Did the Saxons split off between those thaat migrated to England and those that stayed in Saxony? What is known about the Saxons which stayed behind in Germany and how did they differentiate themselves from the English Saxons?
>>335087
Yes. But the idea of "Saxon" was thrown onto many Germanic peoples. They were all Germanic, but there is a reason we call the Saxons that went into medieval England "Anglo-Saxon". The land was named after them they were so influential.
The Saxons that remained in Europe were a large conglomerate of tribes. They were influenced by their still Germanic neighbors. Once Charlemagne and his Latinboos started carving up Europe, they came under threat of invasion. Unlike their Anglo cousins on the Isle, they were vulnerable. The Franks crushed many Saxon tribes with horrible effectiveness. Many died, many more were forced to migrate elsewhere. Many Germanic peoples still were referred to as "Saxons" after this because of the Saxon's prominence.
They became different because of their neighbors and time. Were an Anglo-Saxon and a mainland Saxon to meet after a few centuries apart, they would not even recognize each other. Celtic and Roman influences touched the Anglo-Saxons. Germanic and Norse influences graced the mainland Saxons. Even after Charlefagne ravaged them and forced Christianity upon them, the mainlanders remained starkly Germanic compared to their cousins.
>>335128
quite interesting. So "Saxons" were a cultural group then, somewhat like how celts are described, just lest wide spread?
>>335087
The continental Saxons were pagans that resisted Christian conversion though there were Anglo-Saxon monks that found an audience with their distant kin.
Unlike their cousins in Britain, the mainland Saxons didn't have a kingship like the Heptarchy or the kind of sophistication of the shires, hundreds, folkmoots, and whatnot. They were still a tribal confederation without any town life to speak of nor did they consolidate under a central leader.
Alcuin of York (one of Charlemagne's great scholars in court) was the one who devised the method to bring the Saxons to the Christian fold. But this was after decades of brutal warfare between the Franks and Saxons. Charlemagne even executed 4000 prisoners AFTER they surrendered.
Afterwards, the Saxons formed the Duchy of Saxony after Charlemagne's great empire was broken up. They were part of Louis the German's domain and in an ironic twist, the Saxons became a dynasty of the Holy Roman Empire under Otto the Great. Otto the Great was the son of Henry the Fowler, a Saxon who was elected as Emperor and built various forts to thwart the Magyars (the preeminent steppe-based raiders in the 10th century). But it was Otto who finally put a stop to them in 955 at the Battle of Lechfeld. The Magyars never harassed Western Europe again.
>>335150
Yes, and no. There was an actual people called the Saxons. They were very influential, and their name became a blanket term for other Germanic peoples.
They were so powerful, that some migrated into other regions to escape the crowded political atmosphere. After all, smaller tribes of Saxons were not immune to raids and/or destruction by the larger Saxon tribes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQPYkdp_7Vc
A simple video, but kind of cool
>>335169
>The Magyars never harassed Western Europe again
en masse, you mean. Raids still continued, but there was no great horde anymore. A village or two was burned from time to time, and burned by much smaller groups of raiders.
Ironic how those chinks ended up becoming a bastion of European Catholicism eh?
>>335169
Also, Henry the Fowler's idea of building fortresses in strategic locales within close proximity to each other was inspired by Alfred the Great's burhs.
In fact, Alfred's granddaughter Eadgyth married Henry's son Otto, thus uniting the 2 Saxon dynasties together. The House of Wessex was held in high esteem in Europe and Otto the Great actively sought greater ties between the 2 kinsfolk.
It's a real pity the Anglo-Saxons didn't bother to learn about heavy cavalry and castle-building from the Saxon dynasty. Had England learned those skills, the Normans wouldn't have won. In fact, Sweyn Forkbeard wouldn't have been able to conquer England either if he faced a landscape dotted with castles and knights.
>>335200
Checked, and your dubs speak some truth. Different anon here, and I feel like the Normans still would have conquered England. It would have been a more costly campaign though, with a much more drawn out taking of the lands.
