How similar is pre-1066 Anglo Saxon/Old English to the German/Jutland Danish it derived from? Do we know distinctly which dialects aside from Frisian from which it is derived?
I know for fact that the Angles, whose name is carried on in the name England, came from the Holstein region of historic Denmark/Germany, now Germany, called Angeln. So naturally we can tell that there is both a heritage and linguistic connection with that area specifically. Furthermore there is of course the central connection between Old English and Frisian.
>>1222771
It didn't derive from danish, jutes were german, danes were a different tribe
>>1223138
Jutes were from Jutland... which is in Denmark, and always has been.
The most famous old English tale, Beowulf, takes place in Denmark and the protagonist is a Swede.
>>1223955
Yeah but they weren't a Danish tribe.
>>1222771
The post Roman Brits were basically without a culture and without leadership, when the Saxons conquered them those who didn't leave almost immediately adopted Saxon language, names and culture. England became something of a more relaxed, free and new Germany.
>>1223973
What the actual fuck nonsense is this. Get out.
So what happened to all the Celts who had previously occupied England?
>>1223973
>The post Roman Brits were basically without a culture and without leadership
no. De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae.
>when the Saxons conquered them those who didn't leave almost immediately adopted Saxon language, names and culture.
"kind of". They established a new culture under new formal laws. Laws of Ine
>England became something of a more relaxed, free and new Germany.
Certainly not. Nothing was peaceful or settled until closer to the 9th century. And it wasn't fucking "Germany". Stop calling shit "Germany". Please unfuck yourself.
>>1224286
Some moved in human migration, some were brutally killed, some lived as various sub-caste levels in the new society.
> Do we know distinctly which dialects aside from Frisian from which it is derived?
"Old East Norse".
>>1224296
Was the Anglo Saxon invasion similar to the Norman invasion, in which the majority of the population stayed the same while just the leadership and culture changed?
Are the English more Celtic or Germanic?
>>1223138
>>1223955
>>1223959
The Jutes were a West Germanic tribe (like the Angles, Saxons, Franks, etc.). Most Jutes emigrated to England. When they were gone, the Danish (a North Germanic people) moved in and assimilated the remainder.
>>1224320
>Was the Anglo Saxon invasion similar to the Norman invasion
Laws of Ine would seem to insinuate this.
>Are the English more Celtic or Germanic
Even by the period of Saxon invasion, Britons weren't "100% Celt" (if there's such a thing, but I'm trying to work with your perspective). Tens of thousands of Roman troops had lived there for centuries, building families and living under Roman rule. I don't know if, by 900AD you could point a finger and say, "that guy is more "briton" or more "saxon" than the next guy.
>>1224320
Celtic is a bit of a misnomer as Celtic was just their pre-saxon culture, they weren't the same celts that emerged from central europe. But to answer your question, the vast majority of English DNA is pre-saxon native. Germanic influences in DNA are more significant in the coastal regions IIRC where Saxons originally landed, and Yorkshire which was founded by Vikings etc.
>>1224369
>Celtic is a bit of a misnomer as Celtic was just their pre-saxon culture
The rest I can run with, except this. "Pre-saxon culture" in the area "was Roman culture", as much as Hispania, Anatolia and North Africa was Roman culture. When the Romans withdrew influence and support, many people stayed behind and we'd call them Britons, or arguably Welsh, but not "Celts", because they were the offspring of centuries of Romanized Celtic people, disparate of the Celtic descendants of modern Scotland or Ireland.
It's like people in the thread are totally skipping Roman influence for 500 years. I don't get it.
I read a source that said 80% of English DNA can be traced back to a tribe that was following mammoths over the frozen English channel
Anyone got the source?
>>1224457
I read a source that humans in general share 97.5% of working DNA with mice and some 70% with corn.
I'm not kidding.
>>1224457
I read a source that said he who smelt it dealt it
>>1223982
There were migrations of briton celts to Armorica, and some pockets of Britannic rule in Devon-Devon-Cornwall and ofc in Wales and Northern England-Scotland, but the majority of the brittons simply assimilated to the waves of anglosaxon invasions and conformed.
Same happened with the Danish invasions. Some fucked off out of the Danelaw zone but most stayed and conformed to Danish rule.
>>1224410
They were for sure not as romanized as the continental roman provinces by any means. Roman culture was marginally present in Britannia. For Romans it was just a far way province of little use that understandably got evacuated the first when things began going bad for the Empire. The anglosaxon 'invasion' was more like wave of settlements because there literally wasn't any military to fight as the last legion had abandoned Britain long before the AS arrived.
You can simply compare nowadays the remnants of roman urban and rural infrastructure left in Gallia and Hispania to that of Britannia and it's just... ridiculous.
