![MapAD400[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WG7yBGp.jpg "MapAD400[1].jpg")
What happened to Britain after the Romans left? Why did the Island go from Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon?
>>703300
Britain experienced a series of migrations/invasions in the centuries following the Roman retreat. The Angles, Normans, Vikings, etc. all had their turn raping and pillaging the land. However, native Britons are probably still the majority ethnic group in the isles. The invasions had more cultural, rather than genetic, implications.
>>703312
this
the romano-british were basically dissipated through a series of barbarian pillages without the legions to protect their way of life in comparison to the native britons.
>>703312
>he invasions had more cultural, rather than genetic, implications.
But that's wrong
>>703400
>That weird spot in the middle of Siberia
The fuck?
Also, aren't the Visigoths also Germanic? Why so white in Aquitaine/Spain?
The natives lost their lands to the invaders, who took their women and genetically enriched them.
>>703454
Halpogroups aren't autosomal genes, not that anon, but I remember reading something saying that around 30% was anglo/saxon/jute dna.
>>703400
>Sicily
>Germanic
>>703815
>science
>real
>>703454
Siberia isn't even on that map you retard
>>703820
>Graph with no sources, population sizes, links to experimental methods, etc.
>science
>>703840
Back to /lgbt/
>>703862
No comeback, I presume?
>>703815
>what are Normans
>>703874
See >>703840
Where's the proof that the Norman influx actually affected the general genetics of the area significantly, up to today.
>>703874
Still waiting on that proof.
>>703889
This.
If this guy doesn't look germanic af I don't know who does.
>>703300
>already exists a large Saxon immigrant population settled on the eastern coast and in the Chilterns along the Thames River
>in 410 the Britons throw the Roman officials out after a general strips the province of most of its defences making it de-facto independent
>for the next few decades the province chugs along engaging in a few minor civil wars and squabbles with frequent raids
>one of the leading Britons, a man posterity knows as Vortigern (a title only) in the 440s hires a bunch of Germanic people to fight against his Pictish and Briton enemies
>allegedly gives them Thanet and then the entire region of Ceint (now Kent)
>when their contract runs out the Saxons go apeshit and chimp out, rebelling against their employers
>large wars in south-east England
>decay that already was obvious from archaeological records steepens as city-life begins to vanish, trade routes are severed and Londinium depopulates
>in all the confusion new groups of Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians settle all over the eastern parts of the province
>Deira is founded north of the Humber river
>Icenia is conquered and East Anglia is formed
>Sussex is created in the former Saxon Shore on the southern coast with Wessex being settled soon after
>shit goes south for the Britons
>send a letter to the Roman authorities under Aetius in the 450s called the 'Groan of the Britons'
>Aetius has too much other shit to deal with to help them
>much of lowland Britain is seized by the invaders, and lots of Britons keep fighting intercine civil wars with one another while this goes on
>a warrior called Arthur, Ambrosius Aurelianus, or something like that (the issue is one of intense debate) leads a coalition of Britons against them and wins peace for an entire generation in the late 5th century
Cont.
>>707114
>takes until the 560s for the relative peace to break down
>Battle of Deorham in the 580s heralds the start of a resurgent Saxon threat as the final remaining Romanised cities of Aquae Sulis, Corinium and Glevum are captured, the remaining British kingdoms fall in the following decades
>the Hen Ogledd (Old North) otherwise known as the Cumbrian kingdoms are gradually taken by the united Anglian kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia (which had formed Northumbria)
>an attempt at a coalition by the northern kingdoms collapses as one of the British kings backstabs the others during a siege of Lindisfarne which could have wiped out the nascent Anglian threat in the north entirely
>Wessex, a late bloomer Saxon power that had formed in Hampshire gradually takes much of the south of England under powerful warlords who unite the Saxons of the Thames valley and Surrey (Suthrege) under their leadership
>Wessex pushes against Dumnonia in the west pushing it back into Devon before taking everything but Cornwall in the following centuries
>urban life, literacy and Christianity plummet massively during the period as the upheaval damages them, with the Germanic being illiterate, pagan and rural
>any remaining holdouts in lowland England (such as potentially Verulanium/St Albans begin to fall to the Saxons by this time
>only remaining Britons survive in Cymru or 'Wales' (Welsh means foreigner in Old English) a previously shitty and backwater part of the old Roman province
>local British inhabits become culturally English and Celtic culture and language vanishes in most of the British Isles
>Cumbrian, Cornish and older Brythonic languages die out
>Welsh survives in the surviving petty kingdoms of the Welsh mountains
>'English' gradually unify over the following centuries into larger and larger kingdoms before Wessex takes advantage of a power vacuum caused by the destruction wrought by the Vikings in the 9th century to found England under Aethelstan.