Normans were tough man, cavalry and castles is a lot but would it be a match for the Normans? I would say no
>>335182
The Magyars were a Finno-Ugric people that mixed with Slavs and Germanics. They're hardly Mongoloid. They even mixed with the Cumans, a blonde-haired fair-skinned blue-eyed people of the steppe.
It is indeed ironic that the Magyars went from fierce raiders to one of Christendom's shields against other stepped-originated invaders like the Mongols and Ottomans. Hungary is quite possibly the most overlooked European polity in the Middle Ages alongside Bulgaria. Those 2 are fascinating as fuck and kicked plenty of ass. Not to mention great works of art and top-notch rulers.
>>335214
>was using "chink" in a humourous way, mate.
I could debate you on appearance, but Lord knows that steppe peoples were so diverse from being in proximity to regions where people look starkly different from their neighbors. I'll give you that there were some blonde haired, blue eyed Magyars. The modern Hungarian appearance comes from the influx of many German settlers migrating there in the Middle Ages. Look up "Ostsiedlung" if you don't know about it already. You would be fascinated by it.
The Arpad (missing the accents, I know) dynasty is amazing to look into. Their brilliance in both combat and politics is well known, but they are the extent of mainstream study into Hungary. Bulgaria? What's that? kek
>>335211
The Normans were indeed god-tier in their exploits, but the Anglo-Saxon army at Hastings had just marched hundreds of miles after annihilating Harald Hardraada's army at Stamford Bridge. Also, Harold Godwinson thought he could surprise the Normans again like he did with Hardraada. That and other issues compelled him to fight against the Normans so soon after Stamford like the plight of his people being brutalized in Sussex as well as being excommunicated by the Pope.
All Harold and his commanders had to do was wait a few more days for reinforcement as well as give their foot-sore troops a well-needed rest. English cavalry (and archers armed with Welsh yew longbows) would've easily swung Hastings in their favor. The shield-wall of the fyrd and few huscarls left after Fulford Gate and Stamford Bridge held off Norman assaults for hours. If Harold timed a downward charge in conjunction with his infantry and cavalry, the Bastard would've been defeated.
If Sussex (the locale where Pevensey and Hastings is) had a castle or two, the Bastard would have to take deal with it, else his lines of communication and supply would be harassed. People forget that castles are meant as forward bases to sally against hostiles nearby as well as act as a defensive point. Even if the Normans took the castles of Sussex, they still have the others to deal with. Each one full of fuming Englishmen that would want to bring death to the interlopers.
The Anglo-Saxons would've fused continental castles with the defense-in-depth of their burhs to make the Norman invaders fight for every inch of land painstakingly while bleeding away their troops. Meanwhile, more weapon-men of the fyrd, huscarls, and heavy cavalry would be mustered to a battle of their own choosing.
>>335256
Well Harold wanted to crush William ASAP because technically the Normans Duke had a better claim to the throne
>>335172
weird how of all the German tribes, the Alamanni, probably one of the less significant ones is the one they are mostly still called as
>>335256
>If Harold timed a downward charge in conjunction with his infantry and cavalry, the Bastard would've been defeated
Yes, 100%. But the castles could be surrounded ans starved out.
They are great sallying points, as well as rally points for reinforcing armies. The Normans had a large force, while the Anglo-Saxons were stretched thin. Were they not plagued already by raiding Norsemen and Celts, I would agree on the "what if" that heavy cavalry and castles would win the day.
With depleted numbers, some of those castles would have below a minimum garrison necessary to defend them.
To go along with the scenario, I would love love love to see it happen. An organized corp of heavy cavalry with the welsh bowmen supporting them. Better than Agincourt desu
>>335250
Well, the Magyars were involved with Turkic and Mongolic tribes like the remaining Huns, the Avars, the Bulgars, the Khazars, etc. So there was bound to be some Asiatic blood mixed in, but the Magyar raids of the 9th and 10th centuries were not only for loot, but for women. This was so that they would breed more Magyars so the Hungarians were increasingly becoming more and more European as the decades went on.
Also fun fact in relation to the Anglo-Saxons, the son of Edmund Ironside was in Hungary since it apparently was a famous sanctuary for refugees and exiles.