>>1224340
>Tens of thousands of Roman troops had lived there for centuries, building families and living under Roman rule.
That is flat out ridiculously fucking false. British DNA doesn't even remotely show a speck of Italian influence. Furthermore there were probably maybe 100 dudes actually from Italy living in Britain back then amongst the Celtic population. Any "romans" there were auxiliaries. Think for one second how fucking far the city of Rome is from even London, especially 1500 years ago. There were no Italians colonizing in the thousands anywhere. How absurd. Never before have I read something so completely ridiculous on this topic. Someone clearly hasn't ever sat in a lecture on Roman history, nor have they ever even opened a children's book.
One of the theories as to how the Saxons came is because there had been a push by both their growing population and by the Hun scare from the east, along with Roman Germanic auxiliary knowledge of Britain's fertile open rolling hills. With Roman collapse, it was a perfect power vacuum.
If you want to know for linguistics too, Latin came and left with the Romans. It came again later with the Normans, who of course spoke an older medieval dialect of French. That's why the core structure of the English language is Anglo Saxon.
>>1224410
I think you make it sound like romans courted and/or mated tons of Celts. From what I understand, they were more like landlords and their influence was predominately cultural. I wouldn't dive into statistics here but genetically England wasn't 'Romanized'. a tenth as much as their culture was.
>>1224309
Do you mean Old West Norse?
>>1225436
>>1225639
True. Not to mention that being culturally Roman didn't mean being genetically Roman, or even Italian. Most longstanding troops in Britain were auxiliaries from Britain, the Roman army was a logical place, why pay the transportation and feeding during transportation of thousands of men from the empire to a faraway shithole like Britain, when you could just recruit from the locals?
Frisian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeC1yAaWG34
>>1225689
Norwegians and Icelanders spoke Old West Norse, Danes and Swedes spoke Old East Norse. England was mostly colonized by Danes.
>>1225701
Ohhhh okay. Did Danes really speak more like Swedes than like Norwegians? I know the fjords could be isolating and all, but didn't 50% or more of Norwegian people live in the area of Oslo, extremely to the south and very accessible to Danish traders and language?
>>1223982
>Who? Pretty sure I read that a native English DNA test showed that Brits share almost half of their common DNA with Germans and Danes, the other larger half with the French.
Brittany in France is called so because when the Germans invaded many Britons migrated there.
>>1224291
>no. De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae.
Yes hardly a strong and flourishing culture with a strong identity though. If it was they wouldn't have been conquered so easily or submitted so much.
>Certainly not. Nothing was peaceful or settled until closer to the 9th century. And it wasn't fucking "Germany". Stop calling shit "Germany". Please unfuck yourself.
I didn't say peaceful. Nothing wrong with saying Germany, they were Germanic people from Germanic countries who became the dominant culture and people of the England. It's only the same as saying early America was European.
>>1224320
The Anglo Saxon invasions had a large genetic impact on the population, Brits are about 30% Germanic.
>In 2016, through the investigation of burials using ancient DNA techniques, researchers found evidence of intermarriage in the earliest phase of Anglo-Saxon settlement. By studying rare mutations and employing whole genome sequencing, it was claimed that the continental and insular origins of the ancient remains could be discriminated, and it was calculated that 25%-40% of the ancestry of modern Britons is attributable to continental 'Anglo-Saxon' origins. The breakdown of the estimates given in this work into the modern populations of Britain is both interesting and surprising. Whilst the population of eastern England is given a 38% 'Anglo-Saxon' ancestry, both Wales and Scotland - regions not having a historically attested Germanic influx of continental origins - are given the relatively high figure of 30% of the same ancestry
Something like 250,000 migrated to England which only had a population of around 1 million, which matches up well with the genetics. So it wasn't anything like the Norman, or Roman invasions, where they just became the new upper-upper class, rather they became part of the general populace.
>>1225436
>Any "romans" there were auxiliaries.
Thats the interesting part, there were some 5000 Sarmatians stationed somewhere in Britain, and that town has really high, what is now, eastern European genetics.
>>1225436
>Think for one second how fucking far the city of Rome is from even London, especially 1500 years ago
28 days, hardly huge in the span of a lifetime. There were definitely more than 100 Italians in Britain though i agree that had little to no genetic impact.
>>1224320
British are like 15-40% anglo-Saxon depending a lot on how close they are to original Saxon settlement. Roman and Norman invasions contributed a little but not a lot (maybe 5% a piece). Basically the dominant genetic identity of most brits is predominantly celtic/neolithic with significant anglo Saxon admixture.
Can't be bothered to find a study but they're out there.
>>1225436
Whole post is stupid. Not sure where to start, not sure I should bother.
