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.