>>335272
Luck of being the most encountered, I guess
As a follow up: Why is the "race" of Anglo-Saxons so praised by 19th century to todays Anglo-centric racialists rather than being called the "Norman race" since in reality the leadership and powerful memebers of the anglosphere are more likely to be descendant from Norman nobility
>>335285
Ha! Didn't know that bit about Edmund Ironside Jr. I have my nightly research topic. Thanks anon.
>>335259
Interesting. Was the Islamic tribe a product of active proselytizing by the Arabs or a leftover of religious drift to the steppes by trade caravans?
>>335295
Its rather unclear as little is known about them other than some accounts from Arab travelers and by the fact that the Catholic monarchs kept Muslims around for a wile as they were useful soldiers and courtiers until gradually being forced to convert as late as the 13th century .
The leading theory is that they may have been descendant of tribes who had joined the Magyars later, originating from Kwarazm on the frontiers of the Islamic Empire
>>335290
Their leaders may be Norman, but the population there was largely still Anglo-Saxon. Even then, what's a Norman? Just a culturally confused Viking. The Germanic nature of both cultures along with their Latin influences merged well.
Just as the Franks did when they came to rule over Frankland. In their case, there was enough migrating Franks and local people willing to call themselves Franks. They still took on many facets of the local culture.
The Normans overtook the Anglo-Saxons for leadership of the Isle, but the many Anglo-Saxons living as far north as York continued to exist as they always had. Latin influence entered the language of these people, but their staunch identity ended up surviving.
I am not a huge expert on this topic, so I am sure there is more to it than I mention
>>335290
mostly ties back into muh germanic heritage. Anglo Saxon is just a much more Germanic name and group than the Normans. Even though Normans are way cooler
>>335263
No he didn't. The Bastard had ZERO justification. He was only Edward the Confessor's cousin and he had no blood ties to any of the Anglo-Saxon ruling houses. There's no evidence that William visited England and was promised the throne by Edward.
Also, why would the Confessor summon Edward the Exile back to England? That was Edmund Ironside's son, thus he had a more legitimate claim than Hardraada or William. The Witan made a HUGE mistake in not crowning Edgar Atheling as king.
>>335281
The Normans only fielded between 7000-8000 soldiers at most when they arrived in England. There was still a great pool of military manpower. Especially from Northumbria and Mercia, but those fuckwits Edwin and Morcar failed to mobilize what was left of their men. They basically sat on their ass and submitted to the Normans like the limp-wristed bitches they were.
The fact that the Anglo-Saxons nearly held off the Normans for nearly a day with only infantry (they barely had any archers) says a lot about how close that battle was. The Norman cavalry would have to trod up the hill and tire themselves out while the Anglo-Saxon cavalry could pull a Wellington and just pop out from the reverse slope. It's far easier to charge downward with momentum than fighting upward.
And even if the Bastard took a castle or two, that makes it even easier for the English because they can just do what Gyrth suggested and do a scorched earth campaign. And with the English fleet (boosted by Hardraada's captured ships) ensuring that no reinforcements come form Normandy, Harold and his men can starve them out until they capitulate. They can also dig trenches and pits so that the Normans can't sally out and escape.
>>335311
Interesting. I love how religious identity did not phase them when it was go-time.
>"You. Want to go raid those people out west?"
>"Insha allah, allahu ackbar."
>"Whatever, let's ride"
Related thought, I remember reading Ahmed ibn Fadlan's account of the steppes, and his encounters with pagan tribespeople trying to be Islamic. They were all over the place with actually being "Islamic" in any way other than name and marrying multiple chicks.
>>335290
Because despite the fact the ruling class was replaced by Normans, the invaders eventually became Anglicized over time. They saw England as their home and while it took centuries for English to be spoken in court, the English people stubbornly refused to be Norman and absorbed the invaders.
The Normans only numbered 20,000 at most and their blood would've been diluted by intermarriage (which did happen a lot) with English women.
I do despise the Normans for destroying a vibrant culture and making modern English into this mongrel Germanic/Latin. And being the cause of England/Ireland enmity since the Cambro-Normans were the ones to invade the Emerald Isle, thus bringing in the Crown of England to the immense woe of future generations.