I guess I could start with, "Surprisingly, the study showed no genetic basis for a single “Celtic” group, with people living in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall being among the most different form each other genetically."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry
How could that have happened? I'm not going to explain. You can sit there and be ignorant, because I don't like you much.
>Furthermore there were probably maybe 100 dudes actually from Italy living in Britain back then amongst the Celtic population.
100 Roman citizen soldiers ("Roman soldiery contributing to DNA which is not 100% Celtic" [which was my quote] means jack dick about actual Italian Peninsula people) over 500 years? Seems legit. I hate your face.
>There were no Italians colonizing in the thousands anywhere.
Sigh. No one said "Italians". It's the voices in your head. Are you the guy who keeps jumping the gun in other threads, acting like he knows what he's talking about?
>One of the theories as to how the Saxons came..
No one asked this. Maybe the whole issue here is that you're hallucinating.
>With Roman collapse, it was a perfect power vacuum.
Right, which is why the Britons staved them off for half a century, initially. You're so clever.
>If you want to know for linguistics too, Latin came and left with the Romans.
Because Latin speakers didn't die in the 6th century's conflicts and the survivors didn't grow up, then, speaking invader language. Because monks like Gildas didn't speak and write Latin. Because Welsh. Because go talk about something with which you're more familiar, like picking your nose and cooking peoples' fry orders.
>Latin reintroduced by Normans
Please just go. Latin was incorporated into English in the Enlightenment.
Really. Stop. Just... stop.
Don't reply. Don't even apologize.
Stop.
>>1223955
Beowulf was a geat, not quite a swede but closely related.
>>1225689
That's where you're wrong; before the empire declined by using feoderati, it was imperial policy to resettle auxiliary soldiers in disparate parts of the empire from where they originated. For example there were sarmatians stationed in Britain.
>>1226809
Regardless of whether or not the distance affects anything, you've got to be pants on head retarded not to realize that what he's referring to is the "farness", not the distance. In Roman times London may as well have been the Americas in terms of travel time, food and material cost, protection on the roads, etc., whereas today it's about $1000 (probably less) and 4 (maybe 5?) hours (one meal or less) away.
>>1225918
Huh, I didn't know that. Are you sure that that was a very common practice? I can't imagine the auxilia wanting to be so far from their countrymen in retirement.
>>1227065
>Regardless of whether or not the distance affects anything, you've got to be pants on head retarded not to realize that what he's referring to is the "farness", not the distance. In Roman times London may as well have been the Americas in terms of travel time, food and material cost, protection on the roads, etc., whereas today it's about $1000 (probably less) and 4 (maybe 5?) hours (one meal or less) away.
Duh. Whoever wrote >>1226809 is flat-out retarded.
How the fuck are 100 guys over 500 years going to keep insurrection out of the picture and defend the frontier from Picts and other native invaders? People have two arguments here trying to mean the same thing, that the Roman culture wasn't so prevalent and they were merely administrators, and that there were few personnel brought from around the Empire to secure this. It doesn't matter how you try to say this, it doesn't make sense. Sorry, I don't think you've thought this through. Maybe you don't see it.
>>1227093
It's possibly the basis of the King Arthur legend and his "Knights". Knights in the 5th/6th centuries would certainly be very unique in Britain. I don't know if it is or not but it's the evidence for my claim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_King_Arthur#Lucius_Artorius_Castus
>>1225436
>>1225870
>There were no Italians colonizing in the thousands anywhere.
He's actually wrong though, Italians migrated in thousands all across the Roman empire, and beyond. In pretty much every Roman conquest they would an existing community of Roman merchants there which would help the conquest. Read Caesars books, you'll find tons of references to Italian settlers, traders and merchants in the areas he is conquering or fighting. Numidia was full of Italians and when Caesar besieged towns the Italians were often pogromed inside by the natives.
>>1227966
Roman culture was very high in Roman Britain, they're called Romano-Britons for a reason.
>>1228000
>>1228004
Of course. Nice trips, btw. Also, a "Roman" was not necessarily and Italian. I think people just have very odd, impractical view of alot of this, and what, exactly, remained after the "dust cleared" by 620ish AD, in the midst of Saxon colonization. They were specifically in the lands the Romanized Britons lived for centuries, not 20 or 50 years, but centuries. Even when the gov't in Rome "pulled out" there were thousands of people there who had land, considered that place their home, and weren't about to leave to go to another place, they'd rather stay and fight. They held out for the better part of half a century and we know this from Gildas. They had leadership, they had a culture, they fought and died there, and those lineages, those people who spoke (x) language, did not continue unless they ran away, and their women and children which survived were integrated into the "new" Saxon culture. It's not rocket science.
>>1228027
During Caesars time and the republic a Roman was almost certainly an Italian.
>>1223973
>almost immediately adopted
There were still "Welsh" people with Welsh names in eastern England like 7 centuries later.