>Saxon rule until 1066 invasion
>>703300
The British History Podcast gets really into detail on this period for anyone interested in it.
>>703400
>more germanic dna in scandinavia then germany
they really are cucks
>>709537
The Germanic people originated in Scandinavia, m8
>>709955
Sister lived in Canterbury. Love the place. I live where a church was once swallowed by the sea, there's an Iron Age shrine too but it got plowed by farmers
>>703400
>Eupedia
lol, might as well reference /pol/ for accurate information
>>707153
>Celtic culture and language vanishes in most of the British Isles
The Celts were still the vast majority in Western England, not the eastern littoral. Also, Scotland + Ireland + Wales & Cornwall are considered the majority of the British Isles
>>703400
>Y-DNA
Stop, Y-DNA is often a marker of conquest, but it doesn't tell you anything about the overall input, it's just a small part of DNA that is passed from fathers.
Spain has a huge amount of R1b for instance, this doesn't make them full blown steppe invaders.
>>707114
Arthur more likely than not didn't exist, the contemporary sources, Gildas, literally lived to complain about the Saxons and Britons.
De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae has half dedicated to Gildas' shitlist of welsh kings, Aurelianus is mentioned very briefly and its probably just a Roman insert to reinvigorate interest in the Roman way. If you jump to Geoffery of Monmouth then you get all sorts of made up shit about arthur pendragon and his vast empire of northern europe that even conquers rome, can you believe.
If, and its a big if, there was a certain roman official with a very similar name at that time who may or may not have had any involvement with British victories, which is unlikely because the British got rekt at literally everything they did, the likelihood of him resembling anything like the great warlord Gildas or others claims he was is unprovable and very improbable.
tl;dr King Arthur didn't exist
>>711239
story of Arthur conquering Rome is linked to folk memory of Ambrosius Aurelianus but also that of Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig to the Britons), who did indeed lead an army from Britain to become emperor of Rome, and who did indeed leave behind a power vacuum which was not filled again by Romanized Britons.
>>711239
Gildas doesn't claim anything at all about Arthur, because he doesn't mention him in any way. Only associations between Gildas and Arthur were made up hundreds of years later by fabulist faggot hagiographers
>>711325
But in the meanwhile, an opportunity happening, when these most cruel robbers were returned home, the poor remnants of our nation (to whom flocked from divers places round about our miserable countrymen as fast as bees to their hives, for fear of an ensuing storm), being strengthened by God, calling upon him with all their hearts, as the poet says,-
"With their unnumbered vows they burden heaven,"
that they might not be brought to utter destruction, took arms under the conduct of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a modest man, who of all the Roman nation was then alone in the confusion of this troubled period by chance left alive. His parents, who for their merit were adorned with the purple, kind been slain in these same broils, and now his progeny in these our days, although shamefully degenerated from the worthiness of their ancestors, provoke to battle their cruel conquerors, and by the goodness of our Lord obtain the victory.
>http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.asp
If you ask any nutcase about king arthur it will eventually boil down to Gildas, the embellishments were added later, mostly in French chivalric literature but its always claimed that at least in gildas there is evidence of a real 'great' person which is most likely not true.