>>335324
>limp-wristed, fuckwits Edwin and Morcar
kek, never heard that one before.
Scorched earth would have been insanely effective, yes. But that would be a LOT of ruined land. I will grant with that tactic, along with the use of heavy cavalry and castles like we've been debating, the Normans would not have been able to take England from the Angles... but that would be a Pyrrhic victory for sure
>>335332
Ibn-Fadlan encountered the Volga-Bulgars, a people living in the Russian steppes who had been courted into accepting Islam. As per his accounts them and other nomadic steppe Muslims were generally shitty Muslims that fornicated and had their women uncovered .
>>335324
>The Bastard had ZERO justification.
dude im still butthurt about 1066 too but william was edward's chosen successor
>>335344
Shouldn't ruin the fantasy, every culture is responsible for chavs and American white trash. Look at Scotch-Irish descendants in West Virginia and parts of the South. Look at Chi-town douchebags with every consonant in their last name that ends in "ski"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9JSGQwAqcA
Here is a paki-chav
The Saxons were a great people. They influenced Europe for centuries to come. They were ubermensch... but within reason. They were only defeated by greater ubermensch... or at least better led untermensch
>>335345
>I do despise the Normans for destroying a vibrant culture
You share that sentiment with J.r.r Tolkien who was a pretty big Saxonboo. I think the Rohirrim are based off the Saxons
>>335352
Better a pyrrhic victory than what was in store like the Harrying of the North. Now THAT was a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
Gyrth's original plan was to simply lay waste to the surrounding fields and villages near Hastings. He'd lead an army to deal with the Normans. This was so that in case Gyrth lose, England still had its king to rally behind. Meanwhile Harold could pen-up the Normans since there was only 1 feasible way in and out of where they were entrenched.
Even if Gyrth had lost, the Normans would've taken losses. Harold can muster another army and let winter, dwindling food, and even dysentery (the Normans actually got inflicted with this a few weeks after Hastings) because they ran out of wine to drink.
>>335375
Based on Saxons IF they had a horse culture. By God this anon >>335256 has more and more of a point as the thread goes on.
Tolkien was a Euroboo, I think. He loved many ancient European cultures so much
>>335371
Well said. I'm actually a non-white myself i'll confess, but sice we live in the Anglosphere and speak English if there's any culture to idealize it might as well be the Saxons.
>>335361
There's no proof of that.
There is no Anglo-Saxon evidence that William visited England and got Edward's promise to gain the throne. The visit supposedly happened in 1051 when Godwin and his sons were exiled, which was the same time when William was fighting for his Duchy. No way would he make a trip to Merry Olde England with his inheritance at stake.
Second, the English people and the Witan wouldn't have accepted a foreigner like William as their king. Canute the Great did because he treated his English subjects well and was a good administrator. And this was AFTER he levied a HUGE Danegeld to pay off his troops and massacred a lot of the leading men. William had nothing on Canute.
Finally, Edward commanded the kingdom to Harold when he was near death. The Normans themselves do not dispute this and argued that Harold should've refused and submitted to William because of that bogus oath.
It says a lot when the Norman propagandists carry the day with their distorted view of the facts.
>>335389
I hereby nominate Anon for honorary whiteness status.
All in favor say "aye."
>>335386
He would debate that the Norman invasion was a tradgedy as it ended the realization of true (Germanic) English civilization from forming-or so i read in his biography.
He was more so into Germanic history given his love for Beuwolf and all that IMO
>>335172
This is a cool channel, thanks m80.
>>335396
thanks mate
>>335403
>>335389
>non-white
I got /pol/ on the phone right now
Kidding, it is a good reason to idolize them. Their language acted as the basis for what we use today in everyday speech. What most of the world is accepting as a second language today. What language was used to broadcast the news that America landed a man on the moon. This isn't /x/ so I have good faith people won't attack me on that
>>335375
Heh, I really like the pre-1000 era of European cultures. My favorite Anglo-Saxon kingdom is Northumbria since it fused Germanic culture with Irish Christianity and teachings. The Northumbrian Golden Age is criminally overlooked in textbooks. The Northumbrians did illuminated manuscripts and gem-bound gold-encrusted books (ala Book of Kells) thanks to their Irish tutors.
