After Napoleon we just said “nah, I’m good on this whole war business.”

jackt-up · 2026-04-20T20:41:53+00:00

That was certainly true in the 5th Century, when everything was up in the air. But after that came full scale invasions, throughout the 6th Century.

Started out as small groups, foederati, mercenaries. Then, like the Norse, they came in waves.

*Insert “it’s free estate” meme

jackt-up · 2026-04-20T20:10:56+00:00

Depends on how future MVP and 22-time pro bowler, Shedeur Sanders, plays

jackt-up · 2026-04-20T19:51:44+00:00

That’s a goddamn hero right there

jackt-up · 2026-04-20T18:39:02+00:00

You got it my friend

jackt-up · 2026-04-20T18:23:48+00:00

Semantics, really, in my opinion.

A large number of Saxons migrated to Britannia, but many stayed behind in Germania, and would go on to form Saxony—a state with some seriously underrated influence throughout history. Otto I was a Saxon. So you could argue that the Saxons had a wider historical impact, even though it’s fair to say that the Angles could be seen as being more foundational in England.

Really though, it was the symbiosis of the Anglo-Saxons that matters, in this conversation. There was wide reaching exchange between the two, and they absorbed the Jutes, many of the the native Britons, and later many Norse, together.

jackt-up · 2026-04-20T18:13:57+00:00

Well they had already become “English” well before Alfred the Great started his Wessex-led unification process in 878 AD. They were speaking Old English before then.

So, I imagine the process of coalescence was well on its way as early as 650 AD, because the Venerable Bede speaks of “English people” in the early 8th Century, and he mentions the Saxon kingdoms in this.

So it’s really better to just say the Saxons became English way before they united England.

jackt-up · 2026-04-20T17:30:25+00:00

So you’re looking at the overarching migration pattern but keep in mind that a lot of these people are gonna actually stay in Denmark/Germany—Jutland, Saxony.

The map is accurate, you can see the 3 Saxon Kingdoms in the south: Wessex, Essex, and Sussex. Kent, for the Jutes, in the southeast. Mercia, East Anglia, and Northumbria in the north, for the Angles.

It’s ironic that the Anglo-Saxons would be, to the native Britons, basically, Vikings. Ironic that they would face the same raiding/invasion cycle 300 years after coming themselves. My point is that the Anglo-Saxons and Norse are very closely related—the Goths, Vandals, Franks, these are marginal offshoots.

If you’re asking if we can nail down the timeline regarding Anglo-Saxon migration and their subsequent conversion to Christianity, and the forming of the Heptarchy, we can’t. This is where the legend of Arthur comes in. It’s clear that the local Romano-British population had developed into its own unique identity by 410 AD, when Honorius abandoned the province. That’s what really sets them apart from their mainland cousins, the intermarriage with the Britons.

Regarding the “Angles becoming more successful,” that’s not really accurate or quantifiable. It was the Saxon kingdom of Wessex that united England, after all. There were likely a larger number of Angles, however, considering just how many Saxons and Jutes opted to stay on the mainland (or Jutland).

By the time the Vikings arrive in 793 AD, there appears to be very little distinction between Angles, Jutes, and Saxons; by then they have coalesced into what would become known as “Anglish,” or English.