>>711289
Gildas is the first written evidence we have of him, Geoffery was almost categorically not writing about Magnus Maximus but I recommend reading the historia regum britanniae if just for the sheer antics he describes
>>707114
Totally inappropriate to bring up Arthur in this context imo. The ONLY references to Arthur that are even close to contemporary are in his capacity as Welsh demigod/hero, a Herculean figure linked to the Otherworld. This pagan myth was subsequently bunged into the compiled Historia Brittorum and thus "historicized" enough for Galfridus and other high-medieval neckbeards to begin spinning fantasies about it.
>>711376
This isn't about Arthur however, it is about Ambrosius Aurelianus. Ambrosius may well have been a real man, indeed it is quite likely since Gildas was writing within living memory of the deeds he is claimed to have done. The fact that other, much later writers claim Arthur and not Ambrosius Aurelianus to have fought the Saxons is just a consequence of the euhemeristic process by which existing Brythonic myth-hero Arthur was converted into a historical general.
Nutcases may dispute it but Gildas literally doesn't say anything whatsoever about any guy named Arthur. Anybody claiming that what he really meant to write instead of Ambrosius Aurelianus was Arthur is just making shit up, much like Nennius (if he even existed) and Galfridus made shit up. It's like if some hillbilly motherfucker two hundred years from now dreamed up a history of the USA in which the revolutionary war was won by Johnny Appleseed, and some damn fool in the year 3000 actually believed it.
Pic related, it's the historical King Arthur.
>>703300
Not what that fucking map shows, that's for sure. I honestly don't know whether the EBK website is a joke or not.
Anyway:
Late Roman and Post Roman Britain/Anglo Saxon England
Salway, Peter - Roman Britain (1981 and 2001 - differ considerably and both are worth reading)
Stenton, Frank - Anglo Saxon England
Souther, Patricia - Roman Britain: A New History 55 BC - AD 450
De La Bedoyere, Guy - Roman Britain: A New History
De La Bedoyere, Guy - The Real Lives of Roman Britain
De La Bedoyere, Guy - The Towns of Roman Britain
De La Bedoyere, Guy - The Golden Age of Roman Britain
Lambert, Malcolm - Christians and Pagans: The Conversion of Britain from Alban to Bede
Thomas, Charles - Christianity in Roman Britain to 500 AD
Johnson, Stephen - Later Roman Britain
Esmonde Cleary, Simon - The Ending of Roman Britain
Casey, P.J. - Carausius and Allectus: The British Usurpers
Wacher, John - The Towns of Roman Britain (get 1997 revision)
Burnham, Barry and Wacher, John - The Small Towns of Roman Britain
Gerrard, James - The Ruin of Roman Britain
Faulkner, Neil - The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain
Blair, John - The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society
Campbell, John (ed.) - The Anglo-Saxons
Higham, Nicholas and Ryan, Martin - The Anglo-Saxon World
Higham, Nicholas - Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons
Higham, Nicholas - The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century
Higham, Nicholas - An English Empire: Bede, the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons
Gerrard and Collins (eds.) - Debating Late Antiquity in Britain
Casey, P.J. (ed.) - The End of Roman Britain
Myres, J.N.L. - The English Settlements
Jones, Michael - The End of Roman Britain
Snyder, Christopher - An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons AD 400-600
Dumville, David (ed.) St Patrick
Lapidge, Michael and Dumville, David (eds.)- Gildas, New Approaches
>>711876
Cont.
Thompson, E.A. - St. Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain
Dark, Ken - Britain and the End of the Roman Empire
Dark, Ken - From Civitas to Kingdom: British Political Continuity 300-800
Haarer, Fiona (ed.) AD 410: The History and Archaeology of Late and Post Roman Britain
Collins, Rob - Hadrian's Wall and the End of Empire
Breeze and Dobson - Hadrian's Wall
Harris, Anthea - Byzantium, Britain and the West
Halsall, Guy - Worlds of Arthur
Alcock, Leslie - Arthur's Britain
Charles-Edwards. Thomas (ed.) After Rome
Charles-Edwards, Thomas - Wales and the Britons, 350 - 1064 AD
>>711018
But england was the most populous area and the celts lost that to the germanic invaders.