>>335386
Thanks. I love European cultures too in general. There isn't one I dislike whether Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Finno-Ugrian, etc.
I'm currently reading about the Bretons and how they held off against the Franks and Vikings. Everybody forgets that the Welsh and Cornish have continental cousins in Brittany and Galicia.
>>335396
aye
>>335410
Bretons, oh boy. That is one heck of a history. Surrounded by very hostile neighbors thanks to the ocean being a highway for Norse raiders.
Charlemagne, oddly enough as a Germanic Latinboo, had the Bretons on his side. Roland is a great example
>>335407
you don't know the start of it..
>dfw actually born brown Muslim...
nonreligious now anyways, but I can christian if it increases assimilation or something like that
>>335410
>My favorite Anglo-Saxon kingdom is Northumbria since it fused Germanic culture with Irish Christianity and teaching
so, were they Germanic Celts, in a sense?
>>335412
>literally the white Muhammad
Come home la.
>>335424
More like Celtic Germanics.
>>335416
>filename
No need to assimilate like that, I am nonreligious myself born Catholic. No need for dogma. The influence that English is having on the world right now is astounding. I'd love to be around 1000 years from now and just see what the future people would think of the people, culture, and language that overtook the world
>>335426
never heard that expression before, but now I will never forget it
>>335430
beautiful artwork
>>335416
answer the question
>>335400
Anglo-Saxon Cavalry and Castle anon here.
The Norman Conquest from 1066 to 1087 was a never-ending cycle of misery and humiliation to the English people. Not only were they deprived of their lands, but the Normans robbed the English of their dignity and culture. After 1066, Anglo-Saxon arts and crafts faded away because the Normans didn't care for it that much besides the Bayeux Tapestry which extolled their exploits.
English noblewomen had to flee to nunneries, else they'd get raped by low-born Normans and other foreigners. In fact, a popular method of obtaining land "legitimately" was by marrying Anglo-Saxon heiresses whose fathers, brothers, and sons were killed in battle.
The Harrying of the North was ethnic cleansing of a scale that still stuns people. The Bastard ordered his troops to destroy the fields, kill every animal, and wreck the implements to starve the northern English. 100,000 souls died from hunger and cold; some resorting to cannibalism while others put themselves up for slavery so that they could at least have some bread and shelter.
And after the death of the Bastard's son Henry Beauclerc, England was plunged into The Anarchy where every Norman baron ran their estates and castles like mini-kings while the forces of Stephen and Mathilda battled it out. The English people were pillaged, burned, and raped in every corner. They got so fed up with the lawlessness that they wanted one tyrant than tyrants in every shire.
So calling it a tragedy is a VAST understatement...
>>335444
trips speak truth, I guess
>>335440
about the square directly up from your marked spot.
>>335087
The Anglo-Saxons had some great leaders in their history. Despite the different kingdoms that scattered across Britain, they had to be very strong in order to survive tribal, Celtic neighbors, raiding Norsemen, and raids from various mainland powers
>>335415
It surprised me that in every corner of the Carolingian Empire, Charlemagne waged war against the peoples at its frontiers like the Saxons, Lombards, Avars, and Moors but he neglected to incorporate Brittany.
>>335444
Huh.. its weird how studies tend to gloss over that bit . Damned French Vikings
>>335458
my answer to support your honorary whiteness would be "aye" even if you answer top left. Just wanted to know the actual color, I guess. My obsession for human appearance grew out of studying anthropology and history
>>335463
It's because the nobility of modern England stem from Normans. The fact that much of England is owned by these descendants is a living testament of the Norman victory. Even Modern English is a bastard grandchild formed by the rape of the Anglo-Saxon tongue with Norman guttural.
>>335440
It really is stunning.
>>335461
He enjoyed support from Breton soldiers, courtiers, and frankly (no pun intended) peace. The tribes there had no record of being aggresive during the time of Charlemagne. Perhaps they saw how bad ol Charlie fucked up the Saxons and didn't dare to mess with the Franks beyond that. Even when the armies marched as far as Pannonia to smash some horse people
>>335433
>>335433
Nice get.
