, but subjects. There's a big difference.

subject meaning: a person who lives in or who has the right to live in a particular country, especially a country with a king or queen:

countable noun

The people who live in or belong to a particular country, usually one ruled by a monarch, are the subjects of that monarch or country.

 

serf =

countable noun

In former times, serfs were a class of people who had to work on a particular person's land and could not leave without that person's permission.

Synonyms: vassal, servant, slave, thrall   More Synonyms of serf

 

Who owns England? is it the queen under Crown?  

 

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

 

 

No, he wasn't "appointed to be king" by the Pope. He was made consul, which was by that time a fancy and powerless honour. Probably looked good on the CV though.

And anyway, even if he had been "appointed to be king", what of it? Kings across Europe and across this whole time period were regularly deposed and murdered regardless of what any Pope from day to day might have decided.

He was appointed by the pope to be king of England.  who speaks for GOD?  is it the pope? why did the queen sign a trust under oath to GOD under contract to GOD, and who holds the position of speaking for GOD? The pope? 

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

 

 

None. The Popes relied to varying extents on the (forged) Donation of Constantine, and their (varying) ability to withhold religious support from secular authorities.

Forged??? 

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

 

 

Well, yes, hence the term 'Christendom'.

Precisely. so why now was Britain signed into the EU, destroy Christianity??   Albert pikes WW3????

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

Of course, that's a massive over-simplification of the history of half a continent over the period of a millennium. So maybe you might like to learn a bit of history...from actual historians rather than excitable conspiracy theorists.

historians are taught from other historians and so on.   So they always have a distorted view on history because of how history has been distorted on purpose to further an agenda which is nothing to do with conspiracy theory.  

 

[jaylemurph]

10 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

So the king rules as a sovereign; like the queen rules over the people today and it's their kingdom making us all slaves to their sovereign?   Go back further and England was not under any ruler as alfred the Great was appointed to be king under the Vatican.  So what authority did the Vatican have to just appoint a man king of the land??  Too me that is just a take over of land and bringing it under rule of the Vatican. 

Not true. One source -- the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle -- reported he went to Rome and was anointed, but that doesn't suggest any participation in his selection. His official biographers (Asser and Notker Balbulus) and other sources make no mention of such a trip, which would have been a substantial propaganda tool they would have made hay with.

--Jaylemurph

[Essan]

9 hours ago, Peter B said:

Interesting article for an interesting question.

It's worth considering that what's now England and Wales represent the largest block of land in what used to be the Western Roman Empire where the "native language" isn't descended from Latin (the next largest is the Rhineland).

At first glance that might suggest a severe pruning of the whole Romano-British population by the invaders. But I'd suggest the only pruning was of the Latin-speaking ruling classes of the post-Roman kingdoms of Britain. That would have left the invading Anglo-Saxons ruling a British-speaking peasant population.

In the following centuries I suspect English gradually replaced British, starting with the highest surviving British social classes and moving downwards to the lowest social classes, caused by two factors. First, any A-S man taking a British wife would have had English-speaking children (and there would have been vanishingly few cases of British men with A-S wives). And second, kings and eorls would have only spoken English - so if you wanted a career with good prospects of advancement, you would have needed to speak English.

Similar to what probably happened in "Scotland" (the land of the Irish raiders) - with Gaelic initially surplanting Brythonic, before it, in turn, was replaced in most parts by English (Gaelic retreating to the remote Highlands).  

Interesting though that the Normans did not succeed in introducing French in the same way - whilst it did become "court language" in England, and to some extent Scotland, for a time, Middle English soon came to dominant in most parts of Britain.

Also worth nothing that a shift in language, or even a shift in culture, does not necessarily reflect a physical invasion.   After all, American culture - language, food, drink, clothing, music - has spread around the whole world in the past 100 years.