>>703312
>However, native Britons are probably still the majority ethnic group in the isles. The invasions had more cultural, rather than genetic, implications.
Enough with this "EVERYTHING IS CULTURE XD" meme.
500 000 Angles and Saxons migrated to an island which had a population a little over a million people. Are you claiming that those Angles and Saxons taught their culture to the native Britons, then went on not to reproduce and go extinct?
>>711018
>The Celts were still the vast majority in Western England, not the eastern littoral
Not by the 11th century, even Cumbrian had vanished and Devon had lost its own Celtic identity.
>Also, Scotland + Ireland + Wales & Cornwall are considered the majority of the British Isles
Fair enough, I meant the island of Britain. In terms of economic and political significance however, the Celts became piss-weak. While the Sassenachs held onto the rich, fertile lowlands of England, all that was left to the Celts were the crappy fells, crags and rocks of Cornwall, Wales and the Highlands. Even a lot of Scotland is more 'English' than Scot despite pretensions to the contrary. Only traditional Gaelic speaking areas in Scotland are really Scottish.
>>711239
That's why I only glazed over the subject. The whole topic is fraught with debate centuries later.
>tl;dr King Arthur didn't exist
That's straight up wrong. There was likely a historical figure (which later writers have ascribed to an Arthur, warlord of the Britons) who united various factions together, possibly under a High King Ambrosius Aurelianus, descendant of a senatorial family, and defeated the South Saxons and Kentish at Badon in the 490s. You're just wikipedia searching the idea and making the mistake of thinking contemporary-ish sources even mention Arthur. Gildas describes the battle and Ambrosius Aurelianus which led to the peace in which he himself prospered.
>which is unlikely because the British got rekt at literally everything they did
Horseshit. You're looking at history with your hindsight lenses in. The northern invaders almost got completely destroyed, the 500-550 lull in fighting led to a British resurgence which led to Sussex disintegrating and delayed the formation of English kingdoms for another century.
>>712290
>That's straight up wrong. There was likely a historical figure (which later writers have ascribed to an Arthur, warlord of the Britons) who united various factions together, possibly under a High King Ambrosius Aurelianus, descendant of a senatorial family, and defeated the South Saxons and Kentish at Badon in the 490s. You're just wikipedia searching the idea and making the mistake of thinking contemporary-ish sources even mention Arthur. Gildas describes the battle and Ambrosius Aurelianus which led to the peace in which he himself prospered.
Way to open up with a denial of the point you then proceed to completely agree with. The fact is that there was never a King Arthur who united the 5th century Britons and fought the Saxons at Badon Hill; or rather, if there was such a person, it's impossible to responsibly deduce that from the textual evidence that we possess. There is frankly no convincing reason to believe there was such a person as the proposed King Arthur, and plenty of reason to suspect that those who claimed, centuries later, that there was, were just euhemerizing the myth of known Brythonic culture-hero Arthur into the narrative of a known historical event (to wit, that the Britons fought the Saxons at Badon Hill and won).
Gildas never claims Ambrosius was a high king, only that he was a war leader; his "description" of Ambrosius in fact amounts to the one paragraph quoted in >>711376; it's not even entirely clear from Gildas' text that Ambrosius led the Britons at Badon Hill. The notion that Ambrosius was even a king at all comes from Historia Brittonum (no earlier than 9th century), the same text which introduces the notion that King Arthur led the Britons at Badon Hill. I'm not bringing this up just to nit-pick, what I'm trying to do here is make it obvious just how late and how piecemeal even the most basal elements of what we now think of as the story of Arthur were formed.
>>703300
>legions leave
>local magistrates keep ruling
>local romano-britons and celts get tired of their shit and kick them out/kill them
>meanwhile the saxons are pouring in
>celts go back to their pre-roman traditions
>the romano-britons have some pockets where they keep speaking latin and their culture, but they either assimilate with the celts or the saxons
fin
>>703300
>What happened to Britain after the Romans left?