>>335087
dfw no pagan Saxon waifu
>>335471
The Normans actually had very little influence on the English language. French words make up roughly 30% of Engish's vocabulary and mostly came from continental French during the 13th and 14th centuries.
>>335473
Medieval art has two paths: absolute, stunning artistic beauty. Or middle school level ink blotting on parchment.
>>335461
>>335474
>tfw Alfred and Charles were bros
>>335469
understandable , its all good mate
>>335485
Even the cruder examples have a certain charm to them, in my opinion.
>>335484
Middle English was beginning to form by 1100. Even then you could see how it differed from the pre-1066 language thanks to the Anglo-Normans and other French-speaking lords and knights in England.
>>335486
Charles had the best bros. Harun al Rashid, Alfred, Alcuin, Einhard, the "pope", and son on. Really a magnanimous man
>captcha is friggin cactus
>>335491
May light perpetual shine upon him.
>>335489
How? Not being aggressive in asking, I actually want to know your thoughts on this.
To me, I feel like they told some monk new to the monastery to just start painting. Maybe he got training from the others present. Maybe they let him express himself without a word.
>>335433
i thought as much. I wonder why other languages even exist at this point
I guess this might be a stupid question, but it's something I've meant to ask: why are the "Saxons" always depicted as barbarians along the eastern shores of the Rhine, yet the German province of "Saxony" has historically been situated along the Elbe?
>In trying to get the coat of arms, I danced about Wikipedia and I discovered the reason and so I'm just to answer my question for those interested (correct me if my skimming is wrong)
So the Saxon people covered a stretch of Northern Germany (Old/Lower Saxony)-- the title of Saxon was just used to describe the people without much care for what they called themselves, but moreso as a way to categorize a group of similar Germanic peoples. The Duchy of Saxony was created as one of the German Duchies after the death of Louis the Germany, the others being Bavaria and Swabia.
Later meddlings as a part of the Holy Roman Empire and Henry the Lion vs. Barbarossa, who deposed the former and split up his lands. Saxony was later recreated as the Duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg, this more focused towards the Elbe rather than the Rhine (Upper Saxony), and then was later raised to the status of a German Electorate in 1356.
From there, Saxony went about doing >H >R >E things, fighting in a bunch of wars until the HRE's dissolution by Napoleon, and became the independent Kingdom of Saxony.
Then, the Germanic peoples were united under one banner, and the German state became a thing, lasting in its current position as the Free State of Saxony with the transition to the Wiemar Republic, and the current German nation.
In conclusion, inheritance of titles switching around what lands are owned as part of a claim get confusing after 1000 years of German politics.
I have a personal interest in this because, in my Crusader Kings play through as Great Moravia, the Dukes of Saxony always tried to keep my reign in check until I destroyed the Duchy after some ~288 years of constant rebellions.
>>335501
>your Latin ancestor's face when you say that
>>335498
They strike me as completely sincere like the monk gave it his best shot and didn't care that maybe it wasn't as good as the more famous monks because it isn't about that anyway but about giving glory to God.
It's hard to imagine how present God was to a medieval monk because our modern secular viewpoint is so entrenched but for them God's existence was obvious and their job was to do His will. The whole idea of "monks" was a relatively new phenomena anyway and the fact that some people got to make their living reading and writing must have been really special to them.
>>335507
short answer, drift.
The dynasties slowly move around. Crusader Kings II of all games illustrates the dynamic of drifting titles, dynasties, and so on.
Love that game
>>335526
And yes, cheats were used. I just bought the Horse Lords pack and wanted to just go insane with it before returning to the normal, ironman gameplay
>>335521
>for them God's existence was obvious
well said, anon
>>335128
tl;dr, Saxons as a named group split up before many of the phonetic shifts that would later define their descendants
I wonder how much of England is still partly celtic/anglo
Many brits, if not the majority, don't really look like Germans or Dutch people.