>>1228038
Is Wales England?
>>1224320
Also, the Anglo-Saxon invasions took over one hundred years.
>>1228039
What? Wales is the remaining territory of the Britons that was cut off from "West Wales" in Dumnonia and Cornwall and from the Old North, it's only called Wales by the English (it means something like foreigner). I only meant Welsh as in, they had retained their local non-English culture centuries after the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians had arrived.
>>1228042
More like 300. It's somewhat a myth that the Britons were conquered easily. The Saxons got their shit kicked in c.490 pushing them back to the eastern coast where they sat and nursed their wounds for decades with entire kingdoms like Sussex and Deira being temporarily destroyed. It was only from the 560s when menlike Ceawlin came onto the scene that the invaders began to start making serious inroads with the conquest of cities like Aquae Sulis and Glevum. Even then the Britons were able to almost wipe out the northern Angles at Lindisfarne around 600 before infighting led to their defeat. The Anglo-Saxon conquest was never a sure thing until like 620 A.D when kingdoms like Rheged began falling.
>>1228032
Not sure what you're arguing. Could you be more specific? Are you arguing Julius Caesar or the use of the term for all emperors of western Rome, because many emperors were not even Italian.
>>1228054
It meant Romanized foreigner to the Saxons in the 6th century. Also I agree it took centuries. As I mentioned above, the dust hadn't cleared until well into the 9th century. Guess what we start seeing then? Written olde English.
>>1228061
You replied to my post where I was talking about how Caesar mentions Italian colonists outside of Italy so much.
>>1228074
>By the time Britain was absorbed into the empire most of the population was non-Italian in origin, e.g. Gallic, Punic or Illyrian. One could assume the merchants were the same.
By then yes, but i was just calling out his bullshit that there was no Italian diaspora.
>>1228071
A Roman citizen was from anywhere in the empire wherein a person, via what appropriate means, was put in the position of, or went through the motions to, become a citizen. People from Anatolia, Hispania, Judea, Algeria, Egypt, Gaul, Britain, even "barbarians" from surrounding exterior lands, were made "Romans".
>>1228082
I am talking about Italians.....during the republic. During the republic, the vast major of people called Romans, would have been Italians. There was no proper auxiliary system yet where they were granted citizenship, hell they only allowed other peoples from Italy to become Romans in the first century BC. Later on, but before 212, there would be Romans everywhere, many descended from auxiliaries who gained citizenship. After 212, all citizens were Romans.
>>1228091
We're talking about late 5th through the 6th centuries, the Saxon invasion of the Britons...
>>1228096
I was countering the claims of a poster who claimed there was never more than 100 Italians in Britain.
>>1228091
Citizenship has nothing to do with being "Roman". Citizenship was just a valuable thing to have since it stopped you from being tortured, crucified etc.
>>1228102
Citizenship has everything to do with being Roman, you aren't Roman if you don't have Roman citizenship. The original ethnic connotation of Roman disappeared around 500BC
>>1228101
Ah, yeh. That was weird no matter how he put it. There were more than 100 "anythings" after 500 years after initial "landing" with Julius.
>>1228103
>Citizenship has everything to do with being Roman
Just because you were peregrini doesn't mean you didn't consider yourself part of the Roman world mate. A citizen would still consider you Roman in that respect.
>>1228111
Peregrini were certainly not considered Romans. If they were they wouldn't quite literally be called "Foreigner". Nor would they need to do 25 years military service to gain citizenship and the title of "Roman". Considering yourself part of the Roman world is different to actually being Roman.
>>1228115
You're stuck in the mindset of someone who has only read books from the Republican period. Shit changed over time. Just because the word literally means foreigner doesn't mean shit when the meaning changed over the centuries. Imperator literally means general, but it changed its meaning in a similar way.
>>1228123
No, sorry you are wrong, this isn't some vague word, it's a literal legal definition used by ancient Rome. Peregrini were not Romans, they just weren't, you can't claim they were because they were under Roman control, they were legally not Romans according to the Roman state and that is the definition we shall use.
>>1228245
Not to whom you're replying, but am the contributor of other posts here, and I will explain, the usage of the term "peregrinus" was long out of use by the period of the Roman withdrawl from Briton. Many Roman citizen remained on that island because it was their land and they weren't about to go anywhere unless someone dragged them off it or killed them... and later, people did.
>>1228245
Law is not the reality. Roman law was incredibly conservative and always centuries behind the reality which it failed to recognise. Just ask the various emperors who made proclamations against paganism and had to keep doing it constantly for centuries since they were usually ignored.
>>1228275
Yes as always in these discussions we're making sweeping statements about centuries of history. I was referring to peregrini BEFORE the edict of 212.