A shitty immigration policy is what happened.
The rise of a bunch of successor states, most of which eventually got cucked by the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Norwegians, and eventually the Normans.
The last successor state to survive was Gwynedd, in Wales, which fell in the 13th Century, hence why Llewelyn is classified as one of the Last Romans by some.
>>711466
>>707114
>>707153
>>707478
>>711239
>>712290
>>712669
Arthur was actually Cerdic the founder of Wessex.
http://levigilant.com/Bulfinch_Mythology/bulfinch.englishatheist.org/arthur/Caradoc-Vreichvras.htm
>>703300
The Angles and Saxons invaded.
>>703300
Cause the Anglo-Saxons invaded you nonce.
Wales remained loyal to its Roman masters for centuries though. Medieval Welsh culture is highly underrated, they hated the Anglos and didn't consider them to be Britons at all.
There's this poem where the Welsh join up with the Picts and kick the Anglo-Saxons out of Prydain but I can't remember its name.
>>711018
Cornwall is not considered Celtic or in any way an independent entity by anybody who isn't a complete fucking loon.
They have pasties, that is the sum of their remaining culture.
The other Celtic countries desperately try to cling to old languages but aside from a few rural areas it's nothing more than a futile act of defiance.
>>709537
>I'm dumb as shit
>>709537
the current theory is that the Germanic people (speakers of the language + genetic group) originated in southern Scandinavia, maybe northern Germany.
Origin may be Nordic Bronze Age (1700 bc - 500 bc), but it could also be the pre-Roman Iron Age (500 bc - 0)
>>703815
Seriously?
Is there someone in this damn board who actually KNOW some history, or it's just people sperging about WW2 and christfags?
>>707153
>local British inhabits become culturally English and Celtic culture and language vanishes in most of the British Isles
Their men got killed, their wives were taken, and their children re-educated. The Y-haplogroup supports that.
>>717876
Which explains why R1b dominates in Britain, increasing from 60% in England to almost 100% in Wales, Cornwall, Scotland... while remaining at a measly 40% in Denmark and northern Germany?
Specifically, native Briton R1b-L21 only drops below 30% in south-east England, where Germanic R1b-S21 (centered in the North Sea) reaches its regional maximum of 40%. Even "Nordic" haplogroup I1 only hits 15% in England, similar to levels in the southern Alps and fucking lakes Ladoga and Onega in Karelia.
Of course, none of that even matters. Y-DNA inheritance provides one of the best models of genetic drift in human populations. Kenneth Watcher, in "Ancestors at the Norman Conquest", calculated that at a depth of 30 generations, a given individual is likely to have ~950,000 unique ancestors. Your Y-haplotype is inherited from just one of these people, which is to say, it really doesn't say much in terms of absolute genetic inheritance, let alone historic population movement.
Genetically, even with Y and Mt DNA in consideration, England is exactly what you'd expect, given its location – an intermediate between France/Benelux and Ireland.
>>717876
No. No ethnic group could be genocided out of existence in a pre-industrial age.
There was a large exodus of Britons to Armorica and Gallaecia, and many to Wales, but that didn't mean they vanished. Mercia and Wessex both had a substantial British element even within their own royal families, let alone further down the social scale.
There weren't enough Germanic settlers to outbreed the already entrenched population. It'd be like saying Italy is Germanic.
>>716527
How did a bunch of people from an inhospitable region manage to cuck europe, not once, but twice as well during the viking age?
Genetic superiority?
>>711876
Holy shit. Have you read all of that? How.
>>719992
Yes, that's just some of the bibliography for part of my DPhil. It's not so impressive when I tell you a lot of that I began reading during my undergrad. Also when you enjoy it, it isn't so bad.
>>719523
Same reason why invaders from the steppe were constantly fucking shit up all across Eurasia. Warrior culture combined with low resource homelands makes raiding/migrating a viable option.