>>335172
In Irish we call England Sasana, which comes from the Saxons. Welsh is something similar IIRC
>>335460
>earl get that fucking horse of the bastion
>jesus h woden what the fuck were you thinking
>the battlements is not place to fucking joust
>i swear to thyr, earl, sometimes i think you just want to ruin it for te rest of us saxons
>>336473
The most recent (2004) Y-dna study put Southern England as about 20% Anglo-Saxon or Danish (they couldn't distinguish between the modern source populations they used).
The least Celtic people were in York, center of the Danelaw, and northern England on the whole was more Germanic.
The Scottish lowlands were also about as Germanic as the southern English.
In short, partly? All of England. Mostly celtic? Most of it.
>>336960
Ah alright, I suppose that explains the looks.
>>335717
Franks literally gave France it's name. You can't call France the antithesis of France.
>>336967
It's a very uncommon and remarkable event in history when a whole population is replaced by the invaders, instead of acculturated. Even that 20% is a lot and surprizing.
>>335557
>>336997
Y-DNA tests are tests of paternal descent, so that 20% is likely inflated compared to the 'real' admixture.
That, and the Danes kept coming and settling in waves.
>>335717
They did have more contact with Franks. The Franks just named other Germans after their immediate neighbor. When the Franks were asked "Hey, who are those neighbors of your's to the east?"
The Franks would answer "Alemmani". Alemmani were a large tribal confederation of many other Germans anyway. They invented their own umbrella term "Alemman" to represent they are made up of all men.
>>336607
kek, screencapped
>>335396
Aye
>>335412
>>335087
The term "saxon" refers to the long knives used by many tribes called seaxs. So there were many different "saxon" tribes arpund that time period and of course they didnt really write down their history so we dont really know what they were called.
>>336985
But the Franks weren't exclusive to France, and the HRE was equally strong of a successor, possibly stronger. Also, I'm just saying that they would have interacted with and encountered the Franks more frequently. Therefore, it's unlikely that the frequency of communication is the cause of the name Allemagne.
>>335200
Eadgyth's descendant Conrad founded the Salian dynasty of HR emperors. The last Salian was coincidentally married to Matilda, granddaughter of the Conqueror.
Had she been able to birth a son or two, the whole history of Western Europe would've changed. No Plantagenets and the Norman barons would've accepted a gransdon of Henry than a daughter. Matilda's son would've ruled the HRE along with Normandy and England. The Capetians would've been alarmed at how powerful this inheritance would be.
Not to mention Etienne (Stephen) of Blois probably wouldn't usurp the Crown of England if his nephew had the backing of the Normans and the Empire itself. So no Anarchy.
England would have a Germanic king again who could claim descent from
Alfred the Great (from both sides) as well as the Conqueror. The Anglo-Saxons might regain some power and influence again if Matilda's son wants to win over his fellow Germanics. Old English could make a comeback though it'll be affected by High Germanic, which would make things interesting.
>>339072
>England would have a Germanic king again who could claim descent from
Alfred the Great (from both sides) as well as the Conqueror. The Anglo-Saxons might regain some power and influence again if Matilda's son wants to win over his fellow Germanics. Old English could make a comeback though it'll be affected by High Germanic, which would make things interesting.
>tfw you will never see this happen
>>335172
I think that map is wrong regarding Russia. They have a name similar to other eastern Europeans like nemenstki or something. Not Germanija.
>>335172
>>339358
Ok, so I'm wrong. But only kind of. German is nemetsky and Germany is germanija
>>335394
Harold's dad Gowin was basically the real power behind Edward. Harold could've easily backed Edgar Atheling as the new king. William would be as lasted but he can't call in Papal support like he originally did since Harold didn't take the throne. Even if William demands that Harold support his claim with the Godwinsons' wealth and power, Harold could rely that he cannot wage war against his fellow Englishmen or the rightful king of England.
Tostig won't enlist Harald of Norway to invade England since it isn't Harold as king. William would still gather an army, but it won't have as many in original timeline since there aren't men looking to absolve themselves of sins by joining William.
There's a very good chance that the English could've repelled the Normans before they established a proper beachhead if the army was around instead of slogging it with the Norwegians.
The Godwin clan have a lot to answer for in their role in allowing the Conquest to happen. Especially Harold and Tostig.
>>335172
Fun fact. I heard from some professor here at college, that the Nem part of slavic name for Germany, comes from when slavic people met german people. German people didn't understand slavspeak and they didn't answer to their questions, so they got the name Nemci, Niemcy etc., which means ˝the people who cannot talk˝. But it can all be just an anecdote.
>>336607
>thyr
who?
What was Anglo-Saxon religion like? I had heard they didn't believe in heaven or valhalla.
>>339469
Well they shared a lot of the same gods as the Norse. Woden is obviously the same as Odin and Thunor is Thor.
>>339491
I'm more curious about the differences. Like believe with heaven, what the gods represent even if the names are similar.
I could google it but I find sometimes I get really illuminating answers to such topics asking here or on /tg/.
>>339491
They're kind of in a weird place, it's suspect that in addition to the old norse German pantheon many other gods were worshiped as they arrived in Britain, gods based from their welsh and Briton neighbors. Many of these were outright destroyed or simply converted into folk tales when the Tribes forcefully christianized. Figures like the various supernatural hounds of Britain might have once been worshiped but, unfortunately that stuff has been lost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKRbi2ovDY
Did anyone else enjoy this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnC6l6_TaMA
>tfw everyone forgets the Jutes and the Frisians
>>339730
meme tribes
>>339730
I'm glad somebody else knows that the Frisians were part of the Germanic invasions in Britain. The Frisian language is the closest to Old English.
>>339072
The Salian line not going extinct? The next King of England whose also the Holy Roman Emperor?
This is quite possibly the most interesting What If? about England. Henry Beauclerc would immediately declare his grandson to be his heir after the White Ship accident.
I have a feeling Stephen of Blois would still make a power-grab however. The Scots are up in the air since King David intervened in the Anarchy because he was Mathilda's uncle and was fighting on her side.
>>339286
It's an interesting alternate universe, but I'm not so sure a half-German king would alienate his Anglo-Norman vassals. If they side with Stephen, I could see Mathilda's son dispossessing them of their English estates and granting them to Anglo-Saxons instead as a means to cement his rule.
>>339406
Godwin was a real piece of work. He was scheming for power so that his family would be preeminent. Godwin and his children were the largest landowners of England; 2 million silver pennies were collected annually on their estates. Godwin was responsible for Emma's son Alfred being blinded by Harold Harefoot.
I do admit that his son Harold had more redeeming qualities. He was brave and well-liked. Too bad he got shipwrecked on France and was "rescued" by the Bastard. If that hadn't happened, the Norman Conquest might have been avoided.
Speaking of sons, William's eldest, Robert Curthose was a fascinating guy. He was indolent and hedonistic, but he had his strengths as well. He was a brave warrior, was one of the leading figures in the 1st Crusade, and unlike his father and brothers, he treated the Anglo-Saxon and Scottish hostages in his custody with honor. Harold Godwinson's son Ulf was released and even knighted by Robert. Duncan, King Malcolm of Scotland's son was freed and knighted too. Robert was also best buds with Edgar Atheling; the 2 of them even went on Crusade together.
>>340247
Godwin was a fucking faggot, the situation probably would have been a lot better if he wasn't there
>>340255
Godwin was Canute's right hand man. He was promoted rapidly and became the Earl of Wessex. None of the other Anglo-Saxon families didn't like him and how grasping he was. He even had his daughter marry Edward in the hopes that the next King would be his grandson.
I didn't really like Edward however. He was too much of a pussy and Normanized. If he was made of sterner stuff and ensured that England was up-to-date with the latest tech and warfare of the continent, I could've respected him. He should've openly declared Edgar Atheling as his successor before his death. William would have no claim to the throne if this had happened.
>>339372
Nemcy means mute, it's the word designated to German people in almost every Slavic language.
>>339660
It surprises me that this is the only media about the Dual invasions of England in 1066. The whole backstory and what happened is perfect for Hollywood.
>mfw I can't bear to watch Part 2 because of Hastings
And was anybody else pissed that Ordgar was cheap-shot'd by that Breton?
